Illegal Immigration Vs. a National Biometric ID Card

I'm going to wade into potentially dangerous territory today.

In an article in the WSJ today, author Laura Meckler writes:

"Lawmakers working to craft a new comprehensive immigration bill have settled on a way to prevent employers from hiring illegal immigrants: a national biometric identification card all American workers would eventually be required to obtain.

Under the potentially controversial plan still taking shape in the Senate, all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, would be issued an ID card with embedded information, such as fingerprints, to tie the card to the worker."

The plan is being formed by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) and Lindsey Graham (R., S.C.).

Of course, privacy advocates are concerned. Chris Calabrese, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, responds that "it is fundamentally a massive invasion of people's privacy....We're not only talking about fingerprinting every American, treating ordinary Americans like criminals in order to work. We're also talking about a card that would quickly spread from work to voting to travel to pretty much every aspect of American life that requires identification."

Exactly how is it being "treated like criminals" to provide identification to get a job? Don't we already have to provide a résumé? Don't we already provide a SSN? Don't employers already call around to verify our employment history, and sometimes perform extensive background checks?

It seems that what the ACLU is really concerned about is identifying the people who have illegally entered the country, illegally falsified identification, and illegally acquired jobs, and treating THEM like the criminals they are.

It is clear, in fact, it's indisputable, that this would require every citizen and legal resident to submit certain biometrics in order to acquire the card. And yes, to a certain extent, this card could be used "to track citizens".

But exactly how is that different from the way the government currently uses the Social Security Number today? In fact, it can be argued that the use of the Social Security Number is in direct violation of the promise by the Federal Government that the SSN would NOT be used for the purpose of identifying citizens. The original intent of the SSN was ONLY for the purpose of providing Social Security as a form of insurance.

However, Congress allowed a perversion of that intent and it morphed into the disastrous situation we have today, in which that number is used to verify an individual's identify for just about every important transaction in which he or she engages. Need a loan or credit? Show your SSN. Need a Driver's License? Show your SSN. Need a doctor's checkup? Show your SSN.

We now have a runaway problem in which organized crime is defrauding America of TRILLIONS of dollars by stealing SSNs in bulk. What's more, illegal immigrants have become some of the primary recipients of these stolen ID numbers.

And even more frightening, we are wide open to massive electoral fraud unless we get this situation under control.

So, let me ask this question: how is it any more intrusive to carry a card that is directly tied to biometric identifiers that are truly unique to the person and prevent the identifying number from being stolen and 're-purposed' by criminals? How is this different from a Social Security Card, except that it will be used for its actual intended purpose? How is it different from the use of a birth-certificate (which also can be falsified), or a Passport?

If there are privacy concerns, surely those can be handled through legislation. Why not?

In fact, there is really no reason why we could not issue a national biometric identification card {referred to as NBIDC from now on} AND solve the problems surrounding identity theft tied to the use of SSNs.

I have travelled and lived Latin America, and without exception, every country I've visited uses a national ID card, or Carnét. These are used to verify each individual's identity when requesting a bank account, credit, a passport, and yes, even before voting. To my knowledge, it has yet to become a "privacy issue" in these countries, or at least, no more so than a SSN is here in the United States.

But what are the benefits to issuing an NBIDC?

• In the battle against illegal immigration, the only entity enabled to police immigration is the Federal Government.
• Business owners who want to comply with the law and not hire illegals run the risk of a discrimination lawsuit if they ask to see proof of citizenship from anyone they suspect might be a foreigner.
• Police are constantly being sued for discrimination whenever they stop individuals whom they suspect are here illegally.
• Because drivers licenses in most states can be acquired even without being a legal citizen (either legally or illegally by easily circumventing the identification methods in place), driver's licenses are not a good preventative measure. And in many states, that's all that's required to vote, so we run the risk of non-citizens voting for who-so-ever promises the most to foreign interests or to keep the borders open so their 37 relatives can also come here--illegally.

We can't tell business owners that they "shall not" employ illegal immigrants if there is no method for them to identify legal residents.

And until the job opportunities for illegals dries up, we'll never solve that problem.

Think about the cost of continuing "business as usual".

• Massive illegal immigration provides a source of cheap labor to companies that would otherwise have to pay more to legal residents and citizens.
• It creates a debilitating drain on our social services--such as health care--and that cost is forwarded onto all citizens and legal residents.
• Illegal immigrants have been tied directly to many crimes, ranging from identity theft, to drug trafficking, burglaries, rapes and murders, not to mention the many thousands of automobile-related accidents costing our citizens financially and in lost loved ones.
• Our jails are beginning to overflow with illegal immigrants. In fact, it's become such a problem, many illegals receive a virtual "get out of jail free" card for their minor infractions. This means that there is a growing double standard wherein citizens are punished more harshly for their infractions while illegal immigrants are repeatedly given second, third, fourth chances.
• If we can't stop their access to jobs, the temptation will remain for them to cross our borders, which will again infuriate the citizens who in turn will push for a militarized border and the construction of costly fences and other measures to stop them.
• What would be more cost effective: A thousand mile fence, or a National ID Card?
• And there is a national security element to the discussion, as well. If we eliminate the numbers of illegal immigrants we also reduce the ability for terrorists to enter the country and hide among them. We provide a mechanism by which individuals who enter the country LEGALLY with the intention of overstaying their visas (and thus become ILLEGAL down the road) to be more easily identified and deported.

To review: The idea that an NBIDC poses some danger to "privacy" is a red-herring. To the contrary, it poses no greater threat than that already existing thanks to the abuse of the SSN, and in fact offers an opportunity to eliminate that abuse, save the economy trillions of dollars, reduce credit interest rates, secure our electoral system, and provide a mechanism by which employers and law enforcement can identify the illegals among us and deport them.

The REAL issue here is: how do we want to go about deporting millions of illegals? Or should we give the current millions "amnesty" in exchange for this problem-solver?

When idiots speak truths, redux.

This week's truth-telling idiot? Howard Dean.

Last October, I penned “When idiots speak truths”, in which I lambasted Joe Biden for saying that, if Obama were to be elected, America’s enemies would test the administration with an international crisis within six months. I had no doubt he was right (and we’ve already seen the Obama administration fail a number of tests); I thought the statement was stupid on various other levels. But it was also amusing because it was such a great example of Joe gaffe-a-minute Biden at his best.

We now have a replay of that moment, but it’s former DNC Chair Howard Dean whose mouth “doth runneth over”. And I’m not attacking Dean for lying or obfuscating (his usual tactics), but rather using Dean’s momentary clarity against the Dems push for the “health reform” bill.

In a series of interviews with Vermont Public Radio and MSNBC, Dean has attacked the health reform bill that is nearing completion in the Senate. On VPR, Dean said “Honestly, the best thing to do right now is kill the Senate bill, go back to the House, start the reconciliation process, where you only need 51 votes and it would be a much simpler bill."

Hey, I like that advice. For once, Dems, listen to Dean.

But what is really astonishing is what else he had to say about the bill.

Dean said that the current bill will force citizens to pay for healthcare and fine them if they don’t. "A very small number of people are going to get any insurance at all, until 2014, if the bill works.” “IF” the bill works? Do I detect a hint of doubt?

So, did Dean just reveal that Democrats, for all their pompous statements of confidence, honestly have NO IDEA if the changes they are proposing to 1/6th of the US economy will work? Is that a gamble that YOU, Dear American Citizen, are willing to let them take with your health?

“The bill does more harm than good,” he stated.

He stated on VPR: “You have the vast majority of Americans want the choices, they want real choices. They don't have them in this bill. This is not health care reform and it's not close to health care reform."

You are right, Americans want “reform”. What we don’t want is socialized medicine. And this bill is not “reform”, but rather a path to socialized medicine. Thank you for that moment of clarity.

Mr. Dean has, in the past, uttered absurdities that solidly confirmed his status as either an idiot or a liar. For whatever reason, this idiot has finally started to tell the truth—a truth, by the way, which happens to agree with the criticisms coming from Conservatives.

One problem Dean has with the bill is that the “pre-existing conditions piece” (which would have prohibited insurance companies from charging people with pre-existing conditions more for their coverage, forcing the companies to either absorb the loss—which is not likely—or spread that out to everyone else—which the companies have said they will do) has been stripped from the bill, enabling the companies to charge more to the elderly (who have a higher rate of illness than the young) and sick. Well, no kidding, Mr. Dean! So his solution is to force insurance companies to charge the same to everyone, no matter what conditions they have and how much they have neglected their health up to that point. Under his idiotic plan, the rest of us will see our rates skyrocket as a result of that insanity.

MSNBC Interviewer and liberal-apologist George Stephanopoulos tried to counter Dean’s arguments by stating all the things the bill allegedly does to “control cost:” 1) A tax on the “Cadillac health care plans”, 2) New incentives for doctors and hospitals to focus on quality, 3) and two new Medicare panels to try to control cost.

Dean replies: “George, you just named a whole bunch of bureaucracies and a lot of promises, I don’t see cost control in this bill; I really don’t.” Now, isn’t this one of the things Conservatives have been saying? Isn’t this one of the so-called “lies” for which Democrats have attacked Conservatives? Dean has again revealed that the Dems KNOW that their plan will NOT control costs!

I’d like to say that Mr. Dean might be on the road to recovery of his senses, but other comments clearly reveal that he is not. He’s still an idiot, but for political reasons alone he has finally let the truth slip. It sounds very much like the Conservatives were right all along.

The Obama plan to buy votes through healthcare

President Obama has just revealed his darkest intentions to the country.

If you will recall, over the past couple of months, a great deal of controversy has brewed between the Democrats in power and the Republican opposition about whether or not the Democrats intended to give Health Care coverage to the 12 million illegal aliens.

The Democrats furiously denounced the Republican criticism of the plan as “disinformation”—implying that the Republicans were lying, thus (not so subtly) labeling them as “LIARS”—because there was a provision in the bill that said that undocumented immigrants would not be eligible for the government plan coverage. But they continued to talk about “46 million” uninsured in the country, a figure which, according to independent sources such as the Kaiser Family Foundation, included illegal immigrants in the count.

Republicans countered that there was not a provision in the bill to verify eligibility and prevent the illegal aliens from receiving coverage. They pointed to the fact that they had attempted to amend House Bill 3200 to include a provision that did just that. It was rejected by House Democrats.

Democrats continued to accuse Republicans of being liars and racists every time the issue was brought up. During the President’s speech before congress (Sept 9, 2009), Obama used a new figure for the number of uninsured: 30 million. This change appeared to signal that they had recalculated the number of uninsured and subtracted the illegal immigrants. My interpretation was that this was a veiled acknowledgement that they had indeed known that the 46-million figure cited repeatedly included illegal aliens, and they knew it. But the obfuscation continued, because during the speech Obama reiterated that any accusation that the House Plan would cover undocumented immigrants was “false”.

That was when Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) lost control of his emotions and—in a unique breach of House rules of conduct—he yelled "You lie!" to the President! He might have been wrong in his form of expression, but he was right—morally and factually. Despite the expressed outrage from the Democrats, they responded by amending the bill to include a verification provision—proving that the Republicans had been right all along!

Now President Obama has made another outlandish statement. In a speech he gave Wednesday, Sept 16th to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, Obama said:

"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. 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. 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."

In a nutshell, Obama and the Democrats are guilty of LYING to the American people AND the Congress repeatedly.

• Democrats and Obama LIED with straight faces that there were 46 million uninsured Americans, but that this figure did NOT include undocumented (illegal) aliens--because we know that figure DID include them!
  
• Obama LIED when he told Congress that HB 3200 would NOT allow illegal aliens to receive the new government entitlement, because they KNEW there was no provision in the bill to prevent them from receiving it. (BTW, isn't lying to Congress a Crime?)
  
• Democrats and Obama were then caught in their lies, publicly shamed, and were forced to change the bill to prevent illegal aliens from receiving the government entitlement.
  
• So NOW Obama wants to grant amnesty to 12 million illegal aliens so they can go ahead and receive the entitlement he had wanted them to receive in the first place.
  

The most outrageous aspect of this is that if they grant citizenship to those 12 million people who entered the country illegally and include with it a promise of a massive government entitlement, they will be radically changing the electoral map, and buying votes at the same time.

And, as my good friend Kent pointed out to me: "Perhaps since ACORN is now out of the picture for “assisting” with next year’s census, this was the only possible way to re-draw congressional districts to ensure Democratic hegemony."

More Obama Stupidity

More stupidity in the Obama speech Let’s talk a moment about the $3800 fine that penalizes people who choose to NOT carry health insurance.

According to the Obama plan, it would now be “illegal” to NOT have health insurance, punishable with up to $3800 fine. So a 22 year old, healthy male straight out of college will have no right to choose to go for a couple of years without insurance while he pays off his bills, because—in Obama’s words—“those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it, about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care.”

“Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, and especially the young and the healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without coverage.
There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage.

The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions, just can't be achieved. That's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance -- just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.”

In response, let me remind anyone who reads this, that auto insurance is NOT required for anyone who does NOT drive a vehicle! In other words, driving is a privilege, and those who choose to drive are required to carry insurance—LIABILITY INSURANCE—in case the cause an accident and injure a third party.

But unlike health insurance, auto insurance is much less regulated, is portable, can be sold across all fifty states, and no one who chooses to NOT drive is penalized for not paying for someone else’s choice to drive!

This issue of forcing individuals to carry health insurance is the most obscene violation of individual liberty I can think of. Everyone should have the right to make his or her own decisions and then DEAL WITH THE CONSEQUENCES.

Otherwise, where does it stop?

I guess next year the government will declare that riding motorcycles is a "risky behavior" and make it illegal, because motorcycle accidents cause more severe injuries, at the expense of society.

Alcohol causes disease and accidents, so clearly we must either issue yearly fines on alcohol users, or ban it entirely.

And of course, the cause célèbre of the Liberals: marijuana legalization! How can you talk about a $3800 fine on people who choose NOT to carry health insurance because it causes a harm to society, but then want to legalize the use of marijuana and other drugs, since we KNOW that these substances cause harm?!

I tell you what: I'll agree to government health care when they include mandatory drug tests for all government healthcare participants, also ban those recipients from engaging in dangerous activities such as 1) unprotected sex, 2) driving motocycles 3) skydiving, 4) hang-gliding, 5) trail-riding on mountain bikes, 6) skiing and snowboarding, 7) whitewater sports, 8) alcohol use, 9) tobacco use, 10) excessive masturbation (because too much masturbation by young males can increase prostate cancer risks later in life) 11) long distance running (causes damage to knees resulting in inevitable government funded knee replacements) 12) tennis (causes tennis elbow) 13) mandate computerized vehicular speed controls so that no vehicle can go faster than 55 MPH (speed kills), 14) mandate a minimum weekly exercise regimen for every citizen.

Yes, I KNOW those are absurd and silly suggestions. They are as silly (but no more so) as the Democrat plan to FORCE every individual to carry insurance.

Truly, the word "LIBERTY" means nothing anymore.

Obama’s ongoing lies about illegals and health care

A keen listener to Obama’s health care propaganda plug before Congress should have noticed something important: he lamented that there are “30 million” people uninsured in the country.

According to the Washington Examiner, Obama was quoted back in July as saying "This is not just about the 47 million Americans who don't have any health insurance at all…"

Ain’t that a curious thing?

The explanation for this is quite simple: the numbers cited previously (46 to 47 million) corresponds to the numbers provided by think tanks such as the Kaiser Family Foundation. Because Democrats insisted—in fact, they damn near screamed—that they were not including illegal immigrants when they quoted the 47 million estimate, I contacted Kaiser to ask them about it. One of their research assistants responded:

“Our uninsured figures includes {sic} legal and illegal immigrants, including those with green cards, student visas, and people waiting for citizenship papers to be processed. We do not have a breakout of illegal and legal immigrants at this time, though you might find Jeffrey Passel's report on unauthorized immigrants in the United States useful.”

This is proof positive that, during the majority of the discussion on the Health Care reform efforts, the Democrats were inflating the numbers of “uninsured Americans” by including illegal immigrants, and were lying through their teeth about how they arrived at that number. Obama’s sudden change to quoting only “30 million” reflects an un-spoken admission of this fact on his part.

Representative Wilson’s impromptu challenge of Obama’s honesty, while impolite, was warranted. Obama has been lying about the number of uninsured and the composition of that group for many months. He is still lying when he asserts that illegals will not receive health care benefits, because while the bill does explicitly say that they should not receive coverage, there is a glaring absence of provisions to verify eligibility. Until the Democrats solve that problem, we are forced to assume that they had an intent to lie about the issue until they were caught, and still intend to provide care for illegal immigrants by leaving loopholes in the law.

Healthcare and Universities

Just a quick thought on that Obama speech.

First of all, Representative Wilson was right to call Obama a liar, because an omission of truth is still a lie. What Obama said is technically correct, in that HB 3200 does specifically state that undocumented immigrants are not eligible to receive care under the government option. The problem is that HR 3200 contains to method of preventing it from happening anyway. Republicans tried to amend the bill in order to apply the same safeguards currently used for social security and other benefits, but the Democrats struck it down—and Obama knows it. So, in my opinion, although Wilson’s behavior was a bit out of the ordinary, he was right. And why should he apologize? Democrats booed President Bush in his 2005 State of the Union address.

On another note, I’d like to draw attention to a little detail of Obama’s misleading and silly speech, taken from the full transcript.
“… The insurance companies and their allies …argue that these private companies can't fairly compete with the government, and they'd be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option, but they won't be. I've insisted that, like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums its collects.But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits and excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers and would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities.”

Mr. President, I’m so glad you brought up public colleges and Universities. Because in the context of your speech, you claim that government interference in the marketplace is going to reduce costs. And you point to state run universities…well have you looked at tuition costs lately?

According to a Money Central article on the rising costs of education, “the price tag for a college education rose again last year. Tuition and fees increased 14.1% for public four-year institutions and 6% for private schools, according to the College Board. The retail cost of a college degree has more than doubled in the past two decades, far outstripping the regular rate of inflation.” The average annual increase has been between 5% and 8%.

The author points to the work of Cornell economist Ronald G. Ehrenberg, who “describes a kind of arms race among the nation’s top schools to have the best of everything: the best facilities, the best faculty and strong sports teams to engender loyalty among alumni donors.”

But what is the main cause for the increase? Financial Aid. Why? Because “most people dont pay the sticker price for college. Scholarships, grants and loans reduce the out-of-pocket cost for the majority of students. …As we’ve seen with the health-care system, if people aren’t feeling the real cost of their purchases, they have less incentive to change their behavior.”

Now what do you think will happen when you have government paid healthcare? If government-run universities can’t keep down their costs, and they continue to rise at rates far above the national rate of inflation, what do you think will happen with medical care under your plan?

Is health care a “right”?

Members of the left have repeatedly stated that “health care is a fundamental right”. When challenged on the constitutionality, I have seen several refer to the most-quoted phrase: “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But this is erroneous and misleading. That phrase does not come from the constitution; it comes from the 1776 Declaration of Independence. That document was written as a declaration of American values and, more importantly, a laundry lists of grievances about the abuses by the autocratic British government under King George, and was essentially a “gentleman’s advisory” to the King and his minions that the frequent and unjust treatment of the colonies had violated the colonists’ perceived “inherent rights”.

By contrast, what we now know as “the Constitution,” was the agreed-upon limitations of powers for the newly-established government of the United States of America. As James Madison said: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined." (Federalist Papers #45).

Anyone who has attempted to read the current health care bill (HR 3200) will immediately be struck by the obtuse language and expertise required to read and comprehend it. It is a perfect example of the incredibly complex, opaque language used by lawyers to legislate and cover all the many facets of a program they wish to create, and is written in a style that is so difficult it requires a great deal of legal expertise to read. To wit; it is written by lawyers, for lawyers (and bureaucrats).

But upon reading the constitution, it will become apparent that nearly any person with a reasonable education can understand the enumerated rights, and although much ado is made by the elite that you must be a “constitutional scholar” to form a valued opinion on the issue, it was never intended that way: it was written by the people and for the people. It was not written in French, which was the international diplomatic standard in those times, nor was it written in Latin. It was written in common English, in a manner comprehensible by the average, educated citizen. Why? So that the everyday voting citizen could be empowered with knowledge of his rights and would remain vigilant for any attempt by the government to usurp rights and powers from the citizenry.

Concerned that, in the distant future, the government might interpret the rights stated within the Declaration of Independence and the early constitution to be the limits of individual rights and attempt to expand its “jurisdiction” and usurp powers they did not intend it to have, the framers added the “Bill of Rights” in the first ten amendments to the constitution (introduced by James Madison). The ninth amendment advised that the first ten amendments were not to be interpreted as the “universe” or entirety of “rights” of the citizens: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the People.” And the tenth amendment specifically stated: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people (Amendment X).”

The Bill of Rights is, essentially, a list of what are known as negative rights. In brief: “Positive Rights” are those which permit or oblige action. That is to say: the government has the right to levy taxes, and therefore may take action to that regard. A “Negative Right” informs the government that it has no right to take action in that area: The congress cannot establish a religion, nor can it infringe upon the individuals’ right to keep and bear arms, for example.

So what of this “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”: Does it apply to the notion of a government option to health care?

Proponents of a government-controlled health care option claim that the word “life” meant that the government has the right to create bureaucracies to provide access to health care for all citizens.

The only place in the Bill of Rights where “life” appears is in the Fifth Amendment, regarding due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and eminent domain: “No person shall be…deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” This amendment made no reference at all to providing goods or services to the people; it was instead another limitation on government powers to protect the individual from tyrannical abuse of powers. The phrase “deprived of life” simply meant that the government shall not execute an individual without due process of law.

The constitution itself never states that the government has either the power or the responsibility to provide all the needs to sustain a life. Let us consider the most basic needs to sustain a life: 1) Shelter, 2) Food, and 3) Water. It is not within the government’s mandate to provide any of these “needs”. It is left up to the society at large and the ingenuity of the individual to make do to the best of his needs to provide those things. It is not up to the government to provide houses for the citizens. Nor does the government have the powers to create nationalized farms and ranches. Nor does the government have the responsibility to guarantee water to all individuals, regardless of where they choose to live; if an individual chooses to build a house in the middle of Death Valley it is incumbent upon that individual to satisfy his need for water. *(See footnote)

Health care should be considered a similar “need”. If any citizen believes that he or she cannot live a life of quality without health insurance, then let that citizen work diligently to earn sufficient money to pay for the service.

The states, on the other hand, do retain the rights to provide these additional services, if the citizenry agrees to collectively carry that burden.

In my opinion, therefore, any attempt by the federal government to create a bureaucracy to provide “affordable” health care is a violation of the constitution, and an unacceptable expansion of federal powers. To allow the federal government this latest indulgence would open Pandora ’s Box to similar compassionate consideration to provide a never ending list of “needs”. Shall the government provide transportation to all citizens? Shall it also provide mechanical services on the individuals’ vehicles? Shall it guarantee “affordable” food, creating mammoth new bureaucracies to provide subsidized sustenance? Shall it fund those conveniences upon the backs of other, more industrious individuals?

The love of Liberty requires that the individual accept the burden of personal responsibility. To demand that others sacrifice their Liberty, or their prosperity, in order to provide for your conveniences and needs, is a selfish and unconstitutional violation of the rights of other citizens. It should not be encouraged, nor shall it be tolerated.

*Footnote: Proponents to the health care plan will argue that, although the government "does not have a mandate to provide public housing", it already does so, just as it does provide education, as well as Medicare and Medicaid. This does not contradict my point in the least. Just because the federal government has previously expanded its powers beyond its constitutional mandate does not suddenly mean that to do so again is NOT another constitutional violation, or that it is made less reprehensible. Imagine that the driver of an automobile was caught driving 5 miles per hour over the limit, but the police officer only gave him a warning. Then later he is caught driving 30 miles per hour over the limit, and argues that because he was let off for speeding once, he believes that he has been exempted from speed limits. It's like the government saying: "Hey, we violated the constitution and gave the citizenry a bunch of expensive services and the citizenry didn't complain much about them, so we have the right to expand even further now."

Just because the camel got its nose under the tent does not mean it can now come live under the tent!

Health Care for illegals?

A quick note on healthcare and illegal immigrants...

I read a comment by a liberal recently that stated that "all of the civilized nations cover everyone living in their country, even illegal immigrants." The same commentor also praised the British model, so I thought I'd do a quick check.

The United Kingdom population I found was 60,975,000. They had an estimated 500,000 illegal immigrants. That means that the illegal immigrant population in the United Kingdom was just 0.82%.

The United States has 303,824,640 residents/citizens. We also have an estimated 12,000,000 illegal immigrants. That means that the illegal immigrant population in the United States is 3.95%.

We have four times the problem that they have in Great Britain, and logically, the cost of treating those illegal immigrants would be at least four times what it is there.

The Huddle Study found that if you compare what they generate here versus what they COST, the net cost per illegal immigrant is FAR greater than the NET GAIN, by an estimated $24.44 per individual.That was BEFORE "Obama Care" was considered. Give them all access to health care, and Lord only knows how much that will go UP.

My "Turn in Pelosi for 'Disinformation' Email"

And here is the content of the email I sent reporting Nancy Pelosi's "Disingormation Campaign":


Example:
To the esteemed manager of the Flag effort to identify disinformation about the Obama Healthcare Plan, I found a site where there is consistent and blatant disinformation.

It is the Web Page of Nancy Pelosi. Speaker Pelosi has published false statements that clash with the facts.

She says:
“that we are moving closer to a place where we will lower costs, we will improve the quality of care, we will expand choices, and we will give peace of mind to the American people”

The falsehoods are:
1. Because the bill appears to be stalled, the statement that “we are moving closer” is purposely misleading.
2. According to the Congressional Accounting Office, the Obama plan will not only not decrease costs, but will increase costs. So this statement is purposely misleading
3. Mrs. Pelosi states that “we will improve the quality of care”. This is yet to be seen, but analysts examining the bill have concluded that the direct result of the bill will be rationing and a reduction of care, which is the opposite of “improving the quality of care.” So this statement is also misleading.
4. Mrs. Pelosi then states that: “the CBO has reported and disputed claims by the Republicans about what our legislation will do”. However, the CBO released a report estimating the cost of a leading healthcare reform proposal at more than $1 trillion, but that figure looked only at a portion of the bill. The analysis falls just within the most expensive cost scenario sketched out by Democratic leaders in recent days, but does not include an estimate for a highly contentious government-run insurance plan that would compete with private insurers. The CBO has actually disputed claims by the Democrats, and I demand that the White House correct this blatant disinformation.
5. Mrs. Pelosi makes a very harsh and misleading statement about the Healthcare Insurance companies, denouncing “the immoral profits being made by the insurance industry”. This statement was bolstered by President Obama, who remarked about the healthcare insurers making “record profits”. However, this is false. PolitiFact.com researched it and found that profits this year across the board are DOWN for Healthcare insurers. Please be sure to have Mrs. Pelosi and the President correct this in their statements.

These are but a few of the blatantly false and misleading statements made by Speaker Pelosi. This type of disinformation is poisoning the otherwise healthy debate on this vitally important issue. As a concerned citizen, I demand that you contact Mrs. Pelosi and have her review all of her published statements and make sure they accurately represent all of the known facts.

The David Axelrod email

Well, now we know!

When the White House started its little “report on disinformation campaign”, directed from the Whitehouse, I fired off an email reporting “disinformation” I found at the web page of a VERY questionable character: Nancy Pelosi.

I mailed my report to the “Flag” email address at the Whitehouse. And guess what? I got one of David Axelrod’s emails in response!

What this confirms is that 1) they ARE storing the emails (we knew they would; they are bound by law to do so), and 2) they are compiling a list of what they perceive as “allies”.

You see, below, I got one of the now infamous David Axelrod emails. Confirming the White House’s confusion, however, is the opening term applied to me as “Friend”, which is false, obviously. I wish they would correct that and put me on the “Foe” list, but knowing what government bureaucracy is, it may take a while before they implement that change.

David Axelrod's email:
Dear Friend, This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important. Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions. As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.” So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now. Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email. Thanks, David David Axelrod Senior Adviser to the President P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out: 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/ 8 common myths about health insurance reform
Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
Learn more and get details: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq 8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html
Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html
Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html
Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html
The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

We would be fools to turn over healthcare to this government

In an August 6th, 2009 article titled “Death Drugs Cause Uproar in Oregon”, journalist Susan Donaldson James describes a horrifying event that occurred to Oregon resident Barbara Wagner.

“The 64-year-old Oregon woman, whose lung cancer had been in remission, learned the disease had returned and would likely kill her. Her last hope was a $4,000-a-month drug that her doctor prescribed for her, but the insurance company refused to pay. What the Oregon Health Plan did agree to cover, however, were drugs for a physician-assisted death. Those drugs would cost about $50. “

When I first wrote this article, I was under the impression that it was a private insurance company that rejected her service. But I was wrong: it was the state-run healthcare plan!

Why would the state-run do healthcare system do this to a person? Well, to put it quite frankly, in order to eliminate waste (and increase profits). “…Under [Wagner’s] insurance plan, she can the only receive ‘palliative’ or comfort care, because the drug does not meet the ‘five-year, 5 percent rule’ -- that is, a 5 percent survival rate after five years.”

Oregon is a state that has passed Doctor Assisted Suicide laws, called the “Death With Dignity Law”. Obviously intended originally to give terminally ill patients the ability to choose death on their own terms rather than languish in suffering for years, the law may appear on the surface to be a compassionate solution to one of the most difficult decisions a person can make.

But, in this case, instead of offering expensive care, the health plan offered a death pill instead.

I believe that it is the perfect example of how, given the option, the Federal Government will inevitably promote suicide or even euthanasia instead of “wasteful” care.

I have been researching euthanasia in Europe for a while now, and have published blogs on the topic in which I cite analysis showing how in some European states (principally Holland, although Switzerland also to a lesser degree) have begun to use euthanasia as part of their “health care” practice. No matter how well documented my sources are (even when government agency statistics are cited and links provided), I get responses from liberal friends who immediately dismiss the articles as “ridiculous lies”. Most simply refuse to read the articles. Others read parts, but then dismiss them outright.

When asked why they will not consider the articles, the response I get is: “You have a view, and you find whatever you can to support that view. Example: you hate socialism. Therefore, socialism kills the innocent.” So you just dismiss the concept from the start? “You’re absolutely right. When I hear that countries are killing their elderly, and we’re going to start doing the same, I just dismiss it.”

The next dismissal is predictable: “We would never have euthanasia in the United States.”

This was said in the context of my allegation that if we implemented single-payer healthcare in the United States, the government would inevitably head down this same morbid path, exactly as have the governments where they have socialized medicine: it is already happening.

Liberals scoff at concerns about section 1233 of the Healthcare Bill in the house currently (HR 3200), in which doctors are encouraged to discuss “end of life options”. In his article, “Undue Influence”, Washington Post writer Charles Lane explores a number of concerns people have about the government option, and openly questions whether or not the Federal Government’s plan would “force everyone over 65 to sign his…own death warrant.” Lane boldly states that his is “rubbish”.

“Federal law already bars Medicare from paying for services "the purpose of which is to cause, or assist in causing," suicide, euthanasia or mercy killing. Nothing in Section 1233 would change that.” May I point out that laws can be changed?

However, Lane adds that, having read section 1233, “it is not totally innocuous.”

“The 1997 ban on assisted-suicide support specifically allowed doctors to honor advance directives… Section 1233, however, addresses compassionate goals in disconcerting proximity to fiscal ones. Supporters protest that they're just trying to facilitate choice -- even if patients opt for expensive life-prolonging care. I think they protest too much: If it's all about obviating suffering, emotional or physical, what's it doing in a measure to ‘bend the curve’ on health-care costs?”

When we have examples like the current one, in which the “villainous” health care insurance companies not only refuse care, but suggest death instead, it is clear that the argument “it would never happen here” is moot, to say the least. There are those who are already testing the waters, right here.

So, how radical of an idea is it to suggest that, if state-run health care programs are already suggesting suicide instead of care, the Federal Government will someday do the same thing? Why are we to believe that only states will apply cost-saving analysis to care, but the Federal Government will not?

We are talking about the same US government that didn’t want to send the recommended number of troops to Iraq, in order to save money. The result? A prolonged war and unnecessary number of dead soldiers.

It’s the same government that didn’t properly equip all of the troops it sent—again, as a cost-saving measure. How many troops died unnecessarily due to these “frugal” policies?

It’s the same government that has had a “trust responsibility to provide health care for American Indians and Alaska Natives, {and yet} the Indian Health Service is substantially underfunded and understaffed.” There is no shortage of documentation supporting the allegation that our federal government has seriously underserved our Native Americans.

To quote an article by Tim Giago, an Oglala Lakota who recently wrote "How Will Universal Health Care Affect Native Americans?":

"Those Americans opposed to it compare it to Canada's or Britain's health care systems, which they say are nothing but socialized medicine. The Indian Health Care system, deemed a "historic failure" by Sebelius, has also been labeled as socialized medicine, and the fact that she would label it as a failure does not place much faith in an even larger universal health care system. It just seems that every time the federal government takes total control over anything, failure is almost assured. Watch out General Motors."

He ends his article: "If you think the government can solve all of our problems ask an Indian."

Why should we believe that a government that has allowed its troops and the Native Americans to “go without” will suddenly change its stripes when we hand over the entire health care industry?

How our government makes “civil debate” impossible

CNN Political Analyst, Gloria Borger, published a criticism of the “hecklers” at the many town hall meetings across the country, in which citizens who are concerned, even infuriated, about the Obama Healthcare plan, are vocalizing their opposition to the plan in a way she describes as “bad behavior.” She says: “Their bad behavior is a derivative of the questionable quality of the political debate they listen to every day. Indeed, if there's one thing we've gotten really good at over the years, it's this: reducing complicated problems to bite-sized slogans.”

Bite-sized slogans? You mean like "HOPE" and "CHANGE"?

She then tries to reassure us: “The effort on Capitol Hill has been serious…members of Congress are actually doing some real work.” Well they apparently are not working hard enough! They haven't read at least TWO of the major legislative pieces they've drafted and admit as much publicly.

As an example of the alleged misbehavior, she specifically refers to a recent town hall meeting organized by Senator Arlen Specter with the HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.”In attempting to answer questions, they were shouted down by folks more interested in venting than discussing.”

Other examples can be seen all over the news, such as this confrontation between a “Democrat Tea Party Protester” who confronted the House Majority Leader, or another meeting in St Louis, or the one in Austin. And following the Hugo Chavez model of governance, rather than accept that the people are furious at the government and leaders, the Obama administration has instead lashed out and accused the protests as being “manufactured”— that is to say, according to the ruling elite, they are being artificially generated and staged. This was also the same accusation they leveled at the hundreds Tea Party protests a few months ago.

What’s more, the administration is accusing groups of passing “disinformation” about their “plan”, and have even created a mechanism by which private citizens can report sources of “disinformation” directly to the White House –effectively creating a form of domestic spying network reporting directly to the President (yet another tactic eerily reminiscent of Hugo Chavez).

On the White House website, you can read: “There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov.”

What are they calling “disinformation”? How about the video of Obama stating that he wanted Single Payer healthcare, published on Drudgereport.com? Or articles such as this one, in which the President was quoted: “ ‘If I were designing a system from scratch, I would probably go ahead with a single-payer system,” Obama told some 1,800 people at a town-hall style meeting on the economy.’ ” These comments have also been recorded on video. They additionally call “disinformation” the videos that have been assembled showing the many times that Obama stated that he wanted a single-payer healthcare system.

More importantly, Obama and other "leaders" have been caught saying that, while they acknowledge that the public would not support going directly to a single-payer system, their plan would eventually lead us there. They then state in other forums that this is not their intention, and that they want "competition". They say that the "plan" (which they admit they have not fully read and with which they are "not familiar") would NOT eliminate private healthcare insurance. Analysts who actually HAVE read the bill are warning that the opposite is true.

So what should we believe? Should be believe what they say they didn't say after they have said the thing they deny having said? Or should we believe the analysts who are telling us that what is in the bill will lead us directly into the situation they said they wanted before they said they didn't want it?

What Borger fails to comprehend is that it is the government’s fault, clear and simple, that “discussion” has degraded into furious screaming matches. Democratic dialog can only occur in an environment in which all sides can feel that they are being mutually respected, and in which the leaders who are answering to their constituents understand that A) they work for the people, not the other way around, and B) the information they provide is true, to the best of their knowledge.

But when government leaders have stated, on camera, a position that later they say they never said, and then accuse the citizens of “manufacturing” dissent and spreading “disinformation”—which implies they are lying—the government has alienated itself from the people it pretends to govern. It also has undermined the necessary conditions for “civilized debate”.

These government officials are just like the criminal who is caught on tape robbing a store and later claims “I wasn’t there when they caught me”; their credibility is shot from the start. When they then turn around and claim that the people who have seen the video are “liars” for reminding them of what they have seen, they are engaging in a not-so-subtle ad hominem attack on the citizens.

The Democrats, who proudly bragged that they were part of a young and hip generation that understands modern technology such as Twitter and Facebook and the Internet, have apparently misjudged the overall sophistication of the average citizen, and have ironically overlooked the fact that their previous statements are out there for all to see. The Democrats have repeated the mistakes made by the Iranian regime that thought it could silence the opposition by quashing journalism, only to have their criminal exploits exposed via the new information media.

Americans have lost respect for their leaders. These leaders are bewildered that we don’t just trust them, even though they are exposed every time they make contradictory statements to different audiences (remember Obama’s “guns and religion” quote? Or his gaffe about the police “acting stupidly”?). Instead of admitting that they misspoke, or admit the mistake, they act as if we are all stupid, and explain themselves by saying something to the effect of; “I know what I said but what I meant was the opposite.”

The citizens are screaming because they are honestly angry. They are yelling because they do not believe what they are being told. They are heckling because they know that it is impossible to have “civilized debates” with arrogant government officials who disrespect them, ignore them, and lie to them.

And if this does not change, soon, the screaming, yelling, and heckling may morph into actions a great deal more serious. Remember that the 1773 Boston Tea Party was not the start of the Revolution: it was just a warning that was not heeded by the arrogant and bullying British aristocracy.

Obama's mouth will be the end of him.

"It’s the mouth that kills the fish."

President Obama’s accusation that the Cambridge police “had acted stupidly”, responding to a question about the incident involving Cambridge Police Officer Crowley’s arrest of black Professor Gates by stating “off-the-cuff”, was just the latest example of Obama’s most serious character flaw: his tendency to opine forcefully before knowing the facts.

His statement illustrates the Venezuelan phrase I often quote: “El pez muere por la boca”. Roughly translated, this means “It’s the mouth that kills the fish.” In other words, it is the fish’s instinct to open its mouth and take the bait without hesitation that results in its ultimate demise.

The details of the event can be found through various sources, starting with the police report. A short version goes like this: A white, female neighbor, Ms. Lucia Whalen, saw two black males wearing backpacks trying to shove their way through the front door of a house in an up-scale neighborhood. Concerned that her neighbor’s house was being burglarized, she called 911. Officer Crowley responded and found Mr. Gates in the house. Crowley spoke with him, told him he was responding to call that suggested the house was being robbed, and Gates asked him for identification.

Gates at first refused, and launched into his tirade “Why, because I’m a black man in America?” According to the officer, Gates was verbally aggressive and conflictive throughout the event. A report filed by a second officer (Off. Carlos Figueroa) reaffirms this assertion. Gates then tried to call the Police Chief from his home phone in order to escalate the issue. He continued yelling at the officer, calling him a racist and asking him for his name (which Crowley asserts he told Gates several times). Crowley warned Gates several times to calm down. Crowley alleges that he asked Gates to step outside, because the acoustics within the house, combined with Gates’ yelling, prevented him from communicating via radio with the station. Gates stepped outside and continued his yelling. Crowley warned Gates that he was beginning to disturb the peace, while he withdrew his handcuffs. But Gates did not take the hint: he continued yelling at the officer. At that point, he was placed under arrest for disorderly conduct.

It should be noted that Gates was the first “fish” to fall victim to his own loud mouth. Had he simply calmed down and explained the situation to the officer, he never would have been arrested. But this professor in the W. E. Debois Department of Black Studies clearly had a chip on his shoulder, a false sense of his own importance, and—knowing that he was a personal friend of President Obama—told the officer “you don’t know who you’re messin’ with”, and “you haven’t heard the last of this.”

But Obama apparently didn’t know the full story when he called Officer Crowley “stupid”, as he himself admits.

It is fascinating that Obama, who was a trained lawyer and has been praised for his legal knowledge, failed one of the most basic tenets of practicing law: know the facts of the case!

Officer Crowley is not the only person being vilified by black activists. Ms. Whalen, the woman who placed the 911 call, has been accused of being a racist, by various imbeciles opining on the case and ignoring basic facts. One blogger wrote: “I believe that the media would be remiss not to focus at least some of their attention on Lucia Whalen, the woman who initially called 911. Her racism was the catalyst that put all of these other events in motion.”

“Racism”? While it is clearly true that she was mistaken, and that Gates was a resident trying to force open his front door, and not a burglar, it is hardly racist for her to be concerned about her neighbors’ safety and call the authorities. What’s more, it is now known that the reason why Gates was trying to force the door was because, after returning from a trip, he found the front door damaged. Gates has apparently said that it looked as if the door had been damaged in a previous burglary attempt.

This often overlooked fact shines an important light on the events: the neighbor, it turns out, was right to be concerned. Gates had been victimized, but not by the police: his residence had apparently suffered an attempted break-in which, unfortunately, had not been observed and reported.

We have to ask ourselves; had the White House failed to properly brief Obama on this issue? We are being told that they had not.

Had Obama done due research before opining? He said that he was not there and did not know the details.

So why did Obama feel that he needed to blurt out an emotional response to an issue for which a simple “No Comment” would have been more appropriate? Could it be that he actually has been listening to the sermons of his infamous Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and is a proponent of black victimization?

While that may be true, what cannot be denied is that Obama has demonstrated, over the past few weeks, a disturbing tendency to make firm public statements about issues that he admits he knows little about.

When asked about the impacts of the H.R. 3200 Health Bill that he has been championing, Obama admitted: “You know, I have to say that I am not familiar with the provision you are talking about.” He then went on to defend the bill and promote “his plan” (which is not really his plan, because he has farmed it out to a cabal of radical Democrats to write in his stead).

It is peculiar that Obama would propose a radical idea that would enact massive restructuring of a major component of the American economy, then decide to let others write the bill, then not familiarize himself with the bill, openly admit that he is not familiar with the bill, and then defend it!

A couple of weeks previously, when the Honduran Supreme Court ordered President Manuel Zelaya deposed due to his unconstitutional behavior, Obama leapt into the fray, declaring that the actions taken were an illegal and unconstitutional “coup”. I analyzed the events there in depth through two posts, and concluded that Obama’s assertion is false; the process appears to have been legal, constitutional, rational, democratic, and does not constitute a “coup”.

But again, Obama believes himself to be so wise that facts are irrelevant. Events are what he says they are, and “damn your lying eyes!”

A President who speaks too soon once has committed a forgivable error. When he repeats that mistake within a week or two, it is a very real cause for embarrassment and should cause him to rectify his behavior. But when it occurs a third time in as many weeks: you have identified a dangerous trend.

Just like the fish that automatically snaps at a baited hook, Obama has proven himself incapable of assessing the impact of his impromptu remarks. His narcissism drives him to seek attention, and he does so without the slightest reflection as to the outcome. The truth to the matter is, that while Joe Biden’s frequent gaffes are generally harmless and amusing, Obama’s screw ups will ultimately undermine his own credibility.

Euthanasia as a solution for Health Care Rationing

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody if asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.” The Hippocratic Oath

I was shocked, although not surprised, to learn that the medical profession in Netherlands (Holland) has not only legalized euthanasia, but has expanded its use recently. Shocked, I say, because it is horrific to think that the medical profession, which once swore by the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm”, has adopted values that are in direct conflict with the oath. But I was not surprised, because this seems to be a logical outcome to the liberal philosophy that has taken control of much of Europe, and whose “humane” attempt to provide affordable access to medical care has been tempered by the practical need to reduce costs.

And what has been the logical, although horrific outcome? Euthanasia has become an acceptable alternative to expensive treatment.

The story was exposed to me by the great conservative radio host, Mike Gallagher. I wanted to verify the veracity of his statements, so I began to search, and found no shortage of corroborating articles.

What had started out as a “humane” ending of suffering for the terminally ill morphed, over time, to include an ever widening list of conditions. Recently, doctors there have even begun to euthanize the elderly, and children.

In “Euthanasia in the Netherlands”, I read a personal story about a man whose Dutch parents returned to their homeland to visit relatives, and shrugged off a story about a woman who chose euthanasia over treatment for depression following the death of her last son. Her physician did not even try to treat her depression: no, he decided she wasn’t depressed, just deeply saddened by her loss, and had the right to die—with his assistance, of course—instead of finding a new reason to live at the ripe old age of 50.

The author pointed out that many survivors of the Holocaust had managed to find new meaning in their lives after the loss of their entire families, but that was apparently unimportant. He reports:

“Over 50% of Dutch physicians admitted to practicing euthanasia, most often on cancer patients. Only 60% kept written records of their euthanasia practice and only 29% filled out death certificates honestly in euthanasia cases…”

While that statistic alone was alarming, I then confirmed that “Only half of Dutch doctors report euthanasia, report says.” In 2001, the study focused on 5500 deaths, of which 41% to 54% of those cases were patients that had been euthanized.

Proponents of the practice will rally to say that these cases provided a humane ending for individuals suffering chronic pain, with terminal illnesses, who chose to end their lives under their own terms. But that, it turns out, is not always true.

80% of Dutch now support euthanasia, in a nation that, during World War II, resisted Nazi orders to euthanize patients, actions that later resulted in the hanging deaths of Nazi “war criminals”.

But today, the practice is so widely accepted, doctors have begun to euthanize many others. In his article, “The Dutch way of Death” (2001), Richard Miniter points out that, in 1990 alone, of the 130,000 Dutchmen who died, 11,800 were “killed or helped to die” by their doctors. An estimated 5,981 people were killed by their doctors WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT—according to the Dutch government.

But if that was not shocking enough, prepare yourself: “other groups that are put to death involuntarily: disabled infants, terminally ill children and mental patients. Some 8% of all infants who die in the Netherlands are killed by their doctors, according to a 1997 study published in the Lancet, a British medical journal.”

These facts prompted the Catholic Association of Doctors and Nurses to issue a statement protesting the decision of Groningen University Hospital to euthanize children under 12 when their pain is “intolerable, or if they have an incurable illness.”
“The ‘decision proposes a death solution in situations which could be addressed by modern palliative care”, and “raises the suspicion of a financial interest of the public authorities, since it decreases the 'burden' of prolonged and expensive care in clinical conditions for which any extension of life duration is considered meaningless.’ The association continues; ‘it opens the door on a national scale to the 'mercy killing' of other mentally incompetent persons, to be eliminated without their consent for reasons based on an external appreciation of their quality of life."
In “Now They Want to Euthanize Children” Wesley J. Smith explains that, “In the Netherlands, 31 percent of pediatricians have killed infants. A fifth of these killings were done without the ‘consent’ of parents.”

"In 30 years Holland has moved from assisted suicide to euthanasia, from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill to euthanasia of those who are chronically ill, from euthanasia for physical illness to euthanasia for mental illness, from euthanasia for mental illness to euthanasia for psychological distress or mental suffering, and from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia or as the Dutch prefer to call it ‘termination of the patient without explicit request’.
It is now considered a form of discrimination against the chronically ill to deny them assisted death because they will be forced to suffer longer than those who are terminally ill and it is considered bias to force endurance of psychological pain when it is not associated with physical illness. The next step, non-voluntary euthanasia, is then justified by appealing to our social duty to care for patients who are not competent to choose for themselves. "

Smith sums up the horror quite eloquently:

“It took the Dutch almost 30 years for their medical practices to fall to the point that Dutch doctors are able to engage in the kind of euthanasia activities that got some German doctors hanged after Nuremberg.”

“Blame the radically altered mindset that results when killing is redefined from a moral wrong into a beneficent and legal act. If killing is right for, say the adult cancer patient, why shouldn't it be just as right for the disabled quadriplegic, the suicidal mother whose children have been killed in an accident, or the infant born with profound mental retardation?”

You may well ask what this has to do with us here in the United States.

According to the authors, a primary driving force in this barbaric shift from euthanizing only as a means of ending insufferable pain and misery to euthanizing patients ranging from the mentally disable, to Alzheimer’s patients, to the depressed, was the implementation of Socialized Medicine. The financial costs of treating the sick grew to the point that society might rebel against the ever increasing taxes necessary to support it. The government began to ration care, and pressured doctors to make decisions that would reduce care to those for whom it would not heal, in order to reduce costs.

Bureaucrats, in a single payer system, have been given the power of God over the public. Their actions now echo the policies of the Nazis, whose efforts to “strengthen the strain” resulted in the mass murder of millions across Europe in order to weed out the weak, the feeble, the retarded, and the incurably sick—not to mention those whose ethnic background was simply “unacceptable”.

It is logical to conclude that, as genetic testing for inherited diseases improves to the point that fetuses and babies can be identified as carrying the genes that will trigger future illnesses, doctors may decide to euthanize otherwise healthy infants or abort fetuses simply to avoid even the remote possibility of having to treat them in the future.