Recognizing Fascism

"And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day." I Samuel 8:18

It is fashionable to associate fascism with the political right. Like most popular conceptions, it is also erroneous to do so.

As a history teacher in the early 1990s, I began to be fascinated by Bill Clinton's seeming use of fascistic tactics and philosophy in first advancing, and then preserving, his administration. This led me to purchase and then read Stanley Payne's A History of Fascism, 1914-1945 (Payne is a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, hardly an outpost of conservatism). Payne surveyed the entire fascist landscape - there were fascist movements throughout both Europe and Asia (and to a lesser extent in the Americas) throughout the time period covered by his book - and arrived at a "definition" of fascism that was both striking and chilling.

The faux intelligentsia of liberal Western culture often pretends that fascism can be boiled down to two basic propositions: Nationalism and Racism. As with all of the left's conclusions, this conclusion is arrived at more out of an attempt to bolster their own self-conception than out of dealing fairly with history. Since, publicly (though on the race front, ONLY publicly), the modern left finds nationalism, racism, and the political right all objectionable, it makes sense to simply assign nationalism and racism to the political right and thereby conclude that fascism is an extreme movement emanating from the right wing.

Where evidence exists, it all points to the opposite conclusion. The first tip-off, which most eighth graders would recognize (but since the left's understanding of social sciences is mired in a kindergartner's view of the world, an eighth-grade understanding is far too advanced for the left), is that the word Nazi, the title of the most well-known of the fascist movements, is an anglicized shortening of the words "National Socialism," or in the original German Nationalsozialismus. While it is commonly held that Nazism was opposed in principle to communism, it is important to note that its opposition was national (i.e., a preference for Germany over the Soviets) and political (i.e., political power is viewed by fascists as a zero-sum game so that, even within Germany, the Nazis were compelled to destroy Germany's communists and socialists so that they themselves could wield power without restraint), not ideological. In fact, the full title of the Nazi party was the "National Socialists German Workers Party," a titular formula that has been mimicked time and again by both socialist and communist organizations worldwide.

Secondly, however, note that the goals of fascism have always been the same as those of communism and socialism: the concentration of political power in a party bureaucratic structure rather than in the hands of private citizens, the state control of capital with varying degrees of redistribution, the use of Keynesian spending strategies as a means of consolidating political power, attempts at mass mind control and brainwashing, and the transformation of the citizenry from a free people into subjects - wards of the state. For this reason, there has never been a fascist movement that did not have as its goal the founding of a socialist structure in which capital was controlled, to one extent or another, by government. Fascism, then, in its effect, is to always have economic aims that are more compatible with the left than the right.

Payne, in A History of Fascism, determined that attempts to define the ideology of fascism essentially missed the point - fascism is not so much an ideology as it is a methodology. In fact, he stated that one of the universal signs of fascism was the fact that it tended to exist within an ideological vacuum: other than the tendency toward a socialistic tyranny, the ideology of fascism tended to be different in every state in which it existed.

That fascism lacks a coherent and stable ideology makes sense when one understands Payne's definition of fascism, which has nothing to do with right-wing politics, nationalism, or racism. Rather, fascism, according to Payne, is an ideologically vacant grab for raw power at any cost with a consequent concentration of governmental power in a socialist bureaucracy and the subjugation of the people of a nation.

So fascism is not an attempt to support an ideological viewpoint, it is an attempt to seize power and subjugate nations minus any coherent ideology. Fascism is not about beliefs, but rather about the pure, naked exercise of raw power.

One can see that, in fact, strongly-held beliefs would tend to get in the way of the exercise of raw power. If one's goal is power, strongly-held beliefs merely complicates matters: what if the population I am trying to subjugate doesn't share my beliefs? So the defining element of fascism was its ability to adopt whatever belief system aids it in its pursuit of raw power.

The vagaries of history made Germans susceptible to a myth grounded in national expansion for economic purposes and in blaming national and economic troubles on Jews. But note that the same was NOT found in the Japanese form of fascism, where the cultural climate rather lent itself to a positive mythology of supernatural destiny without an accompanying negative mythology of blame (i.e., the Japanese did not hold the Koreans or Chinese accountable for any specific set of problems in Japan, they merely saw them as population groups that were destined to be conquered). In Italy, fascism was much more practical, restrained, and opportunistic, without a coherent metanarrative to match that of the Germans or Japanese. Three fascist regimes begat three types of ideology, but they were all the same in one way: their thirst to consolidate all power within a single political party and use such consolidation to subjugate the population to governmental control.

Bill Clinton was the first fascist president of the United States. That he was a master of using the big lie (and thousands of smaller ones) for the manipulation of the population, as were the Nazis, Italian Fascists, and Japanese under Tojo. He had a nebulous, undefined platform defined more by unjustified and unprovable complaints ("the worst economy in 50 years") and sloganeering ("the man from Hope") than by specific policy statements. Further, he was so unattached to any ideas at all that once the Republicans captured the Congress in 1994, he was able to contort himself from a social liberal par excellence to a Republican lite, championing hundreds of small, insignificant "initiatives" (which nevertheless had the effect of consolidating power, both economic and political, in a left-leaning bureaucracy) and "ending welfare as we know it" to the horror of his liberal base.

Clinton displayed fascistic tendencies in his lack of attachment to a coherent ideology, in his incremental consolidation of large chunks of political power in deceptively arcane or benevolent-sounding legislation (his changes to the Violence Against Women Act, which likely permanently destroyed the stable nuclear family as an institution, for example), and his willingness to gain, maintain, and increase power at any cost (including treason, as he sold forbidden technology secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions, admitting as much in his "Republican Juggernaut" complaint).

Barack Obama, however, does not display fascistic tendencies. He is a full-bore, spot-on, absolute fascist. From the use of propaganda posters modeled on Soviet and Nazi propaganda to his scorched-earth policies regarding his political enemies, in many ways he out-Hitlers Hitler. While nobody who lived through the Clinton administration ever thought they would see a liar to match his output of lies (if not skill in lying), Barack Obama uses the lie in the very same way as the Nazis and Soviets did: by never telling the truth, he builds a cultural numbness to the fact that he is a liar and he also overwhelms, undermines, and exhausts all community morality by encouraging a culture in which the significance between lying and telling the truth is forgotten. It is important that the culture be morally exhausted, because it takes the strength of character and moral conviction to withstand tyranny.

He is, of course, like all fascists before him, ideologically vacuous, lacking a coherent ideology except for the obvious hatred of American ideals and his intent to destroy everything that has made the United States an exceptional country among the nations ("hope and change"). Barack Obama, like Clinton before him, and like Hitler and every other fascist, sees the written law of the land and the expressed will of the people only as obstacles to the fulfillment of his utopian plans, as the recent health care debacle has illustrated. He is a lawless gangster, in the same mold as Hitler. And while he is still perceived by the most intellectually vacant and politically ignorant of our populace as a savior, it is very obvious that his agenda has far more to do with concentrating power in government and subjugating the population than it does with "health care" or "saving the planet" or "rescuing the economy."

(The government takeover of health care, of course, gives no benefits until 2014, while demanding that payment begin immediately. Would you purchase a car under a similar plan? "Cap and Trade" has, by all admission, no chance of significantly reducing CO2 emissions because the nations who are the worst offenders will not adopt similar legislation - "Cap and Trade" is merely a way to apply a brake to the U.S. economy, removing entrepreneurship and investment as income options and causing millions to become dependent on government consequent to the loss of private sector jobs. And the woeful stimuli plans have had no positive effect on the economy whatsoever, but have incurred large debts that will result in the bankrupting of the nation when coupled with Obama's other expenditures, likely within the next ten years.)

Fascism is here. And its ravages are not complete. Following the government takeover of health care, Congress and its fascist leader, Barack Obama, are now turning their sights to schemes to naturalize millions of illegal aliens and to passing "Cap and Trade" prior to the 2010 elections. Again, their intent is to consolidate as much power as possible in an unaccountable, socialist bureaucracy in as little time as possible so that, even if there is an election reversal in 2010 and 2012, it would be impossible for the nation to ever recover. Given the superstructure of unconstitutional legislation that would need to be repealed, the bureaucracy that would need to be rooted out, and the debt that would need to be paid, the damage could well be done by the next presidential election.

If the United States does not resist, it will have been transformed into a fully fascist state by the time of Barack Obama's reelection, should there be one, in 2012.

It is now necessary to ask, "How did we get here?"

Obama Administration Agrees with AP and Joe Wilson: Obama Lies!

Our dear friend, Joe Wilson, who has suddenly discovered the validity of the Biblical truth that "a prophet is not without honor, save in his own country," is, though mocked as some kind of uncivil beast, nevertheless having the truth of his prophetic message ("Obama, Thou Doth Verily Lie!") borne out by numerous sources.

It was the very next day when the Associated Press offered its critique of Wilson's prophetic message - in technical newspaper jargon, the AP essentially said, "Yep, Obama lies."

But on Friday night, while everyone was asleep, partying, or traveling to Washington, D.C. to participate in Glenn Beck's suggested protest against Obamalotry, the White House itself released a statement that essentially admitted that Joe Wilson wasn't lying when he called Barack Hussein Hoover Pinnochio Muhammad bin Obama on the carpet. Yes, even the White House is saying Obama lied!

The particular lie which elicited such righteous indignation from Wilson (only God Himself knows how Wilson restrained himself for so long, as Obama's lying was pervasive through the entire speech on Wednesday night, but God, I understand, inspires His prophets with messages peculiarly suited for a particular occasion) was a statement wondrous in its lawyerly precision (reminiscent of another lying Democratic lawyer who speculated as to the meaning of the ancient term "is") as Obama attempted to persuade his audience that illegal immigrants would not receive benefits under extant plans for health care reform.

His particular statement was: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." Now, in the fine tradition of "I did not have sex with that woman..." this statement demands a little parsing.

Lying liars and the lies they lie.

First, "the reforms I'm proposing." Well, until Wednesday, Obama himself hadn't exactly been proposing any reforms. A two-and-a-half page summary of his goals appeared on the White House website only this week stating in broad generalities what Obama would like socialized health care to become. So essentially, as of the statement which drew Wilson's unique critique (and ire), Obama's "proposed reforms" were something of a matter discernible only by occult means, since they were hidden deep within the recesses of the empty head, heart, and suit of Barack Hussein Hoover Pinnochio Muhammad bin Obama.

But perhaps most disturbing (false) allegation in the statement above is that whatever form the health care "proposal" takes, it will not "apply to those who are here illegally." Apply? Now, apply is an exceedingly broad term, is it not?

Obama supporters, not known for their reasoning ability in the first place, pick out isolated instances of various extant bills which appear to forbid the extension of benefits to illegal immigrants and vacuously maintain - "See? Obama didn't lie! Benefits are prohibited to illegals!" One must remember, however, that these people are intellectually challenged from the get-go, inasmuch as they admit that they actually voted for Obama.

But no extant bill makes any provision for the discovery of whether one is an illegal immigrant or not. So the prohibition essentially amounts to a traffic stop at which a license check is taking place without requiring the examination of any licenses. How can one prohibit driving without a valid license when one refuses to examine licenses? And how can one prohibit the extension of benefits to illegal aliens when one refuses to check on one's citizenship status?

Alas, the White House has now taken the side of Conservatives, Libertarians, Tea Party attendees, Glenn Beck, the Associated Press, and even Joe Wilson in admitting that...

as a practical matter, there is no way of verifying the citizenship of applicants -- which is the current state of play. Republicans say that then means illegal immigrants would end up being enrolled in plans -- bill language or no bill language.

And the Administration is proposing changes to existing proposals that would prevent illegal immigrants from buying private insurance on the proposed health-care exchange, but also admitting that...

hospitals would be compensated with public funds for the care of undocumented immigrants.

And the administration recommends introducing verification requirements to insure that illegal immigrants do not participate in transactions within the proposed health-care exchange.

It is indeed a strange and sad day when a president is identified as such an inveterate liar that even his own administration is forced to stand against the information in his speeches. What is perhaps even sadder, however, is the lying liars who elected, and continue to defend him.

AP Joins Congressman Joe Wilson: "Obama, You Lie!"

The truth is so out of fashion in America these days (and how else could such moral ruffians as Bill Clinton and Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama have been elected?) that I awaken this morning to speculation that that unctuous paragon of righteousness, Nancy Pelosi, might be considering censure for hero Congressman Joe Wilson's introduction of facts into the health care debate with his attempt to inform America of what most of us already know: Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama is a raging liar.



One wonders if Pelosi, et al., will attempt to similarly censure/censor the Associated Press, who asserts that Obama was lying on five of seven major assertions made about health care last night?


LIE NUMBER ONE:

OBAMA: "I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. Period."

THE FACTS: Though there's no final plan yet, the White House and congressional Democrats already have shown they're ready to skirt the no-new-deficits pledge.

House Democrats offered a bill that the Congressional Budget Office said would add $220 billion to the deficit over 10 years. But Democrats and Obama administration officials claimed the bill actually was deficit-neutral. They said they simply didn't have to count $245 billion of it — the cost of adjusting Medicare reimbursement rates so physicians don't face big annual pay cuts.

Their reasoning was that they already had decided to exempt this "doc fix" from congressional rules that require new programs to be paid for. In other words, it doesn't have to be paid for because they decided it doesn't have to be paid for.

The administration also said that since Obama already had included the doctor payment in his 10-year budget proposal, it didn't have to be counted again.

That aside, the long-term prognosis for costs of the health care legislation has not been good.

CBO Director Douglas Elmendorf had this to say in July: "We do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

LIE NUMBER TWO:

OBAMA: "Nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have."

THE FACTS: That's correct, as far as it goes. But neither can the plan guarantee that people can keep their current coverage. Employers sponsor coverage for most families, and they'd be free to change their health plans in ways that workers may not like, or drop insurance altogether. The Congressional Budget Office analyzed the health care bill written by House Democrats and said that by 2016 some 3 million people who now have employer-based care would lose it because their employers would decide to stop offering it.

In the past Obama repeatedly said, "If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period." Now he's stopping short of that unconditional guarantee by saying nothing in the plan "requires" any change.

We'll call this a half-lie, since the AP gives Nobama a pass here. But note that even the AP asserts that the nature of Obama's guarantee has changed - whereas before his statement was "You will be able to keep your current coverage," his new statement is a somewhat middling "I won't require your coverage to change." The lie, then, is in his original guarantee, even if modified for last night's speech.

LIE NUMBER THREE:

OBAMA: "The reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally." One congressman, South Carolina Republican Joe Wilson, shouted "You lie!" from his seat in the House chamber when Obama made this assertion. Wilson later apologized.

THE FACTS: The facts back up Obama. The House version of the health care bill explicitly prohibits spending any federal money to help illegal immigrants get health care coverage. Illegal immigrants could buy private health insurance, as many do now, but wouldn't get tax subsidies to help them. Still, Republicans say there are not sufficient citizenship verification requirements to ensure illegal immigrants are excluded from benefits they are not due.

Though the AP claims "the facts back up Obama," their left hand taketh away what their right hand giveth in the final sentence of their evaluation. Much like the lie above ("You can keep your current health care"), when you promise that your legislation will/will not do A, but your actual legislation has no provision to enact/prevent A, then one is credibly lying in the utterance of one's promise.

Though Obama does the politically expedient thing in promising that citizens will not be taxed for health coverage for illegals, in fact, the legislation makes no verification provision for ensuring that illegals do not get such coverage. Where there is no plan to prevent A, we can infer that the actual results will be that A will take place.

If "the facts back up Obama" on this one, then "the facts don't NOT back up Joe Wilson on this one either." The practical effect will be that Obama is lying under current plans, since a failure to prevent illegals from signing up for coverage will result in illegals signing up for coverage, regardless of the angelic intent of The Messiah.

LIE NUMBER FOUR:

OBAMA: "Don't pay attention to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. ... That will never happen on my watch. I will protect Medicare."

THE FACTS: ...Although wasteful spending in Medicare is widely acknowledged, many experts believe some seniors almost certainly would see reduced benefits from the cuts. That's particularly true for the 25 percent of Medicare users covered through Medicare Advantage....

LIE NUMBER FIVE:

OBAMA: Requiring insurance companies to cover preventive care like mammograms and colonoscopies "makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives."

THE FACTS: Studies have shown that much preventive care — particularly tests like the ones Obama mentions — actually costs money instead of saving it. That's because detecting acute diseases like breast cancer in their early stages involves testing many people who would never end up developing the disease. The costs of a large number of tests, even if they're relatively cheap, will outweigh the costs of caring for the minority of people who would have ended up getting sick without the testing.

The Congressional Budget Office wrote in August: "The evidence suggests that for most preventive services, expanded utilization leads to higher, not lower, medical spending overall."

That doesn't mean preventive care doesn't make sense or save lives. It just doesn't save money.

Arguably, then, when both the Obama statements and AP evaluations are looked at carefully, Obama lied on a minimum of five policy statements in his speech last night.

And that's to say nothing of the fact that he also didn't quite tell the truth in other ways. For instance, the AP notes that Obama promised that people who left a job would be "able" to get health coverage under his plan, when in fact his plan mandates that they get coverage. This, AP notes, after he harshly "criticized his Democratic primary rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, for proposing to mandate coverage."

And the continually-morphing figure of exactly how big the problem of the chronically uninsured, socialist compassion (!) for which is, of course, the reason for the debate (or maybe it is fascist power hunger, but who am I to criticize?), has now, by Barack "The Mathematical Messiah" Obama's own profession morphed once again, from the 46 million that AP says Obama has referred to "time and again" to a mere 30 million.

But what is 1/3 of the total number among friends? After all, we are only talking a few million here! Are you sure you want these algebraic frauds "controlling health care costs?"

Obama Prepares for Crucial Health Care Speech

Photo of Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama rehearsing before speaking to a
joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009.

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama spent the majority of Tuesday and Wednesday this week preparing for his 28th scheduled speech on the issue of health care, to be broadcast Wednesday night, September 9, to a joint session of Congress.

The last time that a president addressed a joint session of Congress was consequent to the September 11 attacks on September 20, 2001.

While billed as a way to seize momentum as Congress returns to work after their summer hiatus (during which the stock market rocketed higher), officials at the major networks, scrambling to accommodate The Messiah's fifth major prime-time address in less than eight months as president, are suggesting that Obama simply accede to production of his own reality show. Insiders suggest that initial plans for "The Obamas" will be modeled on one of the original reality shows, "The Osbournes," which gave an insider's view of the home life of heavy metal artist and bat gourmand Ozzy Osbourne.

"We think that there will be a lot of similarities, which works for us," said an unnamed source at ABC, which recently ran a pre-recorded special plugging Obama's health-care socialization scheme. "For instance, it is well-known that Ozzy did a lot of drugs - so there's that angle. I mean, the health care angle... uhhhh, that similarity with Barack. And then of course, we expect there to be family dynamics issues, the whole 'strong woman really runs the house' theme, and the whole angle of there being a lot of indecipherable communication. Yeah, a lot of pointless rambling and people scratching their heads and asking, 'What the devil is he talking about?' - more than MTV had with Ozzy Osbourne."

Earlier in the day, Barack Hussein Hoover Muhammad bin Obama had devoted several hours to speech preparation.

Press Secretary Robert Gibbs noted, "The President has been focusing more on the greater principles than the minutia of what he intends to say. He will really be prepared tonight. This may be the most crucial speech of his presidency thus far - or at least in the top 24." When asked to expand on the "great principles" Obama has been reviewing, Gibbs replied, "Well, I saw him skimming Oratory for Dummies."

White House officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, also reported that assorted teleprompters were being prepared for the address.

"We are aiming for a certain level of redundancy, just in case we have a teleprompter faint, as has happened numerous times. We'll have another teleprompter step right in and take over."

On background, officials have admitted that Obama's endless droning on about nothing is causing even his teleprompters to nod off in mid-speech. Those same officials promise that measures are being taken to ensure that tonight's speech contains, as one administration official put it, "more twists than that oh-so curvy, luscious, Sarah Palin. Wait - that tape recorder isn't ON is it? Van Jones? NO COMMENT!"

Though this will be a special "joint" session, Larry Sinclair is not expected to attend.

Canadian Socialized Medicine "Imploding"

Excerpted from Google News, via Canadian Press:

SASKATOON — The incoming president of the Canadian Medical Association says this country's health-care system is sick and doctors need to develop a plan to cure it.

Dr. Anne Doig says patients are getting less than optimal care and she adds that physicians from across the country - who will gather in Saskatoon on Sunday for their annual meeting - recognize that changes must be made.

"We all agree that the system is imploding, we all agree that things are more precarious than perhaps Canadians realize," Doing said in an interview with The Canadian Press.

"We know that there must be change," she said. "We're all running flat out, we're all just trying to stay ahead of the immediate day-to-day demands."

The pitch for change at the conference is to start with a presentation from Dr. Robert Ouellet, the current president of the CMA, who has said there's a critical need to make Canada's health-care system patient-centred. He will present details from his fact-finding trip to Europe in January, where he met with health groups in England, Denmark, Belgium, Netherlands and France.

His thoughts on the issue are already clear. Ouellet has been saying since his return that "a health-care revolution has passed us by," that it's possible to make wait lists disappear while maintaining universal coverage and "that competition should be welcomed, not feared."

In other words, Ouellet believes there could be a role for private health-care delivery within the public system....

The Obama administration, far from being "hip" and "cutting edge" and "progressively forward thinking," is mired in an idealistic socialism that even modern socialists reject - that which fell with the Berlin Wall and the Warsaw Pact. All the evidence is in - and Obama's socialist impulses have been conclusively proven not to work.

It is joyously ironic that at the exact moment that the socialized health care systems are seeking to encourage private insurance health care delivery, the Obamazombies, mired in 1970s Soviet propaganda, are seeking to dispense with the same.

Poor Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama! Apparently editing the law review gave him no understanding of history or economics!

Obama Administration Signaling Public Option May Be Off Table

Excerpted from AP Reports:

By PHILIP ELLIOTT, Associated Press Writer Philip Elliott, Associated Press Writer – 11 mins ago

WASHINGTON – Bowing to Republican pressure and an uneasy public, President Barack Obama's administration signaled Sunday it is ready to abandon the idea of giving Americans the option of government-run insurance as part of a new health care system.

Facing mounting opposition to the overhaul, administration officials left open the chance for a compromise with Republicans that would include health insurance cooperatives instead of a government-run plan. Such a concession probably would enrage Obama's liberal supporters but could deliver a much-needed victory on a top domestic priority opposed by GOP lawmakers.

....

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is "not the essential element" of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.

Under a proposal by Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., consumer-owned nonprofit cooperatives would sell insurance in competition with private industry, not unlike the way electric and agriculture co-ops operate, especially in rural states such as his own.

....

Obama's spokesman refused to say a public option was a make-or-break choice.

"What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market," White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Sunday.

A day before, Obama appeared to hedge his bets.

"All I'm saying is, though, that the public option, whether we have it or we don't have it, is not the entirety of health care reform," Obama said at a town hall meeting in Grand Junction, Colo. "This is just one sliver of it, one aspect of it."

....

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., said Obama's team is making a political calculation and embracing the co-op alternative as "a step away from the government takeover of the health care system" that the GOP has pummeled.

American College of Surgeons: Obama "Uninformed"

The American College of Surgeons, on August 12, responded with a press release concerning recent remarks made by Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama with a curt categorization of his remarks as "uninformed." Well, at least he is consistent....

The press release read (in part):

The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Joe Biden quickly responded to this press release by insisting that the Obama administration had merely "guessed wrong."

Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama responded by blaming the high cost of surgery on former president George W. Bush. "We had no idea surgeries were so expensive when the campaign was going on," said Obama. "But it has become clear in recent days that the situation is much worse than we had anticipated."

Obama to Democrat Fascist Brownshirts: GET IN THEIR FACE!

It is the stuff of perverted Saturday morning cartoons: Barack Hussein Muhammad bin Obama and his Gestapo clan at the DNC warble on about the right using "organized groups" to protest his attempted decline into Fascism via government-run and -rationed health care, while simultaneously sending out the SEIU thugs and other Democrat Brownshirts to physically assault normal citizens who are simply utilizing their First Amendment rights.

Remember, this is the same administration who refused to prosecute Black Panthers for polling-place intimidation that was caught on camera on election day in Philadelphia.

Welcome to Obama's Chicagoland thuggery as fully anticipated by Orwell....







Another perspective - notice the number of SEIU Union T-Shirts in this video, which, by happenstance (?) are similar in hue to those originally worn by the SS:





More Obamazombie thuggery, in Philadelphia on election day.

Fact & Fiction in the Health Care Debate

The following is from AP wire reports and appeared in the Monday, August 3 edition of the Kinston (N.C.) Daily Free Press. The "claims" are excerpted objections to the Obama/Democratic health care proposals as they currently stand, while the "Facts" are excerpts showing that Democratic denials are simply not true.

Let it be said, by way of definition, that as of right now, there is no "Obama" plan for health care. While he has outlined certain goals that he would like to have reached, he has not yet put forth a plan. The plans that are currently wending their way through the Congress are all Democratic plans, however. The Senate has two bills it is considering, while the House is waiting for its plan to make its way out of committee.

But the intent of the plan is discernible from the structure of these currently-known plans, and a close examination of the objections to the various plans and the Obama administration's denials show that Obama and the Democrats are simply lying about key provisions.

"CLAIM: Americans won't have to change doctors or insurance companies.

'If you like your plan and you like your doctor, you won't have to do a thing,' Obama said on June 23. 'You keep your plan; you keep your doctor.'

THE FACTS: The proposed legislation would not require people to drop their doctor or insurer. But some tax provisions, depending on how they are written, might make it cheaper for some employers to pay a fee to end their health coverage. Their workers presumably would move to a public insurance plan that might not include their current doctors.


CLAIM: The Democrats' plans will lead to rationing, or the government determining which medical procedures a patient can have....

THE FACTS: ... Denying coverage for certain procedures might increase under proposals to have a government-appointed agency identify medicines and procedures best suited for various conditions....


CLAIM: Overhauling health care will not expand the federal deficit over the long term.

THE FACTS: ... the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the House bill lacks mechanisms to bring health care costs under control."

Again, these are direct quotations from an Associated Press wire story - not Sean Hannity or The American Spectator.

Obamaspeak: Tell a Big Enough Lie....

Obama is spending a lot of time these days impressing upon his listeners that Obamacare doesn't mean the end of health care as we know it - rather it is just an expansion of an already good thing. This is a necessary tack for him to take, inasmuch as opinion polls show that most Americans are satisfied with their own health care plans, and don't wish to exchange them for something run by the government. In excess of 80% of recently-polled Americans expressed fear that Obama's health care reforms would make their current level of care more expensive, would decrease the quality of care, or would result in rationing of some sort.

And even among those who seek expansion of governmental involvement in health care, typical complaints are that something "needs to be done for children and the elderly."

"Something needs to be done, especially to help the kids and the elderly," said [Sharon] Williams, 48, who works for the school district in Forsyth County, Ga [and who voted for Obama]. "But if the reforms affect the insurance I have now, I would have a deep issue with it." Of course, something is already being done for the elderly and children - S-CHIP, Medicaid, Medicare (parts A, B, C, D, and E)... but her utter lack of awareness of this fact and her location within a public school identify her as the somewhat typical Obama voter.

In a speech in 2003, Obama was at least honest about his incipient socialism. He states, "I happen to be a proponent of single-payer, universal health care programs."




He further assures his listeners (at about :35 of the above video) that "a single payer, universal health-care plan - that's what I'd like to see. But, as all of you know, we may not get that immediately. because we've got to take that to the White house, and we've got to take that to the Senate..." (emphasis added).

Then, in 2007, while addressing the SEIU, Obama states very clearly that his intent is to "eliminate" private insurance, though it probably will not be possible "immediately," and may need to wait "15 or 20 years out."





How odd, then, that less than a full 24 hours after these videos began to be disseminated in mass, that the White House would respond with an allegation that Obama's own words represent "disinformation" about his own position!





It seems to me that we have been here before (and not just in the Clinton administration); yes, wasn't it just this past weekend - and this same group of people - that was gloating all over the Sunday talk shows that tax increases on those earning less than $250,000 were not "off the table?" Only to be assured by Robert Gibbs on Monday that, in fact, Obama does not (yet) intend to raise taxes on those earning less than $250,000 per year?

Which to believe? How about none of them?

Is there something in the water that makes Democrats congenital liars? Or is it perhaps a strategy...?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels

What Real Americans Think About Obamacare

Lloyd Dogget (D-TX) shouted down and flees his own town hall meeting:





Arlen Specter shouted down when he excuses not reading bills by saying, "We have to make judgments really fast..." because of a plethora of "many" "thousand page" bills! The odd thing is that this weiner actually seems to think this is an excuse....