Someday it will go down as one of history’s most indelible ironies: the man who imposed birth control on Catholics was one without a valid birth certificate or any other kind of provable identity.
This is how future generations will read about how it all happened:
Read the article…the comparison is instructive.
Jesus wept!
Here’s everybody’s favorite big government showing some of its true colors again.
Raw milk battle reveals FDA abandonment of basic human right to choose your food
The Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund (FTCLDF), an organization whose mission includes “defending the rights and broadening the freedoms of family farms and protecting consumer access to raw milk and nutrient dense foods”, recently filed a lawsuit against the FDA for its ban on interstate sales of raw milk. The suit alleges that such a restriction is a direct violation of the United States Constitution. Nevertheless, the suit led to a surprisingly cold response from the FDA about its views on food freedom (and freedoms in general).
In a dismissal notice issued to the Iowa District Court where the suit was filed, the FDA officially made public its views on health and food freedom.
Some of the statements in the FDA’s filing are absolutely amazing. Can you say “food NAZI”?
The FDA essentially believes that nobody has the right to choose what to eat or drink. You are only “allowed” to eat or drink what the FDA gives you permission to. There is no inherent right or God-given right to consume any foods from nature without the FDA’s consent.
This is no exaggeration. It’s exactly what the FDA said in its own words.
Don’t take MY word for it, or even the words from the posting about this. Consider the following statements taken from the FDA’s court filing:
“There is no ‘deeply rooted’ historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds.” [p. 26]“Plaintiffs’ assertion of a ‘fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families’ is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish.” [p.26]
There’s a lot more in the document, which primarily addresses the raw milk issue, but these statements alone clearly reveal how the FDA views the concept of health freedom. Essentially, the FDA does not believe in health freedom at all. It believes that it is the only entity granted the authority to decide for you what you are able to eat and drink.
The State, in other words, may override your food decisions and deny you free access to the foods and beverages you wish to consume. And the State may do this for completely unscientific reasons — even just political reasons — all at their whim…
This has all emerged from the debate over whether raw milk sales should be legal. But the commonsense answer seems obvious: Of course raw milk should be legal! Since when did the government have any right to criminalize a farmer milking his cow and selling the raw, unpasteurized milk to his neighbor at a mutually-agreeable price?
NOTE:Â The principles apply whether or not one chooses to partake of raw milk, any particular food product.
But why is the FDA hell-bent on stopping raw milk from being sold in the first place? Think about it: What is it about this particular whole food that has regulators working overtime to make sure you don’t drink it?
Follow the money…(surprise, surprise, surprise!)
The real reason why the FDA opposes raw milk is because Big Dairy opposes raw milk. Just like Big Pharma, Big Dairy has worked very hard behind the scenes to steer FDA policy in its favor. And according to some recent reports, Big Dairy is one of the primary forces trying to eliminate raw milk because it threatens the commercial milk business.
What’s next? Will all farmer’s markets be outlawed because the veggies haven’t all been irradiated or pasteurized?
As usual, it’s all about the money, and as you follow the money trail all the way up to the federal level, you find the same thing happening everywhere: At the FDA, USDA, FTC and so on. U.S. government regulators have become monopoly market enforcers for Big Business, and they won’t let anything get in their way… not even personal health freedoms or just basic access to food.
There is a lot more detailed argument in the posting; you get the picture…but wait! As a finale the FDA outdoes itself again:
On page 27 of the dismissal, the FDA also states that Americans do not have a fundamental right to enter into private contractual agreements with one another, either.
HUH?
Buying clubs, cooperatives and community supported agriculture programs (CSAs) all rely on private contractual agreements in order to operate. People contract with each other to obtain clean, healthy food from the sources of their choice without government intrusion. But now the FDA is saying that people don’t actually have this right. To enter into such a private contract to purchase food, milk or even water is a violation of federal law, the FDA now claims.
You are just a subject of the King, you see, and you have no rights. You must eat and drink what you are told. You must behave in a way that is allowed by your King. You have no rights, no protections and no freedoms….
The “substantive due process” clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, however, assures people of this right when it states that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.” And being able to make personal food choices without having to obtain permission from Big Brother is definitely included under this clause.But the FDA — aw, heck, all of Washington for that matter — doesn’t honor the U.S. Constitution in any way, shape or form. The document is little more than a tattered piece of American history according to the Nazi nut jobs running federal agencies today. They are no more likely to respect the Constitution as they are to leap from their desk job chairs and magically transform into flying elephants.
The hits just keeps on coming! (Or are the letters of the second word in the previous sentence in the wrong order? Whatever!)
The Chief knows that most have their own particular church connections, affiliations, and/or beliefs, and that is fine. This posting in no way is presented to demean anyone’s particular religious beliefs unless you are preaching some sort of anti-Constitutional “social justice” doctrines, in which case this applies to you for sure!
After the events in Washington turned this Sabbath Day into a into what IMHO constitutes a virtual Black Sabbath of unrighteous dominion, I offer the following from the Doctrine and Covenants of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Section 98, for consideration:
5. That law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6. Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you and your brethren…in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
7. And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.
8. I, the Lord god make you free, therefore ye are free indeed; and the law also maketh you free.
9. Nevertheless, when the wicked rule the people mourn.
10. Wherefore, honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil. [emphases added]
Just think about it…IMHO something to remember in November.
The Chief REALLY doesn’t want to post on this…the content and implications are extremely disturbing, at least to anyone concerned with maintaining the American Constitutional system.
Obama Gives Interpol Free Hand in U.S.
No presidential statement or White House press briefing was held on it. In fact, all that can be found about it on the official White House Web site is the Dec. 17 announcement and one-paragraph text of President Obama’s Executive Order 12425, with this innocuous headline: “Amending Executive Order 12425 Designating Interpol as a public international organization entitled to enjoy certain privileges, exemptions, and immunities.”In fact, this new directive from Obama may be the most destructive blow ever struck against American constitutional civil liberties. No wonder the White House said as little as possible about it.
So, what’s the big deal about?
First, Obama has granted Interpol the ability to operate within the territorial limits of the United States without being subject to the same constitutional restraints that apply to all domestic law enforcement agencies such as the FBI.
Search warrents, controls on wiretaps and surveillance? “We don’t need no steenking warrants, and we sneer at your foolish Yankee ‘Bill of Rights’.”
Second, Obama has exempted Interpol’s domestic facilities — including its office within the U.S. Department of Justice — from search and seizure by U.S. authorities and from disclosure of archived documents in response to Freedom of Information Act requests filed by U.S. citizens.
Think very carefully about what you just read: Obama has given an international law enforcement organization that is accountable to no other national authority the ability to operate as it pleases within our own borders, and he has freed it from the most basic measure of official transparency and accountability, the FOIA. [emphasis added]
The Chief is still waiting to hear complaints from the left/lib claque that is always so quick to express their concern about some comparatively limited (albeit problematical in their own right) provisions of such laws as the Patriot Act. He suspects that this will be an infinitely long wait.
White House Christmas Decor Featuring Mao Zedong Comes Under Fire
The nation isn’t going to fall because of this. That being said…it DOES give a clear indication of the Obamaniacal state of mind, which in spite of Michelle’s vaporings has little connection to vast majority
Mao Zedong is in the White House, hanging out with the drag queen. Not far away, Barack Obama is making a play to have his head etched in stone.
Critics of President Obama are setting their sights this week on the official White House Christmas tree, which features controversial ornaments including an orb depicting the late Chinese dictator, another that shows drag queen Hedda Lettuce, and yet another that shows a picture of Mount Rushmore — with Obama’s head pasted to the side of Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Roosevelt’s.
“Jesus wept.”
0023 CST
60-40 vote in the Senate by the Donkey party tells the country to take this bill and and use it to…copy a medical procedure involving “someplace the sun doesn’t shine.”
How does it follow the Constitution?  What’s that?…as Queen SanFran Nan Pelosi replied to a reporter’s question about the bill’s constitutionality. “Are you serious?…That’s not a serious question!” So much for THAT minor quibble.
Since this lead balloon has made it off the ground, the best chance to try to stop it is to put a spoke in the wheels of the upcoming reconciliation process. This may be a chance for the so-called “blue dogs” in the house to make a positive difference, both for the country, and for their re-election chances.
Are you paying attention Stephanie?
Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist
Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.
Just to refresh your memory, this is the handiwork of the Islamoterr in question…note the burned and mutilated [American] bodies hanging from the bridge girder:
The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
Awwwwww. Poor baby. Refer again to the above picture. If there was any justice in this situation the Islamoterr should have been whacked while “resisting capture”.
Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.
This is SO wrong. We take the best of our best, send them out to do a mission and capture a known and identified terrorist combatant. They do so, and the perp complains (after he had been turned over to Iraqi custody) that he got punched during the course of events. What happens next?
Why what else, given that this is the day of the B.O. administration granting the full panoply of legal rights of an American citizen to the killer (by beheading!) of American reporter Daniel Pearl, and who also happened to lead the planning for the 9-11 attack? The feckless wonders of the U.S. Obamanation Navy bring the SEALS up on charges!
IMAGINE THE VERY WORST THINGÂ THAT I COULD SAY TO COMMENT NEGATIVELY ON THIS LEGAL ABORTION.
NOW, CONSIDER IT SAID!
The B.O. administration seems unable to get itself organized in the middle east, with the resulting development of serious economic consequences, as illustrated by the unfortunate pattern of the following articles found online today…as contradictory as they are.
White House angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan
At the time that General McChrystal was appointed, B.O. pledged to take care of the needs of the force as communicated by the commanding general…that WOULD be McCrystal. Ooops! When he says something that B.O. doesn’t want to hear, it’s a different story. Support for the war apparently only goes so far now that the election is over.
According to sources close to the administration, Gen McChrystal shocked and angered presidential advisers with the bluntness of a speech given in London last week.
Truth is a bitch!
The next day he was summoned to an awkward 25-minute face-to-face meeting on board Air Force One on the tarmac in Copenhagen, where the president had arrived to tout Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid. In an apparent rebuke to the commander, Robert Gates, the Defence Secretary, said: “It is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations, civilians and military alike, provide our best advice to the president, candidly but privately.”
This ignores the situation that McChrystal’s requests were made weeks ago, with hardly a “Howdy do?” In reply. B.O. doesn’t seem able to realize that military combat doesn’t operate according to the whims of his attention…or rather, inattention.
Less than perfect decisive action is generally better than no action at all, which has been the White House pattern of late.
If there was an incipient plan to cut out and abandon the effort (without commenting on the merits of THAT), then there MAY be some rationale to the non-response from Washington, but…that’s NOT what they are insisting:
White House: Leaving Afghanistan not an option
The White House said Monday that President Barack Obama is not considering a strategy for Afghanistan that would withdraw U.S. troops from the eroding war there. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that walking away isn’t a viable option to deal with a war that is about to enter its ninth year. “I don’t think we have the option to leave. That’s quite clear,” Gibbs said.
If that’s really the case, not to put a fine point to it, then it’s past time for B.O. to s–t or get off the pot!
In addition, to completely have two opposite trends at the same time, comes SECDEF Gates
Taliban Afghan momentum due to lack of U.S. troops
The Taliban has the momentum in Afghanistan now because of the inability of the United States and its allies to put enough troops into the country, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Monday.
HUH?
Firstly, Gates essentially is agreeing with McChrystal that we do not have enough troops in-country to successfully do the job: so now both the Commanding General AND the Secretary of Defense apparently don’t buy into B.O.’s pusillanimous inaction.
Secondly, is the United States Secretary of Defense REALLY saying that this is due to the “INABILITY of the United States and its allies to put enough troops into the country” [emphasis added]? We are UNABLE to carry out a policy that would enable winning the war in Afghanistan?
Anyone else remember B.O. proclaiming that AFGHANISTAN was the “central front” of the war on Islamoterrs, in contrast to Iraq? Apparently that was then (campaign mode) and this is now (Administration mode).
However it plays out, our allies and so-called allies are betting that the United States uner B.O. is a paper tiger, so they are getting together behind our back and planning to slip it to us financially and economically, apparently with no fear of possible effective response:
In the most profound financial change in recent Middle East history, Gulf Arabs are planning – along with China, Russia, Japan and France – to end dollar dealings for oil, moving instead to a basket of currencies including the Japanese yen and Chinese yuan, the euro, gold and a new, unified currency planned for nations in the Gulf Co-operation Council, including Saudi Arabia, Abu Dhabi, Kuwait and Qatar. Secret meetings have already been held by finance ministers and central bank governors in Russia, China, Japan and Brazil to work on the scheme, which will mean that oil will no longer be priced in dollars.
The plans, confirmed to The Independent by both Gulf Arab and Chinese banking sources in Hong Kong, may help to explain the sudden rise in gold prices, but it also augurs an extraordinary transition from dollar markets within nine years.
Our reaction thus far is in any practical sense, ineffectual, as we slip towards an expansion of Cold War II.
The Americans, who are aware the meetings have taken place – although they have not discovered the details – are sure to fight this international cabal which will include hitherto loyal allies Japan and the Gulf Arabs. Against the background to these currency meetings, Sun Bigan, China’s former special envoy to the Middle East, has warned there is a risk of deepening divisions between China and the US over influence and oil in the Middle East. “Bilateral quarrels and clashes are unavoidable,” he told the Asia and Africa Review. “We cannot lower vigilance against hostility in the Middle East over energy interests and security.”
This sounds like a dangerous prediction of a future economic war between the US and China over Middle East oil…
God help us…we’ll need it if we don’t start to get our sh… er… stuff together.
A couple of items relating to this:
Jobless rate reaches 9.8 percent in September
The U.S. unemployment rate rose to 9.8 percent in September, the highest since June 1983, as employers cut far more jobs than expected.
The report shows that the worst recession since the 1930s is still inflicting widespread pain and underscores one of the biggest threats to the nascent economic recovery: that consumers, worried about job losses and stagnant wages, will restrain spending. Consumer spending accounts for about 70 percent of the nation’s economy.
Looks like the porkulus bill money didn’t provide all that much stimulus.
Of course, as the financial sector improves, unemployment will too, Right?
Oooops:
Banks With 20% Unpaid Loans at 18-Year High Amid Recovery Doubt
The number of U.S. lenders that can’t collect on at least 20 percent of their loans hit an 18-year high, signaling that more bank failures and losses could slow an economic recovery.
…even more than it already is?
Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
This is a tough article to post…the Chief finds it really hard to pick out particularly pithy segments to illustrate the main point…the whole thing is pithy!
…but anyway – here’s a taste of it anyway:
Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens.
Go and read the whole thing. IMHO it’s worth the look at the reasoning that leads, one fears inevitably, to this rational conclusion:
President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
‘Diversity czar’ takes heat over remarks
President Obama’s diversity czar at the Federal Communications Commission has spoken publicly of getting white media executives to “step down” in favor of minorities, prescribed policies to make liberal talk radio more successful, and described Hugo Chavez’s rise to power in Venezuela “an incredible revolution.”
Mark Lloyd’s provocative comments – most made during a tenure at the liberal Center for American Progress think tank – are giving fodder to critics who say Mr. Obama has appointed too many “czars” to government positions that don’t require congressional approval. They are also worrying to some conservatives who fear the FCC might use its powers to remove their competitive advantage on talk radio and television.
This stuff is particularly critical due to the attack on the First Amendment that would result from these policies.
Many of the remarks have been unearthed by conservative-leaning writers and bloggers and discussed on cable television amid a broader critique of Mr. Obama’s penchant for czars that exploded with the ouster this month of “green jobs czar” Van Jones.
In one of his more eye-opening comments, Mr. Lloyd praised Mr. Chavez during a June 2008 conference on media reform, saying the authoritarian Venezuelan president had led “really an incredible revolution – a democratic revolution.”
In a video clip of the conference that has been aired by Fox News personality Glenn Beck and others, Mr. Lloyd seems be siding with the anti-American leader against independent media outlets in his own country, some of which supported a short-lived coup against Mr. Chavez in 2002.
“The property owners and the folks who then controlled the media in Venezuela rebelled – worked, frankly, with folks here in the U.S. government – worked to oust him,” Mr. Lloyd said. “But he came back with another revolution, and then Chavez began to take very seriously the media in his country.”
Doesn’t ANYBODY in the White house pay any attention to the Constitution? Never mind. We already KNOW the sad answer to that one.
Sentenced to death on the NHS
Patients with terminal illnesses are being made to die prematurely under an NHS scheme to help end their lives, leading doctors warn today.
This is the real deal: her’s how it actually works in a government health rationing plan…and don’t be deceived…the plans proposed by the Donks of the administration and the Congresscritters of that ilk all force various forms of rationing of care.
In a letter to The Daily Telegraph, a group of experts who care for the terminally ill claim that some patients are being wrongly judged as close to death.
Under NHS guidance introduced across England to help doctors and medical staff deal with dying patients, they can then have fluid and drugs withdrawn and many are put on continuous sedation until they pass away.
But this approach can also mask the signs that their condition is improving, the experts warn.
NOTE: This is not the Chief’s warning…this is from the Doctors working where the rubber meets the road…go to the article & check out the sad details.
The picture presented “ain’t that pretty at all” (to quote a Warren Zevon lyric), but nonetheless it’s what B.O. & the gang have in mind for you and I.
Bill would give president emergency control of Internet
Internet companies and civil liberties groups were alarmed this spring when a U.S. Senate bill proposed handing the White House the power to disconnect private-sector computers from the Internet.
They’re not much happier about a revised version that aides to Sen. Jay Rockefeller, a West Virginia Democrat, have spent months drafting behind closed doors. CNET News has obtained a copy of the 55-page draft of S.773 (excerpt), which still appears to permit the president to seize temporary control of private-sector networks during a so-called cybersecurity emergency.
The new version would allow the president to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” relating to “non-governmental” computer networks and do what’s necessary to respond to the threat. Other sections of the proposal include a federal certification program for “cybersecurity professionals,” and a requirement that certain computer systems and networks in the private sector be managed by people who have been awarded that license.
This has so many problems that it boggles the mind.
Of course, just the power assumption here is a mind-bending expansion of the worst aspects of some of the Patriot Act stuff.
Then there’s the obvious one about having those with their hands on the net being subject ot government regulation…what was that bit about “no law…abridging freedom of speech…”?
Anyone that has have been certified as “cybersecurity professionals” and given a federal network operators license would be S.O.L. in B.O.’s Brave New World (BOBNW). The many non-degree cybergeeks with partial (and even full) degrees in other areas like physics, math, etc. could be completely frozen out…but hey, a lot of them are rather libertarianish anyway, so from the point of view of the BOBNW getting them out of the info roadway would be a positive political benefit to the Administration and it’s crypto-fascist Czars and others of that ilk.
Possible new control links for Obamanet!
In spite of the optimistic spin on the current economy from the B.O. administration, and others of their ilk in D.C. and the state-directed media, everything is far from hunky-dory.
1,000 Banks to Fail In Next Two Years: Bank CEO
The US banking system will lose some 1,000 institutions over the next two years, said John Kanas, whose private equity firm bought BankUnited of Florida in May. “We’ve already lost 81 this year,†Kanas told CNBC. “The numbers are climbing every day. Many of these institutions nobody’s ever heard of. They’re smaller companies.â€
Failed banks tend to be smaller and private, which exacerbates the problem for small business borrowers, said Kanas, who became CEO of BankUnited when his firm bought the bank and is the former chairman and CEO of North Fork bank.
“Government money has propped up the very large institutions as a result of the stimulus package,†he said. “There’s really very little lifeline available for the small institutions that are suffering.â€
…not exactly a sign of a roaring recovery, is it? And thern there is this:
Real US unemployment rate at 16 pct: Fed official
The real US unemployment rate is 16 percent if persons who have dropped out of the labor pool and those working less than they would like are counted, a Federal Reserve official said Wednesday. “If one considers the people who would like a job but have stopped looking — so-called discouraged workers — and those who are working fewer hours than they want, the unemployment rate would move from the official 9.4 percent to 16 percent, said Atlanta Fed chief Dennis Lockhart….
Lockhart pointed out in a speech to a chamber of commerce in Chattanooga, Tennessee that those two categories of people are not taken into account in the Labor Department’s monthly report on the unemployment rate. The official July jobless rate was 9.4 percent.
Lockhart, who heads the Atlanta, Georgia, division of the Fed, is the first central bank official to acknowledge the depth of unemployment amid the worst US recession since the Great Depression.
Again…it ain’t that pretty at all.
Reported by CBS – not exactly a bastion of the VRWC…
Democratic Health Care Bill Divulges IRS Tax Data
Firstly, as written, the current (House) bill REQUIRES full access to individual tax records:
Section 431(a) of the bill says that the IRS must divulge taxpayer identity information, including the filing status, the modified adjusted gross income, the number of dependents, and “other information as is prescribed by” regulation. That information will be provided to the new Health Choices Commissioner and state health programs and used to determine who qualifies for “affordability credits.”
Section 245(b)(2)(A) says the IRS must divulge tax return details — there’s no specified limit on what’s available or unavailable — to the Health Choices Commissioner. The purpose, again, is to verify “affordability credits.”
Section 1801(a) says that the Social Security Administration can obtain tax return data on anyone who may be eligible for a “low-income prescription drug subsidy” but has not applied for it.
In case you went to Harvard please note the citation numbers. These identify actual sections of the proposed legislation, which seem to be written in English. It’s not the Chief inventing this…just passing along information.
Meanwhile, there’s still the electronicization of health records mandated in the stimulus porculus bill…and not much worry about privacy:
A better candidate for a future privacy crisis is the so-called stimulus bill enacted with limited debate early this year. It mandated the “utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014,” but included only limited privacy protections.
It’s true that if the legislative branch chooses to create “affordability credits,” it probably makes sense to ensure they’re not abused. The goal of curbing fraud runs up against the goal of preserving individual privacy.
If we’re going to have such significant additional government intrusion into our health care system, we will have to draw the privacy line somewhere. Maybe the House Democrats’ current bill gets it right. Maybe it doesn’t. But this vignette should be reason to be skeptical of claims that a massive and complex bill must be enacted as rapidly as its backers would have you believe.
Based on past performance…the Chief is HIGHLY skeptical that the Congs will do what is necessary to install adequate privacy protections.
Several items concerning Obamacare – at least in it’s “single-payer” government-run manifestation.
Firstly, US lefties are NOT happy campers about the chance that B.O. – The One hisself, may be backing away from this concept:
No Government-Run Health Insurance, No Bill, Say Liberal Supporters of Reform
The Obama administration appears to be stepping back from its insistence on a government-run health insurance plan, earning new wrath from the left as the president tries to appease vocal opponents of a “public option.”
A health care reform plan without government-run insurance is “D.O.A.,” says one left-wing grassroots organizer up in arms about the possibility the Obama administration could abandon its efforts to build a “public option.”
Jim Dean, chairman of progressive group Democracy for America, wrote supporters on Monday to tell them to fight any effort to remove a government-run health insurance plan in place of non-profit “cooperatives.”
Awwww! They’re upset!
Suggesting insider Democrats and the insurance industry are behind the effort to kill a government-run plan, in his e-mail Dean assumed all Republicans in the House will oppose the health care reform with cooperatives, and with a loss of Democratic support, it would be dead on arrival.
“Let’s be clear: A health care bill without a public option is D.O.A. in the House. Period.
PUH-leeeese, let it be so!
Meanwhile, all is not well as far as using the Brits and Canucks as examples of the benefits of universal government health care:
Britain’s No Model for U.S. Health Care
Many opponents of the House plan (President Obama and the senate do not yet have one) cite the way the British deal with their sick and elderly and warn that America could become like Britain. Those critics are right to worry.
Just last week, the Times of London reported that “hospitals creak under the strain as vacancies spread through NHS (National Health Service).” The socialized medicine practices here has brought a shortage of doctors, nurses and other clinical staff.As of March 31, a survey found a 5.2 percent vacancy rate in these critical fields. This compares to a 3.6 percent vacancy rate just one year earlier.
Qualified nurses and midwifes are retiring at a faster rate than newly trained staff can enter these professions. And a poll conducted by the Royal College of Nurses found that among 8,600 young people, aged 7 to 17, only one in 20 would actively consider nursing an attractive career.
YIKES! But things are better in Canada…or not?
Canadian Health Officials: Our Universal Health Care Is ‘Sick,’ Private Insurance Should Be Welcomed
Dr. Anne Doig, the incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association, said her country’s health care system is “sick†and “imploding,†the Canadian Press reported.
“We know there must be change,†Doig said in a recent interview. “We’re all running flat out, we’re all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands.â€
Canada’s universal health care system is not giving patients optimal care, Doig added. When her colleagues from across the country gather at the CMA conference in Saskatoon Sunday, they will discuss changes that need to be made, she said.
“We all agree the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize,†she said.
OK. They’re trying to undo what the Obamacare lib-Donks are trying to do to us? Sure looks that way.
Hmmm. Returning to Einstein’s definition of insanity as repeating the same thing and expecting to get a different result, once again American libs are proving that by that standard, liberalism IS a mental disorder!
White House Blames E-Mail Controversy on ‘Sinister Conspiracy Theories’
The White House is blaming the controversy over its Web site and mass e-mails on viral rumors, “fear-mongering” and “sinister conspiracy theories” even as it acknowledges problems with its online practices.
Sounds like Hil’s “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” is still officially out there! Oh, yeah – no big deal meanwhile: nothing to worry about concerning those pesky “problems with on-line practices” that they found.
After confirming to FOX News over the weekend that third-party groups could be responsible for official White House e-mails that have been sent to people who never signed up for them, President Obama’s new media director took to the official White House blog to “clear up” the confusion.
Oh-oh. To “clear up confusion”? We’re in trouble now!
In a posting Monday night, Macon Phillips again pointed the finger at “outside groups of all political stripes” but downplayed the backlash over the
unwanted e-mailsspam….Phillips confirmed that the White House had implemented new security measures on its Web site to prevent the problem. He insisted that the White House does not want anyunsolicited e-mailsspam going out.
Translation: lefty groups were “salting” the e-mail list, but we can’t just blame them, so we’ll be inclusive with the “all political stripes” label to appease our pet bloggers, and we HAVE say something since nobody likes spam-mail.
Phillips also confirmed that the e-mail account set up to field submissions from the public on “fishy” information about health care reform has been deactivated. This development was reported Monday morning by FOX News. Critics had raised questions about how that information would be used and some accused the White House of fishing for entries for an “enemies list,” a charge the White House rejected.
Again…another problems solved! Right? WRONG! Read on:
Phillips said the e-mail account was closed and the public was redirected to the “reality check” site to “consolidate the process.
“People can still submit “fishy” information about health care reform through the “reality check” Web site, set up by the White House last week to rebut health care rumors.
Translation: We’ll keep doing the same thing as before, but we’ll change the web site and call it something different now. “See? With that nasty ‘flag@white house.gov’ gone, the problem is solved! Nothing to see or do here anymore, move along and go back home.”
In the Chief’s former Naval environment, a situation like this would be pungently describes as something including the adjective “cluster”. ’nuff said.
Obama backs marriage act repeal
The Obama administration continued its half-a-loaf approach to gay rights issues Monday by filing documents claiming that federal laws banning same-sex marriage are discriminatory, even as the federal government continues to defend them.
In its nine-page brief, the Justice Department stated that the Obama administration opposes the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act as discriminatory and supports its repeal. Yet the motion also calls for the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a gay California couple seeking to overturn the federal marriage law.
A little schitzo here? At least DoJ still recognizes some semblance of an obligation to go through the motions of defending Federal law against challenges.
So, otherwise , given the pattern of B.O.’s ideological background over the years, what’s to be surprised about this?
Oh, right – he DID say something about not favoring gay marriage during the campaign, but hey, that was just campaigning, so who was REALLY counting THAT!
No, we’re not really crazy…there is really language in the House healthcare reform bill that sets up a de-facto “death board”…although of course it’s not labeled as such.
This gives a pretty good clue where some of this sort of thing is originating:
DEADLY DOCTORS: OÂ ADVISERS WANT TO RATION CARE
THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They’d decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.
Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.
Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, “as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others” (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).
Yes, that’s what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else. Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they’ll tell you that a doctor’s job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.
Emanuel, however, believes that “communitarianism” should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia” (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. ’96).
Nice turn of phrase that: ” irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens”. Those folks setting policy in the 3rd Reich Marching and Singing Society didn’t do nearly as smooth a job when they set about eliminating “useless eaters” (although tsomething may be lost in translation there).
Translation: Don’t give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson’s or a child with cerebral palsy.
He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years” (Lancet, Jan. 31).
Now, SOMEBODY WITH GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY OVER LIFE AND DEATH WILL (of necessity) be making these sort of imposed decisions, and of course, Emmanuel isn’t alone in pushing things towards this Brave New World:
Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.
Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they’re “associated with longer waits” and “reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices” (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it “debatable” whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you’ll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)
Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.
In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist “embedded clinical decision support” — a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.
One would certainly HOPE this was the case…at least for your own doctor. But wait…there’s more (or rather, less) in store for us under these proposed neo-Soviet reforms:
Americans need to know what the president’s health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: “Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians’ offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms” (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: “Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health-reform effort.”
Do we want a “reform” that empowers people like this to decide for us?
B.O. has stated that the direction of his policies can be seen by the quality and character of those advisors he surrounds himself with. Based on this, Obamacare looks more and more like something to avoid like a plague.
Congressman wants government GPS in cars
This is NOT so you can find your destination more easily!
An Oregon congressman says he wants to test having a government GPS unit in every car so a tax could be imposed on the miles driven. The proposal, H.R. 3311, which calls for a test project costing $150 million-plus, was introduced by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore.
Really… it would only be to monitor miles. Of course, there are a few other features that COULD be used in the future for additional purposes to allow the USSA to control your activities down more effectivelybe able to help you more efficiently.
what other applications would there be for a GPS unit attached to each car in the nation?
What about “shutting down the vehicle when its allotted emissions cap had been reached.”
“Why not?” Lamb wrote, “The current cap-and-trade bill would limit industrial emissions and force each business to pay an extra tax for the privilege of emitting additional carbon dioxide. Why not arbitrarily assign a weekly or monthly cap on auto emissions and shut down the vehicle when that limit is reached? The new Global Positioning Satellite device would have that capability.
“Every American ought to be outraged that such a system is even contemplated,” he continued. “This system is the tool that makes slaves of every person who depends upon a vehicle. Every person should consider just how his life would be changed if he were required to get approval from the federal government to start his car.”[emphasis added]
Lamb said shutting down a vehicle would be among the less intrusive possibilities.
“The proposed GPS road tax system could easily be programmed to listen to and record conversations inside any vehicle. It could stop a vehicle, lock the occupants inside and notify the ‘jack boots’ that the occupants were en route to a tea party,” Lamb wrote. “We would hope that the federal government would never sink to the level of paranoia that gripped Nazi Germany. But then, we also hoped that the federal government would never sink to the level of labeling legal, peaceful assemblies, such as the recent tea parties, as gatherings of potential terrorists.”
Words fail…
from PowerLine
The Mary Robinson caper; who done it?
I don’t think we’ve commented on President Obama’s decision to bestow the Presidential Medal of Freedom on Mary Robinson, the former United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights who headed up the Durban Conference Against Racism that became an anti-Semitic hate-fest (the Unites States and Israel boycotted it, to Robinson’s dismay). Robinson’s history of consistent animosity towards Israel has caused Abraham Foxman, head of the Anti-Defamation League, to criticize the selection. Foxman calls Robinson “a lead cheerleader for the Palestinian narrative” during her time as High Commissioner. He explains:…
In addition to examining the reasons for severely doubting the worthiness of Ms. Robinson for this award, the post goes on to make an attempt to see exactly whose fingerprints in the B.O. administration are on this smudged award.
This video allows B.O. to speak for himself…
Obama Explains How His Health Care Plan Will ‘Eliminate’ Private Insurance
Click on the above link for the video which is up on Breitbart.tv
Of course, this has been vociferously denied by Obamacare supporters…but as shown, the reality of what The One has said trumps the denials IMHO.
No guarantee taxes won’t go up
2 Obama administration officials can’t guarantee middle-class Americans won’t see tax hike
Surprise, surprise, surprise!
President Barack Obama’s treasury secretary said Sunday he cannot rule out higher taxes to help tame an exploding budget deficit, and his chief economic adviser would not dismiss raising them on middle-class Americans as part of a health care overhaul.
As the White House sought to balance campaign rhetoric with governing, officials appeared willing to extend unemployment benefits. With former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan saying he is “pretty sure we’ve already seen the bottom” of the recession, Obama aides sought to defend the economic stimulus and calm a jittery public.
Relax folks…it’s only a middle class tax increase…forget about those pesky campaign promises…that was just politics, right?
Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and National Economic Council Director Larry Summers both sidestepped questions on Obama’s intentions about taxes. Geithner said the White House was not ready to rule out a tax hike to lower the federal deficit; Summers said Obama’s proposed health care overhaul needs funding from somewhere.
“There is a lot that can happen over time,” Summers said, adding that the administration believes “it is never a good idea to absolutely rule things out, no matter what.”
Even that stronghold of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, the New York TImes (All the news that fits, we print) has checked in on this:
Obama’s Pledge to Tax Only the Rich Can’t Pay for Everything, Analysts Say
Behind Democrats’ struggle to pay the $1 trillion 10-year cost of President Obama’s promise to overhaul the health care system is their collision with another of his well-known pledges: that 95 percent of Americans “will not see their taxes increase by a single dime†during his term.
President Obama has promised that 95 percent of Americans “will not see their taxes increase by a single dime†in his term.
This will not be the last time that the president runs into a conflict between his audacious agenda and his pay-as-you-go guarantee, when only 5 percent of taxpayers are being asked to chip in. Critics from conservative to liberal warn that Mr. Obama has tied his and Congress’s hands on a range of issues, including tax reform and the need to reduce deficits topping $1 trillion a year.
So what’s it mean to the rest of us? BOHICA! (Bend Over Here It Comes Again)
Sounds like something from the classic dystopian movie Soylent Green, or motion in the direction of a quasi-Nazi elimination of financially inconvenient seniors (“useless eaters”) who would only continue to consume valuable resources to live IF given necessary treatment.
Unfortunately this really IS in the bill (page numbers cited below).
Government ‘counselors’ on end of life treatment
The House version of the Health Care Bill is going to require (p 425-430) mandatory counseling for all seniors at a minimum of every five years, more often if the senior is sick or in a nursing home.
Just how many government trained counselors will that put into the work force? With an over 65 population of 38,000,000 US (Census, 2007), 4 counseling sessions daily, over 37,000, at a minimum, that’s how many. Plus their supervisors, plus the report readers, plus the oversight agency.
This is bad enough on its own (de)merits, without considering the following contrast, which makes things even worse:
Don’t even think that anyone should receive mandatory counseling regarding the end of life issues surrounding abortion; that’s a invasion of the right of privacy! “Counsel” a senior about their end of life “choices” under Obama Care? Somehow that’s not the same, so just keep your mouth shut.
This REALLY creeps me out! Who could trust the GOVERNMENT for something like this? Would you trust YOUR loved ones life and death decisions to a government bureaucracy?  If you would, I truly hope you get the government you want…just leave ME out of your National Socialistic nightmare!
PROMISES, PROMISES: Do Obama deals break pledge?
In cutting deals with hospitals and drug makers, President Barack Obama is giving a private inside track to special interests that’s at odds with his promise to make policy in the open.
Obama promised Americans he would hold special interests at arm’s length—that it would no longer be business as usual in Washington. He pledged to open government and let the public and news media hold his administration accountable.
And just over two months before the 2008 election, Obama promised before an audience in Chester, Va., to hash out a health care overhaul in public. “We’ll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies,” he said then.
That didn’t happen.
Instead, the administration’s multibillion-dollar deals with hospitals and pharmaceutical companies have been made in private, and the results were announced after the fact. Both industries promised Obama cost savings in return for an expanded base of insured patients; beyond that, the public is in the dark about details.
In some ways, it resembles what his party criticized President George W. Bush for doing with oil and gas companies as Vice President Dick Cheney wrote a national energy plan in the early days of the Bush administration.
As the Bush White House did, the Obama White House is refusing to release visitor logs that would let people see everyone going in and out during the thick of discussions over major national policies.
I know, I know. There was little transparency and accountability in handling TARP, the “Porkulus” bill, etc., so why be surprised at the latest example of more of the same from B.O.
A funny thing happened to Obamacare as it winds its way through the belly of the legislative beast….
Mayo Clinic calls House plan bad medicine
A world-renowned clinic that President Obama held up as an example of good medicine said Monday that the American people would be “losers” under the House’s health care proposal, joining the growing chorus of critics the Obama administration is trying to fend off as the debate intensifies from Capitol Hill to Main Street.
Minnesota’s not-for-profit Mayo Clinic, which Mr. Obama has repeatedly hailed as offering top quality care at affordable costs, blasted the House Democrats’ version of the health care plan as lawmakers continue to grapple with several bills from each chamber and multiple committees.
The Mayo Clinic said there are some positive elements of the bill, but overall “the proposed legislation misses the opportunity to help create higher quality, more affordable health care for patients.”
“In fact, it will do the opposite,” clinic officials said, because the proposals aren’t patient-focused or results-oriented. “The real losers will be the citizens of the United States.” [emphasis added]
Ooops.
Hopefully another nail in the coffin of “Obamacare.”
Obama’s Science Czar: Traditional family is obsolete, punish large families
President Obama’s Science Czar, John Holdren, took a controversial and amoral approach to the science of population by recommending mass compulsory sterilization and even forced abortion (and/or forced marriages) under certain circumstances.[emphasis added] His 1977 tome, Ecoscience, which he co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich, also displays a revealing disregard for the institution of the traditional human family….
Holdren, with a blithe “of course,†encourages government to wage an effective war on the family in America. It begins with the abolition of “pronatalist†policies and continues with their complete reversal:
As United States taxpayers know, income tax laws have long implicitly encouraged marriage and childbearing…Such a pronatalist bias of course is no longer appropriate. In countries that are affluent enough for the majority of citizens to pay taxes, tax laws could be adjusted to favor (instead of penalize) single people, working wives, and small families. Other tax measures might also include high marriage fees, taxes on luxury baby goods and toys, and removal of family allowances where they exist. Other possibilities include the limitation of maternal or educational benefits to two children per family.
Intrusive enough?
Some Americans might cite the Founding Fathers and argue that a government whose policy is to make war on the family in the name of science has clearly overstepped its mandate. That was not the opinion expressed by John Holdren, the man President Obama has put in charge in the nation’s science policy.
Can you read T-O-T-A-L-I-T-A-R-I-A-N? Any other questions?
What was that bit that B.O. was saying about choice still being a part of healthcare reform?
It didn’t take long to run into an “uh-oh” moment when reading the House’s “health care for all Americans” bill. Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.
When we first saw the paragraph Tuesday, just after the 1,018-page document was released, we thought we surely must be misreading it. So we sought help from the House Ways and Means Committee.
It turns out we were right: The provision would indeed outlaw individual private coverage. Under the Orwellian header of “Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,” the “Limitation On New Enrollment” section of the bill clearly states:
“Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day” of the year the legislation becomes law.
So we can all keep our coverage, just as promised — with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won’t be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers.
Will we the sheeple swallow this poison pill?
The public option won’t be an option for many, but rather a mandate for buying government care. A free people should be outraged at this advance of soft tyranny. Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn’t be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans’ lives.
Oh, joy. What ELSE is buried in this 1000+ page monstrosity? The Chief shudders to imagine the possibilites…
Obama Closes Doors on Openness
This report is interesting as much from it’s origin as for its content. Newsweak, and Issikof are FAR from being part of the VRWC!
As a senator, Barack Obama denounced the Bush administration for holding “secret energy meetings” with oil executives at the White House. But last week public-interest groups were dismayed when his own administration rejected a Freedom of Information Act request for Secret Service logs showing the identities of coal executives who had visited the White House to discuss Obama’s “clean coal” policies. One reason: the disclosure of such records might impinge on privileged “presidential communications.” The refusal, approved by White House counsel Greg Craig’s office, is the latest in a series of cases in which Obama officials have opted against public disclosure. Since Obama pledged on his first day in office to usher in a “new era” of openness, “nothing has changed,” says David -Sobel, a lawyer who litigates FOIA cases. “For a president who said he was going to bring unprecedented transparency to government, you would certainly expect more than the recycling of old Bush secrecy policies.”
The hard line appears to be no accident. After Obama’s much-publicized Jan. 21 “transparency” memo, administration lawyers crafted a key directive implementing the new policy that contained a major loophole, according to FOIA experts. The directive, signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, instructed federal agencies to adopt a “presumption” of disclosure for FOIA requests. This reversal of Bush policy was intended to restore a standard set by President Clinton’s attorney general, Janet Reno. But in a little-noticed passage, the Holder memo also said the new standard applies “if practicable” for cases involving “pending litigation.” Dan Metcalfe, the former longtime chief of FOIA policy at Justice, says the passage and other “lawyerly hedges” means the Holder memo is now “astonishingly weaker” than the Reno policy. (The visitor-log request falls in this category because of a pending Bush-era lawsuit for such records.)
ANOTHER case of the B.O. bite veing very different indeed from the bark. Not a problem to the Chief, since he thinks that this is actually a more rational policy that the originally stated one.
NKorea widens threat, limits US options
North Korea’s nuclear test makes it no likelier that the regime will actually launch a nuclear attack, but it adds a scary dimension to another threat: the defiant North as a facilitator of the atomic ambitions of others, potentially even terrorists.
It presents another major security crisis for President Barack Obama, already saddled with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and a nuclear problem with Iran. He said Monday the U.S. and its allies must “stand up” to the North Koreans, but it’s far from clear what diplomatic or other action the world community will take.
So far, nothing they’ve done has worked.
THAT’s the understatement of the year!
North Korea fires sixth missile in defiance of US demands for end of aggression
North Korea has fired another short-range missile in defiance of warnings from the United States, bringing the total numbers of launches in the past three days to six.
The defiance of the North has prompted the US to warn that it will “pay the price” for continuing to ignore the international community. Susan Rice, the US ambassador to the United Nations, said the UN Security Council was united in its determination to punish North Korea and that Pyongyang would learn that its actions “have consequences”.
REALLY – Why would the NorKs expect anything more than another application of hot air from Washington?
(Hmmm…maybe THAT’s why B.O. et al are worried so much about CO2 and Glowbull Warming!)
So much for B.O.’s guaranteed assurance that a new spirit of willingness to talk with then will get a positive result, meanwhile, Iran is watching with interest from the wings of the world stage.
Meanwhile, back on this side of the pond…B.O. gives us a SCOTUS designee who is, based on her own words, unqualified to serve:
A Judge’s View of Judging Is on the Record
In 2001, Sonia Sotomayor, an appeals court judge, gave a speech declaring that the ethnicity and sex of a judge “may and will make a difference in our judging.â€
In her speech, Judge Sotomayor questioned the famous notion — often invoked by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and her retired Supreme Court colleague, Sandra Day O’Connor — that a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding cases.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,â€
So much for equal justice under the law. Apparently now it’s to be acceptable to judge based on ethnicity and gender, instead of evaluating each cased based on the body of the law and the Constitution. Prima facie, this is in direct contradiction to the oath of office, but apparently fits in with B.O.’s stated drive for “empathy” on the bench in apparent favoring of judgement favoring a clear bias towards the politically correct shibboleth of the moment.
Got help the United States of America!