Saturday, October 03, 2009
Posted by Rachel Alexander
September 14, 2009 at 8:35 am
“Grassroots activists are the new reporters”
Everyone is on facebook now, which has become the new blogs, so if you're not, you're missing out on half the political dialogue and the best place to politically organize. Conservatives are adding as many friends as possible; although it may seem overwhelming, it will become a powerful forum for you to promote activism and recruit others - it's like suddenly having your own nationally trafficked website. Once you've added a couple hundred people as friends, other conservatives will automatically start sending you friend requests. Set up groups on facebook to promote your causes.
There are also conservative social networking sites similar to facebook, like rootshq.com, run by a partner of American Liberty Alliance, and republicanville.com, run by Arizona's Politics on the Rocks. Ping.fm lets you update multiple social networking sites simultaneously.
Download the free tweetdeck.com to make twitter more user-friendly. It lets you set up permanent searches in separate columns for words you choose, and permanent columns for groups you follow.
Join the group #tcot (Top Conservatives on Twitter), and send your twitter updates to #tcot. The #tcot website is tcotreport.com and is updated regularly with the latest news on conservatives using the new media.
Set up tweetlater.com to automatically follow others who follow you. This will save you a lot of time finding friends.
Start your own blog using blogger.com, which is the easiest blog program out there, plus it's free, easy, no ads, and can do almost anything. Put facebook, twitter, and youtube icons up front on the top of your blog,and include your twitter feed on the sidebar. Or, contribute to an existing local blog in like SonoranAlliance.com in Arizona, which is always accepting new writers, named or anonymous. Check out blognetnews.com regularly to keep updated on your state's political blogs.
The left has a coordinated effort in place to control the blogosphere by lurking on conservative blogs and posting negative comments, in order to demoralize them. Help our conservative blogs like SonoranAlliance.com by refuting these troublemakers in the comments.
Set up multiple and anonymous email accounts at gmail.com to use for various activism.
Most cameras and phones come with video recording ability. When at an event, especially if something controversial is happening involving the left, take a short video clip of it and upload it to YouTube. Pictures are compelling and almost everyone watches TV.
“The new internet is Web 2.0 – 99% listening and 1% talking”
-Ralph Benko,The Websters'Dictionary
These tips were taken from a talk I gave to the American Liberty Alliance on September 3, 2009
Friday, October 02, 2009
Thursday, October 01, 2009
By Doug Patton
September 14, 2009
"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." - Jesus of Nazareth, John 8:32, KJV
"Congress shall make no law respecting..." Do those words sound familiar? They are, of course, familiar to any and all of us who have received even a cursory education in the founding documents of this nation. The Constitution of the United States of America is a document of enumerated rights and restrictions -- rights of the people and restrictions on government. It clearly spells out the rights of individuals, such as freedom of speech, religion, assembly, the right to keep and bear arms, etc.
It also clearly spells out, in no uncertain terms, the restrictions on the federal government, including the 10th Amendment, which states that any authority not expressly granted to the federal government is reserved to the states and to the people. Hence, the phrase "Congress shall make no law regarding..."
Barack Obama's health care "plan" does not exist anywhere outside his ideologically driven cranium and his vague, hopey-changey campaign rhetoric. The only "plan" on the table at the moment is a thousand-plus page monstrosity known as House Resolution 3200. Yet, in his latest address to a joint session of Congress, the president lied through his pearly whites -- again -- to the American people and their elected representatives when he said that the "plan" would not cover illegal aliens.
At which point U.S. Rep. Joe Wilson, R-SC, called him on it in very direct language: "You lie!"
"That's not true," Obama shot back from the podium. Setting aside the decorum of the congressman's remark for a moment, let's examine which of them, Wilson or the president, told the truth.
The Founders understood clearly that government will always take as much authority as it is allowed to have, which explains the restrictive language of the Constitution. In HR3200, covering illegal aliens was not mentioned. Neither was abortion funding. Congressional Republicans rightly feared that if the bill's language remained neutral on those two issues, it could be assumed that they are permitted. So they proposed specific amendments to prohibit coverage of illegal aliens and funding for abortion. Democrats overwhelmingly voted both amendments down, thus showing us their true colors yet again.
After the speech, Rep. Wilson called the White House to apologize to the president, who has wisely accepted the apology, knowing that dragging the issue out will only serve to emphasize the veracity of Wilson's point that Obama was, in fact, lying.
No such wisdom resides in House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who wants to pillory Wilson in front of his House colleagues. She is insisting that he apologize again, this time on the floor of the House of Representatives, a humiliating act of forced contrition with which Wilson is refusing to cooperate. Good for him.
There are times in history when the truth trumps decorum and tradition. Jesus of Nazareth was furious when He encountered liars and thieves cheating people who had simply come to worship and to offer a sacrifice to their Lord. "My Father's house is a house of prayer," he roared as he flipped over the tables of the money changers and drove them out of the temple. "You have turned it into a den of thieves!"
Similarly, Joe Wilson's righteous indignation rises up from the depths of his soul as he listens to his president commit one mendacity after another. Wilson loves the institution of the Congress, the body of the House of Representatives and the people he serves. He has watched as his constituents have been disrespected by their president and his supporters at town hall meetings throughout the summer recess.
Joe Wilson sits on one of the House committees dealing with this issue, so he knows the truth is not in Barack Obama as he speaks to the Congress that night. As he sits and listens to lie after lie from the president, Wilson's righteous anger rises up against the liars and thieves who are trying to cheat the American people out of their birthright to freedom.
Dishonesty, Intimidation, Hypocrisy and Medicare Advantage
by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)
Posted 09/30/2009 ET
The editorial writers at the New York Times thought they were getting the White House’s back when they defended cuts to Medicare Advantage last week. In fact, they were validating the blatant dishonesty of administration and congressional officials pushing for the cuts.
In their editorial last Sunday, the Times writers revealed in stunning fashion the lies that have been used to convince increasingly skeptical seniors that their Medicare Advantage benefits won’t be sacrificed to pay for government-run health care.
Dishonesty: Cuts Won’t Affect Medicare Advantage Participants
In one breath, the Times claimed the effect of Medicare Advantage cuts will be “modest”:
“Although Republican rhetoric has triggered fears that Medicare Advantage enrollees might lose their coverage entirely if private plans drop out of the system, the real effect of the bill would likely be modest on average.”
Then, literally on the next line, the Times contradicts itself, and stumbles inadvertently on to the truth:
“The value of an enrollee’s added benefits would shrink by more than half from current levels but would not disappear; they would still be worth about $500 a year in 2019 (emphasis added).”
Intimidation: Free Speech Rights of Insurance Companies Denied
Medicare Advantage was created to do what the Center for Health Transformation (CHT) has long fought for: To give all seniors more private choices of higher quality health care. It currently provides almost 11 million Americans coverage through private insurance plans. Recent data shows that these seniors have better health outcomes than those in traditional Medicare.
Current legislation in Washington will gut the program. H.R. 3200 in the House will cut Medicare Advantage by $172 billion. The bill sponsored by Sen. Max Baucus in the Senate will cut the popular program by $123 billion.
If you’re just hearing about this now, here’s the reason: When Humana (with whom we’ve worked with in the past at CHT) tried to inform its Medicare Advantage members that Democratic health care reform could lower their benefits, the government ordered them to cease and desist and opened an investigation of the company.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) subsequently introduced legislation in the Senate Finance Committee to protect the 1st Amendment rights of private insurance companies to criticize health care reform proposals.
Democrats on the committee unanimously defeated the bill.
Hypocrisy: The AARP Sells Out Seniors
But while Humana was censored by the government from talking to its Medicare Advantage enrollees about proposed Democratic cuts, another Medicare Advantage provider -- the AARP -- has been left free to lobby its members.
Of course the Washington leadership of the AARP is working closely with Democrats on health care reform. Incredibly, the self-appointed voice of America’s seniors supports “reforms” that will cut the benefits -- if not the entire Medicare Advantage coverage -- of millions of seniors.
How can this be? It’s simple. The AARP is a liberal interest group like any other, and it cut a deal with the party in charge in Washington. In exchange for selling out the seniors it claims to represent, the AARP will get potentially millions in lucrative insurance contracts, and quite possibly something more.
Tell Your Friends We’re Not Going to Take It Anymore
No plan that has to be advanced through dishonesty, intimidation and hypocrisy has the support of the American people.
But all that is required for these tactics to prevail in Washington is for good people to sit back and do nothing.
As debate in Congress continues, here’s what you can do: Send this newsletter to a friend, a co-worker, or a relative who isn’t yet aware of what Washington is doing.
Send this newsletter to your senators and representatives. Let them know that, despite the dishonesty, the intimidation and the hypocrisy, we know what they’re doing.
And we’re not going to take it anymore.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Did you ever wonder why there are no dead penguins on the ice in Antarctica - where do they go?
Wonder no more!!!
It is a known fact that the penguin is a very ritualistic bird which lives an extremely ordered and complex life.
The penguin is very committed to its family and will mate for life, as well as maintaining a form of compassionate contact with its offspring throughout its life.
If a penguin is found dead on the ice surface, other members of the family and social circle have been known to dig holes in the ice, using their vestigial wings and beaks, until the hole is deep enough for the dead bird to be rolled into and buried.
The male penguins then gather in a circle around the fresh grave and sing:
You really didn't believe that I know anything about penguins, did you?
By Michael Barone
September 28, 2009
"It is my deeply held belief," Barack Obama told the United Nations General Assembly, that "in the year 2009 -- more than at any point in human history -- the interests of nations and peoples are shared."
That is, of course, the year Obama became president, and he wasn't shy about referring in his second paragraph to "the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world," though he assured us they "are not about me."
Before Obama's speech, I wrote that he seems "stuck in a time warp in which the United States is the bad guy." Not any more, he seemed to say in his U.N. speech. He has ordered the closing of Guantanamo. He has prohibited the use of torture. He is "responsibly ending" the war in Iraq (no triumphalist talk of victory). He is promising substantial reductions in U.S. nuclear weapons. He has invested $80 billion in clean energy. The U.S. has joined the United Nations' Human Rights Council.
All of which is a way of saying that nasty George W. Bush is no longer around with all his self-righteous swagger, and that with (as Obama did not fail to note) the first African-American installed in the White House, America is now on the same page with the rest of the world.
Much of the speech seemed to be an exercise in what Sigmund Freud called "projection," assuming that others think the way you do. Obama spoke as if the mullahs of Iran, the Kim Jong Il clan of North Korea, Vladimir Putin and his gang of oligarchs, and the rulers of China had the same gripes against the Bush administration as Obama and the liberal Democrats in Congress. Hey, if we just close Gitmo, they'll realize that we're all in sympathy now.
In that spirit, Obama at the General Assembly on Wednesday and while chairing the Security Council on Thursday tread warily on the issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program. "This is not about singling out individual nations," he said Wednesday, before stating that if Iran and North Korea "ignore international standards," they "must be held" -- in unspecified ways -- "accountable." The next day, the Security Council approved a resolution on the subject that did not name either country.
Yet on Friday, information became public that suggested that Obama's comments on Iran were an example not of Freudian projection but of what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance," refusing to process facts that conflict with deeply held beliefs. The information was that Iran has been operating a second uranium enrichment facility near the holy city of Qom and that it had so informed the International Atomic Energy Agency earlier in the week.
In response, Obama, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and French President Nicolas Sarkozy held a press conference Friday morning before the G-20 summit in Pittsburgh denouncing the Iranians. "Iran is breaking rules that all nations must follow," Obama said. "International law is not an empty promise."
But the Qom facility was not news to Obama. Western intelligence has long known about it, and Obama was briefed on it as president-elect. Even so, there was a sharp contrast between his wary references to Iran on Wednesday and Thursday, and his sharp criticism on Friday. There were probably good reasons -- protecting intelligence sources? -- for not disclosing the information before this week. But shouldn't the president's rhetoric on Wednesday and Thursday have reflected all that he knew?
Obama has based his policy toward Iran on the hope that its leaders would see the problem as he does -- projection -- and was apparently discounting contrary evidence like the Qom facility -- cognitive dissonance. Perhaps he views himself as, in the words of the Atlantic's Marc Ambinder, "the first president of the nuclear age who grew up with a nuanced view of American power."
Unfortunately, it is clear that even in the year 2009 the interests of nations and peoples are not as unanimously shared as Obama proclaimed Wednesday. Our diplomats and those of five other nations are scheduled to meet with an Iranian counterpart in Geneva on Oct. 1, but the Iranians have indicated they don't want to discuss nuclear weapons issues.
At a press briefing before the G-20 conference, Brown and Sarkozy threatened Iran with stringent international sanctions; congressional Democrats -- Sen. Evan Bayh and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Howard Berman -- and Sen. Joe Lieberman are pressing for tougher sanctions, too. Is the time over for nuance, projection and cognitive dissonance?
Billy Bob's Vacation
Billy Bob and Luther were talking one afternoon when Billy Bob tells Luther, "Ya know, I reckon I'm 'bout ready for a vacation. Only this year I'm gonna do it a little different. The last few years, I took your advice about where to go.
"Three years ago you said to go to Hawaii. I went to Hawaii and Earlene got pregnant.
"Then two years ago, you told me to go to the Bahamas, and Earlene got pregnant again.
"Last year you suggested Tahiti and darned if Earlene didn't get pregnant again."
Luther asks Billy Bob, "So, what you gonna do this year that's different?"
Billy Bob says, "This year I'm taking Earlene with me."
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Posted By Bobby Eberle On September 24, 2009 at 7:06 am
Barack Obama took center stage at the United Nations on Wednesday and continued his "I'm sorry for America" tour. Despite leading a nation that defends others, pays for others, promotes freedom for others, and shelters others, Obama once again talked about the past in order to make himself more accommodating and caring.
Word to Obama and other left-wing "speak softly and carry a wet spaghetti noodle" types.... his message was exactly what other nations want to hear. But it's not because they want a kindler, gentler America to get along with. It's because they want an America that will continue to pay the bills, continue to bail them out of emergencies, and let them run amok with their policies. Obama gave them everything they were looking for.
Obama wasted no time setting the tone for his U.N. address. (Read full address here at GOPUSA.) In just the first paragraph, he said that as president of the United States he is "determined to act boldly and collectively on behalf of justice and prosperity at home and abroad." Boldly AND collectively? Can someone please tell me how those two can coexist? Building coalitions is nice... we did it for both wars. (I mention that for the liberals who like to forget.) But when it comes time for "bold" action and real leadership, it will be a cold day in Hell before you can build a "collective" consensus. Acting boldly means exerting real leadership. Acting collectively tells other nations, "don't worry... we're not going to do anything without your permission." That is not leadership.
Shortly after that statement, Obama echoed previous world speeches by highlighting what he thinks is wrong with America:
I took office at a time when many around the world had come to view America with skepticism and distrust. Part of this was due to misperceptions and misinformation about my country. Part of this was due to opposition to specific policies, and a belief that on certain critical issues, America has acted unilaterally, without regard for the interests of others. And this has fed an almost reflexive anti-Americanism, which too often has served as an excuse for collective inaction.
At this time, do you think that he addressed the "misperceptions and misinformation" about America? Did he describe how America really is? No. Did he explain that America has not acted unilaterally? Of course not.
Here's what for U.N. Ambassador John Bolton had to say to National Review Online about the speech:
"It was a very naive, Wilsonian speech, and very revealing of Obama's foreign policy," says Bolton. "Overall, it was so apologetic for the actions of prior administrations, in an effort to distance Obama from them, that it became yet another symbol of American weakness in the wake of the president's decision to abandon missile sites in Poland and the Czech Republic, and his recent manifest hesitation over what to do in Afghanistan."
When talking about Iraq, Obama did not mention how the Iraqi's are now free from an oppressive dictator and holding democratic elections. Instead, he simply said, "In Iraq, we are responsibly ending a war." When talking about Afghanistan, he never mentioned the Taliban. Obama did, however, talk tough against one nation: Israel.
Here's Bolton's comment:
"The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending 'the occupation that began in 1967.' That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders," says Bolton. "Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don't have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future."
The Heritage Foundation had a number of their foreign policy experts weigh in on the speech. Brett D. Schaefer, the Jay Kingham Fellow in International Regulatory Affairs, had this to say:
"The other U.N. member states have to be beside themselves with glee. President Obama gave them virtually everything they could ask for without demanding anything in return that was not already on the agenda - and which they are prepared to twist to their advantage. He did not even ask them to support more accountability, transparency, or efficiency in the U.N. , which will be leading action on the very complex and expensive tasks that he is proposing.
The Obama administration probably thinks that its actions and this speech have purchased them the goodwill of U.N. member states, which will translate into support for U.S. policies. They are setting themselves up for disappointment. The political nature of the U.N. is combative and tough. Most member states consider these concessions their due. They will pocket them and stand firm to defend their interests. Cooperation will be on their terms, on issues they wish to pursue. The naivete of the speech was staggering."
I would be remiss not to mention that Obama did receive some praise for his speech. Cuban dictator Fidel Castro praised Obama for his efforts on "climate change." The news story notes that "the former Cuban leader on Wednesday called the American president's speech at the United Nations "brave" and said no other American head of state would have had the courage to make similar remarks."
There is example after example of lines from the speech that clearly show Obama's way of thinking. I invite you to post some in your comments below so that others can discuss. People NEED to know what Obama is all about. His policies both at home and abroad only seek to weaken America and remove freedom from people. Obama is all about government... whether its more government control within our borders, or a new world government that will take more power from America, he's all for it.
A Irishman ....
...stumbling through the woods, totally drunk, when he comes upon a preacher baptizing people in the river.
He proceeds to walk into the water and subsequently bumps into the preacher...the preacher turns around and is almost overcome by the smell of alcohol, whereupon he asks the drunk, 'Are you ready to find Jesus?'
The drunk shouts, 'Yes, I am.'
So the preacher grabs him and dunks him in the water.
He pulls him up and asks the drunk, 'Brother, have you found Jesus?'
The drunk replies, 'No, I haven't found Jesus.'
The preacher shocked at the answer, dunks him into the water again for a little longer.
He again pulls him out of the water and asks again, 'Have you found Jesus, me brother?'
The drunk again answers, 'No, I haven't found Jesus..'
By this time the preacher is at his wits end and dunks the drunk in the water again --- but this time holds him down for about 30 seconds and when he begins kicking his arms and legs he pulls him up. The preacher again asks the drunk, 'For the love of God have you found Jesus?
(Are you ready for this????)
The drunk wipes his eyes, catches his breath, and says to the preacher, 'Are you sure this is where he fell in?'
Monday, September 28, 2009
By Henry Lamb
September 25, 2009
In the years that followed the Magna Carta, most of the world rejected the notion that kings rule by divine right. Obama acts as if he still subscribes to this theory, and as if he is the king.
It must have been by a perceived divine right that Obama named Steve Rattner to be car czar to oversee the government takeover of Chrysler and General Motors; there is certainly no authority in the Constitution for the President to take such action. Rattner, with the blessing of king Obama, set out to punish his king's opponents and reward his king's supporters. Of the 789 Chrysler dealers closed by Rattner, 788 had contributed exclusively to Republican candidates. Moreover, not one of a string of Chrysler dealerships owned by Obama supporters, Robert Johnson and Mack McClarty, was closed, but virtually all of the dealerships that competed with the Johnson-McClarty chain were closed. Chrysler president Jim Press said: "It really wasn't Chrysler's decision." Rattner resigned July 13 in the face of a multi-million dollar pay-for-play scandal in New York.
Another of the king's men, Van Jones, bit the dust when the public learned that he was a self-proclaimed communist who signed a petition calling for the investigation of the Bush administration for complicity in the 9-11 tragedy. These views were perfectly alright with the king, whose chief advisor Valerie Jarrett, said "...we've been watching him as long as he's been active...." Jones' radical ideas were fine with the king, until the public expressed its dissatisfaction.
Speaking of Valerie Jarrett, the king's closest advisor, her Chicago exploits cannot go unrewarded. She was in charge of two housing projects that were among the world's worst. While the king was only a prince in the Illinois legislature, he consistently voted to up the funding for housing projects such as those Valerie managed. Now that Valerie is the king's salesman to the Olympic Committee, pitching Chicago for the site of the 2016 Olympics, guess who would benefit most by her success. The developers who own the land under and around Jarrett's failed housing projects -- where the proposed Olympic stadium is to be constructed. Learn more about Jarrett here, and about her politically incestuous Chicago background.
It is not at all surprising that another bird in the flock wants to repeal the First Amendment. Mark Lloyd, who holds the title of Chief Diversity Officer at the Federal Communications Commission, is now in a position to render obsolete the whole idea of free speech. The Constitution forbids Congress from making any law that infringes the right to free speech; the Constitution does not know about the FCC or its Chief Diversity Officer, however.
Lloyd has written much about his ideas on communication and democracy. He is convinced that ordinary people have no opportunity to be heard amidst the noise of giant corporate media. He believes, therefore, that the government must provide a "diversity" of voices in the media. He has proposed that privately owned media be taxed sufficiently to provide a government-dictated balance in the media.
Lloyd is too smart to tackle the First Amendment head-on. Instead, he contends that there is a structural imbalance in media ownership that allows the likes of Rush Limbaugh and other conservative radio hosts to have far more impact than minority voices. His cure for this situation is to levy a tax up to 100 percent of a station's operating budget to be redistributed to minority-owned stations and to NPR. Much of Lloyd's writing seems to suggest that he favors converting NPR to the official government media, and doing away with private media altogether.
He is a big fan of Hugo Chavez, and celebrates his takeover of the media as the primary reason for his success.
These are just a few of the birds that flocked to Washington at the behest of the king. This flock was raised on a diet of Marxism and in-your-face-direct-action. The nation survived a similar infusion by the Wilson administration, and by the Roosevelt administration. The nation will survive Obama, but not without suffering the consequences.
One might compare the flock that has descended upon Washington to a gaggle of geese or a flock of starlings that settle in a neighborhood for a while. The noise is horrific and when they are finally run off, the mess they leave really stinks.
Henry Lamb is the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," Chairman of Sovereignty International , and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21, Inc..
"I trust that the proposed Constitution afford a genuine specimen of representative government and republican government; and that it will answer, in an eminent degree, all the beneficial purposes of society."
--Alexander Hamilton, speech to the New York Ratifying Convention, 1788
You'll note, I trust, that "republican" is in lower case. Not meaning the political party, but of the Republic which is the United States rather than a democracy, which it isn't and never has been.
After reading the whole health care bill ...
FRIENDS - when I received this I wondered if there really was a Michael Connelly and he was as he claimed. He exists, wrote this, and it is his true feelings as a retired constitutional lawyer. If you want to know more about him and another article go to this web site:
We probably have been guilty of thinking it was just about healthcare. When you read this you will find that is really not the case. It is about much, much more.. Hopefully you will take the time to read it because you are sure not going to find out about it from the major newspapers and television stations.
The Truth About the Health Care Bills - Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney 08.24.09
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200: The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009. I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private20insurance companies out of business and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people and the businesses they own. The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with. I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access by the appointees of the Obama administration of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance or if you have private insurance that is not deemed "acceptable to the" Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a "tax" instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However, that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the "due process of law."
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much out the original ten in the Bill of Rights that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though. The 9th Amendment that provides: "The enumeration=2 0in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people". Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution". If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat I suggest they consult the source.
Here is a link to the Constitution:http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/constituti on_transcript.html
And another to the Bill of Rights: http://www.archives.gov/ex hibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas
I tried to fact check this, but in order to read the link, you have to be logged in. I chose not to join just to log in to read one item. A Google search turned up Michael Connelly the author. I may not have taken enough time to look through additional pages. I'll leave further research up to you.
Posted By Bobby Eberle On September 18, 2009 at 9:13 am
It appears that the Democrats have found a way to fight back against Americans who have growing concerns over the way the government is being run. Have Obama, Pelosi, and other left-wingers come up with better policies? No. Have they thought of ways to present their message in a way Americans can understand? Of course not.
What Pelosi and others are doing is simple: if you are on the losing side of a debate, stop debating and start attacking. Pelosi is now saying that protesters who are exercising their First Amendment rights are "frightening." She likens the debate that's going on now over health care to the potential for violence and disruption that was prevalent in the 1970s. In other words, she wants people to just shut up and fall in line. Well... that's not going to happen... not this time!
Just take a look at what Nancy Pelosi had to say at her recent press conference:
Balance between freedom and safety? Give me a break! Pelosi is trying to stifle the opposition, because they can't win the debate. The latest Rasmussen Reports poll shows that "fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide now oppose the health care reform proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That's the highest level of opposition yet measured and includes 44% who are Strongly Opposed."
As noted in a story in The Hill, in her news conference, Pelosi made reference to "how heated rhetoric led to the assassinations of San Francisco Mayor George Moscone and Supervisor Harvey Milk by a disgruntled former supervisor on Nov. 27, 1978."
The story also quotes House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) as saying, "I do believe that there is expressions throughout the country being made that are unusually harsh. ... And I think the attacks being made on President Obama are unusually vitriolic."
Question... in these heated townhall meetings and rallies across America, who is doing the talking and who is resorting to violence? When constituents are forcibly removed from attending meetings by union thugs, why isn't Pelosi speaking out? When a man gets his finger bitten off by an Obama health care supporter, where is the denunciation by Pelosi?
The Democrats are losing on the issues, so they have resorted to calling the protesters racists and their rhetoric "frightening." The problem is that they have gone to the well one too many times with the same old play book.
As noted in an Associated Press story, House Republican Leader John Boehner rejects Pelosi's message:
Asked about Pelosi's remarks Thursday, House Republican Leader John Boehner said he hasn't seen evidence that any of the public anger could lead to violence. And he took issue with Carter's remarks.
"I reject this resoundingly," Boehner told reporters, noting that he and other Republicans called Obama's election last year a defining moment for the nation. "The outrage that we see in America has nothing to do with race," Boehner said. "It has everything to do with the policies that he is promoting."
The American people have had enough, and they are speaking out. No big government health care takeover... no more unaccountable czars... no more socialist policies. Americans want simple government that works. The Democrats want us to just be quiet.
Pelosi may be frightened over the rhetoric, but if she keeps this up, she'll be stunned with the results of the next election.