 |
| Oklahoma Republican Senator James Inhofe |
Senator James Inhofe's reply to my PLEA to save the ACA or share the plan to REPLACE.
The sad truth - their is NOT REPLACEMENT
David Moorman
01/24/2017
____________________________________________________________________________________
Today I received a letter for Senator James Inhofe,
Republican Sr. Senator {OK}. Am I happy with his response to my Plea and
Question about the “REPEAL and REPLACE” of the ACA (Obamacare)?
The answer to that question is a RESOUNDING NO!!!
In this blog post I am going to share with you the
letter I sent to my Congressmen earlier this month and the ONE reply I have
received so far. I have also included Senator James Inhofe’s list of voting
record to show how much he HATES the LGBTQ COMMUITY and how much HE DOES NOT
CARE FOR THE WELFARE OF THE OKLAHOMA PEOPLE he is supposed to be representing
in WASHINGTON!!!
I have sent many letters to my Congressmen this last
year and I get no response or I get IGNORANT RESPONSES like this one that
proves my point – The REPUBLICAN CONGRESSMEN are looking out for THEIR BEST
INTEREST [lining their pocketbooks with bribes] and NOT the BEST INTEREST of
the PEOPLE WHO PAY FOR THEM to do that very thing.
Senator James Inhofe has just PROVEN to me that MY
LIFE DOES NOT MATTER to HIM along with the thousands of OKLAHOMA LIVES that
will be AFFECTED by them ripping through and destroying the ACA and they DO NOT
even have a PLAN to replace it with!!!
In Senator Inhofe’s letter back to me you see the same
old rhetoric that they all are using to try to convince people that the ACA is
bad.
Yes, Oklahoma had a 76% increase in rate plan cost but
they also GOT MORE MONEY to COVER THAT COST!!!
Republican Governor MARY FALLIN refused the MEDICADE
EXPANSION so therefore LESS OKLAHOMAS have insurance because of her IGNORANCE.
Every state that refused the MEDICADE EXPANSION got hit this year with HIGHER
COSTS.
I am so tired of them trying to SUGAR COAT everything
they are doing like it is good for the people when in actuality the ONLY ones
benefitting from the changes are the MEN and WOMEN who are supposed to have OUR
BEST INTEREST in WASHINGTON!!!
Here is my a copy of the letter I sent to my Congressmen in Oklahoma:
 |
| Click on image to enlarge |
Here is the reply I received from Senator James Inhofe.
Note that HE NEVER ADDRESSED my issue of LIVING WITH HIV and HOW was I to LIVE without the INSURANCE I NEED.
 |
| Click on image to enlarge |
As you can see there is NO PLAN in place right now other than to get RID of the ACA as fast as they can. These people in Washington need to
be bombarded with letters letting them know that WE the CONSTITUATES are
NOT HAPPY and we can END their REIGN of TERROR by VOTING THEM OUT OF
OFFICE!!!
Here is the list of things Senator James Inhofe has voted FOR AND AGAINST so you will KNOW that HE does NOT have ALL OF THE OKLAHOMA PEOPLE'S BEST INTEREST at HEART!!!
________________________________________________________________
Government shouldn't
redefine marriage
Question
topic: Marriage is a union of one man and one woman. No government has the
authority to alter this definition.
Inhofe:
Strongly Agree
Source:
Faith2Action iVoterGuide on 2014 Oklahoma Senate race , Sep 30, 2014
Last
night, my amendment to make English the national language passed the Senate by
a large bi-partisan majority -- 64 to 33, Inhofe said. “It was an historic vote
and the Senate once again debated and affirmed that English is our national
language.
Source:
2008 Senate campaign website, www.jiminhofe.com , Aug 12, 2008
Congressional
Summary:
Amends the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such
Act, including :
- "culturally specific services" to mean community-based services that offer culturally relevant and linguistically specific services and resources to culturally specific communities;
- "personally identifying information" with respect to a victim of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, or stalking;
- "underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and
- "youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.
Opponent's Argument for voting
No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic): House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that
extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native
Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill
because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate
version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics
and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly
ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal
government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family
values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement
"mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to
domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were
intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated
into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to
waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.
Reference:
Violence Against Women Reauthorization Act; Bill S. 47 ; vote
number 13-SV019
on Feb 12, 2013
Voting
YES implies support for amending the constitution to ban same-sex marriage.
This cloture motion to end debate requires a 3/5th majority. A constitutional
amendment requires a 2/3rd majority. The proposed amendment is:
Marriage
in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be
construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Proponents of the motion say:
- If Members of the Senate vote as their States have voted on this amendment, the vote today will be 90 to 10 in favor of a constitutional amendment.
- Marriage is a foundational institution. It is under attack by the courts. It needs to be defended by defining it as the union of a man and a woman as 45 of our 50 States have done.
The amendment is about how we are going to raise the next generation.
It is not an issue that the courts should resolve. Those of us who support this
amendment are doing so in an effort to let the people decide.
Opponents of the motion say:
- This proposal pits Americans against one another. It appeals to people's worst instincts and prejudices.
Supporters rail against activist judges. But if this vaguely worded
amendment ever passes, it will result in substantial litigation. What are the
legal incidents of marriage? Is a civil union a marriage?
- Married heterosexual couples are wondering, how, exactly, the prospect of gay marriages threatens the health of their marriages.
- This amendment would make a minority of Americans permanent second-class citizens of this country. It would prevent States, many of which are grappling with the definition of marriage, from deciding that gays and lesbians should be allowed to marry. And it would write discrimination into a document that has served as a historic guarantee of individual freedom.
Reference:
Marriage
Protection Amendment; Bill S. J. Res. 1 ;
vote number 2006-163
on Jun 7, 2006
Voted NO on adding sexual orientation to definition of hate crimes.
Motion
to Invoke Cloture on S. 625; Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act of 2001. The
bill would expand the definition of hate crimes to incorporate acts committed
because of a victim's sex, sexual orientation or disability and permit the
federal government to help states prosecute hate crimes even if no federally
protected action was implicated. If the cloture motion is agreed to, debate
will be limited and a vote will occur. If the cloture motion is rejected debate
could continue indefinitely and instead the bill is usually set aside. Hence a
Yes vote supports the expansion of the definition of hate crimes, and a No vote
keeps the existing definition. Three-fifths of the Senate, or 60 members, is
required to invoke cloture.
Voted YES on loosening
restrictions on cell phone wiretapping.
Motion
to table (kill) the amendment that would provide that in order to conduct
roving surveillance, the person implementing the order must ascertain that the
target of the surveillance is present in the house or is using the phone that
has been tapped.
Vote
to table, or kill, an amendment to repeal the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise
[DBE] Program, which requires no less than 10% of highway construction projects
funded by the federal government to be contracted to 'disadvantaged business
enterprises'
This
legislation would have abolished a program that helps businesses owned by women
or minorities compete for federally funded transportation.
Status: Cloture Motion Rejected Y)48; N)52
The
Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA): Vote to prohibit marriage between members of
the same sex in federal law, and provide that no state is required to recognize
same-sex marriages performed in other states. Define 'marriage' as 'between one
man and one woman.'
Would
have prohibited job discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Status: Bill Defeated Y)49; N)50; NV)1
Status: Bill Defeated Y)49; N)50; NV)1
Rated
20% by the ACLU,
indicating an anti-civil rights voting record.
Inhofe
scores 20% by the ACLU on civil rights issues
The mission of the ACLU is to
preserve protections and guarantees America’s original civic values - the
Constitution and the Bill of Rights:
- Your First Amendment rights-freedom of speech, association and assembly. Freedom of the press, and freedom of religion supported by the strict separation of church and state.
- Your right to equal protection under the law - equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or national origin.
- Your right to due process - fair treatment by the government whenever the loss of your liberty or property is at stake.Your right to privacy - freedom from unwarranted government intrusion into your personal and private affairs.
We
work also to extend rights to segments of our population that have
traditionally been denied their rights, including Native Americans and other
people of color; lesbians, gay men, bisexuals and transgendered people; women;
mental-health patients; prisoners; people with disabilities; and the poor. If the
rights of society’s most vulnerable members are denied, everybody’s rights are
imperiled.
Our
ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the
numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the
organization's preferred position.
Source:
ACLU website 02n-ACLU
on Dec 31, 2002
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance.
Inhofe
scores 0% by the HRC on gay rights
OnTheIssues.org interprets the
2005-2006 HRC scores as follows:
- 0% - 20%: opposes gay rights (approx. 207 members)
- 20% - 70%: mixed record on gay rights (approx. 84 members)
- 70%-100%: supports gay rights (approx. 177 members)
About the HRC (from their website,
www.hrc.org):
The
Human Rights Campaign represents a grassroots force of more than 700,000
members and supporters nationwide. As the largest national gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender civil rights organization, HRC envisions an America
where GLBT people are ensured of their basic equal rights, and can be open,
honest and safe at home, at work and in the community.
Ever
since its founding in 1980, HRC has led the way in promoting fairness for GLBT
Americans. HRC is a bipartisan organization that works to advance equality
based on sexual orientation and gender expression and identity.
Source:
HRC website 06n-HRC
on Dec 31, 2006
Rated 7% by the NAACP, indicating an anti-affirmative-action stance.
Inhofe
scores 7% by the NAACP on affirmative action
OnTheIssues.org interprets the
2005-2006 NAACP scores as follows:
- 0% - 33%: anti-affirmative-action stance (approx. 177 members)
- 34% - 84%: mixed record on affirmative-action (approx. 96 members)
- 85%-100%: pro-affirmative-action stance (approx. 190 members)
About the NAACP (from their website,
www.naacp.org):
The
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) has worked
over the years to support and promote our country's civil rights agenda. Since
its founding in 1909, the NAACP has worked tirelessly to end racial
discrimination while also ensuring the political, social, and economic equality
of all people. The Association will continue this mission through its policy
initiatives and advocacy programs at the local, state, and national levels.
From the ballot box to the classroom, the dedicated workers, organizers, and
leaders who forged this great organization and maintain its status as a
champion of social justice, fought long and hard to ensure that the voices of
African Americans would be heard. For nearly one hundred years, it has been the
talent and tenacity of NAACP members that has saved lives and changed many
negative aspects of American society.
Source:
NAACP website 06n-NAACP
on Dec 31, 2006
Amend Constitution to
define traditional marriage.
Inhofe
co-sponsored amending Constitution to define traditional marriage
Resolved
by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in
Congress assembled, That the following article is proposed as an amendment to
the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and
purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of
three-fourths of the several States within seven years after the date of its
submission by the Congress:
Marriage
in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman.
Neither this Constitution, nor the constitution of any State, shall be
construed to require that marriage or the legal incidents thereof be conferred
upon any union other than the union of a man and a woman.
Related bills: H.J.RES.22, H.J.RES.74, H.J.RES.89
Source:
Marriage Protection Amendment (S.J.RES.43) 08-SJR43 on
Jun 25, 2008
Inhofe
co-sponsored State Marriage Defense Act
Congressional summary::Prohibits any interpretation of US
administrative agencies, as applied with respect to individuals domiciled in a
state of the United States:
- the term "marriage" from including any relationship that the state does not recognize as a marriage; and
- the term "spouse" from including an individual who is a party to a relationship that is not recognized as a marriage by that state.
Opponent's argument against (CNN.com Feb. 8 report on Attorney General
Eric Holder's action which prompted this bill): In a major milestone for gay
rights, the US government expanded recognition of same-sex marriages in federal
legal matters, including bankruptcies, prison visits and survivor benefits.
"It is the Justice Department's policy to recognize lawful same-sex
marriages as broadly as possible, to ensure equal treatment for all members of
society regardless of sexual orientation," Attorney General Eric Holder said.
The federal expansion includes 34 states where same-sex marriage isn't legal.
For example, a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts can now have a
federal bankruptcy proceeding recognized in Alabama, even though it doesn't
allow same-sex marriages.
Proponent's argument in favor (Washington Post Feb. 13 reporting on Sen.
Ted Cruz): If passed, the bill would cede marriage definition to states for
federal purposes, which would effectively reverse the gains same-sex couples
made after the Defense of Marriage Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in
June 2013. Cruz said, "I support traditional marriage. The federal
government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional
authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its
citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage
on all 50 states."
Source:
H.R.3829 & S. 2024 14-S2024 on
Feb 12, 2014
As
you can see from Senator James Inhofe's voting record, if you are NOT
WHITE and STRAIGHT he DOES NOT HAVE YOUR BEST INTEREST AT HEART!!!
Looks like the ISSUES facing AMERICAN'S for the next four years will be:
1. Women's Rights
2. Black Lives Rights
3. LGBTQ Rights
4. Immigrants Rights
4. PRIVACY RIGHTS
We need to work together to make sure we can KEEP OUR RIGHTS and FREEDOMS as AMERICAN CITIZEN'S and LET WASHINGTON KNOW that we ARE THEIR BOSS not the other way around..
God Bless America and the people who MAKE AMERICA GREAT!!!
Blessings and Peace,
David Moorman
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.