Protesting Obamacare

Over the past couple of weeks, Obama has been making people feel uncomfortable.  The Democratic party along with the Obama administration tried to push for the approval of a health care bill before the August recess.  They did not succeed.  There have been protests and there have been townhall meetings.

Most recently, Nancy Pelosi said that it was unAmerican to protest health care reform.  Apparently Pelosi is so far off base that Obama is keeping his mouth shut.  It’s ironic that during the presidential campaign that Hillary Clinton said that it okay to protest any administration.  This is the kind of double standard leadership that Obama brings.  But back to health care.

Chuck Norris wrote an article where he examines some of the things people oppose in Obamacare.  The tough part is that there is no finalized bill.  I think we’ll have 5 different versions of the bill by the time it comes to the vote.  From the article…

Dirty secret No. 1 in Obamacare is about the government’s coming into homes and usurping parental rights over child care and development.

It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”

Are you kidding me?! With whose parental principles and values? Their own? Certain experts’? From what field and theory of childhood development? As if there are one-size-fits-all parenting techniques! Do we really believe they would contextualize and personalize every form of parenting in their education, or would they merely universally indoctrinate with their own?

Are we to assume the state’s mediators would understand every parent’s social or religious core values on parenting? Or would they teach some secular-progressive and religiously neutered version of parental values and wisdom? And if they were to consult and coach those who expect babies, would they ever decide circumstances to be not beneficial for the children and encourage abortions?

One government rebuttal is that this program would be “voluntary.” Is that right? Does that imply that this agency would just sit back passively until some parent needing parenting skills said, “I don’t think I’ll call my parents, priest or friends or read a plethora of books, but I’ll go down to the local government offices”? To the contrary, the bill points to specific targeted groups and problems, on Page 840: The state “shall identify and prioritize serving communities that are in high need of such services, especially communities with a high proportion of low-income families.”

Are we further to conclude by those words that low-income families know less about parenting? Are middle- and upper-class parents really better parents? Less neglectful of their children? Less needful of parental help and training? Is this “prioritized” training not a biased, discriminatory and even prejudicial stereotype and generalization that has no place in federal government, law or practice?

Bottom line: Is all this what you want or expect in a universal health care bill being rushed through Congress? Do you want government agents coming into your home and telling you how to parent your children? When did government health care turn into government child care?

Government needs less of a role in running our children’s lives and more of a role in supporting parents’ decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right — and government support — to parent them without the fed’s mandates, education or intervention in our homes.

Chuck Norris has it right.

10 Reasons why the Obama-Joker Socialist poster are appropriate

Some people think that this now famous poster is not fair, and that it is mean spirited, and that it doesn’t address the issues, and whatnot. I disagree, so I give you the following reasons why this is an appropriate comparison between the Joker and Obama.

#1. Burning piles of money. Both Barack Obama and the Joker light giant piles of money on fire for no logical reason. The Joker did this in a dramatic scene from the Dark Knight, but Barack’s got him beat.  We’ve thrown away so much money for Cash for Clunkers, so fast, that it makes the Joker’s bonfire look like a Cub Scout camp out. Remember, he keeps bringing up how he inherited a 1.4 Trillion dollar debt? Well whoever replaces him in 3 1/2 years will inherit a 6-8 Trillion debt. We’d probably be better off if Barack just put it in a big pile and burned it, because at least then we wouldn’t have to worry about paying interest to the Chinese.

#2. Some men just want to watch the world burn. Remember that scene where Batman was trying to figure out the Joker’s seemingly insane schemes? And then Alfred came along and explained that some people don’t have a rational reason for what they do, they just want the world to burn? Well, most logical people can’t make heads or tails out of any of Barack’s fiscal policies, which seemed designed to do the exact opposite of what he’s promised for them to do. I think he just wants to watch America burn so it can be reborn as a glorious worker’s paradise.

#3 Neither have loyalty to their minions.  The Joker has no problem shooting his own men, or shoving them off of moving cars, or implanting exploding cell phones into them.  Barack will ditch any of his people who get in his way, whether they’re family, friends, mentors, pastors, or associates. Barack tossed his own Grandma under the bus.  Even the Joker thought that was harsh.

#4 The Origin Story. The Joker told a few different stories about how he got his scar, and the viewer is never told which is the truth. In the end, it doesn’t matter, because the Joker is just the ultimate bad guy. Barack is an ivy-league elitist who plays himself off as some average joe who has been discriminated against.  He’s different things for different audiences. In the end, it doesn’t matter, because barack is just the ultimate socialist.

#5 Both can kill you with writing implements. The Joker does it by stabbing the pencil through your brain. Barack does it by signing such terrible legislation that makes you want to drive a pencil through your brain.

#6 Bit players. One has a two faced lawyer, driven mad with power, horribly disfigured, with a weird googly eye. He’s a true believer, but is just a pawn to be used by the mastermind. His name is Rahm Emmanuel.  The Joker had that guy played by Aaron Eckhart.

#7 The nemesis. The Joker had to battle the Dark Knight, Batman, scourge of evil, hero of the shadows, righter of wrongs. A man who will do the right thing, no matter what the costs. A man who doesn’t care what anyone thinks about him. Obama had to fight John McCain, who’s just like Batman, if you made Batman old, and removed half his brain… and he cared more what the press said about him than his own party… Well, nevermind, this one doesn’t work.

#8 Going to any lengths to win.  It doesn’t matter how bad the odds, the Joker was willing to do anything to win. He was prepared to blow up a ship full of innocent people, and found really creative ways to take out his enemies.  Nothing was off the table. Barck will do anything to win, will blow up the economy, is really creative about using the press to slander his enemies, and nothing was off the table.

#9 Prey upon the weakness of your enemies. The Joker was not about sniveling and begging to survive. He used Batman’s morals as a weapon against him. He took Batman’s strengths and turned them into weaknesses. Barack uses America’s morals as a weapon against us. For example, how long did it take for the Joker/Obama poster to be called racist? One LA newspaper said the only thing missing was a noose… Because most Americans are not racist and don’t like to be called that, Obama’s folks do not hesitate to play the race card, because they know it is a quick and easy way to get many of us to back down.

I’m not really sure how its racist, unless they’re thinking back to the blackfaced white performers of the early part of the 20th century. Which is really ironic, since the most famous of them was Al Jolson, who loved Black America and was a pioneer of positive race relations, and who was beloved by the black community.  Unless they think that painting your face white is racism, and if that’s the case, they need to raise some hell with Kabuki theater.

#10 Both will lose in the end. Yay!  Batman eventually beat the Joker, and only 3 and a half more years of FDR2!

To read more from this author, please visit http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/