America, You Asked For It!

Political News and Commentary from the Right

Guess Who’s Coming to Your House? Hidden Dangers in Obamacare

by Ken Blackwell at

It’s all supposed to be voluntary, those “home visits” that are tucked into the mammoth ObamaCare bill. If you have a strong stomach, and stronger bottom, you can find home visitation on pages 568-595. That’s Section 2951 of H.R. 3590, the Senate bill that Harry Reid brought down the chimney on Christmas Eve.

All voluntary, they say, but once you “volunteer” to have the oh-so-helpful folks from Social Services come in to help with your newborns, or with a number of other specified issues, will you ever be able to get rid of them?

The bill provides for federal funding and supervision for this vast expansion of government intrusion into family life. This is the Nanny State on steroids.

Is your family being “targeted” for such home visitations? Let’s see if you fit into one of these very broad categories:

• Families where Mom is not yet 21. (No mention here whether she is married or not.)
• Families where someone is a tobacco user. (Does this include the White House? Watch out, Sasha and Malia!) Does Grandpa, whom you love and have taken in, enjoy his after-dinner pipe?
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities.

As if that list was not wide-ranging enough, here’s the net that can encompass tens of millions:

• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. [Emphasis added.]

So, while Johnny gets his gun, the government steps in to “help” his family at home. Ronald Reagan used to say the most frightening words in the English language were these: I’m from the government and I’m here to help.

Who will sit atop the federal pyramid that runs this vast new invasion of family privacy? Why, it will be Sec. of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, of course.


March 10, 2010 Posted by | Health Care | , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Only Way to Beat Obamanism: Elect More Republicans

by Michael Medved at

For those Americans who want to fight back against the menacing expansion of government and the insanely irresponsible spending of the Obama administration, there is only one way to succeed: electing more Republicans to high office.

If the public fails to elect GOP candidates for the Senate, the House, governorships, state legislatures and, ultimately, the presidency there is simply no way to derail the leftist agenda that menaces liberty and prosperity.

Many sincere patriots will object to this formulation, insisting that we must elect more conservatives, not just more Republicans.

The question then becomes, if the needed conservative candidates arent running as Republicans, what party would they represent? If theyre conservative Democrats (a designation that increasingly seems like a contradiction in terms) their election to the House and Senate would return Pelosi and Reid to power along with their ultra-liberal, Democratic committee chairs like Rangel, Conyers, Frank, Dodd, Leahy, Kerry, Waxman, and so forth. President Obamas ability to bully Blue Dog Democrats to do his bidding shows that empowering even those Democrats who describe themselves as independent minded only serves to strengthen the hand of the reigning leftists in the nations capital. Does the fact that Democratic Senator David Casey of Pennsylvania happens to be pro-life make him any less a reliable cog in the Obama machine as it lurches through record deficits and the relentless growth of government?

Of course, some purists insist that true conservatives will never identify as either Republicans or Democrats and will instead win office as independents or representatives of fringe parties (say the Libertarians, or the Constitution Party). This supposition ignores the consistent record of failure for third and fourth and fifth party candidates at every level for more than 200 years of American history. Occasionally, quirky free spirits will win governorships as independents (like Angus King of Maine, or Lowell Weicker of Connecticut, or the notorious Jesse Ventura of Minnesota) but these exceedingly rare victories never bring political realignment or the emergence of a new party infrastructure (Maine, Connecticut and Minnesota have long-ago returned to Democratic or Republican rule, demonstrating that their third-party flirtations represented flukes, not breakthroughs). In Congress and the Senate, the only independents in recent decades have been representatives from New England (Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut) who end up caucusing with the Democrats in any event.

Even if some miracle occurred and some new party elected five, ten or even twenty members of the House and Senate (a virtual impossibility), what difference would it make if the Democrats maintain their majorities?


October 7, 2009 Posted by | Election 2010 | , , , , , , | Leave a comment