Leo Donofrio nails obama again
Natural Born Citizen Leo Donofrio Blog
National security clearance guidelines disqualify the FRAUD obama
US Defense Security Service Guidelines, Federal Statute 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 Indicate That Various Agency Heads Should Deny President Obama Access To Classified Information.
A thorough review of national security clearance guidelines and federal statutes indicates that various heads of government agencies in charge of disseminating classified information should deny access to classified information to President Obama unless and until he undergoes a statutory background check and achieves a proper security clearance.
This article stipulates that it is common practice for the FBI to grant full security clearance to elected officials such as Congressman and Senators. The same courtesy has been extended to the office of President and Vice President. This is done in recognition that these elected officials represent the will of the American people.
However, federal law mandates that if such courtesy conflicts with national security then agency heads are expected to deny access to classified information. In President Obama we have a Commander In Chief who admits to having been a British citizen as well as a citizen of Kenya. Furthermore, President Obama may still be a a British citizen and/or subject. He may have also been a citizen of Indonesia.
We just don’t know the answers to these questions because he just won’t answer them.
US Defense Security Service Guidelines
US Defense Security Service guidelines are very clear in that persons with past allegiance to foreign nations are to undergo security checks to determine whether such allegiance is dangerous to the US:
Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:
a. The exercise of dual citizenship;
b. Possession and/or use of a foreign passport;
c. Military service or a willingness to bear arms for a foreign country;
d. Accepting educational, medical, or other benefits, such as retirement and social welfare, from a foreign country;
f. Residence in a foreign country to meet citizenship requirements;
g. Using foreign citizenship to protect financial or business interests in another country;
h. Seeking or holding political office in the foreign country;
h. Voting in foreign elections; and
i. Performing or attempting to perform duties, or otherwise acting, so as to serve the interests of another government in preference to the interests of the United States.
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
a. Dual citizenship is based solely on parents’ citizenship or birth in a foreign country;
b. Indicators of possible foreign preference (e.g., foreign military service) occurred before obtaining United States citizenship;
c. Activity is sanctioned by the United States;
d. Individual has expressed a willingness to renounce dual citizenship.
Above Information Courtesy of Defense Security Service (DSS) (Emphasis added.)
........................................................................................
The government security guidelines examine whether the person has renounced his foreign citizenship. The issue of whether Obama is still a British citizen or subject must be addressed by a proper US government background clearance examination since it appears President Obama has never renounced his UK citizenship or subject status.
A forthcoming report at this blog will detail the intricacies of British nationality law with regard to whether President Obama is currently under the domain of the UK. But this should be done by our government officials as well. If he is under their domain, he’s also under the domain of the European Union.
Federal Statute 50 USC 435. Executive Order 12968.
50 USC 435 is the federal statute concerned with the classification of sensitive information. It empowered Executive Order 12968 which was enacted by President Clinton in 1995. These laws provide the Executive Branch rules for granting security clearance to classified information.
EO 12968 exempts the President and the Vice President from having to pass a security clearance examination. However, both 50 USC 435 and Executive Order 12968 contain the same exact safety provision empowering agency heads to deny access to classified information upon their own discretion.
50 USC 435 states:
Subsection (a) of this section shall not be deemed to limit or affect the responsibility and power of an agency head pursuant to other law or Executive order to deny or terminate access to classified information if the national security so requires. Such responsibility and power may be exercised only when the agency head determines that the procedures prescribed by subsection (a) of this section cannot be invoked in a manner that is consistent with the national security.
Executive order 12968 Section 5.2 (e) states:
(e) This section shall not be deemed to limit or affect the responsibility and power of an agency head pursuant to any law or other Executive order to deny or terminate access to classified information in the interests of national security. The power and responsibility to deny or terminate access to classified information pursuant to any law or other Executive order may be exercised only where the agency head determines that the procedures prescribed in subsection (a) of this section cannot be invoked in a manner that is consistent with national security. This determination shall be conclusive.
Since the President and Vice President are exempted from these regulations, the regulations can’t be invoked in a manner consistent with national security. As such, any agency head who determines that providing the President with classified information is inconsistent with national security may withhold such information.
According to law, such a determination is conclusive. No review is even possible.
President Obama should submit to a full security clearance examination before a national crisis takes place. Agency heads who continue to provide classified information to President Obama do so at the risk of national security. President Obama was a citizen of at least two foreign nations and his passport history is unknown. It appears that he may still be legally subject to the monarchy of Great Britain. This would trigger issues concerning the Master Nationality Rule whenever Obama stands on British soil.
These issues are not trivial. But for Obama being President, he would have to provide everything discussed in the Defense Security guidelines. He is also charged with enforcing those very same guidelines. How can he enforce them with a straight face if he’s never submitted to them himself?
President Obama has never officially renounced or denied his British citizenship. And he has admitted that he was a British citizen at birth. His past is so intertwined with various other nations that it is impossible, without a proper security clearance examination, for agency heads to forward classified information to him without concern. Government agency heads in charge of releasing classified information have the undeniable legal right to deny the President classified information.
Until President Obama’s passport and citizenship status in other nations is thoroughly determined, agency heads who forward him classified information do so with unknown risks to national security.
There are too many unknowns with regard to past allegiance to foreign powers for such information to be passed on safely. Agency heads cannot afford to be shy or afraid of backlash. Their decision is legally conclusive.
There is no transparency here and I do not see why the President himself is not calling for a proper background check on himself.
Why put the agency heads in this position?
It would be a proper start to necessary transparency if Obama would discuss whether he’s ever held a foreign passport and whether he’s ever traveled under a foreign passport. He should also take the official steps necessary to renounce his prior foreign citizenship.
That’s what a statesman would do.
Leo Donofrio nails obama again
Friday, August 21, 2009
Thursday, August 20, 2009
An extraordinary liar: barack obama
"I need you to knock on doors, talk to neighbors, spread the facts and speak the truth," This is what the extra ordinary liar wants me to do. So I will spread the facts and speak the truth. The truth will speak for itself and expose the FRAUD obama as an extraordinary liar.
He referred to some assertions as "ludicrous," and cited as an example rumors that the government is planning to set up "death panels" to determine the fate of the nation's elderly.
My answer:
The AP is technically correct in stating that end-of-life counseling is not the same as a death panel. The New York Times is also correct to point out that the health care bill contains no provision setting up such a panel.
What both outlets fail to point out is that the panel already exists.
H.R. 1 (more commonly known as the Recovery and Reinvestment Act, even more commonly known as the Stimulus Bill and aptly dubbed the Porkulus Bill) contains a whopping $1.1 billion to fund the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. The Council is the brain child of former Health and Human Services Secretary Nominee Tom Daschle. Before the Porkulus Bill passed, Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant governor of New York, wrote in detail about the Council's purpose.
Daschle's stated purpose (and therefore President Obama's purpose) for creating the Council is to empower an unelected bureaucracy to make the hard decisions about health care rationing that elected politicians are politically unable to make. The end result is to slow costly medical advancement and consumption. Daschle argues that Americans ought to be more like Europeans who passively accept "hopeless diagnoses."
Who is on the Council? One of its most prominent members is none other than Dr. Death himself Ezekiel Emanuel. Dr. Emanuel's views on care of the elderly should frighten anyone who is or ever plans on being old. He explains the logic behind his discriminatory views on elderly care as follows:
Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination; every person lives through different life stages rather than being a single age. Even if 25-year-olds receive priority over 65-year-olds, everyone who is 65 years now was previously 25 years.
On average 25-year-olds require very few medical services. If they are to get the lion's share of the treatment, then those 65 and over can expect very little care. Dr. Emanuel's views on saving money on medical care are simple: don't provide any medical care. The loosely worded provisions in H.R 1 give him and his Council increasing power to push such recommendations.
Similarly hazy language will no doubt be used in the health care bill. What may pass as a 1,000 page health care law will explode into perhaps many thousands of pages of regulatory codes. The deliberate vagueness will give regulators tremendous leverage to interpret its provisions. Thus Obama's Regulatory Czar Cass Sunstein will play a major role in defining the government's role in controlling medical care.
How does Sunstein approach end of life care? In 2003 he wrote a paper for the AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies arguing that human life varies in value. Specifically he champions statistical methods that give preference to what the government rates as "quality-adjusted life years." Meaning, the government decides whether a person's life is worth living. If the government decides the life is not worth living, it is the individual's duty to die to free up welfare payments for the young and productive.
Ultimately it was Obama himself, in answer to a question on his ABC News infomercial, who said that payment determination cannot be influenced by a person's spirit and "that at least we (the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research) can let doctors know and your mom know that...this isn't going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller."
Maybe we should ask the Associated Press and New York Times if they still think we shouldn't be concerned about a federal "death panel."
ObamaCare House Bill
• Page 30: A government committee, or DEATH PANEL, will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
p30 of the bill says a government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get, with no possible appeal. A committe is just another word for a panel. THIS IS A DEATH PANEL! and obama is a LIAR. Obama is Dr Death!
.........................................................................................
Obama the extraordinary lair also said: In addition, the plan does not provide health insurance to illegal aliens, it does not represent a government takeover of health care and it would not lead to government funding of abortion, he said.
My answer.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
Here I have once again EXPOSED the extraodinary liar obama. Every word that comes out of his mouth is a lie about obamacare. These are the facts. Check the facts against what obama has said. Obama is a chronic LIAR!
Obama, who took no questions, said the opposition was no surprise.
The liar would take no questions because he would have to explain the bill if asked. He knows he can't so he will not take questions.
Obama is exposed as a liar
ObamaCare: Soylent Green Recycled
ObamaCare: Soylent Green Recycled
Soylent Green
At the end of the film Soylent Green, the hero discovers that the corpses of government assisted suicides are being recycled into food wafers for the remaining viable population. His last words at the end of the film are appropriate for "obamacare". We’ve got to stop them somehow!
.............................................................................................
By Nancy Matthis | Wednesday, July 22nd, 2009
Infanticide and euthanasia for less viable paying citizens will save costs. Twelve million illegal aliens will receive coverage. Restrictive compliance laws will eventually force private insurers out of business. Within five years everyone will be dependent on the federal government for their right to live (or, in some cases, their obligation to die). The administrative and expense burden will destroy small businesses. Doctors will be too snarled in red tape to deliver good service. Hospitals will also face a bureaucratic reporting nightmare. No one can refuse to enroll: the IRS will levy a 2.5% tax on personal gross income to pay their share. That’s the bottom line in Obama’s Hitleresque socialized health care plan.
Before Obama was elected, Illinois nurse Jill Stanek exposed his support for infanticide. Several sources reported the details of his four distinct votes supporting infanticide:
Illinois Senate Bill 1095, Born Alive Infant Protection Act — Voted NO in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 27, 2001
Illinois Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act — Voted NO in the Senate Judiciary Committee, March 5, 2002
Illinois Senate Bill 1662, Born Alive Infant Protection Act — Voted NO on the Senate floor, April 4, 2002
Illinois Senate Bill 1082, Born Alive Infant Protection Act — Voted NO in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee, March 12, 2003
But the voters of the United States elected Obama anyway. (Obama is a Killer.)
Now the older demographic among them may have to pay an unexpected price for their folly. The health care bill provides for mandatory euthanasia counseling for senior citizens every five years AND whenever they receive a diagnosis of terminal illness (page 425, House version of the bill — H.R.3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009). First to sound the alarm was patient advocate Betsy McCaughey, founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York. You can listen to her interivew on the Fred Thompson Show here.
Keith A. Fournier is a Catholic Deacon of the Diocese of Richmond, Virginia, a noted human rights lawyer and long time public policy activist. He comments on the lethal potential of the health care bill:
Is Euthanasia Included in National ‘Health Care’ Reform?
….Will this National “Health Care” Plan encourage our elderly to take their own lives rather than somehow become a “drain” on the rest of us? Will it withhold medical care from them based upon a bureaucrat’s decision regarding so called “quality of life” issues? Will it encourage the rationing of medical services? Will it counsel the withdrawal of nutrition and hydration in order to expedite their death? In short, is Euthanasia included in this National ‘Health Care’ Reform?
The more I have looked at the proposals the more it seems not only possible, but probable. After all, when the foundational understanding of the dignity of every human person is removed from our approach to health care in the spring of life, with the acceptance of the killing of innocent children in the womb being considered as a “health service”, it is profanely consistent to see the same approach applied in the winter of life….
But we are not just talking about those very near the end of life. The specific wording in the bill is:
….if there is a significant change in the health condition of the individual, including diagnosis of a chronic, progressive, life-limiting disease, a life-threatening or terminal diagnosis or life-threatening injury, or upon admission to a skilled nursing facility, a long-term care facility (as defined by the Secretary), or a hospice program.
Just a “life-limiting” disease is enough to trigger the state’s interest in you. Down’s Syndrome? Muscular dystrophy? Alzheimer’s? Senile dementia? You could be encouraged to “go home” early.
But even if you are in fairly good shape, and you are past middle age, you have cause for concern. See TITLE IV–QUALITY: Subtitle A–Comparative Effectiveness Research. “Comparative Effectiveness Research” means that they will take the cost of your proposed treatment and divide that by the remaining years of your statistical life expectancy. If your per-year life cost exceeds the state-mandated threshhold, you won’t get the health care. Are you a military veteran over 59 who risked everything for your country? No heart by-pass surgery for you, you expensive old goat!
That will save big bucks for little Pedro, whose parents came here illegally to partake of your largesse. And as for the 12 million illegals who will be getting the services you are forfeiting, the health care bill also provides for using more of your tax money for translation services, so that those who speak no English can be fully informed how to take maximum advantage of the system that they did not pay for.
..........................................................................................
House "DeathCare" bill PDF form Soylent Green Recycled ObamaCare
Soylent Green is a 1973 dystopian science fiction movie depicting a future in which overpopulation leads to depleted resources, which in turn leads to widespread unemployment and poverty. Real fruit, vegetables and meat are rare, expensive commodities, and much of the population survives on processed food rations, including "soylent green" wafers.
"Soylent Green is people! We've got to stop them somehow!"
After Thorn learns of the use of human bodies to make food, his main concern is with the future implications: that the Soylent food company will eventually "raise humans like cattle."
After Roth discovers that Soylent wafers are made from human flesh, and decides to end the horror by signing up for government-assisted suicide, he is shown a montage of beautiful natural images in the death chamber: flowers, deer, mountains, and rivers. When Thorn rushes to the active, voluntary euthanasia clinic to try to stop Roth, he is too late to save his friend, but he is able to share Roth's final moments. In Roth's last minutes alive, "Thorn shares Sol’s nostalgic moment" as Sol asks “Can you see it?” and “Isn’t it beautiful?”, which helps Thorn to realize "what he and the rest of the world has lost."
..........................................................................................
Think about what obamacare will do. It will in effect create more voluntary euthanisa clinics. No I don't believe humans will become food but I do believe "health care" will be rationed and totally controlled by the "government". Soylent Green is what obama wants to force on the US population in the form of "obamacare" It will lead to government assisted euthanisa.
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
Soylent Green ObamaCare National End Of Life Controls
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
ObamaCare EXPOSED!
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
We have Marxists reigning, in America's executive and legislative branches
Support Our Oath Keepers. Our military and law enforcement personnel are squarely in the center of America's increasing tensions. They must be armed and ready, with the truth.
.............................................................................................
We have Marxists reigning, in America's executive and legislative branches, and sympathetic thought in virtually half of our judiciary. They have never ceased to be revolutionaries. They practice the systemic violence of the "Cloward-Piven Strategy," to bring America to socioeconomic failure, as they seek to level their presumed powers of the state upon us, while building their "armies of the proletariat," to "fundamentally transform" and "remake" America. Those last two quotes are the very words of Barack Obama.
We do not know what will happen, as 2012 nears, nor as the 2010 elections come. With the popularity of Barack Obama and the "progressive" Congress on the decline, we do not know what Providence will allow, yet this year.
As new kinds of manufactured, generated, and false-flag crises are a distinct possibility -- as DHS/FEMA and Obama's Czars usurp more powers -- as our personal, state and national sovereignties are directly threatened, our military and law enforcement personnel may have to decide whether they are on the side of tyranny and treason, or on the side of:
* the overriding principles of our Declaration of Independence
* their oaths to protect, defend, and support our Constitution, including its boundaries
* our essential sovereignty, as the People of the United States of America.
Please get the message of this video and the Oath Keepers Web site out, to all those you know in the military and law enforcement community -- and to those with friends and family who serve.
We are already being warred against (and the Obama/Pelosi "healthcare" plan threatens to be a "keystone" of this assault).
Please use the technology at your fingertips and spread the word.
(Obama and his brown shirts will not stop. They will not stop if the FRAUD is removed from office. It is very important to put someone like Ronald Reagan in office who will defend America instead of someone like obama who will destroy America. We must continue to answer the "brown shirts" in what ever form in kind. The enemy is within! Traitors in our midst.) Story Reports
.............................................................................................
We have Marxists reigning, in America's executive and legislative branches, and sympathetic thought in virtually half of our judiciary. They have never ceased to be revolutionaries. They practice the systemic violence of the "Cloward-Piven Strategy," to bring America to socioeconomic failure, as they seek to level their presumed powers of the state upon us, while building their "armies of the proletariat," to "fundamentally transform" and "remake" America. Those last two quotes are the very words of Barack Obama.
We do not know what will happen, as 2012 nears, nor as the 2010 elections come. With the popularity of Barack Obama and the "progressive" Congress on the decline, we do not know what Providence will allow, yet this year.
As new kinds of manufactured, generated, and false-flag crises are a distinct possibility -- as DHS/FEMA and Obama's Czars usurp more powers -- as our personal, state and national sovereignties are directly threatened, our military and law enforcement personnel may have to decide whether they are on the side of tyranny and treason, or on the side of:
* the overriding principles of our Declaration of Independence
* their oaths to protect, defend, and support our Constitution, including its boundaries
* our essential sovereignty, as the People of the United States of America.
Please get the message of this video and the Oath Keepers Web site out, to all those you know in the military and law enforcement community -- and to those with friends and family who serve.
We are already being warred against (and the Obama/Pelosi "healthcare" plan threatens to be a "keystone" of this assault).
Please use the technology at your fingertips and spread the word.
(Obama and his brown shirts will not stop. They will not stop if the FRAUD is removed from office. It is very important to put someone like Ronald Reagan in office who will defend America instead of someone like obama who will destroy America. We must continue to answer the "brown shirts" in what ever form in kind. The enemy is within! Traitors in our midst.) Story Reports
Monday, August 17, 2009
Show Your Support For Glenn Beck And Hit Back Twice As Hard
Defend Glenn Go here to help defend Glenn Beck against the obama attack. Yes we can expose the FRAUD obama!
.....................................................................................
On July 28, Beck called President Obama a racist who has a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." (I agree with Glenn Beck.)
Racist quotes from Obama's books...
The quotes below are from Obama's book, "Dreams of My Father";
Although Obama spent various portions of his youth living with his white maternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather, he vowed that he would "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."
This is from "Audacity of Hope";
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
From "Dreams";
"The emotion between the races could never be pure,” “Even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
"There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. "A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white"
I wonder how many have read his books?
Does this sound like a man who should be the president of America?
The president of blacks AND whites??
From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I CEASED TO ADVERISE MY MOTHER'S RACE AT THE AGE OF12 OR 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE".
From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART"
From Dreams Of My Father, "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. IT WAS INTO MY FATHER'S IMAGE , THE BLACK MAN, THE SON OF AFRICA, THAT I'D PACKED ALL THE ATTRIBUTES I SOUGHT IN MYSELF.
From Dreams Of My Father:
"THAT HATE HADN'T GONE AWAY," he wrote, BLAMING WHITE PEOPLE,- SOME CRUEL, SOME IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
Obama is just like the grand dragon of the KKK except he is a racist mixed bitter shadow of a man doomed to forever search for his identity packaged by the mass media as a "black man". In truth he is a racist who was trained by the "rev wright" to hate white people as Glenn Beck has stated in a round about way. I won't beat around the bush. Obama is a bigot, racist FRAUD!
(The above comments from obama ARE RACIST! Glenn Beck is correct! Obama is a RACIST! His own words from his books prove it!)
.....................................................................................
War erupts over Glenn Beck TV show: Fans fight back
Launch campaign against boycott group founded by Obama's 'environmental czar'
Posted: August 16, 2009
7:26 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Van Jones
Glenn Beck fans are fighting back against a campaign led by a black activist organization prompting major advertisers to withdraw from Beck's top-rated Fox News Channel program.
Last week, NewsBusters reported President Obama's "green jobs czar," Van Jones, is co-founder of ColorofChange.org, an activist organization that has led a furious campaign against Beck culminating in major companies such as Geico and Lawyers.com pulling their spots from the Fox News star's daily show.
In recent weeks, Beck has done several critical segments about Van Jones, who was appointed as the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Beck's segments were based in part on WND's reporting that Jones was as an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader.
Get Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine
Now a husband and wife team of Beck fans has launched a website – DefendGlenn.com – that lists the contact information for advertisers for Beck's and other Fox News programs and provides users with information and suggestions to contact those companies to urge their continued sponsorship. The site also asks users to contact Beck's current patrons to thank them for their loyalty to the Fox News star's program.
"Our goal is to hit advertisers hard with response from Beck fans with real purchasing power, unlike the instigators of this phony Astroturf boycott," the founder of DefendGlenn told WND.
"At some point they will realize they've been punked by a bunch of paid activists, college students
and slacker bloggers in their parents' basements who don't purchase their products anyway," said the founder, who asked that his name be withheld.
ColorofChange, meanwhile,says it has garnered about 75,000 signatories for an online petition against Beck to be sent to advertisers.
World Net Daily Story About Glenn Beck Ads
....................................................................................
Defend Glenn Support Wall Show Your Support For Glenn beck Here.
.........................................................................................
FROM THE WALL
Steven O'Dell, Fountain Valley, California
Glenn, it's men such a yourself that give hope to the rest of us that perhaps we might regain our nation, our sovereignty and and our sanity. Yours is a unique position and talent for this critical time and we need that voice of reason and call to repentance. God bless you and yours.
Michael Williams, Fuquay Varina, NC
Glenn, you are the Thomas Paine of our time!
Matt Waterman, Jacksonville, NC
Glenn, your doing great work...lets end the "white guilt trip"
Michael Patton, Woodbridge, VA
God bless you sir for sticking to your guns and telling the truth; DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT!!
Jim Doody, South Glens Falls, NY
Glenn is a true American hero, no less than our founding fathers. Keep it up Glenn.
William Rains, SC
Obama is a racist! Obama quote: From "Dreams"; "The emotion between the races could never be pure,” “Even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart." "There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. "A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white" Obama is also a liar and a FRAUD.
Lets think about this obama quote. What if I said the emotion between races could never be pure? What if I said love was tarnished by a the desire to find in the "other" some element that was missing in myself or "ourselves". If I said I was looking at the negro race for demons or salvation and only finding something "menacing, alien and apart" I would be saying all the negro or black race had demons etc.
Obama specifically talks about the "other race". Obama has group all white people togeather and made racist comments about the "other race". He said there is something about "him" "the other race" that makes, "him" "the other race" "A little too sure about himself, maybe" "and white" Obama is following his pastor the "rev wright's" racist teachings to hate the "white race".
If you are a black person I would like to know if you think I am a racist if I substituted the word "white" for "black". If you say ok go ahead and do it. I would say you to are a racist just like obama. If you said, no don't change the word "white" to "black" because that would be racist you would be admitting obama is a RACIST. Think about the two words if substituted ",white", "black". Maybe you will begin to see obama is a racist.
.....................................................................................
On July 28, Beck called President Obama a racist who has a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture." (I agree with Glenn Beck.)
Racist quotes from Obama's books...
The quotes below are from Obama's book, "Dreams of My Father";
Although Obama spent various portions of his youth living with his white maternal grandfather and Indonesian stepfather, he vowed that he would "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela."
This is from "Audacity of Hope";
"There were enough of us on campus to constitute a tribe, and when it came to hanging out many of us chose to function like a tribe, staying close together, traveling in packs," he wrote. "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."
From "Dreams";
"The emotion between the races could never be pure,” “Even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart."
"There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. "A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white"
I wonder how many have read his books?
Does this sound like a man who should be the president of America?
The president of blacks AND whites??
From 'Dreams of My Father',
"I CEASED TO ADVERISE MY MOTHER'S RACE AT THE AGE OF12 OR 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites"
From Dreams of My Father, " I FOUND A SOLACE IN NURSING A PERVASIVE SENSE OF GRIEVANCE AND ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY MOTHER'S RACE".
From 'Dreams of my Father', "The emotion between the races could never be pure..... the THE OTHER RACE (WHITE) WOULD ALWAYS REMAIN JUST THAT: MENACING, ALIEN AND APART"
From Dreams Of My Father, "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. IT WAS INTO MY FATHER'S IMAGE , THE BLACK MAN, THE SON OF AFRICA, THAT I'D PACKED ALL THE ATTRIBUTES I SOUGHT IN MYSELF.
From Dreams Of My Father:
"THAT HATE HADN'T GONE AWAY," he wrote, BLAMING WHITE PEOPLE,- SOME CRUEL, SOME IGNORANT, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives."
Obama is just like the grand dragon of the KKK except he is a racist mixed bitter shadow of a man doomed to forever search for his identity packaged by the mass media as a "black man". In truth he is a racist who was trained by the "rev wright" to hate white people as Glenn Beck has stated in a round about way. I won't beat around the bush. Obama is a bigot, racist FRAUD!
(The above comments from obama ARE RACIST! Glenn Beck is correct! Obama is a RACIST! His own words from his books prove it!)
.....................................................................................
War erupts over Glenn Beck TV show: Fans fight back
Launch campaign against boycott group founded by Obama's 'environmental czar'
Posted: August 16, 2009
7:26 pm Eastern
By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
Van Jones
Glenn Beck fans are fighting back against a campaign led by a black activist organization prompting major advertisers to withdraw from Beck's top-rated Fox News Channel program.
Last week, NewsBusters reported President Obama's "green jobs czar," Van Jones, is co-founder of ColorofChange.org, an activist organization that has led a furious campaign against Beck culminating in major companies such as Geico and Lawyers.com pulling their spots from the Fox News star's daily show.
In recent weeks, Beck has done several critical segments about Van Jones, who was appointed as the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.
Beck's segments were based in part on WND's reporting that Jones was as an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader.
Get Glenn Beck's "Common Sense" ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine
Now a husband and wife team of Beck fans has launched a website – DefendGlenn.com – that lists the contact information for advertisers for Beck's and other Fox News programs and provides users with information and suggestions to contact those companies to urge their continued sponsorship. The site also asks users to contact Beck's current patrons to thank them for their loyalty to the Fox News star's program.
"Our goal is to hit advertisers hard with response from Beck fans with real purchasing power, unlike the instigators of this phony Astroturf boycott," the founder of DefendGlenn told WND.
"At some point they will realize they've been punked by a bunch of paid activists, college students
and slacker bloggers in their parents' basements who don't purchase their products anyway," said the founder, who asked that his name be withheld.
ColorofChange, meanwhile,says it has garnered about 75,000 signatories for an online petition against Beck to be sent to advertisers.
World Net Daily Story About Glenn Beck Ads
....................................................................................
Defend Glenn Support Wall Show Your Support For Glenn beck Here.
.........................................................................................
FROM THE WALL
Steven O'Dell, Fountain Valley, California
Glenn, it's men such a yourself that give hope to the rest of us that perhaps we might regain our nation, our sovereignty and and our sanity. Yours is a unique position and talent for this critical time and we need that voice of reason and call to repentance. God bless you and yours.
Michael Williams, Fuquay Varina, NC
Glenn, you are the Thomas Paine of our time!
Matt Waterman, Jacksonville, NC
Glenn, your doing great work...lets end the "white guilt trip"
Michael Patton, Woodbridge, VA
God bless you sir for sticking to your guns and telling the truth; DON'T GIVE UP THE FIGHT!!
Jim Doody, South Glens Falls, NY
Glenn is a true American hero, no less than our founding fathers. Keep it up Glenn.
William Rains, SC
Obama is a racist! Obama quote: From "Dreams"; "The emotion between the races could never be pure,” “Even love was tarnished by the desire to find in the other some element that was missing in ourselves. Whether we sought out our demons or salvation, the other race would always remain just that: menacing, alien, and apart." "There was something about him that made me wary,” Obama wrote. "A little too sure of himself, maybe. And white" Obama is also a liar and a FRAUD.
Lets think about this obama quote. What if I said the emotion between races could never be pure? What if I said love was tarnished by a the desire to find in the "other" some element that was missing in myself or "ourselves". If I said I was looking at the negro race for demons or salvation and only finding something "menacing, alien and apart" I would be saying all the negro or black race had demons etc.
Obama specifically talks about the "other race". Obama has group all white people togeather and made racist comments about the "other race". He said there is something about "him" "the other race" that makes, "him" "the other race" "A little too sure about himself, maybe" "and white" Obama is following his pastor the "rev wright's" racist teachings to hate the "white race".
If you are a black person I would like to know if you think I am a racist if I substituted the word "white" for "black". If you say ok go ahead and do it. I would say you to are a racist just like obama. If you said, no don't change the word "white" to "black" because that would be racist you would be admitting obama is a RACIST. Think about the two words if substituted ",white", "black". Maybe you will begin to see obama is a racist.
ObamaCare Insurance Cooperative is a Trojan Horse
The FRAUD obama belongs in jail.
ObamaCare Insurance Cooperative is a Trojan Horse
Because of vocal public opposition, the public option is not likely to pass in the Senate so Democrats are now calling for an insurance cooperative. They would like to see a group of at least 500,000 people covered under a national plan.
An Insurance Cooperative is the same Trojan Horse of a different color for a Federal takeover of healthcare. Creating a single monolithic insurance policy is the exact opposite of what should be done. What should be done instead is a multitude of different policies in every State from which consumers in any State can choose. The proposed insurance cooperative will take the economy further away from a free-market system that functions with minimal government regulation.
An insurance cooperative will reduce competition among insurers and Federal regulators will dictate the terms of the policy and rates? The idea is not necessarily new. Insurance coops were around back in the early 1920’s. My concern is that such a large entity might be treated as is the Federal Reserve, a private corporation, or Fannie or Freddie also private corporations. No one can deny that the Federal Government actually controls these corporations. If the Federal Government regulates the insurance cooperative like they did Fannie and Freddie, we can expect the same result - redistribution of wealth, and a poor delivery system.
Co-ops are a Trojan Horse
According to today’s Washington Post, the Senate Finance Committee will soon produce a health care plan that rejects “a government-run health insurance plan in favor of a network of member-owned cooperatives.” More commonly referred to as “co-ops”, these organizations actually already have a long and proud tradition in many sectors of the U.S. economy, including health care. But Americans must be wary that our nation’s co-op tradition does not become a vehicle for government run health care.
To some the word “co-operative” may have a slight Bolshevik whiff to it, but actually a private co-op is nothing more than private individuals exercising their right to voluntarily self-associate. From farm bureaus to barn-raisers, private co-ops are part of American society. In the realm of health care, a group that organizes coverage provided by private insurers could be structured as a co-op. Or the health insurer itself could be a co-operative owned by its member policyholders. Those kind of insurance companies are called mutual insurers.
Understood in this manner, co-ops have far more to do with Edmund Burke and little platoons than with Leon Trotsky and manning the barricades. And they can be part of the health care solution.
But, don’t be fooled, Burkean little platoons are not what the Obama Administration and its allies in Congress have in mind In liberal Washington today, leaders such as Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), are talking up co-ops that would be:
• Run by the government, preferably the federal government
• Funded or subsidized by the government, or
• Includes plans chosen by the government.
A co-op with any of these three features is obviously unacceptable. A real co-op is:
• Run by its members
• Funded by its members and other private sources
• Controlled by its members
Why is the left fastening to co-ops now? Because their public plan idea—a way for the government to take over health care—has run into a buzz saw of opposition among the American people. Liberals have concluded, it seems, that there’s more than one way to skin a cat. So if the public plan was a Trojan horse for a single payer (which means a complete government take over of your health care decisions), a co-op (the way liberals mean it) is a Trojan horse for a public plan.
Congress should, of course, be empowering true local, private co-ops to be a real health choice for Americans. To do that Congress needs to amend the tax laws to do two things: Allow mutual insurance companies to be the foundation of non-profit insurance companies; and give people the same tax breaks for getting insurance from a co-op as from their employer.
None of this is, however, what some leading members of Congress have in mind when the subject of co-ops comes up.
The Heritage Foundation - 214 Massachusetts Ave. NE, Washington, DC 20002
Friday, August 14, 2009
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional
Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate warns of unconstitutional power grab by obama the FRAUD! (Do you understand this? Sen Byrd is warning obama is centralizing his power thru "czars" that answer ONLY to obama the FRAUD!) This is what a DICTATOR does to grab power and make the constitution null and void!. (Glenn Beck is correct obama the FRAUD is a RACIST)
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional
Posted By admin On June 15, 2009 @ 2:25 pm In Constitution
Ken Klukowski
Townhall
June 15, 2009
Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.
As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money (and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay until the czar is pleased.
Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter, Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each had one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created fourty four czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous government power, and answers only to the president.
Ever since this practice of appointing czars began years ago, it has always been considered possible that they are all unconstitutional. But it never built to a critical mass to elicit a court fight. These czars were few and far between, and rarely did anything that seriously ruffled any feathers. But President Obama has taken this to an unprecedented level, to the point where these appointments are dangerous to our constitutional regime.
This has become too much for the longest-serving senator in U.S. history to stomach. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who has been serving in the Senate since before Barack Obama was even born.
Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)
And Senator Byrd is exactly correct. The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries. (Byrd is a liberal warning about a dictator takeover)
Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments. For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program.
White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify. They are alter-egos of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of the President they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way. That was why during the Bush administration White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, Senior Advisor Karl Rove, and Counsel Harriet Miers could not be compelled to testify to Congress when President Bush invoked executive privilege (a battle they may well have won if they pressed their case all the way to the Supreme Court). Senior presidential aides advise the president alone, and the separation of powers forbids congressional interference in that relationship.
But that’s the problem with these czars. The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do.
The Founding Fathers specifically wrote the Constitution in a way to deny such absolute power to emanate from one person. That was why they required that no principal officers could exercise any power unless the U.S. Senate decided to confirm them. That was also why they specified that even for inferior officers only Congress could create their positions and could still require them to answer to Congress. The Founding Fathers were specifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting.
Fortunately, there is a remedy. Any person on the receiving end of an order from any of these czars has standing to challenge their constitutionality in court. Any person whose pay is deemed excessive by Kenneth Feinberg, or affected by any other czar, could file a federal suit asserting that the order is an unconstitutional exercise of government power, and have a court both invalidate the order and hold that the position itself doesn’t legally exist. Then everyone could just ignore these czars, because they would simply be private citizens, without the authority to order any of us to tie our shoes.
Byrd says obama is making the constitution null and void!
....................................................................................
UPDATE: The number of czars, as of this week in August 2009, has now grown to 44.
The Obama administration is power-grabbing and growing more radical and out of hand every day. Appointing 32 czars… horrific and excessive, especially since they shadow many existing government departments. So why do we need them?
We don’t.
The Glenn Beck video below, from his show that aired a month ago, is an eye-opener. This new bureaucracy of czars doesn’t have to answer to the American people, only to POTUS Obama: Shadow government.
Obama’s Shadow Government & Czars — Glenn Beck’s ‘One Thing’ | Aired 06-09-09
When will the Media Czar be appointed by Obama? You know, to destroy or control conservative talk radio, religious programming, publications, and FOX News? That’s an imperative in the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals book and the blueprint for socialist takeover of a country: own and control communication and news sources. Then we can have “Hail Obama, Dear Leader” programming 24/7 like they do in other dictatorships.
Obama Is A Dictator Through CZARS
..........................................................................................
OBAMA CZAR PICKS
1. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra.
2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet.
4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner
5. Car Czar: Ron Bloom
6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore.
7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle.
8. Education Czar: Arne Duncan
9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker.
10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet.
11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion.
12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried.
13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis.
14. Stimulus accountability Czar: Earl Devaney.
15. Cyberspace Czar: Not appointed yet.
16. Border Czar: Alan Bersin (Former US attorney).
17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair.
18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein.
19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet.
21. TARP Czar: Herb Allison.
22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell.
23. Science Czar: John Holdren.
24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones.
25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke.
26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration.
27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross.
28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra.
29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley.
30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois.
31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern.
32. Green Czar: Anthony Jones
33. Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings (The Obama admin appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the pro-homosexual GLSEN organization, "to oversee the nation's safe schools" program.)
Shadow government..in place for the final take-over...when Zero pushes us past the tipping point, marshal law is ordered and Zero cancels future elections until after the emergency is over. (A possibility)
The Czars exist for two reasons: (1) To serve their Emperor Obama, and (2) to enrich themselves. They have no use for constitutional limits or restraints and for congressional oversight. They represent a concentration of power in the Executive Branch which is unprecedented and dangerous. But then, the entire Obama Administration presents more danger and risk to this nation than Radical Islam. Obama & Associates have accomplished a coup de’tat while we were busy watching ‘American Idol’.
Ask yourself also, why does congress allow czars in the obama administration? It is because the democrates control congress so obama answers to know one in congress. We The People are in grave danger of losing our freedoms. Obama is similar to hitler in that he is installing a shadow government that will ensure his agenda is executed. Remember when he was sworn in. He said, "I will faithfully execute, pause, execute the constitution of the US."
Senior Democrat Says Obama’s Czars Unconstitutional
Posted By admin On June 15, 2009 @ 2:25 pm In Constitution
Ken Klukowski
Townhall
June 15, 2009
Last week President Obama appointed yet another “czar” with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama’s “czar strategy” is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.
As of last week, Czar Kenneth Feinberg has the authority to set the pay scale for executives at any company receiving government money (and how many aren’t, these days?). Czar Feinberg has the power to say that someone’s pay is excessive, and to make companies cut that pay until the czar is pleased.
Congress did not give Czar Feinberg this authority. For that matter, Congress has not authorized any of the czars that President Barack Obama has created. Over the past thirty years presidents have each had one or two czars for various issues, and once the number went as high as five. But now, by some counts President Obama has created fourty four czars, and there may be more on the way. Each of these has enormous government power, and answers only to the president.
Ever since this practice of appointing czars began years ago, it has always been considered possible that they are all unconstitutional. But it never built to a critical mass to elicit a court fight. These czars were few and far between, and rarely did anything that seriously ruffled any feathers. But President Obama has taken this to an unprecedented level, to the point where these appointments are dangerous to our constitutional regime.
This has become too much for the longest-serving senator in U.S. history to stomach. Democratic Senator Robert Byrd is the president pro tempore of the U.S. Senate. Even though Senate rules vest most powers in the Senate majority leader, the president pro tempore is a constitutional officer, and third in line to the U.S. presidency (after the vice president and the Speaker of the House). This office is held by a Democrat, who has been serving in the Senate since before Barack Obama was even born.
Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight. (Didn’t this White House promise unprecedented transparency?)
And Senator Byrd is exactly correct. The Constitution commands that government officers with significant authority (called “principal officers”) are nominated by the president but then are subject to a confirmation vote by the U.S. Senate. And principal officers include not only cabinet-level department heads, but go five levels deep in executive appointments, to include assistant secretaries and deputy undersecretaries. (Byrd is a liberal warning about a dictator takeover)
Inferior officers are appointed either by the president, cabinet-level officers, or the courts. But even then, the Constitution specifies that only Congress can authorize the making of such appointments. For these inferior officers, only Congress can create their offices, and also specify who appoints them. And such officers are still answerable to Congress. They are subject to subpoena to testify before Congress, and Congress holds the power of the purse by making annual appropriations for their division or program.
White House officials, by contrast, cannot be compelled to appear before Congress and testify. They are alter-egos of the president himself, and as an agent of the Executive Office of the President they are entirely removed from Congress, and not answerable to Congress in any way. That was why during the Bush administration White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten, Senior Advisor Karl Rove, and Counsel Harriet Miers could not be compelled to testify to Congress when President Bush invoked executive privilege (a battle they may well have won if they pressed their case all the way to the Supreme Court). Senior presidential aides advise the president alone, and the separation of powers forbids congressional interference in that relationship.
But that’s the problem with these czars. The president can have any advisors he wants, people who privately advise him or meet with others on his behalf, but have little or no actual authority to exert government power on anyone. These czars, however, are directly dictating policy, impacting millions of lives in the way that few assistant secretaries or deputy undersecretaries do.
The Founding Fathers specifically wrote the Constitution in a way to deny such absolute power to emanate from one person. That was why they required that no principal officers could exercise any power unless the U.S. Senate decided to confirm them. That was also why they specified that even for inferior officers only Congress could create their positions and could still require them to answer to Congress. The Founding Fathers were specifically blocking the type of centralized power that President Obama is currently exerting.
Fortunately, there is a remedy. Any person on the receiving end of an order from any of these czars has standing to challenge their constitutionality in court. Any person whose pay is deemed excessive by Kenneth Feinberg, or affected by any other czar, could file a federal suit asserting that the order is an unconstitutional exercise of government power, and have a court both invalidate the order and hold that the position itself doesn’t legally exist. Then everyone could just ignore these czars, because they would simply be private citizens, without the authority to order any of us to tie our shoes.
Byrd says obama is making the constitution null and void!
....................................................................................
UPDATE: The number of czars, as of this week in August 2009, has now grown to 44.
The Obama administration is power-grabbing and growing more radical and out of hand every day. Appointing 32 czars… horrific and excessive, especially since they shadow many existing government departments. So why do we need them?
We don’t.
The Glenn Beck video below, from his show that aired a month ago, is an eye-opener. This new bureaucracy of czars doesn’t have to answer to the American people, only to POTUS Obama: Shadow government.
Obama’s Shadow Government & Czars — Glenn Beck’s ‘One Thing’ | Aired 06-09-09
When will the Media Czar be appointed by Obama? You know, to destroy or control conservative talk radio, religious programming, publications, and FOX News? That’s an imperative in the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals book and the blueprint for socialist takeover of a country: own and control communication and news sources. Then we can have “Hail Obama, Dear Leader” programming 24/7 like they do in other dictatorships.
Obama Is A Dictator Through CZARS
..........................................................................................
OBAMA CZAR PICKS
1. Technology Czar: Aneesh Chopra.
2. Drug Czar: Gil Kerlikowske
3. Copyright Czar: Not appointed yet.
4. Energy Czar: Carol M. Browner
5. Car Czar: Ron Bloom
6. Terrorism/WMD Czar: Gary Samore.
7. Health Care Czar: Nancy-Ann DeParle.
8. Education Czar: Arne Duncan
9. Economic Czar: Paul Volcker.
10. Mortgage Czar: Not appointed yet.
11. Urban Affairs/Housing Czar: Adolfo Carrion.
12. Guantanomo closure Czar: Danny Fried.
13. Great lakes Czar: Cameron Davis.
14. Stimulus accountability Czar: Earl Devaney.
15. Cyberspace Czar: Not appointed yet.
16. Border Czar: Alan Bersin (Former US attorney).
17. Intelligence Czar: Admiral Dennis Blair.
18. Regulatory Czar: Cass Sunstein.
19. Pay Czar: Kenneth Feinberg
20. Iran Czar: Not appointed yet.
21. TARP Czar: Herb Allison.
22. Middle-East peace Czar: George Mitchell.
23. Science Czar: John Holdren.
24. Green jobs Czar: Van Jones.
25. Afghanistan Czar: Richard Holbrooke.
26. Sudan Czar: J. Scott Gration.
27. Mideast policy Czar: Dennis Ross.
28. Information Czar: Vivek Kundra.
29. AIDS Czar: Jeffrey Crowley.
30. Faith-based Czar: Joshua Dubois.
31. Climate Czar: Todd Stern.
32. Green Czar: Anthony Jones
33. Safe Schools Czar Kevin Jennings (The Obama admin appointed Kevin Jennings, founder of the pro-homosexual GLSEN organization, "to oversee the nation's safe schools" program.)
Shadow government..in place for the final take-over...when Zero pushes us past the tipping point, marshal law is ordered and Zero cancels future elections until after the emergency is over. (A possibility)
The Czars exist for two reasons: (1) To serve their Emperor Obama, and (2) to enrich themselves. They have no use for constitutional limits or restraints and for congressional oversight. They represent a concentration of power in the Executive Branch which is unprecedented and dangerous. But then, the entire Obama Administration presents more danger and risk to this nation than Radical Islam. Obama & Associates have accomplished a coup de’tat while we were busy watching ‘American Idol’.
Ask yourself also, why does congress allow czars in the obama administration? It is because the democrates control congress so obama answers to know one in congress. We The People are in grave danger of losing our freedoms. Obama is similar to hitler in that he is installing a shadow government that will ensure his agenda is executed. Remember when he was sworn in. He said, "I will faithfully execute, pause, execute the constitution of the US."
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
The Destruction of Lives Unworthy of Life
Hitler's T4 Program Revived In Obama's Health-Care `Reform'. You will have no recourse because the government can't be sued nor will there be any appeal after a committee determines you are unworthy or life. This is what national health care is all about. Yes there are "death care" panels. In effect "killing off old people" its not crazy or stupid to say that because your health care would be determinded by one of several panels, with no appeal. I WOULD CALL THIS A DEATH PANEL!! On Page 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get!
Hitler's T4 Program Revived
In Obama's Health-Care `Reform'
While there is no doubt that the degeneration of our culture, in terms of the valuation of life, has proceeded quite a distance over the last decades, thus preparing our population to accept Nazi euthanasia today, the apparatus parallel to that which Hitler set up can still be stopped. It must be done now—before the medical and economic "experts" carry out genocide again.
....................................................................................
Hitler's T4 Program Revived
In Obama's Health-Care `Reform'
by Nancy Spannaus
PDF Version Of This Article
In July of 1939, a conference of medical professionals was held in Berlin, Germany. Participating were the professors and chairmen of the departments of psychiatry of the leading universities and medical schools of Germany, many of them, the most respected professionals in their fields. The subject? What would be the criteria for determining what patients would be considered to have "lives unworthy to be lived," and what was the most "practical and cheap" manner of removing them from being burdens on the health-care system—by death.
Thus, the bureaucratic machine began to be cranked up for what is known as Adolf Hitler's program of genocide through "euthanasia," a program which killed hundreds of thousands of non-Jewish Germans, and eventually, millions of Jews and non-Germans as well.
That program, which had already begun years before, against concentration camp inmates and handicapped children, was officially put into effect in October 1939, when Hitler penned his own personal, and secret, authorization for the program, under the title, "The Destruction of Lives Unworthy of Life":
Reichsleiter Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment of their state of health, can be accorded a mercy death.
To carry out this program, Hitler and his fiendish Nazi associates would fully utilize the "professional" apparatus which had been put in place, as well as the popular, British-eugenics-spawned ideology which had been increasingly dominant in Germany since Hitler seized power with the aid of powerful British-Wall Street financiers. The killing would proceed with the utmost "cost-effectiveness" and professionalism, in order to save funds for the Nazi state's preferred projects, and not waste them on "ineffective" medical treatments.
If that sounds familiar, it should. For the proposals which the Obama Administration has currently put on the table, follow them in virtual lockstep. First, the "experts" decide what is "effective" care, with "cost-effectiveness" foremost in mind, ruling out "inappropriate" treatments. These standards become the law, in terms of what medical care will be paid for. Then other experts efficiently implement those decisions, through the existing hospital apparatus.
The result, as in Nazi Germany, is that millions are, with the stroke of a pen, consigned to death.
The T4 Program
The T4 program, which was established following Hitler's secret order, took its name from its Berlin office address, Tiergarten 4, which address housed the coordinating organization for the program, the Reich Work Group of Sanatoriums and Nursing Homes. In charge were Philip Bouhler, chief of the Chancellory, and Dr. Karl Brandt, Hitler's personal physician and chief medical officer of the land.
Their first task was to devise the questionnaires which would be used to categorize the targetted institutionalized populations. Four categories were specified:
1. Patients suffering from specified diseases who are not employable, or are employable only in simple mechanical work. These included schizophrenia, epilepsy, senile diseases, therapy-resistant paralysis, feeble-mindedness, and the like.
2. Patients who have been continually institutionalized for at least five years.
3. Patients who are criminally insane.
4. Non-German patients.
While including these categorizations, the questionnaire overall gave the impression of a rather neutral statistical survey, which also delved into the patients' biographies, their financial situations, and the like (Figure 1). It was accompanied by a questionnaire for the institution in which the patient was housed, which asked about staffing, beds available, and budgetary questions. A significant stress was also put on detailing the patients' abilities to work.
The first questionnaires went out in October 1939, the month Hitler signed his order, to state hospitals and other public and private institutions where mental patients, epileptics, the mentally retarded, and other handicapped persons resided. The responsibility for filling them out, often in a very short period of time, fell on the physicians at those institutions.
The questionnaires were then sent to panels of three or four psychiatric experts, who indicated their opinion about whether the patient (whom they had never seen, much less examined, and whose medical history they were unfamiliar with) was to live or die. Each "expert" made his or her decision independently, and passed on the questionnaire to the next. The choice for the experts was effectively only one of two options: a plus sign in red, which meant death; or a dash in blue, which meant life. Occasionally, a psychiatrist would put a question mark in the space provided.
The questionnaires were then sent to a chief expert, who passed the final judgment. At this "higher" level, there was no alternative other than life or death. In fact, the "senior expert" was not bound by the recommended decisions. From his judgment, there was no appeal. From that point on, it was merely a matter of sending back the decision to the relevant institution, where the final dispensation of the patient was carried out, and, if so ordered, sending him or her to one of the designated "killing centers."
These centers were supervised by medical personnel, who oversaw the killing, and were responsible for devising the fraudulent death certificates which were sent to the families of those who had been determined to have lives "not worthy to be lived."
Councils of Experts
Shift now to today, where we are in the first phases of the Nazi euthanasia program (called "reform") being promoted by the Obama Administration and its behavorial psychologist "experts." It starts with the dictum that there are insufficient resources to provide medical care for all, especially those at the "end of life," or not able to be "effectively" rehabilitated. In other words, the Nazi assumption that there are lives "not worthy to be lived." At least according to the priorities for spending which the Administration has set—i.e., the banks must be saved first.
The second step is for the Administration to set up those "panels of experts" who will determine the criteria for who will get medical care, and who won't. Already, the so-called Obama stimulus package has created one such panel, the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research. This 15-member council is comprised of highly credentialed "experts," many of them medical doctors, who are tasked with "coordinating research" on the relative values of treatments. While explicitly claiming that the Council will not directly pronounce judgments on treatments and payments, it is clear that the research that they are supervising is intended to do precisely that.
Particularly ominous is the fact that one of the Council's members, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, is trained in "bioethics," a discipline dedicated precisely to determining criteria for deciding who should live, and who should die. Crucially significant as well, is that Obama's head of the Office of Management and Budget, Peter Orszag, has already set out his genocidal judgment that around 30% of current health-care services and procedures are unnecessary.
The model for their work, as reflected in statements by many of the relevant officials, is the British National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), the Orwellian-named agency which has central control over what medical care will be provided to British subjects within the British National Health Service. As the following article explains, NICE's directives have systematically denied Britons quality care, on the basis of its being "too expensive," and have singled out, especially, the elderly, for being undeserving of intensive medical care.
The Comparative Effectiveness Council is clearly only the beginning of the genocide—if this Nazi plan is not stopped cold.
Let's look at a number of other proposals.
One has been made by former Sen. Tom Daschle, the man whom President Obama wanted to appoint Secretary of Health and Human Services, and special health czar in the White House (his appointment was derailed over tax problems). Daschle's plan, as laid out in his 2008 book Critical: What We Can Do About the Health-Care Crisis, centers around the creation of an all-powerful Federal Health Board, which would be able to act without political interference, as the Federal Reserve does in the monetary system.
Daschle's Federal Health Board would have a board of governors ("clinicians, health benefit managers, economists, researchers, and other respected experts") which would command a huge staff of analysts that would come up with policy diktats in the areas of health insurance and medical care. The board would determine which treatments are, in its view, "the most clinically valuable and cost effective." They would promote "quality," by "using evidence-based guidelines and cutting down on inappropriate care." In addition, the Board would "align incentives with high-quality care," an obfuscatory term which means paying doctors to keep costs down, and withholding payments for unapproved (read: "expensive") procedures.
Daschle calls the Federal Health Board a "standard setter," but, in fact, it would become the dictator as to who lives, and who dies.
Paralleling Daschle's proposal is a piece of legislation which was introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.) on May 20. Rockefeller proposes that the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPAC, created in 1997), move beyond its current mandate to advise on rates of payment for the 44 million enrollees in Medicare, to set lists of approved treatment standards, and enforce compliance with regulations on health-care delivery and reimbursement. Rockefeller's press release states that he wants MedPAC to be made up of "independent experts," as an "executive agency modelled after the Federal Reserve."
He adds:
We must take Congress out of its current role.... It is inefficient and ineffective; we are not health-care experts, and being a deliberative body means that we cannot keep pace with the rapidly transforming health-care marketplace.
Knew or Should Have Known
When the Nazi doctors, and others, were tried for crimes against humanity and genocide at the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II, many claimed that they only had the most noble intentions; others, that they were only following orders. In fact, they were wittingly serving as "expert" or bureaucratic cogs in a mass-murder machine, of whose outcome they were fully aware.
While there is no doubt that the degeneration of our culture, in terms of the valuation of life, has proceeded quite a distance over the last decades, thus preparing our population to accept Nazi euthanasia today, the apparatus parallel to that which Hitler set up can still be stopped. It must be done now—before the medical and economic "experts" carry out genocide again.
....................................................................................
Obama the "Bastard In Chief" suggested he maybe should have just given his grandmother a painkiller when she broke her hip because it would have saved money.
....................................................................................
And for those who have been paying close attention, Obama himself has ever-so-gently hinted at his true intentions. At a town hall event in June televised by ABC News, Obama cited the case of his grandmother, Madelyn Dunham, who died on the eve of his election, suggesting one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die.
Families, Obama said, need better information so they don't approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."
"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," the president offered.
Obama was slightly more explicit in a May 3 interview with the New York Times, when he said there ought to be a national "conversation" over whether "sort of in the aggregate, society making those decisions to give my grandmother, or everybody else's aging grandparents or parents, a hip replacement when they're terminally ill is a sustainable model." Such decisions, added Obama, shouldn't be left to patients or their relatives, but to a "group" of "doctors, scientists, ethicists" who are not part of "normal political channels."
This group of "doctors, scientists, ethicists" are the "panel" Sarah Palin was referring to. She was referring exactly to what obama had said in the May 3 New York Times interview!
How Hitler And Obama Are Similar: Become Informed
There were two separate roads taken by German citizens. Most Germans took the road supporting their government in time of deep crisis. A few Germans took the road opposing their government despite the deep crisis facing their nation.
Why the difference? Why did some Germans support the Hitler regime while others opposed it?
What we often forget is that many Germans did not support Hitler and the Nazis at the start of the 1930s. Keep in mind that in the 1932 presidential election, Hitler received only 30.1 percent of the national vote. In the subsequent run-off election, he received only 36.8 percent of the vote. It wasn’t until President Hindenburg appointed him as chancellor in 1933 that Hitler began consolidating power.
Among the major factors that motivated Germans to support Hitler during the 1930s was the tremendous economic crisis known as the Great Depression, which had struck Germany as hard as it had the United States and other parts of the world. What did many Germans do in response to the Great Depression? They did the same thing that many Americans did — they looked for a strong leader to get them out of the economic crisis.
In fact, there is a remarkable similarity between the economic policies that Hitler implemented and those that Franklin Roosevelt enacted. Keep in mind, first of all, that the German National Socialists were strong believers in Social Security, which Roosevelt introduced to the United States as part of his New Deal. Keep in mind also that the Nazis were strong believers in such other socialist schemes as public (i.e., government) schooling and national health care. In fact, my hunch is that very few Americans realize that Social Security, public schooling, Medicare, and Medicaid have their ideological roots in German socialism.
Hitler and Roosevelt also shared a common commitment to such programs as government-business partnerships. In fact, until the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional, Roosevelt’s National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), which cartelized American industry, along with his “Blue Eagle” propaganda campaign, was the type of economic fascism that Hitler himself was embracing in Germany (as fascist ruler Benito Mussolini was also doing in Italy).
As Srdja Trifkovic, foreign-affairs editor for Chronicles magazine, stated in his article “FDR and Mussolini: A Tale of Two Fascists”, Roosevelt and his ‘Brain Trust,’ the architects of the New Deal, were fascinated by Italy’s fascism — a term which was not pejorative at the time. In America, it was seen as a form of economic nationalism built around consensus planning by the established elites in government, business, and labor.
Both Hitler and Roosevelt also believed in massive injections of government spending in both the social-welfare sector and the military-industrial sector as a way to bring economic prosperity to their respective nations.
By the latter part of the 1930s, many Germans had the same perception about Hitler that many Americans had about Roosevelt. They honestly believed that Hitler was bringing Germany out of the Depression. For the first time since the Treaty of Versailles, the treaty that had ended World War I with humiliating terms for Germany, the German people were regaining a sense of pride in themselves and in their nation, and they were giving the credit to Hitler’s strong leadership in time of deep national crisis.
Hitler was a strong believer in national service, especially for German young people. That was what the Hitler Youth was all about — inculcating in young people the notion that they owed a duty to devote at least part of their lives to society. It was an idea also resonating in the collectivist atmosphere that was permeating the United States during the 1930s.
While U.S. officials today never cease to remind us that Hitler was evil incarnate, the question is: Was he so easily recognized as such during the 1930s, not only by German citizens but also by other people around the world, especially those who believed in the idea of a strong political leader in times of crisis? Keep in mind that while Hitler and his cohorts were harassing, abusing, and periodically arresting German Jews as the 1930s progressed, culminating in Kristallnacht, the “night of the broken glass,” when tens of thousands of Jews were beaten and taken to concentration camps, it was not exactly the type of thing that aroused major moral outrage among U.S. officials, many of whom themselves had a strong sense of anti-Semitism.
The Great Depression was not the only factor that was leading people to support Hitler. There was also the ever-present fear of communism among the German people. In fact, throughout the 1930s it could be said that Germany was facing the same type of Cold War against the Soviet Union that the United States faced from 1945 to 1989. Ever since the chaos of World War I had given rise to the Russian Revolution, Germany faced the distinct possibility of being taken over by the communists (a threat that materialized into reality for East Germans at the end of World War II). It was a threat that Hitler, like later American presidents, used as a justification for ever-increasing spending on the military-industrial complex. The ever-present danger of Soviet communism led many Germans to gravitate to the support of their government, just as it later moved many Americans to support big government and a strong military-industrial complex in their country throughout the Cold War.
One of the most searing events in German history occurred soon after Hitler took office. On February 27, 1933, in what easily could be termed the 9/11 terrorist attack of that time, German terrorists fire-bombed the German parliament building. It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Adolf Hitler, one of the strongest political leaders in history, would declare war on terrorism and ask the German parliament (the Reichstag) to give him temporary emergency powers to fight the terrorists. Passionately claiming that such powers were necessary to protect the freedom and well-being of the German people, Hitler persuaded the German legislators to give him the emergency powers he needed to confront the terrorist crisis. What became known as the Enabling Act allowed Hitler to suspend civil liberties “temporarily,” that is, until the crisis had passed. Not surprisingly, however, the threat of terrorism never subsided and Hitler’s “temporary” emergency powers, which were periodically renewed by the Reichstag, were still in effect when he took his own life some 12 years later.
Is it so surprising that ordinary German citizens were willing to support their government’s suspension of civil liberties in response to the threat of terrorism, especially after the terrorist strike on the Reichstag?
....................................................................................
While the American people faced these three crises — the Great Depression, the communist threat, and the war on terrorism at three separate times, the German people during the Hitler regime faced the same three crises all within a short span of time. Given that, why would it surprise anyone that many Germans would gravitate toward the support of their government just as many Americans gravitated toward the support of their government during each of those crises?
Today the US government manufactured economic crisis and the real war on terrorism have made many Americans gravitate toward supporting obama during a perceived "crisis".
Some might argue that Germans, unlike people in other nations, should not have trusted and supported their government officials during the war because it was obvious that Hitler and his henchmen were evil. The problem with that argument, however, is that throughout the 1930s many Germans and many foreigners did not automatically come to the conclusion that Hitler was evil. On the contrary, as we saw in part one of this article, many of them saw Hitler as exercising the same kind of strong leadership that Franklin Roosevelt was exercising to bring the United States out of the Great Depression and, in fact, as implementing many of the same kinds of programs that Roosevelt was implementing in the United States.
....................................................................................
Keep in mind also that the Nazis were strong believers in such other socialist schemes as public (i.e., government) schooling and national health care. In fact, my hunch is that very few Americans realize that Social Security, public schooling, Medicare, and Medicaid have their ideological roots in German socialism.
This is the factual record. The Nazis and obama believe in the same exact ideological programs. Obama knows that national health care is just a means to an end. The end being his complete control of America just like hitler. Obama Care is being repeated and recycled just like hitlers program of hational health care.
....................................................................................
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Health Care Bill Allows Government to Tell You How to Raise Your Children and its on Page 838
House bill natioanlized health care
Chuck Norris: Health Care Bill Allows Government to Tell You How to Raise Your Children and its on Page 838
Chuck Norris:
Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law.
......................................................................................
Chuck Norris :: Townhall.com Columnist
Dirty Secret No. 1 in Obamacare
by Chuck Norris
Health care reforms are turning into health care revolts. Americans are turning up the heat on congressmen in town hall meetings across the U.S.
While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.
Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government's coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.
It's outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading "home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children." The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.
The bill says that the government agents, "well-trained and competent staff," would "provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains ... modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices," and "skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development."
Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts'? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?
Are we to assume the state's mediators would understand every parent's social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?
One government rebuttal is that this program would be "voluntary." Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, "I don't think I'll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I'll go down to the local government offices"? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state "shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families."
Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this "prioritized" training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?
Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?
Government needs less of a role in running our children's lives and more of a role in supporting parents' decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right -- and government support -- to parent them without the fed's mandates, education or intervention in our homes.
Kids are very important to my wife, Gena, and me. That's why we've spent the past 17 years developing our nonprofit KICKSTART program in public schools in Texas. It builds up their self-esteem and teaches them respect and discipline. Of course, whether or not they participate in the program is their and their parents' choice.
How contrary is Obamacare's home intrusion and indoctrination family services, in which state agents prioritize houses to enter and enforce their universal values and principles upon the hearts and minds of families across America?
Government's real motives and rationale are quite simple, though rarely, if ever, stated. If one wants to control the future ebbs and flows of a country, one must have command over future generations. That is done by seizing parental and educational power, legislating preferred educational methods and materials, and limiting private educational options. It is so simple that any socialist can understand it. As Josef Stalin once stated, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed."
Before so-called universal health care turns into universal hell care, write or call your representative today and protest his voting Obamacare into law. Remind him that what is needed in Washington is a truly bipartisan group that is allowed an ample amount of time to work on a compromise health care law that wouldn't raise taxes (for anyone), regulate personal medical choices, ration health care or restrict American citizens.
(In other words tell obama hell no you don't want nationalized health care. Tell the FRAUD obama you know he is a liar. Be aware obama is a FRAUD who is trying to become a dictator just like hitler.)Story Reports
“Adolf Hitler issued six million end of life orders–he called his program the final solution. I kind of wonder what we’re going to call ours.”
[Page 429] amends Title 18 of the Social Security Act to stipulate that Medicare will pay for — “advance care planning consultations” between individuals and physicians every five years, during which a spectrum of end-of-life options can be explained and discussed so said individuals can knowledgeably choose their own treatment preferences in advance.
Liberals will tell you this is not mandated. They will tell you its nothing to worry about. They will tell you to support obama, dr death.
Read the bill yourself. Realize it does talk about a spectrum of end of life options. Realize obama wants to kill you and the government wants you to die if they choose. They being one of 45 panels who will determine if you quality for health care. The government will in effect abort your life!
Hatari!
Hatari means "danger" in Swahili.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
