It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
besides their mishandling of the health care debate...they should have started the drumbeat loud and early and not given the opposition a chance to get their bearings
Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by grover
Why are you afraid of allowing people that are opposed to a specific bill? Don't they have the same rights to examine the bill, as your proponents do?
Do you really think it is American to shove a bill through, without debate and examination of the bill?
Your remark certainly indicates that.
Editor's note: Wendell Potter has served since May 2009 as senior fellow on health care at the Center for Media and Democracy, a nonprofit organization that says it seeks to expose "corporate spin and government propaganda." After a 20-year career as a corporate public relations executive, Potter left his job last year as head of communications for one of the nation's largest health insurers, CIGNA Corporation.
how the health insurance and its army of PR people are influencing ...[public] opinions and actions without ..[the public]..even knowing it.
Until I quit my job last year, I was one of the leaders of that army. I had a very successful career and was my company's voice to the media and the public for several years.
It was my job to "promote and defend" the company's reputation and to try to persuade reporters to write positive stories about the industry's ideas on reform. During the last couple of years of my career, however, I became increasingly worried that the high-deductible plans insurers were beginning to push Americans into would force more and more of us into bankruptcy.
I could not in good conscience continue serving as an industry mouthpiece. And I did not want to be part of yet another industry effort to kill meaningful reform.
What I'm trying to do as I write and speak out against the insurance industry I was a part of for nearly two decades is to inform Americans that when they hear isolated stories of long waiting times to see doctors in Canada and allegations that care in other systems is rationed by "government bureaucrats," someone associated with the insurance industry wrote the original script.
The industry has been engaging in these kinds of tactics for many years, going back to its successful behind-the-scenes campaign to kill the Clinton reform plan.
story in Friday's New York Times about the origin of the absurdly false rumor that President Obama's health care proposal would create government-sponsored "death panels" bears out what I have been saying.
The story notes that the rumor emanated "from many of the same pundits and conservative media outlets that were central in defeating Bill Clinton's health care proposal 16 years ago, including the editorial board of The Washington Times, the American Spectator magazine and Betsy McCaughey, whose 1994 health care critique made her a star of the conservative movement (and ultimately, the lieutenant governor of New York)."
The big PR firms that work for the industry have close connections with those media outlets and stars in the conservative movement.
The industry goes to great lengths to keep its involvement in these campaigns hidden from public view. I know from having served on numerous trade group committees and industry-funded front groups, however, that industry leaders are always full partners in developing strategies to derail any reform that might interfere with insurers' ability to increase profits.
In the end it is sad how easily the GOP manipulates what is left of its following...all for money
How about the people that protest both parties? Where do they fit into the devisive premise of your thread?
Originally posted by grover
NO ONE is going to take away your precious second amendment rights...they aren't even trying.
Obama to Seek New Assault Weapons Ban
Previous Ban Expired in 2004 During the Bush Administration
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"[siz=4]I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
WILLIAM SCHNEIDER, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL ANALYST (voice-over): Binghamton, Pittsburgh, Oakland, Samson, Alabama, Carthage (ph), North Carolina, sensational incidents of gun violence all over the country. Are we seeing an impact on public opinion? Since 2001, a majority of Americans has favored stricter gun laws though support has been trending slightly down and now a sharp, sudden drop.
Only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws according to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll. It may have to do with President Obama and the new administration.
SEAN HEALY, ATTORNEY: If he and the people in control of Congress right now could have what they want, they would heavily restrict or eliminate guns from this country.
SCHNEIDER: They may have heard what the new attorney general said.
ERIC HOLDER, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: There are just a few gun related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons.
SCHNEIDER: And what the new secretary of state said about the ban.
HILLARY CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: I, as a senator, supported measures to try to reinstate it. Politically, that is a very big hurdle in our Congress. But there may be some approaches that could be acceptable, and we are exploring those.
SCHNEIDER: The country is seeing a surge in gun sales.
STEVE PRATER, LOCK 'N' LOAD MANAGER: Everybody kind of got scared. The market got depleted.
SCHNEIDER: Support for tougher gun laws has held fairly steady among Democrats. The sharp drop has been among Independents and Republicans where there are fewer Obama supporters.
(on camera): The Gallup poll reveals a gradual long-term decline in support for gun control from the early 1990's to 2008. In fact support for handgun ban was down to 29 percent, the lowest figure in 50 years. That coincides with the decline in the nation's murder rate. But this year's sudden drop seems to have been influenced by politics.
Obama Administration Begins Opposition To States Claiming Sovereignty And Gun Rights
Published on 07-26-2009
The several states are lining up to reclaim their sovereignty and telling the federal government to butt out. This is being done in myriad ways but all are related in that most claim that the Tenth Amendment protects the states from federal tyranny. States are passing resolutions, memorials and two states have passed laws and they intend to apply those laws for their citizens. The two states are Montana and Tennessee.
It was expected that at some point these laws would be challenged and it appears actions to do such has begun. The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has published open letters to federal firearms license holders in Montana and Tennessee explaining that federal law trumps state law when it comes to gun laws.
“As you may know, federal law requires a license to engage in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition, or to deal in firearms, even if the firearms or ammunition remain with the same state. All firearms manufactured by a licensee must be properly marked. Additionally, each licensee must record the type, model, caliber or gauge, and serial number of each firearm manufactured or otherwise acquired, and the date such manufacture or other acquisition was made. Firearms transaction records and NICS background checks must be conducted prior to disposition of firearms to unlicensed persons. These, as well as other Federal requirements and prohibitions, apply whether or not the firearms or ammunition have crossed state lines.
In a report filed by CBS News, it seems to indicate that even though these states are claiming sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, the Federal Government may have power over such gun laws as the Firearms Freedom Act, via the Commerce Clause.
Read literally, the Tenth Amendment seems to suggest that the federal governments powers are limited only to what it has been “delegated,” and the U.S. Supreme Court in 1918 confirmed that the amendment “carefully reserved” some authority “to the states.” That view is echoed by statements made at the time the Constitution was adopted; New Hampshire explicitly said that states kept “all powers not expressly and particularly delegated” to the federal government.
More recently, federal courts have interpreted the Tenth Amendment narrowly, in a way that justifies almost any law on grounds that it intends to regulate interstate commerce.
Originally posted by grover
The only ones who claim that they are are gullible people who actually believe the misinformation that the NRA and the GOP send out to drum up support and contributions.
Originally posted by grover
Get it through your head it ain't gonna happen. The 2nd amendment isn't called an amendment for nothing...
Originally posted by grover
In case you were sound asleep during civics class:
January 14, 2009
Virginia Takes Constitutional Convention Stage
By Chuck Baldwin
As I noted in this column a few weeks ago, proponents of assembling a new Constitutional Convention are a scant two states away from achieving that monstrous reality. (Please review my column on this subject here.)
At that time, the state of Ohio was in the crosshairs. Fortunately, enough people from that good state inundated their state representatives with objections, and the matter was tabled (for how long, no one knows). Now it appears that the Commonwealth of Virginia is going to be the next battleground state.
In all likelihood, the Virginia legislature will be the next state government to take up the Con Con issue. It is imperative, therefore, that the citizens of Virginia begin contacting their various representatives, demanding that they not authorize the call for a new Constitutional Convention.
As I noted in my previous column on this subject, "If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, 'There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.'"
Originally posted by JayinAR
How about the people that protest both parties? Where do they fit into the devisive premise of your thread?
Originally posted by grover
Consequently the White House now has to scramble to get the whole debate back on actual issues as opposed to straw dogs like death panels.
Originally posted by JayinAR
You are saying that there is some sort of right wing conspiracy at work here.
Meaning that if you protest the right you are a villain but if you protest the left nothing?
Doesn't make sense to me considering the left is currently on a steam-train course of destroying this country.
I think that the protestors with guns shown are plants. Especially that dude with the assault rifle.
They are using this crap as an excuse to declare war on the people.