Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Catholic Church Rejects Surrender Terms from Obama

Catholic Church Rejects Surrender Terms from Obama

Catholic Church Rejects Surrender Terms from Obama

- Cliff Kincaid Tuesday, January 31, 2012
(11) Comments | Print friendly | Email Us

My Catholic priest, Father Larry Swink, delivered a homily on Sunday that I told him would make headlines. In the toughest sermon I have ever heard from a pulpit, he attacked the Obama Administration as evil, even demonic, and warned of religious persecution ahead. What was also newsworthy about the sermon was that he cited The Washington Post in agreement—not on the subject of the Obama Administration being evil, but on the matter of its abridgment of the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

What is happening is extraordinary and unprecedented. The Catholic Church is in open revolt against the Obama Administration, with Fr. Swink noting from the pulpit that priests across the archdiocese were joining the call on Sunday to rally Catholics to resistance against the U.S. Government. He said we are entering a time of religious persecution and that Catholics and others will have to make a final decision about which side they are on.

The issue is what the Catholic Bishops have called a “literally unconscionable” edict by the Obama Administration demanding that sterilization, abortifacients and contraception be included in virtually all health plans.

At a time when the media are full of reports about who is ahead and behind in the polls, and who will win the next Republican presidential primary, this incredible uprising in the Catholic Church is something that could not only overshadow the political campaign season, but also may have a major impact on the ultimate outcome—if Republicans know how to handle it. This matter goes beyond partisan politics to the growing perception of an unconstitutional Obama Administration assault on religious freedom. To hear the Catholic Bishops and Priests describe it, our constitutional republic and our freedoms hang in the balance.

The administration claims there is a religious exemption in the mandate, but the bishops say it is so narrow that it fails to cover the vast majority of faith-based organizations, including Catholic hospitals, universities and service organizations that help millions every year. “Ironically,” they say, “not even Jesus & his disciples would have qualified.”

The bishops go on, “Now that the Administration has refused to recognize the Constitutional conscience rights of organizations and individuals who oppose the mandate, the bishops are now urging Catholics and others of good will to fight this unprecedented attack on conscience rights and religious liberty.”

Interestingly, The Washington Post, as Father Swink indicated, agrees with the bishops. The paper said, “In this circumstance, requiring a religiously affiliated employer to spend its own money in a way that violates its religious principles does not make an adequate accommodation for those deeply held views. Having recognized the principle of a religious exemption, the administration should have expanded it.”

So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church?

So why would the administration pick a major fight with the Catholic Church? There are two main reasons. (1) The administration wants to please its progressive and feminist, secular pro-abortion base. (2) The administration believes Catholics are divided on the issue and will ignore their leaders and follow Obama.

Support for the latter explanation comes in the form of the Obama Administration’s efforts to co-opt the Catholic Church, primarily through appointing nominal Catholics to high-level positions in government and keeping funding going to the church for “social justice” causes. Another player in this effort is the hedge-fund billionaire George Soros, an atheist who nevertheless has found groups that are “Catholic in name only” to accept his financial largesse. These groups, including Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, are designed to give the impression that Catholics are less concerned about issues like stopping abortion and protecting the sanctity of traditional marriage than passing government health care. The Obama/Soros gamble may be backfiring.

It’s true that the bishops went along with Obama’s health care scheme, even lobbying on its behalf. But now they seem to be realizing that the plan was a Trojan Horse designed to force population control measures on the people of the United States. It will be difficult for the bishops to continue working with the administration on other issues, like immigration. They have drawn a line in the sand. They cannot back down.

Is the Catholic Church beginning to finally recognize the real nature of the Obama Administration?

Father Larry Swink of Jesus The Divine Word Catholic Church in Huntingtown, Maryland, is not alone in his tough language. Pittsburgh Bishop David A. Zubik posted a letter on the Roman Catholic Diocese of Pittsburgh’s website that said, “It is really hard to believe that it happened. It comes like a slap in the face. The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’ There is no other way to put it.” He added, “This whole process of mandating these guidelines undermines the democratic process itself. In this instance, the mandate declares pregnancy a disease, forces a culture of contraception and abortion on society, all while completely bypassing the legislative process.”

You know it’s serious when the bishops are talking about heaven and hell.

Indeed, Fr. Swink opened his discussion of what he described as the evil nature of the Obama Administration by reading from scripture about Jesus casting out demons. He saw the order on health care coverage as the start of religious persecution. The congregation joined him in calls of “Amen” when he challenged them to stand tall with the church.

You cannot expect the secular Washington Post to go along with such rhetoric. But even its liberal editorial writer saw the ramifications of the health care order, perhaps anticipating the confrontation that we now see developing. From the point of view of this liberal paper, the Obama Administration is not only undermining religious freedom but risking a major backlash to its overall “progressive” agenda and even a second term in office.

Some may see this battle as just another church-state dust-up that will be resolved through litigation. But when apocalyptic imagery is used, such as what I heard at my church on Sunday, one must wonder if there is an awakening on the part of the Catholic community and if there is something else going on here besides politics as usual. In short, is the Catholic Church beginning to finally recognize the real nature of the Obama Administration?

U.S. state temperature extremes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

U.S. state temperature extremes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You will notice that global warming really hasn't had much of an effect on record high temperatures. There have been 11 record highs since 1970 but there have been 18 record lows during the same period.

U.S. state temperature extremes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following table lists the highest and lowest temperatures recorded in each state in the United States, in both Fahrenheit and Celsius.
State Record high
Date Place(s) Record low
Date Place(s)
Alabama 114°F / 46°C September 5, 1925 Centerville -27°F / -33°C January 30, 1966 New Market
Alaska 100°F / 38°C June 27, 1915 Fort Yukon -80°F / -62°C January 23, 1971 Prospect Creek
Arizona 128°F / 53°C July 5, 2007* Lake Havasu City -40°F / -40°C January 7, 1971 Hawley Lake
Arkansas 120°F / 49°C August 10, 1936 Ozark -29°F / -34°C February 13, 1905 Pond
California 134°F / 57°C July 10, 1913 Death Valley -45°F / -43°C January 20, 1937 Boca
Colorado 118°F / 48°C July 11, 1888 Bennett -61°F / -52°C February 1, 1985 Maybell
Connecticut 106°F / 41°C July 15, 1995 Danbury -32°F / -36°C February 16, 1943* Falls Village
Delaware 110°F / 43°C July 21, 1930 Millsboro -17°F / -27°C January 17, 1893 Millsboro
District of Columbia 106°F / 41°C July 20, 1930 Washington -15°F / -26°C February 11, 1899 Washington
Florida 109°F / 43°C June 29, 1931 Monticello -02°F / -19°C February 13, 1899 Tallahassee
Georgia 112°F / 44°C July 24, 1952 Greenville -17°F / -27°C January 27, 1940 Northern Floyd County
Hawaii 100°F / 38°C April 27, 1931 Pahala +12°F / -11°C May 17, 1979 Mauna Kea
Idaho 118°F / 48°C July 28, 1934 Orofino -60°F / -51°C January 18, 1943 Island Park Dam
Illinois 117°F / 47°C July 14, 1954 East Saint Louis -36°F / -38°C January 5, 1999 Congerville
Indiana 116°F / 47°C July 14, 1936 Collegeville -36°F / -38°C January 19, 1994 New Whiteland
Iowa 118°F / 48°C July 20, 1934 Keokuk -47°F / -44°C February 3, 1996* Elkader
Kansas 121°F / 49°C July 24, 1936* Alton -40°F / -40°C February 13, 1905 Lebanon
Kentucky 114°F / 46°C July 28, 1930 Greensburg -34°F / -37°C January 28, 1963 Cynthiana
Louisiana 114°F / 46°C August 10, 1936 Plain Dealing -16°F / -27°C February 13, 1899 Minden
Maine 105°F / 41°C July 10, 1911* North Bridgton -50°F / -46°C January 16, 2009 Big Black River
Maryland 109°F / 43°C July 10, 1936* Cumberland, Frederick -40°F / -40°C January 13, 1912 Oakland
Massachusetts 107°F / 42°C August 2, 1975 New Bedford, Chester -35°F / -37°C January 12, 1981 Chester
Michigan 112°F / 44°C July 13, 1936 Mio -51°F / -46°C February 9, 1934 Vanderbilt
Minnesota 114°F / 46°C July 6, 1936* Moorhead -64°F / -53.3°C February 1996 Embarrass
Mississippi 115°F / 46°C July 29, 1930* Holly Springs -19°F / -28°C January 30, 1966 Corinth
Missouri 118°F / 48°C July 14, 1954* Warsaw, Union -40°F / -40°C February 13, 1905 Warsaw
Montana 117°F / 47°C July 5, 1937 Medicine Lake -70°F / -57°C January 20, 1954 Rogers Pass
Nebraska 118°F / 48°C July 24, 1936* Minden -47°F / -44°C February 12, 1899* Camp Clarke
Nevada 125°F / 52°C June 29, 1994* Laughlin -50°F / -46°C January 8, 1937 San Jacinto
New Hampshire 106°F / 41°C July 4, 1911 Nashua -47°F / -44°C January 29, 1934 Mount Washington
New Jersey 110°F / 43°C July 10, 1936 Runyon -34°F / -37°C January 5, 1934 River Vale
New Mexico 122°F / 50°C June 27, 1994 Lakewood -50°F / -46°C February 1, 1951 Gavilan
New York 108°F / 42°C July 22, 1926* Troy -52°F / -46°C February 18, 1979 Old Forge
North Carolina 110°F / 43°C August 21, 1983 Fayetteville -34°F / -37°C January 21, 1985 Mount Mitchell
North Dakota 121°F / 49°C July 6, 1936 Steele -60°F / -51°C February 15, 1936 Parshall
Ohio 113°F / 45°C July 21, 1934* Gallipolis -39°F / -39°C February 10, 1899 Milligan
Oklahoma 120°F / 49°C June 27, 1994* Tipton -31°F / -35°C February 10, 2011 Nowata
Oregon 119°F / 48°C August 10, 1898* Pendleton -54°F / -48°C February 10, 1933* Seneca
Pennsylvania 111°F / 44°C July 10, 1936* Phoenixville -42°F / -41°C January 5, 1904 Smethport
Rhode Island 104°F / 40°C August 2, 1975 Providence -25°F / -32°C February 5, 1996 Greene
South Carolina 111°F / 44°C June 28, 1954* Camden -19°F / -28°C January 21, 1985 Caesars Head
South Dakota 120°F / 49°C July 15, 2006* Usta (near) -58°F / -50°C February 17, 1936 McIntosh
Tennessee 113°F / 45°C August 9, 1930* Perryville -32°F / -36°C December 30, 1917 Mountain City
Texas 120°F / 49°C June 28, 1994* Monahans -23°F / -31°C February 8, 1933* Seminole
Utah 117°F / 47°C July 5, 1985 Saint George -69°F / -56°C February 1, 1985 Peter Sinks
Vermont 105°F / 41°C July 4, 1911 Vernon -50°F / -46°C December 30, 1933 Bloomfield
Virginia 110°F / 43°C July 15, 1954 Balcony Falls -30°F / -34°C January 22, 1985 Mountain Lake
Washington 118°F / 48°C August 5, 1961* Grant County, Ice Harbor Lock and Dam -48°F / -44°C December 30, 1968 Mazama, Winthrop
West Virginia 112°F / 44°C July 10, 1936* Martinsburg -37°F / -38°C December 30, 1917 Lewisburg
Wisconsin 114°F / 46°C July 13, 1936 Wisconsin Dells -55°F / -48°C February 4, 1996 Couderay
Wyoming 114°F / 46°C July 12, 1900 Basin -66°F / -54°C February 9, 1933 Riverside

Monday, January 30, 2012

Articles: Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

Articles: Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

Media Blackout in Obama Georgia Ballot Eligibility Case

By Cindy Simpson

Last week, I noted that Obama turned his back not just on Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer, but also on the laws of the State of Georgia. I closed my column, "Georgia Ballot Challenge: Obama Walks on By," with the observation: "And most of the media has followed along right behind him."

At the time, I had just witnessed an historic hearing that actually discussed the eligibility of the sitting president of the United States to run for a second term. The president had been subpoenaed to appear, and instead of his attorney respectfully following protocol to have that subpoena recalled, both Obama and his attorney, Michael Jablonski, simply failed to show up at all or offer any defense whatsoever.

Isn't there a headline in there somewhere?

The hearing proceeded as planned, even though the table for the defense was empty. Attorneys Van Irion and J. Mark Hatfield presented their cases first and offered compelling arguments -- not regarding Obama's birthplace, but rather that the non-U.S. citizenship of Obama's father precluded Obama's "natural born" eligibility under the Constitution and existing Supreme Court precedent. Attorney Orly Taitz, however, did present interesting evidence that questioned the validity of Obama's birth certificate and questions surrounding his Social Security number.

When the hearing ended, the media in attendance almost literally pounced on Taitz. Irion and Hatfield and their clients had left the premises earlier, while Taitz was still presenting her case; however, Irion asserted to me that not one member of the press stopped them on their way out. Doubtless the media did not want to discuss the law -- they'd rather write their usual stories on the birth certificate and interview the one they've dubbed the "birther queen."

Attorney Taitz handled herself well, even though the press taunted her with rudeness and leading questions she has doubtless experienced many times. After the reporters finished letting Taitz feel the full extent of their contempt for both her and the entire morning's event, they packed up to leave.

I walked up to one particular reporter from one of the prominent mainstream entities, noting that he seemed frustrated that he didn't get a clear answer from Taitz to one of his questions, and I informed him that I did know the exact answer, if he'd like to hear more about it. He said no, he didn't. I asked then, wasn't he a reporter, and why did he ask the question if he didn't want the answer? And as I was speaking, he turned and walked away from me.

The same thing happened with another reporter from another major network. He had asked Taitz why no one cared that there were past presidents who had fathers not born in the country. I explained to him that it was not the place of birth of the presidents' fathers that was the issue, but rather the status of their citizenship at the time of their sons' births. The reporter scoffed and told me that that was just my opinion, but when I attempted to inform him that it was also the opinion of the Supreme Court, he turned and walked away from me while I was in mid-sentence.

Does this behavior seem familiar?

Even though I saw reporters from every major network on the scene, the actual reporting of the event was scant -- primarily only in blogs or local news. Google "Georgia Ballot Challenge" and note the non-mainstream coverage of the event.

Rachel Maddow must not have gotten the memo, though, because she dedicated a full 8 minutes of her January 26 show to telling her viewers why they should "feel almost duty-bound as a patriot to ignore" the hearing and not to "dignify this nonsense or elevate it by paying it any attention." Not only were none of the legal points addressed in the hearings brought up by Maddow, but Maddow excused the extraordinary fact that Obama and his counsel, instead of respecting the law, had simply snubbed it, calling the case "ridiculous."

As Sunny of Sunny TV points out in this hilarious but uncomfortably true video, "Tyranny is as Tyranny Does"; "[l]et's just hope the next President is just as benevolent as Obama because they could really use that power for bad." At the end of the clip, as Sunny pretends she is Obama, issuing orders right and left, she points to her crown and says: "This makes me in charge." As Teri O'Brien noted in her interview discussing Obama's penchant for walking away from those with whom he disagrees, "[g]ods don't debate. They issue decrees."

Attorney Irion, in this follow-up letter from his Liberty Legal Foundation, pointed out: "Yesterday President Obama completely ignored a court subpoena, and the world shrugged."

Yes, Obama shrugged, and the media has shrugged along. Irion further noted:

Obama's behavior yesterday is even more disturbing than Nixon's. Nixon at least respected the judicial branch enough to have his attorneys show up in court and follow procedure[.] ... Nixon acknowledged the authority of the judicial branch even while he fought it. Obama, on the other hand, essentially said yesterday that the judicial branch has no power over him. He ordered his attorneys to stay away from the hearing. He didn't petition a higher court in a legitimate attempt to stay the hearing[.] ... Rather than respecting the legal process, Obama went around the courts and tried to put political pressure directly on the Georgia Secretary of State. When that failed, he simply ignored the judicial branch completely.

It is disconcerting to see that the president, whose primary duty is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, has turned his back on the rule of law of one of those states. Especially, as Sunny uncomfortably reminded us, since this is the same president who routinely sidesteps the law or places himself above it.

Even more troubling is the fact that the mainstream media not only seems to approve -- but they fail to report it at all.

Starbucks coffee co. officially backs gay ‘marriage’.

BREAKING: Starbucks coffee co. officially backs gay ‘marriage’

SEATTLE, January 30, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – In news that will come as a heavy blow to many coffee lovers, Starbucks has officially backed homosexual ‘marriage.’
In a January 24 letter to U.S. partners, Kalen Holmes, Starbucks executive vice president, expresses support for the homosexual “marriage” legislation in Washington State.  The “important legislation,” says Holmes “is core to who we are and what we value as a company.”
The legislation has been decried by pro-family advocates as a major threat to freedom, since it would force religious institutions to open the doors of their facilities for homosexual “marriages.”
The letter, which boasts of the company’s LGBT activism begins, “Starbucks is proud to join other leading Northwest employers in support of Washington State legislation recognizing marriage equality for same-sex couples.”
The letter concludes: “We look forward to seeing this legislation enacted into law.”
“I’m disappointed that Starbucks wants to redefine marriage, but I’m not in the least bit surprised,” Dr. Michael Brown, author of “A Queer Thing Happened to America,” told LifeSiteNews.com. “Already in 2005, they informed me in writing that, for them, ‘embracing diversity’ (which was one of their core values) included sponsorship of gay pride events even when highly inappropriate, sexual displays were paraded in public.
“At the same time, when I asked them to name a single pro-life event they sponsored, or an event encouraging teen-abstinence or the celebration of marriage (meaning, of course, natural marriage, as God intended it), their national representative told me plainly by phone, ‘I don’t like the way this conversation is going.’ So much for diversity! Christians need to recognize that Starbucks is on the front lines of gay activism and is anything but friendly to biblical, Judeo-Christian family values.”
LifeSiteNews did not hear back from Starbucks headquarters in Seattle by press time.

Obama attorney knows eligibility hearing was disaster for the president | Western Journalism.com

Obama attorney knows eligibility hearing was disaster for the president | Western Journalism.com

Obama Attorney Knows Eligibility Hearing Was Disaster For The President

Though we’ll not know the outcome of the Georgia hearing regarding ballot eligibility for the nation’s number 1 undocumented worker until the first part of February, Barack Obama’s high-powered attorney apparently suffered an attack of rapid, shallow breathing just before the courtroom drama was about to unfold.

One day prior to the scheduled hearing before Administrative Judge Michael Malihi, Obama attorney Michael Jablonski addressed both a letter to Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp AND an email, directed to the Secretary via one of the court’s hearing officers, asking Kemp to cancel the hearing.

Georgia law allows “any elector who is eligible to vote for a candidate” to file an objection to that candidate’s inclusion on the State ballot. (1)

Such objection filings go to the Secretary of State who makes a determination to either overrule or pass them along to the State Administrative Court for disposition. Michael Malihi was the Administrative Judge to whom a number of these objections were directed by the Secretary and he found them worthy of pursuing in court.

The dozens of similar suits questioning Obama’s eligibility, filed in other venues around the nation were dismissed because the plaintiffs “lacked standing”—that is, were unable to prove direct, personal damage if Obama were to be permitted to remain in or run again for the office he holds.

But Georgia law trumped that defense, throwing Obama and Jablonski into uncharted waters. And forced to follow the new tack of actually having to lawfully and properly PROVE Obama’s eligibility, in the weeks since the original filing, Jablonski had pretty much emptied his quiver on behalf of the acting president.

On January 3rd his motion for an outright dismissal of the lawsuits was denied by Judge Malihi. And on Friday the 20th, his motion to quash subpoenas demanding the presence of Obama in the courtroom along with original copies of his Hawaii birth certificate and all Social Security information was denied as well.

But what degree of audacity, arrogance, hutzpah and perhaps downright panic does it require to demand that the Georgia Secretary of State cancel arguably the most anticipated hearing in state history less than 24 hours before its scheduled start? Never mind that it was Secretary Kemp who believed the suits had enough merit to be explored in the first place!

Jablonski’s letter alternately reads like a threat, a whine and a prayer as he misstates Georgia statute, belittles Judge Malihi, refers to irrelevant previous findings and ultimately states that because he and his revered client are not receiving the absolute acquiescence they so richly deserve at the hands of these minor Georgia officials, they will take their marbles and go home.

Indeed, so much in a dither was the mighty mouthpiece, he actually winds up his petulant epistle by telling Secretary Kemp that he doesn’t have the legal right to inconvenience the president in the first place! “…No law gives the Secretary of State authority to determine the qualifications of someone named by a political party to be on the Presidential Preference Primary ballot,” writes Jablonski. “…The attempt to hold hearings on qualifications which you may not enforce is ultra vires.” (2)

It is not difficult to imagine Jablonski writing these words as he wags a finger in Kemp’s face while threatening to hold his breath until he turns blue!

In his written reply to Jablonski, Kemp briefly corrects the attorney’s incorrect reading of Georgia statute while issuing a friendly though unmistakably direct warning: “…if you and your client choose to suspend your participation in the OSAH proceedings, please understand that you do so at your own peril.” (3)

Obama supporters and other useful idiots around the country are laughing at what they consider the efforts of a backward, Southern state to capture the national spotlight for its 15 minute allowance of fame.

But rest assured that Michael Jablonski does NOT see the humor! And Americans who recognize Barack Hussein Obama for who and what he is might be a fortnight away from breaking news which even the New York Times will be forced to print.

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Eric Cantor || Majority Leader || Jobs Legislation Tracker

Eric Cantor || Majority Leader || Jobs Legislation Tracker

Empower Small Business Owners
Small business owners are being bogged down by burdensome regulations from Washington that prevent job creation and hinder economic growth. We must remove onerous regulations that are redundant, harm small businesses, and impede private sector investment and job creation.

Review of Federal Regulations
H.Res. 72 - Passed by the House (391-28) on February 11, 2011

Reducing Regulatory Burdens Act
H.R. 872 - Senate has taken no action to date

Energy Tax Prevention Act
H.R. 910 - Senate has taken no action to date

Disapproval of FCC's Net Neutrality Regulations
H.J.Res. 37 - Senate has blocked a companion measure by a vote of 46-52

Clean Water Cooperative Federalism Act
H.R. 2018 - Senate has taken no action to date

Consumer Financial Protection & Soundness Improvement Act
H.R. 1315 - Senate has taken no action to date

Protecting Jobs from Government Interference Act
H.R. 2587 - Senate has taken no action to date

Transparency in Regulatory Analysis of Impacts on The Nation
H.R. 2401 - Senate has taken no action to date

Cement Sector Regulatory Relief Act
H.R. 2681 - Senate has taken no action to date

EPA Regulatory Relief Act
H.R. 2250 - Senate has taken no action to date

Coal Residuals Reuse and Management Act
H.R. 2273 - Senate has taken no action to date

Workforce Democracy and Fairness Act
H.R. 3094 - Senate has taken no action to date

Regulatory Accountability Act
H.R. 3010 - Senate has taken no action to date

Regulatory Flexibility Improvements Act
H.R. 527 - Senate has taken no action to date

H.R. 10 - Senate has taken no action to date

Farm Dust Regulation Prevention Act
H.R. 1633 - Senate has taken no action to date

Fix The Tax Code To Help Job Creators
America’s tax code has grown too complicated and cumbersome. We need a tax code that is flatter, fairer, and simpler to ensure that everyone pays their fair share, lessen the burden on families, generate economic expansion, and create jobs by making America more competitive.

Small Business Paperwork Mandate Elimination Act
H.R. 4 - Signed into law by the President on April 14, 2011

3% Withholding Rule Repeal
H.R. 674 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011

Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act
H.R. 3630 - Senate has taken no action to date

Increase Competitiveness for U.S. Manufacturers
The more that American businesses export, the more they produce. The more businesses produce, the more workers they need. This means job creation. Expanding market access for U.S. made products will be a shot in the arm for businesses small and large and will create jobs.

U.S.-Colombia Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act
H.R. 3078 - Signed by the Preisdent on October 21, 2011

U.S.-Panama Trade Promotion Agreement Implementation Act
H.R. 3079 - Signed by the Preisdent on October 21, 2011

U.S.-Korea Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act
H.R. 3080 - Signed by the Preisdent on October 21, 2011

Southeast Arizona Resource Utilization & Conservation Act
H.R. 1904 - Senate has taken no action to date

Encourage Entrepreneurship and Growth
America has historically been on the cutting edge of innovation and technological development, but we are increasingly falling behind our global competitors. We must make it easier for existing businesses to grow and allow more start-up companies to flourish.

The America Invents Act
H.R. 1249 - Signed into law by the President on September 16, 2011

Veterans Opportunity to Work Act
H.R. 2433 - Signed into law by the President on November 21, 2011

Small Company Capital Formation Act
H.R. 1070 - Senate has taken no action to date

Small Banks' Access to Capital Act
H.R. 1965 - Senate has taken no action to date

Entrepreneur Access to Capital Act
H.R. 2930 - Senate has taken no action to date

Access to Capital for Job Creators Act
H.R. 2940 - Senate has taken no action to date

Fairness for High-Skilled Immigrants Act
H.R. 3012 - Senate has taken no action to date

Maximize Domestic Energy Production
The energy sector is crucial to our economic growth, and high energy costs have a major impact on job creation. We need policies that allow us to harness our abundant supply of natural resources in America, develop new sources of energy, and create jobs here at home.

Restarting American Offshore Leasing Now Act
H.R. 1230 - Senate has taken no action to date

Putting the Gulf of Mexico Back to Work Act
H.R. 1229 - Senate has taken no action to date

Reversing President Obama’s Offshore Moratorium Act
H.R. 1231 - Senate has taken no action to date

Jobs and Energy Permitting Act of 2011
H.R. 2021 - Senate has taken no action to date

North American-Made Energy Security Act
H.R. 1938 - Senate has taken no action to date

Pay Down America's Unsustainable Debt Burden
The federal government is spending and borrowing so much that the United States will soon go broke. Washington’s spending binge has put our nation in debt, eroded economic confidence, and caused massive uncertainty for private sector job creators. It's time to live within our means.

Budget for Fiscal Year 2012
H.Con.Res. 34 - Senate has not yet considered a budget of its own