"That was the incredulous, sniping demand of CNN 'news' anchor Tony Harris, who gives almost as much opinion as news," notes the editorial page of the Augusta Chronicle.
"Harris was interviewing an organizer of the Tea Party Express -- a caravan that will ride from Sacramento, Calif., to Washington, D.C., to dramatize growing concern among many Americans about the out-of-control federal government."
By the way, avant-garde readers of The Pearcey Report and Pro-Existence may note a certain turn of phrase in the following (emphasis added):
. . . many Americans are coming to see that [Obama's] unprecedented spending, his plan to bail out irresponsible mortgage holders, his ineffective and wildly irresponsible stimulus plan, and his government-centric philosophy are making things worse -- especially for our progeny.
Here's the entire editorial.
Floyd and Mary Beth Brown write at Frontpage magazine:
Leftist elites are up in arms about Americans up in arms.
At two recent Obama town hall meetings, men exercising their Second Amendment rights were spotted carrying firearms.
While we do not condone threatening the president or anyone else for that matter, these citizens are well within their rights.
It is legal to carry a firearm while demonstrating to protect your liberties.
By the way, one of the perhaps "racist" men exercising his 2nd Amendment rights was a black guy. A "crucial detail" "glossed over" by the Collaborationist Press. Oops!
Read the entire column.
But it's not a Constitutional right. "The two are as different as a squirt gun and an Uzi," writes columnist Larry Elder.
"If something is not permitted under our Constitution, the federal government simply cannot do it. Period."
"Under the ObamaCare healthcare nightmare," writes G. Wesley Clarke, M.D., in "No More Privacy Under ObamaCare" at American Thinker, "the private details of your medical history would be made accessible to an unknown number of government bureaucrats, for supposedly legal purposes, but also for illegal snooping by thousands of government employees."
Yesterday on Sarah Palin's Facebook page, I suggested the attack on privacy may be part of a larger pattern:
The privacy of Sarah Palin and family has been eviscerated by a secular media and political machine willing to exploit any opening. Meanwhile, Obama wants no media intrusion into the lives of his girls but total government intrusion into the lives of everyone else's girls. [a point I had made earlier on my own FB page]
Is this part and parcel of being a public figure or perhaps an indication that privacy in principle is dead in an America that has lost its Declarational and Constitutional moorings?
Jaya Jones commented on this: "I agree with you. The same standards should apply to all. We have a First Family that seems to think they are royalty. Typical Socialists."
Mary Ann Gordon replied: "Scrutiny of all MINOR children of any public official should be OFF LIMITS."
"Yes," I wrote, "but if one's politics erases such lines, it is difficult to maintain them when it touches those friends and family you happen to care about. A humane and legitimate privacy may not be able to withstand ideological notions that assault the individual, the family as a defined structure, business within its own proper sphere, and so on. The deification of equality requires the obliteration of diversity, hence, the end of privacy."
"Equality" is part of the rationale the White House is using to impose a government-controlled heathcare regime upon the American people.
Obama wishes to "spread the healthcare around," as it were. But this will spread health misery around, just as socialistic attempts to "spread the wealth" have imposed economic misery (but not upon those who are doing the spreading, mind you).
The deification of equality in healthcare requires the obliteration of diversity. No matter how pleasing the sales language employed to market this agenda, it entails principially the end of the individual as a respected being of worth and significance, and therefore the end of privacy.
Healthcare rationing controlled by federal operatives will be, of necessity, exceedingly impersonal. Both philosophically and in practice. And it will be very intimately impersonal.
There is an alternative to this impersonal steamroller, however. You can maintain such a humane respect, but that will require moving forward on the basis of the Declaration (as written), the Constitution (as written), and the high estimation of the individual as a creature endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights." Not as empty "god-talk" but -- as our Founders understood -- as holistic truth that rightfully shapes the direction of our nation, including public policy.
Otherwise, there is the steamroller, the machine, the equalized end of privacy. As G. Welsley Clarke concludes his comments at American Thinker: "So much for the 'Constitutional right to privacy' -- your privacy is only important when it serves progressive objectives, but worthless when they want to seize power."
Clearly, we can do better. And what human being, endowed by our Creator to rage against the machine, wouldn't want to?
Coming to the silver screen. As this AFP story suggests, lunch breaks have consequences.
"A prominent historian and constitutional expert says a Democratic congresswoman from New Hampshire is 'dead wrong' to suggest that 'the Constitution did not cover everything'," reports OneNewsNow.
"Representative Carol Shea-Porter (D-New Hampshire) was asked recently by a talk-radio caller about the constitutionality of the Democrats' government-run healthcare plan. Her response has at least one constitutional expert wondering whether she has ever read the Constitution." . . .
That expert is "author and historian David Barton, the president of WallBuilders." According to OneNewsNow, Barton "says Shea-Porter's comments reflect her view that Washington government should run everything. He notes that both the Ninth and Tenth Amendments say anything that is not explicitly covered in the Constitution belongs to the states and to the people."
With the Democrats getting slaughtered -- or should I say, "receiving mandatory end-of-life counseling" -- in the debate over national health care, the Obama administration has decided to change the subject by indicting CIA interrogators for talking tough to three of the world's leading Muslim terrorists.
Had I been asked, I would have advised them against reinforcing the idea that Democrats are hysterical bed-wetters who can't be trusted with national defense while also reminding people of the one thing everyone still admires about President George W. Bush.
But I guess the Democrats really want to change the subject. Thus, here is Part 2 in our series of liberal lies about national health care.
Here's the entire column.
Or "How to use meaningless but emotive religious symbols to manipulate Americans into supporting an un-Constitutional, anti-Declarational, inhumane, anti-Christian atrocity otherwise known as Obamacare."
Speaking of "Wag the Clergy," the storyline goes something like this:
Here Clergy, Clergy, Clergy.
Fetch. Sit. Beg. Slobber. Rollover.
Good boy. Your stimulus check is in the mail.
For a humane alternative to this indignity, consider the reality-oriented Judeo-Christian worldview, rooted in information from a knowable and evidentially available Creator (the kind our Founding Fathers knew about but political manipulators despise).
It ain't about "religion" stuck inside Grandma's closet. But truth. For the whole person. Applied across the whole of life, including political life.
Free-thinkers, please see "Christmas Spirit in the Dirt."
"Last week, radio talk-show host, Fox News commentator and best-selling author Sean Hannity just offered the slightest hint that he might consider a bid for the presidency," writes Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily. "I can tell you that he instantly became my pick."
"On the 46th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s March on Washington, Education Secretary Arne Duncan declined to say whether King’s view that just laws are based on God's law should be taught in public schools," reports CNSNews.com.
"In his famous 'Letter from Birmingham Jail,' King expressed his classical belief, based on the teachings of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas as well as the Founding Fathers, that a just law is a law that comports with the law of God and an unjust law is a law that does not comport with the law of God."
Comment: The real factor prohibiting the teaching about the Creator in the public schools is an imposed secularism, not the U.S. Constitution.
The real threat to liberty in America comes not from teaching about our true Creator, upon whom the American republic is founded.
No, the real threat derives from a secular state, which seeks to impose an alien, false, and inhumane ideology upon American life and thought.
In that un-American, unconstitutional and anti-Declarational world, Martin Luther King and his "Letter From Birmingham" will forever be at the back of the bus.
Far better for free-thinking Americans to act upon our "unalienable rights" -- endowed not by some privatized, abstract religiousity, "faith," or "value," but by a living, factual, and rationally knowable Creator who is a public figure.
Far better to show secularist tryanny the door at the next bus stop.
Let freedom ride. Up front.
Interested in sending a "warrior to Congress"? Then U.S. Marine Jesse Kelly wants you.
From "Dear White Liberal America," by Lloyd Marcus:
Thank you, very much. You see us poor helpless inferior blacks (oh forgive me, I must be be politically correct, "African Americans"), and you want to help us using your superior intellect. After all, we could not possibly succeed in this racist, homophobic and greedy country without your assistance.
"President Obama participated in a controversial 1990s political party with a socialist agenda, recalls a major member of the organization known as the New Party," reports WorldNetDaily.
From Matthew Vadum at American Spectator:
The Obama White House is behind a cynical, coldly calculated political effort to erase the meaning of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks from the American psyche and convert Sept. 11 into a day of leftist celebration and statist idolatry.
Academy Award winner Jon Voight to Jennifer Harper at the Washington Times:
There's a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country? . . .
We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. . . .
Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book Rules for Radicals, by Saul Alinsky. Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods. . . .
The real truth is the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government-run health care plan forced upon them.
So I ask again. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?
David Limbaugh writes:
When Obama promised to bring fundamental change to America, most Americans, fortunately for him, did not take him literally.
He offered them "hope" at a time when the economy was going south; political partisanship had reached new levels of acrimony, and people were weary of a protracted, albeit successful, war in Iraq.
But most voters had no idea just how much change Obama had in mind.
Read the entire column by David Limbaugh.
"A young Christian runaway in foster care awaits her hearing [today] when Florida authorities will decide whether she will be forced to return to her Muslim parents -- whom she says will kill her for converting to Christianity," reports WorldNetDaily.
She is just 17, and her name is Fathima Rifqa Bary.
"I'm fighting for my life," she says.
Here is Rifqa Bary on YouTube.
Andew Sumereau, writing at American Thinker, asks a basic, revolutionary question: "By what authority does the federal government intervene in health care?"
A good start on healthcare reform, Texas-style. Here's the story.
"I've hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat," says Ann.
So expect another housecall next week.
"The impulse toward euthanasia is already active in American culture," writes J.R. Dunn at American Thinker.
"Sarah Palin understands this, as Obama, Pelosi, Romney, and sadly, the editors of National Review do not."
"Mike Farris says that Sweden will ban all home schooling except for children with medical exemptions and foreign workers with the appropriate work visas."
Comment: If the state is supreme, the people must obey.
But as the American Founders realized -- and acted upon -- that's a big "if."
A free people, aware of their dignity as created in the image of a knowable and verifiable God, and thereby endowed with "certain unalienable rights," rightly and properly resist.
These rights are not mere "values," but facts imbedded holistically in human existence by a Creator who is anything but indifferent.
So it matters little whether we are talking about secular and inhumane idolatry abroad -- or here at home in the U.S.
"Love thy neighbor" simply will not be domesticated, bought off, or scared away.
A mind is a terrible thing to enslave.
In this upbeat video, Molotov Mitchell blasts the government-run public education system for indoctrinating our children. And he offers alternatives.
Says Mitchell: "Public education founder C.F. Potter stated that one hour of Sunday School cannot possibly stem the tide of five days of humanist education."
I do not have it in front of me, but an internet search indicates the following as the full quote from Charles Francis Potter, found in Humanism: A New Religion (1930):
Education is . . . a most powerful ally of Humanism, and every American public school is a school of Humanism.
What can the theistic Sunday Schools, meeting for an hour once a week, and teaching only a fraction of the children, do to stem the tide of a five-day program of humanistic teaching?
"From the beginning," Mitchell concludes, "the goal was never education. It has always been indoctrination."
The video runs 2 minutes, 28 seconds.
"Federal 'healthcare' must inevitably turn into 'Death Care,' because the bureaucracy will have the sole power to determine the rules under which you and I will live an die," argues James Lewis at American Thinker.
"The Socialist commodification of life turns the entire Western tradition of the infinite value of life upside-down. . . . [T]his bears very directly on Obama's Blitzkrieg to control American medicine."
Paul Chesser at American Spectator says Dixie is the "last frontier among the states for global warm-mongers to conquer."
And here's "Remembering Bob Novak," from Tim Carney.
While managing editor at Human Events, I wore the additional hat of "associate editor" at the Evans-Novak Political Report, working with, among others, both Tim Carney and Novak himself.
The family will miss a loved one. Journalism will miss not just a well-informed reporter with institutional memory, but also someone who understood and worked diligently at his craft. RIP.
"A parental-rights advocate is concerned that parental authority could be usurped under Obama's healthcare plan," reports OneNewsNow.
"Mike Farris with ParentalRights.org is drawing attention to Title IX, Subpart 3, section 440, on page 837 of Obama's healthcare plan (HR 3200). That section deals with the creation of a government bureaucracy that would establish and expand 'programs providing voluntary home visitation for families with young children and families expecting children.'
"Under the provision, the government would instruct parents on age-appropriate child development in 'cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor skills.' It would also provide parents with 'modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices.'"
Says Farris: "The government simply has no business, no expertise, and no constitutional authority to come in and teach subjective values to families. They are so far out of their bailiwick. . . . This is one of the most serious intrusions into families."
Such an intrusive government would be, of course, a rogue government. Our Constitutional system of government, by way of contrast, is founded upon objective information and objective moral norms rooted in a real and living Creator who gives an adequate basis for human dignity, human freedom, unalienable rights, and civil society.
This is yet another reason to be thankful for the work done by the Founding Fathers ca. 1776. And it helps awaken us to the basis for the kind of real reform needed for real progress in the life, thought, and government of contemporary America.
"Less than a week after the Environmental Protection Agency restarted a controversial dredging project on the Hudson River, dredgers operated by the General Electric Company dislodged wooden beams that are the last remnants of one of the largest British forts in the American colonies," reports CNSNews.com.
"The EPA now says that the beams are contaminated with potential carcinogens known as PCBs and therefore must be buried in a landfill.
"The dredging operation is being conducted to remove sediments containing PCBs from the river about 40 miles north of Albany, N.Y.
"Fort Edward, where the dredging damage occurred, was one of the largest forts in the colonies during the French and Indian War in the mid-18th century, and it was a key strategic position during the American Revolution," reports CNSNews.
With a hat tip to Mark Levin (see pages 109-110 of Liberty and Tyranny), Jeffrey Lord discusses Obamacare, death panels, deathcare in Oregon, and the case of Barbara Wagner.
He writes at American Spectator:
The infamous Section 1233 "death panel" has been pulled from the Senate version of the House ObamaCare Bill. Or so goes the tale as this is written.
Does this mean no more government rationing coming our way?
Naaaaah. This entire concept of ObamaCare is based on the principle of government rationing. The President has even jokingly talked about unplugging Grandma.
But "unplugging Grandma" is not much of a joke if you were Barbara Wagner. Who?
Barbara Wagner was a waitress. She drove a school bus. She worked as a home health care aide. Along the way as she worked her fingers to the bone she was married, had kids, was divorced, became a grandmother, then a great-grandmother.
Barbara also smoked cigarettes, and eventually this developed into lung cancer.
So far, so good and so bad. Good -- the jobs, the kids, the family. The bad -- the illness. Everyone doesn't smoke, everyone will die. Most will have a health issue somewhere.
Yet in death Barbara Wagner -- who died in the last year at 64 -- may well be the cross to the Dracula that is ObamaCare. [emphasis added]
Does Obamacare need a stake driven through its heart? Just remember, even if Dr. Gov't shows up with smiles, a white coat, and a teleprompter or two, it's still a vampire. "The next Barbara Wagner," Jeffrey Lord cautions, "could be you."
Instead of unplugging Grandma, let's unplug un-Constitutional tryanny seeking to impose itself upon the Barbara Wagners of the world. Somehow, that seems more American, more humane, and more like medicine.
Click here to read the entire article by Jeffrey Lord.
Obama -- or his political, moral, and spiritual opponents?
Here's a hint: The fascist attack on freedom in America today does not issue from those who embrace "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Instead, as Joseph Farah explains:
American liberty faces very serious challenges from the country's own leadership -- not from citizens who dissent against those policies. That's what happened in Weimar, Germany, too.
To ignore history would be to commit one of the same sins that was committed in the 1930s -- and every time totalitarianism has reared its ugly head before or since.
Andie Brownlow does not accept the premise that the healthcare bill (HR 3200) is "needed or even constitutional."
This is why, as she writes at American Thinker:
The health care bill must be defeated and not negotiated.
Congress will offer us everything we want and more, so long as a bill for socialized health care gets signed into law.
There are no sacred cows in HR 3200; the only thing that matters to progressive elites is the precedent of its passage.
They will eventually, patonizingly capitulate to our demands to change the bill.
We will have been taken as fools who bought snake oil because we won the haggle over price.
Our Constitution is very clear on a limited federal government.
Providing healthcare and other social services on a federal level are not what our founders intended.
In fact, they all spoke at great length about avoiding the tyranny of oppressively large government, emphasizing freedom & limitations on federal government.
Read the rest of "I Don't Accept the Premise," by Andie Brownlow.
"Glenn Beck fans are fighting back against a campaign led by a black activist organization prompting major advertisers to withdraw from Beck's top-rated Fox News Channel program," reports WorldNetDaily.
"Last week, NewsBusters reported President Obama's "green jobs czar," Van Jones, is co-founder of ColorofChange.org, an activist organization that has led a furious campaign against Beck culminating in major companies such as Geico and Lawyers.com pulling their spots from the Fox News star's daily show."
To learn more about defending Glenn Beck, visit DefendGlenn.com.
Here's Daniel Allott's take, writing at American Specator:
Religious conservatives have become a consequential force over the last few years by engaging in politics to defend the values of sexual restraint, marital fidelity and respect for human life.
That's a good thing.
But to win the culture war, their passion to defend these values in public policy must be matched by an equal amount of passion to live them in their own lives.
"Is the federal government takeover of the health care system constitutional?," asks Chelsea Schilling in a report at WorldNetDaily.
"Some argue that under the Constitution, Congress is not allowed to regulate or subsidize health care."
Among them is Michael Boldin, who founded The Tenth Amendment Center: "This is an issue the federal government shouldn't be touching at all," he says.
If Obama, Pelosi, and Reid (or any supporters of any political party) are aware of any legitimate arguments in favor of such a takeover, please let them make their case -- if they think the case has any merit, and if they really believe in Constitutional government that respects the freedom and dignity of Man.
Perhaps what is needed is not the federal overhaul of U.S. healthcare, but the Constitutional overhaul of U.S. government.
"The health care debate has changed the [electoral] game and not to the Democrat's advantage," writes Rick Moran at American Thinker. "In fact, the more they try to paint opponents as racists, or fascists, or 'mobs,' the more the public seems to disagree with them."
But "self-destructing Democrats are only part of the equation. Republicans must come up with an agenda that the American people will support. So far, that hasn't happened although one would expect them to formulate one before the first of the year."
Try this for a positive and humane alternative to the regressive liberal secularism of the Democratic Party: The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.
Whether the issue is healthcare, states' rights, free speech, or the right to bear arms, etc., etc., the Founders had it right: Freedom from tyranny under the State needs to be replaced with freedom to liberty under the Creator.
"Legendary inventor, guitar player and recording artist Les Paul has died from complications from pneumonia," reports the Voice of America. "He was 94 years old."
"Paul revolutionized the music scene with his solid-body electric guitar that he first built in the 1940s in his quest for a guitar with amplified sound. In 1952, Gibson Guitar company began production of the Les Paul guitar."
By the way, along with motorcycles, there will be guitars in Heaven.
Palin, apparently an irrelevant quitter yet strangely powerful typer, forces the Senate to do the right thing with two Facebook posts. This is called leadership and will prevail regardless of the medium. It also speaks to the impact and import of Palin’s positions despite the establishments, both political and media, insistence (aka strange, misplaced hope) that she’s irrelevant.
Now if the House, Senate, White House, and Supreme Court would just do the Constitutional pro-liberty thing and drop healthcare, period.
A free and dignified people are fully capable of organizing their own private-sector communities to take care of themselves, thank you very much.
That approach gives us great healthcare -- and in return for not selling our souls to government, we practice a humane stewardship that protects our God-given freedoms, as well. Not a bad bargain.
Here's the entire entry at Tammybruce.com.
From Sarah Palin's page at Facebook:
Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.
Politics -- like religion and science -- is the sort of thing that ought to be subject to rational discussion, logical analysis, and the canons of evidence, so that people can protect themselves from manipulation by slick PR and snake-oil salesmen dressed up with Ivy League degrees, the politically correct skin color of the week, and ample amounts of meaningless "god-talk." And meaningless "living Constitution-talk," too.
So let us apply the law of noncontradiction (A cannot be non-A) to the political statements of community organizer Barack Obama, currently occupying the White House.
In 2003, reports CNSNews.com, "Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama received a big round of applause for telling a gathering of the AFL-CIO, 'I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care plan'." (emphasis added)
In 2009 -- this week, in fact -- "speaking at a town hall gathering in Portsmouth, N.H., President Obama said, 'I have not said that I was a single-payer supporter because, frankly, we historically have had a employer-based system in this country with private insurers, and for us to transition to a system like that I believe would be too disruptive'." (emphasis added)
Therefore, in 2003 we have Obama asserting "A," and in 2009 we have Obama asserting "non-A." It's not good, to say the least, to have in office a person who speaks with "forked tongue." Power people who speak with forked tonque are public manipulators not public servants.
But it gets worse: Note that Obama's contradictory assertions contain a presupposition that reveals a deeper contradiction. For both assume the federal government has a Constitutional mandate to run the U.S. healthcare industry.
But there is no such Constitutional mandate -- and if someone would like to argue there is, please cite chapter and verse. Free-thinkers are open to new evidence, to wider considerations, based on additional information.
Barack Obama took an oath to protect the Constitution, but his own attempts to impose a government-controlled healthcare regime are a direct attack on the Constitution. He is assaulting what by oath he is supposed to protect. That's a contradiction.
A cannot be non-A, even if the snake-oil salesman uttering the contradiction smiles big and wide while insulting your intelligience. But here we're talking about very bad political "medicine," the sort that enlivens tyranny but eviserates liberty.
As some have noted, neither kingdoms, nations, nor houses divided against themselves can stand. See Matthew 12:25. Antithetical, contradictory, snake-oil politics is a leading indicator of failure on the way. The preachers of a national, societal, and spiritual self-destruction are already in our midst.
What really needs an overhaul is not healthcare, but U.S. politics. What is really needed is a reformation based on a return to the Declaration, the Constitution, and to verifiable information from the Creator, which expresses a rational and humane basis for freedom and dignity in the first place.
Such a reformation is logically consistent, evidentially supported, and yields a politics of conviction-based liberty. It's a shame that the stated contradictory views of some in Washington, D.C., take Americans in a totally opposite direction.
The good news is we need not follow the contradictions of today's tyrants, just as the Founding Fathers did not have to follow the impositions of yesteryear's tyrants. Let freedom ring.
From AP: "Militia groups with gripes against the government are regrouping across the country and could grow rapidly, according to an organization that tracks such trends."
Is this trend "reminiscent of what was seen in the 1990s," as the AP story asserts?
Or might it be more reminiscent of the 1770s?
Obama supporter Camille Paglia writes at Salon:
I must confess my dismay bordering on horror at the amateurism of the White House apparatus for domestic policy. When will heads start to roll? . . .
Case in point: The administration's grotesque mishandling of healthcare reform. . . . Ever since Hillary Clinton's megalomaniacal annihilation of our last best chance at reform in 1993 (all of which was suppressed by the mainstream media when she was running for president), Democrats have been longing for that happy day when this issue would once again be front and center.
But who would have thought that the sober, deliberative Barack Obama would have nothing to propose but vague and slippery promises -- or that he would so easily cede the leadership clout of the executive branch to a chaotic, rapacious, solipsistic Congress?
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens. She is doing grievous damage to the party and should immediately step down.
Hat tip: Weekly Standard
"I'm not going to make the case that America under Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress has become a totalitarian police state," writes Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily. "But, I will make the case that Washington is leading us in that direction."
Talk show host Monica Crowley wonders: Will arrogant, audacious, out-of-touch Democrats lose their heads?
"Americans are speaking up and confronting the President Obama and Democrat lawmakers with concerns about their health care 'reform'," reports WorldNetDaily.
"Citizens are flocking to town hall forums across the nation and letting their representatives know where they stand. Meetings are filled to capacity while thousands wait outside for their chance to be heard."
What must out-of-touch lawmakers do?
Try this: Listen and then reform government at all levels to its proper Declarational and Constitutional job descriptions.
As in the era of 1776, Americans have had it with tyranny. And what we may be seeing now is the rise of an informed and free critical mass of people demanding the right kind of change.
The Declaration. The Constitution. With the Creator, not the State, at the center.
Why the outrage expressed at healthcare townhall meetings across America?
Among the many legitimate reasons may be the humane desire to not allow liberal statists the governmental power to make "healthcare" decisions that could kill the patients.
Peter Ferrara writes at American Spectator:
An example of the government health care rationing that President Obama and the Democrats have in mind comes from Oregon, a state long run by like-minded ultraliberal Democrats.
Randy Stroup, a 53-year-old Oregon resident suffering from prostate cancer, was covered by the state's public option government health plan, the Oregon Health Plan.
But the state plan sent him a letter refusing to pay for his cancer treatment. It offered to pay for physician assisted suicide instead.
A 64-year-old woman with breast cancer received a similar letter. She is dead now.
Americans don't want to take this health care fascism nationwide.
In The Outlaw Josey Wales, the Clint Eastwood character tells a bounty hunter, "Dying ain't no way to make a living."
Well, it ain't no way to make "healthcare," either. Most regular people have figured this out.
This column by Connie Hair at Human Events contains a riveting Fox News interview with Mike Sola, the father of a son with cerebal palsy. At a townhall meeting, Sola challenged Michigan Democrat Rep. John Dingell, Sola's putative representative in Congress.
During the interview with Fox, Sola says that, "after the [townhall] incident was aired on television, we had a visit that night. A message was sent to my family."
Any father can appreciate Sola's message in reply: "I will use every means every means available to me, lethal force if necessary, to protect Scott and my wife," Sola promised. "Your message has been received."
But politicians and their thugs are intruding not just upon our families "at night," as it were, but upon our nation -- in broad daylight -- in a whole range of un-Constitutional usurpations of power and authority, represented of late by the Obama administration. Republicans, too, have much, much to answer for.
What is needed are Americans -- father, mothers, brothers, sisters -- willing to take a Constitutional and Declarational broom to clean out this mess. In the realm of government and politics, that's the real crisis. That's the real cancer choking off freedom and dignity in America.
Healthcare isn't the crisis, "Obamaism" is. Washington-centrism is. State idolatry is. And it's an inhumane idolatry no matter how much you gussy it up with god-talk or social-talk or press releases from the Ministry of Love.
This is much more to the point of what we're seeing at these townhall meetings. If America is to survive as America, then let us work, hope, and pray that what we are witnessing is the beginning of the beginning of the end of D.C. Tyranny and the regressiveness for which it stands.
"The Mona Lisa's enigmatic smile was unaffected," despite what could be called a mug shot, as reported by the UK Telegraph.
The Telegraph unearthed a possible explanation: "Doctors were trying to assess whether she was suffering from Stendhal Syndrome, a rare condition in which often perfectly sane individuals momentarily lose all reason and attack a work of art."
Just as there is no healthcare crisis, there is no Mona Lisa crisis.
"My daughter passed out in church," writes Allen Hunt. The event was "scary," "strange," and the father panicked. But, he says, there was no "crisis."
Fortunately, a doctor was seated nearby and came over. As he began to examine her, she returned to consciousness.
We eventually walked outside where a caring friend had called a medic. The ambulance arrived, and two competent medics examined my daughter with careful detail.
Good news: dehydration was the culprit, and the problem could be easily solved. Crisis averted.
At no time was I asked for proof of health insurance. At no time was I asked for payment.
I am sure there will be plenty of time for that later. We received timely emergency care on demand.
A "crisis" would have occurred if my daughter had passed out and there were no medics to call. In much of the world, that is a reality, and it is a true crisis.
A "crisis" would have occurred if my daughter had fallen, and the medics had refused to treat her until I could demonstrate 100% ability to pay.
Neither of these scenarios occurred because we live in America.
Health care is abundant and available in emergency situations. Moreover, our quality of care is the envy of the world.
There is no "crisis," and the use of that term only serves to inflame passions and urge quick action on an issue that is hardly monolithic, and hardly solvable with a purely political remedy.
Read the entire column.
Philip Klein writes at American Spectator:
Last week, many of you saw the video of a Dallas AARP town hall meeting on health care that AARP officials ended early after the audience raised too many objections. The woman leading the meeting, for instance, tried to shut up audience members who said they disagreed with her when she made assumptions about what she thought they would agree with her on. At one point, a man summed it up by asking, “Do you guys work for us, or do we work for you?”
The answer? The AARP woman behaved as though the members of AARP work for AARP. But beyond this, perhaps some have noticed an unfortunate parallel of disdain in this woman's approach and in how the White House and federal government behave toward the American people. So let us ask: Does the White House and federal government work for us, or do we work for them?
But not only are there regrettable attitudinal and behavior parallels between Liberal Advocacy and Big Government, there is also a real-world political connection between AARP and the White House. Klein writes:
[AARP] CEO Barry Rand, who was a major Obama donor, has gotten cozy with the administration, and along with the rest of the top brass at the Washington headquarters, has decided to support liberal policies. Now the group is actively working alongside the administration to sell these policies that their members are rejecting -- using their members money to do so. In a typically liberal and patronizing kind of way, they think they know what's best for their members, and they're trying to tell them what to think.
But, some might say, what if this resistance at an AARP "townhall" is merely a local occurance and not at all an indicator of AARP's real attitude toward its membership? That is a theoretical possibility, but as Klein writes:
Not only did the woman running the meeting decide to mix it up with dues-paying members, but a vice president from Washington went on national television and defended her actions.
So let's just call a spade a spade. AARP is not an organization that represents its members, but a group that treats its members as dupes so it can suck up their money and use it to advocate a liberal policy agenda supported by its Washington leadership.
Perhaps what we are seeing is this: Neither the AARP nor the federal establishment are "organizations" that represent members or tax-payers. Rather, both are "groups" that treat members and citizens as "dupes" and open wallets, as unimportant, insignificant, manipulable, and controllable denizens of "fly-over country."
Moreover, through dues or taxation, we now see hard-working individuals created in the image of God having their money -- their time, their energies, their lives, their dreams -- sucked up to serve a policy agenda that violates the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. As such, it is an alien agenda advocated by allies in the media, academia, Hollywood, and unions, and then supported by the secular-political power establishment that occupies strongholds in the currently unhealthy body politic of the United States.
Secular liberalism as a worldview holds the individual in contempt, just as it holds real diversity in contempt. "Equality" has become a steamroller to smash the opposition into submission, whether that opposition be AARP members asking questions or whether it be individual states reasserting Constitutional freedoms under the Bill of Rights.
Ultimately this contempt for individual significance, for diversity, and for the unique person reaches back to a secularist worldview that lacks an adequate basis for respecting the individual -- a basis that is evident, however, in the Founders' insistence that there is a Creator, that human beings are made in His image, and that He (and not the divinized, secular State or impersonal nature) is the sources of human rights.
When regular people experience something of what secular liberalism truly is, when the curtains are pulled back on the PR machine and propaganda mill, sharp teeth reveal themselves behind polite teleprompters, soothing messages, and camera-ready smiles. Human beings properly react in outrage and horror.
Humanity was created to revolt against false idols. It's one of the "blessings of liberty" despised by tyrants. Even if they hold office by a majority of the vote. Tyrants promise Eden but deliver Hell.
"A premature baby declared dead by doctors was found to be alive hours later when he was taken home for a funeral wake," reports the Daily Mail.
"The baby's father, Jose Alvarenga, was told by doctors that his son had died shortly after birth. Staff from the state-run hospital in Asuncion, the Paraguayan capital, delivered the infant's body to Mr Alvarenga's home fours hours later."
Read the entire story.
* Sad Update: Baby Loses Fight to Live
From a column at USAToday, published under their names, the following:
It is now evident that an ugly campaign is underway not merely to misrepresent the health insurance reform legislation, but to disrupt public meetings and prevent members of Congress and constituents from conducting a civil dialogue. These tactics have included hanging in effigy one Democratic member of Congress in Maryland and protesters holding a sign displaying a tombstone with the name of another congressman in Texas, where protesters also shouted "Just say no!" drowning out those who wanted to hold a substantive discussion. . . .
These disruptions are occurring because opponents are afraid not just of differing views -- but of the facts themselves. Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American. Drowning out the facts is how we failed at this task for decades.
Here's the entire column.
The hubris of those perched atop Washington machine is a sight to behold. This is the tyranny against which we stand, a resistance rooted in the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Judeo-Christian worldview. The credibility of this breed erodes day by day.
A defiant Craig Smith writes:
Recent media coverage of Americans speaking up with their concerns about the proposed health care legislation finally removes any doubt that those on the hard Left side of the Democratic aisle hate anything that remotely resembles traditional America.
When Cindy Sheehan and Medea Benjamin protested the Bush administration they were heralded as brave Americans who loved their country enough to speak truth to power. They were treated to a level of favorable coverage like we have never seen -- coverage normally reserved for Mother Teresa or Rosa Parks.
But let 200, 300 hard-working, play-by-the-rules, taxpaying, law-abiding citizens voice their opinions about a government that has a deaf ear to the people and we hear words like "Nazis," "paid plants," "GOP operatives," "right-wing wackos" and worse spewing from the mouths of Democratic leadership in Congress.
The ease in which they use such terms without any critical analysis by the press is very revealing.
Let's be clear: What is being attack by the current regime and its allies in the collaborationist press is not just a vague America of "yesteryear," "traditional America," the "America we grew up with," or the "America that you and I love."
What is hated and what is being attacked are the very foundations of human liberty: The Declaration of Independence, as written; the U.S. Constitution (including the Bill of Rights), as written; and the Judeo-Christian philosophy of life, rooted and verified in history, which alone gives a consistent and adequate basis for human dignity and liberty across the whole of life, including poltical life.
On this sure and sacred basis, the American people have a duty, an obligation, and a calling, under God, to resist, to rise up, and to cast out the intruder in our midst. And to move forward on the basis of those timeless emancipatory prescriptions of liberty famously celebrated every July 4.
So says Barack Obama yesterday at a campaign rally in Virginia. Watch him talk.
So, you've heard it from the Defender of the Constitution himself: Shut up, America, unless you agree with me.
"A nonprofit public interest law firm is demanding that the White House withdraw a citizen 'snitch' program that seeks to collect information on those who make 'fishy' statements about President Obama's health care 'reform'," reports WorldNetDaily.
"Czardom has its privileges," notes columnist Michelle Malkin. "This week, President Obama's healthcare overlord, Nancy DeParle, launched a taxpayer-funded initiative to recruit an Internet Snitch Brigade that will combat 'disinformation about health insurance reform.'
But "what will healthcare czar DeParle do with this information?" Malkin asks.
"Where will it be stored? Who has oversight of the czar's powers, budget, and personnel? Concerned citizens, alas, will have a hard time tracking down the 'Office of Health Care Reform' created by executive order in April. There is no central website for the office, no direct channel for transparency, and no congressional accountability."
One the other hand, maybe this is really no big deal. Maybe "We The People" are rightly expected to place a little patriotic faith in the White House and those Statesmen on the Hill. After all, they love us and have a wonderful plan for our lives.
And so who, really, needs details about who's running the snitch program and what it's up to -- or details inserted into those lawyerly 1,000-page-plus bills of dubious constitutional value -- what with so much love in the air these days?
There is a bit of good news, however: "At least one member of Congress has started asking questions." That one senator is John Cornyn of Texas, Malkin reports.
Maybe other senators and members of Congress can ask a few questions as well. And maybe more Texicans, too. In fact, free people all over this land might want a few answers as to what Obama and his D.C. snitches are up to.
It wouldn't hurt to ask. Or would it?
Read the entire Malkin column here.
By the way, the title of the video is "AARP Ignores and Walks Out on Members," which fairly well summarizes the way the Obama administration, the Democratic Party, and not a few Republicans over the years have ignored and walked out on the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: America isn't leaving them, they're leaving America.
One gentleman in the video puts it like this: "This healthcare bill is not about healthcare. This is about our fundamental constitutional rights. It is a liberty issue."
Another man: "We didn't mean to take over this meeting. We came to ask questions. They left."
Questioning authority is one of the "blessings of liberty." It is entirely consistent with the fact of our having been gifted by our rational Creator with brains, property rights, and spheres of liberty in which to move and express our identity as free beings.
Watch this video and be proud of our elders. I wish my mom and dad were alive on this earth to be part of this. But we're here, and we have a job to do. Let's make our kids proud. It's up to us to pass on the torch of liberty, under God, to the next generation.
Kevin McCullough writes:
So what has the White House told supporters to do when you run across those who spread "disinformation" about the new attempt by the Obama administration to install the anti-competitive practices of a "public option" into a federalized universal health care initiative?
Report them. . . .
Pardon me for asking such an obvious question, but what concern is it to the President or his administration if private citizens have disagreements, discussions, and dissections of his proposed take over of the health care industry?
Last I checked I had the constitutional right to do so.
But now he wishes to turn one citizen against another?
What does this mean? It means the Obama regime is taking America into dangerous waters.
It suggests the ever-compassionate White House "has vays of making us healthy," just in case we Americans don't know what's good for us.
But as does a healthy body, even so a healthy body politic will repel this intrusion into our midst.
It's what a free people, under God, do. It's what a free people, under God, have done before. And it's what we, under God, must do again, if we are to express that stewardship of freedom bequeathed upon humanity by the Creator himself.
So what is the source of our health, our strength, our resistance? This: The Declaration of Independence as written, the Constitution as written, and the Judeo-Christian framework as written and verified rationally, logically, and in history.
The Obama regime -- and the secular statist vision for which it stands -- rejects all of these. Tyranny is the logical and existential end-product of this rejection.
In contrast, Americans for a humane patriotism accept them, embrace them, live them. For in them we find the "blessings of liberty," in community not with the false idol of a federal state or a preening president, but with our true Creator.
Where is the evidence that the "man sitting in the White House for the last six months is constitutionally eligible"? asks Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily.
Once again, I am not making accusations about where Obama was born.
All I am saying is that he is without question hiding something by not producing a real birth certificate -- one that bears a signature of a physician and the name of a hospital where that birth took place.
He is hiding something. And I think I have proved that.
It's not my job to prove he was born elsewhere. It's Obama's job to prove he is a natural born citizen.
If he has any respect for the U.S. Constitution he swore to uphold, he would have done that by now -- if he can.
Every day he delays doing that, the suspicion will only grow.
No, this is not a "dead story," as the president of CNN pronounces. It is very much alive. It is getting bigger every day. And, yes, I am proud of the part I played in making that true.
From Robert Stacy McCain at American Spectator:
It is not illegal to impersonate a journalist, but when ... anti-Palin blogger [Jesse Griffin] published a bogus "exclusive" Saturday, he signed up for a lesson in the law of unintended consequences.
"Spontaneous, uncoordinated, passionate -- citizen resistance to Obama socialism grows by the day," writes Lee Cary at American Thinker.
America is no stranger to resistance.
The nation was born from citizen resistance that had mixed support among the colonists.
About one in five was loyal to the King.
Some of the bitterest fighting in the American Revolution was between Loyalists and Patriots.
And all of it was between Americans in the Civil War.
We know how to resist.
"Despite the talking points we are now hearing to the contrary," writes Peter Ferarra at American Spectator, "the bottom line is that the Obama/Democrat health overhaul legislation would result in" the following:
* Invasive Government Control: "Thorough and detailed government control over health care"
* Less Healthcare: "Government rationing that will deny you health care"
* Loss of Freedom: "Severe loss of freedom of choice and control over health care"
* Disabling Taxes: "Disabling, record high taxes that will leave America uncompetitive in the world economy"
* Costlier Healthcare: "Higher, not lower, overall health costs"
* Higher Federal Spending: "Higher not lower federal spending and deficits"
Meanwhile, exactly where in the U.S. Constitution is the federal government, or any political party, authorized to socialize healthcare?
It seems to me, and perhaps to a few other Americans, that the sworn duty of the U.S. president is to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If logic and reason apply to government and politicians, let us ask: How is violating the U.S. Constitution consistent with the clear language in the Presidential Oath of Office to defend the Constitution?
"Paramilitary troops patrolled the streets of a town in eastern Pakistan yesterday after Muslim radicals burned to death eight members of a Christian family, raising fears of violence spreading to other areas," reports the UK Times.
From Thomas Sowell:
"Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom." We have heard that many times. What is also the price of freedom is the toleration of imperfections. If everything that is wrong with the world becomes a reason to turn more power over to some political savior, then freedom is going to erode away, while we are mindlessly repeating the catchwords of the hour, whether "change," "universal health care" or "social justice."
Drew Zahn writes at WorldNetDaily:
Ronald Reagan's birthplace, a second-story apartment over what was once a small-town tavern in Tampico, Ill., is today marked by a museum.
John Adams' birthplace is a national park.
Even Rutherford B. Hayes, whose birthplace is today covered over by a BP gas station, merits a metal plaque commemorating the location.
While most of America's 44 presidents have tourist attractions or monuments of some kind marking their birthplaces, President Barack Obama -- for several reasons -- may not be granted the honor.
". . . Of being planted by insurers," as headlined at American Spectator.
Philip Klein writes:
With opponents of government-run health care speaking out at town hall meetings in growing numbers and with increased ferocity (watch this video of Arlen Specter hearing it from constituents), liberals are attempting to delegitimize citizens exercising their rights by portraying them as part of some ominous conspiracy run by evil corporations.
Here's a video of Durbin's remarks.
Conspiracy, Mr. Senator? How about a concern for Constitutional government?
How about a refusal to bow before the arrogance and tyranny of a well-defended, dysfunctional, and idolatrous federal establishment seeking to impose its anti-Constitutional, anti-Declarational will upon the people and the states, upon families, communities, and individuals?
Get the tar-and-feather brigades ready.
The Rev. John L. Kirkley of San Francisco and the Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool of Maryland will be among six candidates on the ballot when lay people and clergy vote in December, despite a long-standing request from world Anglican leaders for a moratorium on consecrating openly gay bishops.
"Rush, Muddle & Malign isn't a law firm," writes Lee Cary at American Thinker. "It's a series of tactics the Democrat leadership is using to promote Obamacare.
"The Prowler" over at American Spectator notes:
A) "Recently, high-profile visitors to the White House, including senior corporate executives, have found themselves paying for their own meals when sitting down with President Barack Obama, something unheard of in previous White Houses, according to former aides to President George W. Bush and President Bill Clinton."
B) "However, when journalists were feted with other friends of the White House on the South Lawn last month, with dunk tanks, food and drink, they were not asked to pay for their entertainment."
One might wonder: If A, why not B?
Too much Obama, too little care.
It wriggled and wandered on a "Cairo-bound EgyptAir flight," according to the Telegraph.
"Manuel Zelaya wants to return to Honduras as president and then, of course, continue his efforts to be a big-time socialist dictator, a Hugo Chavez lookalike, and the surprising thing," writes Jay Ambrose at the Washington Times, "is that the Obama administration seems to want the very same thing."
Singing chants in the Vatican, reports the Telegraph.
Will he do the Letterman show?
The congressman nominated to become Secretary of the Army says chaplains must be careful to give non-sectarian blessings and avoid proselytizing in non-worship assemblies.
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.