The Death Of Mr. Lazarescu: A Movie About Socialized Heatthcare That Should Be Seen By Every American

This is the trailer of a movie that harvested a bunch of film festival awards including Palm D'or but it will never be presented on the big screen in America - it would be impossible because of the people who run Hollywood are slobbering over Obama and would consider this movie "dangerous". Hovever, I hope someone at FOX hears about it and they will pay the rights to have it broadcasted as a Sunday 2 part special.



The movie is called "The Death Of Mr. Lazarescu" and it's a (very) dark Romanian comedy about an old man with a drinking problem and his tribulations in the state run medical system.
After literally an entire night of being sent by ambulance from one hospital to another (I believe 6 hospitals in total) where doctors and medical personnel are overworked, underpaid and completely disinterested in the medical act, Mr. Lazarescu finally dies on a stretcher, victim of a state-run medical system that is as compassionate and caring as the DMV. This film is a cautionary tale against the ills of socialized medicine: people die and nobody cares. What defines this movie is its incredible realism and if seen by enough Americans would cause Obamacare to fail miserably.


Here is the link if you want to buy the DVD at Amazon. It is subtitled in English.
You can rent the DVD from Blockbuster or Netflix

Repo Man Is Coming For The Obamobile

Link: Artist's Obama painted car to get repossessed in Tampa, Fla.

Quote:

Jennifer Stone-Anderson says her 2004 Saturn Ion became a work of art this fall when she covered it with elaborate paintings supporting Barack Obama. But Chrysler, which financed her car purchase, maintains that it's just a car. And that Stone-Anderson has been missing payments. And that her work of "art" is about to be repossessed.

But...but...but...Obama said he's gonna make the car payments and give her free gasoline!
Man oh man... this is what I call "poetic justice"

Dilbert Today

Close Gitmo, See This Repeated Hundreds Of Times

In Obamaworld hard-core jihadi terrorists hell bent on murdering dirty kuffars in exchange for the 72 houris promised by Allah in heaven can be reformed if we close Gitmo and give them the same treatment Paris Hilton received in her short go-to-jail adventure.

In the real world where the rest of us live in, it is rarely the case. Here is another freed Islamonazi who as a result of the pressure exerted by the liberal media and the ACLU jackals, was sent from Guantanamo to his native Kuweit only to be let out by a Kuweiti judge on a measly $1,700 bail. Four months later he was tried and found not guilty.

Congratulations liberals: you showed the world we are more humane than they are and you saved an innocent man from being wrongfully detained in an illegal prison, soon to be closed by Thy Obamessiah.

Justice won the day, isn't it libs?

Not so fast. First take a look at your hands. See the red stains on them? Wonder what's that red stuff and where it came from?

It's the blood of the 13 Iraqi soldiers killed in a homicide bomb attack by the poor "innocent" terrorist you freed. You assisted him to murder 13 people. Feels good to know you did the right thing, isn't it?

A 'ticking time bomb' goes off

By Rajiv Chandrasekaran

KUWAIT CITY - After arriving here from Guantanamo Bay in November 2005, Abdallah Saleh al-Ajmi was transported by Kuwaiti security agents to a military hospital, where he was allowed to meet with his family. He was soon moved to the city's central jail and placed in a high-security wing.

Every few days, he was taken to a small interrogation room, this time by officials of his own government who wanted to know what he had been doing in Afghanistan. Ajmi insisted that he never traveled to Afghanistan, that he never fought with the Taliban -- that he had simply gone to Pakistan to study the Koran and that he was apprehended when he traveled toward the Afghan border to help refugees. He kept trying to steer the sessions toward a discussion of his nearly four years at Guantanamo and what had happened to him there.

After four months, a judge ordered him freed on $1,720 bail. He was later tried in a criminal court and acquitted of all charges.

Senior U.S. government officials were deeply disappointed -- they had hoped that Kuwait, an American ally, would find a way to detain Ajmi for years -- but they refrained from any public criticism. At the very least, the officials figured, Kuwaiti authorities would keep a close watch on him. And they expected Ajmi to move on, to put his Guantanamo experience behind him, to get a job and settle down after his time in one of the toughest prisons on the planet.

Ajmi chose a different path. Last March, he drove a truck packed with explosives onto an Iraqi army base outside Mosul, killing 13 Iraqi soldiers and himself. It was the denouement of a nihilistic descent that his lawyers and family believe commenced at Guantanamo.

His case illuminates a key challenge facing the Obama administration as it considers how to close the U.S. military prison and resolve the futures of the approximately 245 incarcerated there. Once detainees are sent home, even to friendly nations, the United States has very little influence over what happens to them. Convictions are not guaranteed. Neither is surveillance by home countries. And for those allowed to go free, assistance in resuming a normal life is rare.

The New Prohibition Era of Guns Under Obama

Worth reading article written by John Baden at Opposing Views

I pity those fools who still believe Democrats "learned their lesson" not to mess with another gun ban or that "Obama has too much on his hands" to push for new anti-gun legislation.
The truth is:
1. Democrats never learn from their own mistakes (otherwise they wouldn't be Democrats) and,
2. Obama has plenty of mainstream media ass kissers at his disposal who are more than happy to start an anti-gun public swaying campaign for him.
Just wait for the next mad gunman incident and you'll see how every talking head on MSNBCABCCBSCNN will start putting up heartbreaking stories about innocent victims of gun violence with carefully selected videos of mothers, fathers and neighbors in tears crying "why isn't the President doing anything about guns?"
Then you'll see how busy Obama really is.

The New Prohibition Era of Guns Under Obama

People employ state power when moral persuasion fails. Politically legitimized coercion and constraint can generate hugely beneficial reform. The Voting Rights Act of 1964 is one example; environmental laws provide other examples.

In contrast, America's Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting the manufacture and sale of alcohol for consumers' pleasure, was a huge failure. Industrial alcohol remained legal after the 1920 Volstead Act and medical use was often tolerated, giving rise to winking and cheating.

The predictable consequences were negative on balance: petty and organized crime, loss of tax revenue, and illness and death from tainted substitutes.
John D. Rockefeller noted, "...many of our best citizens have openly ignored Prohibition; respect for the law has been greatly lessened; and crime has increased to a [new] level."

In addition to the social, cultural, and economic costs of Prohibition, the liturgical churches, Episcopal, Lutheran, and Roman Catholic, challenged its moral legitimacy. Naturally, the soft drink industry supported "dry laws" as did bootleggers. When the results of this failed experiment became overwhelming, the Twenty-First Amendment repealed Prohibition in 1933.

There's a parallel between this failed effort and current laws outlawing recreational drugs. Powerful constituencies have developed on several sides, including law enforcement. However honorable the intent and sincere the convictions of those using government to channel or constrain behavior, legal prohibitions naturally and normally generate political corruption and illegal suppliers. Across time and cultures, that's the result.

Given America's drift, and now run, from the libertarian principles of our founders, many individuals fear additional prohibitions. For example, on November 6th, the NYT wrote of a substantial surge in gun sales as buyers become "concerned that an Obama administration will curtail their right to bear arms." A Houston gun shop owner declared, "[Obama] wants to take our guns and create a socialist society." The FBI reported that, during election week, background checks used to approve gun purchases increased 49 percent compared to the same week in 2007.

On November 10th the WSJ published this: "Last week President-elect Obama's Web site...posted his administration's agenda for curtailing the Second Amendment rights of law abiding Americans, thereby validating the concerns of gun owners, sportsmen and firearms enthusiasts all across the country." A December poll by Southwick Associates found that 80 percent of shooters expect the new administration to make the purchase of firearms more difficult.

However valid these fears, on January 16th Fox News reported that, "President-elect...Obama's election has spurred a surge in gun sales...as gun owners brace for what they believe will be a new era of gun control in Washington."

Some academic friends attribute this to the paranoia of gun owners. But sometimes people really are out to control or constrain you. And advocacy groups such as the NRA have strong incentives to generate concern.

Consider attention given to Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein, Obama's pick for OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. I admire Cass' work even when I disagree. Friends at the University of Chicago speak so highly of him that I've invited him to FREE's conferences.

Equally informed, honest people often have policy disagreements. For example, consider Sunstein's 2007 speech reported in the Harvard Crimson:
"We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn't a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It's time now."

It is logically possible to be anti-hunting and yet support private gun ownership. Last June Cass wrote in a Boston Globe column, "To be sure, everyone should agree that the Second Amendment creates some kind of individual right." Cass may be an enthusiastic target shooter. Only Click and Clack of NPR's "Car Talk" support the fictive "Save the Skeet Foundation" However, those who value gun ownership see a short step from anti-hunting to anti-gun.

If people anticipated a return to Prohibition, many would stock up on Scotch and wine. Likewise with guns and ammo. And unlike wine, if properly cared for guns last and work well for many decades.

Our Second Amendment is based on fear of abusive government, not duck hunting. Many find personal defense increasingly important. Friends of liberty and security act on these considerations. It's naïve to ignore these philosophically and historically justified forces.

White House Legal Eagles: "Commercial Use" Of Obama Must Be Controlled

During the 2008 Presidential campaign for empty-suit Obama image and advertising was everything; remember the hour-long infomercials he saturated the TV airwaves with?
However, since he became President, Obama realized capitalism is bad and advertising must have government imposed limits:

White House Lawyers Look to Limit Commercial Use of President

White House lawyers want to control the use of the president’s image, recognizing the worldwide fascination about Obama’s election, First Amendment free-speech rights and easy access to videos and photos on the Web.

“Our lawyers are working on developing a policy that will protect the presidential image while being careful not to squelch the overwhelming enthusiasm that the public has for the president,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

Obama’s calls for change and his “Yes We Can” campaign mantra are being evoked to sell assembly-required furniture in Ikea’s “Embrace Change” marketing campaign, bargain airfares during Southwest Airlines Inc.’s “Yes You Can” sale and “Yes Pecan” ice cream at Ben & Jerry’s Homemade Inc. shops. Read more here

Oops! Too late...

UPI: Police seize 'Obama' brand heroin

Obama is on a roll...