Obama Deception

[wpage]

Only God can fix this mess...

Until Christ comes again we are stuck with this world machine...

[Mad Scientist]

We should at least do what we can, even if other aspects are very challenging. I'm not willing to say I just give up while so many are suffering, dying, going bankrupt, etc.

I agree. But I don’t see Obama’s plan doing much to correct the problem. With the government paying for health care the cost of service will not go down. I’m sure the health care industry will ask for (demand) and get even more money while cutting back on some services. These cut backs will be sold to us as an attempt to save us money while they are raking in even greater amounts of money then before.

As I said before there is no question that our heath care system is broke. The question is how to fix it. Applying a few band aids and making a few changes here and there is maybe better then nothing but will have little overall effect. What is needed is major surgery.

Unfortunately I don’t see the health care industry allowing any meaningful or fundamental change to occur. It does not matter how many people may suffer this is their cash cow and no one shall dare mess with it.

It is only when the majority of the people realist that main goal of our health care industry is to first make money rather then help people will this change.

[Mad Scientist]

And speaking about government being concerned about our health and safety how about this little gem that I just read about.

It would seem the house has just passed a bill and it's now going to senate that could effectively ban all organically grown food.

The farm controls mandated by the "Food Safety Enhancement Act of 2009." (you have to love the names they come up with) would usher in complete government control of our food supply, and ultimately the end of organic foods by giving the FDA complete power to impose one-size-fits-all regulations on ALL food producers -- including independent farmers.

It would allow the imposition of all manner of standards that would be impossible or unaffordable for small, organic farms to meet, thus driving them out of the market.

And those farmers guilty of even the most minor infraction of the many new regulations will feel the entire weight of the federal government crashing down upon them – with possible fines in the millions of dollars, and prison terms up to eight years. All this because they had the gall to grow food without government approval.

Naturally the bill doesn't spell this out in so many words. No one would agree to it. But looking between the lines it is there, to start with ALL food producers would have to register with the FDA... the cost a mere $1,000!

[future pather]

Here is the snopes analysis of this issue:

snopes.com: Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009

[Mad Scientist]

The problem with Snopes is that it has been shown to have strong Democratic leanings. Thus in a cases like this I wouldn’t automatically assume it to be a completely unbiased.

The real problem with this type of legislation is not whether it specifically bans some action but that it opens the door to such bans. At that point all it takes is some lower level bureaucrat to decide that a window flower pot is actually a miniature farm and needs government control. This means that you now have to waste your time and money defending your flower pot. (or what ever) Thus you will have to do and spend whatever it takes to get into compliance or get rid of it.

We see just this sort of thing taking place in alternative health care where the big drug companies working through government make it difficult to learn about and acquire natural cures.

[Glenn]

Bad Prescriptions and Killer Food

Actually, it doesn't matter which party is in power for the government to initiate incredibly horrific policies that undermine the health and prosperity of the general public.

The problem: Big Drug and Chemical companies make billions of dollars from the many drugs and chemical products on the market. To protect their money, they have spent years gaining control of special interest groups and inserted their own lackey lobbyists in Washington. Additionally, many of the esteemed legislators have their own personal money invested in many of these companies or these companies' ventures. Their influence is such that it does not matter which party is in control - they control the people who make the laws and they do everything in their power to make sure the laws work in their favor - whether in the best interest of the masses or not (usually not).

So until laws can be presented to the house and senate, and subsequently enacted, without riders thatoften mitigate or even eliminate the effectiveness of the original language of the law, we can only keep vigil and try to counteract these insidious legislative actions.

There are several websites that allow people to get involved and take action, here are two of the more effective ones:

Change.org
Care2Petition

Don't let this government which is SUPPOSED to be 'By the People and For the People' destroy our rights to live free, eat healthy, and to be healthy and happy.

[future pather]

The problem with Snopes is that it has been shown to have strong Democratic leanings. Thus in a cases like this I wouldn’t automatically assume it to be a completely unbiased.

I'd never heard that before. I keep thinking on it. Democrats seem to be the party generally most concerned with civil rights. If what you are saying is true the scopes answer should be especially sensitive of possible civil rights violations, not the other way around, right?

[Mad Scientist]

I'd never heard that before.

I don’t recall where I read that, however in its context it was credible.

I keep thinking on it. Democrats seem to be the party generally most concerned with civil rights.

But if the democrats are the ones concerned about civil rights why then are they talking about a fairness doctrine that will limit freedom of speech? Or the banning of guns, why is it ok to steal a higher percentage of money in taxes from the rich then from the poor, (are we all not equal?) Why at the recent town hall meetings was it OK the praise Obama’s health care plan but criticism of it is somehow unpatriotic? It would seem that there concern over civil rights is somewhat selective.

Of course the republicans are not much better. Under republicans man exploits man but under democrats it is just the opposite.

I agree with Glenn.

Actually, it doesn't matter which party is in power for the government to initiate incredibly horrific policies that undermine the health and prosperity of the general public.

[future pather]

But if the democrats are the ones concerned about civil rights why then are they talking about a fairness doctrine that will limit freedom of speech?

I personally don't know anyone who is talking about that. It sounds like the intent of it is to offer equal coverage of issues, rather than just one side. Imo that would increase free speech, not limit it. This is my opinion of what the Supreme Court rulings regarding the law (that I just looked up) do.

I don't believe that laws are made to infringe on rights, I believe they protect them.

Take the gun issue. I see both sides and believe it's a matter of common sense. I don't want to live in a country where only the government is allowed to bare arms.

However I also feel I have a right to live in a society where common sense is used about the issuing of weapons which are meant for killing, and one in which I did not constantly fear for my safety.

Or in the extreme, if there were no law against murder, I would feel less free to live.

. . . why is it ok to steal a higher percentage of money in taxes from the rich then from the poor, (are we all not equal?)

It's not called stealing when it is law. (What Robin Hood did was considered stealing and even he is portrayed in good light for some "social distribution of wealth.")

It is law because the majority of people wanted it and we live in a democracy. Those who voted for it consider it a benefit to their lives. Many of them also believe (quite correctly imo) that it is even beneficial to the rich since the $ goes to the betterment of society. The rich then don't have to be personally bothered with such things as constructing every road they want to drive on or stopping crime locally, state wide, country wide, etc.

Why at the recent town hall meetings was it OK the praise Obama’s health care plan but criticism of it is somehow unpatriotic? It would seem that there concern over civil rights is somewhat selective.

Not at all. The republicans call democrats unpatriotic all the time. There is no double standard, just people seeing things differently and calling it as they see it.

Of course the republicans are not much better. Under republicans man exploits man but under democrats it is just the opposite.

Imo there are merits to both sides and that is what we should look for, the best of both.

We either operate out of fear for the worst of both, or we operate out of hope for the best of both.

I think what is most important is to try to understand both sides whenever possible. Yes it is good to keep your eyes open but it's also important not to get stuck in fear. It is understandable given certain corruptions, but we either keep our eyes on the prize or fall off the track.

XO Jessica

[Mad Scientist]

I personally don't know anyone who is talking about that. It sounds like the intent of it is to offer equal coverage of issues, rather than just one side. Imo that would increase free speech, not limit it.

So in other words if CNN or MSNBC air an editorial criticizing the republicans then by law they must provide equal time to say Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage for a rebuttal? What is wrong with simply switching to FOX to learn the opposing view?

Now if all stations are forced to give "fair and balanced" coverage I think you will find that overall coverage of controversial issues will decrease. As many news outlets will decide it is not worth the trouble. Thus further limiting what we can hear and that is the last thing we need right now.

I don't believe that laws are made to infringe on rights, I believe they protect them.

Take the gun issue. I see both sides and believe it's a matter of common sense. I don't want to live in a country where only the government is allowed to bare arms.

However I also feel I have a right to live in a society where common sense is used about the issuing of weapons which are meant for killing, and one in which I did not constantly fear for my safety.

Or in the extreme, if there were no law against murder, I would feel less free to live.


The problem is when most people think about the 2nd. Amendment they assume that its purposes is to give the hunter the right to go out and shoot Bambi to put food on the table or the gun enthusiast to collect and own guns. This is totally wrong! The reason the founders included the 2nd amendment was to give the average citizen not only the right to tell their elected officials that they don’t like some law, but the means by which they can tell their officials hell no we don’t like that law and you damn well are going to change it.

Naturally this scares some of our officials, which is just what it is suppose to do, thus they have taken to producing a number of laws to limit this threat. Of course then we are told that these laws are for our safety.

But don’t tell that to the guy who shot a burglar that broke into his home and then he was arrested for having a firearm in his town.




It's not called stealing when it is law.

If I go to my rich neighbor and demand that he give me money so that I can send my kids to school is that not stealing. So why is it any different if I have government go and take his money so my kids can go to school?
Obviously schools benefit everyone but is this the best way to fund them?



Imo there are merits to both sides and that is what we should look for, the best of both.


I agree. But that was not happening when some of our representatives were calling their constituents dumber then a table because they questioned their judgment.


I think what is most important is to try to understand both sides whenever possible. Yes it is good to keep your eyes open but it's also important not to get stuck in fear. It is understandable given certain corruptions, but we either keep our eyes on the prize or fall off the track.

XO Jessica

Again I agree. But we need to be mindful of all the corruption that is apparent and we need to demand that our representatives do what is best for us and not be bought out by some corporation or special interest group.

[Mad Scientist]

I just came across this PHD dissertation that should be made public.....IMHO. The file is just a bit too large to do it in one upload so I had to split it. Sorry!

I hope this article makes you as as you can get over the deceptions on the American People for 220 years.

He says the article should be freely passed around. I'd like to know what y'all think about it.

Warren
..

I only skimmed through part of it but if he got a PHD for that then it says volumes about the standards of the university that he went to.

[wes77]

obama deception???

I first off can't imagine that obama is part of some scheme to begin a new world order or undermine our government in some way in the sense that, until he was elected, nobody thought he could be elected. Who would bet on such a longshot?

Also, if you listen to the man speak, unless he is the most underhanded liar the world has ever seen, which I highly doubt, he actually cares what happens to the people of america, and his heart is in this. He cares more about the little guy than the people who could line his pockets... that is something I respect.

Regarding taxes... the rich have laywers, lobbyists, and hard won loopholes to ensure that they keep their money. Obama is just trying to stop them from evading taxes anymore.

if you want proof... try pushing a 10% flat tax through congress. You will see more resistance to that than health care reform. If the rich didn't have something to lose, why would they fight? 10% must be less than they pay now... right?

I do understand people wanting to protect their freedoms. I want my freedoms to continue as well and it is a noble fight.

The problem is, in some cases, protecting certain freedoms is like protecting the right to freedom of a convicted murderer or burgular. How can you have true freedom if evil people and practices are not restrained?

Our freedoms end where someone else's begin. If a murderer were allowed to run free becuse we wanted to make sure we protected his freedoms, we would not be living in freedom, but in fear. Only he would be free (to intimidate and dominate others). Evil has to be restrained in order to preserve true freedom. I don't want someone telling me what to do... even when it's wrong or negatively affects others? does that make sense?

I am a Christian and the bible even states it is the job of the government to maintain order and provide justice for those who are wronged. Isn't this about justice?

Regulations are what keep people from stealing, killing, and wronging one another. They are good in the right context. Complete deregulation is the equivalent of anarchy in business or otherwise.

I am not for big government, but when corporations have you by the short hairs, who has the power to oppose them? if not the government then who?

If we do nothing, continuing to be exploited by the health care industry is a certainty. I agree with doing it right, but at this point it is like arguing about how to tie the turnicate as the man bleeds out. just tie the darn thing and then worry about the details once the bleeding is stopped.

[future pather]

Regarding taxes... the rich have laywers, lobbyists, and hard won loopholes to ensure that they keep their money. Obama is just trying to stop them from evading taxes anymore.

Yup exactly. (Left unchecked, the rich's civil rights are not the ones that need protecting bc they are able to manipulate everything.) That's why Obama went after the Swiss bank situation

Swiss to hand over bank details to U.S. in UBS deal - Yahoo! News

[wes77]

wow...

Money As Debt

I just watched this... I always thought things were transparent and for the most part as they seemed to be. What a fool I have been.

if you haven't watched this... it is worth your while top take a look.

[future pather]

Wes,

Didn't you say you believe in the Bible?

If so do you not realize the spiritual test of the world?

It is to keep faith when it doesn't seem like there is a reason to.

How can you be tested if things look all rosy and where is the satisfaction of perseverance in that case?

" . . hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what he already has?"

Romans 8:24

God will not know the depths of your faith if your circumstances are not impossible seeming.

Your faith is supposed to be that with God all things are possible, not if it looks impossible it must be impossible.

Keep your chin up and don't fall into any traps, no matter how "real" they may seem

Logic is powerful, but there is something even greater