No love for Ann Coulter in Canada. That’s too bad.

Given Ann Coulter’s laundry list of “nasty not niceness” comments in the past, can anyone really blame the University of Ottawa for sending her a warning of “hate speech”?  They didn’t say “you cannot come here” or “stay away, you blankity-blank.”  No, they just simply said no derogatory words to individuals or groups.

With Canada having some of the strongest hate speech laws in the world, Ann Coulter should know better than being her normal self.  When the University of Ottawa doesn’t want her there, and her other speeches get canceled, suddenly Ann Coulter is the victim.

Claiming that her right to free speech in Canada has, in a way, been suspended, she goes on the defensive.  Should someone remind her that she’s not in Kansas anymore?  There’s a complete difference between the U.S. and Canada.  But I guess that this sort of realization goes beyond her train of thought.

Now I am not saying that Ann Coulter should be nice, and I am most certainly not for hate speech laws (they are only a tool for tyranny), but c’mon, Ann.  You cannot have a whole history of bigoted, judgemental comments (she said Timothy McVeigh should bomb the New York Times building, just a reminder), commenting on peoples personal appearance, and not expect some sort of blowback. 

The same sort of free speech Ann Coulter endorses is the same free speech that liberals have a right to.  But in Ann Coulter’s world (Kansas) this world just doesn’t exist.


Insurance companies found loophole in Obamacare!

I have a theory on Obamacare and it is this: It is not going to lower the price of healthcare or make it more affordable, it will raise the prices.  Employers and people will have to pay more money out-of-pocket.  At such a high cost, Obamacare will cause more irreparable harm to our economy and dollar.  As Ron Paul said, “failure of our economy will cause the repeal of Obamacare.”

Here is a news article from

Obamacare not such a good deal for kids or young adults

Prior to the passage of the “historic” Obamacare bill, Democrats went hither and yon in their effort to sell the insurance corporation crafted plan like snake oil. They said it was for the little people and if you opposed it you were a racist or some kind of rightwing extremist.

    Now with the ink barely dry on the bill, the truth is beginning to come out.

    “Insurance companies wasted no time after the bill was passed to unearth a loophole that allowed them to deny coverage to children with pre-existing illnesses for the next four years,” writes Sahil Kapur for Raw Story.

    Unearthed? They knew it was in the bill all along because they wrote it.

    “If a company sells insurance, it will have to cover pre-existing conditions for children covered by the policy. But it does not have to sell to somebody with a pre-existing condition. And the insurer could increase premiums to cover the additional cost,” said William G. Schiffbauer, an attorney who represents insurance companies.

    Rest assured. Obama and crew “are working to bridge the gap.” Maybe they would have bridged it if they had read the bill. Nancy Pelosi said they’d have to wait for it to pass before they could read it, though.

    Next up, young adults. “Health insurance premiums for young adults are expected to rise about 17 percent once they’re required to buy insurance four years from now,” according an analysis produced by Rand Health.

    Not that they can do anything about it. Obamacare is mandatory. If they don’t like it, men in black ski masks will drop by.

    No doubt other news about goodies for insurance corporations will emerge soon enough.

    Article of the Week: Can Obamacare force you buy GM products?

    Rep. Burgess: Government Can Force Us to Buy General Motors Products If Obamacare Mandate Upheld in Court

    By Nicholas Ballasy, Video Reporter

    ( – Representative Michael Burgess (R-Texas) told that if the mandate in the health care law requiring individuals to purchase health insurance or be penalized is upheld by the courts, the federal government could mandate anything, such as requiring all Americans to purchase a General Motors car.
    On Capitol Hill, asked Representative Burgess, “The Congressional Budget Office has said that never before in the history of the United States has the federal government mandated that any one buy a specific good or service and, of course, the bill includes the individual mandate.  Is there a part of the Constitution that you think gives Congress the authority to mandate individuals to purchase health insurance?”
    Representative Burgess, himself a doctor, said, “No, I personally do not, and I think that is exactly right. Never before in the history of this country have we had the ability to coerce American citizens to purchase something and then invoke the Commerce clause after we coerce that purchase.”

    “It just flies in the face of what a free society should be, so I’m perfectly comfortable with the attorneys general bringing suit against this bill,” said Burgess. “I think it’s the appropriate thing to do. Plus, you also have the equal-protection business of some states being more equal than others and, really, it should be equals among equals, not some states getting special deals to buy off a vote to get the bill passed.”
 also asked Burgess, “If the federal government mandates that you have to purchase health insurance, is there any legal commodity that the federal government cannot require individuals to purchase?”
    “That’s the next step and what else?” said Burgess. “Could the federal government require all of us to purchase a General Motors product? And the answer is yes.”
    “If this mandate is ruled, upheld by the courts, it opens the door for all kinds of mischief by the federal government,” he said.  “We’ll be better off not opening this door or closing it very, very quickly.”
    Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) told that he “applauds” the states that are stepping up and taking legal action against the federal government. So far, 13 attorneys general have sued the federal government over the individual mandate in the health care law.

    “I think the mandate is unconstitutional so I applaud the states [that] are going to step up and spend some resources and take this to the courts because I believe it’s unconstitutional,” said Chaffetz.  “You have something like 37 states that are filing some sort of lawsuit or another, so, including Utah, and I applaud that.”

    Chaffetz was also asked if he thinks there is a limit to what Congress can mandate individuals to do.
    “Yeah, I think never before have we seen the federal government mandate that you have to actually purchase,” he said.  “You know, I understand they need to tax, but to actually purchase something? I think that steps over the line and I hope the states are victorious in their suits.”
    Chaffetz continued: “That’s the worry, that if they can get away with this, the federal government can get away with who knows what? And that’s where there’s got to be limits and balance on this, and clearly the Constitution, I don’t think, you know, allows this to happen. So I hope this country makes the right decision. I really do.”
    On the other hand, Democratic Senator Tom Carper (D-Del.) said it is “not likely” the individual mandate will be overturned.

    “I’m not a lawyer,” he told  “I’m told by some pretty smart lawyers that the chances of states overturning this are not likely. The federal law will be pre-eminent but that’s why they make courts. We’ll have an opportunity to find out.”

    According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the federal government has never before mandated that Americans buy any good or service. In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan formulated by then-First Lady Hillary Clinton, the CBO studied the plan’s provision that would have forced individuals to buy health insurance and determined it was an unprecedented act.

    The CBO stated: “A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action. The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States. An individual mandate would have two features that, in combination, would make it unique. First, it would impose a duty on individuals as members of society. Second, it would require people to purchase a specific service that would be heavily regulated by the federal government.”

    Neoconservative Dick Cheney supports Rand Paul’s opponent Trey Grayson

    To say that Dick Cheney or the Bush administration still has any credibility is a large stretch of the imagination.  It was Dick Cheney (former CFR president) who in 1994 condemned any invasion of Iraq under Clinton, and called it a “quagmire”.  Watch the sort video link bellow:

    In case you were wondering what the word “quagmire” means, here is the definition: A difficult or precarious situation: a predicament.

    It is reported in 2007 by that Dick Cheney ordered Neocon outlets like Fox News to sell a war with Iran.

    In early 2000 Project for a New American Century made this startling and yet ominous prediction:

    “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event  like a new Pearl Harbor…””And advanced forms of biological warfare that can target specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”
    — from “Rebuilding America’s Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources For a New Century,” September, 2000.


    It has been, and always will be the Neoconservative thinking process in order for the United States to maintain and expand its global empire it must a. excert its influence through force; b. preplan invasions and; c. use propaganda as a tool of furthering their agenda.

    “As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world’s preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?”

    What’s so important about PNAC you ask?  Well, here is a quick list of the men involved:

  • Jeb Bush – brother of George W. Bush
  • Dick Cheney – Vice President under George W. Bush
  • Donald Rumsfeld – Secretary of Defense 2002-2006
  • Paul Wolfowitz – Deputy Secretary of Defense
  • The drumbeats by Neocons still persits.  In a press release on the Trey Grayson website, former Vice President Dick Cheney released this statement:

    “I’m a lifelong conservative, and I can tell the real thing when I see it.  I have looked at the records of both candidates in the race, and it is clear to me that Trey Grayson is right on the issues that matter – both on fiscal responsibility and on national security.”

    Whatever, Dick Cheney!  Cheney is a classic example that the Neoconservative agenda is alive and well, and this annoying belligerent blabber mouth isn’t going away any time soon.

    In case you were wondering what the term “neoconservative” means, here is the definition:

    The Constitution is crying. I wonder why?

    If we look at the Constitution it is, in fact, a libertarian document, and for good reason.  Against the better wishes of the American people, President Obama and the Democrats in Congress rammed home the healthcare reform bill.  When it couldn’t pass the Constitutional mandate, they used a thing called reconciliation.  Which up to this point I have no idea what that is and further more, I had not even heard of it to begin with before the healthcare debate.

    As one man explained to me they make up these rules to pass legislation that aren’t really Constitutional to begin with and act like they are law.  But for now, we are going into a different topic.  A little while ago I posted a article written by former Constitution candidate for president Chuck Baldwin.  In it he rips into John McCain and his bill with Joe Lieberman S. 3081.  It is called the Enemy Belligerent, Interrogation, Detention, and Prosecution Act of 2010.

    No doubt this bill will be used as a tool to “defend America from terrorism”.  But in a “war” where we are trying to “free” peoples of other nations from tyranny and give them a taste of freedom, we are losing many in our own country.  Lets be clear on one thing – this bill does not distinguish between enemy combatants and United States citizens.  Under the Constitution we are guaranteed our rights.  Despite any circumstance can they be ripped away.  Here is a excerpt from the bill.

    (1) poses a threat of an attack on civilians or civilian facilities within the U.S. or U.S. facilities abroad; (2) poses a threat to U.S. military personnel or U.S. military facilities; (3) potential intelligence value; (4) is a member of al Qaeda or a terrorist group affiliated with al Qaeda or (5) such other matters as the President considers appropriate.

    The bill also says this…

     “The High-Value Detainee Interrogation Team must submit its determination to the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General after consultation with the Director of National Intelligence, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. The Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General make a final determination and report the determination to the President and the appropriate committees of Congress. In the case of any disagreement between the Secretary of Defense and the Attorney General, the President will make the determination,” states the bill.

    The ACLU has called this piece of legislation “a direct attack on the Constitution”.  No doubt there will be backlash among the Neo-con crowd calling opposers of this bill “soft on terrorism”.  But is that the real point?  Before you go and say, “well, I’m not planning to blow up the government.”  That’s not the point.  It is the principle of the issue and that issue is the Constitution, and remember, as I have pointed out before, this bill does not distinguish between American and non-American.

    “Torture, indefinite imprisonment, secret trials and limited staged hearings are the stuff of cheap dictatorships,” writes Ian McColgin. “They are the sort of idiocy we scorned in the Soviets, the Koreans and the Vietnamese. It is astonishing that we have senators and citizens even discussing this bill which is not a capitulation to terrorism – it’s the triumph of terrorism.”

    As I have pointed out earlier on previous posts, FEMA detention centers in this country are being planned.  There are plenty of videos of the sites, Glenn Beck was going to report on them, and Alex Jones has covered the story.  Here is an article for your perusal:

    Article of the Week: Ron Paul – Healthcare reform passes

    Healthcare Reform Passes
    By Ron Paul
    Following months of heated public debate and aggressive closed-door negotiations, Congress finally cast a historic vote on healthcare late Sunday evening. It was truly a sad weekend on the House floor as we witnessed further dismantling of the Constitution, disregard of the will of the people, explosive expansion of the reach of government, unprecedented corporate favoritism, and the impending end of quality healthcare as we know it.

    Those in favor of this bill touted their good intentions of ensuring quality healthcare for all Americans, as if those of us against the bill are against good medical care. They cite fanciful statistics of deficit reduction, while simultaneously planning to expand the already struggling medical welfare programs we currently have. They somehow think that healthcare in this country will be improved by swelling our welfare rolls and cutting reimbursement payments to doctors who are already losing money. It is estimated that thousands of doctors will be economically forced out of the profession should this government fuzzy math actually try to become healthcare reality. No one has thought to ask what good mandatory health insurance will be if people can’t find a doctor.

    Legislative hopes and dreams don’t always stand up well against economic realities.

    Frustratingly, this legislation does not deal at all with the real reasons access to healthcare is a struggle for so many — the astronomical costs. If tort reform was seriously discussed, if the massive regulatory burden on healthcare was reduced and reformed, if the free market was allowed to function and apply downward pressure on healthcare costs as it does with everything else, perhaps people wouldn’t be so beholden to insurance companies in the first place. If costs were lowered, more people could simply pay for what they need out of pocket, as they were able to do before government got so involved. Instead, in the name of going after greedy insurance companies, the federal government is going to make people even more beholden to them by mandating that everyone buy their product! Hefty fines are due from anyone found to have committed the heinous crime of not being a customer of a health insurance company. We will need to hire some 16,500 new IRS agents to police compliance with all these new mandates and administer various fines. So in government terms, this is also a jobs bill. Never mind that this program is also likely to cost the private sector some 5 million jobs.

    Of course, the most troubling aspect of this bill is that it is so blatantly unconstitutional and contrary to the ideals of liberty. Nowhere in the constitution is there anything approaching authority for the Federal government to do any of this. The founders would have been horrified at the idea of government forcing citizens to become consumers of a particular product from certain government approved companies. 38 states are said to already be preparing legal and constitutional challenges to this legislation, and if the courts stand by their oaths, they will win. Protecting the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, should be the court’s responsibility. Citizens have a responsibility over their own life, but they also have the liberty to choose how they will live and protect their lives. Healthcare choices are a part of liberty, another part that is being stripped away. Government interference in healthcare has already infringed on choices available to people, but rather than getting out of the way, it is entrenching itself, and its corporatist cronies, even more deeply.

    Ron Paul: Healthcare bill bad economic policy, bad moral policy, and un-Constitutional law!

    First, the healthcare bill was 1,990 pages long and most of the politicians in Congress admitted to not reading it.  This bill has gone through how many votes?  When the Democrats couldn’t get the bill passed they tried practice votes, then reconciliation, and some Democrats who wanted to withdraw support were basically ransomed by President Obama.

    Congressman Ron Paul explains his moral, Constitutional, and economic objections to the healthcare bill.  I would have to agree with him on alot of things. 

    His moral objections are that it is not right for government to take money out of some else’s pocket to pay for someone’s healthcare.  I am riding the fence on this one.  Hasn’t most of America used this type of healthcare system?  I know that I have.  Don’t we owe it to the babies and sick children to give them cheap and affordable healthcare?  I honestly don’t mind paying some sort of tax to make sure a baby gets its shots.

    I went to the doctor for an earache today – $105.  Just for me to sit in the waiting room for over an hour, wait some more, then get told there is nothing they can do.  Isn’t something missing here?  Are there any easy answers to mankinds complexities?  With the troubles that this healthcare bill has (Dennis Kucinich has problems with it), is there any real logic that this bill can be passed and fixed later down the road?

    His economic and Constitutional objections are clear.  There is no written clause in the Constitution on “healthcare”.  At a price tag of $300 billion or more, the basis of this is more money being spent, more money being borrowed, more taxes needed to pay back the debt.

    Watch the clip.