August 21st,
2009
Dear Liberty Activist,
Tomorrow is the "Recess
Rally," where tens of thousands of Americans like yourselves will
be gathered in front of Congressional district offices nationwide,
making your voices heard against the imposition of government-run
health care, and you can be a part!
More than any event since the tea parties,
this is the event that must be heard loud and clear. Simply choose your
state and you'll find events to attend, and like-minded Americans to
peaceably assemble with in dissent of an increasingly tyrannical
government.
As Congressmen and women get ready to
return to Washington, the American people must make sure that they have
listened to your counsel, concerns, and advice. Because if they have,
there is no question that when they return, it will be to cast votes
against ObamaCare.
Not to mention stand in the way of any
dictatorial moves that Harry Reid and his cronies in the Senate make to
force-feed socialized medicine to the American people.
Reid is ready to invoke "reconciliation,"
whereby only 51 votes would be needed to pass the so-called public
"option." It won't matter to Senate Democrats that the rule is supposed
to apply against budget measures, and not to sweeping changes in the
law such as taking over the health care system. To them, the ends
justifies the means.
According
to Reid spokesman Jim Manley, ObamaCare will be passed "by any
legislative means necessary."
It happens to be ObamaCare's most promising
route: a "Senate-first" strategy, whereby the Democrats pass through
"reconciliation" a measure by simple majority, and then send the
bill(s) directly to the House for a vote. No cloture vote. And after
the House rubber stamps it, there won't be any conference committee.
It will be law upon Barack Obama's
signature. And as the filibuster is carelessly cast into oblivion, any
semblance of a two-party system will have shattered.
The importance of the Senate filibuster for
more than two-hundred years has been to give the minority party the
power to in effect "veto" legislation. It was supposed to temper
radical changes to the republican government. Radical changes like
ObamaCare.
And without it, nothing will ever be the
same. Only you can stop it.
Use
CapWiz NOW to tell the Senate, the House, the White House, and your
local media outlets and tell them to save the filibuster and the
two-party system. This is a danger to the very heart of liberty. Enter
your zip code and follow the steps. Or, you can use the government's
websites in
the Housein
the Senate to do it the old fashioned way. and
Also, click
here for the upgraded Target 92 list to now include all vulnerable and
Blue Dog Democrats. Blue Dogs are in blue. Here's the .xls
and .pdf
versions. Everything you need to email their staff, write letters, make
phone calls and send faxes, both to their district and Capitol Hill
offices.
In today's Liberty
Action Report, by any means necessary, Barack Obama will
run your life from cradle to grave, Pelosi and Reid have found the
solution to the Blue Dog problem, and health care rationing is no myth.
Plus, ObamaCare dominates the blogosphere, and American Spectator
outlines its negative effects upon society.
Please send your letters to the editor at Robert@getliberty.org. We
publish all points of view! Today, David C. Miller MD of Concord, NC
writes, "I have heard several Democrats (senators and reps)
publicly state that although they realize the MAJORITY of their
constituents do not support the health care reform bill, they ADAMANTLY
will support whatever THEY think is best for America, even though they
were hired to represent their constituents. Can't we at least file a
class-action lawsuit for breach of contract against these people to get
this stopped?! There has to be some way to remove them from office, or
at least stop them from what HAS to be illegal, other than just waiting
until they come up for election!"
There is the old impeachment process. Wikipedia
has a pretty good outline of how that works in Congress. In the
mean time, we're kind of stuck with the rotten eggs we have now.
For Liberty,
Robert Romano
ALG Senior News Editor
www.getliberty.org
P.S. Want to help us keep fighting? Help
us out with a small donation today!
Open Source & Copyright Free
Reid:
ObamaCare "By Any Legislative Means Necessary"
Reid, Pelosi, and Obama with but one option to force ObamaCare
on the American people: to change the rules and eliminate the
filibuster in a sharp departure from more than 200 years of
parliamentary history.
I've
Made Arrangements
It seems that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have made
arrangements to get rid of the Blue Dogs.
Health
Care Rationing: It's No Myth!
Rationing decisions, like those made within Britain's National
Health Service, are made within a system that both guides and ethically
justifies them but it is still rationing.
The
Overnights from NetRight Nation
Executive Director of NetRight Nation Adam Bitely gives the
weekly update on what is going on around the blogosphere and what is
coming.
Too
Hot Not Too Note: Catch me if you can
The American Spectator writer Peter Ferrara illustrates very
plainly the coming negative effects of Obamacare.
Reid:
ObamaCare "By Any Legislative Means Necessary"
By Robert Romano
Harry Reid has delivered his ultimatum to
Republicans in the Senate. And it is nothing short of a coup of
representative government. Either Republicans bow to the demands of
Senate leadership and pass a "bipartisan" bill, or he'll invoke a
process known as "reconciliation,"
whereby only 51 votes would be needed to pass the bill.
Reid's problem is that he doesn't have
enough Senate Democrats to break a filibuster—which requires 60 votes.
And so, he's rolling the dice, gambling that the Senate parliamentarian
will go along with his blatant breach of procedure and that his
thuggish threats will cause Senate Republicans to capitulate to his
demands.
The truth is, however, this may be the only
way Barack Obama's takeover of the nation's entire health care system
will be passed this year or any year. The so-called public
"option"—which is not at all optional—cannot clear the 60 votes needed
in the Senate. And a bill in the House without the public "option"
cannot pass either because of demands by the so-called "progressive"
caucus.
All of which leaves Reid, Pelosi, and Obama
with but one option: to change the rules and eliminate the filibuster
in a sharp departure from more than 200 years of parliamentary history.
According
to Reid spokesman Jim Manley, "The White House and the Senate
Democratic leadership still prefer a bipartisan bill. However, patience
is not unlimited, and we are determined to get something done this year
by any legislative means necessary."
That's right. "By any legislative means
necessary." Attila the Hun would be proud.
To make matters worse, Reid's dictatorial
move is a definite shift to a "Senate-first" strategy to pass
ObamaCare. In this scenario, Senate Democrats would pass the
legislation through the "reconciliation" process and send the bill(s)
directly to the House for a vote. Then, there wouldn't be a conference
bill, which would still need 60 votes in the Senate to get cloture.
Instead, it would just get rubber-stamped
against the express wishes of the American people.
And don't be surprised if Reid and his
cabal surreptitiously insert the force "option" into the bill. According
to the Wall Street Journal, "In recent days, Democratic leaders
have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under
this procedure, congressional aides said. They might even be able to
include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key
demand of the party's liberal wing, but that remains uncertain."
But then again, Reid is committed to
getting this done "by any legislative means necessary." And that
certainly includes ignoring the intent and spirit of the reconciliation
rule—which is only supposed to deal with budget resolutions.
As a result, the normal rules are likely to
be circumvented, and Congress will try any underhanded, backroom
maneuver possible to get government-run health care without any
opportunity for a filibuster.
The worst part is, there may not be a thing
that Senators opposed will be able to do to stop it.
That is, unless the American people make
their voices heard and let members of Congress know that it is they who
will be rolling the dice with their political careers should they go
along with this subversion of the time-honored filibuster.
Concerned Americans need to specifically
let Senate Republicans know they must not cave into Harry Reid's
ultimatum and sign on to any mealy-mouthed compromise. If they hold the
line, it is Reid and his caucus who will pay the price for this coup,
and not they.
Robert Romano is the ALG Senior News
Editor.
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1490
I've Made Arrangements
ALG Editor's Note: William
Warren's award-winning cartoons published at GetLiberty.org are a free
service of ALG News Bureau. They may be reused and redistributed free
of charge.
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1489
Health
Care Rationing: It's No Myth!
By Victor Morawski
I awoke one morning last week, as I often
do, with my clock radio playing The Wall Street Journal Report. A
representative of the AARP was being interviewed. When asked whether
his organization had concerns about rationing of health care to senior
citizens, he assured the reporter that rationing is just a myth being
perpetrated by the opponents of health care reform.
This, of course, does not fit other
analyses I have read on the issue. Nor, I might add, does it fit the
truth. Reading the bill carefully (something one or two members of
Congress might consider doing) makes it clear to me that, if a public
option is out there, health care rationing is no myth. And senior
citizens better beware.
Rationing decisions, like those made within
Britain's National Health Service, are made within a system that both
guides and ethically justifies them. So, let's take a quick look at two
such rationing systems. The first is currently in use in Great Britain
and was recently defended by Obama Health Care Team member Dr. Peter
Singer. The second was proposed by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, Obama's top
health care advisors.
What will become unmistakably clear is just
how heavily these two systems are weighted against the interests of the
elderly.
1. The QALY System
Peter Singer, in his New York Times Magazine article "Why We Must
Ration Health Care" (July 19, 2009) has boldly claimed: "The debate
over health care reform in the United States should start from the
premise that some form of health care rationing is both inescapable and
desirable. Then we can ask, What is the best way to do it?"
Now, one might think that the chief good
promoted by health care is the saving of lives---a good that we could
easily measure in terms of the number of lives saved. If this were so,
then presumably saving the life of an 85-year-old would count as much
as saving the life of a teenager, both reflecting an instance of a life
saved.
But this way of looking at things is "too
crude" for both Singer and the British NHS [National Health Service]
because it doesn't reflect our basic intuition that the death of a
teenager is a greater tragedy than the death of an 85-year-old. What
government should really aim for, Singer and his ilk contend, is not
saving lives, but life-years.
If we save the life of a teenager who could
normally be expected to live another 70 years then we have saved 70
life-years. On the other hand, if we save the life of an 85-year-old,
who could normally be expected to live only another five years, then we
have saved only five life-years. "That suggests," says Singer, "that
saving one teenager is equivalent to saving fourteen 85-year-olds." A
perspective, which obviously gives the elderly little chance when it
comes to the allocation of health care Singer and Obama advocate.
2. The Complete Lives System
As chilling as Singers's views are, those of top Obama health care
advisor, Ezekial Emanuel, may be even more devastating. In a Lancet
article entitled "Principles for allocation of scarce medical
interventions" Emanuel proposes what he and his colleagues call "the
complete lives system."
The only problem is: it empowers those in
government to decide who lives and who dies by determining who is
really living – or, could yet live -- what they determine is a
"complete life." And by "complete," they mean both the quality of life
and the length of years.
Emanuel and his co-authors concede that
their system "prioritizes younger people who have not yet lived a
complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid." And they make
no apology for this. While some things might constitute
ageism---treating the elderly "differently because of stereotypes or
falsehoods"…"treating them differently because they have already had
more life years" would not.
So, there you have it. And so, really, does
AARP – though they will likely never admit it. Both Barack Obama's top
health care advisor, Ezekiel Emanuel (who also happens to be the
brother of Obama's Chief of Staff) and one of his foremost Health Care
Team members, Peter Singer, have come our foursquare for rationing
health care. Perhaps the only silver lining for the elderly is that if
the bill passes in its present form, you won't have to worry about it –
for long.
Victor Morawski is a professor at Coppin
State University and a Syndicated Writer for ALG's Liberty Features.
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1488
The
Overnights: This Week's Blogosphere in Review
By Adam Bitely
Health Care continues to gain momentum as
we head through the August recess. After last weekend's RightOnline
conference in Pittsburgh, PA, the NetRight is more energized than ever
to lead the charge against socialized medicine. You can see that
bloggers are more energized just by looking at the percentage of blog
posts that are on Health Care.
This week, over 51% of the blog posts from
center-right bloggers were on Obama's plan to reform the Health Care
system. This Saturday, protesters, organized by NetRight activists will
be taking part in Recess Rallies all across the nation. Not only are
protests happening everywhere, but they are incredibly successful.
For years, left-wing bloggers have said
that the NetRight has not understood how to use the internet. But they
have been proven wrong. If one looks back at how the Tea Party Movement
has sprung up and successfully organized itself—mostly online—one would
understand that not only has the right caught up with the left, they
have surpassed them. If the left disagrees, they can look at public
opinion polls on Health Care and I would especially ask them to look at
the tracking polls on Obama's popularity. The fact of the matter is,
the NetRight is doing well and continues to get better.
Adam Bitely is the Executive Director of
NetRight Nation.
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1487
ALG Editor's Note: In
the following featured commentary, Peter Ferrara from The American
Spectator explains thoroughly the enormous amount of negative effects
that will come to the American people through Obamacare.
Catch me if you can
by Peter Ferrara
Last week,
Barack Obama treated us to a traveling road show crusading for his
heath care overhaul plan. But what he actually said at those staged,
orchestrated, town halls packed with his fervent supporters was so
unhinged from the reality of the Congressional legislation he is
supporting that he must have consciously decided to challenge us all
with the dare: "Catch me if you can."
President Obama
keeps repeating over and over that his plan does not include any cuts
in Medicare. But the legislation he is supporting specifies $500
billion in reduced funding for Medicare, scored by CBO. When arguing
that his health overhaul is paid for, he wants credit for these cuts.
But when challenged, he wants to deny before the whole country in broad
daylight that he is doing it. I can't recall any precedent for such a
Presidential disconnect from reality.
In trying to
deny these Medicare cuts, President Obama said at one town hall that
AARP had endorsed his plan. He said, "AARP would not be endorsing a
bill if it was undermining Medicare, okay?" But just the night before,
AARP was on national television denying that it had endorsed the Obama
health plan. It issued a press release saying the same just after
Obama's town hall misstatement.
President Obama
also repeats over and over in these town halls that his health plan
will reduce health costs, thereby reducing federal spending and
deficits. But CBO, which is now in complete control of the Democrat
Congressional majorities, says just the opposite. It says the Obama
health overhaul plan will increase federal spending by close to a
trillion dollars or more, and increase the federal deficit by hundreds
of billions. On health costs, CBO Director Doug Elmendorf told Congress,
In the
legislation that has been reported we don't see the sort of fundamental
changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal
spending by a significant amount…[O]n the contrary, the legislation
significantly expands the federal responsibility for health costs….[The
government public option for health insurance] raises the amount of
[spending] that is growing at this unsustainable rate.
And here's a
dirty little secret. The CBO surely underestimates the costs of the
Obama health plan, just as it regularly does for new government
programs, health programs in particular. The official government
estimates for Medicare when it was adopted in 1965 projected that the
program would cost only $12 billion by 1990. But the actual costs of
the program by that year were $109.7 billion, nine times larger than
the original estimate.
Independent
private estimates have ranged far higher than what CBO projects. HSI
Network used its proprietary ARCOLA simulation model to estimate that
the House bill would cost $3.5 trillion in additional federal spending
alone over 10 years. HSI estimates that the Senate bill would cost $4.1
trillion over 10 years. These estimates seem far more realistic than
the CBO estimates. In my study of the Obama health plan for the
Heartland Institute
(www.heartland.org<http://www.heartland.org/>), I explain in
thorough detail how and why the Obama health overhaul will raise rather
than lower health costs.
But in the town
halls, President Obama just goes from bad to worse. In Colorado on
Saturday, President Obama even suggested that his health overhaul
scheme would "bend the cost curve," reducing "health care inflation" so
much that the enormous long-term deficit of Medicare (unfunded
liability: $89 trillion) would be eliminated! He said that without his
health overhaul plan, "We'll either have to cut Medicare, in which case
seniors then will bear the brunt of it, or we'll have to raise taxes,
which nobody likes." But the CBO has never ever come anywhere near to
confirming anything like this. This is just abusive…continuing reading here.
http://blog.getliberty.org/default.asp?Display=1486
|
