Senator Coburn, OK

We will leave it up to the reader to determine whether Tom Coburn has made serious errors in in judgment. Tom has supported a Conservative Far Right Extreme Christian position especially when it comes to Church and State issues. It 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.

Tom Coburn's office stated that his position is that Certain Religions aren't "Real" religions. What is a real religion, Mr. Armey? What you have been practicing? He says 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 Tom Coburn.

(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 process.)

Excerpt from an article posted by Elise Foley on huffingtonpost.com on 5/12/2011

WASHINGTON -- Sen. Tom Coburn played a more active role than previously known in the negotiations between ex-Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and his former aide, Doug Hampton. The extent of the Oklahoma Republican's involvement is made clear in a report released Thursday by the Senate Ethics Committee that accuses the former senator of serious criminal violations.

Ensign resigned from the Senate earlier this month, but had admitted in 2009 to having an affair with Cynthia Hampton -- a past campaign aide and the wife of Doug Hampton. During a two-year inquiry into possible violations by Ensign, the Senate Ethics Committee found that he violated campaign finance laws and obscured justice to cover-up his affair.

In 2008, the senator was one of the men to confront Ensign about ending his affair with Cynthia Hampton, according to the report. Cobburn, along with C Street Christian fellowship's evangelical leaders Tim Coe, David Coe and Marty Sherman, talked to Ensign and Doug Hampton at their group house on February 14, 2008. The Coes and Sherman are involved with The Family, a Christian group the C Street House is affiliated with.

“My argument with him [President Obama] is when he says ‘88 percent of the budget we’re not going to touch, reform or fix and we’re still going to solve our problems’ is an absolute falsehood. The fact is you can’t have Medicare out of the equation, you can’t have Medicaid out of the equation. And we can’t borrow the money, the $2.6 trillion that we’ve stolen from Social Security, in the international financial market without making Social Security sustainable.”

Let’s deal with Social Security first. The figure that Coburn mentioned — $2.6 trillion — refers to the money that has been placed in the Social Security trust fund. This is a difficult and complex subject that politicians frequently exploit, so please be patient.

Using the loaded word “stolen,” Coburn suggests that the trust fund is a fiction, or as some politicians assert, “worthless IOUs.”

John Hart, a spokesman for Coburn, said: “The language isn’t strong at all. If a person shoplifts with the intention of returning merchandise that is still shoplifting. That’s precisely what Congress has done with the trust funds. Politicians, of course, promise they will pay back the money they’ve stolen but we can only make good on that promise if we can borrow to do so.”

IOU, however, is just another way of saying bond. These bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government. No president or Congress would risk defaulting on these bonds because it would ruin the nation’s financial standing.

The bonds are a real asset to Social Security and Medicare, but — here’s where it gets complicated — they also represent an obligation by the rest of the government. Like any entity that issues debt, such as a corporation, the government will have to make good on its obligations, generally by taking the money out of revenue, reducing expenses or issuing new debt. The action taken really depends on the resources available at the time. There is nothing particularly unusual about this, except that the U.S. government is better placed to make good on these obligations than virtually any other debt-issuer.

Coburn presumably understands this. He recently wrote an article in which he approvingly quoted a statement from a White House budget office report written during the Clinton administration. Note the word “redeemed”: “They [the bonds] are claims on the Treasury that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures.”

(Democrats who suggest redeeming those bonds will be painless or that Social Security is not adding to the deficit are making the exact opposite mistake. There is no free lunch when it comes to Social Security.)

There was a brief period — at the end of the Clinton administration — when the government generated so much money that the surplus was used to pay down the debt, in effect “a lockbox” of the funds. But that surplus disappeared with the advent of recession, war and sweeping tax cuts during the Bush administration. If the extra Social Security money had not existed, then the government would have had to borrow the $2.6 trillion in the public markets, in which case the overall debt would be the same.

Coburn’s assertion that Obama is walling off “88 percent” of the budget from “touch, reform or fix” is also a stretch. Obama never actually said anything close to that, but Hart said that Coburn based this statement on the fact that Obama’s proposed “debt failsafe” trigger in 2014 would require across-the-board spending cuts if certain debt targets were not reached — except for Social Security, low-income programs or Medicare benefits.

However, those programs are estimated to be less than 50 percent of the budget in 2014. Hart says Coburn was talking about the size of the programs far in the future, beyond 2025, and that “the long term projections matter because our unwillingness to deal with our long term debt problem is spooking the international financial community.” But it is a bit of rhetorical bait-and-switch to cite such a speculative figure as if it was established fact.

Moreover, Obama’s health-care law already is implementing cuts in Medicare (which many Republicans campaigned against) and Obama in his speech said he would “build” on those cuts with other cost-saving measures in Medicare. Obama also said he would seek “more efficiency and accountability’ from Medicaid, the health-care program for the poor. That certainly sounds like Obama would touch the programs, if not “reform or fix.”

Coburn’s rhetoric on Social Security is not warranted by the facts. There were certainly consequences to using the Social Security surplus on tax cuts and government programs, and it is appropriate to discuss the choices Americans now face as a result of those decisions (which Coburn supported). But it does not help the public discourse on the debt to claim that the Social Security money was “stolen.”

Coburn’s claim that Obama is leaving 88 percent of the budget untouched is also not supported by the facts. His figure is speculative and, in any case, Obama did propose changes in Medicare and Medicaid.

By Rick Maze - Staff writer Huffington Post
Posted : Tuesday Nov 3, 2009 17:23:29 EST

Thirteen major military and veterans groups have joined forces to try to force one senator — Republican Tom Coburn of Oklahoma — to release a hold that he has placed on a major veterans benefits bill.

Senator Tom Coburn Supports Rape by Defense Contractors

I think that all homo sapiens can understand how the mere thought of an organization that receives government money through contract mechanisms being tangentially involved in setting up a fake tax shelter for a fake pimp and his fake prostitution ring of fake prostitutes can justifiably lead to lawmakers going absolutely cross-eyed with white-hot, impotent rage. But what happens when a similarly taxpayer-endowed contractor attempts to cover up employee-on-employee gang rape by locking up the victim in a shipping container without food and water and threatening her with reprisals if she report the incident? Somehow, it doesn't engender the same level of anger!

30 misogynist Republicans in the U.S. Senate are totally OK with rape, at least where women are concerned. Predictably in yet another routine attempt to serve their corporate masters, (this time the GOP stood by Halliburton) Republicans voted against women and for corporate contempt of rape victims.

Some Republican senators are taking heat for voting against an amendment that would allow employees of military contractors to sue their employers if they are raped at work -- and they want the Democratic senator who wrote the amendment to help them fight off the bad publicity.
In October, 30 2009 Republicans voted against Sen. Al Franken's amendment to a defense appropriations bill that would de-fund contractors who prevent their employees from suing if they are raped by co-workers. Since then, those Republicans have faced outrage for what critics say amounts to support for rape.

Instead of standing up to take responsibility for or clarifying their disgraceful votes, Republican cowards are instead attacking Al Franken, blaming him for their votes.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) accused Franken exploiting the story of Jamie Leigh Jones -- a former KBR employee who says she was locked in a container in Iraq after alleging she was raped by co-workers -- to further his political agenda.
"Trying to tap into the natural sympathy that we have for this victim of this rape --and use that as a justification to frankly misrepresent and embarrass his colleagues, I don't think it's a very constructive thing," Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in an interview.

I guess Franken held a sledge hammer over Cornyn's head and said if he did not vote against the anti-rape amendment Franken would crack it over his head.

What shameless cowards.

To summarize the Republican position: As women, we are not "average Americans," and gang rape is not a "serious" issue. As women, no matter how powerful we become on our own merits, the Republican establishment will still be hoping for a man to come along and put us in our place.

Not every Republican signs onto these views -- indeed, 10 Senate Republicans voted for the Franken amendment, giving the lie to the NRSC's claim of partisanship -- but this is the undercurrent of the party's policies. This is what they're hoping to get voters to overlook when they run a Sarah Palin or a Kelly Ayotte for office. This is why Bob McDonnell's campaign for Virginia governor has been such a popular campaign stop for 2012 prospects: because of, not despite, his opposition to marital contraception and women in the workplace. This is why David Vitter (who voted against the Franken amendment) is still a senator in good standing with the party of alleged sexual morality.

You don't have to go very far beneath the Republican surface claims of equality-but-not-really to get to the rock-bottom sense that women just don't count, that our rights and our wellbeing are always subordinate to whatever interest of men they might conflict with. When it comes to it, even the (themselves sexist) notions of chivalry and protecting women come behind protecting the right of corporations to imprison their female employees to shield their male employees from rape charges and still get government contracts.

Credit new Senator Al Franken however, for introducing an amendment to the Defense Appropriations bill that would punish contractors if they "restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." You'd think that this would be a no-brainer, actually, but that didn't stop Jeff Sessions from labeling Franken's effort a "political attack directed at Halliburton." Franken, of course, pointed out that his amendment would apply broadly, to all contractors, because otherwise, 'twould be a bill of attainder, right? Right?

Franken's amendment ended up passing, 68-30. Here's a list of the Senators who showed broad support for Rapists and Pedophiles by voting against it: (Click on their names to find out more about them)

Alexander (R-TN)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burr (R-NC)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coburn (R-OK)
Cochran (R-MS)
Corker (R-TN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Crapo (R-ID)
DeMint (R-SC)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Graham (R-SC)
Gregg (R-NH)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Kyl (R-AZ)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Thune (R-SD)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wicker (R-MS)