"This is truly a blessing," says Caressa Kisses of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch in Nevada, according to KRNV/MyNews4.com in Reno.
"This is truly a blessing," says Caressa Kisses of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch in Nevada, according to KRNV/MyNews4.com in Reno.
Garth Kant writes at WND:
Hunter Alford is the happy kid next door with a big grin who idolizes country music star Blake Shelton. His parents call him a "wild, fun loving, zombie-killing boy who loves the military and police."
He is normal in every way, except this 7-year-old already plays guitar and keyboards and has his heart set on learning to fiddle.
Something else sets Hunter apart.
He was born with a rare form of cancer and lost his health insurance just after Obamacare went into effect.
Americans were told the health-care law was designed to help children just like Hunter, born with a deadly pre-existing condition and little means to pay for expensive treatments.
The Affordable Care Act was not supposed to take away the insurance these most-vulnerable children already had and leave them utterly defenseless against a life-threatening disease.
Answers are hard to come by, but it looks like that’s what the president’s signature achievement has done in the small town of Gainesville, Texas.
As support for Obamacare collapses, Barack and Michelle have been deploying increasingly harsh language to attack the current system. So much so that they're now trashing the very character of the country.
In regard to collapsing support, "A fascinating number in Wednesday's CBS poll is that only 7% of the American public want Obamacare 'kept in place'," writes John Nolte at Breitbart.com.
Wynton Hall reports at Breitbart.com:
Hours after President Barack Obama declared in a Thursday White House press conference that he "fumbled the roll out on this health care law" and said "that's on me," Obama delivered a defiant speech at a Cleveland plant wherein he vowed to "push back" against the swelling chorus of Americans opposed to Obamacare.
"We are not going to gut this law," said Obama. "And those who say they're opposed to it and can't offer a solution, we'll push back!"
Obama added: "Our politics get screwed up sometimes. Websites don't work sometimes. But we just keep going."
The President's strident tone represented a striking contrast to his press conference statements uttered shortly before his Cleveland remarks.
"A new Quinnipiac poll finds that Obama's job approval rating has plunged to its "lowest point ever," as just 39% of Americans now approve of the job he is doing," Breitbart.com reports.
Betsy McCaughey writes at IBD:
The President claims that people losing their health plans and having to sign up on the exchanges will be getting a better deal.
Losing your doctor, shopping blind for a health plan, settling for Medicaid-level care and government controls, all for a premium 41% higher than before and with a deductible that's doubled?
Sounds substandard to me.
Right now, most people getting cancellations bought plans in the individual market.
Wait until the other shoe drops in 2014, and millions of people who had on-the-job coverage lose it.
The truth about Obamacare will become so painfully obvious that even the White House lie machine can't cover it up.
Over at National Review, John Fund writes about new work from videographer James O’Keefe, whose reporting reveals a swampland of "corruption at the heart" of Obamacare, the "president's signature program." Fund writes:
James O’Keefe, the guerrilla videographer who helped bring down ACORN (the "community organizing" group that Barack Obama worked for as a lawyer and trainer) and got NPR’s president fired, is back.
This time, his undercover investigators focused on Obamacare’s "navigators," the nearly 50,000 people who, in the words of the Department of Health and Human Services, "will serve as an in-person resource for Americans who want additional assistance in shopping for and enrolling in plans" on the Obamacare exchanges (at least when they’re finally working).
The total value of grants doled out for nonprofits and community organizations to hire navigators has topped $67 million nationwide, and some of the money is going to a group run by ACORN’s highly controversial founder.
That "additional assistance" offered by navigators includes advising "clients on how to lie." Fund continues:
The events of O’Keefe’s video of a Texas navigator site run by the National Urban League are a familiar sight to viewers of his past efforts exposing Medicaid and voter fraud. Government-paid workers supposedly trained to uphold the law advise clients on how to lie on government forms, evade legal requirements, and ignore proper procedures.
"You lie because your premiums will be higher," one navigator advises an investigator for O’Keefe’s Project Veritas, who tells the worker he sometimes smokes. "Don’t tell them that. Don’t tell ’em."
Then there is the problem of a "nationwide nonprofit," "non-political" organization called Enroll America, nevertheless described as the "official group" for the Democratic National Committee. Enroll America "appears to be sharing data and working directly with Battleground Texas," whose goal is "turning Texas blue." Fund writes:
O’Keefe’s cameras then visit Enroll America, a nationwide nonprofit group that has launched a multi-state grassroots campaign to help millions of Americans sign up for health coverage.
Daniel Clayton of Enroll America says the group is "purely nonprofit. It’s not partisan, non-political." But when Brian Pendleton of Enroll America is introduced at a speaking engagement, Enroll America is described as "the official group for the DNC [Democratic National Committee]."
Enroll America, O’Keefe reports, appears to be sharing data and working directly with an explicitly political group called Battleground Texas, activities that he notes “are prohibited unless certain conditions are met."
Adrian Bell, the regional field director for Battleground Texas, proudly notes the group was "started by President Obama’s national field director" and is "dedicated to turning Texas blue."
"There’s much more in the video, which O’Keefe hints will not be his last," Fund notes. But "left unexplored is how so many navigators nationwide were hired without any background checks required." This lack of criminal background checks is, by itself, a recipe for disaster, a clearly rotten fruit indicative of bad, if not to say rotten, government.
"While Texas and some other states have passed requirements of their own, the absence of such checks at the federal level was acknowledged by HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius last week," Fund writes.
Sebelius "was asked by Texas senator John Cornyn if 'a convicted felon could be a navigator and could acquire sensitive personal information from an individual unbeknownst to them.'
"'It’s possible,' was Secretary Sebelius’s less-than-comforting reply," Fund writes.
It's possible? Can there be any doubt, America, that there are who knows how many alligators among the 50,000 navigators inhabiting the Obamacare swamplands?
The Obama administration isn't just reducing American citizens to the status of dependent subjects. It's as if a free people is being reduced to food, reduced to fodder for an imperious, ravenous ideology -- at the mercy of felons, convicted or otherwise, elected or otherwise. Imagine, "We the People" as lunch for the cavernous jaws of Washington elites.
Dorinda C. Bordlee and Nikolas T. Nikas write at National Review's The Corner:
In the early days of the HHS mandate forcing even religious objectors to provide free coverage for contraceptive and abortion-inducing drugs, our NRO post titled "Three Things Everyone Should Know About the HHS Mandate" pointed to evidence establishing that the mandated contraceptive drugs are carcinogenic.
And now, the most prestigious federal appeals court has taken judicial notice of this fact as well.
Citing Bioethics Defense Fund's amicus brief, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia is the first court to recognize that the World Health Organization classifies certain contraceptives required by the HHS mandate as carcinogenic.
This completely underminds the government's claims that the drugs "promote women's health" and must therefore be provided by all employers, regardless of religious objection.
"The Obama administration has shown a shocking lack of respect for women’s health and their rights to full disclosure of serious medical risks," The Corner concludes. "The D.C. Circuit’s recognition of the carcinogenic classification of the mandated drugs suggests that the real war on women is not being waged by those who oppose the mandate, but rather by those who are coercively imposing it."
Editor in Chief of CNSNews.com Terry Jeffrey writes:
"So now that this bill is finally law and all the folks who have been playing politics will finally have to confront the reality of what this reform is, they're also going to have to confront the reality of what it isn't," said Obama, introducing a lie that has gotten belated, but much-deserved, attention in recent days.
"They'll have to finally acknowledge that this isn't a government takeover of our health care system," he said.
"They'll see that if Americans like their doctor, they will keep their doctor. And if you like your insurance plan, you will keep it. No one will be able to take that away from you. It hasn't happened yet. It won't happen in the future."
"Anyone who actually read the law, or even just a small part of it," Jeffrey counters, "would have known this was untrue."
By way of contrast, "in his first press conference as president in 1981, Ronald Reagan, who would lead the West to victory in the Cold War, startled the liberal press when he accurately described the mendacity of the leaders of the Soviet Union, who were seeking a 'one-world socialist or communist state'," Jeffrey continues.
The Soviets "have openly and publicly declared that the only morality they recognize is what will further their cause," Jeffrey quotes Reagan as stating, "meaning they reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat, in order to attain that, and that is moral, not immoral . . . . We operate on a different set of standards."
"Not anymore," Jeffrey concludes.
Obama Denies Videotaped Promises
"I Am the Poor" Says Obamacare "Has Raped My Future"
6 Principles of Propaganda Lenin Used to Fundamentally Transform Russia
Francis Schaeffer on Authoritarian Government
In an article titled, "Obama Has Rebranded Himself as a Liar, Forever," Bob Unruh writes at WND:
If you like your health-care plan, you can keep your health-care plan.
You can keep your doctor.
There are no death panels.
You’ll save $2,500 a year in health care premiums under Obamacare.
The costs of health care will go down.
The Obamacare website is working.
When ex-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the liberal Democrat from liberal California, famously said Congress would have to pass Obamacare so that people could see what’s in it, who knew that the more people find out, the more misrepresentations, misstatements and misleading information they would find?
"The New York Post’s Kyle Smith defined the problem over the weekend," Unruh continues, quoting from Smith:
This week was something new. It was the week Obama was revealed to be a stone-cold liar. . . . On June 15, 2009, Obama said, in one of hundreds of similar statements, "No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like you doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like you health-care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health-care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what."
"But as Americans in droves now are finding out, many cannot keep their doctor and their plan. And their costs are going up, sometimes by thousands of dollars," Unruh writes.
"Obama has rebranded himself as a liar, forever,” Smith concludes at the NYPost. "He will carry this new label to his grave.”
Read more here.
Patrick Howley reports:
Republican Sen. Ted Cruz received an eight-minute standing ovation upon his return to Texas this past weekend, despite an extended, hostile campaign from Democrats and the mainstream media to portray him as a dangerous extremist.
"After two months in Washington, it’s great to be back in America," Cruz said Saturday to approximately 750 people at an appearance in a San Antonio hotel ballroom, enjoying an eight-minute standing ovation for his dogged efforts to defund or delay Obamacare in the recent continuing-resolution budget fight.
Cruz also criticized members of his own Senate caucus for "failing to stand with House Republicans against the train wreck that is Obamacare."
Ted Cruz: I'd "Love to Debate" Rove on Obamacare Defunding -- Video
Kentucky-Bribed "Statesman": Mitch McConnell Unmasked
Mark Levin: "Eric Cantor Is Going to War" With Conservatives
"I Am the Poor" Says Obamacare "Has Raped My Future"
Oliver Darcy reports at The Blaze:
A 26-year-old university graduate [named Ashley Dionne] penned an open letter this week expressing her deep displeasure with President Barack Obama’s signature health care law, saying it has "raped" her future -- and now the letter is going viral.
Obamacare Revolt: Doctors Find Ways to Offer High Quality Care at Much Lower Prices
Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free -- Without Parental Consent
Obamacare: Antithetical to The Declaration
A Bloomberg news story at Newsmax reports:
The U.S. House voted to finance the federal government through mid-December and choke off funding for President Barack Obama’s healthcare law, setting up a showdown with the Senate and the White House. . . .
The Senate is expected to start considering the legislation on Sept. 23 with [a] goal of finishing by Sept. 26.
From the Washington Times:
"The American people don’t want the government shut down, and they don’t want Obamacare," said House Speaker John A. Boehner, who rallied with fellow Republicans after the vote in a show of unity that seemed designed to quell speculation about a rebellion within the House Republican Conference.
Meanwhile, a Democrat offers death wishes to the children of a Cruz staffer: "Allan Brauer, the communications chair for the Democratic Party of Sacramento, Calif., told [Amanda Carpenter] an aide to Sen. Ted Cruz (R., Tex.), on Friday that he hoped her children 'die from debilitating, painful and incurable diseases'." After additional vicious Tweets, Brauer apologized.
Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the House vote is a "waste of time."
GOP Sen. Ted Cruz released a statement: "The fight to save America from Obamacare is just beginning -- it may well go back and forth from the House and Senate several times -- and a united Republican front means that Harry Reid and the President cannot ignore the American people."
Penny Starr reports at CNSNews.com:
The Senate Conservatives Fund website shows that 1.2 million people have signed a pledge to defund the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare.
But a number of top Republicans apparently have refused to sign the pledge, including Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) and Sens. John McCain (Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (S.C.).
Susan Jones reports at CNSNews.com:
Bob Unruh writes at WND:
As you prepare for the IRS to start monitoring your health insurance and make your medical records accessible to thousands, perhaps you also should vacuum your floor, wash the windows and lock up any weapons, should you be so unwise as to actually have them.
It’s all in readiness for Obamacare, which will include home visits for many citizens, maybe even everyone, depending on the interpretation of the law.
Blogger Joshua Cook at BenSwann.com highlighted the issue just this week, although it’s been evident for some time.
He points out that the federal government is allocating hundreds of millions of dollars for state programs for "evidence-based home" visits.
"Health and Human Services' website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the 'high-risk' categories below: Families where mom is not yet 21. Families where someone is a tobacco user. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forced who have had multiple deployments outside the United States," Cook wrote.
Obamacare Will Share Personal Health Info With Federal, State Agencies
Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free -- Without Parental Consent
Virginia AG: If Obama Mandate Stands, Gov't "Can Order You to Do Anything"
Tony Lee writes at Breitbart:
Cruz insisted that the federal government has never rolled back a massive government program like Obamacare once fully implemented. He also said that the Obama administration wants to get Americans "addicted" to the Obamacare subsidies and "hooked to the sugar." . . .
Cruz then said conservatives then needed to win the argument by asking, "Why is President Obama threatening to shut down the entire federal government to force Obamacare down our threats?"
Rove had been on the "Hannity" show "earlier and said that Republicans should not threaten to defund Obamacare during the next round of budget negotiations because it was a losing strategy," Lee writes.
"I'm pretty sure you lose 100% of the battles that you begin surrendering," Cruz responded.
Here is video of Cruz on "Hannity."
David Carton writes at American Spectator:
Among the most offensive features of the ironically titled "Affordable Care Act" is its designation of the Internal Revenue Service as the main enforcer of the law’s many mandates, taxes, penalties, and reporting requirements.
It exponentially increases the power of a group of bureaucrats notorious for repeatedly abusing their authority.
Now, . . . these IRS enforcers are asking their congressional representatives to spare them the indignity of enrolling in Obamacare’s insurance exchanges.
Paul Bedard reports at the Washington Examiner:
A new 253-page Obamacare rule issued late Friday requires state, federal and local agencies as well as health insurers to swap the protected personal health information of anybody seeking to join the new health care program that will be enforced by the Internal Revenue Service.
Personal health information, or PHI, is highly protected under federal law, but the latest ruling from the Department of Health and Human Services allows agencies to trade the information to verify that Obamacare applicants are getting the minimum amount of health insurance coverage they need from the health "exchanges."
"The ruling, explained on pages 72-73 of the book-thick guidance, does not mention any requirement that applicants first OK the release of their PHI," Bedard reports.
Fox News reports:
Fox News learned Thursday night that the IRS official in charge of the tax-exempt office during the targeting of Tea Party groups, Sarah Hall Ingram, is now charge of the IRS' health care office.
Sarah Hall Ingram became Division Commissioner of the Tax Exempt & Government Entities (TE/GE) Division -- the head of the division that included the group that targeted Tea Party groups -- at the IRS in 2009, a congressional source told Fox News' Mike Emanuel.
Is the writing not on the wall? Everything the Obama administration does seems designed to consolidate and monopolize power in Washington, D.C.
And always in the name of something admirable, such as healthcare, for example. Or reproductive rights. Don't worry about minor details, such as losing one's freedom or of babies being butchered in the millions. Everybody knows those details are distractions.
Obama's fundamental transformation of America is extremism par excellence. It moves the United States from that of a nation rooted in freedom, under God, to that of a country rooted in control, under Washington.
A free-thinking people of self-determination and of dignity revolts.
Hospitals routinely overprice products and procedures so steeply that some doctors find they can offer services dramatically more cheaply without going through insurance at all.
In "The Obamacare Revolt," Jim Epstein at Reason.com reports on how "Physicians Fight Back Against the Bureaucratization of Health Care."
He tells the story of Dr. Lisa Davidson, who experienced "8 years of frustration while running a successful traditional practice in Denver, Colorado."
When she was operating a traditional practice, Davidson witnessed firsthand how our "payment plans for routine expenses" drive up prices and block innovation.
She recalls that one insurance company paid $118 for a routine PSA test. Now that her patients pay the bill directly, the cost is $18.
Insurance used to pay $128 for a bag of IV fluid. Now Davidson doesn't bother passing on the cost of IV bags because they run $1.50 each. . . .
"What people don't realize is that most doctors employ an army of people for coding, billing, and gathering payment," says Neuhofel.
"That means you have to charge $200 to remove an ingrown toenail." Neuhofel charges $50.
This approach to healthcare is called "Direct primary care." It includes "price honesty" and is making waves, according to this video report report titled "Oklahoma Doctors vs. Obamacare."
Medical care delivered by the National Health Service has gotten so bad in the UK ("a monumental failure," writes David Catron at American Spectator) that the desperate Brits are experimenting with privatization to improve their healthcare system -- and it is working.
Drew Zahn reports at WND:
At the National Prayer Breakfast, broadcast live on C-SPAN2, Dr. Ben Carson said he didn’t want to "offend" anyone, but his words nonetheless were likely to have made one distinguished guest in attendance -- President Barack Obama -- squirm in his seat.
Carson is director of the pediatric neurosurgery division at Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Md. His inspiring story of growing up the son of an illiterate, single black woman to becoming one of America’s most esteemed doctors has been detailed in the book Gifted Hands and the movie of the same name.
At Thursday’s prayer breakfast, Carson took aim at a number of topics that may have caused the man seated two chairs to his right a bit of indigestion, including class-warfare economics.
Here is Youtube video of Dr. Carson's remarks.
CBN News reports:
The owners of Hobby Lobby say they must remain true to their faith, despite the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to block the Obamacare contraception mandate. . . .
"The company will continue to provide health insurance to all qualified employees," attorney Kyle Duncan said in a statement posted on Hobby Lobby's website.
"To remain true to their faith, it is not their intention, as a company, to pay for abortion-inducing drugs," he said.
The federal government has no constitutional authority to impose anti-life insurance regulations upon any state, person, or business. Or to threaten Hobby Lobby with fines of more than $1 million a day for refusing to submit to Obama's state-imposed religion of secularism.
Not only is this action imperialistic and immoral, it's not even Washington's job. We the People hire them to protect life and liberty, not to kill life and liberty. What's the matter with you, Washington?
Nothing could be further from the mainstream U.S. position on the freedom and dignity of the individual -- see the Declaration of Independence -- than that a central power structure would violate its constitutional oath of office to force a company to enable the killing of the unborn.
Obamacare is, therefore, extreme and uncivil. It is inhumane and degrading. It is anti-life, anti-science, and anti-freedom.
Tony Lee writes at Breibart:
On Thursday, Texas Gov. Rick Perry sent a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to officially let her know Texas would not partner with the federal government in setting up health exchanges under Obamacare.
Perry had indicated he would not set up a state healthcare exchange, especially as he eyes another gubernatorial run in 2014 and potentially a presidential run in 2016. He made it official a day before Friday's deadline. Sebelius has since extended the deadline to December 14.
As self-governining entities under the Constitution, the individuals states should reject any form of interchange with Washington, D.C., that violates the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.
Washington-centrism violates the rules of freedom and seeks to enslave a people of freedom.
Kirsten Andersen reports at LifeSiteNews.com:
The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals refused to hear Planned Parenthood's complaint about a Texas law that bars their participation in the state’s Medicaid program on Thursday, allowing Texas to withhold state funds from the abortion provider.
Planned Parenthood argued unsuccessfully that the law violates Medicaid patients’ constitutional rights.
The “ruling affirms yet again that in Texas the Women’s Health Program has no obligation to fund Planned Parenthood and other organizations that perform or promote abortion,” said Governor Rick Perry celebrating the decision.
“In Texas we choose life, and we will immediately begin defunding all abortion affiliates to honor and uphold that choice.”
Bravo, Texas! You are on the right side of science, ethics, and reality-oriented language, not to mention the rules of freedom as expressed in the Declaration and U.S. Constitution.
And bravo, Texas! For standing up to Planned Parenthood, which is neo-fascist and immoral and extremist in its bloody profitable practice of imposing torture and death upon innocent human life.
And shame on you, Planned Parenthood. Keep your reproductive fascism off the bodies of the "least of these." And quit trying to steal funds entrusted into our stewardship by the Creator so that you can selfishly profit in death.
John Merline reports at Investor's Business Daily:
During his first run for president, Barack Obama made one very specific promise to voters: He would cut health insurance premiums for families by $2,500, and do so in his first term.
But it turns out that family premiums have increased by more than $3,000 since Obama's vow, according to the latest annual Kaiser Family Foundation employee health benefits survey.
Liz Klimas reports at The Blaze:
An acanthamoeba may not be a term you’re likely to hear at the optometrist while being outfitted for a new prescription for contacts, but it’s a good reason to heed their warnings about proper contact lens care.
The acanthamoeba is a microorganism found to essentially crawl through the eye’s cornea, causing not only pain but also potentially permanent blindness. The United Kindgom’s Press Association [UKPA] recently reported [that although] incidence of the infection is rare -- only about 75 people of the 3.7 million contact lens wears in the U.K. are treated each year -- it’s still worth being aware of how to best avoid contracting it.
"The UKPA states that the parasite, which burrows into the eye, can be picked up from a dirty case or from rinsing lenses in tap, river, pond or lake water," Klimas reports.
The UKPA "also notes the condition, Acanthamoeba keratitis, is often misdiagnosed," Klimas continues. "Once contracted, treatment includes a hospital stay with 'round-the-clock administration of disinfecting eye drops,' UKPA states. If the infection is bad enough, the cornea could need to be replaced or blindness could also result."
Matthew Hennessey writes at First Things:
“It’s a free country” may not continue to resonate with Americans for much longer . . . .
As Obamacare’s individual mandate was predicated on the notion that costs incurred by an individual but borne by society necessitate government intervention, politicians in this country could easily be convinced -- by, say, teachers unions -- that homeschoolers are no different than the uninsured in the costs they impose on the rest of us.
Doesn’t society suffer if kids aren’t being properly socialized? Don’t institutions suffer if children aren’t being properly educated into citizenship? . . .
The progressive critics of homeschooling are less interested in promoting tolerance than they are in promoting compliance. It’s the freedom that bothers them, not what kids learn or how well they learn it. . . .
If the state appoints itself to guard against indoctrination by parents, who is to protect children from indoctrination by the state?
Hennessey concludes: "A government that can force you to buy health insurance can surely force children into the public school system. When that happens, will we still be a free country?"
Obamacare Mandate: Sterilize 15-Year-Old Girls for Free -- Without Parental Consent
Virginia AG: If Obama Mandate Stands, Gov't "Can Order You to Do Anything"
Obamacare: Antithetical to the Declaration
Sabrina Gladstone reports at CNSNews.com:
Thanks to an Obamacare regulation that took effect on Aug. 1, health care plans in Oregon will now be required to provide free sterilizations to 15- year-old girls even if the parents of those girls do not consent to the procedure.
Herman Cain at WND:
I was as disappointed as anyone else by the Obamacare ruling, and I remain deeply troubled by Chief Justice Roberts’ assertion that the federal government has the power to do virtually anything, so long as it calls it a tax.
But this is the hand we’ve been dealt, and the question now is how well can we play it? When you get over the punch in the gut and the feeling of betrayal, you should recognize that it’s a hand we could play all the way to a pretty big win.
Thaddeus Baklinski reports at LifeSiteNews:
Mississippi’s only abortion clinic has ask a federal judge to issue a temporary restraining order against a new law, enforcing higher standards for abortionists, which stands ready to shut the facility down at the start of July.
Amy Willis reports at the UK Telegraph:
A man in Oregon is severely ill in hospital with a suspected case of the plague, thought to have been contracted as he tried saving a mouse from the jaws of a stray cat in his neighbourhood.
The unnamed man, said to be in his 50s, was bitten as he attempted to extract the rodent from the cat’s mouth, althought it was unclear from which animal he caught the disease.
"Taking a mouse out of a cat's mouth is probably not a good idea," said Emilio DeBess, the public health veterinarian for Oregon.
Selwyn Duke at American Thinker examines the "Cult of the Body and all its newly minted 'sins'."
Ken Klukowski writes at Big Government:
On Day Two, Justice Anthony Kennedy noted that Obamacare “changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.”
With those words, the individual mandate -- the centerpiece of Obamacare -- is likely doomed.
Ben Johnson reports at LifeSiteNews:
The founder of the House Tea Party Caucus is warning that the Obama administration’s pro-contraception stance and disregard for religious liberty could lead it to restrict the number of children American women are allowed have.
Last Tuesday, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann, R-MN, told GBTV’s “Real News From The Blaze” program she disagreed with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ argument that paying for contraceptives saves money by reducing health care costs -- and that her analysis sets a dangerous precedent.
“Going with that logic, it isn’t far fetched to think the president of the United States could say . . . we need to save health care expenses . . . [so] the federal government will only pay for one baby to be born in the hospital per family. Or two babies to be born per family. That could happen.”
"Newt Gingrich voiced enthusiasm for Mitt Romney's Massachusetts health-care law when it was passed five years ago, the same plan he has been denouncing over the past few months as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination."
"To suggest that a nation 'conceived in liberty' can tolerate a handful of Washington bureaucrats telling several hundred million citizens what health insurance is and forcing them to buy it is beyond absurd."
Peter Baklinski writes at LifeSiteNews:
During a routine self-examination one morning, Erika Vandiver became apprehensive as she located a lump in her left breast. Just two months earlier, in February 2009, Erika and her husband Andrew had been overjoyed to discover that she was pregnant. This time the young mother was managing to hold onto the new life.
Prior to this pregnancy, 28-year-old Erika had suffered four miscarriages, the last one requiring her to be hospitalized for several days due to blood loss. “I was afraid another miscarriage would break my health or my spirit,” said Erika in an interview with LifeSiteNews.
Terry Jeffrey writes at CNSNews.com:
Bantering with the audience at a fundraiser in St. Louis yesterday, President Barack Obama bragged about a new regulation, proposed by the Department of Health and Human Services, that the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has denounced as an “unprecedented attack on religious liberty” . . . .
Combined with Obamacare’s mandate that all individuals must buy health insurance, the “preventive services” regulation would require all American Catholics to buy health care plans that pay for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortions -- all of which violate Catholic moral teaching.
Clearly, with pressing studies of high priority such as this, it's no wonder that Mr. Obama may not have the money to send out Social Security checks -- what with the debt crisis and everything.
On the other hand, if the federal government prints, say, $10 trillion more in additional pretend money, we may have the resources needed to fund Obama's imposed "Equality Society" for the foreseeable future (not to be confused with the Founder's Declaration vision of "created equal").
And future slaves of America (red and yellow, black and white) will surely gladly participate in this "shared sacrifice" for the "common good" and "least of these" that Obama and Co. are currently organizing upon their backs.
Here's a big question: If on the basis of this progressive study, "equality" fanatic Obama (think: "'Marriage' Equality") discovers "Organ Inequality" among "gay" "men," what then? How might he presume to redistribute that "wealth"?
Obama's Department of Socialized Medicine and Ministry of Happiness could face some real challenges in the near future. Yes, more money and higher taxes may be needed, but, hey, that's the price of civilization. Right?
Then again, there's the Constitution, the Declaration, and the concept of liberty under God. Still legal in Texas.
This rise of proper state sovereignty, this check and balance against unconstitutional and inhumane federal usurpation, is good for America and freedom, and bad for Obama and tyranny. See the report at CNSNews.com.
Terry Jeffrey reports at CNSNews.com:
Planned Parenthood performed 332,278 abortions in the United States in 2009, according to a fact sheet the group published last month.
The 332,278 abortions Planned Parenthood performed over the 365 days of 2009 equals an average of 910 lives terminated per day -- or about 38 per hour, or one every 95 seconds.
"Just as the White House costumed Obamacare activists in white lab coats, the fashionable Mrs. O has cloaked her meddling anti-obesity crusade in medical fakery," writes Michelle Malkin.
Could someone please point out where in the Constitution Michelle Obama is authorized to live in our refrigerator?
And speaking of anti-obesity crusades, shouldn't the fat-cats on Capitol Hill look in the mirror? And while looking, ask: "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the most obese of them all?"
And it should be repealed, said The Donald to The CNSNews.com.
Eric Scheiner reports at CNSNews.com:
Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) likened Republican critics of Obamacare to the Nazis and their propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels during the House floor debate late Tuesday night.
Cohen claimed that describing the health-care law signed last year as a government take over of the health care system, as many Republicans have, is a "big lie" in the style of the Nazis.
"A man whose heart had stopped was brought back from the dead after three and a half hours thanks to a machine that performed 20,000 life-saving compressions," reports the UK Daily Mail.
Bob Unruh reports at WorldNetDaily:
There simply is no authority in the U.S. Constitution that allows bureaucrats in Washington to regulate "decisions," according to arguments that challenge the legality of Obamacare and have been handed in to a federal appeals court.
They also warn affirmation of the law would give the federal government what amounts to "state police power."
"Contrary to the district court's decision, there is no enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to mandate that plaintiffs and other American 'residents' purchase health-care coverage or face a penalty," said the brief submitted by the Thomas More Law Center to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeal is from a decision by Judge George Steeh to dismiss the lawsuit brought by the law center and several individuals challenging Obamacare as going far beyond what authority the government actually has.
Philip Klein writes at American Spectator:
Nationwide protests were "Astroturf." Polling was to get better once Congress passed a bill. And the new law was supposed to boost Democrats' electoral chances in November. Throughout their campaign for national health care, liberals tried to convince us that opposition was a joke, only to be proven dramatically wrong each and every time.
This Monday, a federal judge punctured another liberal fantasy -- that constitutional challenges to ObamaCare were frivolous exercises that would be laughed out of courtrooms.
In a 42-page decision, U.S District Court Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the health care law's requirement that individuals purchase insurance "exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power," rejecting the Obama administration's argument that the Commerce Clause gave it the authority to compel the purchase of coverage as part of a larger health care regulatory scheme.
The Founders envisioned a federal government limited by the Constitution and a host of other checks and balances. In contrast, Obamacare's deep offense against all things Declarational and Constitutional -- that is, against human freedom and dignity with God at the center and not the state -- envisions a federal power unlimited in principle by nothing by what the imaginations and machinations of elites in power at a particular moment are able to impose upon a purposefully weakened people.
The Founders divided government so that "We the People" could conquer tyranny. Obamaism divides the people (class warfare) so that government can collect power and conquer freedom.
Obamacare enslaves. A people of dignity created for freedom revolt.
"Casting an unmistakable and perhaps permanent pockmark on the face of the Obama administration, a federal judge in Virginia ruled Monday that a major component of the new health care reform law is unconstitutional," reports FoxNew.com.
"Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled Monday for the state's claim that the requirement for people to purchase health care exceeds the power of Congress under the Constitution's Commerce Clause or under the General Welfare Clause."
Not only is Obamacare unconstitutional but it is also Shovel Ready -- for permanent burial, along with all things governmental that violate the Founding and defining vision of the United States, set forth in the Declaration of Independence and safeguarded in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
"Rep. Michele Bachmann (R.-Minn.), founder and chairman of the House Tea Party Caucus, told CNSNews.com that there will need to be an insurrection' against the House Republican leadership if it does not hold an independent, straight up-or-down vote on repealing the entire Obamacare law that does not tie this repeal to other policy initiatives including any effort to 'replace' elements of Obamacare with new federal health-care reforms," reports Terry Jeffrey at CNSNews.com. (emphasis added)
I noticed on Drudge a Reuters story titled, "Obesity Rates Will Reach 42 Percent: Study." And whatever the details of "obesity crisis" are, according to this story or just about any story like this put out by the formerly mainstream media, the point is to reach the conclusion that to fix the problem we need the federal government to step in because "changes in public policy could make a difference."
But here's the real question: How obese is the federal government? And what freedoms are being crushed under the weight of unconstitutional government as bloated, obese fatcats on Capitol Hill use every trick in the book to expand their power and curtail our freedom?
Meanwhile the governmentally fattest and most obese president in U.S. history is spending millions of dollars a day (they won't tell "we the people" -- their bosses -- how much this really costs) to escape from his midterm shellacking to far-away India, etc., etc., to talk business with Indians and other folks who don't mind teleprompters.
The grossly overweight and slobbering federal government needs to be placed on a diet before it rolls over and smashes freedom and dignity in America once and for all. Maybe new Constitutional blood in Congress can drive out the old boy network of billowing blue bloods.
And I don't mean just the Demofats. Republican'ts need their pork chopped, too.
At a townhall event this weekend, Rep. Melissa Bean (D-Ill.) seemed to have everything in order, but then a guy with a video camera showed up.
He was asking questions and everything. Like he thinks he's got some kind of power. Like he thinks he's an illegal alien or something.
This guy even asked whether the Obamacare healthcare mandate "is constitutional."
"You have a good night," the congresswoman explained. As she jumped into her getaway car.
Good thing Ms. Melissa had a thug on hand to make sure the federal government continues to run smoothly.
Meanwhile, the Thug Community must be wondering: Whatawegonnado with all these Tea Party plants?
"Hey, Jimbo Thunderbrain. Where'd you put that race card?"
Hat tip: Beltway Confidential
"Hyper-partisan" White House press secretary Robert Gibbs says the 71% thrashing that Allied Forces in Missouri gave to Obama "healthcare" invaders was a "vote of no legal significance," writes John Gizzi ("Gizmondo") at Human Events.
Meanwhile, Gizmondo reports, Missouri's challenge to Obamacare is going national. And "if Gibbs really believes what he said, then he's in for a rude awakening soon," says Republican State Rep. John Diehl, one of the ringleaders for healthcare freedom in Missouri.
"New federal regulations issued this week stipulate that the electronic health records -- that all Americans are supposed to have by 2014 under the terms of the stimulus law that President Barack Obama signed last year -- must record not only the traditional measures of height and weight, but also the Body Mass Index: a measure of obesity," CNSNews.com reports.
What's particularly obese, obscenely so, is the unconstitutional federal empire growing fatter, more intrusive, oppressive, and totalistic with each snap of its jaws at American freedom and dignity.
And so does his wife. Thanks to a special deal he worked out with the charity of which he was the CEO.
This means the fellow "recess-appointed by President Obama to head Medicare and Medicaid . . . , a well-known advocate of health care rationing and admirer of Britain's National Health Service," will not "have to deal with the anxieties created by limited access to care and the extent of coverage," writes Byron York at Beltway Confidential.
Does that make Berwick and wife "healthcare fat cats"?
This special benefit "undoubtedly would . . . have been a topic of questioning had Berwick gone through the normal course of Senate confirmation," York concludes. "But the recess appointment avoided all that."
You see, healthcare, like Obama, is just too big to be questioned. And who needs checks and balances and a whole lotta questions, anyway? Sometimes those things are just capitalist distractions, maybe even racist, in case you didn't know.
Besides, we should be thankful. Berwick isn't just from Washington, he's from Harvard. And he's here to help.
What the Obama administration wants you to think is about healthcare is really about totalitarian power -- about imposing a dictatorial social policy that does away with a "Constitution and government that is the 'enemy of the working class'."
See more in "Sarah Palin Outs Darth Vader," by Stuart Schwartz at American Thinker.
"A third of overweight women would rather gain weight with hope of undergoing free weight loss surgery than diet to slim down," reports the UK Daily Mail.
"Some 32 per cent would deliberately pile on the pounds and become 'morbidly obese' if it meant they could have an NHS funded operation."
"Drinking coffee may protect against mouth and throat cancers, research suggests," reports the UK Independent. "Four or more cups of coffee a day can reduce the combined risk of both diseases by 39 per cent."
Why? "Because records showed he was dead."
Jonathan Strong at The Daily Caller lays out "five more ways Obama's healthcare law boosts unions."
In the so-called "America" Obama is trying to re-create in his image, it pays to have organized friends in high places.
"Allegations of bullying and intimidation are swirling around the corridors."
Courts would "have the power to jail dairy owners and other retailers for six months for selling tobacco without approval under a proposed registration system," reports the NZHerald.
"Support for repeal of the new national healthcare plan has jumped to its highest level ever," Newsmax reports.
"A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 63 percent of U.S. voters now favor repeal of the plan congressional Democrats passed and President Obama signed into law in March."
"President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which runs Medicare, is a strong supporter of the government-run health care system in Britain," reports CNSNews.com.
That nominee would be Donald Berwick, who in a 2009 interview on Comparative Effectiveness Research said, "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care -- the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."
Brian Darling at Human Events explains "three ways to repeal every word of Obamacare."
Coulter's plan is a one page bill. And it saves trees.
"Doing oneself in is illegal in the United States," writes Robert Knight at Townhall. "But Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama are egging on the House to approve a 'self-executing' rule that would kill the nation’s health-care system by suffocating it under the big hand of government."
"On the eve of the Obama administration's most aggressive push yet to pass a national health care plan, a 50-year-old audio recording of Ronald Reagan speaking out against 'socialized medicine' has become a huge YouTube sensation," reports Fox News.
"Nearly 1 million viewers have watched the video, in which the late president, speaking before he became California governor, warns that government intervention in the health care system creates a slippery slope." Here's the video.
"It's not a good idea for Republicans to accept President Barack Obama's invitation to a 'bipartisan' health care summit, because it would not advance acceptable health care reform," writes David Limbaugh. "The only thing it likely would advance would be Obama's propaganda message -- and, thus, his socialist agenda."
"Alec Baldwin, award winning actor and wannabe leftist political commentator, called on Congress to sink congressional health care legislation today, saying he would rather the federal government 'put a Major Oil Company Out of Business,' according to the headline of his column at the Huffington Post," writes Lachlan Markay at Newsbusters.
"Baldwin isn't the only liberal entertainer calling for the death of ObamaCare. Plans to tax so-called 'Cadillac' health care plans -- or the most expensive insurance plans -- have riled up some key Democratic supporters. The Teamsters Union and the AFL-CIO have protested, but now objections are also being raised by Hollywood's biggest unions."
"Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif.) said that Congress has the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance and that there is no constitutional limit on Congress’ power to enact such mandates, adding that this unlimited authority stemmed from the Commerce clause of the Constitution," reports CNSNews.com.
How Is This Constitutional? Harry Reid's Democrat-controlled Senate "Sets Up Requirement for Super-Majority to Ever Repeal Obamacare," alerts Erick Erickson at Red State.
Erickson recommends a solution that recalls the mainstream of the American experiment:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
"This, Ladies and Gentlemen, is one of those causes," Erickson concludes. "When the men and women who run this nation, which is supposedly a nation of laws not men, choose to ignore the laws and bribe the men, the people cannot be blamed for wanting to dissolve political bands connecting them to that government."
Ah, But That's No Big Deal: In response to a question from CNSNews about the constitutionality of forcing Americans to buy health insurance, the Louisiana senator replied, “Well, we’re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I’ll let them answer that.”
Apparently, not only are some U.S.-federal senators not reading the massive piles of legislation on which they vote, and by which they bind the American people, but they also have not read, or are not knowledgeable of, the U.S. Constitution. Does that sound like good government?
In what sense can America be said to be a constitutional republic of freedom if elected officials in the House, Senate, and White House are unable or not willing to specify the constitutional authority by which they legislate and otherwise "represent" a people of freedom and dignity?
Clearly, this smacks of "governmentation without representation." There's nothing "lucky" about that, and it hardly sounds like good government.
But in the Spirit of 1776, if history is our guide, it could mean bad government is on the way out and good government is on the way in. Do you hear the drum and fife?
Senators engorging themselves at the taxpayer-supplied federal trough may not hear the march and music of freedom beyond the slurp and swallow of selfishness. But outside the bloated Beltway, in the land of the free, the song of liberty rings louder and louder still. Do you hear the drum and life?
CNSNews.com asked the senator: "Is it morally right to take tax money from pro-life Americans and give it to health insurance plans that cover abortion?"
Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) replied: "I think it’s morally wrong to vote against health care, because if you really are pro-life -- or as Richard Rick Warren says, 'whole-life' -- then universal access to health care that would guarantee maternity health, sound wonderful deliveries for children, and so on, I think that’s what we want to do."
Regarding the 2,000+ page "healthcare" bill before the Senate (HR 3590), Hillsdale College professor Gary Wolfram quotes James Madison in a Human Events column:
It will be of little avail to the people that the laws be made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood.
"It is not just our economy and health care system that is at stake," warns Wolfram, "but our system of individual liberty and responsibility and limited government."
What Can We Do? "It is imperative that we heed the warning of Madison and cast a dagger in the heart of the attempted completion of government’s takeover of our nation’s health care industry. Let us return to a market-based system of health care provision and restore our belief in liberty and responsibility. It is a task to which we should, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."
From Going Rogue to Going Constitutional
What Is "Mainstream" America?
Palin on Obamacare Flubbing the Point?
Hey Rove and O'Reilly: Wise Up on Constitution, Healthcare
Obamacare Authoritarian and Unconstitutional
Senator Admits: "No Place in Constitution That Says Healthcare"
Pearcey Accepts Obama Healthcare Proposal
"Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters nationwide now rate the U.S. health care system as good or excellent," reports Rasmussen.
But what's good news for healthcare in America is bad news for the federal takeover of healthcare via Obama, Pelosi, and Reid: "The latest polling shows that only 38% favor the health care legislation currently working its way through Congress," says Rasmussen.
Hat tip: WorldNetDaily
Fifty-six-year-old Brooklyn man Joe Tiralosi was "brought back to life" and "lived after his heart quit for 47 minutes, and it's all thanks to a team of doctors who refused to give up until they brought him back from the dead," reports Chris Wragge at WCBSTV.
An even bigger miracle would be for Joe and others like him to survive the cold administrations of dumbed-down rationed Obamacare.
May that unconstitutional cruelty never pass, and may America never give up on the finest healthcare system in the world, so that other Joes with other families may live and celebrate Thanksgiving this year and for many more years to come.
Yes -- healthcare in America can be improved. But killing it seems a hard way to make better medicine.
We thank God that Joe Tirasoli lives. And to that same God who is the sure basis of unalienable rights and freedom from federal oppression, we work and pray that healthcare -- and freedomcare -- in America survives Obama and his socialist designs on medicine.
Let freedom ring! And let healthcare survive and prosper!
Hat tip: Drudge Report
Guess what? Neither Hannity or McConnell mentioned the U.S. Constitution. Not one time.
Sean Hannity asked no questions about the constitutionality of the attempted federal takeover of healthcare. And the senator offered no constitutional arguments against this attempted usurpation of authority.
Perhaps this was an oversight. Or you may think I'm being too lenient.
No, I'm not trying to beat these guys over the head. But I am trying to alert those of us who care about freedom to what is at the heart of the issue, and what must be attended to, if constitutional government is to survive in what we now know as the United States.
And thank you Richard Viguerie, who in the Washington Times today warned, "Republican leaders are approaching the 2010 and 2012 elections believing they can win by being slightly less abusive and contemptuous of the Constitution than the Obama-Pelosi Democrats."
A "less abusive and contemptuous" approach is what helped bring us to the present critical moment in our nation's history. And a good case can be made that continuing that approach will only take America over the edge and into the abyss of tryanny.
As a mainstream American, I see no reason to accept a strategy that loses our freedom on Friday instead of on Wednesday. Better to fight for it and win it today, now, and keep it all week long -- and then for months, years, decades, and centuries to come.
We had to struggle to win constitutional liberty in the first place. We probably shouldn't be too surprised if we have to fight to keep it.
So let's keep our eye on the ball. Whether we're on the radio or off. Or whether we're talking to a senator or to the folks who make America work.
Freedom is at stake and the day is late. Make every opportunity count.
"Contact your senators," says the author of Going Rogue on her Facebook page. "The Senate is set to vote Saturday night, right before the holiday, on a motion to proceed on its latest health care government take-over bill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is pushing for yet another weekend vote (commonplace now for the party of “transparency”) because he knows that the American people will be none too happy about the Democrats’ proposal the longer they have to look it over.
"A vote against the Democrats’ motion will help stop Obamacare before it gets any closer to becoming a reality. While this Saturday night vote might seem like a procedural matter, at the end of the day a vote against Senator Reid’s motion is a vote against massive new government spending and a take-over of 1/6th of the U.S. economy; it’s a vote against billions in tax increases and penalties; it’s a vote against federal funding of abortion; and it’s a vote against ignoring responsible tort reform."
And, we might add: A vote against Sen. Reid's motion is a vote against a Washington-centric federal establishment that once again is attempting to usurp, from the people, power and authority not authorized by the U.S. Constitution, which federal officials take an oath to "support and defend."
A no to Harrycare, Pelosicare, and Obamacare, therefore, is a no to the spread of the cancer of tyranny. It is a vote for freedom, for the Constitution, and for a people Declared independent under God, not dependent under anything else, including the federal State.
"Speeches and news reports can lead you to believe that proposed congressional legislation would tackle the problems of cost, access and quality," writes Jeffrey S. Flier, dean of Harvard Medical School, in the Wall Street Journal. "But that's not true." (emphasis added)
Add to Flier's critique the unconstitutional and authoritarian nature of this attempted federal usurpation, and you have four excellent reasons a creative and dignified people will prefer healthcare solutions that do not kill the God-given freedom of the patient.
Hat tip: Rush Limbaugh
Road to Hell Paved With Good Intentions: "When CNSNews.com asked whether the Constitution gives Congress the authority to make Americans buy health insurance, Sen. Akaka said: "I’m not aware of that, let me put it that way. But what we’re trying to do is to provide for people who have needs and that’s where the accessibility comes in, and one of the goals that we’re trying to present here is to make it accessible."
Speaking of "good intentions," what with tax penalities, possible jail time, and the oppression of Washington-centric governance -- all for choosing individual freedom over state control -- those "good intentions" may not be so good after all.
But that's alright: The road to Hell is often paved with bad intentions too.
"The Worst Bill Ever" -- "That is the title the always calm and rational Wall Street Journal put on its editorial on November 1 about the government health care takeover bill that passed the House last week on virtually a party line vote, 220-215," writes Peter Ferrrara at American Spectator.
"But even this label doesn't fully communicate the outright assault on the American people involved in this legislation. The bill is a serious threat not only to your freedom and prosperity, but to your very life as well." (emphasis added)
It's what you get when an increasingly unfree people are subjected to the immorality of legislation without representation, as the people's "representatives" attempt to impose anti-Constitutional and anti-Declarational State tyranny in the name of jobs, fairness, healthcare, equality, or whatever poll-tested slogan works in a given daily, weekly, or monthly news cycle.
If Obamacare passes, let the individual States, which by choice involve themselves in the Union, declare themselves tax havens from the un-Constitutional, anti-Declarational Washington-centric centralized power-entity currently known as the federal government.
Erick Erickson at RedState: "Let me be clear to the conservative movement and the organizations participating in the health care debate: the fight over health care is about freedom, not your ridiculous little scorecards."
We Are Taking Names: "As expected, the House of Representatives under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi passed the bill that would take away your personal options on health care and make it the business of the U.S. government," writes Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily.
"But don't get mad. Get even," he says.
"Some 220 members of the House are now, politically speaking, dead men walking. They have placed targets on their backs for the 2010 midterm elections. They have given the American people a year to plan retribution. And the planning should begin immediately."
Speaking of taking names, don't forget that lone Republican -- Joseph "Benedict" Cao of New Orleans -- who sided with Pelosi, Obama, and the Democrats against the Constitution.
Says Rep. Hoekstra, This bill "is going to shred the Constitution": "I think there’s a lot of question about whether at a federal level we can make those kinds of mandates, and I’m sure that if they do pass that kind of a mandate that there will be many of us that will challenge that in the courts to get an official ruling and an official interpretation from the courts as to whether that’s legal or not."
But if these comments from Hoekstra are any indication, the Republicans are still playing defense. Americans have not signed away their freedoms under God to the courts.
It's "We the People" under God, not "We the Legislators" under the courts.
We can read, we can think, we can act. It's time for Constitutional realignment. Now, if not sooner.
"Brick by Brick," writes author and columnist Ellis Washington:
On Nov. 9, 1989, the torch of liberty was lit for more than a billion people (one-third of the world's population) when they started their path toward freedom with the fall of the Berlin Wall; a seemingly impregnable symbol of imprisonment that the murderous Soviet dictator, Josef Stalin, erected in 1961 to stop the exodus of East German citizens fleeing the slavery of communism for the freedom and liberty of democracy in West Germany.
Twenty years later, President Obama, as the anti-Reagan, is trying to rebuild the Berlin Wall brick by brick with fascist policies designed to undermine freedom of all Americas and the liberties of those people around the world yearning for a republic founded on the rule of law. Obama wants to place those same shackles Stalin put on the Soviet-bloc countries on America with his socialist health-care bill, which, if passed, would place government in our lives from cradle to grave.
McCain Tells CNSNews: "I’m sure that if they pass health care legislation, I think there would be a challenge.”
A Time for Freedom? House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says, "We are right on the brink" of passing Obamacare.
What should American citizens who hold to the Declaration, Constitution, and Bill of Rights do to protect our liberties under God should the president sign into law anything like the current health "reform" bills in the House and Senate?
Question Authority: America as America is committed to constitutional government. But House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and company seem to have strayed off course -- extremely so -- in their attempt to impose healthcare "reform."
Watch out! says Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily. For at work here is something of far greater concern than the usual peacock pomposity of those in power.
Chapter and Verse? "Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.) pointed to the part of the Constitution that he says authorizes the federal government 'to provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country' when asked by CNSNews.com what specific part of the Constitution authorizes Congress to mandate that individuals must purchase health insurance."
But We Have a Problem, Washington: Why? Because "the word 'health' appears nowhere in the Constitution," notes CNSNews.
"Terrorists can only kill some of us," writes Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily. "But unconstitutional legislation that corrupts the very soul of America can kill our spirit. It can kill the rule of law. It can kill the notion that the will of the people is pre-eminent, not the will of some vaunted elite."
CNSNews Reports: "Swine flu has claimed the lives of at least 114 children in the United States since April, according to the latest data available from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
"But an estimated 2,247 to 3,305 babies lose their lives to abortion each day, based on statistics compiled by both the CDC and the Guttmacher Institute, a private research foundation tied to the abortion industry."
They Impose, We Revolt: "Stung by a rising tide of resistance and a closing window of opportunity, House Democrats have unleashed a new version of ObamaCare, weighing in 1,990 pages and with a $1 trillion price tag," writes Robert Knight at American Thinker. "House speaker Nancy Pelosi promises to ram it through quickly, exhibiting a disdain for her countrymen that makes Marie Antoinette look like a populist."
Capitol Hill Control vs. American Constitution: "This is socialized medicine, and this is, as I said, the crown jewel of socialism -- what Barack Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid have wanted from the very beginning," said congresswoman Michele Bachmann of Minnesota last night on Hannity. Here's video from her appearance.
It is crucial that Bachmann and others continue to drive home that point that what the Democrats are doing violates the Constitution of the United States.
That, along with a similar emphasis on moving forward on the basis of Declaration content, is crucial to reforming and refounding this nation so that her inhabitants can once again breathe the air of freedom and dignity in community with God and man.
THUDDD! Here is the House healthcare bill, the stated purpose of which is to "provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes."
Based on all we know about government "efficiency," virtually socialized anything, and federalistic hubris, the real-world results of this bill -- if ever passed and signed into law -- will be to impose (not "provide") unaffordable (not "affordable") unhealthy (not "healthy") lack of care (not "care") upon all Americans (whatever "American" means on Capitol Hill these days) and increase (not "reduce") the growth (finally, truth, but more accurately: "massive growth") of health care spending (and an ever-increasing federalized state), and for other purposes (such as creating a permanently dependant citizenry upon whom power elites may divide, conquer, and enslave, as did the masters of yesteryear).
As you will see upon opening this massive 1,990-page document, the first page leaves blank the HR number. Hence: HR____.
Fortunately, wonderfully subversive speech still exists, and we revolt against socialized medicine dictated by Washington-centric elites and their collaborators in media, on campus, in Hollywood, and in Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela.
And we revolt in the name of the Declaration of Independence (as written), the U.S. Constitution (as written), and the Bill of Rights (as written). And finally, we revolt on behalf of the Creator who is there (thank you Francis Schaeffer) and who endows human beings, created in his image, with "certain unalienable rights" and "that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
Meanwhile, Comcast Cable has dropped all Halloween programming and decided to present shocker readings of this frightful bill day and night. Scientific polling from the Capitol Hill firm Vampires R Us comfirms expected viewership is scared to death. Order government-approved popcorn here. All profits go to Pelosi and Gore, Inc., and/or other worthy causes yet to be determined.
When asked by CNSNews.com on Thursday where the Constitution authorizes Congresst to order Americans to buy health insurance -- a mandate included in both the House and Senate versions of the health care bill -- House Minority Leader John Boehner (R.-Ohio) said that he was "not a laywer" but that he thought such mandates were wrong.
When asked by CNSNews.com about the constitutional source of Congress's authority to order Americans to buy health insurance earlier on Thursday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had responded with a question of her own: "Are you serious?"
Read the news report.
Senate Judiciary Chairman Unable to Cite Authority to Impose Insurance Mandate
Blood-Sucking Leeches in High Places
Hey Rove and O'Reilly: Wise Up on Constitution, Healthcare
Palin on Obamacare Flubbing the Point?
Why We Revolt: Show Me the Healthcare Bill
"Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) could not explain what part of the Constitution grants Congress the power to force every American to buy health insurance -- as all of the health care overhaul bills currently do," reports CNSNews.com.
"Leahy, whose committee is responsible for vetting Supreme Court nominees, was asked by CNSNews.com where in the Constitution Congress is specifically granted the authority to require every American purchase health insurance. Leahy answered by saying that 'nobody questions' Congress’ authority for such an action."
Craige McMillan writes at WorldNetDaily:
We seem to be moving backwards at a breathtaking pace.
Instead of doctors caring for patients, and their family gathering around them when the time finally comes to say "goodbye," we've regressed to when barbers were "state of the art" medical providers.
Their remedy of choice (regardless of ailment) was bloodletting. The surgical tool they used to accomplish this was the bloodsucking leech.
Our federal government today consists of 535 bloodsucking leeches in Congress, legions of overpaid and ignorant staffers, innumerable czars in the executive and the lifetime federal judiciary they appoint. Who better to accomplish the "reform" of healthcare?
In addition to "reforming" health care, they are busy sucking the life blood out of America's Constitution.
They've created "administrative law," where the bureaucracy that "regulates" a person's livelihood also adjudicates disputes. So the enforcer is the judge. And the jury? Well, there is none.
How very convenient -- for a government of bloodsucking leeches.
"Does anyone imagine this can all end well?," McMillan asks.
Not a bad question. This sort of tyranny didn't sit well with our Founders. One wonders how well it sits with their posterity.
Robert M. Goldberg at American Spectator shares 8 things Americans might want to know about the "America's Health Future Act," which passed out of the Senate Finance Committee yesterday.
The Act is supposed to be "good for you," Goldberg notes. But missing in a set of committee "talking points," he writes, is "any straight talk about how the bill drives up health care spending, rations care and will force people to wait longer for less time with fewer doctors. Call it the Senate Finance Committee's 'Snowe Job.'"
Karl Rove and Bill O'Reilly discussed tonight on the "Factor" the non-read healthcare bill that passed a Senate committee today.
Do you know how many times the word "Constitution" passed their lips?
Zero times. Not once.
Is it not incumbent upon Congress and the White House to demonstrate chapter and verse where the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to overhaul the U.S. healthcare industry?
And apart from such authorization is not such an imposition a form of tyranny?
I am willing to stand corrected, but is this not the crucial issue? Freedom. Constitutionality. Form and freedom under God.
Performances such as Rove's tonight suggest that he may be insufficiently aware of this principial imperative. Hence, by implication, the potential irrelevancy and end of the Republican Party as we know it. A death by a thousand pragmatic cuts -- unless it reemerges as a champion of Constitutional government rooted in Declarational norms.
Likewise, Bill O'Reilly -- whose journalism I appreciate -- does not seem to understand the ongoing Constitutional crisis that is represented by unending federal intrusions into the lives and upon the freedoms of the people, the states, and our individual liberties under God.
The crucial issue is freedom, not finances. Every tinhorn tyrant has a PR department willing to sell the positive and fair finances of the compassionate regime's latest agenda action point, be it healthcare, autobahns, or national respect among the nations of the world assembled at the UN.
But the Constitution is not optional, my friends. Not for the Founders. And not for those who would return America to freedom and dignity.
Here's a clue: If the Constitution, as written, is not at the heart of a political program, something is wrong, no matter what proponents might say about the finances or other putative benefits. Have you heard of bait?
"Give Me Healthcare or Give Me Death!"
Yes -- that's how ridiculous and alien to the American spirit and to the human spirit is this politically magnified crisis designed to separate American citizens from freedom, from self-government, from their wallets, and in the end, quality healthcare too. In return, the federal government gets to play God.
Millions of Americans, including the Tea Party people, increasingly understand this. And reject it. The Republicans, and some in the media, might want to wise up.
As C. Edmund Wright sees it, when it comes to the heart of the struggle against Washington-centrism and socialized healthcare, Bob and Elizabeth Dole are typically clueless, typically elitist, and typically forshadowers of defeat for the Republican Party.
Wright comments at American Spectator:
With victory in the health care debate and the 2010 midterms in sight and the disaster of John McCain's hands-across-the-aisle campaign still visible in the rear view mirror, the last thing conservatives and the GOP need is for Bob Dole to re-emerge and push to "get a bill signed."
But last week Dole, who has been on the government dole since Ike was planning D-Day, felt the need to continue to legislate. Actually, his unsolicited health care foray informs us as to what is killing the Republican Party -- even as the Democrats are doing all they can to implode in front of Saturday Night Live, Copenhagen and the world.
Joseph Farah writes at WorldNetDaily:
Don't you dare point out in polite company that socialized medicine in Germany provided the mechanism for the Holocaust.
Don't do it.
Even though it's undeniably true from a historical standpoint, Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and their accomplices in the Big Media will vilify you, ridicule you and accuse you of minimizing the tragedy of the Holocaust.
But I don't really care if they play that card with me. They've already played the race card. They've already played the Nazi card. They've already played the "extremist" card. Consider me inoculated from the venomous poison of these vipers.
Here are the facts you should know before accepting a nationalized health-care system that will place in the hands of government the very keys to your life and liberty.
"Rasmussen Reports has a poll out today showing opposition to President Obama's health plan at 56 percent, and support at 41 percent," writes David Freddoso at the Washington Examiner. "That's the lowest level of support so far this year."
Here is "Support for Health Care Plan Hits New Low" at Rasmussen Reports.
"During the first nine months of his Presidency," writes David Catron at American Spectator, Barack Obama has accomplished the seemingly impossible: he has proven that a politician can be even less trustworthy than Bill Clinton."
The broken promises of the latter were relatively conventional by Democrat standards.
Clinton ran on a middle class tax cut, for example, and promptly raised taxes. Dishonest, of course, but not terribly surprising.
Obama's policy pirouettes, however, have taken us to an entirely new level of presidential perfidy.
The man has reversed himself on virtually every position he espoused during last year's campaign.
And nowhere have these reversals been more brazen than in the case of health care. On a host of reform issues, including insurance mandates, taxing health benefits and patient choice,
Obama has demonstrated that his campaign rhetoric was utterly disingenuous.
Read the entire article.
"Obama science czar John Holdren stated in a college textbook he co-authored that in conditions of emergency, compulsory abortion would be sustainable under the U.S. Constitution, even with Supreme Court review," reports WorldNetDaily.
Sure. That's what the Founders had in mind. Liberate themselves and their posterity from tryanny so that pregnant women could impose the act of ultimate tyranny upon preborn American citizens endowed by their Creator with "certain unalienable rights."
This overreach, this abuse of the Constitution, this kind of inhumanity imposed upon the American people is one of the reasons for rising resistance to Obama. (Along with the "racism," of course.)
"House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said Sunday that the health-care plan that President Barack Obama is pushing in Congress is now dead and will not pass," reports Terry Jeffrey at CNSNews.com.
Questions to consider:
1) How can Americans be sure the un-Constitutional attempt by Democrats to overhaul healthcare truly is dead? Where is the stake in the heart?
2) Why does this death, or lack thereof, imply for the attempted secular-socialist Big government assault on liberty in America? Where are we now in the struggle to "refound" the American experiment in human freedom and dignity?
Of these two choices, what's the greater threat to Americans today -- An out of control un-Constitutional Congress and White House, or a healthcare system that needs improvement but which is still the envy of the world?
Mark J. Fitzgibbons at American Thinker gets to the point:
In his September 9 address to Congress and the nation on health insurance, President Obama said that under his plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance.
There is no clause in Article I of the Constitution authorizing Congress to craft legislation forcing individuals to purchase insurance.
Fitzgibbons concludes, "Mr. Obama's proposal not only deprives us of a freedom to use our money as we best deem fit, and is therefore authoritarian, but it is unconstitutional as well."
Barack Obama may not be aware of this tragic inconsistency. Or he may not care.
In any case, those who care about Constitutional government and the preservation of liberty upon this planet cannot afford to let this abuse stand.
I, J. Richard Pearcey, agree with President Barack H. Obama.
He vows that he is "not the first president to take up" the cause of universal healthcare, but that he is "determined to be the last."
Mr. Obama, I accept your proposal: You should be the last president to try to pass nationalized healthcare.
Furthermore, I agree with free-thinkers everywhere that no present or future president who favors liberty over tyranny should ever again seek to impose such a regressive, unhealthy, and un-Constitutional program upon the American people.
This is not an endorsement, but speaking theoretically, one of the reasons the United States would be better off with a Sarah Palin as president rather than a Barack Obama is that she operates within thought-forms closer to the mission statement and vision statement of our country -- as defined by the Declaration of Independence and as safeguarded by a form of government consistent with the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Now comes the Palin op-ed that appears in yesterday's Wall Street Journal. The op-ed makes several points worthy of discussion. For example, "that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters."
That's good, and the op-ed is a worthy read. But does it miss a crucial point, perhaps the crucial point?
Consider how the former governor of Alaska defines "real health-care reform." She says it is "market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven."
Attractive as this sounds, my friends, I am not so sure. Yes. Big federal-centric government is a devastating problem -- but, at the heart of the matter, on what grounds?
At its strategic core, it seems to me, for those who appreciate something of the historic and principial struggle between liberty and tyranny, real healthcare reform is primarily Constitution-oriented and Declaration-oriented.
Is this not more to the point?
The weakness of the merely "market-oriented," etc., formulation is that it leaves untouched the socialist big government premise that the ever-expanding and mutating federal empire somehow has the Constitutional authority to impose its freedom-limiting will on American healthcare in the first place.
An additional weakness is that it offers a tactical answer to a strategic challenge, an approach that seems ill-suited to win the battle for freedom, much less healthcare. Moreover, it offers solutions that belong to realms beyond the calling of government, especially the federal government.
Far better to get government out of the way of markets, so that ethical people can creatively make their living and provide for their families. Far better to get government out of the doctor's office, so that health is not subject to political calculations and the aspirations of rogue politicians. Far better to see results driven by success, health, and humanity.
But perhaps I err. In that case, if someone would like to make the Constitutional argument for socialized medicine, please step forward. In the process, please note that Democrat Sen. Mark Warner of Virginia has already admitted that "there is 'no place in the Constitution' that mentions health care."
What seems to disturb -- and rightly so -- so many of the Tea Party people is that too many members of both the Democratic and Republican Parties seem not to appreciate the Constitutional crisis at the heart of not just the healthcare debate but so many other issues across the board in American life and political thought today.
My conviction is that there is hope for freedom in America.
A free and dignified people -- who have "read the directions" and who understand they are created in the image of God and thereby endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights" -- do not willingly sell the soul of liberty in exchange for state-controlled hospitals or equalized medical outcomes as rationed by socialists, calculating politicians in Congress, "helpful" federal bureaucrats pulling strings from Washington, or greedy power-grubbers in general.
This is why we begin to resist that growing train of abuses conceived and enacted against our will and against the content and spirit of the Founding vision. We welcome the arrival of public servants who know precisely where to drive the stake.
"During a town hall meeting at the Fredericksburg Expo Center, Senator Mark Warner (D-Va.) said [to a high school teacher] there is 'no place in the Constitution' that mentions health care or education, or even gives individuals the right to own a telephone," reports CNSNews.com.
"Warner also indicated that the high school government teacher was perhaps suggesting that government-run Medicare and Medicaid should be dissolved," says CNSNews.
Then, quoting Warner, this:
So I take, I take by your question, I take by your question , I take by your question that you would get rid of Medicare and Medicaid? . . . Or would you, are you, let me make sure I understand, you’re advocating doing away with Medicare, right? Because that’s a government program. I just want to make clear that you are suggesting doing away with Medicare.
This smacks of scare tactics. This is a senator trying to scare people into accepting un-Constitutional tyranny because some in America have gotten used to some of the benefits of big government -- benefits which clearly are temporary (watch what happens when the money runs out) and bait for tyranny (watch what happens when all matters of health are subject to government rationing, bureaucratic impositions, and political calculations).
The senator seems to suggest that America is too far down the path of Big Government to correct course and push instead for positive change based on Constitutional content and Declarational norms.
But he is wrong. We are human beings created in the image of God and endowed by our Creator with "certain unalienable rights." We are not locked inside or limited by the machine, the system, the establishment, or the confines of any federal closet.
Here are three additional points:
First, two wrongs do not make a right. And 138 Constitutional wrongs do not make a right, either. Just because America made a wrong turn years ago, it does not follow that we cannot retrace our steps, locate the proper direction, and get back on track. That is, if the destination is freedom, and our cause is that of liberty.
Second, real reform means addressing the challenge at the crucial point -- and the crucial point governmentally is the abandonment of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence by political elites headquartered in Washington, D.C. The status quo of an imposed federal hegemony is unacceptable.
The issue is not: We can have healthcare reform "if it is paid for," for that opens the door to any kind of federal encroachment as long as the money is there (or can be made to appear to be there).
Understand: For tyrants or pretend "messiahs" who want total control, no price is too high to achieve their goals. But for those who prefer neither black or white, red or yellow at the slave auction, no price is worth it to sell our liberty, forfeit our souls, and abuse our posterity.
Third, the senator misses a more germaine question, for those who prefer a humane and dignified liberty over an inhumane and belittling tyranny, namely:
A) Are Americans better off with healthcare overhauled and run by politicians? Or
B) Are Americans better off with politicians and government overhauled by the norms and content of the Declaration of Independence, U.S. Constitution, and Bill of Rights?
Our Founding Fathers chose the path of liberty. Their children know what to do.
We Americans have seen this before. We have seen the smiling faces, but also the sharp teeth.
We have refused the bait and faced down tyranny before. And with a "firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence," we can do so again.
W. James Antle III writes at American Spectator:
There is plenty of nonsense in this Newsweek dissection of the "top 5 lies" in the health care debate, but this one takes the cake: "But when fear and loathing hijack the brain, anything becomes believable-even that health-care reform is unconstitutional. To disprove that, check the commerce clause: Article I, Section 8."
Umm, what in Article I, Section 8 gives the federal government anything like the powers contained in Obamacare?
On the crucial issue of the Constitutionality of government-controlled healthcare, here are three questions I raised recently at Sarah Palin's page on Facebook:
1) Where in the Constitution, as written, is healthcare enumerated as a legitimate exercise of the federal government?
2) Are the American people better off with healthcare under the control of the Washington establishment, or are they better off with the federal government under the Constitution (as written)?
3) Insofar as federal control of healthcare violates the U.S. Constitution, let us ask: Are the American people better off with -- or without -- the U.S. Constitution?
Read the rest of James Antle's post at American Spectator.
A newly released report by the Institute for Medicine and the National Research Council details strategies for local governments to combat what it calls an epidemic of childhood obesity, including enacting zoning and land-use regulations that would “restrict fast food establishments near school grounds and public playgrounds.”
On the other hand, try this: Constitutional limits on unhealthy government.
The crazy assumption being, of course, that a free and dignified people do not need tyrannical, micromanagerial government to save them from themselves.
But these sorts of reports, along with the threat of Obamacare, etc., suggest that free Americans may need to organize to protect their lives, families, and freedoms from an increasingly intrusive, overbearing, and anti-Constitutional hegemonic regime headquartered in Washington, D.C.
. . . U.S. President Barack Obama must lie, lie, and lie again, argues John Griffing in "The Prince of Lies" at American Thinker.
By the way, here are a couple of quotes from Griffing's article, attributed to Vladimir Lenin, who brought change to Russia:
A lie told often enough becomes the truth.
Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism.
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?
"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."
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."
"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."
"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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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
"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.
"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.
"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.
"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?
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."
"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.
Too much Obama, too little care.
"President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child 'will ultimately develop into a human being' if he or she is properly fed and socialized," reports Terry Jeffrey at CNSNews.com.
Jeffrey highlights the following quote from Human Ecology: Problems and Solutions, coauthored by John P. Holdren, who is director of the White House Office of Science and Technology:
The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being.
"Holdren co-authored the book with Stanford professors Paul R. Ehrlich and Anne H. Ehrlich. The book was published by W.H. Freeman and Company," writes Jeffrey.
The implications of this low view of human life are profound and disturbing.
Imagine, for example, how cost-efficient government-run healthcare might become if by the end of life, people who were once human beings can now be classified by compassionate federal bureaucrats with Ph.D.s as no longer developmentally human, having lost through age, disease, and lessened social contact the requisite criteria to quailfy as humanity.
Billions upon billions of dollars might be saved if Moms and Dads across the land can simply be unplugged, dehydrated, rounded up, or liquidated in some other budget-saving fashion. Imagine the savings for Social Security. Then imagine the uplifting speeches from a smiling president before a ga-ga crowd of slavish media and citizen drones.
The only catch: Government will have taken the place of the Creator, and human beings made in the image of the real Creator will rebel.
The inhumanity of Obama's science czar is already among us in the rivers of blood known as abortion. It is a slaughter of decency and humanity for which feminists, judges, and secularized politicians will be held accountable.
How to avoid widening and deepening the inhumanity? Return the federal government to its Constitutional limits and liberate the American people on the basis of Declarational principles. There is a Creator who gives unalienable rights, and any entity that seeks to usurp his place is an idol that no free-thinking person need obey.
In the real America, you have value and significance and worth because of who you are as created in the image of God.
Government is instituted among men to protect that, not to destroy it, not to find some clever way around it, and certainly not to liquidate those who resist secular inhumanity as free and noble beings created in the image of God.
"Abortion obviously isn’t healthy for the fetus," writes La Shawn Barber, "as it leads to a violent death."
According to Barber:
The Christian Defense Coalition and Operation Rescue created a campaign called “Abortion is Not Health Care” to bring attention to the $1.5 trillion health care bill, over 1,000 pages worth, scheduled for a vote at the end of July. Our Christ-professing president will include taxpayer-funded child killing in his socialized medicine plan. The Coalition will begin its campaign on Sunday, July 26, in Washington, DC.
You might say abortion is to healthcare as Obama is to freedom (or Christ, free-thinking, compassion, unalienable rights, and the Constitution).
"In a nationally televised primetime press conference tonight, President Barack Obama falsely claimed there are 47 million Americans without health insurance," reports CNSNews.com.
"This inflated claim of the number of uninsured Americans was even higher than the false claim of 46 million uninsured Americans that the president’s Council of Economic Advisers made last month," write Terry Jeffrey, editor in chief at CNSNews.
According to Jeffrey, "The Census Bureau says that there are only 35.92 million uninsured Americans and that this number includes 9.1 million people who earn more than $75,000 a year and simply choose not to purchase insurance."
Obama's numbers do not add up. And he has no mandate from the Constitution to put Washington politicans and the Federal Establishment in charge of healthcare.
Beware Presidents bearing healthcare gifts.
During an Obama conference call, a liberal blogger asked the most powerful man in the world: "Will people be able to keep their insurance and will insurers be able to write new policies even though H.R. 3200 is passed?"
Obama replied: "You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about."
But then, with apparent conviction, he said: "If you have health insurance and you like it, and you have a doctor that you like, then you can keep it. Period."
"But how," asks Examiner Heather Hogue in Phoenix, "can the president make such a promise if he is unfamiliar with the legislation? He can't. It's another empty promise."
Obama's admission is astounding. And so is his apparent ignorance.
But not one-tenth as astounding that he's leading the charge to impose an anti-Constitutional government-controlled heathcare system upon the people of the United States.
And more than astounding, it's tyrannical.
For it requires an ungodly and anti-freedom monoply of power in the hands of the few. Just the sort of thing our form of goverment is supposed to put the brakes on.
In their liberating biblical realism, the Founders understood something about the ability of less-than-perfect people (like you and me) to abuse trust, power, and authority.
Mr. Obama, forget about becoming familiar with the healthcare bill.
In fact, throw it away.
For it has no business cluttering up your office. Or your mind.
Instead, read the Declaration of Independence and U.S. Constitution on a daily basis. Load copies of them into the presidential teleprompters.
Demonstrate in your mode of governance that you are familiar with the tremendous treasures of freedom contained in those documents. Freedoms that are the "blessings of liberty" from a Creator who gives the blessings.
And when you come to the part that says the Federal Establishment has the authority to impose socialized healthcare upon a sovereign people, please let us know. (You will understand if we do not hold our collective breath.)
Until then, please note that any "fairness" or "equality" or "compassion" that overrides the Constitution, sir, is not just an empty promise, but an affront to the Creator who endows each of us with "certain unalienable rights." A free-thinking people is not forever long-suffering.
"If you think government is too big and too costly," writes Michelle Malkin, "wait until Obamacare kicks in."
Singer's article "Why We Must Ration Healthcare" appears here.
Singer notes that, "in the current U.S. debate over health care reform, 'rationing' has become a dirty word." But, he argues, "health care is a scarce resource, and all scarce resources are rationed in one way or another."
Hence, says the Princeton bioethicist: "The debate over health care reform in the United States should start from the premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it."
"His reasoning is similar to that recently employed by President Obama when he explained at a fixed townhall event why elderly Americans should be put on ice floes," writes Matthew Vadum at American Spectator.
Seven "Planned Parenthood centers in the El Paso, Texas, region are shutting down," reports OneNewsNow.
"Most of these were abortion referral centers, and they distributed morning-after pills and other devices that can cause early abortion," explains Rita Diller, who is the "new executive director of STOPP International, which is a part of the American Life League," according to OneNewsNow.
The fewer, the better, when it comes to concentration camps or aborcentration centers.
For millions of Americans who understand that freedom precedes profit, Wal-Mart's decision to support a "centerpiece" of Obamacare may mean "Good-Bye Wal-Mart, Hello Target." News and comment provided by Scott Miller at The Conservative Post.
CNSNews.com reports: "A New York Times/CBS News poll released Saturday that showed broad bipartisan support for President Obama’s health care reform over-sampled Obama voters compared to McCain voters, critics say."
Collaborationist Watch: Major Papers Expunge Obama Healthcare Comment
Question the Collaborationist Media
Journalists Who Don't Kiss Obama's Feet
New York Slimes: All the News That's Fit to Suppress
Anderson Cooper and the Crisis of Journalism
Go ahead. Make Nice. But Notre Dame party-spoiler Joseph Farah of WND chooses not to play by Obama's pathetic, inhumane, and bloody rules:
If I were presiding over a public policy that called for the murder of unborn babies for any reason or no reason at all, that provided mandatory public funding of those procedures both domestically and in foreign countries, that required doctors and nurses to perform abortions even if they were conscientiously opposed, that permitted experimentations on living human embryos, that promoted even partial-birth abortions outside the womb and that called for the extermination of infants who somehow defied all the odds and managed to survive efforts to kill them before birth, I guess I would want to frame the debate in such a way as to diminish the hideous monstrousness of my morally indefensible position.
He doesn't really want people who recognize what abortion is to approach the debate with "open hearts." He wants us to harden our hearts.
More on "The Blowback of Notre Dame," by Joseph Farah at WND . . .
Obama OKs Killing Unborn in Notre Dame Speech
Episcopalian High Priestess: "Abortion Is a Blessing!"
What About Obama, Mussolini, and the Unmentionable Herr Hitler?
The Evil Religious Presidents Do
How to Argue Like a Fascist
American Fascism: Obama and Mussolini
"After receiving an honorary doctorate in law at the University of Notre Dame’s graduation ceremony yesterday, President Barack Obama delivered a speech to the school's graduating seniors that sought to legitimize his position in favor of the legal killing of unborn children," reports Terry Jeffrey at CNSNews.com.
"Obama told the graduates of the nation’s most well-known Catholic university that abortion 'has both moral and spiritual dimensions' -- although he did not explain why he had made this conclusion -- and made it quite clear that, even so, he has no intention of moving from his position that it ought to be legal for a pregnant mother to have a doctor kill her unborn child for literally any reason at any stage of pregnancy."
More on Obama at Notre Dame from CNSNews.com.
Episcopalian High Priestess: "Abortion Is a Blessing!"
What About Obama, Mussolini, and the Unmentionable Herr Hitler?
The Evil Religious Presidents Do
How to Argue Like a Fascist
American Fascism: Obama and Mussolini
From George Neumayr at American Spectator:
Obama's liberalism is not an opponent of human rights abuses but an embodiment of them. The CIA restricts itself to methods far less ruthless than those permitted by the platform of the Democratic Party. When will Obama bring his own platform into line with the Geneva Accords?
Kansas lawmaker Tim Huelskamp has seen pro-abortion radical and Obama HHS pick Kathleen Sebelius "up close and personal."
If all goes according to schedule, Governor Kathleen Sebelius will be confirmed as Secretary of Health and Human Services late next week. This is a mistake.
Recall that the Barack Obama claims to be a Christian and is fond of claiming to care for "the least of these." This hypocrisy and that of his enablers, including those who voted for him, is drenched in blood, which cries out from the incinerator.
It seems there are "Christian" fascists among us after all.
Rick Moran writes:
Ah - state compulsion; the essence of tyranny. When the state demands that you do something that goes against your most deeply held beliefs, they are exercising the same level of control over you as any dictator or tyrant.
This report from the Chicago Tribune is what elicited Moran's remarks:
Taking another step into the abortion debate, the Obama administration Friday will move to rescind a controversial rule that allows health-care workers to deny abortion counseling or other family-planning services if doing so would violate their moral beliefs, according to administration officials.
The rollback of the "conscience rule" comes just two months after the Bush administration announced it last year in one of its final policy initiatives.
True enough, what Moran describes is of grave concern. But what Obama is doing may be even more troubling than Moran describes. For this move does not simply come up against mere "conscience" or against the "moral beliefs" of individuals.
The right to life is not merely a “moral belief,” it is a moral fact. On the basis of scientific data, we know that human beings are human beings from the moment of conception. This is a biological fact that has nothing to do with pay-grades. Even if you are unemployed, or just running for President of the United States, this fact remains true.
Also, on the basis of verifiable and knowable information from our true Creator -- the Creator upon whom the high freedoms of this nation are grounded, as is recognized in the Declaration of Independence and which the Constitution is designed to protect -- we know that human beings possess tremendous dignity and innate worth, even from the moment of biological conception.
It follows from these facts that human beings of course have the right and duty to protect their neighbors, even if their neighbors are the "least of these." Healthcare workers should be admired, not attacked or undermined, for their efforts in this area.
A humane government is one that recognizes and respects the God-given and therefore inalienable right of individual people, including healthcare workers, to counsel towards life and away from death.
To forbid this humane behavior is deep intolerance and tyranny, again, not just against privately held "belief systems" or "value sets" that secular elites can steamroll with impunity.
Rather, it is a Washington-centric system setting itself up as Deity -- a pretended absolute -- against the moral facts of life and against human obligations that attend living in community with our true Creator and with our neighbors, big or small, born or unborn.
What needs to be rolled back is not the freedom of the individual to express him or herself under God. What needs to be rolled back is a Washington-centric secular establishment at odds with the rights and dignity of humanity and at odds with the Creator whose character and existence form the basis of those liberating rights. The Obama move is inhumane and ill-advised.