Guess Who's Coming to Your House!

From American Thinker
By Ken Blackwell

It's all supposed to be voluntary, those "home visits" that are tucked into the mammoth Obamacare bill. If you have a strong stomach, and a stronger bottom, you can find home visitation on pages 568-595. That's Section 2951 of H.R. 3590, the Senate bill that Harry Reid brought down the chimney on Christmas Eve.

All voluntary, they say, but once you "volunteer" to have the oh-so-helpful folks from Social Services come in to help with your newborns, or with a number of other specified issues, will you ever be able to get rid of them?

The bill provides for federal funding and supervision for this vast expansion of government intrusion into family life. This is the Nanny State on steroids.

Is your family being "targeted" for such home visitations? Let's see if you fit into one of these very broad categories:

• Families where Mom is not yet 21. (No mention here whether she is married or not.)
• Families where someone is a tobacco user. (Does this include the White House? Watch out, Sasha and Malia! Does Grandpa, whom you love and have taken in, enjoy his after-dinner pipe?)
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

As if that list were not wide-ranging enough, here's the net that can encompass tens of millions:

• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. [Emphasis added.]

So while Johnny gets his gun, the government steps in to "help" his family at home. Ronald Reagan used to say the most frightening words in the English language were these: I'm from the government, and I'm here to help.

Who will sit atop the federal pyramid that runs this vast new invasion of family privacy? Why, it will be Sec. of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius, of course. She was the most pro-abortion governor in American history when President Obama tapped her for his cabinet.

Do you spank your children? You should know that HHS bureaucrats think you are an abuser.

Do you support the Second Amendment? How would you like HHS bureaucrats asking your children if you maintain firearms in the home for family protection?

Do you home-school your kids? Take care. Members of Congress who have tried to abolish home-schooling are big backers of this health care bill. Do you wonder why?

There are abundant reasons to oppose this health care bill. Conservative leader Gary Bauer cites the colorful words of Oklahoma Democratic Congressman Dan Boren. Mr. Boren is one of the bluest of Blue Dogs. He says: "They can break my arms. They can do whatever they want to. They'll never get my vote -- ever. They'll have to walk across my dead body if they want my vote on this issue." Boren spoke for many concerned Democrats when he said, "there is no chance I am voting for this bill because it raises taxes on businesses, creates job-killing mandates, grows the size of government, and cuts services to seniors."

All of this is true. But the White House is pulling out all the stops. One of their senior advisers told CNN's Gloria Borger what President Obama's people are telling wavering Democrats on Capitol Hill:

BORGER: Right. This isn't going to be subtle at all today. I think this is it. I was speaking with one senior White House adviser just before I came on the air, and he said, think of it this way. This is the last helicopter out of Saigon, OK?

Could anything be more bizarre? A senior member of the administration is comparing the president's signature measure in Congress to the forced evacuation of the U.S. Embassy in South Vietnam in 1975.

Older Americans remember the shame and heartbreak of seeing thousands of America's allies desperately clinging to U.S. Army helicopters as the North Vietnamese army closed in on South Vietnam's capital city.

We don't want to re-fight the Vietnam War, but it should not go without notice that the Democrats also controlled Capitol Hill back in 1975. The Democrats, led by Sen. Ted Kennedy and Minnesota Congressman Don Fraser, had cut off all the promised U.S. funding for the South Vietnamese armed forces that were trying to stave off a brutal Communist takeover of their country. And we're told that we have to pass Obamacare as a tribute to Ted!

Is this the kind of hope and change Mr. Obama's top advisers now want us to embrace? Are his own people thinking of this last-minute push as a debacle? Helicopters in Saigon. What a confused and confusing mess this is!

One thing is clear: For life and liberty, we must defeat ObamaCare. Call your U.S. senators and representatives now (202.224.3121). Tell them to vote NO on Obamacare.


Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. He serves on the board of directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, and National Rifle Association.

Socialized Medicine in Britain: Obama's Prescription for America

Neglected by 'lazy' nurses, man, 22, dying of thirst rang the police to beg for water

From The Daily Mail
By Emily Andrews

A man of 22 died in agony of dehydration after three days in a leading teaching hospital.

Kane Gorny was so desperate for a drink that he rang police to beg for their help.

They arrived on the ward only to be told by doctors that everything was under control.

The next day his mother Rita Cronin found him delirious and he died within hours.

She said nurses had failed to give him vital drugs which controlled fluid levels in his body. 'He was totally dependent on the nurses to help him and they totally betrayed him.'

Kane, aged 11. He worked for Waitrose and had been a keen footballer and runner until he was diagnosed with a brain tumour the year before his death

A coroner has such grave concerns about the case that it has been referred to police.

Sources say they are investigating the possibility of a corporate manslaughter charge against St George's Hospital in Tooting, South London.

Mr Gorny, from Balham, worked for Waitrose and had been a keen footballer and runner until he was diagnosed with a brain tumour the year before his death.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

Obama names brother of undecided House Dem to Appeals Court.

From The Weekly Standard

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson's brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Abuse of Power

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif.

'An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role.'

From The Wall Street Journal

A string of electoral defeats and the great unpopularity of ObamaCare can't stop Democrats from their self-appointed rendezvous with liberal destiny—ramming a bill through Congress on a narrow partisan vote. What we are about to witness is an extraordinary abuse of traditional Senate rules to pass a bill merely because they think it's good for the rest of us, and because they fear their chance to build a European welfare state may never come again.

The vehicle is "reconciliation," a parliamentary process that fast-tracks budget measures and was created in 1974 as a deficit-reduction tool. Limited to 20 hours of debate, reconciliation bills need a mere 50 votes in the Senate, with the Vice President as tie-breaker, thus circumventing the filibuster. Both Democrats and Republicans have frequently used reconciliation on budget bills, so Democrats are now claiming that using it to pass ObamaCare is no big deal.

Yet this shortcut has never been used for anything approaching the enormity of a national health-care entitlement. Democrats are only resorting to it now because their plan is in so much political trouble—within their own party, and even more among the general public—and because they've failed to make their case through persuasion.

"They know that this will take courage," Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she'll try to strong-arm. "It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare," the Speaker continued. "But the American people need it, why are we here? We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress."

Leave aside the irony of invoking "the American people" on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Reconciliation is the last mathematical gasp for ObamaCare because Democrats can't sell their policy to Senator Snowe, any other Republican, or even dozens of Democrats. This raw exercise of political power is of a piece with the copious corruption and bribery—such as the Cornhusker kickbacks and special tax benefits for union members—that liberals had to use to get even this far.

Democrats often point to welfare reform in 1996 as a reconciliation precedent, yet that bill passed the Senate with 78 votes, including Joe Biden and half of the Democratic caucus. The children's health insurance program in 1997 was steered through Congress with reconciliation, but it, too, was built on strong (if misguided) bipartisan support. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 that created Schip passed 85-15, including 43 Republicans. Even President Bush's 2001 tax cuts, another case in reconciliation point, were endorsed by 12 Senate Democrats.

The only precedent within historical shouting distance is Ronald Reagan's 1981 budget, which was controversial because it reshaped dozens of programs. But the Senate wasn't the problem—it ultimately passed the budget 80 to 14. The real dogfight was in the Democratically controlled House, where majority rules have always obtained, yet Reagan convinced 29 Democrats to buck Speaker Tip O'Neill. Reconciliation, in other words, wasn't used to subvert the 60-vote Senate threshold, but rather to grease the way for deficit reduction.

The process was designed for items that cut spending or affect tax revenue, to meet targets in the annual budget resolution. Democrats want to convert it into a jerry-rigged amendment process: That is, reconciliation wouldn't actually be used to pass ObamaCare per se. Instead, it would be used only to muscle through substantive changes to the bill that passed the Senate on Christmas Eve, without which 216 House Democrats won't vote for it. So Democrats would be writing amendments to current law that isn't in fact law at all—and can't become law without those amendments.

President Clinton preferred to use reconciliation to pass HillaryCare in the 1990s, but he was dissuaded by West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd, who argued that it would be an abuse of the process. Mr. Byrd, author of a four-volume history of Senate rules and procedures, told the Washington Post last March that "The misuse of the arcane process of reconciliation—a process intended for deficit reduction—to enact substantive policy changes is an undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate's institutional role," specifically citing health reform and cap and trade.

Regrets, they've got a few. Yet these Democratic Sinatras will still do it their way. President Obama is expected to endorse reconciliation in remarks this morning.

The goal is to permanently expand the American entitlement state with a vast apparatus of subsidies and regulations while the political window is still (barely) open, regardless of the consequences or the overwhelming popular condemnation. As Mr. Obama fatalistically said after his health summit, if voters don't like it, "then that's what elections are for."

In other words, he's volunteering Democrats in Congress to march into the fixed bayonets so he can claim an LBJ-level legacy like the Great Society that will be nearly impossible to repeal. This would be an unprecedented act of partisan arrogance that would further mark Democrats as the party of liberal extremism. If they think political passions are bitter now, wait until they pass ObamaCare.

Karl Rove: 'What the GOP Should Say at the Health Summit '

It is risky to correct a president to his face, but it must be done.

From The Wall Street Journal
By Karl Rove

The congressional Republicans at today's televised health-care "summit" at the White House naturally want to prevent the president from turning it into a PR stunt. This is no easy task. They'll not only have to point out problems with his plan and offer their own ideas, but correct the president when he makes statements that are not true.

The GOP participants appear ready for the first two tasks. In an unusual approach, House and Senate members prepped together the way a candidate preps for a presidential debates—by pulling together debate books and conducting mock sessions. But the third task is the most critical and the most difficult.

President Obama has a habit of making false statements, and getting away with them. At a Republican conference in Baltimore last month, for example, he denied that his budget nearly triples the national debt over 10 years. He got away with it because he didn't face follow-up questions or objections.

It's not easy to criticize a president face to face. During my White House years, congressmen and senators would sit in my office, pound the table, and vow to tell the president he mishandled an issue. Then we'd walk the 15 steps to the Oval Office, and they would instantly turn soft. The presidency commands respect. Americans expect the president to be treated with dignity and deference, making criticizing him to his face politically risky.

But it's necessary, because Mr. Obama is basing his health-care pitch on the false premise that he can drive down health-care prices by creating a pricey new entitlement. He also maintains that he can do this without creating a mountain of federal debt or a bureaucracy that will determine when Americans can receive care.

Americans intuitively know these things cannot be true, and they have therefore responded to the promise of ObamaCare with tea parties and by voting for Republican candidates in New Jersey, Virginia and Massachusetts. Now voters are likely to support congressional Republicans if they can take Mr. Obama head on in a calm, respectful and factual way.

If the president says his health-care plan "would reduce costs and premiums for millions of families and businesses," as he did in his State of the Union, Republicans must point out that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says premiums under ObamaCare would be higher than if nothing were done.

If Mr. Obama repeats his frequent claim that his proposal "won't add a penny to the deficit," Republicans can point out that to do so means 10 years of Medicare cuts and tax increases to pay for just four full years of the expensive insurance subsidies at the heart of his plan. This gimmick foreshadows a huge flood of red ink in the coming decades.

Mr. Obama will probably say that his proposal would give 30 million additional Americans health coverage. Republicans can counter that claim by noting his plan dumps about half of those people into Medicaid, a program even Mr. Obama admits is driving state budgets into the red.

Mr. Obama might say that only wealthy individuals, or insurance, drug and medical-device companies will pay higher taxes under his plan. Republicans can point out that tens of billions in new taxes will be passed on to families paying insurance premiums and patients in need of those drugs and medical devices.

Today's event should be treated as a debate. Facts, humor, and using the president's own words to refute his assertions could carry the day. Republicans need to be mindful of winning over those who are watching.

Mr. Obama last met with Republicans specifically on health care nearly a year ago—March 5, 2009—so it's easy to understand GOP concerns about attending today's event. After all, the White House seems intent on painting the GOP as obstructionist or stiffening Democratic spines by showcasing a tough-minded president.

But that doesn't change the fact that the president is somewhat on the defensive. His health reform is stuck because he can't get a bill that's already passed the Democratic Senate through the House, notwithstanding a 255 to 178 Democratic majority there. By respectfully refuting the president, Republicans can help establish themselves as reasonable advocates of common-sense politics and even restore a healthier give-and-take between the executive and legislative branches.

A year ago, Mr. Obama stood astride the political world. Today, he is a weaker and smaller leader because his signature domestic issue is unpopular, he misread his own election victory, and he overreached.

Having won the battle for public opinion on this issue, Republicans are on the rise. They should act like it. Mr. Obama may have a home court advantage, but Republicans have facts, ideas, and most of the American people on their side.

Mr. Rove, the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush, is the author of the forthcoming book "Courage and Consequence" (Threshold Editions).

Ronald Reagan's Timeless Message on Socialized Medicine

Obama & Dems in 2005: 51 Vote ‘Nuclear Option’ Is ‘Arrogant’ Power Grab Against the Founder’s Intent

Canadian Premier Passes Up National Health Service for a Miami Hospital

Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams speaks to members of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce in Calgary, Thursday, Dec. 3, 2009. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jeff McIntosh

Daniel E. "Danny" Williams is the premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, and while his party is regarded as "centrist" by Canadian standards, during the 2008 Canadian federal election he led what he termed the "ABC Campaign"(Anything But Conservative) in his province, in opposition to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Last year the 60-year-old Williams was diagnosed with a heart murmur, and in December his doctors told him the problem had become severe and cautioned that unless his heart valve was repaired immediately, he risked heart failure.

And where do you think a Canadian provincial leader goes to get urgent heart surgery?

To the world-class national health service that Obamunists point to as a model for the United States? Not in your life!

Saying "this was my heart, my choice and my health," the premier headed straight to Mount Sinai Medical Center in Miami, where cardiac surgeon Dr. Joseph Lamelas has successfully performed the needed procedure.

The liberals are all alike, aren't they? Socialized medicine for you, but not for their hearts. No D.C. Scholarship program to help someone else's kids escape the hell that is District of Columbia Public School System, but Sidwell Friends Academy for their children.

White House Preparing to Ram Through Abortion Expanding Health Care with Budget Bill

New Plan to be revealed as early as Sunday or Monday - would only require 51-vote majority

From LifeSiteNews

By Kathleen Gilbert

Pro-life leaders on Capitol Hill are once again rolling up their sleeves for the health care fight after the White House announced it would publish a compromise bill as soon as Sunday to push through abortion-expanding health care.

In a New York Times report Thursday, Democratic officials confirmed that President Obama's proposal was being designed for attachment to a budget bill, which would require only a 51-vote majority in the Senate through a process known as budget reconciliation.

If the new legislation (which is essentially a package of compromises to satisfy House Democrats) passes, the House would be forced to swallow whole the health bill the Senate passed in December. The House-passed bill, which included the Stupak language barring government monies from funding abortion, would be completely discarded in favor of the abortion-expanding Senate bill.

While Democrats originally intended to ram through a reconciled version of the House and Senate bills, that plan was dropped after Massachusetts Republican Scott Brown's win in January unexpectedly snatched away the Senate Democrats' filibuster-proof majority.

Officials told the NYT that the president would post the new plan on the Internet by Monday morning. A Congressional Quarterly report claimed the release could come as early as Sunday.

The reception by Congressional Democrats of Obama's proposal is not yet certain: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi reportedly told White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel that she could not agree to a proposal until the end of the recess. House Democrats are expected to meet Monday evening.

The White House also threw down the gauntlet to Republicans, inviting party lawmakers to a televised summit Feb 25 to discuss the GOP's solutions for health care reform. "I want to consult closely with our Republican colleagues," Obama told CBS's Katie Couric earlier this month. "What I want to do is to ask them to put their ideas on the table."

Republicans have countered that their own proposal for health care reform has been publicly available for months, while the White House has all but completely shut out GOP members from negotiations throughout the long health care push. Michael Steele, spokesman for House Minority Leader John Boehner, blasted the proposed summit as "an infomercial" to push the unpopular bill.

“How will they incorporate our ideas? Will they abandon their plans to jam through their latest backroom deal?" asked Steele. "Or is this just an infomercial for the same government takeover of health care that the American people have rejected again and again?”

In a letter to Rahm Emanuel this month, Boehner and Republican Whip Eric Cantor wrote: "We welcome President Obama’s announcement of forthcoming bipartisan health care talks. In fact, you may remember that last May, Republicans asked President Obama to hold bipartisan discussions on health care in an attempt to find common ground, but he declined and instead chose to work with only Democrats."

Once again, the question of abortion funding is poised to throw a wrench in the delicate scheme: a Capitol Hill Democrat admitted to the Times that abortion remains "a wild card" for the health bill's future. The House bill passed by a razor-thin margin, relying on votes that insiders say will vanish when faced with a bill that lacks Hyde-amendent protection against abortion funding.

In an interview with LifeSiteNews.com last week, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), co-chairman of the Congressional Pro-Life Caucus, expressed certainty that pro-life Democrat representatives would hold out for a Hyde-amendment ban on abortion funding.

"They will. I’ve talked to many of them," said Smith. "They have hardened their position. I think they’ve seen how noble their position is. They are not going to go for a phony compromise. They are not going to go for weakening language no matter how cleverly it is presented."

Just before the Senate passed its health bill last year, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), the final Democrat holding out against the bill and citing opposition to abortion funding, suddenly reversed his decision and endorsed a bill without the Stupak language.

Leaders in the Stop the Abortion Mandate Coalition urged pro-lifers to contact their senators and representatives urging opposition against the vast abortion expansion the health bill promises.

Congressional Democrats Say Rahm Emanuel is the "F!*%king Retard"

The Hill reports that Democrats in Congress are holding White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel accountable for the collapse of their efforts to impose socialized medicine on the United States.

Pelosi Says She Can't Pass Health Bill

Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she lacks the votes to quickly move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House, a potentially devastating blow to President Barack Obama's signature issue.

Pelosi, D-Calif., made the comment to reporters after House Democrats held a closed-door meeting at which participants vented frustration with the Senate's massive version of the legislation.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Panic Grips Health Negotiations as Brown Victory Looms Big

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

A sense of panic has begun to seep into Democrat party leaders' marathon of negotiations over the health bill, according to insider reports. The source of the panic appears to be the possibility that the Democrats may lose their filibuster-proof majoirty in Massachusetts' special U.S. Senate election Tuesday

The Hill reports that alarmed Democrat aides are already weighing options in case Massachusetts Democrat Martha Coakley loses against Republican Scott Brown in the special election to overtake Ted Kennedy's senate seat from interim senator Paul Kirk.

Running on an anti-health bill platform, the charismatic Brown has shocked the entrenched Massachusetts Democrat establishment by jumping just ahead of Coakley in polls just days before the election, after being behind by double-digits in December. A Public Policy Polling survey released Sunday showed Brown ahead by 5 points, 51-46%, within the poll's margin of error. The poll was released on the same day that President Obama traveled to Boston to shore up Coakley's falling approval ratings.

Brown has vowed to be the 41st vote against the health bill charging through Congress, which would shatter Senate Democrats' ability to stop a GOP filibuster.

Yet Democrats say they have a few last-ditch maneuvers up their sleeve to save the abortion-expanding bill. One possibility would be to ram the measure through before Brown is sworn in, which could take several weeks.

Another option would be to skip a second Senate vote on the bill by forcing the House to vote on the Senate version unamended; however aides say this would be unlikely to work.

Democrats have also discussed using a procedure called reconciliation, whereby only 51 senators would need to pass the bill. To qualify for reconciliation, the health bill would have to undergo considerable revamping in order to pass as a "budget" measure.

A fourth option that has been considered is to woo Senate Republican Olympia Snowe to provide a 60th vote; however, this too is considered unlikely, as the senator has been outspokenly critical of the bill's artificially rushed timetable.

On Friday, House and Senate leaders returned to the White House for a three-hour negotiating session, following negotiations with President Obama that continued through midnight the previous evening.

"I think we're getting very close," said House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) on CNBC Friday. "I would certainly hope that within the next 24, 48, 72 hours, we have a general agreement between the Senate and the House."

Revealed: Top Commentator on Health Bill Under $400K White House Contract

More of the Chicago style of government. The "expert" opinions you hear on the news shows may be paid for by - well, you!

From LifeSiteNews
By Kathleen Gilbert

An expert economist who has commented influentially in favor of President Obama's health care overhaul in major publications, touting the bill's purported cost-saving effects, has been under a $400,000 contract to model those effects for the Obama administration - unbeknownst to many in the journalistic sphere.

Politico reported Friday that MIT Economist Jon Gruber failed to disclose the fiscal relationship, most of which was established last June, while he offered commentary on the health bill to newspapers and magazines - including Politico.

"I'm an ivory tower guy at heart and do my thing and figure I'm an honest guy and people will trust it," Gruber told Politico when confronted with the issue. He pointed out that he had disclosed his contract with the Department of Health and Human Services in the New England Journal of Medicine's (NEJM) formal disclosure process.

Yet, Politico's Ben Smith said that "the disclosure does not appear in any number of other places: beside his quotations in newspapers and magazines supporting the plan, including a Ron Brownstein piece the White House pushed hard; under a recent Washington Post op-ed; and beside crucial statements, such as his dismissal of an insurance industry study, which was part of a successful administration fight to discredit the study."

While supporters say the health care overhaul will ultimately cut the national deficit, the claim has come under intense fire from lawmakers and commentators who say such numbers are drastically inaccurate, and mask the danger of a bill some analysts say will increase government spending by $2.3 trillion.

In Brownstein's November piece, Gruber hailed the cost-saving measures in the Senate health care bill, saying that Democrats "really make the best effort anyone has ever made." "Everything is in here. ... I can't think of anything I'd do that they are not doing in the bill. You couldn't have done better than they are doing," he said. Gruber was referred to in the piece as "a leading health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who is consulted by politicians in both parties."

In his December Washington Post op-ed, Gruber defended the highly controversial "Cadillac tax" exised on high-cost health plans, claiming it "doesn't walk like a tax or talk like a tax - because it is not a tax. It is an innovative way of financing the health reform we so desperately need." Critics say the Cadillac tax, which Democrats hope will help foot the cost of the bill, would place too heavy a burden on middle class workers in its current Senate bill form.

Smith also reports that, when Washington Post op-ed editor Autumn Brewington asked Gruber as part of routine disclosure protocol whether he "received any funding, for research or otherwise, from organizations or persons identified in the column," Gruber answered "no."

Brewington nonetheless defended the column, saying that "the subject of the op-ed was not related to Gruber's work for the administration, and we accepted the column based on the body of his work and knowledge in this field."

Jonathan Cohn of the New Republic defended Gruber's integrity, and said he was aware of the relationship, but noted that "other journalists writing on health care were not aware that Gruber was doing projections for the administration." "Obviously this was not as widely known as I thought," he wrote.

Liberal blogger Marcy Wheeler said the question of whether Gruber actually believed what he preached "wasn't the point,” and questioned why Gruber only disclosed the contract to the NEJM - the one publication that might have otherwise negatively impacted his professional reputation.

"So, nine months after he first gets a contract with HHS, he starts disclosing the relationship, and only to the organization that [could have] totally discredit[ed] him professionally, not to those that will more directly affect the health care debate?" Wheeler wrote.

Resistance is NOT Futile: SC's History with Nullification

"I hold the duties of life to be greater than life itself, and that in performing them, even against hope, our labor is not lost. I regard this life very much as a struggle against evil, and that to him who acts on proper principal, the reward is on the struggle more than in victory itself."

John C. Calhoun

From the Tenth Amendment Center

by Josh Eboch

Even as calls for nullification of proposed federal health care mandates have intensified on the state level, an almost hysterical effort has arisen to discredit such measures, and paint them as part of an obsolete theory with no bearing on modern politics.

Regardless of its logical descent from our most basic founding principle, that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, nullification simply doesn’t work, critics say.

Or does it?

While it’s true that our system of checks and balances has been weakened substantially over the years, federalism itself has not. Divided power remains as viable a structure of government as it was the day our Constitution was ratified. Perhaps a better question is: Can nullification succeed peacefully?

Of course! It already has. For proof, one need look no further than the truth behind a favorite parable of establishment statists, the Nullification Crisis of 1832-33.

Over the years, that crucial victory for the sovereign states has been converted into a cautionary tale by those who wish to discourage taxpayers from ever questioning their federal masters. So distorted is the history that a recent article on modern nullification efforts in the Nashville City Paper declared

In the Nullification Crisis of the 1830s, South Carolina passed a law nullifying federal tariffs, but the state backed down after President Andrew Jackson sent Navy warships to the Charleston harbor.

The only problem with that story is it never happened.

After nullifying the so-called Tariff of Abominations in late 1832, the citizens of South Carolina began making serious preparations to defend themselves with deadly force against any attempt by federal agents to collect the hated tax. What followed was a tense standoff between President Jackson and a relatively small group of determined citizens, that could easily have resulted in secession or war.

But those citizens refused to be intimidated by Jackson’s repeated threats of violence, and they certainly didn’t surrender to warships in Charleston Harbor.

As Wikipedia admits, it was not until the end of February 1833, when “both a Force Bill, authorizing the President to use military force against South Carolina, and a new negotiated tariff satisfactory to South Carolina [emphasis added] were passed by Congress,” that “the South Carolina convention reconvened and repealed its Nullification Ordinance.” From that point on, right up until the War Between the States, the tariff rate declined steadily.

In other words, after putting the federal government on notice that they were prepared to defend their sovereignty, with force if necessary, the people of South Carolina agreed to abide by a new “negotiated tariff,” that they felt was fair, rather than fight a war or leave the Union; neither of which they wanted to do in the first place. A clear victory for nullification, and for peace.

In fact, the entire episode is more or less a perfect demonstration of how robust federalism and divided power once protected liberty within our voluntary Union, by keeping the ambitions of the central government in check.

So why the modern spin on this event as some kind of heroic, unilateral militarism by President Jackson, and a watershed moment for centralization? Well, for one, that interpretation fits with what statists would have us all believe anyway: that there is no force on Earth (including public opinion) capable of resisting orders from the national government.

It also makes for a neat segue into the conflict that erupted 30 years later along the same fault lines of federal vs. state authority, providing a convenient way to dismiss, without debate, those who call for nullification today, by linking them with slavery and the antebellum South. At least in the eyes of an historically ignorant public.

Yet, from the Fugitive Slave Act to REAL ID, American history is replete with examples of states successfully asserting their sovereignty in constitutional disputes with the federal government. And there is every reason to believe that they could do so again with regard to health care, should it prove necessary.

If the proposed federal mandates are so unpopular in any given state that a majority of its people support legislation or a state constitutional amendment to nullify them, that should be a clear indicator to President Obama and Congress that the governed have withdrawn their consent. Any attempt to assert federal power in the face of such opposition will inevitably be seen by the citizens of those states as illegitimate and unjust.

At that point, it will be up to those in Washington to decide whether they want to respect the natural laws on which our nation was founded, or whether they would prefer to wager their lust for power against the full electoral fury of the sovereign people’s wrath.

Josh Eboch is a proud “tenther”, freelance writer, and activist originally from the Washington, D.C. area. He is a blogger for TAC’s Tenther Grapevine and the State Chapter Coordinator for theVirginia Tenth Amendment Center.

Ray Stevens’ Hit ‘We the People’ Becoming Anthem of Tea Party Movement

Ray Stevens has a new viral hit that is becoming an anthem of the Tea Party movement. With more than 1.4 million hits on YouTube, we think he has hit a chord that will vibrate right through November 2010.

C-SPAN Challenges Congress to Open Health Care Talks to TV Coverage

"My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government. We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration. Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government."

~Barack Hussein Obama

The head of C-SPAN has implored Congress to open up the last leg of health care reform negotiations to the public, as top Democrats lay plans to hash out the final product among themselves.

C-SPAN CEO Brian Lamb wrote to leaders in the House and Senate Dec. 30 urging them to open "all important negotiations, including any conference committee meetings," to televised coverage on his network.

Read the rest of this entry >>

Ben Nelson's Purgatory

The Nebraska senator's health-care vote has killed him politically.

From The Wall Street Journal
By John Fund

The scriptures refer to reaping the whirlwind. That certainly describes Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson after the first state-wide poll since the controversial deal he cut in exchange for his deciding vote on the Senate health care bill.

A new Rasmussen Reports poll shows that if he were running for re-election today, Mr. Nelson would lose to Nebraska's GOP Governor David Heineman by a stunning 61% to 30%. Only three years ago, Mr. Nelson won his current term with a solid 64% of the vote.

Clearly, the senator's fall in public esteem is a direct reaction to his having voted for the health care bill as part of a deal in which Nebraska was exempted from the costs of new federal Medicaid mandates. The ObamaCare bill was already unpopular enough in Nebraska but became even more so when state residents discovered they would be saddled with it anyway, plus exposed to national ridicule over Mr. Nelson's sweetheart deal. Now 53% strongly oppose the bill, while another 11% somewhat oppose it. Only 17% favor the deal that Mr. Nelson struck in order to vote for the bill.

But the poll also shows a path to redemption. Asked how they would vote in the 2012 election if Senator Nelson changed his vote and prevented the health care bill from becoming law, Nebraska voters give Governor Heineman a lead of only 47% to 37%.

"The revote results are nothing short of amazing," says Democratic pollster Pat Caddell, who notes that simply reversing his health-care vote immediately reduces Mr. Nelson's deficit by two-thirds. "The poll suggests the anger of Nebraska voters is deep and unusually intense, and not likely to dissipate quickly."

No doubt it was precisely his concern about the unpopularity of the bill back home that prompted Mr. Nelson to hedge his bets when he announced he would support it -- he made clear at the time he might not vote for it again if the final compromise between House and Senate versions tilts too far to the left.

Given the shocking slump in his standing back home, Mr. Nelson might like to keep those remarks handy during the coming weeks as the two bills are hammered together. He may need to remind Majority Leader Harry Reid and President Obama of his hedged commitment -- if for no other reason than pure political survival.

What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says

Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.

From The Wall Street Journal
By Betsy McCaughey

The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

Questionable Priorities:

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.

For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.

How Dare the Little People Question the Rush to Socialism!

Remember this video in which Joe Biden was indignant at questions about "spreading the wealth around" and Obama's socialist intent?

Now Madam Speaker refuses to explain where the Constitution authorizes Congress to order Americans to buy health insurance.

After all, what does the Constitution have to do with anything they are doing?

Obama: Legalize Illegals to Get Them Health Care

When Obama stated that illegals will not be covered under socialized Obamacare, did anyone not see this coming? Legalize the 20 to 40 million illegals -- problem solved.

Republicans see a backdoor move toward 'amnesty'


From The Washington Times
By Stephen Dinan

President Obama said this week that his health care plan won't cover illegal immigrants, but argued that's all the more reason to legalize them and ensure they eventually do get coverage.

He also staked out a position that anyone in the country legally should be covered - a major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill, which limited most federal public assistance programs only to citizens and longtime immigrants.

"Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don't simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken," Mr. Obama said Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. "That's why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else.

Mr. Obama added, "If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all."

Read the rest of this entry >>