Charlie Rangel charged with multiple ethics violations
Tax Cheat
Democrat Charlie Rangel has been under investigation by the House Ethics Committee for quite some time now. In what should come as no surprise to anyone– although it probably will because of the mainstream media’s unwillingness to cover this story– Charlie Rangel has been charged with multiple ethics violations.
I have written extensively in the past about what charges the House Ethics Committee has been investigating, but as of this moment we do not know which crimes he is being charged with.
Here is a list of all of the possible violations that Charlie Rangel has committed:
- His use of official stationery to raise money for the Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service at City College of New York.
- Whether he had the Ways and Means Committee consider legislation that would benefit donors to the Rangel Center at the same time the congressman solicited donations or pledges.
- Preservation of a tax shelter for an oil drilling company, Nabors Industries, which has a chief executive who donated money to the center while Rangel’s committee considered the loophole legislation.
- Use of four rent-controlled apartment units in New York City, when the city’s rent stabilization program is supposed to apply to one’s primary residence. This raises the question of how all the units could be primary residences. One was a campaign office, raising the separate question of whether the rent break was an improper gift.
- Whether Rangel, as required, publicly reported information on the financing and rental of his ownership interest in a unit within the Punta Cana Yacht Club in Punta Cana, Dominican Republic. Rangel also had to pay back taxes on the rental income.
- Whether he intentionally failed to report — when required — hundreds of thousands of dollars or more in assets. The amended disclosure reports added a credit union IRA, mutual fund accounts and stock.
To me the most egregious alleged crimes are those of tax fraud because, up until he resigned as head of the House Ways and Means Committee Charlie Rangel was in charge of writing tax laws. It is utterly unbelievable that Charlie Rangel committed tax fraud and did so unknowingly. He wrote the laws, he knew what they were, he cannot plead ignorance of the law.
Charlie Rangel is running for re-election but under these circumstances it seems as if he should withdraw his name from consideration. It is time for Charlie Rangel to resign.
Charlie Rangel’s lawyers were in negotiations with the committee to settle this out of court. In my opinion, that means that Charlie Rangel was guilty of at least some of these crimes, or he wouldn’t have been seeking a deal in the first place.
During the 2008 presidential election, Democrats promised to run the most open, transparent, and ethical congress in history; if they want to remain true to this promise they must demand that Charlie Rangel step down.
Some will say that the Democrats should not call for Charlie Rangel’s head because he has not been found guilty of ethics violations yet, but to them I would say that the Democrats should pursue Charlie Rangel’s resignation with the same vigor as they did with the likes of Mark Foley and Larry Craig. They called for these men’s resignations before any wrong-doing was proven.
Will Democrats hold their fellow Democrats to the same standard they hold their Republican counterparts to or will they rally around Charlie Rangel? If they rally around Charlie Rangel the voters will know they are frauds who are not serious about reforming Washington, yet if they call for Charlie Rangel’s resignation they may lose the support of the far left, because the far left is willing to look past the corruption on the left. The far left will be upset that the Democrats went after one of their own– even as it becomes more obvious that he was corrupt.
It will be interesting to see if Democrats come out demanding Charlie Rangel resign. Somehow I think that Democrats will rally around Charlie Rangel.
In an interesting side note, Charlie Rangel got into an argument with a reporter who asked him if he should lose his job. Charlie Rangel called that a dumb question, and asked the reporter who he worked for– hoping of course that it was a Fox News reporter so he could accuse the conservative network of conducting a smear campaign against him. Imagine his disappointment when he learned the reporter was from NBC, thereby trouncing his hopes that he could blame his troubles on Fox News.
You would think that Barack Obama would learn from past mistakes, but it appears as if he is a very slow learner. One year ago, almost to the day, while answering a question about the arrest of Henry Gates by the Cambridge police, Barack Obama said that while he did not know the facts in the case he believed that the Cambridge police “acted stupidly.”
Not knowing the facts on the case but issuing an opinion anyway caused a firestorm that Barack Obama tried to trample with the now infamous beer summit.
Yet Barack Obama did not learn from that teachable moment that he should not react to a situation without knowing the facts, and now he has done it again– with more disastrous results as it has cost a woman her job.
When a video surfaced that appeared to show Shirley Sherrod admitting that she refused to help a white man and his family keep their farm based on this man’s skin color, the Obama regime decided that this would be the perfect opportunity to deflect much of the criticism the regime has been facing about the decision to drop the charges against the New Black Panthers voter intimidation case. This would be the chance to prove that the Obama regime is not a racist regime that enforces the idea of not prosecuting cases if the defendants are black.
According to statements made earlier by Shirley Sherrod, the White House pressured her to resign as she was driving, not even giving her the option to state her side of the story.
“They called me twice,” Sherrod told the AP, noting that she was driving when she received the calls. “The last time they asked me to pull over the side of the road and submit my resignation on my Blackberry, and that’s what I did.”
The problem is that when viewing the full video it appears as if Shirley Sherrod was using this story to show how she has overcome her prejudices of the past. In the end she realized the error of her ways and helped the white farmer keep his farm.
According to the statements by Shirley Sherrod, the Obama regime forced her to resign before they knew all the facts in the case, but now Tom Vilsack is trying to deflect the blame from the Obama regime onto himself by stating that the decision was his and his alone and the White House did not pressure him to make this decision. He is now offering her a “unique opportunity” for a new job. In other words he is probably offering her a higher paid position in order to shut her up in an effort to make this embarrassing situation disappear before it has the chance to affect the upcoming mid-term elections.
Someone is lying here, that much is obvious and in light of the fact that the White House has called Shirley Sherrod to apologize makes it fairly obvious who is lying. What is the White House apologizing for if they had no input in this rash decision?
Today Robert Gibbs apologized for the Obama regime’s decision, stating that the regime made this decision without all of the facts in the case.
Robert Gibbs was apologizing to Sherrod “for the entire administration” and saying that officials did not know all the facts when she was fired
This is now twice that the Obama regime has acted on an issue without knowing the facts on the issue– it is becoming a trend, and with the news that Barack Obama ordered General Motors and Chrysler to shut down dealerships too quickly and this decision needlessly cost thousands of Americans their jobs, we can see how dangerous it is having a president who is so carelessly throwing out accusations and making decisions without knowing what the hell he is talking about.
I first wrote about the audit that was conducted by Neil Barofsky– the special inspector general who was charged with overseeing the TARP funds– on the Obama regime’s handling of the automakers bailout here. This audit concluded that Barack Obama acted stupidly too quickly when it ordered the closing of many General Motors and Chrysler dealerships. The audit claimed that Barack Obama ordered these closing without properly examining the effect these closings would have on the already troubled economy.
More information about this audit is being made public, and we now know that Barack Obama’s ill-advised order to shutter these dealerships needlessly cost tens of thousands of Americans their jobs.
At a time when the country was experiencing the worst economic downturn in generations and the government was asking its taxpayers to support a $787 billion stimulus package designed primarily to preserve jobs, Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses and thereby potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls – all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions’ broader economic impact,” the audit by SIGTARP Neil Barofsky stated.
“It is not at all clear that the greatly accelerated pace of the dealership closings during one of the most severe economic downturns in our Nation’s history was either necessary for the sake of the companies’ economic survival or prudent for the sake of the Nation’s economic recovery,” the audit added
According to the audit, Barack Obama made this decision based on a theory without fully understanding the economic impact these closings would have, and because of this thousands of Americans were added to the unemployment line when in all reality they should have been able to hold onto their jobs much longer.
Some of these dealerships may have eventually closed, but the Obama regime shut these small businesses down so quickly that General Motors and Chrysler were not able to carry out their plan– which would have shut down the dealerships more slowly and enabled the companies to access their situation more fluidly and may have saved hundreds of Americans their jobs, there is the very real possibility that as these companies moved forward they would have deemed it possible to keep some of these dealerships open.
This is why General Motors and Chrysler should never have accepted government money and a government bankrupcy plan in the first place; they should have filed for Chapter 11 and submitted a reorganization plan to their shareholders the way all other companies have done in the past, that´s why so many companies now a days prefer to have their own bankrupcy attorneys as Conner & Roberts for cases like this. This would have given them the flexibility to implement their own plan, which would have moved at the pace that they knew all along was more proper.
But the lure of “free” government money was too great, so they jumped in bed with Barack Obama– a man with no experience in economics; a man who has never run anything other than as a community organizer in charge of radical thugs and ACORN types– and they caught a disease.
It is just too bad that in whoring themselves out to the government they infected tens of thousands of innocent Americans. General Motors and Chrysler deserved what they got, these workers did not.
Massachusetts moves to circumvent the electoral college
The Massachusetts House and Senate appear poised to pass legislation that would circumvent the electoral college, however Governor Patrick has not stated whether or not he supports this bill.
If this bill is passed, Massachusetts will automatically give all its electoral college votes to the winner of the national popular vote regardless of how the state’s voters voted. Several states have already adopted similar legislation– Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington. Once enough states pass similar legislation, the electoral college will be for all intents and purpose dead and the president will be elected by popular vote.
I have mixed feelings about this prospect: on one hand I feel that the different states have the right to hold their elections as they see fit, but on the other hand, there is the very real possibility that a state’s voters could vote overwhelmingly for one candidate only to see the state’s electoral college vote for the other candidate. Under this scenario the voters will would have been ignored.
The constitution calls for electors to vote for the president and vice president, but nowhere does it say that the states have to hold a popular vote that the electors must adhere to; the constitution simply states that the electors shall meet and cast their votes. Theoretically the electors would cast their votes based on the will of the people, and for that reason this seems like an attempt to circumvent the constitutional process for electing the president.
Article 4 Section 4 of the constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government, that is what the electoral college provides the states with, although only two states– Nebraska and Maine– use proportional allocations of electoral college votes to provide a true republican form of government. The fact that states already have differing methods of handing out their electoral votes tells me that Massachusetts is well within her rights to change the way she hands out electoral college votes.
The founders feared democracy almost as much as they feared monarchy and that is why they worked so hard to set up a republic. It would seem to me that if people want to move away from the electoral college and vote for the president using a popular vote system that the proper way to do this would be to introduce a constitutional amendment and go through the proper process for amending the constitution.
Am I missing something here? What do you think?
As we all know by now, Barack Obama used a recess appointment to name Donald Berwick as his Medicaid czar. This man has stated in the past that any good healthcare reform legislation would have to include the redistribution of wealth. He was considered so radical that even Max Baucus refused to bring his name up for a confirmation hearing– at least that is why I thought that Max Baucus wouldn’t bring his name forward, there may be more to it than that.
According to Orrin Hatch there is the possibility that the Obama regime actually pressured Max Baucus not to bring Donald Berwick to the floor for a vote because they knew he was too radical to be confirmed, while planning all along to appoint him after the senate adjourned.
CNSNews.com also asked Hatch, “Do you think there was any pressure from the administration on the Finance Committee, specifically [on] Chairman Baucus not to have a hearing?”
Hatch said, “Well, it sure looks like it. I mean, look, normally you hold hearings about something, about someone nominated for a position of that dimension, that importance, and you don’t just recess-appoint somebody without having hearings or without at least having the people in this country understand what he’s all about
There is the very real possibility that Barack Obama nominated Donald Berwick to this position knowing that there was no way he would be confirmed, and because the regime knew he wasn’t confirmable they applied pressure to Max Baucus to hold off confirmation hearings on this man so that he could be appointed without a hearing. This is a possibility that had never crossed my mind before, but I certainly wouldn’t put it passed Barack Obama to use such a nefarious plan to appoint people to his administration that otherwise would never receive the “advice and consent” of even a Democrat held senate.
If this is true and Barack Obama did in fact have this little plan up his sleeve all along it shows us the depths that Barack Obama is willing to sink to in order to “fundamentally change” America. If this is true it shows an outright aversion for– if not disdain for– the constitution and the processes that are in place to keep a president from exerting too much power. And Max Baucus was perfectly willing to go along with this plan.
If Orrin Hatch’s claim is true, we see a man who is unwilling to let anything– including the constitution– get in his way and stop him from implementing his radical agenda.
In my opinion a strict reading of Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution gives the president the power to make recess appointments only if the position actually opens up while the congress is on recess, but this power has been abused by presidents on both sides of the aisle for many years to appoint people who were nominated before the recess, but whose hearings were not held before the recess.
That alone seems unconstitutional to me, but for a president to hatch a plan where he convinces the senate not to hold a hearing on a nominee so that he can appoint him during the recess, well that just breaks all legitimate boundaries that have been set in the past.
Neil Barofsky– the special inspector general overseeing the TARP funds– has released his report on the Obama regime’s handling of the automakers bailout, and the result is not good if you are the president.
According to Neil Barofsky the Obama regime forced General Motors and Chrysler to shut down auto dealerships without fully understanding the economic impact this would have.
Treasury made a series of decisions that may have substantially contributed to the accelerated shuttering of thousands of small businesses,” investigators said.Those decisions resulted in “potentially adding tens of thousands of workers to the already lengthy unemployment rolls — all based on a theory and without sufficient consideration of the decisions’ broader economic impact
Barack Obama’s urge to act quickly trumped his need to act rationally, and the result of this is that tens of thousands of people may have needlessly lost their jobs.
The Obama regime is naturally denying these claims, and if history tells us one thing it is this: Neil Barofsky had better watch his back or he will end up like Gerald Walpin– the inspector general that Barack Obama illegally fired and smeared as being senile after he exposed corruption in AmeriCorps that implicated Barack Obama’s friend and mayor of Sacramento, former NBA star Kevin Johnson.
I don’t know all the facts in this report, but Barack Obama acted stupidly.
Freedom of religion or freedom to worship?
It is not very often that I find myself in agreement with the Catholic church– and I say that having been raised Catholic and attending Catholic school for eight years, I find it deplorable and unforgivable what the Catholic church allowed to happen (and with their inaction on the matter in a way condoned) to young children, I have absolutely no use for the Catholic church whatsoever– and when I started reading this article I was not sure that I agreed with the Catholic church on this either– but as I continued to read the article I realized that this article does raise an interesting point.
It seems as if somewhere along the way Barack Obama started talking about America’s freedom to worship instead of America’s freedom of religion. When I first started reading the article I wasn’t convinced there was much of a difference other than semantics, but there is a major difference.
In her article for “First Things” magazine, Ashley Samelson, International Programs Director for the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, stated, “To anyone who closely follows prominent discussion of religious freedom in the diplomatic and political arena, this linguistic shift is troubling: “The reason is simple. Any person of faith knows that religious exercise is about a lot more than freedom of worship. It’s about the right to dress according to one’s religious dictates, to preach openly, to evangelize, to engage in the public square. Everyone knows that religious Jews keep kosher, religious Quakers don’t go to war, and religious Muslim women wear headscarves-yet “freedom of worship” would protect none of these acts of faith
Because most people worship in a church, synagogue, mosque, etc, this change of terms may actually limit that person to worship in their chosen house of worship, whereas the freedom of religion has a more broad interpretation– as can be seen in the above quote. A freedom to worship might not allow a person to display religious symbols in a public location, even if that location is their own yard– whereas the freedom of religion would allow me to publically display my faith anywhere I thought fit to do so.
We have seen this happening over the years at Christmas and one has to wonder if this semantics game that the Obama regime is playing is actually designed to limit the freedom of religion even further by rebranding it a freedom to worship, thereby restricting it to those holy buildings in which others who do not have the same beliefs will not be “tormented”with the prospect of actually seeing someone worshipping God.
A professor at the University of Missouri– Carl Esbeck– has defended the regime’s “softened message” when he stated:
The softened message is probably meant for the Muslim world, said. Obama, seeking to repair relations fractured by 9/11, is telling Islamic countries that America is not interfering with their internal matters.
If this is the case there seems to be a double standard at play here. In order to avoid interfering in Muslims’ “internal matters” the Obama regime is interfering in the “internal matters” of other religions.
The constitution is very clear on this issue. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. It is that second part of the first amendment– prohibiting the free exercise thereof– that many on the left have conveniently forgotten exists.
While public displays of religion are being systematically deemed unconstitutional, these courts seem to be neglecting the clause which guarantees the free exercise of religion; certainly I should be allowed to pray openly in public if I saw fit to do so– for the court to say otherwise would be restricting my right to the free exercise of my religion. Yet that is exactly what has been happening in this country for years.
But by changing the argument from the “freedom of religion” to the “freedom to worship” Barack Obama may be taking the next step in the ongoing effort to shut down all religious activities that take place outside of a house of worship. This is clearly at odds with the constitution.
While this little change in terms seems innocent on the surface, when you look deeper into what is behind it you can easily come to the conclusion that this is not as innocent as it seems. Barack Obama has actually changed the accepted description of one of the most fundamental rights guaranteed in the constitution and we can rest assured that there is an ulterior motive behind it.
Obamacare: Maryland to offer federally funded abortions
Last week Pennsylvania became the first state to offer federally funded abortions under Obamacare, and now Maryland has joined in and will be the second state to allow taxpayer money to be used for abortions.
How can this be, Barack Obama signed an executive order outlawing the use of taxpayer money for abortion? Well, he also signed an executive order to shut down GITMO and that isn’t going to happen. This should come as no surprise. Barack Obama only signed the executive order to placate pro-life advocates and all the while he knew that this legislation would be used to fund abortions. The executive order was nothing more than a public relations move– much like the GITMO executive order– and Barack Obama either hoped that Americans wouldn’t realize that federal money was eventually going to be used to fund abortions, or he didn’t give a damn what Americans thought after they learned the truth because by that time it would be too late to stop his radical agenda.
The law trumps Barack Obama’s executive order and money that Maryland is going to receive from the federal government (the taxpayers) is going to be used to fund abortions. Barack Obama’s executive order banning the use of federal money to fund abortions was nothing but a sham– just as many of us knew it was from the beginning.
Maryland will receive $85 million in federal funds for its federally mandated high-risk insurance pool, which will cover abortions
This “high-risk” insurance pool is the same program that Pennsylvania is using to cover abortions also. Regardless of what Barack Obama said when he signed this executive order, federal money is going to be used to kill the unborn.
Bart Stupak is the man who held up the healthcare reform legislation because he was allegedly against the notion that taxpayer dollars would be used to fund abortions, but instead of holding out for language in the bill that would have prohibited the federal funding for abortion, he caved in on a promise by Barack Obama that taxpayer money wouldn’t be used to fund abortion– and obviously more importantly in his mind, grant money to his state to build airports– and now we are seeing exactly what Barack Obama’s word is worth– NOTHING!
Barack Obama is a two-faced scoundrel who has shown the world that his word means absolutely nothing, and Bart Stupak should be ashamed of himself for believing him in the first place.
In wake of Bart Stupak’s sellout of the most vulnerable among us– the unborn– he was forced to announce that he will not run for re-election. While he will never admit it, his vote for healthcare reform was the final nail in his political coffin. And all of those Blue Dog Democrats who pretended that they were pro-life Democrats who opposed federal funding of abortion should also lose their jobs. They let America down and they let the unborn children down. We should never forget that they sold the unborn babies down the river so that Bart Stupak could “bring home the bacon” to his home state. I hope that they are proud of what they did.
Two states have now confirmed that they will use this “high-risk” pool as a means to fund abortions and we can expect more– if not all– states to follow suit. That is why it is of the utmost importance to pass legislation that will correct this wrongdoing.
Mike Pence has come out swinging against this betrayal, calling on congress to amend the legislation to stop the federal funding of abortion.
This is one more example of a broken promise in ObamaCare,” said Pence. “It is morally wrong to end an unborn human life and it is reprehensible to take taxpayer dollars from millions of pro-life Americans and use them to pay for abortions.”
Pence urged Congress to enact new legislation to stop abortion funding through the health-care law.
“I call on Congress to act quickly on critical legislation by Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Rep. Joe Pitts (R-PA) to stop the administration from using ObamaCare to fund abortions
Barack Obama claimed that under healthcare reform there would be no federal fund available to perform abortions:
Under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions
But we have now learned that that statement is a lie. If this was just an oversight by the president– and not just a bold faced lie– we should expect him to join Mike Pence and call for an amendment that would prohibit the taxpayers from funding this genocide. If he refuses to do so, we will know that this was part of his plan from the beginning. I think we all know were Barack Obama stands on this issue.
“Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes” –Barack Obama– September 12th 2008
Those words seem pretty clear to me; Barack Obama repeatedly promised all Americans that a family making under $250,000 would not see a tax increase of ANY kind. Putting aside the fact that this promise was broken when he implemented a cigarette tax that disproportionately affects the poor– Barack Obama is now willing to admit that he broke that promise because forcing healthcare mandates on the American people is a form of taxation.
Republican critics of the healthcare reform bill tried to label healthcare mandates as a form of taxation on the American people– a criticism that drew stern rebukes from the Obama regime and Democrats in congress.
For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” the president said last September, in a spirited exchange with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program “This Week.”When Mr. Stephanopoulos said the penalty appeared to fit the dictionary definition of a tax, Mr. Obama replied, “I absolutely reject that notion”
The Obama regime is facing lawsuits by 20 states over the healthcare mandates that are included in the healthcare reform legislation, and the regime appears ready to defend the mandates by claiming– get this– Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution because it gives the government the right to lay and collect TAXES.
The Obama regime is finally willing to admit what his Republican critics have said all along– that healthcare mandates are a form of taxation— and he is willing to admit it in court for the purposes of defending the constitutionality of the mandates. Suddenly he does not “absolutely reject that notion” about healthcare mandates being a form of a tax the way he vehemently denied that very same point to George Stephanopoulos.
When he was trying to sell this bill to the American people, he was unwilling to state the truth about healthcare mandates, but now that he is forced to defend them in court– and now that there is nothing the American people can do except bend over and take his tax increases– he is willing to admit the truth that he rammed through huge tax increases on many Americans when he forced them to purchase goods and services.
We can assume that when Barack Obama went on George Stephanopoulos’s show he knew healthcare mandates were going to be challenged in court, and we can assume that he knew that the Justice Department would defend these mandates using congress’ power to pay and collect taxes. Therefore, he went on television, looked George Stephanopoulos– and the American people– in the eye, and told a bold faced lie!
And if Barack Obama and his regime win this lawsuit, we can expect more of this type of taxation in the future because according to the brief, the Obama regime is going to argue that congress has the power to collect taxes “even for purposes that would exceed its powers under other provisions.”
Where will it end? Think of the possibilities that Barack Obama could envision under the above stated premise.
Obamacare: Want to keep your doctor? Pay a premium
One of Barack Obama’s promises during the healthcare reform debate was that if you liked your doctor or your insurance plan you would be able to keep your doctor and your plan. While that is still technically true there is one problem; you might not be able to afford to keep your doctor, and your employer might not be able to afford to keep your plan.
In an effort to keep down the costs of providing healthcare to their employees many small companies, and large ones as well, are beginning to look at less expensive plans. These plans include plans which limit a person’s choice of doctors. If your doctor is not on the list of accepted doctors under the new plan you are out of luck. These plans do offer you a chance to keep your doctor if he or she is not on their plan– you will just have to pay a premium. If you cannot afford to pay a premium for the privilege (as the article I linked to calls it) of keeping your own doctor, you will be forced to get a doctor who is on the new healthcare plan that you will also now have to purchase. So much for keeping your doctor or your plan.
Two of the stated goals of the healthcare reform law were to bring down the cost of healthcare, and to make affordable healthcare available (and required) to all Americans. How is Obamacare going to achieve these goals? The answer is simple: by lowering the quality of the healthcare plans that most people and businesses can afford to purchase. Lower quality healthcare plans with lesser coverage and benefits means a lower price. Instead of bringing higher quality healthcare to Americans, Obamacare is going to bring lesser quality healthcare to all Americans under the guise of this somehow being fair. Many Americans are going to be losing the quality of their healthcare benefits while being forced into inferior plans.
You simply cannot add 30 million people to the healthcare rolls and bring down the costs unless you lessen the benefits that healthcare providers will be covering; in other words, bringing down the quality of healthcare that many Americans enjoy. Even then it is still questionable as to whether the costs of healthcare will be reduced.
This is what many of us were trying to warn the American people about, and this is what many of the American people finally realized too late. Once the American people realized what was in the healthcare bill the momentum gathered by the Obama regime and Democrats in congress was to strong to stop it. They were hell bent on passing this disaster at all costs, regardless of what the American people wanted and now we are all going to pay the price…..LITTERALLY!
America's Watchtower 