Before Barack Obama, before President B. Hussein Obama claimed that he "couldn't wait" for Congress, I had always thought that De Gaulle's statement was witty, and humorous.
Sounding like this President, it just sounds like a scary premonition.
The US Secretary of State has been up to her eyebrows in these secret treaty negotiations. None of the contents of the ACTA treaty were made public until most nations had signed onto it. Here in the US, the secrecy was considered necessary to prevent "grave damage to the nation".
I hope that Secretary Clinton learns that adhering to honest negotiation, in full public view and with full disclosure, means that surprises like this angry rejection can be avoided.
The blame, though, goes to The One that sets foreign policy. President Obama has gone behind so many backs in his career, he doesn't understand how to be honest. And he doesn't see a reason to be honest.
I hope that Secretary Clinton takes this failure of the negotiations of the last four years to heart. And I hope the Republicans bring it home to roost on both of their doorsteps.
"All the President is, is a glorified public relations man who spends his time flattering, kissing and kicking people to get them to do what they are supposed to do anyway.
Harry S Truman, Letter to his sister, Nov. 14, 1947
33rd president of US (1884 - 1972)"
I think the part of President B. Hussein Obama's presidency that scares me the most, is that he cares nothing for what people are supposed to do anyway. He wants us to do what he wants, which violates the mandate for a President.
OK, not Dilbert, but Scott Adams that writes the Dilbert comic strip on life in the dead-end corporate world. Today, Wally gets paid off for being discriminated against -- and he wonders what to do with a $1 billion dollars, now that he is one of the 1%. Pointy haired boss directs him to "the tiny unicorn with a golden key".
On DayByDayCartoon.com, Damon (sorry about this link. It just seems the most cynical,apropos snark on the pursuit of the opposite sex, ever.) has been running for US President (from the comic strip). DbD has always been non-Demcrat, pits two sisters and their families across the liberal/conservative divide. The take is that liberals have good intentions but tend to make matters worse for the most people, and there *is* no voice for conservatives, since the Republican party is so heavily invested in business as usual, they are uninterested in Constitutional government, checks and balances, or the will of the Republican party let alone the American people.
DbD tends to lampoon President Obama as a throwback to the pre-Revolutionary war French king, with period costume and obsequious lackeys.
Another touch point of mine on the internet is a farmer from Indiana, Frank W. James. Mr. James is a professional gun writer of long standing, with several books to his credit, and several magazine articles and columns currently. Frank refers to the current resident of the White House as President Unicorn, with scant admiration.
It is seldom that Dilbert strays so far from mundane office politics and snark, even indirectly into Presidential commentary. To be fair, this might be a snide comment on the Occupy rudderless disturbances (with their support from labor unions and Obama's re-election committee). The 1% is an Occupy/Obama talking point reference. The unicorn, though has long been a symbol used by President B. Hussein Obama's detractors.
Day By Day (DayByDayCartoon.com) is fun to read; I pick it up with my Bloglines RSS reader.
Today is again a pointed snark at President B. Hussein Obama - pitting his spending and regulating spree firmly against the US Constitution, against American values, and against the will of (at least some) of the people.
Filed under "Arrogance and Elitism", please check out America Girl today.
OK, so the NRN cartoon is funny - B. Hussein Obama closes the Yucca Mt. dump for the nation's nuclear waste - building for what, 20, 30 years?
The cartoonist laments a need for a useless place that no one will care if the stuff gets dumped there - a worker is in place to use the US Capital building, implying the less than useful halls of government might as well be put to constructive use.
Ha, ha.
The reality is that there is heat - energy - left in "spent" nuclear reactor fuel. Plus, the by-products and such might make B. Hussein some real good friends. Like in Iran and Venezuela. Today, it isn't commercially viable to recover useful material - why recycle, after all? - it costs more than it will produce. Much like recycling plastic and aluminum, and paper. And regulations might be prohibitive, too.
But that isn't to say that B. Hussein might not see the advantage of getting all of that nuclear material to someone that would appreciate it. He has to be thinking of his retirement nest egg, after all.
Net Right Nation reports an editorial in today's Washington Examiner. The story lists what happens with local governments, how the press reports "executive sessions" behind closed doors with big money interests. And the Washington Examiner criticizes the national mainstream media for allowing Reid/Pelosi/Obama to take personal, secret control of writing ObamaCare.
The press isn't reporting the secret meetings, or the process used to reconcile the bills. See, the House version of health care takeover passed. Then the Senate wrote a bill loosely based on that House version, all taking into account potential benefits for national labor unions and existing money interests. Then Reid started paying off Senators to bribe them into voting for the result.
The Story
Congress, until now, used to form a Conference Committee with representatives from the House of Representatives and the Senate, and work through differences between two versions of bills. Meetings would be bipartisan, the needs and interests of supporters and critics alike would, more or less, be respected. The Conference Committee, then, under a Constitutional form of government such as the US had before the Obama non-inauguration, a merged compromise between the two versions would be reported out, and that report bill would be voted again by each house, to assure that the result was approved by both houses, then be sent to the President for signing or passing into law - or return to the Congress.
Only, Obama doesn't care for the public scrutiny or lack of control that turning the two versions over to a Conference Committee might risk. Senator Reid, especially, cannot allow a compromise bill to undue any of the graft and kickbacks added on to placate various Senators - that might lose a vote or two that might not get the report bill passed.
And we all know how badly organized . . um, labor, takes disappointment. Pelosi and Reid, and Obama, are too worried to allow the law to take it's Constitutional course.
So, that is the story.
The Problem
The problem, aside from violations of the US Constitution, is that major media reporters and organizations aren't reporting this corruption of established procedure. They aren't agitating for adherence to the promises each of the triumvirate made, about having a free and open government.
The Washington Examiner editorial and Net Right News make that point - that instead of the howling and accusations at abuses during the Bush years, the reporting seems to quietly accept payoffs and backroom dealings on the first grand expansion of the federal government this year. (Wait for the Food Safety Organization bill, the NAIS program to kick in, and wait for labor unions to win the rest of their payoffs for swinging the 2008 elections.)
Business assignments, vs. obeying the law
The Washington Examiner points out the requirements that professionalism and the nature of the task assigned to reporters covering the US Government. Except their assignment and responsibility is a matter of business practice. News organizations exist to make money, either directly for their parent media company, or as a loss leader. Stories are dropped, trimmed, edited, and reinvented based primarily on what will "sell" - first to the editor, then to the publisher, and last to the public
It is Obama, and Reid and Pelosi, that swore and oath, and oath that defines their legal status, authority, and responsibilities. They each swore to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and swore furthermore to execute the office to which they were elected/selected according to the definition of that office in the Constitution and in published regulations.
That doesn't seem to bother any of them, that they abuse their oath of office, they violate the authority invested in them.
Reporters, editors, and publishers for mainstream media have a business obligation to do good. It is a legal requirement for Reid/Pelosi/Obama to abide by the law.
Let's keep that straight, at the Washington Examiner and Net Right Nation. We can and should feel disappointed at the disrespect of the mainstream media, for not reporting about corruption, graft, and abuse of process in an accurate and timely manner. We should feel outraged that no one is filing criminal complaints and impeaching those that abuse their office and seek to avoid or ignore restrictions on authority defined in the US Constitution.
As you can tell, I agree with the outrage and disappointment of the Washington Examiner editorial. I just think they assume facts not in evidence - no one reporting "news" has a real, moral requirement to be complete and honest. They have jobs. Like most other US Citizens, they are entitled to pay attention or ignore the details and scope of what is done in the name of governing the United States.
Let's go through it once again. These reporters are doing what their business wants them to do. Those Congress people and that President are violating procedure and the Constitution.
Even if you are not worried that someone might draw from these vitriolic attacks a license to try to hurt the president, you have to be worried about what is happening to American politics more broadly.
Mr. Friedman's point that death threats and discussions about B. Hussein Obama are wrong - cannot be disputed. The America promised in the US Constitution is a nation of rule by law - extra-legal acts are against those laws. That should be simple enough for everyone to understand.
But Mr. Friedman takes a surface view only. He looks at who badmouths and belittles - and threatens - who.
I personally find that B. Hussein Obama has exceeded his authority under the Constitution. Constitutionally provided checks and balances - the Congress and the Supreme Court have not addressed those abuses of office. Congress persistantly aids and abets, in some cases, as in the hounding and badgering - for public consumption and political gain - AIG bonuses, an issue that should have been beneath the notice of Congress, in the larger issues facing America.
The Supreme Court, with it's newly appointed racially bigoted political hack justice, Sotomayor (and what did Obama do to get Souter to resign?), has yet to address Obama interfering in the restructure - and firing a CEO - of GM and Chrysler.
Pelosi/Reid/Obama have chosen to wield their power for political gain, for corrupt enrichment of hangers-on, and to punish those with wealth they covet. This is a dangerous, dangerous action, taken in such a way that they create a scenario where the safeguards of the Constitution are thwarted. In effect, by acting as tyrants, by enacting whatever they want in the face of popular opposition, they create a sense of desperation in their opponents. Desperate opponents need to see formal safeguards in action - or desperate responses may be tried.
Since taking office, President B. Hussein Obama has taken frequent steps to curtain and interfere with gun ownership, and frequently denied plans and actions taken. This pattern of bald-faced deceit has raised the hackles, paranoia, desperation, and anger of his opponents. No one doubts that Obama still intends further attacks on gun ownership - in flat defiance and disregard of the Bill of Rights - but is biding his time, planning his next moves.
This is not the way I believe a President governs in a constitutional government. In fact, I believe President Obama has violated his oath of office - to support and defend the Constitution, and thus should be impeached. I am firmly convinced that for now, the US House of Representatives is flatly incapable of honoring it's duty to consider and serve a bill of impeachment if warranted. I am convinced that the Pelosi-led House would block consideration of a bill of impeachment of the President, and would, on party lines, neglect to consider the merits of holding the President to the contents of the US Constitution, and to his oath of office. That is, the Pelosi-led House is acting in a tyrannical manner.
Reid has less of a political plurality to work with, but seems even less likely to follow the path of honor than political expedience. His Senate confirmed Sotomayor, after all. And continues to confirm fringe, radical, bigoted, and anti-American Obama appointees.
Are we to the point where the Declaration of Independence states, "When in the course of human events . . ."? I am offended at the Obama administration, and the Democrat-led Congress that this question occurs to me.
Mr. Friedman, you lament the "dangerous" atmosphere endangering our President. I do as well. But from my chair in Oklahoma, it seems that organized labor and radical elements of the Democratic party are largely to blame for making villains of opposing candidates.
As for the birth certificate - three supposed facts keep the issue alive for me. Kenya, as a nation, believes Obama to be their native son. The certificate of live birth from Hawaii is incomplete as a birth certificate of a natural born citizen of the United States, not requiring that the birth took place at the facility cited. B. Hussein Obama has spent time, energy, and effort to conceal the original of his birth certificate. In addition, there are so many questions about Obama's background, including who financed his Ivy League college education, what his participation was in the Chicago politics that sold his Senate seat - did those same factors buy it for him in the first place? Obama claims to be Christian, with a 20 year membership in Rev. Wright's racially polarized congretion. Yet, within days of publication about that congregation, Obama no longer belongs - was it faith that kept him going to church, political expediency, or a cover for the Muslim beliefs of his early schooling and childhood?
It seems incredible to me that a closet-raised, inept, unschooled person could make as many foreign affairs blunders by accident. If President Obama isn't deliberately trying to dismantle America's place in world stability - by giving away our honor, our promises, our friendships - he sure makes himself look stupid. And this from a background of world travel, Ivy League education, and a sitting US Senator.
I think the right place to start is an intense review of the most polarizing efforts by Congress and the President. Let supporters and opponents hear the arguments, and ask their questions. Let bills and actions be submitted for public comment and review. Act as representatives of the nation, rather than autocrats ruling with an iron fist and no concern about nay-sayers.
I actually think that the atmosphere of antagonism can be returned to a hashing of issues quite readily. It just takes all parties allowing their pet agendas to be legal, shaped by all interested parties, and a dedication to rule of law and the Constitution. There are laws and procedures and best practices in place for all of this. Let the leaders show that the Constitutional protections against tyranny are in place and that they work. That would be a really worthwhile change.
According to the AP, Oklahoma is late to the storm. State unemployment for August 2009 was up 2.9% since August 2008, and up .9% since July, according to the Associated Press out of Oklahoma City, OK.
It turns out the state gained some 1700 jobs in government last month. 1700 - that is a lot of stimulus money, and a lot of ongoing payroll. Now, remind me. What is it that government produces, what value does government add to the economy?
Because the state lost 1900 manufacturing and related jobs last month, and another 1100 in the service sector of the workforce.
Trading two jobs for one, while losing the ability of 3000 employees to increase value and serve the state and the nation.
Well, at least President B. Hussein Obama's union-owned car makers are doing better than they were. I sure wish Oh! Bummer had fewer political debts to pay off at the cost of the nation.
If it walks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck - maybe, just maybe, it is a duck.
Racism
I consider racism to be someone that permits stereotypes of racial actions and qualities to overcome their perceptions of people as people. A racist is one that prejudges people because of racial characteristics.
Is Glenn Beck racist? Beck calls B. Hussein Obama racist, with deep seated hatred of white people or white culture. Does that make the President racist? The Ed Show, MSNBC's Chris Matthews calls Glenn Beck racist - does that make these people or networks racist?
Is there a fundamental difference between attributing qualifications and character to a race - or an ideological label, and acting in hate-filled and dismissive manner toward all that identify them selves with the opposition on a spectrum of liberal / conservative?
So why is it that hating Glenn Beck is great, and worthy "news" and opinion fodder, yet expressing concern (as Glenn Beck did) that B. Hussein Obama is racist is hate speech?
The Ed Show takes off on bashing Glenn Beck. Starting with charges that Beck is "hiding behind his plastic Jesus", Ed paints Beck in an awful light.
Glenn Beck's quoted words are that B. Hussein Obama appears to have a deep hatred for white people or the white culture, Beck isn't sure which. This is a very long ways from declaring that Obama is acting in a racist manner, which is illegal.
In part two video, the Ed show gets a guest that disputes Ed's continued assertion that Beck doesn't cite any reason for the accusation, when Beck clearly cites Obama's 20 year membership in the Rev. Wright's church, with Wright's repeated white-bashing rhetoric. Personally I find the number of radical and violent and criminal figures of racial militants that keep showing up surrounding President B. Hussein Obama to be significant - of a deep opposition to the rule of law, if not hatred of the established structure or white culture or white race.
Chris "tingle down my leg" Matthews discusses the issue.
Matthew's guests, if not Chris himself, champion the extremist interpretation that the nation hates Obama because of his race, and pays no respect to those that oppose Obama's abuses of office. And Matthews and guests overlook completely the number of avowed racial hatred-centric people B. Hussein Obama has brought to Washington, D.C.
And that is what makes this look like official, sanctioned, orchestrated by the White House - Spin Control.
Spin Control
Those towing the Obama line seem to be reading from the same play book. Instead of looking at the opposition as helping to identify weaknesses and problems, they instead make the excuse that the opposition is hateful, is destruction-minded, and motivated by unthinking hatred.
Divide and conquer, isn't that how strategy is supposed to work?
When Glenn Beck states what many loyal and true American citizens observe, that our President appears to harbor hatred for whites and the America that is the result of 230 years of history, I believe Beck is correct. I do not hear Beck, or any conservative, challenge Obama's right to feel and think as he does. What I hear is an expression of concern, an erosion of the "hope and change" that was promised, that seems to be hope for some, change for the rest.
For the Tea Party tax protesters, for the gun rights advocates, for those wanting to keep America at work, watching B. Hussein Obama has been a necessary and arduous burden since before the inauguration. Fears that Obama and the rabid gun-control phobics he surrounds himself will attempt trickery, extra-legal tricks, legislation proposals, regulation changes, and any other means available to pursue their agenda - regardless of whether the legal means of proceeding indicate that the nation's consensus is that the proposals are wrong and harmful to America.
I find Fox and Friends' interview with Glenn Beck, when he made his "Obama has a deep hatred for white people or white culture, I don't know", merely places the concerns about underhanded and harmful and obnoxious dealings many have already experience from the Obama administration, into perspective.
Should we call the President racist, if we believe his actions and words are consistent with a deeply defining identity with one race in opposition to one or more other races? Yep. If I believe that the President's prejudices and history are pertinent, and racially motivated, then keeping that aspect pertinent and prominent may benefit those trying to understand those actions - and defend their own interests and / or the best interests of the United States.
Should someone stop us from calling the President a racist? Yes, if we advocate others hating him for that reason. Yes, if we advocate acting based on hatreds.
But we cannot identify and address hatred-based issues, if we are not permitted to discuss them. Obama supporters must admit to the racist actions, words, and companions of the President. Obama detractors must be clear that opposition is based on healthy disagreement with policy, or with disagreement of values, and not based on perceived or imaginary issues related to race.
So, lets assume that the wreck is on it's way, that ObamaCare is coming in some way, shape, or form.
How does the President hire enough paper pushers to fill all the offices that haven't been built yet?
Where do all the people come that will pursue a career in government service - and be unavailable to participate in the national economy?
One estimate has that 45 million, plus or minus, are uninsured. That ObamaCare disrupts everyone's health insurance while leaving 35 million still uninsured.
Are those 35 million uninsured to be drafted, to work civil service jobs and thus fall under civil service health insurance?
Remember, the government claims that unemployment is what, 9 or 10%? That is, not counting the additional 10% that aren't collecting unemployment because there aren't any jobs, but Washington, DC didn't like the numbers so they stopped counting them.
Unemployed and underemployed people are a problem for the economy - but they are also a vast and rich resource. Many are people that have educated and skilled backgrounds. As the economy improves, hiring should increase - will there be any left, after staffing Big Government, that will be ready to hire, ready to produce products and wealth that will feed families and pay taxes?
Will the managers and specialists needed to run the government's health care plan, by their absence, cripple companies wanting to increase production, to provide new services, to meet increased regulations?
Or is B. Hussein Obama planning to pull a gangster style packing operation, putting all his patronage chips in the hopper, putting all his cronies and ACORN and illegals and others into slots they aren't - and won't be for years - qualified to fill?
So, ok. We saw or read about or heard about the inauguration when B. Hussein Obama took an oath to uphold the US Constitution, and execute the office of President.
That is, he took an oath. A pledge, a promise. He gave his word. This was a big-deal ceremony - remember the tons of trash afterwards? Lots of trash to pick up - because he wasn't President until he finished with the oath.
So, now we have B. Hussein Obama doing what he thinks he should, acting as if he were President of the United States. As long as those in authority act like he is President, he has a certain cache in claiming the title, privileges, and responsibilities.
But what happens if there is dissent about whether he has failed his duties - or flat out broken his promise to uphold the Constitution?
I could point to the ex-CEO of General Motors, and claim that no President is allowed to step outside the prescribed authority of his office to do that. B. Hussein Obama has taken public and legislative steps to ban or restrict gun ownership, and also a few clandestine and underhanded moves. Recall the snafu a few months ago, when the Department of Defense told the ammunition manufacturers buying back the millions of pieces of brass - the leftovers after firing weapons in training - that they changed their procedures, and instead of being useful for reloading and selling at moderate expense to civilian shooters, the brass would now be shredded first.
The DoD shredded cartridge brass decision was changed, almost overnight. It turns out that that civilian market for less expensive brass - also supplied most training ammunition for many police and sheriff organizations. This clear intent to crater the market for ammunition was deliberately intended to drive the availability of ammo down, and inflate the price of ammo for shooters wanting to train or keep a quantity on hand.
When the President sets out to deliberately interfere with the amount of ammunition available to gun owners in America - is he in fact violating the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Arguably, preventing gun owners from obtaining ammunition pretty much blocks their ability to bear those arms. As they guy in Arizona said, if your gun isn't loaded, it isn't much good.
I still want to know what B. Hussein Obama did to cause Supreme Justice Souter to leave the bench. We know why - Obama wanted the cache of putting a chosen pick on the Supreme Court, and squandered that by selecting Sotomayor. Now-Justice Sotomayor has the advantage of being a liberal Democrat; her detractions include disparagement for the wording and history of the Court and the Constitution. There is likely room to be concerned about her competence in her chosen profession. Getting Sotomayor named and sworn in to the Supreme Court makes her a Supreme Court Justice. It does not answer questions about her competence, or whether she is an example of affirmative action, and not a symbol of the rise of someone based on overwhelming merit.
So, at what point is it imperative the question be asked - is B. Hussein Obama still true to his oath of office, and if not, does he actually hold that office?
ABC News' Political Punch tells the story of criticism by a Jewish group, that denies Congress, commentators, and concerned people the right to pull images and similarities to historical events in explaining and warning about current events. From the story:
“Regardless of the political differences and the substantive differences in the debate over health care, the use of Nazi symbolism is outrageous, offensive and inappropriate,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director and a Holocaust survivor.
I see two flaws in Rabbi Foxman's argument. First, that though the Jewish people were horribly targeted by Hitler's Germany, that other groups - the mentally handicapped, the Polish, other religions, etc. - also have cause to consider Naziism as a particularly personal cultural bogeyman. The atrocities committed under the Nazi flag do not cede that era and those events to the custody of the Jewish peoples alone.
Nazi Germany fouled and affected the civilized world.
The other flaw I see is that we, as a nation, do not benefit if we ignore the lessons of history, when we see the mistakes of the past being repeated today, and do not heed the historical and inevitable consequences.
Mr. Foxman assumes that all of the accusations and comparisons of B. Hussein Obama, his ruthless ride on the backs of the sycophantic Congress over the will of the people of the United States, and in disregard of the Constitution of the United States - Mr. Foxman assumes that all criticisms comparing today's turmoil to the events leading to the juggernaut of Nazi Germany to be mere hyperbole, mere rabble rousing speech - and not honest fear and trepidations.
The Obama administration shares another characteristic of Adolf Hitler in his rise to power - a fragile ego, a narcissistic taste for adoration, and an eagerness to identify and punish opponents.
Does B. Hussein Obama deserve being called another Hitler? Has he moved to make himself dictator, to dismiss constitutional bounds on his authority? Arguably he has already overstepped the authority of his office, and has yet to be called to account for those misdeeds. This particular slippery slope above an abyss of anarchy and despotism is troubling, as Congress repeatedly violates strictures to honor states' rights.
I understand that some have taken the names of the past, and identified individuals with them, that in some sense the atrocities of the past may be treated lightly in today's discourse. It is that very horror of the past, that degree of atrocity, that speaks to the fears of speakers against B. Hussein Obama and Congressional leaders. I may not comprehend, personally, the consequences of the socialist agendas of the past, but I can and do fear they are being brought to renewed life in specific detail in today's Washington, D.C.
Rabbi Foxman, please do not lightly dismiss the fears of honest citizens, when you criticize comparisons of a United States President taking actions that I can not distinguish from those of a socialist reformer. The very Constitution that protects your right to criticize, to defend your beliefs, is the same Constitution threatened by today's Congress and President.
---
In writing this piece, I have no criticism of the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, other than the specific topic above, criticizing the comparison of certain political statements and actions with the historical Nazi period.
I was interested to find that visiting the ADL web site, www.adl.org, was difficult. Four times out of five, the site timed out rather than allow me to visit. I never did get the contacts page to load. Perhaps access is blocked from North Central Oklahoma, United States. I hope Rabbi Foxman's apparent trust in the administration is well placed.
I have heard Congress, B. Hussein Obama, Breda's Fallacy, Total Survivalist Libertarian Rantfest, Victoria Jackson of SNL fame, and others decry the $1000 fine for not buying health insurance, making it illegal for health insurers to write new policies after Obamacare starts, etc.
So - what does the AMA have to say? Where are all the doctors, the ones with dependents, families, friends and communities? The doctors with careers invested in various communities and organizations?
What about the local and city hospitals, the medical schools and teaching hospitals?
What happens to research when medical care is doled out?
And why does anyone think that doctors won't retire en masse, migrate to a real country, or go black market?
Yes, I expect that B. Hussein Obama, retired Senators, and captains of industry and churches will continue to receive premium health care, and not through Obamacare. Just look at the amount of money that is made trafficing in drugs. Now consider what socialized medicine will do - reduce the practice of medicine to the midwife and physician's assistant. With all the real money to be made in medicine "off the books". Sounds like a Chicago gangland recipe for personal aggrandizement.
Victoria Jackson's post is being touted as absurd and wacko. But she does have a point. I disagree - vehemently - on the social and personal impact, and underlying assumptions, about abortion. But her assertion that the point of Obamacare is to euthanize (legally cause people to die, in a health care setting) undesirables makes sense. From one perspective, killing sick people costs less than treating them. Especially if they are feeble, or deformed, or maimed, or . . . there are just too many caucasians, or whatever. And B. Hussein Obama has already, in the Hate Crimes bill, defined that heterosexual caucasians cannot be victims of a hate crime, because they may not be considered a "protected class". That is in the process of becoming law, and anyone that doesn't think that will affect Obamacare is deluded.
What gets me, is creating a health care plan without statements of support from the people involved - the emergency and ambulance services, the doctors, the hospitals, the clinics. We stand to gain a government bureaucracy and *drafted* doctors. Or maybe just civil servants that want to transfer and work as doctors for a couple months.
Already introduced onto the floor of the Senate, Senate bill 909 is slated for fast track action. The time is slipping by to try to stop this horrendous "Hate Whitey" attack on equal justice for all.
The highly charged "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009" (S. 909) would make it a federal crime to violently attack anyone you hate.
Unless, of course, the anyone you hate happens to be a white heterosexual.
In the same NRN piece,
So, let’s get this straight: If Messrs. Obama and [Attorney General Eric] Holder have their way, the United States government – once fondly known as the “government of the people, by the people, and for the people” -- will begin prosecuting some of “the people” and protecting others among “the people” solely based upon said people’s skin color and sexual orientation?
Precisely. For you see, under S. 909, certain members of our society, primarily determined by the color of their skin and the lusts in their hearts, are what Obama and Holder call “protected classes.”
This is *not* a "slippery slope". This is *not* something a bit risky that might lead to something worse. S. 909 is the worse. This is the "divide and conquer" that classic warriors have found so successful.
Call your Senator. Please stop this legalized bigotry. Bigotry didn't strengthen our country before, it isn't likely to this time, either.
What next? Indentured servants - enslavement for non-payment of debts or taxes? Except among the "protected classes", I imagine.
Grew up on a NW Iowa farm. US Navy 1973-80, divorced 1981. Since then I have been a scientific programmer, web designer. Past licensed foster parent, substitute school teacher.
