Rush Limbaugh: “We Have an Increasingly Lawless President”

Rush Limbaugh: “We Have an Increasingly Lawless
President”

February 1st, 2011

Joe Kovacs, WorldNetDaily
PALM BEACH, Fla. – Radio host Rush Limbaugh is warning that the Obama
administration might continue to force implementation of its health-care law
that was ruled unconstitutional yesterday, saying, “We have an increasingly
lawless president.” “We do know that this regime violated and ignored a federal
court order on their drilling moratorium in the Gulf of Mexico. So we have an
increasingly lawless president,” Limbaugh said on his program this afternoon.
Asking himself rhetorically if he meant to say that, he repeated himself: “We
have an increasingly lawless president.”
Limbaugh said the Obama administration is “saying they’ll continue to
implement this law. … For the gazillionth time, the judge did not say that they
can continue to implement it while it’s appealed.”
“I think there is abject panic over this ruling,” he continued. “This is the
linchpin. This is the foundation of the new America. They were hoping to sneak
in this ability [that] the federal government mandate people have
something.”

State of the Union: Mammoth Government is the New Normal

State of the Union: Mammoth Government is the New
Normal

January 27th, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

In his 2011
State of the Union Address
, Barack Obama gave himself five more years of
trillion-dollar deficit spending, a $678 billion income tax hike, a Social
Security tax increase, and the permanent extension of ObamaCare – and he gave
Republicans medical malpractice reform and a joke about a salmon.
Since his inauguration, the president has gone on a two-year spending orgy
unrivaled since the days of Lyndon Johnson or FDR. Faced with a national
backlash against towering debt, he has come up with a “compromise”: Americans
should accept the big government expansion he has forced down their throats and
move on. This follows the president’s familiar pattern of forcing through costly
and unpopular measures, then promising “discipline” after the fact.
The most reported aspect of the speech was Obama’s pledge to freeze
discretionary, non-military spending at their current levels – exempting such
major programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Homeland
Security.
At the risk of stating the obvious, which perhaps no one has yet stated,
there is no “savings.” As President Obama would say, “Let’s be
clear”: Savings is when you reduce the amount of money you are spending. The
president’s proposal is to spend the same amount of money. The only “savings”
would come from the fact that inflation
unleashed by deficit
spending
and quantitative
easing
will devalue the dollar – but this is hardly a cause for cheer.
History shows that spending freezes rarely freeze anything. The most
ambitious attempt was the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act, which attempted to
control deficit spending by future Congresses, but many of the same politicians
who voted for the bill decided they would not abide by its terms the next year.
Deficits continued to mount. To give a more recent example, last year Congress
approved slightly more
than half
of the whopping $11.5 billion in spending cuts Obama requested
last year.
The amount of the budget actually affected is rather modest, indeed. It would
apply to approximately
12 percent of the budget
. Alec Phillips, an analyst with Goldman Sachs,
estimates that if every Congress for the next five years holds to current
levels, it would “save” $200 billion. The New York Times noted its
higher estimate of “$250 billion in savings over 10 years would be less than 3
percent of the roughly $9 trillion in additional deficits the government is
expected to accumulate
over that time.” Obama’s plan would cost
half-a-trillion dollars more
than returning
to 2008 spending levels
, as proposed by the most moderate Republicans. Sen.
Rand Paul has proposed a half-a-trillion
dollar spending cut
this year, which includes cutting food stamps
and eliminating the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the National
Endowment for the Arts. Ohio Congressman Jim Jordan and Senator Jim DeMint
introduced a bill to cut
$2.5 trillion
over ten years, eliminating the aforementioned programs as
well as Amtrak and the president’s “high-speed rail” and rolling back spending
to 2006 levels. Obama’s freeze is small beer in its own terms and hypocritical
when paired with his calls for new spending.
The State of the Union made only passing reference to the greatest budgetary
crisis facing us: out of control entitlements (and most of his “solutions” are
bad ideas; see below). “Mandatory” spending alone exceeds projected federal
revenues – the amount of money the government took in all year. If we eliminated
100 percent of discretionary spending – privatized the Post Office, dismantled
the military, and fired every federal prosecutor and judge – we would still run a
deficit
.
Nonetheless, the president instructed us, “The final step to winning the
future is to make sure we aren’t buried under a mountain of debt.” As though we
are not already buried under a mountain of debt. As though this were not a
mountain of his own making. As though it were not one he wished to greatly
enlarge
.
What Obama intends to freeze is big government. His proposal to hold-the-line
comes after he jacked
up federal spending by 84 percent
. After inflating the federal government
beyond the free market’s carrying capacity, he now wishes to maintain the status
quo.
As usual Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, had the best analysis of Obama’s spending
freeze, calling it “a plan for deficit preservation.” The day
after the State of the Union speech, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)
predicted the deficit for 2011 will be….
Read
more
.

The Nightmare ObamaCare Wants to Unleash Here

The Nightmare ObamaCare Wants to Unleash
Here

January 19th, 2011

Susan Stamper Brown, FloydReports.com
Another dreamer quietly joined the Obama administration last
summer without
Congressional approval
. Despite resolute promises that Obamacare would not
include rationing or result in a single-payer system, please give a hearty and
belated welcome to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services director, Dr.
Donald Berwick.
Berwick’s unobtrusive entrance could not muffle his history of being a very
loud proponent of the troubled British National Healthcare System (NHS). During
the NHS’s 60th anniversary meeting in 2008, Berwick scorned America’s ho-hum,
less superior, lower quality, fragmented, capitalistic, supply-driven medical
system – and praised NHS’s socialized system saying,
“Excellent health care is by definition [wealth] redistribution,” and told NHS
leaders that “Britain chose well.”
An increasing number of NHS patients may not concur with Dr. Berwick’s
assessment. According to the UK Guardian, not long after Berwick’s
appointment last year, written complaints ranging from “neglect and
misdiagnosis” to a “distinct lack of care and compassion” from caregivers rose
13.4 percent.
Patient complaints along with various audits expose insufficiencies within
the NHS. On January 17, 2011, the UK Daily Mail told of an
investigation into 15 UK West Midlands hospitals that used “substandard”
maternity care including delivery delays, inadequate resuscitation attempts, and
failure to properly monitor patients that may have resulted in the unexplained
deaths of 21 babies.
A striking 2009 audit found many NHS health care managers prioritized cost
cutting over patient care and cited that “appalling standards of care” may have
attributed to the deaths of up to 1200 people at one hospital in
Mid-Staffordshire where poorly trained and overworked nurses turned off
equipment they didn’t know how to work and inexperienced doctors were left alone
with post-surgery patients while receptionists were tasked with triage
assessment.
In order to meet an NHS-imposed four-hour waiting room limit, doctors left
blood-covered, seriously ill patients without pain medication to
treat….

 

Death Panels are Not ObamaCare’s Only Killer Provisions

Death Panels are Not ObamaCare’s Only Killer Provisions

January 7th, 2011

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Never mind the controversy over the so-called death panels in the controversial ObamaCare health care law. One pro-life group says the measure should be repealed because it contains rationing elsewhere.

Although the death panels — the voluntary advanced care planning that pro-life advocates have been concerned about because it could have doctors financially motivated to promote less medical care and lifesaving treatment — have occupied most of the debate, the National Right to Life Committee says other provisions cause concern.

In a new letter to House members that LifeNews.com obtained, NRLC urges a yes vote on the repeal measure the House of representatives is slated to consider next week.

The abortion funding ObamaCare doesn’t satisfactorily prohibit is a central tenet of the pro-repeal letter.

“As enacted, the PPACA contains multiple provisions authorizing federal subsidies for abortion, and additional provisions on which future abortion-expanding regulatory mandates may be based,” the pro-life group tells lawmakers.

But the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” also contains “multiple provisions that will, if fully implemented, result in government-imposed rationing of lifesaving medical care,’ NRLC says:

The department of Health and Human Services (HHS) will be empowered to impose so-called “quality and efficiency” measures on health care providers, based on recommendations by the Independent Payment Advisory Board, which is directed to force private health care spending below the rate of medical inflation. In many cases treatment that a doctor and patient deem needed or advisable to save that patient’s life or preserve or improve the patient’s health but which runs afoul of the imposed standards will be denied, even if the patient wants to pay for it.

The law empowers HHS to prevent older Americans from making up with their own funds for the $555 billion the law cuts from Medicare by refusing to permit senior citizens the choice of private-fee-for-service plans….

Read more.

The FDA’s Death Panels

The FDA’s Death Panels

January 6th, 2011

Gene Koropowski, WorldNetDaily

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin last year created a nationwide furor when she predicted that ObamaCare would lead to the creation of “death panels” that would decide who would receive life-saving treatments – or be allowed to die.

Now Obama’s health policy team stealthily is moving forward with that idea, WND has learned.

And this development has nothing to do with proposed rules that would have called for doctors to have “end of life” discussions annually with senior citizens. Those plans were dropped from ObamaCare because of public outrage, then slipped into administrative rules, then removed once more in just recent days when the public discovered what was going on.

This new development involves Obama’s political appointees at the powerful Food and Drug Administration, who appear to have started making life or death choices for Americans in 2010 using the cost of a therapy, apparently, as a primary criterion for acceptance or rejection, critics have told WND…

“The FDA denies that cost had anything to do with the ultimate decision against approval,” Greg Conko, a senior fellow who tracks the FDA at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a free-market think tank in Washington, D.C., told WND.

“But many of us fear that FDA may in fact be slowly but covertly moving in that direction,” he said.

According to statistics released by the FDA on its website, new drug approvals declined dramatically last year. Drugs with the potential to treat cancer and other maladies were not approved by Obama’s regulators for mass marketing. FDA approved a mere 21 new drugs for sale in 2010, down from 25 in 2009.

Read more.

Oops! Democrat Who Outed Obama’s “Death Panels” is Sorry You Found Out

Oops! Democrat Who Outed Obama’s “Death Panels” is Sorry You Found Out

January 3rd, 2011

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

The Democrat who started the latest national debate over the inclusion of so-called “death panels” by the Obama administration into federal regulations now regrets doing so.

The office of Representative Earl Blumenauer, an assisted suicide advocate from Oregon who works closely with pro-euthanasia groups like Compassion and Choices, alerted supporters of the change the Obama administration implemented and worked to ask them to keep the news quiet.

“We would ask that you not broadcast this accomplishment out to any of your lists e-mails can too easily be forwarded,” his staff wrote. “Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it but we will be keeping a close watch and may be calling on you if we need a rapid, targeted response. The longer this [regulation] goes unnoticed, the better our chances of keeping it.”

The memo talked of a “quiet” victory and had the congressman worrying about how Republican leaders would “use this small provision to perpetuate the ‘death panel’ myth.”

But LifeNews.com reported on the new regulations and, weeks later, the New York Times got a copy of the memo Blumenauer wrote and the national dustup began.

Now, Blumenauer told The Hill that he regret’s the secretive language used in the email, which he says he did not see beforehand.

“If I had seen the memo, I would have suggested it be worded differently,” Blumenauer told The Hill. Still, he defended the controversial new regulation….

Read more.

“Death Panels” Regulation Begins Obama’s Rule by Fiat

“Death Panels” Regulation Begins Obama’s Rule by Fiat

 December 27th, 2010 Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

In a foretaste of outrages to come, the Obama administration managed to sneak out a federal regulation paying doctors to provide “end of life counseling” to those covered by ObamaCare. The Medicare rule, which Congress never voted on, may encourage thousands to forego lifesaving treatment. This move is a voluntary precursor to the inevitable rationing engendered by socialized medicine. Many conservative media outlets have objected to the pro-death aspects of this decision. However, they have ignored a vital aspect of this story: the way he implemented the policy. This federal regulation inaugurates Obama’s two-year strategy to rule by executive order. The New York Times reports…. Read more

Obama Makes “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” List

Obama Makes “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians” List

December 17th, 2010

Judicial Watch

Judicial  Watch, the public interest group that investigates and  prosecutes  government corruption, today released its 2010 list of  Washington’s  “Ten Most Wanted Corrupt Politicians.” The list, in  alphabetical order,  includes: Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Rahm Emanuel, Former Obama White House Chief of Staff, Senator John Ensign (R-NV), Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D-IL), President Barack Obama, Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY), Rep. Hal Rogers (R-KY), and Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA)

President Barack Obama: Remember the promise President Obama made just after his inauguration in 2009? “Transparency   and the rule of law will be the touchstones of this presidency.”

Instead,  Americans have suffered through lies, stonewalling,  cover-ups,  corruption, secrecy, scandal and blatant disregard for the  rule of  law…this has been the Obama legacy in its first two years.

In 2010, Obama was caught in a lie over what he knew about Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s scheme to   sell the president’s vacated Senate seat. Blagojevich’s former Chief of   Staff John Harris testified that Obama had personal knowledge of  Blago’s  plot to obtain a presidential cabinet position in exchange for   appointing a candidate handpicked by the President. In fact, according   to Harris’s court testimony, Obama sent Blagojevich a list of “acceptable”   Senate candidates to fill his old seat. Obama was interviewed by the   FBI even before he was sworn into office. He claimed he and his staff   had no contact with Blagojevich’s office. Unfortunately federal   prosecutors never called the President or his staff to testify under   oath.

The President also broke his famous pledge to televise  healthcare  negotiations. And in 2010, we learned why he broke his  pledge. In what  is now known as the “Cornhusker Kickback”   scheme, Obama and the Democrats in the Senate “purchased” the vote of   one of the last Democrat hold-outs, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson, who   opposed Obamacare over the issue of covering abortions with taxpayer   funds. Nelson abandoned his opposition to Obamacare after receiving   millions of dollars in federal aid for his home-state, helping to give   the Democrats the 60 votes they needed to overcome a Republican   filibuster. Same goes for Louisiana Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu,   who received a $100 million payoff in what has been called “The Louisiana Purchase.”   (The Kickback was so corrupt that Democrats stripped it out at the  last  minute. The Louisiana Purchase, on the other hand, became law of  the  land.)

Obama lied about his White House’s involvement in  this legislative  bribery that helped lead to the passage of the  signature policy  achievement of his presidency….

Read more.

ObamaCare: FDA to Cut Off 17,000 Women from Lifesaving Drug

ObamaCare: FDA to Cut Off 17,000 Women from Lifesaving Drug

December 9th, 2010

RedState.com

Obama’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is due to take up the case   of Avastin, a cancer drug that successfully treats some 17,000 women   annually. With a coming December 17 decision, the FDA seems poised to   take this drug away from these patients quite despite the fact that   their doctors find the drug effective.

The most dangerous period of time in Washington D.C. is that time we   call the lame duck session (I call it the zombie congress; dead men   walking). It is that time when those elected officials that are about to   be ingloriously shipped off home for the last time due to losing   election results make a mad scramble to grab for as much as they can   get.

In the case of regulatory agencies like the FDA the lame duck session   is not treated in exactly the same manner, but it is sure that when   congress is about to have its majority party change over with the   president’s party on the losing side of the switch, regulatory agencies   often try to push through favored policies before the new congress is   seated and before that new congress is in a position to put any pressure   on those agencies to prevent them from pushing the president’s agenda.

Read more.