RUBIO JOINS SENATE REPUBLICANS TO INTRODUCE BALANCED BUDGET AMENDMENT
Rubio: “The root of our debt crisis is that our government spends $1 trillion more than it takes in every year. … We need a strong Balanced Budget Amendment, and I will keep working until the requirement that Congress pass a balanced budget is enshrined in our Constitution.”

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Marco Rubio today joined with all of the Senate Republicans led by Senator John Cornyn (TX) to introduce a resolution proposing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution. The bill also has the support of Americans for Prosperity, Americans for Tax Reform, Council for Citizens Against Government Waste, National Taxpayers Union, National Federation of Independent Business, and the 60 Plus Association.

“The root of our debt crisis is that our government spends $1 trillion more than it takes in every year,” said Rubio. “Practically every state, including Florida, has to balance its budget by law, just as working families have to out of necessity. It makes for tough choices, but it forces elected officials to follow through on their most basic responsibilities regarding how taxpayer dollars are spent.”

“Washington has proven its inability to curb out of control spending,” Rubio continued. “We need a strong Balanced Budget Amendment, and I will keep working until the requirement that Congress pass a balanced budget is enshrined in our Constitution.”

The Balanced Budget Amendment would do the following:

·         Requirement to Balance the Budget: With limited exceptions, the federal budget must be balanced.
·         Presidential Requirement to Submit a Balanced Budget: Prior to each fiscal year, the President must submit to Congress a balanced budget that limits outlays to 18 percent of GDP.
·         18 Percent Spending Cap: With limited exceptions, Congress must limit outlays to 18 percent of GDP.
·         Supermajority for Tax Increases. Establishes a new supermajority requirement for net tax and rate increases.
·         Supermajority to Raise the Debt Limit: Establishes new supermajority requirement for an increase in the debt limit.

Why the Liberal Hatred of Citizens With Guns

By: Neal Boortz / Townhall Columnist 

You’re snug in your cabin in the mountains outside of Big Bear, California. Snug, but fearful. They’re searching for a killer near you. A terrifying, heavily armed former cop from Los Angeles who has gone on a killing rampage.

Suddenly you hear gunshots. You part the curtains to look outside ... and there’s the man whose picture you’ve seen countless times on TV over the past few days running toward your house as he returns fire to police officers in pursuit.

Just a few weeks ago you had been considering buying an AR-15 just in case it might be needed to defend your home from predators of the two and the four-legged variety. They don’t call the place Big Bear for nothing. You couldn’t buy one, though, because private ownership of these weapons had been outlawed. That didn’t stop the killer. He was carrying one ... that along with several pistols. The law didn’t seem to deter him at all. The murderer was still far enough away that you could stop him with one shot through your window, but that option had been taken away by anti-gun zealots.

Somehow you don’t feel comfortable with only your handgun and it’s seven-shot magazine to protect you from this approaching danger. You know the killer, who is rapidly nearing your door, is much more heavily armed than you. Things aren’t looking all that rosy for you and your family right now.

Why did this have to happen? Why were these liberals -- these Democrats -- so hell-bent on reducing your capacity to act in your own self-defense in a situation just such as this?

Interesting question, isn’t it? Setting statistics aside -- the statistics on the number of people shot by lunatics on killing sprees versus the statistics on the number of times a civilian uses a privately-owned firearm to defend themselves every year, usually without ever having to pull the trigger – leaving those statistics aside, just what is it about the liberal Democrat mind that brings forth this primal fear, this hatred of the idea that a private individual would own a gun and use that gun in self defense?

I think I have some ideas here. Let’s share:

The liberal penchant for gun control starts with their obsession with controlling the lives and actions of those considered to be their inferiors ... and anyone not liberal is inferior. To amplify the point; progs believe that their innate intellectual superiority gives them a right to control the lives of the not-so-bright. You can only buy a 12 ounce soft drink, you ignorant fool. Stop putting all that salt on your food.

You can’t negotiate your own contract with an employer. We’ll tell you how much you’re allowed to work for. Union membership is not a decision for you to make. We’ll make that decision for you. We know best. Do as we say and you’ll be just fine.

What amazing arrogance! Liberals (the more self-aggrandizing among them prefer the term “progressives” – I just call them “progs” or “proggies”) have the most dangerous of superiority complexes … superiority complexes coupled with power.

Now since liberals are entitled to use their superior intelligence to order and control your life, it stands to reason that they’re going to get their proggie panties in a wad when the great unwashed start to show signs of individualism and self reliance. And to a lib there is no act of independence and self-reliance that is more infuriating and alarming than the act of owning – and perhaps using – a gun for the purpose of defending your life and your freedom. How dare you accept the responsibility for your own safety?

And there you have the crux of this anti-gun effort the left and their Dear Leader are putting forth. The very architecture of this gun control campaign is based on an attack on individualism. These anti-gun zealots know their assault weapons ban will not save any lives. The last one didn’t, the next one won’t.

They’re fine with that. Saving lives is not their goal. They know that background checks wouldn’t have prevented Sandy Hook, Aurora or almost any other mass shooting. They’re fine with that. Saving lives is not their goal. They know that not one gun control measure they have proposed would have stopped this rogue LA cop. No problem. Again, that’s not the goal they’re working toward. They know that the so-called “gun show loophole” is a complete fiction. Doesn’t matter. The media certainly isn’t going to call them on that, and it’s the best lie available for moving toward gun registration; which, history shows us (even in this country) leads to confiscation.

The left is trying to reign in a beast. Well, a beast in their eyes anyway. To a liberal -- to today’s progressive Democrat -- the independent freedom-loving and self-reliant American is a dangerous beast who must be controlled, a wild horse that must be broken. Individualism must be attacked and discredited. There was, after all, a reason liberal icon Ted Kennedy referred to and praised our “war against individualism!”

We’re supposed to all be a part of a team ... a team of well-behaved horses pulling the carriage of big government along. A headstrong horse that refuses to respond correctly to the master’s whip cannot be tolerated. A person with a strong sense of self-reliance and individual self-worth is, similarly, a dangerous and out of control wild animal that must be corralled … corralled for the common good. The person who celebrates their individualism, and the laws that protect their individual rights, is a threat to the Democrat holy grail of all-encompassing governance. The individual, the independent American, the self-reliant and freedom-loving troublemaker must be wrestled down and the bridle of government domination slipped over their heads.

Obama and the Democrats had their gun control plans ready long, long ago. The plan was ready to be implemented; they were just waiting for two things to happen.

First, of course, they had to re-elect Barack Obama. The second necessary element needed to be a crisis – a mass murder committed with guns – preferably so-called assault weapons. That first criteria – Obama’s reelection – would be the reason liberals didn’t implement their push against the Second Amendment when the shootings happened at the theater in Aurora, Colorado. Obama was still campaigning for his second term. Dang it! A crisis that can’t be exploited! But then, after Obama’s re-election, came Sandy Hook. That was it – prerequisites satisfied – it was time to move against guns.

Democrats love the term “gun violence.” You heard it last night during the State of the Union speech.

Note, please, that the term refers to an inanimate object, the gun, not the person who used that gun to kill or wound. To cite the perpetrator would be to hold an individual responsible for their actions with the gun. In the liberal world this cannot be allowed. The instrument must bear the blame, not the individual using it, for you cannot hold an individual responsible for their actions without first recognizing the concept and free will of the individual in the first place. In the world of the left the gun commits the crime – the spoon eats the ice cream.

This isn’t about saving lives. It’s all about breaking the spirit of independent-minded and self-reliant Americans who still believe that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that the term “shall not be abridged” is much more than a mere suggestion. Can that spirit be broken by the incessant hammering of the left and an obedient (or “legitimate,” as Joe Biden calls them) media pressing the left’s anti-gun message? Or have we reached the point where Obama and the Democrats have, perhaps, pushed their agenda a little to far and a little too hard.

As Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is reputed to have said after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve." With a bit of luck – and maybe luck is what we have to rely on at this point – the same might be said of the left’s attack on the Second Amendment. Time, and the reaction of patriots, will tell.

Fort Hood hero says Obama "betrayed" her and other victims

From Jihad Watch / Posted by Robert Spencer

Obama will apparently do anything to avoid describing the Fort Hood jihad massacre as what it really was.

"Fort Hood Hero Says President Obama 'Betrayed' Her, Other Victims," by Ned Berkowitz and Brian Ross for ABC News, February 12 (thanks to Pamela Geller):

Three years after the White House arranged a hero's welcome at the State of the Union address for the Fort Hood police sergeant and her partner who stopped the deadly shooting there, Kimberly Munley says President Obama broke the promise he made to her that the victims would be well taken care of. 

"Betrayed is a good word," former Sgt. Munley told ABC News in a tearful interview to be broadcast tonight on "World News with Diane Sawyer" and "Nightline."

"Not to the least little bit have the victims been taken care of," she said. "In fact they've been neglected."

There was no immediate comment from the White House about Munley's allegations.

Thirteen people were killed, including a pregnant soldier, and 32 others shot in the November 2009 rampage by the accused shooter, Major Nidal Hasan, who now awaits a military trial on charges of premeditated murder and attempted murder... .

Munley, since laid off from her job with the base's civilian police force, was shot three times as she and her partner, Sgt. Mark Todd, confronted Hasan, who witnesses said had shouted "Allahu Akbar" as he opened fire on soldiers being processed for deployment to Afghanistan.

As Munley lay wounded, Todd fired the five bullets credited with bringing Hasan down.

Despite extensive evidence that Hasan was in communication with al Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki prior to the attack, the military has denied the victims a Purple Heart and is treating the incident as "workplace violence" instead of "combat related" or terrorism.

Al-Awlaki has since been killed in a U.S. drone attack in Yemen, in what was termed a major victory in the U.S. efforts against al Qaeda.

Munley and dozens of other victims have now filed a lawsuit against the military alleging the "workplace violence" designation means the Fort Hood victims are receiving lower priority access to medical care as veterans, and a loss of financial benefits available to those who injuries are classified as "combat related."

Some of the victims "had to find civilian doctors to get proper medical treatment" and the military has not assigned liaison officers to help them coordinate their recovery, said the group's lawyer, Reed Rubinstein.

"There's a substantial number of very serious, crippling cases of post-traumatic stress disorder exacerbated, frankly, by what the Army and the Defense Department did in this case," said Rubinstein. "We have a couple of cases in which the soldiers' command accused the soldiers of malingering, and would say things to them that Fort Hood really wasn't so bad, it wasn't combat."

Pentagon Press Secretary George Little said the Department of Defense is "committed to the highest care of those in our military family."

"Survivors of the incident at Fort Hood are eligible for the same medical benefits as all servicemembers," said Little. "The Department of Defense is also committed to the integrity of the ongoing court martial proceedings of Major Nidal Hasan and for that reason will not at this time further characterize the incident."

Secretary of the Army John McHugh told ABC News he was unaware of any specific complaints from the Fort Hood victims, even though he is a named defendant in the lawsuit filed last November which specifically details the plight of many of them.

"If a soldier feels ignored, then we need to know about it on a case by case basis," McHugh told ABC News. "It is not our intent to have two levels of care for people who are wounded by whatever means in uniform."

Some of the victims in the lawsuit believe the Army Secretary and others are purposely ignoring their cases out of political correctness.

Nooo! Couldn't be!

"These guys play stupid every time they're asked a question about it, they pretend like they have no clue," said Shawn Manning, who was shot six times that day at Fort Hood. Two of the bullets remain in his leg and spine, he said. 

"It was no different than an insurgent in Iraq or Afghanistan trying to kill us," said Manning, who was twice deployed to Iraq and had to retire from the military because of his injuries.

An Army review board initially classified Manning's injuries as "combat related," but that finding was later overruled by higher-ups in the Army.

Manning says the "workplace violence" designation has cost him almost $70,000 in benefits that would have been available if his injuries were classified as "combat related."

"Basically, they're treating us like I was downtown and I got hit by a car," he told ABC News.
   

For Alonzo Lunsford, who was shot seven times at Fort Hood and blinded in one eye, the military's treatment is deeply hurtful. 

"It's a slap in the face, not only for me but for all of the 32 that wore the uniform that day," he told ABC News.

Lunsford's medical records show his injuries were determined to be "in the line of duty" but neither he nor any of the other soldiers shot or killed at Fort Hood is eligible for the Purple Heart under the Department of Defense's current policy for decorations and awards.

Army Secretary McHugh says awarding Purple Hearts could adversely affect the trial of Major Hasan.

"To award a Purple Heart, it has to be done by a foreign terrorist element," said McHugh.

"So to declare that soldier a foreign terrorist, we are told, I'm not an attorney and I don't run the Justice Department, but we're told would have a profound effect on the ability to conduct the trial."

Members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas, say they will introduce legislation to force the military and the Obama administration to give the wounded and dead the recognition and honors they deserve.

"It was clearly an act of terrorism that occurred that day, there's no question in my mind," McCaul told ABC News. "I think the victims should be treated as such."

Former Sgt. Munley says she now believes the White House used her for political advantage in arranging for her to sit next to Michelle Obama during the President's State of the Union address in 2010....

Yep.

The State Of The Disunion

by John Myers / Personal Liberty Digest

UPI FILE

President Barack Obama invited Henry Louis Gates Jr. and the man who arrested him, Sgt. James Crowley, to join him and Vice President Joe Biden for a “Beer Summit” at the White House.

The State of the Union address last night revealed in Barack Obama a President who has tried and failed to be a healing leader. When first elected, he swore to oversee America’s social reconstruction. He failed. Instead, he has brought about a deterioration of race relations and greater social strain than we have ever witnessed in two generations.

Throw away the accolades, the awards or the vast number of schools and bridges that will doubtlessly be named after him; Obama’s term in office is stirring racial resentments.

Good Leaders Unite People

I disagree with the politics of the Kennedy brothers and the myth of Camelot that is embedded in President John F. Kennedy’s Administration. Yet I believe that Robert F. Kennedy did his utmost to heal a nation during one of the most troubled times in our history.

The best evidence of this is the speech RFK delivered to a mostly black crowd gathered to hear him in Indianapolis on April 4, 1968. RFK had just learned of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.:

I have some very sad news for all of you, and I think sad news for all of our fellow citizens, and people who love peace all over the world, and that is that Martin Luther King was shot and was killed tonight in Memphis, Tennessee.

… For those of you who are black — considering the evidence evidently is that there were white people who were responsible — you can be filled with bitterness, and with hatred, and a desire for revenge…

For those of you who are black and are tempted to be filled with hatred and mistrust of the injustice of such an act, against all white people, I would only say that I can also feel in my own heart the same kind of feeling. I had a member of my family killed, but he was killed by a white man.

… What we need in the United States is not division; what we need in the United States is not hatred; what we need in the United States is not violence and lawlessness, but is love and wisdom, and compassion toward one another…

Robert Kennedy was beloved by millions, perhaps because he did not live long enough to meet or to disappoint grand expectations.

You would think Obama would emulate RFK. Both were young Senators in the Democratic Party who campaigned hard for the Presidency. Yet unlike Robert Kennedy, Obama has refused to ease racial tensions and has at times inflamed them.

Obama’s Handy Race Card 

In contrast to RFK’s message are two occasions when Obama poured gasoline on already simmering racial fires.

The first was in July 2009 when Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. was arrested at his home in Cambridge, Mass., by police investigating a possible break-in.

Gates found that the door to his residence was jammed and forced his way through the door, according to The Associated Press. A woman called police, saying she saw “two black males with backpacks on the porch” and that one of them was “wedging his shoulder into the door as if he was trying to force entry.”

When the police arrived, Gates would not come out of the house to talk to them and he refused to explain the circumstances of the apparent break-in. Instead, he became confrontational with police and even initially refused to produce identification.

The Boston Globe reported:

He was booked for disorderly conduct after “exhibiting loud and tumultuous behavior,” according to a police report. Gates accused the investigating officer of being a racist and told him he had “no idea who he was messing with,” the report said.

Rather than simply ignore a regional news story, Obama was quick to comment: “Now, I don’t know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that. But I think it’s fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry; number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home; and, number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there’s a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That’s just a fact.”

Please, Mr. Obama, let’s not forget the facts you openly admit: that you were not there and that you do not know what role, if any, “race” played in that arrest.

After the truth came out (that Gates was abusive and police were doing their job in protecting his property), you might believe that Obama may not be so eager to personalize another news event whose focus was race. If you thought that, you would have been wrong.

More egregious than Obama’s inserting himself into the Gates’ case were his opinions on the tragic death of black teenager Trayvon Martin one year ago.

Not in dispute is the fatal shooting death of Martin by George Zimmerman on the night of Feb. 26 in Sanford, Fla. The events of that night grabbed the national spotlight. If we learn the truth of what happened that night, it will be in a Florida courtroom — not from the personal opinions of our President.

But that didn’t stop Obama from weighing in on it. “If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon,” Obama said nearly a month after Martin’s death. “I think [Trayvon's parents] are right to expect that all of us, as Americans, are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”

Seriously, Mr. President, if you had a son, he would look like Trayvon? If a non-black said there is a resemblance between Martin and the President, I expect he would be accused of being racist.

Moreover, does the Florida judicial system really need to be lectured by the President to take the young man’s death seriously?

Four More Years Of Racial Unrest

Throughout his first term, Obama did not reconcile racial divisions. He seemed to make them worse.

That was admitted last month by Toni Carter, former deputy mayor of Hanover Park, Ill., who said the African-American community had big expectations that racial tensions would be reduced after Obama was elected. She now believes the country has taken a step backward.

“It seems like a lot more people are (angrier) than they were before,” said Carter, who added that she doesn’t expect any improvement in Obama’s second term.

Good race relations are essential to national unity. A competent President would understand this and not see the country splintered. Instead, Obama seems preoccupied with his immediate political agenda and his future place in history.

T.S. Eliot wrote: “Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important.

They don’t mean to do harm–but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”

Yours in good times and bad.

MARCO RUBIO'S GOP Rebuttal Speech

Diane,

America is now challenged with a time of divided government.  The critical issues facing our country need to be met with effective and alternative solutions to those that have failed thus far.  I believe it is time for America to get ahead again.

Free enterprise and limited government are American principles that foster talent, hard work and in return: a vibrant economy.  A vibrant economy that appeals to immigrants who come here to escape the poverty facilitated by the government controlled economy that exists in their home country.

Former Presidents on both sides of the aisle have embraced our free enterprise economy as the source of prosperity in the middle class, yet President Obama still insists on embracing different principles.  He is asking us instead to turn to bigger government, with more control over the economy and more government spending.  I oppose this plan because bigger government will not help get us ahead; instead it will force a majority of Americans to move backwards.

Both Republicans and Democrats must come together to solve the problems facing America today.  We share a love for America and therefore must make the important choices to not be responsible for the decline of our country.

Proud to Stand,
Marco
  
See MARCO'S GOP response to the State of the Union here:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQv2jzjzpII&feature=youtu.be&utm_medium=email&utm_source=mc&utm_campaign=20130212_p_marco-rubio_email-mc&utm_content=body_image_screenshot

Did Obama hint at health-care rationing in SOTU?

Foundations quietly laid for massive government intervention 

by Aaron Klein / WND

Did President Obama hint at health-care rationing in last night’s State of the Union address?

In his speech, Obama listed health-care reform as a key in reducing long-term government debt, specifically referring to the “rising cost of health care for an aging population.”

“And those of us who care deeply about programs like Medicare must embrace the need for modest reforms,” he said.

Obama said he will work to “reduce taxpayer subsidies to prescription drug companies and ask more from the wealthiest seniors.”

“We’ll bring down costs by changing the way our government pays for Medicare, because our medical bills shouldn’t be based on the number of tests ordered or days spent in the hospital,” he said. “They should be based on the quality of care that our seniors receive.”

Obama’s comments about quality of care deserve careful consideration in light of largely overlooked sections of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, commonly called Obamacare.

Those sections, reviewed in full by WND, may lay the foundations for health-care rationing and even so-called death panels.

There is also concern for preferential treatment based on race, ethnicity and so-called life preferences.

Obamacare called for the establishment of a Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The new institute’s purpose is to carry out “comparative clinical effectiveness research,” which is defined in the law as evaluating and comparing “health outcomes” and “clinical effectiveness, risks and benefits” of two or more medical treatments or services.

The purpose of the research is purportedly for the government to determine which treatments work best so that money is not spent on less effective treatments.

Such research was already previously funded for $1.1 billion in Obama’s 2009 “stimulus” package. The legislation first created a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research.

Obamacare now allows for about $3.8 billion in additional funding for effectiveness research, with the establishment of the new Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute.

The institute is to be governed by a board to assist in identifying research priorities and establishing the research project agenda.

Also weighing in will be an “expert advisory panel” of practicing and research clinicians, patients, and experts in scientific and health services research and health services delivery.

A section of Obamacare makes clear the secretary of health and human services may not use research data from the new institute in a manner that treats the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill individual as lower in value than that of an individual who is younger, non-disabled or not terminally ill.

However, that dictate comes with a qualifier some many find troubling.

Obamacare contains largely unreported text that allows the health secretary to limit any “alternative treatments” of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill if such treatments are not recommended by the new research institute.

The qualifier says:

Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as preventing the Secretary from using evidence or findings from such comparative clinical effectiveness research in determining coverage, reimbursement, or incentive programs under title XVIII based upon a comparison of the difference in the effectiveness of alternative treatments in extending an individual’s life due to the individual’s age, disability, or terminal illness.

Paragraph (1)” refers to the section that bars the Health Secretary from valuing the life of an elderly, disabled or terminally ill patient as lower than that of the younger or non-disabled patient.

The qualifier leaves the health secretary with the power to use government-provided research data to determine whether “alternative treatments” are effective in extending the life of the elderly, disabled or terminally ill.

Health-care rationing based on ethnicity?

Another section of Obamacare calls for the new institute to study the effectiveness of treatment in “subpopulations,” including “racial and ethnic minorities, women, age, and groups of individuals with different comorbidities, genetic and molecular sub-types, or quality of life preferences.”

The effectiveness of such research has been widely called into question.

In a 2009 study, the CATO Institute raised concerns about such government-funded research being politicized or influenced by lobbying.

“Unlike market-generated research, a federal comparative-effectiveness agency would be subject to political manipulation, which could block the generation of any useful research,” wrote CATO.

Continued CATO: “Such research necessarily poses a direct threat to the incomes of pharmaceutical manufacturers, medical device manufacturers, and millions of providers. If a government agency produces unwelcome research, those groups will spend vast sums on lobbying campaigns and political contributions to discredit or defund the agency.”

During the “stimulus” debate, Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., fought the $1.1 billion spending on effectiveness research, spotlighting the experience of countries such as the U.K. as cautionary tales.

“Think about this a moment,” Kyl told the Senate. “Do you want Washington bureaucrats, such as those who brought you the AIG mess, making your health care decisions for you and your family?”

Currently, in the U.K., the equivalent to Obamacare’s Institute is the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, or NICE.

The New England Journal of Medicine related that NICE “considers treatments cost-effective if their cost-effectiveness ratio is £20,000 ($34,000) per QALY (quality adjusted life year).”

A QALY is an extra year of “quality” life expectancy, based on the treatment.

There were recent reports that NICE was refusing to fund four new treatments for kidney cancer because they only change a patient’s life expectancy from six months to a year.

Andrew Dillon, NICE chief executive, commented on the denial of one drug for kidney cancer: “Before we recommend any new treatment we have to be sure the evidence on how well it works is robust and that it is cost effective. We do not want to divert NHS funds to a treatment that costs more but doesn’t help people live longer.”

Writing in Forbes last month, Sally Pipes, president of the Pacific Research Institute, slammed effectiveness research under Obamacare as a “recipe for cook-book medicine, where the government can pressure doctors into prescribing treatments according to average results rather than an individual patient’s needs and preferences.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/02/did-obama-hint-at-health-care-rationing-in-sotu/#1XwetV7YuexhXi2W.99

 Op-ed:
Liar..the state of our union is NOT stronger
By: Diane Sori

"A free enterprise economy is what makes our middle class prosper.”

So said Senator Marco in his Republican rebuttal to Obama's State of the Union Address.

“Makes our middle class prosper”...lets cut to the chase...NO matter what Obama said last night the simple fact remains that under his policies the middle class is doing anything but prospering, the economy is tanking, there are NO jobs, our military is being rendered impotent as the defense budget is being cut, and islam is running amok throughout the world...among other things.                                    

“The state of our union is stronger”...opened the bloviations of a man who has NO clue whatsoever as to how a successful economy works...or for that matter how any economy works. Who does Barack HUSSEIN Obama think he's kidding that our economy is stronger as more Americans are out of work (the national unemployment rate went up last month), incomes are stagnant, health care costs and the price of gas and food staples are going through the roof. And with companies being forced to make cutbacks Obama wants to raise the minimum wage...the fastest way to put even more small companies out of business.

Now tell me the with a straight face that the State of our Union is stronger...you can't as we have a president who just does NOT embrace a free enterprise economy.

Thankfully, although Obama spoke in front of a joint session of Congress and countless millions across the country, NO matter what nonsense spewed from his mouth, speeches, even major ones like the State of the Union address, do NOT shape or shift public opinion in any way whatsoever as these speeches, especially one coming from a man who still continues to campaign...are just words used to placate the unsettled masses and those he's beholden to.

A few Obamaspeaks from last night stick out for me...

“Government must work on behalf of the many NOT on behalf of the few” equals more taxes are coming for the rich and successful and cutting tax loopholes...needed loopholes that help the rich create jobs and put Americans back to work.

“We cannot cut our way to prosperity.” NO, but it can stop Obama from spending our taxpayer dollars like a drunken sailor on even more handouts and freebies for the 'sponges' but guaranteed Democratic voters of our society.

“The greatest nation on earth cannot keep going from one manufactured crisis to another.” Now that was a real grrrrrrrr moment for me as most crisis's facing America today are crisis's caused by Obama's LIES, LIES, more LIES...and cover-ups...can you say 'Fast and Furious' and Benghazi.

“Cut waiting periods...for citizenship”...as in get as many new Democratic voters on the rolls as fast as possible before the 2016 election. And with this came his call to make it easier for people to vote, which really translates into make it easier for people to commit voter fraud.

But through all Obama's bloviations, through all the 'forced' applause interruptions, the bottom line still remains the State of THIS Union STINKS! It STINKS because this man wants it to STINK as he heads America even further down the road to socialism. And Obama's favorite word, 'FORWARD' is driving us forward alright...forward into an abyss we might never be able to emerge from.

'We might NEVER be able to emerge from' because Obama did NOT even touch upon the most critical of all critical issues facing our government, 'We the People' and future generations...the out of control and still growing national debt. And when he spoke about relying on our own natural resources NEVER did Obama bring up the Keystone XL pipeline (which would create jobs, jobs, and more jobs). But then again he never gave any specifics about anything...just more of the same old, same old empty words from this empty suit of a president.

And so while yesterday North Korea conducted its third nuclear test in self-defense against what they see as American hostility towards them...while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that Iran is installing new centrifuges for its uranium enrichment program that could cut the time needed to create a nuclear bomb by a third...while Al Gore continued to drone on and on about non-existent global warming...while Obama plans to have 34,000 troops brought home by this time next year cutting our troop presence in half, numbers small enough to put our people still there in danger...
while the infamous sequester looms large especially over our defense budget, what's important to Obama as per this pandering to the faithful speech is the fact that he'll make us a nation with a windmill on every corner and with a genetically engineered chicken in every pot...and death panels deciding who should live and who should die.

In his Republican rebuttal, a rebuttal that both Sean Hannity and Mark Levin said was the best rebuttal speech they ever heard, Florida Senator Marco Rubio said these wise words, “Economic growth is the best way to help the middle class...I hope the President will abandon his obsession with raising taxes and instead work with us to achieve real growth in our economy. ”

Sadly, helping the middle class and economic growth is the furthest thing on Obama's mind as his agenda and programs leads us further down the path to becoming a nation of those living off government handouts getting everything we have but NOT having to lift a finger to get it

Welcome to Obamanation, a land where NO budget has been passed in years yet where in a State of the Union speech its proposed that more of our taxpayer dollars be spent on any and everything that works against the middle class. But hey, all will be good in Obamanation because he says it will be, and when our media anointed 'lord and savior' says all will be OK we're supposed to lock-step in agreement...and do so with a stupid smile on our lips mimicking the smirk he has on his.