PALL IS A WORD WORTHY OF REFLECTION – Why Pro-Aborts Went Silent - Obama, Congress To Decide When You Die - U.K. On Obamacare: Been There, Done That – Coops Are The Fannie Mae Health System – Counterterrorism In Obama's World – Axelrod And The Corruption Of The Obamunists - Obama Escalates Dangerous Double-Game On DOMA



Posted: Tuesday August 18, 2009 at 11:15 am EST by Judie Brown


Over this past weekend a good friend, Paul Byrne, M.D., sent an interesting comment my way. He pointed out that one of the root words of palliative is pall.

I checked it in my trusty Merriam-Webster's dictionary and found the following:

2b (1): a heavy cloth draped over a coffin (2): a coffin especially when holding a body
3a: something that covers or conceals; especially: an overspreading element that produces an effect of gloom <a pall of thick black smoke> <a pall of suspicion> b: a feeling of gloom <his absence cast a pall over the celebration>

In the context of the ongoing debate regarding whether or not a form of euthanasia may appear in the final version of the nationalized health care [insurance] reform bill, this word has a connotation which cannot be ignored. It has already been shown that palliative care can be used to either relieve pain or expedite a quick exit for the patient. It all depends on who is administering the medicine and whose orders are being followed.

The Pontifical Council for Pastoral Assistance for Health Care Workers wrote the following in the seminal document, Charter for Health Care Workers, in addressing “The use of painkillers for the terminally ill” in Chapter III, 246:

Sometimes the systematic use of narcotics which reduce the consciousness of the patient is a cloak for the frequently unconscious wish of the health care worker to discontinue relating to the dying person. In this case it is not so much the alleviation of the patient's suffering that is sought as the convenience of those in attendance. The dying person is deprived of the possibility of "living his own life", by reducing him to a state of unconsciousness unworthy of a human being. This is why the administration of narcotics for the sole purpose of depriving the dying person of a conscious end is "a truly deplorable practice."

It is a different matter when there is a serious clinical case for the administration of analgesics which suppress consciousness, as when there is violent and unbearable pain. In this case the anesthetic is said to be licit, provided certain conditions are fulfilled: that the dying person has fulfilled or could still fulfill his moral, family and religious obligations.

In other words, the very same medication that can bring relief can also be used to kill. It’s not that difficult to comprehend. This is but one reason to be concerned that current discussions relating to Obamacare could lead to some pretty unfathomable horrors.

All anyone has to do is pay close attention to the discussions regarding end-of-life care. It is not beyond the pale to imagine that in one form or another, euthanizing the older generation may become one of those cost-cutting activities that cannot be avoided.

Consider the recent comments of author-screenwriter Richard Dooling, who is clearly no health care expert. Be that as it may, he weighed in with these acrid words in a New York Times commentary: 

One thing’s for sure: Our health care system has failed. Generational spending wars loom on the horizon. Rationing of health care is imminent.

I am not, of course, talking about euthanasia. I’m just wondering why the nation continues incurring enormous debt to pay for bypass surgery and titanium-knee replacements for octogenarians and nonagenarians, when for just a small fraction of those costs we could provide children with preventive health care and nutrition. Eight million children have no health insurance, but their parents pay 3 percent of their salaries to Medicare to make sure that seniors get the very best money can buy in prescription drugs for everything from restless leg syndrome to erectile dysfunction, scooters and end-of-life intensive care.

Then there’s Ross Douthat, who wrote about the enormity of the "burden" created by overspending Medicare dollars:

And if you think reform is tough today, just wait. We’re already practically a gerontocracy: Americans over 50 cast over 40 percent of the votes in the 2008 elections, and half the votes in the ’06 midterms. As the population ages — by 2030, there will be more Americans over 65 than under 18 — the power of the elderly and nearly elderly may become almost absolute.

In this future, somebody will need to stand for the principle that Medicare can’t pay every bill and bless every procedure. Somebody will need to defend the younger generation’s promise (and its pocketbooks). Somebody will need to say “no” to retirees.

Both of these writers did not mention other citizens whose care can be very costly. For example, the extremely premature baby who is born with specific problems caused by early birth, or the newborn with critical problems requiring special attention, or the individual who suffers a severe disability due to accident or genetic anomaly. In each of these cases, large sums of money are required to treat them. What about their future under regulated health care spending? Based on the sensitivities being expressed toward spending too much on certain types of treatment, it isn’t difficult to imagine that those I have just mentioned could also be required to make sacrifices for the greater good of a culture committed to financial savings over life saving.

It’s all about “quality of life” after all, and some people are, well, expendable!

When Obama spoke to a gathering of 50+ Americans at an AARP gathering, he recommended that they consider his suggested reforms to the Medicare program as fiscally responsible and necessary in today’s economy. Among Obama’s preferences is the Independent Medicare Advisory Committee. IMAC has been defined as a group of individuals who would oversee how Medicare is administered and would recommend ways to make it more efficient. Some have suggested that such a committee could recommend health care rationing based on cost cutting. Washington Post political commentator David Broder wrote, 

Obama's proposal almost certainly would accelerate change in the way health care is delivered -- and it might actually save money in the long run.

But Congress will have to decide if it is willing to yield that degree of control to five unelected IMAC commissioners. And Americans will have to decide if they are comfortable having those commissioners determine how they will be treated when they are ill.

Without belaboring this point, it is wise and prudent to step back and examine the ramifications of any proposal in view of the groups of citizens for whom the proposal could have life-altering effects. For as Mark Steyn wrote recently,

The problem with government health systems is not that they pull the plug on Grandma. It's that Grandma has a hell of a time getting plugged in in the first place.…This ought to be of particular concern to Americans. As is often pointed out, U.S. life expectancy (78.06 years) lags behind other developed nations with government health care (United Kingdom 78.7, Germany 78.95, Sweden 80.63). So proponents of Obamacare are all but offering an extra "full year" of Euro-Canadian geriatric leisure as a signing bonus.

While some might think that Steyn is flippant about the problem that is confronting our nation, I would counter by suggesting that at least Steyn is talking about it! It is a provocative subject, and the more that is said about it, the better. There is still time, at this point, to stop such madness, but first the electorate has to realize that the White House smoke-and-mirrors show has another agenda, and it’s not a pretty one.

Leave it to Pat Boone, a dear friend and outspoken critic of Obamacare, to set the tone. He explains it is not just the "radicals" who are beginning to tell the truth about Obamacare:

•    Congress plans to pay for this "reform" by cutting $500 billion from Medicare. –Washington Post (July 16)
•    There will be long waits for care. –USA Today (July 17)
•    There will be cuts to MRIs, CAT scans and other vital tests. –Associated Press (June 24)
•    Seniors will lose their choice of doctors. –New York Times (April 2)
•    Government bureaucrats – not doctors – will decide if older patients are worth the costs of care. –Los Angeles Times (June 25)

Friends, these are not "right-wing" talk-show hosts holding the president's feet to the fire – these are some of the most liberal media outlets in the country! Even they are realizing that this bloated, misleading and outrageous scheme will set the stage, in actual practice and predictable bureaucratic perversion, for Orwellian governmental control over who gets care and what kind. They factually have to report that it's IMPOSSIBLE to cut Medicare by $500 billion and still provide for the 40 million more baby boomers who are coming into eligibility! The president's analysts say they can – but ordinary citizens know it's IMPOSSIBLE.

Obamacare is having the expected effect on the general population. The pall has been placed over the truth, and the unsuspecting will go forth believing that Obama is providing them hope and change! 

Pallbearers will soon be the next change agents unless we stop this current rush to reform, bury it and start over.


Judie Brown






  Eagle Forum Urges Grassroots Not to Fall for Co-Op Compromise


August 17, 2009

Contact: Phyllis Schlafly, President, (314) 721-1213

Colleen Holmes, Executive Director, (202) 544-0353


Eagle Forum Urges Grassroots Not to Fall for Co-Op Compromise

Washington, D.C. — Eagle Forum, a conservative public policy organization founded by Phyllis Schlafly, urges grassroots Americans not to fall for the Obama Administration's recent hints that they may drop the public option from the health care bill and replace it with a "co-op compromise" that is more popular with some House Blue Dog Democrats and moderate Senate Democrats.


"Make no mistake, any Democrat health care bill will include both mandates and subsidies for 'eligible' or 'qualified' health insurance," said Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly. "The words eligible and qualified mean that Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Tom Daschle, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel and the like, will have the power to decide who gets what medical care."



On Sunday, August 16th, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs again attempted to sell the Democrats' socialist health care plan with capitalist rhetoric when pressed about rumors of dropping the public option. Gibbs stated, "What we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market." However, that very same day, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius' comments essentially reiterated that the government will have a role no matter what: "I think there will be a competitor to private insurers. That's really the essential part, is you don't turn over the whole new marketplace to private insurance companies and trust them to do the right thing."



"The important thing that the American people must understand is that when Democrats say there must be a competitor for private sector insurance, the competitor they speak of is the government," said Schlafly. "Any attempt to rename or rebrand the public option as a 'co-op' or something other than government-run is purely cosmetic and a sneaky tactic to lessen grassroots opposition."



"The White House and liberal congressional leaders are desperate to appear as if they are listening and being responsive to the grassroots, especially in claiming to drop the end-of-life provisions from the bill, but name changes are an old trick in the liberal playbook," continued Schlafly. " 'Co-op' is nothing more than a euphemism for 'government-run health care,' just like 'undocumented worker' was nothing more than Ted Kennedy's concocted, less obvious term for 'illegal alien.' "



"So-called compromises on contentious pieces of legislation carried out behind closed doors frustrate the grassroots," said Schlafly. "The Democrats will claim to have dropped the public option in order to get enough votes in the Senate to pass it, and then air-drop the public plan language back into the bill in the dead of night before it's signed. Just think back to the 3 a.m., 300-page amendment Nancy Pelosi added to the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill the morning of the floor vote."



"No matter what superficial changes are made, this is a bad bill and it cannot be improved without being defeated in its entirety," concluded Schlafly. "I urge every U.S. citizen nationwide to tell their Senators not to compromise on Americans' health care."



Obama's ratings train wreck

Posted: August 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By Eric Allie
© 2009 

Obama's ratings train wreck

Why pro-aborts went silent
Exclusive: Jill Stanek explains latest tactic of those who want abortions in Obamacare

Why pro-aborts went silent

Posted: August 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009 


At least once or twice weekly Nancy Keenan of NARAL had been sending a steady stream of "Keep anti-choice extremism out of health-care reform"-type e-mails, as was her July 28 message entitled – until Aug. 3. Nancy has now gone silent for over two weeks.

Same goes for Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, who likewise was transmitting "Anti-choice groups step up attacks on women's health"-type emails, as was the title of her July 22 dispatch – until July 24. Cecile hasn't been heard from in over three weeks.

On Aug. 11, President Obama unveiled his Reality Check website with nary a word about the biggest obstacle to passing health care, abortion.

Coincidental clam-ups?


In her last e-mail, Cecile wrote, "[T]ell Congress that women's reproductive health care MUST be part of health-care reform."

Nancy in hers wrote, "Ask your lawmakers to oppose anti-choice attacks on health-care legislation."

Clearly, both felt their unnamed treasure trove, abortion, was in imminent danger of being aborted from health care.

Then … silence?

The other side does nothing without a plan. The plan is to stop talking about abortion 1) in hopes the controversy will die down, and 2) to regroup and reframe the argument.

But make no mistake: Abortion is still part of the liberal plan. On Aug. 12, Cecile tweeted:

Just left the White House meeting on women's health care – they appreciate all the might pp supporters speaking up for reform in the states!


Also on Aug. 12, an ad popped up on Craigslist by Planned Parenthoods in Chicago and New York recruiting workers to push abortion in health care:


Right now anti-choice forces are trying to hijack health-care reform. They want to exclude reproductive health care. And, they want to cut out trusted community health-care providers. … We need your help to build up public support for this campaign! Full-time and management positions available NOW. … Earn $335-$535.


So pro-aborts are still pursuing the goal of taxpayer-funded abortions, just stealthy.
Meanwhile, Cecile gave a glimpse of how they plan to reframe the debate in an Aug.. 13 Facebook entry. It's going to be all about alleged disparity in women's health care:


Yesterday I attended a special meeting at the White House to discuss women and health insurance reform. The basic message was that we've got to remind folks why we became so dedicated to reforming the health-care system – or more particularly, the health insurance system – in the first place. … Women are charged higher health insurance premiums because – NEWS FLASH – we bear children! Wouldn't you think we would get a medal instead of higher insurance costs? ...

Women get the short end of the stick from the insurance industry, so, yes, of course, we want national standards! According to a recent survey by the National Women's Law Center, the vast majority of individual market health insurance policies don't even cover maternity care. Not to mention that women are too often blocked from insurance coverage because of pre-existing conditions – including breast cancer and pregnancy!

Women need affordable health care that covers OUR needs – from childbearing to Pap smears to mammograms. Geez, we represent more than half the population here! No wonder we're fighting for real health care change.


So believe it or not, the health-care spin by the United States' largest abortion provider is going to be baby delivery coverage. Meanwhile, the abortion industry has a mounting problem within their congressional ranks. On Aug. 11, EMILY's List, which specializes in raising funds to elect pro-abortion Democrat women to Congress, issued a fundraising plea (bold highlights theirs):


The [National Republican Congressional Committee has] picked 70 districts to target for 2010 – and nine of these are currently held by pro-choice Democratic women. … History shows that now is their opportunity to strike. In almost every recent midterm election, the party that holds the White House loses seats in Congress. …

That's why I'm asking you to support EMILY's List today. …

Americans are obviously leaning away from the concept of nationalized health care.
But before that Americans historically polled heavily against the idea of taxpayer-funded abortions, now in their face within the already unpopular health-care plan.

So pro-abort legislators face a double-constituent negative by supporting Obamacare.

It's true, by the way, that the NRCC has targeted 70 Democrat seats to take back in 2010, nine held by pro-abort women.

So Planned Parenthood and NARAL can plot all they want. Right now it looks like they lose no matter what they do.

Although, do NOT take that for granted.


What happened in Guadalajara
Phyllis Schlafly reveals why she's nervous about '3 amigos' get-togethers

What happened in Guadalajara

Posted: August 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009 


President Obama went to Guadalajara, Mexico, this month as part of his promise to "rejoin the world community" and become a "citizen of the world." He participated in a conference with Mexican President Felipe Calderon and Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

These cozy meetings of the so-called three amigos used to be labeled the Security and Prosperity Partnership. The three North American heads of state met in Waco in 2005, in Cancun in 2006, in Quebec in 2007 and in New Orleans in 2008.

After conservatives exposed the mischievous goals, the amigos accepted the Hudson Institute's helpful suggestion to change their name. Now they call themselves the North American Leaders Summit.

Prestigious internationalist think tanks, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Hudson Institute and the Center for Strategic & International Studies, explained the real purpose of these high-level get-togethers. These meetings were planned to be the first steps toward a North American Union modeled on the European Union, with open borders and a common currency, which Canada's Fraser Institute prematurely labeled the amero.
The words "union" and "amero" have become embarrassing, so the goal has now been identified as "economic integration" and "labor mobility." The Guadalajara joint statement reaffirmed the purpose of "integrated economies," and that still means allowing unlimited access for cheap labor from Mexico to take U.S. jobs.

President Calderon demanded unlimited "labor mobility" and asserted that it is "unthinkable" for the United States to function "without the contribution of the Mexican laborers and workers." He also wants free access for Mexican trucks to all U.S. roads and U.S. citizenship for Mexicans living illegally in the U.S.

Canada's Harper wants all three to pledge to work "together on a North American focus against climate change in order to assure and guarantee a new international covenant that is efficient and truly global." Harper also complained about the "buy American" provision in our $787 billion stimulus law.

Obama reaffirmed his commitment to pass the cap-and-trade bill so he would be hailed as a hero at the upcoming United Nations climate-change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. He promised to "take the lead by reducing U.S. emissions by 80 percent by 2050" and to "work with other nations to cut global emissions in half."

Obama also promised to "continue to work to fix America's broken immigration system," which most people see as code words for amnesty for illegal aliens. He did not promise to stop the flow of illegal drugs and people coming across our southern border, but he did say he wanted "to stem the illegal southbound flow of American guns and cash that helps fuel this extraordinary violence."

In other words, he was blaming the United States for Mexican drug violence. In fact, most of the guns found at Mexican crime scenes are not American, and U.S. taxpayers are already generously footing the bill to train Mexicans to fight the drug war.

Fortunately, Obama did not pledge to open our roads to Mexican trucks, which may be his only concession to American public opinion so far in his presidency. Congressional law forbids the entry of Mexican trucks, and the latest Rasmussen Survey shows that 66 percent of Americans oppose lifting this congressional ban.

Under NAFTA, the United States agreed to let Mexican trucks operate freely in our country after 1999 so long as they meet U.S. safety standards. But they have never met them — and nothing in NAFTA requires us to admit trucks that don't meet U.S. standards.

Highway safety is the primary reason why Americans are adamantly opposed to allowing Mexican trucks on our roads. The problem is not only the wear and tear on our deteriorating highways from additional tens of thousands of heavier, environmentally dirtier trucks.

U.S. truck drivers are limited to 10 consecutive hours of service, but Mexican drivers typically drive up to 20 hours a day. Even if limits are imposed, nobody knows how many hours they are behind the wheel before reaching the border.

In contrast to U.S. requirements for truck drivers, Mexico has no credible system of driver training, licensing, drug testing, physical and age requirements, safety inspections even for brakes, weight limits, insurance, or nationwide criminal or driving-record databases.

U.S. law requires commercial drivers to be able to "read and speak the English language sufficiently to converse with the general public, to understand highway traffic signs and signals in the English language, to respond to official inquiries, and to make entries on reports and records." But Secretary of Transportation Mary Peters testified at a Senate committee hearing last year that when Mexican drivers respond to our questions in Spanish, her employees nevertheless check the box for English-proficient.  


Obama, Congress to decide when you die?

Nat Hentoff: Health care rationing for older Americans bound to be included in plan

Obama, Congress to decide when you die?

Posted: August 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009 


I was not intimidated during J. Edgar Hoover's FBI hunt for reporters like me who criticized him. I railed against the Bush-Cheney war on the Bill of Rights without blinking. But now I am finally scared of a White House administration. President Obama's desired health care reform intends that a federal board (similar to the British model) – as in the Center for Health Outcomes Research and Evaluation in a current Democratic bill – decides whether your quality of life, regardless of your political party, merits government-controlled funds to keep you alive. Watch for that life-decider in the final bill. It's already in the stimulus bill signed into law.

The members of that ultimate federal board will themselves not have examined or seen the patient in question. For another example of the growing, tumultuous resistance to "Dr. Obama," particularly among seniors, there is a July 29 Washington Times editorial citing a line from a report written by a key adviser to Obama on cost-efficient health care, prominent bioethicist Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel (brother of White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel).

Emanuel writes about rationing health care for older Americans that "allocation (of medical care) by age is not invidious discrimination" (The Lancet, January 2009). He calls this form of rationing – which is fundamental to Obamacare goals – "the complete lives system." You see, at 65 or older, you've had more life years than a 25-year-old. As such, the latter can be more deserving of cost-efficient health care than older folks.

No matter what Congress does when it returns from its recess, rationing is a basic part of Obama's eventual master health care plan. Here is what Obama said in an April 28 New York Times interview (quoted in a Washington Times July 9 editorial) in which he describes a government end-of-life services guide for the citizenry as we get to a certain age, or are in a certain grave condition. Our government will undertake, he says, a "very difficult democratic conversation" about how "the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care" costs.

Don't miss the most recent edition of Whistleblower magazine: "Medical Murder: Why Obamacare could result in the early deaths of millions of baby boomers"

This end-of-life consultation has been stripped from the Senate Finance Committee bill because of democracy-in-action town-hall outcries but remains in three House bills.

A specific end-of-life proposal is in draft Section 1233 of H.R. 3200, a House Democratic health care bill that is echoed in two others that also call for versions of "advance care planning consultation" every five years – or sooner if the patient is diagnosed with a progressive or terminal illness.

As the Washington Post's Charles Lane penetratingly explains ("Undue influence," Aug. 8): The government would pay doctors to discuss with Medicare patients explanations of "living wills and durable powers of attorney ... and (provide) a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families" on making advance-care planning (read end-of-life) decisions.
Significantly, Lane adds that, "The doctor 'shall' (that's an order) explain that Medicare pays for hospice care (hint, hint)."

But the Obama administration claims these fateful consultations are "purely voluntary." In response, Lane – who learned a lot about reading between the lines while the Washington Post's Supreme Court reporter advises us:

"To me, 'purely voluntary' means 'not unless the patient requests one.'"

But Obamas' doctors will initiate these chats. "Patients," notes Lane, "may refuse without penalty, but many will bow to white-coated authority."

And who will these doctors be? What criteria will such Obama advisers as Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel set for conductors of end-of-life services?

I was alerted to Lanes' crucial cautionary advice – for those of use who may be influenced to attend the Obamacare twilight consultations – by Wesley J. Smith, a continually invaluable reporter and analyst of, as he calls his most recent book, the "Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America" (Encounter Books).

As more Americans became increasingly troubled by this and other fearful elements of Dr. Obama's cost-efficient health care regimen, Smith adds this vital advice, no matter what legislation Obama finally signs into law:

"Remember that legislation itself is only half the problem with Obamacare. Whatever bill passes, hundreds of bureaucrats in the federal agencies will have years to promulgate scores of regulations to govern the details of the law.

"This is where the real mischief could be done because most regulatory actions are effectuated beneath the public radar. It is thus essential, as just one example, that any end-of-life counseling provision in the final bill be specified to be purely voluntary ... and that the counseling be required by law to be neutral as to outcome. Otherwise, even if the legislation doesn't push in a specific direction – for instance, THE GOVERNMENT REFUSING TREATMENT – the regulations could." (Emphasis added.)

Who'll let us know what's really being decided about our lives – and what is set into law? To begin with, Charles Lane, Wesley Smith and others whom I'll cite and add to as this chilling climax of the Obama presidency comes closer.

Condemning the furor at town-hall meetings around the country as "un-American," Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are blind to truly participatory democracy – as many individual Americans believe they are fighting, quite literally, for their lives.

I wonder whether Obama would be so willing to promote such health care initiatives if, say, it were 60 years from now, when his children will – as some of the current bills seem to imply – have lived their fill of life years, and the health care resources will then be going to the younger Americans?

U.K. on Obamacare: Been there, done that
Exclusive: Matt Barber shares horror-story headlines from nation under gov't medicine

U.K. on Obamacare: Been there, done that

Posted: August 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

By J. Matt Barber
© 2009 


Lincoln's Gettysburg Address comes to mind. In the art of persuasion, it's often most effective to paint in brief, colorful strokes.

A savvy reader with the handle "Jerseyvet" made an incisive observation after perusing my latest column concerning Obamacare:

"Start out with the premise that the demand for health care is infinite, but the supply is finite," he wrote. "So health care has to be rationed. I trust the market, unfettered by governmental restrictions, more than the government. The Canadian and British systems of health care reinforce my belief."

Jerseyvet – clearly one of those acerbate, "un-American" town hall "astroturfers" – has slung an arrow precisely through the heart of the matter.

Even Obama famously gaffed upon this weighty truth with his ill-advised postal services analogy on the free market vs. government care: "UPS and FedEx are doing just fine," he noted, "It's the post office that's always having problems." (Isn't that precious? Seriously – did Joe Biden write that line?)

The president could have saved us all the trouble and just admitted: "Blue Cross and Blue Shield are doing just fine (with room for true free-market reform). It's government health care that's always having problems."

Fittingly, it was British statesman Edmund Burke who observed, "Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it."

Regrettably, unless "we the people" defeat liberals' radical experiment in British-style health care, we're destined to repeat the very dark history under which they (the Brits) presently live and needlessly die.

President Obama is on record: "I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health care plan," he assured the AFL-CIO in 2003.

But Daniel Hannan – a popular British member of the European Parliament – recently warned us of what to expect should Obama's vision come to fruition:

"If you want to see what a government-run health care system looks like, you need not look any further than the countries like Canada or Great Britain. They already have in place so-called universal health care, and the results, well, they're not pretty."

And, as you're about to see, with the words "not pretty" Mr. Hannan has secured his spot in the "morose understatement hall of fame."

The following headlines from Britain's three leading newspapers, the Times, the Daily Mail and the Telegraph, bear out Mr. Hannan's ominous warning. Most of these stories are from 2009 and address the U.K.'s version of Obamacare (Britain's "National Health Service," or "NHS".)

For a sobering exercise in reality, simply replace "NHS" with "Obamacare" everywhere it appears:

·                  "Cancer doctors do not tell patients about drugs which could prolong lives"

·                  "Patients forced to live in agony after NHS refuses to pay for painkilling injections"

·                  "A million failed asylum seekers (illegal immigrants) will get free NHS care in human rights U-turn"

·                  "Ruling 'denies treatment to 100,000 Alzheimer's patients'"

·                  "Transsexuals win right to sex swap on NHS"

·                  "Patients risk going blind as NHS refuses treatment"

·                  "NHS targets 'may have lead to 1,200 deaths' in Mid-Staffordshire"

·                  "Patients with suspected cancer forced to wait so NHS targets can be hit"

·                  "Hospital chairman quits over dangerous targets"

·                  "Patients forced to wait hours in ambulances parked outside A&E departments"

·                  "NICE could deny drugs to stomach patients"

·                  "NHS staff face the sack if they discuss religion with patients"

·                  "11 serious errors a day in NHS surgery"

·                  "War hero refused treatment by NHS"

·                  "Cancer patient Linda O'Boyle dies after NHS ends free care over 'top up'"

·                  "Drug addicts get priority access to swine flu vaccine"

·                  "Row as terminally ill woman given bed in hospital bathroom"

·                  "NHS staff 'no longer asked if they would be treated in own hospital'"

·                  "Beat the NHS queue with a medical trip to Malaysia"


These headlines are the tip of the iceberg. There are hundreds more just like them with very real people and very real lives behind each.

Make no mistake: If we don't sink this Obamacare Titanic before it sets sail, we become the headline.
We needn't speculate. History is our crystal ball.
The Fannie Mae health system
Ben Shapiro sees new 'co-op' idea going the way of 'private' mortgage company

The Fannie Mae health system

Posted: August 19, 2009
1:00 am Eastern
© 2009 


President Obama's "public option" health care plan has been temporarily shelved – or, at least, that's what his spokespeople would have us believe. Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of health and human services, said on Aug. 16 that a public option wasn't an "essential option" in revamping the health care system. Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., is now pushing a new idea: the insurance co-op. "A co-op has some appeal because it is a nonprofit alternative," Conrad says. "At the same time, not government run or government controlled."

What exactly are co-ops? There are several different definitions. Some co-ops involve private ownership of an insurer; the insurer is operated on a nonprofit basis. Individuals can then buy insurance from the co-op. Another co-op option would be the Ace Hardware model, in which insurers pool their resources and sell to individuals on a for-profit basis.

That isn't what Conrad is talking about, however. According to the Associated Press, "Conrad said $6 billion would be needed – in loans and grants to help doctors, hospitals, businesses and other groups form nonprofit cooperative networks." This isn't a privately held nonprofit, and it's not a privately held for-profit. It's a government-subsidized business that will be indirectly responsible for administering government policy.

The health care co-ops are Fannie Mae.

In 1938, the government established the Federal Home Mortgage Association – Fannie Mae – in an attempt to boost mortgage lending. In an effort to get Fannie Mae's liabilities off the government books, however, the government spun off Fannie Mae to private shareholders. Meanwhile, the government continued to pull lending standards strings and offer subsidies. The result? The horrific mortgage policy that led to the current mortgage meltdown.

The most wonderful thing about the Fannie Mae spinoff, of course, was that when the real estate sector imploded, the federal government could blame the private market. They could blame "predatory lenders" and "credit derivative swaps" and "secondary mortgage markets." They could ignore their own role in the development of the mortgage crisis, citing the fact that Fannie Mae was privately owned.

Obama is a quick study.

Obama's "public option" plan was a grand attempt to sweep away all private opposition by making it more affordable for private businesses to dump all their employees on the taxpayer. His new "co-op" plan follows the Fannie Mae model for undermining public confidence in private health care. It allows the government to subsidize "co-ops" while promoting government care standards – subsidies and standards that will no doubt be overly generous in order to draw new clients.

At the same time, Obama's plan will continue to promote requirements that private insurers cover all applicants, no matter how sick, no matter how bad their pre-existing conditions. Insurers who currently do not make payments to stage 4 cancer patients applying for care will now need to make those payments. Healthy insurance beneficiaries will bear the brunt in increased deductibles. Higher cost and worse care will result for private health care clients.

Even worse, the "co-op" myth will provide Obama the cover he seeks to utterly swamp the private system. When private insurer care drops in quality – a drop necessitated by new regulations – Obama will declare their care insufficient. More and more Americans will opt for the new "co-ops," just as more and more Americans opted for Fannie Mae mortgages.

And sooner or later, when "co-ops" go bankrupt, government will step in to save the day with total nationalization.

President Obama is a determined man. And he is determined to have single-payer, nationalized health care by hook or by crook. The "public option" was by hook. The "co-op" plan is by crook. There's only one question left: Will Americans recognize this new swindle for what it is?









Government schools are killing America
Exclusive: Molotov Mitchell hammers public system for 'indoctrination' of kids



The diabolic trinity!








Buffett Says Federal Debt Poses Risks to Economy, Dollar...



SEE BARNEY SCREAM: Outbursts at Frank's Town Hall meeting... - The arrogance of Frank is boundless!


Lead Story

Axelrod’s profits: Uh, who’s on the take from the drug lobby again?!?!


By Michelle Malkin  •  August 18, 2009 11:03 PM


I’ve reported several times over the last few months on Team Obama’s hefty funding from the health care industry/drug lobby — see here and here — as well on the deep pockets behind the Astroturf HCAN/SEIU/ACORN campaign.
Culture of Corruption
also hones in on the cozy cash deals involving Michelle Obama, Valerie Jarrett, Susan Sher, and David Axelrod to create faux grass-roots support for the University of Chicago Medical Center’s patient-dumping scheme.
Now, Bloomberg’s Timothy Burger brings news about Axelrod’s latest health care conflicts of interest that will come as no surprise to those who have fully informed themselves of the Chicago way. While White House press secretary Robert Gibbs assails the motives of grass-roots activists by falsely smearing the movement as corporate-funded shills, Barack Obama’s own senior adviser and chief Astroturfer raked in millions of dollars from Big Pharma.

Two firms that received $343.3 million to handle advertising for Barack Obama’s White House run last year have profited from his top priority as president by taking on his push for health-care overhaul.
One is AKPD Message and Media, the Chicago-based firm headed by David Axelrod until he left last Dec. 31 to serve as a senior adviser to the president. Axelrod was Obama’s top campaign strategist and is now helping sell the health-care plan. The other firm is Washington-based GMMB Campaign Group, where partner Jim Margolis was also an Obama strategist.
This year, AKPD and GMMB received $12 million in advertising business from Healthy Economy Now, a coalition that includes the Washington-based Pharmaceutical Research & Manufacturers of America, known as PhRMA, that is seeking to build support for a health-care overhaul, said the coalition’s spokesman, Jeremy Van Ess.

You won’t be surprised to learn that the HEN coalition also includes left-wing Families USA, the sellouts at the AARP, and the Purple Army at the SEIU.

What’s Axelrod’s old firm — which employs one of his sons– up to now? When exposed to sunlight, reconstitute, rename, and spin hard:

Axelrod was president and sole shareholder of AKPD from 1985 until he sold his interest after Obama’s victory, government records show. The firm owes Axelrod $2 million, which it’s due to pay in installments beginning Dec. 31. Axelrod’s son, Michael, still works there. He didn’t return a phone call. The firm’s Web site continues to feature David Axelrod’s work on the Obama campaign.
…At the White House, Axelrod’s role in the health-care debate ranges from Sunday talk show appearances to meetings with House and Senate lawmakers…
Van Ess said HEN is now dormant. PhRMA and three other members of HEN, plus the Washington-based Federation of American Hospitals, have created another coalition, Americans for Stable Quality Care, which last week announced a new $12 million ad campaign to promote health-care overhaul. GMMB and AKPD are also working on the new coalition’s ads.

Hey, Bobby Gibbs: Tell us again. Who’s funded by the evil health care industry? And who’s motives should you be questioning now?


According to Bloomberg, AKPD continues to work with Axelron “on ’strategy and research’ for the Democratic National Committee.” Why no full disclosure until now? Why didn’t Axelrod recuse himself from his Obamcare lobbying TV appearances given the strong, interest-conflicted odor emanating from 1600 Pennsylvania?
Hey, White House Reality Check: Smell anything fishy, yet?

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Obama's parents didn't live
at newspaper birth address

Barack's dad had bachelor pad,
mother left Hawaii with baby

--WND - O Barack, what a tangled web we weave when once we practice to deceive!


Obamacare: 'Lies you can believe in'
Hundreds show up for health debate, demand congressman 'read the bill!'
--WESH-TV, Orlando

WorldNetDaily Exclusive
Americans sour on Obama stimulus
in Obama's world

Daniel Pipes cringes at words of homeland security official

Counterterrorism in Obama's Washington

by Daniel Pipes
August 18, 2009

Barack Obama's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, John O. Brennan, conveniently outlined the administration's present and future policy mistakes in a speech on August 6, "A New Approach for Safeguarding Americans."

John O. Brennan, Barack Obama's assistant for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism.

To start with, his address to the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, has an unusual tenor. "Sycophantic" is the word that springs to mind, as Brennan ninety times in five thousand words invokes either "President Obama," "he," "his," or "the president."


Disturbingly, Brennan ascribes virtually every thought or policy in his speech to the wisdom of the One. This cringe-inducing lecture reminds one of a North Korean functionary paying homage to the Dear Leader.


Specifics are no better. Most fundamentally, Brennan calls for appeasing terrorists: "Even as we condemn and oppose the illegitimate tactics used by terrorists, we need to acknowledge and address the legitimate needs and grievances of ordinary people those terrorists claim to represent." Which legitimate needs and grievances, one wonders, does he think Al-Qaeda represents?

Brennan carefully delineates a two-fold threat, one being "Al-Qaida and its allies" and the other "violent extremism." But the former, self-evidently, is a subset of the latter. This elementary mistake undermines his entire analysis.

He also rejects any connection between "violent extremism" and Islam: "Using the legitimate term jihad, which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve. Worse, it risks reinforcing the idea that the United States is somehow at war with Islam itself."

This passage regurgitates a theory of radical Islam that, according to Lt. Colonel Joseph C. Myers of the U.S. Air Command and Staff College, "is part of a strategic disinformation and denial and deception campaign" developed by the Muslim Brotherhood. Discredited in 2007 by Robert Spencer, the theory distinguishes between good jihad and bad jihad and denies any connection between Islam and terrorism.

It's a deeply deceptive interpretation intended to confuse non-Muslims and win time for Islamists. The George W. Bush administration, for all its mistakes, did not succumb to this ruse. But Brennan informs us that his boss now bases U.S. policy on it.

The speech contains disquieting signs of ineptitude. We learn that Obama considers nuclear weapons in the hands of terrorists to be "the most immediate and extreme threat to global security." Fine. But how does he respond? With three feeble and nearly irrelevant steps: "leading the effort for a stronger global nonproliferation regime, launching an international effort to secure the world's vulnerable nuclear material …, and hosting a global nuclear summit."

Nor can Brennan think straight. One example, requiring a lengthy quote.

"Poverty does not cause violence and terrorism. Lack of education does not cause terrorism. But just as there is no excuse for the wanton slaughter of innocents, there is no denying that when children have no hope for an education, when young people have no hope for a job and feel disconnected from the modern world, when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people, then people become more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death."

Summary: Poverty and a lack of education do not cause terrorism, but a lack of education and a job make people more susceptible to the ideas leading to terrorism. What is the distinction? Woe on us when the White House accepts illogic as analysis.

Further, let's focus on the statement, "when governments fail to provide for the basic needs of their people, then people become more susceptible to ideologies of violence and death," for it contains two stunning errors. First, it assumes the socialist fiction that governments provide basic needs. No. Other than in a few commodity-rich states, governments protect and offer legal structures, while the market provides.

Second, every study on the subject finds no connection between personal stress (poverty, lack of education, unemployment) and attraction to radical Islam. If anything, massive transfers of wealth to the Middle East since 1970 contributed to the rise of radical Islam. The administration is basing its policy on a falsehood.

Where, as they say, is the adult supervision? Implementation of the inept policies outlined by Brennan spells danger for Americans, American interests, and American allies. The bitter consequences of these mistakes soon enough will become apparent.






Subject: Obama Escalates Dangerous Double-Game on DOMA
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 2009 13:31:58 -0500

TAKE ACTION: Call and write your Congressman and Senators and urge them NOT to touch DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act that our supposedly "pro-traditional-marriage" president wants to destroy. Also urge them to oppose ENDA and efforts to impose open homosexuality on our military (also part of Obama's "gay" agenda). Call 202-224-3121 or 202-225-3121 or write Congress through  Please forward this article to your friends and contacts. 


MATCHING GRANT: please consider supporting AFTAH's important, truth-telling work with your tax-deductible gift. All new donations will help us double a recent $20,000 matching grant. Go to God bless and thank you! -- Peter LaBarbera, AFTAH


Barack Obama Takes on DOMA as His Double-game on ‘Gay Marriage’ Escalates

State senate candidate Obama unequivocally supported legalizing same-sex “marriage” in 1996  

View full story and graphic here: 


Obama Was For “Same-Sex Marriage” (and he Still Is): Above is a graphic that appeared in the Chicago homosexual newspaper Windy City Times — showing a “gay” questionnaire revealing Barack Obama’s explicit support for “legalizing same-sex marriage,” as a candidate for Illinois State Senate in 1996. Obama would later adapt his position because “strategically,” he understood that Republicans would use his radical support for homosexual “marriage” against him. Click on graphic to enlarge.

By Peter LaBarbera

Barack Obama sure has a strange way of showing his much-touted support for traditional “marriage.” On Monday, Obama’s Justice Department filed a legal brief against DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into law by the last Democrat to occupy the Oval Office: Bill Clinton. Weeks before that, Obama’s administration had defended DOMA, setting off a flurry of protests from his gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender-whatever allies.

DOMA — which only Congress can repeal — passed overwhelmingly in 1996 with bipartisan consensus (a mere 14 Democratic Senators voted “No”). It protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages.” Its growing unpopularity among Democrats signals the near-complete moral collapse of the party of Harry S Truman, who surely would bristle at the Dems’ current overwhelming support of abortion-on-demand and homosexuality as non-negotiable, litmus-test issues.

In this respect, Obama’s anti-DOMA crusade epitomizes his party’s flight from Judeo-Christian norms and tradition. But then again, who needs the Bible when you’ve got Barack in the White House? In 2007, during the Democratic primary campaign, the Anointed One “corrected” Gen. Peter Pace — the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and old-school Catholic who was naive enough to honestly answer a Chicago Tribune reporter’s question about homosexuals in the military. Gen. Pace said, “I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral and that we should not condone immoral acts.” For that anti-secular apostasy he was angrily denounced by “queer” activist who, like spoiled children, are not used to hearing “No.”

It all went downhill from there for Pace, who was mercilessly maligned by the politically correct thought police, which is to say, the media. Pressed to respond to Gen. Pace, Obama (and Hillary Clinton) proclaimed that to the contrary, homosexuality was “not immoral.”

I wonder if Almighty God got their memo. And when will Barack and the Democrats get around to revising the Ten Commandments?

But redefining ancient notions of sin is child’s play for the all-knowing Theologian in Chief: against all Biblical evidence to the contrary, Obama has had the chutzpah to imply that Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount is a “gay”-affirming text — while dismissing as “obscure” verses in the New Testament Book of Romans that clearly describe homosexual acts as a sign of a self-centered society spiraling downward.

So much arrogance, so little time.

We keep hearing from the media about how incredibly smart Obama is. But if he’s so intelligent, shouldn’t he know that you cannot rationally hold two contradictory positions at the same time? (Neither can God be both pro- and anti-sin.) Of course, the Obama-adoring media have allowed him to get away with his cynical double-game — telling voters again and again that he supports traditional marriage as they buried his opposition to DOMA and ignored his near-total subservience to the Gay Lobby.

(By the way, add Bill Clinton and Al Gore to the growing list of Democratic pols who have switched from supporting “civil unions” to outright homosexual “marriage.” Gotta’ love that “evolving” liberal morality: heck, if you’re going to sell out your Creator, why not go all the way?)

Truth is, the vainglorious Obama is a spectacular phony on “gay marriage,” as he is a poser on social issues and morality in general. (He claims to want to “reduce abortions” even as he championed Planned Parenthood and supports the radical, sweeping “Freedom of Choice Act,” which would eviscerate pro-life reform laws nationwide.) Obama may have drifted rightward and milked the media image of supporting one-man, one-woman marriage to get elected president, but as sure as stimulus dollars are being wasted, in his heart he is for homosexual “marriage” in every way except calling them “marriages.”

Oops. Strike that. On February 15, 1996, then-candidate for Illinois State Senate Barack Obama did come out for legalizing same-sex “marriage,” in responding to a candidate questionnaire.  This little tidbit was reported by a Chicago homosexual newspaper — conveniently, after the 2008 election. Obama told the gay newspaper Outlines in 1996: “I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages.” No wiggle room there. Moreover, Politico reports, “On another questionnaire the same year, Obama said he would support a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.”

But eight years later, in 2004, in another “gay” newspaper interview, Obama — now running for U.S. Senate — had seen the light on traditional marriage (wink, wink to powerful “gay” friends). Even so, note his highly political — not moral — rationale for opposing “gay marriage” (emphasis added):


Lesbian reporter Tracy Baim: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Barack Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. … What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. … I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name.


Entrusting the defense of marriage to this fellow would be like entrusting your 80-year-old grandmother to Obama-care for that urgent operation she needs to stay alive. Morality and timeless truths, like grandma, are thrown overboard as the politics of expediency override principle. On marriage, the playbook was obvious for the ambitious chameleon-candidate: running for office in a very liberal Chicago district, Obama pandered to the Democratic Left by strongly supporting full “same-sex marriage.” But years later, a more savvy U.S. Senate candidate Obama needed to jettison his “gay marriage” position lest the common voter figure out that he has a radical social agenda.

Of course, this was perfect training for the strategy that the cunning Obama would use in his successful run for the presidency — playing the role of moderate on a whole host of issues to fool America’s centrist, independent and faith-based voters, only to govern from the left once in office. Granted, he’s hardly the first politician to do that and he won’t be the last. But thankfully, Average American Joes and Janes are finally catching on to the real Obama — the one who plays a dangerous game with transcendent truth while deceiving the public about the real “change” he is hoping for.

Peter LaBarbera is founder and president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality,, based outside Chicago, Illinois