Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Who Started the Vicious, False Rumors Against A Local Republican Group Leader?
Last week, on September 24th to be exact, an article was posted on the Espresso Pundit Blog called "The Mother of All Public Records Requests...". In this article was a list of the 'Desert Divas' VIP Prostitution Bust last year.EP put a link to the list. Well then that's where all the trouble started!
One of the 'names' on this list was Charles Jensen. This was the actual posting:
CHARLES JENSEN,,Address Withheld,,,,SCOTTSDALE,85258,non-VIP repeat client,,,,,,7/16/2007,11/27/2007,12/13/2007,,,375,375,375,,,MILA,MILA,SHANNON,,,GALE,SARA,LINDA,,,,
http://coaching.typepad.com/files/desert-divas-revise.csv
Let's look closely at those dates. Mr. Jensen was out of town on all three of those days, here are his airplane tickets, and hotel receipts that prove he was out of town on those dates:
July 16, 2007
Click on the Photo to See Larger:
November 27, 2007
Click on the Photos to See Larger:
December 13, 2007
Click on the Photos to See Larger:
Monday's 'Arizona Guardian' article " Escort client list shakes up political community" By Dennis Welch (yes the same Dennis Welch fired by the East Valley Tribune) that tried to make Mr. Jensen look like he was involved in, and I quote from the article, "At least two prominent Republicans quit an influential GOP organization this weekend because its leader has been linked to one of the state’s biggest prostitution stings."
Mr. Jensen spoke to Dennis Welch before the article. Mr. Jensen denied ANY wrongdoing; he told Welch about the above receipts and that he was out of town, here is what Jensen said:
“I’ve hired an attorney to fight anyone who insinuates I had anything to do with this,” Jensen said Sunday. “This is 100 percent false.”
Other media are picking up on this story. Where did they get the tip from?
According to numerous sources, all weekend this story was being spread by none other than our AZ GOP Executive Director BRETT MECUM. He sent Text Messages, Voice Mails, & E-Mails to many people around town, including many of my friends & associates.
We have also heard that Mecum told the Arizona Guardian about it, which was the first publication to write a breaking story about Charles Jensen. Then he had them run a second article yesterday about it, as if one article wasn't enough
Why is Mr. Mecum doing this? Who knows? Jealousy? REVENGE? Maybe the fact that Mecum has had his own ethical problems.
About a month ago, a young, 23 year old woman was having a 'Going Away' Party. (We will not disclose her name, she has been threatened) Guess who shows up at this party UNINVITED? Brett Mecum.
When asked how he got the woman's address, Mecum said,
"I just went on Voter Vault and got it there"!This was confirmed to us by more than one source.
For those of you not familiar with the Voter Vault system, it contains Voter file data on electronic media and paper contains voter registration files, lists or reports derived from the several counties’ General Registers. The data is the property of the Arizona Republican Party and the County Recorder of the county from which it was derived.
So what is BRETT MECUM doing using Voter Vault as a personal 'Blackbook"?
Take a look at the Voter Vault Agreement that EVERY user must sign and follow:
By pressing the I Accept button, you agree to limit your use of this voter information to political purposes only. In addition, you agree that under no circumstances will you use this information for commercial purposes
By pressing the I Accept button, you agree that you will not permit the use or copying of the voter information by any person not working under the direction of the Arizona Republican Party.
The data in the voter vault is a compilation of the several counties’ voter lists, registers and files that contains restricted data. Release or distribution of all or any part of such information is restricted and in some cases prohibited by law, subject to criminal prosecution (Class 6 Felony).
Any person using this information for any purpose except those authorized by law is subject to fine or imprisonment.
Further, any person who obtains county records for a commercial purpose without indicating the commercial purpose, or any person who uses or knowingly allows the use of this record for a commercial purpose or for a different commercial purpose than originally stated, or who obtains this data from anyone other that the Custodian of the Record and uses the information for a commercial purpose, is liable to the County for treble damages and attorney fees, in addition to penalties provided by law.
Warning: Arizona Revised Statutes §39-121.03(c) provides:A person who obtains a public record for a commercial purpose without indicating the commercial purpose or who obtains a public record for a noncommercial purpose and uses or knowingly allows the use of such public record for a commercial purpose or who obtains a public record for a commercial purpose and uses or knowingly allows the use of such public record for a different commercial purpose or who obtains a public record from anyone other than the custodian of such records and uses it for a commercial purpose shall in addition to other penalties be liable to the state or the political subdivision from which the public record was obtained for damages in the amount of three times the amount which would have been charged for the public record had the commercial purpose been stated plus costs and reasonable attorney fees or shall be liable to the state or political subdivision for the amount of three times the actual damages if it can be shown that the public record would not have been provided had the commercial purpose of actual use been stated at the time of obtaining the records.
A Class 6 Felony?
Other Republican officials have gotten into big trouble over misusing Voter Vault. http://www.fitsnews.com/2008/04/23/spartanburg-gop-chairmans-scandal-deepens/
The 'Arizona Guardian' and the other Arizona MSM who have reported falsely on this story owe Charles Jensen a HUGE Apology. So does Brett Mecum who should be fired immediately from his job as ED. He has become a total embarrassment to our Party and he needs to go now!
Charles Jensen is a Class Act. He has done much for the Republican movement here in Arizona and elsewhere. He has worked tirelessly for Republican causes, many times he has paid the expenses out of his own pocket. I have known Mr. Jensen since 2006 and I don't know a more honest and hard working young man. This smear campaign against him is WRONG, the TRUTH needs to be said.
For more excellent reads on this:
Go to: Rushing to judgment on the latest scandal By GOP Canon - The Sonoran Alliance Blog
“Sloppy Joe” List Really Isn’t That Messy for the GOP By DSW -
COMING: THE ECONOMIC "W" By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
What will be our economic trajectory? How will we do as we come out of the recession of 2008-2009?
There are those foolish optimists who predict a "V" shaped recovery - the swift crash will be followed by a buoyant surge. Others, more sober, believe in a "U" - the crash will gradually ease and slowly be followed by gradually increasing growth.
Pessimists see an "L" - the crash will be followed by a long period of stagnation and no growth.I believe a "W" is more likely. Foreign stimulus (e.g. China) will rekindle export markets for American manufacturing and government lending will start the housing industry.
But consumer demand, which accounts for 70% of America's growth, will continue to be stagnant in the face of high unemployment and lingering fears. The rebound will be short-lived and followed by a further downturn, the second part of the "W".
But this second dip will be accentuated by inflation. We will face, not the stagflation of the 70s, but depressflation, negative growth and high inflation simultaneously. Unfortunately, the policies that would cure one condition will only worsen the other one.
The low interest rates and economic stimulus necessary to kindle growth will exacerbate inflation while the high rates that would cure price increases would depress the economy further.
There is just too much debt out there and inflation is inevitable. The United States now borrows between 40 and 50 cents of each dollar it spends.
The deficit has tripled since 2008.
And, with all the world's governments following the U.S. into debt and deficit, governments cannot find enough lenders and have to print their own money, a sure portent of disaster.
Voters are getting that the cycle of deficit, debt, and inflation is the inevitable consequence of statist economic policies. Germany's decisive turn away from the left in its national elections signals this sea change in political behavior. After a decade of drift to the left, voters have discovered their bearings and their senses just in time.
Not only did Germany's Social Democratic Party, the world's foremost socialist political organization, lose more than one third of its vote, but the free market Free Democratic Party grew by more than one third. Merkel, who had to govern in coalition with the Socialists, now can indulge her personal philosophy and form a conservative coalition to lead Germany out of the recession. Now, Merkel can, indeed, be the Thatcher of Germany.
The next shoe to drop will be in the United Kingdom where Gordon Brown and his discredited Labor Party trail the Conservatives by seventeen points. London must call for elections by June of 2010. Brown can delay the day of his party's reckoning until then, but it must come.
These conservative triumphs will set the stage for the American Congressional elections of 2010.
It seems certain that Republicans will gain enormously although whether or not this surge will be enough to capture either or both Houses of Congress remains to be seen.
Voters get that an orgy of debt can lead to an orgy of inflation. What better nation to teach the world this fact of economic life than one whose nascent democracy was strangled in its cradle by the hyper-inflation of the 20s opening the door to Hitler's ascension to power?
Obama Has Spoken With Commander in Afghanistan Only Once
U.S. commander in Afghanistan talked with Obama only once
By Amanda Carpenter, Washington Times
The military general credited with capturing Saddam Hussein and killing the leader of al Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, says he has spoken with President Obama only once since taking command in Afghanistan.
"I've talked to the president, since I've been here, once on a VTC [video teleconference]," Gen. Stanley McChrystal told CBS reporter David Martin in a television interview that aired Sunday.
"You've talked to him once in 70 days?" Mr. Martin followed up. "That is correct," the general replied. This revelation comes amid the explosive publication of a classified report written by the general that said the war in Afghanistan "will likely result in failure" if more troops are not added next year. Yet, the debate over health care reform continues to dominate Washington's political discussions.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Congressman Trent Franks Clarifies "Enemy of Humanity" Comment
September 29, 2009 – Congressman Trent Franks (AZ-02) issues the following statement today regarding controversy over his remarks made at the "Take Back America" Conference this last weekend in St. Louis, MO:
"To be clear, my impression of President Obama is that of a man with genuine noble impulses. When I first met him in the White House, he was very warm and civil to me and I certainly tried to genuinely return that civility. I handed him an "Open Letter" at the time, published in Human Events on the day of his inauguration, pleading with him as he was sworn in on the Lincoln Bible to consider the plight of the unborn and to realize, as Lincoln did with slavery, the plight of a forgotten portion of our society even if the Supreme Court has labeled them as less than human, as they did with slaves in the Dred Scott decision.
"But the fact remains yet today that President Obama has quickly established himself and his Presidency as the most radically pro-abortion Administration in American history." Franks stated.
"Since his days in the Illinois State legislature, President Obama has established himself who not only passively, but actively, passionately opposed to protecting the innocent unborn. He even took to the floor of the State Senate to speak against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act -- the only Senator to do so -- which would have protected living, breathing, crying babies who were born alive as the result of a botched abortion. President Obama fought against a bill that would have given those children medical care instead of leaving them to die in soiled utility rooms.
"Since then, the now-President Obama has maintained his radical pro-abortion stance. Only three days after taking office, he overturned the Mexico City policy in order to allow taxpayer dollars go to fund overseas abortions. He has subsequently continued to surround himself with the staunchly, overtly pro-choice political appointees, including Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who had deep ties to the infamous late term abortionist George Tiller, and Science Advisor John Holdren, who has written favorably about forced abortions. The President has also increased funding for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that supports the Chinese 'one-child policy' including forced abortions and forced sterilizations, and the Obama Administration has promoted an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.
"These are just a few of the items in President Obama's expanding pro-abortion resume despite his claim that the issue of when life begins is "above his pay grade." Similarly, the President's health care plan, as it stands, will also include hidden taxpayer subsidies of abortion, the largest federal expansion of abortion-on-demand in America since Roe vs. Wade.
Note: Congressman Franks' "open letter" to President Obama was published in Human Events on January 20, 2009, on the day of the President's inauguration. The article can be accessed here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30329
Congressman Franks is serving his fourth term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and is a member of the Committee on Armed Services, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee, Military Readiness Subcommittee, Committee on the Judiciary, Constitution Subcommittee, and is Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
"My recent comment regarding President Obama was
specifically related to the President's policies on abortion. For that
reason I should certainly have said 'UNBORN humanity.'
"To be clear, my impression of President Obama is that of a man with genuine noble impulses. When I first met him in the White House, he was very warm and civil to me and I certainly tried to genuinely return that civility. I handed him an "Open Letter" at the time, published in Human Events on the day of his inauguration, pleading with him as he was sworn in on the Lincoln Bible to consider the plight of the unborn and to realize, as Lincoln did with slavery, the plight of a forgotten portion of our society even if the Supreme Court has labeled them as less than human, as they did with slaves in the Dred Scott decision.
"But the fact remains yet today that President Obama has quickly established himself and his Presidency as the most radically pro-abortion Administration in American history." Franks stated.
"Since his days in the Illinois State legislature, President Obama has established himself who not only passively, but actively, passionately opposed to protecting the innocent unborn. He even took to the floor of the State Senate to speak against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act -- the only Senator to do so -- which would have protected living, breathing, crying babies who were born alive as the result of a botched abortion. President Obama fought against a bill that would have given those children medical care instead of leaving them to die in soiled utility rooms.
"Since then, the now-President Obama has maintained his radical pro-abortion stance. Only three days after taking office, he overturned the Mexico City policy in order to allow taxpayer dollars go to fund overseas abortions. He has subsequently continued to surround himself with the staunchly, overtly pro-choice political appointees, including Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, who had deep ties to the infamous late term abortionist George Tiller, and Science Advisor John Holdren, who has written favorably about forced abortions. The President has also increased funding for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that supports the Chinese 'one-child policy' including forced abortions and forced sterilizations, and the Obama Administration has promoted an unlimited right to abortion at a United Nations meeting.
"These are just a few of the items in President Obama's expanding pro-abortion resume despite his claim that the issue of when life begins is "above his pay grade." Similarly, the President's health care plan, as it stands, will also include hidden taxpayer subsidies of abortion, the largest federal expansion of abortion-on-demand in America since Roe vs. Wade.
"While I absolutely should have made the meaning of my
statement more clear, the facts remain that these radical pro-abortion policies do not have place in a government founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights," and chief among those rights is the right to life. Without that right, no others matter."
Note: Congressman Franks' "open letter" to President Obama was published in Human Events on January 20, 2009, on the day of the President's inauguration. The article can be accessed here: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30329
Congressman Franks is serving his fourth term in the U.S. House of Representatives, and is a member of the Committee on Armed Services, Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Oversight & Investigations Subcommittee, Military Readiness Subcommittee, Committee on the Judiciary, Constitution Subcommittee, and is Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law.
ELDERLY MOVING AGAINST OBAMACARE By DICK MORRIS & EILEEN MCGANN
America's elderly are finally realizing that Obama's health care changes are largely financed by cuts in Medicare and are rallying against his proposals in increasing numbers.
The latest poll by Scott Rasmussen not only shows national opposition to Obamacare rising -- now it is 41-56 against -- but also shows the elderly moving against it even more strongly by 33-59 or almost 2:1.
And well they should!
Three-quarters of Obamacare is to be financed by slashing $500 billion from Medicare over the next ten years. That comes to an eight percent cut. Next year's total Medicare spending, for example, will be about $500 billion by itself, so this is like having one year without Medicare at all!
Obama's fatuous claim that the cut will not affect care for the elderly is specious as any thinking person would realize.
We have gone through previous incarnations of those who wanted to slash Medicare and pretended that it would not affect the elderly. Newt Gingrich tried to sell this act of alchemy in 1995 and the elderly didn't buy it then and aren't buying it now!
It is obviously impossible to cut Medicare reimbursement without slashing the time doctors spend with patients. It is equally obvious that you cannot cover 30 million new patients without more doctors and nurses.
And the Medicare cuts in doctors' fees will, of course, cause a decrease in the number of medical professionals. Investor's Business Daily conducted a poll in September which showed that 45% of all doctors said they would seriously consider retiring or closing their practices if the Obama bill passes.
A larger number will likely refuse to treat Medicare patients. Indeed, current law provides for a 21% cut in Medicare fees to doctors next year and a 6% cut the year after. The new $500 billion in cuts are on top of these reductions!
What kind of medical care do we expect our elderly to receive when the doctor who they visit is getting $35 or $40 for seeing them!
But the Senate appears ready to ram this bill through regardless of what the public or the elderly think.
They have 60 votes and they won't listen to anyone. But we have to make them listen! PLEASE take two steps right now.
1. I have persuaded the League of American Voters to run ten second advertisements in key states that show an elderly person saying:
"Senator _________: Please don't cut my Medicare by $500 billion. I need my Medicare." We need to get these ads on in the key states. Obama would like us to believe that the key issue is whether or not to have a public option, precisely because he is prepared to concede the point (and have a co-op which would be run by the government for at least the first three years instead). But we need to focus attention on the cuts in Medicare. It is slashing services to the elderly that is the key point!
So please, click here and give very, very generously. This is the key moment and you can make all the difference in the world. With pressure such as the elderly are bringing to bear, the Senate would not dare pass this benighted plan!
2. If you live in one of these key swing states, PLEASE write the Senator I have indicated. To get talking points for your letter, consult our book Catastrophe. But write today:
Arkansas Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor
Louisiana Mary Landrieu
Nebraska Ben Nelson
South Dakota Tim Johnson
North Dakota Byron Dorgan and Kent Conrad
Montana Max Baucus and Jon Tester
North Carolina Kate Hagan
Indiana Evan Bayh
Connecticut Joe Lieberman
Maine Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins
Thank you very much. Time is running short!
Obama’s Secret Hypocrisy by Michael Swartz
Back in August civil liberty activists were appalled to find that the Obama Administration was openly encouraging supporters of the Democrats’ health care plan to report items they thought inaccurate to an e-mail address set up for that purpose. Hundreds reported getting unsolicited e-mail messages from the White House, purportedly to set them straight on the facts as Obama’s team presented them. After much initial public outcry, the flap over the “flag@whitehouse.gov" e-mail address dwindled down.
A new report made the news this week, however, and this time the crosshairs have been trained on a number of popular social networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter. It was revealed that the White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its respective social networking sites but is not advising users or asking for their consent about the data collection. This runs counter to the vow made by President Obama back in January that he would make an “unprecedented” effort to “establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration” during his tenure.
A new report made the news this week, however, and this time the crosshairs have been trained on a number of popular social networking sites such as Facebook, Myspace, and Twitter. It was revealed that the White House is collecting and storing comments and videos placed on its respective social networking sites but is not advising users or asking for their consent about the data collection. This runs counter to the vow made by President Obama back in January that he would make an “unprecedented” effort to “establish a system of transparency, public participation and collaboration” during his tenure.
The practice is defended by Obama’s apologists, saying that the information is required to be collected by the Presidential Records Act (PRA). But the PRA, which dates back to 1978, only requires the collection of “documentary material”, meaning “all books, correspondence, memorandums, documents, papers, pamphlets, works of art, models, pictures, photographs, plats, maps, films, and motion pictures, including, but not limited to, audio, audiovisual, or other electronic or mechanical recordations.” Eventually it may be up to a court to decide whether comments left on a social networking website fall under any of these categories but in the meantime it provides a chilling effect on discourse, particularly on that critical of Obama’s policies.
Another development in this area finds President Obama seeking to extend three provisions of the PATRIOT Act, further angering supporters who were enraged with the original adoption of these restrictions under former President Bush.
Obama asked Congress last week to consider extending three portions of the PATRIOT Act dealing with the seizure of certain business records, roving wiretaps, and apprehending so-called “lone wolf” terrorists. While this administration still seeks to close down the holding facility at Guantanamo Bay, try suspected terrorists on our soil and grant them as non-citizens and enemy combatants full Constitutional rights for their defense, conservatives rightly fret that these tactics could be used to further stifle lawful dissent.
It’s not a difficult step to take from fighting the real threat of Islamic terror within our borders to perhaps something akin to this situation. Imagine a businessman and TEA Party organizer who made a comment on the White House Facebook site opposing socialized medicine or some other initiative thought to run counter to Constitutional government. Would it not be out of the realm of possibility for Big Brother to run through his business records in order to harass him into silence? The next step could be listening in on his private conversations as a perceived “lone wolf” threat.
This example, mythical as it may be, was certainly an argument for making the PATRIOT Act a temporary one. Placing the reins of our nation in the hands of an appeaser can be the prelude to taking an act enhancing national security in a time of threat from without and standing the intent on its head. A President who twists “love thy neighbor” into “love thy enemy” and “hope and change” into “snitch on our opponents” deserves to be stripped of as much power as legally possible.
Michael Swartz is a Liberty Features Syndicated Writer and featured contributor for NetRight Nation. Visit Michael's blog, Monoblogue.
Obama Frees More Gitmo Detainees
Obama Administration Frees Three More Gitmo Detainees
ABC News
The Department of Justice Saturday evening announced that two detainees had been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to Ireland, and one had been transferred to Yemen.
There are more than 220 detainees remaining at the prison. In the last couple months, the White House has made it increasingly clear that the President will not make his self-stated January 22, 2010 deadline to close to prison.
Alla Ali Bin Ali Ahmed, a native of Yemen, was captured in Pakistan in 2002 and returned to Yemen today. The Yemeni Embassy to the US issued a statement saying the country welcomed, "with enthusiasm, the release and transfer of its citizen."
The Obama administration did not name the detainees released to Ireland.
"Pursuant to a request from the government of Ireland, the identities of these detainees are being withheld for security and privacy reasons," read a statement from the Justice Department.
Amnesty International has been lobbying Ireland to accept Uzbek national Oybek Jamoldinivich Jabbarov, and another Uzbekh.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Editorial: Blue Dogs in the Doghouse over the Public Option
With the debate over ObamaCare proceeding into the month of October, and still no vote in the House on H.R. 3200, there is no question that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remains dedicated to pursuing the so-called public “option.” She says it could “save enormous amounts of money.”
Her latest defense of the public “option”—which is not at all optional since it requires every American to have insurance—are a part of her attempts to woo the 52 member House Blue Dog caucus, 40 of whom have sworn up and down not to vote for a plan that adds a single cent to the deficit. The validity of her promise to “save” money is critical.
How much in savings is House leadership promising? According to the Wall Street Journal, “Congressional aides said including a government-run plan for people under 65 in the health overhaul could save as much as $100 billion, if such a plan were to pay health-care providers the low rates used by Medicare…”
Which is funny. The House version of the plan makes eligible some 45 million people not currently covered under government-run health care, taking the number from 80.3 million currently covered to some 125.3 million. It’s simple math. An average premium goes for about $4,700, and adding 45 million to the government rolls, as envisioned under the House bill, would actually add $211.5 billion a year.
Nobody thinks this is deficit-neutral. Except for Barack Obama, the House majority, and a few sycophants who wish to maintain a talking point. By the House majority’s standard, that means the nation will wind up actually “saving” money. “[E]normous amounts of money.” But everyone else knows this will be costly very costly.
And unless House Blue Dogs wish to go from the people’s House to the doghouse, they had better make good on their promise not to add a cent to an already out-of-control debt—now some $11.8 trillion.
Support for Health Care Plan Hits New Low
Monday, September 28, 2009
Just 41% of voters nationwide now favor the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s down two points from a week ago and the lowest level of support yet measured.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% are opposed to the plan.
Senior citizens are less supportive of the plan than younger voters. In the latest survey, just 33% of seniors favor the plan while 59% are opposed. The intensity gap among seniors is significant. Only 16% of the over-65 crowd Strongly Favors the legislation while 46% are Strongly Opposed.
For the first time ever, a slight plurality of voters now express doubt that the legislation will become law this year. Forty-six percent (46%) say passage is likely while 47% say it is not.
Those figures include 18% who say passage is Very Likely and 15% who say it is Not at All Likely. Sixty percent (60%) are less certain.
Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Democrats say the plan is at least somewhat likely to become law. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans disagree. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 34% say passage is at least somewhat likely while 58% say it is not.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
The overall picture remains one of stability. Today’s record low support for the plan of 41% is just a point lower than the results found twice before. With the exception of a slight bounce earlier this month following the president’s nationally televised speech to Congress to promote the plan, support for it has remained in the
low-to-mid 40s since early July. During that same time period, opposition has generally stayed in the low-to-mid 50s.
Intensity has been with the opposition from the beginning of the public debate. Currently, among all voters 23% Strongly Favor the legislative effort and 43% are Strongly Opposed.
Also, from the beginning of the debate, the has been a huge partisan divide. Currently 75% of Democrats favor the plan. Seventy-nine percent (79%) of Republicans are opposed, as are 72% of the unaffiliated.
Rasmussen Reports will continue to track support for the plan on a weekly basis (see day-by-day numbers).
As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote recently in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.” A Rasmussen video report shows that 53% of those with insurance believe it’s likely they would have to change coverage if the congressional plan becomes law.
Despite strong efforts by the White House to counter that belief, including many comments by the president himself, there has been no change for months in the number who fear they will be forced out of their current coverage.
Polling released last week shows that 58% of uninsured voters favor passage of the health care plan. However, 35% of the uninsured are opposed. The divide fell largely along partisan and ideological grounds.
If the plan passes, 24% of voters say the quality of care will get better, and 55% say it will get worse. In August, the numbers were 23% better and 50% worse.
Fifty-four percent (54%) say passage of the plan will make the cost of health care go up while 23% say it will make costs go down. In August, 52% thought the plan would lead to higher costs, and just 17% thought it would achieve the stated goal of lowering costs.
While many credit or blame the town hall protests for building opposition to the plan, it appears they were simply a reflection of public opinion rather than a creator of it. This sense is confirmed by the fact that Obama’s approval ratings fell more in June and July before stabilizing in August.
One thing that did change during the month of August is that public perception of the protesters improved. Most voters came to believe that the purpose of the town hall meetings was for members of Congress to listen rather than speak. That’s partly because just 22% believe Congress has a good understanding of the legislation.
While some Democrats have charged that opposition to the president’s plan is based upon racism, just 12% of voters agree.
Voters overwhelmingly believe that every American should be able to buy the same health insurance plan that Congress has. Most favor limits on jury awards for medical malpractice claims and think that tort reform will significantly reduce the cost of health care. Forty-eight percent (48%) want a prohibition on abortion in any government subsidized program while 13% want a mandate requiring abortion coverage.
The health care debate has produced a difficult political environment for Democrats. Several incumbent Democratic senators currently are behind in their reelection bids including Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in Nevada, Chris Dodd in Connecticut and Michael Bennet in Colorado. Republicans appear to have a better shot than expected at hanging on to the New Hampshire Senate seat, and GOP incumbents lead in both North Carolina and Iowa. The races for soon-to-be-vacant Senate seats in Missouri and Ohio are neck-and-neck, and longtime incumbent Democratic Senator Barbara Boxer polls under 50% against two potential 2010 challengers in California. Appointed Democratic Senator Kirsten Gillibrand holds a very narrow lead over former Governor George Pataki in a hypothetical match-up for New York State’s 2010 Senate race.
Democrats also trail in the 2009 governor’s races in New Jersey and Virginia. Incumbent Democratic governors in Iowa and Ohio face tough challenges next year. In New York's gubernatorial race, the fate of the Democrats appears to depend on which of two nominees they choose.
The health care debate has become one focal point for voters frustrated by a string of government actions. Voters overwhelmingly opposed the bailout of the financial industry and the bailout and takeover of General Motors.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Obama Will Decrease Border Patrols
Administration Will Cut Border Patrol Deployed on U.S-Mexico Border
By Terence P. Jeffrey, CNS NEws.com
Even though the Border Patrol now reports that almost 1,300 miles of the U.S.-Mexico border is not under effective control, and the Department of Justice says that vast stretches of the border are "easily breached," and the Government Accountability Office has revealed that three persons "linked to terrorism" and 530 aliens from "special interest countries" were intercepted at Border Patrol checkpoints last year, the administration is nonetheless now planning to decrease the number of Border Patrol agents deployed on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Border Patrol Director of Media Relations Lloyd Easterling confirmed this week--as I first reported in my column yesterday--that his agency is planning for a net decrease of 384 agents on the
U.S.-Mexico border in fiscal 2010, which begins on October 1.
A Department of Homeland Security annual performance review updated by the Obama administration on May 7 said the Border Patrol "plans to move several hundred Agents from the Southwest Border to the Northern Border to meet the FY 2010 staffing requirements, with only a small increase in new agents for the Southwest Border in the same year."
ACORN's Corporate Donors Backing Off Written by Kevin Mooney
Friday, 25 September 2009
Corporations that have given ACORN millions of dollars over the years are now cancelling their donations in the wake of videotape revelations of employees of the infamous community organization giving advice on mortgage fraud, tax evasion, prostitution, and child sex slavery.
Bank of America is reviewing its grant program, while Citigroup is waiting for results of official investigations in the scandal. JP Morgan Chase had previously ended its relationship with ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
Banks and other financial institutions have given millions of dollars and other forms of support to ACORN for decades in response to boycott threats from the organization, as well as accusations of racism and other forms of discrimination in granting personal loans and mortgages.
The ACORN campaigns followed passage of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), which was designed to pressure financial institutions to loosen lending standards in order to increase home ownership among poor and minority communities. Legislation strengthening CRA during the Clinton administration greatly encouraged such ACORN activities.
Bank of America has given 28 grants totaling almost $3 million to ACORN Housing Corporation (AHC) since 2005, financial records show. A company spokesman said the activity exposed on videotape prompted the present review.
“We do not condone the actions of ACORN Housing employees exposed in recently released videotapes,” Bank of America spokesman Richard Simon told The Examiner. “We have begun a review of ACORN Housing’s governance to ensure if these were individual incidents rather than a systemic breakdown before we make decisions on future actions.”
JP Morgan Chase contributed over $5 million in grants to the housing affiliate, over a five-year period. But this program is no longer active, Jennifer Zuccarelli, a spokeswoman said.
“JP Morgan Chase provided a five-year community development grant to fund affordable housing and foreclosure prevention initiatives across the country,” Zuccarelli said. “The commitment ended a year ago in 2008 and no further grants will be considered.”
Undercover videos made by James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles posing as a pimp and prostitute, respectively, feature ACORN workers offering advice in Baltimore, Md. Brooklyn, N.Y. and San Bernardino, Calif.
The ACORN staffers in Baltimore told O’Keefe and Giles how to falsify documents and obtain benefits for “very young girls” from El Salvador. ACORN is suing O’Keefe and Giles, as well as Andrew Breitbart, owner of the BigGovernment.com blog that published the videos, claiming the audio portion from Baltimore was obtained illegally under a Maryland law that bars tape recording individuals on the telephone without their consent.
Citigroup donated $5,000 to the Baltimore office in 2003.
“We are deeply concerned about the recently released videos of frontline ACORN staff, and we look forward to the findings of the independent auditor and a timely conclusion to this matter,”
said Citicorp's Andrea Hurst.
Dissident current and former officials of ACORN claim that donations made to AHC and other affiliates are often misappropriated. The organization’s finances are handled through the Citizens Consulting Inc. (CCI), according to the ACORN 8, a whistleblower group.
“There’s no guarantee that any donations are going where they are supposed to be going,” said Ron Sykes, treasurer of the Washington D.C. ACORN and a member of the ACORN 8.
Bret Jacobson, president and founder of Maverick Strategies, said banks could risk legal action from unhappy shareholders if managers do not sever financial ties with ACORN.
“It would be gross negligence for banks to continue paying public relations protection money to an organization that is so radioactive,” said Jacobson, whose firm specializes in
political-public relations efforts. “ACORN has finally been exposed for its deep-seeded corruption and now bankers have to do a serious cost-benefit analysis of whether they want to be financially linked to a group willing to support child prostitution rings.”
Democrats Are Jarred by Drop In Fundraising By Paul Kane The Washington Post
Complacency, Absence of Big Donors CitedDemocratic political committees have seen a decline in their fundraising fortunes this year, a result of complacency among their rank-and-file donors and a de facto boycott by many of their wealthiest givers, who have been put off by the party's harsh rhetoric about big business.
The trend is a marked reversal from recent history, in which Democrats have erased the GOP's long-standing fundraising advantage. In the first six months of 2009, Democratic campaign committees' receipts have dropped compared with the same period two years earlier.
The vast majority of those declines were accounted for by the absence of large donors who, strategists say, have shut their checkbooks in part because Democrats have heightened their attacks on the conduct of major financial firms and set their
sights on rewriting the laws that regulate their behavior.
As the battle over President Obama's effort to overhaul the health-care system reached a fever pitch this summer, the three national Republican committees combined to bring in $1.7 million more than their Democratic counterparts in August. The pair of Democratic committees tasked with raising money for House and Senate candidates -- and doing so at a time when the party holds its strongest position on Capitol Hill in a generation -- have watched their receipts plummet by a combined 20 percent with little more than a year to go before the November 2010 midterm elections.
Large-scale defeats in the midterms could be a crippling blow to the ambitious agenda mapped out by Obama's top advisers, particularly if they happen in the Senate, where Democrats caucus with a 60-seat filibuster-proof majority. The party will have to work furiously to defend at least six Senate seats and as many as 40 in the House, including many snatched from Republicans.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
