Dennis Miller sums up the Dems in one Tweet #DNC #abortion #welfare #plannedparenthood


New Hampshire House votes to defund Planned Parenthood


Some really good news in what is seemingly a world of bad news in this country.

The New Hampshire House of Representatives on Wednesday morning voted to put Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers at the bottom of the list of eligible recipients of state family planning funds, further frustrating efforts by the Obama administration to keep the local abortion branch afloat.

Lawmakers passed HB 228 by a margin of 207 to 147, prioritizing state-controlled family planning dollars away from abortion providers such as Planned Parenthood. The funding is now prioritized to public and private entities that provide comprehensive health care to women and do not perform abortions.

……“It is time to get New Hampshire taxpayers out of the abortion business,” said Michael Tierney, an Alliance Defense Fund-allied attorney in Manchester, New Hampshire. “Planned Parenthood’s business model is centered on abortion, and New Hampshire taxpayers want no part in it.”

The measure still must be approved by the State Senate.

Hooray for New Hampshire.

An even more appropriate “Question and Answer of the Day”


Courtesy of one of Michelle Malkin’s readers, we now have an even more appropriate “Sign of the Day”.

(This one is photoshopped, but I say should be installed by someone soon!)

YES!

Question of the Day — and the Answer


Miss me yet?

from NPR:

There is a billboard along I-35 near Wyoming, Minn., with a huge photo of former president George W. Bush and this question: “Miss Me Yet?”….

……Mary Teske, the general manager of Schubert & Hoey Outdoor Advertising reports, “The Bush Miss Me Yet? billboard was paid for by a group of small business owners who feel like Washington is against them. They wish to remain anonymous. They thought it was a fun way of getting out their message.

Miss George W Bush yet?

Let’s see……

I could go on an on…..

Do I miss George W Bush, warts and all?  Damn right I do.

(H/T: HotAir Pundit)

Oslo’s definition of “peace” is skewed


Headlines today:  Obama wins Peace Prize!

First off, I can’t see what kind of “prize” Obama deserves at this point and more importantly, “peace” certainly doesn’t come to mind when thinking of Obama.

(Of course, with previous winners like Jimmy Carter, Al Gore, and Yasser Arafat, Obama is now in good Leftist, America-hating, Israel-despising company)

Webster’s definition of peace:

1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as a : freedom from civil disturbance b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom <a breach of the peace>”……..3 : harmony in personal relations
4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity

So one would assume that for the President of the United States to win a “Peace Prize” he would have had to have a hand in suppressing civil disturbance at home and abroad and bringing security to communities throughout the world.  He also would have achieved solid pacts with other governments resulting in mutual peace. And if this is a “prize’, that President would have to be unprecedented and spectacular in such achievements.

Let’s research what Obama has done to deserve such a “prize”.

Let’s start with Iraq….that country is mostly quiet and, within the last 7 years,  MILLIONS have been freed from the oppression of dictatorial leader, Saddam Hussein.  They have a security system and military trained by US forces for protecting the citizens of Iraq from those who would do it harm.  And democracy is evident and on the rise in Iraq.

So  for Iraq, I definitely believe the President responsible for freeing millions from oppression, suppressing civil disturbances, and lending new life to the citizens of Iraq is worthy of a Prize for Peace…..

….so Ok…I can see why they awarded Oba..m….OH….wait a minute….Obama didn’t free those millions nor suppress civil disturbance and create a harmony in Iraq…..GEORGE W. BUSH did…..

Oh, and by the way, Barack Hussein Obama opposed the Iraq War at every turn…and voted against the surge that finally ended much of the civil disturbance in Iraq….

So, nope…he didn’t win for his work in Iraq….one could argue that Obama has been working actively AGAINST peace in Iraq what with opposing the achievements made there.

It must be Obama’s work in Iran…..you know how he has suppressed Iran’s abilites to create nuclear weapons and has defended Iranian citizens who desperately protest for freedom….

OH…wait….since Obama has been President, Iran has revealed a second nuclear facility, Obama is weak on sanctions for Iran, and Obama has yanked US money from the freedom-loving people/protesters of Iran.

An Iranian woman, among others,  is shot in cold blood by her own government and Obama calls it a “problem” ….and that’s about all he’s had to say about it…

Remember her?  Let’s ask her family about Obama’s peace prize, shall we?

AFP Photo

AFP Photo

Perhaps Obama has won the prize for his defense of Eastern Europe?

No, wait, he has removed the plans for missile shields in Poland and the Czech Republic….so they are more vulnerable to the Russians.

Perhaps Obama won the prize for bringing hope and change and civil discourse back to America?

Let’s see:
Union Thugs enter protests and fights break out

Pelosi compares Tea Party protesters to Nazis

Reid calls right wing protesters evil-mongers

In the last nine months, the time “peace-monger” Obama has been in office, unprecedented numbers turn out to protest Big Government, most who’ve never protested a day in their lives

So much for domestic civility and peace…..

OK…then Obama must be unprecedented in his defense of human life and living in peace?Wrong again…..

Obama must then have a great domestic agenda and results in 9 months?

US Budget Deficit Triples (in 9 months) under Obama

Employment at 9.8%, up over 50% since he came into office ( & even after Obama must-have stimulus that predicted a ceiling of 8%)

(Source: Gateway Pundit)

(Source: Gateway Pundit)

So I, like many others, find Obama quite undeserving of this “prize”…..so why him and why now?

Personally, I believe that in this day and age, Nobel Peace Prize winners must show an antipathy or outright hatred of the United States, US Military, Israel, Freedom, or all of the above….

Obama fits that bill!  Obama talks down his country at every chance, is plummeting us further into economic turmoil, removing freedoms, and knocking the US off its superpower status pedestal.   Gateway Pundit said it well:

Obama’s bankrupted the US economy and destroyed the morale of our military.
No wonder he was awarded the Nobel.

Meanwhile… George W. Bush liberated 50 million people from two of the most violent regimes in history and brought democracy to the Middle East and what did he get?…
Spit on.

But ultimately, this reasoning may be fresh on the trail of the main reason Obama received the “prize” and received it only 9 months into his term.  From Rush Limbaugh’s comments this morning:

“This fully exposes the illusion that is Barack Obama,” Limbaugh told POLITICO in an e-mail. “And with this ‘award’ the elites of the world are urging Obama, THE MAN OF PEACE, to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States.”

Limbaugh continued: “They love a weakened, neutered U.S and this is their way of promoting that concept. I think God has a great sense of humor, too.”

So, General McChrystal….there went your additional troops in Afghanistan!  Chances of the US bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities, small as they were, are nada now!

Other thoughts on this laughable “prize” feat for Obama:

New York Daily News: President Barack Obama Nobel Peace Prize win mocks award

Allahpundit at HotAir.com: Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize. No, really.

Taliban condemns Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize

Michelle Malkin: Story of Obama’s life: “Rather than recognizing concrete achievement…”

Countering Obama’s Untruthful “Learn the Truth” Propaganda – Part 3: Abortion


Obama has said endlessly that  abortion is not covered under the Obamacare takeover of healthcare.  His Organizing for America forever-campaigning site claims the following:

Obama Truth: Many people have received anti-health-reform chain emails filled with blatantly false claims.

THE REAL TRUTH: One of those claims that Obama refers to as false is abortion being included in Obamacare. Of course, Obama has accused opponents of fear tactics when they make it clear that abortion will be taxpayer funded under Obamacare.

This one is refuted in two easy points….one indirectly and the other by FactCheck.org, a Democrat leaning fact checker.

First, the abortion issue has been voted on in the House Committee and lost after Waxman pulled defeat from the jaws off victory on the issue.
So if the amendment to remove abortion from healthcare takeover is now defeated, doesn’t that mean the intent IS TO INCLUDE taxpayer funded abortion in the government takeover?

It doesn’t quite square with what Obama said just last Saturday, huh?  Obama:

“Some are also saying that coverage for abortions would be mandated under reform. Also false. When it comes to the current ban on using tax dollars for abortions, nothing will change under reform.”

Second, FactCheck.org has analysis and concludes that abortion is provided for with the currently considered House plans and amendments for healthcare:

“As for the House bill as it stands now, it’s a matter of fact that it would allow both a “public plan” and newly subsidized private plans to cover all abortions.”

Sort of like “bearing false witness“, but the only liars here are Obama and his minions.

Countering Obama’s Untruthful “Learn the Truth” Propaganda – Part 1: Death Panels


If you haven’t seen it lately, Obama’s website, MyBarackObama.com, has a list of “Learn the Truth” items that he claims are outright lies by those against Obama’s government takeover of healthcare.

(I refuse to add live link to his propaganda site, not to mention the fact that, I would be a shoo-in on Obama’s snitch brigade if I have not already been elevated to “unAmerican liar” status with Obama’s watchdogs)

The audacity of Obama is great….and it is clear that he believes most Americans, except those he has paid off and those who are still trapped in ObamaGod’s aura, are stupid “bitter clingers”.

I figured it is time that we show who is telling the truth by using Obama and the Left’s own words and actions against them.  So here is part one of  Obama’s so-called “truths” followed by the REAL TRUTH!

Part 1, this post, focuses on the “death panel” issue.

Obama’s truth: THERE IS NO “DEATH PANEL” MENTIONED IN ANY OF THE HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM BILLS UNDER CONSIDERATION, AND THERE NEVER WAS.

The REAL TRUTH:   “Death Panel” does not appear in the House Bill, that is true.  But no one, not even Sarah Palin who cleverly used the term, said it appeared in the Bill.  So here we have Obama trying to prove untrue something that was not even claimed.  Must be one of Alinsky’s rules to divert the attention to something that nobody ever claimed!

Aside from that, something Obama had to say to “progressive” religious leaders in a meeting on healthcare (where’s the ACLU when a liberal President invokes religion into government affairs?) on Wednesday, says a lot about Obama’s mindset:

“We are God’s partners in matters of life and death?”

Think about that as you try to believe Obama when he says the elderly, sick and special needs of us will not be targets in Obamacare!…and then maybe, before any other analysis on the subject, you can realize why many Americans are fearful of the combination of the mindset of our President and the power that he wields and abuses regularly.

(Get details on Obama’s life and death quote here. You can decide for yourself how, even when directed at the Jewish faith, his words reek of a guy with an astounding and dangerous ego, IMHO)

What does the bill say? Let’s go directly to Sarah Palin in more of her comments on the issue:

Yesterday President Obama responded to my statement that Democratic health care proposals would lead to rationed care; that the sick, the elderly, and the disabled would suffer the most under such rationing; and that under such a system these “unproductive” members of society could face the prospect of government bureaucrats determining whether they deserve health care.

The President made light of these concerns. He said:

“Let me just be specific about some things that I’ve been hearing lately that we just need to dispose of here. The rumor that’s been circulating a lot lately is this idea that somehow the House of Representatives voted for death panels that will basically pull the plug on grandma because we’ve decided that we don’t, it’s too expensive to let her live anymore….It turns out that I guess this arose out of a provision in one of the House bills that allowed Medicare to reimburse people for consultations about end-of-life care, setting up living wills, the availability of hospice, etc. So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.” [1]

The provision that President Obama refers to is Section 1233 of HR 3200, entitled “Advance Care Planning Consultation.” [2] With all due respect, it’s misleading for the President to describe this section as an entirely voluntary provision that simply increases the information offered to Medicare recipients. The issue is the context in which that information is provided and the coercive effect these consultations will have in that context.

Section 1233 authorizes advanced care planning consultations for senior citizens on Medicare every five years, and more often “if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual … or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility… or a hospice program.” [3] During those consultations, practitioners must explain “the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice,” and the government benefits available to pay for such services. [4]

Now put this in context. These consultations are authorized whenever a Medicare recipient’s health changes significantly or when they enter a nursing home, and they are part of a bill whose stated purpose is “to reduce the growth in health care spending.” [5] Is it any wonder that senior citizens might view such consultations as attempts to convince them to help reduce health care costs by accepting minimal end-of-life care? As Charles Lane notes in the Washington Post, Section 1233 “addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones…. If it’s all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what’s it doing in a measure to “bend the curve” on health-care costs?” [6]

As Lane also points out:

Though not mandatory, as some on the right have claimed, the consultations envisioned in Section 1233 aren’t quite “purely voluntary,” as Rep. Sander M. Levin (D-Mich.) asserts. To me, “purely voluntary” means “not unless the patient requests one.” Section 1233, however, lets doctors initiate the chat and gives them an incentive — money — to do so. Indeed, that’s an incentive to insist.

Patients may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority. Once they’re in the meeting, the bill does permit “formulation” of a plug-pulling order right then and there. So when Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.) denies that Section 1233 would “place senior citizens in situations where they feel pressured to sign end-of-life directives that they would not otherwise sign,” I don’t think he’s being realistic. [7]

Even columnist Eugene Robinson, a self-described “true believer” who “will almost certainly support” “whatever reform package finally emerges”, agrees that “If the government says it has to control health-care costs and then offers to pay doctors to give advice about hospice care, citizens are not delusional to conclude that the goal is to reduce end-of-life spending.” [8]

So are these usually friendly pundits wrong? Is this all just a “rumor” to be “disposed of”, as President Obama says? Not according to Democratic New York State Senator Ruben Diaz, Chairman of the New York State Senate Aging Committee, who writes:

Section 1233 of House Resolution 3200 puts our senior citizens on a slippery slope and may diminish respect for the inherent dignity of each of their lives…. It is egregious to consider that any senior citizen … should be placed in a situation where he or she would feel pressured to save the government money by dying a little sooner than he or she otherwise would, be required to be counseled about the supposed benefits of killing oneself, or be encouraged to sign any end of life directives that they would not otherwise sign. [9]

Of course, it’s not just this one provision that presents a problem. My original comments concerned statements made by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a health policy advisor to President Obama and the brother of the President’s chief of staff. Dr. Emanuel has written that some medical services should not be guaranteed to those “who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens….An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” [10] Dr. Emanuel has also advocated basing medical decisions on a system which “produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.” [11]

President Obama can try to gloss over the effects of government authorized end-of-life consultations, but the views of one of his top health care advisors are clear enough. It’s all just more evidence that the Democratic legislative proposals will lead to health care rationing, and more evidence that the top-down plans of government bureaucrats will never result in real health care reform.

– Sarah Palin

Why do the majority of American citizens, passionately so with the older among us, fear the words being proposed in this bill?

Subjective reasons include a Far Left wing president and leaders in Congress who have already proven their lack of interest in defending life in the womb. Why would we expect them to protect life that, as considered by some, “is no longer productive”? It’s even worse when those same politicians talk of “bending the cost curve”, cutting Medicare, and reducing costs in the system.

The sick in our society–largely older, sick, and special needs individuals–cost the most…where do savings come from then? Most likely, from rationing their care and/or promoting solutions where the money does not get spent (“death panel” decisions to die).

Again, from Sarah Palin on Facebook (my emphasis):

Our senior citizens are right to be wary of this health care bill. Medical care at the end of life accounts for 80 percent of all health care. When care is rationed, that is naturally where the cuts will be felt first. The “end-of-life” consultations authorized in Section 1233 of HR 3200 were an obvious and heavy handed attempt at pressuring people to reduce the financial burden on the system by minimizing their own care. Worst still, it actually provided a financial incentive to doctors to initiate these consultations. People are right to point out that such a provision doesn’t sound “purely voluntary.”

In an article I noted yesterday, Charles Lane wrote:

“Ideally, the delicate decisions about how to manage life’s end would be made in a setting that is neutral in both appearance and fact. Yes, it’s good to have a doctor’s perspective. But Section 1233 goes beyond facilitating doctor input to preferring it. Indeed, the measure would have an interested party — the government — recruit doctors to sell the elderly on living wills, hospice care and their associated providers, professions and organizations. You don’t have to be a right-wing wacko to question that approach.” [5]

Even more objectively, let’s look at the VA and the slippery slope to “death panels” that it evident there. Remember the VA is government run…why would we expect Obamacare to be any different?

Let’s look at the Vetaran’s Administration (VA), from the Wall Street Journal’s Jim Towey. Obama’s administration has condoned, for the VA, a “death counseling” program written and developed by a left winger who condones “assisted suicide”.

If President Obama wants to better understand why America’s discomfort with end-of-life discussions threatens to derail his health-care reform, he might begin with his own Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). He will quickly discover how government bureaucrats are greasing the slippery slope that can start with cost containment but quickly become a systematic denial of care.

Last year, bureaucrats at the VA’s National Center for Ethics in Health Care advocated a 52-page end-of-life planning document, “Your Life, Your Choices.” It was first published in 1997 and later promoted as the VA’s preferred living will throughout its vast network of hospitals and nursing homes. After the Bush White House took a look at how this document was treating complex health and moral issues, the VA suspended its use. Unfortunately, under President Obama, the VA has now resuscitated “Your Life, Your Choices.”

Who is the primary author of this workbook? Dr. Robert Pearlman, chief of ethics evaluation for the center, a man who in 1996 advocated for physician-assisted suicide in Vacco v. Quill before the U.S. Supreme Court and is known for his support of health-care rationing.

“Your Life, Your Choices” presents end-of-life choices in a way aimed at steering users toward predetermined conclusions, much like a political “push poll.” For example, a worksheet on page 21 lists various scenarios and asks users to then decide whether their own life would be “not worth living.

The circumstances listed include ones common among the elderly and disabled: living in a nursing home, being in a wheelchair and not being able to “shake the blues.” There is a section which provocatively asks, “Have you ever heard anyone say, ‘If I’m a vegetable, pull the plug’?” There also are guilt-inducing scenarios such as “I can no longer contribute to my family’s well being,” “I am a severe financial burden on my family” and that the vet’s situation “causes severe emotional burden for my family.”

When the government can steer vulnerable individuals to conclude for themselves that life is not worth living, who needs a death panel?

One can only imagine a soldier surviving the war in Iraq and returning without all of his limbs only to encounter a veteran’s health-care system that seems intent on his surrender.

I was not surprised to learn that the VA panel of experts that sought to update “Your Life, Your Choices” between 2007-2008 did not include any representatives of faith groups or disability rights advocates. And as you might guess, only one organization was listed in the new version as a resource on advance directives: the Hemlock Society (now euphemistically known as “Compassion and Choices”).

This hurry-up-and-die message is clear and unconscionable. Worse, a July 2009 VA directive instructs its primary care physicians to raise advance care planning with all VA patients and to refer them to “Your Life, Your Choices.” Not just those of advanced age and debilitated condition—all patients. America’s 24 million veterans deserve better.

Got that? The same administration that is exasperated that Sarah Palin can clearly boil the Left’s intentions into two words is the same administration that condones asking our veterans to decide if their “life is worth living.”

As written by Jim Towey at WSJ:

If President Obama is sincere in stating that he is not trying to cut costs by pressuring the disabled to forgo critical care, one good way to show that commitment is to walk two blocks from the Oval Office and pull the plug on “Your Life, Your Choices.” He should make sure in the future that VA decisions are guided by values that treat the lives of our veterans as gifts, not burdens.

Clearly, Obama’s “quest for truth” is off the mark on this issue. At the very least, he is arguing a point that was never made (Sarah Palin did not say the words “death panel” appear in the bill).

At the worst, Obama refuses to discuss the specifics that ARE in the bill. Obama would rather impugn those against his healthcare ideas than discuss it with them. The words of the bill are not clear…perhaps that is why Obama doesn’t want to discuss it?! A bill passed with vague terms makes for a wide discretion in carrying out the rules, doesn’t it?

Isn’t it valid for citizens to wonder where “counseling” on life and death will lead? Especially when inspired by a government and President who have already shown little concern for life in the womb, and even elderly veterans at the VA? Not to mention an adviser to the President who has espoused the very “death panels” idea?  And Medicare will have financial incentive to promote the counseling?

It is true that “death panels” do not appear in the bill.  It is also true that no one ever claimed they were.  And it is just as true that citizens have valid reason for concern about the wording in the House Bill.  And it is true that Obama has not addressed those concerns head-on.