I Want To Be Obama's Speechwriter!

...especially if it only involves copying and pasting the same rhetoric from previous speeches and using certain phrases over and over...and over again.

Take a look at this video (embedded below):

CAUTION: we do not recommend turning this into a drinking game for each time you hear a country being listed as our strongest / closest / oldest ally.

Bonus: after watching the video, please feel free to take this short multiple choice quiz (below) to test what you learned about the rhetoric of Obama's foreign policy.

Question 1. According to POTUS, what country is our strongest / closest ally?

 A. Holland

 B. Netherlands

 C. Australia

 D. Poland

 E. Great Britain

 F. Germany

 G. Republic of Korea

 H. Israel

 I. France (our oldest ally)

 J. Italy

 K. Japan

 L. All of the above

Question 2: According to POTUS, which country continually "punches above its weight" class in foreign affairs?

 A. Denmark

 B. Norway

 C. Holland

 D. Ireland

 E. Philippines

 F. All of the above

Question 3: What is the most likely source of Obama's repetitive speeches?

 A. Faulty copy - paste keys on the speechwriter's keyboard

 B. A broken teleprompter

 C. Lazy speechwriters dependent on parroting key talking points to try in a last ditch effort to keep all of their facts straight.

 D. All of the above.

Below is another speechwriting gem from POTUS on the health insurance mandate. This video captures highlights from a 2011 speech and puts it side by side with a more recent recycled rhetoric from 2012.

I suppose that Obama is clinging on to the hope that the more he repeats himself to the point of ad nauseam, that his statements will somehow magically contain more truth. Though, you'd think that by the second time around when Obama gives the exact same speech, he'd at least stutter a little less. 

~Gee

"Let's Move!" Away from Party Lines to Combat Obesity

"If people let government decide which foods they eat and medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny." 

 Thomas Jefferson 

Everywhere we turn, someone is telling us what, how, and when to eat.  From Marie Osmand touting Nutrisystem success to newly svelte singer and actress Jennifer Hudson boasting of her Weight Watchers victory over the battle of the bulge, the diet industry has become big name and big business.  Each new fad promises a seemingly more effective and exercise-free way to become healthy and stay slim than the last.

In the 1990s, we were told that fat makes us fat, and yet as we filled up on pasta, bagels, and non-fat yogurt, we filled out.  This decade, we have learned that the Dr. Adkins’ theories of low-carbohydrate diets may be more effective at producing weight loss and effecting positive metabolic changes than previously believed.  Even as we stopped vilifying meats and cheeses and the Doctor was seemingly vindicated, his theories haven’t solved the complex problem of obesity.  We’ve been told to monitor our weight according to the mathematical formula of body mass index, but this measurement fails take into account age, gender, or muscle mass or to distinguish between lean body mass and fat mass.  According to this index, a bodybuilder would be considered overweight.  With the constant bombardment of competing and conflicting information about nutrition, it is hardly baffling that obesity and morbid obesity are on the rise, especially in our nation’s youth.  

Television shows such as The Biggest Loser highlight the growing national interest in addressing obesity, which the CDC now recognizes as a “national health threat,” and its “behavioral risk factors.”  More recently, the federal government has confronted childhood obesity.  President Obama created the Task Force on Childhood Obesity to “conduct a review of every single program and policy relating to child nutrition and physical activity and develop a national action plan.”  In conjunction, Michelle Obama’s "Let’s Move!" campaign has brought the need to address nutrition and physical activity to the forefront of national consciousness.  Mrs. Obama admitted she would employ whatever means necessary to effect real change: “No one gets off the hook on this one from governments to schools, corporations to non-profits all the way down to families sitting around their dinner table."  In December, the U.S. House of Representatives passed “The Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act,” which contained key measures that will help improve the nutritional content for school lunches and combat childhood obesity.  

Mrs. Obama’s campaign has come under attack by many conservatives, who decry government intervention at any level and argue it will lead to an Orwellian Nanny State for food.  Rush Limbaugh told one of his callers that she would be reported to Mrs. Obama for “being part of the obesity problem.”  On his Fox News show, Sean Hannity sardonically questioned, “Does every American family need a dietitian appointed by the government to tell them that this food is going to make you fat and this food is not?”  Glenn Beck linked government takeover in the health care industry to the need to police food intake.  His libertarian sentiments were captured when he not so eloquently declared, “If I want to be a fat fat fatty and shovel French Fries all day long, that is my choice.”  More recently, Sarah Palin impugned Mrs. Obama’s obesity initiative:

“Take her anti-obesity thing that she is on. She is on this kick, right. What she is telling us is she cannot trust parents to make decisions for their own children, for their own families in what we should eat. And I know I’m going to be again criticized for bringing this up, but instead of a government thinking that they need to take over and make decisions for us according to some politician or politician’s wife priorities, just leave us alone, get off our back, and allow us as individuals to exercise our own God-given rights to make our own decisions and then our country gets back on the right track.”

Governor Mike Huckabee, who has been an outspoken advocate for exercise and healthy eating, defended “Let’s Move!” following Governor Palin’s comments: “With all due respect to my colleague and friend Sarah Palin," Huckabee said during an interview on the Curtis Sliwa Show, "I think she's misunderstood what Michelle Obama is trying to do."

As a conservative with libertarian leanings, I’m tempted to tow the party line with regard to President and Mrs. Obama’s initiatives.  Even as I recoil at the creation of task forces and know that the cure for government intervention is never more hair of the dog, as we observed with the healthcare, financial, and auto industries, conservatives cannot simply deny the obesity epidemic.  While I believe Obamacare is more about control and government expansion than it is creating equitable access to healthcare, I cannot deny the need for public awareness about obesity, and “Let’s Move!” is stimulating much needed conversation about weight loss, healthy living, and physical activity.  Admittedly, Mrs. Obama’s campaign has the potential to grow government, and its ties to SEIU are predictable.  Yet, I’m under no dis-illusion that Mrs. Obama or the fairy “food police” are suddenly going to begin jailing parents who serve Pepsi. 

As a fitness enthusiast, I find it appalling that so many prominent conservatives have turned a blind eye to the obesity epidemic in the name of individual liberty.  Historically, First Ladies have championed important social causes from anti-drug campaigns to literacy, and there are none more pressing than the health risks associated with obesity such as Type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and high blood pressure – to name a few.  These conservatives fail to realize that there is no freedom in the saga of yo-yo dieting and plethora of mis-information that exists about nutrition and fitness.  Ask anyone who’s ever purchased a can of Slim Fast or gone on the “cabbage soup diet.”

Though conservatives are correct that the Obama administration has no right to control the foods we eat as Jefferson once said, that is not the stated or implied goal of "Let's Move!"  The health of our nation is not a liberal or conservative issue – it is a moral one that should cross party lines.  It is a travesty that this topic has simply fueled the culture war between liberals and conservatives rather than stimulating honest discussion and plans of action.

Fad diets don’t work, because they are gimmicks designed to produce short-term weight loss rather than long-term lifestyle changes.  Mrs. Obama’s campaign promotes those changes by empowering parents with information, providing healthy food in schools, improving access to healthy, affordable foods, and increasing physical activity.  Each of these elements is integral to improving the health and quality of life for our nation's youth and our nation as a whole.  Of all the policies this President and his administration have implemented in this "fast-food nation," this is the first real change this conservative can believe in.

~ elf

It's A Bird, It's A Plane, No It's...

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign, then-Senator Barack Obama released his “Blueprint for Change,” a document outlining his grand plans for our nation once he became president.  The document was hailed as an idyllic roadmap to this country’s transformation.  In his proposal, he grandly claimed to the nation that he was in the presidential race to quite literally “save our planet.”  He also boasted that “the Democratic Party has always made the biggest difference in the lives of the American people.” 

Now, however, in the face of the largest man-made oil spill in history, where is President Obama, the savior of the world? What steps has he taken to stop the gushing of oil into the gulf and onto the shores of American soil?  A month after the spill, the man who claimed his presidency would mark the moment in history that “the planet began to heal” is notably absent from the solution-finding process.  Why?

Well, first of all, I imagine it’s a little difficult for the President to successfully don a brightly-colored spandex suit, mask, and cape to come flying to the rescue of the planet as his inflated comments suggested he would (although, if that were to happen, I have no doubt that the media would capture the “inspirational” moment of Obama’s head held high, his cape blowing in the wind, and a whole rescued family of endangered baby ducks sleeping peacefully in his arms).  In all seriousness though, the reality of the oil spill requires complex, highly-specialized, technological inventions to solve a problem that has never before been seen, so honestly, what contribution could a community organizer / politician have on the situation? Answer: none.  There is no scientific solution that our government can offer to a problem that clearly requires a scientific solution. 

Why would the government be able to do any better than BP’s failed attempts?  How could they? The federal government is not an oil-drilling specialist.  The federal government’s only expertise is – and should be – in policy-making (and given the vast quantity of recent bills that have passed into law without our politicians reading the text to ensure constitutionality, I make this statement quite liberally). Still, scientists from oil drilling companies are the experts.  They are the ones that politicians call in for special advice when regulating and making new laws and policies, since the technology is simply beyond their general knowledge base. 

If expert scientists and engineers from oil companies are unable to find a solution to the oil spill, there is certainly no way that Obama is going to find a solution. Obama realizes this, therefore, instead of putting himself in the spotlight and subjecting his impotency and inability to solve this deep-sea dilemma to the public’s über-critical eye, he opted to lay low, hoping no one would remember his claim to rescue the planet just a few years prior.

Even if Obama can’t imagineer a real solution on his own, he has recently taken action by commissioning James Cameron, Director of the movie Titanic, to do the brainstorming for him…because, you know, people who direct movies about sunken ships clearly understand the technology behind stopping an oil leak.  

Listen, I don’t claim to have the answers to this problem either, but it just seems to me that if the government is going to turn to Hollywood to save the planet, maybe Obama should have chosen Michael Bay over James Cameron.  I mean, in Armageddon, Bruce Willis’ team was a bunch of deep-sea oil rig geniuses who flew two spaceships into space (spaceships, by the way, that were magically funded, built, and modified for the space drilling expedition in a mere few days time). They drilled a bunch of holes into an asteroid, walked around dramatically in slow motion, and dropped a couple of nukes down the half-mile holes.  If the government is looking for solutions from Hollywood, it just seems like it might just be better to put the fate of the world in the hands of Bruce Willis and his team instead of Leonardo DiCaprio. (After all, in the words of the immortal Bruce Willis: "The United States government just asked us to save the world. Anybody wanna say no?")

Still, all joking aside, I do think some credit needs to be given to the federal government in times like this.  After all, I don’t believe that every crisis is at the fault of the current sitting president. It’s simply not possible to blame any one particular party for a disaster, because a disaster – by its very nature – usually implies that there was a perfect storm of mishaps that have been building over time.  Take Hurricane Katrina, for example – one of the most powerful series of climate patterns to hit the Gulf in years.  Would the hurricane have been so destructive if the population had not chosen to live in a region that is several feet below sea level and logically in a location subject to high risks of flooding?  Was it President Bush’s fault that the local tax money that had been collected for over 20 years was squandered by local politicians on other pet projects fix instead of repairing the levies as the region’s primary source of protection against flooding? No, but that’s what happens when we create a nanny state – we create false expectations for a government entity that has no reasonable means or requirement to solve every problem on this planet. 

It is not the federal government’s responsibility or role to fix every bad mortgage deal. It is not the federal government’s responsibility to regulate and control the patient-doctor relationship.  Nor is it the federal government’s responsibility to find a solution for the failures of private companies.  However, since the federal government previously failed to review BP's engineering "fail safe plans" when approving the original drilling permits, the federal government must assume at least partial responsibility for the current disaster. Likewise, this oil spill affects the ocean coast and borders multiple states. Since the ocean is beyond the constitutional reach of the states independently, it is reasonable to also assume that the federal government does need to step in to protect the property of those affected by the spill.

In short, every day that passes without the federal government taking action to at least protect the property of the states affected, the federal government is failing at its constitutional responsibility. 

Regardless of whether this systematic failure did or did not happen during Obama’s presidency, the impact is still hitting the Gulf now, so we must ask: Where is his leadership?  He is perfectly willing to come to the aid of banks (that support him) or pass mandatory health care (with added perks to interest groups who support him), but where is his "patriarchal" attitude now? If it's his moral obligation to save the planet and oversee our whole lives, including what we eat, what kind of car we drive, and how much money we can make, where is his "protective" umbrella of assistance for the Gulf States?

If Obama wants to play Superman for every other part of our lives, if he wants to make grandiose claims that under his leadership, “the planet can begin to heal,” he had better be prepared to follow up his lofty speech with action – and this oil spill is his chance to do so. However, given the ongoing span of this oil disaster and the continual lack of leadership our President has demonstrated, it’s about time that this administration stops the blame-game, fear-mongering, and threats against BP with fines for violating environmental regulations and starts making legitimate steps toward protecting the trans-state coastline until a solution can be found.

~Gee

Thank You, Mr. President

Dear President Obama,

Recently, you expressed your amusement at Tea Partiers, those of whom have been the primary organized vocalization of the people’s frustration at the out of control government spending and corruption. Mr. Obama, you even had the audacity to suggest that the American public should thank you for the current state of the tax system.

Well, considering that the taxpayers employ you and pay your salary, I’d say you should be thanking us.

Mr. Obama, you should be thanking the top 50% of the earners in this country (those making over $26,000), as they are responsible for about 95% of the government’s income, according to the IRS. 

You should especially be thanking those making $60,000 and above (the top 1/4 of the earners), since this “wealthy” group is responsible for paying 86% of the nation’s federal income tax, also according to the IRS.


Considering that 25% of the population contributes more than 4 out of every 5 dollars that the federal government collects, I don’t quite see why you think we need to “thank” you for this gross abuse of the tax system and blatant wealth redistribution structure.  Likewise, considering that bottom 50% of earners barely pay any federal income tax (if they pay ANY at all), exactly HOW can this group thank you for tax breaks?  After all, surely you aren’t implying you offer tax breaks to people who aren’t paying into the system in the first place, are you?


Regardless, we recognize that since your approval ratings sink to a new low with each new day, we thought we would appease your desperate need for a pat on the back by offering our thanks for a few other topics.

So without further ado: Mr. Obama, thank you.

Thank you for your conceited, false belief that you can solve the problems of the world.  Thank you for your bloated self-love of yourself and desperate need to remind yourself how "great" you think you are.

Thank you for pandering to the unions, Andy Stern, and the thugs at SEIU, who beat a conservative African-American man unconscious who was handing out flags which read "Don't Tread On Me" at a St. Louis town hall meeting.

Thank you for paying homage to Mao on the White House Christmas tree in the Blue Room.
  
Thank you for Anita Dunn, whose favorite political philosopher is mass-murderer Mao Zedong, and all the other admitted communist revolutionaries you have appointed within your cabinet and who helped elect you.

Thank you for Barney Frank, who not only paid $20,000 (unreported to the IRS) to Steve Gobi, a male prostitute who later became Frank’s personal aide but also later had a relationship with Herb Moses, a “mortgage guru” and high-level executive at Fannie May from 1991 until 1998, who helped develop many of the sub-prime lending programs that ultimately led to the collapse of the housing market.

Thank you for Charlie Rangle, who “forgot” to report $75,000 in income from a rental property in the Dominican Republic, a rental property that he charged at least $500 a night to rent.

Thank you for Ron Kirk, your nominee for U.S. Trade Representative who owed $10,000 to the government in back taxes. 

Thank you for 9-11 Truther Van Jones, who after "resigning" from his Green Jobs Czar position, has been forever divested of his power and influence in your administration as he sits on the board for the progressive think-tank known as the Center for American Progress.


Thank you for your hypocrisy: “The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m president of the United States.” – then, Sen. Barack Obama

Thank you for flying all the way across the globe to Copenhagen and making time out of your hectic schedule in attempts to restore honor and dignity to our much despised country and giving an enthusiastic pitch for the Chicago Olympics bid.

Thank you for earning winning   being given the first Nobel Peace Prize for participation.

Thank you for appointing Nancy Killefer as your "Chief Performance Officer" to monitor government waste, even with her failure to pay employment taxes on household help for 1.5+ years.

Thank you for Rahm Emanuel, your Chief of Staff.  Thank you for his failure to disclose +$100,000 in taxable income, and especially thank you for his “service” on Freddie Mac’s board of directors during which time that government-baked lender was accused of fraud for lying about their income back in 2000, 2001, and 2002.  Thank you for that generous contribution to 2008 stock market crash.

Thank you for Vincent Fumo, the former Pennsylvania Senator, who was convicted and found guilty for 137 counts of corruption, including defrauding the state Senate, etc. of +$3.5 million to pay for his private (lavish) lifestyle, in addition to racketeering, bribery, destroying evidence, and obstruction of justice... Not to mention his 1974 encounter with the law when he was the target of a 44-count indictment for mail fraud. 

Thank you for hosting dinner parties with ex-terrorist Bill Ayres.

Thank you for criticizing former President George Bush for playing golf during wartime, and thank you further for, in your first year and a half in office, managing to play more rounds of golf than did President Bush in his entire eight years in office.

Thank you for believing the American people are either too dim-witted or ignorant to either read or understand the health-care bill.  (Thank you for signing into law a health care bill that none of your Congressional supporters took the time to read before passing.)

Thank you for Charles W. Freeman Jr., your selected candidate to the National Intelligence Council, who had to withdraw his nomination because of questions about his questionable financial ties to China and Saudi Arabia.

Thank you for identifying Reverend Wright as your spiritual mentor.  His hate speech against our nation (and against white people) is an enlightening look at your “spiritual” philosophies.

Thank you for Monica Conyers, a Detroit City Council Member and wife of (D) Rep. John Conyers, who was involved in bribery.

Thank you for William Jefferson, who took more than $500,000 in bribes for business deals and was indicted on 16 counts of racketeering, obstruction of justice, and money laundering.

Thank you for Kevin Johnson, the mayor of Sacramento, CA and your friend/ supporter during your campaign, who misused copious amounts of money from AmeriCorps, even though you fired Inspector General Walpin for obtaining proof of Mr. Johnson’s misuse, calling him “confused,” despite having personally co-sponsored a bill that should have protected Walpin from political retribution for his outstanding investigations.

Thank you for never thinking anything is outside of your reach or grasp - including the takeover of 1/6 of the American economy.

Thank you for your ties to ACORN, laughing when questioned if you knew about their brief month of de-funding, and lying bold-faced to the American people when you stated you were unaware that ACORN received federal funding.

Thank you for Cass Sunstein, head of the office of information and regulatory affairs, who has not only advocated bestowing legal rights on animals, but is now also championing the creation of fake websites and the employment of outside interest groups to act as independent supporters of government policy who would then infiltrate opposition (conservative) websites. 

Thank you for downplaying and failing to understand the threat of a nuclear Iran.




Thank you for having the most liberal voting record in the Senate. Our country might have actually believed your campaign lies about you being "moderate" and "bipartisan" had it not been for the proof available to us all via the internet.

Mr. President, thank you.

Thank you for opening our eyes as a nation. If it weren't for you, the public --your constituents-- might have allowed the long-standing precedent of fiscal irresponsibility and corruption to drag our country to a slow, painful end, but thanks to you, we're taking swift action to rectify the course of our great nation.


Most of all, we would like to thank you – thank YOU– for reminding us that our liberty and freedom comes from the Almighty God… and you, Sir, are not Him.

The Hippocratic Oath and Hypocrisy: Free Speech in the Era of Obama's Nanny State

Following the passage of the health care bill, Florida urologist Jack Cassell exercised his first amendment right to free speech and posted a sign on his office door which reads, “If you voted for Obama, seek urologic care elsewhere.  Changes to your health care begin right now, not in four years.”  Dr. Cassell expressed his frustration with a bill that he believes will irrevocably harm if not ultimately destroy the health care system as we know it in this country, specifically the care he gives his patients.  Although Dr. Cassell, a registered Republican, did not refuse to treat anyone – including Obama voters, which he acknowledged would be unethical – patients who dare tread past his sign will visit a waiting room stocked with a variety of conservative pamphlets opposing Obamacare.  “This is what the morons in Washington have done to your health care. Take one, read it and vote out anyone who voted for it,” a waiting room sign reproves. 

In response to Dr. Cassell’s sign, Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.), the same congressman who suggested Republicans’ only answer to the health care is for the sick to “die quickly,” has now attempted to further quell opposition to Obamacare and the president’s far left politics of redistribution.  Most troubling, Grayson has pulled out the proverbial and all too often unfairly employed “race card” and alleged that Dr. Cassell’s sign is tantamount to a refusal to treat black people.  Rep. Grayson told the Sentinel that Dr. Cassell’s behavior disgusted him. “Maybe he thinks the Hippocratic Oath says, 'Do no good',” Grayson said.  “If this is the face of the right wing in America, it's the face of cruelty. ...Why don't they change the name of the Republican Party to the Sore Loser Party?”

While Rep. Grayson’s comments undoubtedly malign Dr. Cassell, I believe this is part and parcel of a more insidious agenda of the Bolshevik left in this country to systematically suppress free speech, especially political in nature, and to construct an “enemies of state” list.  The Fox News network is one such enemy that has met squarely with the opprobrium of the Obama administration.  President Obama has himself called Fox “troublesome” and “vitriolic” in an interview with CBS’ Harry Smith: 

OBAMA:  When you listen to Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck --

SMITH:  It's beyond that.

OBAMA:  It's pretty apparent and it's troublesome.  But keep in mind that there have been periods in American history where this kind of vitriol comes out.  It happens often when you've got an economy that is making people more anxious and people are feeling as if there's a lot of change that needs to take place.  But that's not the vast majority of Americans.  I think the vast majority of Americans know that we're trying hard, that I want what's best for the country.

Maya Angelou has said, “If someone shows you who they are, believe them.”  Barack Obama attended Jeremiah Wright’s church for twenty years and absorbed his bitter, racist, and anti-American rhetoric, yet it is Fox News he deems “troublesome,” not the “damning” of the country he claims to love.  Like Peter, Obama denied his relationship with Wright, but his speech betrayed his disavowal.  On the campaign trail, Obama told us who he was, but we did not believe him:

“You go into these small towns of Pennsylvania like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them and they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.  And it's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustration.”

It’s not so much that this administration is against free speech; they are simply against the speech of those who refuse to fall in line with their agenda of “fundamentally transforming America” through the premeditated obsolescence of self-reliance.  Keith Olbermann spewed hate speech at the Bush administration from NBC for eight years, told President Bush to “shut the hell up,” because “someone had to,” and he didn’t have the “creativity or presence of mind to throw a shoe at him.”  Olbermann called on President Obama to prosecute former President Bush for war crimes.  Yet, the liberal media and their cronies in Washington remained silent as he utilized his pulpit to incite violence against then President Bush and Vice President Cheney.

President Obama has indeed divided this nation, but I believe that that is precisely what he came to do; while his propagandized campaign so artfully crafted an image of the future president as the great unifier, his fourteen months in office are instead a reflection of a man who came to divide and conquer.  Obama is who he said he was, and he is doing what he said he would do.

Evidence abounds that our first amendment freedoms are under attack, and there is no better example than the aspersions this administration and the lame-stream, State-controlled media have cast on the tea party demonstrators.  Despite any actual evidence, despite countless organized and peaceful protests, the tea partiers have been branded with the twenty-first century’s scarlet A.  On the day the health care bill was signed, Congresswoman Pelosi, in nothing short of a calculated photo-op, accompanied the Congressional Black Caucus to the Capitol building amongst a sea of tea party protesters.  Beneath the city of Washington exists a labyrinth of rails, the Metro system.  There was no reason, other than for the imperious pomp and circumstance to which this administration has crowned itself entitled, for Rep. Pelosi, et als., to walk above-ground to the Capitol. 

This wanton display, so patently self-aggrandizing, I conjecture, had a deeper motive to incite violence, or at the very minimum, to create a scene that would send a thrill running up Chris Matthews’ leg.  Undeterred that an altercation did not, in reality, occur, the administration fabricated one.  Racial slurs and invectives, they alleged, were hurled during the anti-Obamacare protest, the “n” word was called fifteen times, and a representative was spit upon.  The countless cameras surrounding the Capitol inexplicably failed to capture this vituperative rhetoric.  Had this actually occurred, it would have been a front-page headline across the nation, especially from those news organizations who support this administration’s proclivity for massive government expansion and industry takeover.  That it did not is a testament to the lengths this administration goes to impose its will upon a people it deems either too recalcitrant or dim-witted to realize what’s in their best interests.  After all, we have to pass the bill to know what’s in it.

More cries of racism have ensued.  Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tn.), during an Internet radio show, insinuated members of the Tea Party have an agenda of bigotry and hatred and have demonstrated a “hardcore angry side,” even “without robes and hoods.”  He alleged that the organizers have shown “opposition to African Americans, hostility toward gays, hostility to anybody who wasn't just a clone of George Wallace's fan club.”

            Americans have come to a crossroads.  The American people and tea party protesters are not radicals, as this administration and President Obama would have us believe.  The act of disagreeing with the policies and politics of a black president is not a smoke signal for racism.  We aren’t overly concerned; in fact, I believe we aren’t concerned enough.  We aren’t bitter clingers; we proudly cling to our faith and the freedoms our forefathers fought and died to bequeath, and when besmirched with false labels of racism and bigotry, we cling boldly to the Truth.  We see this administration’s socialist agenda corroding the Constitution, crippling the private sector, increasing taxes, and decreasing personal liberty, and we’re tired of standing idle.  We aren’t afraid of the bullying and intimidation anymore.  What we used to accept, we no longer will.  President Obama, you’ve shown us who you are.  Now, it’s our turn.

~elf

Obamacare: An Appeal to Pity

How did Congress expect to convince the public that they, the federal government, could manage our health care better than any of the other diseased programs over which they have taken control?  Simple:  they didn’t expect to convince us, because they couldn’t.

When the nation asked legitimate questions, Congress couldn’t come up with adequate answers, so they ignored their constituents. They let the phone calls go to voice mail while Obama subtly diverted the nation’s attention elsewhere and Congressional liberals followed suit and cleverly drove the conversation down a shameful detour. When they did finally respond, Obama apologized profusely to the nation, insulting the intelligence of the average citizen by claiming we, the people, didn’t understand his grand plan because he had not explained his roadmap to a successful health insurance reform clearly enough.  Yet, when the nation still pressed for answers, Obama swiftly flipped the issue on our heads, calling our compassion and concern for the less fortunate into question and demanding to know who we are to question his decision-making skills in the Great Name of Humanity.

Now, instead of addressing the nation’s debt, instead of facing the sad fiscal and broken reality of existing Medicare and Medicaid programs, and instead addressing the concerns of the nation, Obama (and his Congressional liberals) made an appeal to pity, an appeal to the humanitarianism of their cause, and an appeal to the morality of our souls.

This health insurance overhaul is for the children, he cried.  It’s for the single mothers, they told us. How can conservatives oppose a bill that addresses such a noble cause, they accused.

Sure, to the casual observer, this argument makes a liberal look much more empathetic (whereas someone who wants to “Kill the Bill” comes across looking like a greedy, money-grabbing rich guy who does nothing but drink gold and use his poor, lower-class servants as a foot stool).

I can see how it is easy it is for them to villainize those who oppose the health care bill with ad hominem and straw man arguments. It’s much easier for Congressional representatives to brush aside healthy debate from their constituents as meaningless if it’s coming from people they’ve pegged as ignorant, heartless, less morally aware, and therefore, in need of government control in their lives.

…but maybe, just maybe, people who oppose this bill still wanted to see health insurance reform as much as those in favor of it.  Maybe they care about people just as much as those who directly favor the bill. I know, it’s crazy talk to think like that, especially when EVERYONE knows that inherently, those in favor of the bill are the ONLY ones who are more empathetic, who care more about other people, and who are less selfish, whereas those who oppose the bill, are just a bunch of greedy, millionaires who don’t care for anyone but themselves and would be much happier in a world without smelly, expensive pill-popping, old people to worry about. Let’s just say (strictly hypothetically, of course) that people on BOTH sides of the issue care about reform and helping the disadvantaged…

After all, the nation never got answers to its questions.  We, the people, are still left wondering, who will control the flow of tax-dollars? Who decides where this money goes? Who is deciding MY health insurance plan benefits? Who is deciding my doctor / patient relationship? How will we pay for this debt?

We still want answers. 

Now, this week, as the pharmaceutical company Medtronic informed its employees that they will be forced to lay off 1,000 employees in the coming months, as Caterpillar and John Deere announced that they will take a quarter billion dollar hit thanks to the new health care tax laws, as 3M estimated they will take a $90 million hit, we still want answers.

We still want to know why it wasn’t possible to find a reform solution without imposing new tax burdens on companies.

We still want to know why it wasn’t possible to find a solution that didn’t involve bribing politicians for their vote when the overwhelming majority of constituents did not support the bill.

Wasn’t it possible to find a solution that didn’t exempt certain states or interest groups from paying into the proposed taxes?

Wasn’t it possible to find a solution without violating our personal rights to make the decision to go without health insurance (which I’ve personally done before) without being fined up to 2.5% of our income?

Wasn’t it possible to cut costs and make health insurance more affordable by cracking down on the existing Medicare / Medicaid fraud? (After all, if people have less opportunity to steal, insurance companies wouldn’t have to eat so much of a loss and they could lower premiums.)

Wasn’t it also possible to cut costs, not by pulling funding from the non-existent money in the social security piggy bank or taxing the people out the ears, but by increasing competition and allowing individuals to buy insurance across state borders?

The answer – to all of these questions – is yes. 

Under the weight of these questions, however, Obama’s appeal to pity simply did not hold its own. It still doesn’t hold its own.

It is with these questions in mind that Obama and Congressional liberals need to realize that opponents of this bill are not denying the humanitarian travesty that exists when people cannot afford adequate health insurance coverage. We are challenging the Constitutional and fiscal travesty of a federal law that 1.) is beyond the Constitutional reach of the government, and 2.) passes into law against the direct will of the people, and does so thanks to back door deals and bribed votes and at the expense of our economy’s integrity.

After all, no one questions the fact that it is an absolute disgrace when people go hungry, go cold, or go without adequate health insurance coverage, especially in a country as prosperous as the United States.  Shame on me as an individual if I do not do my part to help my community members in need – however, no government official has ANY authority to force their humanitarian causes on me under penalty of jail or fines if I fail to comply.

All the government is doing by deciding our health insurance is taking away our liberty to make our own health decisions. (Oh, and to fine us up to 2.5% of our income if we choose NOT to take the government policy? Yes, that’s directly unconstitutional as well.) 

Think about it: Government can’t protect liberty by taking it away. It’s illogical – illogical AND unconstitutional.

So how about it, Congress?  How about it, President Obama?  Will you ever hold yourselves fiscally accountable and answer our questions or will you continue to invalidate our concerns with your smokescreen appeal to pity?

I’d venture a guess that we will continue to receive the latter response, however, it is interesting to watch our politicians in the meantime deny that the health insurance overhaul isn’t socialism…when inherently, it is.  Universal government-sponsored and mandated health care IS socialistic, in that A.) it is a public, communal (government) ownership of the health care system, and B.) it distributes a commodity based on “fairness” and “equality” (i.e., wealth redistribution) rather than economic or market principles. 

Economically speaking, government-mandated taxes toward humanitarian causes (wealth redistribution) actually are NOT charity, despite the common confusion by the two.  Also economically speaking, government mandated taxes toward humanitarian causes ARE a disservice to the cause of humanitarian aid.  In fact, it has been proven that for every $1 of government-spending toward a charitable cause, up to 50 cents in private giving is displaced (i.e., not spent on the charity).  

Economists call this the crowding-out effect. In other words, the basic principle is that as government spending on charity increases, people privately give less to charitable causes.  Exhibit A: FDR’s New Deal programs during the Great Depression. Government spending went from 0% to 4% of the GDP and church-based charity ALONE dropped by 30%. 

Constitutionally speaking, it is beyond the federal government’s responsibility to force by law citizens to “shoulder” any humanitarian or charitable burden on its citizens. (Not to mention that it’s an oxymoron to claim that a government-mandated tax is “charitable.”  Anything that is forced or required on someone else is no longer charity, even if it is for a good cause.)

I can’t help but wonder if Nancy Pelosi or President Obama has ever heard of the “Winterhilfswerk” – the Winter Aid.  It was a “charity” program designed by the Nazi Party back around the 1930’s. Every year they collected ‘donations’ in the altruistic name of helping the needy, but if families didn’t contribute toward the cause, well…they would run into a bit of trouble with the local Nazi authority.  In fact, the popular propaganda slogan used to promote this program was: “Keiner soll hungern! Keiner soll frieren!” (Translated to: No one should go hungry! No one shall be cold!) 

Sound familiar to the appeal to pity currently employed by Congressional liberals?

There’s a slight shift that’s surfaced in the current health insurance debate that’s an interesting twist to these old German national socialist propaganda catch phrases: instead of openly advocating socialistic policies under the banner of human rights, the socialistic health insurance push is now subtly being advocated as an inalienable or natural right.

The problem with this argument is that inalienable rights are actually rights that are inherent to us: what we have. Inalienable rights are NOT what the government (or anyone) gives us.  We have the right to life and liberty – the government cannot take these away. However, just because the government is obligated to make sure these rights are protected (again, for a government to take them away would be direct oppression), it does not follow to say that they can be GIVEN by the government. 

Regardless, how has it become the common misconception that the U.S. government did not provide assistance (health care) for those in need prior to the passing of this health insurance bill? Has everyone honestly forgotten about two programs called Medicare and Medicaid?

Here’s a funny idea that Obama and Congress failed to address: the supposed 45 million uninsured. According to the 2007 U.S. Census, 21% of the 45 million uninsured Americans were illegal immigrants.  Close to 40% of the uninsured 45 million had incomes exceeding $50,000 but simply chose not to enroll in an insurance policy (either as an individual or through an employer).  Furthermore, according to the Urban Institute, 22% of the uninsured 45 million were eligible for Medicare / Medicaid, but they simply never signed up for a program.  That means, the government, despite the fact that Medicare / Medicaid programs are specifically designed to assist various groups of people who can’t afford insurance, was willing to re-create the wheel and blow billions of dollars because people basically hadn’t filled out their name and address and licked a stamp to mail the form.   

This left only about 2.7% of the 45 million uninsured who did not – could not – get a health insurance plan.

Let’s also not forget or confuse (as our politicians are so apt to do) that a health insurance plan is not the equivalent of health care. In other words, just because one does not have a health insurance policy, it does not mean they do not have health care – it just means their treatment costs will not be subsidized by an insurance company that they’ve been paying into. 

The difference between health insurance and health care is a crucial distinction, because it is a far cry to claim that any percentage of our population cannot get health care, especially since by law, any sick John or Jane Doe steps who within 150’ of a hospital will receive treatment and care far superior to that around the world. (This is true regardless of a person’s citizenship in this country – a point well demonstrated in California, where hospital costs and insurance premiums skyrocket above the rest of the country’s rates, thanks heavily in part to the significant influx of illegal immigrants crossing the border in the hopes of receiving better care, receiving better care, and disappearing when it comes time to pay for the better care they received here than in their home country.)

Again, this is not denying the fact that the system still needed to be tweaked to include the 2.7% who are slipping through the cracks, but this certainly changes the game a bit, doesn’t it?

Suddenly, the immanent crisis looks a wee bit exaggerated, when we actually look at the facts.  Suddenly, the billions and billions of dollars that will drag us into debt claiming to help one-sixth of the population seem a bit more like… overkill. Suddenly, the thousands of layoffs (and billions of dollars in losses) that companies are just starting to announce seem a bit more unnecessary.

Considering Medicare fraud has been estimated to be the cause of costing taxpayers about $60 billion every year, instead of reinventing the wheel and forcing an entire nation of 300 million citizens to switch to a new government plan, why didn’t our Congress even CONSIDER strengthening the amendments in False Claims Act (FCA), for example?

While we’re putting ideas on the table that, despite the massive government overhaul, did not get addressed, why didn’t insurance policies get put back in the hands of the consumer?

Why didn’t they even consider encouraging Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), which have been shown to reduce fraud over standard insurance programs by up to 90%?  HSA programs (health savings accounts) allow customers to pay the health care providers directly for the care received.  This has a direct two-fold benefit: A.) people are more responsible when it’s their money they are writing checks for, and B.) it reduces fraud, and by extension, health insurance premiums.  

Why is some obscure politician deciding what we do with our bodies?

Why didn’t they consider allowing states to increase insurance competition across state borders?  Increased competition forces hospitals and insurance providers to lower costs and premiums, thus making insurance more affordable, so that seems like it should have been a given.

For that matter, why weren’t states allowed to have more control over the Medicare / Medicaid / SCHIP / COBRA programs? The states will ALWAYS put their constituents’ money to better use than the federal government.  In fact, return more control to the states in general.  That has the potential to address wasteful spending in a plethora of fiscal areas.

After all is said and done, do we really think our federal government is competent enough to balance the Health Care checkbook? 

No, we don’t, which is why we can’t help but legitimately wonder if now, when we see moths flying out of our nation’s Social Security piggy bank, when we’re told to turn our attention elsewhere while the government takes control of 20% of our economy, if this unconstitutional show of fiscal irresponsibility won’t bankrupt our economy. 

After all, just think back to 1992, when House Members bounced 11,435 checks (from their own House bank)... are you concerned yet?

~Gee