Friday, July 17, 2009


"If we can prevent the government
from wasting the labors of the people,
under the pretense of taking care of them,
they must become happy."
--Thomas Jefferson

We're in for a ride!
Make no mistake: The health care debate going on in Washington
is about one thing,
and it is not the millions of uninsured Americans.
It's about the Obama administration's goal of turning this country into a socialist nation.

President Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
are pushing Congress to pass the health care overhaul before the August recess,
riding roughshod over the protests not only of Republicans,
but of some Democrats, many business interests and hospitals.
Obama has made clear that, as White House advisor David Axelrod put it,
"Ultimately, this is not about a process, it's about results. ...
We'd like to do it with the votes of members of both parties,
but the worst result would be to not get health-care reform done."

Wednesday, the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee
passed the "Quality, Affordable Health Coverage for All Americans" bill,
otherwise known as QAHCAA
(pronounce it as it looks -- CACA).
The House Ways and Means Committee followed suit Thursday.
No Republicans have voted for it so far,
and several Democrats have voted against it.

During the presidential campaign, Republicans,
including candidates Fred Thompson and John McCain,
warned about the tax implications of electing Obama president.
They were right.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel (D-NY) announced late last Friday that Congress would pay for health care by hiking taxes on the households earning more than $350,000 per year and individuals earning $280,000.

The hike would put New York's top bracket at nearly 60 percent. Rangel predicts revenue of $540 billion over 10 years. Democrats' ultimate goal is to have the highest income earners pay for health care for everyone else. But even the liberal Washington Post editorialized, "There is simply no way to close the [funding] gap by taxing a handful of high earners."

To cover part of this deficiency,
Democrats propose cutting tax breaks for hospitals
because they don't provide enough charitable care to earn them any longer.
According to the American Hospital Directory, fewer than half of the 5,482 hospitals in the country actually pay federal, state or local taxes.
That will change.
Furthermore, the hospital industry agreed this week to take
$155 billion less in payments from the government,
leaving the money to cover the uninsured.

Beyond the money, the regulations are mind-boggling.
In the "Limitation On New Enrollment" section on page 16 of 1,018,
under the Orwellian heading
"Protecting The Choice To Keep Current Coverage,"
the bill states: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law.

In other words, according to Investor's Business Daily, "[W]e can all keep our coverage, just as promised -- with, of course, exceptions: Those who currently have private individual coverage won't be able to change it. Nor will those who leave a company to work for themselves be free to buy individual plans from private carriers." Private individual coverage will be outlawed by attrition.

Meanwhile, Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) added an amendment to the bill that would require all health insurance companies to provide unspecified "preventive care and screenings" for "pregnant women and individuals of child-bearing age." Asked if this would include abortion, Mikulski sidestepped: "It would provide for any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate."

More "highlights": CNS News editor in chief Terence Jeffrey also reports that "the legal use of tobacco products is the only vice for which insurance companies will be able to charge their customers higher premiums," adding, "a person could have been admitted to hospitals three times for heroin overdoses, or been pregnant five times out of wedlock, or been treated for venereal diseases at least once per year for the past five years, but none of these factors could be used to charge that person a higher insurance premium." Jeffrey further notes that the bill calls for improved immunization coverage, including the use of "reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits" to accomplish it. Yes, home visits.

Ronald Reagan once said, "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'" Little did the Gipper know just how terrifying those nine words could be.
"I don't know many small business men or women who are making, themselves, $280,000 [per year], so I'm not sure that very many small businesses are going to be affected by this [$540 billion tax hike]." --House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

Note to Steny: Small businesses organized as Subchapter S Corporations file individual returns for gross earnings. Such a business would have to be small indeed to report less than $280,000 in income.

This Week's 'Braying Jackass' Award

"I don't know how that one percent of households did over the last 10 to 15 years, but my sense is pretty well. I think the president believes the richest one percent have had a pretty good run of it." --White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on raising taxes on the "rich" to pay for health care

Now we understand -- as long as the rich "have had a pretty good run of it," it's okay to take their money and give it to someone who is less fortunate. After all, as former Democrat congressman Dick Gephardt once said, "Those who have prospered and profited from life's lottery have a moral obligation to share their good fortune."

17 JULY 2009



He is not eligible to be
President of the United States
because he is not a Natural Born Citizen
as required by Article Two, Section One, Clause Five of the United States Constitution.

This is a fact REGARDLESS of
where he was born (Mombassa, Hawaii, Chicago, Mecca or Mars).

He is not eligible
because he was not born of
at the time of his birth as required by the Constitution.
His father was a subject/ciitizen
of Kenya/Great Britain at the time of his birth and afterwards.
The FACT that he was not born of TWO US CITIZEN PARENTS is all that matters. The question of his birth certificate is a distraction (a distraction fostered by Obama’s supporters?) that ought not to occupy our time and resources.

However, it is possible that he is not a United States
citizen at all even if he was born in Kenya, as three witnesses have testified. The reason is because his mother could not pass her US citizenship on to her son because she did not live continuously in the United States for five full years after her fourteenth birthday as required by the US immigration law in effect during that period of time.

Check it out:
Also, an excellent introductory primer on Obama Presiidential Eligibility is to be found at:

His usurpation can only be corrected (1) by Congress through his Impeachment and Removal [something which will never happen in a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid], or (2) it can be
corrected by his resignation, which could happen if the public presssure on him to resign becomes great enough, or (3) by his removal by the United States Supreme Court affirming a Quo Warranto decision of the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia [which process Attorney General Eric Holder would never allow to even begin] or (4) by an amendment to the Constitution,
which will never happen because that again would require the agreement of a Congress controlled by Pelosi/Reid.


“During the 2008 election, then Senator Obama published a statement at his website which said that his birth status was ‘governed’ by the British Nationality Act of 1948. Can you please tell me, and the American people, how a person governed - at birth - by British law, can be a natural born citizen of the United States and thus constitutionally eligible to be President of the United States?”

- Leo Rugiens

1 comment: