THE LEAST YOU COULD DO...

As we have all heard the WH is preparing for a full court press on the subject of health care, THIS week! On the 24th ABC will broadcast their evening propaganda news from the White House, then later they will do a special report on Obamacare, speaking to President Obama, with shill guests in the audience to ask "specific" questions. ABC has blocked any organization with a differing point of view to even buy commercial time during this, claiming that they are "allowing" for various points of view during the program.

Then on the 25th, ACORN is hosting a huge astro-turfed rally in front of the Washington Monument to show America how popular Obamacare is, and to encourage others to "get on board" to get free health care.

THIS IS CRUCIAL, WE MUST LAUNCH A FULL OUT LANDSLIDE FLOOD ON CAPITOL HILL WITH LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THIS WEEK!


Please don't let this happen without pushing back!



You can locate the address of your representatives here.

And here is a form letter for the Senate and Congress. The letterhead has been changed for your convenience, just add your respective representatives name and address.

It is a very simple thing to do, which will have an enormous impact. We have to let Washington know that we're asking them "where's the crisis, that this has to be rushed through without reasonable debate?"

Please make this a personal goal this week. Also share this with friends, family and neighbors. Offer to print letters on their behalf and send them in.

Let's flood Washington NOW!

LET'S GET SERIOUS, WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF TIME!

I worked for years in a Veterans Admin. Hospital, which is the closest thing we have in this country to what happens to patient care when the government gets involved.

Though the hospital I worked at was connected to a University hospital and had wonderful equipment and services available, when it got right down to the level of care received it was dependent on the money allotted.

When I worked there, my dad was still living and was a patient there. At that time the VA overall was cutting back on its budget, and the first to be cut was the nursing staff, which directly impacted the care of the patients.

My dad had had a surgery, and was not doing well. I stopped in every morning before work to see how he was. One morning I got to his room and found him dangling in twisted sheets, barely able to breath and half on the floor.

It was at that hospital dad acquired antibiotic resistant staph, which eventually weakened his heart and lead to his death in 1994.

This system exists to this day, and now Obama and the Dems are seeking to fast track it to all of us this summer! Beyond the dubious health care, there is a more insidious aspect to this issue.

Consider this: " If the Democrats get national health care, the concept of individual freedom and liberty will have been obliterated.

Washington, government, state and local, will be able to regulate every facet of our behavior under the guise that it has some kind of a cost impact on health care. For example, the kind of car you drive will be regulated, the kind of food that you eat, and you may not be prevented from eating certain things, but you'll be taxed if you do because of the impact on the health care system. So imagine you want popcorn in the theater, there might be a tax added to it. Folks, it's impossible to exaggerate this. Think of virtually any activity you engage in with your kids that might put them at risk. You take them outside and play. You drive on a snowy road without chains. You fly in an airplane. Anything that could risk injury, which is practically everything you do, could be regulated or taxed because of the impact your behavior will have on the cost of health care. After that takes place, the actual quality of health care we all get is going to hit the sewer."

And this.."The Wall Street Journal, interesting story today: "Why the Health Care Rush?" It is an editorial. It turns out, ladies and gentlemen, that the Democrats had a Democrat-only meeting yesterday with Obama on nationalized health care. The Democrats want to ram this down everybody's throat just like they did TARP and just like they did the stimulus bill. They don't want any public hearings, and no Republicans were in that meeting. "Democrats are trying to rush the largest entitlement expansion since LBJ into law with a truncated debate and as little public scrutiny as possible." Why? One reason. People find out about it, and they won't support it. It will not stand public inspection. The Wall Street Journal says here: "The reality is that Democrats are contemplating the most sweeping restructuring of the health markets since Medicare in 1965, and they don't want to let the details slow them down, just like they didn't want the details of amnesty."


You can read the whole article here.

I've been all over the web looking for some sort of planned push back against this, similar to the tea parties. At the end of May the Obama folks astro-turfed rallies all around the country to promote the single payer system.

My concern is that this will come and go before we can effectively make a difference. In reality, what is "burning up the phones" going to do in a climate of tyranny and fascism that is mushrooming in Washington? You remember that the Republicans also had an alternative plan for the budget, and they were shut out completely.

There are conservative websites and organizations all over the place with lots of information on this topic, but we're getting shut out too. The state media has blocked us.

My question is this, why can't all of the conservative organizations join together to push a huge, nationwide Anti One Payer Health Care Rally/Event? Say at least one or two in each State, all on the same day, all with information and pre-interviews with local stations. Buy newspaper ads, with information telling people where to read Obama's suggested bill. If the state media won't address it, someone has to spread the word.

We can join with high profile Republican and conservative groups to develop a HUGE push back. We need ALL like-minded hands on deck, because if we can't get the nation's attention on this issue, everything conservatives are trying to do will be moot if this thing passes. It will be the gateway to total control of our lives.

Compare the "Patients Choice Act" to Obamacare:

Patients Choice Act 2009


Obama's Bill

Is Obamacare the answer? Let's look at socialized medicine.

So many people have been mesmerized by the 'concept' of "Health Care for Everyone". But these people aren't actually looking at what that means. Oh it certainly sounds wonderful to think that with the wave of his pen, President Obama will deliver quality health care to all Americans...but is that what we'll really get?

Let's listen to some folks who live with just such a health care system, and see what their experiences have been.









In Canada, people who can afford to do so, make plans to find their health care in the United States. If Obama institutes nationalized health care in this country, not only will Canadians have nowhere else to turn, neither will we.

If medications and procedures are limited based on how much they cost, then what will happen to all the research being done on 'cures' for various conditions? Even if someone discovers a cure for breast cancer, or juvenile diabetes, or a myriad of other afflictions and illnesses, what difference will it make when the "system" cannot afford them?












England isn't any better than Canada. Obamacare will be anything but 'free', people will be paying for it with their health, and their lives!

For lots of great information on this issue, check out "Conservatives for Patient's Rights"

We Need More Honesty Like This....

Andrew McCarthy's Letter to Attorney General Holder
May 1, 2009
By email (to the Counterterrorism Division) and by regular mail:

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General of the United States
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530-0001

Dear Attorney General Holder:

This letter is respectfully submitted to inform you that I must decline the invitation to participate in the May 4 roundtable meeting the President’s Task Force on Detention Policy is convening with current and former prosecutors involved in international terrorism cases. An invitation was extended to me by trial lawyers from the Counterterrorism Section, who are members of the Task Force, which you are leading.

The invitation email (of April 14) indicates that the meeting is part of an ongoing effort to identify lawful policies on the detention and disposition of alien enemy combatants -- or what the Department now calls “individuals captured or apprehended in connection with armed conflicts and counterterrorism operations.” I admire the lawyers of the Counterterrorism Division, and I do not question their good faith. Nevertheless, it is quite clear -- most recently, from your provocative remarks on Wednesday in Germany -- that the Obama administration has already settled on a policy of releasing trained jihadists (including releasing some of them into the United States). Whatever the good intentions of the organizers, the meeting will obviously be used by the administration to claim that its policy was arrived at in consultation with current and former government officials experienced in terrorism cases and national security issues. I deeply disagree with this policy, which I believe is a violation of federal law and a betrayal of the president’s first obligation to protect the American people. Under the circumstances, I think the better course is to register my dissent, rather than be used as a prop.

Moreover, in light of public statements by both you and the President, it is dismayingly clear that, under your leadership, the Justice Department takes the position that a lawyer who in good faith offers legal advice to government policy makers—like the government lawyers who offered good faith advice on interrogation policy—may be subject to investigation and prosecution for the content of that advice, in addition to empty but professionally damaging accusations of ethical misconduct. Given that stance, any prudent lawyer would have to hesitate before offering advice to the government.

Beyond that, as elucidated in my writing (including my proposal for a new national security court, which I understand the Task Force has perused), I believe alien enemy combatants should be detained at Guantanamo Bay (or a facility like it) until the conclusion of hostilities. This national defense measure is deeply rooted in the venerable laws of war and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in the 2004 Hamdi case. Yet, as recently as Wednesday, you asserted that, in your considered judgment, such notions violate America’s “commitment to the rule of law.” Indeed, you elaborated, “Nothing symbolizes our [administration’s] new course more than our decision to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay…. President Obama believes, and I strongly agree, that Guantanamo has come to represent a time and an approach that we want to put behind us: a disregard for our centuries-long respect for the rule of law[.]” (Emphasis added.)

Given your policy of conducting ruinous criminal and ethics investigations of lawyers over the advice they offer the government, and your specific position that the wartime detention I would endorse is tantamount to a violation of law, it makes little sense for me to attend the Task Force meeting. After all, my choice would be to remain silent or risk jeopardizing myself.

For what it may be worth, I will say this much. For eight years, we have had a robust debate in the United States about how to handle alien terrorists captured during a defensive war authorized by Congress after nearly 3000 of our fellow Americans were annihilated. Essentially, there have been two camps. One calls for prosecution in the civilian criminal justice system, the strategy used throughout the 1990s. The other calls for a military justice approach of combatant detention and war-crimes prosecutions by military commission. Because each theory has its downsides, many commentators, myself included, have proposed a third way: a hybrid system, designed for the realities of modern international terrorism—a new system that would address the needs to protect our classified defense secrets and to assure Americans, as well as our allies, that we are detaining the right people.

There are differences in these various proposals. But their proponents, and adherents to both the military and civilian justice approaches, have all agreed on at least one thing: Foreign terrorists trained to execute mass-murder attacks cannot simply be released while the war ensues and Americans are still being targeted. We have already released too many jihadists who, as night follows day, have resumed plotting to kill Americans. Indeed, according to recent reports, a released Guantanamo detainee is now leading Taliban combat operations in Afghanistan, where President Obama has just sent additional American forces.

The Obama campaign smeared Guantanamo Bay as a human rights blight. Consistent with that hyperbolic rhetoric, the President began his administration by promising to close the detention camp within a year. The President did this even though he and you (a) agree Gitmo is a top-flight prison facility, (b) acknowledge that our nation is still at war, and (c) concede that many Gitmo detainees are extremely dangerous terrorists who cannot be tried under civilian court rules. Patently, the commitment to close Guantanamo Bay within a year was made without a plan for what to do with these detainees who cannot be tried. Consequently, the Detention Policy Task Force is not an effort to arrive at the best policy. It is an effort to justify a bad policy that has already been adopted: to wit, the Obama administration policy to release trained terrorists outright if that’s what it takes to close Gitmo by January.

Obviously, I am powerless to stop the administration from releasing top al Qaeda operatives who planned mass-murder attacks against American cities—like Binyam Mohammed (the accomplice of “Dirty Bomber” Jose Padilla) whom the administration recently transferred to Britain, where he is now at liberty and living on public assistance. I am similarly powerless to stop the administration from admitting into the United States such alien jihadists as the 17 remaining Uighur detainees. According to National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair, the Uighurs will apparently live freely, on American taxpayer assistance, despite the facts that they are affiliated with a terrorist organization and have received terrorist paramilitary training. Under federal immigration law (the 2005 REAL ID Act), those facts render them excludable from theUnited States. The Uighurs’ impending release is thus a remarkable development given the Obama administration’s propensity to deride its predecessor’s purported insensitivity to the rule of law.

I am, in addition, powerless to stop the President, as he takes these reckless steps, from touting his Detention Policy Task Force as a demonstration of his national security seriousness. But I can decline to participate in the charade.

Finally, let me repeat that I respect and admire the dedication of Justice Department lawyers, whom I have tirelessly defended since I retired in 2003 as a chief assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. It was a unique honor to serve for nearly twenty years as a federal prosecutor, under administrations of both parties. It was as proud a day as I have ever had when the trial team I led was awarded the Attorney General’s Exceptional Service Award in 1996, after we secured the convictions of Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman and his underlings for waging a terrorist war against the United States. I particularly appreciated receiving the award from Attorney General Reno—as I recounted in Willful Blindness, my book about the case, without her steadfastness against opposition from short-sighted government officials who wanted to release him, the “blind sheikh” would never have been indicted, much less convicted and so deservedly sentenced to life-imprisonment.

In any event, I’ve always believed defending our nation is a duty of citizenship, not ideology. Thus, my conservative political views aside, I’ve made myself available to liberal and conservative groups, to Democrats and Republicans, who’ve thought tapping my experience would be beneficial. It pains me to decline your invitation, but the attendant circumstances leave no other option.

Very truly yours,

/S/

Andrew C. McCarthy
cc: Sylvia T. Kaser and John DePue
National Security Division, Counterterrorism Section

A THREAT TO PARENTAL RIGHTS.....

We are facing an incidious threat to our parental rights, which is little known by many parents in our country. Right now a treaty is being considered at the UN which would essentially eliminate our rights to raise our children the way we choose. No longer could we choose their education, their religious instruction, or influence their "world view".

"It is often the family that infects the children with extreme nationalism." -- UNESCO

According to this declaration, if you are a Christian, a Conservative, and a Patriot, you are "infecting" your children!! Below is a description of the threat and a suggested solution. Please join this urgent action today.



Eighty years ago the Supreme Court declared that “the child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations.” Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925).

Thirty years ago the Court continued this line of reasoning with the pronouncement that the “primary role of the parents in the upbringing of their children is now established beyond debate as an enduring American tradition.” Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972).

Yet in 2000, when the State of Washington gave any person the ability to override a good parent’s decision about visitation by simply claiming that it would be “best” for children to allow the third-party to have visitation rights, in the Supreme Court:

· There were six separate opinions and none reached a five-vote majority

· Justice Thomas was the only Justice to clearly state that parental rights receive the same high legal standard of protection as other fundamental rights

· Justice Scalia held that parents have no constitutionally protected rights whatsoever



Support for a high-view of parental rights has been seriously undermined by the current Court.

As a consequence, numerous lower federal courts refuse to treat parental rights as deserving of protection as a fundamental right.

At the same time, America is poised to adopt the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. President Obama supports this treaty. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been a leading advocate of this treaty for over twenty years. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) has “promised” that this treaty will be ratified during this term of Congress.

If this treaty is ratified:

· The laws of all 50 states on children and parents would be superseded by this international law by virtue of a specific provision of the US Constitution which expressly declares treaties to be supreme over state law. Virtually all law on children and parents is state law.

· Good parents would no longer be entitled to the legal presumption that they act in the best interests of their children. Instead, the government would have the authority to overrule all parents on any decision concerning the child if the government believed it could make a better decision.

· Parents could no longer spank their children.

· Children would have the legal right to choose their own religion. Parents would be permitted only to give advice.

· America would be under a binding legal obligation to massively increase its federal spending on children’s programs.


The only kind of law that can override a treaty is the Constitution of the United States. State laws or state constitutions cannot override treaties. There is no guarantee that federal statutes could override treaties—moreover, we enter a binding legal promise to obey a treaty when we ratify it. America should not promise to obey a treaty and then claim it is appropriate to obey the treaty only when we want to. America of all nations must respect the rule of law.


There is only one possible solution for the eroding support for parental rights in the Supreme Court that can also stop the encroachment of international law.


We need to place the time-honored test of parental rights, as recognized by the Supreme Court for over seventy years, into the explicit text of the Constitution.


We cannot wait until our rights are formally demolished. We must act now to stop international law and protect these two key principles:


· Fit parents should be allowed to direct the upbringing of their children.

· American legislators, not international tribunals, should make the public policy for America on families and children.


If you believe these two principles, become a supporter of parental rights by signing the online petition.

They Say It's Unavoidable...

I sculpt and sell custom figurines of companion pets as a way to supplement my income. It's never been a big business, but I've always faithfully kept records of my little sales and expenses and dutifully filed my taxes.

After the election in November, my already shrinking sales ground to a near stand still. And when the infamous "Stimulus Bill" was signed, I started looking around for ways to become more active in pushing back against Washington's irresponsible policies. Besides, what's the point of making an item with lots of TLC, only to have to sell it for less than I'd make working at McDonald's?

So after "going Galt" I plunged into working at full tilt with the Conservative Movement, in various arenas. I've been so busy in fact, that now I find that I've only got 2 days to get my paperwork finished and get the tax forms in the mail!

I'm just a microcosm of the bigger picture. If I, a small time artist/crafter, have experienced a decrease in sales over the last several months and come to the conclusion that it's probably not worth the effort...then what of the businesses that employ people? Liberals never liked the term "trickle down", but I think I'd rather be standing under a trickle of growing income, than slogging through a swamp of growing debt as it bubbles up!

The irony of my situation isn't lost on me. As I finish these tax forms, and jump through all the government assigned hoops to be a "good citizen", I can't help but think of Tim Geithner, and all of the President's other tax evading nominees.

In your face Americans!! ~ While we race to comply with regulations that are unfair and antiquated, worried if we'll get them postmarked in time, the President's hand picked Treasury Secretary didn't pay his taxes for years. Apparently Tim was able to abate any concern he had about not getting them sent in time!

While Obama is increasing taxes on every segment of society, the living and the yet to be born, his message seems to be, "uh, er...uh, if you don't pay, it's okay with me. In fact, why don't you send me your resume? Just make sure to have it post marked by midnight on April 15th."
Yes sir.

And liberals wonder why we're having Tax Day Tea Parties.

Tax Cheatin' Tim, our role model.

To Ayers is NOT Human...

The break neck pace of the dog and pony show coming from Washington over the last couple of months has left me scrambling to keep up. Every day carries with it some announcement, often more than one, that makes my head swim and my eyes roll back in dismay. Michelle Malkin best captures the atmosphere in Washington as Kabuki Theater. The speed at which these various elements whirl across the public stage is nothing short of such a performance!

Yesterday I was blogging for the latest news and I was dismayed, and then outraged when I read that, "the Obama administration is considering making veterans use private insurance to pay for treatment of combat and service-related injuries." This one is especially despicable to me.

Since (over) taking office, Obama has steadily made his mission known regarding terrorists and those who fight against them. First, with no plan as to what to do next, he announced the closing of the Guantanamo detention center. An obvious "pay back" move to appease certain of his supporters. Then in relation to that he halted all prosecutions of detainees for a certain period which resulted in the charges being dropped against the man who planned the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.

There was also the plan to send an envoy to the Durban II conference, infamous for it's anti-Semitic stand in the Durban I meeting, and rife with nefarious Muslim leaders proclaiming their hatred of Israel. Stopped only because of intense criticism. Combine that act of validating the spirit of Durban II with the recent announcement that $900 million dollars is earmarked to go to "rebuilding" Palestine after the recent invasion by Israel. And you get a pretty good idea of what is important to Barry Obama.

That money, which any cross eyed jackass can see will filter into the hands of Hamas, is supposed to be distributed by the U.N., but they can't even prevent their own caravans from being raided by militants. So essentially, each of us who wept at the sight of the Towers in flames are now going to be supplying some of our own money to rebuild an enemy encampment via the stimulus bill! I can see the bumper stickers now..."Praise Allah, those infidels never learn!"

So, now on top of all that garbage short cake, Obama sits a cherry. He wants to make our brave, wounded troops, returning from harm's way, pay for their own medical care! His behavior is fitting of any "America Hater", it echos the attitude of his commy buddy William Ayers, the unrepentant, homeland terrorist bomber from the 60's. Obama is anxious to institute his anti-American policies. Hopefully, while he tries to shove this down our throats, enough of those who drank the Kool-Aid will wake from their stupor, and we can hold this enemy in check with our outrage and actions.

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people’s minds." — Samuel Adams

*And NO Mr Ayers this doesn't mean that we start the fires with bombs.