The Left's War on Christianity and Phil Robertson

The recent uproar about comment made by Phil Robertson, is really nothing more than the lefts continued war against Christianity. While homosexual advocates have tried to redefine Christianity into some amoral and all accepting belief system, Christians recognized Phil Robertson was simply quoting bible scripture (Romans 1:26-32). Further liberals, as a group, are incredibly intolerant;  any belief system other than theirs is targeted for destruction. As an example, homosexual groups are defining Phil Robertson and his bible scripture as intolerant, rather than identifying harmful behavior, because the left simply doesn't know the difference and can't fathom real tolerance; in their world tolerance means acceptance. In other words, the left is so intolerant they simply don't understand the concept of real tolerance is even possible. It is unimaginable to a leftists that you would allow a belief different from yours without trying to destroy it.

Christianity is very tolerant as it teaches judgement should be left to god (this is certainly an area where  Christians often fall down, but this simply demonstrates that they are no better than anyone else);  but that doesn't mean you can't love your neighbor, and simultaneously  identify what has been identified in the bible as unacceptable behavior; or as Rick Warren said "You don’t have to compromise convictions to be compassionate." Further Christianity separates people from their actions; "love the person and hate the sin". During the GQ interview Phil Robertson listed behavior that is condemned by Christianity; it was not a comparison, it's a list; and he follows it up with, “We never, ever judge someone on who’s going to heaven, hell. That’s the Almighty’s job. We just love ’em, give ’em the good news about Jesus—whether they’re homosexuals, drunks, terrorists. We let God sort ’em out later, you see what I’m saying?” (The left knew it was just a list, they just wanted to turn it into something they could make a big stink about; further part of Phil Robertson's ministry is he lived the behavior included in the list and reformed) Again this is impossible for the left to understand for they judge everyone by their belief system, not by what Martin Luther King Jr's called the content of their character. .

The teachings of Christ have never changed, but wayward followers often stray as they try and create a belief system that is more in line with their contemporary mores. These new age sects all eventually fail, while a relationship with the Jesus Christ of the bible, a savior that was all human and all god continues to thrive. The anti-Christians like to point to the Crusades and other atrocities done in the name of Christianity as an example of Christian hypocrisy, but again these were actions carried out by imperfect governments and religious leaders masquerading as Christians and Christianity and define "using the lords name in vain".

The left has been trying to re-direct Christians to worship the state for a 100 years; one way is to redefined Christianity as an amoral, all accepting religion and then judge anyone with real Christian values as non-Christian. The left's weapon of choice is mis- and dis- information, plus in the case of Christianity relativism.  But since the Jesus of the bible is written down and hasn't changed, the left always eventually fails in this regard.When all is said and done people will always return to the Jesus of the Bible; a Jesus of Faith, Peace and Love who told us the way to follow him is to, "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind", and to "Love your neighbor as yourself." Jesus never said to accept the sinful ways of your neighbor, but commanded you love them regardless. This is the way of the Jesus of the Bible and Christianity. 

Resurrecting the Anti-gun Militia Argument

Back in January 2013, I wrote an article attacking the notion that are founding fathers never intended for the 2nd Amendment to include anything other than the weapons that were known in there time The Second Amendment for Muskets? Today I'll be looking at what I call the "Militia Clause" argument, which was settled in the Supreme Court decision of Washington DC vs Heller, but like other anti-gun rhetoric it is and will continue to be resurrected from the dead hoping someone will listen. The following letter was written to the Santa Cruz Sentential Dec 18, 2013. It is a great letter as it not only contains, "Militia Clause" argument, but it also shows the real intention of the left is to disarm the entire citizenry.  

Tom Snell; Why is it that no one mentions the opening words of the second amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ..." Bearing arms was specifically so our nation could have a well-regulated militia, not so we could pretend that by owning lots and lots of guns, we can somehow defend ourselves from each other. Be careful gun owners -- the super wealthy gun industry wants you to be very scared so you will buy and they will profit. But I contend that more guns are more dangerous, not less so. To keep our communities safe, I challenge us all to have the courage to give up our guns with the possible exception of a hunting rifle. And for those people, they and their guns should be licensed and trained the way we license automobiles and require a periodic driver's test.

My response; Tom, why do people like you think you can logically define the contextual meaning of a word or phrase, in a vacuum of legal findings and historical context. This from the Case Brief  of the Holding of the Supreme Court case Heller vs Washington DC http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc..."The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.  Further,  Scalia wrote for the majority,  "The prefatory clause'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' merely announces a purpose. It does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms".

You can challenge Americans all you want, but you live in a cloistered bubble if you think gun ownership and the NRA are all about the super wealthy gun industry; the more the left wants to keep guns out of the hands of law abiding Americans, the more guns they buy. Further most Americans believe that there are a lot more important issues than additional gun restrictions (gun restrictions always rate very low when the citizenry is polled about what they want from government http://www.outsidethebeltway.c.... Crime rates continue to plummet as do gun crimes, except in areas like Chicago and Washington DC where the local government have disarmed the citizenry yet ignore federal gun restrictions; in other words new gun restrictions are a solution looking for a problem. In California there are laws that allow the police to track down criminals and mental patients and take away their guns ; but these laws continued to be unenforced (they are backed logged to the tune of 20,000 illegal gun owners) as the legislature continues to come up with laws that further restricts firearms to law abiding citizens. http://articles.latimes.com/20...

More gun control is simply a liberal issue that does nor resound with most Americans; but they certainly don't like being lied to about their healthcare. If you want to argue an issue important to you, you should at least do a little research before you base an argument on the way you interpret some wording you really don't understand.

Without Medicaid Expansion ObamaCare Would Increase Uninsured

Is it possible the purpose of ObamaCare was to federalize the states Medicare systems?

When all is said and done, it is the expansion of Medicaid that does all the heavy lifting of ObamaCare, while the ObamaCare exchanges are simply too expensive to help the remaining uninsured.* Here are the startling numbers. Democrats estimated there are 46 million people currently uninsured in the US Those Without Health Insurance 46 million, non-citizens in the US including illegal aliens account for 9.7% or 10 million of the uninsured leaving 36 million. The Obama Administration estimates slightly lower 44 million uninsured,ObamaCare Facts and says nearly half or 21.3 million of uninsured will be covered by ObamaCare's expansion of Medicaid ObamaCare Medicaid Expansion What we end up with then, if ObamaCare simply implemented just the expansion of Medicare, the number of uninsured that would be helped  is 21.3-22 million of the 36 million eligible (60%), leaving 14 million uninsured. The CBO now tells us that this 14 million will not only remain unisured but will more than double to 30 million by the end of this decade CBO ObamaCare will leave 30 million Uninsured, mainly because  these uninsured will not be able to afford ObamaCare. With 250 million Americans currently Insured and only 14 million uninsured after the expansion of Medicaid,  it also means that President Obama and the Democrats have taken control and turned the US Health Insurance Industry upside down, under the guise of unsuccessfully trying to insure the 5% of the uninsured.  So ObamaCare simply grows government without helping any one get affordable insurance.

*The end result of the expansion of state Medicaid by ObamaCare, where federal government will pick up 90-100% of the increased cost, is really nothing more than a federal take over of the Medicaid system. There is also a law that allows state medicaid agencies the right to seize all assets of a recipient after they die to pay for the medical services provided by Medicaid. "When the Medi-Cal (California's Medicaid System) recipient dies, the state may (and often does) seize remaining assets to reimburse the state for the Medi-Cal benefits paid during their lifetime. In many cases, this includes the recipient’s primary residence if they don’t have a surviving spouse. This provides a cost effective way to offset state and Federal costs". Medicaid Definition. If the states allow the federal expansion of Medicare, the federal funding and control of it's services will be for all purposes federalized the state Medicaid systems, which will eventually cost recipients everything they own to offset state and Federal costs.

A Warning to Pope Francis; Socialism is the Tail That Wags the Dog

This a follow-up to my recent article Pope Francis Ignores the Lessons of Collectivism The purpose of this article is to better explain what is meant by my remark that socialism always has unwanted consequences, which is why, no matter how good it sounds, it always fails While Pope Francis may want an altruistic planned economy, what he will get is the unwanted consequences of socialism. In his definitive work on free market economics, The Road to Serfdom: (Text and Documents--The Definitive Edition; The Collected Works of F. A. Hayek, Volume 2) Hayek explains that stated goal by Pope Francis of a planned economy to combat poverty, suppresses the wants and needs of the individual in the name of the collective; which by definition is the tyranny the Pope Francis attributes to the free market (or as Hayek would say, "the road to serfdom").

The “social goal,” or “common purpose,” for which society is to be organized is usually vaguely described as the “common good,” the “general welfare,” or the “general interest.” It does not need much reflection to see that these terms have no sufficiently definite meaning to determine a particular course of action. The welfare and the happiness of millions cannot be measured on a single scale of less and more. The welfare of a people, like the happiness of a man, depends on a great many things that can be provided in an infinite variety of combinations. It cannot be adequately expressed as a single end, but only as a hierarchy of ends, a comprehensive scale of values in which every need of every person is given its place. To direct all our activities according to a single plan presupposes that every one of our needs is given its rank in an order of values which must be complete enough to make it possible to decide among all the different courses which the planner has to choose.

One avenue often used by those that propose a planned economy is freedom from economic matters. However it is how we approach our economic issues that gives us the freedom to pursue our individual wants and needs. When the government controls these economic issues, they will in essence define what wants and needs you our allowed to pursue.

The so-called economic freedom which the planners promise us means precisely that we are to be relieved of the necessity of solving our own economic problems and that the bitter choices which this often involves are to be made for us. Since under modern conditions we are for almost everything dependent on means which our fellow-men provide, economic planning would involve direction of almost the whole of our life. There is hardly an aspect of it, from our primary needs to our relations with our family and friends, from the nature of our work to the use of our leisure, over which the planner would not exercise his “conscious control.”

While the Pope Francis stated his belief that a planned economy free from global economic system,  would lead politicians to guarantee all citizens "dignified work, education and health care." Pope Francis Attacks 'Tyranny' of Unfettered Capitalism, 'Idolatory of Money , it is the individuals dignity that will all but disappear in with the collective state; work, education and healthcare will be one size fits all with the wants and needs of the odd man out is purposely ignored.   

Conditions will be without exception what in some measure they inevitably are in a large organization—or rather worse, because there will be no possibility of escape. We shall no longer be free to be rational or efficient only when and where we think it worth while; we shall all have to conform to the standards which the planning authority must fix in order to simplify its task. To make this immense task manageable, it will have to reduce the diversity of human capacities and inclinations to a few categories of readily interchangeable units and deliberately to disregard minor personal differences.

So much for dignified work, education and healthcare

The Beginning of the End of Personal Sovereignty

On Wednesday December 4th, The UK Telegraph ran one of the most troubling stories I have ever read. It turns out a pregnant Italian tourist had a psychotic attack from not taking her medication for a bi-polar condition. The woman was placed in a  psychiatric hospital, and after it was determined by the Essex County Social Services the woman would not make a good mother, she was drugged and her baby was forcefully taken by Caesarian Section (and is now up for adoption). Child Taken From Womb by Social Services  The idea that the State would have this much power over a personal autonomy defies the morality of any civilized society. While it would seem acceptable in similar circumstances to take the child after it was born, the idea of surreptitiously cutting the baby out of a woman's womb is beyond belief (yes it was done in a medically accepted manner, but again it was done without advising the mother, even if her approval was not necessary!); can you imagine the mental anguish of a mother that has carried a child to near full term and awakening to discover it was surgically removed with no warning or explanation?  In Britain abortion laws are more strict  than the US, requiring a doctors approval; which is rarely denied.And as in the US, pro abortion/ pro-choice advocates base the right to abortion on the woman's right to choose  "Control over whether, when and how many children to have is crucial to control over every other aspect of a woman’s life." The Abortion Law Women Need .

With this understanding, you would think that liberal progressives would be outraged regarding the state taking over complete control of the woman's body and forcefully taking a child that the woman has chosen  to voluntarily carry, but no, there are some on the left that have become apologists for this barbarous act. In a web site  Opinion;Child Taken From Womb By Social Services. Really?  the "Liberal Democrat Voice", the writer Evan Harris attempts to mitigate this violation of a woman's body by questioning the validity of the article! Even though Harris' knowledge of the incident appears to come solely from the article, so anyone that reads the article would be just as informed as Harris, she reasons that the report is not accurate.

Evan Harris: These facts (from the below response Essex County Council) blow a hole in the allegations in the press (it is unclear exactly what allegations the writer is talking about as she has no argument with the facts of the case).

The Essex County Council response: As the mother was deemed unable to consent to that by virtue of being sectioned, then the very least you would expect is for a court order to be obtained before that major surgery was carried out.

Evan Harris: Yet this is exactly what was done. The clinical necessity and the clinical judgement of best interests would have been tested by the courts in this case. As opposed to selected facts being tested by the editor of the Sunday Telegraph.

Again, the writer has no argument with the facts of the case, only that it was supposedly done prescriptively (I say supposedly as there is a serious question as to if a court order was sufficient for such a personal intrusion). One would think that this attack on the most fundamental and basic personal sovereignty would at least warrant a court hearing, so all arguments could be aired out (the reason of course is because it would never have bee sanctioned). Add to this that Britain social services should have no domain over a non-Britain citizen or the child of a non-British citizen, where there is no evidence that the child has been made a British citizen (in these cases the child can only be made a British citizen at the discretion of the British Home Office), the incident can only be defined as a Draconian power grab over a personal autonomy by the State. Further, because the victim is an Italian citizen, this incident  has been elevated to an  international incident.

 The cause has also been raised before a judge in the High Court in Rome, which has questioned why British care proceedings had been applied to the child of an Italian citizen “habitually resident” in Italy. The Italian judge accepted, though, that the British courts had jurisdiction over the woman, who was deemed to have had no “capacity” to instruct lawyers. Child Taken From Womb by Social Services

What this  incident shows is the left's promotion of personal autonomy, articulated by the "Pro-Choice" argument, is really a shame. Apparently  "Pro-Choice" only goes as far as the State allowing one to abort a child, not to keep one. This even though one would think that the right of the State to remove a child from the womb is a far greater violation of personal sovereignty, than the "Right to Choose" to abort. As usual with the left it is simply the continued march toward a totalitarian regime.

Pope Francis Ignores the Lessons of Collectivism

When one looks at Pope Francis condemnation of unfettered capitalism and the need for the re-distribution of wealth, it is certainly nothing new coming from a pope; the idea that there is plenty of food and money available to raise everyone to a comfortable level has been the promise of the various forms of collectivism since the days of Karl Marx, while simultaneously condemning the horrors of the collective states of  Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, the Soviet Union and the Communist Chinese. The problem of course is once the government has control of  the economy, it also has control of the society itself. While Pope Francis may want an altruistic planned economy, what he will get is the unwanted consequences of socialism. When one looks at Socialism throughout the world today, not only are the countries mired in uncontrolled debt, but there is unfettered abortion, unfettered homosexuality, unfettered euthanasia (in Belgium the"right" to euthanasia now extends to children), unfettered secularism and unfettered control of the populace by an ever intrusive government taking a more and more money from the citizenry to pay for the government, while the leadership lives in unfettered luxury.

"As long as the problems of the poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality, no solution will be found for the world's problems or, for that matter, to any problems," he wrote. Pope Francis Attacks 'Tyranny' of Unfettered Capitalism
 
One might agree with the Popes condemnation of unfettered capitalism, as capitalism only works with a free market and the current market is fettered by crony capitalism, but the term itself has no meaning as it was an invention of the left to describe a free market they have no control over. What the Pope Francis chooses to ignore here, is socialism does not have an economic engine, while supply and demand in a free market does and more people have been raised out of poverty by capitalism than any other economic system ever used. And the end result of a collective/ socialist society has always been a slow slide into insolvency; or worse, starvation on a massive scale. Further it is the very nature of a collective society to try and fund itself through financial speculation. As I have mentioned in other writings, the "law" of supply and demand is intuitive to the human condition, where collectivism must be forced on the people. Collectivism only works for a short time, usually as a result of the people (or nation) being threatened by an outside force, so the people are willing to sacrifice their individual freedoms for the sake of survival. However, if the collective state is allowed to continue too long, it will eventually collapse under it's own weight.

This is already occurring in the third world, and the cause is the non-autonomy of markets through world governance, the UN, World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund). Here you find massive starvation as third world countries are denied the industrial advantages to bring them out of extreme poverty, through the auspices of Global Warming and carbon credits. International Global Warming talks have repeatedly broken down as the IMF wants to control the Carbon Credit Exchanges that were supposed to redistribute wealth to non-industrialized countries. In the name of low carbon development, the Carbon Credit exchanges are already creating pandemic starvation, as farm land is being seized or nationalized and industrial agriculture is growing bio-fuel crops, such as oil palms, or food crops specifically for export. Further the high demand for bio-fuel has also caused the price of food stables such as corn, to levels unaffordable by the poor. 'Biofuels a big cause of famine' In Africa tens of thousands of the poor are being forcefully evicted from their homes and land to "protect the environment and help fight global warming...The case twists around an emerging multibillion-dollar market trading carbon-credits under the Kyoto Protocol, which contains mechanisms for outsourcing environmental protection to developing nations.In Scramble for Land, Group Says, Company Pushed Ugandans Out. The end result of replacing food crops with cash crops and/or exporting the high value food crops industrialized countries, has led to a huge increase in pandemic starvation in Africa; this is the effect of the world government control of markets that the Pope believes will help end the structural causes of inequality.

In the final analysis Pope Francis seems to want socialism on his terms and it just doesn't work that way. Socialism always has it's own agenda and as mentioned before and it is always the opposite of the tenets of Christianity and Catholicism. Consider the fact that a government that can force equality, also believes it will better decide what to do with charitable donations, rather than religious organizations (the Obama administration has already suggested doing away with tax deductions for charitable donations). If one looks at the nature of socialism, it's is immediately apparent that charitable donations are almost non-existent, as the government takes so much of the citizens money money that is supposedly re-distributed to the poor. So  one wonders if the Catholic church is willing to acquiesce it's ability to feed and clothe the poor as it's tax exempt status would be eliminated also in the name of government redistribution. The end result is always a secular society that has no room for religion.

The Rule of Law is a Tradition?

In a recent speech President Obama made the following statement regarding why he can't change immigration law without congress, "But we’re also a nation of laws. That’s part of our tradition." Obama To Heckler Calling For Him To Stop Deportations. But saying the rule of law is a tradition in the US, is akin to the President believing the separation of powers is a good idea when it works out for him. Yes, we  have traditions that are unique to America, like celebrating Thanksgiving and the Forth of July, but the rule of law defines our country; John Adams famous quote is," We are a nation of laws, not men". No, Mr President, the rule of law is not a tradition, it is the bedrock principle of our nation and central to ordered liberty; funny as a Constitutional scholar I would have thought President Obama would know that.

The Truth will Stop Liberalism

There is a truism that says if you want to make a conservative mad, tell a lie; if you want to make liberal mad; tell the truth. We are now seeing this truism play out, and in this case it's the truth about the lies that are fundamental to liberalism. "You can keep your plan if you like it." Nine words that has stopped President Obama and liberalism in it's tracks. It is well known that most Americans did not like President Obama's policies, but the left leaning main street media was so overboard in it's villainization of the Bush administration, that the people voted for hope and change. And even though the President proceeded to go back on practically every promise he made, he was somehow insulated from theses policies and the American people by in large still trusted Obama. Liberals exist on misplaced trust, so when the average Americans personally felt the pain and experienced the loss of their own health Insurance, and it became clear Obama and the Democrats in Congress had knowingly lied about ObamaCare, they finally realized they had been scammed. And with trust gone, the hubris of liberalism is laid bare for all to see.

Archdiocese of Los Angeles Continues to Court Relativism at Religious Education Congress

 Well the Los Angeles Religious Education Congress for 2014 will be at it's usual spot (The Anaheim Convention Center) March 14-16 . And for the first time in 5 years Jim Wallis (evangelical leader of the  Sojourners) has been asked to return as a speaker. Those not familiar with Jim Wallis he strongly believes that individual salvation is okay, but what Jesus taught was collective salvation that requires political solutions and the forced equality of a collective state.

Wallis' affinity for Marxism and socialism is evident in many things he himself has said. For example, in 2005 Wallis stated that private charity to help the poor was insufficient, and that true social justice could be achieved only by an omnipotent central government empowered to redistribute wealth: "We have to be very clear about this. Voluntary, faith-based initiatives with no resources, no resources to make any serious difference in poverty reduction, is not adequate. That's a charity that falls far short of Biblical justice."
Jim Wallis.

To no surprise Wallis has been a spiritual adviser to President Obama along with Jeremiah Wright; combine these two and one can see why our President has very skewed  belief in Christianity. Below is a link to rather lengthy study of Jim Wallis I wrote in 2009. When you are finished one has to ask if Catholics in the United States are really wanting to sell their soul to the Progressives and give up many of it's tenets such as pro-life, pro-family and the most basic tenet that Jesus came down to earth to forgive sins and re-establish a relationship with god; not to advocate for Communism.

Marxism for Christianity; Jim Wallis, Running With the Devil 

Will the Democrats be Punished for ObamaCare?

The President lied about ObamaCare and the usual suspects are lying to try and cover for him.

Oct 23 Katherine Sebelius says; President Barack Obama didn't hear that there may be problems with the sign-up portal for his signature health care law until it went live on October 1

Oct 29- Katherine Sebelius says "... we had tested the website and we were comfortable with its performance,” she said. “Now, like I said, we knew all along there would be as with any new website, some individual glitches we would have to work out. But, the volume issue and the creation of account issues was not anticipated...).*

Nov 13 Nancy Pelosi claims nearly 5 times as many people signed up for Obamacare than HHS numbers show.

Nov 14 Debbie Wasserman Shultz says;“You’re darn right that our candidates are going to run on the advantage that Obamacare will be going into the 2014 election."

Nov 14 Obama: "I was not informed directly that the website would not be working the way it was supposed to. I’m accused of a lot of things. I don’t think I’m stupid enough to go around saying this is going to be like shopping on Amazon or Travelocity a week before the website opens if I thought that it wasn’t going to work."**

Nov 17 Nancy Pelosi: What we are talking about is affordable, quality, accessible health care for all Americans. It`s about choice. If you like what you have and you want to keep it, you have the choice to do that. 

While the mainstream press is finally doing it's job by reporting the outright lie that, "You can keep your plan if you like it" (and of course President Obama turns to his stock excuse, "I didn't know" and/or "wasn't told"), the truth is there is nary an aspect of ObamaCare that was not lied about. Not only will your individual plan be canceled , but the replacement plan will increase in price 50-100%. Further since the different levels of ObamaCare plans are the same, the differences are with the  deductibles, which are now high as $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families, the highest levels allowed under the law; so those that can only afford the cheapest plans will pay the most for their healthcare; and the subsidies (some one else's money) will do little to help as they only cover the premiums, not the deductible. One wonders if the Democrats will finally be punished by the electorate for being complicit with the big lie that is ObamaCare.

*... the Obama administration refused to delay the implementation of the exchanges, despite the well-known problems, because they were afraid of the political blowback. “Former government officials say the White House, which was calling the shots, feared that any backtracking would further embolden Republican critics who were trying to repeal the health care law.” Obamacare's Website Is Crashing Because It Doesn't Want You To Know How Costly Its Plans Are 

**"They had been claiming that the Obamacare rollout was his top priority and that he was receiving regular updates, which was inaccurate. And he gave remarks on October 1 about how great it was and that people should go sign up," the aide said. "Assuming that he didn't know that the website didn't work, why did they let him make that speech when they knew it had crashed in testing? Did really no one recommend a delay to the President? It just seems odd." Sebelius: Obamacare Website Problems Blindsided the President

Obama's Says He Had to Lie‏ About ObamaCare

President Obama, in a speech to supporters in Washington DC, said he had to lie ObamaCare. The President now says the numerous times he promised,  “if you like your health-care plan, you will be able to keep your health-care plan, period.”actually had the unspoken disclaimer, “Now, if you have or had one of these plans before the Affordable Care Act came into law and you really liked that plan, what we said was you can keep it if it hasn’t changed since the law passed. So we wrote into the Affordable Care Act, you're grandfathered in on that plan. But if the insurance company changes it, then what we're saying is they've got to change it to a higher standard. They've got to make it better, they've got to improve the quality of the plan they are selling. That's part of the promise that we made too. That's why we went out of our way to make sure that the law allowed for grandfathering.

If we had allowed these old plans to be downgraded, or sold to new enrollees once the law had already passed, then we would have broken an even more important promise -- making sure Americans gain access to health care that doesn't leave them one illness away from financial ruin. The bottom line is that we are making the insurance market better for everybody and that's the right thing to do.
Obama; What We Said Was You Can Keep It If It Hasn’t Changed Since The Law Passed
 
So President Obama says that his two promises were mutually exclusive. If he would have let you keep your current plan under ObamaCare, then access to the health plans promised by ObamaCare would not have been possible.This of course is classic Alinsky; the ends justify the means. What is unusual is you never actually hear it discussed. But President Obama is so sure of him self, he believes that tell the electorate that his lying is understandable and acceptable if there is a higher purpose. One has to wonder if the electorate will actually buy into this or will they finally wake up and ask themselves, if the President was lying about this, what else has he been lying about and have we been duped by this closet collectivist from the beginning. Only time will tell.

How We got Here and How ObamaCare is a Microcosm of the Liberal Agenda

With the roll out of ObamaCare it's worth looking again at the Great Recession; where after 5 years the left is still blaming Bush. As a matter of fact the blaming of Bush is as close to having an economic policy as the Democrats have come up with. The recession is due to some $800 trillion in toxic derivatives that are still held by many banks and is slowing down bank to bank transfers (recently the Federal Reserve allowed BofA to move $75 trillion of these toxic derivatives to accounts that are covered by FDIC (which means us tax payers); it was illegal but the Fed can do whatever it wants despite the law. http://onespeedbikerpolitico.b.... The reason this hit the average citizen so hard is because these toxic assets were tied to mortgages, destroying 10 years of accumulated wealth of the middle class, most of which was home equity. And it was the Democrats that pushed the American Dream act via Franklin Rains and it was ram rodded through congress by Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd. There is certainly plenty of blame to go around, but as he have seen Blaming Bush is not a productive economic policy.

If there was any hope for an end to the recession, it was dashed by ObamaCare. If you have paid attention, Obama campaigned on raising taxes on the rich,  extended the Bush tax cuts for 5 years and agve workers a holiday on a percentage of their payroll taxes (which pay for workers Social Security). To his credit Obama did make the Bush tax cuts permanent for those with incomes over 400,000, he simultaneously ended his payroll tax holiday, so the end result was less in the average workers paycheck. But Obama also raised numerous taxes in 2010 and redistributed $500 billion from Medicare, both to fund ObamaCare, even though ObamaCare wouldn't be rolled out until 2013. And with that roll, it turns out healthcare plans can not be kept (after repeated promises by Obama) and most new replacement plans will double, especially if you are young (18-34)  as they are mandated to buy the same full boat health plan a 40-50 year old with a family would need. This is a redistribution of healthcare costs; from the late Generation Xers and the Millennial generation, to the Baby Boomers. ObamaCare is a microcosm of the liberal agenda; it's one size fits all; it was lied about from the very beginning; it offered more than it could ever deliver; when changes are made rule of law is replaced with the wants of political cronies; and it is all being paid for by someone else's money.

Why Republicans Won't Acquiesce to Obama and More Lies Spoken by the Left

One of the most disingenuous arguments from the left is that because President Obama won the  election, conservatives should just shut up and let President Obama follow through with his agenda. Obviously this argument is not meant for Democrats when a Republican wins an election; lest not forget the shellacking the Democrats took during the mid-term elections after President Obama won the 2008 Presidential election; in one midterm election the Republicans took 60 seats from the Democrats. This would seem to have been a strong message for President Obama to slow down his fundamental change of America, but as is known he actually doubled down on his liberal policies. The you have the Bush presidency where as early as 2001 the new Senate Majority Leader, Tom Daschel gleefully announced he planned to use the Democrat's new control of the senate and it's one seat majority,  to block Bush's future policies . Then in 2005 Harry Reid's admitted intention to "block Bush's major initiatives and thereby deny him the mandate he has claimed from his reelection victory." Democrats Are United in Plans To Block Top Bush Initiatives. And who can forget Reid's famous "This war is lost" speech and then he lied, trying to walk it back saying it was taken out of context, apparently oblivious to Youtube 

So no, there is and has never been a mandate for the losing side of the Presidential or Congressional elections to acquiesce and let the winner do it's will. But once again this is the nature of the liberals whom re-write history, always pushing their collectivist agenda, and in any liberal endeavor the first casualty has always been the truth.

Explaining Some of the Lies of ObamaCare

 My last blog discussed the new "Blame the Republicans" tact that Liberals and Democrats are trying to use to cover their collective asses regarding the utter failure of the rollout of the ObamaCare )ie the Affordable Care Act or ACA). There is also another tactic that they are using to try and mislead the public regarding the wholesale cancellations of Individual healthcare policies (a tactic that was also used with the supposed religious exemption that VP Joe Biden claimed existed for mandatory abortion coverage of healthcare plans. The way the deception works is you write an exemption or grandfather clause for existing policies into ObamaCare, but you make the exemption or grandfather clause so restricted that no religious institution or policy can qualify. In the case of the religious exemption this is how the exemption is defined.

 Members of certain religious sects. Also sometimes called the "religious conscience" exemption, these religious sects must be recognized by the Social Security Administration as being "conscientiously opposed to accepting any insurance benefits," the IRS explains. As described in Section 1402 of the tax code, these sects must have been in existence since at least December 31, 1950.

 In other words, as long as you are a religious sect (aka the Amish) that has a history of not excepting or using heath insurance, then you are exempt. And this is religious exemption Joe Biden said would exempt Christian institutions and colleges offering healthcare insurance, from the ObamaCare abortion mandate; as usual for a liberal, an obvious and blatant lie trying to deceive the American public.

Candidate/President Obama repeated ad nauseam, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period; no one will take it away, no matter what." Here are some of the problem with the grand fathering promise. Obama Administration Knew Millions Could Not Keep Their Health Insurance

"The law states that policies in effect as of March 23, 2010 will be “grandfathered,” meaning consumers can keep those policies even though they don’t meet requirements of the new health care law. But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote regulations that narrowed that provision, by saying that if any part of a policy was significantly changed since that date -- the deductible, co-pay, or benefits, for example -- the policy would not be grandfathered". (And the Further, President Obama knew this 3 years ago but continued to taught his plan promising the Grand Fathering knowing there was no possibility it would happen. (in other words the grandfather clause only allows plans that were in effect March 23, 2010 as long as they are not subsequently changed, but ObamaCare also requires the insurance companies to change those very policies if they are not mirror images of ObamaCare policies. This however an exception to this was added by Presidnet Obama,so any healthcare plan that is the result of collective bargaining is exempt. Interestingly, this was not enough for the unions that recently (Sept 2013) demanded the White House grant blanket tax payers subsidies for union workers saying the  unions whom argue the ACA will raise their healthcare costs while providing them no benefit. Even though the President has shown his propensity to make changes to ObamaCare on a whim, he reported this was simply not possible, probably because it would make his agenda to transparent for any damage control.
 
"Buried in Obamacare regulations from July 2010 is an estimate that because of normal turnover in the individual insurance market, “40 to 67 percent” of customers will not be able to keep their policy. And because many policies will have been changed since the key date, “the percentage of individual market policies losing grandfather status in a given year exceeds the 40 to 67 percent range.” That means the administration knew that more than 40 to 67 percent of those in the individual market would not be able to keep their plans, even if they liked them. Yet President Obama, who had promised in 2009, “if you like your health plan, you will be able to keep your health plan,” was still saying in 2012, “If [you] already have health insurance, you will keep your health insurance.” 

So we find out that not only did President Obama know that millions of policies would be cancelled, it was actually written into the law! I guess we have to keep going back to Nancy Pelosi and her statement, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it. And the American people just keep finding more to dislike, and the Democrats will keep trying to find a way to blame it on somebody else; and that's just what liberals do.

It's Time for the ObamaCare Promise Act

Wouldn't t be great if we could hold our politicians to their promises. Candidate and President Obama presented ObamaCare (ACA) with what turned out to be one broken promise after another. Probably the most damaging was if you like your plan you can keep it. The end result is millions of Americans are loosing the plans they liked and are being offered different plans that are much more expensive. While there are many that think there is nothing that can be done but watch the misery to Americans that will  result when ObamaCare implodes, I say "au contraire". What if there is a way to make President Obama keep his promises about ObamaCare. Well there is, it's called the ObamaCare Promise Act.  Americans would be able to keep the plans they liked, they would be able to keep seeing their own doctor, they would not be forced into plans they do not want or can't afford, and those with existing plans would pay $2500 @ year less. I can't imagine the American people not being in favor of such a bill. It would also be interesting to see if the Democrats in the Senate would fight to defeat the ObamaCare Promise Act. So call or write/email your congresspersons and demand the ObamaCare Promise Act.

ObamaCare is flawed because of the Republicans. What?

What happens when the Democrats own a failed policy? They blame it on the Republicans anyway. As ObamaCare continues it's death spiral, they new template response. Here is an example from the Santa Cruz Sentinel blog web site.

The ACA is the best plan that Democrats could pass with obstructionist republicans. I wonder why insurance companies have spent so much money sowing misinformation and fear to stop a third payer system if it wouldn't work. Regardless the US has much to learn from other countries about how to provide healthcare.We need to have an alternative to insurance companies who basically make more money by denying care, it's a dumb system.

The President and Democrats have been trying to convince voters that the problem in Washington is the Republicans so called obstructionism. Certainly there can be no doubt that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, with the help of President Obama has created the most partisan Congress in modern history. The plan for ObamaCare was simple, the Democrats knew, since they had the Presidency, a  filibuster proof Senate and near 2/3 of the House, there was no need to include the Republicans in any of the Health Care reform debates. But problems arose as a large number of the Democrats wanted the public option, but they knew it was not popular with the voters, and along with other issues compromises had to be made that would later come back to haunt them. So in their arrogance they passed a bill needing 100% agreement without the Republicans; the result stymied the Democratic Party and there lies the blame.Democrats;Their Own Worst Enemy Oh yes and not one aspect of ObamaCare that was promised to the American people by Candidate and President Obama came to fruition; NOT ONE! So no, the Republicans not only didn't obstruct ObamaCare, they weren't even invited to the party. That's right, only one Republican in the House voted for Obamacare and the vote was made long after ObamaCare had already passed. The obstructionist were all Democrats and ObamaCare was so full of pork that it was embarrassing even for the Democrats.

A very common comment about blaming the Republicans was it was the Heritage Foundation that came up with the concept of the individual mandate; this is a straw man on several levels. First the idea of an individual mandate has been floating around for years, certainly decades before the 1980's. Further as the Heritage Foundation says,

First, it was not primarily intended to push people to obtain protection for their own good, but to protect others. Like auto damage liability insurance required in most states, our requirement focused on "catastrophic" costs — so hospitals and taxpayers would not have to foot the bill for the expensive illness or accident of someone who did not buy insurance. (ObamaCare did away with these plans)

Second, we sought to induce people to buy coverage primarily through the carrot of a generous health credit or voucher, financed in part by a fundamental reform of the tax treatment of health coverage, rather than by a stick.

And third, in the legislation we helped craft that ultimately became a preferred alternative to ClintonCare, the "mandate" was actually the loss of certain tax breaks for those not choosing to buy coverage, not a legal requirement. Don't Blame the Heritage Foundation Individual for ObamaCare mandate

Next you have the "I wonder why insurance companies have spent so much money sowing misinformation and fear to stop a third payer system if it wouldn't work." What's so absurd about this argument is it didn't happen. The Public Option was favored by the House Democrats but no support with Democrat Senators. ObamaCare was written by Liz Fowler under the tutoledge of Sen Max Baucus while she was also, the VP for Wellpoint and a top adviser for Obama. ObamaCare was written in collusion with the private heath care industry and big Pharma (Obama vilifying the health care industry is more Obama smoke and lies; all the negotiations were done in secret, which was the height of corruption).

The other half of the blog letter states that the US is way behind the rest of the world because we don't have  National Healthcare. It doesn't matter that every country in the EU is going bankrupt because of raising healthcare. What liberal blogger fails to understand is by definition Single Payer Healthcare is a collectivist policy that addresses only the needs of the majority and is not designed to address the needs of the individual. In the US we are used to medical care being judged on a case by case budget.The best example of this was by our President when Candidate Obama explained national healthcare. This video is so damning many liberal bloggers swear it does not exist; in a way I wish they were right..



The woman, Jan Strum says that her mom, 5 years ago was 99 years old and her doctor said she needed a pace maker. One Medicare specialist said no the mom was too old, but the doctor made an appointment with another specialist so the specialist could personally see mom's joy of life..and the specialist said he would go for it; because of the surgery Jan Strum is now 105 YO and still kicking. The woman then asked how her mom would have fared with ObamaCare saying; Outside the medical criteria prolonging life for someone who is elderly, is there any consideration that can be driven for a certain spirit, a certain joy of living, (or) a quality of life; or is it just a medical cutoff at a certain age?.

Before we get President Obama response, it is worth noting that there is really no medical criteria for prolonging life with Medicare. Jan Strum's own story about her mother shows the decision of whether her mom at 99 years old should get a pacemaker was left up to her doctors. So one wonders is Jan Strum knows that with ObamaCare these decisions would no longer be up to doctors, but by bureaucrats; in this case a panel controlled and dictated by Katherine Sebelius, the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

Okay, back to President Obama's response, (W)ere not going to be able to solve every difficult problem in the end of life care... Maybe your mom would be better off not having the surgery and take the pain pill.  

The President's hubris here is off the scale. First why would any one in his position with a total lack of medical knowledge suggests that the alternative to a pace maker is a pain pill? (it's not) Second Jan Strum is asking about prolonging life of the elderly, while the President is replying with end of life care. This suggests Obama's world view doesn't  include prolonging the life of the elderly, but only end of life decisions that are easier to dictate via a formula and more financially controllable. Then you have Obama personalizing his belief system by actually using Jan Strum's mother as an exemplar of denying life prolonging surgery. He more than implies that the surgery on Jan Strum's mother should never have been  approved and suggests with his healthcare system it wouldn't have happened, even though it's validity had already been shown to be worth the expense.

National Socialized Healthcare Based on Medicare? Welcome to Hell

While Medicare is generally  looked upon favorably by your average American,  many liberals have voiced the opinion that Medicare should be the model for a National Single Payer; ie socialized medicine.

 In an earlier post I discussed The Real Cost of Medicare this included the fallacy that government administers Medicare is much cheaper than the private sector when it comes to administering their companies (20% vs 3%). The truth is the Federal government farms out the administration of most of Medicare (referred to Medicare Service Contracts) that are usually not counted in the official Administrative costs; Cigna is a major player in Administering Medicare Cigna Government Services Awarded Medicare Contract... The government "stated" administration costs only cover an annul report  assessing the financial health of the program,  while the private sector service contractors are responsible for processing claims and payments, call center services, clinician enrollment, and fraud investigation. So the truth is the Administration of Medicare are at least the same and probably more than private healthcare companies.Then you have to add to the equation that some where between 10 to 20% of Medicare funds are lost to fraud every year; that's $50 billion to $100 billion.

There is also the issue of the doctor fix; this is a $300 billion Medicare shortfall that the Democrats want hidden.   "In 1997, Congress created a new formula called the Sustainable Growth Rate, or SGR. Using Medicare spending in the 1990s as a baseline, the formula factored in overall economic growth to create the annual Medicare budget. The goal was to control Medicare spending by tethering it to the rest of the economy’s growth. And, for a few years, this worked fine; the equation pretty accurately predicted how much Medicare would cost. But, as health care costs outpaced the economy, it has stopped working, leaving the entitlement with a multi-billion-dollar shortfall." Doctor Fix FAQ.

Total Medicare spending is projected to increase from $523 billion in 2010 to $932 billion by 2020. From 2010 to 2030, Medicare enrollment is projected to increase from 47 million to 79 million, and the ratio of workers to enrollees is expected to decrease from 3.7 to 2.4  Medicare Statistics. 

So when one contemplates a Socialized Healthcare based on Medicare, there would be little chance of a private sector administration (a Socialized Healthcare system would be designed to eliminate the private sector), so expect the IRS will be tasked with the administration, something no government agency has any experience doing. All these issues are the result of some of the basic failures of socialism. First, you can not legislate market factors; the mere existence of a mandate rarely results in cost reductions. Second, the larger government grows the more corrupt it becomes. Medicare is now more corrupt than ever and the corruption is growing the more Medicare expands. The  primarily reason is due to doctors over billing for services as they try  to compensate for cut backs in reimbursement rates; it is estimated that in order for a Medicare doctor today  to make a modest $200,000 gross annually, they would have to see 35-40 patients a day for a year. If we continue in this direction will will experience the same level of healthcare they are experiencing in Britain where doctors  have started seeing patients via SKYPE. As the old saying says, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Welcome to hell

Obama and Quantitative Easing; The Rich Get Very Rich

The Federal Reserve has bought back  $3 trillion worth of government bonds in an process called Quantitative Easing (QE). The rational is to inject money into the economy by converting the investors banks reserves that are in Treasury to cash; supposedly this would loosen up lending while still keeping interest rates down. The problem with this is the banks are sitting on the cash, 81.5% of the revenue produced by the QE as excess reserves; if a bank has more in reserves than needed to make loans it is called excess reserves.  In the past, banks would not get interest on these excess reserves so they had an incentives to give out loans. But in a Catch 22, the Federal Reserve pays the banks an incentive to tie up the very money they want to free up by paying them interest on excess reserves.  "Paying interest on reserves allows a central bank to maintain its influence over market interest rates independent of the quantity of reserves created by its liquidity facilities". 81.5 % Of Money Created Through Quantitative Easing is Sitting There Gathering Dust Instead of Helping the Economy

The primary avenue of wealth for the middle class has always been home ownership. But the catalyst of this market collapse was a glut of houses created governmental social engineering monstrous greed of some investment banks.  As a result of the Great Recession the middle class lost amount 25 years or 40% of their wealth; almost all of which was equity in their homes. The middle class is now stuck underwater and are unable, as they did in the past, capitalize on the equity of their houses and move up to a better and more expensive house, which in the past kept the housing market alive and healthy. Instead, until the price of housing increases enough the middle class once again has equity in the homes, the housing market and economy will remain flat. The only one buying houses right now are investment banks, so those few families that are actually looking to buy moderate cost homes, have to complete with them in a very small market and are usually unsuccessful. The end result of all this is the very rich are getting richer, the extra money is going into Wall Street, while the middle class and poor continue to flounder in this great recession. In other words the biggest driver of the concentration of wealth in the single digit percent of the wealthiest Americans, is the direct result of QE. 

Why There Is A Looming Shutdown/ Default

If you want to hear extremist ranting you can listen to President Obama's Tantrum press conference Oct 8; one should be asking if using words like "hostage," "bomb thrower," and "extremist" is really the beat path towards a negotiating with the GOP. The fact is one never knows which Obama is going to show up.

 The fact is one never knows which Obama is going to show up. Is it the 2006 Senator "'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure...  

Is it the 2006 Senator "'The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government can not pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that "the buck stops here." Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better.' 

Or the President on January 12, 2011 "It’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Only a more civil and honest public discourse can help us face the challenges of our nation."

 Or is he the 2013 President "Tea Party Republicans flirted with the idea of default, a nuclear bomb."

Or is he the 2013 President "Tea Party Republicans flirted with the idea of default, a nuclear bomb." The President is governing against the will of the people, which explains his 37% approval rating. The reason Obama was re-elected had nothing to do with ObamaCare or Gun control, it was the economy and the GOP's failure to present a cohesive plan.

The issue is President Obama and the Democrats have refused to include the Republicans in enacting any major legislation, including ObamaCare. At no time in the history of our country has one party completely locked out the other party in this manner. Least one forget, even though the Iraqi war had bipartisan passage,it was the law of the land but the Democrats then tried to defund it later, just like now but the shoe is on the other foot.

Obama misrepresented his healthcare plan at every turn and broke every promise that he made about his health plan (in a non-politically correct world, ObamaCare is a pack of lies)

What we are seeing is President  that has no leadership qualities or ability;a basic quality being trust. President Obama will say what ever he thinks will forward his agenda, regardless if there is any truth or not and the American people are staring to catch on. The best example is ObamaCare.  President (and Candidate) Obama misrepresented his healthcare plan at every turn and broke every promise that he made about his health plan (in a non-politically correct world, ObamaCare is a pack of lies) and the result being a law that nobody wants. America is not about just accepting what an overreaching government forces on the people; it is about the people taking control and self rule. That is why there ia a looming Shutdown/ Default; it's America trying to take back it's country.

The Pending Implosion of the US; What's the Fix?

In a recent email correspondence with Georgia Beardslee (a KSCO Santa Cruz  radio personality), she asked what to do with the downward spiral of our country,; "The question is, how do we fix it?  It is like a cancer that has metastasized!" This was my answer.

I do not believe there is a fix.  With some $80 trillion in debt, laws piled on laws (Obamacare has grown from 2700 pages to 20,000 pages) . The US was an experiment in self rule that may in it's present form run it's course. In the book the 4th turning it explains that as history has unfolded there were 4 distinct epochs (see attached for some exerts). We are now entering the 4th turning a time of tearing down and knocking out the dead wood before a time of rebuilding. I belive what is important is to keep the belief in the rugged individualist alive. The day will come when we will need to rebuild and our founding fathers have already written the documents for us (there is nothing going on in the US that our founding fathers didn't warn us about).  As the US economy has descended in Crony Capitalism our government has decompensated (a term used in psychology to define a mental person losing control) into a form of fascism. It is a truism that the larger government grows the more corrupt it becomes. When the US government finally implodes we will once again need to form state governments and they will need to answer to the will of the people; our time is coming soon to save our country when the collectivists once again fail. 

 So we just need to be here for each other; like the early Christians that spread the word of the gospel, not by evangelizing but helping and feeding the poor, so those looking for a better way started looking at what the Christians had that led them to their love and caring of their fellow man.

Here is a small section from the Forth Turning; I highly suggest you read this book.

The reward of the historian is to locate patterns that recur over time and to discover the natural rhythms of social experience. In fact, at the core of modern history lies this remarkable pattern : Over the past five centuries, Anglo-American society has entered a new era—a new turning—every two decades or so. At the start of each turning, people change how they feel about themselves, the culture, the nation,and the future. Turnings come in cycles of four. Each cycle spans the length of a long human life, roughly eighty to one hundred years, a unit of time the ancients called the saeculum. Together, the four turnings of the saeculum comprise history's seasonal rhythm of growth, maturation, entropy, and destruction:

The First Turning is a High, an upbeat era of strengthening institutions and weakening individualism, when a new civic order implants and the old values regime decays.

 The Second Turning is an Awakening, a passionate era of spiritual upheaval, when the civic order comes under attack from a new values regime.

The Third Turning is an Unraveling, adowncast era of strengthening individualism and weakening institutions, when the old civic order decays and the new values regime implants.

The Fourth Turning is a Crisis, a decisive era of secular upheaval, when the values regime propels the replacement of the old civic order with a new one.

The next Fourth Turning is due to begin shortly after the new millennium, midway through the Oh-Oh decade. Around the year 2005, a sudden spark will catalyze a Crisis mood. Remnants of the old social order will disintegrate. Political and economic trust will implode. Real hardship will beset the land, with severe distress that could involve questions of class, race, nation, and empire. Yet this time of trouble will bring seeds of social rebirth. Americans will share a regret about recent mistakes— and a resolute new consensus about what to do. The very survival of the nation will feel at stake. Sometime before the year 2025, America will pass through a great gate in history...  But in the crucible of Crisis, that will change. As the old civic order gives way, Americans will have to craft a new one. This will require a values consensus and, to administer it, the empowerment of a strong new political regime. If all goes well, there could be a renaissance of civic trust, and more.

 Strauss, William; Howe, Neil (2009-01-16). The Fourth Turning (Kindle Locations 154-156). Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

Why Does Our President Hate Our Federal Parks? Or Is It Us?

These were two letters to the editor written into their 150 word framework, but they work together to complete this argument of how little the Democrats and our President cares for the citizenry; their collective agenda is everything.

The evidence is in and there is little doubt the White House is directing the closure of all the Federal Parks in the country * and not because there is no choice because of the partial Government shutdown; the US has had numerous partial government shutdowns, but only under this President have the parks been closed (maybe it's a Democrat thing as Governor Brown pulled the same stunt in California  in 2011 in order to save .1% of the budget it takes to keep the parks open**). In this case it costs nearly twice the cost to refuse access to many parks as it does to keep the parks open***. One might ask wonder why our President dislikes the Park system that the American people love so much. The answer comes from a DC Park Ranger when he explained his marching orders, We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can." ..So it's not the Parks; it's us!

*Further proof President Obama is personally directing the closing of Federal Parks, Nancy Pelosi at a rally for illegal immigration rights , defended the president, thanking him for making an exception to the shutdown and “enabling us to gather here.” "She also said veterans told her the administration “bent over backwards” to allow them to visit the World War II Memorial on the Mall, which has been the site of several clashes between the public and park rangers since the shutdown began." The truth of course the is no need for the President to bend over backwards, he could simply allow the veterans to visit the WWll Memorial as he allowed the illegal immigrants on the Mall; something he shows no interest in doing. As Harry Reid recently said, "Why would I want to do that?" The end result is it is not a huge jump to realize that The President and the Democrat leadership has no respect at all for the American people; they are simply a means to an end. 

**The Federal Park System budget is approx $3 billion which is .08 % of the countries $3.7 trillion Federal Budget (that's about 1/15 of 1%). In other words the President wants to close down the crown jewels of country, which it is estimated to costs local communities $30 million a day, for what boils down to a rounding error of the Federal budget,

***People first noticed what the NPS was up to when the the World War II Memorial on the National Mall was “closed.” Just to be clear, the memorial is an open plaza. There is nothing to operate.Sometimes there might be a ranger standing around. But he’s not collecting tickets or opening gates. Putting up barricades and posting guards to “close” the World War II Memorial takes more resources and manpower than “keeping it open.” Park Police 
 
Our President just wants the American people to suffer unless he gets his way. The White House has ordered every  Federal park closed, but made sure the federal golf courses were left open. Many of these are open air parks that  cost more to close, than to keep them open. Harry Reid, when asked about keeping the funding for NIH child cancer patients, flippantly  said, "Why would I do that?," apparently meaning that regardless of the cause, the American people will continue to suffer. While the press and Democrats continue to harp on not stopping Obamacare (it's the law and constitutional), it was enacted against the will of the people and remains the most contentious law in memory. American exceptionalism means the will of the people is more important than taxes or the over reaching dictates of a repressive  government. That's what 1776 was all about, or have we all forgotten?

Edit:

This added item is enough to leave one speechless with the governments hubris;
In South Dakota the Park Service attempted to cone off  the pull outs on the highway near Mount Rushmore! so the mountain could not be viewed! When they were caught and questioned about it the Federal park system told representatives of the the state the cones were a safety precaution to help channel cars into viewing areas rather than to bar their entrance. Look at the photo and you decide what purpose the cones served.

Gestapo Tactics Meet Senior Citizens at Yellowstone "...thousands of people ... found themselves in a national park as the federal government shutdown went into effect on Oct. 1. For many hours ... (a) tour group, which included senior citizen visitors from Japan, Australia, Canada and the United States, were locked in a Yellowstone National Park hotel under armed guard. The tourists were treated harshly by armed park employees, she said, so much so that some of the foreign tourists with limited English skills thought they were under arrest."

 

MIT Climate Scientists Call IPCC report "Hilarious Incoherence"

With climate week coming to the UN it may be worth looking at the IPCC's new assessment on Man Made Global Warming (AGW); basically the report says it ain't happening, especially since 1998. This of course means that every climate change computer model has produced bunk. It also turns out that Arctic ice, which had been melting  at a record rate is now growing back at a record rate; 60 % in just one year! In an article in Popular Technology.net it turns out the 97% consensus on AGW  was greatly exaggerated with many of the scientists complaining that John Cook's team falsely classified their papers as "endorsing  AGW." Finally you have the commissioner of the EU policy on global warming admitting the science appears to not sustain AGW, but that the EU should follow through with it in the event it proves to be true in the future. EU, Climate Change Policy Right Even if Science Wrong This is not to say the IPCC has given up on global warming. While they admit they don't understand the recent lack of warming, they have doubled down with their computer models saying the proof of AGW is greater than ever. The lack of warming they say should be looked at with the knowledge that climate occurs over thousands of years, so a decade without warming is not that consequential. This sounds reasonable unless you realize that AGW is based on proxy science, meaning it is based on what is already known about historic climate change, which only goes back about 100 years and it was  the warming of the 1980's and 90's that was in part, the bases of the proxy science proof of AGW; in other wards the AGW proponents themselves sold AGW on the warming of a few decades. Further, the AGW proponents have locked AGW together with C02 being a heat trapping gas and therefore heating up the planet, but during the last 15 years C02 levels have increased at a rapid rate but there has been no warming.

The real issue is AGW is a political notion not really based in science. The current school of thought amongst the AGW proponents trying to explain the failure of all their computer models, is the warming air is hiding in the ocean and there are governments, including the US that castigated the IPCC for not giving enough weight to this supposition. “The U.S. also urged the authors to include the ‘leading hypothesis’ that the reduction in warming is linked to more heat being transferred to the deep ocean,” US and Europe tried to Cover Up Data Showing Lack of Global Warming The mere fact the government entites is involved in any way with a scientific report shows it is political and not scientific.

Climate scientists from MIT explain the since the previous computer models  failed to include the transfer of heat into the ocean question the validity of the extent of AGW. “However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability,” Lindzen continued. “Thus, they now, somewhat obscurely, admit that their crucial assumption was totally unjustified.” Top MIT Scientists say IPCC climate report hilariously flawed “I think that the latest IPCC report has truly sunk to level of hilarious incoherence,” Dr. Richard Lindzen told Climate Depot, a global warming skeptic news site. “They are proclaiming increased confidence in their models as the discrepancies between their models and observations increase.”

When a human body is shot or stabbed and a main artery is ruptured, the person will usually bleed out in 30 seconds. During the beginning of the 30 seconds the person can be alert and seemingly functional;  in other words the body is dead, but the brain doesn't know it yet.

Nancy Pelosi and Her, Let Them Eat Cake Moment

If ever there was a "Let them eat cake" moment it was Nancy Pelosi's statement, "There is nothing left to cut in the budget." First, there is no budget. The Democrats and President Obama have colluded with each other, so over the last 4 years there has been no budget; just continually raising the debt limit to fund the "continuing resolutions" and "baseline budgeting", guaranteeing the need for ever more tax money. Since the Democrats have refused to submit a budget for a vote,  the only way to cut spending is to remove funding from the continuing resolution, which Democrats say is Republican hostage taking from a routine vote to raise the debt ceiling. The fact is the continuing resolution is anything but routine and is supposed to be enacted only in the case of a budget crisis; this has allowed the Democrats to shirk their most basic responsibility to fund government with a budget.  Nancy Pelosi will never have need of anything, but she and President Obama have forced a plan upon our country  with lies so inclusive, that not one aspect of Obamcare is as presented or promised.  The end result is a 30 hour work week and an expanding lower income voting block now dependent on government. This is the what Obama said he needed to target to implement his progressive agenda. The people want bread and butter jobs but Nancy Pelosi offers trillion dollar deficits that subsidizes poverty, unemployment and underemployment and calls it cake.

Syria; Lets Not and Say We Did..

 President Obama drew a line in the sand (red) and said the use of chemical weapons in Syria would be a game changer. When that failed he used a Jedi mind trick (which only work on the weak) saying the UN had actually drawn the line years ago, he was only the messenger. Next he said he would use military force in Syria and didn't need Congressional approval. However when US allies turned their back on him, Obama said he would ask for Congressional approval, even though  he would still do what he wanted.  Now that the American people have said absolutely not,  Secretary of State Kerry was sent out to say the planned Syria attack will be "smaller than you can imagine". Well I can Imagine pretty small; as a matter of fact, lets just not attack and say we did; I mean at this point, who would know?

Now that SofS John Kerry's gaff about al-Assad giving up his chemical weapons has become US policy, John Kerry now claims that is was the administrations threat of an "unbelievably small" use of military force is what cased al-Assad to agree. Really? So now we have the specter of UN resolutions on Syria for elimination chemical weapons, which will require weapon's inspectors access to various facilities that may or may not be granted. It's Déjà vu all over again!

My Enemy's Enemy and the Syrian Rebels' False Flag

There is an Islam saying, "My enemy's enemy is my friend". It appears the President Obama has taken this to the extreme as while Americans are dying at the hands of al Qaeda in Afghanistan he is now singing their praises in Syria, desiring to ally the US with these terrorists in the name of human decency, while al Qaeda  allied terrorists continue to murder rape and torture in Syria. In other world al Qaeda is our friend because they are enemies with the Assad Regime, but the enemy in Afghanistan that destroyed the Twin Towers and murdered over 2700 American Citizens on 9/11/2001; I guess we're going to need a score card. *Now the claim is that Syria has completely ignored their own self interest and used chemical weapons on it's own people (the last time chemical weapons were used in Syria it was aimed at Syrian soldiers and the UN investigation blamed the rebels). This time again there is a great deal of suppressed evidence, including al Qaeda  jihadists publicly claiming  responsibility and our President is alone in the world wanting to punish Syria for a crime they have yet to make a case beyond a reasonable doubt.

In May 2013 Secretary of State John Kerry used the same argument that only the Assad's Regime had the ability to maintain and disperse sarin gas. However a short time later Syran Rebels were arrested at the Syrian border with 2 kg of sarin gas Russia Asks Turkey for Info on Sarin Terrorist. This of course destroyed Kerry's talking points so it was simply ignored by the main stream press in the US. Further the the results of the UN investigation of the gas attack in May resulted in the UN declaring an almost surety that the gas attack was done by the rebels, not the Assad regime. Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack Carried Out by Rebels says UN. There is also the fact that the Syrian Rebels have had access to the Syrian Regime's chemical weapons since they temporary took control of the Syrian Sheikh Suleiman military base in December 2010, The Sheikh Suleiman base is thought to have been a key node in the Syrian military's chemical weapons program.
Syrian Government Accuses Rebels of Launching Chemical Attack These ongoing scenarios are so embarrassing that they have made the US and President Obama the laughing stock of the world and destroyed whatever credibility and respect remained since Obama took office. The real question in my mind is why Syria? What is so important about taking sides in the proxy war that originally started as the Syrian civil war. Is Obama going Down the Same Path as G.Bush and WMDs?
 
Regardless of the facts of who is using the sarin gas, we clearly have a proxy war building in Syria, with the US (representing Saudi Arabia), al-Queda and the Sunnis on one side and Russia, Assad, Hezbollah, and  the Shiites on the other. The inclusion now of Hezbollah in this Syrian  proxy war is quickly disintegrating into Sunni-Shiite sectarian conflict that could easily spread though out the middle east.  Further there is no way one could guarantee that the weapons the US will be feeding the non al-Queda rebels will not end up in the arms of al-Queda.

The answer appears to be as simple as the Obama legacy.  However the legacy may not be what Obama wants. President Obama's Foreign Policy Legacy  (History will see) the overthrowing (or attempt) of the sovereign states of Egypt, Libya and now Syria and handing the coutries over the likes of the Muslim Brotherhood. As in Iraq, the removal of a strong man/ dictator has resulted in sectarian violence and civil war. While the Presidential rhetoric has always been the need for Democracy in these countries, the reality is the citizenry in these Arab states are simply ignorant when it comes to the responsibilities of a Democracy and the end result always turns to Islam and Sharia law. One has to wonder why the President of the United States, the Land of Liberty is so apologetic towards Eastern Islam (ie the Muslim Brotherhood), which is violently misogynist, vehemently anti-gay and anti-education and overtly anti-democratic; as the saying goes, an Arab democracy means 1 man, one vote, 1 time.

*Update; there is now a video showing what is described as the Syrian rebels launching a chemical weapon in the August chemical gas attack. Video shows rebels Launching Gas Attack. There has also been another credible investigation that Syrian al Qaede launched the gas attack Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?