This is an election year, and the most important race in America is the 23rd Congressional District of Florida. EVERY member of the House of Representatives is up for re-election – that means that Debbie Wasserman Schultz (DWS), best known for her 1980s’ cheerleader hairstyle and her lies, must run. She currently represents the 23rd district and is also Chairman of the Democrat National Party; hence I say this is THE MOST IMPORTANT POLITICAL RACE in America.
Opposing her in November will be one of two Republicans running in the August 26th primary (early voting is August 15-24, and absentee ballots will be mailed July 22). For all Americans not just conservatives, and not just Floridians, the choice is obvious, what is needed is a candidate who is opposed to amnesty (history demonstrates appeasement never works). Both Republican candidates make some nice statements about the issue on their websites, but Juan Garcia’s recently revealed that he actually supports amnesty, a position more in line with Debbie Wasseman Schultz and the current occupant of the White House. Joe Kaufman on the other hand makes it quite clear on his website, just below the “we are a nation of immigrants” statement that: “As a member of Congress, Joe Kaufman will fight for the rights of legal immigrants and insist we never reward those who break our laws.” WOW – someone who gets it, and he is running for Congress.
This is the man who must run in November to defeat DWS. Florida is often shown on election maps as blue, but in fact it is closer to purple (a mixture of blue and red) so this is a race that needs to be taken very seriously. The 23d Congressional District covers an area of South Florida from Weston to Miami. So I urge you to tell everyone you know in Southern Florida about this election.
Most of the illegal immigrants who are in, or who are headed for, the United States are under 18, and about 80% are not exactly children, they are 14-17 year old males – the ideal recruiting age for gangs. Not only that but many have contagious diseases. Furthermore, the economic impact of a surge of low-skilled, uneducated, non-English speakers who come to this country for whatever benefits available to them is not something any the United States really afford, even at the best of times.
Now I have a question for all of those who think that if someone breaks into your house or takes your wallet they should be arrested because it is a crime. What about people who come into your country in violation of the law?
Now some people don’t like the term “illegal immigrants.” In Maryland for example Democrat Governor Martin O’Malley believes that illegal immigrant children should be called “refugees.” Hey, Gov. O’Malley, those “children” are nearly adults legally, and you only have to keep up on the news to know that. Fortunately Rep. Andy Harris (R-MD) discovered that the federal government was attempting to bring some to Maryland and took action forcing HHS (Health and Human Services Department) to cancel their plans to send illegals to Westminster, Maryland just 35 miles from Baltimore. Even the black community in Baltimore, which usually supports this administration, is opposed to the idea.
A woman in Kentucky is demanding answers from a local VA hospital after she claims her husband was erroneously pronounced dead.
According to Jennifer Dunn, doctors at the Lexington VA Hospital assured her last week that her husband, Danny Dunn, was no longer among the living.
The wife was given her husband’s time of death, but when she went into his room to bid a final farewell, she found Mr Dunn with a strong heart rate and blood pressure.
It all started last Thursday morning when 46-year-old Danny Dunn, an U.S. Army veteran, was discovered unconscious by his wife in their Central Kentucky home.
The former soldier was rushed to a hospital in Harrodsburg and was later airlifted to the VA Hospital in Lexington, where medical personnel pronounced him dead.
‘I said, “Are ya’ll sure he’s gone?” and they said, “There’s no pulse, ma’am, he’s gone,”‘ Jennifer Dunn told LEX18.
In accordance with her husband’s end-of-life wishes, Mrs Dunn made the decision to take him off life support, but she quickly discovered that Danny still had vital signs. Utter shock: Jennifer Dunn was given her husband’s time of death and went into his room to take him off life support, in accordance with his end-of-life wishes, when she discovered that he still had vital signs
As of Monday, the 46-year-old veteran was very much alive, and according to his wife, apparently growing stronger.
‘He squeezed my hand when I asked him to,’ she said. ‘He opened his eyes when I asked him to. And he grabbed my hand.’
The Dunn family now want the ailing husband and father transferred to another hospital for treatment.
The VA facility in Lexington released a general statement to the local TV station, which read in part: ‘Veterans can have confidence that our staff of dedicated and professional providers is committed to working with them and their families to honor their wishes and support their needs.’
But the Dunns are far from satisfied with the hospital’s response to the near-fatal blunder.
‘They said his soul was gone and that he wasn’t living no more,’ said Dunn’s son, Tyler. ‘That he was gone long before we got him there… I mean we’re just looking for answers and they won’t give us any.’
There is great good news for those, who like myself, were looking for a loophole to evade the unconstitutional, and unaffordable, Affordable Healthcare Act, AKA Obamacare. John Berlau and Michael Mayfield have provided an excellent run down at American Spectator in their Praying for an Obamacare Escape, Health care ministries offer IRS-free shelter (see here).
As to Obamacare (which crashed again today), well, I have a few questions about that:
• How could more people have healthcare, at a lower price yet there would be the same number (or fewer) doctors?
Obama promised that if you liked your doctor, you could keep your doctor (same number of doctors?) and if you liked your policy, you could keep your policy. Both lies of course, but how could that be? It could not. Doctors are quitting at high numbers. Also enrollment in medical schools, so I have heard but have no data, is down. Numbers of nurse practitioners is increasing. This is problematic, since many have no or little practical experience and certainly little training as compared to physicians. Yet, they will be treating patients as if they were doctors. Patients may not know the difference, they may think they are seeing a physician when in fact he/she is a nurse practitioner.
• Intimidation is a powerful force, and it is pretty clear that the general population of America is not that well educated thanks to public schools. BUT did anyone seriously believe that in a country where nearly everyone has a cell phone, and/or, internet access, plus nearly everyone capable of using either has a strong sense of privacy, that like lemmings the population of the United States would accept the violation of their privacy necessary to enroll in Obamacare?
Apparently the Obama administration thought so, evidence that this administration really, really doesn’t understand the American people and American culture.
• The government was going to get involved (as if the post-office, or anything else the government is involved in really works). Wouldn’t the government taking on one sixth of the economy be kind of expensive?
Billions has been spent, untold and unreported Billions, on the website, promotions by the government, payments to organizations to promote, and eventually insurance companies will be bailed out (even more than they already are?).
• The government, aka Obamacare, was going to do the enrolling, but you would still be going through some sort of health insurance company. Don’t insurance companies have costs? Doesn't this just add another layer (government) of costs?
Since the government has no 'insurance company', existing health insurance companies must be involved (until they go out of business or the government forces a national insurance on Americans). Costs? A financial burden has been placed on insurance companies that must change policies, update policies so they meet government standards - to what extent we really have no information.
• One party, the Democrat Party, had been trying to persuade the American people that they needed nationalized health care for more than 30 years. Why was their opposition so opposed?
•Nationalized health care has never worked in any country, and many who have it are trying to get rid of it. So why would it work in America?
• Finally, it is my understanding that the Constitution of the United States of America is the law of the land. When was there a repeal of the Tenth Amendment?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.
Seeing as the Constitution of the United States of America makes no mention of health care, federal taxes, education, nor any department or regulatory body related to these activities doesn’t that make Obamacare an illegal, i.e. unconstitutional, law?
For those who still believe that Obamacare is the law of the land, let me say just this: so was slavery.
VATICAN CITY (CBS St. Louis) — The Vatican’s chief justice feels that President Barack Obama’s policies have been hostile toward Christians.
In an interview with Polonia Christiana magazine –and transcribed by Life Site News — Cardinal Raymond Burke said that Obama “promotes anti-life and anti-family policies.”
“It is true that the policies of the president of the United States have become progressively more hostile toward Christian civilization. He appears to be a totally secularized man who aggressively promotes anti-life and anti-family policies,” Burke told the magazine.
The former archbishop of St. Louis stated that Obama is trying to “restrict” religion.
“Now he wants to restrict the exercise of the freedom of religion to freedom of worship, that is, he holds that one is free to act according to his conscience within the confines of his place of worship but that, once the person leaves the place of worship, the government can constrain him to act against his rightly-formed conscience, even in the most serious of moral questions,” Burke said.
Burke took a swipe against Obama’s Affordable Care Act over the law’s birth control mandate, saying “such policies would have been unimaginable in the United States even 40 years ago.”
“In a democracy, such a lack of awareness is deadly,” Burke told the magazine. “It leads to the loss of the freedom which a democratic government exists to protect. It is my hope that more and more of my fellow citizens, as they realize what is happening, will insist on electing leaders who respect the truth of the moral law as it is respected in the founding principles of our nation.”
What individuals and what organizations might be considered 'radical'? One might think Muslims would be the first suspects, but no. According to the article at InfoWars:
Doctors in Britain are being forced to become state snitches and spot “radical” patients under an NHS initiative that threatens to cut funding if a GP practice fails to take part in the program.
Under the new NHS England policy, every GP practice must send a member of staff on the “Prevent” counter terrorism course, during which they are trained to detect patients who are ” vulnerable to radicalization,” before notifying authorities.
In addition to the “lead” staff member who takes the course, all employees of the practice must be made aware of the strategy.
Labeling the program “mindless bureaucracy,” former GPC chair Dr Laurence Buckman said, “It is so silly and ridiculous that I can’t believe NHS England are requiring this or making CCGs responsible for it.”
Other doctors raised the issue that forcing GPs to become informants for the state by demanding they monitor “radicalization” of patients would be a clear breach of patient-doctor confidentiality.
“It is completely disproportionate and a poor use of GP resources and time. It is effectively asking GPs to be a government intelligence agency,” Dr Maureen Baker, chairwoman of the Royal College of General Practitioners, told the Express.
As we have highlighted, British authorities have cited the need to combat radical political beliefs as a justification for invasive and chilling state interference in the private lives of citizens.
Last week, the Mayor of London Boris Johnson said that parents who teach their children to be “full of hate” should be targeted by social services, with Johnson suggesting that children whose parents are supporters of the British National Party, a right-wing organization that vehemently opposes immigration, may be taken into care in “extreme” circumstances.
However, children are already being taken from parents in much less “extreme” circumstances, such as in the case of a couple who had their foster children removed by the state because they were members of the UK Independence Party, the third largest political party in Britain.
Meanwhile, Scotland recently passed a law that designates a state minder to every child in the country up to the age of 18, a move described by the Christian Institute as a, “dreadful extension of the state’s tentacles into family life.”
Here in the United States physicians are being ordered under Obamacare to ask patients if they have guns in the home and other invasive questions and apparently report back to the government. Can it be long before physicians are forced to report TEA Party members who have been called terrorists and other names by Obama supporters?
While searching for something else on the internet, this researcher/writer had a common experience – finding something incredible valuable on a totally different topic, one I have generally avoided – Obamacare (The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). The first thing I found was a fascinating article titled Ursuline Nuns, Thomas Jefferson, andSynchronicity here. The crucial feature of this article to my way of thinking is the letter transcribed below (the original is not difficult to read) but if you would like to see it yourself, the link is here.
This letter, written by Thomas Jefferson to the Ursuline nuns at New Orleans, is on display at the Old Ursuline Convent in New Orleans. The letter is not always included in books by or about Jefferson, hence it is not as well known as some of his other writings. His letter makes it clear that this is the land of the free, and that the intention of our founders when creating our government was to permit the maximum amount of freedom “without interference from the civil authority.”
Washington, May the 15 (19?), 1804
To the Soeur Therese de St. Xavier farjon (sic) Superior, and the Nuns of the order of St. Ursula at New Orleans.
I have received, holy sisters, the letter you have written me wherein you express anxiety for the property vested in your institution by the former governments of Louisiana. The principles of the constitution and government of the United States are a sure guarantee to you that it will be preserved to you sacred and inviolate, and that your institution will be permitted to govern itself according to it’s own voluntary rules, without interference from the civil authority. Whatever diversity of shade may appear in the religious opinions of our fellow citizens, the charitable objects of your institution cannot be indifferent to any; and it’s furtherance of the wholesome purposes of society, by training up it’s younger members in the way they should go, cannot fail to ensure it the patronage of the government it is under. Be assured it will meet all the protection which my office can give it.
I salute you, holy sisters, with friendship & respect.
As a Founding Father of the United States, the third President, and the author of the American Declaration of Independence Jefferson knew full well the meaning of the founding documents of this country. So when he says that the constitution and government of the country are guarantees that the Ursuline nuns will “be permitted to govern itself according to it’s own voluntary rules,” one must take it seriously.
This letter was written to the Ursuline sisters, but it also applies to the current situation of the Little Sisters of the Poor, who have made a formal appeal against Obamacare over mandated abortions. They have every right to reject Obamacare, as does every other religious organization, and in fact every member of every religious organization. Jefferson writes of the institution, but according to the doctrine of the Catholic church, Jewish teaching, and the teaching of many Protestant denominations once you are a member of their institution (by birth or personal choice), you are a member for life.* Hence even lapsed Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc., regardless of their current opinion or status remain members.
But then we all knew that Obamacare is in violation of the Constitution of the United States of America – and if you don’t know that take a look at the 10th Amendment to the Constitution (if only Chief Justice John Roberts had taken it seriously). Some will say “but Obamacare is the law of the land.” To which I say “so was slavery.”
PS: Take that Nancy Pelosi.
*Obamacare provides an exemption for Muslims, who according to their religious beliefs are not permitted to purchase insurance, as Islam considers insurance “gambling.” So non-Muslims will be paying a tax to subsidize Muslims – this is dhimmitude.
In addition exemptions have been granted to Scientologists, Amish, Christian Scientists and Native American Indians who have a “conscientious objection” to insurance.
Lady Castronomics (Castro + gastronomics), see here, aka Michelle Obama, has had an ally, Lord CASTROnomics, for the last five years. She seems to have gone down this route as a form of projection. Seemingly incapable of controlling her own eating behavior, she may be compelled into controlling the eating behaviors of others.
Lord CASTROnomics, aka Michael Bloomberg, however, seems to have gone this route as a means to exercise his love of raw naked power because, after all, he is wise enough to know best how everyone should eat ,and even how it should be packaged. Although he has had only local influence, unlike Michelle Obama, he certainly has had a wider range of targets, most notoriously the size of sodas.
Like Lady Castronomics, Lord CASTROnomics is committed to healthy eating – by others. Lord CASTROnomics rued that it was impossible to determine the levels of sodium and fiber in donated food. If one could identify and control the sodium and fiber content of food at Gracie Mansion, it was unjust that the same could not be determined for donated food at a city shelter for the homeless. Some of the donated food over the last several decades has come from a large Orthodox synagogue, but as this is New York City, I don’t suppose Jewish counts as cultural diversity. I understand not accepting donations from individuals, but synagogues, churches, and caterers are hardly a threat – except Hizonor objected because they cannot calculate the amount of salt, fiber, etc. in these offerings. This is just one example of his thinking and overreach.
Michael Bloomberg has justly deserved his other nickname: Nanny Bloomberg. However the focus of so many of his nanny-ing tendencies has been food, in a city that holds eating in very high regard. To review a few of his efforts and achievements: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation in 2009 gave him their Leadership for Healthy Communities Award for his efforts, and if that isn’t confirmation of the title, Lord CASTROnomics, I don’t know what is.
Then there was his FRESH program, which offered zoning and financial incentives to developers, grocery store operators and land owners. Plus there was Bloomberg’s Green Carts bill and his “Healthy Bodega” initiative, which sounds a little discriminatory to me. Why not a “Healthy Deli” initiative, or some ingenuity to encourage healthy eating within some other group?
In fact I think I know of just the group, which often looks nervous and emaciated, although that could also be a result of all those double lattes, or perhaps it is their often mis-applied attempts at vegan eating. This group is most concentrated on the Upper East Side and I’m sure the yuppies there will be more receptive to Lord CASTROnomics’ nanny-ism than the Hispanics. After all, it was the yuppies who elected him.
Now it seems that before he leaves office, Lord CASTROnomics wants to ban plastic foam (aka Styrofoam), used extensively by delis, bodegas and school cafeterias. Hizonor wants to ban them as they add 23,000 tons of non-biodegradable trash a year to landfills. Mayor-elect Bill de Blasio advocated for a similar ban in 2010.
De Blasio (born Warren Wilhelm, Jr., or Warren de Blasio-Wilhem as he renamed himself before taking his current name) will be the second Lord CASTROnomics. It is unclear as to how much focus he will put on food, and to what degree he will be another nanny. However it is public knowledge that he is proud to be a Communist and was an active supporter of the Communist Sandinista government in Nicaragua. The new mayor may not focus on food, but it is certain that he will impose (Fidel/Raul) Castro style economics on the city. Therefore, I am dubbing him The Second Lord of CASTROnomics.
While I’m not sure if having a Communist in office beats a Jewish self-acknowledged sexual predator with a Muslim wife (who has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, see here), there is no question that both are a bad idea. Yet, this is exactly who New Yorkers have elected. Now that they have purged themselves of common sense and have ignored history, they will have to relearn the hard way that communism never, ever, works.
I, for one, am darn happy I don’t live in New York City, and to celebrate that and the completion of this essay, I plan on getting some take-out (ideally packaged in plastic foam) – a bagel and lox with lots of cream cheese, salt, fiber, and other content be damned. And I might just add an extra large soda to that order. Viva la libertad.
One of the subcontractors working on the Obamacare website is currently under investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Client Network Services Incorporated (CNSI) became a sub-contractor on the Obamacare website in 2012, working hand in hand with QSSI, according to its website. QSSI was one of several contractors hauled before Congress to address the sites troubled rollout in October.
According to Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) “war room” notes released in October, CNSI was responsible for assisting with electronic data interchange (EDI) — defined as a system to transfer data between computer systems without human interaction.
For three years we have heard, endlessly, about Obamacare. Since the failed rollout on October first of this year there has been even more in the news about it. But in all the words that have been published on the subject I have never seen anything on the subject discussed below. I am not overly involved in the whole Obamacare debate for several reasons and to innumerate the reasons is not the point. What I find very curious about Obamacare is that Americans were not up arms in open revolt about one very simple aspect long before it was discovered that President Obama had been lying to them for three years.
What if you change jobs?
Sure if “you like your plan and you can keep it” (now known as the chief lie of the Chief Liar). But what did that mean in the long term? It meant that you could keep it if you kept your job. For some that would have been the case and they are fine with it. Others may, if not today, tomorrow, or the next day, or next year want to change their job for any number of reasons. Nearly all of us have done this for one or more reasons, some valid, and some not so valid. However America is/was the land of liberty, the land of freedom, and to alter that is to make America less free, and to curtail our liberty.
If you could only keep a health care plan by remaining with your current employer what happens if for some reason you wanted go to work elsewhere? Or start your own business? Would you only look at potential employers who have an identical health care plan? And what if it was a self-insuring company? If you want to start your own business would you be required to turn to the same insurance company used by your current employer? If only by staying with the same employer, or staying with the same health care insurer, your options have been curtailed.
THIS IS SLAVERY – you options in life would be limited, it is not precisely slavery, it is more akin to serfdom, which is just a milder form of slavery. Only after serfdom vanished in Europe (at different points of time in different places) did Europe begin to flourish. This was true for every part of Europe, and it was only after slavery was abolished that America flourished. America fought a Civil War to end slavery and make black Americans truly free. Yet blacks were held down by Jim Crow laws (created and enforced by the Democrat Party). Slowly American blacks were freeing themselves, or being freed from Jim Crow. Then President Johnson via Civil Rights legislation (vetoed by many Democrats) provided blacks more opportunities while at the same time his Great Society ushered them onto a new plantation (where the Master is now the federal government). If you are black you may have access to free college tuition today but no father around thanks to the Great Society. The details are different for blacks today than in the past, but overall are a large number of them really any better off? Numerous studies have shown that children need a father around and this one factor makes a significant difference in their lives.
Now President Obama has found yet another way to enslave the American people of all races via nationalized health care. We have been warned by no less than the great British patriot Daniel Hannan not to go down this road. Since the end of World War Two the British have had nationalized health care and it has been disastrous for the British people. The British are continually tinkering with it around the edges but it still gobbles up a massive amount of money to deliver substandard health care leading to unnecessary deaths, etc. (ditto for most of Europe). This author has lived in three foreign countries with nationalized healthcare and can attest that it doesn’t work. Much of the rest of the world is trying to pull away from nationalized health care and for good reason.
For decades doctors and other medical personnel in countries with socialized medicine have uprooted themselves to come to America where the practice of medicine was freer and individual freedoms were greater as well. They, more than most, understand the destructive nature of nationalized health care. If American medicine is socialized, where do they go?
Folks, Obamacare is slavery, and it was obviously meant to be slavery (or serfdom if you prefer) from the outset. As Americans we should be opposed to slavery and serfdom. Rise up – you have nothing to lose but your chains.
This blog is an exercise in the author's First Amendment Rights as pertaining to Free Speech with all the protections as afforded & granted by the Constitution of the United States of America.
The blog owner is not responsible for content of sites linking to this blog or sites that this blog links to.
Opinions quoted on this blog or left as comments on this blog, do not necessarily represent the opinions of the blog owner.
Opinions included in articles written by anyone other than the blog owner, do not necessarily represent the opinions of the blog owner.
If you are offended by anything written, quoted, excerpted, referenced, linked to ... on this blog: Then go somewhere else.