Did We Not Call This? Obamacare Rules Finalized To Provide Taxpayer Funding of Elective Abortions

I was going to say “Bart Stupak hardest hit” because the world’s biggest chump lost his job and lost his dignity over the issue. But obviously, there will be many, many little others harder hit than Stupak.

Life News reported:

It’s official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.

Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion. As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.

The Department of Health and Human Services has issued a final rule regarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “the final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.

I reported this would happen back in July of 2010, not long after the stupid thing was passed: Did Not See This One Coming: Obama Okays Tax-Payer Funded Abortions Under ObamaCare

On May 11, 2010, in a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders on implementation of the new law, DHHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius wrote that “states may choose whether and how they participate in the program, which is funded entirely by the federal government.”

Johnson says that on June 28, Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner Joel Ario (a member of the appointed cabinet of Governor Edward Rendell, a Democrat) issued a press release announcing that the federal Department of Health and Human Services had approved his agency’s proposal for implementing the new program in Pennsylvania.

“The state will receive $160 million to set up the program, which will provide coverage to as many as 5,600 people between now and 2014,” according to the release. “The plan’s benefit package will include preventive care, physician services, diagnostic testing, hospitalization, mental health services, prescription medications and much more, with subsidized premiums of $283 a month.”

Johnson says the “much more” Ario refers to is abortion funding.

I didn’t see this one coming, did you? I mean, Obama was so adamant when he promised that his health care plan would continue the ban on federally funded abortions. He said so in countless speeches, including one before a joint session of Congress.He said so in his “myth-busting” teleconferences with Pastors and Rabbis, last August, and in this “myth-busting  weekly address from August 22…See how far you can get through the video before you start retching…:

He was also lying about illegal immigrant coverage in Obamacare. And well – just about everything else he ever said about Obamacare…  Rule of thumb – when he looks straight into the camera, and opens his mouth – he’s lying.

But now that it’s two years later, well – we’re expected to have forgotten about all of the lies. Now, we’re expected to believe that the GOP is waging a war against women, and mean ol’ Catholic theocrats want to take away their contraception.

Obama has no respect for the intelligence of the American people. None.

Too bad the lies aren’t flying with most of us.

Linked by Pundit and Pundette


D.C. Superior Court Honors Black Panther Radical, Communist Occupier, Angela Davis…

You have GOT to be kidding me.

With the exception of Condoleezza Rice, these are all left wing women, but most are valid trailblazers in their own right.

Angela Davis, however, has an outrageously radical history that should not be celebrated anywhere near a place where the rule of law is respected. I’d like to know who came up with the idea to include her among this list of women being honored for “paving the way to greatness in politics” on a poster hung in the D.C. Superior Court building for Black History month.

The Washington Times has the story:

One might quibble with some of the choices, but most of them are women who indeed deserved to be celebrated. They include: Shirley Chisholm, the first black congresswoman and the first black woman who sought to run for president; Carol Moseley Braun, the first black female U.S. senator; former National Security Council adviser and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the first black female to hold both offices; Patricia Roberts Harris, the first black female Cabinet secretary, U.S. ambassador and law school dean; and our current first lady, Michelle Obama.

One of these personifications of “greatness,” however, comes as a shock, especially in the context of a court of law. It is none other than Angela Davis, a black activist who came to prominence in the 1960s as a leader of the Communist Party U.S.A. and the radical black group the Black Panther Party. Ms. Davis was such a high profile communist in the latter days of the Cold War that she was awarded the so-called “Lenin Peace Prize,” given to her in a Moscow ceremony by Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev himself.

Of course, Ms. Davis, too, was a trailblazer in her own way.

She was the second black woman to make the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted list. She earned that distinction as a fugitive wanted on murder and kidnapping charges stemming from her role in a notorious attack on a courtroom in Marin County in California.

Continue reading as former radical, Ronald Radosh looks back on her involvement in that murder, how she was able to beat the rap, and her role as a driving force in the “prison abolition” movement.

Radosh asks, “did it occur to anyone in the D.C. court system that honoring her for the benefit of its jury pools might send a mixed message?”

Last month, Davis endorsed Occupy Oakland’s National Occupy Day in support of   “political prisoners” , which she defines as “any black serving a prison sentence in the United States”:

On March 1, she spoke at OccupyOakland’s Occupy4Prisoners Lecture at Grand Lake Theater, in Oakland California.

Here is video footage of Angela Davis giving one of the opening speeches on the morning of November 2, 2011.  Occupy Oakland’s “General Strike”  disrupted banks and shut down evening operations at one of the nation’s busiest shipping ports.

According to Radosh:

While Ms. Davis proudly wore the badge of political prisoner, and applies it to any black person who is held in prison, even when she was awaiting trial she steadfastly backed the imprisonment of Soviet political dissidents, whom she called common criminals. When Russian tanks and troops intervened in Czechoslovakia in 1968, she proudly defended the Soviet invasion. Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn told the AFL-CIO in 1975 that given her own campaign on behalf of her freedom, it was more than hypocritical for her to oppose an appeal made to her for freedom by Czech dissidents.

Again – I want to know who is responsible for putting this woman’s Commie mug on a poster among women being honored for “paving the way for political greatness.”

There is nothing great about Angela Davis’ political accomplishments. At least not coming from the point of view of  most Americans. And by most – I mean anyone to the right of Malcolm X, Malik Zulu Shabazz, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Professor Derrick Bell.


Big Government: Obama: Communist-Recognized Congressman ‘Shares Our Values’

Video: Derrick Bell Explains The Underlying, Racialist Assumption Behind Marxist Critical Race Theory

A new video unearthed by Morgan at Verum Serum offers another glimpse into the mind of Professor Derrick Bell, one of the founders of Critical Race Theory.

According to  Bell, one of the components of the capitalist system, is to have “a group identifiable who are deemed on the bottom, even when they rise up – they’re still on the bottom.”

“With that system which we’ve been practicing for 300 years,  or more, even the lowliest, no account, unimpressive white man or woman can feel that that somehow – I’m (they’re) superior.” (Note how he uses the first person to describe how a white person thinks – because he knows us so well.)

Tragically for him and his students, Professor Bell was emotionally, and intellectually frozen in  time – – as if the whites of today (the clip is from 2007) are the same as the racists from a time long past.  I am no better than To Kill a Mockingbird’s Mayella Ewell, and for that  reason, our entire economic system needs to be destroyed and replaced with something more equitable, and  fair…

That is why Obama’s kinship with this tragic man is important.

Ben Shapiro further explores the implications at Big Government:

So here’s what we’re left with, in simple terms. Racism cannot be ended within the current system; the current system is actually both a byproduct of and a continuing excuse for racism. Minority opinions on the system are more relevant than white opinions, since whites have long enjoyed control of the system, and have an interest in maintaining it.

This is a deeply disturbing theory. It is damaging both to race relations and to the legal and Constitutional order. As Jeffrey Pyle rightly sums up in the Boston College Law Review:

Critical race theorists attack the very foundations of the [classical] liberal legal order, including equality theory, legal reasoning, Enlightenment rationalism and neutral principles of constitutional law. These liberal values, they allege, have no enduring basis in principles, but are mere social constructs calculated to legitimate white supremacy. The rule of law, according to critical race theorists, is a false promise of principled government, and they have lost patience with false promises.

We can see the clear footprint of CRT all over the Obama Administration. President Obama obviously believes that the system is unjust, upholding racism and requiring “community organizing” to change it in earth-shaking ways. He appoints Supreme Court judges on the basis of race and gender; his Attorney General refuses to enforce the law equally, because to do so would be to enhance racism. When President Obama said he wanted fundamental change, he meant it at the deepest level.

His poisonous views were not only accepted by our current President, they are helping to guide his policies.

His administration has been an ode to CRT. He appointed Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court; she had no judicial background, and no record to speak of. But we do know one thing about her: she helped Derrick Bell usher a seminal CRT piece into the Harvard Law Review in 1985. As Bell stated, “Several editors worked with me on the piece but Elena Kagan was the articles editor … There was real dedication and support by Elena.” President Obama also appointed Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court; this was the same woman who suggested that she had a special perspective on the Constitution because she was a “wise Latina.” And then there’s Eric Holder, the Attorney General, who said we were a “nation of cowards” on race, and who has used the Department of Justice to target racial groups unequally (see, for example, the famed New Black Panther case).

The CRT theme runs deep in the Obama psyche. And it continues to impact us each and every day. That’s why Derrick Bell is relevant. And that’s why we will continue to vet the president – and a media that covers for him by pretending that CRT is mainstream rather than extremist and destructive.

Ex Con sees CRT as another attack on our founders and our citizenry, which it most certainly is:

A rank manipulation designed not to end racism (what little still exists) but to cause racism and division among the American populace. By propounding and endorsing this false doctrine our supposed “post-racial” President demonstrates his own racism as well as his belief in Marxism as well as his inclusion as a Cultural Marxist, one of the people bent on the destruction of our national morals and collapse of our culture and society from within.

When one pulls back a bit, one sees this “theory” as an extension of Critical Theory, the motivating idea behind the Frankfurt School and it’s “stars” Horkheimer and Adorno who first based their cultural manipulations on Karx Marx’s dialectical materialism and historical materialism as well as the dialectical idealism of Hegel. In short, the formers of the concept of Cultural Marxism and methodologies to impose that concept on the American public.

In plain language, another way to control the national dialog, shape it to their agenda, create false beliefs the bolster entitlement addiction, foster racism and the flip side of the race card, white guilt, all of which is designed to control the majority of Americans of all races and exert this control to collapse our Republic.

See Also:

Legal Insurrection: The Derrick Bell thing has them worried

It should.

The American people know how to use Google. They don’t have to take Soledad O’Brien’s word for who Derrick Bell was.

 According to Rasmussen, 59% of the American people believe Obama has more liberal views than they do, but 37% think that they are closer in their  views with Obama than with Republicans. That number should be no higher than 11%.

We still have work to do.


Thomas Lifson, The American Thinker: Stunning study on anti-white racism in America