Thursday, 30 July 2009
Corker on Sotomayor; Blue Dogs compromise

PLEASANT NEWS FLASH: TN Senator Bob Corker joins 22 other Republican Senators expressing their opposition to the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor to the US Supreme Court:

Corker Announces His Intentions on the Sotomayor Nomination

 WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Bob Corker, R-Tenn., made the following statement today regarding the nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the U.S. Supreme Court.
“Judge Sotomayor has an impressive background and an inspiring American story. I enjoyed meeting with her in June and let her know I would reserve judgment on her nomination until the conclusion of a fair and thorough hearings process,” said Corker. “After much deliberation and careful review, I have determined that Judge Sotomayor’s record and many of her past statements reflect a view of the Supreme Court that is different from my own. I view the Supreme Court as a body charged with impartially deciding what the law means as it is applied to a specific case. I believe Judge Sotomayor views the Supreme Court as more of a policy-making body where laws are shaped based on the personal views of the justices. Unfortunately, nothing I heard during Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings or in my meeting with her in June sufficiently allayed this concern. For this reason, I’m disappointed to say, I will not be able to support Judge Sotomayor’s nomination.”
to send him a thank you note. 
Senator Alexander has not yet voiced his decision.  Click HERE to send him an email urging his opposition.


COMMENT:  We received word late yesterday afternoon that four 'Blue Dog' Democrats, Mike Ross (AR), Zack Space (OH), Bart Gordon (TN), and Baron Hill (IN) had arrived as some compromises that will be the bill out of the House energy and Commerce Committee.  There are now five versions of the bill working through the legislative process.  Whatever 'improvement' the Blue Dogs think they have achieved may be very short lived as the bills continue the legislative journey.
We are being told that a floor vote will not come until after the August recess -- and that it may be closer December before the final vote is taken. We still have time to continue to push and must not 'grow weary in well doing'.

To send an email to both Tennessee Senators and your own Congressman,
email click
NOTE:  The text of the email may be edited it you want to change the message in any way.
If you prefer to make phone calls, which is even better or you want to contact
a congressman other than your own, go
HERE for numbers.
Out-of-state subscribers can find their Senators
HERE; find your congressman HERE.


1. Betsy McCaughey: Obamacare Denies Specialty Care to Elderly
2. Dem Leaders,'Blue Dogs' Compromise
3. Keeping a Bad Bill Bad: Democratic Leaders Block 31 Common-Sense Changes to Health Care Bill
4. Support Slips for Health Plan

5. House health-Care Bill Would Establish 'Medical Homes' for the Elderly and Disabled

6. House Republicans Unveil $700B Healthcare Plan

1. Betsy McCaughey: Obamacare Denies Specialty Care to Elderly:
Former N.Y. Lieutenant Gov. McCaughey notes an atrocious mandate in the House healthcare bill requiring counseling for seniors on how to end their lives early. She says the bill is even more punishing to the elderly than “HillaryCare” would’ve been.

2. Dem Leaders,'Blue Dogs' Compromise
House Democratic leaders won a key breakthrough on health care Wednesday that allows Congress to adjourn until September declaring progress, even if it falls short of the House passage that Speaker Nancy Pelosi promised less than two weeks ago.
By overcoming the resistance of four fiscally conservative "Blue Dog" Democrats, party leaders hoped to clear the legislation through a final committee this week, striking a rough consensus and avoiding what threatened to be a major blow to President Obama and Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat who is proving herself his closest ally on the issue.
The concessions won by Blue Dogs would shave about 10 percent from the health care overhaul's $1 trillion, 10-year price tag, in part by limiting subsidies to people who are not insured. The exemption for small businesses would be doubled so that only businesses with payrolls greater than $500,000 a year would be required to offer insurance or pay a tax equivalent to 8 percent of their payroll.
In addition, the government would negotiate rates with health care providers instead of using Medicare rates in the government or "public option" available to those who do not get health insurance through their employers or a government plan.
Tumult in the Capitol over health care has exposed the political volatility of what Obama has set as a key goal of his presidency.
After the hint of a deal was announced, Pelosi spent Wednesday fending off a counter-rebellion by alarmed liberals who feared too much had been compromised to get the committee votes of just four conservative Democrats....
Key points in compromise
The deal struck with conservative House Democrats would:
Cut about 10 percent from the health care overhaul's $1 trillion, 10-year price tag, in part by limiting subsidies to people who are not insured.
Require only businesses with payrolls greater than $500,000 a year to provide health benefits to employees or pay a tax equal to 8 percent of their payroll. The previous limit was $250,000 a year.
Negotiate rates with health care providers rather than using Medicare rates in the government or "public option" available to people who don't get insurance through employers or a government plan.
Read more here.

3. Keeping a Bad Bill Bad: Democratic Leaders Block 31 Common-Sense Changes to Health Care Bill
Dems Block GOP Amendments to Scrap Government Takeover of Health Care, Stop Job-Killing Employer Mandate and Small Business Tax 

Washington, Jul 28 - The Democratic leadership in Congress appears determined to produce a costly, job-killing health care bill that few outside the Washington Beltway support.  For evidence, one need only look at the long list of common-sense changes House Republicans proposed this month while the bill was being considered by the Ways & Means, Energy & Commerce, and Education & Labor Committees.  These amendments, which were designed to make the health care bill more palatable to the American people, were unceremoniously crushed by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and her committee chairmen with little public attention or debate.  Here are 31 common-sense health care amendments that were offered by Republican legislators in committee, but killed by the Democratic leadership: Read more here.

4. Support Slips for Health Plan
Support for President Barack Obama's health-care effort has declined over the past five weeks, particularly among those who already have insurance, a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found, amid prolonged debate over costs and quality of care. In mid-June, respondents were evenly divided when asked whether they thought Mr. Obama's health plan was a good or bad idea. In the new poll, conducted July 24-27, 42% called it a bad idea while 36% said it was a good idea.Among those with private insurance, the proportion calling the plan a bad idea rose to 47% from 37%.
Read more here.

5. House health-Care Bill Would Establish 'Medical Homes' for the Elderly and Disabled
The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans. 
Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.
Read more here.

6. House Republicans Unveil $700B Healthcare Plan
House Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a $700 billion health care plan that would offer tax credits to help people buy insurance, yet unlike Democratic proposals, wouldn't require either individuals or employers to get coverage.
Some of the ideas in the plan appeal to moderate Democrats, but with Republicans out of power, there's little likelihood their proposal will be enacted. Nonetheless, it will give GOP lawmakers under fire for their opposition to President Barack Obama's plan something positive to point to when they go home for the congressional August break.
"We are introducing this bill because we support health care reform, but in way that empowers patients," said Brendan Buck, a spokesman for the House Republican Study Committee. "While the president continues to insist there is appetite for the status quo in Congress, it's not coming from Republicans."
The GOP plan was drafted by Rep. Tom Price, R-Ga., a physician. It avoids expanding the federal role in overseeing the health insurance industry. Unlike Democratic proposals, it would not set up new federally regulated purchasing pools for individuals and small businesses. Instead, it would allow individuals to use the Internet to purchase lower-cost coverage available anywhere in the country. That idea won't please insurance commissioners from states with strong consumer protections, who have argued it will set off a "race to the bottom" that undermines coverage for those in frail health.
Read more here

Posted on 07/30/2009 7:30 AM by Bobbie Patray
Wednesday, 29 July 2009
Holding the line for another few days!!

COMMENT:  Be encouraged ---  if we can just keep the pressure on until the August recess next week, I predict that Senators and Congressmen will get a 'ear full' from their constituents while they are home. We are in the process of compiling a list of events where you can see and speak with members of the Tennessee Delegation during the recess.
Folks, we ARE making a difference - Cong. Jim Cooper (D-District 5)is now opposed.  Remember the illegal immigration bill in 2007?  It was supposed to be a 'shoo-in' too, but we DEFEATED it. 
If your Congressman is a 'blue dog' -- be wise. When making your contacts no need to be derogatory about the Democrat leadership. Rather, let them know that they can and should exercise their leadership to slow or stop the progress of this health care reform that reduces the quality and availability of medical care; that this is not a partisan issue but a matter of life and death and who makes that decision--doctors and patients or bureaucrats.

Despite the claims from some congressional offices, there IS an abortion connection. 
Stop the Abortion Mandate Now.
See articles below for information on the danger to senior citizens.

Redeem the time for the days are evil -- it has never more important for you to exercise your right and responsibility to influence public policy and law making.  Please make the contacts and pass this on to others.

Cong. Phil Roe
Freshman Congressman Dr. Phil Roe, M.D.,(Ist District, Morristown) gave an impressive speech (especially about the problems with the terrible ObamaCare bill) at the Annual Statesman's Dinner in Nashville, July 25, where he committed to 'standing in front of the (ObamaCare) bus' to stop its passage. It was such a pleasure to speak with him after the dinner and to learn that he is familiar with Eagle Forum, stating that he has a great deal of respect for the work that we do!!  That's what we like to hear on both fronts.

You can view the Senate proposal
You can view the House proposal

To send an email to both Tennessee Senators and your own Congressman,
email click
NOTE:  The text of the email may be edited it you want to change the message in any way.
If you prefer to make phone calls, which is even better or you want to contact
a congressman other than your own, go
HERE for numbers.

Out-of-state subscribers can find their Senators
HERE; find your congressman HERE.

1.  Reluctant 'no' to House Bill
2.  Blue Dog Democrats Hold Health-Care Overhaul at Bay
3.  Deadly Doctors [The lives of senior citizens ARE in danger --VERY IMPORTANT]
4. O's Broken Promises
5.  Democrats Censor Mailing of Health Care Bill Chart

1. Reluctant 'no' to House bill
Congressman Jim Cooper: This morning, I will appear on CBS' Face the Nation to discuss health-care reform with President Barack Obama's adviser David Axelrod and Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal.
I will probably be asked how I intend to vote on the House bill that is scheduled for a vote this week.
Sadly, my answer will be "no."
As Obama's campaign chairman in Tennessee, as a longtime instructor of health policy at the Owen Business School at Vanderbilt University, and as a veteran of the disappointing health-care debates of the early '90s, I am dismayed at the prospect of voting "no."
Read more here.

2. Blue Dog Democrats Hold Health-Care Overhaul at Bay
WASHINGTON -- So-called Blue Dog Democrats continued to resist key aspects of their party's health-care overhaul Sunday, despite pressure from party leaders who fear they will endanger President Barack Obama's most ambitious legislative effort.
A leader of the fiscally conservative group of representatives said he expects any vote on the House's health proposal would have to wait, likely until after Labor Day. "I think the American people want to take a closer look at this legislation. They want to feel more comfortable with it," Rep. Jim Cooper, a Blue Dog from Tennessee, said on CBS's "Face the Nation."
Read more here.

THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the de cisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.
Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else

Read more here.

4. O's Broken Promises [excerpts]
PRESIDENT Obama promises that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it," even after he reforms our health-care system. That's untrue. The bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.
One troubling provision of the House bill compels seniors to submit to a counseling session every five years (and more often if they become sick or go into a nursing home) about alternatives for end-of-life care (House bill, p. 425-430). The sessions cover highly sensitive matters such as whether to receive antibiotics and "the use of artificially administered nutrition and hydration." 
Read more here

5.  Democrats Censor Mailing of Health Care Bill Chart
Republican Rep. Kevin Brady (R-Texas) also found himself being censored yesterday by Democrats who refused to allow mailings that included a
chart (pdf) he asked his Republican staff at the Joint Economic Committee to create. Democrats have to approve these mailings under the House “franked” mail system -- the system by which communications are sent between Congress and constituents that requires the member signature in place of a stamp. The President, Congress and some cabinet members are afforded this “franked” mail system for constituent communications to ensure the free flow of information.
There are three Republicans and three Democrats on the Franking Commission tasked with approval of franked mail pieces to ensure there is no abuse of the system. The Democrats are refusing to let newsletters that include the chart be mailed. I spoke with Brady late yesterday about the dustup and asked him how the chart was created.
Read more here.

Posted on 07/29/2009 5:45 AM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 23 July 2009
Does Pelosi have the votes??

COMMENT: We don't know if Pelosi is telling the truth or if this is a ploy to discourage both the public and the congressmen who are opposing this health care proposal.  Folks this is a 'hill worth dying on' meaning that regardless of what happens, our JOB is to be faithful, not giving up -- this country is worth fighting for. As you can see below, Obama's numbers are falling like a rock.
If you want an excellent glimpse of what we could face if this becomes law, you will want to read every word of the article below comparing TennCare to ObamaCare. It is chilling. If we can just keep this from passing until the August Recess, I expect that congressmen will get an earful from their
constituents while they are back in the district which can only help our cause. 

1. Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth
2.  Tennessee's Troubled 'Public Option' - TennCare - Could Foreshadow Obama's Health Care Plan

NEWS FLASH:  Speaker Nancy Pelosi says Democrats have the votes to pass health care legislation in the House, even though negotiations are under way to make changes in the bill to satisfy some of its critics.
The House's top Democrat declined to say when she will call for the vote on President Barack Obama's top domestic priority. She says she wants to see what the Senate's plans are.
The California Democrat made her comments at a news conference Wednesday. She spoke as conservatives and the White House seek changes to impose greater cost controls on health care. Other members of the rank and file seek additional changes.
“…the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher-quality, more affordable health care for patients. In fact, it will do the opposite. In general, the proposals under discussion are not patient focused or results oriented. …The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.


FROM THE MAYO CLINIC: The Mayo Clinic, one of the world’s most recognized hospitals, announced its opposition to the healthcare reform bill now under consideration in the House of Representatives. In a bluntly worded statement posted on its health policy blog the Clinic left no doubt about what it thinks of the Obama/Pelosi socialized healthcare plan. Here are some excerpts:
The Mayo Clinic is not the first to dispute Obama’s claim that socialized healthcare will be more affordable or “save money.”
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office stated that the plan, with it’s $1.5 trillion price tag, “significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs.” And, as we reported yesterday, several of the nation’s Democrat governors have expressed their concern that this massive federal takeover of healthcare will result in “the mother of all unfunded mandates.”

To send an email to both Tennessee Senators and your own Congressman,
email click
NOTE:  The text of the email may be edited it you want to change the message in any way.
If you prefer to make phone calls, which is even better or you want to contact
a congressman other than your own, go
HERE for numbers.

Out-of-state subscribers can find their Senators
HERE; find your congressman HERE.

1. Obama's Poll Numbers Are Falling to Earth
It is simply wrong for commentators to continue to focus on President Barack Obama's high levels of popularity, and to conclude that these are indicative of high levels of public confidence in the work of his administration. Indeed, a detailed look at recent survey data shows that the opposite is most likely true. The American people are coming to express increasingly significant doubts about his initiatives, and most likely support a different agenda and different policies from those that the Obama administration has advanced.
Polling data show that Mr. Obama's approval rating is dropping and is below where George W. Bush was in an analogous period in 2001. Rasmussen Reports data shows that Mr. Obama's net presidential approval rating -- which is calculated by subtracting the number who strongly disapprove from the number who strongly approve -- is just six, his lowest rating to date.
Overall, Rasmussen Reports shows a 56%-43% approval, with a third strongly disapproving of the president's performance. This is a substantial degree of polarization so early in the administration. Mr. Obama has lost virtually all of his Republican support and a good part of his Independent support, and the trend is decidedly negative.
Read more here.

2. Tennessee’s Troubled ‘Public Option’ – TennCare – Could Foreshadow Obama’s Health Care Plan
Monday, July 20, 2009
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

State of Tennessee (in red)
( – A government-run health insurance plan is enacted on the promise of increasing competition and bringing down costs, but over the years, as more people leave their private insurance to take the “public option,” the cost to operate the government plan skyrockets.
Various litigation ensues, preventing the government’s attempt to reform or cut benefits. Eventually, dramatic cuts become necessary.
This is not a hypothetical scenario sketched by opponents of the health care overhaul plans working their way through Congress. Rather, it is the case of what happened with a state plan in Tennessee.
Tennessee is in the process of cutting about 150,000 people from the TennCare program after a reevaluation of enrollee eligibility to participate in the state-run insurance program.
TennCare, the managed care Medicaid program that began in 1994, now serves about 1.2 million people in the state and has a $7 billion budget. That’s after cuts were made.
Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) was a Tennessee state senator through much of the TennCare problems and believes it is a forecast of what would happen under federal health care “public option” plan. While supporters of the Tennessee program said it would save money, it wound up eating 38 percent of the state’s budget, she said.
“As a result of this, insurance rates for those who have private coverage were going through the roof,” Blackburn told a gathering at the conservative Heritage Foundation last week.
“There is no example that you can point to that shows where having private insurance in competition with the public option brings the costs down. It leads to exploding costs,” she said.
Gov. Phil Bredesen’s office referred to the TennCare office for comment. A TennCare spokesperson Carol Fite told on Friday that no one in the office would be able to speak about the matter that day.
Read move here.
Posted on 07/23/2009 9:58 AM by Bobbie Patray
Saturday, 18 July 2009
Expensive Health Care Bill Rolled Out, includes abortion funding

COMMENT: Folks -- it matters who governs!!!  There are consequences to choices that are made.  As a nation, we are continuing to 'reap' the consequences of what was 'sown' in November 2008 election.  The "Affordable Health Dare Choices Act' was finally rolled out yesterday (no number yet). A recent polls revealed that 86% of the American people support abortion restrictions. Click HERE. Never mind, not only are the liberals intent on 'breaking the bank' with this expensive, unworkable, mandatory health care bill, they want to make sure that it includes abortion funding and they want to steam roll it though.  Don't miss the fifth article which details the committee vote on pro-life amendments.

The late Everett Dirksen commented: "When they feel the heat, they will see the light". That is our JOB -- make our congressmen and senators fully aware of our opposition to this proposal.  Click
HERE to find phone number; click HERE to send an email.

Out-of-state subscribers go
HERE to find your Congressman.  Go HERE
to find your Senators.

1.  Obama Health Care Plan Will Provide Taxpayer-Funded Abortion on Demand, Congressmen say
2.  House Rolls out plan to make health care a right
3.  Health Bill Taxes Small Business, Mandates Coverage
4.  In health bill, billions for parks, paths
5.  Summary of votes on pro-life amendments in Senate HELP Committee Healthcare Bill Markup.

1. Obama Health Care Plan Will Provide Taxpayer-Funded Abortion on Demand, Congressmen say
Wednesday, July 15, 2009

By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer
Democrats in both the House and the Senate want abortion be included as a health benefit in both government and private insurance plans, leading to millions more abortions, a Republican lawmaker warned.
Taxpayer money would be used to pay for abortions in the government-run health care option.
But congressional Republicans, strongly opposed to an abortion requirement in health care reform, are pushing for a ban on using taxpayer money to pay for such procedures.
On Tuesday, pro-life members of Congress said the plan’s approach to abortion is essentially the same as the Freedom of Choice Act, which would strip states’ right to limit abortion, establish abortion on demand across the country and allow federal funds to pay for the procedure.
Read more here.

2.  House Rolls out plan to make health care a right

WASHINGTON (AP) - House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
Health care overhaul is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority, and his goal is to slow rising costs and provide coverage to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.
Democratic leaders said they would push the measure through committee and toward a vote in the full House by month's end, while the pace of activity quickened on the other side of the Capitol.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said he wanted floor debate to begin a week from Monday. Other officials said that timetable was likely to slip. Even so, it underscored a renewed sense of urgency.
Read more here

3. Health Bill Taxes Small Business, Mandates Coverage

 House Democrats on Tuesday rolled out a far-reaching $1.5 trillion plan that for the first time would make health care a right and a responsibility for all Americans, with medical providers, employers and the wealthiest picking up most of the tab.
The federal government would be responsible for ensuring that every person, regardless of income or the state of their health, has access to an affordable insurance plan. Individuals and employers would have new obligations to get coverage, or face hefty penalties.
Health care overhaul is President Barack Obama's top domestic priority, and his goal is to slow rising costs and provide coverage to nearly 50 million uninsured Americans.
Democratic leaders said they would push the measure through committee and toward a vote in the full House by month's end, while the pace of activity quickened on the other side of the Capitol.
Read more here.

4. In health bill, billions for parks, paths

WASHINGTON - Sweeping healthcare legislation working its way through Congress is more than an effort to provide insurance to millions of Americans without coverage. Tucked within is a provision that could provide billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers’ markets.
The add-ons - characterized as part of a broad effort to improve the nation’s health “infrastructure’’ - appear in House and Senate versions of the bill.
Critics argue the provision is a thinly disguised effort to insert pork-barrel spending into a bill that has been widely portrayed to the public as dealing with expanding health coverage and cutting medical costs. A leading critic, Senator Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, ridicules the local projects, asking: “How can Democrats justify the wasteful spending in this bill?’’
But advocates, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, defend the proposed spending as a necessary way to promote healthier lives and, in the long run, cut medical costs. “These are not public works grants; they are community transformation grants,’’ said Anthony Coley, a spokesman for Kennedy, chairman of the Senate health committee whose healthcare bill includes the projects. R
ead more here.


5. Summary of votes on pro-life amendments in Senate HELP Committee Healthcare Bill Markup

13 July, 2009 (22:49) |  By: David Christensen | ShareThis

The Senate HELP Committee continued its markup of the Kennedy healthcare legislation today. Several amendments were offered to protect conscience rights and prevent funding or mandating of abortion. The following is a quick summary of the amendments and how the votes shaped up.


On Senator Hatch’s Amdt. # 227 to prevent funding of abortion:


The HELP Committee defeated this amendment 12-11, with Senator Casey and the Republicans voting for it. The bill creates massive new funding and mandates for various health services. The base bill would fund abortion even though it does not use the term “abortion” in the bill text. It includes funding for various benefits such as “outpatient services” and mandates that State Advisory Councils recommend such benefits. This would include abortion. Indeed, a 1996 Circuit Court ruled that abortion is a medically necessary health service, and that it is not funded only because of the Hyde prohibition on funding abortion. So if the Hyde amendment were stripped from the annual appropriations bill, then abortion would be funded under this bill under healthcare benefits such as “outpatient services” or “hospitalization” services.


On Senator Coburn’s Amdt. # 246 to codify the Hyde/Weldon conscience protection law:

The HELP Committee defeated this amendment 12-11, with Democrat Senator Casey and 10 Republicans voting for it. Senator Dodd claimed this pitted patients verses healthcare workers, which misconstrues conscience protections generally, and he said current law covers this which is not true. The current laws on conscience, including the Hyde/Weldon provision, protect healthcare workers from participating, performing or referring for services, particularly abortion, to which they object. However, the annual Hyde/Weldon provision on LHHS appropriations could be stripped which would allow discrimination against healthcare workers on abortion, especially given the various new authorities granted to the Secretary of HHS. The fact is that healthcare workers should have the choice NOT to perform abortions, but most of the Senate Democrats disagreed.


On Senator Enzi’s Amdt #277 to prevent the healthcare bill from mandating abortion coverage:


The HELP committee defeated it 12-11, with Senator Casey being the sole Democrat to vote with all Republicans in favor of it. The bill has many requirements for health care plans to include benefits in order to be certified with the Gateways, and even requires the states to create Advisory Councils to recommend various benefits. This means that SINCE there is nothing in this legislation to prevent mandating abortion as a covered service, it WOULD be mandated. This abortion mandate is exacerbated by passage Friday of Senator Mikulski’s amendment #201 which mandates coverage for low-income women, including pregnant women. Not only would such services be mandated for a health plan to be certified within a Gateway, the bill requires that the health plans provide access to a “wide choice of providers.” If abortion is mandated as a service, then the health plan must offer access to a wide variety of abortion providers. Without Senator Enzi’s anti-abortion mandate amendment, the Kennedy bill will mandate coverage of abortion coverage and the establishment of abortion clinics.


On Senator Kennedy’s amendment #205 supposedly protecting conscience rights on abortion:

The HELP committee passed by voice vote after some confusion, though Senator Enzi and other Senators clearly objected to it. This amendment says that no one should lose a contract with the healthcare Gateways because they refuse to perform abortion except in the case of emergencies. This is a pseudo-conscience clause that would undermine current conscience laws over the past 35 years. It does not protect discrimination for those who refuse also to participate in anyway with abortion or refer for abortion. Moreover, the term “emergency” could be construed however a liberal court deems to the point of being meaningless. So the Kennedy amendment protects no one’s conscience, whether an individual or healthcare organization, when it comes to obtaining contracts to participate in the Gateways. Given that the Democrats voted against the Coburn conscience amendment on abortion, which mirrors current conscience law, this amendment shows opposition to real conscience protections on abortion. They not only oppose maintaining conscience rights with regard to abortion, they want to undermine them. Good for Senator Casey to stand up for those the conscience rights of healthcare workers.


Coburn Amdt #237: Protect healthcare workers conscience rights with regard to euthanasia:


The HELP committee passed this amendment by voice vote. Senator Coburn’s amdt. will prevent the federal government or state or local government from discriminating against healthcare workers that do not provide health care services involving euthanasia, assisted suicide or mercy killing. It also contains a provision to ensure that this does not deal with withholding or withdrawing treatment or food and hydration nor does it pertain to abortion or palliative care. This amendment ensures that doctors, nurses, and other healthcare workers, including healthcare plans, are not forced to violate their conscience on the issue of euthanasia.


Coburn Amdt # 272—Prevention of healthcare bill from preempting State laws on abortion.


The HELP Committee defeated this amdt. by 12-11, with Senator Casey voting for it. There was interesting debate over whether the pre-emption language in the Kennedy bill would deal with this problem, but as Senator Enzi pointed out, that language only applies to State laws that do not prevent the application of provisions in the bill. In other words, it’s almost a double-negative and is entirely unclear. Other Senators pointed out that the bill over 100 times grants new authorities to the Secretary of HHS and that it mandates states to adopt a variety of new health plans. Senator Coburn pointed out that if there was no problem with the bill preempting state abortion laws, they should accept the amendment. But the Democrats, other than Senator Casey, voted against it. So the Democrats oppose preventing this legislation from trumping various state laws, such as parental consent laws.

Source: click
Posted on 07/18/2009 9:55 AM by Bobbie Patray
Tuesday, 14 July 2009
Czarred And Feathered

COMMENT: This is just one more example of losing control of our Constitutional Republic.  These folks are NOT elected -- that means absolutely NO accountability to 'we the people.'

1.  Czarred and Feathered
2. Obama's 'Pay Czar' -- Welcome to the Twilight Zone
3. Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions

1. Czarred And Feathered
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, July 01, 2009 4:20 PM PT
Government: It's been suggested that the White House has more czars than the Russian Romanov dynasty. Has the administration forgotten that we have a government of elected officials, not of imperial appointments?
Czars, or functionaries with the task of ensuring White House commands are followed, have been part of the U.S. government for decades. It's unclear, though, how many are in this administration, as it is not an official title. from the St. Petersburg Times believes the count has swelled to as many as 28 under President Obama.
Many of these czars, most of whom are useless or counterproductive, are sitting in newly created positions. They range from Kenneth Feinberg, the pay czar who is the special master on executive compensation, to Earl Devaney, who, as the stimulus accountability czar, will chair the Recovery Act Transparency and Accountability Board. Others among the 28 include:
• Green jobs czar. This post is held by Van Jones. Officially he is Obama's special adviser for enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Jones was a founder and leader of Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement. The group, now disbanded, had Marxist, Leninist and Maoist influences.
Jones admitted that he became a communist and radical after the officers accused of using excessive force on Rodney King were acquitted. He's supposedly a reformed anti-capitalist, but not everyone is convinced.
• TARP czar. Herb Allison is assistant secretary of the Treasury for financial stability. There's nothing alarming in his background, but there should be concerns about the position he's filling.
• Great Lakes czar. Cameron Davis is a special adviser overseeing the EPA's Great Lakes restoration plan. He's president of the Chicago-based Alliance for the Great Lakes conservation group.
• Science czar. John Holdren is an ideologue who frets over global warming (junk science) and is a pessimist (in 1980 he thought the world was running out of natural resources) and misanthrope (he's favored population control).
Read more here

2. Obama's 'Pay Czar' -- Welcome to the Twilight Zone
Posted By Bobby Eberle On June 10, 2009 at 7:15 am
We sure have seen a lot in the nearly five months that Barack Obama has been president. Who could have imagined that the government would be controlling certain financial institutions? Who would have thought that General Motors would be under the control of Obama? Who knew that it was possible to create more debt in five months than all previous presidents combined? Welcome to the new America.
But, it doesn't stop there. We've heard so much weirdness coming from Obama like the jobs that have been "created or saved," when job losses continue and the unemployment rate keeps going up, but it doesn't stop there. Today we see yet another step down the path to government control, and another effort by Obama to take freedom away from the American people. In particular, I'm talking about Obama's new plan to appoint a "Pay Czar" to monitor what people are getting paid. We have now entered the Twilight Zone... 
As noted in an Associated Press story, "the Obama administration is ready to issue new regulations limiting the compensation of top executives at financial institutions that have received government rescue funds." reports that the position will be a "pay czar" formally known as a "special master for compensation." Special master for compensation? Are they serious? Read more here

3. Obama science czar Holdren called for forced abortions
'Comprehensive Planetary Regime could control development, distribution of all natural resources'
The man President Obama has chosen to be his science czar once advocated a shocking approach to the "population crisis" feared by scientists at the time: namely, compulsory abortions in the U.S. and a "Planetary Regime" with the power to enforce human reproduction restrictions.
"There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated," wrote Obama appointee John Holdren, as reported by FrontPage Magazine. "It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."
Holdren's comments, made in 1977, mirror the astonishing admission this week of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who said she was under the impression that legalizing abortion with the 1973 Roe. v. Wade case would eliminate undesirable members of the populace, or as she put it "populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Holdren's book proposed multiple strategies to curb population growth, and, according to the quotes excerpted by FrontPage Magazine, advocated an international police force to ensure the strategies were carried out.
Read more here.

Posted on 07/14/2009 6:22 AM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 9 July 2009
Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for US Supreme Court

Senate Judiciary Committee has scheduled a hearing on The Nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Monday, July 13, 2009 Hart Senate Office Building Room 216 10:00 a.m.  There no Tennessee Senators on the Judiciary Committee. 
We are asking our Tennessee Senators to oppose this nomination and support postponing the confirmation vote until after the August recess. 

Go HERE to send your email.

For out-of-state subscribers, you can click HERE to see if your senator is on the committee


[Click on picture to follow the activities -- The Judicial Review.]

COMMENT: Not only do the past statements of nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court Sotomayor pose problems for those of us who actually believe in 'strict construction' and 'original intent' where the U.S. Constitution is concerned, reading the President's remarks perhaps demonstrates why she was chosen.  It is NOT the job of a judge to 'stand in somebody's else's shoes'!! It is the job of the judge to look at the case in view of the constitution.  Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell stated: ‘As we consider her nomination to the Supreme Court, my colleagues should ask themselves this important question: is she allowing her personal or political agenda to cloud her judgment and favor one group of individuals over another, irrespective of what the law says’
Below these articles is a compilation of her cases.

This confirmation is being rushed through the U.S. Senate.  It appears to be an effort to prevent the American people from talking to their U. S. Senators over the August recess. This is a very important decision and Sotomayor's radical record MUST be explored thoroughly prior to a confirmation vote. The Senators and the American people have the right to learn as much as they can about this woman who could be on the court for the rest of her life. The vote can wait until September.

Obama seeks to quell Sotomayor dust-up
By Globe Staff  |  May 30, 2009
President Obama sought yesterday to douse the political firestorm over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor's much-dissected 2001 remark that a "wise Latina woman" could often reach "better" judgments than a white judge.
After his spokesman said that Sotomayor had acknowledged a "poor" choice of words, Obama said yesterday that Sotomayor "would have restated" her comment. "She was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through [and] that will make her a good judge," the president said in an interview with NBC News.
"Part of the job of a justice on the Supreme Court, or any judge, is to be able to stand in somebody else's shoes, to be able to, you know, understand the nature of the case, and how it has an impact on people's ordinary day-to-day lives," he added.
The remark at issue was made during a speech at the University of California at Berkeley in which Sotomayor said "our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging." "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life," she said. Read more here
Court reverses Sotomayor decision on firefighters
The Supreme Court on Monday narrowly reversed a controversial decision written by President Obama’s nominee to join the body, giving conservative groups a chance to take issue with Judge Sonia Sotomayor even as her confirmation looks increasingly likely.
Justices reversed the Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, a case that has been at the heart of conservative opposition to Sotomayor’s nomination.
Read more here

NRA Taking Aim in Supreme Court Battle
7 July, 2009 (11:25) | The Courts | By: Tom McClusky | ShareThis
Two pieces of bad news for supporters of Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court. First former National Rifle Association (NRA) president, Sandy Froman (who apparently is no relation to the sausage king of Chicago), has a good piece out stating “Gun owners, and especially the members of the National Rifle Association, must aggressively oppose Judge Sotomayor’s confirmation to the Supreme Court.”
This was followed by current NRA Executive Director Chris Cox stating the organization has serious concerns over Ms. Sotomayor’s record on the 2nd Amendment. If the NRA opposes the Sotomayor nomination that would be the first serious dent in her nomination that we have seen – an NRA endorsement or non-endorsement carries a lot of weight with Democrats in rural and conservative areas. Read more here

Sotomayor Failed to Disclose to Senate Memo in Which She Argued Death Penalty is 'Racist'
The Judicial Confirmation Network (JCN) says Judge Sonia Sotomayor failed to disclose to the Senate Judiciary Committee a controversial document arguing that the death penalty is “racist” and a violation of the present “humanist” thinking of society.
1981 memo, they say, should have been disclosed as required under Question 12 (b) of the questionnaire that the Supreme Court nominee turned in Thursday. Read more here

The United States Supreme Court Has Overturned Sotomayor Once Again In Ricci V. Destefano

  • Ricci v. Destefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) - Reversed 5-4
  • Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- Reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)
  • Knight v. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- Upheld, But Reasoning Was Unanimously Faulted
  • Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- Reversed 8-0
  • Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. v. Mcveigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) - Upheld 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)
  • Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- Reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)
  • Tasini Vs. New York Times, et al., 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- Reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer) ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases,", 5/26/09)
Even Sotomayor's "Mentor" On 2nd Circuit Court Issued "Blistering Dissent" Of Ricci Ruling. "Now, those differences with her mentor are at the center of the debate over her confirmation because of Judge [Jose] Cabranes's blistering dissent from a ruling by Judge Sotomayor and two others." (David D. Kirkpatrick, "Judge's Mentor: Part Guide, Part Foil," The New York Times, 6/29/09)
  • Judge Jose Cabranes Said That The Majority "Failed To Grapple With The Questions Of Exceptional Importance Raised In This Appeal." "Writing for the six dissenters, Cabranes said that the majority 'failed to grapple with the questions of exceptional importance raised in this appeal,' and he urged the Supreme Court to do so. He also raised the question of whether the case involved 'an unconstitutional racial quota or set-aside.'" (Stuart Taylor, "New Haven's Injustice Shouldn't Disappear," The National Journal, 12/13/08)
  • "Cabranes Stressed That Despite The Importance Of The Issues And The Unusually Long And Detailed Briefs, Arguments, And Factual Record, The Three-Judge Panel's 'Perfunctory Disposition' Oddly Contained 'No Reference Whatsoever To The Constitutional Claims At The Core Of This Case.'" (Stuart Taylor, "New Haven's Injustice Shouldn't Disappear," The National Journal, 12/13/08)
In 2007, The Supreme Court Reversed Sotomayor's Opinion In Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA 6-3, Saying That Sotomayor's Interpretation Of An EPA Rule Was Too Narrow. "Environment (Protection of fish at power plants): Sotomayor, writing for a three-judge panel, ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency may not engage in a cost-benefit analysis in implementing a rule that the 'best technology available' must be used to limit the environmental impact of power plants on nearby aquatic life. The case involved power plants that draw water from lakes and rivers for cooling purposes, killing various fish and aquatic organisms in the process. Sotomayor ruled that the 'best technology' regulation did not allow the EPA to weigh the cost of implementing the technology against the overall environmental benefit when issuing its rules. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 6-3 decision, saying that Sotomayor's interpretation of the 'best technology' rule was too narrow. Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg dissented, siding with Sotomayor's position. Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases,", 5/26/09)
In 2006, The Supreme Court Upheld Sotomayor's Ruling In Knight v. Commissioner, But "Unanimously Rejected The Reasoning She Adopted, Saying That Her Approach 'Flies In The Face Of The Statutory Language.'" "Taxes (Deductability of trust fees): In 2006, Sotomayor upheld a lower tax court ruling that certain types of fees paid by a trust are only partly tax deductable. The Supreme Court upheld Sotomayor's decision but unanimously rejected the reasoning she adopted, saying that her approach 'flies in the face of the statutory language.' Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases,", 5/26/09)
In 2005, The Supreme Court Unanimously Overturned Sotomayor's Ruling In Dabit v. Merrill Lynch, Saying That Sotomayor's Position "Could Give Rise To 'Wasteful, Duplicative Litigation.'" "Finance (Rights of investors to sue firms in state court): In a 2005 ruling, Sotomayor overturned a lower court decision and allowed investors to bring certain types of fraud lawsuits against investment firms in state court rather than in federal court. The lower court had agreed with the defendant Merrill Lynch's argument that the suits were invalid because the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 required that such suits be brought only in federal court. The Supreme Court unanimously overturned Sotomayor's ruling in an 8-0 decision, saying that the federal interest in overseeing securities market cases prevails, and that doing otherwise could give rise to 'wasteful, duplicative litigation.' Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases,", 5/26/09)
In 2000, The Supreme Court Overturned Sotomayor's Ruling In Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., Saying That Sotomayor Has Inappropriately Expanded A Previous Decision To Cover The Current Case. "Civil Rights (Right to sue federal government and its agents): Sotomayor, writing for the court in 2000, supported the right of an individual to sue a private corporation working on behalf of the federal government for alleged violations of that individual's constitutional rights. Reversing a lower court decision, Sotomayor found that an existing law, known as 'Bivens,' which allows suits against individuals working for the federal government for constitutional rights violations, could be applied to the case of a former prisoner seeking to sue the private company operating the federal halfway house facility in which he resided. The Supreme Court reversed Sotomayor's ruling in a 5-4 decision, saying that the Bivens law could not be expanded to cover private entities working on behalf of the federal government. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer dissented, siding with Sotomayor's original ruling. Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000)" ("Sotomayor's Resume, Record On Notable Cases,", 5/26/09)
In 1997, Sotomayor's Ruling As A District Court Judge In Tasini v. New York Times Was Overturned By The Appellate Court; The Supreme Court Upheld The Appellate Court's Reversal Of Sotomayor."Intellectual Property (Distribution of freelance material): As a district court judge in 1997, Sotomayor heard a case brought by a group of freelance journalists who asserted that various news organizations, including the New York Times, violated copyright laws by reproducing the freelancers' work on electronic databa ses and archives such as 'Lexis/Nexis' without first obtaining their permission. Sotomayor ruled against the freelancers and said that publishers were within their rights as outlined by the 1976 Copyright Act. The appellate court reversed Sotomayor's decision, siding with the freelancers, and the Supreme Court upheld the appellate decision (therefore rejecting Sotomayor's original ruling). Justices Stevens and Breyer dissented, taking Sotomayor's position. Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997)" 

Posted on 07/09/2009 9:20 AM by Bobbie Patray
Thursday, 2 July 2009
The Plan For Socialist World Government

1.  The Plan For Socialist World Government
2.  U.N. To emerge as Global IRS

1.The Plan For Socialist World Government

 By Cliff Kincaid  Wednesday, June 17, 2009

While meaningless United Nations hand-wringing over the North Korean nuclear weapons program garnered the headlines, the world body is moving ahead with a global conference to lay the groundwork for world government financed by global taxes. The communist head of the U.N. General Assembly is leading the effort, but he is getting crucial support from “progressive” economists who advise the Obama Administration and the Democratic Party.

The United Nations Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and Its Impact on Development, previously scheduled for June 1-3, will now take place on June 24-26.
U.N. General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto is the U.N. point man on these “global governance” issues. We noted his role at the United Nations in a column last October. Now, even the New York Times is paying attention to what this crackpot has been up to.
D’Escoto, the Times said, believes the way out of the global financial crisis “should be lined with all manner of new global institutions, authorities and advisory boards,” including the Global Stimulus Fund, the Global Public Goods Authority, the Global Tax Authority, the Global Financial Products Safety Commission, the Global Financial Regulatory Authority, the Global Competition Authority, the Global Council of Financial and Economic Advisers, the Global Economic Coordination Council, and the World Monetary Board.

D’Escoto is the former foreign minister of Communist Sandinista Nicaragua and Catholic Priest of the Maryknoll Order who advocates Marxist-oriented liberation theology and won the Lenin Peace Prize from the old Soviet Union. D’Escoto also claims a Master’s of Science from Columbia University’s School of Journalism.
The Times interviewed Paul Oquist, D’Escoto’s senior adviser for the conference, who sat beneath portraits of Fidel Castro of Cuba, Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, among others.

The problem is that the Times, in its story, “At U.N., a Sandinista’s Plan for Recovery,” didn’t mention until the 13th paragraph that the official U.N. list of “experts” behind the plan include an American economist, Joseph E. Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize-winning professor from Columbia University who supported and contributed to Obama’s presidential campaign and advises Congressional Democrats on economic policy.

Stiglitz, an advocate of nationalizing U.S. banks, is also a member of the Socialist International Commission on Global Financial Issues and his name appears on a separate list of 15 “special advisers” to D’Escoto obtained from the U.N. by Inner City Press. Another name on the list-Noam Chomsky-is on the board of the Communist Party spin-off, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism.


Working With A Castroite

Aides to D’Escoto “point out repeatedly that the president got many of his ideas from a distinguished panel of experts led by an American economist and Nobel laureate, Joseph E. Stiglitz,” the Times noted.
Stiglitz, a former Clinton official and financial contributor to the Democratic Party and its candidates, wrote the book, Making Globalization Work, in which he argues for a variety of global tax schemes that would cost American taxpayers billions of dollars. Last October he met behind closed doors with congressional Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to devise the economic “stimulus” plan of more federal spending and debt.



2. U.N. to Emerge as Global IRS
AIM Column  |  By Cliff Kincaid  |  June 23, 2009


While our media sleep, the United Nations is proceeding, with President Obama's acquiescence, to implement a global plan to create a new international socialist order financed by global taxes on the American people.

The Conference on the World Financial and Economic Crisis and its Impact on Development that begins on Wednesday will consider adoption of a document calling for "new voluntary and innovative sources of financing initiatives to provide additional stable sources of development finance..." This is U.N.-speak for global taxes. They are anything but "voluntary" for the people forced to pay them.

The most "popular" proposals, which could generate tens of billions of dollars in revenue for global purposes, involve taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and financial transactions such as stock trades.

The document was agreed to at an informal meeting of expert "facilitators" and was made available on Monday afternoon at 3 p.m. It is doubtful that any changes will be made to it.
The conference was postponed from June 1-3 and will now take place June 24-26 at the U.N. in New York. While the "outcome document" has been watered down somewhat from the previous version, it still reaffirms attainment of the U.N.'s Millennium Development Goals, which would require the payment of $845 billion from U.S. taxpayers. A commitment to the MDGs was a stated objective of the Global Poverty Act, which Barack Obama had introduced as a U.S. senator. It requires the U.S. to devote 0.7 percent of Gross National Income to foreign aid.

Now, as President, Obama can bypass the Congress and simply direct his Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice to approve the U.N. conference document. Then the pressure will be increased on Congress to come up with the money and satisfy our "international commitments."  

This is the pattern that he followed in regard to more money for the International Monetary Fund (IMF). After agreeing at the G-20 summit to provide more money for the IMF, the Obama White House slipped the cash and credit into the recently passed emergency war funding bill. The Obama White House had added billions in cash, as well as a $100 billion line of credit, for the IMF. 



Posted on 07/02/2009 6:36 AM by Bobbie Patray
sun mon tue wed thu fri sat
    1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31