BHO Environmental Czar: Van Jones: 'Spread the wealth! Change the whole system'

WND Exclusive

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

Using White House position to push communist policies?

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


Just days before his White House appointment, Van Jones, President Obama's environmental adviser, used a forum at a major youth convention to push for what can easily be interpreted as a communist or socialist agenda.

As WND previously reported, Van Jones, special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation to the White House Council on Environmental Quality, is an admitted black nationalist and radical communist.

Jones' appointment was announced on March 10.

Two weeks before he started his White House job, however, Jones delivered the keynote address at Power Shift '09, which was billed as the largest youth summit on climate change in history. A reported 12,000 young people were at the D.C. Convention Center for the event.

During his speech, available on YouTube, Jones threw around terms like "eco-apartheid" and "green for some," and preached about spreading the wealth while positing a call to "change the whole system."

In one section of his twenty-minute speech, Jones referenced "our Native American brothers and sisters" who, he claimed, were "pushed," "bullied," "mistreated" and "shoved into all the land that we didn't want."

"Guess what?" Jones continued. "Give them the wealth! Give them then wealth! No justice on stolen land ... we owe them a debt."

"We have to create a green economy, that's true, that's true. But we have to create a green economy that Dr. King would be proud of," he exclaimed.

Jones spoke about using what he termed an environmental revolution to push for other policies, including anti-war activism.

"If all you did was have a clean energy revolution, you wouldn't have done anything. ... You'll have bio-fueled bombers and we'll be fighting wars over lithium for the batteries instead of oil for the engines," he said to applause.

"This movement is deeper than solar power. ... Don't stop there! We are going to change the whole system!" he exclaimed.

The White House did not return multiple WND requests the past few weeks seeking comment on how Jones was screened for his position and whether the White House knew of his admitted radical past.

Jones on 9-11: Blame U.S. 'imperialism'

Last week, WND reported one day after the 9/11 attacks, Jones led a vigil that expressed solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans as well as what he called the victims of "U.S. imperialism" around the world.

Jones was the leader and founder of a radical group, the communist revolutionary organization Standing Together to Organize a Revolutionary Movement, or STORM. That group, together with Jones' Elle Baker Center for Human Rights, led a vigil Sept. 12, 2001, at Snow Park in Oakland, Calif.

STORM's official manifesto, titled, "Reclaiming Revolution," surfaced on the Internet.

A WND review of the 97-page treatise found a description of a vigil that Jones' group held Sept. 12, 2001, at Snow Park in Oakland, Calif. The event drew hundreds and articulated an "anti-imperialist" line, according to STORM's own description.

The radical group's manual boasted the 9/11 vigil was held to express solidarity with Arab and Muslim Americans and to mourn the civilians killed in the terrorist attacks "as well as the victims of U.S. imperialism around the world."

"We honored those who lost their lives in the attack and those who would surely lose their lives in subsequent U.S. attacks overseas," STORM's manifesto recalls.

Also, WND obtained a press release of Jones' vigil, dated Sept. 11, 2001, and titled, "People Of Color Groups Gather to Stand In Solidarity With Arab Americans and to Mourn the East Coast Dead."

"Anti-Arab hostility is already reaching a fever pitch as pundits and common people alike rush to judgment that an Arab group is responsible for this tragedy," stated Jones in the release hours after the 9/11 attacks.

"We fear that an atmosphere is being created that will result in official and street violence against Arab men, women and children," he said.

Last week, Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck drew attention to a section of STORM's manual that describes Jones' organization as having a "commitment to the fundamental ideas of Marxism-Leninism."

"We agreed with Lenin's analysis of the state and the party," reads the manifesto. "And we found inspiration in the revolutionary strategies developed by Third World revolutionaries like Mao Tse-tung and Amilcar Cabral."

Cabral is the late Marxist revolutionary leader of Guinea-Bissau and the Cape Verde Islands.

WND previously reported Jones named his son after Cabral and reportedly concludes every e-mail with a quote from the communist leader.

STORM's newsletter boasted "we also saw our brand of Marxism as, in some ways, a reclamation."

STORM worked with known communist leaders. It led the charge in black protests against various issues, including a local attempt to pass Proposition 21, a ballot initiative that sought to increase the penalties for violent crimes and require more juvenile offenders to be tried as adults.

Speaking to the East Bay Express, Jones said he first became radicalized in the wake of the 1992 Rodney King riots, during which time he was arrested.

"I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist.

"I met all these young radical people of color – I mean really radical: communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.' I spent the next 10 years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary," he said.

Trevor Loudon, a researcher and opponent of communism who runs the New Zeal blog, identified several Bay Area communists who worked with STORM, including Elizabeth Martinez, who helped advise Jones' Ella Baker Human Rights Center, which Jones founded to advocate civil justice. Jones and Martinez also attended a "Challenging White Supremacy" workshop together.

Martinez was a longtime Maoist who went on to join the Communist Party USA breakaway organization Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, or CCDS, in the early 1990s, according to Loudon. Martinez still serves on the CCDS council and is also a board member of the Movement for a Democratic Society, where she sits alongside former Weathermen radicals Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

STORM eventually fell apart amid bickering among its leaders.

Jones then moved on to environmentalism. He used his Ella Baker Center to advocate "inclusive" environmentalism and launch a Green-Collar Jobs Campaign, which led to the nation's first Green Jobs Corps in Oakland, Calif.

At the Clinton Global Initiative in 2007, Jones announced the establishment of Green For All, which in 2008 held a national green conference in which most attendees were black. Jones also released a book, "The Green Collar Economy," which debuted at No.12 on the New York Times' bestseller list – the first environmental book written by an African American to make the list.

Jones, formerly a self-described "rowdy black nationalist," boasted in a 2005 interview with the left-leaning East Bay Express that his environmental activism was a means to fight for racial and class "justice."

Jones was president and founder of Green For All, a nonprofit organization that advocates building a so-called inclusive green economy.

Until recently, Jones was a longtime member of the board of Apollo Alliance, a coalition of labor, business, environmental and community leaders that claims on its website to be "working to catalyze a clean energy revolution that will put millions of Americans to work in a new generation of high-quality, green-collar jobs."

Obamacare activists to crash D.C.'s massive tea party?

WND Exclusive

A REVOLUTIONARY IDEA

Health 'reform' advocates organize 'well-funded' counterattack for next day

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Just as thousands of taxpayers from across the nation are planning to descend on Washington, D.C., to take their fight against excessive spending, bailouts, growth of big government and soaring deficits to the front door of the U.S. Capitol – "Obamacare" proponents have responded with a well-funded counterattack scheduled for the following day.

In a major movement unaffiliated with – but inspired by – Fox News' Glenn Beck's 9-12 Project, called the National Taxpayer Protest, thousands of Americans are answering the call and booking travel arrangements to make their voices heard at Capitol Hill on Sept. 12.

Get ready for Sept. 12! Visit the one and only "tea party store" now.

Robert Reich, former Labor secretary for President Bill Clinton, called for yet another "march on Washington" on Sept. 13 in support of including a public option in Obama's health "reform."

"If enough people feel that's the best way for their voices to be heard, and can't be heard in any other way, then we march," he said in Politico's Arena.

Reich encouraged public option proponents to "make a racket."

He wrote, the "first step is to be very loud and very vocal: Write, phone, e-mail, your congressional delegation and the White House. Second step: Get others to do the same. Third step: Get voters in Montana, North Dakota, Nebraska, and other states where Blue Dog Dems and wavering Senate Dems live, and have them make a hell of a fuss. Fourth step: March on Washington."

Health-care proponents have created a Facebook group with more than 2,000 members to help organize the counterattack.

Dick Armey, chairman of FreedomWorks, one of the groups organizing the Sept. 12 event, said in a newsletter, "It's no coincidence he picked the day after our event to try and organize his – Reich, allied with the likes of MoveOn.org, the AFL-CIO, and the other usual suspects on the Left, are trying to overshadow and drown out our event and its limited government message."

According to Politico, Reich insists that he suggested Sept. 13 because "that's a Sunday, and it's also Grandparents Day. I've just become a grandparent, and I'm worried as hell about the kind of world my little granddaughter is inheriting."

But Armey isn't buying that explanation. He said "liberals are doing everything they can to derail our event and water down its impact."

"With a war chest that some are estimating is in excess of $150 million, we have to take their threat very seriously," Armey said. "The only way we will be able to win is through real grass roots."

Get your copy of "Joe the Plumber: Fighting for the American Dream" now!

He warned that after Reich's "call to action," the media will surely keep score and note the "conservative limited government presence" on Sept. 12 versus the turnout on the next day.

"The good news is that the Left's dirty money can't beat good-old-fashioned grass roots," Armey wrote. "Let's overwhelm them, sending a message loud and clear to Obama and the liberal establishment, by having at least twice the crowd on 9-12 that they will have the following day."

Several organizations have united to help organize the the National Taxpayer Protest's descent on the Capitol, including: Freedom Works, Grassfire/ResistNet, Tea Party Patriots, National Taxpayers Union, Club for Growth, Americans for Tax Reform, Young Americans for Liberty, Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Our Country Deserves Better, Campaign for Liberty, Leadership Institute, Free Republic, Young America's Foundation, the National Association of Rural Land Owners and Smart Girl Politics.

"Our mission is to present a unified voice of concern over the current administration's policies regarding taxation, our economy, foreign and domestic policy, as well as our individual constitutional rights as American citizens," said Grassfire national coordinator Darla Dawald in an open invitation to the public to join the Sept. 12 taxpayer march in Washington, D.C. "America is in trouble, the problems and issues are broad and complex and it will take a monumental effort to stop, change and reverse the destructive course that this administration and Congress has put us on. Together, We the People can effect that change!"

On Sept. 10 and 11, the groups will host grassroots training seminars and Sept. 11 "We'll Never Forget" memorial. At Freedom Plaza, there will be speakers and music while the crowd gathers at 9 a.m. The taxpayer march down Pennsylvania Avenue is scheduled to begin at 11:30 a.m. Sept. 12 and culminate with a rally at 1 p.m. at the west front of the Capitol. An event schedule is available at the National Taxpayer Protest website.

The website also offers detailed information on travel and hotel accommodations, including directions to the event.

"Obama managed to have 4 million show up at the Capitol grounds," Dawald told WND. "We need to do the same if not more. The financial situation is dire, but as one gentleman said, 'If I have to sell my belongings and crawl there, I will – because it's that important!'"

Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots told WND the groups are focused on "protecting the values and principles that have made America the greatest nation for future generations."

Brendan Steinhauser of FreedomWorks told WND the movement is gaining momentum as thousands of taxpayers plan trips to Washington to join the fight against big government.

"People want to do this," he said. "The people who have been protesting around the country want to come to Washington and do this in D.C. In a lot of ways, they are being ignored and the media is underrepresenting them and their numbers. They want to come together for one big event and send a very clear message."

In his memo, Armey reminded attendees of several Democrats who have called the movement "Astroturf," saying the crowds do not represent real grass-roots activism.

"They're saying that your voice doesn't count and that you will not be heard," he said. "At the 9-12 Taxpayer March on Washington we have an opportunity to show them just how wrong they are."

For more information on this event, or to RSVP, visit the http://912dc.org/National TaxpayerProtest

Federal Reserve Board fights to keep its secrets

Warns disclosing where money went would cause 'irreparable harm'

By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

The Federal Reserve Board, despite being ordered to disclose to whom it awarded roughly $2 trillion in discount "stimulus" loans, is fighting to keep the information under wraps as a protected "trade secret."

Earlier this week, a U.S. district court judge rejected the Fed's argument that the names of borrowers are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act and ordered the board to release the information by Monday, Aug. 31.

The Fed's board of governors, however, has now filed a motion asking the judge to delay enforcement of the order, seeking time to appeal and arguing that disclosing which banks borrowed the funds could lead to a backlash from the banks' customers and stockholders.

Demand the money managers come clean by signing the petition in support of an audit of the Federal Reserve now!

"The immediate release of these documents will destroy the board's claims of exemption and right of appellate review," the motion said. "The institutions whose names and information would be disclosed will also suffer irreparable harm."

Bloomberg LP, which sued the Fed on behalf of its Bloomberg News unit for not complying with a FOIA request last year, disagrees.

"Our argument is that the public interest in disclosure outweighs the banks' interest in secrecy," said Thomas Golden, a lawyer who represents Bloomberg.

"What has the Fed got to hide?" said Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders in an email reported by Bloomberg. "The time has come for the Fed to stop stonewalling and hand this information over to the public."

When the banking system threatened collapse last year, the Fed invoked its emergency lending powers to make discount loans to banks that now total into the trillions of dollars with the intent of stimulating the economy and preventing further financial meltdown. The names of the borrowing institutions were kept anonymous.

Bloomberg reporter Mark Pittman then filed a FOIA request in an attempt to get the Fed to disclose the borrowing banks and to identify the assets it accepted as collateral.

In return, Federal Reserve Board Secretary Jennifer Johnson sent Pittman a five-page response, telling him the Fed was withholding over 2,000 pages of information deemed protected against disclosure as "trade secrets" and "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters."

On Nov. 7, 2008, Bloomberg filed a suit seeking full disclosure, and earlier this week, Judge Loretta A. Preska of the U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, ruled the Fed had until Monday to release the information.

The Fed's motion to delay enforcement of Preska's order argues the board's "ability to effectively manage the current, and any future, financial crisis" would be impaired by releasing the information and "significant harms" could befall the U.S. economy, as disclosure might unsettle shareholders and set off a run on the borrowing banks by worried depositors.

As WND has reported, a majority within the U.S. House called for greater transparency of the Fed by cosigning onto H.R. 1207, the Federal Reserve Transparency Act of 2009. The Act demands an audit of the Fed, a private institution that virtually controls U.S. interest rates, money supply and other economic influences.

U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas

"To understand how unwise it is to have the Federal Reserve, one must first understand the magnitude of the privileges they have," wrote the bill's sponsor, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, in a recent Straight Talk commentary. "They have been given the power to create money, by the trillions, and to give it to their friends, under any terms they wish, with little or no meaningful oversight or accountability."

"The tremendous grass-roots and bipartisan support in Congress for H.R. 1207 is an indicator of how mainstream America is fed up with Fed secrecy," said Paul. "I look forward to this issue receiving greater public exposure."

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., has also pushed in the Senate for greater transparency at the Fed.

"The Federal Reserve will create and disburse trillions of dollars in response to our current financial crisis," DeMint said. "Americans across the nation, regardless of their opinion on the bailout, want to know where the money has gone.

"Allowing the Fed to operate our nation's monetary system in almost complete secrecy leads to abuse, inflation and a lower quality of life," he said, according to Reuters.

Glenn Beck's fear of Obama: Seize power overnight

WND Exclusive THE IMPERIAL PRESIDENCY

Rush Limbaugh: 'Most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country'

By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

Will President Obama "seize power overnight" in a move to consolidate White House control of the U.S. government?

That's the fear of Fox News anchor Glenn Beck who discussed the issue at length today with another broadcasting powerhouse, radio's Rush Limbaugh.

"I fear this government, this administration has so much framework already prepared, that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought," Beck said.

His comment came as he was analyzing the changing nature of the media since Obama's election, citing the administration's close ties with the NBC network, owned by corporate giant General Electric:

If you watch what could only be called the administration's organ – anything involved with GE or NBC – you've got [GE CEO] Jeffrey Immelt on the board of the Federal Reserve, you have him in the Oval Office consulting not only on health care, but the financial situation, and they are an organ.

If you watch MSNBC, I contend that you will see the future because they are laying the ground for a horrible event ... anything from the right, there's some awful event and I fear this government, this administration has so much framework already prepared, that they will seize power overnight before anybody even gives it a second thought.

Limbaugh responded, "I don't think they're going to be able to seize it overnight without anybody knowing about it."

Get the book that exposes the secret blueprint for ending free speech: "Shut up, America!"

The pair analyzed Obama's appointment of Mark Lloyd, the nation's first "chief diversity officer" at the Federal Communications Commission, and both agreed he is looking to severely limit free speech in America through a series of new initiatives without ever having to revive the "Fairness Doctrine" that was abandoned in 1985.

WND recently reported that Lloyd believes the policy was never actually repealed, and he is said to advocate crippling $250 million fines for radio stations whose programming does not meet with the government's approval.

He's also reportedly pushing for private broadcasters to pay licensing fees equal to their total operating costs. That money would then be used to enhance funding of government-subsidized networks such as National Public Radio.

"Citizen access to popular information has been undermined by bad political decisions," Lloyd wrote in his 2006 book, "Prologue to a Farce: Communications and Democracy in America." "Corporate liberty has overwhelmed citizen equality."

"What they're trying to do here to communications is simply stifle dissenting voices. They're trying to wipe out any opposition," Limbaugh explained. "The things he's talking about doing to shut down radio are simply un-American. ... It is a dangerous time. It's the most dangerous time in my life for freedom and liberty in this country."

Limbaugh maintained every action thus far by Obama has been designed to intentionally hurt, rather than help the nation.

"Look at what they're doing to the U.S. economy," he said. "Anybody with a sense of economic literacy would know this is not how you create jobs. You do not rebuild the private sector. This is being done on purpose. All of these disasters are exactly what Obama wants. The more crises, the better. The more opportunity for government to say, 'Let us in and fix the problem.'"

Limbaugh has been maligned by some in the media for previous comments that he would like Obama to fail in implementing his policies, and he said today he was "uncomfortable thinking and saying these things about a man who's been elected president of the United States."

It is terribly upsetting and disconcerting, and I wish I didn't think it and I wish I didn't have to say it. But there's no way to sugarcoat it. This is not politics as usual. This is not left versus right. This is not Republican versus Democrat. This is statism, totalitarianism versus freedom. And if these people are allowed to go where they want to go unchecked, then some people, a lot of people – I don't think half the country, but close – will wake up one day and find, "My God, what the hell happened?" Because this is not what they voted for. They had no intention of this. They thought they were getting something entirely different and it is a responsibility that we all have being honest and earnest to inform people of what these possibilities are because they are very real.

Beck, who has a national radio show of his own as well as his television broadcast on the Fox News Channel, wondered about a perceived lack of coverage on the issues they were discussing.

"Where is the true outrage from anyone in the media?" asked Beck. "Why are these things not grabbing traction at this point?"

"I think the whole concept of reporting has gone out the window," Limbaugh answered. "I call them the State-Controlled Media because it's what they are. They're just repeaters. They take dictation from [Obama Chief of Staff] Rahm Emanuel for the most part, and they simply run with it. It's who they are, too."

Despite the potential for doom and gloom, Limbaugh assured Beck that there was a ray of hope that Obama's goals could be defeated.

"Passion, love of country, truth is going to outmaneuver and overpower fake passion, trumped-up people who are just given marching orders and sent out to act in a certain way," Limbaugh said.

"I'm confident that this can be beaten back. If I weren't, you know what, Glenn? I'd pack it all in and I'd spend my money before they take it and I'd go enjoy the rest of what my life is gonna be, but I –

"That's quite a shopping spree," Beck interrupted with a laugh. "Can I come with you?"

"There's plenty of room," said Rush.

Ted Kennedy’s Legacy?

By Kevin Jackson


If you like my musings, please consider investing in my book, The BIG Black Lie. It’s getting rave reviews, and I guarantee you will like it!

I don’t want to be completely heartless, as I do have sympathy for those who will miss Teddy Kennedy. I’m just not one of those people. For me Teddy Kennedy was just another spoiled, alcoholic, liberal fat cat, who got away with murder.

Today however, the news will report that a great man died. They will say how he was a wonderful legislator, and that he “reached across the aisle” in a bi-partisan effort to help all Americans. You will hear things like dedicated father, family member, friend, patriot, American, and a host of other platitudes that Kennedy frankly doesn’t deserve.

Kennedy was good at one thing: Being a Kennedy! Actually, he was just ok at that.

Teddy Kennedy was a relic of a bygone era—an icon who never should have been an icon. When you really analyze what Kennedy accomplished in his life and career, the answer is nothing except being a Kennedy. In truth, Kennedy’s career was really about one quintessential thing: Keeping Democrats in power—by whatever means necessary.

Kennedy literally had NO idea what it is like to be black or any concept of being poor. Teddy was born into a life of luxury, and I’m not talking “nouveau riche, don’t blink when you buy a Ferrari.” Kennedy money is “don’t blink when you buy an island!” Teddy was handed everything, having lost the only thing his family could not steal—a second time—the presidency. Even with his Kennedy lineage, Teddy couldn’t earn that.

When people speak of the Kennedys, you hear things like “The Kennedy Compound,” “Camelot,” “legacy.” Let’s examine that legacy briefly.

Kennedy’s father, Joseph was recalled as Ambassador to Britain, because he was deemed to be too sympathetic to the Nazis. I’d say the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree on that one. And in case you missed the earlier reference, it was Papa Joe who stole the election from Nixon, so the Kennedy political dynasty could begin.

Next and most notable Kennedy son, JFK voted against the Republican sponsored 1957 Civil Rights Act, because supporting the rights of Negroes would have hurt his chances to defeat Nixon in 1960. Then came Democrat icon Bobby Kennedy who said that he wouldn’t lose any sleep worrying about the plight of the Negro. Finally there is Teddy…”the other white meat” Kennedy.

Teddy Kennedy’s purported legacy was devoted health care, as he told the Boston Globe recently:

“He remained determined to fulfill what he called “the cause of my life,” providing health insurance to all Americans. He helped draft legislation to overhaul the $2.5 trillion U.S. healthcare system.

Kennedy’s interest in healthcare dated from his son’s bout with cancer in the 1970s. More recently, he cited his own illness as he made a case for reform.

“I’ve benefited from the best of medicine, but I’ve also witnessed the frustration and outrage of patients and doctors alike as they face the challenges of a system that shortchanges millions of Americans,” he wrote in a May 28, 2009, issue of the Boston Globe.”

To show you the hypocritical nature of Teddy, recently he wanted the law changed to the advantage of the Democrats, urging Massachusetts lawmakers to change state law so the governor, if necessary, could quickly fill a Senate vacancy as the chamber debates the contentious healthcare issue.

Interestingly enough Kennedy had fought against this same change in the law when Republican Mitt Romney was governor. Whatever it takes to keep the Democrats large and in charge, and oppressing!

Here’s the wrap:

woman drownigIt is ironic that Kennedy died of brain cancer, since I contend that he really didn’t have a brain. If he did however, I would suggest his brain be studied for the defect of liberalism. Maybe because liberalism infected a Kennedy, science will try to cure it.

As for Kennedy’s legacy, he will have to accept the great Democrat legacy of the destruction of the black family, thus the black community. Thankfully for America, Kennedy was unable to accomplish his dream for healthcare in America, or it would affectionately been known as “DeathCare” by now. In using his own illness to showcase American healthcare, Kennedy said what we already know. He “benefitted from the best of medicine, but…”

With Democrats, there is always that “but,” at least when they know they can profit politically or financially from “but“.

America should know that by Kennedy’s standards healthcare in America is broken. With all that money he had, doctors were not able to give him eternal life! He was a Kennedy for goodness sake! Maybe he just forgot to ask ObaMessiah for eternal life?

Yesterday a great man died indeed, somewhere. And the media won’t report it.

That’s my rant!

© Kevin Jackson – The Black Sphere All Rights Reserved

The Illuminati - Our Secret Masters (BHO, Czars & Congress is its puppets)

Conspiracy, Occult, Hidden Shadow Government (Click on 'The Illuminati - Our Secret Masters link above to view video)

Video Expose by Alex Jones, Jim Mars, Texe Marrs

MSNBC Hard Sell Propaganda for H1N1 Soft Kill Vaccination

Kurt Nimmo
Infowars


Dr. Nancy Snyderman, billed as chief medical editor at NBC News, says when the HHS bureaucrat Kathleen Sebelius speaks, we have to listen. Snyderman tells the talking heads on MSNBC that we should all line up and take our eugenics soft kill H1N1 vaccine.

MSNBC talking heads try to stampede you into taking the deadly H1N1 vaccine.

Sebelius is a member of the globalist Bilderberg Group. Bilderberg advocates modern eugenics and plans to eventually reduce the world’s population by 80%, as called for by the 1974 UN Assessment on Biodiversity.

The H1N1 virus is a big deal, Snyderman pontificates, and it will “cut a swath” through the population. Distrust of the government and big pharma, she warns, may be fatal. “I can’t tell you what to do,” she adds, “but I can tell you what you should do, and what you should do is get this vaccination.”

There is the small matter that this virus outbreak is far less deadly than the normal seasonal flu, but that does not stop the editor from claiming that if you don’t get the vaccination you are playing Russian roulette.

Anchor Dylan Ratigan tells us to stop being lazy and frightened and get off our “derrieres” and get this vaccination.

All of this sounds suspiciously familiar. Back in 1976, the government hyped up fears of a swine flu pandemic after a few cases were found in soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey, and one of them died, most likely of physical overexertion rather than from the infection. This led to the launch of a mass vaccination of 40 million against a pandemic that never materialized. Thousands filed claims for injury. At least 25 died and 500 developed paralyzing Guillain-Barre syndrome (see Dr. Mae-Wan Ho and Prof. Joe Cummins, The vaccines are far more deadly than the swine flu).

Dr. Mayer Eisenstein, a Chicago physician and author of Don’t Vaccinate Before You Educate, told Alex Jones on August 25 that the number of people who died from the 1976 vaccination program was probably much higher than the government admits. He claims the number of injured was likely in the thousands.

No mention by NBC’s supposed medical editor of the well-documented risks of this experimental and untested vaccine. It is not simply the adjuvants, substances added in order to boost the immunogenicity of the vaccines, in particular the oil-based squalene, but also dangerous levels of mercury in the form of thimerosal, aluminum hydroxide, and heavy metals and other toxins in the vaccine.

Earlier this month, a German health expert warned of cancer viruses in the vaccine. Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg warned that the nutrient solution for the vaccine consists of cancerous cells. Wodrag also described people’s fear of the pandemic as an “orchestration” that will result in “great business for the pharmaceutical industry.”

Or did the editor mention warnings issued by the British Health Protection Agency about an increased risk of developing Guillain-Barre syndrome after taking a pandemic vaccine.

Snyderman’s one-sided coverage and scare tactics border on criminal behavior, but then this is par for the course as the corporate media, in particular MSNBC, is a branch office of the CIA under Operation Mockingbird. The CIA was created by Wall Street and works in the service of the banksters and the global elite who have made no bones that they want to cull the herd and get world population down to around 500 million.,

The American Heritage Series - David Barton - Wallbuilders Production

Featuring David Barton, The American Heritage Series presents America's forgotten history and heroes, emphasizing the moral, religious and constitutional foundation on which America was built. The stories will remind us of lessons and pieces learned in school, but expound to show the whole story as we have never heard before. This fascinating and educational series inspires viewers and reconnects us with our incredible national history.

Conservatism 101 - ConservativeHQ.com

CONSERVATISM 101 (Click on Conservatism 101 Above)

Here are some good sources for information on the conservative movement and its history and principles, and on the current rebellion against the Big Government Republicans. NOTE that we do not necessarily agree with all the points made in these articles and lists, but present them as part of an overall guide.

Richard A. Viguerie
ConservativeHQ.com

What Does It Mean to Seek the LORD?

Meditation on Psalm 105:4

By John Piper


Seeking the Lord means seeking his presence. “Presence” is a common translation of the Hebrew word “face.” Literally, we are to seek his “face.” But this is the Hebraic way of having access to God. To be before his face is to be in his presence.

But aren't his children always in his presence? Yes and no. Yes in two senses: First, in the sense that God is omnipresent and therefore always near everything and everyone. He holds everything in being. His power is ever-present in sustaining and governing all things.

And second, yes, he is always present with his children in the sense of his covenant commitment to always stand by us and work for us and turn everything for our good. “Behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age” (Matthew 28:20).

But there is a sense in which God’s presence is not with us always. For this reason, the Bible repeatedly calls us to “seek the Lord...seek his presence continually.” God’s manifest, conscious, trusted presence is not our constant experience. There are seasons when we become neglectful of the Lord and give him no thought and do not put trust in him and we find him “unmanifested”—that is, unperceived as great and beautiful and valuable by the eyes of our hearts.

His face—the brightness of his personal character—is hidden behind the curtain of our carnal desires. This condition is always ready to overtake us. That is why we are told to “seek his presence continually.” God calls us to enjoy continual consciousness of his supreme greatness and beauty and worth.

This happens through “seeking.” Continual seeking. But what does that mean practically? Both the Old and New Testaments say it is a “setting of the mind and heart” on God. It is the conscious fixing or focusing of our mind’s attention and our heart’s affection on God.

“Now set your mind and heart to seek the Lord your God.” (1 Chronicles 22:19)

“If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth.” (Colossians 3:1-2)

This setting of the mind is the opposite of mental coasting. It is a conscious choice to direct the heart toward God. This is what Paul prays for the church: “May the Lord direct your hearts to the love of God and to the steadfastness of Christ” (2 Thessalonians 3:5). It is a conscious effort on our part. But that effort to seek God is a gift from God.

We do not make this mental and emotional effort to seek God because he is lost. That’s why we would seek a coin or a sheep. But God is not lost. Nevertheless, there is always something through which or around which we must go to meet him consciously. This going through or around is what seeking is. He is often hidden. Veiled. We must go through mediators and around obstacles.

The heavens are telling the glory of God. So we can seek him through that. He reveals himself in his word. So we can seek him through that. He shows himself to us in the evidences of grace in other people. So we can seek him through that. The seeking is the conscious effort to get through the natural means to God himself—to constantly set our minds toward God in all our experiences, to direct our minds and hearts toward him through the means of his revelation. This is what seeking God means.

And there are endless obstacles that we must get around in order to see him clearly, and so that we can be in the light of his presence. We must flee every spiritually dulling activity. We must run from it and get around it. It is blocking our way.

We know what makes us vitally sensitive to God’s appearances in the world and in the word. And we know what dulls us and blinds us and makes us not even want to seek him. These things we must move away from and go around if we would see God. That is what seeking God involves.

And as we direct our minds and hearts Godward in all our experiences, we cry out to him. This too is what seeking him means.

“Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near.” (Isaiah 55:6)

“If you will seek God and plead with the Almighty for mercy...” (Job 8:5)

Seeking involves calling and pleading. O Lord, open my eyes. O Lord, pull back the curtain of my own blindness. Lord, have mercy and reveal yourself. I long to see your face.

The great obstacle to seeking the Lord is pride. “In the pride of his face the wicked does not seek him” (Psalm 10:4). Therefore, humility is essential to seeking the Lord.

The great promise to those who seek the Lord is that he will be found. “If you seek him, he will be found by you” (1 Chronicles 28:9). And when he is found, there is great reward. “Whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him” (Hebrews 11:6). God himself is our greatest reward. And when we have him, we have everything. Therefore, “Seek the Lord and his strength; seek his presence continually!”

Seeking with you,

Pastor John

© Desiring God

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

That Dreadful Day (Sermon - coming economic collapse)

INTERCESSOR WATCHMEN - REMNANT ALERT

A Message by David Wilkerson

In Context of the "Dreadful Day"
- 2 Peter 3:1-18

... A Word from God concerning the current economic crisis.

Guess who screened White House appointments!

OBAMA WATCH CENTRAL

Think tank developed by prez links socialist party to presidential picks

By Aaron Klein
© 2009 WorldNetDaily

JERUSALEM – Was a far-left think tank partnered with the community activist group ACORN and founded with input from President Obama instrumental in securing the appointment of controversial White House "environmental czar" Van Jones?

A key member of the think tank reportedly was also a founder of a socialist party that, evidence indicates, included Obama among its members.

In March, Jones was named the special adviser for green jobs, enterprise and innovation at the White House Council on Environmental Quality.

His appointment drew criticism after a WND report exposing that Jones was as an admitted radical communist and black nationalist leader. The Fox News Channel's Glenn Beck hammered away at Jones' communist ties.

Months before Obama took office, however, Jones was recommended for the environmental pick in a report by business scholar Chuck Collins, an associate of philanthropist George Soros and a longtime leftist activist linked to some socialist causes.

Collins is director of the Tax Program for Shared Prosperity at Demos, a far-left think tank that has partnered with ACORN and its ally, Project Vote, on several projects. Demos personalities were among ACORN's top defenders when the organization was accused of rampant voter fraud in 2008.

According to Demos' own website, while Obama was a state senator in 1999, he served on the working group that founded Demos.

Collins penned a piece that listed his top picks for the Obama administration, including Jones, at the radical Institute for Policy Studies.

Through a socialist party, Obama may be more closely linked to Collins, who recommended Jones.

Researcher Trevor Loudon of the New Zeal blog dug up official newspapers of the socialist-oriented New Party that list Collins as among the party's founding builders in its fall 1994 edition. Collins is listed with approximately 100 other activists in an article entitled, "Who's Building the New Party?"

Obama belonged to socialist party

In a controversy never fully addressed by Obama, WND previously reported evidence showing Obama was a member of the New Party, which sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

While running for the Illinois state Senate in 1996 as a Democrat, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party, according to confirmed reports during last year's presidential campaign.

The New Party, formed by members of the Democratic Socialists of America and leaders of an offshoot of the Community Party USA, was an electoral alliance that worked alongside the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN. The New Party's aim was to help elect politicians to office who espouse its policies.

Among New Party members was linguist and radical activist Noam Chomsky.

Obama's campaign last year denied the then-presidential candidate was ever an actual member of the New Party.

But the New Zeal blog dug up print copies of the New Party News, the party's official newspaper, which show Obama posing with New Party leaders, listing him as a New Party member and printing quotes from him as a member.

Barack Obama pictured in New Party publication (Courtesy New Zeal blog)
The party's spring 1996 newspaper boasted: "New Party members won three other primaries this Spring in Chicago: Barack Obama (State Senate), Michael Chandler (Democratic Party Committee) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary). The paper quoted Obama saying "these victories prove that small 'd' democracy can work."

The newspaper lists other politicians it endorsed who were not members but specifies Obama as a New Party member.

New Ground, the newsletter of Chicago's Democratic Socialists of America, reported in its July/August 1996 edition that Obama attended a New Party membership meeting April 11, 1996, in which he expressed his gratitude for the group's support and "encouraged NPers (New Party members) to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration."

Becoming a New Party member requires some effort by the politician. Candidates must be approved by the party's political committee and, once approved, must sign a contract mandating they will have a "visible and active relationship" with the party.

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral "fusion," which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party went defunct in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

Following the initial reports of Obama's purported membership in the New Party, Obama associate and former Chicago New Party activist Carl Davidson posted a statement on several blogs claiming his former party was not socialist, but he admitted it worked with ACORN.

"[The New Party] was a pragmatic party of 'small d democracy' mainly promoting economic reforms like the living wage and testing the fusion tactic, common in many countries but only operational in New York in the U.S. The main trend within it was ACORN, an Alinskyist outfit, which is hardly Marxist," wrote Davidson.

But the socialist goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party's stated objectives were "full employment, a shorter work week, and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal 'social wage' to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time, and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth and like programs to ensure gender equity."

The New Party stated it also sought "the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets, community-controlled alternative financial institutions."

Many of the New Party's founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA. Obama attended several DSA events and meetings, including a DSA-sponsored town hall meeting Feb. 25, 1996, entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America." He sought and received an endorsement from the DSA.

According to DSA documents, the New Party worked with ACORN to promote its candidates. ACORN, convicted in massive, nationwide voter fraud cases, has been a point of controversy for Obama over the presidential candidate's ties to the group.

In 1995, the DSA's New Ground newsletter stated, "In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN.

"Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics – until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party."


Related offers:

Glenn Beck's 'Common Sense' ... The case against an out-of-control government: Inspired by Thomas Paine

Get "The Audacity of Deceit," and learn about the looming hostile attack on Judeo-Christian values and freedoms Americans hold dear

HYSTERIA: Exposing the secret agenda behind today's obsession with global warming

Read the book that started it all: Al Gore's "Earth in the Balance"

"Global Warming or Global Governance? What the media refuse to tell you about so-called climate change"

"The Sky's Not Falling! Why it's OK to chill on global warming"

"I'm pro-choice – on light bulbs" – Bumper sticker sends Congress message over its banning Edison's invention


Related story:

Obama's environmental czar started group targeting Beck

Obama's 'green jobs czar' worked with terror founder

Previous stories:

Will a 'red' help blacks go green?

Obama's $300 billion-a-year climate-change plan

Obama to kill coal? Swing states erupt

Obama: Spike energy costs to make people go 'green'

Communists: Obama 'best opportunity in decades'

2001: Obama pushes redistribution of wealth

Obama spreads wealth – to non-taxpayers

Obama: 'It's not that I want to punish your success'

Communist: Obama working to nationalize U.S. economy

Communist Party chief: U.S. on road to socialism

Teary-eyed communists cheer Obama victory

Communist Party strategist maps out Obama's agenda

Communist Party hails role of labor unions in Obama win

Communist Party ecstatic over '08 election results

Marxist 'mentor' sold drugs with Obama

Report: Obama mentored by Communist Party figure

Aaron Klein, WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, is known for his regular interviews with Mideast terror leaders and his popular segments on America's top radio programs. His newly released book is "The Late Great State of Israel: How Enemies Within and Without Threaten the Jewish Nation's Survival." Follow Klein on Twitter.

ObamaCare's Contradictions

Review & Outlook - Wall Street Journal

The President does both sides now on his health insurance plan.

Over the past week, President Obama has held three town-halls to make the case for his health-care plan. While he didn't say much that he hasn't said a thousand times before, his remarks did offer another explanation for the public's skepticism of ObamaCare. Namely, the President contradicts himself every other breath. Consider:

He likes to start off explaining our catastrophe of a health system. "What is truly scary—what is truly risky—is if we do nothing," he said in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. We can't "keep the system the way it is right now," he continued, while his critics are "people who want to keep things the way they are."

However, his supporters also want to keep things the way they are. "I keep on saying this but somehow folks aren't listening," Mr. Obama proclaimed in Grand Junction, Colorado. "If you like your health-care plan, you keep your health-care plan. Nobody is going to force you to leave your health-care plan. If you like your doctor, you keep seeing your doctor. I don't want government bureaucrats meddling in your health care."

Mr. Obama couldn't be more opposed to "some government takeover," as he put it in Belgrade, Montana. In New Hampshire, he added that people were wrong to worry "that somehow some government bureaucrat out there will be saying, well, you can't have this test or you can't have this procedure because some bean-counter decides that this is not a good way to use our health-care dollars."

So no bureaucrats, no bean-counters. Mr. Obama merely wants to create "a panel of experts, health experts, doctors, who can provide guidelines to doctors and patients about what procedures work best in what situations, and find ways to reduce, for example, the number of tests that people take" (New Hampshire, again). Oh, and your health-care plan? You can keep it, as long your insurance company or employer can meet all the new regulations Mr. Obama favors. His choice of verbs, in Montana, provides a clue about what that will mean: "will be prohibited," "will no longer be able," "we'll require" . . .

Maybe you're starting to fret about all those bureaucrats and bean-counters again. You shouldn't, according to Mr. Obama. "The only thing I would point is, is that Medicare is a government program that works really well for our seniors," he noted in Colorado. After all, as he said in New Hampshire, "If we're able to get something right like Medicare, then there should be a little more confidence that maybe the government can have a role—not the dominant role, but a role—in making sure the people are treated fairly when it comes to insurance."

The government didn't get Medicare right, though: Just ask the President. The entitlement is "going broke" (Colorado) and "unsustainable" and "running out of money" (New Hampshire). And it's "in deep trouble if we don't do something, because as you said, money doesn't grow on trees" (Montana).

So the health-care status quo needs top-to-bottom reform, except for the parts that "you" happen to like. Government won't interfere with patients and their physicians, considering that the new panel of experts who will make decisions intended to reduce tests and treatments doesn't count as government. But Medicare shows that government involvement isn't so bad, aside from the fact that spending is out of control—and that program needs top-to-bottom reform too.

Voters aren't stupid. The true reason ObamaCare is in trouble isn't because "folks aren't listening," but because they are.

What's Really in Obama's Health Care Reform Bill - Plain English Translation

by: Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor

What's really in Obama's health care reform bill? Almost no one knows, and here's why: It's 1,017 pages long and written in an alien form of bureaucratic English that can barely be decoded by earthlings.

And yet, astonishingly, a U.S. Army translator has been found who speaks "Washington Doublespeak" and he was kind enough to decode the bill and post his plain-language findings over at FreeRepublic.com (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f...).

Below, we reprint what he found in the health care reform bill. As you read this, keep in mind that some of these translations are a bit loose with the interpretations, but I've personally spot-checked these points, and they are indeed all contained in the bill in one form or another (shrouded in Doublespeak language, of course).

Editor's note: I don't personally agree with every interpretation listed here, and some of the bill's provisions are actually good ideas (like banning doctors from owning stock in health care companies). But overall, this interpretation points out many alarming provisions in the proposed health care reform bill...

From CMS at FreeRepublic.com:

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the government option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.
Buzz up!58 votes

About the author: Mike Adams is a natural health author and technology pioneer with a strong interest in personal health, the environment and the power of nature to help us all heal He has authored more than 1,500 articles and dozens of reports, guides and interviews on natural health topics, impacting the lives of millions of readers around the world who are experiencing phenomenal health benefits from reading his articles. Adams is an honest, independent journalist and accepts no money or commissions on the third-party products he writes about or the companies he promotes. In 2007, Adams launched EcoLEDs, a manufacturer of mercury-free, energy-efficient LED lighting products that save electricity and help prevent global warming.

He also launched an online retailer of environmentally-friendly products (BetterLifeGoods.com) and uses a portion of its profits to help fund non-profit endeavors. He's also a noted technology pioneer and founded a software company in 1993 that developed the HTML email newsletter software currently powering the NaturalNews subscriptions. Adams also serves as the executive director of the Consumer Wellness Center, a non-profit consumer protection group, and regularly pursues cycling, nature photography, Capoeira and Pilates.

Dirty Secret No. 2 in Obamacare

By Chuck Norris


I've read on several blogs that if Chuck Norris' tears can cure cancer, he should take care of universal health care. Cute.

The real fact is that neither I nor Obamacare (in its present form in any of the 1,000+ page versions like H.R. 3200) can provide the remedy.

In my last column I explained that dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is that the House bill grants government the authority to come into homes and usurp parental rights over child care development.

I have a few more secrets to share over these hot August political nights.

Dirty secret No. 2 in Obamacare is that Obama is not the leader of Obamacare. And neither is Congress. The one who has been spearheading the initiative behind the scenes is one who goes under the misnomer "adviser" to the Obama administration, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, a bioethicist and breast oncologist and brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. And "his bible" for health care reform is his book, "Healthcare Guaranteed."

Dr. Emanuel has served as special adviser to the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget for health policy as far back as February, when he confessed to the Washington bureau chief for the Chicago Sun-Times that he was "working on (the) health care reform effort." The first draft of Obamacare?

If you want to know the future of America's universal health care, then you must understand the health care principles and plans of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel. I find it far more than coincidence how much Dr. Emanuel's book parallels Obamacare's philosophy, strategy and legislation.

First, Dr. Emanuel rejects any attempts at incremental change or reform to our health care system (Page 185). What's needed, he concludes in his book (p. 171), is an immediate and totally comprehensive reconstruction of health care as we know it. That of course describes the vision of Obamacare to a tee.

Second, in the chapter "Opening the door to comprehensive change" starting on p. 171 (which reads more like a political and mass-manipulating strategy than a health care manual), Emanuel drives home "a key political lesson: the need to rush the legislation through." (Seen this methodology being used lately?!)

He then cites historical proof: "Within a few months, President Johnson rammed the four central elements of his Great Society program through," and Medicare and Medicaid were born. Emanuel says that the reason the Clinton administration couldn't pass a health care bill was because it waited too long (after his inauguration – the political honeymoon period) and it "established a large task force that worked in secret. … The delay and the secrecy were deadly" (p. 181). Sounds to me that Dr. Emanuel is as much a political strategist as he is a doctor.

You are bearing witness to these political principles at work at this very moment in Washington and across this nation with Obamacare. President Obama and Dr. Emanuel both know that if too much time elapses their legislation is likely to die (and their preferences with it) because Americans will actually have time to examine it and come up with better alternatives.

Third, as Obama crusades around the country pitching Obamacare, he continues to avoid giving virtually any specific details of the program. That too is a strategy of Dr. Emanuel: "Americans need to avoid the policy weeds. Focusing on details will only distract and create tangles and traps" (p. 183). So "details" of health care reform are "weeds"? That is why we continue to hear only warm-and-fuzzy generalities from Obama like,"If you've got health care, the only thing we're going to do is we're going to reform the insurance companies so that they can't cheat you."

Fourth, Dr. Emanuel describes a comprehensive government health care program that is completely run by a national health board with 12 regional health boards ("modeled on the Federal Reserve system" – p. 83).

Imagine a national health board with the power of the Federal Reserve?! Imagine them doing with medicine and health what the Fed does with interest rates and the financial system. An apolitical board like that sounds appealing at first, until it is immune in ways (like the Federal Reserve) to congressional protocol and oversight. Once these boards are in place, like the Federal Reserve system over our financial system, they will have absolute power over the ebbs and flows of the medical world.

Critics would say, "But that is not the national board as described in Obamacare or H.R. 3200." Not yet anyway. Of course, Obamacare uses much softer language for describing a national board – they call it the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" (there's that "advisory" word again!), which would be under the executive branch (like the Federal Reserve).

Does anyone doubt that the duties and power of the Health Benefits Advisory Committee will morph and grow over time? And what liberties and controls will they have 10 years from now? I have a hunch they will be very reflective of the power of the Federal Reserve – I'll let you guess why.

Fifth, Dr. Emanuel believes in the "phasing out of Medicare and Medicaid" (Pages 88-89, 94-95). Of course, no proposed legislative wording by the current administration is going to describe the eventual elimination of these programs, at least in these incipient stages – remember, this bill is a sales pitch, too. But what stops the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee" care from "phasing them out" down the road? Could their eventual termination be the reason this administration won't merely reform those programs to accommodate their universal health care desires? But then again, maybe you believe Obama when he "avoids the policy weeds" by saying, "Nobody is talking about trying to change Medicare benefits. What we want to do is to eliminate some of the waste that is being paid for out of the Medicare trust fund."

Sixth, Dr. Emanuel believes in ending employer-based health care (Pages 109-112). President Obama knows that to propose such a restriction on American freedoms and choice would mean certain death to this legislation, let alone likely his popularity as president. However, throughout all Obama's rhetoric about how Americans will have the choice of health care insurance, they will have little choice in the matter, especially when employers are footing the bill. As any businessman knows, why would a company pay the exorbitant costs for employees' private health care insurance when they can benefit big time from a free ticket for government health care coverage? Some have even proposed that provisions in the House's health care legislation, under the titles "Limitation of New Enrollment" and "Limitation on Changes in Terms or Conditions" (p. 16), could essentially make individual private medical insurance illegal.

Seventh, Dr. Emanuel believes a universal health care program could be paid for by phasing out Medicare and Medicaid, adopting a value-added tax of at least 10 percent, etc., and then allowing Americans themselves to "pay extra with after-tax dollars" (p. 100) for additional medical benefits (beyond the norm of the government program). Ironically, Obamacare proposes cutting $500 billion from Medicare and proposing taxes upon the wealthy, as just a couple ways to pay for the $1 trillion it will cost to run the new national health care program over 10 years. But even the Congressional Budget Office says that won't be near enough.

Just last week at a Montana town hall meeting, the president continued to struggle to explain how he would pay for Obamacare without taxing the middle class. Of course, three of his top advisers (Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, National Economic Council Director Lawrence Summers and White House senior adviser David Axlrod) have already gone on the record saying they will not rule out the need for a middle-class tax hike to pay for Obamacare.

The truth is, whether the money comes from higher corporate taxes, taxing employer-provided health insurance, eliminating health savings accounts or flexible spending accounts, limiting the deductibility of medical expenses, increasing taxes on selective consumptives, etc., or all the above, trust me, sooner or later, we all will pay.

Eighth, speaking of ethics, enough has been written lately about Dr. Emanuel's end-of-life counsel and consultation, including his advice from The Hastings Center Report (1996) that medical care should be withheld from those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens. ... An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia."

I find it striking that Obama's ethics have similarly allowed him already to pass more laws increasing the terminations of life in the womb than any administration since Roe v. Wade. To add insult to injury, Congress has repeatedly rejected amendments to this universal health care bill that would prevent federal funds to be used for abortions.

Friends, if you don't think Dr. Emanuel's and President Obama's "life ethics" will bear out in the practice of the policies within their future universal health care program, I have a London bridge to sell you in Lake Havasu City, Ariz. Obama was telling the truth about this campaign promise: His presidency would provide "the most sweeping ethics reform in history." I guess more Americans should have been watching which way he was sweeping.

In short, whether in title or not, Dr. Emanuel is Obama's health care czar. Obamacare is a junior version of Emanuel-care, or should I say the beginning stage of Emanuel-care. What's almost eerie is how they both could be juxtaposed to intersect in full bloom sometime in America's future.

One last thing: Someone once said to me, "If two people think so much alike, you can bet that one person is not thinking." Think about it.

ABC Links Health Care Town Hall Protestors to Hate Groups

MEDIA RESEARCH CENTER

America's Media Watchdog

'Obamacare:' What does the Constitution have to say?

'This is an issue federal government shouldn't be touching at all'

By Chelsea Schilling
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


No powers can be exercised by the Congress which are prohibited by the Constitution or which are contrary to its spirit.

– Justice John McLean, Dred Scott v. Sandford, 1857

Is a federal government takeover of the health care system constitutional?

Some argue that under the Constitution, Congress is not authorized to regulate or subsidize health care.

Michael Boldin, founder of The Tenth Amendment Center, told WND that if citizens want to understand whether health care is constitutional, they must first understand the function of the Constitution.

"The best way to look at it is that it doesn't apply to you," he said. "It doesn't apply to me. It doesn't apply to any person at all. It applies to the government, and it sets the boundaries of what government is supposed to do."

Enumerated powers

In debating whether health care is constitutional, Boldin said citizens must look to the founding document to 1) determine whether the power is specifically listed there, or 2) if there isn't a specific power listed, look to the "Necessary and Proper Clause," or Article I, Section 8, clause 18.

Article I, Section 8, specifically lists the following powers granted to Congress:

* The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

* To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

* To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

Get "Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws" now!

* To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

* To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

* To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

* To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

* To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

* To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

* To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

* To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

* To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

* To provide and maintain a Navy;

* To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

* To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

* To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

* To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

* To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof

'Necessary and proper'

Boldin said the last power, dubbed the "Necessary and Proper Clause," does not grant the federal government unlimited authority, but gives it some leeway for certain things – only as long as those actions apply directly to the Constitution's specifically enumerated powers.

He said a good example of a necessary and proper power in action is the authority to establish post offices listed in Clause 7.

"Article I Section 8 gives the federal government the power to build post offices," he said. "But it doesn't specifically state that it can go out and buy land to build post offices or hire labor to build post offices. Those actions would be necessary and proper and, more importantly, lesser than the main power. So, if they were only able to create a post office, but they couldn't buy the land or the tools or the labor to do it, they'd never get the post office built."

Boldin continued, "When you think of what is necessary and proper to carry out a specifically listed or enumerated power, it has to meet two criteria: It has to be directly applicable, and it also has to be lesser than the enumerated power."

'General welfare'

James Madison

Some critics point to the "general welfare" stipulation in Clause 1 as a key provision granting the federal government the authority to regulate health care. However, in The Federalist No. 41, James Madison, the "Father of the Constitution," argued that "general welfare" in Clause 1 does not give the federal government unlimited power, rendering each of the following clauses redundant.

Madison asked rhetorically, "For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?

He continued, "Nothing is more natural nor more common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars."

Madison sought to address concerns of critics who warned that the "general welfare" clause opened the door to unlimited abuse.

"The Federalist Papers were public arguments to try to convince people to ratify the Constitution," Boldin said. "They weren't just writing about the general welfare clause for the hell of it. There was a real concern by people who were opposed to the Constitution that the general welfare clause would give this unlimited power to the federal government to do whatever it claimed would 'support the general welfare.'"

Referencing the "general welfare" concerns, Madison even accused critics of "labour[ing] for objections" by "stooping to such a misconstruction."

"It wasn't just the opponents of the Constitution saying there had to be limits to this," Boldin noted. "It was the proponents of the Constitution who were saying, in order for it to be general welfare, it must apply to one of the enumerated powers."

No federal authority

Because the power to regulate each citizen's medical care is not included among enumerated powers, he said, the federal government does not have the authority to impose a single-payer system.

"You have to look to the Constitution and ask, 'Is health care listed?'" Boldin said. "No. It's not."

"Is health care directly necessary and proper to carrying out any of the listed powers such as creating post offices and national defense?"

He said critics might argue that to have a good national defense, the United States must make sure that everyone is healthy.

"But that would not fall under any definition of what's considered necessary and proper," he said.

Furthermore, he cited the 10th Amendment, which states:

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 to the people.

He said that while the government has overstepped its bounds in many cases and used the federal government in violation of the 10th Amendment, that provision must not be ignored.

"No one has ever repealed the 10th Amendment," he said. "They do it by judicial fiat, but it still exists."

'Equal Protection Clause' of 14th Amendment

The 14th Amendment states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Some proponents of federal health care have argued that every citizen must be treated equally, and the current health care system is an example of gross inequality that runs contrary to principles of the 14th Amendment. They say wealthy people are able to afford and obtain medical treatment while the less fortunate are left to suffer when they are unable to pay for an operation or treatment.

"That argument would lead to a crazy slope where you could say everyone should have the exact same car," Boldin said. "Then we should have the same guarantee of transportation to get to work, the same guarantee of food and shelter. Should we all have equal homes? I mean, if someone wants to make that argument, they have to make some serious changes to the Constitution to authorize it."

He said regardless of their political affiliation or position on health care, citizens must ask themselves whether they truly want a government that has no limits.

"No matter what side you are on, you don't want a government that can do whatever it wants whenever it wants because it becomes dangerous," Boldin said. "This is what the Founding Fathers and the entire founding generation had to fight against – a king who could set his own rules and make them up as he goes. Rules may not be a wonderful thing, but when you allow government to do whatever it wants, you are guaranteeing tyranny."

Amending the Constitution

Some critics say the Constitution was meant to be a "living document" that would adapt to changing times, and since health care is a modern-day issue the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen, they argue, the federal government must step in and provide a single-payer system.

With regard to the "living document" argument, Boldin said that is what the amendment process is for. However, he said, lawmakers won't propose a health care amendment because they know it will not pass.

"They just don't propose it because, if they did, that would make it a much more serious discussion," he said. "The discussion wouldn't just be about helping the poor people – which is obviously a good motive for the people who really believe that."

He continued, "Instead, the discussion would be about the proper role of the government. Should it be involved in this at all?"

States move to nullify federal health care

Activists and state legislators are now focusing their efforts on state governments as a way to resist federal health care "reform" and stop federal usurpation of state rights, according to the Tenth Amendment Center. Lawmakers in as many as 10 states are considering or seeking to propose bills and resolutions to nullify federal health care in their states.

The Tenth Amendment Center explains nullification:

When a state "nullifies" a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or "non-effective," within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, not a law as far as the state is concerned.


Florida state Sen. Carey Baker

"Nullification goes all the way back to fighting for free speech in 1798 when the federal government passed the Alien and Sedition Acts," Boldin said. "Thomas Jefferson and James Madison wrote the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions saying, you can't do this; we're not going to abide by this in our states. Jefferson specifically said the people in our country are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government. The same holds true today. We're not subjects."

Recently, the issue of nullification re-emerged when nearly two dozen states mounted a resistance to the 2005 Real ID Act. Maine and Utah led the way by passing resolutions to refuse incorporation of federal security features into state driver's licenses and identification cards. After meeting fierce state resistance to its plans, the federal government delayed implementation twice and later announced it would "repeal and replace" the controversial law.

"The federal government wasn't able to do anything," Boldin said. "It wasn't able to threaten – nothing. It had to back off, and now it's getting rid of it."


Florida state Rep. Scott Plakon

Now states have turned their attention toward nullification of federal health care "reform" should it pass Congress this year.

On July 27, Florida State Sen. Carey Baker and State Rep. Scott Plakon filed H.J.R. 37, a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent Florida citizens from being affected by federal health "reform."

The proposed amendment prohibits "laws or rules from compelling any person, employer, or health care provider to participate in any health care system" and permits "a health care provider to accept direct payment from a person or employer for lawful health care services."

It also exempts "persons, employers, and health care providers from penalties and fines for paying or accepting direct payment for lawful health care services" and permits the "purchase or sale of health insurance in private health care systems. …"

If approved by the state legislature, Florida residents may vote on the amendment in 2010.

Likewise, the state of Arizona has joined the growing resistance to federal health "reform."


Arizona state Rep Nancy Barto

On June 22, the Arizona state Senate voted 18-11 to concur with the House and approve H.C.R. 2014, known as the Health Care Freedom Act. Arizona residents will vote on the amendment sponsored by Arizona Rep. Nancy Barto in 2010.

This week, Louisiana state Rep. Kirk Talbot announced he will propose a constitutional amendment to shield state residents from federal health "reform."

Louisiana's health chief, Alan Levine, told The Advocate that the legal debate should get interesting.

"The 10th amendment to the Constitution ensures states have the right to conduct their affairs except for those things specifically ascribed to the federal government," he said. "Health care is not one of those things the federal government has the 'right' to impose on states."

Louisiana state Rep. Kirk Talbot

Boldin confirmed that The Tenth Amendment Center has been in contact with sources in seven other states that have indicated their legislatures will see similar health care nullifications as early as 2010.

In a July interview with the Mark Davis Show, Texas Gov. Rick Perry indicated that his state may join the showdown with the White House over federal health care.

"I think you'll hear states and governors standing up and saying 'no' to this type of encroachment on the states with their health care," Perry said. "My hope is that we never have to have that stand-up. But I'm certainly willing and ready for the fight if this administration continues to try to force their very expansive government philosophy down our collective throats."

Boldin said he expects the movement to grow as people realize they can take their concerns to their own state governments

"Once the ball gets rolling, I think people will recognize that you can bang your head on the federal doorstep year in and year out and fail because they don't listen to us in D.C.," he said.

"This is what Jefferson, Madison and most of the founders recommended – this idea that there's a balance of government. When the federal government gets out of control, you have to look to your state governments to protect you against it."

He referenced the recent surge in protests at health care town hall meetings across the nation.

"If these were all focused on state governments, we would probably see 10 or 20 nullification bills in states already," he said. "And the health care program would be dead in the water."

Ultimately, Boldin said, it's not up to the federal government to provide health care for the nation.

"This is an issue that the federal government shouldn't be touching at all."

Bookmark and Share

Related offers:

Get your own copy of the U.S. Constitution at the WND Superstore today!

"The Federalist Papers in Modern Language"

"Who Killed the Constitution?"

"Constitutional Chaos: What Happens When the Government Breaks Its Own Laws"

What ever happened to our inalienable rights? Read "The Constitution in Exile"

Legalize the Constitution!

Reclaim your health! Read "What Your Doctor Doesn't Know About Nutritional Medicine May Be Killing You"

Will the elites control life itself?

Obama's Forfeited Credibility Sabotaging Obamacare

by David Limbaugh

President Barack Obama apparently came to believe the myth of his messiahship and has accordingly abused and squandered his good will and political capital and possibly self-sabotaged his socialized medicine scheme.

Of all the newsworthy aspects of this desperate "reform" effort, none is more so than the robust democratic processes it has reinvigorated in this nation. While Democrats insist the nationwide grass-roots movement against his Draconian measure is contrived and illusory, it is just the opposite.

Nothing could be so real as the American people, emboldened by their passion for liberty, standing up against a callous, dishonest government trolling for its freedoms in exchange for false promises.

All the proof we need that Obama and Democrats recognize the authenticity of this grass-roots protest is their hysterical reaction to it. They wouldn't be hyperventilating about it if they believed it to be fake, but would use their super-majorities to ram through this bill.

Indeed, that congressmen have not been able or courageous enough (against the threat of being removed from office in 2010) to pass this bill is the story of the year. Integral to that story is the unraveling of the Obama mystique, occasioned by Obama's ongoing arrogance and duplicity, most recently on the Obamacare issue.

Let's just look at some of the myriad ways Obama has betrayed the enormous trust bestowed upon him -- on the health care issue alone.

Obama has said he just wants a dialogue with the American people on health care. Sorry, but there are just so many times a person can say the exact opposite of what he means and retain a shred of credibility. While saying he wants this dialogue, he's also telling his opponents to shut up -- literally. Even more revealing, he was adamant that this bill be passed before the August recess -- a bill whose provisions he admitted or pretended he was not familiar with. How could there have been a dialogue if he had already made up his mind and if the deadline he had artificially imposed could not possibly have allowed a dialogue?

Obama has said his opponents were trying to "scare and mislead the American people," when in fact his opponents are the American people whom he is trying to scare and mislead.

Obama misleads us concerning the public option, saying people can keep their private plans if they prefer. Yet the House bill, which he was urging be passed before the August recess, effectively would coerce employers, through punitive and positive incentives, to dump their private plans in favor of the public option. Most Americans have employer-provided health insurance, so a wholesale exodus to the public option would be inevitable -- and intended. In fact, the bill would prevent those who lose private coverage from reacquiring it, except plans conforming to a slew of new mandated regulations, which eventually would drive such plans out of existence. Obama's propagandette, Linda Douglass, falsely denied that Obama said he supports the public option, but he's on tape.

Obama misleads us in his inartful attempt to analogize the postal industry with his health plan, saying privately run FedEx and UPS have fared well against the government-run Postal Service. He fails to tell us how different the public/private competitive environment would be under his health care plan with the deck stacked -- by law -- against the survival of private insurers and private care.

Obama misleads us by denying that bureaucrats would "meddle" in our health care decisions or with the doctor-patient relationship. Yet in almost the same breath, he boasts that he would bundle payments to doctors based on the quality, not the quantity, of the services they provide -- such quality to be determined by his bureaucratic boards. The House bill is replete with provisions conferring such decisions on government bureaucrats.

Obama misleads us when he and his minions cavalierly dismiss the public's genuine concern about the government, under his plan, insinuating itself into end-of-life decisions. Instead of responding to provisions of the bill legitimately generating such concerns, he puts words into our mouths, saying we claim that the bill would require "euthanasia." Even some of Obama's state-run media fact checkers suggested that Reps. Thaddeus McCotter and John Boehner made that claim. In fact, they said provisions of the bill "could create ... a more permissive environment for euthanasia ... and physician-assisted suicide." Someone needs to check the fact checkers.

Of course there are legitimate concerns here, and it insults our intelligence to suggest otherwise. The bill would immediately impose a monumental conflict of interest on government bureaucrats by tasking them to cut costs drastically while simultaneously empowering them to "counsel" people about their end-of-life (and other) medical care. Such a conflict of interest -- over life and death itself -- is unconscionable and unthinkable in the United States of America.

The "messiah" has lost his mojo -- by betraying his unearned trust with the people.

The Etiquette Czar's Rules for Patriotic Protest

by Michelle Malkin

The White House press office is now Miss Manners' office. President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, took to the television airwaves this week to criticize congressional town hall protesters for "yelling." Gibbs' underling, Bill Burton, chastised voters not to "disrupt" and "scream." Instead, he advised America to engage in a "spirited debate about health care, a real vigorous conversation about it."

What constitutes "spirited"? How do they define "vigorous"? When does forceful dissent become intolerable disruption? Herewith, the Obama Etiquette Czar's Official Rules for Patriotic Protest. Keep this guide with you at all times to avoid being flagged by the Democratic politeness monitors.

-- No shouting. Congressional representatives cannot sell Obamacare with mobs of unruly senior citizens and small-business owners interrupting to press them on specific sections of the bill. Limit your objections to a library whisper and only challenge your lawmakers with hushed, dulcet tones. Otherwise, you will scare them, and they will be forced to hide behind teleconference calls, sick children at hospitals or union bosses.

If, on the other hand, you are attending a presidential town hall to show your affection and approbation, "spirited" chanting is acceptable.

Don't: "HANDS OFF HEALTH CARE!" and "READ THE BILL!"

Do: "I LOVE YOU, BARACK!" "AMEN!" and "YES, WE CAN!"

Also permitted: Shouting at historic inaugurations to protest war (as legions of Code Pink activists did in 2005 during the president's address) and shouting, "We didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us!" to protest immigration enforcement (as thousands of illegal alien supporters did during raucous rallies in 2006).

Do refrain from boisterous shrieking against those who accuse you of lacking patriotism -- unless you are Hillary Clinton, who bellowed at the top of her lungs in 2003:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

-- No laughing. Snickering at proponents of nationalized health care is rude, bordering on political terrorism. Stifle all derisive chuckling at bogus statistics and denials that Obamacare will lead to long lines and rationed care. That would be "evil-mongering," as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put it on Thursday.

If, however, you are a member of Congress confronted with silly questions about whether you have read the bill, feel free to giggle. For tips on executing acceptable levels of cackling, take a cue from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. "If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes," Hoyer told CNSNews.com while choking back laughter after a recent news conference. "I'm laughing because a) I don't know how long this bill is going to be, but it's going to be a very long bill." Tee-hee-hee.

-- No Nazi comparisons. References to fascism are ugly and un-American. Swastikas have no place in debates about nationalizing 20 percent of the economy. Swastikas may, however, still be used as substitutes for the "S" in "BusHitler" and tattoos on the forehead of Darth Cheney.

-- No boorish questions. "Real vigorous conversation" requires town hall attendees to formulate queries that will encourage true debate. This is not the time to ask why Congress won't subject itself to the health mandates it wants to foist on every other American. This is not the time to ask how the White House will pay for the massive Obamacare bureaucracy without raising taxes on the middle class. The White House endorsed model citizen questioning at its East Room health care town halls in March and July, including this:

"Hi, Mr. President. I'm a member of SEIU, and I'm down here in Fairfax County working on Change That Works. What can I do, as a member of the union, to help you with your reform bill?"

-- No mean signs. That 11-year-old daughter of a Massachusetts Obama donor and campaigner who was randomly chosen to criticize the scary posters held up by town hall protesters in New Hampshire was right. "Mean" signs are, well, mean. Never mind the placards that blared "Bush is the only dope worth shooting" in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco and the assassination art depicting former President Bush with a gun to his head in Chicago. "Obama is a socialist" is a sign too far and cannot be tolerated in a civil society. Period.

Instead, print out the "STAND UP FOR HEALTH REFORM" signs helpfully produced by Obama's Organizing for America, and burn your "Don't Tread on Me" flags. Such rebellious sentiments are dangerous incitements to violence.

To those of you who can't abide by The Rules: Shhhhhhhhh.