Posts Tagged ‘cancer’

The Sheer Hypocritical, Cynical VILENESS Of The Democrat Party On Display In The Government Shutdown

October 3, 2013

As we speak, the polls show that people blame Republicans more than Democrats for “shutting down the government.”

The people believe a lie: Republicans are shutting down OBAMACARE; it is the DEMOCRATS who are shutting down EVERY OTHER PART OF GOVERNMENT.  As I will document below.

But first let me talk a little about “the people” and “the polls.”

Founding Father John Adams put it thus:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

I have long given up on the American people as a good or decent people.  We have crossed the moral Rubicon and we are going down.  That is why we are following the world – and particularly socialist nations/regions such as Europe has been – rather than following our Constitution.  And we are going to pay for our national wickedness.  The Bible doesn’t mention the United States in the last days because America will either have become so diminished it no longer matters, or because it will soon outright collapse as a viable nation.

That’s why the polls are pretty much irrelevant to me these days.  Bad people believe lies and want bad things and vote for bad things and bad people ultimately perish because of all the bad things that they have surrounded themselves with.  That’s why we can point to all the cultures and nations that have risen to glory and perished ignominiously throughout history  as their people “fundamentally transformed” into BAD people.  Today we have a media that is so propagandist and so ideologically biased that it is beyond unreal who outright lie to the American people, and we have an American people who are becoming – if they have not already become – a bad people who prefer lies to the truth.

So if the polls say that people blame Republicans more than Democrats or Obama for the government shutdown, I couldn’t care less.  Because these are the same sort of people who were once screaming, “Give us Barabbas!” (Luke 23:18), and “Crucify Him!” (Luke 23:20) when Jesus was offered to them by a feckless Pontius Pilate and his big government who were desperate to appease the days’ “Occupy” mob.

I couldn’t care less about the opinion of such people.  And while it may shock me as much today that the people have become so toxic just as it would have shocked me in Jesus’ day that the people had become so toxic, I care about TRUTH and the FACTS.

So let’s consider the facts as to how the Democrats are conducting themselves.

First, let’s consider Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who demonized Republicans as killing children with cancer because the NIH was going to have to shutdown services.  But then the TRUTH comes out that Republicans were only too-willing to fund the NIH BUT THAT IT IS HARRY REID WHO IS KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER JUST SO HE CAN ACCUSE REPUBLICANS OF KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is blaming Republicans for the National Institutes of Health turning away cancer patients. But when asked why the Senate wouldn’t try to help “one child who has cancer” by approving a mini-spending bill, he shot back: “Why would we want to do that?”

Consider this exchange between Harry Reid and CNN correspondent  Dana Bash:

“If you can help one child, why won’t you do it?” asked CNN reporter Dana Bash.

“Why, why, why would we want to do that?” countered Reid.

“I have 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base that are sitting home,” because of government employee furloughs, he told Bash and a roomful of other journalists. “They have – they have a few problems of their own.”

“This is – to have someone of your intelligence suggest such a thing maybe means you’re as irresponsible and reckless.”

The CNN correspondent had challenged Senate Democrats’ earlier lament that clinical trials for pediatric cancer therapies were among government services cut off Monday at midnight. The two houses of Congress, run by opposite parties, were unable to agree on the terms of a continuing resolution to fund the government in its new fiscal year.

“You all talked about children with cancer unable to go to clinical trials,” she began. “The House is presumably going to pass a bill that funds the NIH. Will you, at least, pass that? And if not, aren’t you playing the same political games that Republicans are?”

House Republicans have pressed forward with a collection of six legislative proposals to independently fund specific portions of the federal government through the length of the shutdown.

Why are 1100 people at Nellis Air Force Base siting at home?  Republicans have offered to fund the Air Force.  The fact of the matter is, those 1100 people are sitting at home because Democrats refuse to ALLOW them to go back to work.  Just so they can demonize the Republicans for keeping them sitting at home.

But of course that’s not anywhere near the worst of Harry Reid’s dishonesty: Democrats are so vile that they accuse Republicans of killing children when DEMOCRATS ARE KILLING CHILDREN WITH CANCER JUST SO THEY CAN SLANDER AND DEMONIZE THE GOP.  And when one correspondent had the guts to challenge the Democrats about their lies, well, they treated her like she was some hybrid between Fox News and the GOP (more on Democrats’ unhinged demonic slandering of their opponents later).

Democrats are terrible, wicked, evil, demon-possessed human beings.  And those are facts.

In the same way, Republicans are perfectly willing to fund things like the World War II monument.  And do you know that such monuments have NEVER BEFORE been targets in ANY of the previous seventeen government shutdowns before?  Take for example the Lincoln Monument; it has NEVER been shut down before because we’ve never had a “president” so cynical and so demonic that he would be so deliberately vindictive.  But that’s what we have now.  That’s because Democrats have never been so willing to sink so low in their effort to hurt as many people as possible just so they could blame Republicans for the damage that DEMOCRATS are causing.

Don’t believe me?  Believe the Washington Times:

The Park Service appears to be closing  streets on mere whim and caprice. The rangers even closed the parking lot at Mount Vernon, where the plantation home of George Washington is a favorite tourist  destination. That was after they barred the new World War II Memorial on the Mall to veterans of World War II. But the government does not own Mount Vernon; it is privately owned by the Mount Vernon Ladies’  Association. The ladies bought it years ago to preserve it as a national  memorial. The feds closed access to the parking lots this week, even though the  lots are jointly owned with the Mount Vernon ladies. The rangers are from the government, and they’re only here to help.

“It’s a cheap way to deal with the situation,” an angry Park  Service ranger in Washington says  of the harassment. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we  can. It’s disgusting.”

Yeah.  Democrats are DISGUSTING.  Because it is Obama and Democrats who ordered those park rangers to close down everything they possibly could and make life as difficult as they could for as many Americans as they could.  Just to bring the shutdown home as much as they could so they could demonize Republicans as much as they could.

Obama and Democrats are putting up “Barrycades” to stick it to as many Americans as they possibly can.  And even though Republicans have voted to fund all this stuff it’s supposed to be all their fault because not supporting ObamaCare and taking the mark of Obama on your right hand or forehead is somehow numerically equivalent with wanting ALL of government shut down like the Democrats are doing.

Republicans are saying something that is morally obvious to any decent person: if we can’t reach any compromise (because Democrats refuse to negotiate) on what we can’t agree upon, THEN WHY DON’T WE AT LEAST AGREE ON WHAT WE CAN AGREE ON AND FUND THOSE THINGS???  But Democrats say that Republicans are “terrorists” and “jihadists” because they’re “holding ObamaCare hostage” WHEN DEMOCRAT JIHADIST TERRORISTS ARE HOLDING EVERY POPULAR PIECE OF GOVERNMENT HOSTAGE unless they get their beloved ObamaCare without ANY change or ANY delay (let’s not mention that Obama has himself abrogated the law and the Constitution by delaying a full THIRD of ObamaCare out of cynical political calculations).

WWII veterans – who frankly may die before they have another chance to see their monument – broke down the barricades that Obama put up to stop them.

And so Republicans voted to fund “spending for veterans, the District of Columbia and the Park Service.”

The RNC said it would pay for half of the WWII memorial to remain open out of their own budget if the Democrats National Committee would pay half.  Democrats basically said, “We are the Party of exploiting OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY.  We won’t use our OWN money to help the veterans of the greatest generation of Americans.”

Democrats and their media propagandist tools despicably accused Republicans of “grandstanding” and “politicizing” because Republicans tried to do something THAT ANY DECENT HUMAN BEING ON THE PLANET WOULD AGREE IS A GOOD THING TO DO.

WHO is trying to fund the WWII memorial and the rest of the National Park Service???  Republicans.  WHO is refusing to fund those things???  The same Democrats who are demonizing Republicans for what DEMOCRATS are actually doing.

But it actually gets worse.

Democrats are accusing Republicans of being “economic terrorists.”  But let’s take a look at our “Economic Terrorist-in-CHIEF”:

Washington (AFP) – President Barack Obama sent Wall Street a blunt warning Wednesday that it should be very worried about a political crisis that has shut down the government and could trigger a US debt default.

Obama said he was “exasperated” by the budget impasse in Congress, in an interview with CNBC apparently designed to pressure Republicans by targeting the financial community moments after markets closed.

The president then met Republican and Democratic leaders for their first talks since the US government money’s ran out and it slumped into a shutdown now well into its second day.

But few informed observers held out much hope for a sudden breakthrough.

Obama was asked in the interview whether Washington was simply gripped by just the latest in a series of political and fiscal crises which reliably get solved at the last minute.

In unusually frank comments on issues that could sway markets, Obama warned that investors should be worried.

“This time’s different. I think they should be concerned,” Obama said, in comments which may roil global markets.

“When you have a situation in which a faction is willing potentially to default on US government obligations, then we are in trouble,” Obama said.

Obama said he would not negotiate with Republicans on budget matters until House lawmakers pass a temporary financing bill to reopen federal operations and raised the $16.7 trillion dollar debt ceiling.

During the first day of the government shutdown, the market actually went UP.  What was good for America wasn’t good for Obama, who as a fascist needs to fearmonger a crisis, though.  Obama needs financial chaos and calamity for his plan to create suffering so he can blame his enemies for it.

So Obama deliberately roils the markets and of course they are plunging after Obama’s fearmongering.

So now he can blame Republicans for the financial disaster that HE wants to create so he can blame Republicans.

But – and this is frankly incredible – the sheer Democrat VILENESS actually gets even WORSE.

Again, Obama and his DEMOnic bureauCRATS want to foment and fearmonger a crisis so they can blame Republicans for the crisis they created.  So Obama sends out his chief intelligence stooge who fomented a national intelligence crisis:

Did anyone take the nation’s Director of National Intelligence (DNI) seriously when he told Congress this week that the government shutdown will put the country in danger, cause “insidious” damage and risk spy missions?

What about the part where he said financial stress—presumably created by not getting paid—could make his intelligence officers vulnerable to being bought off by foreign spies? It’s almost comical though it sounds really dramatic and quite distressing. Could it be true or was James Clapper putting on a show for lawmakers this week?

“The risk is 75 percent more than it was yesterday,” Clapper told the Senate Judiciary Committee. “The danger here… will accumulate over time. The damage will be insidious so each day that goes by, the jeopardy increases.” This is due to all that valuable intelligence that’s being lost because there are fewer workers to track targets, according to a news report of the hearing. Before anyone loses any sleep, the DNI chief assured that he’s keeping enough employees on the payroll to guard against “imminent threats to life or property.”

Then he upped the ante by insinuating that financial stress could make his intelligence officers vulnerable to being bribed by enemy governments. “This is a dreamland for foreign intelligence service to recruit, particularly as our employees already, many of whom subject to furloughs driven by sequestration, are going to have, I believe, even greater financial challenges,” Clapper said.

Look, if we’ve got a national intelligence crisis, PLEASE ALLOW REPUBLICANS TO FUND OUR NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE SERVICES!!!  But no way.  Democrats and Obama hope there’s a terrorist attack so they can blame Republicans for it EVEN THOUGH THAT ATTACK WOULD HAVE OCCURRED BECAUSE DEMOCRATS REFUSED TO VOTE ON THE HOUSE BILL TO FUND THE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES OR PRETTY MUCH ANY OF THE REST OF THE GOVERNMENT.

That is about as evil as it gets.  Democrats remind me of the Arab states following the 1948 war in which Israel miraculously successfully fought for its right to exist.  Thousands of Palestinian refugees were created, but the Arab states refused to take them into their own countries or take care of them in any way.  No, because they wanted to be able to point a finger of blame at Israel and say, “Look at what Israel did to these poor people!”  And of course that is still the situation to this very day.  Israel has brought in Jews from all over the world while Arab states won’t even allow Arabs in from next door just so they can blame Israel for the plight of the poor Palestinian refugees.

The Democrat Party is the party of genuine evil in America today.  It is the Party of Romans chapter one and the wrath of God that follows.  It is the party of sodomy worship and baby murder.  And it is the party of lies and deceit.

Obama has been all-too willing to negotiate and compromise with America’s worst enemies and with the terrorists who would joyfully murder us all.  He’s been willing to negotiate and be “more flexible” with the Russians (and see here) who have been America’s chief enemy for the last sixty freaking years.  He’s been willing to negotiate with and compromise with the Syrians after they murdered over a hundred thousand of their own people and repeatedly used weapons of mass destruction.  He’s now willing to be the first president since the failed Jimmy Carter years to negotiate with and compromise with the Iranians who seek to get nuclear missiles and launch Armageddon.

But he won’t BUDGE and WILL NOT NEGOTIATE WITH OR COMPROMISE WITH anyone who loves America.

So he announces repeatedly that HE WILL NOT NEGOTIATE with Republicans even as he accuses them of not being willing to compromise and blames them for everything under the sun.  Democrats of course used to blame George Bush for everything under the sun even though Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate just because a Republican was president.  But now the last man on earth who can be blamed for ANYTHING is the Democrat President who has been nothing short of a coward and a fascist thug since the day he took office.

So Obama calls for a meeting with Republicans at the White House to negotiate while saying HE won’t in any way, shape or form negotiate.  Why?  So he can dishonestly and deceitfully present himself as the one who was willing to do what he himself said he WON’T do:

The White House says President Barack Obama has told congressional leaders he still won’t negotiate over re-opening the government or raising the nation’s borrowing limit.

Obama and top lawmakers met for more than an hour at the White House on Wednesday, the second day of a partial government shut down. The leaders emerged to say no progress had been made.

I mean, what a surprise after the president says he won’t budge a nanometer that the leaders would come out of such a charade meeting to say no progress was made.

Let me close this up by pointing out all the incredibly demonic slandering rhetoric coming from Democrats as they get shriller and shriller and more and more hateful.  Democrats have called Republicans terrorists and jihadists and anarchists with bombs strapped to their chests and accused them of being “legislative arsonists” (Nancy Pelosi) and blackmailers and extortionists (Obama Press Secretary Jay Carney) and – as I cited above at the beginning of this article – literally child murderers (Harry Reid).  Oh, and Obama accused them of holding the nation for ransom, which I believe would be a prosecutable crime.  Hateful, inflammatory rhetoric.

Think about the Democrats’ position: unless the Republicans fund EVERYTHING they will fund NOTHING and shut the whole nation down.  Unless the Republicans fund ObamaCare Democrats will cut off the funding for veteran’s benefits.  And Republicans are supposed to be the “terrorists.”

What is most ironic about that is the second worst domestic terrorist attack in American history was committed by a Muslim terrorist named Major Nidal Hassan.  This terrorist – who carried business cards that announced himself as a “Soldier of Allah” and shouted “Allah Akbar!” as he gunned down fourteen American servicemen and wounded another thirty-two; who had been in email contact with al Qaeda, etc., etc., – COULDN’T BE CALLED A TERRORIST, said the Obama administration.  Nope.  it was just a case of “workplace violence.”

Democrats reserve the title of “terrorist” and “jihadist” for Republicans, rather than actual TERRORISTS.  Democrats refuse to call people who murder American servicemen while screaming “Allah Akbar!” terrorists, but they will call Republicans who are guilty of the crime of using their constitutional powers terrorists with rabid spittle dripping from their poisonous socialist fangs.

These are wicked people.  And if a nation is wicked enough to support them, then let that nation say, “Let it be on our heads and on the heads of our children!” as they shouted once before.

Update, 4 Oct 2013: If you want to know how Obama REALLY thinks about this, consider the following acknowledged to the Wall Street Journal by a SENIOR Obama official:]

Said a senior administration official: “We are winning…It doesn’t really matter to us” how long the shutdown lasts “because what matters is the end result.”

Wait a minute….. WHO’S “winning”???  I want Obama to identify the average Americans who are “winning” right now the way his rabid inner circle says THEY’RE winning.

I’ll be replaying this line again and again if the nation goes off the debt ceiling cliff and America defaults on its debt.  I’m thinking this Obama official is like Charlie Sheen in the sense of “not bi-polar, but bi-WINNING.”

Imagine if the government shut down under George W. Bush, and people weren’t getting the services they needed and couldn’t go to the jobs they and their families depended upon.  Oh, and children were dying of cancer and the nation was no longer safe from terrorist attack and all that stuff because of the shutdown that Bush was presiding over.  And some high-ranking Bush official turkey had been quoted as saying, “It doesn’t matter because it’s all about us and it’s all about our partisan politics and woo-hoo we’re winning.”  Imagine the screams of outrage that would have resounded throughout the mainstream media and the Democrat Party talking points then.  But the mainstream media are as hypocritical and as dishonest as the Democrat Party, and so the absence of any moral outrage is treasonous.

It’s just a game to Obama and his minions.  And they don’t give a flying damn who gets hurt or how many get hurt.  In fact, the more  who are hurt, the better to them.  And like the fascists they are, they are willing to fight to the last dead citizen to get their way.

You want more?  How about this: just LISTEN TO ONE OF OBAMA’S DEMONIC SPEECHES.  He’s giving speech after speech just flat-out DEMONIZING John Boehner and the GOP.  You listen to one and you find JUST ONE WORD of a real leader trying in any way, shape or form to reach out to the other side, to reach some kind of agreementNothing.  Just the rabid ideological partisan rabid foaming-at-the-mouth hate from our “president.”  Why?  Because Obama doesn’t WANT a deal on the government shutdown or the debt ceiling or anything else.  No.  He wants an issue to demonize the Republicans on in the 2014 elections.  He wants the same dictatorial political tyranny that he enjoyed for the first two years of his tyrant presidency.  He WANTS the government to shut down; he WANTS America to default on the debt; he WANTS as much harm and misery and damage to the U.S. economy as he can foment SO HE CAN BLAME THE GOP and run against them in 2014.  Is that the mark of a real leader?  Even the Los Angeles Times says it is the exact OPPOSITE of what a leader who isn’t demon-possessed would do.

Advertisements

Hey, Obama! Leave My Junk Alone!

November 23, 2010

Update, 11/23/10: A CNN report (click here for the video) effectively blows to smithereens the Obama administration deceit that the “enhanced” security measures do any good at all.

But that aint stopping Obama from moving “fool speed ahead”:

[End update]

In the age of Obama, The TSA is making sure to put the T and A in “TSA.”

I see a new verse to the Pink Floyd song, “Another Brick in the Wall.”

We don’t need no porno-scanners
We don’t need no weird gropings
No sex offenses in our airports
Obama leave those kids alone
Hey! Obama! Leave my junk alone!
All in all it’s NOT another brick in the wall.
All in all you’re NOT another brick in the wall

Who would have thought the American rallying cry would be, “Don’t touch my junk!”??? And yet it’s the “Don’t Tread On Me!” cry for a new generation.

Has Obama gone after children?  Big time.

TSA strip searches young boy (Youtube):

We need a new book for children in our public schools now to go along with all the ones about having two daddies:

But don’t feel left out.  Because Obama doesn’t just want to do an “aggressive pat-down” of your little boys and girls.  He’s an equal opportunity junk fondler:

Here’s a junk-fondling story for you junk-fondling story lovers:

Please Remove Your Prosthetic Breast: The TSA Horror Story to Trump Them All
By: Steven James Snyder

There’s been plenty of discussion about the Transportation Security Administration’s new and aggressive pat-down techniques, as well as debates about children being frisked. But here’s the TSA horror story that will leave you heartbroken and outraged: The flight attendant (and cancer survivor) who was forced to remove her prosthetic breast. Yes, really. (via WBTV)

Her name is Cathy Bossy, a 32-year industry veteran, and in a remarkable interview with WBTV she recalls a screening episode that played out some three months back. (Pat-Downs 101: Find out what’s in store for you)

Working as a flight attendant, Bossy tells WBTV that she was subjected in North Carolina to one of the first rounds of inspections via full body-scanners; a procedure that concerned this breast cancer survivor from the start, due to the radiation involved.

But it was when she was selected for a more thorough pat-down that she says an uncomfortable situation crossed the line.

Bossy told WBTV that her screener zeroed in quickly on her right breast – a prosthetic breast she was fitted with after cancer surgery – and demanded to know why the breast felt unusual. When informed that it was a prosthesis, the inspector allegedly instructed Bossy to both show, and then remove, the artificial extension.

Hey! Obama! Leave her junk alone!  And I mean her prosthetic junk, too.

What in the world is wrong with you people???

If someone did that to my mother, there would be some payback.

And by titling the article, “The TSA Horror Story to Trump Them All,” it was practically a dare for the TSA to provide an even better horror story – which they were easily able to provide:

TSA pat-down leaves traveler covered in urine
‘I was absolutely humiliated,’ said bladder cancer survivor
By Harriet Baskas

A retired special education teacher on his way to a wedding in Orlando, Fla., said he was left humiliated, crying and covered with his own urine after an enhanced pat-down by TSA officers recently at Detroit Metropolitan Airport.

“I was absolutely humiliated, I couldn’t even speak,” said Thomas D. “Tom” Sawyer, 61, of Lansing, Mich.

Sawyer is a bladder cancer survivor who now wears a urostomy bag, which collects his urine from a stoma, or opening in his abdomen.  “I have to wear special clothes and in order to mount the bag I have to seal a wafer to my stomach and then attach the bag. If the seal is broken, urine can leak all over my body and clothes.”

On Nov. 7, Sawyer said he went through the security scanner at Detroit Metropolitan Airport. “Evidently the scanner picked up on my urostomy bag, because I was chosen for a pat-down procedure.”

Due to his medical condition, Sawyer asked to be screened in private. “One officer looked at another, rolled his eyes and said that they really didn’t have any place to take me,” said Sawyer. “After I said again that I’d like privacy, they took me to an office.”

Sawyer wears pants two sizes too large in order to accommodate the medical equipment he wears. He’d taken off his belt to go through the scanner and once in the office with security personnel, his pants fell down around his ankles. “I had to ask twice if it was OK to pull up my shorts,” said Sawyer, “And every time I tried to tell them about my medical condition, they said they didn’t need to know about that.”

Do this kind of stuff with the wrong guy’s dad, and you’re going to see a whole new kind of “domestic terrorist.”

Now, if this man voted for Obama, they should strip him naked in public and double check all his cavities using a dirty toilet plunger.  And let him cry a river.  Because if you voted for a fascist, you should get your fascism right up your wazoo.  But if not, this crap is just depraved.

Do we need this for our national security?

Do you know how many terrorists the TSA have busted?  Try ZERO.  And that’s ZERO-POINT-ZERO-ZERO for you math whizzes.

What do the experts of the world’s most successful nation dealing with terrorism have to say about the Tits and Ass Agency’s methods?

Full-body scanners are waste of money, Israeli expert says
By Sarah Schmidt, Canwest News Service April 23, 2010

Leading Israeli airport security expert says the Canadian government has wasted millions of dollars to install “useless” imaging machines at airports across the country.

“I don’t know why everybody is running to buy these expensive and useless machines. I can overcome the body scanners with enough explosives to bring down a Boeing 747,” Rafi Sela told parliamentarians probing the state of aviation safety in Canada.

“That’s why we haven’t put them in our airport,” Sela said, referring to Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion International Airport, which has some of the toughest security in the world.

Sela, former chief security officer of the Israel Airport Authority and a 30-year veteran in airport security and defence technology, helped design the security at Ben Gurion.

“Expensive and useless.”  That’s the entire Obama presidency summed up in three words.

The fact of the matter is that you can bring down a 747 with just a few grams of PETN, if you know where to sit on an aircraft (and the terrorists know where to sit).  You can insert the device in your anal cavity, and there is no way the machines will pick it up.  As for the enhanced patdowns (or whatever you want to call the gropings), try to feel something that could be the size of a grain of rice wearing latex gloves.

PETN has a relative effectiveness factor of 1.66 per 1.773 grams which produces a detonation velocity of 8400 meters per second. 0.6 kilograms of PETN is equal to the destructive power of 1 kilogram of TNT… [A] single gram of it would have been enough to rip apart the section of the plane in which he was located in mere tenths of a second were it exposed to its autoignition temperature

Soon a terrorist will bring down a plane with an explosive that he had up his anal cavity.  And the day after that the Tits and Ass Agency will be requiring everyone flying to submit to bending over, dropping their drawers or hiking their skirts, and submitting to an anal probing.

Because anal probings are the inherent nature of liberalism, anyway.

Think about it.  The obvious solution all along has been profiling.  Because, as Ann Coulter basically puts it, the only advantage we have over the terrorists is that they really do all look alike.

“Fortunately, that’s the one advantage we have in this war. In a lucky stroke, all the terrorists are swarthy, foreign-born, Muslim males.”

Israelis have said they don’t “profile by race.”  And I’m thinking, “Yeah, right.  And my turds don’t stink, either.”  But the one thing everyone knows for a fact is that they profile the hell out of people who travel on their airline.

Which is to say, no matter how you slice it, we don’t need Obama’s porno-cancer scanner machines, or his hired federal gropers to have security.

Common sense is like rocket science to moral idiots.  And Barry Hussein, Eric Holder, Janet Napolitano and everyone else he’s brought on board is a genuine moral idiot.

Liberals self-righteously tell us that profiling Muslims by race would be un-American.  Because “American” to them means that we must instead treat EVERYONE like a terrorist.  A flight attendant with a prosthetic breast is as much a security threat as a 23 year-old Muslim male just arriving from Yemen.  To single anyone out for scrutiny would make sense, and we won’t have that as long as Barry Hussein is our emperor.  Because in Obama’s liberal America we stand like sheep in front of porno-scanners that take naked pictures of us, and then we stand like sheep while we’re groped by professional government gropers.

They don’t want to violate anybody’s rights.  Far better to violate EVERYBODY’S rights instead.

Remember the ecstatic Newsweek headline, “We Are All Socialists Now”???  Socialism invariably ends up treating the people like the enemy.  Think Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, with their Berlin Wall and all the machine gun emplacements to gun down anyone trying to get out.

If you don’t think it’s bad enough now as it is, the Tits and Ass Agency wants to unionize, which would make them even more intrusive and impervious than they already are.

“You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor and you will have war” — Winston Churchill, commenting on Neville Chamberlain’s “peace in our time” signing of the Munich Agreement with Hitler

Prop 8: Contemptuous Judge Overturns Will Of Both God And The People

August 4, 2010

Here’s the latest story of judicial abuse:

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge overturned California’s same-sex marriage ban Wednesday in a landmark case that could eventually land before the U.S. Supreme Court to decide if gays have a constitutional right to marry in America.

Chief U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker made his ruling in a lawsuit filed by two gay couples who claimed the voter-approved ban violated their civil rights. Gay couples waving rainbow and American flags outside the courthouse cheered, hugged and kissed as word of the ruling spread.

Despite the favorable ruling for same-sex couples, gay marriage will not be allowed to resume. That’s because the judge said he wants to decide whether his order should be suspended while the proponents pursue their appeal in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The judge ordered both sides to submit written arguments by Aug. 6 on the issue.

Supporters argued the ban was necessary to safeguard the traditional understanding of marriage and to encourage responsible childbearing.

California voters passed the ban as Proposition 8 in November 2008, five months after the state Supreme Court legalized gay marriage.

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite-sex couples are superior to same-sex couples,” the judge wrote in a 136-page ruling that laid out in precise detail why the ban does not pass constitutional muster.

The judge found that the gay marriage ban violates the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses.

“Because Proposition 8 disadvantages gays and lesbians without any rational justification, Proposition 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment,” the judge ruled.

This is now the third time that a judge substituted his will for the clear will of the people in the state of California.  There’s a phrase in the Declaration of Independence that no longer matters: “deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed.”  Of course, there are other phrases that liberals despise in the Declaration of Independence as well, such as “that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

For the official record, Thomas Jefferson – who wrote the Declaration of Independence – would have led the revolt against these evil, malicious, degenerate judges and supervised their tarring and feathering.

Just one of Jefferson’s comments about such “judges” as Vaughn Walker:

“The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other.  But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

Thus this isn’t judicial activism; it’s judicial DESPOTISM.

The people no longer have any real power in this country.  Some unelected judge overturned the will of the people in Arizona by substituting her own ridiculous reasoning for the law.  Now this.  And soon states like Missouri – which issued a 71%-to-29% smackdown to ObamaCare – will likewise fall prey to judicial despotism.  Why even bother to vote when your will is continually overturned by despotism?  Of course, that’s exactly how liberal fascists want you to think.  They want you to give up.  Because socialism is only accepted by an apathetic, defeated people.

Let me address the specific objections to traditional marriage:

“Equal protection”? How is that violated by a law that defines marriage as the union between one man and one woman?

A gay man has the right to marry any adult woman who will have him – the same as me.  There’s your “equal protection.”  On a platter.

If a gay man doesn’t want to take advantage of that, then that’s his loss.  But radically redefining marriage into something it has never been in the history of this nation – or for that matter the history of Western Civilization, or for that matter any civilization period – is not a response that any morally intelligent individual would descend into.

How about the concept of “due process”? How does redefining marriage from an institution to a convention that can be radically transformed by judicial fiat encourage due process?  All it does is create undue process.  How will this judge now prevent three men from marrying?  If you can redefine the “one man and one woman thing,” why can’t you redefine the “two people” thing?  And by what objective standard that can never be overturned?  And if three people can marry, why can’t fifteen or more?  Just who are you to impose your narrow-minded morality on thirty people who want to get married to each other?

The same thing goes to inter-species marriage: just who the hell are you to say that that weird woman next door can’t marry her Great Dane?  Or her Clydesdale Stallion, for that matter?  Why can’t I marry my canary?

And you’d better have a damn good reason for restricting each of these, or they’ll probably be legal next month.

Gays want the right to marry.  The North American Man/Boy Love Association wants the right to have men marry boys.  Unlike homosexuals, pedophiles actually have something approaching a historic case: the Roman world had something called pederasty, in which men gave boys mentoring and help with their futures in exchange for the boys giving up their virginal backsides.

The liberal culture says a twelve year old girl has the right to an abortion on demand without her parents’ consent.  That’s a very adult decision, not unlike a very similar adult decision to have a relationship with the adult who impregnated her in the first place.  Why not give NAMBLA what it wants?  It’s not fair to allow two people who love each other not to marry, after all, right?  That’s the argument we keep hearing, so let’s be consistent.  Why are we denying the right of men and boys to marry whomever they choose?

NAMBLA once actually had United Nations status, due to its membership with the “legitimate” International Lesbian and Gay Association.

NAMBLA has been a member of the International Lesbian and Gay Association for 10 years. We’ve been continuously active in ILGA longer than any other US organization. NAMBLA delegates to ILGA helped write ILGA’s constitution, its official positions on the sexual rights of youth, and its stands against sexual coercion and corporal punishment. We are proud of our contributions in making ILGA a stronger voice for the international gay and lesbian movement and for sexual justice.

Today the gay community excludes NAMBLA as a matter of pure political expediency.  Harry Hay, the founder of the first gay organization in America, ultimately condemned the “gay community” and “reviled what he saw as the movement’s propensity for selling out its fringe members for easy, and often illusory, respectability.” The simple fact is that the gay community is just a bunch of narrow-minded, intolerant bigots and naked political opportunists who want to deny others the basic rights they demand for themselves.

And, of course, President Obama appointed a pro-NAMBLA guy to be the “Safe Schools Czar,” so we have a pretty high-level endorsement right there, don’t we?  We’re talking mainstream stuff here, these days.

Given the fact that judges can usurp the clearly expressed will of the people and impose their own “morality” as they choose, it is guaranteed that we will legalize the buggery of young boys down the road.  Secular humanism  simply doesn’t have the moral resources to prevent it.

Who are you not to allow your little boy to get married to some forty-year old “lover,” you intolerant pig?

People who defend traditional marriage have an easy and powerful defeater for these objections.  Gay marriage proponents have none.  If I’m wrong, then just finish this thought: “A marriage of three people will never be allowed by a court to happen because…”.  And don’t say that it won’t ever happen because marriage is a particular type of thing, because that was our argument, and you ran roughshod over it.

The last idea is this commonly-heard challenge: “How does allowing gay marriage harm heterosexual marriage?”

That one really isn’t very hard to answer.

For one thing, it cheapens marriage to the point of meaninglessness, which is why marriage has declined markedly in every single country in which gay marriage was imposed.  I mean, given how marriage becomes a mere convention, why even bother getting married?

Gay activists look at the gay-marriage countries and argue that divorces have leveled off.  But the problem with that line of reasoning is that divorce only becomes a factor if people actually bother to get married in the first place.  And the fact of the matter is that they AREN’T bothering to get married.  Because marriage is being destroyed.

When a young man today says “I do” in a marriage to his wife, he is continuing an institution that his parents, his parents’ parents, and his parents’ parents’ parents – going all the way back to Adam and Eve (i.e., and NOT Adam and Steve).

We go back to the very beginning when GOD instituted marriage.  And God said:

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).

“Shall cleave to his WIFE” – not to whoever or whatever the hell happens to turn his fancy.

Gay marriage does to marriage what cancer does to the cells of a body – it alters it, it corrupts it, and ultimately it destroys it.

Marriage is no longer a holy union between a man and a woman under God that the state recognizes; it becomes a convention BY the state APART from God that can be changed at will by powerful elites who have determined that they know better than God.

So yeah, gay marriage hurts legitimate marriage.  Because it destroys the very concept of marriage.

ObamaCare Will Bring Abortion Mindset To Treatment Of Elderly

May 13, 2010

D. James Kennedy prophetically said years back, “Watch out, Grandpa!  Because the generation that survived abortion will one day come after you!”

And coming they are.  And coming after Grandma, too, of course.

One of the morally depraved assumptions of abortion is that the baby has a duty to die for the convenience of his or her mother.

And guess what, Grandma and Grandpa?  It’s getting to be YOUR turn to quit burdening us with your useless lives.  It’s getting to be time that you shoved off and “died with dignity.”

May 11, 2010 12:00 A.M.
A ‘Duty to Die’?
Thomas Sowell

There was a time when some desperately poor societies had to abandon the elderly to their fate, but is that where we are today?

One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have “a duty to die” rather than become a burden to others.

This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government.

Make no mistake about it, letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.

There was a time — fortunately, now long past — when some desperately poor societies had to abandon old people to their fate, because there was just not enough margin for everyone to survive. Sometimes the elderly themselves would simply go off from their families and communities to face their fate alone.

But is that where we are today?

Talk about “a duty to die” made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One day, I was told that an older lady — a relative of ours — was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate towards her.

She was called “Aunt Nance Ann,” but I don’t know what her official name was or what her actual biological relationship to us was. Aunt Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.

At that time, we didn’t have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table — and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.

Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had “a duty to die.”

I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from highly educated people in an affluent age, when even most families living below the official poverty level owned a car or truck and had air conditioning.

It is today, in an age when homes have flat-paneled TVs and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites — rather than the masses — have begun talking about “a duty to die.”

Back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann, nobody in our family had ever gone to college. Indeed, none had gone beyond elementary school. Apparently, you need a lot of expensive education, sometimes including courses on ethics, before you can start talking about “a duty to die.”

Many years later, while going through a divorce, I told a friend that I was considering contesting child custody. She immediately urged me not to do it. Why? Because raising a child would interfere with my career.

But my son didn’t have a career. He was just a child who needed someone who understood him. I ended up with custody of my son and, although he was not a demanding child, raising him could not help impeding my career a little. But do you just abandon a child when it is inconvenient to raise him?

The lady who gave me this advice had a degree from Harvard Law School. She had more years of education than my whole family had, back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann.

Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which “a duty to die” is just one.

These efforts at changing values used to be called “values clarification,” though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed “clarification” had been clear enough to last for generations, and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this “clarification.”

Nor are we better people because of it.

— Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. © 2010 Creators Syndicate, Inc.

Don’t think Sowell knows what he’s talking about?

How about lifelong Democrat talking head and economist Robert Reich?

“Thank you so much for coming this afternoon. I’m so glad to see you and I would like to be president. Let me tell you a few things on health care. Look, we have the only health care system in the world that is designed to avoid sick people. And that’s true and what I’m going to do is that I am going try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people but that means you,  particularly you young people, particularly you young healthy people…you’re going to have to pay more.

“Thank you.  And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

That’s right, young folk.  You get to pay more to have the privilege of one day being euthanized like an unwanted dog at the county animal shelter.  I know I’D certainly happily pay more for a privilege like that.  Pay more for my health care?  And then get to die a slow, painful death of medical neglect because I’ve been considered to be a useless burden like all those millions of babies Democrats have murdered?  Where can I sign?

Oh, I’m ALREADY signed up for it?  Coool.  I just can’t wait until that cancer starts eating holes in my body, and my government health plan offers me suicide in lieu of any actual care.  Or maybe I’ll get REALLY lucky and simply be left to die in my own filth.

Robert “Third” Reich isn’t the only one pointing out this actually quite obvious central tenet of the Democrats’ health plan.  Obama has appointed at least two other “experts” to advise him on medical issues.  Here’s White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s brother, Ezekiel Emanuel, whom Obama appointed as OMB health policy adviser in addition to being picked to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel included a chart with his work (available here), which shows how he wants to allocate medical resources under a government plan:

When you’re very young, or when you start reaching your 50s and 60s, you start receiving less and less priority.

Then there’s Cass Sunstein, Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar, who wrote in the Columbia Law Review in January 2004:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

Barack Obama’s Regulatory Czar explains:

“If a program would prevent fifty deaths of people who are twenty, should it be treated the same way as a program that would prevent fifty deaths of people who are seventy? Other things being equal, a program that protects young people seems far better than one that protects old people, because it delivers greater benefits.”

There’s a great deal more about Obama’s own advisers’ plans here.

Which very much jives with what Obama himself told a woman concerning her mother:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

We can sum it up quite nicely with the words of Obama’s former senior economic adviser: “So we’re going to let you die.”

Die with dignity.  Or die without it.  It doesn’t matter.  What matters in the brave new world of ObamaCare is that liberals have finally succeeded in turning health care into a socialist boondoggle.  And it will one day be your duty to die in order to sustain that boondoggle.

Iran Sucessfully Launches Satellite: Ballistic Nuclear Missiles Not Far Off

February 4, 2010

As morally evil as the Iranian regime is, I have to hand it to them: they have been playing a naive and appeasing Barack Obama the way a master violinist plays a Stradivarius.  At every single turn, they have fooled him, blocked him, tricked him, or stalled him while they have just continued feverishly working on developing a full-blown nuclear capability.

And now here we are, on the verge of a truly dark and terrible development in world history:

Iran’s Satellite Launch a Signal of Missile Progress, Analysts Say
By Turner Brinton
Space News Staff Writer
posted: 12 February 2009

WASHINGTON – Iran’s launch of a satellite into orbit last week will likely give U.S. and European leaders greater cause for concern that the Islamic republic is approaching the ability to field long-range ballistic missiles while its nuclear program continues to progress, analysts here agreed.

The Iranian government-sponsored Islamic Republic News Agency reported Feb. 3 that Iran had launched a research satellite called Omid into orbit aboard a Safir-2 rocket. This is Iran’s first domestically produced satellite to reach orbit and the first to successfully launch on an Iranian-built launch vehicle, according to Press TV, an Iranian government-sponsored news outlet.

The U.S. government, while not explicitly confirming Iran has launched a satellite, has expressed concern that Iran’s development of a space launch vehicle establishes the technical basis to develop long-range ballistic missile systems.

“Iran’s ongoing efforts to develop its missile delivery capabilities remain a matter of deep concern,” U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said in a Feb. 3 statement. “Many of the technological building blocks involved in [space launch vehicles] are the same as those required to develop long-range ballistic missiles. … We will continue with our friends and allies in the region to address the threats posed by Iran, including those related to its missile and nuclear programs and its support of terrorism.”

Satellite watchers using orbital data provided from U.S. Strategic Command’s space surveillance network said the satellite is in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 242 kilometers to 382 kilometers in altitude, at an inclination of 55 degrees relative to the equator. Ted Molczan, an amateur satellite observer, said the satellite and part of the rocket that took it to space are both cataloged by Strategic Command and in similar orbits. The satellite appears to be tumbling, as its brightness in the sky changes rapidly, indicating the satellite’s likely lack of a stabilization or attitude control system. Both the satellite and rocket body are likely to begin to deorbit this summer, Molczan said.

“Dear people of Iran, your children have sent Iran’s first domestic satellite into orbit,” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Press TV. “May this be a step toward justice and peace. Iran’s official presence in space has been added to the pages of history.”

Meanwhile, Iran continues to develop its nuclear program, which it says it has the right to develop for peaceful civil uses as a signatory of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran argues it needs nuclear power and will not use the technology to make weapons. The United Nations Security Council, which includes permanent members China, Russia, France, the United Kingdom and the United States, has urged Iran to suspend the program numerous times to no avail.

“This [Iranian satellite launch] I think highlights the dual-use issue again, just as the nuclear issue does, and that is technology can be used for peaceful purposes or for weapons that can threaten other countries,” said Ted Carpenter, vice president for defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, a think tank here. “In terms of any kind of direct missile threat [to the United States], it’s likely to be many years before they could have that capability. The people worrying more are others in the Middle East and Europe.”

Carpenter said perhaps even more unsettling than the Iranian satellite launch are recent media reports that North Korea is again preparing to launch its three-stage Taepodong-2 missile, which some believe will have the range to reach U.S. territory. North Korea tested one of these missiles in 2006, but it failed shortly after launch and broke apart in the air.

“North Korea poses a much more direct threat to the United States because if it is true North Korea is planning to test an advanced version of the Taepodong-2, that could put Alaska and the U.S. west coast in range,” Carpenter said.

Thomas Donnelly, a defense and security policy analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, said the United States and Europe ought to be concerned about the progression of Iranian technology. He argued that Iran is more of a threat to the United States than North Korea, based on Tehran’s backing of insurgents in Iraq.

“That has been a capability we have seen Iran developing, but the fact that it now has actually happened is a jarring punctuation mark,” Donnelly said. “Given what we believe about their nuclear program, it seems pretty clear they’re very close to having a complete, deliverable weapon that would have the ability to reach out to Europe.”

Michael O’Hanlon, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution here, said though the Iranian satellite launch may not show an increase in the physical range of Iranian weapon systems, it is perhaps a more impressive display of technological prowess than a missile test launch would have been.

“That suggests a certain amount of control and guidance mastery,” O’Hanlon said. “You’ve got to hit a fairly narrow band to put something in orbit, and the simple act of firing a missile doesn’t tell you anything about how close the missile landed to its target.

“It demonstrates more sophistication than I would have assumed, but I am not surprised they did this.”

Too few Americans (and for that matter Europeans) comprehend the magnitude of this development.

Israel certainly does, given the fact that Iran has repeatedly vowed that “Israel is a cancer” which they one day intend to “wipe off the map.”

The fact that Ezekiel prophesied some 2600 years ago that Iran (Persia) would one day attack Israel in the last days along with a coalition that looks eerily like the one being assembled today.

About a quarter of Israelis have said that they would leave Israel if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, which would literally mean the death of the Jewish state.  Israeli leaders cannot possibly allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

And time is running out on them.

But it’s running out on the United States and Europe, also.

If Iran has nuclear weapons – and particularly if they have an intercontinental ballistic missile delivery system – they will be immune to attack.  Do you believe that Barack Obama would attack a nuclear-armed Iran?  I submit that Obama won’t dare attack a NON-nuclear armed Iran.  And no American president would attack a nation at the cost of one or more major U.S. cities.

If Iran gets its nukes, it will be able to do a number of things: 1) attack Israel, assuring Israel that if it uses its nukes against Iran, Iran will use its nukes against Israel; 2) shut down the Strait of Hormuz, which would immediately drive up oil.  The cost of gasoline in the U.S. would soar above $15 a gallon; 3) dramatically increase Iranian-sponsored terrorism worldwide.

If you don’t believe that a nuclear-armed Iran would pick a minimum of one of these options, you’re just nuts.

What we are seeing with Iran developing nuclear weapons and the means to project them is akin to the armament of Nazi Germany during the 1930s.  Many immediately recognized the threat the Nazis posed, but those in leadership were appeasing weaklings who were more interested in “transforming” their own societies than they were confronting genuine evil abroad.  The result was the Holocaust and the meat-grinder of World War II.

Democrats who are demagogues at heart will assert that George Bush allowed Iran to develop nuclear weapons as will.  They are liars: George Bush TRIED to persuade the U.S. to strongly confront Iran, and Democrats in Congress shrilly attacked him for his prescient knowledge of the Iranian threat.  Democrats claimed that Iran had suspended its nuclear program, and that the regime no longer posed a threat.  They couldn’t have been more wrong.

I wrote something about Iran’s nuclear program in May of 2008, and I stand by it:

Finally, the dilemma of the Iranian nuclear program serves as a sober reinforcement of the rightness of President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq. As with Iraq, we have in Iran a closed, totalitarian society that our intelligence cannot reliably penetrate. How will we know for sure when and if Iran develops nuclear weapons? Do we simply choose to allow them to do so? Are we willing to suffer the consequences of the world’s largest terrorist state and supporter of terrorism to have nukes? Are we willing to give President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – who has publicly described his belief in an apocalyptic figure known as the “Twelfth Imam” who will come into the world via an act of global catastrophe – a nuclear trigger to place his finger upon? Are we willing to put nuclear weapons into the hands of someone who has repeatedly vowed to “wipe Israel off the map“?

If Iran gets nuclear weapons, you can pretty much figure that World War III is coming soon. For one thing, the country is led by apocalyptic religious fanatics who will likely either use the bomb to attack Israel, or else will smuggle it into the hands of terrorists who will do the job for them. For another, a nuclear weapon in Shiite Iran will trigger a nuclear arms race in the craziest region in the history of the world, as Sunni states feverishly work to build their own bomb to balance the power.

Meanwhile, we find both Democratic presidential candidates vocalizing longstanding opposition to the Iraq war, and promising a swift pullout if elected. The question is this: how can a president who claimed that the United States was wrong in attacking Iraq over legitimate concerns that it possessed weapons of mass destruction proceed to threaten to attack Iran over legitimate concerns that IT possesses nuclear weapons? And conversely, as the United States attempts to prevent Sunni Arab nations from developing their own nuclear weapons programs to balance Shiite Iran, how will a president – who refused to honor the American commitment to stand by Iraq – proceed to succeed in convincing Sunni countries that we will stand by them against any threat posed by Iran?

If we say that the United States was wrong to attack Iraq, then we tacitly affirm that it will be wrong to attack Iran even as it feverishly works on creating enough centrifuges to have the type of refined uranium it needs for one and only one purpose.

I also repeatedly pointed out in that three part series that countries such as Russia and China had protected Saddam Hussein by blocking every single United Nations resolution that could have prevented the Iraq War:

There was a process that the United Nations ostensibly provided by which two nations in material disagreement could come to a fair resolution. But what should have been an honest process was interfered with and corrupted by powerful member nations and by the United Nations itself. If we are going to blame anyone for the invasion, then let us blame countries like France and Russia, as well as the corrupt and grossly incompetent and negligent United Nations. They made it impossible for any just solution to prevail. In Saddam Hussein’s own words and thoughts, their protection and interference gave him the idea that he could defy the United States and keep the inspectors at bay without any meaningful consequence.

Those same countries are now protecting Iran the SAME exact way.  They are opposing sanctions and resolutions against Iran the SAME WAY they did against Iraq.  Since both countries are permanent veto-wielding members of the United Nations Security Council, they can absolutely shield Iran from ANY resolution as they choose.  And Barack Obama would have no choice but to go it alone if he wants to stop Iran’s nuclear program the same way Bush had to choose to go it alone.

But Obama WON’T DO THAT.  Which means Iran will have its nuclear capability during his watch.

Breast Cancer Screening: Government Fires First Volley Of Rationing, Death By Medical Neglect

November 19, 2009

Let me begin by saying that the current versions of ObamaCare don’t have a single death panel.

It’s more like 111 separate death panels.

Some of the names  and acronyms of the dozens and dozens of bureaucracies are undoubtedly different under the new iteration of socialized medicine, but here’s a snapshot of your new health care system if Democrats get their way:

The Senate version is 2,075 pages of fun, I hear.  Nobody understands it.  And nobody is going to end up getting a chance to read it by the time it gets voted on.

If you thought that there was going to be any kind of transparency or accountability – or even honesty – from the Obama administration – you need to stop smoking your crack pipe.

This latest event in the march toward socialized medicine reminds me of the case of Barbara Wagner.  In Oregon, which has “universal coverage” through the state, she was abandoned to die by a system that would not pay for her cancer treatment, but offered to pay for her euthanasia.

Only this time, the government wants to deny treatment on the other side of the cancer diagnosis.

IBD Editorials

Rationing’s First Step

Health Care: A government task force has decided that women need fewer mammograms and later in life. Shouldn’t that be between patient and physician? We have seen the future of health care, and it doesn’t work.

We have warned repeatedly that the net results of health care bills before Congress will be higher demand, fewer doctors, more cost control, all leading to rationing.  New recommendations issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) regarding breast cancer and the necessity for early and frequent mammograms do not convince us otherwise.

Just six months ago, the panel, which works under the Health and Human Services Department as a “best practices” study group, was shouting its concern about a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study showing a 1% drop in the number of women regularly undergoing such screening and prevention.

The task force was saying that women older than 40 should get a mammogram every one to two years. It found that frequent screening lowered death rates from breast cancer mostly for women ages 50 to 69. But that was then, and this is now.

“We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. Screening does save lives,” Diana Petiti, task force vice chairman, said of the recommendations published Tuesday in Annals of Internal Medicine. “But we are recommending against routine screening.”

Now the panel recommends that women in their 40s stop having routine annual mammograms and that older women should cut back to every two years. The concern allegedly is that too frequent testing can result in increased anxiety, false positives, unneeded follow-up tests and possibly disfiguring biopsies.  Preventing breast cancer and saving lives almost get lost in the new analysis.

“I have a particular concern in this case about who was involved in this task force,” says Rep. Charles Boustany, R-La., who was a heart surgeon in private life. “There are no surgeons or oncologists who deal directly with breast cancer or even radiologists. … I’ve seen far too many young women develop late-stage breast cancer because they didn’t have adequate screening.”

Little, if anything, has happened medically in the last six months to cause such a shift. A lot, however, has happened politically as a health care overhaul has limped forward on life support. The Congressional Budget Office has been busy pricing these various bills, a process that includes screening and prevention.

As we have warned, the growing emphasis seems to be on cost containment rather than quality of care. About 39 million women undergo mammograms each year in America, costing the health care system more than $5 billion.

“The American Cancer Society continues to recommend annual screening using mammography and clinical breast examination for all women beginning at age 40,” says Otis Brawley, its chief medical officer. “Our experts make this recommendation having reviewed virtually all the same data reviewed by the USPSTF, but also additional data that the USPSTF did not consider.”

Daniel Kopans, a radiology professor at Harvard Medical School, says: “Tens of thousands of lives are being saved by mammography screening, and those idiots want to do away with it. It’s crazy — unethical, really.”

This, sadly, appears to be the future of medicine under government-run health care. Aside from taxes on insurers, providers and device manufacturers, we’ll be up to our eyeballs in cost-effectiveness boards that will decide who gets what tests and treatments, when and if. These are only recommendations for now, but they are the shape of things to come.

An IBD/TIPP poll found that 45% of medical doctors would consider retiring if the Congressional health care “reform” passes.  Given the fact that an increasing shortage of doctors is already one of the chief burdens in providing health care, this exodus would amount to a catastrophe that our health system would never recover from.

In Canada, the chronic doctor shortage has been bad enough that patients literally have to sign up for a lottery in order to have a chance to “win” a primary care physician.  But now we are learning that overwhelmed Canadian doctors are using a lottery of their own to dump patients.

Why on earth would anyone want this for America?

The Obama administration is preparing the health delivery system to implement the philosophy of Obama advisers such as Robert Reich, Ezekiel Emanuel, and Cass Sunstein, which can be easily summarized with the quote:

It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Robert Reich’s words in context only make the hateful idea sound even more hateful:

And by the way, we’re going to have to, if you’re very old, we’re not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It’s too expensive…so we’re going to let you die.”

Then there are the words of Obama’s Regulatory Czar, Cass Sunstein, who wrote:

“I urge that the government should indeed focus on life-years rather than lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people.”

And Rahm Emanuel’s brother Ezekiel, whom Obama appointed as his OMB health policy adviser in addition to selecting him to serve on the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research wrote:

“When implemented, the Complete Lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuatedThe Complete Lives system justifies preference to younger people because of priority to the worst-off rather than instrumental value.”

“Attenuated” means, “to make thin; to weaken or reduce in force, intensity, effect, quantity, or value.”  Attenuated care would be reduced or lessened care.  Dare I say it, in this context it clearly means, “rationed care.”

And Obama himself told a woman who wanted to keep her aging mother alive:

“At least we can let doctors know — and your mom know — that you know what, maybe this isn’t going to help. Maybe you’re better off, uhh, not having the surgery, but, uhh, taking the painkiller.”

YOU take the painkiller rather than have that lifesaving surgery, Barry Hussein.  And why don’t you insist that Michelle and your two daughters take the pill rather than have that lifesaving surgery, too?  Just to be like all the “little people” out there.

But of course that’s not going to happen.  Rather, Democrats have now exempted themselves from 11 separate amendments that would have required them to have the same ObamaCare that they want to force everyone else to have.

You can understand why they would do so, given the promises that the system will be worse than terrible, and due to the fact that even a complete idiot who looks around and sees how horribly the administration has managed the H1N1 vaccine situation can recognize that taking on 1/6th of the economy would be beyond catastrophic.  I mean, heck, if I were a Democrat, I’d be sure to exempt myself from this monstrosity too, lest MY family members fall under the coming steamroller.

This “recommendation” of reducing mammographies isn’t mandatory now, but that’s because the government hasn’t usurped the health care system yet.  You just wait a decade from now, when the government runs everything, and soaring deficits force them to start cutting costs.

Obama: PLEASE Stop Lying To Sell Your Health Care Plan

October 5, 2009

Obama has repeatedly lied in pushing his health care.

Obama knows his promise that Americans can keep their health insurance plans if they want it is a lie.  He knows that the individual mandates forcing Americans to buy insurance or pay stiff fines imposed by the IRS that he refuses to call a tax are in fact a tax.  He knew his statements about illegal immigrants not receiving health care benefits was (in Joe Wilson’s words) a “lie.” He knew – in contradiction to his claims – that the health care system he wanted to impose was in fact all about rationing.  He knows when he says that doctors want his plan that it’s a lie.  Etcetera, etcetera.

Under the caption, “Story Snafus,” Fox News Special Report point this out.

President Obama used not one, but two faulty anecdotes during his health care speech to Congress earlier this month.

Obama told a story about a Texas woman who lost her insurance just before breast cancer surgery, “because she forgot to declare a case of acne.” But the truth is Robin Beaton lost her coverage because she failed to report a heart condition and did not list her weight accurately.

Republican Congressman Joe Barton fought the insurance company until it restored coverage, allowing Beaton to get the surgery she needed. The Associated Press writes: “Beaton’s case is just one cited by Obama that mixes fact with fiction.”

We reported here on The Grapevine before, the president also told a story about an Illinois man who died because his coverage was also canceled. But in congressional testimony, the man’s sister said his insurance was reinstated and that treatment actually extended his life for four years.

More details of these cases are found here.

You call them “faulty anecdotes.”  I call them lies.

Barack Obama has demonized an entire industry, and an entire system which just happens to be the best in the world.  He has repeatedly told Americans that they can’t trust their doctors – who might yank a kid’s tonsils out or even remove patient’s feet for greedy profit motives – or their insurance companies.  And he has continued to fabricate “facts” to provide “evidence.”

The man who can look at you with a completely fake smile can tell you a completely fake story.

Let the American people beware: when a president has to tell lie after lie to sell his health care “reform,” you can bet your bottom dollar that it is a terrible plan that will produce terrible results.