Comrade Obama’s Deadly ‘Doctors’ - Smooth-Talking Charlatans Then And Now - Euthanasia Advocates Authored Part Of Obamacare - Obama Plan Needs '$13,000/Family' Tax Hike - Town Hall In Missouri Mocks 'Climate Change Myths'... Town Halls Burst With Obama 'Plants'‏ - The Moral Poverty Of The Southern Poverty Law Center Exposed



In regard to Comrade Obama’s Deadly Doctors, these men can't be doctors.  Doctors are supposed to adhere to a creed that says "DO NO HARM!"  Obama's doctors are the antithesis of this!  His fraudulent doctors are more concerned with promoting a culture of death from conception to what God intended to be our golden years! 
Moreover, all that is seen in Obama's death care masquerading as health care bill is the repeated word 'orders' coming from the feds to doctors telling them what to 'order' for their patients in a one size fits all mantra for end-of-life care, which is an abomination before God Almighty Who had the following to say about old age. - Gary L. Morella



Genesis 15

15 And thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace, and be buried in a good old age.


Deuteronomy 33

25 His shoe shall be iron and brass. As the days of thy youth, so also shall thy old age be.


Ruth 4

15 And thou shouldst have one to comfort thy soul, and cherish thy old age. For he is born of thy daughter in law: who loveth thee: and is much better to thee, than if thou hadst seven sons.


Psalms 70

9 Cast me not off in the time of old age: when my strength shall fail, do not thou forsake me.


Psalms 70

18 And unto old age and grey hairs: O God, forsake me not, Until I shew forth thy arm to all the generation that is to come: Thy power,


Psalms 91

15 They shall still increase in a fruitful old age: and shall be well treated,


Proverbs 16

31 Old age is a crown of dignity, when it is found in the ways of justice.


Ecclesiasticus 3

14 Son, support the old age of thy father, and grieve him not in his life;


Ecclesiasticus 8

7 Despise not a man in his old age; for we also shall become old.


Isaias 46

4 Even to your old age I am the same, and to your grey hairs I will carry you: I have made you, and I will bear: I will carry and will save.


Luke 1

36 And behold thy cousin Elizabeth, she also hath conceived a son in her old age; and this is the sixth month with her that is called barren:


Acts Of Apostles 2

17 And it shall come to pass, in the last days, (saith the Lord,) I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh: and your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall dream dreams.
Exodus 20

13 Thou shalt not kill.


Comrade Obama, "Let's Not Get Distracted" Over Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Coverage In Health Care, As Baby Killing Is NO BIG THING for Obama, And Neither Will Be Senior Citizen Killing


Swedish Case Of Age Discrimination In Health Care A Warning About Obamacare - Michelle Obama: To The Manner Born - Windfarm Plan Means Very Expensive Electricity - Renewable Energy At Normal Prices 'Is A Myth'


‘OBAMACARE’: FAST TRACK TO ECONOMIC SUICIDE – The Baby-Killing Industry Is THE Major Job Killer With Abortion The Biggest Fraud Ever Perpetrated On The American People


A Euthanasia Mandate From Comrade Obama

BLOOD-DRENCHED ‘COMMON GROUND’ - The Useless USCCB Once Again Obfuscates Catholic Teaching Making It Unrecognizable As Catholic


What Americans Need to Know About Comrade Obama’s Health Care Takeover - NEVER FORGET What The Communists In Power Are Trying To Foist On The Country - Reading The Fine Print In The Death Care Bill

PALLIATIVE CARE’S MERCILESS TWIST Which Can Have The Same Effect As Euthanasia

Obamacare: It's All About Control - Picture Proof Of The Absolute Fraud That Is Resident Barack Hussein Obama Who Cares About NOTHING But Himself - Obama: Where Have All His Records Gone?

Catholic Nurse ORDERED To Help With Abortion - Is Obama A Racist? From The National Black Republican Association - Dems No Longer A Party But A Criminal Conspiracy


Bishops Wrong: Health Care Not A Right; Medical Care Is A Right - Catholic Medical Association Statement On Health Care Reform


The Health Care Reform Plans Pending In Congress Would Cause More Harm Than Good - Time To Go, Grandpa - Obama Can't Afford To Tell Truth On Health Care - Obama Democrats Will 'Fix' Our Health Care System By Destroying It

Commissar Pelosi Dodges Questioning On Health Bill's Abortion Mandate - Comrade Obama Doesn't Want To Get Distracted By Debating A Little Thing Like 'Baby Killing' - Obama Advisor, Health Care Architect, Criticized As Backing Rationing For Disabled - 10 Surprising Facts About American Health Care

Welcome To Nazi Germany As Obama Gestapo Calls For Informants To Report Anyone Who Dares To Oppose The Lies Of Obama's 'Death Care' Masquerading As 'Health Care' Program - IMPOSING DEATH IN A GOVERNMENT-RUN HOSPICE - PROOF That Government Insurance Would Allow Coverage For Baby Killing


Reference Page 425 Of Death Care Masquerading As Health Care Bill – A Summary Of What PRAVDA USA Is NOT Telling You About Obama's Horrendous Death Care Bill


Where In This Monstrosity Of A Death Care Masquerading As Health Care Bill Is There Any Indication That No Euthanasia Concerns Exist, Per The Obamunist Spinmeisters? - Easy Answer, NOWHERE


Sarah Palin Opposes Health Care Bill Over Abortion, Euthanasia Components - Calls Obama's Plan What It Is, EVIL - God Bless Governor Palin! – Union Thugs, Answering To Obama’s Call, Attempt To Stifle Opposition To Der Fuhrer At Town Hall Meetings

Exposing The Heinous Lies Of Comrade Obama And His Lackeys About His ‘Death Care’ Masquerading As Health Care Bill

My Canadian Healthcare Horror Stories - A Message for Americans From Cathy LeBoeuf-Schouten

What Comrade Obama Is Doing Has Nothing To Do With Health Care Reform But Rather Is A Restructuring Of Our Society Into His Warped Image - Palin Firestorm Brings Fresh Scrutiny To ObamaCare "Death Panels"

Sarah Palin Doubles Down On 'Death Panels' Refusing To Cower To The Lies Of Comrade Obama - Death As Cost Savings For Obamunists - PRAVDA USA Covers Up Abortion Funding In ‘Death Care Bill’

Physician Congressman Takes Democrats To Task On Health Care

Death Panels Already Exist, Health Care Bill Makes Current Rationing Even Worse - The Media's "Big Lie" About ObamaCare


Sarah Palin’s Troubling Questions About Comrade Obama’s Death Care Plan

Healthcare Bill Section 1233 Co-Authored By Hemlock Society - Section 1233 Authors Are Major Proponents Of Euthanasia, Assisted Suicide







Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.

Emanuel: Believes in withholding care from elderly for greater good.


Top of Form



Last updated: 1:13 am
July 24, 2009
Posted: 1:03 am
July 24, 2009


THE health bills coming out of Congress would put the decisions about your care in the hands of presidential appointees. They'd decide what plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have and what seniors get under Medicare.

Yet at least two of President Obama's top health advisers should never be trusted with that power.

Start with Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. He has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

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

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

He explicitly defends discrimination against older patients: "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" (Lancet, Jan. 31).

The bills being rushed through Congress will be paid for largely by a $500 billion-plus cut in Medicare over 10 years. Knowing how unpopular the cuts will be, the president's budget director, Peter Orszag, urged Congress this week to delegate its own authority over Medicare to a new, presidentially-appointed bureaucracy that wouldn't be accountable to the public.

Since Medicare was founded in 1965, seniors' lives have been transformed by new medical treatments such as angioplasty, bypass surgery and hip and knee replacements. These innovations allow the elderly to lead active lives. But Emanuel criticizes Americans for being too "enamored with technology" and is determined to reduce access to it.

Dr. David Blumenthal, another key Obama adviser, agrees. He recommends slowing medical innovation to control health spending.

Blumenthal has long advocated government health-spending controls, though he concedes they're "associated with longer waits" and "reduced availability of new and expensive treatments and devices" (New England Journal of Medicine, March 8, 2001). But he calls it "debatable" whether the timely care Americans get is worth the cost. (Ask a cancer patient, and you'll get a different answer. Delay lowers your chances of survival.)

Obama appointed Blumenthal as national coordinator of health-information technology, a job that involves making sure doctors obey electronically deivered guidelines about what care the government deems appropriate and cost effective.

In the April 9 New England Journal of Medicine, Blumenthal predicted that many doctors would resist "embedded clinical decision support" -- a euphemism for computers telling doctors what to do.

Americans need to know what the president's health advisers have in mind for them. Emanuel sees even basic amenities as luxuries and says Americans expect too much: "Hospital rooms in the United States offer more privacy . . . physicians' offices are typically more conveniently located and have parking nearby and more attractive waiting rooms" (JAMA, June 18, 2008).

No one has leveled with the public about these dangerous views. Nor have most people heard about the arm-twisting, Chicago-style tactics being used to force support. In a Nov. 16, 2008, Health Care Watch column, Emanuel explained how business should be done: "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda. If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."

Do we want a "reform" that empowers people like this to decide for us?

Betsy McCaughey is founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former New York lieutenant governor.



WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Euthanasia advocates authored part of Obamacare 
'Self determined dying' compared to 'women's reproductive health'




Euthanasia advocates authored part of Obamacare
'Self determined dying' compared to 'women's reproductive health'

Posted: August 13, 2009
11:15 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Part of the controversial Obamacare proposal pending in Congress that discusses "end-of-life" counseling and  medical procedures that could be rationed based on the age of the patient and other factors was written by suicide advocates who argue openly for the "right" to death, according to reports.


The sources for the Obamacare provisions have been documented on a blog for Family Research Council Action and discussed by prominent pro-life columnist Jill Stanek.


"Come again that promotion of euthanasia isn't part of Section 1233?" Stanek wrote in her new explanation of the dangers of Obamacare. "Kudos to FRC's The Cloakroom …for drawing attention to the fact that the two authors of Section 1233 are major proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide."


The authors include an Oregon congressman who has argued for assisted suicide before federal courts and an organization that openly boasts it helps "thousands of clients each year by ... guiding their search for a peaceful, humane death...."


FRC Action reports on its website the group "has been getting some heat" for its criticism of the plan.


"Today comes (a) smoking gun … with the group Compassion & Choices coming out defending the questionable rationing portions of the bill and admitting THEY ACTUALLY WROTE THE LANGUAGE!" FRC Action said.

Stanek took up the explanation:


"The group Compassion & Choices, formerly known as the Hemlock Society, also says it had a hand in crafting Section 1233, writing July 27: 'Compassion & Choices has worked tirelessly with supportive members of Congress to include in proposed reform legislation a provision requiring Medicare to cover patient consultation with their doctors about end-of-life choice (section 1233 of House Bill 3200),'" she wrote.


"Compassion & Choices calls itself part of the 'aid-in-dying movement,'" she continued, quoting from the organization's description of itself:


·                     ... An organization dedicated to care of terminally ill patients, including those seeking a hastened death....


·                     Compassion & Choices... improves care and expands choice at the end of life....


·                     Our professional staff and trained volunteers help thousands of clients each year by... guiding their search for a peaceful, humane death....


·                     We offer information on self-determined dying...


The second party claiming authorship of some of the controversial parts of the plan is Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., who wrote about his state's "Death with Dignity" law that allows doctors to give patients fatal doses of medication:


"The amicus brief I have filed with other members of the delegation supports the (appellate) court's decision to uphold Oregon's Death with Dignity law. In 1994, Oregon overwhelmingly approved physician-assisted suicide in a statewide vote. …


Former U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft repeatedly attempted to undermine the Oregon law using various methods. Each time the judge ruled in favor of the Oregon law. I am pleased that Attorney General Gonzalez' attempt to overturn the will of the people has been no more successful than his predecessor's."

While physician assisted suicide is a contentious issue, it is an issue handled at the state level and the attorney general should not be permitted to deprive the citizens of Oregon and the nation the opportunity to make end of life decisions."


Blumenauer has condemned criticism of Obamacare's provisions.


"The provision included in H.R. 3200 simply allows Medicare to pay for a conversation between patients and their doctors if the patient wishes to speak about his or her preferences and values," the congressman said. "The new Medicare benefit would allow doctors to be compensated for these conversations every five years, and more frequently if a patient has a life-limiting illness or health status changes."


He said without such "discussions," "families are left struggling to make decisions in the midst of turmoil."


Compassion and Choices also condemned criticism of the bill.


Citing its work on the language of the bill, it said, "Anti-choice extremists and their allies in Congress have begun attacking this critical provision, saying it will 'promote euthanasia' and that it's part of a cynical plan to deny health care to the elderly and terminally ill."


On Stanek's blog, participants shared her alarm.


"What's conspicuously absent is a provision that the patient consents to orders written after the counseling session. Or that the orders be written by the patient's primary care physician," wrote one.


"'Self determined dying' sounds as innocent and good for us as 'women's reproductive health,'" said another. "Have to dress it up to sell it."


"Frankly, the death culture has strongly permeated our nation, especially among the liberal elite," wrote a third. "Many of them will either deny, make fun of or outright oppose the pro-life position."


Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, has had his organization analyze the plan, and confirmed it contains health care rationing, a national health ID card complete with government access to personal bank accounts, government decisions on what health care benefits are available and mandatory taxpayer support for abortion.


Staver condemned the health plan as worse than China's mandatory one-child policy.


The Liberty Counsel analysis said under Section 1308, the government will dictate marriage and family therapy as well as mental health services, including the definitions of those treatments, and under Section 1401, a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research would be set up, creating a bureaucracy through which federal employees could determine whether any treatment is "comparatively effective" for any individual based on the cost, likely success and probably the years left in life.


It also, according to Staver, "covers abortions, transsexual surgeries, encourages counseling as to how many children you should have, whether you should increase the interval between children."


The Liberty Counsel analysis also pointed out the government would be allowed to ration health care procedures, prevent "judicial review" of its decision, tell doctors what income they can have, impose new taxes for anyone not having an "acceptable" coverage, regulate whether seniors can have wheelchairs, penalize hospitals or doctors whose patients require "readmission," prevent the expansion of hospitals and set up procedures for home visits by health care analysts.


Under Section 440, Liberty Counsel said, the government "will design and implement Home Visitation Program for families with young kids and families that expect children." And Section 194 provides for a program that has the government "coming into your house and teaching/telling you how to parent," LC said.


Petition Obama and Congress

WND has introduced a new petition: Let the White House and Congress know exactly what you think of socialized medicine in the U.S.A.!


Here's the petition wording:



To: The President of the United States, The Congress of the United States

Whereas, wherever government-run health care, or socialized medicine, has been adopted it has led to severe rationing – which means outright denial – of life-saving medical treatment, particularly to the elderly and very ill (for example, British seniors, under their government-run system, are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses);

Whereas, Obama's "special adviser for health policy," Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, brother of Rahm Emanuel, is a longtime advocate of "age-weighted medical rationing" – meaning, the older you are, the less care you get, just like the British system;

Whereas, Barack Obama, Barney Frank and other top federal officials have explicitly and publicly stated their ultimate goal is a "single-payer" health care system – that is, completely socialized, with no private insurance – despite their claims now to the contrary;

Whereas, despite repeated assurances by Obama that "if you're happy with your current insurance or doctor, you can keep it under my plan," his plan would inevitably and intentionally drive private insurance out of business, leaving only the government to oversee Americans' health care and approve their treatment;

Whereas, as columnist Charlotte Allen explained in the Los Angeles Times, "In looking for a way to fund healthcare, Obama has set his eye on the oldest and sickest. … About 30 percent of Medicare spending – nearly $100 billion annually – goes to care for patients during their last year of life. What if there were no 'last year of life,' the president seems to be asking. ... [W]hy not save billions of dollars by killing off our own unproductive oldsters and terminal patients, or – since we aren't likely to do that outright in this, the 21st century – why not simply ensure that they die faster by denying them costly medical care? The savings could then subsidize care for the younger and healthier";

Whereas, Obama himself admitted during a June town hall event televised by ABC News that one way to cut medical costs would be to stop expensive procedures on people about to die, saying: "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller";

Whereas, the government's own nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says Obamacare will increase the government's already obscene level of deficit spending by hundreds of billions of dollars;

Whereas, a federal government takeover of the entire health care delivery system is in flagrant violation of the U.S. Constitution:



We, the undersigned, assert our rights as citizens of the United States in demanding that the Obama administration and Congress stop referring to normal, law-abiding, taxpaying citizens who oppose government's attempted takeover of medical care as a "mob"; that it cease and desist using Chicago thug political tactics in an attempt to intimidate citizens from exercising their First Amendment free speech right; and most of all, that it abandon its plan to utterly destroy America's health care system, which is the envy of the world, and to replace it with a system that has failed miserably in every country in which it has been adopted.


If you agree with the above and are outraged at Obama's Big Brother-style intimidation approach to achieving his long-time goal of socialized medicine, don't wait for some snitch to turn you in. Be bold. Be courageous. Be an American. Sign this petition and let Obama know you oppose his diabolical plan to become doctor-in-chief.


As soon as the petition gains its first 25,000 names, WND will forward the petition to the White House and Congress, and each time another 25,000 sign, they'll be forwarded too.


This is not a time to cower in fear, but to let your government know in overwhelming numbers that you oppose what will, unquestionably, be the destruction of the best health care system in the entire world.


Sign the petition now!





Smooth-talking charlatans – then and now
Exclusive: Reader compares today's America with 1930s Germany

Smooth-talking charlatans – then and now

Posted: August 14, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

I am 81 years old, and I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children and grandchildren as I am now.


This apostle of Machiavelli, this Obama a man who speaks with forked tongue. This charlatan campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life.


In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power structure! We could then be call the United Union of Socialist States. God help us. Change is indeed coming, and when it comes, America will never be the same again!


Even when my wife and I lived in Germany for five years, I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking demagogue rabble-rouser from the streets of Munich, not too unlike the man from Chicago at the helm of our country today. The average German knew next to nothing about him. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and without a teleprompter. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. People, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission.


Are we headed for a Nazi-style totalitarian abyss? Find out in "Defeating the Totalitarian Lie: A Former Hitler Youth Warns America"


Then when he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic crisis at hand (the Great Depression). Slowly but surely he seized the controls of German state power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids were forced to join a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think and how to behave. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating and installing gun control to disarm the folks, health care for all, better wages, better jobs and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe and across the world – none of which he could have done with out compliant media, just like what we are suffering through now! Did you know that? And he did this all in the name of justice and change. And the people surely got what they voted for.


(Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read your history books. "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" would be a good place to begin.


Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at and made fun of. When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s, while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet prime minister), he was booed into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though. Please keep in mind that at that time Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, science laboratories and universities. And in less than six years, a shorter time span than just two terms of the U.S. presidency, it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course – the road to hell is always paved with them.


As a practical thinker, one not overly prone to emotional decisions, I have a choice: I can either believe what the objective pieces of evidence tell me (even if they make me cringe with disgust, and it does!), I can believe what history is shouting to me from across the chasm of seven decades; or I can hope I am wrong, close my eyes, have one more latte and ignore what is transpiring around me.


Some people scoff at me; others laugh or think I am foolish, naive, or both. Perhaps I am. But I have never been afraid of "Veritas" or to look people in the eye and tell them exactly what I believe – and why I believe it. I pray I am wrong, but I do not think I am. I firmly believe that history is man's best guide if only people will study it. Since many of you enjoy senior citizen status or will sometime in the not too distant future, I thought you might be interested in this. Let me add that we seniors have a target on our backs; the powers to be feel we are not cost effective. So it would be in the nations best interest to let us fade away even with help if found necessary. I sincerely hope time will prove me wrong.


 Bill Rouchell





'Hate crimes' brings pro-'gay' cash to your town
Exclusive: Linda Harvey spotlights funds in bill for more gov't-school indoctrination

'Hate crimes' brings pro-'gay' cash to your town

Posted: August 14, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Linda Harvey
© 2009 

The probable new "hate crimes" law may lead to prosecution of pastors, Christian leaders and even "Joe-Christian-on-the-street" for having the wrong opinion about homosexuality or cross-dressing. A lesser-discussed evil twin product of this legislation, however, is federally financed youth and police indoctrination programs.


The House and Senate versions of the bills (H.R. 1913 and S. 909) both say this:


The Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice may award grants, in accordance with such regulations as the Attorney General may prescribe, to State, local, or tribal programs designed to combat hate crimes committed by juveniles, including programs to train local law enforcement officers in identifying, investigating, prosecuting, and preventing hate crimes.


This broadly worded funding extravaganza appears in Section 4 of the House version, Section 5 of the Senate version. A preceding section also invites grants relating to local prosecution, which can "… ensure that the concerns and needs of all affected parties, including community groups and schools, colleges, and universities, are addressed. …"


Don't miss David Kupelian's culture-war classic, "The Marketing of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom"


So, this funding stream will generate "prevention" training for schools, police and communities. Local activists must be appeased, too. Such fascist programs exist now, but will go viral with congressional backing. These curricula can now claim more boldly than ever that homosexuality and gender change are inborn, respectable, moral and medically neutral, and anyone who says differently is an accessory to violence.


And with police also getting drilled in such programs, we can all feel much safer, especially from those whose views have just been silenced: those terrifying Christian and conservative families. We are about to see a whole new industry spring up, or rather, be born again: the nonprofit youth "hate crime education" profession.


We can look forward to more programs for youth and their teachers like one developed recently in Council Bluffs, Iowa. Iowa is one of several states that, seeking a bureaucratic solution to all local problems, passed a law on "bullying prevention" with enumerated categories for special focus: sexual orientation and gender identity.


So the Loess Hills Area Education Agency 13 gives a two-day teacher training course called "How to Make My Classroom Safe for LGBT Students" that is not just your typical one-sided "gay" mythology. No, this course consults that ever-accurate disseminator of historical information, Hollywood. Clips from the TV show "Will and Grace" and the movie "Brokeback Mountain" are both part of this training.


If this becomes the law of the land, how will Christian schools respond? By being biblically faithful? Or will they eventually cave, to become less "hateful"? Accreditation and other regulatory caveats may hasten this process. Pressure from the heretical "emergent" network of Democratic Party operatives, aka, celebrity Christian leaders, will arm-twist Christian educators into succumbing to the newly lowered standard.


A version of this lifeless, effeminate Christianity is already "emerging" in public schools. Separation of church and state? Not a chance! A politically-correct overhaul of faith stands ready for an official green light.


Many existing anti-bias programs already depict "fundamentalists" as seething scumbags. Under the Clinton administration, the Department of Justice helped fund "Healing the Hate," a curriculum for middle schools. One lesson on "hate crime perpetrators" introduces Floyd, who joins a racist Christian identity group. One of its members, students learn, is being prosecuted for violence at a "gay" bar. A discussion question asks if this is "the same Christianity that is taught in most churches." So there's a difference between nice Christianity and hateful Christianity, the carefully manipulated student learns. A" nice" faith treats sexual deviance as a trait just like race.


The Southern Poverty Law Center distributes twisted curricula along these lines. "The Shadow of Hate: A History of Tolerance in America" tells about a homosexual man in Maine pushed off a bridge to his death by drunken teenagers. This sad story includes two color photos, one of "God Hates Fags" signage carried by "Reverend" Fred Phelps, another of a strange anti-homosexual sign carried by an orthodox Jew. Neither photo pertains to the Maine incident, but were displayed at unrelated demonstrations.

The narrative describes the town's Christians: "Fundamentalist preachers used their pulpits to blame gays and lesbians for many of society's ills" (p. 114). In the opening paragraph of the story is this inaccurate statement: "Today, gays and lesbians are the most frequent targets of hate crimes" ( p. 113). Actually, no – African-Americans are. You'd think SPLC would know this.


Schools may choose to teach units around the growing number of paperbacks that feature "gay" characters who dismantle traditional faith.


Consider "The God Box" by Alex Sanchez, a story about a school Christian Bible club that implodes after an openly homosexual boy joins. The story is a trap of inaccurate theology and situations contrived to manipulate kids' tender sympathies. Author Sanchez met with members of Murphy Junior High's homosexual club in Stony Brook, N.Y., a few years ago.


"My Father's Scar" by Michael Cart is another diatribe against biblical Christianity. This book and "Thinking Straight" by Robin Reardon feature "Christian" teens who irreverently embrace homosexuality and expose carefully caricatured, abusive ministers. This type of faith lesson will be useful in public schools under the new "hate crimes" funding.


Obama already signaled his in-your-face disrespect toward parents by appointing the founder of GLSEN, Kevin Jennings, to lead the Department of Education's Office of Safe and Drug Free Schools. (GLSEN is the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network.) This appointment guarantees federally funded bias against Christians as Jennings implements his version of a "safe school" – one free of opposition to sexual perversion.


Such programs will be reinforced by police training about who the real hate groups are: Christian traditional families. These horrifying people are in your town, your community! What can be done to stop them? Congress has just decided.


There's a perfect storm developing: coordination at all levels of government to officially corrupt children and punish those who would protect them. Question: Where are some real leaders when we need them?







for liberty

Exclusive: Alan Keyes urges Americans
to resist president's socialized medicine



Alan KeyesAlan Keyes

Unhealthy for liberty

Posted: August 14, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

In 1858, in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous Dred Scott decision, Abraham Lincoln delivered a speech ("A House Divided") that would surely be ridiculed and dismissed these days as evidence that he was some kind of conspiracy theory kook. After placing the Court's decision in the context of actions and statements of various pro-slavery politicians and their fellow travelers, he offered the following observation:


We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, which we know different portions of which have been gotten out at different times and in different places by different workmen – Stephen, Franklin, Roger, James, for instance – and when we see these timbers joined together, and see that they exactly frame a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices fitting exactly together, all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or a piece too few – not omitting even scaffolding – or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame where it is fitted and prepared yet to be put in. In such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning; all worked on a common plan or draft drawn before the first lick was struck.


For months now, Americans have been bombarded with stories about different proposals and actions emanating from the members and fellow travelers of the Obama faction. There was, for example, the effort to remove control of the 2010 Census from the Congress (where it is placed by constitutional provision) to the White House. There was the move to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House of Representatives (in clear violation of constitutional provision). There is Obama's persistent refusal to release evidence that might prove or contradict his unsubstantiated claim to satisfy the Constitution's requirements as to eligibility for the office of president of the United States.


In the context of the bank rescue effort enormous outlays of money, raised on the good faith and credit of the United States, have occurred without specific authorization or oversight from the U.S. Congress. Without constitutional warrant, and in clear violation of the constitutional protections for private property rights, the so-called bank rescue effort has resulted in a government takeover of private-sector entities, including hiring, firing and the dictation of remuneration.


The so-called stimulus package allocated billions of dollars from the public coffers for ACORN, an organization that has clearly served as one of the partisan and political tools of the Obama faction. In the same vein, ACORN has been marked for use as part of the team collecting information for the 2010 census.


Meanwhile, statements by Obama faction government appointees, as well as official documents of U.S. government departments and agencies, have suggested or flatly declared that people taking positions contrary to the Obama faction's party line are to be labeled terrorists and considered a threat to national security.


Meanwhile, on the supposed excuse of assuring access to health care for the 10 percent or so of Americans ostensibly left without it as things stand, the Obama faction proposes the establishment of a government-controlled health insurance option, with some provisions that would implicate the whole people of the United States in support for abortion; and others that could easily be used to extend government intrusion and control into every facet of people's lives – from unwarranted access to personal financial information to child rearing to life-and-death decisions about care for the elderly and disabled.


Taken in isolation, each of these actions and issues has its own rationale and explanation. But if, following the example of Lincoln's statesmanship, we use common sense to envisage the whole that results when all these elements are taken together, what we see is a society transformed from a place with a large area of freedom from government domination and control into a place where the mechanisms of government control are strategically place so as to make fear of government decision and intervention the pervasive reality of life in every respect.


I have posted on my blog (Loyal to Liberty) a recording of a speech by another statesman, President Ronald Reagan, in which he warns against the abuse of the health care issue as an excuse for the imposition of totalitarian government control. Though even some of the critics of the Obama faction's health sector proposals speak as if the problem with it lies in the fact that they are reaching for too much too quickly, this criticism begs the most important question: What are they reaching for? It defies logic to think that an effort to improve access for 10 percent of our people in any sense justifies paving the way for a government takeover of 100 percent of our lives. The problem isn't that they are overreaching. It is quite simply that what they are reaching for is wrong – wrong for the quality of health care, wrong for the individual liberties of Americans, wrong for the preservation of constitutional government that secures the liberty of the American people.


Given the mounting and consistent evidence that the goal of totalitarian government control shapes the strategy and indeed defines the identity of the Obama faction and all its fellow travelers, it is not enough to oppose and defeat the actions and proposals they continually devise. We must reject their strategy. We must reject them.


All Americans who wish to remain free must stand as one against the national socialist agenda – for God, for Liberty and the Constitution.


The 'messiah' has lost his mojo
David Limbaugh: Obama forfeited his trust by fibbing about health care reform

David LimbaughDavid Limbaugh

The 'messiah' has lost his mojo

Posted: August 14, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009 

President Barack Obama apparently came to believe the myth of his messiahship and has accordingly abused and squandered his good will and political capital and possibly self-sabotaged his socialized medicine scheme.


Of all the newsworthy aspects of this desperate "reform" effort, none is more so than the robust democratic processes it has reinvigorated in this nation. While Democrats insist the nationwide grass-roots movement against his draconian measure is contrived and illusory, it is just the opposite.


Nothing could be so real as the American people, emboldened by their passion for liberty, standing up against a callous, dishonest government trolling for its freedoms in exchange for false promises.


All the proof we need that Obama and Democrats recognize the authenticity of this grass-roots protest is their hysterical reaction to it. They wouldn't be hyperventilating about it if they believed it to be fake, but would use their supermajorities to ram through this bill.


Indeed, that congressmen have not been able or courageous enough (against the threat of being removed from office in 2010) to pass this bill is the story of the year. Integral to that story is the unraveling of the Obama mystique, occasioned by Obama's ongoing arrogance and duplicity, most recently on the Obamacare issue.


Let's just look at some of the myriad ways Obama has betrayed the enormous trust bestowed upon him – on the health care issue alone.


Obama has said he just wants a dialogue with the American people on health care. Sorry, but there are just so many times a person can say the exact opposite of what he means and retain a shred of credibility. While saying he wants this dialogue, he's also telling his opponents to shut up – literally. Even more revealing, he was adamant that this bill be passed before the August recess – a bill whose provisions he admitted or pretended he was not familiar with. How could there have been a dialogue if he had already made up his mind and if the deadline he had artificially imposed could not possibly have allowed a dialogue?


Obama has said his opponents were trying to "scare and mislead the American people," when in fact his opponents are the American people whom he is trying to scare and mislead.


Obama misleads us concerning the public option, saying people can keep their private plans if they prefer. Yet the House bill, which he was urging be passed before the August recess, effectively would coerce employers, through punitive and positive incentives, to dump their private plans in favor of the public option. Most Americans have employer-provided health insurance, so a wholesale exodus to the public option would be inevitable – and intended. In fact, the bill would prevent those who lose private coverage from reacquiring it, except plans conforming to a slew of new mandated regulations, which eventually would drive such plans out of existence. Obama's propagandette, Linda Douglass, falsely denied that Obama said he supports the public option, but he's on tape.


Obama misleads us in his inartful attempt to analogize the postal industry with his health plan, saying privately run FedEx and UPS have fared well against the government-run Postal Service. He fails to tell us how different the public/private competitive environment would be under his health care plan with the deck stacked – by law – against the survival of private insurers and private care.


Obama misleads us by denying that bureaucrats would "meddle" in our health care decisions or with the doctor-patient relationship. Yet in almost the same breath, he boasts that he would bundle payments to doctors based on the quality, not the quantity, of the services they provide – such quality to be determined by his bureaucratic boards. The House bill is replete with provisions conferring such decisions on government bureaucrats.


Obama misleads us when he and his minions cavalierly dismiss the public's genuine concern about the government, under his plan, insinuating itself into end-of-life decisions. Instead of responding to provisions of the bill legitimately generating such concerns, he puts words into our mouths, saying we claim that the bill would require "euthanasia." Even some of Obama's state-run media fact checkers suggested that Reps. Thaddeus McCotter and John Boehner made that claim. In fact, they said provisions of the bill "could create ... a more permissive environment for euthanasia ... and physician-assisted suicide." Someone needs to check the fact checkers.


Of course there are legitimate concerns here, and it insults our intelligence to suggest otherwise. The bill would immediately impose a monumental conflict of interest on government bureaucrats by tasking them to cut costs drastically while simultaneously empowering them to "counsel" people about their end-of-life (and other) medical care. Such a conflict of interest – over life and death itself – is unconscionable and unthinkable in the United States of America.

The "messiah" has lost his mojo – by betraying his unearned trust with the people.









WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama plan needs '$13,000/family' tax hike 
President's deficits are going to continue 'as far as eye can see'



Pennsylvania Senate race: Toomey 48% vs. Specter 36%
Voter opinion on Obamacare driving support for candidates
--Rasmussen Reports 

Election 2010: Pennsylvania Senate Election

Pennsylvania Senate: Toomey 48%, Specter 36%

Thursday, August 13, 2009



Uncomfortable town hall meetings are just the tip of the iceberg for Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter. He now trails Republican Pat Toomey by double digits in his bid for reelection next year and is viewed unfavorably by a majority of the state’s voters.


The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Pennsylvania voters shows 48% would vote for Toomey if the election were held today. Just 36% would vote for Specter while four percent (4%) prefer a third option, and 12% are not sure.

These figures reflect a dramatic reversal since June. At that time, before the public health care debate began, Specter led Toomey by eleven.


Just 43% now have a favorable opinion of Specter while 54% offer an unfavorable assessment of the longtime GOP senator who became a Democrat rather than face Toomey in a party primary. Those numbers have reversed since June when 53% had a favorable opinion of him.


The current figures include 15% with a Very Favorable opinion of Specter and 36% with a Very Unfavorable view.




WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Ex-Gore aide: Middle class hikes coming 
Obama 'will violate' pledge not to raise taxes on other than rich



WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Gibbs stumbles explaining Obama's birthplace 
'The president was born … uhm … in … uhh, uhh … was born'



Cap and trade's unlikely critics: Its creators
Economists behind original concept question system's large-scale usefulness
--Wall Street Journal


WorldNetDaily Exclusive

Global warming battle: Thar she blows!
Climate madness drives scientists to 'geo-engineer' planet