David P. Bernal

Worker Rights or Taxpayer Rights?

2011-03-03T21:41:00.000-08:00

Unions vs. Balancing the Budget

The world is undergoing tremendous upheavals and it appears that the American Labor Movement of the 20th century may be on its’ way to BEING history.

The labor movement in this country is at a tipping point, and public sector unions in this state should start getting real about concessions or risk becoming marginalized.

Are unions becoming so demonized that they are on the verge of disappearing altogether?

The American public is not nearly as gullible as they were in recent years. The problem isn’t unions, but PUBLIC unions, which are negotiating with PUBLIC funds.

The problem isn’t worker rights, which Americans still very much believe in, but rather TAXPAYER Rights, and the need for all workers to be productive and worthy of their pay and benefits.

The problem isn’t public sector workers, which Americans still value and want first-rate service from, but rather public sector UNIONS, which have to be reconsidered 80 years after Democratic Party icon Franklin Delano Roosevelt opposed the concept of collective bargaining for public employees. Was FDR right?

So if the ongoing battle we’re seeing in Wisconsin is going to be portrayed as a struggle for all workers’ rights, the opposite portrayal in this current tough economy will include the following questions:

1) How do all the fake sick notices and ability to organize throughout the entire state and country make those fighting Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker and the elected Republican legislative majorities the underdog? In other words, who’s oppressing whom?

2) Why did it take this current series of events to drag the public unions in Wisconsin to the table to accept concessions after years of pleading? In other words, are public sector unions hearing the voice of the people, or are they the ones who are tone-deaf?

3) Do those protesting Governor Walker really represent the will of the American majority, or just the Nancy Pelosi minority that got bounced out after last November’s elections?

4) Will Walker become a hero or a goat if he stands his ground (perhaps a peek at how New Jersey Governor Chris Christie is doing will answer that question)?

Arguably, the biggest tragedy in all this is that we NEED public sector workers, and that some of those workers are actually in need of a raise. However, merit and productivity do NOT appear to come across as the main driving forces behind what leads to increased pay, benefits and pensions for public sector unions in a nation and world that is really coming to grips with its own limited economy and resources.

There are bigger political implications than the labor standoff going on in Wisconsin:

Governor Jerry Brown will have not only a hard time getting a tax hike extension on the ballot, but will likely fail to pass any said ballot measure without fixing the structural deficit that can only come about with pension/pay reform of public sector employees. With the current public focus on Wisconsin, it’ll be a simple “no public sector reforms, no tax hikes here in California”. Last November’s fiscally-conservative outcome of the ballot measures is proof of that.

Finally, Gallup reports that fewer voters are identifying themselves as Democratic just as fewer voters are identifying themselves as Republican.

Stated differently, both parties are going to have to prove themselves to their voters. The Republican establishment is terrified of the tea party crowd (which I consider myself a part of); will there be a similar tea-party-like phenomenon among fair-minded but neglected liberal taxpayers who’ve had enough of being taken for granted as loyal Democrats?

Please, just promise me that you’ll think about it.

Call Me Senator - From David Zucker

2010-10-28T21:13:00.000-07:00

Operation Dark Heart - Book Burning by Obama Administration

2010-10-08T16:10:00.000-07:00

Jon Voight calls out Barack Obama

2010-04-24T12:03:00.001-07:00

Jon Voight calls out Barack Obama

Posted using ShareThis

Obamacare Debate Continues

2010-03-12T15:53:00.000-08:00

This Week in Health Reform: March 12, 2010

This week President Obama traveled outside of Washington to rally support for his health care reform plan, while Republicans continued to highlight the risks involved with approving the Senate version before contentious provisions are removed.

On Thursday, the Congressional Budget Office released its scoring of the Senate's health care reform bill passed last December. The President's plan was built on this legislation, though his version has not yet been scored by the CBO.

Meanwhile, Business Week highlighted the complexities of the health care system through sharing a widow's perspective of her husband's end of life care and the value of their private health insurance.

As the health care reform debate continues to take shape this year, we encourage you and others to engage members of Congress by visiting the Health Action Network.

Health Care Reform

Business Groups Launch Ad Release to Combat Legislation: As President Obama attempted to garner increased support for his health care overhaul, a coalition of 248 business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce launched a 10-day, $10 million ad campaign aimed at pressuring lawmakers to oppose the health care reform bill. Business groups say the Democratic legislation will hurt companies by adding new taxes and costly requirements while failing to control medical costs. The ads will run on national cable television and in 17 key states around the country, targeting moderate and conservative Democrats.

In addition, the health insurance industry trade group, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP), launched a $1 million ad campaign Tuesday on national cable television. The AHIP ad directly responds to attacks on the industry by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Citing data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services showing that insurance costs only make up 4 percent of health care spending, the ad points out that hospitals, doctors, and drugs are the real reason for rising health care costs.

Public Opinion

Americans Still Opposed to Reform: In a newly released Rasmussen Reports survey, 53 percent of American voters continue to oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and Congressional Democrats. Further, 54 percent believe passage of this proposal will lead to higher health care costs, and 49 percent believe it will reduce the quality of care. Only 17 percent of respondents said this plan would reduce health care costs as promised.

In a recent poll conducted by Gallup, a slight majority of Americans would advise their Members of Congress to vote against the current health care plan and 48 percent disapprove of the President's plan for reform. The poll also finds that those who oppose the bill oppose the approach while supporting the general concept of reform. Among those who disapprove the bill, 62 percent would prefer that Congress scrap this legislation and start over; while 37 percent prefer Congress not work on reform at all.

159 Ways the Senate Bill Is a Government Takeover of Health Care: This week the Senate Republican Policy Committee unveiled a list of new boards, bureaucracies, and programs that would be created in the 2,733-page Senate health care bill that serves as the framework for President Obama's health proposal.

David P. Bernal

The Last Straw! (Welcome to the USSA)

2009-08-28T14:29:00.000-07:00

Welcome to the CHANGE you can believe in!

First, the government seizes control of private industry and banking. Then, they what to introduce someone to evaluate when you should die or receive medical treatment and now:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/28/senate-president-emergency-control-internet/

Fox News reports another power grab by our SUPREME LEADER and his Czars. It seems that the government now wishes to control any free speech or expression on the internet.

Is this the land that I love or what?

If you are concerned start supporting a change in 2010.

From one patriot to another, 'now is the time to fight for freedom!'

Nationalized Healthcare?

2009-07-14T14:23:00.000-07:00

One of the most important debates in Washington, D.C. is centered on the nationalization of healthcare, essentially putting all or most Americans on the equivalent of Medicare.

The proponents of such an idea can often be heard saying that Americans have a “right” to medical care or that no one should be denied this right simply because they can’t or don’t want to pay for it.

As a nation, we continue to move away from personal (individual) responsibility. We see this with children, our workforce, corporate leadership and sadly even with our elected officials.

Whenever, you do not accept personal responsibility for your behavior, choices or finances you abdicate that responsibility to others.

Before, deciding if you are for or against nationalized healthcare – ask yourself this question. How well run or efficient is our federal government? And, do you think that the same people who have stolen the Social Security funds collected from your paychecks, manipulated the Consumer Price Index, and continue to manage the devaluation of the U.S. Dollar will do a better job with healthcare?

The argument regarding being denied healthcare due to inability to pay is simply untrue. Because, it is currently a legal obligation of hospitals and emergency rooms to provide care to everyone.

Regarding, our right to healthcare…

The second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence says in part: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Nowhere does it mention anything about free Viagra.

In school, we were taught that the first 10 amendments to the Constitution were ratified in 1791, and collectively they form our Bill of Rights. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

The Second Amendment enumerates the “right of the people to keep and bear arms.” The Fourth Amendment guarantees “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures.” The Fifth Amendment says someone shall “not be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,” and the Sixth outlines the “right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.”

We could go on, but these rights bear a common thread. Each restricts the government from taking what Americans naturally possess. You have a life, the liberty to do as you wish, and the ability to pursue whatever happiness means to you. No one has to give these rights to you because you naturally begin life with them.

Rights are not about giving you something for free; they are about protecting natural liberties from those who would take them away from you.

For instance, the Second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. It does not however, say that you get guns for free if you don’t have one.

This is analogous to the issue of health care “rights.” If socialized-medicine proponents argued that everyone should have the right to go where and when they want to receive the medical treatment they want and need, I would agree with them. But instead, they argue that someone else should be compelled to pay for the costs of medical care that others want to receive.

When you hear someone say that health care should be “free” or that the “government” should pay for it, they are really talking about two payment methods. The first requires doctors, nurses, and other medical care providers to work without compensation, via government fiat, so that the patient doesn’t have to pay. The second option provides that the government will require others to work for nothing in order to transfer their income to pay for the health care of another.

In reality, the current healthcare proposal does some of both. But by doing so, it effectively restricts the rights of people by forcing a significant part of the population to work for free so that others get the benefits of their labors without charge. Make no mistake, such proposals deprive the populace of freedom; they do not extend it.

A “right” to services without charge, that forces someone else to provide for you, does not and should not ever exist. No one in a free society should have a “right” to anything that requires others to toil against their will on behalf of those unwilling to provide for themselves.

There absolutely should be a number of changes in the healthcare system and as a society; we have a number of ways to care for the indigent. But we should move farther away from the failed government-controlled medical models, rather than expanding that failure. Addressing healthcare is something we are already prepared to do. By empowering private enterprise we can achieve more economical, advanced, and better alternatives to that of a government-run health care system. In so doing, we can enhance the ability of the people to embrace the true fundamental rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Unfortunately, crazy zealots on both the left and right side of the aisle would have you believe it is the other guy’s fault. American it is time to stand up and do your own thinking!

Nope!

2009-04-05T19:53:00.000-07:00

I say, NOPE… not Hope to the changes coming to our country.

It is a shame to witness the leader of the free world holding hands with leaders from other nations who have consistently left the United States holding the bag financially and militarily. Conducting a public relationships tour where he is giving away our freedoms.

And, if that is not enough he is working hard to devalue the dollars in your pocket and in your retirement account.

But wait, there is more - consideration of moving off the world’s dollar standard and then printing money like we are a third-world country fueling inflation is not what our founding fathers had in mind.

Oh well, we shouldn’t worry - because he has already ‘nationalized’ businesses and will do the same with our nations banks.

My fears that we would move away from our ‘republic’ form of government and drift towards socialism have not come true. Instead, we are racing headlong towards become a fascist nation. Change - but NO HOPE, is what I see coming from this style of leadership.

Too bad that our nation of consumers wishing for a nanny state to care for them, is too blind to understand the truth behind Thomas Jefferson’s warning - that a government big enough to provide all your needs is also big enough to take away your individual rights.

Think about it.

An Historic Moment

2009-01-23T17:37:00.000-08:00

I say, “God Bless America!”

Although, I did not support the election of President Obama – he is nevertheless my president.

The GOP repeated our dismal performance in the 2008 election, as we did when we nominated Bob Dole (personally, I admire both gentlemen). So, we should celebrate this country’s history in electing the first African-American to the highest office and then move on.

Instead, we want to minimize and criticize. Both really popular and constructive traits you seek for leaders in the private sector and in public service – NOT!

Dr. Martin Luther King dreamed of it, spoke of it, and gave his life for it. Slaves and then civil rights activists were jailed, beaten, and died for it: for the day when not only would a person of color be allowed into the White House - but would run the White House. It's been a long time coming, an American minority has officially broken the glass ceiling, and that's a testament to anyone regardless of their political affiliation.

However, I disagree with Obama ideologically. Including but not limited to, Abortion Rights, Bailouts, government intervention in Free Enterprise, and National Security.

Additionally, I believe that more funding of public education will not replace the need for school reform and teacher accountability. And, I still believe in privatizing Social Security accounts since the Federal Government has misappropriated our funds long before Madoff came on the scene.

I believe in a comprehensive energy plan that includes drilling for American resources while developing alternative forms of energy.

Meanwhile, we are driving people and businesses out of California. According to a recent AP article, "the number of people leaving California for another state outstripped the number moving in from another state during the year ending on July 1, 2008." Rising taxes, a bloated bureaucracy and union structure, immigration and assimilation, crime -- all these things have led to trouble for the great state in the past decades. Not to mention our dear Attorney General who has attempted to circumvent the will of the people by twisting the language on Proposition 8. I say, “God help us!”

GOP Chairman Duncan is MIA

“I was saddened to learn that at a time of national trial, when a president-elect is preparing to take office in the midst of the worst financial crisis in over seventy years, that the Republican National Committee is engaged in the sort of negative, attack politics that the voters rejected in the 2006 and 2008 election cycles[1]”. So, let’s discuss and debate public policy, not make crude political attacks. It’s embarrassing to those of us who call ourselves Republicans, and even worse for us conservatives. The GOP leadership, senators and congressmen need to focus on offering solutions – not driving people away from our party.

[1] Newt Gingrich

How the Grinch Stole Christmas in America 2008!

2008-12-20T19:30:00.000-08:00

The Grinch hated Christmas! The whole Christmas season!
Now, please don’t ask why. No one quite knows the reason.
It could be that his head wasn’t screwed on quite right.
It could be perhaps, that his shoes were too tight.
But I think that the most likely reason of all
May have been that his heart was two sizes too small.

But,
Whatever the reason,
His heart of his shoes,
He stood there on Christmas Eve, hating the Whos…

If you are unfamiliar with those words, then you are not likely the owner of one of the millions of copies of ‘How the Grinch Stole Christmas!’ in print around the world. Nor have you likely seen one of the many television, film, or theater productions based on this classic story. For many families, watching or reading this famous Dr. Seuss story has become a Christmas season tradition.

BUT, BEWARE!

Because, the Grinches appear to be multiplying. However, they are mainly people who have the misguided notation that ‘separation of church and state’ should mean separation of common sense or separation from our national heritage. Christmas is a legally recognized federal holiday.

Therefore, you can stop apologizing for it. And, you do not need to allow yourself to be forced into any politically correct version of wishing someone a Merry Christmas.

So, remember it isn’t Santa Day, or North Pole Day, or Winter Break Day, or Holiday Tree Day or even Xmas Day – it is Christmas day.

May joy and peace be yours in abundance as you remember to celebrate this blessed day.

And, 'Merry Christmas to all, even to the Grinches!'

Veteran's Day!

2008-11-10T22:46:00.001-08:00

November 11, 2008, what does this day mean to you? Just another day off work or school, or simply a bank holiday?

Today, we remember the men and women who have served bravely in our nation's armed forces. It is a day to honor them for their actions to defend this country and democracy around the globe.

Whether you voted for the new administration or the past administration, you owe thanks to our military personnel who have fought in foreign conflicts (both past and present) to defend our country. Not to mention, your right to live in a secure nation and to cast your ballot one week ago today.

With the political correctness that has evaded America in recent years came the erosion of giving thanks for our freedoms. Often, many of us are guilty of taking our First Amendment Rights for granted, our right to assembly and yes - even our right to protest, for granted.

Today, is a day set aside by our nation's leadership to honor all who served in the Air Force, Army, Coast Guard, Marines and Navy. This day is to remember those who served in the battles and those who served behind the scenes. Many who served in our nation's military conflicts gave up time away from family, friends and career. And, many who fought watched as friends were either injured or died in battle.

Perhaps, you have a neighbor or family member who served or perhaps you know someone at work who was in the armed forces. Well, then today is the day to appropriately save "thank you for serving others".

To all our nation's veterans, I salute you and extend my sincere appreciation.

2008-09-30T09:42:00.000-07:00

I am personally against H.R. 3997, the Financial Stabilization Package.

After hearing from hundreds of constituents on this issue, I could not in good conscience support this legislation.

Specifically, we should all agree that a failure of our credit markets would be a great catastrophe, and I agree that the government does have a role in ensuring that the financial markets function soundly.

However, we cannot allow the American taxpayers to become the insurance policy for financial decisions that did not turn out as planned.

I believe there were viable alternatives to H.R. 3997 that should have been explored.

I am in support of a plan that would use more free market principles. Because I believe so strongly in the principles of the free market and the God-given right of freedom, I am opposed to this bill in its present form.

My concern is that today the government has forever changed the face of the American free market, one of the greatest strengths of our great country.

Observance of Patriot Day

2008-09-11T10:32:00.000-07:00

On this observance of Patriot Day, we remember and honor those who perished in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. We will not forget the events of that terrible morning nor will we forget how Americans responded in New York City, at the Pentagon, and in the skies over Pennsylvania -- with heroism and selflessness; with compassion and courage; and with prayer and hope. We will always remember our collective obligation to ensure that justice is done, that freedom prevails, and that the principles upon which our Nation was founded endure.

PATRIOT DAY

In the United States, Patriot Day occurs on September 11 of each year, designated in memory of the nearly three thousand who died in the September 11, 2001, attacks. Most Americans refer to the day as "Nine-Eleven (9/11)," "September 11th," "Nine-one-one," or some variation thereof.

U.S. House of Representatives Joint Resolution 71 was approved by a vote of 407-0 on October 25, 2001. It requested that the President designate September 11 of each year as "Patriot Day." President George W. Bush signed the resolution into law on December 18, 2001 (as Public Law 107-89). It is a discretionary day of remembrance.

Initially, the day was called the National Day of Prayer and Remembrance for the Victims of the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001.
On September 4, 2002, President Bush used his authority created by the resolution and proclaimed September 11, 2002, as Patriot Day. He has continued to make similar declarations every year since.

On this day, the President directs that the American flag be flown at half-staff and displayed from individual American homes, at the White House, and on all U.S. government buildings and establishments, home and abroad. The President also asks Americans to observe a moment of silence beginning at 8:46 A.M. (Eastern Daylight Time) marking the first plane crash on September 11, 2001.

Innocent people lost their lives when a calm September morning was shattered by terrorists driven by hatred and destruction.

Since that day, we have seen the greatness of America further demonstrated in the courage of our brave men and women in uniform who have served and sacrificed in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and around the world to advance freedom and prevent terrorist attacks on America. As we remember September 11, 2001, we reaffirm the vows made in the earliest hours of our grief and anger. As liberty's home and defender, America will not tire, will not falter, and will not fail in fighting for the safety and security of the American people and a world free from terrorism. We will continue to bring our enemies to justice or bring justice to them. This Patriot Day, we hold steady to this task.

Ask Your Senator or Representative to Pass the Tax Extenders

2008-08-21T22:12:00.000-07:00

"All the Congress, all the accountants and tax lawyers, all the judges, and a convention of wizards all cannot tell for sure what the income tax law says." - Walter B. Wriston

Ask Your Senator or Representative to Pass the Tax Extenders

Members of Congress are now in their home districts visiting with constituents. Many Americans were disappointed that Congress did not pass the tax extenders bill in July and are hopeful that it will pass the Jobs, Energy, Families, and Disaster Relief Act of 2008 (S. 3335) in September. The bill, proposed by Senate Finance Chair Max Baucus (D-MT), would extend the research and development credit, the teacher's expense deduction, the charitable IRA rollover and approximately 60 other tax relief provisions. At a conference in Washington this week, several tax advisors asked whether or not the research and development credit will indeed be extended. CPA's attending the conference noted that it had been in effect continuously since 1981 but the deadlock in Congress could put it at risk.According to the Information Technology Association of America, the failure of Congress to renew the research credit has had a major impact on the economy. The harm to the economy has been approximately $11 billion in revenue and, more importantly, 84,000 U.S. jobs have been lost during the eight months without the credit.A 1995 survey by the Congressional Research Service (CRS) examined the value of the research and development credit. U.S. corporations claimed that the increased research encouraged by the credit leads to more jobs and a stronger economy. The CRS survey indicated that each dollar of credit granted to business resulted in a dollar of added research and development investment.Editor's Note: With the support from over four million teachers for the popular teacher's expense deduction, support by business for the research and development credit and support by charitable-minded persons for the IRA charitable rollover and other enhanced gift provisions, the tax extenders should be passed - and soon! If readers have opportunity to make contact with members of Congress during their August visits to home states and districts, please emphasize the importance of passing the extenders bill in September. With encouragement from constituents, hopefully the two parties will resolve the deadlock over offsets and pass a compromised tax extenders bill in September.

Protect Freedom of Speech

2008-06-17T09:38:00.000-07:00

The Broadcasters Freedom Act

You may have heard of the Fairness Doctrine. However, it is anything but fair.

Therefore, I strongly encourage voters to call or email their representative in Congress and
urge House Members to sign the Discharge Petition and bring the Broadcaster Freedom Act to the House floor for a vote.

BACKGROUND

The Fairness Doctrine was a United States FCC regulation requiring broadcast licensees to present controversial issues of public importance in a manner deemed by the FCC to be honest, equitable, and balanced.

In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364)[6]. The Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the constitutionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."
Under FCC Chairman Mark S. Fowler, a communications attorney who had served on Ronald Reagan's campaign staff in 1976 and 1980, the commission began to repeal parts of the Fairness Doctrine, announcing in 1985 that the doctrine hurt the public interest and violated the First Amendment.

In one landmark case, the FCC argued that teletext was a new technology that created soaring demand for a limited resource, and thus could be exempt from the Fairness Doctrine. The Telecommunications Research and Action Center (TRAC) and Media Access Project (MAP) argued that teletext transmissions should be regulated like any other airwave technology, hence the Fairness Doctrine was applicable (and must be enforced by the FCC).

In 1986, Appeals Court Judges Robert Bork and Antonin Scalia concluded that the Fairness Doctrine did apply to teletext but that the FCC was not required to apply it. In a 1987 case, Meredith Corp. v. FCC, the courts declared that Congress did not mandate the doctrine and the FCC did not have to continue to enforce it.

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.

THREAT OF RETURN

Please act now to protect our First Amendment Rights.

In summary, contact your elected official and ask them to sign this discharge petition:

Pursuant to clause 2 of rule XV, I, Mike Pence, move to discharge the Committee on Rules from the consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 694) entitled, a resolution providing for consideration of the bill (H.R. 2905) to prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

You and future generations will be glad you did!

Break The Political Gridlock in Sacramento

2008-04-16T15:27:00.000-07:00

California faces many challenges from our economy, jobs, the state budget, our schools and water supplies...

We need leaders who will work on solutions for our state. That is why I am seeking your help to address the state's process for drawing legislative districts. The current system gives power to special interests and career politicians.

This system has resulted in lopsided, partisan districts that limit the legislature's ability to work together and prevents us from addressing the pressing issues.

HELP RESCUE OUR STATE

To overcome this gridlock and get our state back on track, the 'California Voters First Act' will reform the way legislative districts are drawn by creating a 14-member independent citizen commission to redraw state legislative districts.

This takes the power to draw district lines out of the hands of lawmakers and institutes a non-partisan process that respects communities and existing city and county boundaries!

Simply put, we need a system where the voters choose their elected officials, and not allow politicians to choose the people.

In order to qualify for the November ballot, we need to collect more than a million voter signatures by April 21st.

If you care about your local community and want your influence to count - urge your friends, family and neighbors to sign the petition for this initiative.

Have questions?
Then please feel free to call me personally on (877) 853-6835 Toll Free.

Remember, EVERY signature is important!

Good Friday Observance

2008-03-21T15:36:00.000-07:00

Go Fly a Kite

There they crucified Him.
Luke 23:33

Today is Karfreitag, a German word meaning "Friday of Lamentation." In English we call it Good Friday, but other languages usually refer to it as Holy Friday. In Armenia it's called High Friday, and the Russians refer to it as Passion Friday. In China, it's known as the Day of Christ's Suffering.
In Bermuda, kites will be flown today, all of them using wooden frames in the shape of a cross. As the kites soar into the sky, they symbolize the crucified one who has now ascended into heaven. In England, hot cross buns will be served, and the BBC will introduce its morning newscast with a verse from Isaac Watts' hymn, "When I Survey the Wondrous Cross."
All over the world, Christians will pause today to ponder anew the wonder of our Lord Jesus who shed His blood for the sins of the world. Perhaps each of us should establish a personal tradition. Let's find a way and a time today to direct our thoughts to the old rugged cross and to thank God for overcoming death and making us more than conquerors through Him.

Have a BLESSED Easter!

David P. Bernal & Family

Common Sense America

2008-02-23T21:33:00.000-08:00

NEW PREAMBLE TO THE CONSTITUTION

This is probably the best e-mail I've seen in a long, long time. The following has been attributed to State Representative Mitchell Kaye from GA. This guy should run for President one day...
"We the sensible people of the United States, in an attempt to help everyone get along, restore some semblance of justice, avoid more riots, keep our nation safe, promote positive behavior, and secure the blessings of debt-free liberty to ourselves and our great-great-great-grandchildren, hereby try one more time to ordain and establish some common sense guidelines for the terminally whiny, guilt ridden, delusional, and other liberal bed-wetters. We hold these truths to be self evident: that a whole lot of people are confused by the Bill of Rights and are so dim they require a Bill of NON-Rights." ARTICLE I: You do not have the right to a new car, big screen TV, or any other form of wealth. More power to you if you can legally acquire them, but no one is guaranteeing anything.

ARTICLE II: You do not have the right to never be offended. This country is based on freedom, and that means freedom for everyone -- not just you! You may leave the room, turn the channel, express a different opinion, etc.; but the world is full of idiots, and probably always will be.

ARTICLE III: You do not have the right to be free from harm. If you stick a screwdriver in your eye, learn to be more careful; do not expect the tool manufacturer to make you and all your relatives independently wealthy.

ARTICLE IV: You do not have the right to free food and housing.
Americans are the most charitable people to be found, and will gladly help anyone in need, but we are quickly growing weary of subsidizing generation after generation of professional couch potatoes who achieve nothing more than the creation of another generation of professional couch potatoes.
(This one is my pet peeve...get an education an d go to work....don't expect everyone else to take care of you!)

ARTICLE V: You do not have the right to free health care. That would be nice, but from the looks of public housing, we're just not interested in public health care.

ARTICLE VI: You do not have the right to physically harm other people.
If you kidnap, rape, intentionally maim, or kill someone, don't be surprised if the rest of us want to see you fry in the electric chair.

ARTICLE VII: You do not have the right to the possessions of others. If you rob, cheat, or coerce away the goods or services of other citizens, don't be surprised if the rest of us get together and lock you away in a place where you still won't have the right to a big screen color TV or a life of leisure.

ARTICLE VIII: You do not have the right to a job. All of us sure want you to have a job, and will gladly help you along in hard times, but we expect you to take advantage of the opportunities of education and vocational training laid before you to make yourself useful. (AMEN!)
ARTICLE IX: You do not have the right to happiness. Being an American means that you have the right to PURSUE happiness, which by the way, is a lot easier if you are unencumbered by an over abundance of idiotic laws created by those of you who were confused by the Bill of Rights. ARTICLE X: This is an English speaking country. We don't care where you are from, English is our language. Learn it or go back to wherever you came from! (Lastly....)

ARTICLE XI: You do not have the right to change our country's history or heritage. This country was founded on the belief in one true God. And yet, you are given the freedom to believe in any religion, any faith, or no faith at all; with no fear of persecution. The phrase IN GOD WE TRUST is part of our heritage and history, and if you are uncomfortable with it, TOUGH!

If you agree, share this with a friend. No, you don't have to, and nothing tragic will befall you if you don't. I just think it's about time common sense is allowed to flourish. Sensible people of the United States speak out because if you do not, who will?

'nuff said....

Let's Say Thanks to our Troops

2007-12-24T18:15:00.000-08:00

Subject: Something important that Xerox is doing - Please do it...it only takes a second and you can send it as many times as you like

Easy to do.
If you go to this web site, www.LetsSayThanks.com you can pick out a thank you card and Xerox will print it and it will be sent to a member of the
Armed Forces currently serving in Iraq . You can't pick out who gets it, but it will go to some member of the armed services.

It would be amazing if we could get everyone we know to send one!!! This is a great site. Please send a card. It is FREE and it only takes a second.

It would be wonderful if the member received a bunch of these. Whether you are for or against the war, our guys and gals over there need to know we are behind them.

David
http://www.davidbernal.net

Don’t Just Do Something, Stand There

2007-06-05T17:22:00.000-07:00

BY SETH LEIBSOHN

Take just the recent stories of the past three weeks: Of the six alleged terrorists who were plotting to attack US Soldiers at Fort Dix last month, three of them were illegal aliens who lived in the United States for years. The tuberculosis patient who has traveled internationally, exposing untold numbers of people to a particularly difficult strain of the disease and is now under quarantine, entered the United States even though US Customs and Border Patrol was instructed to bar him from entry.

And with these stories, we are poised to pass an immigration bill that would flood the already-broken immigration, border, and legal system with a minimum of 12 million illegal aliens—granting them legal status. Is it not clear that the newly formed US Immigration and Customs Enforcement office of the Department of Homeland Security is already broken, unable to carry out its fundamental and basic functions? And if it is clear, is it not folly to further overwhelm that office thinking it will keep America safe and protect us from further internal lapses and chasms in our ability to track illegal entrants into our country who can do us great harm?

Speaking about the current legislation this past weekend on Fox News Sunday, Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich had it right:

[The] bill explicitly grandfathers in somewhere between 10 million and 20 million people. We don't know the number because the government has no idea how many there are—again, an example of incompetence. The government doesn't know within a million how many people will be grandfathered in.

They're all, in effect, made permanent temporary workers the day the bill is signed. They have to go through one day of filling out a form. There is zero possibility the federal government will be able to process those forms.…

It would have grandfathered the three terrorists in New Jersey.

Meanwhile, we are told that nobody will be given legal status—not one person, not twelve million persons, not twenty million persons—from their current illegal status without a series of security triggers that include background checks and further border enforcement measures. But Matthew Spalding of the Heritage Foundation and Kris Kobach University of Missouri-Kansas City have already analyzed that supposed provision and found it simply untrue:

Section 1(a) allows probationary Z visas to be issued immediately after enactment, and Section 601(f)(2) prohibits the federal government from waiting more than 180 days after enactment to begin issuing probationary Z visas.…

Moreover, the "probationary" designation means little. These visas are nearly as good as non-probationary Z visas, giving the alien immediate lawful status, protection from deportation, authorization to work, and the ability to exit and reenter the country (with advance permission).

Perhaps this is why Steve Moore (of the Wall Street Journal Editorial Page), one of the strongest advocates for more immigration into this country, debating the current legislation on Bill Bennett’s Morning in America last week, said he would eliminate the Z visa from the current legislation. (Audio of Moore’s debate with Mark Krikorian of the Center for Immigration Studies is included in the right-hand column.)

Yes, the rhetoric against conservatives is increasingly hotter from the Left and the pro-path-to-citizenship Republicans—we want nothing short of deportation, they tell us. The President has said “if you don't want to do what's right for America, you can pick one little aspect out of [the legislation], you can use it to frighten people.” The Secretary of Homeland Security has said, to many opponents of this legislation, “anything other than capital punishment is an amnesty.” U.S. Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) has said of opponents of the current legislation, “We’re going to tell the bigots to shut up.”

The truth is, we are not bigots, we do not want capitol punishment, we do not want mass deportation, and we do want what’s best for America—including a better system for more legal immigration. And, believe it or not, we can get somewhere helpful on immigration here in Washington.

So, here’s a better plan—one which has been alluded to by Andrew C. McCarthy of National Review: Do nothing with the 12-20 million illegals here now. That’s right, no Z-Visa, no mass deportation, no path to citizenship, no rounding up—nothing.

The truth is, we have lived with the illegal population for quite some time now. Whence comes the exigency to do something now?

What we can and should do is encourage their attrition, piecemeal.

Few are against securing the border (or so they say). So secure it. Build the full fence and show some seriousness about protecting our country. In the meantime, we need to stop the silly sound-bite that if you build a ten-foot fence the illegal immigrants will find an eleven-foot ladder. With enough border patrol, the ladders become irrelevant.

But, we can and should deport illegal persons piecemeal and over time as they, themselves, come out of the shadows—as of course they will whenever they have cause to show an i.d. to a government agency or employer; or if they show a fake ID; or if they are arrested for other crimes; or if they are merely pulled over for traffic violations.

At those points, let us show our ability to handle the law as it is now, which allows for the deportation of illegal aliens.

Earlier this year, Michelle Malkin pointed out that we have doubt enough with our task as it is, never mind absorbing 12 million (minimum) more illegal citizens and requiring their legal mainstreaming and processing. Among other things, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services “has lost track of 111,000 files in 14 of the agency's busiest district offices and processed as many as 30,000 citizenship applications last year without the required files.”

We are being asked in the pending Senate legislation to adopt a whole series and set of laws, regulations, and procedures that depend on our—or the government’s—ability to actually effectuate those requirements that few have confidence we can effectuate rightly. How can we think of reforming something called Section 101(a)(15)(H)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act to solve our problems with absorbing a minimum of 12 million illegal aliens when we have yet to solidify the southern border? That’s what irks about the long, Rube Goldbergian machinations of the proposed law. We cannot even make the current law work.

Let’s try the law as it is now, first—and prove our ability.

Let’s put illegal immigration on the course of ultimate extinction by tolerating no more furtherance, or rewarding, of it—but without taking any drastic measures either.

So, yes, don’t just do something, stand there. It’d prove a lot.

Prayer For Our Nation

2007-05-01T13:44:00.000-07:00

2007 Prayer for Our Nation
Written by Dr. Charles R. Swindoll

Almighty God, we pause to reflect on Your character as we seek wisdom for such a time as this.

In these unsafe days,
You remain all-powerful and able to protect;

In these uncertain times,
You remain all-knowing, leading us aright;

In the unprecedented events we're facing,
You remain absolutely sovereign.
Our times are in Your hands.

Therefore, our dependence on You, is total, not partial
. . . our need for Your forgiveness is constant

. . . our gratitude for Your grace is profound

. . . our love for You is deep.

We ask that You guard and guide our President
and all who serve the people of these United States.
May uncompromising integrity mark their lives.

We also ask that You unite us as truly "one nation,
under God." May genuine humility return to our ranks.

And may that blend of integrity and humility
heal our land.

In our Lord's name we pray,

Amen.

Lobbying Reform (what’s wrong with this picture?)

2007-03-30T12:27:00.000-07:00

Recently, the Washington Times weekend edition reported the results of a Gallup Poll released on Jan. 30, entitled "Poll Finds Solid Ties Between Faith, American Well-Being." Well-being means health, confidence, productivity, positive attitudes, concern for others and overall strength.

As expressed, the poll "measures the extent to which Americans believe in God, act out their belief and impact secular America in real terms: in the workplace, in volunteerism, in business dealings." In short, it pictures how our faith, in whatever form, defines who we are and what we do.

Believers are many: 82 percent of the respondents believe in God, while 13 percent more believe in a "universal spirit or higher power." Fully three-quarters say they are Christian, 6 percent are labeled non-Christian, and 18 percent have no religious tradition. A majority – 58 percent – say success in life is "pretty much determined" by religious and spiritual forces. Adds the Times, "Such thinking may have its own rewards: 83 percent said their work 'is helping make the world a better place.'"

In the new Congress, there is a proposal to designate churches, pastors, religious denominations, public interest organizations and other non-profit groups as 'lobbyists’.

There's a good-sounding expressed intent for this proposed legislation designating religious groups lobbyists, as championed for some time by Sen. Ted Kennedy and others. They say they want to curb "hate speech," anything that opposes homosexual goals or acceptance; and they particularly want to stifle the strong influence brought to bear on elections and national policy by "special interests" – including churches, clergy and religious organizations that disagree with their agenda (e.g., U.S. Catholic Bishops).

And here's how they see it working: Lobbyists must register with the government; this new bill expands the definition of "lobbyist" to include any church or organization that strives to influence public opinion! This bill would also drastically affect the operation of churches that speak out on major moral and political issues, and Christian organizations using TV, radio or the Internet to mobilize citizens around an issue. Many churches, especially larger ones with TV and radio ministries, would be subject to registration as "lobbying organizations." Failure to register under this new law could result in criminal prosecution – fines of up to $100,000, and prison sentences of six and in some cases 10 years.

One analysis of the proposed legislation states "… in essence, free speech is forbidden. To regulate and restrict free speech, to effectively stop people from speaking out on the issues, is exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended when they included in the First Amendment to the Constitution the right 'to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As Lincoln so beautifully expressed it, our government is supposed to be "of the people, by the people and for the people" – not of, by and for certain biased legislators and jurists.

The two prongs of the legislation are S.B. 1 and H.R. 90. The Senate bill already passed in January, largely "defanged" for now by amendment, thanks in part to alarms rung loudly by some proudly religious grass-roots groups. In the House, the "Full Disclosure in Lobbying Act" is now pending action by the Judiciary Committee.

Is this a good law and/or use of your hard-earned taxpayer dollars?

Just How High Are the U.S. Debt Figures?

2007-02-26T11:48:00.000-08:00

The Bush Administration cut the fiscal 2006 deficit estimate from $400 billion down to $296 billion. Between this optimistic deficit projection and other statistics suggesting the high-powered monetary base has leveled out, analysts are sighing in relief. "Everything that has happened in recent weeks is extremely favorable," said Laurence H. Meyer, a former Fed governor.

Frankly, the deficit figures are all lies. The long-term future is not favorable, it's a looming disaster. Like an iceberg with only a piece of visible ice protruding above the sea, published deficits are nothing compared to the submerged mountain on which they sit.

Assuming you're determined to survive financially, you need to understand how this lie is covered up. The fraud is perpetrated through accounting trickery.

In accounting there are two methods to keep books: on the cash basis or accrual basis. You use the cash basis to balance your checkbook. You add up all the deposits to your account and subtract all the written checks. Deposit $50,000 in your account in one year and write $49,000 worth of checks and you appear to have a $1,000 surplus for the year.

But cash-basis accounting doesn't tell the real story. If you also ran up $5,000 on your American Express card, which isn't due until next year, accrual accounting would reveal your $4,000 deficit. Businesses always use the accrual method to report their finances. Public companies are actually forced by law to use accrual accounting. But politicians don't apply that law to themselves.

Government covers its budget deficit by borrowing, issuing T-bonds, T-notes, and T-bills. Over the past few decades, the total of these IOUs has reached a mind-boggling $8.2 trillion. But the federal government also promises pensions for government employees. It collects Social Security taxes, promising to pay retirement benefits to private sector worker! s. It collects Medicare premiums and promises to pay future health care costs. None of these promises show up in their cash-basis budget figures. The accumulated cash-basis deficits that comprise the $8.2 trillion federal debt are only the tip of the iceberg. Estimates of the true, accrued federal debt are now as high as $65 trillion.

A decade ago Peter G. Petersen, former Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and currently Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote, "If federal law required Congress to fund Social Security the way private pensions must be funded, the annual federal deficit would instantly rise by some $675 billion. Add in our lavish and unfunded federal employee pensions and the deficit would rise by $800 billion. Add in Medicare and it would rise by more than $1 trillion." And that was a decade ago-it's much worse today. Petersen then noted, "If private-sector executives ran their pension systems this way, they would be thrown in jail for wholesale violation of federal pension-plan regulations."

"Wall Street has yet to react to these obviously unfinanceable numbers." said Petersen. "When will it? Since financial markets try to anticipate events, the reaction will surely come years before the first Boomers start retiring on Social Security, in 2008. ...we will almost certainly see a full-scale economic emergency as interest rates roar into outer space." Well, 2008 is getting mighty close. The American economy, like the Titanic, is heading full steam ahead into an economic iceberg.

So, who is responsible for telling you the truth of what goes on in Washington, anyway? And, when will you begin to make your voice heard?

Public Servant

2007-01-02T22:18:00.000-08:00

As I reflect, on President Ford’s life of service to our country and the comments that have been made…

I think whatever happened to the idea of being a public servant?

In the case of our founding fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford – they didn’t strive to make a great name for themselves, but to make this a better country.

When we look at the people and/or events that have shaped our lives, we tend to gravitate towards those who believe the best in us and others. And, we tend to love those people who are consistent and transparent.

“The nation remembered Gerald R. Ford (today) for what he didn’t have — pretensions, a scheming agenda, and a great golf game— as much as for the small-town authenticity he brought to the presidency.”

And, “the 38th president was celebrated for treating politics as a calling rather than blood sport.”[1]

“In his understated way he did his duty as a leader, not as a performer playing to the gallery,” Kissinger said. “Gerald Ford had the virtues of small-town America.”

Isn’t it a shame that these comments are made because they are the exception, rather than the rule?

Honesty, integrity and a desire to serve others are not normal behavior for our legislators.

With my own talent and gifts, I seek to walk in the footsteps of my heroes, Abraham Lincoln, Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford.

We all recognize that these men were not faultless, yet all made meaningful contributions to the lives of others and the country they served.

I shall strive to do the same.

Please join me in my prayers for Betty Ford and the rest of President Ford’s family.

[1] MSNBC - Italics added for emphasis

The Invisible Presidential Primary Begins

2006-12-07T22:15:00.000-08:00

The midterm elections are still being dissected and the race for 2008 is off and running.
The invisible primary -- that preseason horserace of "who stands where" in presidential politics -- is under way.
"As usual, it is starting early," said Dr. Christopher Hull, a political science professor at Georgetown University. "But, in fact, it's starting earlier than usual."
The invisible primary is the name social scientists and pundits give to that time before the real primaries begin -- a time when declared candidates stand alongside "exploratory" hopefuls, all waiting to be ranked by the news media and pollsters in terms of who has raised the most money, who has the most endorsements and who is polling the best.
"There is a significant school of really smart people who suggest that you can predict who the nominee is going to be -- at least the ranked order of the finishers -- with almost complete success by knowing who won the invisible primary," Hull said. "I contend, however, that the actual campaign has a lot to do with it."
Based on the early numbers, three U.S. senators and a former mayor of New York City are the early front-runners in the invisible primary for 2008.
Republican Arizona Sen. John McCain, Democratic New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Illinois Democratic Sen. Barack Obama are already lining up campaign staff and wooing voters in Iowa and New Hampshire, according to Hull. So, too, is former Mayor Rudy Giuliani.
Hull said Clinton is perceived as a clear front-runner in the Democratic field.
"She is trying to position herself as a moderate -- and is already running towards the center," Hull said. "As Nixon used to say, you have to 'run right, then run left'-- first tap your party's base and then move to the opposite (wing) to win the general election. In the Democrats' case, Mrs. Clinton appears to already be positioning herself for the general election."
Obama, the freshman Democratic senator from Illinois, is gaining rock-star-like visibility and support from many in the media, including talk-show host and business-magnate Oprah Winfrey.
"Obama is a phenomenon," Hull said. "But, we have yet to see how he reacts to the tests and the perils of the presidential race."
The 2004 Democratic presidential nominee, Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., clearly has strong interest in another run, Hull added.
"He may have done himself damage late in the last election cycle, however, with his botched joke -- a phrase that is probably going to be etched on his tombstone," the professor said in reference to a comment made about getting stuck in Iraq.
In addition, former Vice President Al Gore appears to be interested in another run, and Indiana Gov. Evan Bayh, a moderate, is also giving indications he may try for the nomination.
On the Republican side, Hull said it's no surprise to anybody that McCain, who did well in the 2000 contest, is positioning himself for another bid -- and is poised to be front-runner.
"For Republicans, the front-runner usually wins the nomination," he added.
The surprise, he said, is Giuliani's early strength.
"Given his position on gay rights and on gun control, his position on abortion -- and also, to some extent, some of the personal questions that surrounded him when he was mayor of New York -- it is likely we'll see some erosion in those numbers," Hull added.
In addition, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is being mentioned as someone who might appeal to the base of the Republican Party.
"He's regarded as an intellectual leader in the party, and he's regarded as an ideological leader," Hull added.
With the exit of Sen. George Allen of Virginia from the likely calculations because he failed to win re-election to the Senate, Hull said there's a gaping hole on the Republican right.
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney is well-poised to benefit from that gap, Hull said.
"Romney has managed to position himself as a mainstream conservative while serving as a Republican governor in a staunchly Democratic state, which is an impressive feat," he added. "It also draws into the calculations, interestingly enough, people like Sen. Sam Brownback, who is a staunch social conservative. Brownback is probably poised to gain in recognition."
Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee's name is also being bandied about.
"Governor Huckabee has an interesting story, because to some extent, one of his major issues is the obesity issue," Hull said of the official who's dropped quite a few pounds. "He is a sort of a born-again thin person. That is an interesting personal experience he brings to bear."
The Polls: Off and Running
Two major national polls were released today. One, conducted by Opinion Dynamics for Fox News, sampled 900 voters, asking them who they would vote for if the Democratic and Republican primaries were held today.
On the Democratic side, 33 percent of self-identified Democrats said they would support Clinton; 12 percent said Obama; 11 percent, Gore, 8 percent, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards; 6 percent, Kerry; 2 percent, Bayh; 2 percent, Delaware Sen. Joe Biden; 2 percent, Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack; 1 percent, retired Gen. Wesley Clark; and 1 percent, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who declared today he will seek his party's nomination.
On the Republican side, Giuliani came in first at 30 percent; McCain scored 23 percent; Gingrich, 9 percent; Romney, 8 percent; Brownback, 3 percent; New York Gov. George Pataki, 2 percent, and California Rep. Duncan Hunter, 1 percent.
A similar poll, the WNBC/Marist Poll, has similar findings, but gave Edwards, the 2004 Democratic vice presidential nominee, a second-place finish at 14 percent. The poll also listed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who has indicated she is not a candidate, as garnering 15 percent.
In addition, the Marist Poll mentioned Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, Nebraska Sen. Chuck Hagel and Huckabee -- all of whom polled 1 percent or less.
"At this point, we know that the early polls are measures of name identification -- people's familiarity with candidates," said Karlyn Bowman of the American Enterprise Institute.
"Clearly, they are much more familiar with Rudy Giuliani, John McCain and Hillary Clinton than they are with any of the other people mentioned, so we have to take these early polls with a grain of salt."
Bowman said the two polls are national samples -- but caucus voters in Iowa and primary voters in New Hampshire in 2008 may have very different opinions by the time they cast their ballots.
"They can propel a candidate," Bowman said. "Let's say a Sam Brownback or a Mitt Romney does well in Iowa -- that can propel him on to New Hampshire or South Carolina, depending on how things line up. And once that happens, people all of the sudden start paying attention, and these numbers can shift."
As it stands, the invisible primary is not make-or-break time for presidential politics, according to both Bowman and Hull.
"If the invisible primary was make-or-break time, then Howard Dean would have been the Democratic nominee in 2004," Hull said. "Clearly the invisible primary was won by Howard Dean. He raised $50 million and was leading pretty dramatically in national polling, but his loss in Iowa transferred the momentum to Kerry."
In the end, the experts say the invisible primary is extremely important for setting the playing field -- but it's not the ballgame, just the pre-season.

California - 11th Congressional District

2006-11-25T04:13:00.000-08:00

Regain Republican Control

Do you believe it is possible for the Republicans to regain control of the 11th District?

Why or Why Not?