Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Nancy Pelosi Said She Has The Votes To Pass Health Care Today

Queen Nancy PelosiNancy Pelosi said she has the votes to pass ObamaCare if the vote was held today. Now if she really truely believes she could pass health care today what is she waiting for? Wouldn't you pass the bill today if you have the vote to pass it today? We are all holding our breath to see what is in this bill the Democrats can't make their minds up on. The suspence is killing me. This is like the game show Lets Make A Deal. I just hope we didn't win the jackass behind the curtian.                                                                                                                                                There is something I just don't understand about this Voodoo health care bill. We are being told that this bill will save us money in the end. Why do we have to pay almost $2 Tillion to save money? That just doesn't make sense to me. And with 83% of Americans thinking Obama is a liar. Maybe 83% of Americans can't be wrong. Maybe this suprise health care bill behind curtain number 2 is another big fat lie. This is what Nancy Pelosi had to say. Tell me if this sound logical or more like BS to you.
"Yes," Pelosi said when asked if she believed the House would end up having the votes to approve healthcare.

"If we took it up today, yes," the Speaker quickly added.  

Pelosi still cautioned, though, that the timing and actual vote count on the bill couldn't be entirely set in stone until the final legislative language was finalized and until the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) delivers its score of the bill's impact.

Killing Corky

Boy child with Downs syndromeSame boy with Down syndrome from different angle and expression
Sister and brother playing on the beach, the boy has Downs SyndromDown syndrome child blowing bubbles
If there was just a way that we could kill off this group of geneticly useless group of humans. They have no value to our society. It's not like they can teach us anything like love and compasion. We need to come up with a test where we can find out who these Down Syndrome kids are before they take their first breath. If we could legally kill these Down Syndrom people in the most traumatic brutal way,then maybe we could purify into a master race of Americans. If people complain about this genocide then we just have to say it's for the better of the family and that dead aborted Down Syndrom baby. Who would ever want to let another human live like that? Happy and loving your fellow man with all your heart. Every time I look at a family with a Down syndrom child I see the sadness in their eyes,even though they are smiling and loving that love of their lifes. We need to get on a Progressive plan to rid this world of this dissease Down Syndrome and the pain and suffering it brings with it. Just look at the pain in those kids eyes in the pictures. Don't you think we should do the best thing for those kids and this country by testing for this form of disablity and push in a Progressive way to erradicate these Down Syndrome babies? Just look at how much distreas Sarah Palin caused to Progressives by not killing her baby. Most Progressives thought it was better for Trigg Palin to be ground up into little pieces then to be born and given a life like that. What a caring group those Progressives are. They have the love of mankind in their hearts. Ya just can't see it easily. But they tell us they love everyone and we should believe them. And the Progressives that say that they don't agree with aborting these kids but women should have the right to kill them is just a cop out to relieve their consciences. Sorry but you are part of the problem. Now if they would put most of the abortion clinics in black and poor areas of the country we will be well on our way of a Progressive future. Now I don't believe one word of this but it is basicly what is being done to groups of people inm this country. It is a form of genocide that would make Hitler proud. The left is killing races of people as well as a genocide on one of the most precious develomental disablity on the planet.  I put myself through college by working with disabled people. We have some in our Church and I will tell you they teach me plenty. I wish I was half the man they are. God gave us these gifts and we allow the distruction of them. Now just think what the government will do when they allow a more Progressive health care system. Is this progress to you? Is this a country you could be proud of? Look at this baby and tell me that anyone should have the right to do this to a child of God! If you have the right to do with your body as you please then why is suicide illegal? Why can't you sell your life,body and parts? You need to rethink the meaning of life if you think anyone should be aloud to murder this living humanbeing.

Is Health Care a Right?

Walter E. Williams :: Columnist
Is Health Care a Right? 
Design Pics Images

by Walter E. Williams Most politicians, and probably most Americans, see health care as a right. Thus, whether a person has the means to pay for medical services or not, he is nonetheless entitled to them. Let's ask ourselves a few questions about this vision.
Say a person, let's call him Harry, suffers from diabetes and he has no means to pay a laboratory for blood work, a doctor for treatment and a pharmacy for medication. Does Harry have a right to XYZ lab's and Dr. Jones' services and a prescription from a pharmacist? And, if those services are not provided without charge, should Harry be able to call for criminal sanctions against those persons for violating his rights to health care?
You say, "Williams, that would come very close to slavery if one person had the right to force someone to serve him without pay." You're right. Suppose instead of Harry being able to force a lab, doctor and pharmacy to provide services without pay, Congress uses its taxing power to take a couple of hundred dollars out of the paycheck of some American to give to Harry so that he could pay the lab, doctor and pharmacist. Would there be any difference in principle, namely forcibly using one person to serve the purposes of another? There would be one important strategic difference, that of concealment. Most Americans, I would hope, would be offended by the notion of directly and visibly forcing one person to serve the purposes of another. Congress' use of the tax system to invisibly accomplish the same end is more palatable to the average American. True rights, such as those in our Constitution, or those considered to be natural or human rights, exist simultaneously among people. That means exercise of a right by one person does not diminish those held by another. In other words, my rights to speech or travel impose no obligations on another except those of non-interference. If we apply ideas behind rights to health care to my rights to speech or travel, my free speech rights would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with an auditorium, television studio or radio station. My right to travel freely would require government-imposed obligations on others to provide me with airfare and hotel accommodations.
For Congress to guarantee a right to health care, or any other good or service, whether a person can afford it or not, it must diminish someone else's rights, namely their rights to their earnings. The reason is that Congress has no resources of its very own. Moreover, there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy giving them those resources. The fact that government has no resources of its very own forces one to recognize that in order for government to give one American citizen a dollar, it must first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other American. If one person has a right to something he did not earn, of necessity it requires that another person not have a right to something that he did earn.
To argue that people have a right that imposes obligations on another is an absurd concept. A better term for new-fangled rights to health care, decent housing and food is wishes. If we called them wishes, I would be in agreement with most other Americans for I, too, wish that everyone had adequate health care, decent housing and nutritious meals. However, if we called them human wishes, instead of human rights, there would be confusion and cognitive dissonance. The average American would cringe at the thought of government punishing one person because he refused to be pressed into making someone else's wish come true.
None of my argument is to argue against charity. Reaching into one's own pockets to assist his fellow man in need is praiseworthy and laudable. Reaching into someone else's pockets to do so is despicable and deserves condemnation.

Obama Once Again Doesn't Care What We The People Think About Fishing Freedom

It all started here this morning:
The Obama administration will accept no more public input for a federal strategy that could prohibit U.S. citizens from fishing the nation’s oceans, coastal areas, Great Lakes, and even inland waters.
I had to read that 3 times before it sank in…and then I did a little research. Guess what old Barack (I’ve never had a fishing rod in my hand a day in my life) Obama has been up to since last year? Plotting a Federal takeover of all our bodies of water (freshwater…saltwater…doesn’t matter), in an effort to set up MORE bureaucracies and circumvent the rights of the States to determine fair use and access rules amongst themselves based on the local interests of everyone involved.
If he was out to ban recreational fishing this piece would be easy enough to write; scream a little, stomp my feet, vow he’ll have to pry my fishing rod from my cold dead hands, etc…and be done with it. Problem is, this is much darker and more corrupt than that.
The White House plan would establish 9 regional planning bodies (bureaucracies) whose job would be to bring “Federal, State, and Tribal Partners together” to look for ways to “decrease user conflicts; improve planning and regulatory efficiencies and decrease their associated costs and delays; and preserve critical ecosystem function and services.”
It should come as no surprise that the Administration is no longer accepting comments or input from the public (though you should click through to see some of the doozies that WERE accepted), and it should come as no surprise that a member of Obama’s Administration (Jane Lubchenco, NOAA administrator) has some interesting ties with a couple private charities and goofy greenie groups whose interests will be very well served by a Federal takeover of our various bodies of water:
While she possesses impressive academic and professional credentials as a marine biologist, she also has close ties to those who produced the November document. For example, she was a trustee of the Environmental Defense Fund, and served on the Pew Oceans Commission.”
More below the “who needs jobs and successful multi-billion dollar industries anymore, anyway?” fold…

More info here, and a call for some Asian Carp-killing love here. Don’t miss the policy pdf here if you really want your head to explode. Read between the lines folks…this will lock down oil exploration faster and farther than the moratorium Congress JUST let expire ever did, and allows the greenies to set policy for fishing AND boating (at the expense of millions of jobs and billions of boating and fishing industry dollars).
ALWAYS worry when you read this from Obama’s people: “The planning process would be fully transparent and participatory.” and don’t forget to laugh out loud when you follow up with this timeless classic: “Places Science-Based Information at the Heart of Decision-Making. Scientific data, information and knowledge, as well as relevant traditional knowledge, will be the underpinning of the regionally developed plans.”
How’s that “settled” climate change science mumbo jumbo working out again?                                                                                                                                                              My fishing and hunting buddy(Gramps) used to tell me stories of how my great grandfather used have to take carp from the Tzars waters when he was a young man. There was no fishing and hunting unless the Tzar said it was OK. That is one of the main reasons why Gramps felt it was so important to enjoy that freedom to fish here in America. These waters and the fish in them are ours not the govenments. We the people had to be good stuards of the land and waters God has intrusted us with. But it is common knowlege that sport fishing has no negative impact on fish populations. In fact sport fishing and the industries that surround it have had a possative impact on the fishing. It was the tax $ that bought the lands,cleaned up the waterways and planed the fish in those waterways. But to the Obama admin we don't matter to them. We are here to serve them not they serve us in their minds. I have been fishing my hole life and so does my wife and two sons. Fishing and hunting is a part of our lives and our birthright as an American. Good luck stopping me from my hunting and fishing. I put in my time to help clean up the messes I didn't make so that I and my kids would have trout running in the rivers again. We need to pray for this country and pray hard because Obama is becoming a true enemy of the state when he takes away the rights of me and my state for the rights of fish.