George A. Sprecace M.D., J.D., F.A.C.P. and Allergy Associates of New London, P.C.
Dr. Sprecace's Home Page...
Information categories at this site...
About Dr. Sprecace and this site...
Access related links...
Terms for usage of this site...

RAPID RESPONSE (Archives)...Daily Commentary on News of the Day
This is a new section.  It will offer fresh, quick reactions by myself to news and events of the day, day by day, in this rapid-fire world of ours.  Of course, as in military campaigns, a rapid response in one direction may occasionally have to be followed by a "strategic withdrawal" in another direction.  Charge that to "the fog of war", and to the necessary flexibility any mental or military campaign must maintain to be effective.  But the mission will always be the same: common sense, based upon facts and "real politick", supported by a visceral sense of Justice and a commitment to be pro-active.  That's all I promise.

Click here to return to the current Rapid Response list

SUNDAY through TUESDAY, July 29 through 31, 2012


ZENIT, The world seen from Rome

News Agency


Judge Grants Preliminary Injunction in Lawsuit Challenging HHS Mandate

Verdict Blocks Federal Government From Applying Law to Religious For-Profit Company

DENVER, Colorado, JULY 30, 2012 ( The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a non-profit law firm, announced last Friday that its lawsuits challenging the HHS mandate continue following their victory in another lawsuit, Newland v. Sebelius, brought on behalf of a for-profit company in Colorado, whose owners are religious.

Judge John L. Kane Jr., a senior federal district judge in Colorado granted a preliminary injunction on behalf of a religious for-profit company challenging the HHS mandate. Granting the preliminary injunction prevents the federal government from applying the HHS mandate against the company.

Judge Kane's ruling today in favor of a religious for-profit plaintiff challenging the coercive HHS mandate got the law right. Religious liberty rights don’t stop at the store-front door, said Hannah Smith, Senior Counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty. This decision portends the demise of the current Administration’s attempts to drive religious activity from the public square and confine it within the four walls of a church.

The Health and Human Services (HHS) federal mandate in question would require employers of religious institutions to be legally required to pay for insurance that provides abortion-inducing drugs, contraception, and sterilization procedures to employees.

The Newland family – who owns and operates a for-profit company, Hercules Industries, a private HVAC equipment manufacturer – sued to protect its right to administer its self-insured employee plan for its 265 full-time employees in a way that comports with the family’s religious faith.  Its employee health plan does not currently cover abortion-inducing drugs, sterilization, or contraceptives, but would have been forced to do so beginning August 1st but for today’s ruling.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty were the first to file lawsuits against the HHS mandate representing 5 clients: Belmont Abbey College, Colorado Christian University, Eternal Word Television Network (EWTN), Ave Maria University, and Wheaton College.  There are currently over 20 lawsuits pending around the country against the HHS mandate.

SATURDAY, July 28, 2012


With all of the above and much more going on around me, I am finding that my vocabulary is more and more including the words "Stupido" and "Bull-S@#$.


FRIDAY, July 27, 2012



America's Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct. Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate. He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular. So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical. And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.

Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith.

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:

3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:

Many of these actions are literally unprecedented – this is the first time they have happened in four centuries of American history. The hostility of President Obama toward Biblical faith and values is without equal from any previous American president.


1. Sarah Pulliam Baily, "Obama: ‘They cling to guns or religion’," Christianity Today, April 13, 2008. (Return)

2. Aliza Marcus, "Obama to Lift ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers," Bloomberg, February 27, 2009; Sarah Pulliam Baily, "Obama Admin. Changes Bush ‘Conscience’ Rule for Health Workers," Christianity Today, February 18, 2011. (Return)

3. Jim Lovino, "Jesus Missing From Obama’s Georgetown Speech," NBC Washington, April 17, 2009. (Return)

4. Johanna Neuman, “Obama end Bush-era National Prayer Day Service at White House," Los Angeles Times, May 7, 2009. (Return)

5. Chris McGreal, “Vatican vetoes Barack Obama’s nominees for U.S. Ambassador,”The Guardian, April 14, 2009. (Return)

6. Meredith Jessup, “Obama Continues to Omit ‘Creator’ From Declaration of Independence,” The Blaze, October 19, 2010. (Return)

7. "Remarks by the President at the University of Indonesia in Jakarta, Indonesia,"The White House, November 10, 2010. (Return)

8. LadyImpactOhio, " Feds sued by Veterans to allow stolen Mojave Desert Cross to be rebuilt," Red State, January 14, 2011. (Return)

9. Marrianne Medlin, “Amid criticism, President Obama moves to fill vacant religious ambassador post,” Catholic News Agency, February 9, 2011; Thomas F. Farr, “Undefender of the Faith,” Foreign Policy, April 5, 2012. (Return)

10. Chris Johnson, “ENDA passage effort renewed with Senate introduction,”Washington Blade, April 15, 2011. (Return)

11. Chuck Donovan, “HHS’s New Health Guidelines Trample on Conscience,” Heritage Foundation, August 2, 2011. (Return)

12. Todd Starns, “Obama Administration Opposes FDR Prayer at WWII Memorial,”Fox News, November 4, 2011. (Return)

13. Joel Siegel, “Obama Omits God From Thanksgiving Speech, Riles Critics,” ABC News, November 25, 2011. (Return)

14. Hillary Rodham Clinton, “Remarks in Recognition of International Human Rights Day,” U.S. Department of State, December 6, 2011. (Return)

15. Ted Olson, “Church Wins Firing Case at Supreme Court,” Christianity Today, January 11, 2012. (Return)

16. Audrey Hudson, “Obama administration religious service for student loan forgiveness,” Human Events, February 15, 2012. (Return)

17. “Houston Veterans Claim Censorship of Prayers, Including Ban of ‘God’ and ‘Jesus’,” Fox News, June 29, 2011. (Return)

18. Jason Ukman, “Air Force suspends ethics course that used Bible passages that train missle launch officers,” Washington Post, August 2, 2011. (Return)

19. "Maintaining Government Neutrality Regarding Religion," Department of the Air Force, September 1, 2011. (Return)

20. "Wounded, Ill, and Injured Partners in Care Guidelines," Department of the Navy(accessed on February 29, 2012). (Return)

21. "Air Force Academy Backs Away from Christmas Charity," Fox News Radio, November 4, 2011. (Return)

22. Jenny Dean, "Air Force Academy adapts to pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans,"Los Angeles Times, November 26, 2011. (Return)

23. Ken Blackwell, "Gen. Boykin Blocked At West Point,", February 1, 2012. (Return)

24. Geoff Herbert, " Air Force unit removes 'God' from logo; lawmakers warn of 'dangerous precedent',", February 9, 2012. (Return)

25. Todd Starnes, "Army Silences Catholic Chaplains," Fox News Radio, February 6, 2012. (Return)

26. Markeshia Ricks, "Bible checklist for Air Force lodges going away," Air Force Times, April 16, 2012. (Return)

27. Patrick Goodenough, "White House 'Strongly Objects' to Legislation Protecting Military Chaplains from Doing Same-Sex Weddings or Being Forced to Act Against Conscience,", May 16, 2012. (Return)

28. "U.S. military insignia no longer allowed on Bibles," One News Now, June 14, 2012. (Return)

29. Jeff Mason and Deborah Charles, "Obama lifts restrictions on abortion funding,"Reuters, January 23, 2009. (Return)

30. "Obama pick: Taxpayers must fund abortions," World Net Daily, January 27, 2009. (Return)

31. Steven Ertelt, "Pro-Life Groups Left Off Obama’s Health Care Summit List, Abortion Advocates OK," LifeNews, March 5, 2009. (Return)

32. " Obama Signs Order Lifting Restrictions on Stem Cell Research Funding," Fox News, March 9, 2009. (Return)

33. Steven Ertelt, “ Obama Administration Announces $50 Million for Pro-Forced Abortion UNFPA,” LifeNews, March 26, 2009; Steven Ertelt, "President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation," LifeNews, February 11, 2012.(Return)

34. Steven Ertelt, "Barack Obama’s Federal Budget Eliminates Funding for Abstinence-Only Education," LifeNews, May 8, 2009. (Return)

35. Steven Ertelt, "Obama Budget Funds Sex Ed Over Abstinence on 16-1 Margin,"LifeNews, February 14, 2011. (Return)

36. Steven Ertelt, "Obama Admin Terrorism Dictionary Calls Pro-Life Advocates Violent, Racist," LifeNews, May 5, 2009. (Return)

37. "Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies," The White House, June 17, 2009. (Return)

38. Matt Cover, "Obama’s EEOC Nominee: Society Should ‘Not Tolerate Private Beliefs’ That ‘Adversely Affect’ Homosexuals,", January 18, 2010.(Return)

39. Tess Civantos, "White House Spent $23M of Taxpayer Money to Back Kenyan Constitution That Legalizes Abortion, GOP Reps Say," Fox News, July 22, 2010.(Return)

40. Steven Ertelt, "Obama, Congress Cut Funding for 176 Abstinence Programs Despite New Study," LifeNews, August 26, 2010. (Return)

41. Steven Ertelt, "President Barack Obama’s Pro-Abortion Record: A Pro-Life Compilation," LifeNews, February 11, 2012. (Return)

42. Brian Montopoli, "Obama administration will no longer defend DOMA," CBSNews, February 23, 2011. (Return)

43. Steven Ertelt, "Obama Admin Ignores Planned Parenthood Sex Trafficking Videos," LifeNews, March 2, 2011. (Return)

44. Elisabeth Bumiller, "Obama Ends ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ Policy," New York Times, July 22, 2011; George Washington, The Writings of George Washington, John C. Fitzpatrick, editor (Washington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1934), Vol. XI, pp. 83-84, from General Orders at Valley Forge on March 14, 1778. (Return)

45. Luis Martinez, "Will Same Sex Marriages Pose a Dilemma for Military Chaplains?,"ABC News, October 12, 2011. (Return)

46. Jerry Markon, "Health, abortion issues split Obama administration and Catholic groups," Washington Post, October 31, 2011. (Return)

47. Barack Obama, “ Remarks by the President at Iftar Dinner,” The White House, September 1, 2009; Kristi Keck, “ Obama tones down National Day of Prayer observance,” CNN, May 6, 2009; Dan Gilgoff, “ The White House on National Day of Prayer: A Proclamation, but No Formal Ceremony,” U.S. News, May 1, 2009.(Return)

48. "Franklin Graham Regrets Army's Decision to Rescind Invite to Pentagon Prayer Service," Fox News, April 22, 2010. (Return)

49. “Obama Bans Islam, Jihad From National Security Strategy Document,” Fox News, April 7, 2010; "Counterterror Adviser Defends Jihad as 'Legitimate Tenet of Islam'," Fox News, May 27, 2010; "'Islamic Radicalism' Nixed From Obama Document," CBSNews, April 7, 2010. (Return)

50. Chuck Norris, “ President Obama: Muslim Missionary? (Part 2),”, August 24, 2010; Chuck Norris, "President Obama: Muslim Missionary?,", August 17, 2010.(Return)

51. Barack Obama, “Remarks by the President at Iftar Dinner,” The White House, August 13, 2010; "Obama Comes Out in Favor of Allowing Mosque Near Ground Zero," Fox News, August 13, 2010; Pamela Geller, "Islamic Supremacism Trumps Christianity at Ground Zero," American Thinker, July 21, 2011. (Return)

52. "WH Fails to Release Easter Proclamation," Fox Nation, April 25, 2011; "President Obama ignores most holy Christian holiday; AFA calls act intentional," American Family Association (accessed on February 29, 2012).(Return)

53. "Report: Obama’s Muslim Advisers Block Middle Eastern Christians’ Access to the White House," Big Peace (accessed on February 29, 2012). (Return)

54. Masoud Popalzai and Nick Paton Walsh, “ Obama apologizes to Afghanistan for Quran burning,” CNN, February 23, 2012; "USA/Afghanistan-Islamophobia: Pentagon official apologizes for Quran burning," International Islamic News Agency (accessed on February 29, 2012). (Return)

55. "Military burns unsolicited Bibles sent to Afghanistan," CNN, May 22, 2009.(Return)

- Source Unknown

THURSDAY, July 26, 2012



Close encounters of the worst kind: Why the country doesn’t need a nail-biter election in 2012
Yahoo! News – Tue, Jul 24, 2012.

Judging by the rhetoric coming from the campaigns, this election pits a party that will dismantle the social safety net and put the rights of women, gays and African Americans on the endangered species list against a party that will drag the nation ever closer toward a socialist-inspired spending and regulation binge that will cripple the free enterprise system. Is there anything--anything--that partisans of every stripe can enthusiastically root for?

Yes, all of us should be rooting for a decisive election outcome. Why? Because a close or contested election would deal a body blow to the nation’s political health. Right now, every poll, and just about every pol, says the same thing: that this is going to be very close. This isn’t written in stone, of course: We’ve seen close races become blowouts in the final days (think Reagan-Carter in 1980). If the political wisdom is correct, however, we can expect razor-thin margins in half-a-dozen states or more, any one of which could determine the election. Right now, polls report spreads of three points or less Florida, Virginia, Iowa, North Carolina, Colorado and Missouri. Others hint at tightening races in Wisconsin, Minnesota and possibly Arizona.

If November brings us a raft of states that are, as Dan Rather might put it, tighter than granny’s corset on an August Sunday in Del Rio, it would hardly be unprecedented. In fact, we’ve had a remarkable number of such races.

• When Truman upset Dewey 1948, he won three big states--Illinois, Ohio and California--with margins of less than one percent.

• John Kennedy’s 1960 win--with a national spread of about one tenth of one per cent of the popular vote--featured not just the still-controversial 8,800 vote win in Illinois, but very close victories in New Jersey, Delaware, Missouri, Minnesota, New Mexico and Nevada.

• In 1976, a switch of 6,000 votes in Ohio and 7,500 in Mississippi would have kept the White House in Jerry Ford’s hands.

• In 2000--a race decided by Florida’s 537-vote margin (out of 6 million cast)--it’s often forgotten that George W. Bush won New Hampshire by 7,000 votes, while Gore won both Wisconsin and New Mexico by a fraction of one percent.

So why does the prospect of another very close election--that is, a series of very close statewide elections--chill the marrow?

To put it mildly, this is not your father’s political climate. Back in 1960, there were voices determined to charge that the Democrats will stealing the election (reporter Earl Mazo of the New York Herald-Tribune was particularly dogged). But Richard Nixon himself echoed the dominant mood of the times, arguing--at least publicly--that the country had to unite behind the apparent winner.

Half a century later, our political culture has become far more litigious. Republicans have embraced voter fraud as a cause celebre; Democrats are convinced that voter suppression is the real goal of tougher voter ID laws. More broadly, the whole idea of good-faith disagreement among political combatants has pretty much gone the way of the mimeograph machine. A close election would deny the winner the mandate he will need to have any chance of enacting meaningful reform.

There’s another reason to fear an election clouded by uncertainty. Back in 2000, the Bush-Gore runoff took place in a time of unprecedented, seemingly permanent peace and prosperity. The Cold War was over, al-Qaida was a concern to a tiny handful of officials, unemployment and inflation were both negligible, real incomes for average Americans were rising and the big debate was what were we going to do with those trillions of dollars in surpluses. As one writer put it, “America was a hotbed of rest.” There seemed so little at stake that a catchphrase of the day labeled it “the Seinfeld Election--a contest about nothing.”

Now we live in a country mired in economic woes, still in the grip of the longest, darkest environment since the Depression and increasingly divided over which party--if either--offers a credible path out. An election that ends with recounts, court fights and state legislatures threatening to take control of its electoral votes will take place in a country where divisions, suspicions and passions are utterly unlike the atmosphere a dozen years ago.

Four years ago, Barack Obama won the presidency with a clear, convincing margin, winning 22 states and 264 electoral votes by margins of nine points or more. Only the fire-breathers and the birthers could argue that he had not won the election fair and square. This time around, with the victor facing painful decisions, fiscal cliffs and continued gridlock, it would be a genuine gift to our battered political process if the citizenry could grant that same gift of unquestionable legitimacy to the next president. He’s going to need it.

WEDNESDAY, July 25, 2012

As I have already noted, the candidates' and media commentaries during this critical election season leave less fresh meat for me to offer.  And you all recognize my preference for much (but not all) of the reportage in the Wall Street Journal over that of the New York Times.  But a few articles are worth underlining.


TUESDAY, July 24, 2012



Israeli Psychologist on Obama

Dr. Sam Vaknin is an Israeli psychologist. Interesting view on our president.

Dr. Vaknin has written extensively about narcissism.

Dr. Vaknin States "I must confess I was impressed by Obama from the first time I saw him. At first I was excited to see a black candidate. He looked youthful, spoke well, appeared to be confident -- a wholesome presidential package. I was put off soon, not just because of his shallowness but also because there was an air of haughtiness in his demeanor that was unsettling.. His posture and his body language were louder than his empty words. Obama's speeches are unlike any political speech we have heard in American history. Never a politician in this land had such quasi "religious" impact on so many people.

The fact that Obama is a total incognito with Zero accomplishment, makes this inexplicable infatuation alarming. Obama is not an ordinary man. He is not a genius. In fact he is quite ignorant on most important subjects."

Dr. Sam Vaknin, the author of the Malignant Self Love believes "Barack Obama appears to be a narcissist." Vaknin is a world authority on narcissism. He understands narcissism and describes the inner mind of a narcissist like no other person. When he talks about narcissism everyone listens. Vaknin says that Obama's language, posture and demeanor, and the testimonies of his closest, dearest friends suggest that the man is either a narcissist or he may have narcissistic personality disorder (NPD).

Narcissists project a grandiose but false image of themselves. Jim Jones, the charismatic leader of People's Temple, the man who led over 900 of his followers to cheerfully commit mass suicide and even murder their own children was also a narcissist. David Koresh, Charles Manson, Joseph Koni, Shoko Asahara, Stalin, Saddam, Mao, Kim Jong Ill and Adolph Hitler are a few examples of narcissists of our time. All these men had a tremendous influence over their fanciers. They created a personality cult around themselves and with their blazing speeches elevated their admirers, filled their hearts with enthusiasm and instilled in their minds a new zest for life. They gave them hope! They promised them the moon, but alas, invariably they brought them to their doom.

When you are a victim of a cult of personality, you don't know it until it is too late. One determining factor in the development of NPD is childhood abuse "Obama's early life was decidedly chaotic and replete with traumatic and mentally bruising dislocations,"says Vaknin. "Mixed-race marriages were even less common then. His parents went through a divorce when he was an infant two years old. Obama saw his father only once again, before he died in a car accident. Then his mother re-married and Obama had to relocate to Indonesia , a foreign land with a radically foreign culture, to be raised by a step-father. At the age of ten, he was whisked off to live with his maternal (white) grandparents. He saw his mother only intermittently in the following few years and then she vanished from his life in 1979. "She died of cancer in 1995."

One must never underestimate the manipulative genius of pathological narcissists. They project such an imposing personality that it overwhelms those around them. Charmed by the charisma of the narcissist, people become like clay in his hands. They cheerfully do his bidding and delight to be at his service. The narcissist shapes the world around himself and reduces others in his own inverted image. He creates a cult of personality. His admirers become his co-dependents. Narcissists have no interest in things that do not help them to reach their personal objective. They are focused on one thing alone and that is power. All other issues are meaningless to them and they do not want to waste their precious time on trivialities. Anything that does not help them is beneath them and does not deserve their attention.

If an issue raised in the Senate does not help Obama in one way or another, he has no interest in it. The "present" vote is a safe vote.. No one can criticize him if things go wrong. Those issues are unworthy by their very nature because they are not about him.

Obama's election as the first black president of the Harvard Law Review led to a contract and advance to write a book about race relations. The University of Chicago Law School provided him a lot longer than expected and at the end it evolved into, guess what? His own autobiography! Instead of writing a scholarly paper focusing on race relations, for which he had been paid, Obama could not resist writing about his most sublime self. He entitled the book Dreams from My Father.

Not surprisingly, Adolph Hitler also wrote his own autobiography when he was still a nobody. So did Stalin. For a narcissist no subject is as important as his own self. Why would he waste his precious time and genius writing about insignificant things when he can write about such an august being as himself?

Narcissists are often callous and even ruthless. As the norm, they lack conscience. This is evident from Obama's lack of interest in his own brother who lives on only one dollar per month.. A man who lives in luxury, who takes a private jet to vacation in Hawaii, and who raised nearly half a billion dollars for his campaign (something unprecedented in history) has no interest in the plight of his own brother. Why? Because, his brother cannot be used for his ascent to power. A narcissist cares for no one but himself.

This election was like no other in the history of America . The issues were insignificant compared to what is at stake. What can be more dangerous than having a man bereft of conscience, a serial liar, and one who cannot distinguish his fantasies from reality as the leader of the free world?

I hate to sound alarmist, but one is a fool if one is not alarmed. Many politicians are narcissists. They pose no threat to others. They are simply self serving and selfish. Obama evidences symptoms of pathological narcissism, which is different from the run-of-the-mill narcissism of a Richard Nixon or a Bill Clinton for example. To him reality and fantasy are intertwined.

This is a mental health issue, not just a character flaw.
Pathological narcissists are dangerous because they look normal and even intelligent. It is this disguise that makes them treacherous. Today the Democrats have placed all their hopes in Obama. But this man could put an end to their party. The great majority of blacks voted for Obama. Only a fool does not know that their support for him is racially driven. This is racism, pure and simple.

The downside of this is that if Obama turns out to be the disaster I predict, he will cause widespread resentment among the whites. The blacks are unlikely to give up their support of their man. Cultic mentality is pernicious and unrelenting. They will dig their heads deeper in the sand and blame Obama's detractors of racism. This will cause a backlash among the whites.. The white supremacists will take advantage of the discontent and they will receive widespread support. I predict that in less than four years, racial tensions will increase to levels never seen since the turbulent 1960's.

Obama will set the clock back decades. America is the bastion of freedom. The peace of the world depends on the strength of America , and its weakness translates into the triumph of terrorism and victory of rogue nations.. It is no wonder that Ahmadinejad, Hugo Chavez, the Castrists, the Hezbollah, the Hamas, the lawyers of the Guantanamo terrorists, and virtually all sworn enemies of America are so thrilled by the prospect of their man in the White House.

America is on the verge of destruction. There is no insanity greater than electing a pathological narcissist as president.

MONDAY, July 23, 2012

Now that the dust has settled, I’ve come to realize after analyzing the whole situation that my opposition to Obamacare/ObamaTax is multi-faceted: it will break the country, it is not affordable, it limits rather than increases access to quality health care, it contains 20+ built in tax increases to pay for a system that doesn’t work, etc., etc. I could go on and on, ad nauseum- after all the actual Obamacare/ObamaTax contains thousands of pages in content. However, as a 56 year old, soon to be Senior, the very idea of removing at least $500 Billion from the Medicare coffers is particularly disturbing

The latest Obamacare/ObamaTax lie perpetuated by the Democratic Party liberal machinery as a “talking point” is that Obamacare is essentially the same as the Massachusetts plan passed under a Romney gubernatorial term. Quite frankly, this is textbook Obama machine, Chicagoan politics and is an outright and complete LIE!

Here are the Top Ten, major differences between Obamacare/ObamaTax and the Massachusetts plan- and they are major! (note: I choose to use the term the Massachusetts  plan rather than “Romneycare” because, as you will see below, Obamacare/ObamaTax was a full-blown, calculated, totally, 100% partisan bill completely drafted and passed by what was at the time a super-majority in the Senate and the House while the Massachusetts plan was a non-partisan product of long-standing and deliberated negotiations by and between the Massachusetts House and Senate and Governor Romney, a Republican Governor actually working with a Democratic majority in the capital): 

1.      No New Taxes were required to implement the Massachusetts plan. 
Obamacare/ObamaTax requires $1 Trillion in tax increases (only a small percentage due to the mandate), almost 75% of which is to be borne by middle income Americans making less than $120,000. There are a total of 20+ taxes associated with the Obamacare/ObamaTax legislation. Mandatory taxes to pay for this gargantuan ineffectual system. There are so many tax ramifications that the IRS who will be enforcing these taxes is hiring a minimum of 16,000….that’s right 16,000 new enforcement agents to make sure you pay your share of these 20+ new taxes.

2.     Massachusetts used Medicare and Medicaid funds to provide insurance for those unable to buy insurance.  Not only does the Federal government have no one to provide those extra funds besides the taxpayer, Obamacare/ObamaTax calls for actually cutting $500 billion from Medicare, most of which will be done by gutting Medicare supplemental insurance for those who have no other place to turn.

3.     The Massachusetts plan actually saved money during the term of Governor Romney. 
Not until changes to the plan were made under Governor Duval Patrick (an Obama supporter, and one Obama’s “idols”) did it cost the state money.  Obamacare/ObamaTax was scored at losing money beginning the first week after it passed.  It’s been revised upward three times, without any changes, from a $900 billion loss, to a $1.2 trillion loss, to a $2.7 trillion loss by the Congressional Budget Office.

4.     The Massachusetts plan did not require religious organizations to violate the tenets of their beliefs. 
In fact, the Boston Archdiocese is part of the lawsuit against Obamacare/ObamaTax for violating their religious freedoms.

5.     Massachusetts expanded only one department to facilitate their health care plan. 
Obamacare/ObamaTax creates 159 NEW government agencies at a cost exceeding $1.7 trillion.

6.     There are very few exemptions to the Massachusetts plans—mainly conscience objections. 
The Obama administration has given thousands of exemptions, almost entirely to Union and other supporters of his re-election campaign.  If it’s so good, why do they need exemptions?

7.      States are allowed under the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to implement mandatory healthcare.  The Supreme Court found that Obamacare/ObamaTax could NOT be implemented under Article 7 of the Constitution, but only as a right under Congress’ inherent TAXING AUTHORITY.  Taxes must be raised to implement the mandate.

8.     Mitt Romney proposed the Massachusetts plan.  He sent it to a Democratic House and Senate, where they made changes, and he worked with them to decide which changes would be acceptable before he would sign it.  Obama proposed Obamacare/ObamaTax, sent it to a Democratic Congress, who refused ALL changes requested by the opposition.  In order to get it passed, a tax bill was COMPLETELY gutted, and the entire Obamacare/ObamaTax bill was substituted in its place in order to pass the bill that otherwise could not have passed.  In fact, Mitt Romney has promised to help overturn Obamacare/ObamaTax as one of his first acts as President because of its cost, intrusiveness, and detrimental effects on the country.

9.     The Massachusetts bill took effect in one fell swoop and the people knew what they were getting immediately. 
Obamacare only implemented those parts which would have been acceptable to all parties, were popular with the people, and held off on the onerous parts of the bill until after the election (sound like all his plans—don’t do anything that would hurt his re-election chances). I am convinced that not a single Senator or Congressman read the entire Obamacare/ObamaTax law before it was passed. And, I am certain that no citizen read it because it was unavailable to the public almost entirely until just a very few hours before its passage by the Democrats. NO transparency as promised as a key component of his administration by Obama. No posting of it (much less “all bills voted on in Congress”) on C-span within a reasonable period of time as promised by Obama. All leading to the now infamous statement by Nancy Pelosi quite fantastically that “we must pass the bill to find out what is in the bill.” Sheer madness!! 

10. In fact, the only similarity is that both the Massachusetts law and Obamacare/ObamaTax call for everyone to have healthcare.  Obamacare/ObamaTax does not even provide the same levels of service as Massachusetts’ plans for the estimate $2.7 TRILLION in deficits it will incur. Obamacare/ObamaTax calls for a European style panel to decide if treatment should be provided as “cost effective,” as the British and Canadian plans do.  Both of these plans have recently announced they will no longer provide any treatment for 11 forms of cancer after age 65, including prostate and breast cancer, because it isn’t cost effective—but they aren’t death panels, right

NOTE: most of the substantive content for this piece was provided by my good friend and patriot, Donivan Earhart.

- Source Unknown

MONDAY through SUNDAY, July 16 through 22, 2012

Thomas Jefferson

This is amazing. There are two parts. Be sure to read the 2nd part (in RED).

Thomas Jefferson was a very remarkable man who started learning very early in life and never stopped.

At 5, began studying under his cousin's tutor.

At 9, studied Latin, Greek and French.

At 14, studied classical literature and additional languages.

At 16, entered the College of William and Mary.

At 19, studied Law for 5 years starting under George Wythe.

At 23, started his own law practice.

At 25, was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses.

At 31, wrote the widely circulated "Summary View of the Rights of British America ” and retired from his law practice.

At 32, was a Delegate to the Second Continental Congress.

At 33, wrote the Declaration of Independence .

At 33, took three years to revise Virginia ’s legal code and wrote a Public Education bill and a statute for Religious Freedom.

At 36, was elected the second Governor of Virginia succeeding Patrick Henry.

At 40, served in Congress for two years.

At 41, was the American minister to France and negotiated commercial treaties with European nations along with Ben Franklin and John Adams.

At 46, served as the first Secretary of State under George Washington.

At 53, served as Vice President and was elected president of the American Philosophical Society.

At 55, drafted the Kentucky Resolutions and became the active head of Republican Party (originally known as the Democratic-Republican Party).

At 57, was elected the third president of the United States .

At 60, obtained the Louisiana Purchase doubling the nation's size.

At 61, was elected to a second term as President.

At 65, retired to Monticello .

At 80, helped President Monroe shape the Monroe Doctrine.

At 81, almost single-handedly created the University of Virginia and served as its first president.

At 83, died on the 50th anniversary of the Signing of the Declaration of Independence along with John Adams


Thomas Jefferson knew because he himself studied the previous failed attempts at government. He understood actual history, the nature of God, his laws and the nature of man. That happens to be way more than what most understand today. Jefferson really knew his stuff. A voice from the past to lead us in the future:

John F. Kennedy held a dinner in the white House for a group of the brightest minds in the nation at that time. He made this statement: "This is perhaps the assembly of the most intelligence ever to gather at one time in the White House with the exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone."


"When we get piled upon one another in large cities, as in Europe, we shall become as corrupt as Europe ." -- Thomas Jefferson



"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Thomas Jefferson


"It is incumbent on every generation to pay its own debts as it goes. A principle which if acted on would save one-half the wars of the world."

Thomas Jefferson


"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson


"My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." 

Thomas Jefferson


"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." 

Thomas Jefferson


"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Thomas Jefferson


"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." 

Thomas Jefferson


"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."

Thomas Jefferson


Thomas Jefferson said in 1802:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.

If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property - until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

SATURDAY and SUNDAY, July 14 and 15, 2012



Article published Jul 15, 2012
Damning report on Paterno, Penn State

Last week's scathing report that found Penn State head football coach Joe Paterno and other top university officials covered up child sex abuse allegations against Jerry Sandusky more than a decade ago exposes shockingly abominable behavior nearly as morally bankrupt as the original criminal violations.

"Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State," said former FBI Director Louis Freeh, who was hired by university trustees to investigate the scandal. "The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized."

Likewise disturbing had been how quickly supporters of the disgraced and now deceased Mr. Paterno angrily denounced those critical of the former coach, provoking a near riot on campus. Ordinarily, loyalty is an admirable quality - when the cause is honorable.

In Mr. Paterno's case, according to the 267-page report, his disregard for victims was "callous and shocking" in that it allowed Mr. Sandusky, a former assistant coach awaiting sentencing after having been convicted of 45 criminal counts for abusing 10 boys, to continue molesting his young victims.

Mr. Freeh's report underscores the worst aspect of sports, which our culture for far too long has regarded less as a pastime and more as a religion. We worship coaches like messiahs and players like saints and demigods - not just at Penn State, but on campuses and in living rooms across the country.

Such blind faith continuously encourages fans to overlook sin in virtually every discipline at virtually every level.

The illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs has contaminated professional baseball, football, bicycle racing, and track and field, to name a few sports; fans cheer when professional basketball players punch out their rivals; football players have been paid bounties to injure foes; hockey players routinely clobber opponents in ways that would result in assault charges on the street; tennis stars scream at or smash balls toward line judges.

Police have had to break up fights among soccer moms and dads, and to arrest parents for throwing objects and even pointing lasers into the eyes of opposing players.

College coaches, who are typically paid more than any 10 tenured professors and wield more power on campus than the president, have deliberately tripped opposing players running down the sidelines, encouraged players to cheat on exams and have angrily fought penalties that would keep an academically challenged team from playing in post-season tournaments.

And yet kids continue to line up for autographs, sponsors continue to pay professional athletes for commercial endorsements and fans continue to fill stadiums.

To be sure, most players and coaches throughout the land are honorable and embrace the value of hard but fairly fought competition.

And it's certainly possible to behave admirably while still sharing the sentiments of legendary coach Vince Lombardi: "Winning isn't everything. It's the only thing."

But when scandal destroys the legacy of one of the nation's most celebrated coaches, all those affiliated with the university and its football program - built on the motto "success with honor" - must examine where they failed.

They also must make real and symbolic changes - removing the campus statue of Mr. Paterno, for instance, would be a good place to start.

More challenging will be to de-deify football on campus - to acknowledge that it's an important part of the university, but not the most important. Beaver Stadium, the home of Penn State's Nittany Lions, is not hallowed ground - it is a place to play football.

Students, faculty, staff, administrators and alumni must recognize that the sport is a false idol unworthy of misplaced faith.

These attitude shifts will help lead to redemption.

FRIDAY through FRIDAY, July 6 through 13, 2012

Krauthammer--Obamacare - Brilliant

June 28, 2012
To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.


I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.

First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.


The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today.


Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper “ clause and the federal government’s role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision, even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.


Next let’s look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened; they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper,” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better, both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.


Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone, even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.


Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no "severability clause," so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.


So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion, and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.


That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today -- not to mention U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day.

THURSDAY, July 5, 2012



ZENIT, The world seen from Rome
News Agency

US Bishops Note Fundamental Flaws With Health Care Law

Urge Government to Repair Affordable Care Act After Supreme Court Upholds Legislation

WASHINGTON, D.C., JUlY 3, 2012 ( The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops urged Congress and the Obama administration to repair flaws to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) after the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued a decision upholding the law. 

Signed into law in 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requires individuals not covered by employer or government-sponsored insurance plans to maintain minimal essential health insurance coverage or pay a penalty unless exempted for religious beliefs or financial hardship, a provision commonly referred to as the individual mandate. Certain provisions and mandates within the health care law have been a point of contention since its passing. 

In a press release posted after the Supreme Court decision, the USCCB stated that for nearly a century they have been and continue to be consistent advocates for comprehensive health care reform to ensure access to life-affirming health care for all, especially the poorest and the most vulnerable.

Although the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops did not participate in these cases and took no position on the specific questions presented to the Court, USCCB's position on health care reform generally and on ACA particularly is a matter of public record.

The bishops ultimately opposed final passage of the Affordable Care Act for several reasons.

ACA allows use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions and for plans that cover such abortions. The USCCB noted that such a move contradicts longstanding federal policy. The risk we identified in this area has already materialized, particularly in the initial approval by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) of 'high risk' insurance pools that would have covered abortion, the USCCB stated.

The U.S. bishops also found fault with the ACA’s lack of conscience protection, both within and beyond the abortion context. The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate within the ACA would force religious institutions and other employers to cover sterilization, contraception, and abortifacient drugs. Several rallies have been held nationwide opposing the HHS mandate. 

The USCCB statement also noted that the Affordable Care Act fails to treat immigrant workers and their families in a fair manner, saying that it leaves them worse off by not allowing them to purchase health coverage in the new exchanges created under the law, even if they use their own money.

This undermines the Act's stated goal of promoting access to basic life-affirming health care for everyone, especially for those most in need, the statement read. 

Concluding their statement, the USCCB stated that the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision does not diminish the moral imperative of health care for all. The bishops also stated that it does not eliminate the need to correct the flaws outlined in their statement. 

We therefore continue to urge Congress to pass, and the Administration to sign, legislation to fix those flaws, the U.S. bishops urged.

SUNDAY, July 1 through WEDNESDAY July 4, 2012



Return to:

Copyright Notice (c) Copyright 1999-2022, Allergy Associates of New London, PC