A good view of Obama Birth Certificate controversy and Democrat coverups


From Lance Fairchok at the American Thinker, a view of Democrat coverup operations….as it pertains to Obama’s Birth Certificate.

In its entirety:

I have no idea whether Barack Obama is a natural born American. I’m not a “birther” and I haven’t spent a lot of time on the issue, but I have noticed a lot of people are curious, not just fringe “kooks”, but reasonable people who seem to have logical reasons for their curiosity. I do not know if Obama fits the constitutional requirements for the Presidency, but I do know Democrats, and when then work hard to hide something, that something is usually a doozy.

Think for a moment of other recent examples of Democrat cover-ups. John Kerry comes to mind. The press excoriated anyone who questioned his military record. Yet, despite the very public promises to release his full record, most notably to the late Tim Russert, he has never done so. He never will, because in that record one would find just what a liar John Kerry is. Apparently, he never actually made the trip to Cambodia that is seared in his memory, but he did take one to Paris to talk to the Viet Cong.  So far, thanks to President Carter reinstating his medals, it has been a very successful cover up. 

John Edwards portrayed himself as the quintessential husband and father. His boyish good looks, his empathy for the downtrodden and his abiding love for his cancer stricken wife made him a vice-presidential shoo-in, except for that mistress and love child that he visited regularly. Despite his staffers covering for him and the press spiking reporting on the affair, it came out, a very unsuccessful cover-up for Edwards. We are assured however, that even though he admits the affair, the child is not his. Oh, and there will be no DNA testing of the child. 

How about all the assurances that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were in good order? No audits or reforms necessary, everything is just fine. How many members of Congress blocked meaningful regulation for many years? The Democrats have profited and continue to profit greatly from the two enterprises, costing the taxpayers billions. Yet a majority of Americans blame President Bush for the financial crisis. Yet another successful cover-up, as well as an effective propaganda campaign courtesy of the party of coincidence. Do you remember that financial crisis that miraculously popped up last November? You know, just before the election. Pure coincidence, really, you can trust the Democrats.

And last but not least, is the record of the Clinton administration’s contribution to 9-11. We know that members of the administration actively built barriers to data sharing between intelligence and law enforcement. We know the Clintons viewed terrorism as a law enforcement matter. We know that Madeleine Albright warned Pakistan before Clinton’s half-hearted cruise missile strike on Bin Laden, thereby giving days of warning to Al Qaeda.

We know that soon after the formation of 9-11 commission was officially announced the Clinton administrations National Security Advisor, Sandy Berger, went to National Archives over a period of weeks to steal and destroy highly classified records of the Clinton administration decision-making process in handling Al-Qaeda and terrorism. He stuck them in his pants and socks and later burned and shredded them. You can bet they held incriminating evidence, evidence that would have tanked the Democrats on security issues and ripped away the “Clinton Legacy.” It was a very successful cover-up, about which the press is remarkably silent. Berger received what amounts to a wrist slap, while old Bill laughed it off saying; “That Sandy, he’s so absent minded.” 

By all reports, Obama and his administration have gone to great expense to prevent examination of his birth record outside of carefully staged statements from loyal Democrats. When Presidential spokespersons ridicule and demean Americans, even political enemies, in a public forum, they are purposely inserting ideas into the public psyche, and when those ideas are choreographed with the press you can bet it was cooked up among the likes of ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, CNN’s James Carville, CNN commentator Paul Begala, and Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. The message appears on leftist web-exchanges like Journo List and it is off to the political smear races. If you say a thing often enough, people will eventually believe it, for example; the press is in the Democrats’ pocket, the press is in the Democrats pocket, the press is in the Democrats pocket… Well, that one is real.

Now, conveniently, we have Dr. Chiyome Fukino, director of the Hawaii’s Department of Health, telling us she’s seen the documents and they are legitimate. If one wanted to conspire to protect a Democrat President, who is from Hawaii, where else would you go for eager supporters. So the controversy continues until impartial credible observers review the documents.  Maybe Obama was indeed born in Hawaii. Could the controversy be more accurately about who his father was and not his birthplace? It would certainly be an embarrassment after all the “Dreams of my Father” hagiographies and “my souls from Africa” shtick.  

Conservative elites sniff in arrogant distain at the birth document “conspiracy theory, “of course, and admonish us not to fall into the Democrat trap.  The controversy is not helping us they complain, the left is painting us as kooks.  I hate to break it to you Professor, but the left alwayspaints conservatives as kooks.  They also fabricate, lie, manipulate and intimidate.  It is standard practice, it will not stop, and you will see any conservative personality that gets traction get the “Ann Coulter” treatment for anything they say.  Sarah Palin for example is the target of a well funded, well attended (by the press) smear campaign.  It is organized, focused and financed by the Democrat machine.  They view her as the chief threat to Obama in 2012.  We have years of Sarah smearing to look forward to.  The Obama birth records controversy will be similarly exploited for any political advantage, and used to demean and ridicule any on the right who pursue it.  I’m no”birther,” but I smell a cover-up, I’m just not sure of what. With the Democrats you can be sure, where there’s smoke, there’s fire, and they are working overtime to hide it.

I, personally, have not been convinced either way that Obama was or was not born in the US.  What I am certain of, however, is that Obama is withholding his long form birth certificate and a multitude of school and college documents that outline his education, grades, scholarships, etc.  Why not release them?

Yes the Democrats and willing koolaid drinkers argue that the short form birth certificate has been released and those who wish for further information are “birther kooks”.  But why not release the full form so that we see the hospital, doctor and other long form information that is on the form?  Military members that serve under Obama must prove their birth with such information….why not their CIF?   For getting a job, most people must present their college grades, transcripts, and other such information — why not for a man who works for all of us?

Those same Democrats and Obama supporters would be protesting at Bush’s ranch, White House and birth hospital weekly if this were George W. Bush witholding his formal long form birth records and education records….of that you can be assured.

Why is it different with Obama?

Mr. “I Won” said: during campaign – “This is a war we must WIN”; Now – “worried about using the word ‘VICTORY’” in Afghanistan


Mr. “Student of History” and the so-called greatest orator of our time has this to say about the war in Afghanistan:

“I’m always worried about using the word ‘victory,’ because, you know, it invokes this notion of Emperor Hirohitocoming down and signing a surrender to MacArthur,” Obama told ABC News.

On September 2, 1945, on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, the Japanese envoys Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu signed their names on the Instrument of Surrender. The time was recorded as 4 minutes past 9 o'clock. Afterward, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, Commander in the Southwest Pacific and Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, also signed. He accepted the Japanese surrender "for the United States, Republic of China, United Kingdom, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and in the interests of the other United Nations at war with Japan." (H/T: Gateway Pundit)

On September 2, 1945, on the deck of the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay, the Japanese envoys Foreign Minister Mamoru Shigemitsu and Gen. Yoshijiro Umezu signed their names on the Instrument of Surrender. (H/T: Gateway Pundit)

Aside from the fact that this self-proclaimed history buff is simply a buffoon —- Emporor Hirohito didn’t sign the surrender after WWII.

Further, as pointed out by a commenter at Gateway Pundit, the “great orator” used the word “invokes” where he should have used the word “evokes“!

(Goodness, I shudder to think if George Bush had done this — the liberals would have invoked a huge media frenzy evoking a notion of “dunce-in-chief”. )

But what did Obama actually mean by worrying about using the word victory?  I wasn’t sure and asked my husband ( a true history buff) what he thought…and he said (paraphrased) that Obama likely meant because of the nature of who we are fighting and the circumstances, we may not know exactly what “victory” looks like immediately or even for 5 to 10 years.  We would not see a leader signing surrender documents in the heart of Afghanistan, for example.

OK fair enough…makes sense at some level.  I would further argue that victory can be used in the context of securing the country, killing terrorists, and eliminating/reducing attacks on our troops and at home.    It doesn’t have to mean formal white flag, ship-signing salute…..

But that got me to thinking…if Obama TRULY believes that using the term “victory” is worrisome, then how come Obama himself declared during the campaign last July that “This is a war that we have to WIN”?  From Sweetness and Light:

Contending that the U.S. is not pursuing a sound strategy for keeping Americans safe, Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama said Tuesday that fighting al-Qaida and the Taliban in Afghanistan would be his top priority after ending the war in Iraq.

“This is a war that we have to win,”Obama said in remarks prepared for delivery at the International Trade Center in Washington.

So what kind of dumb-fuddled psychology is it that Obama has used to declare we MUST “win” the war in Afghanistan, but for that same war in the present time he worries about using the term “victory“?

My take?

Now that Obama is no longer in campaign mode with a need to “moderate” his rhetoric, we have the Obama-American-Apologist persona rearing its ugly head in his inability to talk about a victory in Afghanistan….even while the lives of American men and women are at stake over there….the same brave Americans who believe their mission is VICTORY!  

The troops and Americans here at home believe we can be victorious in our fight against terrorists advancing their agenda in Afghanistan, in efforts to secure the country, in eliminating attacks against our mainland and more…..there is always victory to be had at some level….why is that so hard to say?  Especially for a American President?

And just so you know….I looked up the official definitions of win and victory, both words Obama used….They are almost interchangeable in various forms and mean essentially the same thing…..

From Merriam-Webster:

Victory:  1 : the overcoming of an enemy or antagonist 2 : achievement of mastery or success in a struggle or endeavor against odds or difficulties

Win: 2b:to be the victor in <won the war> 1: to gain the victory in a contest

Now  think back to a few days after inauguration when Obama met with Republicans to talk about tax policy.  From Fox News (my emphasis):

During his private meeting with congressional Democrats and Republicans on Friday, President Obama ended a philosophical debate over tax policy with the simple declaration that his opinion prevailed because “I WON.”

I guess when you are a narcissistic, inexperienced, egotistical American Presidential Apologist it isn’t so worrisome to declare “victory” when referring to yourself.

This is what government-controlled healthcare looks like line-by-line


The liberals (some of my friends and some stragglers commenting on this blog tonight) have blinders on as to what the proposed bill for healthcare really contains.

Well, thanks to a gentleman named Peter Fleckstein and to the Economic Policy Journal that documented his Twitters on the subject, we have a good summary of the “goodies” that are in this bill for all of us to enjoy!

Because, you know…./sarc on/ we are all clamoring for Obama to tell us what treatments he deems necessary for us and our families…./sarc off/

This summary includes the pages of the bill where individual proposals are documented. If you want to check the facts of the bill  yourself…do so here, but is very slow loading due to the size (It is not surprising that this bill is even detrimental to your patience and your computer!)

Well, let’s just say you may need to consult with your doctor before reading because just reading this bill could be hazardous to your health….

Some of the highlights you say?

READ IT ALL at DougRoss at Journal, but here are some highlights”

Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

Page 42: The “Health Choices Commissioner” will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services

Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient’s health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.

And especially for those of you “government-control deniers” — you know who you are:

Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)

Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No “judicial review” is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

Page 253: Government sets value of doctors’ time, their professional judgment, etc.

Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.

Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.

Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.

Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.

Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

Call your representatives TODAY!   Spread the word to EVERYONE you know. 

 This bill is so dangerous, sloppy, and un-American at so many levels…..and it doesn’t solve our healthcare problems to boot!

Decisions: Puppy vs. Healthcare


And then there is this gem comment of the day via Ace of Spades via a commenter at Gateway Pundit:

Obama takes 6 months to find a puppy for his daughters but wants to pass healthcare in 2 weeks!

President Sham Wow told some whoppers tonight!


It is a draining physical effort to watch an Obama news conference, much less one where much of what he said has been proven time and again to be untrue!

I spotted several whoppers he told tonight and so did others. 

While there were MANY untruths, scrambled thoughts, strawman arguments and more tonight from Obama, I will list only a few that stood out to me and then include observations from others further below.

My own observations from tonight:

Observation #1

OBAMA SAID:  “Let me be clear: This isn’t about me”

THE FACTS:  From JammieWearingFool:

Grassley said he spoke with a Democratic House member last week who shared Obama’s bleak reaction during a private meeting to reports that some factions of House Democrats were lining up to stall or even take down the overhaul unless leaders made major changes.

“Let’s just lay everything on the table,” Grassley said. “A Democrat congressman last week told me after a conversation with the president that the president had trouble in the House of Representatives, and it wasn’t going to pass if there weren’t some changes made … and the president says, ‘You’re going to destroy my presidency.’ “

Observation #2

OBAMA SAID: “I continue to insist that health reform not be paid for on the backs of middle-class families.”

THE FACTS:  The currently proposed plan forces “families”/individual coverage – whether you like it or not! If you choose not to buy into the government plan, you’ll be forced to pay more taxes in the form of a penalty.  In other words, this plan MANDATES coverage whether you want it or not….if you don’t, you pay.  This applies to middle-class families.  (H/T: Americans for Tax Reform)

From the AP, July 3:

Americans who refuse to buy affordable medical coverage could be hit with fines of more than $1,000 under a health care overhaul bill unveiled Thursday by key Senate Democrats looking to fulfill President Barack Obama’s top domestic priority.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fines will raise around $36 billion over 10 years. ., which now imposes a fine of about $1,000 a year on individuals who refuse to get coverage. Under the federal legislation, families would pay higher penalties than individuals.

In a revamped health care system envisioned by lawmakers, people would be required to carry health insurance just like motorists must get auto coverage now. The government would provide subsidies for the poor and many middle-class families, but those who still refuse to sign up would face penalties.

Called shared responsibility payments,” the fines would be set at least at half the cost of basic medical coverage, according to the legislation.

Observation #3:

OBAMA SAID: ” This debate is not a game for these Americans, and they can’t afford to wait any — any longer for reform. They’re counting on us to get this done. They’re looking to us for leadership, and we can’t let them down.”

THE FACTS:  While Americans do want lower healthcare costs, it is clear they do not prefer the plan that Obama says we are “counting on”.

From one of the most recents Zogby polls:

By 52 percent to 40 percent, voters say they are against the healthcare bill introduced July 14 to the House of Representatives, a new Zogby International poll reports.

The poll’s findings: Americans oppose raising tax rates to pay for a new healthcare system. Instead, they favor innovative approaches that would save money, which in turn could be used to fund health benefits for the poor.

Among those currently insured, Zogby reports, 84 percent are satisfied with their current health care. Also, four out of every five people surveyed agreed that rising healthcare costs are hurting American businesses.

And from Rasmussen today:

The health care reform legislation working its way through Congress has lost support over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of U.S. voters are at least somewhat in favor of the reform effort while 53% are at least somewhat opposed.

Here are some other observations that are worthwhile to add.

From an AP report titled Fact Check: Obama’s health care claims adrift:

OBAMA: “We already have rough agreement” on some aspects of what a health care overhaul should involve, and one is: “It will keep government out of health care decisions, giving you the option to keep your insurance if you’re happy with it.”

THE FACTS: In House legislation, a commission appointed by the government would determine what is and isn’t covered by insurance plans offered in a new purchasing pool, including a plan sponsored by the government. The bill also holds out the possibility that, over time, those standards could be imposed on all private insurance plans, not just the ones in the pool.

Indeed, Obama went on to lay out other principles of reform that plainly show the government making key decisions in health care. He said insurance companies would be barred from dropping coverage when someone gets too sick, limits would be set on out-of-pocket expenses, and preventive care such as checkups and mammograms would be covered.

It’s true that people would not be forced to give up a private plan and go with a public one. The question is whether all of those private plans would still be in place if the government entered the marketplace in a bigger way.

He addressed some of the nuances under questioning. “Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system?” he said. “No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier.”

He acknowledged then that the “government already is making some of these decisions.”

___

OBAMA: “I have also pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our deficit over the next decade, and I mean it.”

THE FACTS: The president has said repeatedly that he wants “deficit-neutral” health care legislation, meaning that every dollar increase in cost is met with a dollar of new revenue or a dollar of savings. But some things are more neutral than others. White House Budget Director Peter Orszag told reporters this week that the promise does not apply to proposed spending of about $245 billion over the next decade to increase fees for doctors serving Medicare patients. Democrats and the Obama administration argue that the extra payment, designed to prevent a scheduled cut of about 21 percent in doctor fees, already was part of the administration’s policy, with or without a health care overhaul.

Beyond that, budget experts have warned about various accounting gimmicks that can mask true burdens on the deficit. The bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget lists a variety of them, including back-loading the heaviest costs at the end of the 10-year period and beyond.

___

OBAMA: “You haven’t seen me out there blaming the Republicans.”

THE FACTS: Obama did so in his opening statement, saying, “I’ve heard that one Republican strategist told his party that even though they may want to compromise, it’s better politics to ‘go for the kill.’ Another Republican senator said that defeating health reform is about ‘breaking’ me.”

and on the budget:

OBAMA: “If we had done nothing, if you had the same old budget as opposed to the changes we made in our budget, you’d have a $9.3 trillion deficit over the next 10 years. Because of the changes we’ve made, it’s going to be $7.1 trillion.”

THE FACTS: Obama’s numbers are based on figures compiled by his own budget office. But they rely on assumptions about economic growth that some economists find too optimistic. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, in its own analysis of the president’s budget numbers, concluded that the cumulative deficit over the next decade would be $9.1 trillion.

Also at Ace of Spades, they have listed the “foot-in-mouth” top 4 moments of the evening:

For those who missed it, the President went very low tonight. I’m not talking about the lies (there were too many to recount here), the contortions (“I’m not attacking Republicans” about two minutes after attacking Republicans), and the incoherence (e.g. “Senior citizens who right now have a so-called donut hole in their plan, where after spending a certain amount on prescription drugs suddenly they drop off a cliff and they’ve got to pocket the entire cost, suddenly half of that is filled.”).

I’m talking about foot-in-mouth soundbites. Let’s count them down:

4. The Sacrifices Americans Must Make

The question was: “Do you think — do you accept the premise that other than some tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, the American people are going to have to give anything up in order for this to happen?”

The president answered: “They’re going to have to give up paying for things that don’t make them healthier. And I — speaking as an American, I think that’s the kind of change you want.”

Like cheeseburgers and cigarettes and alcohol and cars that drive faster than 25 miles per hour?

3. Economics 101 FAIL

“Having a public plan out there that also shows that maybe if you take some of the profit motive out, maybe if you are reducing some of the administrative costs, that you can get an even better deal, that’s going to incentivize the private sector to do even better.”

2. I Don’t Know Anything, But I Know the Police Acted Stupidly

On the professor arrested following a confrontation with a police officer after he broke into his own house: “Skip Gates is a friend, so I may be a little biased here. I don’t know all the facts. …

“Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly.”

1. Doctors Want to Take Your Kids’ Tonsils For Profit

Again, another answer unrelated to any question asked: “Right now, doctors a lot of times are forced to make decisions based on the fee payment schedule that’s out there. So if they’re looking and you come in and you’ve got a bad sore throat or your child has a bad sore throat or has repeated sore throats, the doctor may look at the reimbursement system and say to himself, “You know what? I make a lot more money if I take this kid’s tonsils out.”

In all, he had some very clear villains in tonight’s performance: doctors, insurers, Republicans, and the Cambridge police department.

If you were fortunate enough not to have to listen to Dear Leader pontificate tonight with his stiff  “I can’t take criticism” upper lip….you can read the text of tonight’s press conference here.

Some thoughts and facts on Obamacare – posted before President “Sham Wow” begins his desperation prime time pitch (again) tonight


So much is being said about healthcare right now.  And rightfully so.  The Right is feeling good that the current Obamacare debacle has a great chance of dying before the Congress recess in August. And Obama is feeling the pinch from his own party that it is too much too soon.

Of course, the Right should never underestimate a corrupt administration’s ability to ram this thing through one way or another and the Left shouldn’t underestimate Obama’s ability to “throw them under the bus” on the way!

Some of my thoughts and research on this health “care” debaucle that must be STOPPED!

OBAMA IS LYING ABOUT WHAT WE WOULD GET WITH THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION

Obama, during the campaign last year, touted a very moderate view of how he would handle healthcare “reform”.  From American Thinker:

When Obama was in pre-election campaign mode, he made some reasonable statements about healthcare. He wanted you to keep your insurance if you were happy with it. He told us that government-run healthcare with higher taxes was a bad idea. And he didn’t think anyone should be forced to purchase insurance. Only the most naive among us believed Obama’s sweet little promises, but at least they sounded nice.

Think about that as you soak in what Obama is trying to force upon us, our economy, and our kids/grandkids.  As President, he is almost a lone player (if you believe there are actually Blue Dog Democrats against it) in ramming through the current healthcare bill proposals at break neck speed….many of the healthcare fundamental reforms he’s touting are at 180 degrees opposite what Obama campaigned for. 

So hypocrisy and opportunism are two words that come to mind when hearing Obama tout this plan…..A third work that comes to mind is deceit!

Obama is lying and stating blatant inaccuracies in order to “get his way”.  Three main lies that he is touting were highlighted at the New York Post:

1)“If you like your current health-care plan, you can keep it.”   Even White Housespokesmen have said that Obama’s oft-repeated pledge that you can keep your current insurance isn’t meant to be taken literally…..the president supports an individual mandate — a requirement that every American buy health insurance…..

And that doesn’t just affect those without insurance today. The bills now before Congress say that while you won’t be immediately forced to switch from your current insurance to a government-specified plan, you’ll have to switch to satisfy the government’s requirements if you lose your current insurance or want to change plans.

Plus, the president supports the creation of a government insurance program that would compete with private insurance. But because this ultimately would be subsidized by American taxpayers, the government plan could keep its premiums artificially low or offer extra benefit.

In the end, millions of Americans would be forced out of the insurance they have today and into the government plan.Businesses, in particular, would have every incentive to dump their workers into the public plan. The actuarial firm the Lewin Group estimates that as many as 118.5 million people, roughly two-thirds of those with insurance today, would be shifted from private to public coverage.

2)“You will pay less.” The Congressional Budget Office has made it clear that the reform plans now being debated will increaseoverall health-care costs, yet President Obama on Friday repeatedly said that his reform would reduce costs and save Americans money.

But no matter how many times he says it, the truth is you will pay more — much more — both in higher taxes and in higher premiums.

….if one totals up all the new taxes in the House Democratic health-reform bill — the income surtax, the penalties on businesses and individuals that fail to buy into the government health plan, as well as other fees and taxes — the cost to US taxpayers will top $800 billion. New York City will face marginal tax rates as high as 57 percent.

At a time of rising unemployment and economic stagnation, that is like throwing an anchor to a drowning man.

In addition, the new insurance regulations expected to be part of the final bill are likely to drive up insurance premiums. And, if the new government-run plan under-reimburses doctors and hospitals — as Medicare and Medicaid do — providers would be forced to recoup that lost income by shifting their costs to private insurance, driving up premiums. A study by the Council for Affordable Health Insurance estimates that the president’s proposals could increase premiums by 75 to 95 percent.

3)”Quality will improve.” Anyone who thinks a government takeover of the health-care system will improve quality of care has only to look at the health-care programs the government already runs: The Veterans Administration is overwhelmed with problems, Medicaid is notorious for providing poor quality at a high cost — and Medicare has huge gaps in coverage.

Worse, however, on Friday, Obama endorsed the creation of a government board with the power to dictate how your doctor practices medicine and all but endorsed the rationing prevalent in nationalized health-care systems around the world.

Other great analysis of the  “untruths”  being preached to us are also found at “O’s Broken Promises: Health Bills vs. Prez’s words” at the Post.

GOVERNMENT-CONTROLLED HEALTHCARE HASN’T WORKED WHERE IT HAS BEEN TRIED.

The Obamacare proposals (of which many Obama is not even familiar) are nothing more than an attempt at government-controlled healthcare.  In other countries, such a system has resulted in millions waiting for needed care and for rationing of care to those deemed “not worth it” by government bureaucrats.

Obama expects us to believe him and not our “lying eyes”.  We can clearly see what government-run healthcare has done to other countries.  The care is inferior every where it is tried.

Two good examples of countries with government-run healthcare are Canada and Britain.  Canada has, at any given time somewhere around one million people on a waiting list for surgeries and other necessary procedures.  In Britain, breast cancer survival rates are well under US rates at 69% and 84%, respectively.

In Britian, life-saving cancer treatments are not given to those who the government bureaucracies feel are not “worth the expenditure” because they are too old!  I don’t know about you, but the government has no right to decide whether I, or my parents, live or die because they don’t deem me as “worth” it. 

The plan currently proposed WILL eventually ration healthcare just as its done in other countries….Obama and others have even insinuated as such.  Common sense dictates it as well….the government can not possible pay for all of the services for everyone (including illegal aliens) that we receive in healthcare today….so how do they try to provide it ?  By rationing the care that some receive.  It can be as seemingly benign as further limiting the number of mammograms a woman receives to disallowing cancer treatments altogether, as Britain does, on the elderly and those the GOVERNMENT decides are not worth the money.  It has played out in exactly that manner in other countries.

Yes, our healthcare may cost more, and that is why it is the best system in the world.

IF IT IS GOOD ENOUGH FOR US WHY WON’T OBAMA AND DEMOCRATS SIGN ONTO RECEIVING THE EXACT “CARE” THEY ARE FORCING UPON US?

From The American Thinker:

“Under the current draft of the Democrat healthcare legislation, members of Congress are curiously exempt from the government-run health care option, keeping their existing health plans and services on Capitol Hill.”

Congressman John Fleming has offered a resolution that will give members of Congress “an opportunity to put their money where their mouth is, and urge their colleagues who vote for legislation creating a government-run health care plan to lead by example and enroll themselves in the same public plan.” Fleming’s resolution has over 40 cosponsors- but not a single one of the cosponsors is a Democrat.

Similarly, Obama has flatly refused to participate in the public health insurance program. I can’t blame Obama for wanting the very best health care for his own family, but I can blame him for being a hypocrite.

In the Senate, Tom Coburn successfully submitted an amendment that passed that the Senate Health Committee by a vote of 12 to 11.  This amendment requires members of Congress to use the same health plan they are forcing upon us.  However, if the bill is passed, there is a huge chance Democrats will cut this amendment from the bill during committee. (H/T: Gateway Pundit)

HOW SHOULD WE ADDRESS THE HEALTHCARE ISSUE IN THIS COUNTRY?

Obama, in his speeches, likes to say that 45 million Americans are uninsured — that is misleading.  Almost 2/3 of those are young people who CHOOSE not to have insurance and others who qualify for S-CHIP and Medicaid who don’t use it.  (Some are also illegal aliens who have no right to our healthcare system to begin with)

In addition, those that have coverage through companies are currently not able to keep that coverage if they move or go to a new company.

Point being, let’s encourage those citizens to use what is available.  At the same time, let’s modify the system to make healthcare more affordable where the consumer manages what they pay and what they receive, not the government.  We are not in need of a complete government takeover with 84 new government departments created in order to tell us what doctor and what care we can receive.  That is exactly what this current plan will do.

Like it or not, healthcare is not a “right” endowed by our bloated government! 

Any healthcare modifications should look at using what is available and then modifying the system to encourage tax credits or savings plans for those struggling to pay for healthcare.  Plans should be portable so that families can keep the insurance they have if they move from state to state.  That, in addition, to current offerings, goes a long way in covering those without healthcare….at least it gets you closer to that goal without government choosing what care you get and don’t get.

BOTTOM LINE:

What is being proposed is a massive, likely irreversible, government takeover of healthcare that is unconstitutional and Socialistic in nature.  Among all of its other faults, this current plan forces us to pay healthcare for 12 to 20 million illegal aliens, forces us to pay for abortions, further taxes “the rich”, and puts a financial penalty on individuals and businesses if we choose NOT to play in the government’s big “healthcare” plan.  (Those are all included in the current bill proposals).

Worst of all, the government chooses whose life is valuable and what procedures are necessary — ALL life is valuable and worthy of all humanly possible attempts to save it…and my doctor and I should decide what procedures are necessary for my care, not bureaucrats in Washington.

MORE REFERENCES:

We all need to be up to speed on what is happening with this healthcare debacle.  Here are more links and information, I highly recommend to become and stay informed.

Five Myths About Health Care at Forbes.com

Putting Citizens, not Government, in charge of healthcare at Heritage.org

One Step Closer To Losing Your Right to Healthcare at The American Thinker

Does Ted Kennedy deserve his extended care? at The American Thinker

In America — you read that right — your (religious) thoughts can now be criminalized


Today, the Senate voted to expand hate crimes legislation….the House has already passed a similar bill, so this gross attack on free speech and thought will soon be moving to Obama’s desk!

Very cynically, the Senate hate crimes legislation, which couldn’t get passed on its own account, was inserted into the Defense Spending bill and passed today.

From WND:

A key Senate vote during the wee hours when most Americans were asleep has added the so-called “hate crimes” plan, which creates federal protections and privileges homosexuals and others who have chosen alternative sexual lifestyles, to a defense spending bill.

While there are procedural hurdles yet, opponents say they expect the proposal that essentially makes homosexuals a protected class of citizens in the United States soon will reach the desk of President Obama, who has lobbied for it.

The Senate passed the bill 63-28 with all but five Republicans voting against it.

From AP, about the bill:

People attacked because of their sexual orientation or gender would receive federal protections under a Senate-approved measure that significantly expands the reach of “hate crimes” law. The Senate bill also would make it easier for federal prosecutors to step in when state or local authorities are unable or unwilling to pursue those acts deemed to be hate crimes.

 Senate Democrats insist the hate-crimes amendment (S. 909) they attached to the defense appropriations bill won’t criminalize preaching or speaking out against homosexuality.

But Republican Senator Jim DeMint sees it differently:

But Sen. Jim DeMint said that since opposition to homosexuality is “a biblical concept,” the measure could “serve as a warning to people not to speak out too loudly about their religious views lest the federal law enforcement come knocking at their door.” The South Carolina Republican asked, “Can priests, pastors, rabbis be sure that their preaching will not be prosecuted?

More:

Opponents of the bill, including conservative religious groups, argued that it infringes on states’ rights and could intimidate free speech. “The bill could potentially imperil the free speech rights of Christians who choose to speak out against homosexuality – which could even be extended to preaching against it,” The Christian Coalition of America said in a statement.

Supporters countered that prosecutions under the bill can occur only when bodily injury is involved, and no minister or protester could be targeted for expressing opposition to homosexuality, even if their statements are followed by another person committing a violent action.

To emphasize the point, the Senate passed provisions restating that the bill does not prohibit constitutionally protected speech and that free speech is guaranteed unless it is intended to plan or prepare for an act of violence.

Of course, a few weeks ago, the Attorney General of the United States, Eric Holder, saw it quite differently when asked if preachers would be protected under this bill….his answer was NO!

From WND on July 3:

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says a homosexual activist who is attacked following a Christian minister’s sermon about homosexuality would be protected by a proposed new federal law, but a minister attacked by a homosexual wouldn’t be.

The revelations come from Holder’s recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which was taking comments on the so-called “hate crimes” proposal. It also was the subject of discussion on talk radio icon Rush Limbaugh’s show today.

“This is the question,” Limbaugh said. “[Sen.] Jeff Sessions [R-Ala.] presents a hypothetical where a minister gives a sermon, quotes the Bible about homosexuality and is thereafter attacked … by a gay activist because of what the minister said about his religious beliefs and what Scripture says about homosexuality. Is the minister protected?”

No, said Holder.

“Well, the statute would not – would not necessarily cover that. We’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis. Groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, that is what this statute tends – is designed to cover. We don’t have the indication that the attack was motivated by a person’s desire to strike at somebody who was in one of these protected groups. That would not be covered by the statute,” Holder stated.

So, basically, in other words, only blacks and those whose are sexually confused are covered under this law!!!!!!!!! 

More of Rush Limbaugh’s take on this:

Continued Limbaugh, “In other words: ministers and whites are not covered by the hate crime statute because we’re talking about crimes that have a historic basis, groups who have been targeted for violence as a result of their skin color, sexual orientation. So hate crimes are reserved exclusively for blacks and homosexuals. Everybody else can get to the back of the bus on this one. “

Oh…and just so you know, those who risk and sacrifice their lives for our freedom are not a “protected class” according to AG Eric Holder:

Under questioning from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., Holder admitted that “hate” was involved in a recent case in which a Muslim man attacked and killed a U.S. soldier. Still, soldiers are not among the protected classes.

“There’s a certain element of hate in that, I suppose,” Holder admitted, leading Coburn to conclude, “What we’re willing to do is elevate those crimes (verbal or physical attacks on homosexuals) over this very intended hate crime (a murder.)”

Coburn is right on…

As far as I am concerned, the Democrats can lie and act like this law will not allow prosecutions of pastors and those of faith….and they can act as if this is some sort of “civil rights” issue, but when the most powerful attorney in the country can approve of certain groups as the “protected class”, then I believe that we are leaving up to (perhaps political) judges to determine whether our thoughts and beliefs are crimes or not.

That is not America and it wipes out our First Amendment rights….How anyone can determine that this legislation is “fair” or “justice” is beyond me.  

Folks, our America is quickly turning into something we won’t recognize….a bunch of fringe, elitist liberals have taken the reigns of our country and the concepts of unalienable rights and freedom don’t seem to be in their vocabulary…unless to be used for politically motivated purposes.

What may happen when this bill becomes law?    Mark Steyn believes we continue a march to “soft despotism”..just look up to what has happened in Canada….From Mark Steyn, who has spoken many times on the same type of legislation that has prosecuted Believers in Canada:

 Jim DeMint speakson the appallingly drafted “hate crimes” legislation whose language opens all kinds of doors, most of them unconstitutional. Senator DeMint also references various advances in “thought crime” from Europe and Canada, most of which will come as no surprise to readers of my posts in the Corner. On the one hand, it’s good to see them raised on the floor of the United States Senate. On the other, the fact that they need to be raised in the Senate at all is a bleak comment on the remorseless march of soft despotism.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 253 other followers