Soaring costs force Canada to reassess health model
TORONTO (Reuters) – Pressured by an aging population and the need to rein in budget deficits, Canada's provinces are taking tough measures to curb healthcare costs, a trend that could erode the principles of the popular state-funded system.
Ontario, Canada's most populous province, kicked off a fierce battle with drug companies and pharmacies when it said earlier this year it would halve generic drug prices and eliminate "incentive fees" to generic drug manufacturers.
British Columbia is replacing block grants to hospitals with fee-for-procedure payments and Quebec has a new flat health tax and a proposal for payments on each medical visit -- an idea that critics say is an illegal user fee.
And a few provinces are also experimenting with private funding for procedures such as hip, knee and cataract surgery.
It's likely just a start as the provinces, responsible for delivering healthcare, cope with the demands of a retiring baby-boom generation. Official figures show that senior citizens will make up 25 percent of the population by 2036.
"There's got to be some change to the status quo whether it happens in three years or 10 years," said Derek Burleton, senior economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank.
"We can't continually see health spending growing above and beyond the growth rate in the economy because, at some point, it means crowding out of all the other government services.
"At some stage we're going to hit a breaking point."
MIRROR IMAGE DEBATE
In some ways the Canadian debate is the mirror image of discussions going on in the United States.
Canada, fretting over budget strains, wants to prune its system, while the United States, worrying about an army of uninsured, aims to create a state-backed safety net.
Healthcare in Canada is delivered through a publicly funded system, which covers all "medically necessary" hospital and physician care and curbs the role of private medicine. It ate up about 40 percent of provincial budgets, or some C$183 billion ($174 billion) last year.
Spending has been rising 6 percent a year under a deal that added C$41.3 billion of federal funding over 10 years.
But that deal ends in 2013, and the federal government is unlikely to be as generous in future, especially for one-off projects.
"As Ottawa looks to repair its budget balance ... one could see these one-time allocations to specific health projects might be curtailed," said Mary Webb, senior economist at Scotia Capital.
Brian Golden, a professor at University of Toronto's Rotman School of Business, said provinces are weighing new sources of funding, including "means-testing" and moving toward evidence-based and pay-for-performance models.
"Why are we paying more or the same for cataract surgery when it costs substantially less today than it did 10 years ago? There's going to be a finer look at what we're paying for and, more importantly, what we're getting for it," he said.
Other problems include trying to control independently set salaries for top hospital executives and doctors and rein in spiraling costs for new medical technologies and drugs.
Ontario says healthcare could eat up 70 percent of its budget in 12 years, if all these costs are left unchecked.
"Our objective is to preserve the quality healthcare system we have and indeed to enhance it. But there are difficult decisions ahead and we will continue to make them," Ontario Finance Minister Dwight Duncan told Reuters.
The province has introduced legislation that ties hospital chief executive pay with the quality of patient care and says it wants to put more physicians on salary to save money.
In a report released last week, TD Bank said Ontario should consider other proposals to help cut costs, including scaling back drug coverage for affluent seniors and paying doctors according to quality and efficiency of care.
WINNERS AND LOSERS
The losers could be drug companies and pharmacies, both of which are getting increasingly nervous.
"Many of the advances in healthcare and life expectancy are due to the pharmaceutical industry so we should never demonize them," said U of T's Golden. "We need to ensure that they maintain a profitable business but our ability to make it very very profitable is constrained right now."
Scotia Capital's Webb said one cost-saving idea may be to make patients aware of how much it costs each time they visit a healthcare professional. "(The public) will use the services more wisely if they know how much it's costing," she said.
"If it's absolutely free with no information on the cost and the information of an alternative that would be have been more practical, then how can we expect the public to wisely use the service?"
But change may come slowly. Universal healthcare is central to Canada's national identity, and decisions are made as much on politics as economics.
"It's an area that Canadians don't want to see touched," said TD's Burleton. "Essentially it boils down the wishes of the population. But I think, from an economist's standpoint, we point to the fact that sometimes Canadians in the short term may not realize the cost."
($1=$1.05 Canadian)
(Reporting by Claire Sibonney; editing by Janet Guttsman and Peter Galloway)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100531/hl_nm/us_health_3
Monday, May 31, 2010
Friday, May 28, 2010
People who have a "very favorable" opinion of Pelosi-Peters health care reform has dropped from 23% to 14% in the past month
With health reform, familiarity is breeding contempt
By Michael Gerson
Friday, May 28, 2010
In closing the deal on health-care reform, Democratic leaders assured wavering legislators that the plan would grow more popular with time as its benefits became clear. "We have to pass the bill," argued House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, so that the public "can find out what is in it." Presidential adviser David Axelrod predicted that Republicans would pay a political price for their opposition. "Let's have that fight," he said. "Make my day." Consistent with this belief, the administration recently has been rolling out attractive elements of the law, including coverage for dependents up to age 26.
But after a brief bump, support for Democratic health reform has declined. A Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll shows erosion in the intensity of support. Last month, 23 percent of Americans held "very favorable" views of the law. This month, that figure is 14 percent, with most of the falloff coming among Democrats (Republicans and independents already being skeptical). Other polling reinforces these views.
On the theory that the distribution of lollipops usually doesn't provoke riots of resentment, opposition to the health entitlement requires explanation.
One cause is simply economic. At a time when Americans are focused on recovery and job creation -- and how deficits and debt may eventually undermine both -- the economic case for Democratic health reform has been weak, contrived, even deceptive. Recent events in Congress make the point. Two months after passing a law that supporters claimed would reduce federal deficits, largely through Medicare cuts, the House is moving toward a temporary "doctor fix" that would add tens of billions in Medicare costs. Even more expensive fixes are likely in the future. Congressional leaders knew this spending would be necessary when they passed health reform in March. Yet they didn't include this liability in the law, in order to hide the overall cost of the entitlement. In a failing corporation, this would be a scandal, investigated by Congress. In Congress, this is known as legislative strategy.
The economic arguments for reform -- that it would reduce the deficit and health inflation -- were questionable from the beginning. Now they have been revealed as absurd. There is a social justice case for expanding health coverage. But Americans have not found it credible that the creation of a massive new entitlement will somehow help the economy.
There is, however, a deeper explanation for public skepticism about health reform. Since the New Deal, Democrats have viewed times of economic crisis as opportunities for government expansion. In the current case, government itself was implicated in the crisis. According to a poll by the Pew Research Center, public satisfaction with government plunged just as the financial collapse took place. Only 22 percent of Americans report that they trust government all or most of the time -- among the lowest levels in 50 years. One and a half years after a financial meltdown that some supposed would be a crisis for capitalism itself, 58 percent of Americans agree that "the government has gone too far in regulating business and interfering with the free enterprise system." Favorable opinion of the Democratic Party -- now firmly associated with the stimulus package, assorted bailouts and health reform -- has fallen 21 points in one year.
In this ideological environment, the administration's emphasis on publicizing the desirable details of the health law is beside the point. Americans are troubled with health reform, not because they lack knowledge of its provisions but because they are uncomfortable with social democracy.
When entitlements began in America, they were mainly focused on the elderly (through Social Security and Medicare) and the poor and disabled (through Aid to Families With Dependent Children and Medicaid). Benefits for the middle class were largely given through tax deductions for mortgage interest and the purchase of health coverage by businesses.
America eventually retreated from some entitlement commitments to the poor because they involved a moral hazard -- discouraging work and responsibility. Entitlements for the elderly have remained a strong, national consensus.
But the idea of a middle-class entitlement to health care, achieved through an individual mandate, subsidies and aggressive insurance regulation, seems to change the nature of American society. Entitlements in the Obama era are no longer a decent provision for the vulnerable; they are intended for citizens at every stage of life.
Americans resist taking this lollipop precisely because America is not Europe -- which even Europe, it seems, can no longer afford to be.
mgerson@globalengage.org
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052704428.html
By Michael Gerson
Friday, May 28, 2010
In closing the deal on health-care reform, Democratic leaders assured wavering legislators that the plan would grow more popular with time as its benefits became clear. "We have to pass the bill," argued House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, so that the public "can find out what is in it." Presidential adviser David Axelrod predicted that Republicans would pay a political price for their opposition. "Let's have that fight," he said. "Make my day." Consistent with this belief, the administration recently has been rolling out attractive elements of the law, including coverage for dependents up to age 26.
But after a brief bump, support for Democratic health reform has declined. A Kaiser Family Foundation health tracking poll shows erosion in the intensity of support. Last month, 23 percent of Americans held "very favorable" views of the law. This month, that figure is 14 percent, with most of the falloff coming among Democrats (Republicans and independents already being skeptical). Other polling reinforces these views.
On the theory that the distribution of lollipops usually doesn't provoke riots of resentment, opposition to the health entitlement requires explanation.
One cause is simply economic. At a time when Americans are focused on recovery and job creation -- and how deficits and debt may eventually undermine both -- the economic case for Democratic health reform has been weak, contrived, even deceptive. Recent events in Congress make the point. Two months after passing a law that supporters claimed would reduce federal deficits, largely through Medicare cuts, the House is moving toward a temporary "doctor fix" that would add tens of billions in Medicare costs. Even more expensive fixes are likely in the future. Congressional leaders knew this spending would be necessary when they passed health reform in March. Yet they didn't include this liability in the law, in order to hide the overall cost of the entitlement. In a failing corporation, this would be a scandal, investigated by Congress. In Congress, this is known as legislative strategy.
The economic arguments for reform -- that it would reduce the deficit and health inflation -- were questionable from the beginning. Now they have been revealed as absurd. There is a social justice case for expanding health coverage. But Americans have not found it credible that the creation of a massive new entitlement will somehow help the economy.
There is, however, a deeper explanation for public skepticism about health reform. Since the New Deal, Democrats have viewed times of economic crisis as opportunities for government expansion. In the current case, government itself was implicated in the crisis. According to a poll by the Pew Research Center, public satisfaction with government plunged just as the financial collapse took place. Only 22 percent of Americans report that they trust government all or most of the time -- among the lowest levels in 50 years. One and a half years after a financial meltdown that some supposed would be a crisis for capitalism itself, 58 percent of Americans agree that "the government has gone too far in regulating business and interfering with the free enterprise system." Favorable opinion of the Democratic Party -- now firmly associated with the stimulus package, assorted bailouts and health reform -- has fallen 21 points in one year.
In this ideological environment, the administration's emphasis on publicizing the desirable details of the health law is beside the point. Americans are troubled with health reform, not because they lack knowledge of its provisions but because they are uncomfortable with social democracy.
When entitlements began in America, they were mainly focused on the elderly (through Social Security and Medicare) and the poor and disabled (through Aid to Families With Dependent Children and Medicaid). Benefits for the middle class were largely given through tax deductions for mortgage interest and the purchase of health coverage by businesses.
America eventually retreated from some entitlement commitments to the poor because they involved a moral hazard -- discouraging work and responsibility. Entitlements for the elderly have remained a strong, national consensus.
But the idea of a middle-class entitlement to health care, achieved through an individual mandate, subsidies and aggressive insurance regulation, seems to change the nature of American society. Entitlements in the Obama era are no longer a decent provision for the vulnerable; they are intended for citizens at every stage of life.
Americans resist taking this lollipop precisely because America is not Europe -- which even Europe, it seems, can no longer afford to be.
mgerson@globalengage.org
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/27/AR2010052704428.html
Thursday, May 27, 2010
Census Workers Can Enter Your Home in Your Absence: Why Did U.S. Rep. Gary Peters Authorize this Big Brother Government Power Grab?
Census workers can enter your apartment in your absence
6:00 am May 26, 2010, by Bob Barr
Thousands of census workers, including many temporary employees, are fanning out across America to gather information on the citizenry. This is a process that takes place not only every decade in order to complete the constitutionally-mandated census; but also as part of the continuing “American Community Survey” conducted by the Census Bureau on a regular basis year in and year out.
What many Americans don’t realize, is that census workers — from the head of the Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce (its parent agency) down to the lowliest and newest Census employee — are empowered under federal law to actually demand access to any apartment or any other type of home or room that is rented out, in order to count persons in the abode and for “the collection of statistics.” If the landlord of such apartment or other leased premises refuses to grant the government worker access to your living quarters, whether you are present or not, the landlord can be fined $500.00.
That’s right — not only can citizens be fined if they fail to answer the increasingly intrusive questions asked of them by the federal government under the guise of simply counting the number of people in the country; but a landlord must give them access to your apartment whether you’re there or not, in order to gather whatever “statistics” the law permits.
In fact, some census workers apparently are going even further and demanding — and receiving — private cell phone numbers from landlords in order to call tenants and obtain information from them. Isn’t it great to live in a “free” country?
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/05/26/census-workers-can-enter-your-apartment-in-your-absence/
6:00 am May 26, 2010, by Bob Barr
Thousands of census workers, including many temporary employees, are fanning out across America to gather information on the citizenry. This is a process that takes place not only every decade in order to complete the constitutionally-mandated census; but also as part of the continuing “American Community Survey” conducted by the Census Bureau on a regular basis year in and year out.
What many Americans don’t realize, is that census workers — from the head of the Bureau and the Secretary of Commerce (its parent agency) down to the lowliest and newest Census employee — are empowered under federal law to actually demand access to any apartment or any other type of home or room that is rented out, in order to count persons in the abode and for “the collection of statistics.” If the landlord of such apartment or other leased premises refuses to grant the government worker access to your living quarters, whether you are present or not, the landlord can be fined $500.00.
That’s right — not only can citizens be fined if they fail to answer the increasingly intrusive questions asked of them by the federal government under the guise of simply counting the number of people in the country; but a landlord must give them access to your apartment whether you’re there or not, in order to gather whatever “statistics” the law permits.
In fact, some census workers apparently are going even further and demanding — and receiving — private cell phone numbers from landlords in order to call tenants and obtain information from them. Isn’t it great to live in a “free” country?
http://blogs.ajc.com/bob-barr-blog/2010/05/26/census-workers-can-enter-your-apartment-in-your-absence/
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Monday, May 24, 2010
Obama Approval Rating Drops, Pro-Abortion Health Care Repeal to New High
Obama Approval Rating Drops, Pro-Abortion Health Care Repeal to New High
Full story: http://lifenews.com/nat6359.htmlWashington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll released today finds pro-abortion President Barack Obama's approval rating dropping to one of its lowest levels since he took office. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who want to repeal the health care bill he signed into law that funds abortions has reached a new high.
The level of support for repealing the pro-abortion health care law has shot up to a new high, the Rasmussen Reports survey shows.
The poll of likely voters finds 63 percent want to repeal the law compared with 32 percent who oppose repealing it. That tops the prior poll with a near high of 56-39 percent supporting repeal...
http://www.cc.org/userlink/obama_approval_rating_drops_proabortion_health_care_repeal_new_high
Full story: http://lifenews.com/nat6359.htmlWashington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new poll released today finds pro-abortion President Barack Obama's approval rating dropping to one of its lowest levels since he took office. Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans who want to repeal the health care bill he signed into law that funds abortions has reached a new high.
The level of support for repealing the pro-abortion health care law has shot up to a new high, the Rasmussen Reports survey shows.
The poll of likely voters finds 63 percent want to repeal the law compared with 32 percent who oppose repealing it. That tops the prior poll with a near high of 56-39 percent supporting repeal...
http://www.cc.org/userlink/obama_approval_rating_drops_proabortion_health_care_repeal_new_high
Sunday, May 23, 2010
GOP wins House seat in Obama's home district
Djou wins special election for Congress
Hanabusa leads Case with nearly all the votes counted
By B.J. Reyes
POSTED: 04:40 p.m. HST, May 22, 2010
Republican Charles Djou emerged victorious tonight in the special election to fill Hawaii's vacancy in Congress, giving Hawaii its first GOP member of Congress in 20 years.
Djou won the special mail-in election with 39.7 percent of the vote in the final printout, released at 9 p.m.
The final printout represented 171,417 ballots returned by voters in the district, which stretches from Waikiki and downtown to Mililani.
Democrat Colleen Hanabusa was second at 31 percent, with Democrat Ed Case third at 27.8 percent.
“This is a momentous day,” Djou told a jubilant crowd at state party headquarters. “We have sent a message to the United States Congress. We have sent a message to the ex-governors. We have sent a message to the national Democrats! We have sent a message to the machine.
“We have told them that we will not stand idly by as our great nation is overburdened by too much taxes, too much debt and too much wasteful spending.”
Djou is Hawaii's first GOP member of Congress since Pat Saiki, who represented the party from 1987 to 1991.
2010 SPECIAL ELECTION RESULTSParty Candidate Votes Percent
R Charles Djou 67,610 39.7%
D Colleen Hanabusa 52,802 31.0%
D Ed Case 47,391 27.8%
D Rafael Del Castillo 664 0.4%
N Kalaeloa Strode 491 0.3%
N Jim Brewer 273 0.2%
D Philmund Lee 254 0.1%
R Charles Collins 194 0.1%
R C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam 170 0.1%
D Vinny Browne 150 0.1%
N Steve Tataii 125 0.1%
R Douglas Crum 107 0.1%
R John Giuffre 82 0.0%
N Karl F. Moseley 80 0.0%
100% of the vote, posted at 9:07 p.m.
Source: Hawaii Office of Elections
Eleven other candidates combined to receive 2.1 percent of the vote.
Former U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie announced in December plans to resign his seat to concentrate solely on his campaign for governor, setting off a special election campaign unlike any in state history.
By the time he formally resigned Feb. 28, the field of three main contenders had formed and the Office of Elections -- after openly considering whether to postpone the vote until the September primary to save money -- settled on a mail-in process at the cost of about $1 million.
A Star-Bulletin/KITV poll in January gave Case, the former 2nd District congressman, the edge on name recognition and favorability, followed by Hanabusa, the state Senate president, and then Djou, a City Councilman.
The race was on the radar of the national parties and political pundits, but many expected the seat to remain Democratic in a district that supported Obama by 72 percent.
Sensibilities changed in January after Republican Scott Brown flipped the seat formerly belonging to Democrat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.
Suddenly, national eyes were on Hawaii as the GOP went looking for the "next Scott Brown," and a chance to score an upset on Obama's home turf heading into the fall midterm elections.
Money poured in -- more than $1 million each for Djou and Hanabusa -- as Republicans hoped to capitalize on the winner-take-all nature of the special election and "shoot the gap" amid a split Democratic electorate.
Divisions in the party deepened after U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye, still bitter over Case's challenge to U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka in 2006, threw his considerable support behind Hanabusa.
His influence and support kept the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from making an endorsement in the race. The committee reportedly sought to back Case as the more viable candidate.
After spending $300,000 on ads attacking Djou, the committee pulled out of Hawaii earlier this month, citing the inability of the local party to rally behind a single candidate.
Republican Charles Djou emerged victorious tonight in the special election to fill Hawaii's vacancy in Congress, giving Hawaii its first GOP member of Congress in 20 years.
DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARBULLETIN.COM
Supporters applaud Charles Djou on his victory for the Congressional seat during his speech. Shown are Mark Webster, left, his wife Helen and Michael McNulty.
View Large Version >>Djou won the special mail-in election with 39.7 percent of the vote in the final printout, released at 9 p.m.
The final printout represented 171,417 ballots returned by voters in the district, which stretches from Waikiki and downtown to Mililani.
Democrat Colleen Hanabusa was second at 31 percent, with Democrat Ed Case third at 27.8 percent.
“This is a momentous day,” Djou told a jubilant crowd at state party headquarters. “We have sent a message to the United States Congress. We have sent a message to the ex-governors. We have sent a message to the national Democrats! We have sent a message to the machine.
“We have told them that we will not stand idly by as our great nation is overburdened by too much taxes, too much debt and too much wasteful spending.”
Djou is Hawaii's first GOP member of Congress since Pat Saiki, who represented the party from 1987 to 1991.
2010 SPECIAL ELECTION RESULTS
Party Candidate Votes Percent
R Charles Djou 67,610 39.7%
D Colleen Hanabusa 52,802 31.0%
D Ed Case 47,391 27.8%
D Rafael Del Castillo 664 0.4%
N Kalaeloa Strode 491 0.3%
N Jim Brewer 273 0.2%
D Philmund Lee 254 0.1%
R Charles Collins 194 0.1%
R C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam 170 0.1%
D Vinny Browne 150 0.1%
N Steve Tataii 125 0.1%
R Douglas Crum 107 0.1%
R John Giuffre 82 0.0%
N Karl F. Moseley 80 0.0%
100% of the vote, posted at 9:07 p.m.
Source: Hawaii Office of Elections
Eleven other candidates combined to receive 2.1 percent of the vote.
Former U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie announced in December plans to resign his seat to concentrate solely on his campaign for governor, setting off a special election campaign unlike any in state history.
By the time he formally resigned Feb. 28, the field of three main contenders had formed and the Office of Elections -- after openly considering whether to postpone the vote until the September primary to save money -- settled on a mail-in process at the cost of about $1 million.
A Star-Bulletin/KITV poll in January gave Case, the former 2nd District congressman, the edge on name recognition and favorability, followed by Hanabusa, the state Senate president, and then Djou, a City Councilman.
The race was on the radar of the national parties and political pundits, but many expected the seat to remain Democratic in a district that supported Obama by 72 percent.
Sensibilities changed in January after Republican Scott Brown flipped the seat formerly belonging to Democrat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.
Suddenly, national eyes were on Hawaii as the GOP went looking for the "next Scott Brown," and a chance to score an upset on Obama's home turf heading into the fall midterm elections.
Money poured in -- more than $1 million each for Djou and Hanabusa -- as Republicans hoped to capitalize on the winner-take-all nature of the special election and "shoot the gap" amid a split Democratic electorate.
Divisions in the party deepened after U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye, still bitter over Case's challenge to U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka in 2006, threw his considerable support behind Hanabusa.
His influence and support kept the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from making an endorsement in the race. The committee reportedly sought to back Case as the more viable candidate.
After spending $300,000 on ads attacking Djou, the committee pulled out of Hawaii earlier this month, citing the inability of the local party to rally behind a single candidate.
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/bulletin/94673904.html
Hanabusa leads Case with nearly all the votes counted
By B.J. Reyes
POSTED: 04:40 p.m. HST, May 22, 2010
Republican Charles Djou emerged victorious tonight in the special election to fill Hawaii's vacancy in Congress, giving Hawaii its first GOP member of Congress in 20 years.
Djou won the special mail-in election with 39.7 percent of the vote in the final printout, released at 9 p.m.
The final printout represented 171,417 ballots returned by voters in the district, which stretches from Waikiki and downtown to Mililani.
Democrat Colleen Hanabusa was second at 31 percent, with Democrat Ed Case third at 27.8 percent.
“This is a momentous day,” Djou told a jubilant crowd at state party headquarters. “We have sent a message to the United States Congress. We have sent a message to the ex-governors. We have sent a message to the national Democrats! We have sent a message to the machine.
“We have told them that we will not stand idly by as our great nation is overburdened by too much taxes, too much debt and too much wasteful spending.”
Djou is Hawaii's first GOP member of Congress since Pat Saiki, who represented the party from 1987 to 1991.
2010 SPECIAL ELECTION RESULTSParty Candidate Votes Percent
R Charles Djou 67,610 39.7%
D Colleen Hanabusa 52,802 31.0%
D Ed Case 47,391 27.8%
D Rafael Del Castillo 664 0.4%
N Kalaeloa Strode 491 0.3%
N Jim Brewer 273 0.2%
D Philmund Lee 254 0.1%
R Charles Collins 194 0.1%
R C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam 170 0.1%
D Vinny Browne 150 0.1%
N Steve Tataii 125 0.1%
R Douglas Crum 107 0.1%
R John Giuffre 82 0.0%
N Karl F. Moseley 80 0.0%
100% of the vote, posted at 9:07 p.m.
Source: Hawaii Office of Elections
Eleven other candidates combined to receive 2.1 percent of the vote.
Former U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie announced in December plans to resign his seat to concentrate solely on his campaign for governor, setting off a special election campaign unlike any in state history.
By the time he formally resigned Feb. 28, the field of three main contenders had formed and the Office of Elections -- after openly considering whether to postpone the vote until the September primary to save money -- settled on a mail-in process at the cost of about $1 million.
A Star-Bulletin/KITV poll in January gave Case, the former 2nd District congressman, the edge on name recognition and favorability, followed by Hanabusa, the state Senate president, and then Djou, a City Councilman.
The race was on the radar of the national parties and political pundits, but many expected the seat to remain Democratic in a district that supported Obama by 72 percent.
Sensibilities changed in January after Republican Scott Brown flipped the seat formerly belonging to Democrat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.
Suddenly, national eyes were on Hawaii as the GOP went looking for the "next Scott Brown," and a chance to score an upset on Obama's home turf heading into the fall midterm elections.
Money poured in -- more than $1 million each for Djou and Hanabusa -- as Republicans hoped to capitalize on the winner-take-all nature of the special election and "shoot the gap" amid a split Democratic electorate.
Divisions in the party deepened after U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye, still bitter over Case's challenge to U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka in 2006, threw his considerable support behind Hanabusa.
His influence and support kept the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from making an endorsement in the race. The committee reportedly sought to back Case as the more viable candidate.
After spending $300,000 on ads attacking Djou, the committee pulled out of Hawaii earlier this month, citing the inability of the local party to rally behind a single candidate.
Republican Charles Djou emerged victorious tonight in the special election to fill Hawaii's vacancy in Congress, giving Hawaii its first GOP member of Congress in 20 years.
DENNIS ODA / DODA@STARBULLETIN.COM
Supporters applaud Charles Djou on his victory for the Congressional seat during his speech. Shown are Mark Webster, left, his wife Helen and Michael McNulty.
View Large Version >>Djou won the special mail-in election with 39.7 percent of the vote in the final printout, released at 9 p.m.
The final printout represented 171,417 ballots returned by voters in the district, which stretches from Waikiki and downtown to Mililani.
Democrat Colleen Hanabusa was second at 31 percent, with Democrat Ed Case third at 27.8 percent.
“This is a momentous day,” Djou told a jubilant crowd at state party headquarters. “We have sent a message to the United States Congress. We have sent a message to the ex-governors. We have sent a message to the national Democrats! We have sent a message to the machine.
“We have told them that we will not stand idly by as our great nation is overburdened by too much taxes, too much debt and too much wasteful spending.”
Djou is Hawaii's first GOP member of Congress since Pat Saiki, who represented the party from 1987 to 1991.
2010 SPECIAL ELECTION RESULTS
Party Candidate Votes Percent
R Charles Djou 67,610 39.7%
D Colleen Hanabusa 52,802 31.0%
D Ed Case 47,391 27.8%
D Rafael Del Castillo 664 0.4%
N Kalaeloa Strode 491 0.3%
N Jim Brewer 273 0.2%
D Philmund Lee 254 0.1%
R Charles Collins 194 0.1%
R C. Kaui Jochanan Amsterdam 170 0.1%
D Vinny Browne 150 0.1%
N Steve Tataii 125 0.1%
R Douglas Crum 107 0.1%
R John Giuffre 82 0.0%
N Karl F. Moseley 80 0.0%
100% of the vote, posted at 9:07 p.m.
Source: Hawaii Office of Elections
Eleven other candidates combined to receive 2.1 percent of the vote.
Former U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie announced in December plans to resign his seat to concentrate solely on his campaign for governor, setting off a special election campaign unlike any in state history.
By the time he formally resigned Feb. 28, the field of three main contenders had formed and the Office of Elections -- after openly considering whether to postpone the vote until the September primary to save money -- settled on a mail-in process at the cost of about $1 million.
A Star-Bulletin/KITV poll in January gave Case, the former 2nd District congressman, the edge on name recognition and favorability, followed by Hanabusa, the state Senate president, and then Djou, a City Councilman.
The race was on the radar of the national parties and political pundits, but many expected the seat to remain Democratic in a district that supported Obama by 72 percent.
Sensibilities changed in January after Republican Scott Brown flipped the seat formerly belonging to Democrat Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts.
Suddenly, national eyes were on Hawaii as the GOP went looking for the "next Scott Brown," and a chance to score an upset on Obama's home turf heading into the fall midterm elections.
Money poured in -- more than $1 million each for Djou and Hanabusa -- as Republicans hoped to capitalize on the winner-take-all nature of the special election and "shoot the gap" amid a split Democratic electorate.
Divisions in the party deepened after U.S. Sen. Dan Inouye, still bitter over Case's challenge to U.S. Sen. Dan Akaka in 2006, threw his considerable support behind Hanabusa.
His influence and support kept the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from making an endorsement in the race. The committee reportedly sought to back Case as the more viable candidate.
After spending $300,000 on ads attacking Djou, the committee pulled out of Hawaii earlier this month, citing the inability of the local party to rally behind a single candidate.
http://www.starbulletin.com/news/bulletin/94673904.html
Saturday, May 22, 2010
Obama Administration Breaks Law on Intel: In other News U.S. Rep. Gary Peters Silent on Massive Violation of Law
Senators: Obama admin keeps Congress in dark on intel
Obama: U.S. needs allies with it in Afghanistan
AP: Clapper leading choice for intel job
Court rules against Afghan detainees
By Kara Rowland
UPDATED:
The Obama administration has failed to keep congressional intelligence officials in the loop on the investigation into the botched Times Square bombing, as required by law, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate intelligence committee charged in a letter this week.
"Having to fight over access to counterterrorism information is not productive and ultimately makes us less secure," wrote Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and Vice Chairman Christopher S. "Kit" Bond in a letter to President Obama on Thursday.
The senators said the lack of information has "caused serious friction in the relationship of the committee, on both sides of the aisle, and the executive branch."
In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, the senators say U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly refused to provide relevant information on the probe into suspect Faisal Shahzad that would allow the committee to conduct oversight activities without hampering the ongoing investigation. Senate intelligence staffers were told that the Department of Justice had instructed the agencies not to convey information on the Times Square plot without its approval, they said.
But a spokesman for the Department of Justice said FBI, Homeland Security Department and counterterrorism officials have conducted several briefings on the incident with various congressional committees, including a May 11 briefing with the Senate Intelligence Committee. Spokesman Dean Boyd said that briefing "was highly classified and no other Senate committee has received a briefing like" that one.
Mr. Boyd also said the Justice Department has not told intelligence officials not to cooperate with lawmakers.
"The Justice Department did not order anyone in the intelligence community to withhold information from the Senate Intelligence Committee in connection with the attempted bombing," Mr. Boyd said. "In fact, when the Justice Department was notified by certain intelligence agencies that they were planning to make calls to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, the Justice Department encouraged those agencies to do so." Congressional oversight of intelligence matters has long been a thorny issue in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, often playing out as tug-of-war between the administration and lawmakers who are tasked with holding it accountable.
In the case of the failed New York City bombing attempt, in which a Pakistani native tried to detonate an SUV in Times Square, the senators said the Obama administration has refused to provide the committee with FBI reports that are widely circulated within the intelligence community. The senators said the "great majority" of their information came through public press conferences and media accounts that sometimes continued inaccurate information.
"In the future, we hope and expect that an individual in the intelligence community will be designated to provide documents and regular, if not daily, briefings to the congressional intelligence committees on matters of high priority and interest so that we are able to discern between accurate and faulty reporting, and conduct our oversight duties," the California Democrat and Missouri Republican concluded.
Sens. Feinstein and Bond said the only exception to the information blackout were phone calls from Michael E. Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
Mr. Boyd said the Justice Department is "aware that in cases like this there is often a tension between the need to keep the appropriate Hill committees informed and the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and prosecution. We take very seriously our obligation to prevent ongoing investigations and prosecutions from being compromised, but we also take seriously the obligations of the FBI and other intelligence agencies to keep appropriate committees fully and currently informed."
The letter comes as the nation's intelligence chief, Dennis Blair, resigned at the request of Mr. Obama after a rocky tenure as director of national intelligence that saw multiple turf battles with the CIA and incidents that raised questions about his day-to-day engagement on intelligence issues.
Earlier this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a damning report into the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt in which a young Nigerian man attempted to blow himself up on board a flight to Detroit. That report cited 14 specific points of failure that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarding the plane, including many on the part of the office of the DNI, which is supposed to bring together all U.S. intelligence.
Still, senior Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees have suggested that Mr. Blair's ousting was a political move on the part of the administration, which they say ignores more fundamental, structural problems with the way the country gathers and analyzes intelligence. The White House has been mum on the resignation aside from publicly thanking Mr. Blair and noting the challenges facing anyone who serves in his position.
Dissatisfaction with the administration on oversight matters goes beyond the intelligence panels. Last month, Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, the top members of the Senate panel on homeland security, issued the administration its first congressional subpoenas over the shootings at Fort Hood. The senators accused the FBI and the Pentagon of ignoring repeated requests for information on the November shooting, in which an Army psychologist allegedly killed 13 people.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/22/senators-obama-admin-keeps-congress-dark-intel/
Obama: U.S. needs allies with it in Afghanistan
AP: Clapper leading choice for intel job
Court rules against Afghan detainees
By Kara Rowland
UPDATED:
The Obama administration has failed to keep congressional intelligence officials in the loop on the investigation into the botched Times Square bombing, as required by law, the top Democrat and Republican on the Senate intelligence committee charged in a letter this week.
"Having to fight over access to counterterrorism information is not productive and ultimately makes us less secure," wrote Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein and Vice Chairman Christopher S. "Kit" Bond in a letter to President Obama on Thursday.
The senators said the lack of information has "caused serious friction in the relationship of the committee, on both sides of the aisle, and the executive branch."
In the letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Washington Times, the senators say U.S. intelligence agencies have repeatedly refused to provide relevant information on the probe into suspect Faisal Shahzad that would allow the committee to conduct oversight activities without hampering the ongoing investigation. Senate intelligence staffers were told that the Department of Justice had instructed the agencies not to convey information on the Times Square plot without its approval, they said.
But a spokesman for the Department of Justice said FBI, Homeland Security Department and counterterrorism officials have conducted several briefings on the incident with various congressional committees, including a May 11 briefing with the Senate Intelligence Committee. Spokesman Dean Boyd said that briefing "was highly classified and no other Senate committee has received a briefing like" that one.
Mr. Boyd also said the Justice Department has not told intelligence officials not to cooperate with lawmakers.
"The Justice Department did not order anyone in the intelligence community to withhold information from the Senate Intelligence Committee in connection with the attempted bombing," Mr. Boyd said. "In fact, when the Justice Department was notified by certain intelligence agencies that they were planning to make calls to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees, the Justice Department encouraged those agencies to do so." Congressional oversight of intelligence matters has long been a thorny issue in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks, often playing out as tug-of-war between the administration and lawmakers who are tasked with holding it accountable.
In the case of the failed New York City bombing attempt, in which a Pakistani native tried to detonate an SUV in Times Square, the senators said the Obama administration has refused to provide the committee with FBI reports that are widely circulated within the intelligence community. The senators said the "great majority" of their information came through public press conferences and media accounts that sometimes continued inaccurate information.
"In the future, we hope and expect that an individual in the intelligence community will be designated to provide documents and regular, if not daily, briefings to the congressional intelligence committees on matters of high priority and interest so that we are able to discern between accurate and faulty reporting, and conduct our oversight duties," the California Democrat and Missouri Republican concluded.
Sens. Feinstein and Bond said the only exception to the information blackout were phone calls from Michael E. Leiter, director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
Mr. Boyd said the Justice Department is "aware that in cases like this there is often a tension between the need to keep the appropriate Hill committees informed and the need to protect the integrity of the investigation and prosecution. We take very seriously our obligation to prevent ongoing investigations and prosecutions from being compromised, but we also take seriously the obligations of the FBI and other intelligence agencies to keep appropriate committees fully and currently informed."
The letter comes as the nation's intelligence chief, Dennis Blair, resigned at the request of Mr. Obama after a rocky tenure as director of national intelligence that saw multiple turf battles with the CIA and incidents that raised questions about his day-to-day engagement on intelligence issues.
Earlier this week, the Senate Intelligence Committee released a damning report into the failed Christmas Day bombing attempt in which a young Nigerian man attempted to blow himself up on board a flight to Detroit. That report cited 14 specific points of failure that led to Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab boarding the plane, including many on the part of the office of the DNI, which is supposed to bring together all U.S. intelligence.
Still, senior Republicans on the congressional intelligence committees have suggested that Mr. Blair's ousting was a political move on the part of the administration, which they say ignores more fundamental, structural problems with the way the country gathers and analyzes intelligence. The White House has been mum on the resignation aside from publicly thanking Mr. Blair and noting the challenges facing anyone who serves in his position.
Dissatisfaction with the administration on oversight matters goes beyond the intelligence panels. Last month, Sens. Joseph Lieberman and Susan Collins, the top members of the Senate panel on homeland security, issued the administration its first congressional subpoenas over the shootings at Fort Hood. The senators accused the FBI and the Pentagon of ignoring repeated requests for information on the November shooting, in which an Army psychologist allegedly killed 13 people.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/may/22/senators-obama-admin-keeps-congress-dark-intel/
Friday, May 21, 2010
Heritage Foundation's Mike Brownfield on Raising Arizona's Defense RE: Illegal Immigration Law
The Foundry seeks to further conservative principles and policies through daily commentary on current news and events.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Bell: Raising Arizona’s Defense
Posted May 21st, 2010 at 9:37am in Ongoing Priorities, Protect America with 43 comments Print This Post
It isn’t easy being Arizona these days, especially when President Barack Obama puts politics before Americans’ interests, a foreign head of state before the United States, and an agenda of apology before much-needed, sensible reforms.
But that’s just what happened this week when Mexican President Felipe Calderon visited Washington, DC. President Obama extended a warm hand to Calderon and demagogued Arizona’s illegal immigration law all in the name of politics. Standing in the White House Rose Garden with Calderon, President Obama took the unprecedented step of publicly siding with Mexico against Arizona, saying:
We also discussed the new law in Arizona, which is a misdirected effort — a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries…
And I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person — be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”
All of this centers around Arizona’s new law that directs law enforcement officers to ask about a person’s legal status if reasonable suspicion exists that they’re unlawfully in the country. And they’re to do that in a reasonable way only during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.
Enter the spin zone. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder took a swing at the new law, later admitting that they’ve neither studied nor even read it, let alone mentioned amendments that prohibit using race, color or national origin even as a factor in executing it. And yesterday, Calderon spoke to a joint session of Congress, audaciously criticized Arizona’s law, and drew a standing ovation from Democratic members of Congress, Holder, Napolitano and Vice President Joe Biden.
Their attacks are in direct contradiction to the Obama Administration’s own policies, which have recognized an appropriate role for state and local governments in dealing with illegal immigration. In 2009, the Obama Administration spent $60 million on grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement in 13 states, all for the purpose of dealing with border-related issues.
But that’s not all. The Obama White House encourages state and local governments to participate in the “Secure Communities” program, which promotes identifying and removing criminal aliens. Oh, and Homeland Security funds Border Enforcement Security Teams, which include state and local law enforcement. Tack on the longstanding constitutional principle that states have clear authority to act in the interests of their citizens’ public safety, and one wonders on what peg the White House is hanging its highly critical hat.
But the failure to make political hay while the sun shines is a wasted opportunity in the Obama White House, especially when this issue is a perfect entree for the President to champion one of his favorite causes – granting amnesty to millions unlawfully in the United States.
There’s a better incremental approach the White House and Congress can take, including: responsible border security; the enforcement of immigration and workplace laws; workable temporary worker programs; and working with Mexico to address its desperate need for security and civil society and economic reforms.
As The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano writes:
Congress should reject efforts by the White House to demonize the people of Arizona in a crass effort to further the President’s political agenda. The Congress should also insist on incremental, commonsense policies that will address the pressing need for immigration and border security reforms instead of the amnesty-first approach—which both the American people and the Congress roundly rejected the last time it was proposed in 2007.
Meanwhile, for Arizona’s part, it has acted because the federal government has failed to secure America’s national borders. The state now has the obligation to act responsibly in the course of implementing the law.
Quick Hits:
•Germany’s new financial regulations sparked a global market tailspin, and worse than expected unemployment and economic growth caused the largest losses on Wall Street in a year.
•The FDIC says the number of number banks on its confidential “problem” list is growing.
•A new Rasmussen Reports survey shows that 68% of Americans say it’s a bad idea for other cities or states to boycott Arizona over its new immigration law.
•Also according to Rasmussen Reports, 71% of Arizona voters favor their new immigration law.
•The House Armed Services Committee dealt a blow to President Obama’s Guantánamo Bay plans by unanimously approving legislation that would prohibit creating a detention center inside the United States.
Tags: amnesty, Arizona, Felipe Calderon, illegal immigration, immigration, mexico, Morning Bell, President Barack Obama
Author:
Mike Brownfield
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Morning Bell: Raising Arizona’s Defense
Posted May 21st, 2010 at 9:37am in Ongoing Priorities, Protect America with 43 comments Print This Post
It isn’t easy being Arizona these days, especially when President Barack Obama puts politics before Americans’ interests, a foreign head of state before the United States, and an agenda of apology before much-needed, sensible reforms.
But that’s just what happened this week when Mexican President Felipe Calderon visited Washington, DC. President Obama extended a warm hand to Calderon and demagogued Arizona’s illegal immigration law all in the name of politics. Standing in the White House Rose Garden with Calderon, President Obama took the unprecedented step of publicly siding with Mexico against Arizona, saying:
We also discussed the new law in Arizona, which is a misdirected effort — a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries…
And I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person — be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.”
All of this centers around Arizona’s new law that directs law enforcement officers to ask about a person’s legal status if reasonable suspicion exists that they’re unlawfully in the country. And they’re to do that in a reasonable way only during a lawful stop, detention, or arrest.
Enter the spin zone. Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder took a swing at the new law, later admitting that they’ve neither studied nor even read it, let alone mentioned amendments that prohibit using race, color or national origin even as a factor in executing it. And yesterday, Calderon spoke to a joint session of Congress, audaciously criticized Arizona’s law, and drew a standing ovation from Democratic members of Congress, Holder, Napolitano and Vice President Joe Biden.
Their attacks are in direct contradiction to the Obama Administration’s own policies, which have recognized an appropriate role for state and local governments in dealing with illegal immigration. In 2009, the Obama Administration spent $60 million on grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement in 13 states, all for the purpose of dealing with border-related issues.
But that’s not all. The Obama White House encourages state and local governments to participate in the “Secure Communities” program, which promotes identifying and removing criminal aliens. Oh, and Homeland Security funds Border Enforcement Security Teams, which include state and local law enforcement. Tack on the longstanding constitutional principle that states have clear authority to act in the interests of their citizens’ public safety, and one wonders on what peg the White House is hanging its highly critical hat.
But the failure to make political hay while the sun shines is a wasted opportunity in the Obama White House, especially when this issue is a perfect entree for the President to champion one of his favorite causes – granting amnesty to millions unlawfully in the United States.
There’s a better incremental approach the White House and Congress can take, including: responsible border security; the enforcement of immigration and workplace laws; workable temporary worker programs; and working with Mexico to address its desperate need for security and civil society and economic reforms.
As The Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano writes:
Congress should reject efforts by the White House to demonize the people of Arizona in a crass effort to further the President’s political agenda. The Congress should also insist on incremental, commonsense policies that will address the pressing need for immigration and border security reforms instead of the amnesty-first approach—which both the American people and the Congress roundly rejected the last time it was proposed in 2007.
Meanwhile, for Arizona’s part, it has acted because the federal government has failed to secure America’s national borders. The state now has the obligation to act responsibly in the course of implementing the law.
Quick Hits:
•Germany’s new financial regulations sparked a global market tailspin, and worse than expected unemployment and economic growth caused the largest losses on Wall Street in a year.
•The FDIC says the number of number banks on its confidential “problem” list is growing.
•A new Rasmussen Reports survey shows that 68% of Americans say it’s a bad idea for other cities or states to boycott Arizona over its new immigration law.
•Also according to Rasmussen Reports, 71% of Arizona voters favor their new immigration law.
•The House Armed Services Committee dealt a blow to President Obama’s Guantánamo Bay plans by unanimously approving legislation that would prohibit creating a detention center inside the United States.
Tags: amnesty, Arizona, Felipe Calderon, illegal immigration, immigration, mexico, Morning Bell, President Barack Obama
Author:
Mike Brownfield
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
RNC Coalitions Conference Call To Discuss Elena Kagen's Nomination To The Supreme Court
Republican National Committee Coalitions
CONFERENCE CALL
Please Join
Michael Thielen, Executive Director for the
Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA)
And
Angela Sailor, RNC Coalitions Director
What: Discussion on President Obama’s Nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court
When: Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 4:00 PM EDT
Where: Dial-In Number: 888-566-2143 Code: 4743829
CONFERENCE CALL
Please Join
Michael Thielen, Executive Director for the
Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA)
And
Angela Sailor, RNC Coalitions Director
What: Discussion on President Obama’s Nomination of Elena Kagen to the Supreme Court
When: Thursday, May 20, 2010 at 4:00 PM EDT
Where: Dial-In Number: 888-566-2143 Code: 4743829
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Join Ralph Reed of Faith & Freedom Coalition Saturday in Troy for Conservative Victory Rally 2010!
OAKLAND COUNTY CONSERVATIVES
&
SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSERVATIVES
CONSERVATIVE VICTORY RALLY 2010
Join us as we rally and prepare for a pro-life, pro-family and fiscally conservative victory in the 2010 elections.
Featuring
RALPH REED
Chairman of
FAITH AND FREEDOM COALITION
The Goals of Faith and Freedom Coalition are:
Never before has it been more critical for us to speak out for our values. That is why the Faith and Freedom Coalition is committed to educating, equipping, and mobilizing people of faith and like-minded individuals to be effective citizens. Together we will influence public policy and enact legislation that strengthens families, promotes time-honored values, protects the dignity of life and marriage, lowers the tax burden on small business and families, and requires government to tighten its belt and live within its means.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
10 - 11:30 AM
Zion Christian Church *
3668 Livernois Rd, Troy
(North of Big Beaver Road and south of Wattles Road - See map links below)
* Zion Christian Church, its staff and its members are not affiliated with or have endorsed the Faith and Freedom Coalition nor any affiliates of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
THIS IS A COMPLIMENTARY EVENT - NO COST TO ATTEND.
BRING FAMILY/FRIENDS/NEIGHBORS
WEBSITES:
Faith and Freedom Coalition
Home Page - http://www.ffcoalition.org
&
SOUTHEAST MICHIGAN CONSERVATIVES
CONSERVATIVE VICTORY RALLY 2010
Join us as we rally and prepare for a pro-life, pro-family and fiscally conservative victory in the 2010 elections.
Featuring
RALPH REED
Chairman of
FAITH AND FREEDOM COALITION
The Goals of Faith and Freedom Coalition are:
Never before has it been more critical for us to speak out for our values. That is why the Faith and Freedom Coalition is committed to educating, equipping, and mobilizing people of faith and like-minded individuals to be effective citizens. Together we will influence public policy and enact legislation that strengthens families, promotes time-honored values, protects the dignity of life and marriage, lowers the tax burden on small business and families, and requires government to tighten its belt and live within its means.
Saturday, May 8, 2010
10 - 11:30 AM
Zion Christian Church *
3668 Livernois Rd, Troy
(North of Big Beaver Road and south of Wattles Road - See map links below)
* Zion Christian Church, its staff and its members are not affiliated with or have endorsed the Faith and Freedom Coalition nor any affiliates of the Faith and Freedom Coalition.
THIS IS A COMPLIMENTARY EVENT - NO COST TO ATTEND.
BRING FAMILY/FRIENDS/NEIGHBORS
WEBSITES:
Faith and Freedom Coalition
Home Page - http://www.ffcoalition.org
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Senator Pappageorge Needs Volunteers!
Parade Volunteers Needed for Senator Pappageorge
Please contact Corinne at cvkhed@aol.com if you can show your support for Senator Pappageorge by volunteering to walk at any of the following parades:
1) Celebrate Birmingham Parade - May 16th
Arrive at 12:30 pm and line up is on North Old Woodward just South of Harmon
2) Madison Heights Memorial Day Parade - Sat., May 29th
Arrive at 9:00 am at the K-Mart Parking Lot at the corner of 12 Mile and John R Road.
3) Royal Oak Memorial Day Parade - Monday, May 31st
Arrive at 8:30 am and meeting location will be announced.
As always, Senator Pappageorge Thanks Everyone for Their Loyalty and Support!!
Please contact Corinne at cvkhed@aol.com if you can show your support for Senator Pappageorge by volunteering to walk at any of the following parades:
1) Celebrate Birmingham Parade - May 16th
Arrive at 12:30 pm and line up is on North Old Woodward just South of Harmon
2) Madison Heights Memorial Day Parade - Sat., May 29th
Arrive at 9:00 am at the K-Mart Parking Lot at the corner of 12 Mile and John R Road.
3) Royal Oak Memorial Day Parade - Monday, May 31st
Arrive at 8:30 am and meeting location will be announced.
As always, Senator Pappageorge Thanks Everyone for Their Loyalty and Support!!
Sunday, May 2, 2010
Southeast Michigan Ronald Reagan Memorial Dinner Speakers Through the Years
9th Congressional District Republicans Reagan Memorial Dinner Keynote Speakers - Through the Years
2005 - U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Michigan)
2006 - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)
2007 - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona)
2008 - Governor Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina)
2009 - National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas)
2010 - Former U.S. Senator/Fox News Contributor Rick Santorum
2005 - U.S. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra (R-Michigan)
2006 - U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (R-Kansas)
2007 - U.S. Senator John McCain (R-Arizona)
2008 - Governor Mark Sanford (R-South Carolina)
2009 - National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-Texas)
2010 - Former U.S. Senator/Fox News Contributor Rick Santorum
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
