News - Category 'Health Care Reform'

Jahi McMath Defines Obamacare

03 Jan : 14:59 Category: Health Care Reform

First, I find it very necessary to write this article in support of her family and friends, and the love of Christ she lives in through a Christian family that understands Miracles. I have hoped and Prayed for such a Miracle for this 13-year-old who went into a hospital for a routine tonsillectomy but this apparently included some “tissue removal” to help with sleep apnea as well. All of this, according to a Huffington Post article, which I use because this article does well illustrate the brave new Obamacare world we've come into.

Now, understand something, the hospital is exploiting a California Law and exploiting a teenage girl. California is very well known as a Liberal State too, and has been for quite some time. The idea that this girl is in such trouble bothers me, bothers my conscience, because the very idea a hospital will hide behind a law passed by the State in a complete lack of compassion just shocks the conscience, especially a “Children's Hospital.” Christ said clearly, “But whoever shall offend one of these little ones who believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” (Matthew 18:6,, and similarly Mark, 9:42, and Luke, 17:2, ).

So it is as a Christian, American, Tea Party Conservative I write this with hope in exploiting the hospital for giving America a full vision of Obamacare in the future, where bureaucrats who once were able to blame a private insurance company for what they would or wouldn't pay for, now have the luxury, arrogance, and utter government endorsement to make decisions on behalf of their charter and the laws of the State and/or National Government, with no semblance of duty to the patient that automatically extends to compassion for the family as well.

But maybe this hospital's bureaucrat is just making another attack on Christianity, from the Huffington Post article ( and any emphasis here is mine:

Q: Why does her family want to keep her on a ventilator?

A: Jahi's relatives are Christians who say their religious beliefs hold that as long as her heart is beating, the girl is still alive. They have asked a judge to keep her on the ventilator and provide breathing and feeding tubes that would allow her to be transferred to another facility.”

Compounded by...

Q: Why does the hospital want to take her off the ventilator? Even if doctors say she will never recover, why won't they give in to the family's wishes?

A: Two doctors at Children's Hospital and an independent pediatric neurologist from Stanford University have concluded that because there is no neurological activity in Jahi's brain or brain stem, she is dead. The hospital said it cannot continue treating a dead person and is under no legal or ethical obligation to keep her heart beating artificially.

Hospital officials said that parents do not have a constitutional right to determine when to remove ventilation from a brain-dead patient and that a California law provides only for a reasonably brief period for a family to gather at a patient's bedside before ventilation can be removed.

'Sadly and tragically, Jahi McMath has already died,' said Dr. David Magnus, a pediatrics professor and Chair of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics.”

And to be thorough in illustrating the way government's intrusion into healthcare affects our lives, note this communication that I find puts a punctuating point on Children's Hospital of Oakland's position, from CBS News, and again all emphasis is mine...

The hospital also said it would need to confirm there is "lawful transportation" included in any plan to transfer Jahi, and written permission from the coroner.

Dolan had previously said that before Jahi can be transferred to a nursing home, she must undergo two more medical procedures -- the insertion of a breathing tube and a feeding tube, both of which would be necessary for her long-term care, but which the nursing home is not equipped to perform.

The hospital though had refused to perform the procedures late last week.

"Children's Hospital Oakland does not believe that performing surgical procedures on the body of a deceased person is an appropriate medical practice," said Dr. David Durand, the hospital's chief of pediatrics.”

Life and Death decisions do not need a lawyer establishing the language that can be used nor the legal ramifications of an action of the hospital to be the basis of it performing procedures it knows are necessary to move the patient from their facility – they cannot recognize Jahi McMath as alive after declaring her “legally dead,” and, in every effort to wash their hands of this botched tonsillectomy and/or sleep apnea treatment (where both maybe shouldn't have been performed together) and to make sure that any changes to the physical body do not happen, no matter how helpful they could be, even if not for the patient directly, but for the indirect patient, their family.

I conclude with the solicitation for donations of Children's Hospital Oakland to fully appreciate their legalistic practice of medicine to the detriment of Jahi McMath:

Committed to Children

In 2012 we delivered 139.3 million dollars of charity care and community benefits, and want to continue delivering this kind of care in the future. Because full-service hospitals just for children are extremely specialized, few communities can support one. We need your support to ensure that kids get the care they need, and that life-saving research can continue. Your donations enable us to provide essential services to the children and families of Northern California and beyond.” --

Tax Deductible Government-Run Death Panel anyone?

Thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

“IRS Threat Drives Millions to”

10 Dec : 12:39 Category: Health Care Reform

Mr. President; Mr. “Constitutional Law Professor”; Mr. “If you like your plan you can keep it, period”; It's time for you to learn the meaning of the word “coercion” and to take full cognizance it is not synonymous with “volition”:


1. the act of coercing; use of force or intimidation to obtain compliance.

2. force or the power to use force in gaining compliance, as by a government or police force.” --

Even in Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary we find:

COERCION, noun Restraint, check, particularly by law or authority; compulsion; force.” --

Restraint?...Again per Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary:

1. The act or operation of holding back or hindering from motion, in any manner; hinderance of the will, or of any action, physical, moral or mental.

2. Abridgment of liberty; as the restraint of a man by imprisonment or by duress.

3. Prohibition. The commands of God should be effectual restraints upon our evil passions.

4. Limitation; restriction.

If all were granted, yet it must be maintained, within any bold restraints, far otherwise than it is received.

5. That which restrains, hinders or represses. The laws are restraints upon injustice.” -- Emphasis mine,

Can of worms? I think not, “Liberty,” in pertinent part for brevity, to aid you, and, more importantly My fellow Americans, in appreciating your performance as President of the United States:

1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.

2. Natural liberty consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.

3. Civil liberty is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. “civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty

The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.

In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty

4. Political liberty is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.

5. Religious liberty is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.

6. liberty in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.

Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition...” -- Italics in original, all other emphasis mine, and typos as displayed on website, may be from original,

And a quick 1828 definition of “Volition”

1. The act of willing the act of determining choice, or forming a purpose. There is a great difference between actual volition and approbation of judgment.

Volition is the actual exercise of the power which the mind has of considering or forbearing to consider an idea.

2. The power of willing or determining.” -- Emphasis mine,

So, your Progressive “Obama of Narcissism” Majesty, I implore you to cease from claiming approbation for your Progressive-ideology-driven-government-growth-based healthcare agenda, and instead TELL THE TRUTH: “1 million people who fear becoming flagged by the IRS have been perfectly leveraged by the threatened use of government force that will take money from them to coerce them to seek out getting health insurance, many of which are doing so after my law caused their Right of Contract in their pre-Obamacare health insurance policy to expire prematurely.”

And let us add also that this priceless extra cost of Obamacare (and government coercion) is the now known abuse of the personal identifying healthcare sign-up information provided to exchanges, such as was done in California (See Note what is reported under the photo, “Covered California Executive Director Peter Lee acknowledged that consumers did not ask to be contacted by the state or its certified insurance agents. But he said the outreach program complies with privacy laws.” Peter Lee exemplifies what is wrong with government bureaucracy, and further illustrates what is wrong with Obamacare (as well as “States Rights” movements), “certified insurance agents” should be a hint at Obamacare's lessening of choice as well.

The Constitutions of the States, even after the Civil War, only set up 3 branches of government. But, alas, a silent and unaccountable to anyone 4th branch has embedded itself with separate powers, and now, with a new healthcare agency of little political capital almost immediately, upon question of its actions, asserts sole authority, opining as though their final ruling is the unequivocal and unchallengeable truth of their actions, to which Peter Lee is just as immediately the Poster Child of Arrogance.

By what authority whatsoever, I mean, did someone die and leave Peter Lee in charge of legal determinations for everyone else or what Constitution was amended, as the case would have to be, to grant authority to one person at the head of California's health exchange agency to decide the privacy intrusion caused by California's exchange upon each person who applied at Covered California is acceptable, and what is or is not a violation of their privacy rights irrespective of the law!? Is Mr. Lee, even for a New York minute, suggesting that the privacy laws, in this age of ever-growing identity theft, protect our privacy so much that they bar any assertion of our reasonable expectation of privacy when submitting very specific identifying information all together in one location to a database online? Is he the only one that doesn't see that the healthcare websites are like hacker-turkey-bacon, the smell alone draws them to try to find a way to get as many records as possible from the database, or, to poison it with as many fake ones as possible to assure they have benefits to sell to others, under the fake ID of course.

To be clear: These are data banks of your most identifying information being given away solely because some bureaucratic “government” agency decided it's in their best interest to do so, to promote their agenda! The photo caption in the story features their ready legal argument (that suggestion we're barred from asserting a reasonable expectation of privacy), “the outreach program complies with privacy laws.” It is as though Covered California's Director authorized this, it appears, unlawful dissemination of information, if not betrayal of trust and undermining of the integrity of the already demonstrably incompetent design of the Obamacare exchange system, and was prepared with a response to public outcry in any event they'd be caught.

Thus, instead of Peter Lee explaining (and this goes to my coercion point), “it is wrong of Covered California to disseminate information that people are compelled to provide to us by the Individual Mandate Provision of Obamacare to use the exchange to assure they are insured by January 1, 2014. This information is not a public record, and should never leave our system and control,” and they might also include an actual apology along the lines of, “I am sorry we violated your trust in us, and I can promise you it will never happen again.” Nope, no acceptance of responsibility, no scintilla of suggestion that what Covered California did is wrong in any way, just a summary denial of the notion that anyone's rights were violated, while identity theft runs rampant and everyone is well aware of it!

Are we really this stupid? It's not whether they think we are, Director Lee's claim of compliance with privacy laws shows the blatant disregard for even the idea that people coming to the site may have genuinely believed that their information is confidential even in the era of the NSA compiling “metadata” and 70 years after the BRUSA agreement (that gave us “Echelon,” Oh, and also after the IRS shared data outside its agency, as well as took on a specific policy to vet those entities applying for political exemption. We're to trust a government that used government coercion to assure a lack of legal status -- failing to process particular applications in a timely manner (some still waiting after 3 years for approval of their legal status) resulting in these entities inability to publicize they are eligible to be claimed as a non-profit donation which stifles fund raising. If these entities were to publicize they are non profit without successful completion of IRS processing of their application the entities and those trying to form them could easily find themselves subject to criminal liabilities – the very reason they applied and expect the IRS to objectively process their application. Taking this history into account it is easy to see how Covered California Director Peter Lee arrived at his arrogant, presumptive, and dis-compassionate statement without any regard for the sensitivity of the public to his brand new agency's violation of the integrity of the public trust placed in him regarding the personal identifying information Californians provided to Covered California and may very well be why Director Lee added a ready legal argument in his public statement at the same time.

So I say to you, especially Californians whose information was used this way, search your State government's website, for “administrative claim” (I believe it'll be located under “State Board of Control”) These are usually in Adobe .pdf format, (some other States may want you to fill them out over the web,) fill it in as a draft, DO NOT SUBMIT IT, print out and seek out an attorney to assist you. In California look for one well versed in California Administrative Procedure Act, California Constitution, and Civil Rights Law. I'd also suggest they are well capable of Civil Writ process and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as well to aid you should the State's overbearing power (when backed also by the National government, ala Obamacare, is brought to bear against you).

God Bless you and thank you for reading and sharing this,

Toddy Littman

P.S. My friend Dave ( me what I left out, “The impetus for 'Healthcare reform' (in quotes because we all know it has nothing to do with healthcare other than using healthcare as a marketing tool, a mere vehicle for the larger Progressive agenda) is the claim of 10s of millions of people losing their coverage or not covered to begin with. I remember a Mark Levin show back in’09 featuring research done on this and the # was a far cry from 40 million Americans without healthcare. I believe it was around 8000 people in the category of “taking free rides,” meaning those we actually had to pay for who had used our emergency rooms and had no insurance or means to pay for their healthcare. This goes right to your point because it shows that, after you remove the “invincibles” (18-30) who choose not to have healthcare – acting on their own volition -- and remove those who choose to pay on the spot out of pocket for what service they use, the total pool of people that has any affect on healthcare costs or services is very low. I think Obama pulled that “we each pay $1,000 per year for these people already” out of thin air that he brought up in some speech, I think it was the 2009 State of the Union.

Now, another thing I need to look into more, because it has received such scant attention, is those people losing their insurance because they are losing their jobs, and this appears, from what reports I can get a hold of, to be due to Obama's HHS administrative policies…Maybe I'll open that can of worms once I have more to back it up.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

“Healthcare is a Right” -- Before and After Obamacare

16 Nov : 15:02 Category: Health Care Reform

There is a reality to contracts. They define the rights of the parties. It is no secret that the parties to a contract have rights in that contract. This has been the basis of labor unions and their labor contracts, unions who solely answer to the National Government. This is to assure that the States do not use powers they don't have, prohibited to them by the Constitution, per Article I, Section 10, “No State shall...pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts,....” -- Emphasis mine,

James Madison explains in Federalist 44 why this is so and you'll find he well describes a situation we are in today:

Bills of attainder, ex-post-facto laws, and laws impairing the obligation of contracts, are contrary to the first principles of the social compact, and to every principle of sound legislation. The two former are expressly prohibited by the declarations prefixed to some of the State constitutions, and all of them are prohibited by the spirit and scope of these fundamental charters. Our own experience has taught us, nevertheless, that additional fences against these dangers ought not to be omitted. Very properly, therefore, have the convention added this constitutional bulwark in favor of personal security and private rights; and I am much deceived if they have not, in so doing, as faithfully consulted the genuine sentiments as the undoubted interests of their constituents. The sober people of America are weary of the fluctuating policy which has directed the public councils. They have seen with regret and indignation that sudden changes and legislative interferences, in cases affecting personal rights, become jobs in the hands of enterprising and influential speculators, and snares to the more-industrious and lessinformed part of the community. They have seen, too, that one legislative interference is but the first link of a long chain of repetitions, every subsequent interference being naturally produced by the effects of the preceding. They very rightly infer, therefore, that some thorough reform is wanting, which will banish speculations on public measures, inspire a general prudence and industry, and give a regular course to the business of society [This last part is the meaning of “regulation”].” -- Emphasis mine,

The significance of this is that Obamacare requires the States to violate the Constitution, to change their laws to accommodate a Federal Program in a manner that the approximately 5,000,000 people with Cancellation Notices demonstrate has caused them to be alienated of their rights in existing contracts.

The President, of course, offers up his so-called “fix” which is merely not enforcing the law or regulation that caused these cancellations, which is to say he will not Honor his Oath of Office. But more importantly, in being able to decide what it will or will not enforce of the law, the Federal Government asking the States to violate the Constitution is the National Government knowingly and purposefully causing a violation of the Constitution to achieve a solely political end, irrespective of the cost to the people and the States themselves.

I submit that those with canceled policies, irrespective of any “fix” after the fact, have been injured, that their Healthcare Right (a right by contract long before Obamacare ever existed) has already been violated, and that, due to the President and those implementing Obamacare knowing this would be the result, these Americans who are losing their health insurance are due, at minimum, financial recompense for the violation of their right of contract in no less way than a union member would be due money for injury to their property – their rights under a union contract -- if the National Government asked the States to change their laws so as to alienate the labor contract rights of union members.

Fundamental Transformation” is the obvious (and I contend intended) result of Obamacare when you review what James Madison wrote and compare it to the fact that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution deals specifically with “interstate commerce,” a certain distinction to the health insurance companies as they must deal with people in their respective state, unable to sell insurance across State lines – which places health insurance squarely as an activity of intrastate commerce and, therefore, even the National Government in Washington, D.C. has no right to affect an individual's Right of Contract, directly or indirectly.

Thus, if you know someone whose health insurance has been canceled, I urge you to have them take a look at what I've written here, which includes a link to the claim form they'll need to make a claim on the National Government for the injury to their quiet and peaceful possession of their Right of Contract, This link will likely be changed or otherwise undone once people start using it, especially some 5 million of them. And after downloading, I further urge you to review the document, consider how you'd fill it out, and then contact a lawyer.

This form is necessary because it invokes the administrative process, laws such as The Administrative Procedure Act and the rules that govern bureaucracies and how they must treat you. And should they fail to follow these procedures, well, generally that's tantamount to “waiver of sovereign immunity,” which is also known as “permission to sue.” As I am not a lawyer nor am I giving legal advice, I ask you to appreciate this as a mere researcher sharing a form that derives from a law enacted by Congress to assure no one is without a remedy when government is wrong. It would appear it is time things like this are of a more general knowledge, as that also helps people appreciate American Government that it is built around the principle of always having a remedy for wrongs because the American People aren't subjects of their government as is the case in every other nation around the World. A recent court case that you may want to bring to the attention of your lawyer, that I found noteworthy after reading it, is Sackett v. EPA,

Now if that's a bit rough to read, here's a Businessweek article (that is a bit left leaning) written before the ruling that may help appreciate how the Supreme Court ruling in favor of the Sacketts strengthened private property rights, and diminished the overzealous sense of the EPA that it has final say (and suggesting they have unlimited powers),

And here is a blog post celebrating the judgment in favor of the Sacketts,

My job since I started writing these articles is to help people come to grips with their responsibility as Americans, as “Constituents,” those who “Constituted” America and American Government, to help appreciate we're not denizens or subjects whose lives are reliant on those we elect. I hope that a number of lawyers consider what I've put forth here and will make a serious effort to represent people in lawsuits against the United States Government for causing scores of Americans to be alienated from their Healthcare Rights, those rights incident to their Health Insurance Contract that is now prematurely canceled because of Obamacare and for no other reason.

Thank you for reading and sharing this article with others,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

“14th Amendment Ends Obamacare” (Part II)

07 Mar : 13:07 Category: Health Care Reform

Please see “14th Amendment Ends Obamacare” (Part I),

Proposed Solution

So now that I've articulated the situation along with facts according to history, as well as outlining this clause that those who want to subvert our nation (which, though this is being brought up by Democrats of an extreme left and collectivist point of view, is easily a proposition both parties can agree to if it causes the national government to gain more power, and therefore is self-aggrandizing as to the importance of the national government and the parties thereof), I am going to submit a solution, not because of its legality and some winning cause, but because it demonstrates the same tactic can be used to properly nullify this 14th Amendment, Section 4, argument, to the extent it can lead to an immediate impeachment of the President of the United States if they act upon what Pelosi has said.

To illustrate just how out of date this interpretation of Section 4 is, here is the whole clause in its entirety, please pay close attention to the part after the 1st sentence:

“Section 4.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. [Begins joint and several binding prohibitions upon each State imposed according to the conditions that follow] But neither the United States nor any State [Condition 1] shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or [Condition 2] any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; [conclusive command, result of either condition being met] but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.” Emphasis mine, same 14th Amendment link,

Now, let us go along with the Democrats for sake of argument and end the use of this 14th Amendment Section 4 clause once and for all, which means: We must use this clause in a legal proceeding. I wish it could be directly done by the people (and some lawyer may find a way to do that) however, I contend that this requires a State to do it, and I believe the case would be bolstered by it being one of the “former Confederate” States.

I'd cite a poll regarding Americans wanting the repeal of Obamacare but no reason to as from its inception to now the majority of Americans have and continue to oppose the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare and want it repealed.

Further, a recent poll shows 75% of Americans want government to cut spending.

Lastly, and actually most important, is that the United States of America was founded by We The People through using the republican principle (representative government).

The Constitution as ratified features an “Enumerated Powers Clause,” (Article I, Section 8) explaining by its very existence the limited and not general powers of Congress and the National Government as a whole, which explains why the language of the Constitution is directive to the institutions of government, pertaining to the instructions of each branch in the performance of their duties. There is no commandment upon the people, and that this construction of the Constitution, both in what it includes and what it excludes, is a conclusive demonstration that the purpose, intention, and meaning of the Constitution is to limit government in order to assure freedom, that these limits are what protect us. This is the consistent purpose of the Constitution because it is an instrument of the people in fulfilling their unalienable right, the “governments are instituted amongst men” part of the Declaration of Independence, the ratified Constitution an express act in the affirmative, unequivocal, absolute statement of “the consent of the governed” and the “Will of the People.”

To more certainly illustrate the limited purpose of the Constitution one must note that the powers granted were granted under condition of Amendment and without even the slightest suggestion of the enumerated powers being irrevocable.

I am thinking I need to be even more clear here so, let's look at the 2nd Amendment:

“Amendment II

“[Condition of securing freedom established] A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [a statement of the existing right and prohibition of it being affected by the national government in any manner] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now let's look at the 1st Amendment:

“Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

I did these in reverse because it is important to see that the 1st Amendment only prohibits Congress, only speaks to a limit on Congress affecting these existing rights it proscribes no law can affect. Might this explain why regulations from the executive branch are being done to affect the purposes of its occupant regarding abortion and in relation to Churches? Might this also be why this is so complicated to remedy and our courts so mistaken time and time again in their claims of what Our Written Constitution says?

To see the power of the 2nd Amendment is to note it doesn't mention any particular branch of government as prohibited from this infringement upon a right existing prior to the existence of the Constitution and government, and instead is a categorical denial of infringement upon every form of it by any branch of government whatsoever in that it is an Amendment to the Constitution creating the government and is an express limit on the entire National Government from any measure of intrusion upon the (then, and now) existing right to bear arms. This should easily explain how Obama has no right to make regulations on guns, what we can “keep” and “bear” is entirely up to us. Government can only assert any sort of interest in making sure they don't fall into the hands of those who are mentally disturbed on the grounds of commerce, for example, suggesting that these disturbed folks make America's ability to sell arms abroad more difficult (not something you'll ever hear from Obama).

So now, using this known express and established knowledge of the limits imposed on government by Our Written Constitution, the second part (“condition 1”) of 14th Amendment Section 4 features a criteria that is available to perception, and thereby assertion, by any State in the Union:

“...nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States”

If the point of Our Written Constitution establishing the government of the United States is “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” our Founders carrying out a literal act in observance of “we hold these truths to be self evident...” and acting according to our declared convictions via the unanimous Declaration of Independence, then how is Obamacare, an act which the American people did not ask for (and the vast majority opposed); an act unread by our representatives (and thereby denying We The People a republican form of government, as they cannot represent us without having actually read the bill for there would be nothing for them to consider, to debate and deliberate over, without actually reading the bill); and that this is tantamount to an unconscionable act in signing a contract one hasn't read, and is the government, “destructive of these ends,” “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” only further establishing that Obamacare is an act of insurrection or rebellion, not just an aid to these. And though Obamacare isn't the first of this type of rebellion of the government against We The People, their Masters, it remains the most intrusive and it appears that Obamacare is being used as precedent for government to further encroach on the rights of the people, to further set aside and ignore the limits placed on government for the sake of the power that a few can wield in proxy. Essentially, those in government have decidedly confused their voting privilege in regard to governance with being a fiduciary entrusted with our private and personal finances and property.

Nancy Pelosi's “Meet the Press” statements at the beginning of Part I make it clear that they see themselves as the proxy to make commitments to spend our money and assume an obligation of payment on the behalf of each citizen as well, even if many didn't agree with the actions of the Congress in taking on that debt (and many do not now, some 75% want government to cut spending).

If any State sees Obamacare as an act of insurrection or rebellion they are compelled not to pay for it by the 14th Amendment, they are bound to question all public debt that isn't spent for “debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion.”

Now, the point of a State bringing this case is not to win and hope the courts proclaim Obamacare an act of insurrection or rebellion, but instead to get the courts to rule this clause of the 14th Amendment was specific to the Civil War and is now obsolete in any application to existing and current government.

As a personal note, if you think this was long-winded or going into it in too much detail then don't ask me to send a letter explaining what I am talking about. And I would think anyone who is serious about fighting for our freedom would be glad to have this kind of thing fully explained so they can take such an approach and run with it themselves in pursuing what they would like to pursue in assuring our Freedom and a Constitutional Government thereby protecting Individual Liberty.

May God have guided you in reading this,

Toddy Littman

P.S. An aside to when I looked up the 1828 definition of ‘includes’ in Part I is this quotation from Noah Webster:

“Noah Says...

They choose men, not because they are just men, men of religion and integrity, but solely for the sake of supporting a party. This is a fruitful source of public evils. But as surely as there is a God in heaven, who exercises a moral government over the affairs of this world, so certainly will the neglect of the divine command, in the choice of rulers, be followed by bad laws and as bad administration; by laws unjust or partial, by corruption, tyranny, impunity of crimes, waste of public money, and a thousand other evils. Men may desire and adopt a new form of government; they may amend old forms, repair breaches and punish violators of the constitution; but there is, there can be no effectual remedy, but obedience to the divine law.” -- Value of the Bible (unpublished manuscript) :: 1834.

This as a nice starting point for discussing the moral compass of government, as it sets forth what Our Written Constitution is intended to do as an instrument we can enforce to “repair breaches and punish violators of the constitution.” This is especially important in light of Noah Webster having been the editor of the Federalist Party paper, which more than suggests Noah Webster knows the Constitution and is speaking directly to its intended purpose.

Further, Mr. Webster's Statement is rather prophetic while explaining that the condition today is little changed from the conditions of the past, that We The People have been duped often by this thing known as “party.” The sad tale to this is that there are so few who want to know the original meaning, the context necessary to understand the purposes of the past; no more Noah Websters to put together some writing to help us understand by asserting a position and standing upon a purpose so rightly understood and woven into the fabric of our being from our first breath that we would understand the meaning instantly. This appears to me to be the purpose of the miseducation in driving us away from who we are that leads to an even more bleak prospect for the future. Our true course in what we're doing should be rather obvious, and as such, my mistake is to keep telling people what it is instead of helping them calm, to be still and know, to discover the answers as God sets them forth in the most sacred place of their being. I can only hope they'll find the meaning of what I've just put in writing and apprehend at once their conviction.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

“14th Amendment Ends Obamacare” (Part I)

04 Mar : 17:38 Category: Health Care Reform

The headline is a premature hope of a desired outcome of awakened Americans discovering how much their lives change when government is making their decisions for them.

Recently, Nancy Pelosi mentioned the 4th Section of the 14th Amendment (per a recent article at the Huffington Post):

“Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation," Pelosi offered her strongest endorsement to-date of the 14th Amendment option, which holds that Congress doesn't have the power to use the debt ceiling as a hostage-taking device because the validity of the debt “shall not be questioned.”

“Nancy Pelosi: Well, you ask the Republicans, because we always passed the debt ceiling. When President Bush was president, as he was incurring these massive debts, and the Republicans weren't saying 'boo' at the time. There should be, this is a conversation where there should be no doubt. In fact, if I were president, I'd use the 14th Amendment, which says that the debt of the United States will always be paid.

“Bob Schieffer: You would just go ahead and do it, you wouldn't wait for the Congress?

“Nancy Pelosi: I would just go do it. But the Congress has incurred much of this debt. And so what are you saying, we incurred it but we're not going to pay it? If you want to say, 'We are not going to do it so much in the future,' well that's another thing. But you can't say, 'I'm not paying my past debts.'” -- Emphasis mine, link below.

The report further explains this is gaining support by democrats on Capital Hill (should be “Capitol” but with the way they spend our money I am figuring that is how the wrong use of the term has become the accepted norm).

Now, to cite the actual portion of the 14th Amendment mentioned, the first sentence of section 4, to show that this use by Nancy Pelosi is a calculated misuse of a clause passed by Congress June 13, 1866, and ratified July 9, 1868 and is specific to the Civil War, you will see that Pelosi is attempting a spin of the meaning that is an abuse of language and bets on the American People's lack of knowledge of their own Constitution:

“Section 4.

“The validity of the public debt of the United States, [condition, Act of Congress, 1st prong] authorized by law, [condition, exclusive inclusion, 2nd prong] including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, [conclusive command upon both conditions being true] shall not be questioned.” -- Emphasis mine,

To illustrate the intention of the drafters of the 14th Amendment, who wanted to put an end to things they saw to be perpetuating the continuance of Slavery as an institution even after the abolition of Slavery by the 13th Amendment, they knew this meant that the national government would need to be able to act without the assertions of constraint and demands for national government abstention that would be made by States in their rightful independent capacities, the States lawful right to assert their powers not granted by the Constitution. So the Congress created a condition of “authorized by law” as a condition to the validity of the public debt knowing full well the Southern States would capitulate after losing the war, that the Northern states would “authorize by law” the debt incurred to rebuild the South and reinstate the commercial stability of the nation as a whole, particularly after all the debt created by the North to afford the war via the use of paper money (see “National Bank Act” and “Legal Tender Cases” at a Law Library or via Lexus-Nexus).

Then, additionally, the drafters of the 14th Amendment caused an “earmark” of these funds for a specific purpose by using the term “including” prior to describing the types of debts to which “the validity of the public debt” in borrowing to pay immediately “shall not be questioned.” However this is the “slippery slope” of the use of the term “includes,” as we all have seen “including, but not limited to” in legal instruments as a means of assuring an expansive interpretation of the criteria stated, usually thereafter.

Now to show how I arrived at this understanding of the 14th Amendment, we'll use the closest possible source of word definitions relative to the time the 14th Amendment was written, Webster’s 1828 dictionary:

“1. To confine within; to hold; to contain; as, the shell of a nut includes the kernel; a pearl is included in a shell. [But in these senses we more commonly use inclose.]

“2. To comprise; to comprehend; to contain. The history of England necessarily includes a portion of that of France. The word duty, includes what we owe to God, to our fellow men, and to ourselves; it includes also a tax payable to the government.”--,include.

As you can see, these above definitions are past tense uses in reference to already defined objects and ideas and are not the use of “including” to reference a statement in criteria and defining classes as parameters as it is in the 4th Section of the 14th Amendment.

You'll find the 1913 definition located at this site as well, however that would not pertain to a meaning in 1865, unless it was the result of the 1865 use.

And to further demonstrate this gray area, a lawyer has blogged about the Black's Law dictionary meaning as opposed to the rulings of some court cases to the contrary,

TO CLARIFY: I do not suppose myself smarter than these other sources, nor more capable of understanding than the people who were living at the time of the 14th Amendment. However, I must submit that the character and purpose of the Constitution is best described by the Preamble to the original Bill of Rights instrument containing the first 12 proposed articles of Amendment to the Constitution, the Preamble describing its purpose as “amendment:”

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.” -- Emphasis mine,

As this Preamble states the very Custom of over 95% of the Constitution, even as Amended at the time of passing the 14th Amendment (1865), there is little doubt that the interpretation of “ including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion,” requires use of the context of the rest of the Constitution, and is therefore a “declaratory and restrictive clause” as to what specific objects are included when discerning whether the public debt can be questioned AFTER determining if the debt is authorized by law – essentially a two-pronged approach to determine the purpose for the debt incurred being a satisfactory constitutional purpose and therefore the debt incurred to pay for this purpose is subject to the conclusive command, “shall not be questioned.”

Though modern day legislation, The Budget Control Act, is the 1st prong of the test to determine if the conclusive command is applicable, if we were to extend the 14th Amendment passed in its already fulfilled and completed purpose, which, if not for the passionate dissension over slavery (which was used as a ploy to rally for war) it would not have resulted in an Amendment to the Constitution, and instead would have been done as a mere act of Congress after the war. I contend the Constitution was mistakenly used to bring about a perception of finality to the issue by using the 14th Amendment’s recital as a record of passing through and arriving at the winners and losers of the Civil War, a result that may not have been calculated but helped to liquidate the original purpose and authority of the Constitution as it pertains to an instrument limiting government. This may very well be why Pelosi & Company, including Bill Clinton, have gone to citing what Republican Abraham Lincoln did in getting the 14th Amendment done (essentially amending the Constitution to enforce the 13th Amendment, even if it was the beginning of the final blow ending any semblance of State, as well as individual, Sovereignty and rights, see,

To be Continued....[Continued here,]

Thank you for reading Part I,

Toddy Littman

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Robo-Signing & Robo-Voting Hypocrisy of Obamacare

13 Feb : 14:57 Category: Health Care Reform

And now a political message from President Barack Obama...

Now, if you will, watch this charade played out on youtube, for instance via the LA times:

Or let's watch CBS News sensationalize this deal, luckily it's the first story in the broadcast:

Youtube is loaded with videos about this issue.

But what is really striking, of all of this, is what CBS reported of the President Obama's own words:

Some of them didn't read what they were signing at all. That's your stake, your claim on the American Dream. And the person signing the document couldn't take enough time to even make sure the foreclosure was legitimate.”

Now how is it that “robo-signing” is such a heinous act? Let's remember carefully, accurately:

And let us not forget John Conyers:

Where is the outrage and feigned cries of scandal couched in “touchie-feelie” emotional “awww that's so sad” propaganda “journalism” looking for those veterans who won't get Medicare after it is cut $500,000,000,000 by the “Affordable” Care Act? Where are the sarcastic headlines by the mainstream media that goes something like “Affordable Care Act Has No CLASS,” where the decision of Sebelius shows she cannot find a way to implement the insolvency certain provisions of this small piece of what can be affectionately termed “Obamacare?” A complete exacerbation of actual outrage in fact is in knowing, now that this allegedly passed (more on this below) piece of legislation is considered a law, that the Supreme Court could mandate Sebelius implement the CLASS portion of the law as written in the unread “Affordable Care Act.”

Yeah, wouldn't that be something, if the Supreme Court required, in order to uphold Obamacare and its provisions, that “the entirety of it must be carried into effect, due to the legislation having no severability clause.” And this is clearly something the Congressional Research Service is well aware of, though not quite ready to see as part of the upholding of the Affordable Care Act by the Supreme Court, And MOST IMPORTANT in what is missing from the zealous decrying of “robo-signing” as a heinous illegal act of banks seeking “huge profits,” is the lack of outrage and deafening clamor over the insensitivity, no, the incompetence, of Congressmen, Senators, and, the final “check” to overzealous legislation and the need to pass Constitutional Muster, the President of The United States, who, together without reading legislation, have made laws for those lawyers to work out work-arounds (such as the robo-signing to undermine the mortgage laws)! Not a peep over government, as a body, failing to read Obamacare, failing to take the time to read legislation put before them, and thereby indicating such has likely happened before, even to the point of being “business as usual” in Washington, D.C. Isn’t that exactly what Conyers said?

You see, this wouldn't be an issue except that this absolutely includes our “he's-so-intelligent President” who cared little to discuss the process of Obamacare, and has, at no point, said he has read the very bill he put his signature on, with, of course, much fanfare, resulting in Obamacare often ascribed to President Obama as “the cornerstone of his legacy.” Yet, by the mere “passage” of it without reading it, Obamacare is a piece of legislation that carries out the common derivative purpose governments of one or many have come to conclude of themselves over time: dictatorial use of force.

To this researcher, now turned blogger, it is an outrage. The United States Government is so interested in raw power, irrespective of them certainly finding themselves managers of great amounts of cash, to the point of using the capital concerns of the masses via taxation and mandated spending of an Individual's money on government or whatever government compels you to use your money for, it uses sword-wielding coercion to tear asunder the very principle of Individual Liberty. That is the point of a government who hasn't read legislation it is voting on, and “signing into law,” and is particularly true about Obamacare which empowers the IRS to go after someone for their lack of having health insurance, for standing up for their Individual Liberty by failing to buckle to force and pay for a product or service the government says they must buy.

But of course our economic troubles are merely the product of the banks, of “robo-signing.” You'd think that, since this was the widely held belief of the Progressive Left at the time of Passing Obamacare -- the same Progressive Left who brought us “Occupy Wall Street” -- that they'd have learned from that experience, to comprehend that what Obama is now using to characterize the much envied banks as proven villains is exactly what his Super Majority Congress of 2009, and President Obama himself, failed to do before voting and signing the legislation: READ THE BILL, READ OBAMACARE! Of course we hear nothing from “the 99%” regarding Obama's robo-signing of Obamacare nor the “robo-voting” of his Super Majority Congress. It's not hard to see how this President is able to claim the authority to alone determine when the Senate is in session or recess.

Another fine example of many yet to come, again related to the voted on, ascribed, and signed by the President, Obamacare, is the recent issue with Catholic institutions affording payment for abortion, something that has been a cornerstone of what the Church stands against since Jesus Christ (Matthew 18:10, where the President assumes some simple government legerdemain will solve the issue, via the insurance companies providing birth control to those who work for churches and other institutions that are religiously opposed to abortion. This President is treating their Spiritual and sincerely held religious beliefs as though it were a pet's chew toy in a word game tug-of-war. This President, who didn't read Obamacare, somehow concludes that deferred and indirect payment, stamped by legal & bureaucratic approvals of government, trumps the religious conviction of an Individual and/or their institutions (those “persons” also putting money into PACS), and that their unalienable Right to believe as they wish and act upon that belief, so long as they do not trespass upon another's same Individual Liberty, even in application of the limits of Government to the Atheist, is somehow within the government purview to regulate. Of course, the profit to government, and especially this President, is the sheer power to tell another “you will provide this or we'll come down on you with the power and force of government.”

So much is this so that Obama's Attorney General and Department of Justice defend the healthcare law as a tax, irrespective of it having never gone through the mandatory constitutional parliamentary procedures and Congressional Practices that would define it as a tax, and create the legal nexus the DOJ is asserting, at least according to the Constitution and the House Rules in effect at the time, But that's the way robo-voting and robo-signing IS now, isn't it Mr. President? (Not that you'd read this blog either!)

Now, I'd say a President and a Congress of Progressive Democrats who “didn't read what they were signing at all” and “couldn't take enough time to even make sure the,” in this case, “pending legislation was legitimate” is an unforgivable and heinous act of systemic abuse, assuming government corruption by violation of the Supreme Law of the Land, Our Written Constitution. The corruption, a form of perpetuity with a legitimacy based entirely on the size of the majority held by the party controlling all three branches of government.

I mean, which is worse, big banks who wrongly hired people to rubber stamp foreclosures, or, a House, Senate, and President who rubber stamp what's put before them knowing that during a super majority it will be to assure the expansion of government, these people setting aside all tests for legitimacy, of which there is only one test, at least according to the Declaration of Independence:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...” -- Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

No, instead, we had a Democrat super-majority that, without any respect to the election being based on rhetoric exaggerating shovel ready solutions for our economy, assumed their party agenda was now what the People wanted. Stimulus Bill, Obamacare, and Cap & Trade pursuits done without even the slightest focus on the most important thing to the American People since our economy tanked in 2008: jobs.

What is it when a group of elected members of Congress and the President, who take a strikingly similar Oath of Office to the one our military takes regarding upholding the Constitution, then “robo-vote” and “robo-sign” their names to legislation they haven't read that affects more than 300 million people, and generations of Americans to come? Especially when it appears this means of passing legislation is a rather regular practice of their “august body” that isn't explained away by self-proclaimed exigencies as grounds for failure to read legislation. A body of “government” as a whole that assumes their legislation, once “law,” is enforceable by the very President who signed it without reading it, is a government assuming the audacity to hold Americans accountable under these unconscionable votes of our “dignitaries” in Washington; those masquerading as representatives of the People while entirely lacking even the slightest sense of humility that a public servant should have to each one of us as their Master, self-evident in their lack of being Honorable enough to at least read-the-bill before they vote on it or ascribe their name to it. I guess “ignorance of the law” IS an excuse when it comes to being the Legislative body and President who pass the “laws!”

It must be remarked that Congress and George Bush failed this same Declaration of Independence legitimacy test in passing the bank bailouts,

Ah, but how foolish of me. No! No! No! No, it's only the banks and these paper mills they created to robo-sign documents that is wrong. How dare the banks create these MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration System) entities, you know, the ones that resemble the numerous bureaucratic alphabet agencies of public employee union folks who back each other up even when they're wrong, inaccurate, acting without any legal authority, enforcing legislative “enactments” that don't even qualify as laws as they were never passed by the processes mandated to be legitimate by Our Written Constitution... Yeah, the nerve of those banks, really!

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

P.S. Just makes you wonder what laws they've done in this way and when this began, doesn't it? But our saving grace, if we ever choose to accept our role as Masters of our nation, is the Constitution's own self-voiding clause, where we do not need any Court to determine the meaning of the language at Article VI, Section 2, “This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;... shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” You can see why they didn't want this criteria requirement of Our Written Constitution to be subservient to any interpretive shenanigans now, can't you? To explain, cases start in lower courts to get to the Supreme Court -- “Judges in every State” includes district and circuit judges as well -- thus, even the Supreme Court is precluded from any interpretive measure in regard to this clause that Our Founders put into Our Written Constitution to assure that We The People would enforce this instrument of Our institution of Government, wisely always questioning anything this Government claims to be a law as to whether it was a conscionable act of government, a “constitutional” act, to have the force and effect of the same. This is an enforcement we seem to have forgotten is our unalienable Right to pursue, as a matter of Our Individual unalienable Right to the pursuit of Happiness.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Nanobots & Government Medicine: Formula To Give Up Freedom Voluntarily

09 Dec : 19:51 Category: Health Care Reform

The significance of this issue appears to be difficult to comprehend. This appears to be directly in relation to the categorizations of computer games and sci-fi novels on occasion discussing �nanobots� (though, apparently, irrelevant to most that these are usually written by leftists who believe the future requires a collectivist, and therefore one, world order). Some speak of �dumbing down,� I'll suggest also a �numbing down� of the population, using nouns in such a manner that eventually they are categorized away over a period of time to lose all significance of meaning except as categorized. With �nanobots,� the assumption is made that they are part of some ethereal, a �virtuality� and are no longer subject to any other review, nor taken seriously, relegated to the domain of �unreality� and discarded with laughter, at best.

The trouble with this is when the future, featuring what appears a phantasmagorical Collectivists' erotic spectacle of a genuine one-world socialist, and thereby governmental, order is actually here as modern day current reality (as we assume �tin foil hat time,� and even poking fun at those who advance that there is a current reality to what was once relegated to the category of fantasy and sci-fi) � that it is time we realize we are in the midst of exactly what was portended in books such as 1984, where the title was the inversion of the last 2 digits by its author, George Orwell, who wrote the book in 1948.

What makes this whole thing more audacious, is the apparent contempt, the nerve of someone to actually pose the notion of such �Big Brother� mind control, that evidently derives from the point when the design leaves the realm of history, of how the Collectivists, the Communists, have become known to operate. Nanobot technology is an unanticipated departure from history, a foreign thought to the historical, and a denial of the technology of the here and now that we cannot allow to happen irrespective of our desire to assume that our enemies aren't all that bright. We deny, in the face of all history to the contrary, that our enemy has the power and capacity to be a most creative, inventive, and ingenious enemy, respectable if not for all their effort going to the heinous designs of eradicating freedom of thought, invention, and Individual Liberty in self-determination. These cannot co-exist in a collective design except by coercion to exchange privilege for right, something nanobot technology can assure occurs.

To illustrate from the past, let's look closely at a well-known Author, H.G. Wells to gain comprehension of his evolved socialist perspective.

Here's a list of Mr. Wells' books, one of many I found, and that appears to be accurate,[TL note: This link is now "forbidden" and haven't found a replacement, sorry]. Please look at, his most famous works, those that inspired movies, being written prior to 1900, such as �The Time Machine,� �The Invisible Man,� and �War Of The Worlds.�

Now, let's take a quick visual scan of, �Mankind In The Making,� (from 1903 in the list) from the Preface:

�It may save misunderstanding if a word or so be said here of the aim and scope of this book. It is written in relation to a previous work, Anticipations, [Footnote: Published by Harper Bros.] and together with that and a small pamphlet, "The Discovery of the Future," [Footnote: Nature, vol. lxv. (1901-2), p. 326, and reprinted in the Smithsonian Report for 1902] presents a general theory of social development and of social and political conduct. It is an attempt to deal with social and political questions in a new way and from a new starting-point, viewing the whole social and political world as aspects of one universal evolving scheme, and placing all social and political activities in a defined relation to that; and to this general method and trend it is that the attention of the reader is especially directed. -- Bold & underline emphasis mine,

Here's another one to take a quick scan through, �Socialism And The Family,� (from 1906 in the list), beginning of Chapter 1, explained as part of a series of papers Mr. Wells wrote:


�These are two papers written by Mr. H. G. Wells. The first was read to the Fabian Society in October, 1906, under the title of " Socialism and the Middle Classes.' 1 The second appeared first in the "Independent Review.'* Together they state pretty completely the attitude of Modern Socialism to family life.

�In this paper I am anxious to define and discuss the relationship between three distinct things:

�(1) Socialism, i.e. a large, a slowly elaborating conception of a sane and organized state and moral culture to replace our present chaotic way of living,

�(2) the Socialist movement, and

�(3) the Middle Classes.�

These have been presented to give an idea of the forces pushing for a collectivist society, even the development of a collective mind, that fiction and futuristic writers like H.G. Wells thought was the best course for mankind. It is why his contribution to our having a U.N. today cannot be overlooked, and

These excerpts show we have over 100 years of ignored history to catch up on in comprehending the Progressive adversaries to private property rights; adversaries to the authority of an Individual to rightful possession of their self-generated surplus, particularly if based upon their Individual actions in, achievement, ambition, and frugality; adversaries to the idea that one can be trusted to be honorable with their own property because the cohesive social bond is the market force of other Individuals who will seek remedies to wrongs, through the legal process; and adversaries to the fact that it is we the Individual in Liberty that chooses to what we will give social value as a matter of course in the exercise of our unique and exceptional American Freedom in Capitalism. That these people cannot comprehend those things that transcend the plane of trade, the material plane in warmth and appreciation, feeding our hearts and minds, is a generous and honorable ala mode on a well-deserved portion of apple pie that celebrates having pursued one�s own Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness, as an absolutely unfettered act of Mankind in Freedom. An act repeated often enough to have proven it fosters even more honorable dealings, more seizing of opportunities that bring mutual benefit to those involved and those that one chooses to include in receiving the fruits of their achievements.

And this brings us to a non-exhaustive list of the significant questions nanobots present: What if we don't choose to participate in Freedom? What if only a plurality of people equivalent to the margin between left and right is tainted by this technology, and therefore the means of at least giving the appearance of a shift from center-right to a center-left nation? Who will not get a nanobot treatment when their life is on the line and they weigh losing some memories against dying to rationalize their decision? How many recognize that losing those means of thought, those electrochemical reactions of God's design that are harnessed in your mind, of which we only use some 10%, is to dabble with the unknown and take a risk of fate with your identity, with the life experiences and other ways the remaining 90% of your mind comprehended in making you who you are?

But of course, there's no need to consider this seriously, it's just nonsense from a computer game, from science-fiction, [relinked to archives where possible]Nanomedical Collaboration Improves Drug Delivery System, Controlled Bacteria Build A Nanoscale Pyramid, Resistance Is Futile: Nanobots To Invade Cancer Cells, and please consider if the following is installed in your new �nanobot artificial neural net,� Software That Listens For Lies. Amazing that there are actually companies TODAY collaborating on nanotechnologies believed not to exist.

Move along... There's nothing to see here, I mean, once our mind belongs to those writing the code, who will know the difference, right? It's not like the left has this �ends justify the means� mentality, now is it? No, of course not, just count backwards from 100 and let the anesthesia of reality, as you know it, take you back into the Matrix. Here's your rose-colored glasses and blue pill, oh, and I put a new cover on your copy of the Communist Manifesto, taken from a copy of Utopia written by Sir Thomas More in 1516.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

P.S. I must note that, in reading Mr. Wells' socialist works, that there is inclusion of religion as a part of Socialism, that even the notion of everyone believing in one religion is discussed, yet the notion of religious belief is not even a part of the current socialist discussion. I believe the Progressives today have learned that religion is to intimate an issue to include as part of their discussion, locking it out by dismissive claims so as to not expose that Socialism has replaced religious belief with the religious worship of science. In the historical writings of Mr. Wells', you'll find mention of living a �normal social life� where great reverence is given to those who loathe and reject technology. For brevity I did not go into this by citation, but am compelled to mention this to show that our current socialists are hiding many facts as to the original meaning and history of socialism, to what gave this a means to take root in our nation, and how these things have been removed from the modern meaning and definition. It appears that this has been done in the name of the collective, to filter out all opportunity of individuality, of personal choice, and thereby, any opportunity for one to think for themselves. This would be the natural course of collectivism for it to be perfected, at least in the minds of those who follow and ignore the individualism, and liberties thereby taken, by those who direct the collective.

printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Healthcare Lies & Deception, Patronages to “Alinsky” The American People

25 Mar : 14:51 Category: Health Care Reform
First, meet Anthony Wiener, a re-elected Congressman who claims “the healthcare bill and I are one” and “I read the bill” apparently he reads faster than the fastest reader on Earth, or, did he mean after he voted on it unconscionably? In any event, recently he suggested New York find alternatives to Obama's healthcare overhaul that was done against the Will of The American People (thus indisputably shoved down our nation's throat, dictated from Washington D.C.:

“Rep. Anthony Weiner said Wednesday he was looking into how a health law waiver might work for New York City.

“Weiner, who is likely to run for mayor of New York, said that because of the city’s special health care infrastructure, his office was looking into alternatives that might make more sense. Weiner is one of the health care law’s biggest supporters; during the debate leading up to reform, he was one of the last holdouts in Congress for the public option.

“The president said, ‘If you have better ideas that can accomplish the same thing, go for it,’” said Weiner. “I’m in the process now of trying to see if we can take [President Barack Obama] up on it in the city of New York, … and I’m taking a look at all of the money we spend in Medicaid and Medicare and maybe New York City can come up with a better plan.” . . .”--Links ommitted,

Of course he is well supported by Soros', ala Media Matters citing left of center news outlets such as Politico here:

Politico: Weiner "Used The Waivers As [A] Way To Describe How Flexible The Law Actually Is." A March 23 Politico article pointed out that in his speech for the Campaign for America's Future, Weiner "was trying to debunk Republican 'myths' about the health care law during a speech at the Center for American Progress. He used the waivers as way to describe how flexible the law actually is and how 'this notion that the government is shoving the bill down people's throats' is not true.”-- Politico, “Anthony Weiner: Waiver might work for New York,””

Now let's make sure that this Soros funded propaganda campaign has absolute accuracy.

Please consider that you elect someone to represent you, and that in doing so you expect them to consider the weight of something fully informed. You, expect their vote, to be based on using a means of discernment to cast their yea or nay vote. At no time do you expect them to rely on osmosis, or, merely the talking points of their party as the means of determining their vote. These expectations are what define their conscionability and quality of service to the people they represent.

Thus I give you John Conyers, in July, 2009, as he explains why they cannot read the Healthcare Bill [UPDATE: ORIGINAL VIDEO REMOVED BY USER ON YOUTUBE, NEW VIDEO EMBED]:

But, not so fast! Mr. Conyers, later, speaks for himself and Dennis Kucinich, recently, March 15, 2011:

Let's make sure we heard that right:

“We view, the Healthcare Reform Bill as a platform on which we are now able to move forward.”

And later, in an interview by a reporter, Conyers enthusiastically interrupts:

Reporter: You see a Single-Payer Healthcare System ultimately...(Conyers interrupts)

Conyers: “Of course...”

They continue with the reporter pursuing confirmation of the answer:

Reporter: “And you see this bill ultimately leading to a Single-Payer Healthcare System?”

Conyers: “Well it's a platform, I don't think they flow smoothly, but, without that...If we didn't have this [Healthcare Reform Bill] then Healthcare, Universal Healthcare, would be an even more difficult legislative objective.”--Emphasis mine.

Is this man, or those who voted for a 2300 page bill without reading it, representing the people or purely a party agenda?

Can this man vote for a bill he's never read, then bind the American People to be subjected to the criminal and civil implications of his actions, just because of the title “Congressman?” The first Amendment provides:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”--Emphasis mine,

“Congress shall make no law...” is an express statement, in no uncertain terms, of an already existing limitation on Congress, further emphasized by the recognition, “abridging the freedom of speech” that already exists, further emphasized by “or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances” again demonstrating existing rights before the Bill of Rights was even ratified. In its entirety, the First Amendment is a statement of limitation on Congress, as to those things they have no say over at all, and because expression takes on many, many forms, and to deny one is to allow government to filter its input so as not to hear us. Seem familiar to our current reality?

A perfect example: How do we show our dissatisfaction for a product or service, be it a doctor or the insurance company? Answer: using our Unalienable Right to Freedom of Speech. Healthcare's mandated purchase with IRS enforcement, violates our freedom to express our dissatisfaction with government's parameters as to what qualifies as healthcare. This purchasing power is a means of expression, is another form of vote, and a political statement in our being peaceably assembled to not purchase the product, and/or the idea, being sold.

Instead, due to the acts of people such as John Conyers, we are being unconscionably bound to service to an idea, system, expense, and taxation, that we have vehemently shown opposition to.

Further, Congress is legislating away our Unalienable Right to Redress of Grievance by the lack of an administrative process to question the information used by the IRS to prosecute or apply civil penalties to us without a judge, court, jury, or any other aspect of due process that Congress and the United States Government is required to assure!

I close with Dennis Kucinich's statements regarding what he'd do if republicans pursue repeal of healthcare, January 11, 2011:

“Kucinich said that Republican efforts to starve the new healthcare law could inadvertently push the country toward a single-payer system.

“If you demolish the new bill and we go back to square one, you still have 50 million who don't have any coverage, then what's the option if you can't have the government, say, by private insurance, which -- believe me, as someone would[sic, probably “who”] has fought that system I understand that -- then the only other option is to say what other industrialized democracies say, healthcare is a basic right, we've got to provide for everyone, we'll have a single-payer system,” as quoted from,

Note his confusion of America as a democracy and you understand his vehement need to pursue a communist agenda:
“Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.”-- Italic emphasis mine, 1848 Communist Manifesto, Project Gutenberg,

May we awaken quickly to save Our Republic and Our Individual Liberty,

Toddy Littman
printer friendly create pdf of this news item

Son of Single Payer

23 Jan : 15:15 Category: Health Care Reform

You all need to read this:

Kucinich is saying that single-payer will be revived, and there's all kinds of numbers to suggest it will save money and ad to business profitability, apparently.

Kucinich GOP HC Repeal & Single Payer

I sent this to John Boehner directly, and submit it to you because it is time our branches of government and their exclusive authority is understood, versus their unity against the American people, and the Progressive voices, such as Kucinich that lead the charge. We need to press Congress to do what I am laying out because their business as usual is working around the rules, not in adherence to them, and we're doing nothing to change that, nothing, and instead, just accepting that and falling right back to sleep:


Mr. Speaker,

I urge you to assert the exclusive authority of the House of Representatives under Article I, Section 7, Clause 1. The Senate, claiming "vehicles" based on using a bill "started" in the House (as directly stated by the Senate in the blue text at, to propose revenue legislation, is a trespass Our Founding Fathers did not intend to happen. The House is a separate branch of this government for a reason. The exclusive House power to "originate" bills for raising revenue is to assure it is the People's desire to be taxed, and not some whim opportunity of government whenever they need money to take our hard-earned private property for whatever scheme government has in mind. Only by a Speaker that will stand up to the Senate will this come to an end.

Please review the following explanation of the abuse of the entire process to "pass" healthcare carefully.

Stenny Hoyer, as majority leader, failed to set the Healthcare bill as major tax legislation for review by the Ways and Means Committee, as would be required of a tax, any bill to raise revenue for the government. This is a necessary procedural step of the House Rules that was made to assure adherence to the meaning of Article I, Section 7, Clause 1.

"Originate in the House" does not mean "start," it means that the idea for raising revenue had to originate from "The People's House," that we sought to be taxed for a specific purpose and intention, contacting our representatives to make it so.

House Rule XIII (h1) and (h2) make it clear that a bill is out of order that contains revenue provisions that were not reviewed by the Ways and Means Committee. The argument made by the Department of Justice that the healthcare mandate is under the commerce clause and can be enforced as a tax, fails on its face without this review by Ways and Means, and the reports generated by that process. Yet, it is this very argument, certified to the court by the Department of Justice lawyers as true, correct, and complete, that invoked Our Written Constitution, as the DOJ is part of the Executive Branch essentially saying the People's House can be treated as irrelevant.

A tax cannot be passed by the Senate reconciliation process. And for this to be a tax requires the above House Ways and Means reports be included and provided with the bill. The Senate could not legally pass healthcare by the reconciliation process if it is a tax.

If, however, healthcare is not a tax, then there is no enumerated power, no authority under the Constitution for the United States, to compel any American to purchase anything.

Thus, 1) in the House, 2) in the Senate, and 3) in the courts, the healthcare bill, and "law" have been represented differently, and thereby misrepresented entirely. This makes every vote, and even the signature of the President of the United States, unconscionable acts. The fact the bill wasn't read is unconscionable in and of itself, but to vote on it and sign it based on what information is presented alone, that then is argued to the contrary to use the courts to justify imposing a burden on the American People that was denied review for political purposes, and not upholding our Constitution, is to abuse the Public Trust to bind the beneficiary, We The People, to the unconscionable acts of the Trustees, you public servants. The Courts are not the legislature, and to allow them to interpret a "law" that isn't a law according to Our Written Constitution, only exacerbates the glaring truth that the government in Washington D.C. forgot We The People are the Masters of our nation, not they.

This cannot be allowed to stand, and if you repeal healthcare, all that does is tell the usurpers in government that they can use this process to get things through, repeal validates this process of usurpation. "Passage" of a law based on pomp and circumstance, for political purposes, and in absolute derogation of duty from Oath of Office and the Constitution must be brought to an immediate halt if we do not wish to see America, and all she stands for, perish from the face of the Earth. Please do not validate a process of usurpation and give it any legitimacy, as that only further destroys our republican form of government.

I can boldly say that to do otherwise is to validate the entire illegal process, to ratify "business as usual" in Washington. Please, assert your exclusive powers through a declaration of nullification of the entire healthcare process, let us deliver upon the radicals and Marxists who've used these subtleties to destroy our nation, a radical departure from appeasement and compromise in pursuance of the Constitution and re-instating the conservative principles of republican government that they've assumed we'd never have the spine to do.

Thank you for your time, and your staff for theirs in reading this,

Toddy Littman"

Is this our country? Then we better damn well start acting like it!

We've allowed them to verify an illegal process, which means, it will only get worse, as they'll point to each other on both sides of the aisle to say "they did it too" as part of their unity. We cannot allow this to continue if we believe in America.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman

P.S. Thanks to Timothy Birdnow for titling this and posting it at his blog too,
printer friendly create pdf of this news item

End Of Life, The Progressive Hippocratic Oath

31 Dec : 22:56 Category: Health Care Reform

Almost immediately, she who was the republican candidate for Vice President of the United States on the Republican Party ticket in 2008, Sarah Palin, was a master at digital communications for uttering the notion of “Death Panels.” The sensation due to the reaction to her electronic utterance, and being able to reach so many, who immediately identified with the obvious truth: Government keeps repeating, “healthcare costs are the most in the last year to 6 months of life, and anything that lessens these will lower the cost.”

There's an old expression “parts is parts” that comes to mind from this obvious look at healthcare as purely a numbers game. Of course this adage is a consistent academic assumption, imposed by calculus on everything as just a numbers game.

Obama and the Progressives, likely due to their lack of the noble qualities of hope, charity, and integrity inherent in the medical profession, have overlooked the hypocrisy created by the healthcare law. They're setting aside the historic significance of the Oath of those who pursue medicine to affirm aloud their deliberate and voluntary effort to carry on for the good of the patient, while also proclaiming acceptance of this imposition on the practitioner's conscience:

“I swear by Apollo Physician and Asclepius and Hygieia and Panaceia and all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will fulfill according to my ability and judgment this oath and this covenant:

“To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.

“I will apply dietetic measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice.

“I will neither give a deadly drug to anybody who asked for it, nor will I make a suggestion to this effect. Similarly I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy. In purity and holiness I will guard my life and my art.

“I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work.

“Whatever houses I may visit, I will come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all intentional injustice, of all mischief and in particular of sexual relations with both female and male persons, be they free or slaves.

“What I may see or hear in the course of the treatment or even outside of the treatment in regard to the life of men, which on no account one must spread abroad, I will keep to myself, holding such things shameful to be spoken about.

“If I fulfill this oath and do not violate it, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and art, being honored with fame among all men for all time to come; if I transgress it and swear falsely, may the opposite of all this be my lot.”

A modern oath, the “Oath of Lasagna” (the author's last name is “Lasagna”) is often used today:

“I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:

“I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.

“I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures which are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.

“I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.

“I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.

“I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.

“I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

"I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.

"I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.

“If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.”-- Available together here,

A couple of points cross my mind.

First, regarding the modern Oath, who are they swearing too?

Notice how there is a Deity of importance to the Greek Society in the original Hippocratic oath. Now, though this may not be what has come to be true to what runs the world, there remains a certainty that if one is taking an Oath it needs to be a swearing to and before a higher power to be an Oath, a swearing to a covenant and any sort of allegiance to such covenant. Otherwise such an “Oath” is merely a statement without any sort of mental, emotional, or other registration in the mind, in the conscience, of the one taking the Oath, to which they are claiming their actions are governed by commitment to such. No binding force whatsoever in “I swear...” to emptiness. I believe, according to the same academic calculus anything multiplied by zero = zero, of course overlooked in the name of “Progress.”

Next, note the perpetuity of nomenclature specific education, to share their knowledge with those who follow, which today has resulted in a medical profession, an “association,” that excludes all others, just as a union shop excludes all others not so unionized—the union of “education” apparently.

Consider the fact that alternative healthcare remedies historically have sprung up in other nations around the world due to the lack of accessibility to reasonable and morally sound healthcare from the “professional class” of doctors in their nation—mostly due to government intervention, collectivist implementations, and the lack of productivity of the society as a whole, thereby lacking the means to afford people a way of life to which they do not need to be crooked to survive.

This is the future for American healthcare under the most modern and academic 2,800 page Obama Hippocratic Oath of Kitchen Sink Spending without any regard for the values espoused by Hippocrates.

Another thing, you'll note that the modern oath with “ethical standards” according to the Medical Association, sets forth a certainty of the doctor's responsibility beyond merely treating an ailment:

I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.

Yet, even with this provision of this, so called, “Oath,” the government, and particularly President Obama, with his variety of made-up scenarios of doctors taking out tonsils or some other body part for money, were the key to explaining why we need government involved in, and controlling, 1/6th of the U.S. Economy. Apparently, that the business-oriented cost to the doctor is far in excess of affordability for many people is the doctor's fault, according to Obama, which I find absolutely irresponsible. Obama is a former civil rights attorney who also worked for ACORN in that capacity, .

He, along with others, whose litigious abilities assured higher costs for the rest of us in the industries targeted by these social justice organizations, have historically been the significant factor to the rising cost of living.

If not by lawsuit for sake of civil rights, then, lawsuit for sake of “worker's rights” and “unionization” or “sexual harassment” etc. Funny how the unions, BAR and AMA, who describe themselves as professional organizations, band together for sake of another government intervention that profits their ilk at the expense to the rest of us—even after Obama disparages doctors over and over again in speech after speech.

The most important of all notable portions of the Original Oath, in this connection, is that even Hippocrates wasn't a collectivist:

To hold him who has taught me this art as equal to my parents and to live my life in partnership with him, and if he is in need of money to give him a share of mine, and to regard his offspring as equal to my brothers in male lineage and to teach them this art—if they desire to learn it—without fee and covenant; to give a share of precepts and oral instruction and all the other learning to my sons and to the sons of him who has instructed me and to pupils who have signed the covenant and have taken an oath according to the medical law, but no one else.”--Emphasis mine, Ibid.

Seems the “death panel” is destined to happen when the doctor is the vehicle of a moral vacuum, a business model to sell services, and reliant on an income supplemented by incentives, or what salespeople call “spiffs.”

Few may know doctors are viewed as salespeople for the pharmaceutical companies, that doctors are given samples to help the pharmaceutical company sales rep achieve a distribution goal that, once achieved, justifies giving the doctor a discount, a trip somewhere, or even money. If you've ever worked in sales, you'll recognize this is a “sales quota” in a “sales contest” with a “spiff” given to the salespeople who perform to the satisfaction of the company.

And those going into medicine are stuck with this model of “Progress” and “success” while government assures the model is a granite structure, supported by the taxing power of government, and deflecting all criticism with subtexts of the situation, “...end of life” care. The numbers game is always government's. The constant throughout history, mostly of enslaved peasant, pre-America, man, is that government wants performative patronage as a privilege of its reign over the individual, and payment of homage for devising a system to steal from the producer and taxing every opportunity to achieve for their self-interest that, in and of itself by producing something, benefits mankind as a whole—a lost truth of capitalism, of America and Individual Liberty.

Government does little but expects you to perform at its beck and call, while you are paying government to order you around. “Man-Age-Ment” at its finest, making sure to grey your hair and drive up your blood pressure while ignoring, disparaging, and destroying your private rights in property, and your property in your rights. Death panels by another name, only to demonstrate the persistence of government and death as related entities to the “end of life.”

And it is only fitting they'd choose to run healthcare with government's focused benefit, the numbers game, paramount to all others, at least, according to government.

Understand that the incentivising of end of life care discussions is no less a “spiff” sales program than the pharmaceutical company would promote for one drug or another, only this time it's the government's product or service, or tax, or cost, or burden, or regulation, or conditioning, or whatever else you'd like to call centralized planning and control by national entities, institutions, and their academics, with their own agenda, (Robert Gibbs minced no words regarding a “staff shake-up” when he said “I see no significant changes, we've had a significant team successfully promoting the President's agenda,” not to be confused with the Will of The People.) who view everything according to the numbers and nothing else—a group who abhor individuals having a business and running it according to the numbers, while, making sure the people are persistently viewed as merely masses of numbers, and their healthcare “solution” reflects this point of view perfectly.

This concern for “end of life” care and the costs associated with it are the very kinds of solutions I'd expect from people who have trained themselves to use the same techniques they claim unfair of others for use in making their individual profit by Private Property and Liberty, but is fine for use of government in implementing collectivist solutions that burden the people to afford the experiment.

Yet, the analysis falls short. “End of life” expense is expensive because it is marketed as “life-saving” and assumed “a last hope and effort,” but the Progressive is sold on the literal, on the textbook and presumptions therefrom, as there is no actual experience to compare these to.

There was a time we were told to never give up when we had a debilitating disease, so much so that even people like Walt Disney ended up going for the cryogenic chamber, the hope being that one day a cure for this or that ailment will be discovered, that he can be brought back from his frozen sleep to enjoy the cure.

“Obamacare” has shifted entirely from this model of life, and the idea that innovation and invention will lead to cures, and cures will be mass-produced and cost less. His “agenda” seems to be to cave to the demands of the legal and medical unions, and their proxy representation of the “insurance company” that too is owned almost entirely by attorneys and doctors, to cater to their demands irrespective of the promise of the future and moral commitment to mankind to find cures for all disease.

It seems we're now to set aside all hope, apparently this is solely due to our lack of utility according to government, and thereby our lives have no meaning because government says so, and government will of course make sure you're reminded of your worthlessness annually according to the new Obama Administration regulation incentivising doctors to have this discussion that often—let's add another means of abuse of the government dole, another unnecessary government (taxation of individual Americans) paid-for scheme of redistribution to particular special interest AMA hands.

I have to say I am not surprised that a man who could refer to the unborn as “previable” so easily, with absolute callous disregard, is unable to see the value of a life outside of its productivity on the opposite side of the spectrum:

“...whenever we define a previable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a nine-month-old -- child that was delivered to term.”--Then Illinois State Senator Obama speaking on the Illinois Senate Floor in debate opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to protect fetuses who survive a botched abortion from being left to die in the inhumane way of being thrown on a pile of others, to die in a closet somewhere—some survive and live full lives, transcript here,

So I guess this is “senioricide” or “geriatricide” or “eldericide,” I'll leave it to the lawyers to scribe out the right term, if anyone can ever find a way to take government to task for this act of atrocity against those whose actions of the past built the world of today and set foundations for the future. Then again, Sarah Palin seems to have said it best in the first place, “Death Panels.” The first half of the age of Soylent Green is upon us,

Another “fundamental transformation” of America brought to you by George Soros, the Center for American Progress, and their spokesperson Barack Hussein Obama. Welcome to a perfect world where doctors are dependent upon the government dole for their incentivised funds, funds gained by promoting particular government product or service, and able to be withheld by the government when the doctor must be bent over the government's knee to assure the doctor continues to promote the government's agenda.

Thank you for reading,

Toddy Littman
printer friendly create pdf of this news item
Go to page       >>