The Emperor's Marxist Clothes

Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theatre, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes.

So many red flags were waving when Barack Hussein Obama ran for President of the United States.  Warnings about his questionable radical socialist background sounded by conservatives like myself fell on deaf ears, and we were called crazy or worse, racist.   The Emperor was showing off  his wardrobe loudly.  Was he ever praised.  

Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable.

The strangers in our story, by the way, are the main stream media .  The If ever there were swindlers, these folks are it. 

So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

"But he hasn't got anything on," a little child said.

"Did you ever hear such innocent prattle?" said its father. And one person whispered to another what the child had said, "He hasn't anything on.  A child says he hasn't anything on."

The Emperor clearly has no clothes, yet who doesn't notice? Where is that young child in the Anderson story who proclaims in The Hans Christian Anderson classic tale The Emperor's New Clothes, "But he hasn't got anything on."

The young child in this story is of course the newly awakened American masses.  And still if we call any evident radicalism out on the carpet, we're still labeled racists.  But the message about being under a regime of radicalism is being shouted more loudly these days.  It's just not enough people are seeing the child, let alone hearing his proclamation of truth.  Keep on shouting.  More and more do hear, and they can see.

Cultural Hegemony - Who is Antonio Gramsci?

HEGEMONY:
1. preponderant influence or authority over others; domination
2. the social, cultural, ideological, or economic influence exerted by a dominant group

I was listening to a terrific Blog Radio show late last night, Evil Conservative Radio, and wow, did the host put my brain to work.

It has become more than obvious, at least to me anyway, that the DC Progressives  and POTUS are followers of radical ideological beliefs.  Evidence suggests Obama is a Marxist, and it is well documented that he spent years teaching community organizing groups the philosophical recommendations of Saul Alinsky and his Rules for Radicals.  It has also been pointed out by many in the Conservative Media that the Cloward Piven Strategy is in full play.

But what I did not know, is that it would seem the so-called Progressives in the Capitol and the White House are also students of one Antonio Gramsci. Stick with me here, at least through the list below.

Who?

This is likely to be a long blog post, so let me start with Gramsci's points on Cultural Hegemony:

• There is no truth, only competing agendas.
• All Western (and especially American) claims to moral superiority over Communism/Fascism/Islam are vitiated by the West’s history of racism and colonialism.
• There are no objective standards by which we may judge one culture to be better than another. Anyone who claims that there are such standards is an evil oppressor.
• The prosperity of the West is built on ruthless exploitation of the Third World; therefore Westerners actually deserve to be impoverished and miserable.
• Crime is the fault of society, not the individual criminal. Poor criminals are entitled to what they take. Submitting to criminal predation is more virtuous than resisting it.
• The poor are victims. Criminals are victims. And only victims are virtuous. Therefore only the poor and criminals are virtuous. (Rich people can borrow some virtue by identifying with poor people and criminals.)
• For a virtuous person, violence and war are never justified. It is always better to be a victim than to fight, or even to defend oneself. But ‘oppressed’ people are allowed to use violence anyway; they are merely reflecting the evil of their oppressors.
• When confronted with terror, the only moral course for a Westerner is to apologize for past sins, understand the terrorist’s point of view, and make concessions.

Does any of this sound like it's being played out in America right now? It sure did to me. It's sick and twisted, but it's what the Progressives are using. I think the more we learn of the tactics used by these people, the more we can educated others on how to expose their agenda.

From a posting on A War of Position:

Gramsci was born in Sardinia in 1891.  He attended the University of Turin on scholarship and joined the Socialist Party there in 1914.  While in Turin he made a name for himself as a journalist and leader in Turin’s factory council movement.  He joined a Socialist congress walkout and in 1921 helped to form the Communist Party of Italy, which he became leader of.  Between 1922 and 1926, Gramsci and the party struggled against the rise of Italian fascism under Mussolini.  Political repression was rampant and reached a head in 1926 under a new set of emergency laws.  Gramsci was arrested, despite supposed parliamentary immunity, and his trial was little more than a show.  He was sentenced to 20 years in prison.  Gramsci suffered from health complications his entire life and his time in prison aggravated these problems.  Due to the severity of his condition, only eight years after his arrest Gramsci transfered to a guarded hospital in Rome where he spent the last two years of his life before his death in 1937.

Much of Gramsci’s work comes from a series of notebooks he kept while in prison.  The notebooks themselves cover a wide array of topics and their translation and interpretation has been the focus of numerous scholars since their first appearance in 1946.  Of particular interest to me are his writings on domination, hegemony and counter-hegemony.

Can I just point out one thing here? Mussolini didn't like him. Mussolini. Hello?

More:

The traditional Marxist theory of power was a very one-sided one based on the role of force and coercion as the basis of ruling class domination. This was reinforced by Lenin whose influence was at its height after the success of the Russian Revolution in 1917. Gramsci felt that what was missing was an understanding of the subtle but pervasive forms of ideological control and manipulation that served to perpetuate all repressive structures. He identified two quite distinct forms of political control: domination, which referred to direct physical coercion by police and armed forces and hegemony which referred to both ideological control and more crucially, consent. He assumed that no regime, regardless of how authoritarian it might be, could sustain itself primarily through organised state power and armed force. In the long run, it had to have popular support and legitimacy in order to maintain stability.

By hegemony, Gramsci meant the permeation throughout society of an entire system of values, attitudes, beliefs and morality that has the effect of supporting the status quo in power relations. Hegemony in this sense might be defined as an 'organising principle' that is diffused by the process of socialisation into every area of daily life. To the extent that this prevailing consciousness is internalised by the population it becomes part of what is generally called 'common sense' so that the philosophy, culture and morality of the ruling elite comes to appear as the natural order of things.

I said this would be a long post.  That's enough for now.  But if you want to know more, just click on any the source links, including this one here regarding the damage to America done by the Gramsci Doctrine from Armed and Dangerous.

The Emperor's Communist Clothes

Many years ago there was an Emperor so exceedingly fond of new clothes that he spent all his money on being well dressed. He cared nothing about reviewing his soldiers, going to the theatre, or going for a ride in his carriage, except to show off his new clothes.

The headlines in the recent EU Times reads, sadly, "World Mourns As Communist Darkness Falls Upon America."  Conservatives see it. Most Republicans see it, and I think some Democrats see it too, they're just too scared to come out of the closet.

"In what is being described as one of the most astounding power grabs in modern history by newspaper headlines around the World, President Obama has succeeded in his audacious plan to remake America into a full fledged godless communist empire barely one year into his term with the enactment into law by the US Congress of his mammoth health care plan innocuously named H.R. 3200-Americas Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 and described by one Kremlin legal expert as having “'nothing at all to do with health, but everything to do with control'.”

So many red flags were waving when Barack Hussein Obama ran for President of the United States.  Warnings sounded to deaf ears that called us names.  Now, the Emperor clearly has no clothes, yet who doesn't notice?

Every day many strangers came to town, and among them one day came two swindlers. They let it be known they were weavers, and they said they could weave the most magnificent fabrics imaginable.

The strangers in our story, by the way, are the main stream media.  If ever there were swindlers, these folks are it.

The EUROPEAN UNION TIMES claims communisim...

So off went the Emperor in procession under his splendid canopy. Everyone in the streets and the windows said, "Oh, how fine are the Emperor's new clothes! Don't they fit him to perfection? And see his long train!" Nobody would confess that he couldn't see anything, for that would prove him either unfit for his position, or a fool. No costume the Emperor had worn before was ever such a complete success.

Where is that young child in the Anderson story who proclaims in The Hans Christian Anderson classic tale The Emperor's New Clothes, "But he hasn't got anything on."

The message is being shouted pretty loudly.  It's just not enough people are seeing the child, let alone hearing his proclamation of truth.

HuffPo: Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma

I like the Huffington Post. I don't read it evey day, but I like that varying viewpoints are presented there. In fact, I find that many sane Democrats contribute there. I appreciate Ryan Grim's contribution here, so I'm sharing it with my readers. My semi-rhetorical question then is: does this bother anyone? Dems? Liberals?


Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma
First Posted: 08-13-09 11:10 AM   |   Updated: 09-13-09 05:12 AM
Ryan Grim
A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.
The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.
It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government's leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada -- and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.
In exchange, the Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers Association (PhRMA) agreed to cut $80 billion in projected costs to taxpayers and senior citizens over ten years. Or, as the memo says: "Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion."
Representatives from both the White House and PhRMA, shown the outline, adamantly denied that it reflected reality. PhRMA senior vice president Ken Johnson said that the outline "is simply not accurate." "This memo isn't accurate and does not reflect the agreement with the drug companies," said White House spokesman Reid Cherlin.
Stories in the Los Angeles Times and the New York Times  last week indicated that the administration was confirming that such a deal had been made.
Critics on Capitol Hill and online responded with outrage at the reports that Obama had gone behind their backs and sold the reform movement short. Furthermore, the deal seemed to be a betrayal of several promises made by then-Sen. Obama during the presidential campaign, among them that he would use the power of government to drive down the costs of drugs to Medicare and that negotiations would be conducted in the open.
And over the past several days, both the White House and PhRMA have offered a series of sometimes conflicting accounts of what happened in an attempt to walk back the story.
The White House meeting took place on July 7th, as first reported that evening in the Wall Street Journal. Also on the same day, a health care lobbyist following the talks was provided the outline of the deal by a person inside the negotiations. That outline had been floating around K Street before being obtained by the Huffington Post. In order to learn more about its origin, HuffPost agreed not to reveal the name of the lobbyist who originally received it.
"That is the PhRMA deal," said the lobbyist of the outline. He then clarified, "It was the PhRMA deal."
The deal, as outlined in the July 7 memo:

Commitment of up to $80 billion, but not more than $80 billion.

1. Agree to increase of Medicaid rebate from 15.1 - 23.1% ($34 billion)

2. Agree to get FOBs done (but no agreement on details -- express disagreement on data exclusivity which both sides say does not affect the score of the legislation.) ($9 billion)

3. Sell drugs to patients in the donut hole at 50% discount ($25 billion)

This totals $68 billion

4. Companies will be assessed a tax or fee that will score at $12 billion. There was no agreement as to how or on what this tax/fee will be based.

Total: $80 billion

In exchange for these items, the White House agreed to:

1. Oppose importation

2. Oppose rebates in Medicare Part D

3. Oppose repeal of non-interference

4. Oppose opening Medicare Part B

"Non-interference" is the industry term for the status quo, in which government-driven price negotiations are barred. In other words, the government is "interfering" in the market if it negotiates lower prices. The ban on negotiating was led through Congress in 2003 by then-Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-La.), who is now the head of PhRMA.
The rebates reference is to Medicare overpayments Big Pharma managed to wrangle from the Republican Congress that Democrats are trying to recoup. The House bill would require Big Pharma to return some of that money. The rebate proposal would save $63 billion over ten years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The White House, given the chance, declined to tell the Wall Street Journal for a July 17th article that it supported the effort to pursue the rebates.
The Medicare Part B item refers to "infusion drugs," which can be administered at home. If they fall under Part B, Big Pharma gets paid more than under Part D. The agreement would leave infusion drugs in Part B.
In the section on Big Pharma's concessions, "FOBs" refers to follow-on biological drugs. Democrats have pushed to make it easier to allow generic drug makers to produce cheaper versions of such drugs, an effort Big Pharma has resisted. The Senate health committee bill gives drug makers 12 years of market exclusivity, five more than the White House proposed.
PhRMA's Johnson cast doubts on the provenance of the outline. "The memo, as described, is simply not accurate," he said in a statement. "Anyone could have written it. Unless it comes from our board of directors, it's not worth the paper it's written on. Clearly, someone is trying to short circuit our efforts to try and make health care reform a reality this year. That's not going to happen. Too much is at stake for both patients and the U.S. economy. Our new ads supporting health care reform are starting this week, and we are redoubling our efforts to drive awareness of why this issue is so important to America's future."
Johnson added that "no outside lobbyists -- not a single one -- were ever involved in our discussions with the Senate Finance Committee or the White House so someone is blowing smoke."
But the lobbyist who was given the outline defended its authenticity. And although the White House now says that drug price negotiations and reimportation were not actually discussed in the talks with PhRMA, the lobbyist said: "Well, that's bull -- that's baloney. That was part of the deal, for them not to push that."
The new uncertainty surrounding the deal comes after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has repeatedly said that her chamber is not bound by any agreement it is not a party to. On July 8th, the day after the Journal reported some elements of the deal, Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) said in a public speech that his committee would not be tied down by the agreement.
Before recess, he followed through. His committee passed a bill that allowed for re-importation and drug-price negotiations.
In the Senate, Democrats Sherrod Brown (Ohio) and Byron Dorgan (N.D.) pressed White House officials at a closed-door meeting last week, asking whether the White House had tied the Senate's hands.
The health care lobbyist said that what deal still exists is uncertain, as a result of House pressure. "Now the White House is backing away from it, as you know, because of pressure from the House, because the House was not a party to the deal," he said. "The Speaker put enormous pressure on the White House, [saying], 'We weren't a party to it and we reserve the right to do whatever we want.' And which they did in the House Energy and Commerce Committee bill, which led the White House to say, 'Well, maybe it's not cast in concrete.'"
Obama is walking a tightrope here. He wants to keep PhRMA from opposing the bill, and benefits by having its support, which now includes a $150 million advertising campaign. That's a fortune in politics -- more than Republican presidential candidate John McCain spent on advertising during his entire campaign -- but it's loose change in the pharmaceutical business.
Opponents of the deal with PhRMA hope that Obama is playing a multilayered game, making a deal in order to keep the drug makers in his camp for now, but planning to double-cross them in the end if he needs to in order to pass his signature initiative.
Big Pharma, however, is still comfortable. "As far as the pharmaceutical industry, PhRMA and its member companies, yes, they say a deal is a deal. We'll see what happens," said the health care lobbyist.

Ryan Grim
ryan@huffingtonpost.com | HuffPost Reporting

Related by Ryan Grim: Big Pharma Shuts Down Senate Debate

Words Speaking Louder than Actions

This picture touched me deeply. I pray it touches as many people as possible in profound ways.

An UnCLASSy Act: Your Tax Deductions at Work

From Fox News:


While Congress spent the last year debating how to provide health insurance for the uninsured, a little-known provision slipped into the heath care law that could cost some Americans upwards of $2,000 a year.


The CLASS Act, otherwise known as the Community Living Assistance Services and Support Act, is the federal government’s first long-term care insurance program.


Under-reported and the under the radar of most lawmakers, the program will allow workers to have an average of roughly $150 or $240 a month, based on age and salary, automatically deducted from their paycheck to save for long-term care.


The Congressional Budget Office expects the government will collect $109 billion in premiums by 2019.


Supporters say the program will relieve pressure on Medicaid and should help keep us out of nursing homes by enabling Americans to save for something most will eventually need — assistance in eating, bathing or dressing in their old age.


Opponents say the provision is little more than a short-term revenue fix that will eventually add to the federal deficit.


“This is a scary proposition where the government passed a huge new entitlement program with gimmicks and tricks and the American people don’t know they will be automatically enrolled in it by their employer if they don’t watch out,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA). Nunes says Republicans were blindsided by the provision because they were unable to see the final bill until the very end. But Democratic supporters say the provision, which was championed by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, should not be controversial.


“It promotes independence and choice for people who need long-term care, and over time it will help millions stay where they want to, which is at home,” says Jim Firman, director of the National Council on Aging.


Scheduled to go into effect in January, actual deductions could take place in 2012.
Here’s how the program will work:
– The federal government will approach employers next year about alerting workers to the proposed deduction.
– The deduction will work on a sliding scale based on age. Younger workers will be charged less, older workers more. The Congressional Budget Office pegged the average monthly deduction at $146. The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services put it higher, at $240.
– After a five-year vesting period, enrollees who need help bathing, eating or dressing will be eligible to take out benefits, estimated to be around $75 a day for in-home care.


“Seventy-five dollars a day in flex cash will be enough for most people who are at home to stay at home, which is where they want to be,” Firman said. “We are convinced a cash benefit is the best way for consumer to get what they want.”


While the plan’s opponents don’t question the need for long-term care, they say the federal government should not be managing it, and they believe the program will eventually add to the deficit.


“This creates a whole new bureaucracy that is going to break this country,” Nunes said. “In the early years there will be money in it, but at the end of the day there won’t be enough money to cover the problems because there will be too many people in the program.”


The statute says the program is designed to be self-sustaining, with an advisory board to assure the fund remains solvent. But opponents say the fine print already tells another story. Unless modifications are made, according to a CBO analysis of the bill, “the program will add to future federal budget deficits in a large and growing fashion.”


Supporters and detractors admit much needs to be worked out, and eventually premiums will be based on how many Americans actually sign up for the insurance.

Plain as the Nose on a Socialist's Face

They aren't hiding it anymore. INCOME REDISTRIBUTION is here.  Thank you for stealing.

“Too often, much of late, the last couple three years the mal-distribution of income in America is gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. Wages have not kept up with increased income of the highest income in America. This legislation will have the effect of addressing that mal-distribution of income in America.”

Where Do We Go From Here?

Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN) is one of the only DC politicians I deeply admire and trust.  She motivated me to fly to DC to attend the Code Red Health Care Rally - twice!  Hear her words.  This is the truth.  This is what the Democrat President forced on America, 75% of us who did not want "Health Care" legislation.

Unions Want to Take Over Your 401(k)

Tuesday, 17 Mar 2009 11:04 AM
By: Gene J. Koprowski
http://moneynews.com/StreetTalk/unions-401k-pensions/2009/03/17/id/328862

One of the nation's largest labor unions, the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), is promoting a plan that will centralize all retirement plans for American workers, including private 401(k) plans, under one new "retirement system" for the United States.

In effect, government pensions for everyone, not unlike the European system and regardless of personal choice.

The SEIU, which was integral to the election of Barack Obama as president, is working with the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute (EPI), and the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, on SEIU's plan, called "the Retirement USA Initiative."

Claiming that the retirement system in place now has "failed most Americans," EPI vice president Ross Eisenbrey, told a labor union publication that "account balances have fallen by a third since late 2007, leaving many older workers unable to retire just as our economy is shedding millions of jobs.”

“The failure is broad and deep. It's not just a few people falling through the cracks: most of us already are in the ravine. Three in 10 have only a 401(k) or similar savings plan, and the rest of us are totally out of luck," said Eisenbrey.

Eisenbrey said that the median 401(k) account balance was $25,000 in 2006, and the median for workers near retirement was $40,000.

"Half of those who had a 401(k) were nearing retirement with less than $40,000 in their account," said Eisenbrey, who is trained as a lawyer and was a Clinton administration appointee from 1999 through 2001.

The proposed retirement system would be operated under the following parameters:

• Benefits that move with you, even if you change jobs

• Payouts only at retirement

• Shared responsibility among employers, the government and employees

• Pooled assets, controlled by professional investment managers

"The financial crisis and the economic recession have shone a spotlight on the inadequacies of today's system," said Stephen Albrecht, director of benefits for SEIU.

With the uncertainty in today's global economy, creating a whole new federal entitlement for American workers may not be easy to accomplish for these groups or their allies on Capitol Hill and in the Obama administration, as America's creditors are already getting nervous.

Chinese Premier Wen Jinbao is telling U.S. policymakers that he is concerned about the "safety" of his country's already huge holdings of U.S. debt.

"We have lent a huge amount of money to the United States," said Wen, according to a report in the Financial Times. "We are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I am a little worried. I request the U.S. to maintain its good credit, to honor its promises and to guarantee the safety of China's assets."

© Newsmax. All rights reserved.

"When People Show You Who They Are..."

"...believe them."


The quotation in my banner on this blog was chosen very deliberately.  I am not necessarily a fan of Maya Angelou, though I do respect her work and her experiences that inspire her work.


 But this quote of hers is very powerful and more often than not, very accurate:

"…we have always been and I believe continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards."  Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States.




"This is a BIG EFFING deal!" United States Vice President Joe Biden

"I WON." 

Barack Obama, Elected as United States President campaigning on "Hope and Change" and promising to "fundamentally transform" the United States of America

John Dingell, Administrator

Source: TheFoundryBlog

Rep. John Dingell (D-MI) appeared on the Paul W. Smith radio show to discuss the passage of health care reform. On the show he said, "It takes a long time to do necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put legislation together to control the people."

75 MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO ARE ALSO 

MEMBERS OF DEMOCRAT SOCIALISTS OF AMERICA

1	Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)		38	Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
2	Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)		39	Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
3	Xavier Becerra (CA-31)		40	Barbara Lee (CA-09)
4	Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)		41	Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)
5	Robert Brady (PA-01)		42	John Lewis (GA-05)
6	Corrine Brown (FL-03)		43	David Loebsack (IA-02)
7	Michael Capuano (MA-08)		44	Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
8	André Carson (IN-07)>		45	Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
9	Donna Christensen (VI-AL)		46	Ed Markey (MA-07)
10	Yvette Clarke (NY-11)		47	Jim McDermott (WA-07)
11	William "Lacy" Clay (MO-01)		48	James McGovern (MA-03)
12	Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)		49	George Miller (CA-07)
13	Steve Cohen (TN-09)		50	Gwen Moore (WI-04)
14	John Conyers (MI-14) >		51	Jerrold Nadler (NY-08) >
15	Elijah Cummings (MD-07)		52	Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
16	Danny Davis (IL-07)		53	John Olver (MA-01)
17	Peter DeFazio (OR-04)		54	Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
18	Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)		55	Donald Payne (NJ-10)
19	Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)		56	Chellie Pingree (ME-01) >
20	Keith Ellison (MN-05) a muslim		57	Laura Richardson (CA-37)
21	Sam Farr (CA-17)		58	Lucille Roybal-Allard (CA-34)
22	Chaka Fattah (PA-02)		59	Bobby Rush (IL-01)
23	Bob Filner (CA-51)			Linda Sánchez (CA-47)
24	Barney Frank (MA-04)			Bernie Sanders (VT)
25	Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)			Jan Schakowsky (IL-09)
26	Alan Grayson (FL-08)			José Serrano (NY-16)
27	Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)		64	Louise Slaughter (NY-28)
28	Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)		65	Pete Stark (CA-13)
29	John Hall (NY-19)			Bennie Thompson (MS-02)
30	Phil Hare (IL-17)		67	John Tierney (MA-06)
31	Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)		68	Nydia Velazquez (NY-1)
32	Michael Honda (CA-15)		69	Maxine Waters (CA-35)
33	Mazie Hirono (HI-02)		70	Diane Watson (CA-33)
34	Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)		71	Mel Watt (NC-12)
35	Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)		72	Henry Waxman (CA-30)
36	Hank Johnson (GA-04)		73	Peter Welch (VT-AL)
37	Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)		74	Robert Wexler (FL-19)
38	Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)		75	Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
39	Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)>