Yearly Archives: 2009

Op-Ed: Ryan Leonard, GOP Candidate for Attorney General

Ryan Leonard

Following is a letter from Ryan Leonard, Republican candidate for state Attorney General, concerning the national healthcare proposal:

Dear Friends:
 
We are all rightly concerned by the direction our nation is headed.  Our country is in the midst of the most massive "federalization" in its history, both in terms of out-of-control, irresponsible federal spending and efforts by this Congress and Administration to move authority towards the federal government and away from state and local governments and the people.  Many of the liberal proposals currently under consideration in Congress raise serious Constitutional and other legal questions, and as a conservative candidate for Attorney General, I want to alert you today to one (of many) issues that will require a strong, conservative Attorney General who is willing to fight for the people of this state and push back against an ever-encroaching federal government.
 
As you know, this week the U.S. Senate begins its debate on a national healthcare proposal.  The Wall Street Journal recently called the House-passed version "The Worst Bill Ever."  Like many in this country, I am opposed to socialized medicine (not to mention the $1.2 trillion price tag), and believe that we must make every effort to maintain the quality and accessibility to healthcare- the best in the world- that we currently enjoy.

While this important battle will continue to be waged in Congress, in my speeches across Oklahoma the past 6 months I have raised the very important issue- that seems to be lost on Congress- that nowhere in the United States Constitution does it provide the federal government the authority to require an individual to purchase health insurance, or be punished with a tax if he or she doesn’t.  This federal mandate and punitive tax are the hallmarks of the liberal pieces of health care legislation currently pending.  When confronted several weeks ago about the "constitutionality" of the pending health care proposals, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi responded "Are you serious?"  To dismiss such a legitimate, and fundamental, question that goes to the very heart of the debate is illustrative of the extent that liberal interests will go to achieve their ends of growing government.  In the 1990’s I spent four years working for former U.S. Senator Don Nickles in Washington, D.C. and know from personal experience that whether or not a bill is "constitutional" is rarely asked by those seeking to expand federal power.  In the case of the current health care proposals, this fundamental question is being ignored altogether, to the detriment of the rights of the people.
 
The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  James Madison wrote in Federalist No. 4, "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the Federal Government, are few and defined.  Those which are to remain in the State Governments are numerous and indefinite."  Plainly, our founding fathers envisioned a strong federalist system, with certain, enumerated powers vested in the federal government and the remainder of authority- necessarily including personal health care choices and the regulation of health insurance- to be vested with the people and the states respectively.
 
"Health care reform" is but one of several issues under consideration by this Congress that threaten to disrupt the critically-important balance of power in this country, moving more rights away from the people and state governments. "Cap and Trade," aside from the grave economic dangers it poses to Oklahoma and the entire country, has legal problems ripe for challenge, and other proposals threaten our 1st and  2nd Amendments freedoms (I will address these in future newsletters).  Simply stated, the Constitution is under attack, and depending on what legislation ultimately emerges from Congress, the Attorneys General of the various states will likely find themselves on the front lines of momentous, constitutional legal battles.  It is critical in 2010 that Oklahoma elects a conservative Attorney General who has the will to engage in this important fight to preserve our constitutional freedoms.  

Sen. Coburn Blasts Reid Health Bill

Sen. Tom Coburn

Following are excerpts from a speech Sen. Tom Coburn gave concering the proposed Reid bill – the Senate version of the proposed health care bill:

What this bill is going to do is going to destroy the best health care system in the world, and it’s going to undermine the security of every senior in this country …
 
What I disagree with is moving $2.5 trillion more under government control which will raise costs ultimately in the health care sector. And if it doesn’t raise costs and we’re truly going to take this money from Medicare, what it’s going to do to our seniors, I have a message for you: you’re going to die sooner.

And they’re going to say that isn’t true.  That isn’t true.  When you restrict the ability of the primary caregivers in this country to do what is best for their senior patients, what you are doing is limiting their life expectancy.  We’re saying that CMS, the Medicare advisory commission and the cost effectiveness comparativeness panel will tell the doctors what they can and cannot do, ignoring the 20% of the people that that is exactly the wrong prescription for.  So, for 20% of our seniors, this bill is going to be a disaster, but it’s going to save money because you’re not going to be around for us to spend any money on you …

 Now, they’ll dispute that.  But the people who are going to be disputing that are lawyers. They’re not doctors.  They’ve never laid a hand on a patient. They’ve never put their hand forward on a Medicare patient knowing the consequences of the whole, total patient, the background, the medical history, the sociologic factors that fit, the family dynamics, the past medical history and the family history, and the present state of mind of that patient.  And even more important, what this bill’s going to do is divide your doctor away from you.

 In the HELP committee, I offered an amendment to change the language so that there would be absolutely a prohibition on rationing care and directing the care from Washington.  It was rejected out of hand.  Rejected out of hand.

 Not one of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle voted to prohibit rationing of health care. Now, why would they do that?  Because the ultimate intention through the cost comparativeness effectiveness panel is to ration care.  It’s to ration the care.  It’s to limit the amount of dollars that we spend and never look at the individual patient.

If we think about the Medicare cuts in this bill, we’re going to take $135 billion out of the hospitals.  Do you think seniors will ever notice that?  I do.  I think when you ring your button and you’re hurting and you need pain medicines or you need to go to the bathroom, the time it takes for somebody to get there won’t be sufficient.  What will happen is you wait. You’ll have a complication.  If you become acutely shortness of breath and you punch your button, the available nurses won’t be there.  There will be a consequence to cutting $135 billion from payments to hospitals in this country. 

New Video From Stars Go Dim

Staff Reports

Fans can join Tulsa-grown Stars Go Dim in a live video chat on Saturday, Dec. 12 at 9 p.m. (Central).

During the chat, the band’s new music video – "Get Over It" – will be premiered.

"This is your chance to see it before the rest of the world," the band said in a release. "And since we will be chatting with you, we want to see your reaction as you watch."

The video chat will take place HERE. The link will also be posted on www.starsgodim.com!

Inhofe Calls For “Climategate” Investigation

Office of Sen. Jim Inhofe

Washington, D.C.- Sen. James M. Inhofe is requesting congressional hearings into "Climategate."

Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, sent a letter  to Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) requesting the hearings on the recent disclosure of emails between some of the world’s most preeminent climatologists. Those emails reveal apparent attempts to manipulate data, vilify scientists with opposing viewpoints, and circumvent information disclosure laws.

"The emails reveal possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program and the IPCC," Inhofe wrote. "For instance, one scientist wrote of a ‘trick’ he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports."

This controversy "could have far-reaching policy implications," Inhofe continued, "affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs," and "the Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’…" These policies "will have enormous economic impacts, not least the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding, which, when finalized, will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses." 

Click here for a copy of Inhofe’s letter.

Inhofe Calls For “Climategate” Investigation

Office of Sen. Jim Inhofe

Washington, D.C.- Sen. James M. Inhofe is requesting congressional hearings into "Climategate."

Inhofe, ranking member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, sent a letter  to Committee Chairman Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) requesting the hearings on the recent disclosure of emails between some of the world’s most preeminent climatologists. Those emails reveal apparent attempts to manipulate data, vilify scientists with opposing viewpoints, and circumvent information disclosure laws.

"The emails reveal possible deceitful manipulation of important data and research used by the US Global Change Research Program and the IPCC," Inhofe wrote. "For instance, one scientist wrote of a ‘trick’ he employed to ‘hide the decline’ in global temperature trends, as well as discussed attempts to ‘redefine what the peer-review literature is’ to prevent papers raising questions about anthropogenic global warming from appearing in IPCC reports."

This controversy "could have far-reaching policy implications," Inhofe continued, "affecting everything from (to name a few) cap-and-trade legislation, state and regional climate change programs," and "the Environmental Protection Agency’s ‘Proposed Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases Under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act’…" These policies "will have enormous economic impacts, not least the EPA’s proposed endangerment finding, which, when finalized, will lead to a torrent of new federal regulations that will destroy thousands of jobs and make electricity and gasoline more expensive for consumers and small businesses." 

Click here for a copy of the letter