Obama care is designed to kill America as we know it!

The Truth About the Health Care Bills
– Michael Connelly, Ret. Constitutional Attorney
Well, I have done it! I have read the entire text of proposed House Bill 3200:
The Affordable Health Care Choices Act of 2009.
I studied it with particular emphasis from my area of expertise, constitutional law. I was frankly concerned that parts of the proposed law that were being discussed might be unconstitutional. What I found was far worse than what I had heard or expected.
To begin with, much of what has been said about the law and its implications is in fact true, despite what the Democrats and the media are saying. The law does provide for rationing of health care, particularly where senior citizens and other classes of citizens are involved, free health care for illegal immigrants, free abortion services, and probably forced participation in abortions by members of the medical profession.
The Bill will also eventually force private insurance companies out of business, and put everyone into a government run system. All decisions about personal health care will ultimately be made by federal bureaucrats, and most of them will not be health care professionals. Hospital admissions, payments to physicians, and allocations of necessary medical devices will be strictly controlled by the government.
However, as scary as all of that is, it just scratches the surface. In fact, I have concluded that this legislation really has no intention of providing affordable health care choices. Instead it is a convenient cover for the most massive transfer of power to the Executive Branch of government that has ever occurred, or even been contemplated. If this law or a similar one is adopted, major portions of the Constitution of the United States will effectively have been destroyed.
The first thing to go will be the masterfully crafted balance of power between the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches of the U.S. Government. The Congress will be transferring to the Obama Administration authority in a number of different areas over the lives of the American people, and the businesses they own.
The irony is that the Congress doesn't have any authority to legislate in most of those areas to begin with! I defy anyone to read the text of the U.S. Constitution and find any authority granted to the members of Congress to regulate health care.
This legislation also provides for access, by the appointees of the Obama administration, in direct violation of the specific provisions of the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, of all of your personal healthcare information, your personal financial information, and the information of your employer, physician, and hospital. All of this is a protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. You can also forget about the right to privacy. That will have been legislated into oblivion regardless of what the 3rd and 4th Amendments may provide.
If you decide not to have healthcare insurance, or if you have private insurance that is not deemed acceptable to the Health Choices Administrator appointed by Obama, there will be a tax imposed on you. It is called a tax instead of a fine because of the intent to avoid application of the due process clause of the 5th Amendment. However , that doesn't work because since there is nothing in the law that allows you to contest or appeal the imposition of the tax, it is definitely depriving someone of property without the due process of law.
So, there are three of those pesky amendments that the far left hate so much, out the original ten in the Bill of Rights, that are effectively nullified by this law. It doesn't stop there though.
The 9th Amendment that provides: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people;
The 10th Amendment states: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are preserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Under the provisions of this piece of Congressional handiwork neither the people nor the states are going to have any rights or powers at all in many areas that once were theirs to control.
I could write many more pages about this legislation, but I think you get the idea. This is not about health care; it is about seizing power and limiting rights. Article 6 of the Constitution requires the members of both houses of Congress to "be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution." If I was a member of Congress I would not be able to vote for this legislation or anything like it, without feeling I was violating that sacred oath or affirmation. If I voted for it anyway, I would hope the American people would hold me accountable.
For those who might doubt the nature of this threat, I suggest they consult the source, the US Constitution, and Bill of Rights. There you can see exactly what we are about to have taken from us.
Michael Connelly
Retired attorney,
Constitutional Law Instructor
Carrollton , Texas

Obama care is designed to kill America! 

Stop Shooters from Voting!

I know how to stop the next school shooting, save the children and restore some sanity to America. Adam Lanza, the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooter, was on medication, we now know. So were previous shooters like the two students at Columbine High School in the 1999 Colorado shooting. Medication makes some people go crazy with violence. (did you know that all these shooters have very liberal back grounds and vote democrat?)

There has been a lot of talk these past few days about banning guns. But the idea of banning guns from all the GOOD people -- the sane, law-abiding citizens of America -- is ludicrous. What really makes sense is banning gun purchases and ownership among mentally MEDICATED people.

Yep. If they're on psychiatric meds, they get no guns. But why stop there? Vehicles are very dangerous metal machines, too, and if people on meds are too dangerous to own guns, they should be too dangerous to operate high-velocity rolling chunks of metal (cars and trucks) on public roadways, no?

That's why I say ban all medicated people from operating motor vehicles. Given that there are currently 32,000 deaths each year in America from motor vehicle accidents, we're talking about saving a thousand times the lives of the children in Sandy Hook!

But why stop there? Electing the wrong President can be just as dangerous as operating a motor vehicle or shooting up a school. The wrong President, you see, can drag a nation into deadly wars, just as we've seen with Bush and Obama. So for those people who are too dangerous to own guns, and too dangerous to drive motor vehicles, they should also be declared too dangerous to VOTE.

Voting, obviously, should be conducted only by someone in a clear state of mind, should it not?

And why even stop there? I think we should ban people on psych drugs from becoming members of Congress. After all, Congress is where the most insane people tend to congregate, and probably at least half of them are on mind-altering meds (and brain-numbing cholesterol drugs). No wonder they can't even read the bills they vote on!

Allowing medicated members of Congress to vote on legislation is a lot like allowing medicated, video-game-playing teenagers to own assault rifles. The outcome is sometimes disastrous...

I'm serious...

This article is only partially satire, by the way. If we're going to talk about banning things in America, let's get serious about the altered mental states being caused by psychiatric drugs, and let's get psych drugs to come with warnings and red flags that preclude people who take those drugs from operating firearms, vehicles or voting booths.

Guns, cars and votes should only be commanded by people of sound mind who are NOT subjected to chemical influences. In society today, we don't tolerate people drinking and driving. So why do we tolerate people medicating and voting?

And if there's any effort to ban guns at all, it needs to be concentrated on those medicated individuals who are not of sound mind.

Below is what a doc has to say about drugging your children in school;
"I don’t have a whole lot of choice,” said Dr. Anderson, a pediatrician for many poor families in Cherokee County, north of Atlanta. “We’ve decided as a society that it’s too expensive to modify the kid’s environment. So we have to modify the kid.”

Those kids doing the killing in school...they all are on or have been on drugs to control their behavior.

Want to stop violence in school,  stop creating monsters with drugs!

Defense of Marriage Act

The letter below from Senator Merkley is in reply to my  letter of opposition to him. Although he is incorrect and foolish on his stance, I respect that he had the fortitude to reply to me, even understanding that it was a form letter.

Dear Bruce,

 

Thank you for contacting me to share your views about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). While we may disagree on this issue, please know that I respect your opinion and appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective.

Equal rights for every American is one of our most cherished constitutional principles, one that our nation is continually striving to meet  For this reason, I believe that committed same-sex couples should have the same basic rights that heterosexual couples do. This is where the Senator goes astray. What he believes is not what the law and the constitution says. If same sex couple wish to live together that is there decision. But, marriage and the benefits of such a relationship should not be granted to them. Marriage is between a man and a woman. This is Gods design and has been excepted all of history. Should liberals promote such a watering down of the institution of marriage? Why should the definition be changed to benefit couples that are engaged in an immoral act? They are not in an equal relationship as, heterosexual couples, that is simply impossible, as defined in all of nature. It’s the male/female thing. Male animals and female animals may gather together and even segregate at times, but not for sex.     DOMA prohibits the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and permits states to refuse recognition of such marriages performed in other states. NO state should be legalizing same sex marriage. Gays can be treated as a person with an illness and extended compassion but no one has the right to legitimize their behavior. Where would this line of thought stop? What would be wrong with child sex? Rape? Murder? Stealing? Are we not denying people from doing what they wish, even what they believe they have the freedom to do? What about unmarried couples (straight or gay) living together, why are they discriminated against? Is all that’s standing in the way…a piece of paper? Why have marriage at all? Doesn’t that just discriminate against all unmarried couples? WHAT IS MARRIGE? I think that is the one question and one that needs to stay unchanged. Marriage is a legal union between and man and woman. Gays want something like that? Then let them call their union a…coupling.     In other words, the act strips couples legally married in five states of their marital rights, such as Social Security, health care, and even the right to visit each other in the hospital.  This form of discrimination undermines our constitutional values.  Every American, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity, is entitled to full equality under the law. Two men living together do not have the same responsibilities as a man/woman and never will. Do not compare apples to oranges. Do not patronize or insult me! Gay men have the same rights as unmarried straight men. Gay men do not have a female reproductive organ. They (gay men or gay women) can have sex all day long with each other but they will make no babies, no new human life. Their relationship is not the same as heterosexuals couples and should not have the same rights or share the definition!

 

Thank you, again, for sharing your thoughts with me.  Even when we reach opposite conclusions, I appreciate that we can communicate our views. I hope you will continue to keep me informed about the issues that matter most to you.   Yep, count on it

 

Sincerely,

Jeffrey A. Merkley
United States Senator

HURRAH FOR THE DEMOCRATS!

HURRAH FOR THE DEMOCRATS!

Jesse Jackson's Newest Staff Member

Mel Reynolds

Jesse Jackson has added former Chicago Democrat

Congressman Mel to Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll. 

Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused

in President Clinton's
last-minute forgiveness spree. 

Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year
federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud,

and lying to the Federal Election Commission. 

He is more notorious, however, for concurrently serving

five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer.

This is a first in American politics:  An ex-congressman who had

sex with a subordinate...won clemency from a president who had

sex with a subordinate...then was hired by a clergyman who had

sex with a subordinate!

His new job?

Ready for this??

***** YOUTH COUNSELOR *****

IS THIS A GREAT COUNTRY OR WHAT?

Obama Care and Taxes

Under the new health care bill - did you know that all real estate transactions will be subject to a 3.8% Sales Tax? The bulk of these new taxes don't kick in until 2013 (presumably after obama’s re-election). You can thank Nancy, Harry and Barack and your local Democrat Congressman for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, there will be a $15,200 tax. This bill is set to screw the retiring generation who often downsize their homes. Is this Hope & Change great or what? Does this stuff makes your November and 2012 votes more important?


Oh, you weren't aware this was in the obamacare bill? Guess what, you aren't alone. There are more than a few members of Congress that aren't aware of it either (result of clandestine midnight voting for huge bills they've never read). AND, there are a few other surprises lurking

Obama supports Gay Education Czar

Will Obama ever stop trying to destroy America?
Just compile the facts of who this man appoints, who he surrounds himself with and who he calls friends


It's past ime for "Safe and Drug Free Schools" Czar to resign.



Kevin Jennings is an open homosexual who is now serving the Department of Education as President Obama's "Safe and Drug Free Schools" czar.

Jennings is the founder of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN), which pushes so-called "anti-bullying" policies which GLSEN admits are really about promoting "affirmation" of homosexual behavior in the school system.
Jennings is intolerant of the "religious right," 90% of whom enroll their children in public schools, and said in a 2000 speech "I'm trying not to say '[F---] 'em'...I don't care what they think. Drop dead!"

He wants homosexual indoctrination of students at all levels, having written the forward to a book entitled Queering Elementary Education, and saying in 2004, "Ex-gay messages have no place in our nation's public schools...There is no ‘other side' when you're talking about lesbian, gay and bisexual students."

By his own admission he failed his legal duty to report what he believed to be a case of statutory rape when a young student approached him for counsel after the boy had been preyed on by an older adult in a local bus station bathroom. Jennings' main piece of advice: "I hope you know how to use a condom."

Kevin Jennings is not qualified under any ethical standard to be entrusted with the safety of our nation's public school children.

Contact Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and your members of Congress today!

Democrats kill health care

Please view the video here. Senator Jim DeMint sums up the agenda of Obama and the democratic controlled government.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHbwdZXeUFo

Swine Pig Flu has potential for Human Pandemic

BREAKING NEWS: WHO Health chief: Swine flu has 'pandemic potential'
4/25/2009

Never-before-seen mixture of swine, human and avian viruses kills up to 68.

GENEVA – An outbreak of swine flu in Mexico and the United States is a quickly evolving situation that has "pandemic potential," the head of the World Health Organization said Saturday before an emergency meeting of flu experts. WHO Director-General Margaret Chan said the North American outbreak of a never-before-seen virus was a very serious situation. She called Saturday's emergency meeting to consider declaring an international public health emergency over the outbreak, which is believed to have killed dozens of people in Mexico and sickened at least eight in the U.S. The experts are also expected to recommend whether WHO should raise its pandemic alert to a higher level. At least 62 people have died from severe pneumonia caused by a flu-like illness in Mexico, according to WHO. Some of those who died are confirmed to have a unique version of the A/H1N1 flu virus that is a combination of bird, pig and human viruses. Mexico has closed schools, museums, libraries and theaters in a bid to contain the outbreak, which may have sickened about 1,000 people there. "The situation is evolving quickly," Chan said at a telephone news conference in Geneva. "A new disease is by definition poorly understood. "In the assessment of WHO, this is a serious situation which must be watched very closely." "This is an animal strain of the H1N1 virus, and it has pandemic potential because it is infecting people," Chan said. "However, we cannot say, on the basis of currently available laboratory, epidemiological and clinical evidence, whether or not it will indeed cause a pandemic," she added. It is the first time Chan has convened such a crisis panel since the procedure was created almost two years ago, spokesman Gregory Hartl said. The committee may decide Saturday that the outbreak constitutes a public health emergency, and if so, whether WHO should consider measures including travel advisories, trade restrictions and border closures. The global body's flu pandemic alert level is now set to phase three — meaning there is no or very limited risk of a new virus spreading from human to human. The committee "will be asked, 'should we raise the alert level to phase four or phase five,' depending on their appreciation of how far the virus has spread," Hartl said. An increased alert level was considered likely, as initial evidence from the outbreak in Mexico indicates the virus has spread between people. Hartl said, however, that a decision would not be made Saturday.