I too have noticed this trend, but I do truly believe it is not just “sick” but demonically inspired. How else could such disparate characters and movements over the last century or so, bring about such “change” in America, and globally. Seriously.

Jon, it seems that we agree that this bill creates a loss of health freedom and that is places the government between patients and their doctors. However, having read the article you linked to, I was surprised to learn that a Democrat had led the charge to prohibit the use of public funding and government subsidies for abortions.

Since abortion is such a controversial, polarizing issue , it doesn’t make sense that someone paying taxes who may be firmly opposed to abortion would in essence be forced to help fund someone else’s abortion. I think the Congress actually got this part right, surprisingly.

But I don’t think its the Congress’s place to redistribute taxpayer money into healthcare schemes. Healthcare is not an inalienable right, and it does not fall under their jurisdiction. Not to mention the fact that the nation is broke and the dollar is falling rapidly.

People are concerned about the dominant role that insurance companies have in influencing healthcare costs, as they should be. But what happens to the insurance companies’ influence once the government essentially merges with the current medical industrial complex, insurance companies and all?

Are we really to believe that the government will be a loving, benevolent overseer that is always looking out for the patient’s best interest? Has the government been doing that previously? Who have the insurance companies and big pharma been lobbying for years to obtain the dominant position that they currently have? Congress. Who took their money and gave them what they wanted? Congress.

A more likely conclusion is that this merger will just mean that there is one less step insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, etc. will have to take to push their agenda. They will become the government.

No, Desirée Rogers doesn’t show up on the official list with a title as being a specific “First Lady” staffer. And yet she’s goes on a fashion mission for her. Strange, maybe the number of staffers really shouldn’t be considered 16 and is really 17, or 18, or 19 or 26. But who CARES! We’re spending hundreds of thousands for presidential fashion advice. I’m sure the people living in our nation’s tent cities will understand how important it is. Its called hubris, and its a bad sign for any nation in decline.

Michelle Obama’s ‘eyes’ in fashion’s front row at New York Fashion Week

NPR: Weekly White House Cocktail Parties

Obama kicks up White House entertaining

The blog post compares the first lady to a queen, and with her continued involvement in extravagant fashion shows,

I know of no evidence of that. I think that is a canard.

. . . constantly appearing with lavish jewelry, ridiculously expensive dresses,

Good heavens! Surely you would not make such charges without examples, would you? And yet, I can find no such examples in the news pages. Whatever are you talking about ?

. . .huge weekly parties,

I think it’s inappropriate to call her working with elementary school classes “huge weekly parties.” Inappropriate to the point of real animus.

. . . appearing in magazines like Glamour . . .

How is that inappropriate?

. . . and then having a million dollar staff, the comparison is appropriate.

Which of the staffers is not performing duties that justify the salary?

I think someone has misled you about what is going on, what the First Lady does, and what the duties of her staff are. The source you originally cited is grossly in error, and I do not find any substantive, honest support for any of the other charges.