Lindy’s Blog: Where Mom is Always Right

March 23, 2010

RIP, liberty

Filed under: health care,limited government,politics — by lindyborer @ 4:14 pm
Tags: , ,

Obama got his health care reform bill signed today and it only took a year, the opposition of a majority of Americans, bribery, arm-twisting, back-room deals and zero transparency to get it done.  I’ve never claimed to be a genius, but given the shady nature of this whole process I don’t understand why this is a “good thing” for America.  (Plus, guess who’s exempt from ObamaCare mandates?) 

I’ve simply had it.  I am actually scared for our nation.  If this thing goes, it’s game over.  I am beyond the point where I care about alienating anyone–including family–because of this.  This is my childrens’ future. 

What a small shred of people cannot understand is that this is not about health care!  I will say it again:  This is not about health care.  It is about the expansion of government.  It is about creating a welfare state from the cradle to the grave.  It is about Big Brother holding sway over even the minutest aspects of daily living.  Arguably, everything we do affects our health.  If (when) the government is suddenly the one in control of divvying out health care, they will do so solely upon the basis of controlling costs.  As such, they will see each of us as nothing more than a dollar sign.  And certain segments of the population will be more “cost effective” than others.  For example, it’s cheaper to have an abortion than a baby.  It’s easier to pull the plug than to give someone life prolonging treatment.  The unborn, the disabled, the elderly, the chronically ill–all these groups will be the hardest hit.  This legislation will drive doctors away in droves, and rationing will inevitably occur.

Reform is needed, but this leviathon of a bill addresses none of those things that would have truly reformed our system without taking over 1/6th of the economy and sacrificed our individual liberties.  (Tort reform?  Being able to purchase insurance across state lines?  True competition among insurance compancies would lower premiums faster than anything.  It would solve the problem for those who can’t get insurance because of a preexisting condition.)

With the signing of this bill, the Democrats have effectively taken the first step in turning our nation’s healthcare system into the DMV.  Break out the champagne!

One of the most interesting aspects of this entire issue to me is the one of liberty and self-determination.  ObamaCare undoubtedly will put a bureaucrat in the middle of patient and doctor.  It will do more to erode these basic, foundational American ideas than anything else we have seen. 

Give me liberty or give me death!  This is America!  

One comfort?  We will not go down without a fight.  This legislation and its mandate to buy insurance is unconstitutional.  It is a direct violation of state sovereignty and states’ rights.  It will be challenged in the courts.

June 19, 2009

Enough’s enough

Filed under: conservatism,politics — by lindyborer @ 7:48 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

Sorry for the sparse blogging of late.  Suddenly summer has sprung into action, and between being outside with my gardens, kids’ activities, weddings, and life in general, and a sudden hearkening back to the sleeping in summer days of my adolescence, blogging has taken a vacation, too.

Not that there’s nothing about which to write; on the contrary.  The Iranian sham election and Obama’s silence on it (as Rep. Pences said, “Reagan didn’t tell Gorbechov, “That wall is none of our business,”) the ever-rising unemployment rate, the still-spiraling economy (despite the stimulus),Obama’s Chicago thug politics shining through in his unjust firing of Americorp IG Walpin, and the state-run media’s upcoming ABC propaganda spot pushing Obamacare.  This last is particularly amazing.

ABC, now known as the “All Barack Channel,” is set to run an hour-long primetime special pushing Obama’s government-run healthcare scheme.  And no, there will be no opposing voices allowed.  Bye-bye to the old golden rule of objective journalism: Always present two sides to the story.  That is not important any longer. 

Again, all this goes back to the main principle of liberty:  If the govt. has too much power, then freedom is diminished.  There are some people out there who have the opinion that Americans will trade their liberties in order to be taken care of (not actually, by the way, no govt. can do that).  But that they will willingly forego individual liberty on the promise of govt.-granted security.  I still have faith, though, that the majority of Americans still feel the life-blood of freedom coursing through their veins, fought for and won by our predeccesors, and that the insidious nature of Obama’s quest for authoritarianism and total control will become too much for them to bear willingly. 

People all across America are waking up.  They see their freedoms being encroached upon, they see their children and grandchildrens’ futures being spent into oblivion, they see the unustainable spending going on and the wasting of their tax dollars, and they’re reaching their tipping point. 

More later…

May 8, 2009

Live free or die!

If nothing else, you’ll want to read this by Mark Steyn:  Live Free or Die!  In it, he talks about the four stages of the infantilization of the population under a government that does everything for them (and thereby erodes freedom):  Stage 1) the massive expansion of governement (i.e., the “stimulus”) comes with strings attached (we’re now seeing this with the banks and with Chrysler)  Stage 2) Once you accept you’re a child in the government nursery, why shouldn’t Nanny tell you what to do? and then Stage 3) what to think? and Stage 4) what not to think?  All of these are fleshed out with first-hand examples. 

When governments annex a huge chunk of the economy, they also annex a huge chunk of individual liberty.  You fundamentally change the relationship between the citizen and the state into something closer to that of junkie and pusher–and you make it very difficult ever to change back.  Americans face a choice:  They can rediscover the animating principles of the American idea–of limited government, a self-reliant citizenry, and the opportunities to exploit your talents to the fullest–or they can join most of the rest of the Western world in terminal decline.  To rekindle the spark of liberty once it dies is very difficult. 

Steyn likens it to perpetual adolescence.  Life is about nothing more than sleeping in.  Once we rely on the government to provide the things that ADULTS used to provide for themselves, then it’s back to the playpen for us, and goodbye freedom. 

In other news, Ted Turner thinks China has done pretty well with population control, without resorted to “draconian measures.”  Huh, that’s interesting.  Turner doesn’t consider forced abortions, one-child only governmental policies, and forced kidnappings of infants “draconian.”  Which, by the way, we taxpayers now support, thanks to Obama restoring our tax dollars to the UN Population Fund, which enforces these–“un-draconian”–measures.  The fine for having an “illegal child” in China now costs 3-5 times a Chinese family’s income, and if they don’t pay up immediately, government officials come knocking, and forcibly remove the infant.  Gee, and here I thought that liberals were always so concerned about human rights?  (Big lie number 589 about liberalism.)  And despite what the UNFPA tells us, forced abortions are still taking place.  Can you imagine being forced to abort your child? 

These types of abuses should be condemned by pro-life people AND those on the other side of the issue.  We should not continue to allow our tax dollars to make this sort of thing possible.  But all I hear from the Obama administration?  Chirping crickets.

February 28, 2009

Obama’s latest anti-life action, updated.

Filed under: politics,pro-life — by lindyborer @ 8:45 am
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

A typical work week for President Obama:  A billion here, a billion there, a large sprinkling of hyprocrisy, topped off with yet another reversal of a Bush pro-life policy.  Obama, who during the campaign couldn’t decide when a baby should receive rights, doesn’t seem to have any problem determining that now as he blazes forward with his agenda to end the United States as we know it and turn the USA into the USSA. 

Funny how Obama always decides to deal with abortion issues on Friday, at the end of the news cycle.  Seems rather cowardly to me.  His latest will reverse a Bush policy that would protect health care workers’ consciences and allow them to deny services based upon their religious beliefs.  Not anymore.  (Nevermind that if it were a Muslim’s conscience, or an atheist’s, the ACLU would be right there to defend their consciences.)  “Pro-life” Obama supporters:  How ya feeling about Obama now?  Or are you still entrenched in a deep, pervasive denial that disallows you to clearly and objectively think through the reality of the situation?  I pray that someday your eyes will be opened to the truth about Barack Obama’s pro-abortion predilections.

Obama: This baby doesn't deserve Constitutional protection

Obama: This baby doesn't deserve Constitutional protection

Obama: A burden, just as well done away with.

Obama: A burden, just as well done away with.









Not even this baby is safe with Obama as president, who supports partial-birth abortion at nine-month's gestation.

Not even this baby is safe with Obama as president, who supports partial-birth abortion at nine-month's gestation.

So, we’re coming to understand that Obama is holding nothing back when it comes to actualizing his stated goal to “fundamentally transform the US of A.”  If anyone actually believes that his “stimulus” bill will actually do anything to recover the economy, they’re in for a deep disappointment.  Coupled with his $3.6 trillion dollar budget, which includes significant military cuts and tax increases, and his unprecedented expansion of the federal government—which will be completely in the driver’s seat when it comes to nearly every decision—it appears that Obama is intent upon spending our constitutional republic—with its assurance of individual freedom based upon individual responsibility—right out of existence.

It’s also amazing that Obama can be so “bold” as to claim that we not saddle our debt upon our children, when his actions of the past month have successfully ensured that not only our children, but our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will feel the effects of his irresponsible spending spree. 

Another cause for concern?  The rationing of health care that will effectively lower the quality and availability of that care, another goal of President Obama.  When the government takes over health care in this country, we can expect the involvement of some governmental bureaucrat to make our personal health decisions.  If that bureaucrat deems you too old for a life-saving treatment, you should be willing to gladly accept the ailments relating to your age, as former HHS appointee Tom Daschle explained.  Say hello to government-mandated euthenasia.  Kiss some more of your individual liberties goodbye.

Remember back during the election when I and thousands of other Americans pointed out the socialistic nature of Obama’s goals?  Remember when John McCain and Sarah Palin and Joe the Plumber did the same?  Remember the reactions by the Left and Obama himself?  They said those claims were “ridiculous.”  Now, Newsweek comes out with a cover that says, “We are all Socialists now.”  No one anywhere is denying this anymore.  If you happened to vote for BO under the illusion that this was an empty claim, do you now feel “had”?  I feel vindicated, except that I would have gladly ate my words and I would have rejoiced had I been wrong.   

Millions of Americans are fed up.  And millions more are waking up to the fact that Obama, with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate behind him, is risking his re-election to achieve his goal of fundamentally transforming this nation.  Will it be too late to turn it around?  I don’t know.

Update:  As usual, the Anchoress has more on Obama’s latest pro-life policy reversal (From her post, Obama: Your conscience means nothing to me):

When people believe their own soul is in peril if they participate in an action, the conscientious objection should be sustained. It always has been, before.

Can it be sustainable in Obamaland, or is this very fundamental sort of American freedom to be denied her citizenry in service to expedient (and monetarily lucrative) politics?

If we are going to be a nation that supports the “freedom to choose,” then it seems to me that has to go both ways. Professional health workers should be “free to choose” whether or not they will participate in what they find to be morally objectionable.

Freedom that is only one-sided i.e., “she is free to have a late term, partial-birth abortion and you are not free to refuse her request” or “she is free to demand this contraception and you are not free to refuse to fill that prescription,” is not really freedom.

It is enslavement. Dress it up any way you want. If the government is forcing you to do what your conscience tells you not to, under threats to your freedom, your purse or your livelihood, then you are not free.

But you know, the other night, when Obama addressed the joint houses of Congress, he only used the world “freedom” once. Just once. It’s not really what he’s about. Not really on his radar.

America is all about freedom.  And it is being eroded before our very eyes.

The Return of Scipio has a superb post regarding this unprecedented growth of government and its ramifications upon our individual freedoms:

Of course a reasonable man might scoff at such claims by government that it can direct the course of the nation and its peoples at every point. He will point out that all nations that have gone this way have lapsed into poverty, tyranny and war. He will believe that the clear logic of his argument is all that is necessary, that once enough folks agree with him then things will be made right.

He would be dreadfully wrong. The issue is power—who has it, who does not. The issue is not and has never been improving the economy of the nation or the lives of the people. Those are mere smoke screens used to achieve a power that once acquired will not easily be relinquished.

As [George] Washington said, the state is “a fearful master.” Americans will come to learn this up close and personal. We have rendered everything to Caesar. We should not be surprised when Caesar comes to make his claims.

Read the whole thing.  The comments, too, are fascinating.



November 2, 2008

Obama’s Constitution

Filed under: Catholicism,politics,pro-life — by lindyborer @ 9:44 pm
Tags: , , , , ,

Okay, you all must know by now that I use this blog for venting purposes.

#1)  Catholics for Obama (or should I say, CINOs):  Leaving mass this morning, we noticed that someone had posted fliers on all the cars in the lot, outlining the candidates’ stands on abortion.  It was basically a clarion call:  Catholics may not vote for a politician who supports an intrinsic evil.  Later this afternoon, a full page ad in the newspaper stated the same.  And yet there are still Catholics out there who ignore Church teaching or rationalize their way out of it.  How anyone–Catholic or otherwise–could think there are “proportionate reasons” greater than this, I really do not know.   

Becoming a member of the church is voluntary; you may leave at any moment.  But you simply cannot vote for a man who supports the mass destruction of innocent human lives and receive the Eucharist; recall the dire warnings in the Bible of those who partake of Christ’s Body and Blood unworthily.  I am a miserable, pitiful, horrible sinner; please understand that I’m not here to judge anyone.  I simply fail to understand how some Catholics could reconcile a vote for Obama given these multiple serious warnings from those in charge.  It’s as though they’re standing there with their Obama signs, looking at the Pope with their fingers in their ears, saying, “NA NA NA NA NA NA!  I can’t hear you!  NA NA NA NA NA!”

All right. 

#2)  Back to the revealing Obama audio of 2001, where he agonizes over the fact that the Constition limits the role of government in people’s lives:  DO YOU REALIZE HOW INSANE THAT IS?

Obama’s Living Will Constitution  The truth shall set you free. 

That is the whole purpose of the document:  to protect the citizens of this country from takeover by a radical ideologue!  Please, think about that for a moment.  This speaks volumes about Barack Obama.  Just by listening to him speak, I come to the realization that this guy fits the mold of the “smartest guy in the room,” intellectual elite who wants sole power over all of us ignorant citizens.  It’s always what HE will LET US do (or not do), what HE will do with OUR money, and so on.   It is ego-overload.  The height of arrogance.  And it is dangerous. 

The great thing about America is that those in power were put there by us, and that THEY serve US, not the other way around.  I sincerely hope and pray that the clouds will be lifted from the eyes of people, and that they will come to understand the gamble taken by an Obama presidency.

I’m reading back over this post, and have come a rather ironic realization: Obama’s Constitution would ensure the right to abortion at all costs but would take away the limits on government intrusion into our lives.  Could one call that “funny?”  I don’t know if that’s the appropriate adjective.  What would you suggest?

October 18, 2008

weekend “fun”


Obama mocks, then lies about Joe the plumber

Is everyone having a good weekend?  Hope so.  It’s a crisp, beautiful fall day here, and my mums are still resplendent.  The kids are busy playing with stickers, and the house is basically in order.  Time for some coffee and some blogging.

If you’ve been reading my posts lately, you’ll notice a common theme, namely, BHO’s apparent socialist agenda for the US of A.  This has been thrust into overdrive the past week thanks to Joe Wurzelbacher’s excellent question to Obama, and Obama’s startlingly clear response.  (Finally, some clarity from him.)

People are beginning to realize the dire implications of these Marxist objectives of Obama, and are finally starting to ask some questions.  Well, it’s not too late.  There are still 16 days left to come to terms with the danger that an Obama presidency would bring to the American way of life, and to cast your vote accordingly.   

Really, though, I implore those of you seeking to understand these implications to read this article.

It’s important to remember that Obama’s brand of socialism is unlike other forms that have been around for awhile (i.e., federal income tax system, Social security, etc…) in that money paid in to the current systems is allocated for legitimate government services, and like it or not, they’re here to stay.  Obama, however, is in favor of the redistribution of wealth.  This basically tramples on the idea of freedom, liberty, and self-determination.  It takes the power away from the individual and places it into the hands of the state.  It takes from one to give to another, without the consent of either. 

Here’s a great explanation:

“Liberals, such as Obama, might deny human nature, but they can’t change it. And human nature happens to dictate that people will not produce as much when you confiscate more of what they produce and give it to others. The working wealthy, especially Christians and conservatives, are some of the most generous people in the world, but we’re talking about voluntary charitable contributions, not unconstitutionally coerced redistributions.

How many times must history repeat itself before we learn that socialism and communism cannot work? Liberals love to mock the trickledown theory, but they simply cannot refute the axiom that people produce less when they aren’t allowed to keep as much of what they produce. When do-gooder social planners try to control how much we keep, they guarantee that everyone gets less in the end because they shrink the GDP pie” (article linked above).

It’s readily apparent that the educational system has done a poor job of teaching students both basic economic principles and history, most notably the horrors that have resulted from nations with Communistic regimes.  Communism, which employs these socialist principles, has never worked…ever.  This is irrefutable.  The only thing that Communist countries have succeeded in is oppressing their people, often to the point of mass murder.  But it always starts small, and incrementally manifests itself, often starting by wresting control of the education system.  And if you have been paying attention to Obama’s role in changing the educational instruction in Chicago pulic schools during his time on the Chicago Annenburg Challenge board, you’ll note that he worked closely with known, outspoken socialists like Saul Alinsky and William Ayers (also an unrepentant terrorist.)  Ayers himself was in Cuba at an educational conference in 2007, and was lauded by Hugo Chavez, himself.  

Fairness is an admirable goal.  But Obama’s idea of “fairness” is arguably the antithesis of justice and freedom.  To put it plainly:  The thought of an Obama presidency scares me.  We must not ignore Obama’s response to Joe.  It is the most telling statement we’ve ever heard him say.

Blog at