Friday, August 07, 2009

Obama Compiling an “Enemies List” asking for Snitching on People Who Oppose Pro-Abortion Health Care Bills

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334623330098540.html

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas on Wednesday wrote to the president saying he feared that citizens’ engagement could be “chilled” by the effort. He’s right, it could. He also accused the White House of compiling an “enemies list.” If so, they’re being awfully public about it, but as Byron York at the Washington Examiner pointed, the emails collected could become a “dissident database.”

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=106162

John Cornyn, R-Texas, has demanded that Obama either halt the program, widely known in the blogosphere as the "snitch" program, or define how he will protect the privacy of those who send or are the subject of e-mails to the flag@whitehouse.gov e-mail address.

"I am not aware of any precedent for a president asking American citizens to report their fellow citizens to the White house for pure political speech that is deemed 'fishy' or otherwise inimical to the White House's political interests," the Texas senator wrote in a letter to Obama.



White House: Snitch on People Who Oppose Pro-Abortion Health Care Bills


by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor

August 5, 2009

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- The White House is not happy with the millions of Americans who oppose the pro-abortion government-run health care plan Congress is considering. In a new post on the White House web site, Obama administration officials ask people to become tattletales on groups and people who oppose the health care bill.

In a post titled "Facts Are Stubborn Things" that is quickly generating nationwide controversy, Obama's staff are asking for people to turn in anyone who says anything "fishy" about the pro-abortion health plan.

With the abortion funding and insurance mandates for abortion that are in the bill, and the Obama's administration and pro-abortion groups insisting that pro-abortion components are not present, that could wind up at the top of the list.

"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end-of-life care," the White House says. "These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain e-mails or through casual conversation."

"Since we can't keep track of all of them here at the White House, we're asking for your help. If you get an e-mail or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov," the Obama web site says.

Complaints have come quickly from pro-life advocates concerned that their opposition to the health care plan could be reported to Obama officials.

"They're looking for tattletales; they're looking for snitches; they're looking for informants; they want their groupies to tattle on you if you happen to be telling the truth about what's in the health care plan," conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh responded. "The White House has, as yet, offered no explanation of what it is they plan to do with the tips on policy opposition they hope to receive from citizen informers."

Jeff Emanuel, who runs the conservative web site RedState, is also upset.

"The term 'disinformation' is used by the Obama White House as a catchall to describe any opposition to the president's push for single-payer, government-run health care," he says.

"The White House wants to be informed of any forwarded e-mails or blog posts or any 'casual conversations' could be taken as opposition to their health care overhaul plan," he says, wanting to know what the White House plans to do with the information.

The post is reminding some of an incident earlier this year, that saw the Department of Homeland Security produce a report saying "opponents of abortion" are likely to engage in extremism or terrorism.

In the new document, the Department of Homeland Security warned law officials about a supposed rise in "rightwing extremist activity," saying the poor economy and presence of a black president could spark problems.

A footnote attached to the nine-page report from the Homeland Security Office of Intelligence and Analysis said the activities of pro-life advocates is included in "rightwing extremism in the United States.”

"It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single-issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration," the warning said.

The Obama administration sent the document to police and sheriff's departments across the country on April 7 under the headline, "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment."

Associated Press Reverses Itself, Admits Health Care Bills Include Abortion Funding

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Two days after LifeNews.com exposed an Associated Press article that mislead its readers on the abortion funding contained in the government-run health care plans, AP has backtracked.

The news service is now reporting that the bills Congress is considering will result in taxpayer-funded abortions. AP features a new article today with the headline, "Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion."

Reporter Ricardo Alonsozaldivar writes, "Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue."

That's a far cry from the weekend story where AP writer Charles Babington wrote a "fact check" that claimed it is "not clear" if abortion funding is included in the legislation.

The Babington story was so bad that Douglas Johnson, the legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, told LifeNews.com, "We respectfully ask that AP retract this distorted" article.

While the first AP piece claimed the health care bill "could create a government-run insurance program, or insurance 'exchanges,' that would not involve Medicaid" that could involve abortion funding, the new piece says that is now the case.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204908604574334623330098540.html

You Are Terrifying Us’ Voters send a message to Washington

We have entered uncharted territory in the fight over national health care. There’s a new tone in the debate, and it’s ugly. At the moment the Democrats are looking like something they haven’t looked like in years, and that is: desperate.

They must know at this point they should not have pushed a national health-care plan. A Democratic operative the other day called it “Hillary’s revenge.” When Mrs. Clinton started losing to Barack Obama in the primaries 18 months ago, she began to give new and sharper emphasis to her health-care plan. Mr. Obama responded by talking about his health-care vision. He won. Now he would push what he had been forced to highlight: Health care would be a priority initiative. The net result is falling support for his leadership on the issue, falling personal polls, and the angry town-hall meetings that have electrified YouTube.

In his first five months in office, Mr. Obama had racked up big wins—the stimulus, children’s health insurance, House approval of cap-and-trade. But he stayed too long at the hot table. All the Democrats in Washington did. They overinterpreted the meaning of the 2008 election, and didn’t fully take into account how the great recession changed the national mood and atmosphere.

And so the shock on the faces of Congressmen who’ve faced the grillings back home. And really, their shock is the first thing you see in the videos. They had no idea how people were feeling. Their 2008 win left them thinking an election that had been shaped by anti-Bush, anti-Republican, and pro-change feeling was really a mandate without context; they thought that in the middle of a historic recession featuring horrific deficits, they could assume support for the invention of a huge new entitlement carrying huge new costs.

The passions of the protesters, on the other hand, are not a surprise. They hired a man to represent them in Washington. They give him a big office, a huge staff and the power to tell people what to do. They give him a car and a driver, sometimes a security detail, and a special pin showing he’s a congressman. And all they ask in return is that he see to their interests and not terrify them too much. Really, that’s all people ask. Expectations are very low. What the protesters are saying is, “You are terrifying us.”


What has been most unsettling is not the congressmen’s surprise but a hard new tone that emerged this week. The leftosphere and the liberal commentariat charged that the town hall meetings weren’t authentic, the crowds were ginned up by insurance companies, lobbyists and the Republican National Committee. But you can’t get people to leave their homes and go to a meeting with a congressman (of all people) unless they are engaged to the point of passion. And what tends to agitate people most is the idea of loss—loss of money hard earned, loss of autonomy, loss of the few things that work in a great sweeping away of those that don’t.

People are not automatons. They show up only if they care.

What the town-hall meetings represent is a feeling of rebellion, an uprising against change they do not believe in. And the Democratic response has been stunningly crude and aggressive. It has been to attack. Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the United States House of Representatives, accused the people at the meetings of “carrying swastikas and symbols like that.” (Apparently one protester held a hand-lettered sign with a “no” slash over a swastika.) But they are not Nazis, they’re Americans. Some of them looked like they’d actually spent some time fighting Nazis.

Then came the Democratic Party charge that the people at the meetings were suspiciously well-dressed, in jackets and ties from Brooks Brothers. They must be Republican rent-a-mobs. Sen. Barbara Boxer said on MSNBC’s “Hardball” that people are “storming these town hall meetings,” that they were “well dressed”, that “this is all organized,” “all planned,” to “hurt our president.” Here she was projecting. For normal people, it’s not all about Barack Obama.


The Democratic National Committee chimed in with an incendiary Web video whose script reads, “The right wing extremist Republican base is back.” DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse issued a statement that said the Republicans “are inciting angry mobs of . . . right wing extremists” who are “not reflective of where the American people are.”

But most damagingly to political civility, and even our political tradition, was the new White House email address to which citizens are asked to report instances of “disinformation” in the health-care debate: If you receive an email or see something on the Web about health-care reform that seems “fishy,” you can send it to flag@whitehouse.gov. The White House said it was merely trying to fight “intentionally misleading” information.

Sen. John Cornyn of Texas on Wednesday wrote to the president saying he feared that citizens’ engagement could be “chilled” by the effort. He’s right, it could. He also accused the White House of compiling an “enemies list.” If so, they’re being awfully public about it, but as Byron York at the Washington Examiner pointed, the emails collected could become a “dissident database.”

All of this is unnecessarily and unhelpfully divisive and provocative. They are mocking and menacing concerned citizens. This only makes a hot situation hotter. Is this what the president wants? It couldn’t be. But then in an odd way he sometimes seems not to have fully absorbed the awesome stature of his office. You really, if you’re president, can’t call an individual American stupid, if for no other reason than that you’re too big. You cannot allow your allies to call people protesting a health-care plan “extremists” and “right wing,” or bought, or Nazi-like, either. They’re citizens. They’re concerned. They deserve respect.

The Democrats should not be attacking, they should be attempting to persuade, to argue for their case. After all, they have the big mic. Which is what the presidency is, the big mic.

And frankly they ought to think about backing off. The president should call in his troops and his Congress and announce a rethinking. There are too many different bills, they’re all a thousand pages long, no one has time to read them, no one knows what’s going to be in the final one, the public is agitated, the nation’s in crisis, the timing is wrong, we’ll turn to it again—but not now. We’ll take a little longer, ponder every aspect, and make clear every complication.

You know what would happen if he did this? His numbers would go up. Even Congress’s would. Because they’d look responsive, deliberative and even wise. Discretion is the better part of valor.

Absent that, and let’s assume that won’t happen, the health-care protesters have to make sure they don’t get too hot, or get out of hand. They haven’t so far, they’ve been burly and full of debate, with plenty of booing. This is democracy’s great barbaric yawp. But every day the meetings seem just a little angrier, and people who are afraid—who have been made afraid, and left to be afraid—can get swept up. As this column is written, there comes word that John Sweeney of the AFL-CIO has announced he’ll be sending in union members to the meetings to counter health care’s critics.

Somehow that doesn’t sound like a peace initiative.

It’s going to be a long August, isn’t it? Let’s hope the uncharted territory we’re in doesn’t turn dark.


http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13416

Sex-Change-apalooza

By Matt Barber


August 5, 2009

I got a call a couple days ago from a producer with MSNBC. He wanted a hard copy of a press release I sent out entitled: “ObamaCare Likely to Mandate Free ‘Sex-Change’ Surgeries.” In the release I addressed the likelihood that, under Obama’s monolithic socialized healthcare scheme, taxpayers may well end up funding elective and entirely cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries. I was happy to oblige and asked which program he produced. “Rachel Maddow,” he reluctantly divulged. I chuckled and joked, “Oh, I’m sure Rachel will give me a glowing review.”

I then suggested that it would be better still if Rachel actually had me on the show to defend and debate the substance of my release. He declined. Understandable, though. Ms. Maddow—a hard-left lesbian activist who plays a pseudo-journalist on TV—certainly wouldn’t want me confusing all 242 of her wide-eyed, spoon-fed, Kool-Aid swilling viewers with the facts. (By the way, Rachel, sweetheart, if you have the guts, the offer still stands.)

In what was apparently an awkward attempt at ridicule, Maddow then focused like a laser on the title of my release. True to form, she twisted and spun like the Michelle Kwan of yellow journalism. I was disappointed. Not because she transparently distorted my words. I counted on that. I was disappointed because I actually expected the allegedly clever, Oxford educated talking-head to pull it off with some degree of satirical dexterity.

She did not.

Did Maddow mock me for suggesting that ObamCare might provide taxpayer funded “sex-change” operations? No. Did she deride me for mean-spiritedness, insensitivity and “transphobia”? No. Instead, she just lied. She dishonestly suggested that I claimed the government was going to “mandate sex-change operations.” Get it? That, if ObamaCare becomes reality, healthcare officials will knock down your door, drag you away and force you to undergo a “gender reassignment” surgery. I know—Silly.

Still, what Maddow didn’t say speaks volumes. She didn’t refute any of the substance of my release. She didn’t deny the real likelihood that such cosmetic procedures will be covered at taxpayer expense. And she certainly didn’t give me the opportunity to respond to her propagandist obfuscation.

But it didn’t stop with Maddow. Those adorable, patchouli soaked little left-wing lemmings at the Daily Kos, Wonkette and elsewhere also picked up on my release. I was surprised to see that many of them, in fact, agreed with the substance of my argument. Quite a few opined that “sex-change” surgeries should be covered at taxpayer expense and a number of them conceded that they almost certainly will.

So what prompted me to break this story in the first place? Well, when Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) asked Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) whether President Obama’s proposed socialized healthcare plan will mandate taxpayer funded abortion, she admitted that it will require “any service deemed medically necessary or medically appropriate.” It now appears that the plan’s “medically appropriate” umbrella is far more expansive than most Americans could have imagined.

In addition to abortion on demand, the weight of the evidence indicates that, in fact, cosmetic “gender reassignment” surgeries for both U.S. citizens and illegal immigrants who suffer from APA recognized “Gender Identity Disorder” (GID) may indeed be provided—free of charge—courtesy of the U.S. taxpayer. The current price tag for such a procedure can exceed $50,000.

Page 972 of the House version of the bill (H.R. 3200) provides for “standards, as appropriate, for the collection of accurate data on health and health care” based on “sex, sexual orientation [and] gender identity.” The Senate draft indicates that the government will “detect and monitor trends in health disparities,” requiring the Department of Health and Human Services to “develop standards for the measurement of gender.” (i.e., officially recognize subjectively self-determined “transgender” or “transsexual” gender identities). It further mandates “participation in the institutions’ programs of individuals and groups from...different genders and sexual orientations.”

So, does ObamaCare expressly stipulate that taxpayer funded “sex-change” operations will be provided? No, but neither does it explicitly require coverage for heart bypass surgery. Don’t forget; we’re talking about what’s “medically appropriate” here, and look who gets to make that subjective determination: Your doctor? No, it’s “Rachel Maddow-minded” bureaucrats within the Democratic Party. It’s a liberal-Democrat appointed government “Health Benefits Advisory Committee.” And if you think they’re not itching to pay back the homosexual, transgender and pro-abortion pressure groups that helped get them elected, I’ve got a house at 1600 Pennsylvania I want to sell you.

Still, there’s a gulf of difference between what Obama and liberals in Congress, and the American people deem “medically appropriate;” especially when it’s “we the people” footing the bill. It’s unconscionable to force Americans, against their conscience, to fund abortion on demand and to facilitate gender confusion by subsidizing the elective practice of genital “sex-change” mutilation.

But don’t just take my word for it. After hearing Sen. Mikulski’s “any service deemed...medically appropriate” admission, I was prompted to dig a little deeper. I contacted the offices of Sen. Harry Reid, Rep. Charlie Rangel, Rep. Barney Frank and the House Subcommittee on Health. I asked, very simply, for “an assurance that the proposed healthcare plan will not allow taxpayer funded ‘gender reassignment’ surgeries or hormone therapies.” When faced with the bill’s relevant language, every staffer I spoke with either declined to answer or would neither confirm nor deny that such procedures would be covered.

Indeed it’s no wonder that—as Americans find out what’s hidden within this socialized ObamaCare monstrosity—support for the plan is plummeting faster than MSNBC’s ratings.

It’s time for the mainstream press—yes you too Rachel Maddow—to do its job and demand straight answers. Instead of prancing around like little ObamaCare cheerleaders, journalists need to ask the same questions I did and refuse to take “no answer” for an answer.

But don’t hold your breath.

Thankfully, we don’t have to. Wanna have a little fun? Contact your Congressional representative and ask the following question: “Will you personally guarantee that, under this plan, no taxpayer dollars will go to fund abortion or ‘sex-change’ operations?’”

Then sit back and watch them squirm.

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with both Liberty Counsel and Liberty Alliance Action. Send comments to Matt at: jmattbarber@comcast.net

No comments: