Democrats Beat Democracy To Death

This weekend we will be bringing you a series of articles that may escape your notice otherwise, but that we feel are important enough that you should know about them.
In this article, one of our favorites, Michelle Malkin, asks whatever happened to the transparency the Obama administration promised us?

In 2006, the minority party in Congress issued a dire report on the “unprecedented erosion of the Democratic process.” Democrat Rep. Louise Slaughter, then the ranking member of the House Rules Committee, authored the scathing document. She blasted the majority Republicans’ violations of “procedural fairness,” short-circuiting of debate, and late-night meetings “to discourage Members and the press from participating” in legislative deliberations. My, how history repeats itself.

Fast-forward to 2009. The Imperial Congress has returned. The oppressed have become the oppressors. Democrats have met the enemies of deliberative democracy and it is them.

Three years ago, the Democrats complained of House Republicans rushing through conference reports “before Members could read them.” Sound vaguely familiar? They urged their colleagues in power to “spend more time on major, substantive legislation” instead of ramming things through. Déjà vu, anyone? The Slaughter report pleaded for more transparency and public access: “Regular order should be the rule, not the exception.” Instead of meeting late at night or early in the morning, the Dems called on the majority to operate “during regular ‘business’ hours so that Members and the press can attend and participate.”

Three years later, Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is jamming a 1,900-page health care takeover bill through Congress for a hasty Saturday vote while members of her own party revolt against strong-arm tactics. Upwards of 40 pro-life Democrats have objected to the plan’s government abortion subsidies. Majority leaders evaded sunlight by keeping a compromise amendment on the matter out of the version of the bill made available to the public. As of Thursday afternoon (less than two days before the scheduled vote), Pelosi had yet to decide whether to permit an abortion ban amendment to her health care bill.

Pelosi’s “most ethical,” open, and transparent House ever ordered Capitol police to block a GOP staffer from attending the public unveiling of the health care reform plan last week. A week before that, Democrat Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.) locked Republicans out of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee room to prevent them from meeting when Democrats weren’t present

Read the rest of this entry 

Gun Ownership As A Cost Of Health Care Reform

The National Institute Of Health (NIH) recently began studying the relationship between gun ownership and health issues.

At one time, this sort of research was done by the Centers For Disease Control (CDC) until Congress cut funding for the program, after it was found that the flawed research done by the CDC was shown to be biased against gun ownership.

Since it has been ten years since the CDC lost it’s funding for this program, why is there suddenly renewed interest in this type of research?

Some of us, (myself included) see this as yet another backdoor ploy by the “gun grabbers” in Congress and the Obama administration for yet another attack on the Second Amendment.

They will tout the implementation of stricter gun control laws as a means of reducing health care costs, due to the reduction in violent crime that would be the result of additional restrictions on firearms ownership.

They will attempt to make their case by presenting statistics showing that gun violence causes health care resources to be spent in ways that could be better utilized in other areas.

Of course, many of the American public will fall for this gibberish, not realizing that it is simply another ploy by the Obama administration to drum up support for an increasingly unpopular health care reform bill, while having the added bonus of being an assault on Second Amendment rights as well.

However, anyone who, rather than simply believe what they are told, would take the time to study the relationship between gun ownership and it’s resulting effect on health care costs would find quite a different answer than what they would assume to be the case.
Anyone holding the opinion that less gun ownership would result in less violent crime and therefore less of a strain on health care resources would learn that just the opposite is the case.

There is a direct correlation between an increase in firearms ownership and a decrease in violent crime.

Several countries that have enacted some of the strictest gun control laws in the world have seen their rates of violent crime increase.

Great Britain, after enacting laws banning the private ownership of handguns, saw their rates of violent crimes more than double.

Australia, after banning the private ownership of nearly all types of firearms, has seen their rates of violent crimes increasing by an average of nearly thirty percent per year.

Turning closer to home, the story is much the same here in the United States.

A study done by the Institute For Legislative Action, a division of the National Rifle Association shows that a 2008 study, using statistics from research done by the BATFE, the FBI and other agencies shows that increases in gun ownership lead to reductions in violent crime.

For those of you who feel that a report from the NRA is bound to be biased towards gun ownership, take a look at this synopsis of a study done by Harvard University explaing how, when it comes to restrictions on firearms ownership leading to less violent crime, and therfore reduced health care costs, the Harvard study comes to the conclusion that Gun Control Is Counterproductive.

Along with a link to the original Harvard University study, this report also mentions the overturning of the ban on firearms ownership in our nation’s capitol, Washington D.C., an area that, in spite of some of the strictest gun control laws in America, also had one of the highest rates of violent crime.

Yet everyone promoting health care reform will claim the fewer firearms will result in less violent crime, and thus treatment funds will be saved.

When all of the evidence is to the contrary.

Oh well, when has lying ever bothered anyone in the Obama administration?

To them, it comes as naturally as breathing.

  

What Is More Important? Universal Health Care Or The War In Afghanistan?

It was recently leaked to the Washington Post that General McChrystal requested more troops be deployed to Afghanistan by President Obama.

McChrystal asked for 40,000 additional soldiers, much like the troop surge that helped us regain the momentum in the war in Iraq during the Bush administration.

The General is so adamant about the need for more troops for the war in Afghanistan to be brought to a successful conclusion that if they are not forthcoming, he has threatened to resign.

In recent days, President Obama has stated that he has not taken this matter under consideration because he has not received a written request for additional troops from the McChrystal.

However, it turns out that statement is not factual.

In the first major “leak” to come from the Obama White House, Bob Woodward of the Washington Post just broke the story that not only has McChrystal made the request through the proper channels, it was made weeks ago!

For those of you who wish to see it, we have an unclassified report that you can read here.

This is going to be a major embarrassment for the Obama administration.

The question is, why not be forthcoming, rather than deny having seen such a document?

Some have speculated that President Obama has an ulterior motive.

When a troop surge was first proposed during the war in Iraq, the hue and cry could be heard all across the United States.

And some feel (we here at the Freedom Medium being among them) that this is the last thing President Obama wants right now.

Such a nationwide debate would take the focus off of the President’s top priority, the passage of a health care reform bill.

So by claiming that he has not received a request for additional troops, Obama would not have to deal with the public discussion, Congressional debate, etc. that would take away health care from being a front page issue.

It will be interesting to see just what sort of spin the White House attempts to put onto this story.

However, anyone with an ounce of common sense will know that there had to be a reason that the President would deny the existence of the request.

Perhaps there is a plausible reason for the President’s actions. (Or lack therof.)

Until such time (if ever) legitimate reasons are forthcoming for Obama’s denial, we will continue to speculate:

What has a higher priority on the President’s agenda?

Winning the war in Afghanistan,and ultimately the war against terrorism?

Or socialized medicine?