How Obama's Healthcare Opens the Floodgates . . . to Government Takeover!

The Healthcare Bill Would Be Obama’s ‘Enabling Act’
By Michael Zak

Article printed from Big Government: http://biggovernment.com/

Why are Barack Obama and other Democrat leaders so intent on passing a government takeover of healthcare now…Now…NOW?





















They must know that costs will rise and the quality of care will fall, right? They must know that Obamacare would destroy the economy, right? Of course they do. But, they also know that the federal government would tighten its grip on the nation. They know that Obama’s czars and other appointees would be authorized to bypass Congress in enacting sweeping regulations on nearly every aspect of a person’s life. And, they know that these new powers of the federal government would be concentrated in the hands of the Democratic Party and the President.

Here’s what else they know. History affords many examples of regimes whose motto was “Never let a crisis go to waste.” In 1933, having campaigned for “hope” and “change,” the National Socialist Worker’s Party forced through the German parliament a Law to Remedy the Distress of the People and the Nation, also known as the Enabling Act.

This new law enabled the German chancellor and his appointees to bypass parliament in imposing sweeping regulations on the people:

“In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich [i.e., the Cabinet].”

The constitution of the Weimar Republic became so irrelevant that the new regime never saw a need to actually repeal it.

By this vote, the National Socialist Workers Party assumed absolute power and the Chancellor made history. [1]

Article printed from Big Government: http://biggovernment.com/

URL to article: http://biggovernment.com/mzak/2010/03/13/the-healthcare-bill-would-be-obamas-enabling-act/

Copyright © 2009 Big Government. All rights reserved.

ALSO

see

The Joining Together of Islam and the Left: The Perfect Death Machine
In Obama, Islam and the Left (socialists, marxists, communists) have found their perfect instrument.

"Forbidden Thoughts" Burst Out...Let the Shi--"Chips"--Fall where It May!

.
Comment by Fjordman at "Gates of Vienna"

Fjordman's THIRD Comment there, where he quotes

Lawrence Auster:
from http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015463.html

"I think it's reasonable to say that Obama's paramount objective in the health care bill and his other initiatives is to bring down white America, by punitively taxing middle class whites in the health care bill and transferring their money to nonwhites and illegal aliens; by siding with Islam against the United States ('I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear'); by sending U.S. soldiers to die for the sake of Afghans who are not our friends (see Diana West on this); by appointing the blatantly anti-white Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court and numerous anti-whites to posts in his administration; by supporting vastly expanded nonwhite immigration and amnesty (though he may not move forward with that this year); and by declaring, in his March 2008 race speech, that whites deserve to be hated by blacks with Jeremiah Wright type hatred until they make blacks equal to themselves in all outcomes and goods. He said this very clearly in that speech, as I've explained, but your typical conservatives were so awed by his criticisms of blacks and his nuance and his 'thoughtfulness' that they didn't notice it."

***

Later on, in this SAME Comment, after making the same case for "Eurabia," Fjordman finishes with:

"I suspect that future historians will refer to the early twenty-first century as a low point in the history of the white race, when hostile outsiders such as Muslims can abuse us in our own countries with impunity. We can probably get a little bit lower still, unfortunately, but we are approaching a low point. And a turning point, too?"

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2010/02/mohawk-model.html

Lawrence Auster, in the cited article, also makes the following statement:

"The health care bill is the main initiative of his presidency. Since it would be financially ruinous to the white, wealth producing, independent part of America for the sake of the nonwhite, non-wealth producing, dependent (and illegal alien) part, while also subjecting free Americans to a paralyzing bureaucracy from which they could never escape, it is his main way of breaking the back, crushing the independent spirit, of white America, of slaying the White Whale. That's why he must succeed and cannot compromise or accept defeat."

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015463.html

Marching Toward Martial Law

Obama is quietly building a coalition of forces within the U. S. A. (06:14)

From http://www.theobamafile.com/

WHAT DO YOU DO WITH A CAPTURED TALIBAN?

Two ways of looking at counterinsurgency warfare:

From Islamabad Boys

During his December visit to Afghanistan, Mullen*--who strongly supports Obama’s troop surge--held a shura with a group of local elders on a U.S. base in Kandahar. "I would rather listen than speak," said the admiral, who wore a tan desert camouflage uniform. "Tell me what you think I need to understand that I may not understand." Mullen sat patiently as the men, grizzled under their turbans and dusty robes, bombarded him with rambling complaints about corruption and unemployment. He didn’t flinch when one tribal elder, upset that some Taliban detainees were being released by corrupt Afghan security forces, made a suggestion: In the future, he said, "just kill them on the ground. Do not turn them over to the Afghan forces." At the session’s end, Mullen assured the men that he’d heard their concerns, especially on corruption. Of the detainees, he added diplomatically, "The solution to just kill them on the street probably won’t work for us."

http://www.tnr.com/article/world/islamabad-boys?page=0%2C1

Whose way is better? Who's to say?
_________________________
*Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff

Getting Away With Murder - the Saudi Relation with the United States

by Hugh Fitzgerald
from his "66 Suitcases"
at The Iconoclast
[truncated]
***
Saudi Arabia is not and never has been, and never could be, a "close ally" or an "ally" or a "friend" or anything at all except a mortal enemy, of the United States, as the most powerful of Infidel countries. Occasionally the Saudis find that their interests, and those of the Americans, may overlap -- the Saudis wanted the Red Army defeated in Afghanistan, because it was an army of Infidels suppressing Muslims, and the Americans wanted the Red Army defeated in Afghanistan because it wanted the Soviet Union defeated everywhere it chose to project its military power. The Americans wanted to push Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait because they feared the aggressive nature of his regime and his pretense of becoming King of the Arabs; the Saudis wanted to push Saddam Hussei out of Kuwait because they feared his designs on Saudi Arabia and the appeal of any rhetorical attacks by his regime on the corrupt Al-Saud.
[see my footnote regarding this. lw]

Saudi Arabia has spent nearly $100 billion over the past three decades on the Jihad to spread Islam. That money has paid for mosques, both buildings and maintenance, and madrasas, and propaganda disseminated in those mosques and madrasas that preach hatred and violence toward all Infidels; that money has paid for a vast army of Western hirelings, deployed in the capitals of the West to present Saudi Arabia as, precisely, a "close ally," with the real Saudi Arabia, the one described by J. B. Kelly in his essay "Of Valuable Oil and Worthless Policies," hidden from view -- as for decades it was hidden from American view by incessant Aramco propaganda. That money has also been used to buy influence to prevent any sensible energy plan that might diminish reliance on oil from being adopted by the government.

Saudi Arabia (and Kuwait and the Emirates as well) needs to be read the riot act. Its rulers should be told they can no longer send money to this country to spread hatred through the kind of propaganda disseminated in the mosques it pays for -- or at least, not without severe consequences. They can no longer be allowed to send money to pay for campaigns of Da'wa, targetted at the most vulnerable citizens in this country (if Muslims want to conduct missionary work, local Muslims will have to do it, not as part of a geopolitical campaign by Saudi or other rich Arabs). Any monies that come from Saudi Arabia should be carefully monitored, and those who receive those monies publicized -- so that all those influence-peddlers, those writers of Op/Ed articles and deliverers of lectures about "our friends the Saudis" and "America's real interests in the Middle East" -- given by those who cash their Saudi-generated checks even as they mutter darkly about "the Israeli lobby" -- and of course those who pay, directly or indirectly, for such groups as the "Council on the National Interest" -- which "National Interest" seems to be defined in one way only. Any such monies will be monitored, and the sums given public attention, or if a way can be found to do it, seized. There is no sense in regarding Saudi Arabia as anything other than an enemy, the chief provider of the Money Weapon for the world-wide Jihad. pay for these mosques, madrasas, or to such groups as do their bidding in lobbying the government. There is nothing that the Saudis can do to us. But the Al-Saud depend on us, in the end, for their own family's security. They depend on the West for petroleum engineers, and doctors, and every sort of expert to run their country. They depend on the West for medical care, education or at least the receipt of plausible-sounding degrees (a different thing), for the children of the ruling family's princes and princelings and even, here and there, possibly a princelette or two, and also for the children of the courtiers and middlemen and fixers who have made money from their connections to the Al-Saud, all essentially creatures of the oil bonanza, that is to say, of unstoppable torrents of money, where once there were only seasonal rivulets from wadis, that are the result only of an accident of geology.

Saudi Arabia depends entirely on the Western world for that medical care, that access to education, that fun-fair-cum-brothel-cum-gambling-den that Monte Carlo, and Las Vegas, and Marbella, and London, and even McLean, Virginia, and Aspen, Colorado (see that conduit for BAE bribes, Prince Bandar). The Al-Saud think they are above the law, and the British government, in choosing not to follow through on the BAE investigation’s results, has shown that at least they are above British law. Now we shall see if the scandal of the 66 suitcases, stuffed with heroin (or was it cocaine?) and brought into France, on a plane owned by a Saudi prince who now claims diplomatic immunity, will be dropped, which means that the Al-Saud would also be above French law.

And the final question remains: will the Al-Saud continue to get away with murder, that is to say with funding those who are hostile to, and who wish to undermine in every way, our own legal and political institutions because these institutions flatly contradict both the letter and spirit of Islam?

When will Saudi Arabia be re-dimensioned? When it will be seen as the primitive kingdom, ruled by Johnny-jump-ups who happen to have driven out the Hashemites, and to have defeated the Shammar tribe, and rule because they stand by the mutawwa, stand by the worst Wahhabis who, in turn, provide them, despite their enormous corruption and theft of national wealth, with the legitimacy that so far has allowed them not only to stay in power, but also not merely to dare to bully, but also to hire Western hirelings who help mislead the American public as to the supposed power of Saudi Arabia.

Cut it down to size, but begin by calling in Adel Jubeir and telling him not only that the “ally” business is long over, but the Saudi Arabian rulers, and Saudi “stability,” are dispensable as far as the American government and people are concerned. After all, in the end, if the oil wells of al-Hasa were to fall to those who are even worse, even more open, about their Islam-inculcated hatred of Infidels, we can – and would – seize those oil wells. And if the Saudis reply, as they will, with some blague about how they have “mined” the oilfields, don’t believe it. And if they further allude to all the money they can pull out of the American market, then they can be told that a great deal of Saudi wealth, especially of individuals, can be located and seized; that the corrupt behavior of Saudi princes can be easily tracked, filmed, and put on the Internet which would not make the lives of those princes any easier at home, and that there is a great deal more that can be done –unless they stop funding campaigns of Da’wa, not only here but elsewhere.

Posted on 01/31/2008 1:07 PM
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_months.cfm/m/1/y/2008
_____________________
Footnote
Ever wonder why George W. Bush chose to attack Iraq--after he attacked Afghanistan, the seat of bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership that planned and executed 9-11)? G.W. attacked Iraq, which was not the source of Al Qaeda and the 19 who crashed planes into U.S. buildings and one pasture, to divert our attention from Saudi Arabia, from whence came the financing for 9-11. Saudi should have been punished for 9-11, its oil fields taken from it, and its incursion of Islamic propaganda and literature into the U.S. stopped. As G.W. had connections to the Saudi "royals," he directed all attention to their rival Saddam and Iraq. --lw

The "Goldstone Factor" in Modern Warfare

Fight a "just" war against those who have attacked and threaten to attack you again until you are destroyed, and you run the risk of raising the spectre of "Goldstone."

Yaakov Kirschen of Dry Bones hit a bullseye with that one:






















To clarify, I'll let "Bones" explain:

the latest from Canada's Globe and Mail:

NATO strikes kill 12 civilians in Afghanistan "NATO rockets missed their target and killed 12 civilians in southern Afghanistan on Sunday, as NATO and Afghan forces continued a massive attack on two Taliban-held regions.

U.S. General Stanley McChrystal, the top NATO commander in Afghanistan, apologized to Afghan President Hamid Karzai for the accident.

In a statement released by NATO, Gen. McChrystal said he regrets that innocent lives were lost in Nad Ali district.

Mr. Karzai issued a statement minutes earlier saying 10 members of the same family died when a rocket hit a house. Before the offensive began, Mr. Karzai pleaded with Afghan and foreign military leaders to be extra careful to avoid civilian casualties.

About 15,000 coalition troops are involved in Operation Moshtarak, named for a Dari word meaning "together" and launched before dawn Saturday. It’s one of the West’s biggest attacks since the start of the war in 2001." -more

So what's with the "Goldstone Factor?"

Caroline Glick explains:

"Late last week, the Zionist student movement Im Tirtzu published a detailed report demonstrating that 16 anti-Zionist NGOs funded by the post-Zionist New Israel Fund worked hand in glove with the UN Human Rights Council and Richard Goldstone to bring about the establishment of the Goldstone committee and give credibility to its allegations that Israel committed war crimes during Operation Cast Lead.[*] According to the Im Tirtzu report, 92 percent of Israeli allegations that Israel committed war crimes in its campaign against Hamas came from these 16 NIF-funded organizations." -more

[emphasis and color mine. lw]
__________________________
*Israel's operation in Gaza
__________________________

http://drybonesblog.blogspot.com/

Troops Held Back by Rules of Engagement

Pier Paolo Cito / The Associated Press

U.S. soldiers and an Afghan soldier exchange fire with insurgents during a patrol in the Badula Qulp area, west of Lashkar Gah in Helmand province, on Feb. 14. In the fight, one soldier was wounded and at least one insurgent was killed. The soldiers are operating in support of a Marine offensive against the Taliban in the Marjah area.

Troops: Strict war rules slow Marjah offensive

By Alfred de Montesquiou and Deb Riechmann - The Associated Press
Posted : Monday Feb 15, 2010 15:08:51 EST

MARJAH, Afghanistan — Some American and Afghan troops say they’re fighting the latest offensive in Afghanistan with a handicap — strict rules that routinely force them to hold their fire.

Although details of the new guidelines are classified to keep insurgents from reading them, U.S. troops say the Taliban are keenly aware of the restrictions.

“I understand the reason behind it, but it’s so hard to fight a war like this,” said [a] Marine Lance Cpl. . . . . “They’re using our rules of engagement against us,” he said, adding that his platoon had repeatedly seen men drop their guns into ditches and walk away to blend in with civilians.

If a man emerges from a Taliban hideout after shooting erupts, U.S. troops say they cannot fire at him if he is not seen carrying a weapon — or if they did not personally watch him drop one.

What this means, some contend, is that a militant can fire at them, then set aside his weapon and walk freely out of a compound, possibly toward a weapons cache in another location. It was unclear how often this has happened. In another example, Marines pinned down by a barrage of insurgent bullets say they can’t count on quick air support because it takes time to positively identify shooters.

“This is difficult,” [another] Lance Cpl. . . . said Monday. “We are trained like when we see something, we obliterate it. But here, we have to see them and when we do, they don’t have guns.”

NATO and Afghan military officials say killing militants is not the goal of a 3-day-old attack to take control of this Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan. More important is to win public support.

They acknowledge that the rules entail risk to its troops, but maintain that civilian casualties or destruction of property can alienate the population and lead to more insurgent recruits, more homemade bombs and a prolonged conflict.

But troops complain that strict rules of engagement — imposed to spare civilian casualties — are slowing their advance into the town of Marjah in Helmand province, the focal point of the operation involving 15,000 troops.

“The problem is isolating where the enemy is,” said . . . . a Marine company commander from Stillwater, Okla. “We are not going to drop ordnance out in the open.”

That’s a marked change from the battle of Fallujah, Iraq, in November 2004. When Marines there encountered snipers holed up in a building, they routinely called in airstrikes. In Marjah, fighter jets are flying at low altitude in a show of force, but are not firing missiles.

Politically, it’s not the best time to campaign for relaxing the rules in Afghanistan. On Sunday, two U.S. rockets struck a house and killed 12 Afghan civilians during the offensive in Marjah, NATO said. On Monday, a NATO airstrike accidentally killed five civilians and wounded two in neighboring Kandahar province.

It was public outrage in Afghanistan over civilian deaths that prompted the top NATO commander, U.S. Gen. Stanley McChrystal, last year to tighten the rules, including the use of airstrikes and other weaponry if civilians are at risk.

Afghan civilian deaths soared to 2,412 civilians last year — the highest number in any year of the 8-year-old war, according to a U.N. report. But the deaths attributed to allied troops dropped nearly 30 percent as a result of McChrystal’s new rules, according to the report.

Under the current rules of engagement, troops retain the right to use lethal force in self defense, said U.S. Col. Wayne Shanks, a spokesman for the international force.

The rules seek to put the troops in the “right frame of mind to exercise that right,” Shanks said. They require troops to ask a few fundamental questions:

• Even if someone has shot in my general direction, am I still in danger?

• Will I make more enemies than I’ll kill by destroying property, or harming innocent civilians?

• What are my other options to resolve this without escalating the violence?

On Monday, Marines in the northern part of Marjah followed the rules of engagement, but a civilian still ended up dead.

As troops fought teams of insurgent snipers throughout the day in heavy gunfights, a young Afghan man ran toward the Marines. More than once, the troops warned him to stop, but he kept running.

Following the rules, the Marines uttered a verbal warning, and fired a flare and a warning shot overhead. Still the man didn’t stop. Marines shot him dead.

Afterward, Marine officers said the victim appeared to be a mentally ill man who had panicked during the gun battle.

“Sadly, everything was done right,” said Lt. Col. Brian Christmas, commander of 3rd Battalion, 6th Marines. “The family understood.”

Christmas said his troops might be frustrated, but understand the reasons behind the strict rules. As he spoke, Cobra attack helicopters fired Hellfire missiles nearby. Ground forces under intense fire had requested the air support 90 minutes earlier, but it took that long to positively identify the militants who were shooting at the allied forces.

“We didn’t come to Marjah to destroy it, or to hurt civilians,” Christmas said.

That message was drilled into the troops in the run-up to the offensive.

“What are we here for?” Brig. Gen. Larry Nicholson, the top Marine commander in Afghanistan, would shout to his troops.

“The people!” was the troops’ refrain.

Afghan forces cite examples of the restrictions too.

Col. Shrin Shah Kohbandi, commander of the new Afghan army corps in Helmand province, told reporters that his troops saw militants running away from the battlefield toward a village in Nad Ali district where they disappeared among villagers. “They hid their weapons so they became ‘civilians,’ ” under the rules, he said. “We didn’t kill them and we weren’t able to arrest them.”

Khan Mohammad Khan, a former Afghan National Army commander in neighboring Kandahar province, said being able to use heavy weapons and conduct air strikes only in selective situations has hamstrung troops in Marjah.

But Brig. Gen. Sher Mohammad Zazai, commander of Afghan troops in the south, said there is no plan to revise the rules.

“The aim of the operation is not to kill militants,” he said. “The aim is to protect civilians and bring in development.”

———

Associated Press writers Rahim Faiez in Helmand province, and Heidi Vogt and Amir Shah in Kabul contributed to this report.

All content © 2010, Army Times Publishing Company

SEE Fighting a War With Our Hands Tied--Once Again!