Freedom of BLEEP

Yesterday, President Obama announced that he would like to exempt small businesses from capital gains taxes for the next year to help them through the tough economic times.

How does this help small businesses? It doesn’t really. This is clearly a strategic maneuver to deceive feeble-minded Americans into believing that our Government is providing tax relief. And the Democrats know that they’ll get away with it since many Americans couldn’t define capital gains tax to save their own life!

Why encourage small businesses to invest in stocks and bonds if we want them to start hiring more workers? It’s not just a logical fallacy; it’s duplicitous trickery intended to avert our eyes from the many ways that Democrats are actually raising taxes on small businesses. Even the New York Times admits that Obama hasn’t brought much to the table for the small businesses of America.

How exactly are the democrats raising taxes on small business?

1.) Under the proposed health care legislation, employers with payrolls exceeding $250,000 will have to provide health care to employees or pay up to an 8% penalty tax. It’s important to emphasize this is based on payroll exceeding $250,000, not based on net profits exceeding $250,000. This is going to have a huge impact on many, many small businesses in America.

2.) In addition to the cost of providing insurance, a surtax of 5.4% will also be levied on some small businesses to pay for the new government-run health care system. Democrats argue that this will only effect 1.9% of small businesses, but these figures are misleading. They include sole proprietors (that don’t have any employees) as small businesses. It’s the successful businesses in the top 1.9% which produce the most jobs.

3.) Democrats have proposed a new tax to help pay for the war in Afghanistan. Again, this will be aimed at those “earning more than $200,000 or $250,000.”

4.) Democrats also plan to repeal of a form of inventory accounting that tends to reduce business taxes. This is a particularly sneaky way to raise taxes on small businesses without the general public noticing.

5.) Democrats have been pushing for mandates that will require investment partnerships to pay the regular income tax rate instead of the lower capital gains rate. Small business owners have spoken out against such reforms, yet Democrats passed this as part of a “Tax Relief” bill.

6.) Oh, and by the way, capital gains taxes are actually increasing by at least 33% for everyone in America, and up to 69% for small businesses. Sure, small businesses will be off the hook for one year, but in 2011 Obama will be increasing the base capital gains tax rate to 20% — and the 5.4% health care surtax will also apply to capital gains on top of that. So that’s a 69% capital gains tax increase for America’s job-producing small businesses.

Why are small businesses so important?

Here are just a few statistics taken from the US-SBA:

• Small businesses represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.
• Small businesses employ over half of all private sector employees.
• Small businesses pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
• Small businesses have generated 64 percent of net new jobs.

Obama’s Safe School Czar, Kevin Jennings, was selected primarily because he was the founder and former executive director of the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN).

During a GLSEN sponsored conference in 2000, public employees met with high school students to discuss and even encourage various sexual techniques. Up until recently, courts had a gag order on recordings from the conference, but they are now available to the public.

Warning: The following material is very explicit.

—————————–

Below are two discussions recorded during this conference.
Full audio available here.

Woman: Question is: What’s fisting?

Man: A little known fact is that you don’t make a fist like this. When they do it, it’s like this. This is a lot easier than this. [laughter]

Woman: You work your way up to it… [unclear] one finger, two fingers, three fingers … Some people can take a hand, or they can’t take a hand.

While speaking, the man leading the discussion was positioning his hand and showing 14 year olds how to insert their entire hand into the rectum of their sex partner.

During another meeting, a different public employee at this GLSEN sponsored event asked a group of 14-year-olds if it was rude to spit rather than swallow during oral sex:

Male Teacher: … Spit versus swallowing - I don’t know about the calorie count of cum. All right. Is it rude? Let’s ask this question: Is it rude not to swallow?

Students: No! Oh, no! [Many "no's" from the children.]

Male Teacher: No. So it’s in good bedroom etiquette … [unclear] to spit out?

—————————–

This conference was not an isolated incident, as evidenced by the GLSEN recommended reading list for children. Below are some excerpts from GLSEN recommended books. All of these books are promoted on the GLSEN website or are listed in their “Bibliography of LGBT Themed Books and Videos for Youth.”

—————————–

The Full Spectrum
Pages 228 - 229

(The author describes the sexual interactions a group of thirteen-year-old girls has with an 18-year-old boy.)

I am thirteen and my soul bleeds poetry.
…
Nicole’s dad has this friend named Chris. He’s really cool. He’s eighteen and he comes over to Nicole’s house to play Magic: The Gathering and drink beers with Nicole’s dad. He usually spends the night, because Nicole’s dad doesn’t want him to drive home. Kim is sort of dating him. She thinks they’re engaged. Nicole and I sleep in the basement, and Chris sleeps upstairs in the living room.
…
One night Chris kisses me in the dark on Nicole’s living room floor. It’s after five in the morning, which I know because I watch the clock the whole time. His mouth is huge. I’ve never kissed a boy before. It turns into a habit, and sometimes Nicole and I lie in sleeping bags on either side of him, pretending we don’t know that he has one hand up each of our shirts. Once, Chris has his hand in my pants and asks me if I’m awake.

Kim has sex with Chris on her kitchen floor one night in December, and Nicole and I want her to die.

—————————–

Reflections of a Rock Lobster
Page 16

(During a sleepover at the home of an elementary school classmate, the author as a child touches his friend’s genitals without permission.)

After Billy’s family moved I developed a friendship with a new classmate named Bob Cote and I had feelings for him similar to the ones I had for Billy. Sex, however, was not a part of our relationship. In between catching toads, flying kites and swimming nude in a pond in the woods, sex never came to mind.

One night Bob invited me to sleep over. When I went I expected that we would just sit around and watch TV, but as the evening wore on I found myself becoming attracted to Bob. His mother, Mrs. Cote, had been keeping a close eye on us all evening so I waited until bedtime to make my advance. Before bed, I insisted on bringing my bed within a few feet of his. Once the lights were out I silently reached my left hand over to his bed and slipped it under his sheet and through his pajama bottoms.

—————————–

Reflections of a Rock Lobster
Page 26

(In junior high, the author had loveless sex with another boy whom he didn’t particularly like.)

The last holdout from my childhood sexual years was David Beamer. Dave was slower than other kids so he went to a special school. He and I never had a close relationship but once Bob was gone I turned to Dave in a desperate search for security and companionship. I began to frequent Dave’s house and to have sex with him, yet our communication only became more diluted. The more I tried, the worse the situation got. It was torture because I wanted more out of these relationships than sexual stimulation.

—————————–

Passages of Pride
Page 79

(A woman recalls the “sexploration” she engaged in between the ages of seven and nine.)

When she was seven or eight, the games of the older boys turned sexual. “I was doing a lot of sexploration,” she recalls, “even at those young ages”—playing doctor or Dracula, coming home with hickeys on her neck. “It kind of got carried away in the course of being in contact with those boys.” At age nine, she found herself in a closet with a couple of boys who were trying to talk her into having sex. “They wanted to have intercourse,” she says. “I remember they had their penises out and they wanted to try it. I don’t remember any penetration or anything, but we tried.”

—————————–

In Your Face
Pages 113 - 114

(The narrator describes how she sometimes likes being promiscuous.)

And I realized that I’d always sort of wanted to experience that; I’d read about that older bar scene and I wanted to be just like that when I grew up. I wanted to be like the rad player dyke from Hell–somebody who f**ks around just so they can, someone who works the scene and doesn’t particularly care who she’s screwing, no emotional attachment. Of course, I’m incapable of being a player; I have the problem that I wind up falling in love with anybody I sleep with, so that kinda cuts me out of the spectrum.
…
I started working the social scene after I broke up with my third girlfriend. For the past six months, I’ve basically been a slut. I have been serially monogamous–I’m not sure if you could really call it that, because it never lasted long enough to be called monogamy.

—————————–

Mama’s Boy, Preacher’s Son
Pages 91 - 92

(Kevin Jennings recounts his early sexual experiences with a boy named Mike.)

I can’t recall exactly how we ended up in my bedroom, except Mike saying something like, “Wanna try it?” I nodded yes and, like a robot, got up and followed Mike to my room.

I pulled down my shorts and lay on the bed, unmoving. Mike kept his clothes on. While it was happening, I was in heaven. I couldn’t believe how it felt. But as soon as it was over I went to hell, filled with shame at what we had done. Mike obviously thought it was his turn now, but I pulled up my shorts and told him to go—go now. I was filled with disgust at the faggot who had lowered himself to do this “to” me. Confused and probably hurt, Mike left.

Mike and I would have several more encounters during my sophomore year, probably because he didn’t have many other options. The pattern was always the same, although we did take our clothes off eventually. Sexually speaking, it was always a one-way street, a street only Mike traveled down, which allowed me to imagine on some level that I wasn’t gay, only Mike was.

—————————–

Queer 13
Pages 43 - 45

(A 13-year-old boy has a violent sexual encounter with an older man, which causes the boy to become desperate for sex, and he ends up spending the rest of the year promiscuously getting “my cock sucked and my ass f**ked” by “a seemingly endless supply of dicks” belonging to older men, concluding with “I really did enjoy those sexual encounters.”)

One day, on the bus to shop class, this ugly f**k of a man sat behind me and put his foot in the crack of my seat. He was skinny, with a patchy, pencil-thin mustache that besotted his oily face. I ignored him for most of the trip. I did notice that he changed buses when I did, but this time he sat beside me. He tried a little small talk, but then he suddenly and very nervously put his hand on my crotch. It never occurred to me to tell him not to. I’m not sure if I agreed to it or not, but he managed to get me to follow him to a nearby rest room at another secondary school “to play.” In the bathroom stall, lit by two scant rows of fluorescent lights, half of them burnt-out or flickering, he tried to kiss me, but I was too nauseated to do that. He sucked my nipples and played with my cock. I had no idea what to do. He then tried to get me to suck his. Somehow I knew this was expected of me, but I just could not put his ugly, foul-smelling penis into my mouth. When he forced it in I gagged so hard I started vomiting. Undaunted, he tried to put his cock in my ass. Thankfully, he came prematurely. He pulled up his trousers and left me in the toilet stall confused, frightened, crying, and praying to God for forgiveness of my horrible sin. I spent a good deal of time locked in the stall, trying to clean up, trying to wipe the smell of that act off with wet toilet paper, but I was doused in the stench of that man and what he had done.

This incident should have soured me on men, but it only made me more confused and needful. One day later, something accidental happened that would change my life. I discovered that at a urinal I could actually see someone else’s penis. I was ecstatic and fearful, but I wanted more. One day, at a local shopping mall, as I was trying to sneak a peek at penises in the rest rooms, a man at the urinal actually turned to me and started playing with himself. He flashed me a gold-toothed smirk and motioned for me to come over. Shocked, I zippered up and ran out, but the seeds had been laid. The whole world of rest-room sex had opened itself up to me.

Soon I was spending a great deal of time hanging out in shopping malls and cruising the rest rooms for sexual encounters. My rest-room exploits started to be a great burden on my mind. The better part of the year was spent making deals with God, asking for a sign, then ignoring and rationalizing everything I perceived to be a sign, praying for forgiveness, and being obsessed with raging hormones and a seemingly endless supply of dicks. I believed that it was all part of a test by God to see if I was a sinner. I was.

I had known before that something was up, and that I was attracted to men, but this toilet thing was a whole new realm of sin and Satan, a new level that I had never before imagined. The following years were spent praying for forgiveness and trying to purge my homosexuality through prayer and Bible study. While my classmates wondered what sex was like, content to masturbate over pinups, I was out there having my cock sucked and my ass f**ked. These were grown men I was tricking with. Some were nice, grateful for a young boy to have their way with. Some were harsh and mean. There were a few nasty encounters, brutal and painful experiences, near-rapes, but through it all, I never thought that I had the ability to say no.

I was scared about what I was doing, scared of God’s judgment and of being caught in all those rest rooms and parks, but I really did enjoy those sexual encounters. That feeling of doing it to them and them doing the same for me was just too damn good.

————————–

There’s a lot more; too much to post here really. Why is Kevin Jennings in charge of watching over our school children?

To be clear, this post is not about supporting or not supporting gays or gay rights. This post is about the radical agenda of groups like GLSEN and activists like Kevin Jennings.

As President Obama diligently works to force the United States into a destructive climate treaty at the upcoming Copenhagen summit, many are questioning the need for such drastic action after reading certain scandalous correspondence from the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (CRU). The mainstream media is quickly dismissing or even ignoring the recent email leak (CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN and MSNBC have not made a peep), but more reputable and reliable news sources are informing the American people of these juicy tidbits that may kick the soapboxes out from under climate alarmists everywhere.

Though the story is still developing, the university has confirmed that their server was hacked and certain implicated scientists are trying to cover their tracks.  Some are already arguing that the conspiracy to delete, destroy and manipulate climate data was taken out of context. You can decide for yourself.  Here is just a sample of some of the ridiculous emails hacked from the university CRU.

Hiding the declining temperatures:

“The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”

“Yeah, it wasn’t so much 1998 and all that that I was concerned about, used to dealing with that, but the possibility that we might be going through a longer – 10 year – period of relatively stable temperatures beyond what you might expect from La Nina etc. Speculation, but if I see this as a possibility then others might also. Anyway, I’ll maybe cut the last few points off the filtered curve before I give the talk again as that’s trending down as a result of the end effects and the recent cold-ish years.”

Downplaying the Medieval Warming Period (when the earth was warmer than it is now and is forecasted to become):

“Bottom line - their is no way the MWP (whenever it was) was as warm globally as the last 20 years. There is also no way a whole decade in the LIA period was more than 1 deg C on a global basis cooler than the 1961-90 mean. This is all gut feeling, no science…”

“I think that trying to adopt a timeframe of 2K, rather than the usual 1K, addresses a good earlier point that Peck made w/ regard to the memo, that it would be nice to try to “contain” the putative “MWP”…”

Deleting emails and denying Freedom of Information Act requests:

“Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith re AR4? Keith will do likewise. He’s not in at the moment - minor family crisis. Can you also email Gene and get him to do the same? I don’t have his new email address. We will be getting Caspar to do likewise.”

“The two MMs (referring to skeptics McIntyre and McKitrick) have been after the CRU station data for years. If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone.”

“Keith/Tim still getting FOI requests as well as MOHC and Reading. All our FOI officers have been in discussions and are now using the same exceptions not to respond —advice they got from the Information Commissioner.”

“I did get an email from the FOI person here early yesterday to tell me I shouldn’t be deleting emails – unless this was ‘normal’ deleting to keep emails manageable!”

Conspiracy to Discredit Opposing Views:

“I think we have to stop considering “Climate Research” as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request of our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board…”

Honestly, I’m not sure how anyone can argue that this was taken out of context. From what I’ve read, I can only assume the larger picture would be even more damning to this “research” center and possibly implicate others. The most disturbing realization is that CRU is directly involved in the research that is used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC published periodic assessment reports that contend that human greenhouse emissions are contributing to global warming (the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory). These reports are relied upon by governments to shape environmental policy, and our country is now one of those sheep in the herd.

There is absolutely no consensus in the scientific community on climate change, and these emails point to serious ethical violations within the climate alarmist camp. However, our country under the leadership of Obama has now chosen to push a detrimental “Cap and Trade” agenda that arguably wouldn’t have any impact upon this dubious problem. It would only lead to higher unemployment, higher taxes, more expensive goods, and stifled economic growth.

Liberals contend that we cannot wait for the problem to manifest itself more concretely…we must tackle it now! Dismantling an already troubled economy on the basis of an unproven scientific theory is not only irresponsible and reckless, it’s idiotic. This is analogous to a doctor telling someone “I’m not exactly sure that you have cancer…but just in case, we should start chemo and radiation.” I’m not buying it…and after reading these emails, neither should you.

——————-

A selection of emails can be found here at the WSJ, and a link to the more than 3,000 emails can be found on this page.

It’s sickening how many liberals attempt to elicit sympathy for terrorists. Under the guise of compassion, they prevaricate the facts, discount the innocent that have been murdered, and even make excuses for these cold-blooded killers. Why?

Nidal Malik Hasan is a case in point. This is a man who equated terrorist suicide bombers with a US soldier that threw himself on a grenade to save his colleagues. He said that terrorists have a noble cause. He attempted to contact al Qaeda on multiple occasions. He yelled “Allahu Akbar” before opening fire and taking innocent lives, connoting his support for the extremists who wage “holy war” against the US.

Still, liberals want to make sure that Hasan is not tried as a terrorist. The liberal news-spin site Drudge Retort ran a headline saying “FBI: Hasan Not Involved in Terrorism” linking to an article in the Houston Chronicle.

But this is not at all what the article reports. The FBI actually said “he was not involved in terrorist activities when a joint terrorism task force crossed paths with him last year. [...] The investigation to date has not identified a motive, and a number of possibilities remain under consideration.”

After examining commentary like this, it might be easier to understand why some liberals think Hasan isn’t a terrorist: they have the reading comprehension skills of a third grader. If Hasan thinks terrorists have a “noble cause,” doesn’t this indicate a motive? If he attempted to contact al Qaeda on multiple occasions, doesn’t this indicate premeditation? If he yelled “Allah is greatest” while killing innocent people, can we reasonably believe this was anything other than an act of terrorism? Whether or not Hasan had direct contact with al Qaeda, Bin Laden himself has encouraged lone acts of terrorism. So does it really matter that Hasan acted alone?

With the facts heavily stacked against them, liberals have tried to excuse Hasan as simply being insane. But this position implies that some terrorists are actually sane. Do liberals think that killing thousands of innocent people is the behavior of a perfectly sane person?

Instead of sweeping this under the rug, we need to treat the Fort Hood incident for what it really is - an act of terrorism. Let’s not forget that there were plenty of warning signs; denying the problem allowed the Fort Hood Massacre to happen.

With a smug grin on his face, President Obama walked up to the podium at the Tribal Nations Conference to address the nation about the massacre at Fort Hood. He opened with a lighthearted “shout out” to Joe Medicine Crow. After using almost three minutes to talk about how he is working to improve conditions for Native Americans, he finally mentions Fort Hood.

Obama giving a shout-out before Fort Hood speech

Talk about a real class act. He spent so much time paying lip service to a slice of his electorate that many viewers thought the wrong clip was playing. Where’s Michael Moore and his stopwatch now?

Even NBC described Obama’s behavior as a display of “frightening insensitivity.” When the President finally did begin to address the Fort Hood tragedy, he still had to read his comments. Seemingly no heartfelt emotions; only the disingenuous teleprompter.

President Obama continues to say, “[U]nder our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” This is such deceitful statement that even some of his Democratic colleagues are beginning to call him out on it:

“If you take a look at H.R. 3200 as originally written, abortion was never mentioned. It was the amendment process that added this amendment which now makes public funding for abortion available,” says Bart Stupak (D-MI). He continued, “If your talking about 3200, technically he’s correct. But you all know about the Capps amendment. You all know it’s become part of the bill. [...] So I was disappointed when the President got up there last week and said no funding for abortion is found in the bill. That is not true.”

As clearly stated in the Capps Amendment to H.R. 3200, “The public health insurance option shall provide coverage for [...] Abortions for which public funding is allowed.” Specifically this includes abortions performed in cases or rape or incest, or to save the life of the mother.

So already the President is lying, and it gets worse. The Capps Amendment would also allow private plans purchased with federal subsidies (”affordability credits” for low-income families and workers) to cover other kinds of abortion. So now people will be able to use federal money to obtain private insurance that will pay for their abortion - even abortions where direct federal funding would be prohibited.

The Capps Amendment leaves it to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to decide which other kinds of abortions can be covered. And if you look at the track record of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, this is bad news for pro-life supporters. As the governor of Kansas, she vetoed anti-abortion legislation in 2003, 2005, 2006, and 2008, including Senate Bill 389 which aimed to strengthen laws against late-term abortion.

After being caught in this lie, the President and his goon Robert Gibbs have upped the ante and still insist they are telling the truth! Three times in one week Gibbs has tried to deceive the American people by saying “There’s a law the precludes the use of federal funds for abortion.” Upon further questioning, he responded, “My answer is indifferent from what it was on Wednesday. There’s a fairly clear [as in not very clear?] federal law prohibiting the federal use of money for abortion.”

Meanwhile, Obama has claimed that he wasn’t talking about the House bill when he said, “under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions.” Who’s plan was he talking about then? The purpose of his whole speech was to promote the Democratic health care plan, otherwise known as H.R. 3200.

Perhaps Congressman Wilson’s behavior last week was inappropriate for the venue, but he was right. President Obama is still lying about the Democrats’ health care bill.

Here’s what Obama said, which prompted Wilson’s outburst:

“There are also those who claim our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This too is false. The reforms I’m proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally.”

Then why did Senators working on the legislation have to make additional changes to the proposal two days later? If Wilson hadn’t drawn so much attention to the issue, the democrats would have been able to include loopholes for illegal immigrants.

Furthermore, here’s what Obama said this Wednesday evening in a speech to the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute:

“Even though I do not believe we can extend coverage to those who are here illegally, I also don’t simply believe we can simply ignore the fact that our immigration system is broken. That’s why I strongly support making sure folks who are here legally have access to affordable, quality health insurance under this plan, just like everybody else. [...] If anything, this debate underscores the necessity of passing comprehensive immigration reform and resolving the issue of 12 million undocumented people living and working in this country once and for all.”

Hmm… Sounds like amnesty. No illegals will be covered, but their won’t be any illegals! This is being completely deceitful. If Americans don’t want illegal immigrants to be covered by tax-payer funded health insurance, why would Americans want illegals to receive amnesty and then be covered by taxpayer-funded health insurance? Such is the logic of liberals.

If you have been reading this blog, then you know that President Obama will directly oversee the 2010 census. Why does he want this power?

The Wall Street Journal reports that the 2010 census will count all persons physically present in the country - including all of the illegal immigrants. That’s right… Illegals will now affect the apportionment of House members and Electoral College votes for each state.*

Here’s why that’s a big deal:

According to the latest American Community Survey, California has 5,622,422 noncitizens in its population of 36,264,467. Based on our round-number projection of a decade-end population in that state of 37,000,000 (including 5,750,000 noncitizens), California would have 57 members in the newly reapportioned U.S. House of Representatives.

However, with noncitizens not included for purposes of reapportionment, California would have 48 House seats (based on an estimated 308 million total population in 2010 with 283 million citizens, or 650,000 citizens per House seat).

So basically, the most liberal state in the Union will get nine free House seats.

That is just one example of how Obama’s census corruption will work against a fair election. South Florida will be a similar scenario. In addition to that, most illegal immigrants tend to live in or near large cities, particularly in slums. Areas of the country that are typically more liberal stand to gain a larger apportionment of Congress with the 2010 enumeration. Our founding fathers provided a clear set of rules to protect the integrity of our elections, and Democrats are doing everything they can to work around these rules.

Disregarding the Constitution has become commonplace in the liberal camp. They don’t care about your rights and they certainly don’t care about representing you. All they care about is power. If you oppose them they’ll call you un-American, and then they’ll make up lies about how they saw you wearing Swastikas. President Obama and the Democrats are trying to hijack this country from the American people.

Please tell your friends about this. Democracy is at stake.

* Yes, illegal immigrants have been counted with the short form since 1980. But it’s the long form that inquires about citizenship and is used for congressional redistricting. Now the long form will not be used in 2010.

Do liberals really believe that a public option for health care will create competition?

President Obama doesn’t believe that. It’s just a lie he’s been telling you. Once again, his lies have surfaced:

The truth is that the private sector can’t compete with the government. The private sector doesn’t have an unlimited budget!

The truth is that 1300 insurance companies are already battling for customers.

The truth is that the health insurance industry has a meager net profit margin: about three percent, only slightly above the median for all industries.

The truth is that the Democrats in Congress don’t care about their constituents. Why else would they lie about their intentions and disguise the public option as a means of competing with private insurance companies? Obama’s sinking poll numbers suggest that American’s haven’t taken the bait.

If Obamacare was really aimed at lowering costs, it would include measures to prevent frivolous malpractice suits and limit malpractice claims. Malpractice suits are a huge contributor to the high costs of care in America. Liberals dismiss this oversight by saying it should be handled in separate legislation, but Obama has said he is against limiting malpractice suits!

In the words of President Obama himself, their goal is to move toward a single payer system - to eliminate the private sector, not to compete. Existing medical assistance programs run by our government have massive deficits. But that’s ok, because they can always reach into your pocket and take more of your hard-earned paycheck.

I’ll let you be the judge…

Update:
She’s 17!