President Obama and ex-President Clinton are inadvertently stumbling toward the intersection of two seemingly unrelated events. That combination of circumstances could blow the lid off a huge cover-up of America's biggest 20th-century terrorist attack...........
Jayna Davis — a TV reporter in Oklahoma City during the bombing and the years the case was under investigation — has compiled reams of evidence that McVeigh and Nichols were assisted — indeed likely directed by — a third terrorist named Hussain Al Hussaini, an Iraqi Republican Guardsman in the service of Saddam Hussein in first Gulf War of 1991. Ms. Davis's persistent shoe-leather investigative work on the case would — in a just world — make her a prime candidate for a Pulitzer Prize. Instead, she has been repeatedly stonewalled. From all appearances, such stonewalling emanated from the highest levels of government...........
Economic experts from President Obama's own Health and Human Services Department have released a devastating report noting that Obamacare "will increase national health care spending by $311 billion from 2010-2019," according to the Associated Press. Even worse, "Medicare cuts may be unrealistic and unsustainable, driving about 15 percent of hospitals into the red and 'possibly jeopardizing access' to care for seniors." In other words, to recall the words of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., Congress had to pass the bill before we could begin discovering what's in it. And what we are finding is frequently the opposite of what Obama, Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic advocates told us. Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Rx-on-Obamacare_-Don_t-get-sick-92050239.html#ixzz0mDKewjmI
Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA-HR 3017) This is really heating up!
Last Thursday the legislative authority for homosexual Rep. Barney Franks said that ENDA, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, could be up for a floor vote in the US House within two weeks.
ENDA means unimagined legal, social, and moral disaster for America. For the last forty years the Boy Scouts of America have resisted onslaught by the homosexual lobby and liberal "civil liberties" groups to allow homosexuals to become scout masters. Yet pervasive intrusion by homosexual volunteers has been relentless. Result: last week's nearly twenty-million dollar judgment against scouting in Oregon for hiding abuses against a former scout, Kerry Lewis, by a homosexual scout master.
Yet if ENDA, HR 3017, becomes law, the scouts, along with all businesses with over fifteen employees in America, will actually be forced to hire a horde of qualified homosexuals in all positions. Churches might also have to hire gays in at least non-spiritual posts.
ENDA also forces businesses to give men "transitioning" from male to female complete access to women and girls' bathroom and shower facilities. Considering what happened to the scouts, can you imagine the chaos that will result when businesses and churches are actually required to make homosexuals a part of their workforce - on penalty of huge fines and even imprisonment?
What We Can Do
It's up to YOU to keep ENDA from even getting to the floor of the House. - Call the representative in Congress from your district, and say, "I urge you to please vote against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, HR 3017. It discriminates against employers, giving special rights to homosexuals."
- Call the crucial sixteen Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, most of whom have vigorously opposed hate crimes legislation in the past. Tell them, "Please do your best to fight ENDA in its upcoming mark-up hearing."
- Take this link to the list names of Judiciary Republicans on the Action Page at http://www.truthtellers.org/actionplan.html. Call toll-free 1-877-851-6437 or toll 1-202-224-3121.
Promoters of ENDA have had difficulty getting the votes they need because some Congressional Democrats, like most Americans, are horrified by ENDA's "transgender" provision - requiring employers to allow transitioning males access to women's facilities. Let's encourage this rift among the Democrats by blitzing Congress now with protest. ENDA's mark-up hearing has not been scheduled. If we can prevent it through heavy calling, we will have struck a powerful blow against the perverts who are not only ruining the Boy Scouts, but intend to sexually violate and destroy as many of America's children as possible.
Defeat of ENDA would also have a strong secondary effect: it would prove once again that lovers of family and freedom do not have to wait until the decisive midterm elections, or until a violent revolution, to change America for the better.
Legislative change is still possible, despite bitter disappointment of healthcare reform passage. A powerful weapon, spectacularly used for surgical strikes upon crucial legislative weak points in the Democratic control of Congress, still remains at our disposal. In fact, it may be only an arm's length from you - your telephone.
At the end of 2007, hedge fund billionaire John Paulson invested $15 million in the leftist non-profit, Center for Responsible Lending, their largest single donation ever. Around the same time, Paulson and his employees contributed over $100,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed, at the time, by Sen. Chuck Schumer. Roughly six months later, CRL and Sen. Schumer both launched a highly public attack on the California-based mortgage lender, Indymac. The lender failed, wiping out the investment of thousands of people. Roughly six months after that, John Paulson, in partnership with George Soros, bought up the remnants of Indymac for pennies on the dollar.
It is a drama that no longer surprises us, unfortunately. Wealthy investors use their access to elected officials and their checkbook to advocacy groups for private profit. But this story has a twist; a top executive of CRL when this deal went down, Eric Stein, is now working at the Treasury Department, heading up the proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. Mr. Stein will be the chief federal official designing regulations to protect consumers. Right. This is that story.
Taxpayers, you will be paying for the legal representation of Illegals! Even CNN sees the ridiculous provisions of this bill! Don’t have to pay taxes, but get earned income tax credit. The Illegals take precedence over people waiting for admittance legally in their own countries! Gang members eligible for amnesty. Has congress gone nuts?
Although President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Reid and their elite socialistic foot soldiers cast it in pleasant, humanitarian terms as a means of providing healthcare to those who couldn’t otherwise afford it, the majority of Americans recognized Obamacare for what it was: a transfer of wealth to Big Pharma, trial lawyers, unions and other special interests and a power grab over society’s producers.
Hence, the growth of the Tea Party movement across the United States.
The Tea Party took root early in 2009 in response to the massive government spending policies and takeover of two-thirds of the American automobile industry and all of the financial industry by the redistributionists—carrying both the Democrat and Republican labels—seeking to turn America into Karl Marx’s dream state. The Tea Party grew stronger and louder as Obama—the Liar-in-Chief—denied his socialistic tendencies and looked down on them with an arrogant disdain and dismissiveness.
Tea Partiers found their voices as 2009 turned into 2010 and the power grab reached its zenith when Obama’s dream came true and the House and Senate overrode the will of the majority of Americans and passed into law Obamacare on March 21. They turned out by the thousands in Washington, D.C., that day and the day before—traveling there from all over the country on a couple of days notice—to protest, and those who couldn’t go flooded the Capitol switchboard with calls and the Capitol email servers with correspondence.
The arrogant elitists who occupy Washington, D.C., laughed in the faces of the Tea Partiers once the passage of Obamacare was assured. Pelosi grabbed her gavel and, along with a group of her lackeys, marched boldly through the crowd of Tea Party protesters on the day the voting began, hoping above hope to incite some incident that would allow them to paint the protesters as radicals and racists.
When no one took the bait the arrogant elitists made up an incident, with one congressman saying he was slurred by a racial epithet from Tea Partiers and another claiming he was spat upon. Despite those claims no arrests were made, no video or audio evidence of any slurs have turned up and the congressman who claims spittle flew his way was unable to make any kind of identification of a culprit. And Andrew Breitbart’s $100,000 reward to the United Negro College Fund for evidence of a slur remains unclaimed.
Capitol police escorting the group of elected elitists through the crowd of Tea Party peasants saw no evidence of anything untoward and sensed no danger for those they were charged with protecting.
That’s because Tea Partiers aren’t violent sociopaths as the Left and liberal media would have you believe. They are ordinary, everyday Main Street Americans—49 percent Republican and 51 percent either independent or Democrat; 70 percent conservative, but 22 percent moderate; 55 percent male; and 45 percent with annual income below $50,000, 55 percent above $50,000. In age, education, employment status and race the Tea Party supporters break down statistically almost exactly like the general population, according to Gallup polls.
They’re people who would rather be at home or at work than having to stand outside their capitol building holding signs and demonstrating. They are people who, three or four years ago, would not have dreamed they would have to stand up to a government that is spending away the future of their children and grandchildren and making an unconstitutional power grab.
And make no mistake: That’s what the elected elitists are doing. That group of Ivy League educated lawyers and political scientists that walk the halls of Congress—and one who now resides in the White House and refuses to travel sans teleprompter—has been attempting to pull a bait and switch on the American people, telling them Obamacare had nothing to do with socialism or redistribution of wealth or power over the people but only in helping the less fortunate.
Some fell for it. But, despite Obama’s eloquent teleprompter and long windedness, most haven’t. Indeed, 52 percent still oppose Obamacare four weeks after its passage. But now that it has passed the elites are no longer hiding their true intent: socialist redistribution.
In their own words:
•“It’s a simple proposition to us: Everyone is entitled to adequate medical health care. If you call that a ‘redistribution of income’—well, so be it. I don’t call it that. I call it just being fair—giving the middle class taxpayers an even break that the wealthy have been getting.”—Vice President Joe Biden
•“(Health reform is) an income shift. It is a shift, a leveling, to help lower-income, middle-income Americans. … [T]he maldistribution of income in America has gone up way too much, the wealthy are getting way, way too wealthy, and the middle income class is left behind. (The new health care legislation) will have the effect of addressing that maldistribution of income in America.”—Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.)
•“I don’t worry about the Constitution on this. … What I care more about, I care more about the people dying every day that don’t have health care.”—Rep. Phil Hare (D-Ill.)
•“Let me remind you this (Americans allegedly dying because of lack of universal healthcare) has been going on for years. We are bringing it to a halt. The harsh fact of the matter is when you’re going to pass legislation that will cover 300 (million) American people in different ways it takes a long time to do the necessary administrative steps that have to be taken to put the legislation together to control the people.”—Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.)
To their credit, Republicans in Congress opposed Obamacare. It seems the GOP plans to run on a platform of “Repeal the Bill” as we head into the midterm elections this fall. However, Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), in typical Republican style of surrendering before the battle has been enjoined, has already lost his backbone and is saying repeal is not going to happen. The surrender came three weeks after he said Republicans would and should run on a platform of repeal.
Senate candidate Mark Kirk of Illinois has also backed off his repeal the bill stance. Rep. Mike Castle, (R-Del.) is running for the state’s open Senate seat and he is also avoiding a pledge to repeal. Expect other Republicans to follow.
As I pointed out last week in Don’t Pin Your Hopes On The Party Of Lincoln, the GOP can’t be trusted to fight for smaller government. Big government is in their genes. Thankfully, Kirk and Castle have opposition.
Remember in 1994, after a bruising fight with President Bill Clinton over universal healthcare, Republicans ran on their Contract with America which would have, in their minds, streamlined government, required a balanced budget, created jobs, set term limits and produced other reforms. Some elements did not pass in Congress and others were vetoed by Clinton and the Republicans moved on to other things, like growing government under George W. Bush.
So if you want to take back your government—take back your country—from the Obama regime and his Marxists redistributionists, don’t think you’re going to do that by selecting just any Republican candidate. He or she may be a Bob Corker, Mike Castle or Mark Kirk—maybe a socialist, maybe a progressive or maybe just a spineless, deceitful politician—with no intention of shrinking government.
The Tea Parties will give you some idea of the worth of a candidate. But it’s up to each individual voter to check out a candidate’s record if he has one, or his words and deeds if he doesn’t, before the vote and to hold his feet to the fire after the election.
That’s the only way you’re going to be able to take your country back. The elitist redistributionists are feeling invincible, and their special interests promise generous campaign contributions when the campaign begins.
It’s your job as a voter—as a citizen—to show that your vote is more important than cash from corporatists, trial lawyers, unions and their other johns.
He recently let slip the precise nature of his boss.
April 15, 2010 - by Kyle-Anne Shiver
As the Tea Party Express rolls across the country, drawing crowds of thousands at every stop, a golden lesson has dropped in their laps from above.
This priceless gem was delivered by David Axelrod as he did an ObamaCare post-passage interview on the Democrats’ blitzkrieg strategy. Just hours after the House vote, Axelrod gave an interview to the Huffington Post (one of Axelrod’s sons is an editor), and he let his guard down enough to gift all Americans with a glimpse into the true soul of this administration.
Speaking of inside-the-White-House deliberations in the immediate aftermath of the Scott Brown victory, Axelrod noted:
Some of the steam went out of the opposition after that [Brown’s victory]. … I think that people felt like they had made a statement. Perhaps they felt like they had killed health care reform … They thought the fight was over. And that [the president] couldn’t now succeed. I do believe that. And it is almost as if they had made the statement that they thought they had stopped the thing. And so it created a breathing space for us to regroup.
In this brief moment of candor lies the most crucial enlightenment the people are going to get from this administration:
– Barack Obama considers this a revolution against the pillars of American liberty, and nothing short of absolute, ignominious defeat in all branches of the federal government is going to dissuade his revolutionary zeal. Tea partiers winning a battle here and there is a pesky thorn in his side — nothing more. Barack Obama has declared this a fight to the very end.
With this sort of leadership, either liberalism must now suffer a decisive and complete defeat, wherein even its proponents begin to hide their heads in shame and remorse forevermore, or socialism will continue its march. There is no in-between, no compromise, and no turning back.
--The will of the majority means nothing to this president.
Fence-sitting Americans must forcefully rid themselves of the notion that this president believes in majority-rule democracy. By his Chicago-way, thug-tactics victory in the health care battle, he has clearly shown his own stripes, those of a determined revolutionary without regard for the will of the people.
No fight, whether civil or uncivil, has ever been won without knowing one’s enemy and his true objectives. David Axelrod, in his moment of partisan candor (he was speaking to his comrades at the Huffington Post), has just given Americans all they need to know in the coming struggles.
As a true narcissist, Obama believes his glowing press. He seeks to go down in history as the man who delivered the plum of America to the international socialist collective, or at least pushed us past the point of no return. He will stop at nothing less. Liberty is a revolting principle to the president who brings shackles wrapped as gifts.
Liberty? We don’t need no stinkin’ liberty!
Rules? We don’t need no stinkin’ rules!
John McCain’s fatal mistake in the election was his failure to see his opponent for the socialist zealot he is, which all of Obama’s prior history and chosen associations revealed. Sarah Palin, to her everlasting credit, did not make this mistake. That Palin sees through Obama, and has from the beginning, would seem to be behind liberals’ shrill fear of her. She evokes spine-tingling, quaking-in-their-Gucci-pumps kind of fear in every big government nanny and in the whole host of media’s leftist pimps.
Tea partiers must cling unflinchingly to this clear revelation about Obama, and never be taken in by seemingly conciliatory moves he might make or speeches he might give, and march all the way to irrevocable victory.
If they are taken in the way John McCain was, then all is truly lost.
Having spent a good deal of time with tea partying patriots, I do not see them as easily fooled, however. A very wise group they appear to be. Whether highly educated or not so much, tea partiers on the whole have the one thing so many on the left, and especially in this particular administration, lack: real-world experience.
Barack Obama and his minions have unleashed and called to rhetorical arms a veritable legion of the kind of folks they probably didn’t even know existed a year ago. These are Americans who prefer liberty over the luxury of a government-guaranteed life of mooching off the labors of others.
Silent majority? Well, not any more.
Dumb rednecks? Now, there’s a laugh.
The only reason this far-left administration and its media mouthpieces don’t respect the tea partiers is that they hold the partiers’ all-American virtues in such virulent disdain.
Among the hundred or so tea partiers I’ve spoken with, many are industrious entrepreneurs, who have built successful small businesses from the very ground up, starting with nothing more than a high school diploma or a state-school bachelor’s degree and a lot of good old-fashioned common sense and a strong work ethic. A sizeable lot of the ones I’ve interviewed have military backgrounds and possess the unfaltering self-discipline that is the everlasting hallmark of time spent in the service.
Many of the tea party leaders I’ve personally met are homemakers. Women who are proficient chief executive officers of the homefront and born to multi-task. One ought never underestimate the power of a woman, who can hold a baby on her hip while making sack lunches with one hand and arranging a venue for her next anti-big-government demonstration using her Bluetooth. These women are so used to juggling three or four important tasks at one time that they ought to be profiled as the unsung heroines of every American success story. The tea parties are only one such success.
All in all, I would have to say that in these armies of all-American patriots, David Axelrod and his president have found the shock of their political lives. And now that Axelrod has given tea partiers a golden glimpse into the true mindset of his president, Americans know the stakes. It’s a contest that will be written about for a hundred years.
A modern King George wannabe vs. the American patriots.
I’m betting on the self-disciplined, overflowing-with-common-sense, determined-down-to-their-bones, hard-working patriots.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is an independent journalist and a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at www.kyleanneshiver.com.
A federal judge ruled this week that the National Day of Prayer is unconstitutional.
As founder and co-chairman of the Congressional Prayer Caucus, Rep. Randy Forbes, R-Va., said the decision deprives us of “the very principles we need to secure our freedom.”
1. A federal court in Wisconsin has ruled the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional. Tell us your thoughts on that decision.
Throughout our nation’s history, prayer and religion have been deeply woven into the foundation of our great democracy. In fact, John Adams correctly noted that while statesmen could plan and speculate about liberty, it was only religion and morality that could establish the principles to secure freedom. The federal judge’s decision to call the National Day of Prayer unconstitutional represents a movement we are seeing across the country of a small minority who want to exclude faith, religion and morality from the marketplace of ideas. In so doing, they may be depriving us of the very principles we need to secure our freedom. Not only does this decision undermine the basic premise of our Declaration of Independence, but it takes an opposite viewpoint of so many great leaders throughout our nation's history. It also seeks to weaken the very foundation upon which our nation was built.
2. The ruling may go all the way to the US Supreme Court. Given the current makeup of the court, do you anticipate a favorable ruling at that level?
While we cannot speculate how the Supreme Court would rule on this case, one thing this particular decision should make clear is how dangerous it is to appoint activist judges. This federal judge has essentially said that the Declaration of Independence – a document that very clearly states that our rights were given by a Creator – is unconstitutional. Is there any question this judge would have declared the Declaration of Independence unconstitutional if it were written today, since it proclaims all our rights come from the Creator? It is regrettable that we would have a federal judge essentially rule against the very premise of the nation's foundational document of freedom. The decision should be a wake-up call to Americans across the country.
3. In his first year in office President Obama signed the proclamation on the day of the event with no ceremony. What message does that send to the nation about religious liberty?
This White House has been slow to take steps to acknowledge this important part of our nation’s history. Unfortunately, this places us on a slippery slope where at the bottom, there is no prayer, there is no acknowledgment of our Creator, and there is no recognition of our nation’s spiritual heritage and its connection to American strength. It is important that we continue to affirm America’s spiritual heritage and reaffirm the ability of all Americans to pray for blessings on their lives and on our nation according to the dictates of their conscience.
4. The National Day of Prayer has been recognized dating back to the 1700s with the Continental Congress. Is there still a place for such a celebration today, or is the court correct that its day has passed?
There is absolutely still a place for the celebration of prayer in America. There is a small segment of people in the country today who want to exclude this major portion of our history of faith, religion and morality that has made America great. But there are millions of Americans who are going to continue to take a strong stand on the issue of preserving America’s religious heritage.
Over the past couple of years, we have seen efforts to cover up references to God on the Washington Monument, remove the mention of God from veterans’ flag-folding ceremonies, take God off our Capitol flag certificates, and erase “In God We Trust” from the Capitol Visitor Center. In every one of these cases, the bipartisan Congressional Prayer Caucus, which I founded and co-chair, has worked to preserve this important part of our history – and it has been successful. I am confident that we can be successful on this issue of protecting the National Day of Prayer in America as well.
5. The Freedom From Religion Foundation and organizations like it have been filing lawsuits like these for years. What should people of faith do to protect their religious liberty?
We have had a lot of victories over the past few years on matters of preserving faith, religion and morality in America. These successes serve as proof that because we believe, we stand, and because we stand, we can make a difference. But we still have work to do. We owe it to those who have gone before us and to our future generations to provide a complete representation of our nation’s heritage. In the past, many people of faith have been content to settle for a defensive strategy, waiting for these anti-God groups to pick their forums and their judges so that they could concentrate their resources to slowly unravel the tapestry of faith that has sustained America. I believe we need a different strategy. I believe we need to get everybody in the fight and reclaim a seat for faith in the marketplace of ideas. That is why we are attempting to establish prayer caucuses in every state legislature in America. Mississippi took that step this week, Virginia will soon follow and other states are on the way.
AMERICAN SPECTATOR: The End Game Is Near, By Brandon Crocker
The American Left has long derided what it considers the romanticized myths regarding the virtue and wisdom of the group of dead, white males most responsible for the founding of the American Republic. It does not celebrate America as a land founded on the ideals (imperfectly as they may have often been realized) of individual liberty, equality under the law, and opportunity, but rather as a land founded on slavery, economic inequality, and exploitation. It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the American Left also disdains the United States Constitution. The United States Constitution, even battered and weakened as it has been by precedents set by various liberal, activist Supreme Courts, still guards the liberty of Americans against the authoritarianism required to impose a fully socialist, or other collectivist, regime. It now appears we are headed towards the ultimate battle in the American Left's war on individual liberty.
The catalyst is the newly enacted "health care reform" law that was opposed by an outright majority of Americans (but endorsed by Fidel Castro who congratulated President Obama and the Democrats in Congress for finally imposing on Americans a system akin to what Cubans have had for decades). The focal point will be the "individual mandate" which requires all Americans to buy health insurance. The broader issue, however, is whether the Constitution in any way limits the power that the federal government can wield over individuals. The Left says "no."
According to the American Left (which now effectively controls the Democratic Party), the commerce clause in the Constitution, which allows the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, in reality allows the federal government to regulate in any way it sees fit any activity that remotely could affect economic activity -- in other words, just about anything, including, but not limited to, an individual's decision to buy, or not to buy, health insurance. I can think of a lot of activities that have more impact on the economy than does my decision on what kind of health insurance, if any, to purchase. For instance, how about my decision on whether or not to have children, and how many, or when I choose to retire? Are these decisions also subject to federal regulation under the commerce clause? One would think that if the authors of the Constitution really meant to say that the federal government has the power to regulate any activity (or even non-activity) it wants, they would have said so, instead of just saying that it has the right to regulate commerce across state lines. But left-wing law professors, journalists, and Democratic Party officials, assure us this is the case. And according to the national Democratic leadership, most everyone who thinks otherwise are ignorant, knuckle-dragging, racist, survivalist, whack-jobs.
Actually amending the Constitution takes significant national consensus. That's a problem when you want to leverage one election victory based on platitudes and "hope" into "bringing fundamental change to America" (to use President Obama's words). It is so much easier to try to get enough Supreme Court Justices appointed who share the view that the Constitution is more of a loose guideline than a legal document, and who are willing to gut the Constitution of all meaning in order to accommodate liberal policy objectives.
To the American Left, the idea that the Constitution exists to limit the power of the federal government is some moldy, if quaint, notion, with no place in the "modern" world. As E.J. Dionne recently wp-dyn/content/ article/2010/ 03/24/AR20100324 02429.html"> wrote in the Washington Post, court challenges to the individual mandate or federal meddling in matters reserved to the states under the 10th Amendment reveal "how far into the past" some people "want to push the nation." Indeed, he even claims "it would take a rashly activist court to find the individual mandate unconstitutional" because of "a more than seven-decade- long understanding of the Constitution' s interstate commerce clause that has allowed the federal government to regulate a modern, national economy." According to Mr. Dionne, the irrelevancy of the Constitution, at least in circumscribing the powers of the federal government to impose liberal social policies, is settled law.
Unfortunately, E.J. Dionne's view of this matter is not that of some fringe commentator, using Orwellian double-speak to label the potential faithful reading of the Constitution as the work of "a rashly activist court." This view currently holds sway in the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. It is undoubtedly held by at least three, probably four, and possibly five Supreme Court Justices.
Fortunately, the argument that seven decades of precedent have made it settled law that the federal government has near unlimited power allotted to it under the commerce clause is hogwash. Never before has the federal government claimed the right to force individuals to purchase a certain service or product due merely to the fact that they are alive. And other attempts to justify an expanded federal role in state and individual affairs with tortured interpretations of the commerce clause have, in fact, been shot down over the past couple of decades by the Supreme Court.
The justification most often cited by the Left for the need to uphold the individual mandate is not a legal one but a practical one. It is needed, supposedly, to solve the "free rider" problem. Since treatment is required by law, people can impose costs on the rest of us by not buying insurance and having us foot the bill when they need medical attention. Like much of the rhetoric coming from the current administration on health care, this argument is amazingly bold in its dishonestly. The people for whom it is true that taxpayers (or more often, hospitals) get stuck paying the bill are the indigent (paradoxically, the people that President Obama insists are dying because they don't have insurance and aren't getting treatment). For the rest of us, if we don't have insurance, or if our insurance does not cover some treatment, or if we carry high deductibles (another choice outlawed by the Democrats' new health care regime) we, as solvent individuals, pay the bill. We don't get a "free ride."
The case of the individual mandate potentially carries the legal precedent that the Left has long sought. If the Obama administration and its Leftist allies can win this case when it comes before the Supreme Court, which it ultimately will, they will have the legal ammunition to uphold any federal infringement on individual liberty in the name of regulating a "modern, national economy." The rights of the individual will no longer be protected by the Constitution, but merely allowed by the federal government, subject to revision by whatever faction holds a political majority over one or two elections.
This is not just the outcome that the American Left wants; it is the outcome the American Left needs if it is to "bring fundamental change to America." Most members of the current Democratic majority in both houses of Congress have already shown that they do not care about public opinion when it comes to redefining the relationship between citizens and the federal government. To preserve America as the land of the free, we need the Supreme Court to uphold its solemn duty.
A recent analysis by Roger Simon of PJTV Media maintains that Obama is showing signs of mental illness. A wide variety of commentators have observed that Obama displays severe narcissism. Obama is conceited, and he is demonstrating a serious disassociation from reality.
A recent case in point was Obama's bizarre and meandering 17-minute, 2,500-word answer to the simple question about how he could justify raising taxes for ObamaCare during a recession when citizens are already overtaxed. Obama's wildly inappropriate answer left the audience stunned and led commentator Charles Krauthammer to mockingly say, "I don't know why you are so surprised. It’s only nine times the length of the Gettysburg address, and after all Lincoln was answering an easier question, the higher purpose of the union and the soldiers who fell in battle."
This lapse of delusion occurred in front of a friendly audience. Overall, Barack Obama seems to be slipping into a slightly more delusional state these days.
On Monday, following his embarrassing answer on Saturday, Obama stopped by the Washington Nationals home opener to loft an effeminate toss toward home plate constituting the ceremonial first pitch. After this display, Obama was mucking it up in the press booth talking about his love of the Chicago White Sox. The announcers asked Obama which players he supported growing up a White Sox fan. After hemming and hawing for about 30 seconds, Obama responded that he grew up in Hawaii and was actually an A's fan. Again, he avoided mentioning any players by name. Obama seems to believe that he can say whatever he wants, and not reap the consequences or be forced to defend his empty assertions. Obama behaves in a manner so disconnected from reality that he is shocked when someone has the audacity to question him. Obama acts like his word is infallible.
In March of last year Obama was on “60 Minutes” with Steve Kroft. Throughout the interview as Kroft questioned about the economic downturn and people losing their life savings, Obama just kept laughing. A one point CBS’s Kroft stopped him and asked, “Are you punch drunk?" How will the American people react to seeing their president laugh off their predicament? Obama’s inappropriate laughter clearly demonstrated he has lost touch with the pain that people are feeling.
Obama portrays himself as the larger-than-life figure towering above the political fray. At the summit when Obama was pushing his health care package through Congress, he attempted to act as if he were the chief arbiter of truth. With petty insults, he slapped down what the Republicans proposed and audaciously claimed his was a “bipartisan bill.” Obama distorts the truth with such frequency that one must start to question if Obama even realizes he is lying or is so disassociated from the truth that he believes what he says.
A further example of Obama’s delusions of grandeur occurred when he gave himself a “good solid B plus.” Believing that his presidency was an above average success when America is hurting is absurd. Obama went so far as to claim that he would give himself an “A” once health care was passed. Obama is not living in the same reality as the rest of us.
As Charles Krauthammer wrote, “Not that Obama considers himself divine. (He sees himself as merely messianic, or, at worst, apostolic.) But he does position himself as hovering above mere mortals, mere country, to gaze benignly upon the darkling plain beneath him where ignorant armies clash by night, blind to the common humanity that only he can see."
Obama sees himself as the greatest man to be president in all time. He truly believes it when he said "we are the ones we have been waiting for," and "this is the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and the planet began to heal." He believes that he can do anything he pleases and the people will love him for it. Obama plans to radically transform this country and go down in history as, in his mind, the greatest ever. Obama is clearly disconnected from reality.
Obama is, according to Newt Gingrich, “potentially the most dangerous (president), because he so completely misunderstands reality.” Gingrich was referring to Obama’s inept and weak stance on missile defense amongst other things. Even Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that Obama is an amateur; so much for wowing the world. Obama lives in an alternate universe where he treats our friends poorly and expects our enemies to change and become our friends. Here’s hoping that the voters help to connect this president back to reality in November.
The Browns are bestselling authors and speakers. Together they write a national weekly column distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. Floyd is also president of the Western Center for Journalism. They can be reached at email@example.com.
The Coastal Carolina Taxpayers Association is a grassroots, non-partisan organization which advocates minimum government and maximum freedom. We are dedicated to the preservation of Free Enterprise which, by its nature, requires citizens to reap the benefits of their own labor. Excessive taxing and spending are unconstitutional, immoral, and in complete contradiction of success through the free market system and liberty.
In a recent interview with CBS reporter Harry Smith, Obama lamented that “he didn’t think he deserved the vitriol he says he heard from Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh” Really? Is this the same man who sat for twenty years listening to the Reverend Jeremiah Wright spewing his Anti-American rhetoric from the pulpit?
Obama went on to say that the two leading Conservative voices on the airways were stirring up hatred toward him. While you may not agree with Beck and Limbaugh, they have been diligent in reporting the inconsistencies and lies coming from our president. Appearing on public television, the anointed one told us there were no funds in Obamacare for abortions; LIE! To get the support for his health care reform he promised Congressman Bart Stupak an Executive Order to deal with funds for abortions. Why would you issue an Executive Order for something you said earlier didn’t exist? And to add insult to injury, the Law of the Land trumps an Executive Order making the latter window dressing; deceitful.
He promised the American people ‘transparency’ in his administration if elected; LIE! Not only was the public kept in the dark regarding the provisions of health care reform, Republicans were excluded from the process, all of which was held behind closed doors. Just prior to the passage of the HR3952 Nancy Pelosi said “we have to pass it to see what’s in it”. Transparency?
Obama has made a practice of surrounding himself with some very questionable people. One in particular is Bill Ayers, professed communist (small c) and unrepentant bomber of Federal buildings in the sixties. Ayers have stated that “I don’t regret setting bombs; I feel we didn’t do enough”. To listen to Obama explain his contacts with Ayers, he hardly knew the guy yet they both were members of the anti-poverty group the Wood Fund of Chicago from 1999 to 2002. They also lived a few blocks from each other and moved in the same liberal progressive circles.
When you take a good look at the man in the White House, Beck and Limbaugh didn’t resort to hate speech, they have just reported on his past and current policies, political contacts and behaviors. As is typical with a liberal progressive, Obama will never accept responsibility for his actions, it’s the other guys. Isn’t it time we woke up?
An anti-jihad watchdog group has slammed two U.S. lawmakers for breaking their oath to protect the country by agreeing to appear as special guests at a fundraising dinner Saturday night for a radical Saudi-funded mosque tied to the 9/11 hijackers and the Fort Hood shooter, among other Islamic terrorists.
Reps. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., and Jim Moran, D-Va., have "trashed their oath to protect and defend the U.S." by agreeing to attend the annual banquet for Dar al-Hijrah Islamic Center, a large mosque in Falls Church, Va., a suburb of Washington, according to the Virginia Anti-Shariah Task Force, or VAST.
The group also criticized Virginia Democrat Gov. Tim Kaine for agreeing to attend the event, while praising Democrat Sen. Jim Webb of Virginia for withdrawing from the event following complaints from concerned constituents.
Get the book that exposed CAIR from the inside out, autographed, from WND's Superstore!
"While brave young Virginia men and women are risking their lives to fight terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, Connolly, Moran and Kaine are yucking it up with them and slapping each other on the back over at the Marriott," charged VAST Chairman James Lafferty.
He noted that the three politicians' campaign war chests are heavily funded by radical Islamists who support the mosque.
"Look at their Federal Election Commission reports," Lafferty said. "These spineless politicians are owned and operated by the radical Islamists and their sinister front groups."
Indeed, according to the book, "Muslim Mafia," Connolly and Moran have received thousands of dollars in donations from several Virginia Islamists under federal investigation for financing terrorism. In addition, the book reveals, Connolly received an $18,758 windfall from the Saudi government's U.S. public relations firm while fighting to keep open a Saudi-owned madrassa in Northern Virginia also tied to terrorism.
Dar Al-Hijrah hosted at least two of the 9/11 terrorists who attacked the Pentagon, as well as the Fort Hood terrorist and an al-Qaida sleeper agent convicted of plotting to assassinate President Bush. Ahmed Omar Abu Ali graduated valedictorian from the Saudi madrassa – Islamic Saudi Academy – in Alexandria, Va.
Lafferty says the mosque "has been directed by a string of radical imams, including former imam Anwar al-Awlaki, who has since been identified as a commander in al-Qaida" and is wanted in connection with the Christmas Day airliner attack.
A coalition of citizen groups including VAST, Act for America and the Center for Security Policy in Washington have organized a protest of the Dar al-Hijrah fundraiser at 5 p.m. Saturday at the Fairview Park Marriott, 3111 Fairview Park Dr. in Falls Church.
Federal investigators say Dar al-Hijrah is a breeding ground for known terrorists, including:
Abdullah bin Laden, nephew of the al-Qaida kingpin whose name appears on the federal terrorist watchlist.
Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, accused of murdering 13 and injuring 30 others in a jihad-inspired shooting spree at Fort Hood, Texas.
Hani Hanjour, 9/11 hijacker and Saudi national who flew the jumbo jet into the Pentagon.
Nawaf al-Hazmi, 9/11 hijacker and Saudi national who joined Hanjour on the Pentagon flight and acted as second in command of the entire al-Qaida operation behind hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta.
The mosque, in fact, helped Hanjour and al-Hazmi obtain housing in the area.
After 9/11, investigators found the phone number for Dar al-Hijrah in the Hamburg, Germany, apartment of one of the planners of the 9/11 attacks – Ramzi Binalshibh, a Gitmo detainee.
Constructed with $5 million from the Saudi Embassy and run by radical Muslim Brotherhood leaders, Dar al-Hijrah is "a terror mill and a direct threat to national security," says terror expert Paul Sperry, co-author of "Muslim Mafia," an expose on the radical Muslim Brotherhood and its front groups in America.
Once a month, Dar al-Hijrah's lead imam – Shaker Elsayed – meets with top officials with the Council on American-Islamic Relations on the first floor of its Washington headquarters, Sperry notes. The Justice Department says Saudi-funded CAIR, which operates a booth at Dar al-Hijrah, is a terrorist front group for Hamas and its parent the Muslim Brotherhood.
Elsayed has said Muslims have the right to use violence: "We do have license to respond with all force necessary to our attackers."
He also says he believes in the teachings of Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, which he describes as "the closest reflection of how Islam should be in this life."
The late al-Banna taught that "Islam wishes to do away with all states and governments anywhere which are opposed to this ideology and program of Islam. Islam requires the earth – not just a portion, but the entire planet."
Another imam at the mosque, Johari Abdul Malik, has preached to American Muslims that they are within Islamic law to "blow up bridges" and other infrastructure. "You can do all forms of sabotage," he said at a 2001 Hamas conference.
He has also called for Islamic supremacy in America.
"We will see the day when Islam, by the grace of Allah, will become the dominant way of life," Malik told his flock in 2004. "You will see Islam move from being the second largest religion in America to being the first religion in America."
Malik, who also acts as the mosque's official spokesman, is a close friend of the former Dar al-Hijrah imam al-Awlaki, who privately ministered to the 9/11 hijackers. After the attacks, Awlaki fled to London, where he gave a sermon extolling the virtues of martyrdom.
In an interview with author Sperry, Malik defended his friend's sermon, arguing Muslims who die while fighting unbelievers in the cause of Allah are no different from U.S. Marines fighting and dying for America in Iraq and Afghanistan.
"That's the same thing as telling Marines in this country semper fidelis," Malik told Sperry. "Telling people to give their all for their faith is not an unusual idea."
His mosque handled the funeral services of Maj. Hasan's mother when she passed away in 2001. It was then that Hasan fell under the spell of Dar al-Hijrah cleric Awlaki, aka Anwar Aulaqi, who corresponded with Hasan in some 20 e-mails in the months leading up to Hasan's alleged massacre.
One of al-Qaida's top Western recruiters, Awlaki is considered a rock star among jihadists and has cultivated fans among CAIR officials. CAIR spokesman Ibrahim Hooper's protege Ismail Royer and his terrorist cell chauffeured Awlaki around Washington in October 2002 as he looked for new terrorist recruits, according to Sperry. Prosecutors also found Awlaki's phone number stored on their cell phones.
Royer, who was personally recruited by Hooper and worked under him at CAIR's headquarters, is serving 20 years in federal prison. Internal CAIR memos show Hooper is heading his appeal effort within CAIR.
According to "Muslim Mafia," prosecutors have told the federal judge hearing Royer's case that Royer is an "inveterate liar" and has not cooperated with terrorism investigations as promised in a plea bargain.
CAIR is Dar al-Hijrah's top defender in Washington, and routinely runs interference between law enforcement and the mosque. Dar al-Hijrah, in turn, attends CAIR's annual fundraising dinners and is a major supporter of the front group.
IMPORTANT NOTE: WND needs your help in supporting the defense of "Muslim Mafia" co-author P. David Gaubatz, as well as his investigator son Chris, against CAIR's lawsuit. Already, the book's revelations have led to formal congressional demands for three different federal investigations of CAIR. In the meantime, however, someone has to defend these two courageous investigators who have, at great personal risk, revealed so much about this dangerous group. Although WND has procured the best First Amendment attorneys in the country for their defense, we can't do it without your help. Please donate to WND's Legal Defense Fund now.
Liberty in Action: First Private Lawsuit Challenging ObamaCare Filed in Mississippi
Posted By K. Douglas Lee On April 2, 2010
Mississippi State Senator Chris McDaniel and I have filed a class action lawsuit today, Good Friday 2010, challenging the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as “ObamaCare” and a variety of other less polite euphemisms.
We believe that the PPACA is DOA for several equally important reasons, but only one of which has received much attention. Most folks know by now that Congress has invoked the Commerce Clause to justify this massive expansion of governmental power. Our “Good Friday” Complaint spends many pages discussing how Congress has clearly exceeded the limits of its power under the Commerce Clause. I strongly urge you to read the entire Complaint. What I really want to point out, though, are some things you probably don’t know, and definitely will not like — even if you consider yourself a “Liberal.”
Consider for a moment that you have now been commanded to enter into a contract with an insurance corporation, whether you want to or not, whether you need to or not. Yes, there are many who actually choose to be uninsured. For most, it is simply an economic decision that often works out to the uninsured’s economic advantage. Not always, of course, but that’s the beauty of liberty — you get to make the decisions, and live with the good or bad that comes of them.
Now that you realize that a dictate has been handed down, compelling you to contract with an insurance corporation or else, consider what you have to do. It’s not like you can go to a vending machine, swipe your debit card and pull out a policy. You still have to apply. True, they cannot turn you down, but so what? You still have to give a big, scary, mean corporation a lot of private medical and psychological information about yourself and your family. Then, forever after, the insurance corporation’s bureaucrats will gather this private information without even bothering to let you know. As our Complaint states:
Moreover, compelling Plaintiffs to enter into a private contract to purchase insurance from another entity will legally require them to share private and personal information with the contracting party. Specifically, by requiring Plaintiffs to abide by the Act’s individual mandate, Congress is also compelling Plaintiffs to fully disclose past medical conditions, habits and behaviors. Not only will the insurer be privy to all past medical information, Congress’s individual mandate will, by necessity, allow the compelled insurer access to Plaintiffs’ present and future medical information of a confidential nature. If judicially enforceable privacy rights mean anything, then private and confidential medical details certainly merit Constitutional protection. Plaintiffs should not be forced to disclose the most intimate details of their past, present and future medical information.
Do you have an STD? How many abortions have you had? How about a sexual dysfunction? Did your father or mother have cancer? Do you have a birth defect? Have you ever been prescribed drugs for a mental condition, such as anxiety or depression? There are many reasons people have concerns over their medical privacy. The desire to keep one’s medical history private is universal.
Privacy, choice, and Roe v. Wade
Medical privacy is so important that we have enshrined it as fundamental right in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution — just ask the Supreme Court, which even allows women to kill unborn children in order to protect their constitutional right to medical privacy.
If you want health insurance badly enough, you’ll probably choose to give up your medical privacy rights to an insurance corporation. But perhaps you are indifferent to buying health insurance in the first place, and really, you don’t want it in writing anywhere that you’ve had two abortions, or eat Viagra like popcorn. You’ve decided that it would just be better to pay for your healthcare directly and avoid the entire insurance hassle. What’s wrong with this choice? Nothing, if you believe in the concept of liberty.
Forcing citizens to enter into a contract to buy insurance is a bit different than requiring them to buy a loaf of bread. Congress cannot conceivably be said to have the power to force you to buy a loaf of bread, even though that would indeed have some effect on interstate commerce. Think about how much more egregious a denial of liberty it is to force people to contract with an insurance corporation. Those contracts create rights and obligations for both parties, but guess who gets to write the contract? Hint: insurance corporation lawyers. It’s an actual contract that you will actually be forced to sign by your government. You will not have any bargaining power to alter the contract; it’s not even a “take it or leave it” situation, it’s “take it or face the legal consequences.”
Which brings us to another important but poorly understood issue: Just what are the consequences? Exactly how will the mandate will be enforced? Unfortunately, this is something that none of us really know. Congress states outright that there will be a “penalty” assessed for citizens who disobey their command. These lawbreakers will have to pay an amount that will be assessed as a tax. Yes, we all know Congress has the power to tax, but remember, Congress itself has called this tax a “penalty.” As we explain in our Complaint,
Central to the definition of penalty is the “idea of punishment” – “[p]unishment imposed on a wrongdoer . . . in the form of imprisonment or fine. Though usually for crimes, penalties are also sometimes imposed for civil wrongs.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1153 (7th ed. 1999).
Yes, you wrongdoers who decide to go without insurance will be punished by the federal government. You will have to pay a special tax that applies only to wrongdoers like you. The Complaint points out that this “constitutes a capitation and a direct tax that is not apportioned among the states according to census data,” which is unconstitutional in itself. But this does not make great bedtime reading, so I’ll let you in on a secret: It’s a tax that they cannot make you pay.
A plain reading of the individual mandate shows that Congress first sets forth a penalty for failure to buy insurance, then says that regardless of anything written anywhere else in any other law, there can be no criminal penalty:
‘‘(A) WAIVER OF CRIMINAL PENALTIES.—In the case of
any failure by a taxpayer to timely pay any penalty imposed
by this section, such taxpayer shall not be subject to any
criminal prosecution or penalty with respect to such failure.
Then, to make it even very difficult (perhaps impossible) to civilly enforce the penalty/tax, Congress denied the government any power to file liens or levy any wrongdoer’s property:
‘‘(B) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary
‘‘(i) file notice of lien with respect to any property
of a taxpayer by reason of any failure to pay the
penalty imposed by this section, or
‘‘(ii) levy on any such property with respect to
If the feds cannot levy or lien you, then what can they do to get your money? Write scary letters to you? Just what happens to the authority of the federal government when people laugh at these scary letters?
What indeed. We have demanded in our Complaint that if the government has some trick up its sleeve, that we be told what it is. If we are to be punished for not buying something, we deserve to know ahead of time what that punishment might be. That’s not just an old American tradition, it’s a constitutional principle.
The alternative, of course, is for the feds to admit that there is no enforcement mechanism. Consider what that means for a minute: the pièce de résistance of the PPACA is the individual mandate. Without an enforcement mechanism, the individual mandate fails; without the mandate, the entire legislative act fails utterly.
If the government admits, or the federal judiciary declares, that there is no enforcement mechanism for the individual mandate, millions will be free to ignore it. We believe, though, that the lack of an enforcement mechanism makes the individual mandate unconstitutional for reasons that we will discuss further with the federal court for the Southern District of Mississippi.
A call to service
We’ve got Mississippi covered. Now we need for you to do your part to take back your liberty. This lawsuit can be filed in every state in the greatest nation on earth, and it should be. Wherever this abomination applies, there is at least one federal court, often many. Find them, take our lawsuit, change the names and file it. Add to it if you have more arguments. If you are serious about doing so and need information, we are easy to find.
We have much more to say about the unconstitutionality of this abominable act of Congress, and we’re looking forward to your comments. God bless America!
Prescriptions for Disaster Now Covered Under Obamacare
by Ann Coulter
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
On the "Today" show this Tuesday, President Obama claimed the massive government takeover of health care the Democrats passed without a single Republican vote was a "middle of the road" bill that incorporated many Republican ideas.
One Republican idea allegedly incorporated into the Democrats' health care monstrosity is "medical malpractice reform." Needless to say, the Democrats' idea of malpractice reform is less than nothing. Until trial lawyers are screaming bloody murder, there has been no medical malpractice reform.
The Democrats' "malpractice" section merely encourages the states to set up commissions to "study" tort reform, in the sense that frustrated mothers "encourage" their kids not to slouch. By "study," the Democrats mean "ignore."
So we get more taxpayer-funded government workers under the Democrats' "medical malpractice reform," but not one tittle of actual reform.
Democrats manifestly do not care about helping Americans get quality health care. If they did, they could not continue to support trial lawyers like John Edwards making $50 million by bringing junk lawsuits against doctors who are saving people's lives. (At least Edwards has not done anything else to publicly disgrace himself since then.)
At a minimum, any health care bill that purports to improve Americans' health, rather than trial lawyers' bank accounts, must include a loser-pays rule and a restriction on damages to actual losses -- as opposed to punitive damages, which mostly serve to enrich the John Edwardses of the world, and their mistresses.
The Democrats also lyingly claim their health care reform includes the Republican ideas of competition across state lines.
I know they're lying because -- well, first because I read the bill -- but also because Democrats are genetically incapable of understanding the free market. You might say it's a pre-existing condition with them.
True, you can buy insurance across state lines under the new health insurance law -- but only after the Democrats have created a national commission telling all insurance companies what they are required to cover.
That's not as bad as the current patchwork of state mandates -- it's worse!
At least before the passage of ObamaCare you could move to states such as Idaho or Kentucky, where all insurance plans aren't required to cover fertility treatment, restless leg syndrome and social anxiety disorder.
Under federal mandates, there will be no escape.
That's right, a single, one-size-fits-all, jammed-down-your-throat national plan is what the Democrats mean when they say their plan includes "competition across state lines."
How much do you want to bet that the national commission in Washington will mandate coverage for every form of shopping addiction treatment, body image therapy and sex-change operations with mandatory mental health counseling, but not injuries from hunting accidents or smoking-related illnesses?
The Democrats compare their new health care bill to entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid. But those are welfare, not health care. They may go to deserving welfare recipients, but they are a government-enforced gift from the young to the old (Medicare), and from the middle class to the poor (Medicaid).
There's no reason why most Americans shouldn't be able to buy our own medical insurance the same way we buy our own cell phones, hair care and cars.
And just incidentally, Medicare and Medicaid are projected to go bankrupt slightly before the United States of America is projected to go bankrupt. So turning all of health care into a larger Medicare program may need a little more thinking through.
These programs will have to be reconfigured at some point, but how society takes care of the old and the poor should be put in a separate box from how the non-elderly and non-poor should obtain health care.
Democrats want to turn the entire citizenry into welfare recipients.
A few weeks ago, The New York Times ran an editorial noting the amazing fact that, by the middle of this year, there will be an estimated 6.8 billion people on Earth -- and 5 billion will have cell phones! (Even more astounding, at least one of them is seated directly behind me every time I go to the movies.)
How did that happen without a Democrat president and Congress using bribes, parliamentary tricks and arcane non-voting maneuvers to pass a massive, hugely expensive National Cell Phone Reform Act?
How did that happen without Barney Frank and Henry Waxman personally designing the 3-foot-long, 26-pound, ugly green $4,000 cell phone we all have to use?
How did that happen without Obama signing the National Cell Phone Reform bill, as a poor 10-year-old black kid who couldn't afford to text-message his friends looked on?
The reason nearly everyone in the universe has a cell phone is that President Reagan did to telephones the exact opposite of what the Democrats have just done with health care.
Before Reagan came into office, we had one phone company, ridiculously expensive rates and one phone model. Reagan split up AT&T, deregulated phone service and gave America a competitive market in phones. The rest is history.
If you can grasp how inexpensive cell phones in a rainbow of colors and wonders like the iPhone could never have been created under a National Cell Phone Reform Act, you can understand what a disaster ObamaCare is going to be for health care in America.