Skip to content

Healthcare propaganda

March 29, 2010
Lynn M Stuter

In response to the mounting anger concerning Obama deathcare, Organizing for America, Also Known As (AKA) Obama’s website, propaganda machine, and Marxist organizing group, sent out the following e-mail to people across the United States:

“When your representative, Representative Jay Inslee, stood up and supported reform, it was a courageous step in the face of insurance-industry attacks — and it proves that your voice was heard.

Now, many in Congress already face well-funded attacks by special interests in retaliation for standing in support of reform. GOP representatives and attorneys general are trying to repeal or overturn the legislation, and deceptive attack ads are hitting the airwaves.

But a big-money attack ad isn’t nearly as powerful as the real story of an actual constituent — so we have to get our voices out there and make sure enemies of reform don’t dominate the public discussion in these crucial moments.

Organizing for America volunteers across the country are writing letters to the editor of their local paper to thank their representatives for supporting health reform. Can you join them?

The letters page is one of the most read in the newspaper, and speaking up there can go a long way toward showing our representatives that when they stand up and fight for us, we’ll fight for them.

To show local support, OFA supporters are writing in with specific messages about what reform will mean for them, their families, and their friends — and their communities.

According to our records, you live in Washington’s 1st congressional district. In your district alone, reform would:

Ban discrimination against 8,300 residents with pre-existing conditions;

Provide tax credits and other assistance for up to 120,000 families;

Extend coverage to 24,000 uninsured residents;

Save 1,100 families from health care related bankruptcy; and

Get full prescription drug coverage for 84,000 seniors on Medicare.

Please send a letter to the editor of your local paper, and thank your representative for making history:

Thanks for making it happen,

David Plouffe”

If there is one thing Marxists are good at, it’s propaganda intended to make cow paddies look like chocolate ice cream.  And just like Hitler, AKA has set out to make the American people believe that his oppressive agenda is good for them.  His road show, after signing HR 3590 into law, was carefully scripted before screened crowds, to make it appear that the vast majority who voiced their disapproval were in the minority.

While this letter is long on giveaways, it’s rather short on where the money will come from to pay for all these giveaways, when

  • jobs are disappearing at a rapid rate,
  • the country is $2,060,693,104,110.85 further in the hole today than it was on January 19, 2009 when AKA took office (a new record deficit spending by a president);
  • when the government expects the people to tighten their belts while the government spends like a drunken sailor;
  • when AKA lives high on the hog while the people are scrambling to keep a roof over their heads and food on the table.

Where will the money come from to pay for this new government bureaucracy?  Well, it won’t be from AKA and it won’t be from any of the Democrats who voted to cram this new government-run program down our throats, the money will come right out of the pockets of hard working Americans already struggling to make ends meet.

While much ado has been made about high-earners paying more, does anyone really think AKA and the Democrats are going to risk making the very people who fund their campaigns angry at them?  That was just more propaganda to make the cow paddy seem more palatable!

They plan to cut $500 billion from Medicare.  How?  By denying medical care to the very people to whom Medicare was promised as their insurance against illness in old age!  After all, the Marxist thinking is that the elderly are not more than “useless eaters” taking up resources better spent on those useful to Marxists in their quest for power and control!

The rest won’t come out of the pockets of those who will benefit; no way; it will come out of the pockets of the middle class.

Do you feel like paying for healthcare for the people listed in this letter?  Do you feel like working so the government can take your hard-earned money and spend it on the people listed in this letter?

Senator Patty Murray has fawned all over little Marcelas Owens.

He is the little boy standing beside AKA as he signed the healthcare bill last Tuesday.

His story is truly a sad one.  His mother, absent insurance, died from her illness.  Tragic.

But, beyond the fact that little Marcelas Owens lost his mother, the rest of the story goes something like this — Tiffany Owens had Marcelas when she was still in high school; he was undoubtedly the product of two teenagers who were taught the “if it feels good, do it” and “you should have sex when it feels right” values clarification philosophy taught in sex education classes in the government schools today.

And Marcelas was the result of two teenagers who had neither the years, nor the maturity that goes with those years, to realize that the consequences of sexual promiscuity goes far beyond the moment!

Not the fault of the child resulting therefrom, but the fault of those who teach the very philosophy that Senator Patty Murray thinks makes our government schools “the best”.

And when teenagers get pregnant, both mother and baby too often become a tool of people like Patty Murray who then claim they “need our help;” “our” defined, of course, as “the government.”

And the agenda of “our help” isn’t to give a hand up; the agenda is one of attaining greater power, greater control.  Mother and child become pawns of a system intended to keep them in the system.

Strapped with a baby, Tiffany Owens entered the workforce at a decided disadvantage.  Did she finish high school?  If she did, what chance did she have, with a baby to take care of, of getting the kind of job that has good benefits considering she didn’t have the education required to get a job with those kind of benefits?

Of course, Patty Murray, in all her exploitation of the situation, carefully avoids that reality; it doesn’t serve her purposes.  That isn’t Marcelas Owens’ fault either.  He’s just a little boy being exploited by adults who should know better.

Bluntly speaking, Tiffany Owens made choices that were not good choices, were not smart choices, and definitely were not constructive choices over the long-term.

Is that your fault?  Did you teach Tiffany Owens that promiscuous sex was a choice?

Do you think it’s right that Patty Murray expects you to pay for Tiffany Owens’ choices?

Do you think it’s right that Patty Murray uses the force of law to take from you, working and earning a living, so she can give it to the Tiffany Owens of this world who have made poor choices?

Patty Murray and other Democrats see nothing wrong with taking from you, who has made good choices, to give to those who made poor or bad choices.

Do you think that is right?

Wasn’t our country founded on the premise that if you want it, work for it; if you don’t want it bad enough to work for it, don’t expect someone else to pay for it?

Wasn’t our country founded on the premise that you be responsible for your own; and if you don’t want to be, don’t expect someone else to suffer the consequences of your actions?

But we should help those less fortunate?  Yes, we should.

But choosing to help someone is a personal choice.

When Patty Murray and her colleagues use the force of law to take from you to give to people like Tiffany Owens, that’s using the force of law to take from you to give to someone who hasn’t worked for it; has no right to it; that’s stealing.

And while Patty Murray and her colleagues have not problem using the force of law to steal from you, they don’t feel they should have to contribute one dime; they are exempted from the very laws to which they are subjecting you.

HR 3590 will establish a whole new government bureaucracy.  And while couched in terms of “creating jobs”, government jobs are paid for by money out of your pocket.  Jobs created in government do not grow the economy; they create a drain on the economy.

In the past week, several companies have gone on record saying they are rethinking their benefit packages:  AT&T, 3M, Caterpillar, Inc, AK Steel Holding Corporation, among them.

Companies are now looking to downsize and downgrade their benefit packages because they have become too expensive because of AKA and Democrats like Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell, Brian Baird, Norm Dicks, Jim McDermott, Rick Larsen, Adam Smith and Jay Inslee.

Who wins in this scenario?  It sure isn’t the middle class, that’s for certain.

Who will win is the insurance companies who will get their money no matter what.  Who will lose are the middle class who will be denied health care by insurance companies with a beady eye on the “bottom line.”

This has been the problem with health insurance since the very first “managed care” program was brought into being, also by the government, also to “curtail unneeded and unnecessary procedures” in the mid-1980’s; health care became a matter between what the patient needed and what the managed care program would pay, patients being denied benefits in pursuit of the “bottom line.”

What has grown out of that is a health insurance racket, that now, thanks AKA and the Democrats, will be subsidized by force of law by making it mandatory that every person have health insurance (which, make no mistake about it, does not equate to health care).

Democrats, of course, claimed the reason health insurance needed reformed was because of the “bottom line”.  More of their lies.

With regard to the above propaganda, put out by the AKA Marxist machine, here is how it will work in Representative Jay Inslee’s district in Washington State and every other district, nationwide.  It will …

  • Ban discrimination against pre-existing conditions at the expense of working Americans;
  • Provide tax credits and other assistance for families at the expense of working Americans;
  • Extend coverage to uninsured residents at the expense of working Americans;
  • Save families from health care related bankruptcy at the expense of working Americans; and
  • Get full prescription drug coverage for seniors on Medicare at the expense of health benefits denied under Medicare.

The reality of all of this is quite different than the propaganda being pushed by AKA and his Marxist minions.  But then, did we expect it to be otherwise?

If AKA’s lips are moving, he’s lying; nothing new or different in that!

If you live in Washington state, tell Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and the Democrat Representatives who voted for HR 3590 how much you appreciate their screwing over the hard-working people of Washington State.

Don’t hesitate to thank Washington Governor Christine Gregoire, too.  She fawns all over AKA at every opportunity and is most upset that Rob McKenna, Attorney General of Washington State, might ruin her political aspirations in Washington, DC by joining the lawsuit against HR 3590.

Patty Murray is up for re-election.  She will undoubtedly receive millions of dollars in support, over and above what she’s already received, from insurance companies whose bottom line she benefited greatly by voting for HR 3590.

Jay Inslee, Norm Dicks, Jim McDermott, Rick Larsen, and Adam Smith are also up for re-election (Brain Baird is dropping out).

Let’s make sure all these Democrats join the growing unemployment line come November 2010.

Other Senators and Representatives who voted for the AKA deathcare package should suffer the same fate.

Now, more than ever, the question of AKA’s eligibility is paramount.  As he is not the legal president, anything he signs in that capacity is null and void, unenforceable.

Americans must rise up and challenge his legitimacy to sit in the Oval Office, occupy the White House.  He has already admitted that he is not eligible as he has already admitted that he held dual citizenship at birth, no matter where he was born.

A natural-born citizen is defined as two American parents and born on American soil.  He is not natural-born.

As never before, it is time the American people rise up and demand this illegitimate usurper be removed.

© 2010 Lynn M Stuter – All Rights Reserved.

3 Comments leave one →
  1. ashland permalink
    March 29, 2010 4:42 pm

    You said: “Ask yourself this, “Are children born to illegal aliens to be considered natural born citizens?”

    Short answer: YES.

    There has even been a Federal lawsuit in which the court ruled that the children of an illegal alien were Natural Born Citizens.

    “Petitioner, Sebastian Diaz-Salazar, entered the United States illegally [from Mexico] in 1974 and has been living and working in Chicago since that time. *** The relevant facts which have been placed before the INS, BIA, and this court can be summarized as follows: The petitioner has a wife and two children under the age of three in Chicago; the children are natural-born citizens of the United States.”

    This should not be shocking. The original meaning of “Natural Born” was simply “born in the country.” That means it is like Ohio-born. If you were born in Ohio, you are Ohio-born and no law can change that. That was the original meaning.

    In addition to that, by statue, the US subsequently allowed the children of US parents who were born abroad to also be considered Natural Born Citizens. (This was subsequent to the Naturalization Act, much later, and it is still in effect.) But no law, and certainly not the Constitution, requires a Natural Born Citizen to be both born in the USA and have two US parents. One or the other is sufficient.

    “Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    Yale Law Review wrote: “Yale Law review wrote: “It is well settled that “native-born” citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born. It is also clear that persons born abroad of alien parents, who later become citizens by naturalization, do not. (Jill A. Pryor, Yale Law Review, 1988) ”

    Naturalized citizens are not allowed; natural born citizens are allowed–and the category of natural born citizens that is the most well-settled is the citizen who was born in the USA.

    Here is another example: “Mustata v. US Dept. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999) (children born in US to two Romanian citizens described as “natural born citizens” of the US):

    Petitioners Marian and Lenuta Mustata are citizens of Romania. At the time of their petition, they resided in Michigan with their two minor children, who are natural born citizens of the United States.”

  2. Harold permalink*
    March 29, 2010 3:38 pm

    On the contrary …..

    As per Wikipedia …..
    The requirements for citizenship, and its very definition in American statute law, have changed since the Constitution was ratified in 1788. Congress first recognized the citizenship of children born to U.S. parents overseas on March 26, 1790, stating that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.” To date, the Naturalization Act of 1790 has been the only U.S. law explicitly conferring statutory “natural born” citizenship. In 1795, Congress removed the words “natural born” from the law; the Naturalization Act of 1795 says only that foreign-born children of American parents “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”
    As for Graham & Hatch …..
    Ask yourself this, “Are children born to illegal aliens to be considered natural born citizens?”


  3. ashland permalink
    March 29, 2010 1:47 pm

    You said: “A natural-born citizen is defined as two American parents and born on American soil. He is not natural-born.”

    No, that is wrong. The meaning of Natural Born at the time of the writing of the Constitution was simply “born in the country except for the children of foreign diplomats.”

    Here is a legal dictionary’s current definiti0n: ““Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition

    As you can see, if you are a citizen due to being born in the USA, it does not matter how many parents were citizens at the time of birth.

    That is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: