Thursday, July 30, 2015

Zimbabwe's Empty Streets

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ aabout the economy of Zimbabwe. This follows this post about Churchill's leadership. This follows this post about Japan and North Korea. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.



Zimbabwe's Empty Streets

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×
Zimbabwe was once the economic powerhouse and breadbasket of southern Africa. Its rich lands allowed the nation to be self sufficient in virtually everything during the days when it was the pariah among nations. Today its economy is in shambles, inflation is in triple digits and starvation and AIDS has sapped the strength and will of its people.

In 2000 I spent several days in the country visiting with some of the people and seeing the remains of a once vital country. There was still some hope that life would get better, but in the four years since more have fled and, worse yet, it seems the will to rise up and push for reforms has all but gone. This article in the Christian Science Monitor has one paragraph that explains why the citizens have not yet appeared in the streets of Harare or Bulawayo…
Nor does it have a figure like Archbishop Desmond Tutu, a unifying moral force in the anti-apartheid struggle. Zimbabwe's churches are divided, as is civil society and the political opposition.
New elections are coming on March 31. Will another sham election arouse the indignation of capable people? We'll see.

http://www.ucg.org/search?query=zimbabwe

Trump walking back some amnesty comments and filling in some blanks (and we raise his grade)

An interesting article from www.numbersusa.com about Donald Trump's immigration stance. This follows this post about Virginia and other states. Remember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.


Trump walking back some amnesty comments and filling in some blanks (and we raise his grade)

After a lot of criticism over the weekend of his recent remarks about letting the "good" illegal aliens stay, Donald Trump has gone on national media to clarify his remarks about amnesty -- a bit. There is still a lot of confusion about the details of his stance, and it is likely that he has not yet thought about those policy details.
On the basis of the new details he has provided in the last two days, NumbersUSA is changing his amnesty rating from HARMFUL to MIXED on our Worker-Protection Immigration Grade Cards. (See all ratings and grades for 21 Presidential Hopefuls at: www. NumbersUSA.com/2016
With that change and the ratings he has on the other nine immigration categories, Trump has raised his overall grade to a C+, which again puts him in the No. 3 spot among all 21 Presidential Hopefuls of both Parties.
(Rick Santorum earns an A grade, and Scott Walker earns a B-minus as the only Hopefuls whose policy stances on 10 immigration issues are more positive toward American workers and their families.)
Many thanks to all of you Trump supporters who sent messages in one way or another to the Trump campaign to improve what he was saying about legalizing illegal aliens. This is what supporters of every candidate ought to be doing. We provide contact information on each candidate. Just click on the photos on www.NumbersUSA.com/2016.


WHAT TRUMP IS SAYING NOW ABOUT AMNESTY




I'm going to start here by giving you direct quotes from two interviews. Then I'll suggest what these quotes may mean about policy and what questions remain.

This is from the CNN interview with Jake Tapper: (I have edited out parts that don't deal with the question of what Trump's plan would do with illegal aliens who are in this country.)
(TAPPER) Would you be open-minded about a path to citizenship? Is that a nonstarter with you? Where are you on that issue?
(TRUMP) . . . First of all -- and you said it -- you have to stop it (illegal immigration). You have to stop it fast. And we can do that. We can do that with combinations of walls and Border Patrol . . . and fencing.
Once that's done, we have a situation that is going to be done immediately, before that's done. We're going to get the bad ones out. We have some really bad dudes right here in this country, and we're getting them out, and we're sending them back to where they came from. And I don't mean Mexico. I mean, it's -- they come from all over. . . .
(TAPPER) There obviously will be -- will remain, after you get rid of the bad ones, millions and millions of undocumented workers who are not bad ones. And they're women and they're children and they're men who are here who came here for a better life, and -- but you're not going to yet take a position on whether or not you would favor a path to citizenship?
(TRUMP) I will say, from a moral standpoint, from a physical standpoint, you're talking about at least 11 million people. I have heard the number is much higher than that, because that number has been bandied about for years. . . . But we're going to take the high ground. We're going to do what's right. Some (illegal aliens) are going to have to go. And some, we're just going to see what happens. It's a very, very big subject, and a very complicated subject. . . ."
This is from the Fox interview with Hannity: (Also edited for the pertinent content.)
(TRUMP) . . . these (illegal aliens) can be some great people-- but, you either have laws or you don't have laws. I would get them back, I would get them back where they are, and I would try to work out a process where they can come in legally. But, they have to come in legally, it's about laws, it's about borders. If we don't have a border, we don't have a country. So, I get them out, and if they were really outstanding, because some of these people have been here for a long period of time, I'd let them back legally. They have to come through a legal system, and I'd make that system much faster, much quicker. I want people to come into the country. I love the fact that people come into the country, but they have to come in legally. Not only them, other people. We welcome people, I mean, my parents and my grandparents, they came from different parts of the world, too. We all sort of did when you get right down to it. . . .
I would expedite [the process], because some of these people (illegal aliens) are fantastic people. I've been to the border, I was there a few days ago. I met some people, these are fantastic people and they have great reputations within the community. So what I'd do is that I would expedite it. You have to have laws. If you don't have laws, you don't have a country. I would get them out, and I would try, the good ones -- the bad ones, they're gone, they never come back. They'll never get back into this country. But, the good ones, of which there are many, I want to expedite it so they can come back in legally.
WHAT DOES TRUMP MEAN?
This is more difficult. I was talking today with somebody who has spent some time with Trump who emphasized that he does not have real experience with policy and doesn't think in terms of detailed policy. The likelihood is that these comments from him on national TV are things he has thought about but not things that have been worked out in policymaking meetings with staffers and others.
Note that Trump largely sidestepped questions about citizenship. But these two interviews over the last two days -- combined with interviews granted last week about wanting to keep hard-working illegal aliens in the country -- seem to suggest a policy like this:
1. Illegal aliens would not be rewarded with legal status (work permits, benefits, Social Security cards, citizenship, etc.) without at least first leaving the country.
2. No legal status would be granted to those illegal aliens until illegal immigration is brought under control. At a minimum, that includes a fence and adequate Border Patrol activity. He still hasn't said if he would take away the jobs magnet nor has he commented on a number of interior enforcement tools.
3. He would start giving legal status to illegal aliens who have gone home ONLY after the "bad" illegal aliens have been deported from the U.S.
4. Once the prerequisites have been met, he would move quickly to get deserving illegal aliens back into the United States. But who are the deserving ones? Some previous comments suggest that it might be only people who have worked hard (illegally) at U.S. jobs and not used taxpayer assistance. Some people think his comments suggest that only illegal aliens with highly valued skills would be allowed back in. Or maybe it is just anybody who didn't build a criminal record while in the U.S. Depending on the answer to this question, the number allowed back in might be as high as nine million or as low as just tens of thousands, by my estimate.
5. He wants the deserving illegal aliens back in the United States in an expedited fashion. Does that mean there will be additional green cards made available, in which case legal immigration will rise considerably for some time? Or does he want to make the currently available green cards in the current numbers to be given first to the illegal aliens, causing other foreign citizens who are in line to wait more years, in which case the level of legal immigration would remain the same at around 1 million annually?
In general, Trump has described a Touchback Amnesty which was pushed a few years ago by Rep. Mike Pence (now governor of Indiana). At the time, he was one of the hottest rising stars of the conservative movement. Pence's star immediately plummeted upon his championing the Touchback Amnesty, and it took him years to recover political stature.
The difference between Trump's Touchback and Pence's seems to be that Trump has put a lot of "have-to" steps before the amnesty would be given. Those steps might take years.
We may be being generous in giving Trump a Mixed rating on amnesty right now. We will be watching very closely for more signals. We know that he is very, very serious about protecting the American people from tragic violence from illegal aliens. We haven't seen corresponding signs yet that he is thinking about protecting American workers and their families from harmful job and wage competition.
ROY BECK is Founder & President of NumbersUSA
NumbersUSA's blogs are copyrighted and may be republished or reposted only if they are copied in their entirety, including this paragraph, and provide proper credit to NumbersUSA. NumbersUSA bears no responsibility for where our blogs may be republished or reposted. The views expressed in blogs do not necessarily reflect the official position of NumbersUSA.

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Another Call For Churchill

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Churchill's leadership. This follows this post about Japan and North Korea. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.


Another Call For Churchill

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×
World Magazine Editor Marvin Olasky has a column today that shows the lack of awareness most Americans have of the clear and present danger from nuclear armed nations like Iran or other radical Islamic terror groups.

The current flap over DP World's management of American ports highlights the inadequacies of this war on terror. The muddled thinking that would allow an Arab country access to not just port management but the inner workings of the port security plans is hard to figure. Why would we even want to let this happen? Is there not an American company that could do this job, allowing us to keep it home grown?

The urgency based, on the facts before us, is just not there. Iran is moving closer each day to possessing a nuclear weapon. They have said enough against Israel, America and western values to justify inclusion in the “axis of evil.” Does anyone remember that description?

This morning there was a report that Former United States President Bill Clinton was doing double speak this week with his comments about the Dubai ports deal. While his wife speaks against the deal from her senate perch, he is advising the Dubai government on how to finesse this issue with the public and lawmakers.

America and Britain are whistling past the graveyard. Some want to return to a normal world, thinking it is possible to subdue our enemies through a combination of diplomacy and military intervention. It is likely true that we have bought ourselves some time by invading Iraq and Afghanistan. But the demon is out of the bottle and we are seeing the reality of forces aligned against us, intent on our destruction. They will stop at nothing less.

Meanwhile our culture continues on, oblivious to the fact that it all could suddenly come to an end. The words of Isaiah call us to repent of the sins that overcome us from head to toe. “Wash yourselves, make yourselves clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes. Cease to do evil,…though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow”. There is room and time for repentance God says, but if not, “…if you refuse and rebel, you shall be devoured by the sword”. (Isaiah 1:16 Isaiah 1:16Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before my eyes; cease to do evil;
American King James Version×
, 18, 20)

We don't Winston Churchill today but we have God's word to instruct us and send a wake up call. It is still not too late.

The Sanctuary Scandal and Refugee Resettlement

A timely post about from https://texaseagle.org about sanctuary cities and refugee resettlement. This follows this post about military recruiters.   This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
You can follow me here.




The Sanctuary Scandal

by Phyllis Schlafly, CEO & Founder of Eagle Forum
 
Donald Trump's unorthodox campaign has performed a public service by shining the national spotlight on the problem of "sanctuary cities," which shelter illegal aliens from deportation. The tragedy of Kate Steinle, who died in the arms of her father after being shot by an illegal alien, is that her death was preventable, yet officials have defiantly defended their sanctuary policies.
It wasn't only the city and county of San Francisco that released the seven-times-convicted, five-times-deported Mexican who killed Steinle. Barack Obama's ICE let him go, too. ICE has released many thousands of criminal aliens onto unsuspecting local communities instead of returning them to their countries of origin, including 121 who were subsequently charged with murdering Americans in the past five years.
According to government figures compiled by Jessica Vaughan of the Center for Immigration Studies, more than 8,100 deportable aliens (including 3,000 felons) were released by sanctuary cities and counties in just the first eight months of last year. Some 1,900 of those wrongly released aliens have already re-offended 4,300 times, racking up 7,800 new charges including murder, violent assault, rape and child rape.
The first local sanctuary policy was officially adopted more than 30 years ago by notorious Los Angeles Police Chief Daryl Gates. Since then, about 300 cities and counties have adopted one or more sanctuary policies such as: refusing to inquire about immigration status when making a traffic stop or during other routine police work; refusing to report a subject's unlawful status to the appropriate federal agency (now called ICE); or refusing to honor a "detainer," which is a written request to detain a subject until ICE can deport him.
Bills to stop local sanctuary policies were introduced in Congress and state legislatures, but they all wilted under pressure from amnesty advocates, such as businesses dependent on cheap foreign labor. The U.S. House last week finally approved a bill to withhold certain federal reimbursements from sanctuaries, but the promise of a presidential veto assures that even this minor reform will never become law.
Headlines proclaim that Republicans voted to "crack down" on sanctuary cities, but nothing will change unless the restrictions are folded into a must-pass appropriations bill. Washington, D.C., for example, remains a sanctuary city even though Congress has the constitutional power "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever" over our nation's capital.
Local sanctuary policies protect thousands from deportation, but the real damage is done at the federal level.
Policies instituted by the Obama administration have effectively given sanctuary to millions, thanks to Obama's wholesale refusal to enforce immigration laws.
Take Obama's executive amnesty of last November 20, which would have given legal status and work permits (including Social Security numbers) to approximately five million of the estimated 11 million illegal aliens. A brave federal judge blocked the work permits, but the five million still benefit from Obama's decision to give them a low enforcement priority, another form of sanctuary.
Obama recently extended lower-priority enforcement to several million more people, and approximately 87 percent of the illegal population — all but 1.4 million of the 11 million — are basically home free, as if the United States is now the sanctuary for the whole world.
Don't assume illegal immigration has stopped just because the official estimate of the illegal population has remained steady at 11 to 12 million for a decade. To replace attrition (a.k.a. self-deportation), illegal immigration (which includes people who enter legally but don't go home when their visas expire) continues unabated at the rate of 1,000 per day.
About 2.5 million people have entered illegally or become illegal since Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, and that number doesn't even include legal immigration of more than 1.1 million people a year. The Census Bureau estimates that "net migration" will bring 14 million new immigrants to the United States during the next 10 years.
Of all of Obama's sanctuary policies, probably the worst is his vast expansion of refugee and asylum policies. Largely unnoticed by national media, tens of thousands of so-called refugees, mostly from Muslim countries, are being resettled all over the United States.
The United States now receives more refugees than all other countries combined and plops them down in what are called "seed communities" where local opposition is not tolerated. There's even a special federal program to combat "pockets of resistance," such as the recent uproar in Twin Falls, Idaho, where the U.S. government wants to send 300 refugees from war-torn Syria.
The July 16 murders of four U.S. Marines and a U.S. Navy sailor in Chattanooga, Tenn., by a Kuwaiti-born Palestinian is a good example of the dangers of allowing Muslims to enter our country legally as refugees. Like the Boston Marathon bombing by the Tsarnaev brothers in 2013, and like the dozens of Somali young men who have disappeared from Minneapolis, Chattanooga is another case where children of immigrants are radicalized by the terrorist ideologies of the countries their parents came from.

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Japan Considers Preemptive Strike on North Korea

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Japan and North Korea. This follows this post about mindsets. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

In Brief... World News Review

Japan Considers Preemptive Strike on North Korea

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!
Sign In | Sign Up
×

After North Korea's provocative missile tests in early July, Japan said it was considering whether a preemptive strike on North Korea's missile bases would violate its constitution.
According to Mari Yamaguchi (AP, July 10), several government officials openly discussed whether the country ought to take steps to better defend itself, including setting up the legal framework to allow Japan to launch a preemptive strike.
“If we accept that there is no other option to prevent an attack… there is the view that attacking the launch base of the guided missiles is within the constitutional right of self-defense. We need to deepen discussion,” Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe said.
“With all of Japan easily within range of North Korean missiles, an opinion poll conducted by Japan's NHK television showed that 82 percent of respondents in Japan said they felt 'fearful' or 'somewhat fearful' of the seven or more missiles that North Korea shot into the Sea of Japan on July 4,” reported Anthony Faiola in the Washington Post July 11.
Japan's constitution, written after World War II, prohibits the use of military force, though Japan does maintain a 240,000-strong self-defense force.
However, AP quoted a Japanese Defense Agency spokeswoman as saying Japan has no attacking weapons such as ballistic missiles that could reach North Korea. Its forces only have ground-to-air missiles and ground-to-vessel missiles, she said on condition of anonymity.
For their part, North Korea scoffed at the UN Security Council resolution asking it to quit launching missiles and return to six-party talks. “The vicious, hostile policy of the U.S. and the irresponsibility of the UN Security Council have created an extremely dangerous situation on the Korean Peninsula,” said a North Korean Foreign Ministry statement ( The Week, July 28, 2006).
—Sources: AP, The Week, WashingtonPost.com

How Immigration Is Transforming Virginia, And The Nation

An interesting article from www.vdare.com about Virginia and other states. This follows this post about the House sanctuary billRemember, “Amnesty” means ANY non-enforcement of existing immigration laws! This follows this comment and this post about how to Report Illegal Immigrants! Also, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.





How Immigration Is Transforming Virginia, And The Nation 


Virginia is where America began. The Jamestown colony founded in 1607 was the first of the 13 English colonies which became the United States of America. The state is the birthplace of 8 presidents, and I’m proud to say that the Wall family is of colonial Virginia stock.
Now Virginia is being transformed into a Third World entity, with predictable results.
Julia Hahn of Breitbart has just published an excellent summation of the transformation in an article entitled New California: Mass Immigration Turning Virginia Blue (Julia Hahn, Breitbart, July 26, 2015). Some excerpts:
A remarkable transformation is underway in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The birthplace and final resting place of George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson—and once one of the most reliably-red of red states—is being rapidly turned into a progressive stronghold.
The writer isn’t afraid to point out the reason for this transformation. Has she been reading VDARE.COM?
These changes are not the result of an inside agency, or a natural evolution in political thinking, but rather the result of one of the most impactful yet least-discussed policies of the federal government. Each year the federal government prints millions of visas and distributes these admission tickets to the poorest and least-developed nations in the world.
Yes, it’s due to immigration.
A middle-aged person living in parts of Virginia today will have witnessed more demographic change in the span of her life than many societies have experienced in millennia. A census study entitled “Immigrants in Virginia,” released by University of Virginia (UVA) researchers, documented the phenomenon: “Until 1970, only 1 in 100 Virginians was born outside of the United States; by 2012, 1 in every 9 Virginians is foreign-born.”
That is a huge demographic change. And where are these immigrants from?
UVA’s report explains that more than three out of four of Virginia immigrants (77 percent) are coming from either Latin America or Asia—immigration from Europe, the report writes, “lag[s] far behind” representing only 10 percent of Virginia’s immigrant population. This is consistent with trends nationwide.
Really, we don’t need more immigrants. But if we are going to take in immigrants, why not take them in from the Anglosphere and Europe? They assimilate better and cost less.
According to the 2013 Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Immigration Yearbook, only 8.7 percent of green cards issued by the federal government went to immigrants born in Europe, a product of immigration changes pushed through by Ted Kennedy in 1965.
And just because an immigrant is listed as coming from, say, the UK or Germany doesn’t mean that he’s what you would think of as British or German.
DHS’ yearbook, however, does not provide information on parental nativity– in other words, it doesn’t say whether an immigrant from the United Kingdom may be the child of Saudi parents.
When the Jamestown colony was formed in 1607, they were wary of attacks from the Spaniards. Today’s Spanish-speaking conquistadors, however, are subsidized by the federal government.
Breitbart quotes the Washington Post.
“Statewide the number of Hispanics almost doubled to 632,000. Hispanics now make up 8 percent of Virginia residents.” The Post continues, “The state’s Asian population also took off, climbing by 68 percent in 10 years.”
White Virginians are being driven rapidly towards minority status.
The Post notes that, “as recently as 1990, non-Hispanic whites made up 76 percent of the state’s residents. A decade later, their numbers had fallen to 70 percent, and [in 2010], they accounted for less than two-thirds of the state’s residents.”
Contra the fantasies of Open Borders libertarians, mass immigration only swells the welfare state.
Because these newcomers to Virginia have largely been invited into the country with green cards or other visas, they can collect public benefits, fill any job, rely on federal retirement programs, and become naturalized voting citizens.
Of course, the mass invasion of immigrants (legal and illegal) is a nationwide phenomenon.
Year after year, the United States continues its annual dispensation of one million plus new green cards, the admission of one million foreign workers, refugees and dependents, and the importation of half a million foreign youths sought by college administrators. One in four U.S. residents is either an immigrant himself or has immigrant parents.
When is enough enough, or too much?
The Census Bureau projects that the U.S. will add another 14 million immigrants over the following ten years if green card programs aren’t slashed, pushing the U.S. past all documented historical immigration records in terms of immigrant to population ratio.
We need an immigration SHUTDOWN now.
When a high point was hit last century, then-President Calvin Coolidge hit the pause button for roughly fifty years– producing an era of explosive wage growth. That pause continued until Ted Kennedy ushered in legislation that opened our borders to the entire world.The steady gusher of visas happens silently and with little media recognition, yet its effects are more permanent and transformative than many of the most far-reaching foreign policy accords.

Of course, there are political consequences.
…….The Times Dispatch continues, “Virginia’s demographic changes have also transformed political leanings in the state that, before President Barack Obama’s win of electoral votes in 2008, had not backed a Democratic presidential candidate since 1964.”
And how are these immigrants voting?
…per the Times Dispatch….: “During the 2012 presidential election, when 71 percent of the state’s voters went to the polls, two-thirds of Hispanic and Asian voters backed Obama. Obama carried 93 percent of the black vote, 64 percent of the Hispanic vote and 66 percent of the Asian vote, according to exit polls reported by The New York Times.”
Explain to me again why leading Republicans support mass immigration. They should all be banging the drum for an immigration shutdown.
As Reuters reported in a recent article on U.S. visa policies: “Immigrants favor Democratic candidates and liberal policies by a wide margin, surveys show, and they have moved formerly competitive states like Illinois firmly into the Democratic column and could turn Republican strongholds like Georgia and Texas into battlegrounds in the years to come.”
A 2014 report authored by University of Maryland professor James Gimpel, similarly found that, “the enormous flow of legal immigrants in to the country — 29.5 million 1980 to 2012 — has remade and continues to remake the nation’s electorate in favor of the Democratic Party.”
The report cites a 2012 study conducted by YouGov that, “gauged the partisan preferences of over 2,900 naturalized immigrants, finding 62.5 percent to be Democratic identifiers, 24.6 percent Republican, and 12.9 percent independent.”
Examining the data in this study led Washington Examiner columnist Byron York to conclude: “The bottom line is that more immigration favors Democrats; there is no prediction of Democratic electoral ascendancy that doesn’t rely on demographic factors as the main engine of the party’s dominance.”
According to the AP, “El Salvador is the top country of birth for immigrants to Virginia.” And that has brought about the arrival of the MS-13 gang to Virginia.
…this migration has brought the arrival of the feared Salvadorian gang, Mara Salvatrucha, also known as MS-13.
The article brings out these figures that further illustrate the direction we’re heading.
Each year, the U.S. issues more green cards than the collective population of the 13 colonies the year Virginia’s Patrick Henry was born. In a single year, the U.S. will issue five times more green cards than there are members of Daughters of the American Revolution.
There’s plenty more in the article, check it out here, and kudos to Julia Hahn for presenting this information to the readers of Breitbart. She´s a real journalist who is not afraid to take on the tough issues. You can congratulate her here.

Monday, July 27, 2015

Editorial: Can Obamacare be repealed with the highway bill?

Editorial

Last week Senator Ted Cruz received flak for opposing the Export-Import Bank renewal with the Highway Bill. Now the Tea Party Patriots is proposing using that same Highway Bill as a vehicle to eliminate Obamacare. In a presidential election season and with both houses in GOP hands, would this work?



http://www.teapartypatriots.org/

Have you heard the latest about the Highway Bill in the Senate? Thanks to the tireless work of Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), we now have a very realistic shot of repealing Obamacare.
Call both of your Senators today and tell them to support Mike Lee's efforts to repeal Obamacare today!
Call 202-224-3121 and ask to be connected to your Senators' offices orvisit our website to lookup your Senators.
Yesterday the Senate rejected an amendment to the Highway Bill that would have fully repealed Obamacare. That amendment failed to reach the 60-vote threshold it needed to advance. But here's where things get interesting. Under the Senate rules, a Senator may refile the amendment on the basis that it is "germane" (or relevant) to the Highway Bill. The Chair of the Senate will most likely reject the amendment, arguing that an Obamacare repeal amendment is not related to the underlying bill. This is where we have a unique opportunity. Sen. Lee would formally object to the ruling, which allows a simple majority (only 51 votes) to overturn the decision of the chair.

This is a complicated procedural maneuver, but we are confident that we can win with the 51-vote threshold. Please call both of your United States Senators today and urge them to vote for Sen. Lee's appeal to overturn the Chair's decision and allow for another vote on the Obamacare repeal amendment.

Please call, email, and communicate on social media with both of your Senators throughout the day!

Our best chance to repeal Obamacare is TODAY!