Sarah Palin Spanks Obama On The Eve Of His Big Dog And Pony Show With Congress

Sarah Palin hit Barack Obama and his crew with a double dose of good old common sense on Tuesday. She opened the day from her powerful Facebook page with a reprint of written testimony she has given the New York State Senate.

In her testimony, addressed to Senator Reverend Ruben Diaz, Chair, New York Senate Aging Committee, Sarah gives a point by point breakdown of what is wrong with the proposed Obamacare bill as well a stinging rebuke of our old buddy, Dr Ezekiel Emanuel, Dr Death to our readers.

She again lays out the case that Dr Death’s plans would ration health care and gives preferential treatment to people between the ages of 15 and 40 while rationing care, or depending on the circumstance, denying care to those younger than 15 or older than 40, such as the disabled.

Sarah also points out how this sudden acceptance of allowing the old to die before their time will lead to abuse.

Over in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service is an absolute mess. Conditions are unsanitary. Qualified doctors and nurses are in short supply. It is not uncommon for patients to go without food and water, sometimes drinking the water out of the plants in the room to stave off dehydration! And as simple symptoms of dehydration can cause a patient to mimic someone who is dying, for real, many patients who only need some water are basically left for dead!

Then there is this sort of thing that has happened to Rosemary Munkenbeck, whose father, Eric Troake, who entered hospital after suffering a stroke, had fluid and drugs withdrawn and she claims doctors wanted to put him on morphine until he passed away under a scheme for dying patients called the Liverpool Care Pathway

This of course, is Britain’s version of a death panel. Remember, a few shots of morphine are cheap compared to actually treating someone with a stroke, and doing things on the cheap is the priority, not actually treating patients.

You can read the whole story here.

For the complete footnoted transcript of Sarah’s written testimony to Senator Diaz, go here.

Of course, Sarah was just warming up with her Facebook posting. The real shot fired across Obama’s bow was an op-ed posted at the Wall Street Journal’s website, for the Wednesday print edition.

Here Sarah takes on the "Bureaucratization" of Obamacare.

The president's proposals would give unelected officials life-and-death rationing powers.

Sarah Palin

We just went through the Van Jones debacle, so we know at least two things, for sure, about the Obama administration. One, Obama is all about appointing unelected, un-vetted, and unaccountable "Czars" to prominent positions of power. And two, every single one of these people we have looked at so far are complete and total loons!

Jones is a racist, cop hater, self avowed communist, and a 9/11 truther.

Dr Death believes in the Complete Lives System that uses formulas to determine who is worthy of health care, and who isn’t. Not only does he think the very old, and the very young are not as worthy as those "productive" to society, if you are disabled, well, I hope you have your burial insurance paid up, because you are fixin’ to meet up with Obama’s death panels!

Cass Sunstein, who Obama pretty much wants to allow to regulate every activity you do, thinks doctors should be able to harvest your organs when you die, at least I hope they wait that long, without your permission! Like most communists, Sunstein thinks the citizen is property of the state, for the ruling class to use as they see fit.

And this isn’t even the "weird" thing about Sunstein! He is also against hunting, fishing and all other manly-man activities, and wants to ban them. Now that is mainstream "progressive" communist. But the real punch line here is Cass wants to allow animals to sue humans in court!

Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian-like obligations and make decisions, subject to those obligations, on their clients' behalf.

Cass Sunstein

Then we have John Holdren. This refugee from a bad science fiction movie thinks our Constitution would be OK with forced sterilizations and forced abortions for population control. I’m still pouring through my copy of the Constitution looking for the article and section that covers this!

Oh, and Holdren is also in favor of adding chemicals into the water supply to sterilize the population, as well. He wants both zero population and zero economic growth, worldwide. Just the guy to be working for the President when the economy is in the crapper!

If you want to know more about Obama’s "cream-of-the-crop" of modern scientific thought, try here.

You can bet Obama has plenty more men ,of equal quality to these, that will make up the Bureaucratization of Obamacare that Sarah Palin is talking about!

You have to really stop and ask yourself this: Do I really want a 9/11 truther, a crazy organ stealer and animal rights loon, someone who wants to sterilize me, forcibly, if necessary, or Dr Death, in charge of my health care?

From The Wall Street Journal:

Obama and the Bureaucratization of Health Care

By Sarah Palin

Writing in the New York Times last month, President Barack Obama asked that Americans "talk with one another, and not over one another" as our health-care debate moves forward.

I couldn't agree more. Let's engage the other side's arguments, and let's allow Americans to decide for themselves whether the Democrats' health-care proposals should become governing law.

Some 45 years ago Ronald Reagan said that "no one in this country should be denied medical care because of a lack of funds." Each of us knows that we have an obligation to care for the old, the young and the sick. We stand strongest when we stand with the weakest among us.

We also know that our current health-care system too often burdens individuals and businesses—particularly small businesses—with crippling expenses. And we know that allowing government health-care spending to continue at current rates will only add to our ever-expanding deficit.

How can we ensure that those who need medical care receive it while also reducing health-care costs? The answers offered by Democrats in Washington all rest on one principle: that increased government involvement can solve the problem. I fundamentally disagree.

Common sense tells us that the government's attempts to solve large problems more often create new ones. Common sense also tells us that a top-down, one-size-fits-all plan will not improve the workings of a nationwide health-care system that accounts for one-sixth of our economy. And common sense tells us to be skeptical when President Obama promises that the Democrats' proposals "will provide more stability and security to every American."

With all due respect, Americans are used to this kind of sweeping promise from Washington. And we know from long experience that it's a promise Washington can't keep.

Let's talk about specifics. In his Times op-ed, the president argues that the Democrats' proposals "will finally bring skyrocketing health-care costs under control" by "cutting . . . waste and inefficiency in federal health programs like Medicare and Medicaid and in unwarranted subsidies to insurance companies . . . ."

First, ask yourself whether the government that brought us such "waste and inefficiency" and "unwarranted subsidies" in the first place can be believed when it says that this time it will get things right. The nonpartistan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) doesn't think so: Its director, Douglas Elmendorf, told the Senate Budget Committee in July that "in the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount."

Now look at one way Mr. Obama wants to eliminate inefficiency and waste: He's asked Congress to create an Independent Medicare Advisory Council—an unelected, largely unaccountable group of experts charged with containing Medicare costs. In an interview with the New York Times in April, the president suggested that such a group, working outside of "normal political channels," should guide decisions regarding that "huge driver of cost . . . the chronically ill and those toward the end of their lives . . . ."

Given such statements, is it any wonder that many of the sick and elderly are concerned that the Democrats' proposals will ultimately lead to rationing of their health care by—dare I say it—death panels? Establishment voices dismissed that phrase, but it rang true for many Americans. Working through "normal political channels," they made themselves heard, and as a result Congress will likely reject a wrong-headed proposal to authorize end-of-life counseling in this cost-cutting context. But the fact remains that the Democrats' proposals would still empower unelected bureaucrats to make decisions affecting life or death health-care matters. Such government overreaching is what we've come to expect from this administration.



Speaking of government overreaching, how will the Democrats' proposals affect the deficit? The CBO estimates that the current House proposal not only won't reduce the deficit but will actually increase it by $239 billion over 10 years. Only in Washington could a plan that adds hundreds of billions to the deficit be hailed as a cost-cutting measure.

The economic effects won't be limited to abstract deficit numbers; they'll reach the wallets of everyday Americans. Should the Democrats' proposals expand health-care coverage while failing to curb health-care inflation rates, smaller paychecks will result. A new study for Watson Wyatt Worldwide by Steven Nyce and Syl Schieber concludes that if the government expands health-care coverage while health-care inflation continues to rise "the higher costs would drive disposable wages downward across most of the earnings spectrum, although the declines would be steepest for lower-earning workers." Lower wages are the last thing Americans need in these difficult economic times.

Finally, President Obama argues in his op-ed that Democrats' proposals "will provide every American with some basic consumer protections that will finally hold insurance companies accountable." Of course consumer protection sounds like a good idea. And it's true that insurance companies can be unaccountable and unresponsive institutions—much like the federal government. That similarity makes this shift in focus seem like nothing more than an attempt to deflect attention away from the details of the Democrats' proposals—proposals that will increase our deficit, decrease our paychecks, and increase the power of unaccountable government technocrats.

Instead of poll-driven "solutions," let's talk about real health-care reform: market-oriented, patient-centered, and result-driven. As the Cato Institute's Michael Cannon and others have argued, such policies include giving all individuals the same tax benefits received by those who get coverage through their employers; providing Medicare recipients with vouchers that allow them to purchase their own coverage; reforming tort laws to potentially save billions each year in wasteful spending; and changing costly state regulations to allow people to buy insurance across state lines. Rather than another top-down government plan, let's give Americans control over their own health care.

Democrats have never seriously considered such ideas, instead rushing through their own controversial proposals. After all, they don't need Republicans to sign on: Democrats control the House, the Senate and the presidency. But if passed, the Democrats' proposals will significantly alter a large sector of our economy. They will not improve our health care. They will not save us money. And, despite what the president says, they will not "provide more stability and security to every American."

We often hear such overblown promises from Washington. With first principles in mind and with the facts in hand, tell them that this time we're not buying it.

You are so right Sarah, this time the American people just aren’t buying it!

Ronald Reagan was fond of saying that government wasn’t the answer to a problem, that government was the problem.

Back in 1964 Ronald Reagan gave a speech at the Republican National Convention. It ranks up there as one of the greatest speeches of all time. The speech, entitled "A Time For Choosing", is so iconic, it has become simply know as "The Speech!"

Personally, I think this speech should be taught in school. It should be required learning in order to get a diploma. I feel this video, coupled with Sarah’s hard hitting op-ed should be enough to help all Americans understand that we need to stop Obamacare, and Obama himself right in his tracks, and get on with the process of taking America back.



Ronald Reagan warned the nation back in 1964 of the perils associated with putting a democrat in elected office. Pretty much everything he warned against, has come true, with the expected consequences, because folks elected democrats.

During the 2008 election Sarah Palin warned over and over about the perils of electing Barack Obama. Her warnings went unheaded, and everything she warned us about is coming to pass.

This time, listen to what Sarah Palin is saying, and stop this massive government intrusion in our lives before it is too late. I’m not sure we are going to get many more chances to get it right!