ACTION ITEM from Citizens' Council for Health Freedom

Dear CCHF friends and supporters,

Please begin now contacting your legislators about the Obamacare Exchange bills which are likely to be voted on March 4 in the House and March 7 in the Senate. They want the final bill to Gov. Dayton on March 22. Plan to join me and Adam (our hardworking CCHF legislative intern) in the State Capitol when they take full floor votes on the Exchange bills. Email Barbara to let us know you'll be there: barbara@cchfreedom.org.

There are also two very bad bills you've never heard about in the news. See below. Please come to the hearings!

Your support is urgently needed in this battle. We're working every day (and even evenings) to read and interpret the bills, suggest amendments, inform policymakers, testify, tweet question suggestions to legislators during hearings, and hamper liberal plans. Click here to donate today to our fight against Obamacare and Big Government.

Three Bills:

1) Minnesota Obamacare Exchange (federal takeover center):
The bill has been rushed through the legislature. It is headed to its final committee in both the House and in the Senate. The bill could be voted on by the full House and the full Senate next week. However, the expectation is March 4 (House) and March 7 (Senate). After that, it must go to conference committee. If you need to understand the Exchange better, please, go to our Exchange Realities #1 - #8. Or follow my tweets on the topic at @twilabrase or by following #MNHIX.

A major difference between the House and Senate bills is the funding. The House bill (HF5), authored by Rep. Joe Atkins (D-Inver Grove Hgts), uses a 3.5% withhold to fund $60+ million in annual operations (3.5% of the individual's premium is kept by the Exchange before the rest is sent to the health plan). The Senate bill (SF1), authored by Sen. Tony Lourey (D-Kerrick), uses the Health Impact Fee (tax) out of the general fund. I testified in House Tax Committee as to how marketplaces are voluntary and live or die according to whether customers purchase a product. The Exchange is not a marketplace. 

The other distinction is data-sharing. The House bill has more detailed requirements for letting the public know about what private data is being shared with whom (state agencies, federal government agencies and "other entities"). The Senate has no requirements for public disclosure:

(b) Government data of the Minnesota Insurance Marketplace on individuals,
employees of employers, and employers using the Minnesota Insurance Marketplace are
private data on individuals or nonpublic data. The Minnesota Insurance Marketplace
may share not public data with state and federal agencies and other entities if the board
determines that the exchange of the data is necessary to carry out the functions of the
Minnesota Insurance Marketplace. State agencies shall share not public data with the
Minnesota Insurance Marketplace if the board determines that the exchange of the
data is reasonably necessary to carry out the functions of the Minnesota Insurance
Marketplace.

2) Gutting Minnesota Medical Privacy Laws:
A bill authored by a Democrat and co-authored by a Republican will harmonize Minnesota's strong privacy laws with the federal HIPAA "no-privacy" rule. In other words, Minnesota will no longer be protected from HIPAA. We'll all be under HIPAA's lack of privacy protections. HIPAA allows 2.2 million entities to have access to private medical records without patient consent. That's a federal number!

The only good thing about HIPAA is that is allows stronger state laws to supercede the permissive disclosures allowed by HIPAA. That's why we've had stronger laws for a decade. But House File 824 will force Minnesota to follow HIPAA. House File 824 is authored by Rep. Melissa Hortman (D-Brooklyn Park) and co-authored by Rep. Jim Abeler (R-Anoka). As of yet there is no Senate author.  No hearings are scheduled yet, but please prepare to come to hearings to oppose this bill. If you can testify, that would be great too. Once all the state privacy laws are changed, it may be very difficult to get our medical privacy back. Subscribe to the HHS Policy committee to get the hearing announcement, or stay tuned to CCHF emails.

3) Exempting MN Dept. of Health from Genetic Privacy Law:
House File 589 authored by Rep. Phyllis Kahn (D- Mpls) would exempt the Minnesota Department of Health from the MN genetic privacy law.

Last session the MN Dept of Health tried to get a complete exemption from the MN genetic privacy law because they feared another lawsuit like the Baby DNA lawsuit CCHF helped nine families file against MDH. The parents won in the MN Supreme Court on November 16, 2011.

Why do state health officials want an exemption? Because, just like with Baby DNA, there are all sorts of other biological specimens from individuals that MDH has taken and stored without legislative authority -- specimens NOBODY knows about. Rep. Mary Liz Holberg (R-Lakeville) gave MDH a one-year "get out of jail free" exemption. This session they are back with a bill that would exempt them from the MN genetic privacy law and give them the authority to collect, store, use and disseminate any biological specimens AND health data (cancer registries, birth defect registries, etc) they have or get or take.

Last session, as part of the deal, MDH officials promised Rep. Holberg a list of what they have stored in the department but that requirement wasn't in the Baby DNA bill that passed, so they feel under no obligation to provide the information. NOTE: due to our efforts and your support the collection, storage, use and sharing of Baby DNA wouldn't be under this sweeping exemption from the genetic privacy law. Baby DNA would still be protected. HF 589 will soon be heard in the Data Practices Subcommittee of the House Civil Law Committee. Subscribe to the committee meeting announcements for hearing notification. Or stay tuned to CCHF emails and prepare to join me at the hearing.

I hope you can join us in the fight!

Please donate generously to support this critical work!

Twila

-- 

Twila Brase, RN, PHN
President
Citizens' Council for Health Freedom (CCHF)
161 St. Anthony Ave. Ste. 923
Saint Paul, MN 55103

651-646-8935

www.cchfreedom.org

On diluting the power of concerned, active and interested citizens

 

What I just wrote (04 Feb 2013) to yet another upstart "conservative political activist" group on the Internet seeking my support and engagement:

---

Dear...,

I am certain that your intentions are wonderful, and I hate to be the one to rain on your parade, but I have some questions about where you appear to be headed with all of this.

First, regarding your "Three Core Principles." These principles are so broadly stated as to be open to interpretation in hundreds, if not thousands, of ways. Liberals and progressives could adopt these principles using their interpretations of "appropriate resources and authority," "specials status and privileges" and what it means to be a "shining city upon a hill." In my opinion, your "core principles" are so vague as to be meaningless in any effective political sense.

Second, it should be noted that there are already dozens--even hundreds--of online politically-oriented sites trying to do very nearly the same thing your sites purport to do. The problem is that all of these efforts by hundreds of different organizations tend to dilute, not coalesce, the power of the folks who get involved. Hundreds of organizations, all with good intentions, all vie for the donors' money while each attempts to support its own overhead and technology efforts.

Why do we complain about the inefficiencies of government with dozens, indeed, sometimes hundreds, of overlapping departments, programs and policies, while feeling that if we do the same thing in the not-for-profit world with well-intentioned organizations it is a good thing? It makes no sense.

There exist already a core of fine organizations with relatively long histories that are fighting for a smaller, constitutionally-limited government, sound monetary policy and free markets. Consider the work of organizations such as Mises Institute, Cato Institute, Foundation for Economic Education (FEE), Future of Freedom Foundation (FFF), Heritage Institute, and many more.

Frankly, rather than dilute our efforts and support more and more overlapping efforts--with all their accompanying overhead--I consider it far more effective to consolidate our efforts and become all the MORE effective by coalescing behind a smaller number of organizations that have already proven their sustainability and effectiveness in some measure.

Of course, many new startup organizations will not give in to this plan. Why? Because they consider their mission "too special" to surrender; because, while they agree with 80 or 90 percent of what these well-established organizations stand for, they still want to squabble over the remaining ten or 20 percent; or, to put it frankly, because they got into this whole Internet activist "thing" because they wanted to start an organization that will be a source of income for themselves personally.

I'm sorry I cannot be more supportive. I just hate to see so much time, energy and effort frittered away while the attentions of the sincere citizens are increasingly diffused, rather than increasingly focused. Nothing could make our liberal/progressive friend more pleased than to see our time, energy and money diffused into the ether with little to show for it because every cause wants to fight the battle under their own banner.

Very truly yours,

Richard

Why governments can’t make things better for everyone

 

Consider this:

In the absence of coercion, every individual will choose to do only those things—make those exchanges—that he or she feels will improve his or her condition for having undertaken such action.

That is to say, if there is no fraud or coercion, every transaction between two individuals will only be consummated if both participants believe their personal condition will be improved by engaging in the transaction. Both parties walk away "happier" or more "satisfied" as a result of the transaction.

Note: This does NOT mean that both will actually be happier. Individuals sometimes miscalculate in economic transactions just as they do in emotional transactions (such as marriage). But they would only complete the transaction if they sincerely believed (at the time) they will be better off after the transaction than before.

Since such a "free market" transaction always results in an increase in the relative "happiness" or "satisfaction" of each participant (at least at the point of consummation), happiness or satisfaction in society is always maximized by free-market transactions without coercion or fraud.

The only need for coercion is when someone—usually the government—wants a different out come in exchanges than a free market would generally produce.

Note: If government wanted the same outcome as a free market would produce, the government would take no action whatsoever.

Since coercion produces a result in which at least one party to the transaction must take an action that differs from the result a free market would have produced, then at least one party has his or her "happiness" or "satisfaction" reduced rather than increased following the transaction.

THEREFORE, it can be stated conclusively that, while a free market is predicated upon individual actions and individual "happiness" or "satisfaction," the free market, nevertheless, increases the happiness or satisfaction across all individuals and therefore raises society’s level of satisfaction to its highest possible degree.

The coercion of government, on the other hand, can not produce the highest levels of happiness or satisfaction in a society because at least one individual must be less happy or satisfied in each coerced transaction.

Make sense?

Quotes worth considering (again)

"Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. [I]ndustry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them." – Benjamin Franklin (1753)

"Alexander Hamilton started the U.S. Treasury with nothing – and that was the closest our country has ever been to being even." – Will Rogers

"We contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle."– Winston Churchill  

The deceit of Congress and the folly of the American public

The following was forwarded to me in an email from a friend of mine. Thought it worth sharing more widely.

---

I was in my neighborhood restaurant and was seated behind a group  of jubilant individuals celebrating the successful passing of the recent health care bill. I could not finish my breakfast. This is what ensued:

They were a diverse group of several races and both sexes. I heard a young man exclaim, “Isn’t Obama like Jesus Christ? I mean, after all, he is healing the sick.” A young woman enthusiastically proclaimed, “Yeah, and he does it for free. I cannot believe anyone would think that a free market would work for health care. Another said, ‘The stupid Republicans want us all to starve to death so they can inherit all of the power. Obama should be made a Saint for what he did for those of us less fortunate.”

At this, I had more than enough.

I arose from my seat, mustering all the restraint I could find, and approached their table. “Please excuse me; may I impose upon you for one moment?” They smiled and welcomed me to the conversation. I stood at the end of their table, smiled as best I could and began an experiment.

“I would like to give one of you my house. It will cost you no money and I will pay all of the expenses and taxes for as long as you live there. Anyone interested?”

They looked at each other in astonishment. “Why would you do something like that?” asked a young man, “There isn’t anything for free in this world.” They began to laugh at me, as they did not realize this man had just made my point.

“I am serious, I will give you my house for free, no money what so ever. Anyone interested?” In unison, a resounding “H*** Yeah” fills the room.

“Since there are too many of you, I will have to make a choice as to who receives this money-free bargain.” I noticed an elderly couple was paying attention to the spectacle unfolding before their eyes, the old man shaking his head in apparent disgust. “I tell you what; I will give it to the one of you most willing to obey my rules.”

Again, they looked at one another, an expression of bewilderment on their faces. The perky young woman asked, “What are the rules?” I smiled and said, “I don’t know. I have not yet defined them. However, it is a free home that I offer you.”

They giggled amongst themselves, the youngest of which said, “What an old coot. He must be crazy to give away his home. Go take your meds, old man.”

I smiled and leaned into the table a bit further. “I am serious, this is a legitimate offer.”

They gaped at me for a moment.

“I’ll take it you old fool. Where are the keys?” boasted the youngest among them.

“Then I presume you accept ALL of my terms then?” I asked.

The elderly couple seemed amused and entertained as they watched from the privacy of their table.

“Oh h*** yeah! Where do I sign up?”

I took a napkin and wrote, “I give this man my home, without the burden of financial obligation, so long as he accepts and abides by the terms that I shall set forth upon consummation of this transaction.” I signed it and handed it to the young man who eagerly scratched out his signature.

“Where are the keys to my new house?” he asked in a mocking tone of voice.

All eyes were upon us as I stepped back from the table, pulling the keys from pocket and dangling them before the excited new homeowner.

“Now that we have entered into this binding contract, witnessed by all of your friends, I have decided upon the conditions you are obligated to adhere from this point forward. You may only live in the house for one hour a day. You will not use anything inside of the home. You will obey me without question or resistance. I expect complete loyalty and admiration for this gift I bestow upon you. You will accept my commands and wishes with enthusiasm, no matter the nature. Your morals and principles shall be as mine. You will vote as I do, think as I do and do it with blind faith. These are my terms. Here are your keys.”

I reached the keys forward and the young man looked at me dumbfounded.

“Are you out of your mind? Who would ever agree to those ridiculous terms?” the young man appeared irritated.

“You did when you signed this contract before reading it, understanding it and with the full knowledge that I would provide my conditions only after you committed to the agreement,” was all I said.

The elderly man chuckled as his wife tried to restrain him. I was looking at a now silenced and bewildered group of people.

“You can shove that stupid deal up you’re a** old man, I want no part of it” exclaimed the now infuriated young man.

“You have committed to the contract, as witnessed by all of your friends; you cannot get out of the deal unless I agree to it. I do not intend to let you free now that I have you ensnared. I am the power you agreed to. I am the one you blindly and without thought chose to enslave yourself to. In short, I am your Master.”

At this, the table of celebrating individuals became a unified group against the unfairness of the deal.

After a few moments of unrepeatable comments and slurs, I revealed my true intent.

“What I did to you is what this administration and congress did to you with the health care legislation. I easily suckered you in and then revealed the real cost of the bargain. Your folly was in the belief that you can have something you did not earn; that you are entitled to that which you did not earn; that you willingly allowed someone else to think for you. Your failure to research, study and inform yourself permitted reason to escape you. You have entered into a trap from which you cannot flee. Your only chance of freedom is if your new Master gives it to you. A freedom that is given can also be taken away; therefore, it is not freedom.”

With that, I tore up the napkin and placed it before the astonished young man.

“This is the nature of your new health care legislation.”

I turned away to leave these few in thought and contemplation and was surprised by applause.

The elderly gentleman, who was clearly entertained, shook my hand enthusiastically and said, “Thank you Sir, these kids don’t understand Liberty these days.” He refused to allow me to pay my bill as he said, “You earned this one, it is an honor to pick up the tab.”

I shook his hand in thanks, leaving the restaurant somewhat humbled, and sensing a glimmer of hope for my beloved country.

Use reason,

~ Clifford A.

A Letter from a East African Immigrant Citizen

 Don’t be a victim, be an American. Vote 'YES'

The Democrats seem adept at making promises but inept at following through

Yosseph Budle

GOP, SD36 Delegate

Minority Liberty Alliance, Member

Having recently read the piece at WardbeerNews.com by Jamal Abdulahi dated 24 September, it became evident that in order for communities to get the full perspective one must be presented both sides of the argument. While Jamal gave his perspective of this election cycle, as he noted, it is the perspective of a Democratic activist and needs to be filtered through that mindset.

The Democratic mindset tends to perpetuate a victim mentality in which everything wrong that happens could have been avoided if we had better laws and a larger government to care for us, and it usually blames someone who has more money, power or influence as the cause for those wrongs. (Somehow rich Democrats like our Senators and Congressmen do not fall in this category.)

While that may be the case in a few instances, the majority of these situations are the result of a poor choice, difficult times, or an unintended consequence.  Putting more laws and restrictions to control behavior has two adverse consequences. First, they restrict future choices which translate to restricting freedoms, and second, it means someone has to have oversight and enforcement of the law.  The result is more state or federal workers to ensure that the law is being enforced and consequently more tax money needed to hire workers to restrict your choice.

While I understand that Jamal’s intent was to bring attention to the elections being held this fall, I think that a clear discussion of the issues he addressed is in order.  He spoke of President Obama and his policies on the international scale.  His assessment of foreign policy is from the perspective of a staunch supporter of the President and those policies. An objective assessment of the foreign policy would give quite a different view than he conveyed.

Take the “Arab spring,” for example.  Obama ran his 2008 campaign on having more diplomacy and communications with the Middle East powers.  The result of his lack of experience and misguided approach has concluded in virtually complete upheaval of governments in the Middle East with a chaos that has put in question the economic and political stability of the region (we see and feel this everyday with increased gas prices and subsequently food due to the increase in transportation costs).  Rather than use the considerable diplomatic resources backed by military strength to influence and stabilize, Obama has chosen to watch and see, a dangerous strategy that undermines, not only US interests, but the economic stability of the world.  World leaders have a responsibility to lead by definition. Failure to act leaves all nations vulnerable.

Another point of interest to the East African region is the issuance of the Patriot Act and enforcement of monetary sanctions to restrict money flow to terrorist organizations like El Shebab.

While the intent of the law is correct, its unintended consequences, like so many laws, are devastating.  Inability to wire money to relatives desperately in need of those resources has put undue burden on taking care of families in the homeland.  This happened in 2001, and shortly after the implementation of the restrictions, exemptions were made to allow the free flow of monies to relatives by the Bush administration with the help of Republican Senator Norm Coleman. Why haven’t Obama, Senator Klobuchar and Congressman Ellison done the same to help ease the burden on our Minnesota families?

The Democrats seem adept at making promises but inept at following through.  They are good at making promises to help us before the elections, but these promises seem to vanish like a wisp of smoke once the election is over.  How many times will the East African communities fall for this line before waking up? 

Jamal talked about “trickledown economics” of the Republicans. His misstatement is that they are only protecting the rich.  In truth, they are protecting all of us, because the tax burden falls on us all.

How many times have you seen the price at the gas pump go up or watched your sales or property tax increase.   The truth is that with bigger government comes a bigger tax. That means less money for business owners to invest in their business by hiring more help or buying much needed equipment to expand.

He also stated that Republicans will take away resources from the poor and elderly by reducing monies to Medicare and Medicaid.  The truth is that Medicare is on a path to bankruptcy without reform, as is Social Security.  While speculating on impending doom and worst case scenarios, he ignores the fact that we cannot continue to borrow money to pay for services we cannot afford.  We can reform them now and minimize the impact or do nothing, which is what Obama, Klobuchar and Ellison advocate for, leave nothing but debt and chaos to our children.  It is not only irresponsible, it is immoral.

Jamal also addresses the voter ID constitutional amendment.  The lies and misinformation used here are staggering.  He neglects the fact that even most of the poor have ID’s, as do the elderly.  In fact, if a person is on Medicare or Medicaid, that person must have an ID and if you are too poor to afford an ID, one will be given to you for free.

Was there a requirement to have an ID to vote in elections in Somalia, then why not in Minnesota?

He also neglects to say that the United States Supreme Court has already ruled twice on this in recent years and found that it does not disenfranchise anyone.  The courts response to the argument was that “any inconvenience that might be experienced by a voter is far outweighed by the need to secure the integrity of the vote.”  Additionally, the League of Women Voters could not come up with one legitimate instance where a voter was unable to cast a vote. The two states that have already implemented Voter ID (Indiana and Georgia) have seen increased turnout in voting since putting Voter ID into practice.

Once again, the Democrats use fear tactics to block meaningful reform.

Jamal also is untruthful when he says there is zero fraud in voting in Minnesota.  In fact, Minnesota is the number one state in the nation for voter fraud occurrences.  Over 1000 felons cast votes that counted in the 2008 election but weren’t legally eligible to vote. They voted because the Secretary of State Mark Richie, a Democrat, failed to do his job by properly in screening the voter lists.

College students from Wisconsin voted in both Wisconsin and Minnesota and there are over 17,000 ballots from the 2008 election that still are in question that were counted but no one knows who they belong to.

The county attorneys who are responsible to investigate this potential fraud have refused to do their jobs.

So who loses when all of this happens?

We, the voters, do. We are disenfranchised more by these actions than any supposed inconvenience of showing photo ID.

When a sitting US Senator looses by 312 votes and 17,000 ballots were most likely fraudulent, East Africans loose.  Senator Norm Coleman was a champion for the community and his election was overturned by a broken election system.

Photo ID brings accountability to our election process and the democrats are justifiably afraid of it because they lose the ability to cheat.

Significantly, Jamal fails to mention is the constitutional amendment of defining Marriage as a between one man and one woman.  He fails to mention this because he knows the community is solidly against the homosexual life style.

More importantly, the implications of defeating the amendment by not voting for it or voting no on the ballot is that you are saying “Yes” to promote the homosexual life style in our schools. In Minnesota, leaving a vote blank equates to a “No” vote. By not voting or voting against this amendment you are saying that now the teachers will be required to teach homosexuality as a normal life style and there is nothing you as a parent can do about it.  The education system will say parents are out of touch and parents don’t understand, undermining the family influence and structure under the guise of “fairness.”

If you are concerned for the future of your family and to protect your children from this wrong, vote yes on the Marriage amendment.  Jamal intentionally did not address this in his article because he could not defend it.

Lastly, I would like to mention an occurrence at this year’s Democratic convention.  An amendment to take God out of the DFL platform was voted on three times on a voice vote and was passed three times, but was ruled to have “failed” because it would have sent the clear message that democrats are godless and out of touch with much of their following.

Democrats are out of touch with the African community and most importantly, out of touch with the East African community.

We strongly embrace religion as core to our culture, and embracing a godless political party is not only counter to our beliefs. It is destructive to our culture and, at its core, un-American.

I strongly encourage everyone to do the research, find out where the candidates stand and vote your values.

Don’t be a victim, be an American.

An interview with Byron Donalds, candidate for Congress (FL)

I am so pleased to find a fresh new crop of folks who appear to be well-grounded and firmly principled conservatives running for office in 2012. It is especially gratifying to see so many young blacks stepping forward as Republicans and conservatives to take as stand against the Democrat Party and Barack Obama’s constant race baiting.

Here in Minnesota we have Chris Fields challenging far-left Congressman Keith Ellison. In Utah, Mia Love looks to be an outstanding Congressional candidate who will bring fresh ideas to Washington. In Florida, candidate for Senate Deon Long appears to be solidly conservative, and Byron Donalds, running for U.S. Representative, also has his feet firmly planted in conservative principles.

Recently, I had opportunity to interview Byron Donalds. Donalds is running for Congress from Naples, Florida, “because he still believes in the power of the American people and the future of the American dream,” as his Web site says.

On limited government

When I asked Donalds about “limited government” and its implications for Americans, he pulled no punches. He said that he believed “the federal government” should be “restrained by a detailed list of powers” as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution. The federal government, Donalds went on, “should do only what the States and the people lack [the] ability to do” for themselves. Furthermore, he said, the government in Washington “must not decide to do things that the States have chosen not to do.”

“Limited government,” Donalds stated clearly, “in not only important to Americans, it is important to the liberty of all men. An intrusive government erodes liberty….” and it is liberty that, in the final analysis, “creates economic prosperity.”

On free markets

Donalds is affixed in the free market camp. He understands that only the free market offers the best of opportunities to “all people” and the fairest exchange of “the fruits of [their] labor” for the goods and services they need or desire. He also clearly articulated to me that the most broadest opportunity for save and “accumulate” wealth for upward economic mobility also rests on free market principles. He is convinced that only the free market can create lasting jobs and the kind of durable economic growth that will be necessary to pull the U.S. out of its mountain of debt.

He said that the government should refrain from being “a player”—unduly influencing—the free market.

On monetary policy

Equally sound is Donalds’ position on monetary policy. He stated that “the Fed” (Federal Reserve Bank) should have one—and only one—“mandate.” That is to supply the nation with “a stable currency.” The Fed, he stated flatly, should “have nothing to do with controlling inflation.”

On being effective when in office

The candidate articulated a clear method for becoming a change agent in Washington after his election. He clearly recognizes that “the only way [to bring about] real change is [to have] the will of the people behind you.” It is “the will of the people” that allows an officeholder to “resist the political establishment” once inside the beltway.

Like Ronald Reagan, Donalds sees the need for being “clear and frank with the voting public” and that means “consistency” in both “message” and “effort.” As a political pragmatist, he enunciated how the Left (e.g., progressives, liberals) have invested 100 or more years of relatively consistent energy in dragging America into its present economic and political morass. Therefore, overnight change will not be possible, but the change must begin today—before it’s too late.

Summary

My brief interview with Byron Donalds revealed to me a bright, articulate and principled young man with a strong will and the kind of message that I believe can and will galvanize support for the kind of conservative change that these United States need so desperately right now.

If you would like to learn more about Donalds candidacy and his positions, please visit http://www.byrondonalds.com/. Offer your support and, if you live in Florida, offer to be boots on the ground. I know a good campaign can always use more volunteers.