CTRA calls for opposition to Senate healthcare bill

The Central Texas Republican Assembly
November 22, 2009

For Immediate Release
Contact Tim Bradberry
512-507-2823
dadofping@sbcglobal.net

(Travis County, Texas) – Saturday night, the United States Senate voted 60-39 to keep its ill-conceived and largely unpopular health care bill alive in the face of growing opposition by voters around the country, especially voters in states like Arkansas who oppose the bill 64% to 28% (Zobgy). Arkansas Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) defied the wishes of the 64% of her fellow Arkansans who oppose the bill and voted with Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) and the other 56 Democrats and 2 “Independents”, including Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) who has promised to filibuster the bill if the public option is not stripped out of it.

In the early afternoon, long before the 8pm (EST) vote, Matt Drudge tweeted Louisiana Purchase: $300 million for [Sen. Mary Landrieu’s] vote, a reference to what Sen. Landrieu herself boasts is not $100 million but $300 million in promised cost reductions of the bill’s higher Medicaid liability for her state, costs that one can assumed will be redistributed to the other 49 states, like so much gas tax receipts, enough to buy her vote. BayouBuss.com reported “Senator Landrieu is a major swing vote and her vote appears to be necessary for the current Senate legislation to pass.” Since the required 60 votes in favor of starting debate was exactly met, each one of the affirmative votes was a deciding vote.

Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) was wheeled out to his place on the floor of the Senate just long enough to have his vote cast, no less a deciding vote than that of Sen. Landrieu. Madeline Crabb calls the continued service of Senator Byrd a “great reason for term limits” — see http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/crabb/091122.

The Central Texas Republican Assembly is opposed to the health care bill being debated in the Senate and calls upon all Americans to join hands, voices, and forces to oppose it and to make the next deciding vote effect the defeat of this freedom reducing, marriage penalizing, abortion funding, health care rationing, deficit ballooning, state budget busting, fine imposing bill with the Orwellian tile, Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Michael Williams for US Senate!

Michael Williams, the current Texas Railroad Commissioner, would be the perfect person to represent Texas in the US Senate. When Kay Bailey Hutchison runs for Governor in 2010, Michael Williams should be the only candidate to replace her. Nobody else articulates conservative principles, speaks passionately to the audience, and inspires those around him to achieve greatness. Listening to tonight's speech at the Republican National Convention solidifies my opinion.

Michael Williams already has my vote for Senate. Does he have yours?

We The People Won

The amnesty for illegals bill is dead thanks to you, and you over there, and the legal immigrant here up front, and the union member over there, and the Barry Goldwater Republican in the middle and the Ronald Reagan Republican over here on the right, and the Libertarian over there on the fringe, and the conservative Democrats there in the corner, and the talk show hosts (Savage, etc. - you little devils, you), and the grassroots lobby groups like Roy Beck's NumbersUSA (my personal favorite) and Steve Elliot's Grassfire, and yes, of course, you Senator Sessions, and Senator Hutchinson, and Senator Cornyn, and Senator Burr (I list you because yours was the only office that when I called after business hours I found I could leave a voice message) and the 49 other Senators that voted "NO" to amnesty today. And let's not forget to mention our indebtedness to Al Gore who, of course, invented the Internet that made it so easy for our Senators to hear from We the People.

No, Mr. President, no thanks to you, or McCain, or Kennedy, or Kyl, or Lott, or Martinez, or Clinton, or Graham, or the other 39 Senators who counted themselves losers today by voting against the will of two-thirds, and more, of the American people -- you all are out of touch with political reality.

I'm tired. I have that feeling you get when you reach the top of the mountain -- that moment of exhilaration followed by the realization of real fatigue. It should not have taking so much effort to convince our elected officials that two-thirds, and more, of Americans did not want those officials to disregard the rule of law by granting amnesty to 12-20 million people who came here illegally.

UPDATE & ADDED COMMENTS:
Senator John Cornyn is a hero who not only voted right but stood up and exposed the flaws in the bill on the Senate floor. His bottom line: "So once again, I fear that like in 1986, we are promising something to the American people that we cannot deliver."

Senator Tom Coburn on the Senate floor exposes the immigration sham for what it is:

“We have failed to instill the confidence in the American people in the Congress that we are about doing what is in the best long-term interest of our country. It’s not about being against immigration or for immigration. It’s not about being against or for an ethnic group. It’s not about liberal or conservative. It’s about the worry the American people have about the concept we call liberty…There’s worry that the thing that gives us liberty, which is the rule of law, is somehow being tinkered with in a way that undermines our confidence and security in what the American Dream is all about.” - Senator Tom Coburn

American citizens and taxpayers opposed the Senate immigration bill strongly because it was a costly, unworkable, unimplementable fraud that was designed to fail - it pretended to uphold border security and enforcing the law, but it actually undermined them completely with the Z visa amnesty/legalization program and its many 'gotchas'. The immigration debate will go on, but the open borders elites can no longer shut the American people out of the process. Today was a victory for grassroots democracy and 'people power' activism.

THE VAMPIRE STRIKES BACK

Senators to Revive Immigration Bill, trying to cut behind-doors deals to bring this bill back on the Senate floor.
Inside dope on it.

UPDATE: SELLOUT DEAL IS MADE:

"We met this evening with several of the senators involved in the immigration bill negotiations,” Reid and McConnell said in a joint statement. “Based on that discussion, the immigration bill will return to the Senate floor after completion of the energy bill."

July 4, will have special meaning this year ... we will know by then whether the next generation will have an American Republic worthy of the name.

Time to tell 'em what we think. The Senate numbers are 202-224-3121.

12 million Z visas, .5 million more illegals, 51 sellouts

I told you so. Immigration Bill Won't Work: "The Senate's immigration bill will only reduce illegal immigration by about 25 percent a year ... The bill's new guest-worker program could lead to at least 500,000 more illegal immigrants within a decade, said the report from the CBO." And that's not counting the 12 million illegal aliens who become legalized, and their families. So what's getting 'fixed', here, except for the cheap labor lobby's 'fix' for supply?

Meanwhile, 51 Senators vote to allow criminals to get amnesty, voting against the very reasonable Cornyn Amendment which tried to bar all illegal aliens with criminal backgrounds from getting access to the Z visa amnesty program.

The 51 sellouts were mostly Democrats, including all four Democrat Presidential contenders, and the usual RINO suspects: Akaka (D-HI), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Bingaman (D-NM), Boxer (D-CA), Brown (D-OH), Cantwell (D-WA), Cardin (D-MD), Carper (D-DE), Casey (D-PA), Clinton (D-NY), Craig (R-ID), Dodd (D-CT), Domenici (R-NM), Durbin (D-IL), Feingold (D-WI), Feinstein (D-CA), Graham (R-SC), Hagel (R-NE), Harkin (D-IA), Inouye (D-HI), Kennedy (D-MA), Kerry (D-MA), Klobuchar (D-MN), Kohl (D-WI), Kyl (R-AZ), Lautenberg (D-NJ), Leahy (D-VT), Levin (D-MI), Lieberman (ID-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Lugar (R-IN), Martinez (R-FL), McCain (R-AZ), McCaskill (D-MO), Menendez (D-NJ), Mikulski (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Obama (D-IL), Pryor (D-AR), Reed (D-RI), Reid (D-NV), Salazar (D-CO), Sanders (I-VT), Schumer (D-NY), Specter (R-PA), Stabenow (D-MI), Voinovich (R-OH), Webb (D-VA), Whitehouse (D-RI), Wyden (D-OR)

BTW, Romney Surges and McCain falls in latest GOP Presidential polls. Romney slammed the phony Z visa as amnesty while McCain defended it in the June 5 debate - connection? Meanwhile, Senators are shocked by the outrage, support for Bush on immigration crumbles and the bill itself is opposed by a margin of 2 to 1. Yet the Senatorial lemmings are marching off the cliff to pass a terrible bill that repeats the errors of the 1986 immigration amnesty. Most summer sequels are bad enough, but when the original was a disaster - look out!

Immigration Sellout

About the Senate's new Immigration Bill. I have agree with this comment on FR: "This has got to be one of the biggest political sellouts in the history of this country..." We saw the preview in May of 2006 with the Worst Immigration Bill Ever, aka CIRA. Why are people surprised?

Rotten deal says Rich Lowry. Apparently, the Senators took the worst parts of the worst bill ever, and figured out how to make it even worse. Of 22 problems with the bill, one just happens to be - it will be impossible to enforce any immigration law - period:

"What about illegal alien protection? The alien and their families who file applications for amnesty "shall not be detained, determined inadmissible, deported, or removed until their applications are finally adjudicated, unless they commit a future act that renders them ineligible with amnesty." With tens of millions of applications, this amnesty, this provision essentially guarantees an illegal alien years of protection in the United States, even if they do not qualify for the amnesty." -- Jeff Sessions

A provision says the following:

...90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act... [they will fund this study:]...The projected impact of legal and illegal immigration on the size of the population of the United States over the next 50 years, which regions of the country are likely to experience the largest increases, which small towns and rural counties are likely to lose their character as a result of such growth, and how the proposed regulations would affect these projections.

This begs the obivous question: Why rush into this bill and then make such a study? Why not take a deep breath, study the question for 90 days, figure out what 12-20 million amnestied illegal immigrants and a possible doubling of legal immigration for the next 2 decades might do. Why not study it before we set the wheels in motion that may make 450 million people in America an unstoppable train.

They don't build the fence, they study it:

an assessment of the necessity of constructing such a system after the implementation of provisions of this Act relating to guest workers, visa reform, and interior and worksite enforcement, and the LIKELY EFFECT of such provisions on undocumented immigration and the flow of illegal immigrants across the international border of the United States;

On the other hand, billions in unfunded mandates, huge new costs and regulations on Americans will be foisted in this bill with not even a congressional hearing to study it:

It provides more employment protections for non immigrants than American workers who live in “at-will” employment states. Z holders can only be fired for cause, get free arbitration services, allowed to have Legal Aid provide services. on and on and on.

If Republicans are SMART, they wouldn't fall for another Kennedy-written bill, they could instead use this issue to re-unite around basic common-sense principles of real border security and real enforcement of laws, turn back the Democrat tide and foil the leftist takeover. It's not too hard, actually, since the Democrats are way out on a pander-to-the-extreme-pro-illegals-limb, with LaRaza and the rest: The GOP needs to demand enough border security, enforcement, allow for reasonable level's of employment-based immigration, and say no to amnesty, and hold the line.

The Democrats would be left with writing the most obnoxious LaRaza-wish-list bill they can find, jamming it through by forcing their own blue dogs to swallow it, or doing nothing. (And "do-nothing" Congress makes a nice line in 08.) The American people are *not* with giving every single illegal alien who happened to make it here prior to January a free ride here permanently.

If the Repubs were smart ... Big if. I heard that John McCain said "F--- You" to Senator John Cornyn, apparently because Cornyn is not fully on this train that is about to head off a cliff.
The Base is in revolt, the Republicans in the Senate are caving, and President Bush is right there on the bus with Kennedy and Reid driving, ready to sign whatever bad bill the Democrats in Congress send his way. The Comprehensive Destroy the Republican Party Act of 2007 - as Rush calls it - is about to be passed with the help of lemmings and RINOs in the Senate and President Bush, cheerleader-in-chief for this travesty. What am I thinking. The Republicans are toast.

Immigration Facts

Senator Harry Reid now wants a deadline for debating an immigration bill in the Senate. Via FR, here are some key immigration facts to consider:

Since 1990, the US population has increased by 53 million people. 3/4 of this increase is due to immigration, legal and illegal. Almost one in eight people resident in America is foreign born, i.e., 12.1%. According to Bureau of the Census projections, we will have a population of 364 million by 2030, which translates into an additional 63 million people in the next 23 years.

What is going on today is unprecedented in our nation's history. Here are some facts gleaned from Bureau of the Census data that provide an indication of what is really happening:

---The 35.2 million immigrants (legal and illegal) living in the country in March 2005 is the highest number ever recorded -- two and a half times the 13.5 million during the peak of the last great immigration wave in 1910.

---Between January 2000 and March 2005, 7.9 million new immigrants (legal and illegal) settled in the country, making it the highest five-year period of immigration in American history.

---Immigrants account for 12.1 percent of the total population, the highest percentage in eight decades. If current trends continue, within a decade it will surpass the high of 14.7 percent reached in 1910.

---Of adult immigrants, 31 percent have not completed high school, three-and-a-half times the rate for natives. Since 1990, immigration has increased the number of such workers by 25 percent, while increasing the supply of all other workers by 6 percent.

---The proportion of immigrant-headed households using at least one major welfare program is 29 percent, compared to 18 percent for native households.

---The poverty rate for immigrants and their U.S.-born children (under 18) is 18.4 percent, 57 percent higher than the 11.7 percent for natives and their children. Immigrants and their minor children account for almost one in four persons living in poverty.

---One-third of immigrants lack health insurance -- two-and-one‑half times the rate for natives. Immigrants and their U.S.‑born children account for almost three-fourths (nine million) of the increase in the uninsured population since 1989.

By 2050, the Latino population will have tripled, the Census Bureau projects. One in four Americans will be Hispanic.

Senator Hutchison's Response Regarding Her Vote for Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

On April 18th I posted a letter to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison questioning her recent vote for the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Here is her response, received just before 6:00 PM today.

Dear Mr. Bradberry:

Thank you for contacting me regarding the use of federal funds for medical research involving embryonic stem cells. I welcome your thoughts and comments on this issue.

There is a growing consensus that stem cells hold enormous potential for health-related therapies. These cells can be multiplied and directed to form virtually any human tissue, from heart muscle to lung, kidney, liver or brain cells, each of which could be used to treat or even cure a wide variety of diseases such as diabetes, Parkinson's or cancer. Currently, the federal government supports research on both adult and embryonic stem cells. In 2001, President Bush became the first president to approve federal funding for research using existing embryonic stem cell lines that were derived from excess embryos created for in vitro fertilization and donated, with informed consent, by couples.

Approximately 400,000 excess frozen embryos are in clinics across the country and will be destroyed if not utilized. The current stem cell debate centers around giving couples a choice of donating the embryos for medical research. I support research involving embryonic stem cells under well-defined conditions. Specifically, there must be close federal oversight to prohibit the creation of embryos solely for the purpose of research.

In June 2004, I joined several of my pro-life Senate colleagues in urging President Bush to expand the existing embryonic stem cell project. My support for this expanded research is consistent with my conservative, pro-family philosophy, because finding and developing new cures for a variety of crippling diseases is vital for protecting and improving human lives. On December 20, 2005, President Bush signed into law S. 1317, the Bone Marrow and Cord Blood Therapy and Research Act of 2005, which provides for the use of human umbilical cord blood stem cells for patient treatment and research.

On June 16, 2006, Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) introduced S. 3504, the Fetus Farming Prohibition Act, which would prohibit the creation of human embryos strictly for research. I strongly supported this legislation that prevents clinics from having a financial incentive to create embryos far in excess of the number needed for fertility treatments. The President signed this bill into law (PL 109-242) on July 19, 2006.

On January 4, 2007, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced S. 5, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. This bill would allow scientists to utilize human embryonic stem cells, regardless of the date on which the stem cells were derived from a human embryo. Research would be limited to embryos donated, with written informed consent, from in vitro fertilization clinics that would otherwise be discarded. The bill also incorporated language from Senator Santorum's bill from the 109th Congress, S. 2754, the Alternative Pluripotent Stem Cell Therapies Enhancement Act. It would expand research for the isolation, derivation, production, or testing of stem cells that are capable of producing all or almost all cell types without being derived from a human embryo. I supported this bill because standards need to be in place that would prohibit human cloning but would allow for the use of stem cells that would otherwise be destroyed. The Senate passed S. 5 (63-34), and it has been referred to the House of Representatives.

On March 29, 2007, Senators Norm Coleman (R-MN) and Johnny Isakson (R-GA) introduced S. 30, the Hope Offered through Principled and Ethical Stem Cell Research Act, otherwise known as the HOPE Act. This bill would advance stem cell research by intensifying all alternative methods that avoid the moral dilemma of destroying an embryo in the process. I strongly supported this bill to ensure every attempt is made to use stem cells other than embryos. The Senate passed S. 5 (70-28), and it has been referred to the House of Representatives.

I do not support creating life to destroy life. We must always respect the sanctity of life, even as science explores new frontiers. As researchers seek treatments for diseases afflicting millions, cells from embryos that would otherwise be discarded hold promise for unlocking cures to such debilitating illnesses. Stem cell research has the potential to save lives, and we must ensure it is done ethically and responsibly.

I appreciate hearing from you and hope you will not hesitate to keep in touch on any issue of concern to you.


Sincerely,
Kay Bailey Hutchison

Action Alert: Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid Declares Iraq War 'Lost'

We finally saw the Democratic Majority leader come clean on where his party really stands on the Iraq War Thursday. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, pronounced the Iraq War 'lost' militarily on Thursday, and said it "can only be won diplomatically, politically and economically."

Please take a moment to shoot an email or make a phone call to our two senators, calling on them to take to the Senate floor and let the country know that the war in Iraq is not lost in any way shape or form, that indeed there are signs of progress as pointed out by Defense Secretary Robert Gates during a surprise visit to Iraq (see article via link), and that irresponsible political statements like the one made today by the Democratic Majority Leader only put our troops at risk by convincing the enemy he need only press his attacks harder and our political resolve will break, and we will run. The country needs to understand that statements like the one by Senator Reid today are not only being heard domestically, but are also heard by our terrorist enemies in Iraq, and no doubt embolden and strengthen their resolve that it will only take a few more bombs, a few more days of blood before our leaders back home capitulate and withdraw our forces from Iraq for good. Ironically, the enemy knows he can't ever hope to defeat us militarily, but only "diplomatically, politically, and economically". With the aide of Senator Reid and other like-minded public statements meant only for political gain, they may just succeed.

It is clear now that Reid and his compatriots have harbored this belief for some time, and that the Iraq Spending Bill they have been holding hostage with their time table for withdrawal is the political tool by which they plan to bring their beliefs to fruition. They know that without body armor, humvees, and ammunition itself that our forces will have no choice to but pull out and give the enemy military victory on the ground. Likewise, they understand that President Bush has said he will never sign a spending bill that includes a time-table for withdrawal. Thus, the Majority Leader and his compatriots are hoping that they have en-snared the President and the Iraq campaign in a no win situation; without bullets and armor the President will have no choice but to pull our troops out (never mind the danger such a Democratically-enforced situation would put our unarmed and un-equipped troops in), and if he wishes to have the bullets and armor, he would theoretically have to agree to allow some sort of time table, thus engendering a sure-fire militarily defeat once the pull out takes place, thereby brining to fruition the 'pronouncement' of Senator Reid today that the war is indeed 'lost militarily.' In the aftermath of this policy campaign, whatever it be, the Democrats are gambling they can convince the American people that the President and the GOP are to blame, despite the fact that the Democrats now control both Houses of Congress. If the President vetoes the Iraq Spending Bill because of a time table for withdrawal that would only pre-plan defeat a little ways down the road, Reid and his allies hope to accuse the President of not funding our troops, even though he would have done so with a political gun to his head. If the President does approve the bill with the time table intact, this is tantamount to admitting defeat and siding with the Democrats, and in reality would doom our troops to failure and Iraq itself to chaos at the hands of the terrorists who would simply bide their time until we are gone, then attack with full force. This is a shrewd plan from the minds of those who hate the President and wish nothing more than to see us fail in Iraq, no matter the cost this would impose upon our brave troops and nation; and they and have carefully constructed their policy to achieve just such a goal.

This uncompassionate and arguably politically criminal plan shows just how out of touch with reality the Democratic Party, or at least its public leaders, have become. From their statements it seems they cannot grasp the fact that if we do not fight the forces of terrorism over-seas, we will end up having to confront them on our own soil once again, just as on the morning of September 11th 2001. It is amazing that Senator Reid, who now says victory in Iraq can only come diplomatically, politically and economically, forgets that prior to 9/11, this was just how numerous U.S. administrations, most notably the Clinton Administration, had attempted to deal with global terrorism; with sustained and decisive military action being almost non-existence despite numerous attacks against our interests. Yet the result of this policy prior to 9/11 led only to the disastrous attacks we are now all so familiar with. Yet Reid and his compatriots now insist that we should go back to just such a policy, believing that if we no longer pursue the terrorists or try to interfere where we don't belong, they will leave us in peace.

Do these Democrats and their allies truly think that a terrorist making IEDs today in Iraq will tomorrow, following a total American pullout, simply go back to being a productive and peaceful member of society? Or is it more plausible that on the day following such a pull out, that same terrorist bomb maker would pack up his things and head to the next campaign target, which if Reid and his allies have their way would eventually only be America herself? Find it hard to believe that Democratic leaders could be this blind and out of touch with reality? You need look no further than Senator Ted Kennedy's remarks in response to the GOP's characterization of the Democratic position on troop withdrawal as 'surrender' : "Surrender to who? Who are we surrendering to? This is an unconventional war and has to be dealt with in unconventional ways. This is an administration that has never understood the nature of the threat or the way to respond to it." Surrender to who?? How about the hordes of Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq who just a short time ago exploded a bomb in the cafeteria of the Iraqi Parliament, with the clear intent of stopping us from setting up a free and democratic government in that nation?? The mere fact that Senator Kennedy would issue such a ludicrous and unbelievable statement is proof of how out of touch with reality he and his Party have become.

My friends, we live in perilous times, and we can only hope to prevail if our leaders are righteous and embrace the realities of this post 9/11 world. Clearly today's pronouncement by the Senate Majority Leader and the campaign that surrounds it proves that the Democratic Party is not the one we need leading our nation for the long term, unless we wish to abandon the people of the world to terrorism and hate, and wait idly by for the terrorists to turn to us at home. Please do what you can to convince our Texas Senators to relay the reality of the situation to the American people via the podium of public office to which we have elected them. Thank you, and Gold Bless America!


PS: This post was put together with the aide of information from an article form FOX News. You can find and read the original article in its entirety at this link:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,267181,00.html

Open Letter to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison on Vote for Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007

I would like to share with the Travis Monitor Blog Community the text of my recent Congress.org facilitated email message to Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison regarding the following vote:

Recent Senate Votes
Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007 - Vote Passed (63-34, 3 Not Voting)
The Senate voted to reverse President Bush's 2001 decision prohibiting government funds from being spent to create new lines of embryonic stem cells.

Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison voted YES
Sen. John Cornyn voted NO

Please note that the email to the Senator did not include labels for the sources cited, only the raw URLs (links ).
------------------------------------------

Dear Senator Hutchison,

I was very disappointed when I learned of your vote in favor of the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2007. Should this bill become law it will result in public funding of the destruction of human life at the very earliest stage -- a fertilized embryo -- on the off chance that such killing will result in cures for other human beings. This is unethical in the same way that Nazi experiments on and Communist Chinese harvesting organs from prisoners was/is unethical.

Also, the use of public funds for embryonic stem cell research, which to date has resulted in zero cures of or treatments for human diseases, reduces the availability of public funds for adult stem cell research. As you know harvesting of adult stem cells 1) does no harm to the donor, and 2) has been used to cured or treat scores of diseases, positively affect[ing] thousands of human beings, some of wh[om] are alive today as a result (see sources below).

I would like to know what are your reasons for voting for this bill.

Sources:

1. Benefits of Stem Cells to Human Patient: Adult Stem Cells v. Embryonic Stem
2. Current Clinical Applications of Adult Stem Cells
3. BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics Announces Adult Stem Cell: Breakthrough for Neurodegenerative Diseases
4. Stem Cell Research: Adult vs. Embryonic Stem Cells

Sincerely,
Timothy E. Bradberry