admin | Our Promise of Freedom

A legal team of experts on civil liberties and human rights is asking a federal court in Michigan to grant a preliminary injunction preventing the implementation of the “individual mandate” in “Obamacare,” warning that if imposed, it effectively will destroy the nation.

“The term ‘nanny state’ does not even begin to describe what we will have wrought,” argues the brief filed by the Thomas More Law Center.

The organization previously filed a lawsuit on behalf of four Michigan residents who object to the government’s plan to force them to buy health-care insurance and pay for abortions – or be penalized.

The case was brought to U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking a halt to the legislation.

Named as defendants in the lawsuit are President Obama, Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

Now the law firm has filed a request for a preliminary injunction to prevent the imposition of the financial demands on private citizens.

“If Congress can use the Commerce Clause to force people to purchase insurance based on the mere fact that they exist or face federal penalties, then there is no limit to the power of Congress. Our case is about the constitutional limits of our federal government. Everyone agrees the health care system needs reform. But that doesn’t mean Congress is allowed to violate the Constitution in the process,” said Thomas More Law Center President Richard Thompson.

The brief cited a 1994 Congressional Budget Office report stating, “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”

The brief also cites previous court opinions in which alarms have been raised over such a sweeping action.

“There is no enumerated power in the Constitution that permits the federal government to mandate that plaintiffs and other American ‘residents’ purchase health-care coverage or face a penalty. No matter how convinced defendants – or even the American public in general – may be that the Health Care Reform Act is in the public interest, their political objectives can only be accomplished in accord with the Constitution,” the brief states.

Besides a clear problem with the Commerce Clause if the government is allowed to demand residents purchase health insurance, “Obamacare” also conflicts with the First Amendment’s conscience and free expression of religion provisions as well as the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection provisions, the brief explains.

But the courts, the brief explains, are “a guardian of those fundamental liberties, and it possess the constitutional authority to enjoin government acts that tread upon them.”

The case is a dispute over fundamental liberties, the brief said.

“The act forces uninsured persons, such as plaintiffs, to purchase private health-care coverage not because they are even tangentially engaged in the production, distribution or consumption of goods or commodities or any other commercial activity, but for no other reason than they, the uninsured residents, exist,” the brief argues.

“The federal government has never in the history of the United States attempted to stretch the Commerce Clause to include the regulation of inactivity,” the brief argues.

“For the first time in our history, Congress has cited the Commerce Clause as authority to regulate a man or woman sitting in the privacy of his or her own home doing absolutely nothing but breathing.”

The demise of the nation could not be far behind, the brief warns.

“If this is what the Commerce Clause has come to mean, it means the Commerce Clause is the enumerated power of the federal government without the need for any other enumerations because it would permit absolute power. …”

It would, in fact, be the “single omnipresent national polity with absolute power to regulate all spheres of human existence.”

Under this concept, “Liberty is no longer an unalienable right possessed by the individual, but a political privilege or license granted by the state – that being the federal government. This state of affairs effectively reverses the American Revolution and terminates the great experiment founded in the constitutional republic begun by our Founding Fathers.”

If such a provision is allowed, then the government would face no obstacles in ordering private citizens “to engage in affirmative acts, under penalty of law, such as taking vitamins, losing weight, joining health clubs, buying a GMC truck, or purchasing an AIG insurance policy, among others.”

The case was launched by the Thomas More Law Center and attorney David Yerushalmi as soon as Obama signed the legislation March 23.

None of the four Michigan plaintiffs has private health care insurance, and they assert supporting abortion is contrary to their religious beliefs.

Robert Muise, Thomas More’s senior trial counsel, and Yerushalmi prepared the lawsuit.

The original complaint asserts the health-care reform law imposes unprecedented governmental mandates that trample on the personal and economic freedoms of Americans in violation of their constitutional rights.

It also alleges Congress had no authority under the Commerce Clause to pass the law and that by usurping the power reserved for the states and the people, Congress violated the Tenth Amendment.

The lawsuit also contends that by forcing private citizens to fund abortion, contrary to their rights of conscience and the free exercise of religion, Congress violated the First Amendment.

Thompson acknowledged Americans agree the health care system needs reform, but “they don’t want a federal takeover of the system in the process. And they don’t want reform by trampling on our Constitution.”

Apr 06, 2010 | 0 comments | View Post

The Democratic “Groupies”, the mainstream media, claim the Republicans lost to Obamacare

Listening to the “mainstream” media as they call themselves, you get the idea that the Republicans lost to the dems in the Obamacare vote.

But who really lost?

So who is the biggest loser? THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, who continue to not want Obamacare in ever increasing larger numbers:

From the Flopping Aces blog: “A few weeks ago the split on ObamaCare was 45/42 against. What is it now after the “Socialism is Awesome” tour by Obama?

53/37”

Before I go any further, who is “mainstream media” now? Looking at the ratings lately, it seems the “big” network news media are all trailing the cable news networks.

The big newspapers and news magazines are also waning in popularity. So again, who is the “mainstream” now?

The AMERICAN PUBLIC are the biggest losers in the health care takeover. Can’t wait to lose most of my Medicare to give it to illegal aliens. And to fund abortions.

How long do I have to wait before I face the “Old people’s death board?” Over 80? Take a pill and die.

Media is a big part of the problem we face. The young people don’t know any better because all they’re ever fed are lies everywhere go for news. If you’re told that blue is green from the time you were born, then guess what, blue IS green as far as you are concerned.

With the Public finally waking up to the real facts, the Obama administration and the “groupies” are on a tear to smear everyone and every thing that tells the truth.

DON’T BE A LOSER TO THIS ADMINISTRATION – KEEP INFORMED

Freedom Finder

Apr 05, 2010 | 0 comments | View Post

Racism and Obamacare

by Star Parker

from Towhhall.com

Like chewing gum stuck to the heel of your shoe, racism seems to be stuck forever to American public discourse. No matter what we do or what happens, somebody will find a racial motive.

Democrats have passed government health care with no Republican votes. Their leadership threatened and bribed their own members to eek out a majority. They resorted to an arcane procedure that maybe 100 people in the whole country can explain in order to pass a massive bill that polls show a majority of Americans don’t want.

The federal government, for the first time ever, will force every American to buy, with a big chunk of their income, a product designed by government bureaucrats, with an army of IRS agents snooping on each of us to make sure we did it.

And how are many liberals explaining why so many Americans are ticked off?

It’s because our president is black. It’s about racism.

Even me. I’m steamed. And even though I happen to be black – I’ve even spoken at some tea party rallies – I still must be a racist.

Obama’s approval rating has dropped from 70% when he was elected to 50% today. His disapproval has skyrocketed from 10% when he was elected to 42% today.

Per the Washington Post, in January 2009 58% of Americans said that the Obama presidency helped race relations. By January 2010, this was down to 40%.

Has this wave of disillusionment with Obama been driven by a sudden realization that the man Americans elected president is black?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s approval has dropped from 41% in January 2009 to 36% today and her disapproval has risen from 42% to 54%. Is she black?

Were the raucous townhalls last summer – which gave birth to the tea party movement- where irate constituents gave their representatives a piece of their mind about Obamacare, racially motivated?

Care to understand what all this is really about?

Consider a powerful observation about a former time by one of America’s great historians, Jacques Barzun. Barzun was a professor and dean at Columbia University and a Presidential Medal of Freedom winner.

“We make a great mistake in calling the American War of Independence, the “American Revolution,” he wrote. “In 1776 the Americans rebelled against recent rules and impositions. What they wanted was not a new type of government, but the old type they enjoyed. They were used to many freedoms, which they claimed as the immemorial rights of Englishmen. Once they defeated the English armies and expelled the Loyalists, they went back to their former ways, which they modestly enlarged, and codified in the Bill of Rights.”

In a similar fashion today, Americans are rebelling as the freedom we have enjoyed, freedom which defines life in this country, is being taken away and new “rules and impositions” are being imposed.

It’s not about theory or some abstract ideology. The intense feelings flow from losing what you have and what you know is vital.

What is new today is we can no longer continue the illusion of having our cake and eating it. We can no longer afford to be both a big government entitlement state and a free, creative, and prosperous nation. It’s the prosperity created by our freedom that has financed the entitlements. But now the entitlements are overtaking and strangling our freedom.

So now is a time of choosing. We’re either going to remain the land of the free or transform into the land of the bureaucrat.

The antipathy of activists toward Mr. Obama is not about how he looks but what he has done. That he has chosen and imposed on us the path of bureaucracy.

Apr 05, 2010 | 0 comments | View Post

A ‘Profile In Courage’ the TSA Is Not.

by Susan Dale

03/02/2010

After the thankfully unsuccessful terrorist activities of the underwear bomber in an airplane over Detroit last Christmas Day, discussion resumed regarding the use of the full body scanner at American international airports. This is a highly sensitive machine that, when used for security purposes, displays the body in its full naked glory.

It was said, after the actions on December 25th by Mr. Mutallab, that this process would have been the only way to have detected the particular technique of terror the young Nigerian was attempting to import into America. Then along comes the perpetually zany Council of American-Islamic Relations. In its infinite wisdom, this group disclosed their intention to sue the United States of America to prevent the aforementioned body scanner from being used on Muslim men and women.

For religious reasons, don’t you know?

In the parallel universe where reside the left and their radical Islamic friends, it makes perfect sense that the only machine that can detect a certain, and most destructive kind of explosive, that has been used exclusively by Islamic terrorists since 2001, is now able to be used with any traveler using American international airports, except, of course, Muslim persons. These Muslim individuals are, as every sane person acknowledges, the ACTUAL REASON we have to put every air traveler through the excruciating security measures that are now in place.

To prevent the further terrorist actions of Muslim terrorists is, in fact, the whole point of the exercise.

The TSA, when confronted by CAIR in this regard, immediately capitulated, thus giving in in the face of yet another Islamic threat. Simultaneously, the TSA agreed to instruct its security staff, in enforcing the same tortuous security measures for everyone but Muslims, to ‘pat down’ Muslim men and women, with the proviso, of course, that only same gender ‘pat downs’ would be permitted for our Muslim brethren.

So, to be sure you understand, this is the deal.

Every American has to go through a humiliating and time consuming hell every time any one of us has to fly anywhere in the country, or the world. This nightmare is due strictly to the actions of Islamic terrorists. Now, due to the Obama-determined decision of certain of our non-elected bureaucrats, we are now excepting Islamists, and only Islamists – THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SWORN TO ANNIHILATE AMERICA – from being forced to submit the examination of this machine that is the only thing that can detect certain terrorist explosives. In other words, the organization created to protect the American traveling public is now, under the Obama Administration, being prevented from doing so due to reasons of politically correct religious (again, addressed only to the world of Islam) sensitivity.

What kind of fantasy world is the Obama Administration living in? Does anyone in his Administration remember what happened on September 11, 2001? Has anyone in this ridiculous excuse for a Presidential Administration heard the repeated assurances from the Muslim world that we will either be converted to Islam by their jihad or die?

‘Explosive-wired Islamofascists’ is not a sensitivity issue – it is an act of war. It is an act of war against the United States of America and its innocent citizenry, no matter what religion. Tender feelings toward our Muslim brethren should not be taken into account when figuring out how best to protect us. The application of their faith when in our country should be very low on the list of what is significant to our nation, and if they don’t like that, they can immediately return to the nations where it is of significance. In America, they should understand, each religion is equal to the other; no particular religion is above another.

A current popular phrase might be applied in this instance: Islam, this is America. The land of the free. Deal with it.

It would be interesting to know whether the Obama Administration has instructed members of his Administration to make any accommodations for members of the Christian religion alert to members of the Obama Administration: the religion that FOUNDED OUR NATION in air travel? Perhaps, for Judaism, second alert to members of the Obama Administration: another very important religion found in the United States of America?

The answer would seem to be no.

It is wondered, therefore, if the Obama Administration and its member leftists ever intend to acknowledge the truth about the world of Islam, the founder of terrorism throughout the world.

Barack Hussein Obama can go on and on about how wonderful is the world of Islam. How magnificent and tolerant is their religion; how beautiful is their handwriting, (a subject not thought to be significant in 21st Century America by Obama Administration educators); how extraordinary is their Algebra, yet another subject of American education considered unimportant by current Obama educators, (African-American Studies; Gay, Lesbian and Transgender Studies; etc., being of much greater significance in the Obamaworld of educating our children) and how peaceful, and desirous of peace, are their people. And from where, almost verbatim from various Obama speeches, do these lovely words come?

Fantasyland.

Like it or not, the Muslim world of the 21st century has nothing to do with the Magical Mystery Tour that Barack Hussein Obama and his followers have chosen to present as the current Muslim world. Obama and his acolytes can create beautiful and false words around the ‘religion of peace,’ and assume people will believe these lies. Hollywood and whoever can create physical fantasies about how gorgeous and sensitive Muslims were and are; or how brilliant, intellectually, scientifically and politically, Muslims were and are, or what victims they are and have been through the centuries, because, of course, of the actions of the Great Satan, (us) with Obama always on the ready to apologize for whatever of our transgressions of which the aggrieved (Muslims) complain. It is, as you know, always our fault. .

The truth about the world of Islam is the opposite.

The fact is that the Muslim extremist world of the 21st century is a nasty, grubby, illiterate but tech-savvy, hate-filled world of duplicitous and violent men whose minds live in a 12th century mélange of hatred of the Infidel (which is just about all of the rest of the world); misogyny – alert to the American left: this is not just chauvinistic men wanting to keep women home and perennially barefoot and pregnant; this is a world where a teenage girl had her nose and ears lopped off because her mother wouldn’t let her marry their cousin, (which actually happened recently in Pakistan, and when the little girl’s mother saw her baby’s face after this mutilation, she fell dead from a heart attack) (religion of peace); this, Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer, is the Islam you champion. One will also find homophobia to a degree that these and other ardent feminists, like Barney Frank, could not imagine – no hate crime legislation here – beheading is the answer to that particular problem in Muslim countries. Then there are young men who have had every advantage that the West gives its youth, who would prefer to have their future contain wiring Downs’ Syndrome children with explosives so they can kill that many more innocent Westerners, in whatever country, it doesn’t really matter to them as long as it results in the most casualties.

And why do they do this? Not for anything we have done, despite constant such lamentations by the left, but for what we are. As an Islamic terrorist was quoted in responding to a leftist plea for us to just get along: “We don’t want to reason with you; we want to kill you.” A logical conclusion is to listen to them when they describe what they want to do to us for existing, don’t you think?

This is the Muslim world Barack Hussein Obama embraces.

Isn’t it time that the President of the United States of America stops protecting and defending the murderous medieval world of Islamic terrorism and starts protecting and defending the American people? Sadly, for us, this is not the case for our current Supreme Leader.

Susan Dale is a writer and former George Washington historic interpreter. She currently is a financial adviser and can be reached at SusanDaleInvests@yahoo.com

Mar 02, 2010 | 0 comments | View Post

Fact-checking Obamacare Summit

Yesterday at 12:01pm

We should be thankful for yesterday’s 7-hour health care summit – it was helpful in that it allowed Americans to hear the fundamental differences in approaches to meeting health care challenges. On one side, commonsense conservatives laid out fiscally-sound, free market-based, patient-centered solutions; and on the left’s side we heard about the Democrat’s belief that growing government is the only way to meet challenges.
As the saying goes, “Everyone is entitled to his opinion, but not his own facts.” When these “facts” concern one-sixth of our economy and something as important to our personal wellbeing as health care, we’d better make sure they are the real deal.
Please take a look at the compilation below from GOP.com correcting the top five falsehoods from yesterday’s summit. I appreciate their research and revelations compiled here.

- Sarah Palin

TOP FIVE FALSEHOODS
If Democrats Would Start Listening To The American People, They’d Stop Telling Falsehoods

NO ONE’S TALKING ABOUT RECONCILIATION?

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) Claims “No One Has Talked About Reconciliation.” “No one has said — I read what the President has online — no one has talked about reconciliation but that’s what you folks have talked about ever since that came out, as if it’s something that has never been done before.” (“Transcript: White House Health Summit, Morning Session,” Kaiser Health News, 2/25/10)
But Reid Himself Is Talking About Reconciliation. “Harry Reid’s got a gift for hyperbole – and it keeps on giving. The Senate majority leader’s latest gem came in response to hints that Democrats might try to use the fast-track budget ‘reconciliation’ to bypass a Republican filibuster of President Obama’s health care plan. After advising Republicans on Tuesday to ‘stop crying over reconciliation as if it’s never been done before,’ he ticked off a list of legislative feats he contends were accomplished through the filibuster-busting process: ‘Contract [with] America was done with reconciliation. Tax cuts, done with reconciliation. Medicare, done with reconciliation.’” (Jonathan Allen, “Hyperbolic Harry,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/24/10)
“For Some Bizarre Reason, During His Initial Presentation, Sen. Reid Said That ‘No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’ … But That’s Obviously Not True. Everybody’s Talking About It. And A Lot Of Dems Would Be Pretty Upset If They Weren’t Talking About It.” (Josh Marshall, Talking Points Memo’s “Editors Blog” Blog, 2/25/10)

“A Number Of Democratic Senators Have Signed A Letter Urging Reid To Use Reconciliation To Pass The Public Option.” (Eric Zimmermann, “Reid: ‘No One Has Talked About Reconciliation,’” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/25/10)

Obama Health Reform Advisor Says The Door Is Open For Reconciliation. “Linda Douglass, the communications director of the White House Office of Health Reform, left reconciliation on the table as an option for passing a health care bill if Democrats and Republicans don’t reach consensus during Thursday’s summit. … ‘Certainly if that were not to be the case, he would be asking for a simple up or down majority vote and would certainly hope that the Republicans would not try to block that simple up or down majority vote.’” (Carol Lee & Patrick O’Connor, “Douglass Open To Reconciliation,” Politico’s “44” Blog, 2/25/10)

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN’T INTERESTED IN RECONCILIATION?

Obama Claims Americans Don’t Care About Reconciliation. “You know, this issue of reconciliation has been brought up. Again I think the American people aren’t always all that interested in procedures inside the Senate. I do think they want a vote on how we’re going to move this forward.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)
But 52% Of Americans Don’t Want The Democrats To Use Reconciliation To Pass Their Government-Run Health Care Experiment. “In the survey, Americans by 52%-39% oppose Senate Democrats using the procedure, which allows a bill to pass with a 51-vote majority rather than the 60 votes needed to end debate.” (Susan Page, “Poll: Expectations Low On Health Summit,” USA Today, 2/25/10)

DEM PROPOSALS WILL LOWER PREMIUMS?

President Obama Claimed CBO Determined His Plan Would Lower Premiums. PRESIDENT OBAMA: “It’s not factually accurate. Here’s what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they’re currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER (R-TN): “The Congressional Budget Office report says that premiums will rise in the individual market as a result of the Senate bill.” PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No, no, no, no. Let me — and this is an example of where we’ve got to get our facts straight.” ALEXANDER: “That’s my point.” OBAMA: “Well, exactly, so let me — let me respond to what you just said, Lamar, because it’s not factually accurate. Here’s what the Congressional Budget Office says. The costs for families for the same type of coverage that they’re currently receiving would go down 14 percent to 20 percent.” (President Obama, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)
But Actually, CBO Determined The Bill Would Raise Premiums For Americans Purchasing Insurance Individually. “CBO and JCT estimate that the average premium per person covered (including dependents) for new nongroup policies would be about 10 percent to 13 percent higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law.” (Douglas W. Elmendorf, Letter To Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), 11/30/09)

INCREMENTAL PLANS ARE UNACCEPTABLE?

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA): “[I]naction And Incrementalism Are Simply Unacceptable.” (Mike Allen, “Will Dr. Obama Go For Plan B-1, Or Plan B-2? — Dems’ Post-Summit Message: POTUS Was ‘Thoughtful, Comprehensive,’ Rs ‘Insulted The Summit’ — New NYT Expose May Finish Gov. Paterson,” Politico’s “Playbook,” 2/25/10)
But 56.4 Percent Of Americans Prefer An Incremental Approach. “Moreover, 56.4 percent of people indicated they would prefer Congress to tackle healthcare reform on a step-by-step basis, not take the comprehensive approach as embodied in the legislation that passed the House and Senate last year but has stalled for the past month.” (Jeffrey Young, “Poll: Most Americans Think Congress Should Start Over On Healthcare,” The Hill’s “Briefing Room” Blog, 2/16/10)

PUBLIC FUNDS WOULDN’T GO TO ABORTION?

Pelosi Said Abortion Wouldn’t Be Funded Under The Plan. “The law of the land is there is no public funding of abortion and there is no public funding of abortion in these bills and I don’t want our listeners or viewers to get the wrong impression from what you said.” (Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Health Care Summit, Washington, DC, 2/25/10)
But The Bill Allows Federally Funded Abortions. “Under the new abortion provisions, states can opt out of allowing plans to cover abortion in the insurance exchanges the bill would set up. The exchanges are designed to serve individuals who lack coverage through their jobs, with most receiving federal subsidies to buy insurance. Enrollees in plans that cover abortion procedures would pay with separate checks — one for abortion, one for any other health-care services.” (Paul Kane, “To Sway Nelson, A Hard-Won Compromise On Abortion Issue,” The Washington Post, 12/20/10)
Pro-Life Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Calls Obama’s Abortion Language “Unacceptable.” “Unfortunately, the president’s proposal encompasses the senate language allowing public funding of abortion. The senate language is a significant departure from current law and is unacceptable.” (Ben Smith,” Stupak: “Unacceptable,” Politico’s “Live Pulse” Blog, 2/23/10)
Rep. Bart Stupak (D-MI) Says 15 To 20 House Dems Who Can’t Support Obama’s Proposal. “Rep. Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat who led efforts to tighten abortion language in the House health care bill, said Wednesday morning there are 15 to 20 House Democrats who cannot support President Barack Obama’s effort to bridge the gap between the House and Senate health plans. … He said well over a dozen House members will likely balk, not just on abortion but on the residual tax on so-called Cadillac health plans, which he said the House had already rejected.” (“Stupak: 15-20 Dems Can’t Back Obama Health Plan,” The Wall Street Journal’s “Washington Wire” Blog, 2/24/10)

Feb 27, 2010 | 0 comments | View Post

More of the Same, Only More Expensive

The President has wrestled control of the health care debate away from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid by finally introducing his own plan. Unfortunately, the White House’s proposal includes everything we found untenable about the old Senate bill – only this one is even more expensive! This is what you might call putting “perfume on a pig.”
What’s in this “new” proposal? It has the unpopular (and arguably unconstitutional) individual mandate that forces people and employers to purchase health insurance – only this time with much harsher fines on employers who choose not to go along with another expensive government mandate. It has provisions that will make employers think twice before expanding their workforce. It has cuts to Medicare Advantage, a popular program which allows seniors to pay a little more money out of pocket for better coverage. And, of course, it still has sweetheart deals – only this time they’ve been extended even more.
We don’t know what the final long-term cost of this will be because the Congressional Budget Office hasn’t had a chance to calculate costs. We do know that the White House recognizes that its proposal will cost tens of billions more over the next ten years than the already-expensive $2.5 trillion Senate bill. The President promised last July that he won’t sign a health care bill if it “adds even one dime to our deficit over the next decade.” But he’s now proposing a health care bill with uncertain fiscal repercussions that could lead to endless deficits.
The rising cost of care has driven the entire health care reform debate. So how does the President’s proposal address this central issue? Price controls. That’s right: Washington, D.C. wants to give a panel of bureaucrats the power to cap insurance premiums and prices. As Michael Cannon of the Cato Institute notes, “artificially limiting premium growth allows the government to curtail spending while leaving the dirty work of withholding medical care to private insurers.” This leads to rationing. Any economist worth his salt – including the White House’s own Larry Summers – will tell you that price controls lead to all sorts of negative unintended consequences. It’s another step towards government controlled health care and away from the real solution: free market, patient-centered reform.
With a government-growing proposal this bad, it’s no wonder the President wants bipartisan cover for it in an election year. Thursday’s health care summit is already being revealed as little more than a photo-op. The Obama administration still denies the existence of the House Republicans’ health care plan that offers alternative solutions to health care challenges – even though the White House website links right to it.
The President’s proposal doesn’t include pro-free market ideas like allowing people to buy insurance across state lines, giving individual buyers the same tax benefits as those who get insurance through their employers, or instituting real medical liability reform. Despite the “kumbaya” rhetoric, Democrats are making plans to ram this bill through the Senate using a partisan procedural maneuver that will bypass the normal bipartisan debate process.
In the meantime, the White House will continue to ignore Republican reform ideas and cast the GOP as the party of no. That’s a hard sell considering that Democrats still hold the majority in the House and Senate. The only real “gridlock” preventing Democrats from doing what they want is the very real threat of America’s voice being heard at the ballot box.
The public is clearly opposed to the Democrats’ health care bills. Americans want to scrap these big-government plans and start over with common-sense, incremental reform. Some on the left have urged Democrats to vote for Obamacare because it’s a foot in the door for universal health care. They understand what’s at stake; so should the rest of us.
The President can perfume this proposal however he wants, but it still doesn’t pass the smell test. Washington should listen to Americans now, or Washington will hear us in November.

- Sarah Palin

Feb 24, 2010 | 0 comments | View Post

Freedom, Influence, Security Shrink as Budget Balloons

Today at 4:04pm

The White House recently announced its pricey Childhood Obesity Initiative to tell us what we should feed our kids. Helpful I’m sure – but most Americans would rather see government focus on other important areas right now. We know what our kids should eat: more healthy food, less junk food. There – we just saved Washington a ton of money by announcing that finding on personal responsibility.
What does demand our full attention is the newly released $3,800,000,000,000 federal budget. The president and Congress have a huge job tackling the problem staring right at us as we look at a budget we obviously can’t afford. America’s freedom and security are endangered as we become beholden to other nations, thanks to ballooning deficits and debt. One congressman just warned that our nation may become insolvent if we don’t make better decisions starting now. As noted in a New York Times article today, unless “miraculous growth” or miraculous unforeseen change is on the horizon, America’s freedom, influence, and security will continue to erode. (Personally, at this point I believe it wouldn’t hurt to ramp up our nation’s humble request for the divine miraculous change and wisdom we’ll need to see us through.)
Getting our arms around this will take all of us working together, making sacrifices, taking more personal responsibility, and sending elected leaders to Washington that we can trust. That’s why some of us may come across as strident in our efforts to call out the White House and Congress. We want to trust you, Washington; we want to work with you, but we cannot stomach some of the things being rammed down our throats. Your actions to pile on more debt make no sense, so we must question your motives and intentions. For instance, there’s just no room for expensive, dangerous, and unsustainable new initiatives like Obamacare, Cap and Tax, and a dramatically expanded federal payroll. These government-growing proposals will obviously cause more problems than they’ll solve. They are just further steps towards insolvency.
Steps towards insolvency are steps away from freedom. They’re steps towards destruction. It’s the reason we ask why we should swallow what’s coming out of Washington.
The Wall Street Journal has a brilliant column by Gerald Seib today. It reads in part:

The U.S. government this year will borrow one of every three dollars it spends, with many of those funds coming from foreign countries. That weakens America’s standing and its freedom to act; strengthens China and other world powers including cash-rich oil producers; puts long-term defense spending at risk; undermines the power of the American system as a model for developing countries; and reduces the aura of power that has been a great intangible asset for presidents for more than a century.
“We’ve reached a point now where there’s an intimate link between our solvency and our national security,” says Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations and a senior national-security adviser in both the first and second Bush presidencies. “What’s so discouraging is that our domestic politics don’t seem to be up to the challenge. And the whole world is watching.”
In the 21st-century world order, the classic, narrow definition of national-security threats already has expanded in ways that make traditional foreign-policy thinking antiquated. The list of American security concerns now includes dependence on foreign oil and global warming, for example.
Consider just four of the ways that budget deficits also threaten American’s national security:
• They make America vulnerable to foreign pressures.
The U.S. has about $7.5 trillion in accumulated debt held by the public, about half of that in the hands of investors abroad.
Aside from the fact that each American next year will chip in more than $800 just to pay interest on this debt, that situation means America’s government is dependent on the largesse of foreign creditors and subject to the whims of international financial markets. A foreign government, through the actions of its central bank, could put pressure on the U.S. in a way its military never could. Even under a more benign scenario, a debt-ridden U.S. is vulnerable to a run on the American dollar that begins abroad.
Either way, Mr. Haass says, “it reduces our independence.”
• Chinese power is growing as a result.
A lot of the deficit is being financed by China, which is selling the U.S. many billions of dollars of manufactured goods, then lending the accumulated dollars back to the U.S. The IOUs are stacking up in Beijing.
So far this has been a mutually beneficial arrangement, but it is slowly increasing Chinese leverage over American consumers and the American government. At some point, the U.S. may have to bend its policies before either an implicit or explicit Chinese threat to stop the merry-go-round.
Just this weekend, for example, the U.S. angered China by agreeing to sell Taiwan $6.4 billion in arms. At some point, will the U.S. face economic servitude to China that would make such a policy decision impossible?

Please read the rest of Seib’s column here. Our out-of-control spending is weakening our country. We can no longer afford to kick the can down the road to the next generation. We need to have a serious discussion about our spending priorities before it’s too late. Commonsense conservatives have a sincere desire to work with the White House on these challenges, and we’re thankful for those in Congress making the offer to help.
- Sarah Palin

Feb 02, 2010 | 0 comments | View Post

Are You Capable of Decency, Rahm Emanuel?

Yesterday at 7:32pm

The newly-released mind-boggling, record-smashing $3,400,000,000,000 federal budget invites plenty of opportunity to debate the merits of incurring more and more debt that will drown the next generation of Americans. Never has it been possible to spend your way out of debt. So… let the debate begin.
Included in the debate process will be opportunities for our president to deliberate internally the wisdom of this debt explosion, along with other economic, military and social issues facing our country. Our president will discuss these important issues with Democrat leaders and those within his inner circle. I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel, and not allow Rahm’s continued indecent tactics to cloud efforts. Yes, Rahm is known for his caustic, crude references about those with whom he disagrees, but his recent tirade against participants in a strategy session was such a strong slap in many American faces that our president is doing himself a disservice by seeming to condone Rahm’s recent sick and offensive tactic.
The Obama Administration’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling them, “F—ing retarded,” according to several participants, as reported in the Wall Street Journal.
Just as we’d be appalled if any public figure of Rahm’s stature ever used the “N-word” or other such inappropriate language, Rahm’s slur on all God’s children with cognitive and developmental disabilities – and the people who love them – is unacceptable, and it’s heartbreaking.
A patriot in North Andover, Massachusetts, notified me of Rahm’s “retarded” slam. I join this gentleman, who is the father of a beautiful child born with Down Syndrome, in asking why the Special Olympics, National Down Syndrome Society and other groups condemning Rahm’s degrading scolding have been completely ignored by the White House. No comment from his boss, the president?
As my friend in North Andover says, “This isn’t about politics; it’s about decency. I am not speaking as a political figure but as a parent and as an everyday American wanting my child to grow up in a country free from mindless prejudice and discrimination, free from gratuitous insults of people who are ostensibly smart enough to know better… Have you no sense of decency, sir?”
Mr. President, you can do better, and our country deserves better.

- Sarah Palin

Feb 02, 2010 | 0 comments | View Post

Author Archive

Democrats’ Bush-bashing strategy goes bust – A couple of Comments:

So you, as a US Citizen want to criticize the President?

Injunction sought to halt ‘Obamacare’

‘The term ‘nanny state’ does not even begin to describe what we will have wrought’

The Democratic “Groupies”, the mainstream media, claim the Republicans lost to Obamacare

Racism and Obamacare

A ‘Profile In Courage’ the TSA Is Not.

Fact-checking Obamacare Summit

NO ONE’S TALKING ABOUT RECONCILIATION?

THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AREN’T INTERESTED IN RECONCILIATION?

DEM PROPOSALS WILL LOWER PREMIUMS?

INCREMENTAL PLANS ARE UNACCEPTABLE?

PUBLIC FUNDS WOULDN’T GO TO ABORTION?

More of the Same, Only More Expensive

Freedom, Influence, Security Shrink as Budget Balloons

Are You Capable of Decency, Rahm Emanuel?

Categories

Meta