Every Sunday in December (and the first Sunday in January), you can get a free rental from Redbox locations inside of Walmart stores. All you need to do is use the code specific to the Sunday you are renting on.
The codes are:
12/07/08 - 11MOMS4US
12/14/08 - 11MOMS4UA
12/21/08 - 11MOMS4UN
12/28/08 - 11MOMS4UT
01/04/09 - 11MOMS4UA
Notice the end of the code spells out "SANTA" across all 5 weeks. So, enjoy the codes courtesy of Redbox, Walmart, and the Eleven Moms.
And remember, these codes only work at Walmart locations on the Sunday specified
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Saturday, November 15, 2008
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama has spoken with two former rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination about the secretary of state position in his administration, sources told CNN on Friday.
Sen. Hillary Clinton has been mentioned as a candidate for Obama's secretary of state, sources say.
Obama spoke with Sen. Hillary Clinton on Thursday and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson on Friday about the key Cabinet post, multiple Democratic sources said.
Over the course of the past 24 hours, sources close to Clinton have softened their one-time solid public position that she would not be interested in a Cabinet position. Those sources now say she is clearly contemplating how she can serve the Obama administration.
Clinton traveled to Chicago, Illinois, on Thursday to meet with Obama, sources said, and the two had a "serious discussion" about the issue.
Clinton's response to Obama's overture is unknown, but sources said the New York senator left the meeting with the impression that if she were interested in the post, it would be hers. Watch more on the speculation surrounding Clinton »
Under these circumstances, one source said, a president-elect does not meet with potential Cabinet secretaries unless he is serious about making an offer.
Obama has had "great interest" in asking Clinton to be secretary of state "for a while," another source close to the Obama transition team said. iReport.com: Whom should Obama pick?
"You've got to assume that Hillary Clinton did not come to visit the city of Chicago," the source said.
Should Clinton take the position, the transition team and the senator would have to work out how her husband, former President Clinton, would continue his work with the Clinton Global Initiative without complicating her work as secretary of state, another source close to the Obama transition team said.
"I am happy being a senator from New York. I love this state and this city," Clinton said Monday in response to a reporter's question. "I am looking at the long list of things I have to catch up on and do. But I want to be a good partner, and I want to do everything I can to make sure [Obama's] agenda is going to be successful." Watch whether Clinton would join Obama's team »
On Friday, Obama spoke with Richardson about the position, a senior Democratic source said. The source said Richardson has always been on Obama's list of possibilities for the key Cabinet position.
Richardson also traveled to Chicago to meet with Obama, according to a source who said the idea of Clinton as secretary of state is "not a done deal."
Richardson withdrew from the race for the Democratic nomination January 10 and later endorsed Obama.
Clinton battled on until June, eventually throwing her support to Obama as well.
A source close to transition team said Obama is trying to build a diverse Cabinet that includes women and minorities and that works as a team.
Obama campaign spokesman Robert Gibbs is widely expected to be named White House press secretary, and chief strategist David Axelrod is expected to be picked as a White House senior adviser.Also Friday, the Obama transition team announced that the Illinois senator will meet with the man he defeated in the general election, Republican Sen. John McCain, on Monday.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
Beware Charismatic Men Who Preach 'Change'
Each year I get to celebrate Independence Day twice. On June 30 I celebrate my independence day and on July 4 I celebrate America's. This year is special, because it marks the 40th anniversary of my independence.
On June 30, 1968, I escaped Communist Cuba and a few months later I was in the United States to stay. That I happened to arrive in Richmond on Thanksgiving Day is just part of the story, but I digress.
I've thought a lot about the anniversary this year. The election-year rhetoric has made me think a lot about Cuba and what transpired there. In the late 1950s, most Cubans thought Cuba needed a change, and they were right. So when a young leader came along, every Cuban was at least receptive.
When the young leader spoke eloquently and passionately and denounced the old system, the press fell in love with him. They never questioned who his friends were or what he really believed in. When he said he would help the farmers and the poor and bring free medical care and education to all, everyone followed. When he said he would bring justice and equality to all, everyone said "Praise the Lord." And when the young leader said, "I will be for change and I'll bring you change," everyone yelled, "Viva Fidel!"
But nobody asked about the change, so by the time the executioner's guns went silent the people's guns had been taken away. By the time everyone was equal, they were equally poor, hungry, and oppressed. By the time everyone received their free education it was worth nothing. By the time the press noticed, it was too late, because they were now working for him. By the time the change was finally implemented Cuba had been knocked down a couple of notches to Third-World status. By the time the change was over more than a million people had taken to boats, rafts, and inner tubes. You can call those who made it ashore anywhere else in the world the most fortunate Cubans. And now I'm back to the beginning of my story.
Luckily, we would never fall in America for a young leader who promised change without asking, what change? How will you carry it out? What will it cost America?
Manuel Alvarez Jr.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Senator Obama's Four Tax Increases for People Earning Under $250k
By Ned Barnett
I confess. Senator Obama's two tax promises: to limit tax increases to only those making over $250,000 a year, and to not raise taxes on 95% of "working Americans," intrigued me. As a hard-working small business owner, over the past ten years I've earned from $50,000 to $100,000 per year. If Senator Obama is shooting straight with us, under his presidency I could look forward to paying no additional Federal taxes -- I might even get a break -- and as I struggle to support a family and pay for two boys in college, a reliable tax freeze is nearly as welcome as further tax cuts.
However, Senator Obama's dual claims seemed implausible, especially when it came to my Federal income taxes. Those implausible promises made me look at what I'd been paying before President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, as well as what I paid after those tax cuts became law. I chose the 2000 tax tables as my baseline -- they reflect the tax rates that Senator Obama will restore by letting the "Bush Tax Cuts" lapse. I wanted to see what that meant from my tax bill.
I've worked as the state level media and strategy director on three Presidential election campaigns -- I know how "promises" work -- so I analyzed Senator Obama's promises by looking for loopholes.
The first loophole was easy to find: Senator Obama doesn't "count" allowing the Bush tax cuts to lapse as a tax increase. Unless the cuts are re-enacted, rates will automatically return to the 2000 level. Senator Obama claims that letting a tax cut lapse -- allowing the rates to return to a higher levels -- is not actually a "tax increase." It's just the lapsing of a tax cut.
See the difference?
Neither do I.
When those cuts lapse, my taxes are going up -- a lot -- but by parsing words, Senator Obama justifies his claim that he won't actively raise taxes on 95 percent of working Americans, even while he's passively allowing tax rates to go up for 100% of Americans who actually pay Federal income taxes.
Making this personal, my Federal Income Tax will increase by $3,824 when those tax cuts lapse. That not-insignificant sum would cover a couple of house payments or help my two boys through another month or two of college.
No matter what Senator Obama calls it, requiring us to pay more taxes amounts to a tax increase. This got me wondering what other Americans will have to pay when the tax cuts lapse.
For a married family, filing jointly and earning $75,000 a year, this increase will be $3,074. For those making just $50,000, this increase will be $1,512. Despite Senator Obama's claim, even struggling American families making just $25,000 a year will see a tax increase -- they'll pay $715 more in 2010 than they did in 2007. Across the board, when the tax cuts lapse, working Americans will see significant increases in their taxes, even if their household income is as low as $25,000. See the tables at the end of this article.
Check this for yourself. Go to http://www.irs.gov/formspu
Senator Obama is willfully deceiving you and me when he says that no one making under $250,000 will see an increase in their taxes. If I were keeping score, I'd call that Tax Lie #1.
The next loophole involves the payroll tax that you pay to support the Social Security system. Currently, there is an inflation-adjusted cap, and according to the non-profit Tax Foundation, in 2006 -- the most recent year for which tax data is available -- only the first $94,700 of an unmarried individual's earnings were subject to the 12.4 percent payroll tax. However, Senator Obama has proposed lifting that cap, adding an additional 12.4 percent tax on every dollar earned above that cap -- and in spite of his promise, impacting all those who earn between $94,700 and $249,999.
By doing this, he plans to raise an additional $1 trillion dollars (another $662.50 out of my pocket -- and how much out of yours?) to help fund Social Security. Half of this tax would be paid by employees and half by employers -- but employers will either cut the payroll or pass along this tax to their customers through higher prices. Either way, some individual will pay the price for the employer's share of the tax increase.
However, when challenged to explain how he could eliminate the cap AND not raise taxes on Americans earning under $250,000, Senator Obama suggested on his website that he "might" create a "donut" -- an exemption from this payroll tax for wages between $94,700 and $250,000. But that donut would mean he couldn't raise anywhere near that $1 trillion dollars for Social Security. When this was pointed out, Senator Obama's "donut plan" was quietly removed from his website.
This "explanation" sounds like another one of those loopholes. If I were keeping score, I'd call this Tax Lie #2.
(updated) Senator Obama has also said that he will raise capital gains taxes from 15 percent to 20 percent. He says he's aiming at "fat cats" who make above $250,000. However, while only 1 percent of Americans make a quarter-million dollars, roughly 50 percent of all Americans own stock – and while investments that are through IRAs, 401Ks and in pension plans are not subject to capital gains, those stocks in personal portfolios are subject to capital gains, no matter what the owner’s income is. However, according to the US Congress’s Joint Economic Committee Study, “Recent data released by the Federal Reserve shows that nearly half of all U.S. households are stockholders. In the last decade alone, the number of stockholders has jumped by over fifty percent.” This is clear – a significant number of all Americans who earn well under $250,000 a year will feel this rise in their capital gains taxes.
Under "President" Obama, if you sell off stock and earn a $100,000 gain -- perhaps to help put your children through college -- instead of paying $15,000 in capital gains taxes today, you'll pay $20,000 under Obama's plan. That's a full one-third more, and it applies no matter how much you earn.
No question -- for about 50 percent of all Americans, this is Tax Lie #3.
Finally, Senator Obama has promised to raise taxes on businesses -- and to raise taxes a lot on oil companies. I still remember Econ-101 -- and I own a small business. From both theory and practice, I know what businesses do when taxes are raised. Corporations don't "pay" taxes -- they collect taxes from customers and pass them along to the government. When you buy a hot dog from a 7/11, you can see the clerk add the sales tax, but when a corporation's own taxes go up, you don't see it -- its automatic -- but they do the same thing. They build this tax into their product's price. Senator Obama knows this. He knows that even people who earn less than $250,000 will pay higher prices -- those pass-through taxes -- when corporate taxes go up.
No question: this is Tax Lie #4.
There's not a politician alive who hasn't be caught telling some minor truth-bender. However, when it comes to raising taxes, there are no small lies. When George H.W. Bush's "Read my lips -- no new taxes" proved false, he lost the support of his base -- and ultimately lost his re-election bid.
This year, however, we don't have to wait for the proof: Senator Obama has already promised to raise taxes, and we can believe him. However, while making that promise, he's also lied, in at least four significant ways, about who will pay those taxes. If Senator Obama becomes President Obama, when the tax man comes calling, we will all pay the price. And that's the truth.
* Go to website for tax charts!*
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Not a Bible parable, obviously, but one of the best analogies I've ever seen to explain the downfall of Socialist taxation policies.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay $1.
The sixth would pay $3.
The seventh would pay $7.
The eighth would pay $12.
The ninth would pay $18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay $59.
So, that's what they decided to do.
The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve. 'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by $20.' Drinks for the ten now cost just $80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer. So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay.
The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100%savings).
The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3 (33%savings).
The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings).
The eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings).
The ninth now paid $14 instead of $18 (22% savings).
The tenth now paid $49 instead of $59 (16% savings).
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings.
'I only got a dollar out of the $20,'declared the sixth man. He pointed to the tenth man,' but he got $10!'
'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man. 'I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that he got ten times more than I got'
'That's true!!' shouted the seventh man. 'Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get all the breaks!'
'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison. 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks so the nine sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, journalists and college professors, is how our tax system works!!
The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.
[Found on Internet, here's what Snopes has to say about the authorship. Regardless of who wrote it, it explains the concepts very well.]
"Spreading the wealth around" never results in a better outcome for people. It always results in destruction. Case study: Zimbabwe.
The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.
This entry was posted on October 22, 2008 at 6:41 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
4 Responses to "The Parable of 10 Men in a Bar"
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Friday, October 17, 2008
An editorial by Paul Marx, Owner of radio station KBON 101.1FM
I was brought up believing that the United States of America was the
country that gave anyone the opportunity to be as successful as one
can achieve, but now it seems that many people believe that if you
become too successful you should be "punished"; if you make "too
much" money with your success some of that money should be taken away
from you and "shared" with those less fortunate, but aren't we are
Aren't the so called "less fortunate" in this country already being
taken care of? After all they get Federal housing, Food stamps,
medical cards and God knows what else. How much more should we give
them?? We have become a country filled with too many people who want
something for nothing. Do we just keep giving and giving to those who
contribute the least to the country? Shouldn't there instead be some
sort of plan to reward those who contribute to the country or at
least let those who earn success, enjoy it?
Why is it always so popular for a politician or political candidate
to talk about "more taxes" on the rich? Why can't people understand
that in most cases it is those so called "rich people" that own
businesses and create jobs. They are people who in many cases
started at the bottom and worked their way up, many taking a gamble
by investing their life savings into a business or idea. So, they
invest, build their business with hard work, hire people to work for
them and see some well earned success, then we punish them. That's
right folks, while the word "tax" is being used it's not
really "taxing" those people who earned success, it is punishing
those people. Is it fair that we take from these people
to "distribute the wealth"? Distribute to who??
I don't want the government to take money that I have worked hard for
and give it to someone who most likely does not contribute to this
country. I am fed up with driving down the streets at mid-day and
seeing people sitting outside smoking, drinking and playing cards
under a tree while I have to worry about my business; how the downed
economy will affect it. I am tired of going into a store all times of
the day and seeing people buying expensive steaks with food stamps
but having the cash to buy cartoons of cigarettes, bottles of wine or
whiskey and cases of beer. I am tired of driving by bars during work
hours and seeing the same cars there day after day. These are some of
the very people Presidential candidate Barak Obama wants to "spread
the wealth" to.
Anyway don't financially successful people spread the wealth on
their own by spending more money? I would think that they probably
buy bigger, more expensive homes, more expensive furniture, more
expensive automobiles, send their kids to college, etc. In other
words, besides creating jobs for other people who WANT to work, they
help the economy by spending that money that they have earned.
I agree with this "post" I found on a discussion board: "It is not
the governments job to determine who makes" too much" money, only to
make fair rules for all to follow. The smart and motivated will
succeed, the lazy will not".
To Quote "Joe the Plumber": "That's the American Dream to me. You
work hard. You're going to get what you want eventually. It's not
going to happen overnight by no means, but if you work hard enough
you will get it. I resent the government or Obama's plan to take more
away from me." -- (Joe Wurzelbacher, October 12, 2008).
As "Joe" told Diane Sawyer recently: "Americans should get treated
equally. Why do we have escalating tax brackets on higher incomes at
all? Why are we penalizing the success that we proclaim as the
A writing by Peter Ferrara titled "Federal Income Taxes: Who Pays and
How Much" states: "Facts are that the top 1% of income earners are
paying 40% of federal income taxes, almost twice their share of
income, so the rich certainly seem to be paying their fair share, and
then some. Liberal politicians who say we need to raise taxes on the
rich so they will pay their fair share are either abusively
misleading the public or hopelessly ignorant regarding federal tax
policy. If 40% is not fair for the top 1%, what would be fair, 50%,
100%? Secondly, liberal politicians wailing about Republican tax cuts
for the rich are also either misleading the public, or hopelessly
uninformed. With the top 1% now paying 40% of income taxes, the top
5% paying 60%, and the top 40% paying 99.4%, where are the tax cuts
for rich? Clearly, federal income taxes are overwhelmingly paid by
upper income earners".
In my opinion, Barack Obama's political strategy seems to be more
welfare and give-away programs at the expense of not only who he
considers to be "rich", but also at the expense of the hard working
middle class Americans (Even though many of them may not realize that
yet); taking from them and giving to those who contribute the least
to this country.
It's very sad but it seems that America is becoming a nation of more
& more people with their hands out for charity & freebies, and I have
to give Barack Obama this. He's smart enough to realize that
promising to give more of "something for nothing" to these people
will get him millions of votes.
ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. This election, maybe more than ever, it is very
important that you THINK BEFORE YOU VOTE and put AMERICA FIRST!
P.S. One more thing. Ask yourself, who would you have voted for if
this election had been right after 9/11? In your honest opinion who
do you think would have best acted on America's behalf?
Saturday, October 4, 2008
~ Sailor ~ Pro User says:
Ha! You are gonna get your CHANGE alright. Venezuela got their CHANGE. It's a brave new world, folks. HOPE you can afford the taxes given to another 35,000,000 non-tax paying citizens.
95% of Americans will get a tax cut! NEWS Flash - 30+% of Americans DON'T pay taxes. Do the math!
HA! I quit. I have started with nothing but the shirt on my back 3 times. Not again.
Obama can mail my check and you can keep your CHANGE.
Ha, this is gonna be almost as fun as the 1960s.
Hey, if by chance Obama does lose, will y'all be attending the riots?
Posted 13 hours ago. ( permalink )
Find more info and related video at the links above.
Barack Hussein Obama really can't handle any criticism at all. the Obama campaign has asked MO Law Enforcement and Prosecutors to go after anyone who lies, misleads or uses "character attacks" against Obama.
Just Imagine what it would be like if he is elected?
© 2008 Malagent's NObama 08 Campaign
Uploaded by malagent on 27 Sep 08, 2.33AM PDT.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.
According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.
"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.
Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its "state of weakness and political confusion."
"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open." Zebari says.
Though Obama claims the US presence is "illegal," he suddenly remembered that Americans troops were in Iraq within the legal framework of a UN mandate. His advice was that, rather than reach an accord with the "weakened Bush administration," Iraq should seek an extension of the UN mandate.
Wow. Just wow. Even the Iraqis can see what Obama was trying to do.
Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.
Maliki's advisers have persuaded him that Obama will win - but the prime minister worries about the senator's "political debt to the anti-war lobby" - which is determined to transform Iraq into a disaster to prove that toppling Saddam Hussein was "the biggest strategic blunder in US history."
Other prominent Iraqi leaders, such as Vice President Adel Abdul-Mahdi and Kurdish regional President Massoud Barzani, believe that Sen. John McCain would show "a more realistic approach to Iraqi issues."
If this can be proven, Obama might as well hang it up. Not only is meddling in ongoing US negotiations with Iraq a no-no of epic proportions, the idea that Obama would even dare to suggest to Iraqis that they should not deal with the Bush administration in creating a timeline (thereby leaving troops in Iraq longer than needed) just to try and make Dems look better if he takes office is sick.
And I don't know why I'm so surprised, I always thought the Dems would do whatever it took to claim the Iraq victory for themselves. I just never thought they'd go so far as to leaving our troops exposed for years longer than necessary to do it.
UPDATE - Here's the word from Team Obama.
But Obama's national security spokeswoman Wendy Morigi said Taheri's article bore "as much resemblance to the truth as a McCain campaign commercial."
In fact, Obama had told the Iraqis that they should not rush through a "Strategic Framework Agreement" governing the future of US forces until after President George W. Bush leaves office, she said.
"Barack Obama has never urged a delay in negotiations, nor has he urged a delay in immediately beginning a responsible drawdown of our combat brigades," Morigi said.
That statement didn't help Obama's case much, seeing as his national security spokeswoman just admitted that Obama stuck his two cents where it didn't belong. That's still tampering with an ongoing US-Iraq negotiation, and the idea that Obama didn't urge a delay in negotiations is negated by the fact that he did indeed say that the Iraqis should wait until the next administration to do anything. I'm no genius, but that counts as urging a delay in negotiations to me. And if Taheri's report is correct, that's how the Iraqis interpreted Obama's remarks.
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work, they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine test with which I have no problem.
What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don't have to pass a urine test.
Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their tush, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the state would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance check?
Pass this along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope you all will pass it along, though. . Something has to change in this country -- and soon!!!!!!!
I guess we could title that program, 'Urine or You're Out'
Monday, September 1, 2008
Uploaded by DigitalLyte57 on 26 Aug 08, 7.44PM PDT.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
The Governor announced that the following parishes have declared mandatory evacuations, and state continues to work closely with all coastal parishes as they execute their evacuation plans: (updated 8/30 - 7:30 pm)
- Plaquemines, St. Martin, and St. Charles Parishes - 12 Noon today, Mandatory
- Lafourche Parish - 3 PM today, Mandatory
- Terrebonne, St. Mary, and St. Bernard Parishes - 4 PM Today, Mandatory
- Calcasieu Parish - Sunday at 12 Noon, Mandatory
- Cameron Parish - Expected Mandatory evacuation Sunday Morning
- Iberia Parish - 7 AM Sunday, Mandatory
- Lower Jefferson Parish - Voluntary going on today.
- Orleans - Expecting mandatory tomorrow at 8 AM.
The Governor also announced today that the state is on track to begin the Central LA contra-flow plan at 4 AM Sunday morning and run through midnight Sunday. Louisiana State Police's 1,150 force is currently working double shifts to assist in preparations for contraflow and evacuation efforts. State Police has already worked with DOTD to preposition cones and traffic signs along the roadways in order to prepare to activate contraflow operations.
Evacuation guides for Southwest and Southeast Louisiana can be viewed at: www.GetaGameplan.org
Contra-Flow Maps: www.dotd.louisiana.gov/maps
Friday, August 29, 2008
Take Protective Measures
Before a Hurricane
To prepare for a hurricane, you should take the following measures:
- Make plans to secure your property. Permanent storm shutters offer the best protection for windows. A second option is to board up windows with 5/8" marine plywood, cut to fit and ready to install. Tape does not prevent windows from breaking.
- Install straps or additional clips to securely fasten your roof to the frame structure. This will reduce roof damage.
- Be sure trees and shrubs around your home are well trimmed.
- Clear loose and clogged rain gutters and downspouts.
- Determine how and where to secure your boat.
- Consider building a safe room.
During a Hurricane
If a hurricane is likely in your area, you should:
- Listen to the radio or TV for information.
- Secure your home, close storm shutters, and secure outdoor objects or bring them indoors.
- Turn off utilities if instructed to do so. Otherwise, turn the refrigerator thermostat to its coldest setting and keep its doors closed.
- Turn off propane tanks.· Avoid using the phone, except for serious emergencies.
- Moor your boat if time permits.
- Ensure a supply of water for sanitary purposes such as cleaning and flushing toilets. Fill the bathtub and other large containers with water.
You should evacuate under the following conditions:
- If you are directed by local authorities to do so. Be sure to follow their instructions.
- If you live in a mobile home or temporary structure—such shelters are particularly hazardous during hurricanes no matter how well fastened to the ground.
- If you live in a high-rise building—hurricane winds are stronger at higher elevations.
- If you live on the coast, on a floodplain, near a river, or on an inland waterway.
- If you feel you are in danger.
If you are unable to evacuate, go to your wind-safe room. If you do not have one, follow these guidelines:
- Stay indoors during the hurricane and away from windows and glass doors.
- Close all interior doors—secure and brace external doors.
- Keep curtains and blinds closed. Do not be fooled if there is a lull; it could be the eye of the storm - winds will pick up again.
- Take refuge in a small interior room, closet, or hallway on the lowest level.
- Lie on the floor under a table or another sturdy object.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Holding Town Hall Meetings
Beginning this week, I look forward to sitting down with you around the state to share about the progress we have made, but more importantly, to hear the concerns facing your community firsthand. We have accomplished a lot in a short time, but still have much work to do when it comes to making sure that our students have access to a quality education, our roads are safe to travel, citizens have access to quality and affordable health care and the state is investing your money wisely.
A recent letter to the Baton Rouge Advocate is reminiscent of what I have heard from a number of you over the past week encouraging us to continue moving forward with Louisiana's new era of fiscal common sense. The letter states, "Thank you, Gov. Bobby Jindal for taking the first steps in creating a budget for the entire state, for removing the projects that should be under community, philanthropy, church, local government, self-help and/or any concerned citizen."
As I said last week, there will always be more worthy causes than there will be state funding. But it is our job to ensure tax dollars are wisely spent and invested in state priorities that will further the creation of a New Louisiana that encourages business growth and job creation so our kids do not have to leave home to pursue their dreams.
The Monroe News-Star pointed out that the $16.14 million I vetoed last week in the state budget is "no chump change, especially if it represents money that was taken from the pockets of Louisiana taxpayers." They continued by saying our "intention was to protect the taxpayer," and that "the governor's actions were… consistent with the governor's promises to the people of Louisiana. He promised to be a good steward of public funds."
I look forward to visiting with you in the coming weeks. On Tuesday we begin our town hall meetings in Northwest Louisiana. I hope to see you there.
Tuesday, July 21
12:15pm – Homer (Claiborne Parish), City Hall
2:00pm – Springhill (Webster Parish), Community Activity Center
3:30pm – Vivian (Caddo Parish), Vivian Elementary and Middle School
As evidenced by the appearance of a strong storm in the Gulf of Mexico this week, this year's hurricane season is upon us, and it is critical that every Louisiana family have a gameplan if faced with an approaching storm.
A few weeks ago I told you about our "Get a Gameplan" hurricane preparedness campaign, featuring LSU football coach Les Miles and New Orleans-based rock band Better Than Ezra. Last week we unveiled the public service announcements that you will soon see on television. You can get a sneak peek at the spots here.
I encourage you all once again to visit the state's new preparedness website, www.GetaGameplan.org, and utilize the tips and information found there to ensure that your family is prepared this hurricane season.
Too often, when a family requires human or social services, they are required to go to several locations to fill out multiple forms, creating layers of unnecessary red tape that hinder their ability to receive the help they need. Last week I traveled to New Orleans to sign legislation that created Neighborhood Place, taking a great step forward to cutting that red tape.
Senate Bill 701 creates Neighborhood Place, which will bring the Departments of Social Services, Education, Health and Hospitals, the Louisiana Workforce Commission and Office of Juvenile Justice together at a single location, creating a much more efficient delivery of services. As reported in the Times-Picayune, the first facility will open at the Mahalia Jackson School in Central City New Orleans and will offer prenatal care, nutrition programs and job training. Community leaders in Baton Rouge, Lafayette, West Feliciana and Sabine Parishes have also expressed interest in opening a facility.
Welcoming Our Troops Home
I would also like to extend a special thank you to the 175 members of the Louisiana National Guard's 769th Engineer Battalion that returned home to Louisiana last week after serving oversees protecting our freedom. I was pleased to meet the Battalion at the Baton Rouge Airport upon their arrival, and seeing the faces of the troops as they were reunited with their families and friends is certainly an experience I will never forget.
As this article in the Baton Rouge Advocate illustrates, these men and women are true heroes, regardless of your stance on the war, and deserve our highest honor and respect.
Unfortunately we were reminded once again today of the dangers that our military faces every day in doing their job when a B-52, based at Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, crashed off the coast of Guam this morning. Our hearts and prayers go out to those families who lost a loved one in the accident, as well as the hope that those that continue to remain missing are found safe soon.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
In the Prophecy Connections archive . . .
"Oprah and Friends" To Teach Course on New Age Christ
By Warren Smith
Oprah Winfrey will be letting out all the stops on her XM Satellite Radio program this coming year. Beginning January 1, 2008, "Oprah & Friends" will offer a year-long course on the New Age teachings of A Course in Miracles.1 A lesson a day throughout the year will completely cover the 365 lessons from the Course in Miracles "Workbook." For example, Lesson #29 asks you to go through your day affirming that "God is in everything I see."2 Lesson #61 tells each person to repeat the affirmation "I am the light of the world."3 Lesson #70 teaches the student to say and believe "My salvation comes from me."4
By the end of the year, "Oprah & Friends" listeners will have completed all of the lessons laid out in the Course in Miracles Workbook. Those who finish the Course will have a wholly redefined spiritual mindset—a New Age worldview that includes the belief that there is no sin, no evil, no devil, and that God is "in" everyone and everything. A Course in Miracles teaches its students to rethink everything they believe about God and life. The Course Workbook bluntly states: "This is a course in mind training"5 and is dedicated to "thought reversal."6
Teaching A Course in Miracles will be Oprah's longtime friend and special XM Satellite Radio reporter Marianne Williamson—who also happens to be one of today's premier New Age leaders. She and Conversations with God author Neale Donald Walsch co-founded the American Renaissance Alliance in 1997, that later became the Global Renaissance Alliance of New Age leaders, that changed its name again in 2005 to the Peace Alliance. This Peace Alliance seeks to usher in an era of global peace founded on the principles of a New Age/New Spirituality that they are now referring to as a "civil rights movement for the soul."7 They all agree that the principles of this New Age/New Spirituality are clearly articulated in A Course in Miracles—which is fast becoming the New Age Bible. So what is A Course in Miracles and what does it teach?
A Course in Miracles is allegedly "new revelation" from "Jesus" to help humanity work through these troubled times. This "Jesus"—who bears no doctrinal resemblance to the Bible's Jesus Christ—began delivering his channeled teachings in 1965 to a Columbia University Professor of Medical Psychology by the name of Helen Schucman. One day Schucman heard an "inner voice" stating, "This is a course in miracles. Please take notes."8 For seven years she diligently took spiritual dictation from this inner voice that described himself as "Jesus." A Course in Miracles was quietly published in 1975 by the Foundation for Inner Peace. For many years "the Course" was an underground cult classic for New Age seekers who studied "the Course" individually, with friends, or in small study groups.
As a former New Age follower and devoted student of A Course in Miracles, I eventually discovered that the Course in Miracles was—in reality—the truth of the Bible turned upside down. Not having a true understanding of the Bible at the time of my involvement, I was led to believe that A Course in Miracles was "a gift form God" to help everyone understand the "real" meaning of the Bible and to help bring peace to the world. Little did I know that the New Age "Christ" and the New Age teachings of A Course in Miracles were everything the real Jesus Christ warned us to watch out for. In Matthew 24 Jesus warned about false teachers, false teachings and the false "Christs" who would pretend to be Him.
When I left the New Age "Christ" to follow the Bible's Jesus Christ, I had come to understand that the "Jesus" of A Course in Miracles was a false "Christ," and that his Course in Miracles was dangerously deceptive. Here are some quotes from the "Jesus" of A Course in Miracles:
- "There is no sin. . . "9
- A "slain Christ has no meaning."10
- "The journey to the cross should be the last 'useless journey.'"11
- "Do not make the pathetic error of 'clinging to the old rugged cross.'"12
- "The Name of Jesus Christ as such is but a symbol. . . . It is a symbol that is safely used as a replacement for the many names of all the gods to which you pray."13
- "God is in everything I see."14
- "The recognition of God is the recognition of yourself."15
- "The oneness of the Creator and the creation is your wholeness, your sanity and your limitless power."16
- "The Atonement is the final lesson he [man] need learn, for it teaches him that, never having sinned, he has no need of salvation."17
Most Christians recognize that these teachings are the opposite of what the Bible teaches. In the Bible, Jesus Christ's atoning death on the cross of Calvary was hardly a "useless journey." His triumph on the cross provides salvation to all those who confess their sin, accept Him and follow Him as their Lord and Saviour. His victory on the cross rings throughout the New Testament. It has been gloriously sung about in beloved hymns through the ages and is at the heart of our Christian testimony. I found the Jesus of the Bible to be wholly believable as He taught God's truth and warned about the spiritual deception that would come in His name. The "Jesus" of A Course in Miracles reveals himself to be an imposter when he blasphemes the true Jesus Christ by saying that a "slain Christ has no meaning" and that we are all "God" and that we are all "Christ." It was by reading the Bible's true teachings of Jesus Christ that I came to understand how deceived I had been by A Course in Miracles and my other New Age teachings.
I was introduced to A Course in Miracles by Dr. Gerald Jampolsky's book Love is Letting Go of Fear. Jampolsky declared in his easy-to-read book how the teachings of A Course in Miracles had changed his life. As an ambassador for A Course in Miracles over the years, Jampolsky has been featured not only in New Age circles but at least twice on Robert Schuller's Hour of Power. While Schuller introduced Jampolsky and his "fabulous"18 Course in Miracles-based books to his worldwide television audience, it was Marianne Williamson's appearance on a 1992 Oprah Winfrey Show that really shook the rafters.
On that program, Oprah enthusiastically endorsed Williamson's book, A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of A Course in Miracles. Oprah told her television audience that Williamson's book about A Course in Miracles was one of her favorite books, and that she had already bought a thousand copies and would be handing them out to everyone in her studio audience. Oprah's endorsement skyrocketed Williamson's book about A Course in Miracles to the top of the New York Times bestseller list. Ironically, all of this was happening after I had left the Course and the New Age. In fact, I was doing the final editing on my book The Light That Was Dark that warned about the dangers of the New Age—and in particular A Course in Miracles.
After being introduced to the world on Oprah, Marianne Williamson has continued to grow in popularity and, as previously mentioned, has become one of today's foremost New Age leaders. Williamson credits Winfrey for bringing her book about A Course in Miracles before the world: "For that, my deepest thanks to Oprah Winfrey. Her enthusiasm and generosity have given the book, and me, an audience we would never otherwise have had."19 In her 2004 book, The Gift of Change, Williamson wrote: "Twenty years ago, I saw the guidance of the Course as key to changing one's personal life; today, I see its guidance as key to changing the world. More than anything else, I see how deeply the two are connected."20
Thus the New Age teachings of A Course in Miracles are about to be taught by Marianne Williamson to millions of listeners on Oprah's XM Satellite Radio program. Listeners are encouraged to buy A Course in Miracles for the year-long course. An audio version of A Course in Miracles recited by Richard (John Boy Walton) Thomas is also available on compact disc. Popular author Wayne Dyer told his PBS television audience that the "brilliant writing" of A Course in Miracles would produce more peace in the world.21 Williamson's New Age colleague, Neale Donald Walsch, said his "God" stated that "the era of the Single Saviour is over"22 and that he ("God") was responsible for authoring the teachings of A Course in Miracles.23 Meanwhile, Gerald Jampolsky's Course in Miracles-based book, Forgiveness, continues to be sold in Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral bookstore as Schuller prepares to host a January 17-19, 2008, "Rethink Conference" at his Crystal Cathedral.24
At this critical time in the history of the world, the New Gospel/New Spirituality is coming right at the world and the church with its New Age teachings and its New Age Peace Plan. But this New Age Peace Plan has at its deceptive core the bottom-line teaching from A Course in Miracles that "we are all one" because God is "in" everyone and everything. But the Bible is clear that we are not God (Ezekiel 28:2; Hosea 11:9). And per Galatians 3:26-28, our only oneness is in Jesus Christ—not in ourselves as "God" and "Christ." What Oprah and Marianne Williamson and the world will learn one day is that humanity's only real and lasting peace is with the true Jesus Christ who is described and quoted in the Holy Bible (Romans 5:1).
Oprah Winfrey's misplaced faith in Marianne Williamson and the New Age teachings of A Course in Miracles is a sure sign of the times. But an even surer sign of the times is that most Christians are not taking heed to what is happening in the world and in the church. We are not contending for the faith as the Bible admonishes us to do (Jude 3). It is time for all of our Purpose-Driven and Emerging church pastors to address the real issue of the day. Our true Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ is being reinvented, redefined, and blasphemed right in front of our eyes and hardly anyone seems to notice or care. If we want the world to know who Jesus Christ is, we need to also warn them about who He is not. There is a false New Age "Christ" making huge inroads into the world and into the church. The Apostle Paul said that "it is a shame" we have to even talk about these things, but talk about them we must (Ephesians 5:12-16).
If people want to follow Oprah Winfrey and the New Age "Christ" of A Course in Miracles they certainly have that right. But let them be warned that the New Age "Christ" they are following is not the same Jesus Christ who is so clearly and authoritatively presented in the pages of the Bible.
Warren Smith is a former New Age follower who at one time was deeply involved in the New Age teachings of A Course in Miracles. He is the author of The Light That Was Dark: From the New Age to Amazing Grace and Deceived on Purpose: The New Age Implications of the Purpose-Driven Church. His book Reinventing Jesus Christ: The New Gospel is available free online at www.reinventingjesuschrist.com
2. A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume (Glen Ellen, California: Foundation for Inner Peace, 1975), (Workbook), p. 45.
3. Ibid., p. 102.
4. Ibid., p. 119.
5. Ibid., (Text), p. 16.
6. Ibid., (Preface), p. ix.
7. Neale Donald Walsch, Tomorrow's God: Our Greatest Spiritual Challenge (New York: Atria Books, Simon & Schuster, 2004), pp. 262-263.
8. Robert Skutch, Journey Without Distance: The Story behind "A Course in Miracles" (Berkeley, California: Celestial Arts, 1984), p. 54.
9. A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume, (Workbook), p. 183.
10. Ibid., (Text), p. 425.
11. Ibid., p. 52.
13. Ibid., (Teachers Manual), p. 58.
14. Ibid., (Workbook), p. 45.
15. Ibid., (Text), p. 147.
16. Ibid., p. 125.
17. Ibid., p. 237.
19. Marianne Williamson, A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles A Course in Miracles (New York: Harper Perennial, 1996), p. ix.
20. Marianne Williamson, The Gift Of Change: Spiritual Guidance for a Radically New Life (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 2004), p. 5.
21. Wayne Dyer, "There's a Spiritual Solution to Every Problem," Public Broadcasting System broadcast in 2001.
22. Neale Donald Walsch, The New Revelations: A Conversation with God (New York: Atria Books, 2002), p. 157.
23. Neale Donald Walsch, Conversations with God: an uncommon dialogue, Book 1 (New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 1996), p. 90.
24. http://www.rethinkconference.com (See also WorldNetDaily.com 10/30/07 "What is Robert Schuller 'rethinking'?" by Joseph Farah and "Rethinking Robert Schuller" by Warren Smith. See also Herescope: "Rethinking Culture" and "Rethinking and Reinventing" (10/30/07)
posted by Discernment Research Group @ 11/09/2007 12:35:00 PM
"For false Christs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and miracles to deceive even the elect -- if that were possible. See, I have told you ahead of time."
-- Jesus (Matthew 24:23-25, NIV)
Stay informed and keep watching . . .
Tuesday, July 1, 2008
OUR VOICES WERE HEARD!!!
Gov. Jindal listened and has vetoed the pay raise! He realized he made a mistake and did the right thing and took steps to fix his mistake! Below is the recap from the advocate:
- By MICHELLE MILLHOLLON
- Advocate Capitol News Bureau
- Published: Jul 1, 2008 - Page: 1A - UPDATED: 12:10 a.m.
Gov. Bobby Jindal vetoed a legislative pay raise Monday in an abrupt reversal of his week-long stance that he would allow the salary increase to become law.
The governor acknowledged that the veto of the raise — a more than doubling of legislators' pay that was supposed to kick in today — means he is breaking his word to legislators. He said he expects them to be angry with him.
"I clearly made a mistake by telling the Legislature that I would allow them to handle their own internal affairs. … I am correcting my mistake," Jindal said during a news conference at the State Capitol.
The veto prompted organizers of a recall drive against Jindal to drop their efforts.
The pay raise legislation's author, state Sen. Ann Duplessis, said she plans to let the issue die with the veto.
Duplessis, D-New Orleans, said the people behind the public outcry are not in favor of any kind of raise.
"I will not continue to create this circus," Duplessis said. "There was outrage, but I think it was orchestrated outrage."
The pay raise was easily the most controversial measure to emerge from the legislative session that recently wrapped.
There was a tremendous public outcry against the raise, leading to recall efforts against Jindal as well as five legislators, including the House speaker and two Baton Rouge lawmakers. Protesters greeted Jindal in Shreveport last week.
From the moment the controversial measure hit his desk, Jindal blasted the raise as excessive. But he also was steadfast in his refusal to veto the measure.
He appeared to have a change of heart over the weekend, if not sooner, when the raise became interview fodder on national television.
Jindal told CNN Sunday that there was still time to stop the raise. He had until July 8 to veto the measure that generated the harshest criticism the governor has experienced in his six-month term.
Duplessis said the media confused people into thinking all legislators are wealthy.
"There were people who thought … 'They're greedy, greedy, greedy.' That's not the reality of it," she said.
Duplessis noted that Jindal wants to give his economic development secretary a $74,000 pay raise.
She said it is strange that the governor has not vetoed legislation that would raise the pay of public service commissioners.
A rally was scheduled for July 7 to protest the legislative pay raise. Organizer Stephen Sabludowsky said Monday after Jindal's veto that the protest is canceled.
Jindal and five state representatives were the target of recall petitions.
All five are Republicans who voted for the pay raise.
Jindal's veto put an end to at least one of those efforts.
The leader of House Speaker Jim Tucker's recall effort said he was dropping it.
"Our goal all along has been to stop the pay raise bill," said John Roberts of Gretna, organizer of the Tucker recall. "We feel like we have accomplished our goal and in all likelihood it is going to be stopped."
But an organizer against state Rep. Stephen Pugh of Ponchatoula said the Jindal action made no difference.
"Even though Bobby Jindal vetoed this bill, it still doesn't excuse the fact of what was done," said Danny Wallace of Ponchatoula, organizer of Pugh recall.
"I can't see backing up. What he (Pugh) did has nothing to do with the veto," Wallace added.
House Speaker Tucker, R-Terrytown, did not respond to three calls for comment. Tucker handled the pay raise bill in the House and gave an impassioned plea for it on the House floor.
In a prepared statement, Tucker said he is committed to working with the governor.
"I respect Governor Jindal's veto. … Our goal was to assure that citizens from all walks of life could afford public service," Tucker said.
Jindal refused to say whether the hue and cry caused him to change his mind.
"I realized this pay raise is inconsistent with a new Louisiana," he said.
Jindal said he informed Tucker and Senate President Joel Chaisson II, D-Destrehan, of the veto Monday morning.
Chaisson did not return a call for comment.
Brenda Hodge, spokeswoman for the state Senate, said Chaisson, who is a lawyer, was in court.
Jindal said he expects legislators to be unhappy that he nixed their bid to more than double their base pay.
Previously, in refusing to veto the pay raise, he cited concerns that lawmakers would unravel his initiatives.
Jindal said it became clear to him that the legislators' bid to raise their pay was inconsistent with his initiatives.
"They've got a right to be angry with me. I hope they take their anger out on me instead of the people," he said.
Jindal said any pay raise should take effect after the next election.
Senate Bill 672 by Duplessis would benefit the lawmakers currently in office by increasing their $16,800 annual base salary to $37,500. Legislative leaders — such as the speaker of the House and the president of the Senate —would get more money.
Legislators also get a $6,000 expense allowance and $143-a-day per diem payments for every day in session or committee.
The bill cleared the House with three votes more than the minimum needed for final approval.
Three legislators who voted for the pay raise later said they regretted backing the bill.
While the session still was ongoing, 13 House members and seven senators signed affidavits declining the raise.
The governor said he hopes the public remains interested in state government instead of tuning out now that the pay raise issue likely is over.
"To the citizens who've became so vocal on this issue, so involved in this process, I say thank you and I say stay involved," Jindal said."
Thursday, June 19, 2008
CALL TO SHARE YOUR OPINION ABOUT THE %100 PAY RAISE SENATE GAVE THEMSELVES AND THEN WOULD NOT GRANT A $900 A YEAR PAY RAISE FOR FIREMAN/COPS...BECAUSE IT "WASN'T IN THE BUDGET".....I WONDER WHY!
FIREMAN AND POLICE SHOULD GET THE PAY RAISE INSTEAD!
225. 342.7015.... LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD!!!
Monday, June 16, 2008
updated 10:03 a.m. CT, Wed., June. 11, 2008
NEW ORLEANS - State Sen. Ann Duplessis said she and fellow senators are ?on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week? and so she and her peers approved a raise of $34,000 per year Tuesday. Click Here: Watch The Story
The raise would increase the average salary for part-time legislators from $16,800 dollars to more than $50,000 a year. A House committee also approved the raise Wednesday morning, and it moved to the floor for debate.
That would put Louisiana in the top ten when it comes to legislative pay.
Lakeview resident Desiree West Durham, who lives in the midst of a neighborhood still rebuilding from Hurricane Katrina, takes issue with legislators getting a raise.
"I feel like that are robbing Peter to pay Paul," Durham said. "They are taking out of state tax payers pockets and putting it in their own. I don't think it's right."
These senators voted for the legislative pay raise: Senator Ann Duplessis, Senate President Joel Chassion and Metairie Senator Danny Martini among others.
Woting against the pay raise: Sen. Julie Quinn from Metairie, Sen. John Alario from the Westbank and Senator David Heitmeier from Algiers.
"Although we have had a lot of negative press on this, at the end of the day this is positive for our state," Sen. Duplessis said.
But Durham called it Louisiana politics as usual. Gov. Bobby Jindal has said he is opposed to legislative pay raises but if it passes he will not veto it.
The governor released this statement saying: "I strongly disagree with this pay increase. They are a separate branch of government and must manage their own internal affairs."
IT GETS WORSE! Not only did they pass the bill for their pay raise but they "put aside" a pay raise for police/firemen. The pay raise was only $900 A YEAR!!! They say they "can't find it in the budget"...I WONDER WHY???
EMAIL LOUISIANA SENATORS TO TELL THEM YOU OPPOSE THIS BILL!
List of Senators:
Senator Robert Adley
Senator John A. Alario, Jr.
Senator "Jody" Amedee
Senator Sharon Weston Broome
Senator Bill Cassidy
Senator Joel T. Chaisson, II
Senator Sherri Smith Cheek
Senator Donald R. "Don" Cravins, Jr.
Senator A.G. Crowe
Senator Jack Donahue
Senator Yvonne Dorsey
Senator Ann Duplessis
Senator Reggie P. Dupre, Jr.
Senator Dale M. Erdey
Senator D. A. "Butch" Gautreaux
Senator "Nick" Gautreaux
Senator Cheryl A. Gray
Senator Troy Hebert
Senator David Heitmeier
Senator Lydia P. Jackson
Senator Robert W. "Bob" Kostelka
Senator Eric LaFleur
Senator Gerald Long
Senator Robert "Rob" Marionneaux, Jr.
Senator Daniel "Danny" Martiny
Senator Joe McPherson
Senator Michael J. "Mike" Michot
Senator Dan "Blade" Morrish
Senator Willie L. Mount
Senator Edwin R. Murray
Senator Ben Nevers
Senator Julie Quinn
Senator Neil Riser
Senator B.L. "Buddy" Shaw
Senator Derrick Shepherd
Senator John R. Smith
Senator Francis Thompson
Senator Mike Walsworth
Senator Seat District #9 Vacant