Obamacare Has Literally Replaced the Constitution

Written by Gary North on June 22, 2012   - Tea Party Economist – Cross-Posted at True Health Is True Wealth

The textbook account of how laws are made is for children. It presents the procedure as if it were governed by the Constitution. This is silly. That went out with high-button shoes.

The legal system that prevails today is administrative law: rule by government bureaucracies that cannot be fired. The story of how this legal revolution has re-shaped law in the West, threatening a new tyranny, appears in the 45-page introduction to Law and Revolution (1983), a great book by Harvard University’s legal historian Harold Berman. Those 45 pages are among the most important that I have ever read.

A recent study by the Cato Institute describes one section of Obamacare: the creation of the Independent Payment Advisory Board, or IPAB. This unelected board will set prices and payment systems for medicine under the plan.

Obamacare was created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), which in turn creates IPAB. According to the Cato report, written by a lawyer,

When the unelected government officials on this board submit a legislative proposal to Congress, it automatically becomes law: PPACA requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to implement it. Blocking an IPAB “proposal” requires at a minimum that the House and the Senate and the president agree on a substitute. The Board’s edicts therefore can become law without congressional action, congressional approval, meaningful congressional oversight, or being subject to a presidential veto. Citizens will have no power to challenge IPAB’s edicts in court.

But what if — this is 99% hypothetical — a majority in Congress decides that the IPAB payment schedule (taxes) is not a good idea? Well, tough bananas.

PPACA forbids Congress from repealing IPAB outside of a seven-month window in the year 2017, and even then requires a three-fifths majority in both chambers. A heretofore unreported feature of PPACA dictates that if Congress misses that repeal window, PPACA prohibits Congress from ever altering an IPAB “proposal.” By restricting lawmaking powers of future Congresses, PPACA thus attempts to amend the Constitution by statute.

IPAB’s unelected members will have effectively unfettered power to impose taxes and ration care for all Americans, whether the government pays their medical bills or not. In some circumstances, just one political party or even one individual would have full command of IPAB’s lawmaking powers. IPAB truly is independent, but in the worst sense of the word. It wields power independent of Congress, independent of the president, independent of the judiciary, and independent of the will of the people.

This means that the Constitutional sovereignty is a dead concept, unless five people on the U.S. Supreme Court declare the law unconstitutional. (Therefore the ruling on Thursday 06.26.12 is the most important in America’s history… there is a lot more at stake than just healthcare!)

This will serve as a legal precedent. New laws will create similar boards.

Kiss the Constitution goodbye.

It was all so easy.

The 22-page report is here: Continue Reading on www.cato.org

Technorati Tags: ObamaCare,ObamaCare unconstitutional,Supreme Court,death panels,rationing,IPAB,Surpreme Court rulings,Cato Institute,Affordable Care Act,Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,repeal and replace ObamaCare

Obama “Fixed” Medicare…With Rationing

A Shovel Ready Project

Posted on June 24, 2011 by Guest Writer  John Goodman

While charges and counter-charges about Medicare are flying back and forth in Washington, hardly anyone seems to have noticed that Medicare’s financial problems have already been solved. They were solved by the health reform bill enacted last year, what some people call ObamaCare.

So why isn’t this front page news? Why aren’t people dancing in the street? Why isn’t the Obama administration boasting about this accomplishment far and wide? Probably because Medicare’s financial problems are slated to be solved by the unconscionable

rationing of health care for the elderly and the disabled, which will lead to the equivalent of death panels for senior Boomers and some disabled persons! Please stop laughing at Sarah Palin, she’s telling you the truth, and stop listening to the mainstream media and AARP, they aren’t!!

The most recent Medicare Trustees report conveys the same message as the last one: On the day that Barack Obama signed the health reform bill, Medicare’s long-term unfunded liability fell by $53 trillion. That sum is about three times the size of the entire U.S. economy. And, it gets better. Once the Baby Boomers work their way through the system, Medicare spending will grow no faster than the payroll taxes, premiums and general revenue transfers that pay for that spending.

So what does this mean for senior citizens who rely on Medicare? No one knows for sure. But it almost certainly means they will get less health care.

Last August, the Office of the Medicare Actuary predicted that within nine years Medicare will be paying doctors less than what Medicaid pays. Think about that. In most places around the country Medicaid patients have extreme difficulty finding doctors who will see them. As a result, they end up seeking care at community health centers and in the emergency rooms of safety net hospitals. In a few more years seniors will be in that same position — with this difference. From a financial point of view, the seniors will be perceived as less desirable customers than welfare mothers. Also, by that point one in seven hospitals will have to leave the Medicare system.

As Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster (page 282) said in the 2010 Medicare Trustees’ report, “Well before that point, Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result.”

But suppose Congress didn’t intervene. Suppose that the law continues on the books exactly as it is written.

Consider people reaching the age of 65 this year. Under ObamaCare, the average amount spent on these enrollees over the remainder of their lives will fall by about $36,000 at today’s prices. That sum of money is equivalent to about three years of benefits. For 55-year-olds, the spending decrease is about $62,000 — or the equivalent of six years of benefits. For 45-year-olds, the loss is more than $105,000, or nine years of benefits.

In terms of the sheer dollars involved, the planned reduction in future Medicare payments is the equivalent of raising the eligibility age for Medicare to age 68 for today’s 65-year-olds, to age 71 for 55-year-olds and to age 74 for 45-year-olds. But rather than keep the system as is and raise the age of eligibility, the reform law instead tries to achieve equivalent savings by paying less to the providers of care.

What does this mean in terms of access to health care? It almost certainly means that seniors will have extreme difficulty finding doctors who will see them and hospitals who will admit them. Once admitted, they will certainly enjoy fewer amenities (no private room, no gourmet meal choices, and no cable TV perhaps) as well as a lower quality of care. We will have a two-tiered health care system, with the elderly getting second class care.

All these problems will be exacerbated by what ObamaCare does in the rest of the health care system. In just two years, 32 million people will become newly insured. If economic studies are correct, they will try to double the amount of health care they have been consuming. In addition, almost everyone else (including most above-average income families) will be forced to obtain more generous insurance than they have today. With more coverage for more services these people will also try to greatly expand their consumption of care. Yet the health reform act did not create one new doctor or nurse or other paramedical personnel to meet this increased demand.

We are about to experience a system wide rationing problem, which will be reflected in longer waits at doctors’ offices, emergency rooms and clinics and delays in getting almost every kind of care.

In such an environment you will be at a real disadvantage if you are in a health plan that pays doctors less than what private plans are paying. The disadvantaged patients will be the elderly and the disabled on Medicare, poor families on Medicaid, and (if Massachusetts is any guide) people who are newly enrolled in government subsidized health plans.

And here is the final tragic irony: The most vulnerable population are the ones whose access to care is likely to decrease the most under a health care act that was widely touted at the time of its passage as a humanitarian measure~

John Goodman is President and CEO/Kellye Wright Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

This article originally appeared on Conservative Battleline Online and is reprinted with permission.

h/t to A at  Sovereignty in Colorado  -  re-posted at Floyd Reports and at True Health Is True Wealth

And the items covered in this article are only the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong about ObamaCare!

There is only one solution to this and that is to repeal and replace ObamaCare in its entirety and well as the people who engineered and passed it!!

Dirty Little Secret: Rationing is at Heart of ObamaCare

There is a dirty secret about health care that President Obama hopes will escape the headlines. In his newly released plan to “reform” Medicare as part of overall deficit reduction, Obama has punted actual cost-cutting and instead proposed a panel – the Independent Payment Advisory Board – to recommend savings for the financially doomed program. Translation: Welcome to the world of rationing.

The board, which was an original part of Obamacare (remember the death panel debate?), consists of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will have unchecked, binding power in the interest of supposedly greater efficiency and lower costs. That means that instead of you or your doctor making decisions about your care, a group of Washington micromanagers will do it for you.

Oh, and the rationing panel will be immune to lawsuits. According to The New York Times, “In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board’s recommendations.”

The panel is one of the scariest policy moves made by this administration and is the epitome of government interference in our lives at the most personal of levels. If you’re not eligible for Medicare, you will be one day, which is why everyone should be very afraid of what’s to come when the panel starts its work in 2014 with a report to the President. Though defenders claim that Obamacare bars rationing, the panel will do just that.  (Full Story Below)

There is a dirty secret about health care that President Obama hopes will escape the headlines. In his newly released plan to “reform” Medicare as part of overall deficit reduction, Obama has punted actual cost-cutting and instead proposed a panel – the Independent Payment Advisory Board  – to recommend savings for the financially doomed program. Translation: Welcome to the world of rationing.

The board, which was an original part of Obamacare (remember the death panel debate?), consists of 15 unelected bureaucrats who will have unchecked, binding power in the interest of supposedly greater efficiency and lower costs. That means that instead of you or your doctor making decisions about your care, a group of Washington micromanagers will do it for you.

They will do this by cutting reimbursements to doctors and hospitals and restricting patients from costly end-of-life care by enforcing caps on how much a patient can spend to stay alive. Most at risk will be the disabled, who require special and often expensive care. Cancer patients will be at risk, as well, since chemotherapy and other oncological treatments are some of the priciest.

In fact, there is very little Congress will be able to do to stop the panel. It will only be able to block its rulings with a two-thirds vote to override an expected presidential veto.

In the past, Obama has hinted that we'll need a way to address these patients. "The chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80% of the total health care bill out here," he said shortly after taking office. "There is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place."

But there was no real conversation. Democrats inserted the rationing panel into the Affordable Care Act (i.e., Obamacare), and when the opposition tried to draw attention to the risks involved by invoking rationing, they were branded by the left and the mainstream media as crazies.

But this is far from fantasy. In fact, it's already reality across the pond.

In many ways, Obama and congressional Democrats copied the British, who have a similar model called the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE. According to The Wall Street Journal, the acronym is quite the oxymoron when one looks at what passes for standard practice: "NICE has rejected a number of pricey drugs for cancer and other diseases in the past. . . .

Sometimes NICE rejects drugs for all patients with the disease, and sometimes just for patients with a specific form of the disease, where the efficacy doesn't appear to justify the price. NICE's decisions often anger patients, their families and drug companies."

Most recently, NICE made the decision to deny the use of several new drugs to treat chronic leukemia patients. This showcases how deficit savings will be achieved under Obama's plan.

First, it's baffling to me that with countless government health officials on the federal payroll, nobody has been able to definitively figure out how to save Medicare from fiscal ruin. But somehow, these 15 Independent Payment Advisory Board pencil pushers will do the trick? Unless Superman, Wonder Woman and the Flash are entering the world of public service, there is no reason to believe that the same bureaucrats who got us into this mess will be able to solve the problem simply because they've joined a newly created panel.

It does, however, give Washington air cover. Just like in England, when the panel makes a controversial decision, lawmakers will be cleared of any direct involvement, claiming they aren't responsible for cutting your mother's cancer treatments.

In fact, there is very little Congress will be able to do to stop the panel. It will only be able to block its rulings with a two-thirds vote to override an expected presidential veto.

Oh, and the rationing panel will be immune to lawsuits. According to The New York Times, "In general, federal courts could not review actions to carry out the board's recommendations."

So, to break it down: Democrats are against limits on private-sector lawsuits but are in favor of preventing patients from suing government bureaucrats. But if this rationing panel has been designed to be so efficient and good at its job, as the President and his administration claim, then why do Democrats fear litigation in the first place?

Even some on the left are unsettled about Obama's solution to lowering the deficit through a medical panel with frighteningly unchecked powers. Rep. Pete Stark (D-Calif.), a notorious liberal, said this of Independent Payment Advisory Board-style rationing: "In its effort to limit the growth of Medicare spending, the board is likely to set inadequate payment rates for health care providers, which could endanger patient care."

It could also lead to a doctor shortage. If the panel cuts reimbursements to physicians, they will simply stop treating Medicare patients, thus forcing patients to purchase their own health care. Already, "Obamacare's passage has led as many as two-thirds of physicians to drop out of government-run health programs," reports the Senate Republican Policy Committee.

The panel is one of the scariest policy moves made by this administration and is the epitome of government interference in our lives at the most personal of levels. If you're not eligible for Medicare, you will be one day, which is why everyone should be very afraid of what's to come when the panel starts its work in 2014 with a report to the President. Though defenders claim that Obamacare bars rationing, the panel will do just that.

Donald Berwick, the President's controversial Medicare administrator, already stated that "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care - the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open."

Although Obama and many congressional Democrats are hoping the complexity of the Independent Payment Advisory Board will keep people from paying attention, our eyes must be open, too. The fate of the elderly, the sick and the disabled depends on it.
andrea@andreatantaros.com

Andrea Tantaros, whose column appears on Thursdays on NYDailyNews.com and often in the print edition of the newspaper, is a political commentator as well as a corporate communications executive. She previously served as a senior adviser on a number of political campaigns and as communications director for former Massachusetts Gov. Bill Weld and Rep. Thomas Reynolds (R-N.Y.) and on Capitol Hill as press secretary for Republican leadership. Tantaros lives in New York City.

By ANDREA TANTAROS

The Dems, the White House and the media are trying to scare seniors about the Ryan Plan.  It is another diversion.  The real issue is the rationing or death panel headed by Donald Berwick that Sarah Palin and a few others warned us about and then were demonized by the same people who are hiding true facts of ObamaCare from you, until it is too late! Take it from someone who read as much of every version as possible during the ObamaCare battle… the panel and rationing are in there along with many other scary provisions.  And a vote to re-elect Obama is a final vote to destroy America’s healthcare as well as freedom!

Political End Runs

By Thomas Sowell – posted at  http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |

The Constitution of the United States begins with the words "We the people." But neither the Constitution nor "we the people" will mean anything if politicians and judges can continue to do end runs around both.

Bills passed too fast for anyone to read them are blatant examples of these end runs. But last week, another of these end runs appeared in a different institution when the medical "end of life consultations" rejected by Congress were quietly enacted through bureaucratic fiat by administrators of Medicare.

Although Congressman Earl Blumenauer and Senator Jay Rockefeller had led an effort by a group of fellow Democrats in Congress to pass Section 1233 of pending Medicare legislation, which would have paid doctors to include "end of life" counseling in their patients' physical checkups, the Congress as a whole voted to delete that provision.

Republican Congressman John Boehner, soon to become Speaker of the House, objected to this provision in 2009, saying: "This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia."

Whatever the merits or demerits of the proposed provision in Medicare legislation, the Constitution of the United States makes the elected representatives of "we the people" the ones authorized to make such decisions. But when proposals explicitly rejected by a vote in Congress are resurrected and stealthily made the law of the land by bureaucratic fiat, there has been an end run around both the people and the Constitution.

Congressman Blumenauer's office praised the Medicare bureaucracy's action but warned: "While we are very happy with the result, we won't be shouting it from the rooftops because we are not out of the woods yet."

In other words, don't let the masses know about it.

It is not only members of Congress or the administration who treat "we the people" and the Constitution as nuisances to do an end run around. Judges, including Justices of the Supreme Court, have been doing this increasingly over the past hundred years.

During the Progressive era of the early 20th century, the denigration of the Constitution began, led by such luminaries as Princeton scholar and future President of the United States Woodrow Wilson, future Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound and future Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis.

As a Professor at Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson wrote condescendingly of "the simple days of 1787" when the Constitution was written and how, in our presumably more complex times, "each generation of statesmen looks to the Supreme Court to supply the interpretation which will serve the needs of the day."

This kind of argument would be repeated for generations, with no more evidence that 1787 was any less complicated than later years than Woodrow Wilson presented-- which was none-- and with no more reasons why the need for "change" meant that unelected judges should be the ones making those changes, as if there were no elected representatives of the people.

Professor Roscoe Pound likewise referred to the need for "a living constitution by judicial interpretation," in order to "respond to the vital needs of present-day life." He rejected the idea of law as "a body of rules."

But if law is not a body of rules, what is it? A set of arbitrary fiats by judges, imposing their own vision of "the needs of the times"? Or a set of arbitrary regulations stealthily emerging from within the bowels of a bureaucracy?

Louis Brandeis was another leader of this Progressive era chorus of demands for moving beyond law as rules. He cited "newly arisen social needs" and "a shifting of our longing from legal justice to social justice."

In other words, judges were encouraged to do an end run around rules, such as those set forth in the Constitution, and around the elected representatives of "we the people." As Roscoe Pound put it, law should be "in the hands of a progressive and enlightened caste whose conceptions are in advance of the public."

That is still the vision of the left a hundred years later. The Constitution cannot protect us unless we protect the Constitution, by voting out those who promote end runs around it.

 

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER  -  Every weekday NewsAndOpinion.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.

Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

Sunday, 26 Dec 2010 06:41 PM

During the stormy debate over his healthcare plan, President Barack Obama promised his program would not "pull the plug on grandma" and Congress dropped plans for death panels and "end of life" counseling that would encourage aged patients from partaking in costly medical procedures.

Opponents of Obama's plan, including former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, dubbed such efforts as "death panels" that would encourage euthanasia.

But on December 3rd, the Obama administration seemingly flouted the will of Congress by issuing a new Medicare regulation detailing -- "voluntary advance care planning" that is to be included during patients' annual checkups. The regulation aimed at the aged "may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," The New York Times reported.

The new provision goes into effect Jan. 1, 2011 and allows Medicare to pay for voluntary counseling to help beneficiaries deal with the complex and decisions families face when a loved one is approaching death. Critics say it is another attempt to limit healthcare options for the elderly as they face serious illness.

Incoming House Speaker John Boehner said during the healthcare debate that, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.”

Specifically, the measure was known as Section 1233 of the bill passed by the House in November 2009. It was not included in the final legislation, however. It allowed Medicare to pay for consultations about advance care planning every five years. In contrast, the new rule allows annual discussions as part of the wellness visit.

Elizabeth D. Wickham, executive director of LifeTree, a pro-life Christian educational ministry, told the Times was concerned that end-of-life counseling would encourage patients to forgo or curtail care, thus hastening death.

“The infamous Section 1233 is still alive and kicking,” Ms. Wickham said. “Patients will lose the ability to control treatments at the end of life.”

The rule was issued by Dr. Donald M. Berwick, administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, according to The New York Times. He is a longtime advocate for rationing medical procedures for the elderly.

Before being tapped by Obama to his Medicare post, Berwick had long applauded Britain's National Health Service, which uses an algorithm to determine if the aged are worthy of additional expenditure for medical care and advanced treatments.

Berwick has argued that rationing will have to eventually be implemented in the U.S, stating, “The decision is not whether or not we will ration care. The decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open.”

Seniors appear to be a major target for precious resources under the Obama healthcare plan. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the Obama plan cuts nearly $500 million in Medicare benefits to seniors as the federal government adds 30 million uninsured Americans to private and public health care systems.

The cost of caring for the elderly has not been lost on Berwick.
“The chronically ill and those towards the end of their lives are accounting for potentially 80 percent of the total health care bill out here… there is going to have to be a very difficult democratic conversation that takes place,” he said.

During the heated healthcare debate, supporters of the Obama vigorously denied rationing for seniors would take place and scoffed at "death panel" critics like Palin.

Last month, however, economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman told ABC News that rising Medicare costs could only be dealt with by "death panels and sales taxes."

He added: "Medicare is going to have to decide what it's going to pay for. And at least for starters, it's going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the [death] panel that was part of the healthcare reform.’"

Read more: Obama Embraces 'Death Panel' Concept in Medicare Rule

The NY Times Concedes Governor Palin “Forced [Obama] Onto the Defensive.”

The NY Times concedes that Governor Palin put Obama “onto the defensive” with “death panels” (emphasis added):

Sarah Palin, the 2008 Republican vice-presidential candidate, and Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader, led the criticism in the summer of 2009. Ms. Palin said “Obama’s death panel” would decide who was worthy of health care. Mr. Boehner, who is in line to become speaker, said, “This provision may start us down a treacherous path toward government-encouraged euthanasia.” Forced onto the defensive, Mr. Obama said that nothing in the bill would “pull the plug on grandma.”

Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin been able to force the New York Times to concede that he or she put Obama on the defensive? Has any other potential Republican presidential candidate other than Palin destroyed a liberal policy to such an extent that the Democrat Party is afraid to publicize what it is doing and can only get it implemented through channels outside of the legislative arena?

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

by Ben Johnson – Posted at

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:

When a proposal to encourage end-of-life planning touched off a political storm over “death panels,” Democrats dropped it from legislation to overhaul the health care system. But the Obama administration will achieve the same goal by regulation, starting Jan. 1.

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Although the NYT just discovered this, Steven Ertelt at LifeNews.com reported the regulation nearly a month ago. (We covered it at the time.) For once, the Times included some salient facts along with its whitewash of the administration’s activities.

This program will be overseen by the Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, Dr. Donald Berwick, a fanatical believer in limiting (read: denying) care. The paper quotes Berwick as saying, “Using unwanted procedures in terminal illness is a form of assault. In economic terms, it is waste.” Berwick added advanced directives were one of “several techniques” that led “to both lower cost and more humane care.” There is no question they lead to lower costs, in addition to providing an economic stimulus to tombstone carvers, morticians, and cemetery plot salesmen.

The Times reports the regulation was pushed by two Congressional Democrats: Rep. Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Sen. Jay Rockefeller IV of West Virginia. This backing unintentionally reveals the measure’s greater significance: The liberals could not ram a death panels provision through even the Democratic-controlled 111th Congress, so Obama is imposing it with the stroke of a pen, without a single vote. The New York Times admits this is the wave of the future:

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

This author first exposed Obama’s plan to rule by executive order, in October. The following month, the Center for American Progress released a lengthy report compiled by Sarah Rosen Wartell calling for the president to implement a “progressive” agenda by fiat over the next two years. In its foreword, CAP president and CEO John Podesta called on Obama to rule through:

• Executive orders
• Rulemaking
• Agency management
• Convening and creating public-private partnerships
• Commanding the armed forces
• Diplomacy

Just last week, the inside-the-Beltway Bible Politico featured an article by John F. Harris and James Hohmann which concluded, “Republican gains in Congress make it essential for [Obama] to use new avenues of power,” including regulations and executive orders.

The Left is irresistibly drawn to collecting as much unbridled power as possible, because its agenda is so unpopular it could never receive sufficient popular support to pass an election. Since the November election, Obama, Reid, and company have followed the authoritarian path I predicted. I wrote in November, “Look for an aggressive agenda in the lame duck session of Congress, focused especially on passing the DREAM Act and repealing ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.’” Harry Reid unleashed precisely these two measures (and passed one of them) in his lame duck power grab, cramming in a bid to pass a $1.27 trillion budget besides. Next, I wrote, “After January, Cabinet agencies will issue regulations at a faster clip.” This follows that prediction. Finally, I wrote, “Obama will rule increasingly through executive orders and appeals to the United Nations.” If this regulation means anything, it means we have not seen anything yet.

How fitting one of the first expressions of Obama’s new strategy was a measure to let people die. He seems to have the same fate planned for the U.S. Constitution.

Hillary Clinton: Population Control Will Now Become The Centerpiece Of U.S. Foreign Policy

During remarks that she made for the 15th Anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced the launch of a new program that according to Clinton will now become the centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy.  This new program is known as the Global Health Initiative, and it is being incredibly well-funded at a time when the U.S. government is drowning in debt.  According to Clinton, 63 billion dollars will be spent by the U.S. to prevent pregnancies and to improve "family planning" services around the globe over the next six years.  In other words, the new centerpiece of U.S. foreign policy is all about eugenics and population control.

The following is an excerpt from Clinton's remarks....

In addition to new funding, we’ve launched a new program that will be the centerpiece of our foreign policy, the Global Health Initiative, which commits us to spending $63 billion over six years to improve global health by investing in efforts to reduce maternal and child mortality, prevent millions of unintended pregnancies, and avert millions of new HIV infections, among other goals. This initiative will employ a new approach to fighting disease and promoting health.

You see, whenever the global elite want to launch another new eugenics operation, they announce it as a great "humanitarian program" that will save millions of lives.  But their real goal is to control the population and prevent millions of lives from being born.

This was also reflected in Clinton's remarks about the United Nations Population Fund.  The United Nations Population Fund has been promoting abortion, forced sterilization and radical population control measures around the globe for decades, and Hillary Clinton was super excited to talk about how the U.S. government recently renewed funding for that organization....

This year, the United States renewed funding of reproductive healthcare through the United Nations Population Fund, and more funding is on the way. (Applause.) The U.S. Congress recently appropriated more than $648 million in foreign assistance to family planning and reproductive health programs worldwide. That’s the largest allocation in more than a decade – since we last had a Democratic president, I might add. (Applause.)

So what exactly is so bad about the United Nations Population Fund?

Not only does the United Nations Population Fund support and fund the forced abortion and infanticide of China's "one child" program, they also promote abortion, forced sterilization and brutal eugenics programs throughout the developing world.

To learn much more about the United Nations Population Fund, please watch the four short videos below.  They will leave you absolutely stunned....

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLkw01UaUes&feature=related

Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISj1d9lNi-E&feature=related

Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V8oWHAh_yo&feature=related

Part 4: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myITaeV3Q2o&feature=related

The truth is that the United Nations Population Fund always has been and always will be about eugenics.

And thanks to Barack Obama, it is being funded with millions of U.S. taxpayer dollars.

But that wasn't enough for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, so they have launched this new Global Health Initiative which will now be the "centerpiece" of U.S. foreign policy.

63 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars will be spent over the next six years to promote abortion, sterilization and "family planning" around the globe.

Sadly enough, there are people who are actually convinced that they will save the environment by reducing the population.  They think that while promoting abortion and sterilization may not be the most pleasant thing to do, it must be done for the good of the planet.

Of course they are dead wrong, but the "true believers" do not understand this.  All they know is that they have to keep all of the brown and black women in other countries from having babies so that we can save the planet.

We live in a world that is becoming more evil all the time.  Every person on this planet has a fundamental right to have as many children as they want, but the truth is that this right is being stripped away from an increasing number of people.

We live at a time when even our most fundamental liberties as human beings are under attack.  Let us hope that America wakes up and starts saying "no" to these kinds of policies.

We all realize that we need to be better stewards of the Earth and control our populations… the question is how, by how much and who makes the decisions.  For those of you who made of fun of Sarah Palin talking about the death panels under ObamaCare, maybe you owe her an apology!?!

Hillary Clinton:  Population Control Will Now Become the Centerpiece of U.S. Foreign Policy  is  an interesting since U.S. Population would be at zero growth if they would secure the borders, enforce our immigration laws and Congress would stop upping the quota numbers for people to enter the Country.  See:  Common Sense Look at Immigration by the Numbers – Stop the Dream Act!

NANP–National Association of Nutrition Professionals – 2005 Conference

Video: Population Reduction – PLEASE WATCH + SHARE

"We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ~" Bill Clinton (USATODAY, 11 March 1993, page 2A)

Related:

Council On Foreign Relations

CASH FOR CODGERS

Democrats, realizing the success of the President's "Cash For Clunkers" rebate program , at least from their perspective, have revamped a major portion of their National Health Care Plan.

President Obama , Speaker Pelosi , and Senator Reid are expected to make this major announcement at a joint news conference later this week. I have obtained an advanced copy of the proposal which is named.

" CASH FOR CODGERS " and it works like this. Couples wishing to access health care funds in order to pay for the delivery of a child will be required to turn in one old person. The amount the government grants them will be fixed according to a sliding scale. Older and more prescription dependent codgers will garner the highest amounts.

Special "Bonuses" will be paid for those submitting codgers in targeted groups, such as smokers, alcohol drinkers, persons 10 pounds over their government prescribed weight, and any member of the Republican Party.

Smaller bonuses will be given for codgers who consume beef, soda, fried foods, potato chips , lattes, whole milk, dairy products, bacon, Brussel sprouts, or Girl Scout Cookies.

All codgers will be rendered totally useless via toxic injection. This will insure that they are not secretly resold or their body parts harvested to keep other codgers in repair.

Remember you heard it here first.

How much is your old family member worth? Turn them in to the nearest Planned Grandparenthood Center and find out! Receive cash prizes and free healthcare entitlements!

As part of a new incentive tied to Obama's upcoming healthcare reform, the network of Planned Grandparenthood Centers are to begin running ads, themed "Double Cash for Your Old Coot." The push offers a cash incentive or zero-percent financing on top of free government plans for all families whose trade-in old-timers qualify for the government's program known as "Cash for Clunkers," up to a maximum of four grandparents over 70 years of age.

Latest opinion polls show that seniors steal billions of dollars out the federal budget each year just by staying alive. This new bold initiative is calculated to save us all money by gently recycling high-maintenance old coots, thus taking them off the list of potential beneficiaries of the impeccable government health coverage.

"Everyone who signs up for our plan will get a cash incentive even if they don't turn in a qualifying old fogey," says White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. "But families who trade in their useless members will also get a free premium plan and - for a limited time only - a rationing coupon for an extra unaborted baby!"

At the opening of the first Planned Grandparenthood Center in Washington, DC last week, Barack Obama offered a brief, optimistic cheer:

"In the cold-hearted, uncaring capitalist society of the past, where every man was for himself, people often reached advanced age without any government help. It is a shame that in the richest country in the world, old people were abandoned by society and survived on their own, sometimes until they were 117 years old. No one knew or cared about how long they lived because everyone paid their own medical bills. But those dog-eat-dog days are over. In the caring, collectivist America, no one will be allowed to live without government care. And since we are paying for you, we decide how long you can be a drain on the collective wallet.

"From my meetings with community activists and focus groups I have learned one thing: once you're past seventy, you have outlived your usefulness. Progress requires sacrifice. Some don't buy a large flat-screen TV, some don't go on vacation, and some don't go on living. And since humans are nothing more than a random collection of chemical elements that can also be found in a flat-screen TV, human sacrifice is no different than material sacrifice. Do it for the children!"

Special thanks to General Secretary for the idea.

Healthcare Benefits Advisory Committee Determines What Is Covered Which Is Worrisome if You Understand Obama Administrations Healthcare Advisors Perso

Senate Removes ‘End of Life’ Provision – Victory in the ‘Right’ Direction for American People and Fox News!!

First Victory… Keep Up The Good Fight America!!

The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after being derided as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia by conservatives.

Finance Committee drops end-of-life provision

The Senate Finance Committee will drop a controversial provision on consultations for end-of-life care from its proposed healthcare bill, its top Republican member said Thursday.

The committee, which has worked on putting together a bipartisan healthcare reform bill, will drop the controversial provision after being derided as "death panels" to encourage euthanasia by conservatives.

"On the Finance Committee, we are working very hard to avoid unintended consequences by methodically working through the complexities of all of these issues and policy options," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement. "We dropped end-of-life provisions from consideration entirely because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly."

The Finance Committee is the only congressional committee to not report out a preliminary healthcare bill before the August congressional recess, but is expected to unveil its proposal shortly after Labor Day.

Grassley said that bill would hold up better compared to proposals crafted in the House, which he asserted were "poorly cobbled together."

"The bill passed by the House committees is so poorly cobbled together that it will have all kinds of unintended consequences, including making taxpayers fund health care subsidies for illegal immigrants," Grassley said. The veteran Iowa lawmaker said the end-of-life provision in those bills would pay physicians to "advise patients about end of life care and rate physician quality of care based on the creation of and adherence to orders for end-of-life care."

"Maybe others can defend a bill like the Pelosi bill that leaves major issues open to interpretation, but I can't," Grassley added.

By: Michael O'Brien

Source: The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room