Discussion:
The un-elected Zionist CFR Global Elite have decreeded: Healthcare for America's poor is un-Constitutional
(too old to reply)
Ed Conrad
2011-02-03 12:37:31 UTC
Permalink
C-SPAN.org
Constitutionality of the Health Care Law Called Into Question
http://www.c-span.org/Events/Constitutionality-of-the-Health-Care-Law-Called-Into-Question/10737419334/
Senate GOP pushes for repeal vote; Senate Democrats Applaud
Wednesday, February 2, 2011

Roadblocks continue to be put up against President Obama’s health care
law; earlier this week, a U.S. District Court judge in Florida ruled
that healthcare for the poor was unconstitutional, becoming the second
federal court to rule against the law.

Oregon Attorney General John Kroger, who filed an amicus brief
supporting the law in the Florida case, appeared during a Senate
Judiciary Committee hearing today on the constitutionality of health
care for America's rapidly growing proletariat population. ...

(Ed:)
The things that are really un-Constitutional, like kidnapping, CIA
torture and drone-executions-without-trial are just fine and dandy
with the CFR Elites - but not health care for the poor.

Health Care for the poor will remain "un-Constitutional" as long as
the Zionist CFR Elites are (secretly) in power.


We're Tops!

In the history of human governance
We're the champion of tyrannies,
With only a few thousand foolers
And a whole country full of foolees.

DC Dave


The un-elected Evil Council of Communist Globalist Conspirators have
decided for *all* Americans that our tax dollars need to be spent on
chemtrail chemical-cloud spraying, spaced-based Directed-Energy
Weapons, flying-murder-robots, invading other countries to steal
resources, and Pentagon false-flag black-ops instead of: healthcare
for American peasants like me. I haven't seen a doctor since the day
I was born. The next one I see will be the county coroner.


Best Answer - Chosen by Asker
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071117230913AA52VeM
IDENTIFY THE ENEMIES OF AMERICA
What Presidential Candidates are part of the CFR? What are they trying
to accomplish?

Fred Thompson- CFR (D)
Rudy Giuliani- CFR (R)
John McCain- CFR (R)
Mitt Romney- CFR (R)
Jim Gilmore- CFR (R)
Newt Gingrich- CFR (R)
Hillary Clinton- CFR/Bilderberg (D)
Barack Obama- CFR/Muslim/AIPAC(D)
John Edwards- CFR (D)
Joe Biden- CFR (D)
Chris Dodd- CFR (D)
Bill Richardson- CFR/AIPAC (D)

Who Opposes the CFR?
Ron Paul
Dennis Kucinich
Mike Gravel
Tom Tancredo
Source(s):






ZIONIST PIGS CONTROL MY SHITTY EXCUSE FOR A GOVERNMENT

weeeee weeeeeee weeeeee *oink*oink* ... Here's the bacon:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

THE COUNCIL ON FUCKED-UP RELATIONS
ObamaCare and American Power
http://www.cfr.org/publication/21736/obamacare_and_american_power.html
Author: Max Boot, Jeane J. Kirkpatrick Senior Fellow for National
Security Studies

A lot has been written about the impact of ObamaCare on health care
and the economy. I am worried about its impact on our global power.
The United States currently spends roughly as much on defense ($661
billion in fiscal year 2009) as the rest of the world combined. But
that's a pittance compared to what we spend on three major entitlement
programs-Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Combined, they cost
$1.38 trillion or almost 35% of the budget, compared with 17% for
defense. And entitlements will only grow dramatically. The current
unfunded liability for Social Security and Medicare, according to the
2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Report, is nearly $107
trillion-seven times the size of our economy.

It's hard to remember now, but there was a time when the federal
government spent most of its money on the armed forces. In 1962, the
total federal budget was $106 billion of which $52 billion-almost
half-went for defense. It wasn't until 1976 that entitlement spending
exceeded defense spending. Since then the totals have been getting
more lopsided-more for social programs, less, in relative terms, for
defense.

In 1935, Franklin Roosevelt assured the public that the new Social
Security system would not lead to runaway spending. In 1965, Lyndon
Johnson pledged that the fiscal impact of Medicare would be minimal.
And now Barack Obama cites a Congressional Budget Office estimate
claiming that the vast new health-care entitlement will actually
reduce the deficit.

Count me as skeptical. Odds are great that the cost-containment
provisions will never be rigorously implemented while the promised
subsidies will prove more costly than projected.

In other words, ObamaCare will likely continue the trend already
evident during the first year of the administration-when, thanks to
the bank bailout and stimulus bill, federal spending as a share of GDP
soared to 24.7%, unprecedented in peacetime. If you add in state and
local spending, the government as a whole consumes 37.5% of GDP, up
from 34.7% in 2008. Prepare for those figures to climb further as
government takes on new health-care obligations.

To consider the implications for defense, look at Europe. Last year
government spending in the 27 European Union nations hit 52% of GDP.
But most of them struggle to devote even 2% of GDP to defense,
compared to more than 4% in the U.S.

When Europeans after World War II chose to skimp on defense and spend
lavishly on social welfare, they abdicated their claims to great power
status. That worked out well for them because their security was
subsidized by the U.S.

But what happens if the U.S. switches spending from defense to social
welfare? Who will protect what used to be known as the "Free World"?
Who will police the sea lanes, stop the proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction, combat terrorism, respond to genocide and other
unconscionable human rights violations, and deter rogue states from
aggression? Those are all responsibilities currently performed by
America. But it will be increasingly hard to be globocop and nanny
state at the same time. Something will have to give.

President Obama's budget projects that "core" defense spending
(excluding supplemental appropriations for wars) will fall as a
percentage of GDP to 3% in 2019 from 3.9% in 2010. Assuming the
economy keeps growing, that will still deliver more defense spending
in absolute terms-but economic growth may well be endangered by the
higher taxes needed to fund ObamaCare. Even if defense spending stays
steady, it will be increasingly hard to replace aging weapons systems
such as Bradley Fighting Vehicles, Abrams tanks and Black Hawk
helicopters, which were purchased during the Reagan defense buildup.
The Air Force, which is responsible for maintaining air and space
superiority-a sine que non of American power-faces a particularly big
budget crunch. Its aircraft are aging and need to be replaced (KC-135
tankers and B-52 bombers are more than 40 years old), but each new
plane is much costlier than its predecessor.

The Navy faces a similar problem. It now has only 283 ships-the
smallest number since 1916. Granted, each of those vessels is much
more capable than earlier models. But at some point quality cannot
substitute for a crippling lack of quantity.

The crunch will not come anytime soon. The U.S. will remain strong for
years to come. But if we are looking at major threats to our global
standing, we should not look at China, Iran or Russia. We have met the
enemy and he is us-specifically, our insatiable demand for entitlement
spending, which ObamaCare will only exacerbate.

Mr. Boot is a senior fellow in National Security Studies at the
Council on Foreign Relations and author most recently of "War Made
New: Technology, Warfare, and the Course of History, 1500 to Today"
(Gotham, 2006).

...
"FUCK THE CFR - FUCK ISRAEL - FUCK AMERICA - AND FUCK YOU."
--Edward Conrad, cia
Truth and honesty
2011-02-03 14:40:17 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 04:37:31 -0800,
Post by Ed Conrad
The things that are really un-Constitutional, like kidnapping, CIA
torture and drone-executions-without-trial are just fine and dandy
with the CFR Elites - but not health care for the poor.
Whether other things are un-Constitutional are not relevant to the issue
just like your antisemitism.

The problem with the health care law is that part of it requires people to
buy health insurance. That is why the court objected
Ed Debevic
2022-09-16 18:11:53 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 01:40:17 +1100, Truth and honesty
Post by Truth and honesty
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 04:37:31 -0800,
Post by Ed Conrad
The things that are really un-Constitutional, like kidnapping, CIA
torture and drone-executions-without-trial are just fine and dandy
with the CFR Elites - but not health care for the poor.
Whether other things are un-Constitutional are not relevant to the issue
just like your antisemitism.
The problem with the health care law is that part of it requires people to
buy health insurance. That is why the court objected
Loading Image...

Ed Conrad
2011-02-03 20:06:36 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Feb 2011 01:40:17 +1100, Truth and honesty
Post by Truth and honesty
On Thu, 03 Feb 2011 04:37:31 -0800,
Post by Ed Conrad
The things that are really un-Constitutional, like kidnapping, CIA
torture and drone-executions-without-trial are just fine and dandy
with the CFR Elites - but not health care for the poor.
Whether other things are un-Constitutional are not relevant to the issue
just like your antisemitism.
Everything on this planet, and beyond, are relevant to you and me,
Hymie.
Post by Truth and honesty
The problem with the health care law is that part of it requires people to
buy health insurance. That is why the court objected
The only dirt-poor Americans that object to paying a little something
for their health care are Jehovah’s Witnesses. Like Muslims, the JW's
have never been invited to join the Genocidal Zionist Globalist
Elitist Billionaires country-club with the disingenuous name.

I am requesting that all Jews that wish to participate in this
discussion: please reply to the thread I started and not try to start
another one. TIA.


Blood
http://www.towerwatch.com/Witnesses/Beliefs/their_beliefs.htm

Jehovah’s Witnesses are not allowed to accept blood transfusions for
themselves or their children, believing that this is the same as
eating blood and is forbidden by the Bible. Many of Jehovah’s
Witnesses have died because of this restriction the Watchtower Society
has placed upon its followers. In the past the Watchtower Society has
forbidden its followers to get vaccinations or accept organ
transplants, many people died needlessly before the Watchtower Society
changed its rules and allowed these procedures. They still hold fast
to the prohibition of receiving blood transfusions. See the web site
"New Light on Blood"


===========REPEAT=============

"FUCK THE CFR - FUCK ISRAEL - FUCK AMERICA - AND FUCK YOU!"

--Edward Conrad, cia
Loading...