Presented by: The Religious Freedom Coalition of the SouthEast
for Whatever you can do.
between Church and State." Who coined the Phrase? Give up?
Answer: Thomas Jefferson - one of the founding fathers of this
great Nation and a creator of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment
to that same Constitution. Thomas Jefferson, in 1802, wrote a Letter
to the Danbury Baptist Association, referring to the First Amendment to the
US Constitution. In it he said:
"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim
Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist
association in the state of Connecticut.
"The affectionate sentiments of esteem
and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on
behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest
satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the
interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of
my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more
"Believing with you that religion is a
matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to
none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of
government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with
sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared
that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a
wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression
of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience,
I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments
which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no
natural right in opposition to his social duties.
"I reciprocate your kind prayers for the
protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and
tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my
high respect & esteem."
Jan 1, 1802
From the U.S.
Library of Congress
REPUBLICANS THE ENEMY AND TRAITORS TO AMERICA?
by R. Blackbird
Extremist Republicans are selfish, power hungry, hateful of the
poor, disloyal to the nation and its people, dishonest, avaricious, scornful
of the nation's history, the dignity of its institutions, its standards
of political morality, and its vision of advancement for all the people. The
Republicans love war as long as they and theirs do not have to put on
helmets and carry guns into the fighting. They use lies to start wars that
kill hundreds of thousands of innocents and thousands of our own military
service people. They love massive war-time profits, unavailable to their
rich masters if war is absent.
Those Extremist Republicans hate the
rest of us, which they must, in order to pass away from themselves and onto
us, the financial burdens and losses their crimes, schemes and thefts cause.
They are prolific, incessant, and destructive liars. They are blasphemers
for they insist that their hateful and destructive deeds are the work of
God. They are apostates for they gleefully attack the poor, the immigrants,
the old and the sick, of whom God has commanded all of us to be mindful.
There is no reasoning with them, for all their logic is built on
false premises. There is no appealing to them for honor's sake for they have
lost all sense of shame and have no honor, there is no appealing to them for
the nation's sake for that it what they hate the most.
Extremist Republicans are the enemy.
We will leave it up to the reader
to determine whether Governor Mitch Daniels has made serious errors in in
He has supported a Conservative Far Right
Christian position especially when it comes to Church and State issues
and tt is apparent from the data collected, that the first amendment
may be in danger from his past and future actions as well as other
constitutional sections. He has supported deregulation of banks and
the SEC causing the current economic Depression.
office stated that his position is that Certain Religions aren't
"Real" religions. What is a real religion, Governor Daniels?
What you have been practicing? He says on the one hand that only
certain Christian denominations are valid. Read the following and
remember: "By their Works may they be known." This is a summary of
information collected from several sources about
(Remember it is best to
investigate on your own when looking at allegations about anyone.
Don't believe us, think for yourself and investigate for yourself! And
remember, the First Amendment Coalition and Religious Freedom Coalition of
the South East do not represent any political party nor do we recommend any
political candidate, nor are we involving ourselves in the political
This document contains excerpts from
articles posted on huffingtonpost.com by Sam Stein, 05/19/11; also from previous articles
in the washingtonpost.com, and salon.com
Mitch Daniels Not Only Took
ObamaCare Funds, He Pushed Similar Reforms
A race to pre-define the
prospective presidential candidacy of Republican Mitch Daniels took off in
haste on Thursday, as Democrats
heaped praise on the
Indiana governor for his implementation of the president's health care law.
It's low-hanging fruit, as far as
political attacks go. The Affordable Care Act is toxic among Republican
voters -- something that those attacking Daniels are implicitly
acknowledging. While the Indiana governor has
ObamaCare's repeal, his acceptance of the ACA money does set him apart from
some of his GOP colleagues.
It also underscores that extent to
which Daniel is vulnerable on the health care front. Like nearly every other
candidate in the GOP field, his record contains several potential points of
friction among conservative voters. The most obvious one would be his
previous support for the notion that the government could mandate
individuals to purchase insurance. Below, for instance, is an October 23,
2003, South Bend Tribune article about Daniels on the gubernatorial
The candidate said he favors a
universal health care system that would move away from employee-based
health policies and make it mandatory for all Americans to have health
Daniels envisioned one scenario in
which residents could certify their coverage when paying income taxes
and receive a tax exemption that would cover the cost.
"We really have to have universal
coverage," Daniels said.
Culled from a lengthy search of the
governor's various statements on health care policy, that article was the
one prominent instance in which Daniels appeared to endorse the type of
mandate that Republicans now claim is unconstitutional.
Half-a-dozen attempts to follow up with
someone from the governor's press office were not returned. Sellers
Feinberg, a health care consulting firm that Daniels hired, said it could
not discuss the work it had done with a current client.
Back in 2003, mandates were very much a
conservative idea, making support for them by Daniels -- let alone fellow
2012 Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich --
either mundane or expected.
But there are other similarities
between the health care policies Daniel's passed as governor and those that
constitute President Obama's signature legislation. Both, for instance,
require insurance companies to allow children to remain on their parents'
accounts past traditional ages for college graduation -- Daniels allows
dependent coverage up to age 24, Obama up to 26. Both required Medicaid
programs to expand eligibility to individuals and families above the poverty
Like Obama, Daniels also put a
premium on updating hospital records and information sharing. According to a
February 21, 2005, Indianapolis Business Journal article, he
"ordered the state Department of Health to come up with a regulation that
requires every hospital to implement an error reporting system and provide
data to the department, which will post it on the Internet." Separately,
both Daniels and Obama increased
taxes on cigarettes
as a means of generating revenue for health care coverage elsewhere (and
"Of all the candidates on the
Republican side of the aisle, who has the most interesting ideas in health
care, I would put Romney number one, but Daniels number two," said Len
Nichols an expert on health care economics at George Mason University.
Many conservatives would
disagree. For these policy prescriptions and for his decision to accept the
money offered under the ACA,
Daniels has been accused
of putting taxpayers on the hook for the health care of others, and
crowding out private
business from the health care marketplace.
Of course, not all of the health care
reforms Daniels made so closely mirrored those in the ACA. Indiana was far
from a canvass for Obama-like reform. There were plenty of policy proposals
the governor backed that left Democrats enraged.
In the winter of 2005, Daniels pushed a
bill that eliminating the requirements that insurance companies cover some
pre-existing conditions for consumers purchasing individual policies. His
logic was that pared down plans would be cheaper plans. And being able to
purchase even modest insurance would be better then being unable to afford
"The goal is to insure as many
individuals as possible and to give as much choice as possible," Daniels
said at the time. "It is far better to have some coverage than no coverage,
which is the position of far too many Hoosiers today."
The most notably innovative,
conservative approach Daniels took to health care reform, however, was the
Healthy Indiana Program
that he signed into law in 2007. The program, which required a waiver from
the federal government and was paid for in part by the cigarette tax,
created health savings accounts for low-income individuals. Medicaid funding
was put into those accounts, and was supplemented by monthly payments from
enrollees. Participants were kept to a $300,000 annual cap and $1 million
lifetime limit. But a portion of the funding they didn't use was actually
given back to them as a payment -- a financial incentive for individuals to
be economical in their health care decisions.
"For folks like me -- I am an
economist, but I am a Democrat -- this is like the most creative application
of the conservative ideology, frankly, in 15 years," said Nichols.
The problem: It didn't really work. The
benefits provided under the Healthy Indiana Plan were particularly skimpy
and the costs were more expensive than expected.
"Enrollment was always much smaller"
than the plan's supporters had expected, said Edwin Park, vice president for
health policy at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities. "150,000 was
the estimate, enrollment was a third of that."
Will Eli Lilly Scandals Rub Off On Mitch
Excerpt from an
article first posted By Ed Silverman in pharmalot.com on May 9th, 2011
Indiana governor and former Eli Lilly exec Mitch Daniels gears up
for a run at the Republican presidential nomination, his campaign
staff is working hard to deny he had anything to do with the
marketing scandals that enveloped the drugmaker during his tenure,
according to iWatch, the blog from the Center for Public Integrity.
In 2005, for instance,
Lilly pleaded guilty and paid $36 million for illegally marketing
its Evista osteoporosis med (read
this). And two years ago, the
drugmaker pleaded guilty and paid $1.4 billion for off-label
promotion of its Zyprexa antipsychotic. The penalty include a
criminal fine of $515 million which, at the time, was the largest
criminal fine for an individual corporation ever imposed in a US
criminal prosecution of any kind (read
However, Daniels was
risking steadily through Lilly corporate ranks at the time these
infractions occurred, notes
was vice president of corporate affairs, president of North American
pharmaceutical operations and, in 1997, became senior vice president
of corporate strategy and policy.
Daniels’ press secretary Jane
Jakowski denies the gov was involved - directly or indirectly - with
the marketing for either drug. “He had zero to do with marketing
plans that were created for Zyprexa and Evista.” Concerning a
high-profile battle over a patent for the Prozac antidepressant in
which trial data was allegedly hidden, she adds Lilly “was the
object of a multimillion-dollar smear campaign by a self-interested
organization that was trying to drive vulnerable patients away from
medical treatment for depression.”
Nonetheless, his senior roles
at the drugmakers suggests, to some, that he may have some
explaining to do as he portrays himself to voters as someone with
the skills and leadership to run the country and make the best
decisions possible. “I would have hoped that he would have known
about some of these issues, and if he didn’t, why didn’t he? That
needs to be evaluated” Stephen Sheller, an attorney who sued the
drugmaker over Zyprexa marketing and was involved in the settlement.
“Bill Clinton had the bimbo
factor. Mitch Daniels is going to need a strategy to counteract the
assumption that will be made that he was somehow complicit in the
misdeeds of Eli Lilly,” Ira Loss, senior health care analyst at
Washington Analysis, an investment research firm, tells iWatch.
“It’s possible that he wouldn’t have known a thing,” but “Mitch
Daniels can’t walk into the presidential race and not expect
questions about this issue.”
However, Sid Wolfe, who directs
Public Citizen’s Health Research Group and is a frequent industry
critics, notes that most decisions are not made by any one exec, so
his involvement in the controversies remains unclear. “These things
transcend individuals. It’s more difficult to say this is the work
of person A, B, or C,” he tells iWatch. “It’s industrywide corporate
Mitch Daniels's Presidential Prospects Could
Be Dimmed by Power Plant Scandal
Under construction: Duke
Energy's Edwardsport plant. Photo by author.
Anyone who thinks Indiana's
Republican Governor Mitch Daniels should run for president hasn't
paid much attention to the dark cloud hanging over Duke Energy's new
coal gasification plant -- a massive industrial complex rising up at
the edge of the tiny town of Edwardsport, Indiana.
Three highly placed men have
lost their jobs in recent weeks in a scandal over influence peddling
at the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission, while a citizens'
organization is accusing Duke of misleading the commission and
mismanaging the project.
The ethics scandal broke Sept.
21 when the Citizens Action Coalition of Indiana, a 40,000-member
group that has
this power project with the fury of a grizzly, put out a press
release noting a lawyer's move from a job at the IURC to a job at
Duke Energy without waiting the year required by Indiana
government's ethics code.
The CAC was right to be
concerned. The lawyer, Scott Storms, had had a hand in decisions
involving the Duke plant at the very time he was negotiating for a
job at Duke Energy. Duke Energy subsequently fired him, as well as
the man who hired him, Mike Reed, who had himself held an executive
director position at the IURC while decisions on Duke were being
made. Acting to contain the damage, Gov. Daniels removed David Lott
Hardy from his position as chair of the IURC.
Hardy, Storms, and Reed were
all employed at the IURC when it first approved a sweetheart deal
with Duke in 2007. That deal has awarded Duke steadily increasing
amounts of ratepayer money as plant construction costs have spiraled
upward from the original estimate approved by the IURC -- $1.985
billion -- to a current predicted cap of nearly $3 billion.
The CAC's Kerwin Olson has
pointed out to the IURC that if these rate increases were property
tax increases, voters would have a chance to vote in a public
referendum. If they were general tax increases, they would have to
be approved by the General Assembly and the Governor.
"Yet with respect to this
decision to pass on a total of nearly $3 billion to the ratepayers,
only one opportunity has been afforded the public to be heard"--and
that was before the IURC first approved the plant in 2007. In
testimony Olson recently
to the IURC, he asked the IURC to hold two public hearings in Duke's
In addition, given five ongoing
investigations into the ethics scandal, Olson said that the IURC
should suspend "all orders and hearings" on additional relief for
Duke until the results of the investigations by the state, Duke
Energy, and the U.S. Department of Justice are known.
Olson submitted this testimony
during an IURC move toward what could be a definitive IURC go-ahead
for Duke Energy to finish the plant at ratepayers' expense. The
agreement under IURC consideration would cap the project's costs to
be covered by ratepayers at $2.975 billion.
The CAC of Indiana -- an
advocate for ratepayers, environmental sanity, and health rights --
has argued that if more electricity is needed (and CAC questions
that), ratepayer money ought to be spent instead on increasing
efficiency and developing wind and solar power. To the CAC, this
618-megawatt integrated gasification combined cycle plant, nearly
four times as big as the old coal plant it replaces, is a
greenwashed boondoggle of massive proportions -- not needed by the
Hoosiers who are paying for it, not economically justifiable, and
unlikely to fulfill the "clean coal" promises made on its behalf.
Anyone who doubts the force of
this argument should
the testimony that consultant David A. Schlissel submitted to the
IURC on behalf of the CAC, the Sierra Club, and two smaller
environmental groups who oppose the tentative agreement that would
cap the project at a sum about a billion dollars higher than the
estimate three years ago.
According to Schlissel, Duke
"has grossly mismanaged its resource planning for the Edwardsport
project and has failed to fully disclose to the IURC the risks and
the significance of higher construction costs." He recommended an
IURC investigation to determine whether Duke had misled the
commission. Olson, for his part, told me, "Duke has concealed
evidence, grossly mismanaged the project, possibly committed fraud,
misled the public and been less than forthcoming before the
In a talk to a couple dozen
citizens gathered at the library in Bloomington, about an hour up
the road from Edwardsport, Olson also laid out the argument that a
selling point which Duke used to get the plant approved in the first
place was always just that -- a selling point.
Before the plant was approved,
Duke held out the promise of using underground storage to sequester
the carbon dioxide the plant produces. It turns out that the terrain
at Edwardsport is the wrong terrain for carbon sequestration, even
if carbon sequestration were a good idea -- and there are reasons to
doubt that. The company might pipe some of the CO2 to another site,
but Olson says the plant as it is being built now could not capture
more than 18 percent of the carbon dioxide it produces in any case.
"We believe they never had any intent to capture any of the CO2," he
Supporters of Mitch Daniels for
president would do well to be worried by the storm swirling around
the centerpiece of his drive to expand the coal-based sector of
Indiana's economy. While he might hope to contain the damage with
investigations he has ordered the Indiana inspector general and the
IURC to carry out, the federal investigation requested by the CAC
would bring a more rigorous outside perspective to bear.
Meanwhile, despite the fact
that plant is already half built, the CAC is saying that the best
thing for Indiana ratepayers would be for the IURC to stop
construction altogether. I'd like that fine, not only because I'm a
ratepayer but also because I've watched the destruction coal mining
does, in the Appalachian mountains where I have family roots and
also in southwest Indiana. Half an hour's drive north of the
Edwardsport plant, Peabody Energy has ripped up the land in what is
touted to become the biggest surface mine east of the Mississippi --
Bear Run. I drove around it one day and thought I'd wandered into a
mine-ravaged stretch of Wyoming.
There's a precedent in Indiana
for stopping a power plant in mid-construction: Marble Hill Nuclear
Power Station was abandoned in 1984 because of cost overruns when it
was even closer to completion than the Edwardsport plant is. The
Citizens Action Coalition played a role in bringing that plant down.
Indiana environmentalists and ratepayers have good reason to hope
that, in this case, history will repeat itself.
For information on all
individuals and organizations listed in this website, or the name of a
contact person in your area that can give you further information on the
Religious Freedom Coalition of the Southeast, or the First Amendment
Coalition, contact us at
email@example.comLet us hear from you!
You may call also call us at 000-000-0000 If you access our voice
mail, we will call you back collect if long distance.
Or, you can write to us at: RFCSE,
P.O. Box 673206, Marietta, GA 30006-0036
There have been
visitors to this page since January 1, 2009
This site created by Georgia First Amendment
Coalition and Religious Freedom Coalition of the Southeast
design copyright 1998 an associate