“Hate Speech” = Anything a Liberal Disagrees With

Tolerance is Becoming Intolerance

Floyd and Mary Beth Brown, Expose Obama.com

Modern America preaches the value of tolerance. This says you have the right to your opinion, and I have the right to mine. We can agree to disagree. While this level of tolerance for all viewpoints has never been completely achieved, those on the left certainly preach it when they are vilifying those who hold traditional values, and attempt to label them as intolerant. In recent years, and culminating in the election of Barack Obama, we are entering a new era where you have only the right to agree with the modern liberal view, or else be ostracized as an extremist.

Upon Obama’s election, he promised to usher in a new era of post-partisan politics. No more conservative and liberal — just hope. On abortion, he said he wanted to move past the tired old politics. Translation: he wants to repeal all restrictions on abortion, but expects pro-life supporters to drop their disagreements and support him. Obama said it’s no longer about whether government is too big or too small, it’s about how effective it is. In reality, Obama has ushered in the largest expansion of federal government in any 100-day period in United States history. This period of censorship of disagreement goes well beyond Obama to many of the liberal elites.

Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano joined the thought police by allowing her department to issue a report labeling any person holding a conservative political viewpoint a potential terrorist. This is the same Department of Homeland Security that said from now on, terrorism will be called man-caused disasters. Napolitano will tolerate Islamic terrorists, yet she has no tolerance for pro-life individuals. People who favor a smaller federal government are considered dangerous enemies of the state. This type of discrimination against opposing viewpoints is becoming rampant in our society.

American “enemies of the state” took to the streets to show their support for fiscal responsibility by attending tea parties. Because this view was not approved by the liberal elites, these protesters were mocked incessantly on CNN, NBC and CBS. The worst case of disdain for tea party participants came from Janeane Garofalo. Speaking on “Countdown with Keith Olbermann,” she said, “Let’s be very honest about what this is about. They have no idea what the Boston Tea party was about. They don’t know their history at all. It’s about hating a black man in the White House.This is racism straight up and is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks. There is no way around that.” Garofalo proceeded to claim that conservatives suffer from a mental disorder. None of this was refuted in any way by host Keith Olbermann. Evidently, hate speech is only allowed when it is against Christians or conservatives. There are allegations that the FBI was spying on these very peaceful demonstrations.

Another example of this suppression of traditional thought occurred at the Miss USA pageant. Celebrity judge Perez Hilton, a famous gay blogger, asked Miss California if she supported gay marriage. She very politely and graciously said that is up to the different states but she personally opposes it. The Miss USA contest strongly disagreed with Miss California’s position, and after the show Perez Hilton launched a diatribe calling the young lady a “dumb B” and later called her the C-word. These hateful attacks would certainly be repudiated if it were a conservative saying them. However, Perez Hilton and his far-left cohorts are free to say whatever they want as long as they are attacking conservatives.

This same principle applies as the left pushes the fairness doctrine and attempts to pass hate-speech laws that will silence Bible-believing Christians. If you disagree with them, then you have no right to speak your beliefs.

America is founded on the principles that all men are created equal and have inalienable rights protected by our Constitution. These rights and protections are what separate our free society from authoritarian governments that have no constraints on government power. Yet Alexis de Tocqueville warned about coercion of thought in his classic book, “Democracy of America.” He cautions us, saying that democracies can become even more oppressive than other forms of government when conformity is pushed in the culture. This conformity is being shoved on our society at an alarming rate. Christians and people who hold conservative viewpoints are demonized and mocked in schools, in the media and now by the Dept. of Homeland Security and the Obama administration. Those who hold traditional viewpoints had better speak out; otherwise, in the near future they may be forced to keep their lips zipped.

Dr. Obama, can I take my medicine now?

For  you idiots that elected Uh-bama and his teleprompter, WAKE UP!  The bus that is America couldn’t make the curve that the liberals have thrown it, and it has now burst through the guard rail and is hanging halfway over the cliff.  What’s worse, rather than try to pull it back, Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are at the back bumper trying to push it over.

The latest Obamanation is this health care bill which the democrats are trying to ram down our throats this week.  This will result in rationing of health care to all but the extremely rich and politically powerful (that’s what’s happening in Canada and Great Britain).  You will be forced (i.e. you will have no choice NOT to buy) to buy your “insurance” from the government.  All competing plans will be disallowed.  New medicines and procedures will no longer be developed because there will be no financial incentive to develop them.  Quality doctors will leave medical practice and be replaced by less cabable ones because of salary caps and insurance laws.  In Great Britain there are a fixed number of doctors.  To get one of those positions, a doctor must either retire or die.  You have medical interns quitting after a 20-30 year wait without ever practicing medicine because no one died or retired.  A committee will decide who gets procedures and certain kinds of health care based upon how much “utility” the state will get from you after the surgery before you die.  In other words, the older you are, the less likely you are to get needed health care because you’re more likely to die before the state can get its money’s worth (pay back) from you.  Doctors and patients from Canada, Great Britain, and pretty much any other country you can name that has socialized medicine have gone on record imploring us not to go down this road.  Of course you never hear that from the Obamedia because of their biased coverage of the Obamessiah. (See this story and its links for more on that.) WAKE UP and see that we are going down the path to becoming the next version of the Soviet Union.

Contact your representatives and senators, and several of the others, to make them hear our voice.  Once this bill passes, we won’t be able to undo it.  See the files linked below for contact information for all congressmen and senators.

2009_senateinfo

2009_congressinfo_allhousereps

– The Loft – http://www.gopusa.com/theloft –

Dr. Obama, can I take my medicine now?

Posted By Bobby Eberle On April 27, 2009 at 7:50 am

The left-wing steamroller keeps right on rolling, squashing one American institution after another. From banks to energy to the automobile industry, Obama is squeezing the life out of the private sector and injecting government where it doesn’t belong. What’s next you ask? Health care.

Obama and the Democrats are now focusing on a massive health care bill that will put government in more control than ever before. Knowing that passage of such a bill would be a crowning achievement on the way to socialized medicine, the Democrats are now considering bypassing the traditional legislative process so that Republicans would not be able to mount a filibuster. Need an operation? Please take a number and get to the back of the line.

As noted in a FOXNews.com story, Obama and Congressional leaders are considering using a tactic known as “reconciliation” to push forward Obama’s health care plan.

The fast-track process would protect Obama’s ambitious plan to overhaul the U.S. health care system from a potential GOP filibuster and limit the Republicans’ ability to get concessions. It also would give Democrats far more control over the specifics of the health care legislation.

Under typical Senate rules, 60 votes are needed to advance a bill, but reconciliation would enable Democrats to enact the health care plan with just a simple majority and only 20 hours of debate.

In case you missed the 2006 and 2008 elections, Democrats hold majorities in the Senate and the House and, using tactics such as that described above, could pass almost any legislation. Add to that a few weak-kneed Republicans, and the situation becomes even more serious.

In a story on CNSNews.com, the leading Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus, said that Obama’s health care plan would not result in “government-mandated health care rationing.” Obama currently says that he will pay for his health care “reform” plan by creating “efficiencies” in the medical system.

“There is no rationing of health care at all,” Baucus told CNSNews.com on Friday. “You choose your own doctor. You choose your own health insurance that you want to have. This is all a choice.

“What we are talking about is squeezing cost out of the system because of an emphasis on quality care, not quantity,” Baucus told CNSNews.com. “Today the emphasis in the reimbursement is quantity whether you are a doctor, or a medical equipment manufacturer, whatever you are. It’s quantity. You get paid for the number of units that you provide.

Baucus went on to say that this plan is a “whole new way of doing business,” but then added that “there may be some cuts.” Oh really!

The news story then quotes the White House’s director of the National Economic Council as saying, “Look at health care, the frequency of different procedures, whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies in different parts of the country — and what you see is that in some parts of the country procedures are done three times as frequently and there’s no benefit in terms of the health of the population.”

No benefit to the health of the population? What in the world does that even mean? I’m sure the person getting the procedure doesn’t care about the rest of the population.

Of course, the language in Obama’s plan is vague, to say the least, and Republicans are questioning where the “savings” would come from.

“If you’re going to quantify [savings] with certainty, that means you feel you’re going to ration with certainty,” said Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) on Feb. 26.

“How do they propose to go about doing this?” asked Ryan. “Do they propose to set up a system where the government is in the nucleus of our health care system, where the government is telling providers — physicians — how to practice medicine?”

As he did with the bailout, Obama is appealing to the media by saying that he wants the health care plan to be “bipartisan.” Give me a break. Yes, he wants to work with Republicans just as long as Republicans agree with him. As noted in the FOXNews.com story, “Democrats, including Obama, have said repeatedly that they want the health care debate to be bipartisan and that the filibuster-proof terms would be used only if the GOP obstructs.” Does that sound like a bipartisan environment to you?

“Reconciliation is basically a nuclear weapon to use against the negotiators so what happens is nobody negotiates seriously because they can always go to reconciliation … tilting the playing field unfairly,” said Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, top Republican on the Budget Committee.

The Democrats do deserve credit for one thing… once given control of government (because Republicans turned away from their principles); they have absolutely no problems in pushing forward their agenda. Given the opportunity they are ramming socialism down our throats. Imagine all we could have passed with our missed opportunity.

The more government gets involved in health care, the worse the health care system becomes. That is a simple fact.

Barack Obama rejects Normandy trip to avoid offending Germany

Didn’t want to offend the GERMANS? This lying, narcissistic pecker head doesn’t want to offend anyone else around the world, but he doesn’t seem to mind offending his SUBJECTS at home. He was overheard being asked by a staffer why he didn’t want to go to Normandy, to which he responded “…there are not live voters there.” He doesn’t care about doing what is best for America. He cares about what is best for the rock-star image of B. Hussein Obama. He’s only going to go where he can draw the biggest crowd.

---