In Honor of the Victims of 9/11

This is a day of remembrance, honor, sorrow, and renewed pride in our country. Thanks to the leadership of George W. Bush, we defended our country, learned from our lapses in security,became stronger because of our tragedies, and went after those who attacked us.

We wore flag pins, and flew flags on our homes and car windows, and bought patriotic t-shirts- not because, as our current leader said, out of some phony act of patriotism, but because, sometimes, it takes a tragedy to bring out our real feelings about our country, ourselves and our fellow citizens.

Obama has dubbed 9/11, the First National Day of Service and Remembrance, bringing his own socialist agenda to a day that is reserved for the honor of those who died on that day, and all who have given their lives since. It would seem that even on this sacred day he cannot and will not stop his incessant drive toward his goals.

Reagan said that the United States was "The shining city upon the hill". and Obama tells Europe, the Middle East and the rest of the world that we are an arrogant people, derisive and cruel.

John Kennedy asked the country to ask themselves what they could do for their country, and Obama asks small children to think about what they can do for their president.

We are a nation of service oriented people, who regularly volunteer their services to others daily.
We are not a nation of Acorn people, bent on the destruction of the country's basic values, and geared toward driving this land into a Socialist state.

Let this day now and forever be dedicated to those who lost their lives to our enemies and those who serve in all walks of life daily and risk their lives for the rest of us.

BETWEEN BARACK AND A HARD PLACE
(Just found out that this is an O'Reilly ism didn't mean to copy!)

The Dems were desperate to find a candidate that would take them back to occupying the White House. They chose, or were presented with, Obama, because he had what they were looking for. He was young, well spoken, charismatic (at least some think so), and he is bi-racial, a characteristic that they could use if anyone dared disagree with him.

On top of these sterling qualities, he had connections, with Acorn, and more organizations from the Chicago days than you can count.

The fact that he was radical, that he had less than exemplary connections, and no experience, were secondary. I really believed that they either turned a blind eye to his previous associates, or convinced themselves, in the name of securing the Presidency, that these were all things from his past, and would miraculously go away.

I don't believe that anyone (and I'm giving everyone the benefit of the doubt), expected him to be as radically liberal and socialistic as he openly admitted to being during and after the election.

According to the recent polls, more folks disagree with the Obama administration than agree, but that doesn't stop the arrogance. Recently, Obama told the American people basically to "shut up and let him handle things." He feels no more concern or responsibility for the opinions of the American people than he did during the campaign, or going into the Presidency.
We have to wonder where this disdain and subsequent confidence comes from in a democracy where his grand plan has been exposed and the people are beginning to open their eyes and see what some of us knew from the start.
He has confidence that he has the elected Dems in his pocket, his czars have his back, Acorn and other liberal groups are his new army, and the combined experience of his Chicago training are his strength.
He has indeed fulfilled his promise of change. He is on a roll to change democracy to socialism, the presidency into a dictatorship, and the American people into servants and dependents of the state.

Now, our elected officials are holding town meetings, where they have to answer for their transgressions, explain why everything that has transpired in the last few months was done with haste and in the dark of night, why they don't read what they vote on, and why they don't listen to their constituents.

On the one hand, they are mandated to "stand by their man", and their decision to support him. On the other hand, they are faced with the fact that they are not popular with the people who put them in office.

Obama Calls Tea Parties 'Idiotic'

The Pres Will Not Tolerate Dissent
Resistance is Futile and any Attempt is Idiotic

Ok, so here's the play book and the rules. When liberals protest, they are exercising their freedom of speech, and they have the ACLU and ACORN to back them up on that.
We've seen a lot of liberal protests through the years. It was the "in" thing to do. The ironic thing is that a great many of their demonstrations led to violence, and that is most often not the case with conservatives.
Our President, himself, should be all too aware of this concept, since he is well acquainted with the radical faction himself.

During the Bush administration, Cindy Sheehan protested a lot, and others joined her. I certainly understood her pain and her right to express it. When asked about the protests, some of which occurred on the President's front driveway, President Bush said, and I'm paraphrasing, "That's the great thing about America. Everyone has a right to express their own opinions." He never made fun of people, or forgot that it was his duty, responsibility and honor to represent all the people.

Obama Calls Tea Parties 'Idiotic'

James Rivera
New York Examiner
July 5, 2009

WASHINGTON- A classified memo written by the President, in which he instructs Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on how to address questions concerning so called Tea Parties, has been leaked to the public.

The document, dated April 13, details President Obama's instructions on how Gibbs should respond to questions asked by reporters. In it, the President tells Gibbs to downplay the importance of "social events that are aimed at undermining [the President's] plan to fix the economy."

President Obama also instructs Gibbs to "not answer any questions regarding these gatherings directly," writing that they are "idiotic" in their aims to curb government spending.

This leak comes at a time when the President has been criticized by Republicans for being too wasteful in his spending and agenda.

"Once again, the President has shown that he is utterly out of touch with the American public," said Joseph Barton, a representative of Texas's 6th Congressional District. "Doesn't he understand that people are sick and tired of unending taxes? Apparently not."

The Administration defended the memo, stating that its release was "unintentional," but that it is how the President characterizes "unnecessary criticism." Robert Gibbs also released a statement, writing that he does "not understand the uproar about something that the majority of Americans agree with anyway."

The President has not released a direct statement to the press, but one is expected in the coming days.

So, the President deems the Tea Parties, as unnecessary criticism. In his mind. Arrogance abounds. And, according to his press secretary, most of Americans agree with the President anyway. Really.

Protesters are disrupting "his" economic plan, and they are "idiotic"! He doesn't get it. He works for us. The house he is living in belongs to the people.

Today, the press secretary has made the statement that most of the dissenters at the Town Hall meetings are actually from some devious right wing group hired by some mysterious backers to disrupt the peaceful and benevolent meeting of representatives and their constituents.
Once again, the President is discriminating against and mocking a large percentage of the same people that he vowed to serve.

If any other President, Democrat or Republican, had said any of these disparaging remarks either about the citizens of his country or the country itself, it would have been a scandal.

"We Have to Make Judgments Very Fast."

Foxnews.com Monday, Aug. 2. 2009
(A Town Hall meeting in Philadelphia)

The following is an excerpt from this article.

While supporters offered courteous applause to the officials, Sebelius didn't earn any fans when she said that if lawmakers say they don't understand the legislation voters should urge them to go back and read it.

Specter was shouted down when he said that lawmakers divide up the bills into sections and have their staffs read portions because, "We have to make judgments very fast."

Sebelius apparently is laying the responsibility of checking out legistation on the voters. Funny, I thought that is what we were trying to do. However, we shouldn't have too.
Say you hire a guy to put a new roof on your house, but every morning you look outside, and he's sitting in his truck. You have to go out and tell him to start doing his work?

Sebelius is as much as saying that our elected officials aren't going to work unless we get on their case.
Specter's comments were equally priceless. They have their staff read the bills, because they don't have time. What are they doing? And, why do they have to make judgments very fast?
Anyone will tell you that is you have a really big decision, involving life changing events, and a lot of money, you need to think things through.

Whose putting the screws to these people? Is there a time limit that we don't know about, from the Pres, the Cabinet, Alien beings? The only things historically that demanded immediate decisions were war, and natural disasters. Could it be that they just don't want any analysis of what they're doing? If it goes on for awhile, the people might actually be able to figure the whole mess out and decided for themselves what they want and don't want. Imagine that, the people, the ones that the government work for, deciding for themselves what they want and don't want.

If that continues, we might just keep our Democracy.

What to Look for in a Socialist

I recently ran into a blog that was pro-Obama, which, declared that his association throughout his lifetime with socialists, communists, radicals, and a convicted terrorist or two was just a matter of politics. They stated that he needed these associations to further his career and get him where he wanted to go, but that he, in no way, subscribed to their beliefs. This, I assume, was supposed to be a glowing report on his crafty, smooth political maneuvers.
Apart from the fact that that that is hardly a great character report, it's also - well- bull.

The following was in the Washington Post, March 15, 2009 It was written by Billy Wharton, a member of the Socialist Party. (Notice that this was written in March.)

The funny thing is, of course, that socialists know that Barack Obama is not one of us. Not only is he not a socialist, he may in fact not even be a liberal. Socialists understand him more as a hedge-fund Democrat -- one of a generation of neoliberal politicians firmly committed to free-market policies.
The first clear indication that Obama is not, in fact, a socialist, is the way his administration is avoiding structural changes to the financial system. Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to re-energizing productive sectors of the economy.

The same holds true for health care. A national health insurance system as embodied in the single-payer health plan reintroduced in legislation this year by Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.), makes perfect sense to us. That bill would provide comprehensive coverage, offer a full range of choice of doctors and services and eliminate the primary cause of personal bankruptcy -- health-care bills. Obama's plan would do the opposite. By mandating that every person be insured, ObamaCare would give private health insurance companies license to systematically underinsure policyholders while cashing in on the moral currency of universal coverage. If Obama is a socialist, then on health care, he's doing a fairly good job of concealing it.


Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. The Washington Post By Billy Wharton
Sunday, March 15, 2009; Page B01

Our representatives are declaring with vigor that neither they or the Pres wants a single payer health system, however, in his campaign, Obama said that that is just what he wanted. A lot has changed in the last few months. So, the socialists have given us some guidelines to look for in the future. How many of these are we getting a glimpse of already.

Rationing? This is Tragic !!!!!!!!!

This is Not Your Father's America-Literally!!

We have heard a lot about the various frightening aspects of the Health Care Bill. Sometimes, we are tempted to believe that it couldn't possibly be as bad as they make it out to be. Could it?

Are we headed for telling mom or dad that the doctor simply won't help them because they are "past it", no longer a productive part of our society? Never mind that they worked hard all their lives, paid their taxes, fought for their country, and expected to be cared for as much as they cared for others.

I spent a lot of time lately reading testimonies from citizens of Canada and England and other countries that are dealing with these problems, and they are frightening. A man, who needed heart surgery, but was denied, a woman who needed brain surgery but was denied.

One of the most frightening aspects has got to be rationing. Can't happen? Guess again. This is not your father's America.

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Goodman's website, listed below, giving a brief overview of the White House Medical advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel, GET THIS , recognize the name? Yep, brother of Rahm Emanuel.

What is the basis for these allegations of biased healthcare rationing? Dr. Goodman cites none other than White House healthcare policy adviser Ezekiel Emanuel. “Allocation by age is not invidious discrimination,” Emanuel wrote in the January 31 issue of the British medical journal the Lancet. “Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.” So because everyone would get an equal chance to be favored when they are young, they would be equally discriminated against when they are old. “Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist,” Emmanuel maintains, but “treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”

http://www.ncpa.org/about/john-c-goodman --- John C. Goodman is NCPA president and CEO of the National Center for Policy Analysis. The Wall Street Journal and the National Journal, among other publications, have called him the "Father of Health Savings Accounts," and the Media Research Center credits him, along with former Sen. Phil Gramm and columnist Bill Kristol with playing the pivotal role in the defeat of the Clinton Administration's plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system.

Here is Emanuel's take on the Hippocratic Oath.

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

A member of my family had quadruple bypass surgery many years ago, and has since had two other surgeries that saved his life. He volunteers at Church, helps out with whatever needs done, enjoys his grandchildren and children and this year went on a 4,5oo mile trip with his wife and family.

A great uncle of mine lived to be 105, and he was a wealth of information about his WWI experiences and history until the day he died.

Our medical professionals have worked hard over the last century to prolong life, preserve life, and give us the inaleinable right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How many politicians, judges, teachers, ministers, lawyers, doctors, and just plain retired grandpas and grandmas are out there whose families feel that they are just as important as they were when they were 25 or 45?

Ah yes, we sure could save money, and it seems like we're headed in that direction, by getting rid of excess babies and excess seniors. We need to leave the world to the 25 year olds, because they don't need the experience or the advise of those who have gone before them- do they?

Shame on any person, country, party, anyone who would even consider this barbaric practice against their own people.

Disturbing Quotes of Our Time

CNSNews.com

Conyers Sees No Point in Members Reading 1,000-Page Health Care Bill--Unless They Have 2 Lawyers to Interpret It for Them
Monday, July 27, 2009
By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

(CNSNews.com) - During his speech at a National Press Club luncheon, House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), questioned the point of lawmakers reading the health care bill.

“I love these members, they get up and say, ‘Read the bill,’” said Conyers.

“What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?

So, we are told that we need to rush a bill through, that we have never had for all these 200 plus years, overnight , that no one has actually read, and, according to Conyers would not understand if they read it without the aid of lawyers.

These are dangerous and potentially lethal games that the Washingtonians are playing with our lives. Every one of these people who blindly go along with signing anything that passes under their noses needs to go at election time. Clean house!