Smart Girl Politics

In 1914, President Theodore Roosevelt stated, "We have room for but one language in this country, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house."

Last week, the First District Court of Appeals in San Francisco rejected arguments that English-only exams violate a federal requirement that limited-English-speaking students "shall be assessed in a valid and reliable manner." Nearly 1.6 million students in California have limited command of the language, according to a OneNewsNow article. The court of appeals, in a three-to-zero ruling, upheld a San Francisco judge’s decision that ruled against the bilingual-education group in his 2007 decision.

The lawyer for the school district, Marc Coleman stated that they are considering an appeal to the state Supreme Court. But Aloysius Hogan, a spokesman for English First, thinks that due to the solid three-to-zero ruling this would be a tough challenge.

Last week, I had the privilege of introducing a ten year old Ukrainian boy to a group of school children. This young man was adopted by a couple last December and knew absolutely no English when he arrived aside from “hello, yes, no, and mommy and papa.” The day of the assembly, he spoke in very good English to a group of children his age and fielded the questions that these children had for him about the orphanage he had lived in and about Ukraine. His native tongue is Russian and he had been learning to read Russian. Here in his new home, he had to learn a new alphabet and is now reading very well for only being here for eight months.

Credit goes to his parents, I am sure, for their dedication in helping him learn the language so quickly. But this young man has had a much more difficult life than most children ever experience in the United States and is already putting the majority of bi-lingual children and adults to shame.

If an orphan child can come to a new land, learn a new alphabet, learn to read and speak in English, in eight months, then why can’t a high school or any elementary school child do the same? I would suggest that there is laziness and a lack of care. The examples these children have at home demonstrate arrogance for not adopting the language that defines America and its heritage. There is no reason other than laziness and pride that keeps individuals back from learning the language of the land. With effort, the lives of the adults and children who do not have a command of the language would improve by making it easier to live in a country with a single language, making it easier to be neighborly and do day to day tasks in the community.

I agree with the Court's decision and believe that pressure needs to be applied to the homes of non-English speakers, holding them responsible for getting their children ready for the world. It is not the government’s job, but rather the individual who chooses to live in the United States of America.

Freedom of speech and Expression is not just for the left!

2009-08-21T08:00:00.000-04:00

By Lenice Moynihan

Listen, I love the joker poster of Obama. I read that police are investigating who put them up and who created them. My first question is why and my second thought is I am outraged! There is a man at one of the rallies holding a sign that says "Obama die" and I believe he is now a man of suspicion. Although I personally would not choose to voice my opinion in that way, we do still live in a free society. We are a country of free speech! The poster of the joker is called free expression and the sign held by that man is called free speech. They have every right to say how they feel!

The left called George Bush Hitler for most of his term and no one said a word. I think of the art displays, if you can call them that, over the years. One in particular was the Cross in urine. Yes, it was beloved by the left as up and coming art. It was called free expression and no one cared how many of us were heartbroken by such a vile display! That artist was hailed not investigated! Those of us who found it blasphemous were considered stupid. A couple of months ago Obama was nailed to the cross looking just like Christ. This was done by some liberal artist. The image was going to be unveiled and touted as amazing. I found it to be vile and heresy. We heard no mention of investigations just awe of another genius. The more the art stomps on someone's beliefs or morals the left likes it that much more. You are a square if you can't see how secularism is cool!

The disgusting things the left has come up with under the guise of free speech and free expression has ruined this country. They are the ones who corrupted our image and they continue to do it. Hey, they came up with teaching kids how to put a condom on a banana in school. Of course, our tax dollars should pay for that, right? Who can argue with that kind of higher education and we were worried that we were becoming dumbed down! Remember though no Bible allowed, only bananas and "my two moms."

Free speech is free speech, period! I can't stand, I mean CAN'T STAND, the double standard of these vile hateful people. They love to dish it out but oh boy how they can't take it. This President has the thinnest, not the blackest, skin I have ever seen. He is a cry baby as is much of his staff. We agree mostly we don't want to be shrill like the left but if there are a few out there that do, have at it. Your Constitution defends you. Dear leader, I say that with contempt, that is the end of the story. Some might say what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Yea, maybe many of us see carrying the "Obama die" sign as crass but haven't we stood silent long enough. Remember the bananas?

DOMA Doomed by Obama?

2009-08-20T08:00:00.000-04:00

By Theosebes

Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer, a homosexual California couple, are challenging the Defense of Marriage Act. This law prevents same sex couples from securing spousal benefits from Social Security, filing joint tax returns and gaining benefit from other federal rights reserved for traditional marriage. DOMA gives the states the right to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. According to the Associated Press, the Justice Department lawyers have argued that the act is constitutional and they contend that awarding the federal marriage benefits to homosexuals would infringe on the rights of taxpayers in the 30 states that specifically prohibit same-sex marriages.

The Obama administration filed court papers this Monday, August 17, 2009, claiming that they too believe that DOMA discriminates against homosexuals. According to the filing by Assistant Attorney General Tony West, “DOMA reflects a cautiously limited response to society’s still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage.”

But would not the converse be true, if the law was reversed, wouldn’t the millions of people who live in traditional marriages, who support traditional marriages then be discriminated against? And at what point does the institution of marriage stop evolving? Who gets the final say as to what an “Evolved Marriage” looks like?

Also noted in the Associated Press was that the administration does not agree with the arguments that DOMA protects children by defining marriage as between a man and woman?

“The United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA’s constitutionality,” lawyers argued in the filing.

Ironically, this is the same administration that believes the government (also known as “The Village”) knows how to raise our children better than we and that it would like to send “trained babysitters” to our homes to see that we are parenting right via a little paragraph in the proposed healthcare bill. This administration also thinks that the United Nation has the right tools to take care of all the world’s children, individually caring for them, through the efforts of U.N. Treaty on Children. This Administration is not rational about procreation and child-rearing!

If Mr. Smelt and Mr. Hammer want a state that accepts them and recognizes them for who they are, then I say, move to Massachusetts! Give the people of the states the right to vote their conscience and trust that their voice will be not only heard but also remain law. Let those whose cause has been lost, to either be a good sport about it, or move to a place where they can have the rights they believe they deserve. An interest group, such as the homosexual lobby, should not be able to over turn the voices of millions of Americans and trample states rights. The Obama administration has much bigger issues than to get in bed with this particular “special interest group.”

Keep It Up Mobsters!

2009-08-19T12:00:00.000-04:00

Chuck Norris doesn’t read books,he just stares them down until he gets the information he wants out of the m.

Cheers to the American people who have come out of the woodwork to oppose the monstrosity of a health care bill currently supported by President Obama and the Democrats in Congress. There is nothing more exhilarating to watch than the wheels of democracy in motion with real Americans taking their representatives in Congress to task.

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi has called you Nazis, un-American, and your movement “AstroTurf.” Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid, refers to you as “evil-mongers.” The President of the United States wants you to “get out of the way” and would like you to be reported to the White House for spreading misinformation. Representative John Dingell thinks you are racists and likened you to sheet wearing KKK members of the 1960’s. You are ridiculed by Senator Barbara Boxer because you dress nicely. White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said that your concern and anger is “manufactured” and “not completely indicative of what's going on in America”; and NBC News says you are “dumber than Joe the Plumber” and just upset because we have a black President. The arrogant, out-of-touch leaders in Washington D.C. and most in the main stream media just keep turning their noses up to you and the majority of Americans in this country.

During a town-hall-meeting, Senator Arlen Specter, the Republican turned Democrat from Pennsylvania, when trying to respond to the genuine concern of his constituents about this health care bill, was about as inspiring, interesting and persuasive as a can of white paint. There was no substance to his remarks and he sounded bored and defeated. The regular everyday Americans who were there to ask questions sounded more informed and passionate than he did. Other Representatives and Senators have expressed outrage at the fact that you are informed and against the government take-over of our health care. They show disdain for you and want you to just be grateful that they took time out of their busy schedule to listen to you.

I am so proud of my fellow Americans who are making their voices heard. Unlike First Lady Michelle Obama who said “for the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country” when her husband became the Democrat nominee for President, this is one of many times that I have been proud of my country. To see so many standing up in opposition to Obama and the Democrats desire to take over our health care, the courage to speak out loudly about it, and the strength to take ridicule from those who don’t understand is inspiring.

Keep it up well dressed mobsters!! We need to stay the course, hold our elected leaders accountable and let them know that we do pay attention; we are concerned; and they cannot do as they please with our country. As Thomas Jefferson said, “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty."

Chuck Norris Doesn't Just Read Books

2009-08-18T14:00:00.000-04:00

By Theosebes

Google “Chuck Norris” and the first site that comes up is the website Chuck Norris Facts. He has become a phenomenon on the Internet because of his tough guy image and the jokes pertaining to all things “Chuck Norris.”

Yet unlike Al Franken: an actor playing the part of a politician; Chuck Norris has read the Health Care bill and knows what he is talking about.

“While watching these political hot August nights, I decided to research the reasons so many are opposed to Obamacare to separate the facts from the fantasy. What I discovered is that there are indeed dirty little secrets buried deep within the 1,000-plus page health care bill.”

According to Townhall.com, Mr. Norris did read the bill and found this interesting fact:

“It’s outlined in sections 440 and 1904 of the House bill (Page 838), under the heading “home visitation programs for families with young children and families expecting children.” The programs (provided via grants to states) would educate parents on child behavior and parenting skills.

The bill says that the government agents, “well-trained and competent staff,” would “provide parents with knowledge of age-appropriate child development in cognitive, language, social, emotional, and motor domains … modeling, consulting, and coaching on parenting practices,” and “skills to interact with their child to enhance age-appropriate development.”

It appears that Hillary Clinton’s village to raise America’s children again is sneaking in through the backdoors of our homes via the Obamacare bill. I for one don’t like Clinton's and Obama’s version of a village and don’t intend to live there or let them raise my children. Their parenting skills are supremely lacking when it comes to running an efficient White House- hold, laying on the backs of our children ninety nine trillion dollars of debt. I don’t want them teaching my children math skills, as they appear to have none themselves. I don’t want them teaching my children how to read, as neither appears to have read the Stimulas Bill nor the Health Care Bill. I don’t want them telling my children who God is, as neither seems to understand the Bible. And I would thoroughly disapprove of the babysitters they want to send into my home according to this bill to coach me on how to raise my most treasured possession.

We already see burned out social workers who have no love for the children they purport to “help.” We see teachers who once had a love for kids stumble in and out of the classroom doing the job, without the motivating love behind it. These are the type of babysitter who will be trained to assess whether or not we as American parents are doing it correctly, by their playbook.

Obama and Hillary both ascribe to the “It takes a village mentality”, but their village is more global than American and the U.N. Treaty on Children is the means to the end. According to an article at Huffington Post, “democrats, from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to California Sen. Barbara Boxer, chair of a Senate subcommittee on human rights, have advocated pushing for Senate ratification of the treaty, which requires two-thirds approval in the 100-seat chamber.” The Obama administration is looking to ratify this treaty.

As pointed out by Warren Mass in his article Obama May Revive Anti-family UN Child Treaty “like all UN conventions — is not based on the premise stated in our Declaration of Independence that rights are God-given and, therefore, unalienable (inherent and not subject to government restriction). As with the UN Charter itself, and the constitutions of many other nations, the convention presumes to grant rights. Any governmental entity that does this also presumes the converse power to restrict or suspend those same rights.” This administration does not see our children as belonging to American families, but as to the world. They desire to push their ethics onto the lives of all Americans, no matter what vehicle it takes, a Healthcare Bill or a U.N. Treaty, and they will not cease or desist until their agenda has permanently changed the landscape of our Nation and individually, our private homes.

My God-given rights as a parent, by virtue of the children God gave me, are not for the government to take away. I can not stand by and allow what I know is best for my children on a day to day basis, to be stripped away by a government that seems to only desire a nation that won’t back talk and will consent to every agenda. Washington D.C., Obama and the Democrats believe they can create a “Changed Nation” by getting to the hearts and minds of our kids. And they are right, they can. By taking away the rights of parents to love and choose what is best for their families, the government becomes the facilitator of cloned American children, all raised under one standard. This standard is not “One Nation Under God”, but rather “We are the world, we are the children.” The standard that has thrown God, the Bible and prayer out of so many crucial places in America will be the one in place when the babysitters come to check on our parenting skills. And if I, as a parent, get in the way of the babysitter, I will be deemed an unfit mother and placed in timeout, indefinitely.

As Chuck Norris pointed out, “Government needs less of a role in running our children’s lives and more of a role in supporting parents’ decisions for their children. Children belong to their parents, not the government. And the parents ought to have the right — and government support — to parent them without the fed’s mandates, education or intervention in our homes.”

Another claim on children, by another government, was Hitler’s Youth. According to History Learning Site, movements for youngsters were part of German culture. The Hitler Youth was a logical extension of Hitler’s belief that the future of Nazi Germany was its children. The Hitler Youth was seen as being as important to a child as school was. Another dictator also saw the benefit in capturing the minds of children. As stated also in the Norris article, Josef Stalin once declared, “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” These men were smart and so are the Progressives who rule our country today. They know that they can create permanent Change by leaving an indelible mark on our nation’s children, through education and re-education of the American parents.

Perhaps this is why the fight against this bill is so impassioned, as deep down, we recognize a take over of things we holder dearer to us than just Health Care reform. The take over is our freedom to be Americans, to raise our families in God-fearing homes if we so choose and to teach our children what “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” means historically, not progressively. The fight is far from over, but if we have women and men, like Chuck Norris, ready and willing to take a stand, at all costs for our children and the country they will inherit, we can win and return it to our foundational roots.

Julie and Julia a movie review to lighten it up!

2009-08-14T10:00:00.000-04:00

Meryl Streep and Amy Adams star in the movie Julie and Julia. It is the latest script written by Nora Ephron. I took a front row seat on opening day. I love to cook myself and was looking forward to learning more about Julia Child. Of course, Meryl was magnificent as Julia and captivated us while she was on screen. Her accent, look and vibrant love for cooking were inspiring as was her portrayal of Julia's marriage to Paul Child, played by Stanley Tucci. Amy Adams was not so fortunate. Her character lacked the charisma Julia did and I found myself bored early on. The movie could have been more interesting and done just as well focusing more on Julia Child. Most of of my generation certainly has heard of Julia but were unaware of her biography. I brought my 19 year old daughter along because she never heard of Julia Child. I figured she was a role model worth knowing. She lead an interesting life and did not start cooking until after age 40. That was inspiring to a 48 year old facing empty nest syndrome! Stanley Tucci held his own along side Meryl Streep. Julia’s whit and charm melted even the French. Her determination and ability to laugh at mistakes made cooks everywhere ready to tackle a harder recipe.

The character Julie was also inspired by Julia and decided to cook her way through Julia’s “Master French Cooking” cook book. She was unfulfilled in her dead end job and quit writing which was her true passion. She decided to make all 547 recipes of Julia’s in one year. She blogs the experience; thus, getting back to writing. Her husband supports her in the beginning but becomes irritated with her self involvement. Her mother, performance only by phone by Mary Kay Place, is a riot. Overall though, Julie cannot captivate the way Julia can.

Although I enjoy Nora’s writing, there were some inconsistencies. Perhaps it was for laughs, but Julie’s best friend tells her she is a bitch. That really was not Julie’s character. Also, Julia was characterized as this generous over the top individual, yet we are informed she is neither impressed nor interested in Julie’s attempt to cook her recipes and blog the experience. That was inconsistent with her character and ended the movie for me on a bad note. On a personal note, I did not appreciate the standard liberal knock at Republicans pointed in one scene. It was unnecessary and really had nothing to do with the movie. Most of the audience did not laugh, the audience was older, and Nora only showed her political bias. Hollywood should recognize Republicans are half of the population and we pay for movie tickets too!

I give this movie a 7. Most performances are strong. The movie was a little long mostly when Julie was on screen. The food looked delicious and made me appreciate a good dish even more. I left the theatre salivating and hungry for some of that French Stew. There were a couple of morals but the one I left with as most important was you can never use too much butter!

Thou Shalt Have No Other gods Before the ACLU

2009-08-12T16:00:00.000-04:00

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.” Patrick Henry, Ratifier of the U.S. Constitution

Last August 2008, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Florida filed suit against the Santa Rosa County School District on behalf of two Pace High School students who alleged that school officials regularly promoted religion and led prayers at school events. Instead of fighting the lawsuit, the School District “consented to the entry of an order that prohibited, among other things, all prayer at school-sponsored events. The School District then consented to a much broader order fashioned by the ACLU, which essentially bans all employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities, whether before, during, or after school hours.” The federal district court of Pensacola, Florida entered the Consent Order without legal argument. According to the Liberty Counsel, which filed a motion to intervene, the order is unconstitutional and far over reaching as it infringes on the rights of the students, administration and teachers.

The Principal, Frank Lay, and Athletic Director, Robert Freeman, of Pace High School are scheduled to go on trial next month on criminal contempt charges. As reported on Onenewsnow.com, Principal Frank Lay asked Robert Freeman to have a prayer for the meal at an honorary luncheon in celebration of some of the athletic achievements. At another event, the principal asked the husband of a clerical worker to offer a blessing over a meal. The husband was not employed by the school. It is because of these two events that these two men are facing criminal contempt charges. If they are convicted, they both could face fines and imprisonment.

Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “It is a sad day in America when school officials are criminally prosecuted for a prayer over a meal. The Founders believed that religion and morality are the twin pillars of the Republic. Judeo-Christianity was taught in public schools, because such teaching was the foundation of liberty. George Washington said that whoever undermines the twin pillars of religion and morality cannot be called a ‘Patriot.’ It is outrageous and an offense to the First Amendment to punish a school official for a simple prayer.”

The ACLU, not unlike the Church of England of hundreds of years ago, flaunts its own version of religious tolerance and then criminally persecuting those who disagree with them and who take a stand against them. Just as the Separatists came to these American shores to escape the ACLU-type persecution, today’s Christians have no new land to which they may escape and must take this fight for their constitutionally protected rights to the courts.

As long as Americans cave to the bullying tactics of the ACLU, all First Amendment rights will be in jeopardy. The ACLU worships a god, the god of secular humanism and their Bible is their personal agenda to silence those who don’t worship this god of theirs. Perhaps it is time to send the ACLU on their own pilgrimage, on their own Mayflower, to find a country that will tolerate their anti-constitutional ways, their religious persecution, and their intolerance.

Unhinged!

2009-08-12T08:00:00.000-04:00

By Swilliams

Our U.S. Secretary of State was often described as the "Smartest Woman in America" which caused me to scratch my head more than once. What had I missed? She failed at her attempt to revamp health care in her husband's (presidential) administration; she lost her law firm's billing records when they were subpoenaed; as the subject of numerous probes, take your pick - Whitewater, Travelgate, whatever - she would only answer that she "could not recall"; and then, her greatest claim to fame was simply being unaware of her husband's numerous infidelities right under her nose.

Remember her assertion that tales of Slick Willy's escapades was all a vast right-wing conspiracy? Well, to refresh your memory:

Then we had Hillary on the campaign trail behaving in ways that seemed, well, a bit unstable:

Now, you got to admit this one was a bit creepy:

And here she seems to disagree with Nancy Pelosi on the issue of whether citizen dissent is patriotic or not:

What was even better was seeing her on TV this week in a Q&A session with students in the Congo. This numero uno diplomat representing the United States in her official capacity had this to say:

But maybe Hillary Clinton will be best remembered on the Internet, and definitely not network news, or polite society for that matter, for this (in)famous moment:

The Arrogance of one Administration

2009-08-11T07:00:00.000-04:00

The arrogance of this administration is beyond the pale. Obama is the one who manufactured statistics and facts since day one. His election was never a mandate yet we have been led to believe over and over again that it was. Right now, the Left has a bogus advertisement stating just that. The FACT is he did not win by a mandate but rather a minor margin. He lives in a world of fantasy where logic, facts and reality play no part. What is a larger concern is our media and people that refuse to see or report the FACTS.

Obama's surprise at the grass roots movement is astounding. Mostly because we have been told since day one this man is a genius. Not only is this man not a genius, but he can not stand firm on his quick sand rhetoric. This government is becoming creepy. I can think of no other word that would describe the turn of events during town hall meetings. Pelosi stated as a fact that the "angry mob" were seen carrying swastikas and the White House is telling the Democrats to go out and "punch back twice as hard." This is how our government is talking about it's citizens? Sounds like fascism to me. The White House is encouraging our elected officials to fight back instead of listening to their constituents. The state run media happily obeys and reports town hall meetings as manufactured mobs. This is an outrage!

We can no longer dismiss the fascist regime that seems to be emerging. They want a single party state. They want to cram their ideology down our throats; case in point-Obamacare. They have no interest in WE THE PEOPLE, only an interest in We the Government. He does not want to lead a Republic he wants to empower government. He is not concerned about the rights vested in us by the Constitution. He already trampled on that with bail-outs, taking over the private sector, and paying off the unions.

We are in a grave situation here in the United States. It is mostly perpetrated by our government. Those we voted in to protect our laws and our citizens are attacking us! We will not be silenced. Anyone who is still more concerned about touting the party line than supporting his country really needs to do a fact check. There are no facts in this administration only fabricated words and numbers. Obama helped no one and his actions and the real FACTS show this to be true. I have learned to expect the opposite of whatever this man says. He is the consummate liar and by that judgement I stand. This system is broken and corrupt. Is it beyond repair? We can not let them quiet the drum that is beating ever loudly. This country is what we will fight for, not a party and not a President.

Mr. President this is MY country and you will not silence me!

Obama-Style Transparency

2009-08-09T15:00:00.001-04:00

By Kelli Krauss

I can‘t believe that we actually have a program in Congress to be voted on that is called “cash-for-clunkers.” When I first heard it, I thought maybe it was an early retirement plan for some in Congress, but we shall not be so lucky. The continuation of this program is the latest evidence of the Obama Administration’s promised “transparency.”

Once again, we find our leaders getting ready to vote and spend more money on something that hasn’t been competently reported on. Harry Reid is confident that they will vote on this “cash-for-clunkers” program before they break for their August recess even though the Obama Administration has not yet given the proper reports to show whether the program is or can be successful.

The White House has refused to release documents containing information on the program and the Transportation Department has said it will release its findings, but it may be after the Senate votes to sink another $2 billion into the program.

This has been the course of the Obama Administration for the last eight months. Apparently in the dictionary that Obama and his staffers refer to, the definition for transparency and ambiguity has been conveniently reversed. It is mind boggling to me how a man can campaign nationally on his dedication to transparency and honesty as well as his promise to the American people of having 5 days to review bills before they are signed and then clearly not do it. The list of campaign promises broken and inconsistencies in his statements is growing longer by the day.

Shouldn’t we have some transparency on why the Obama Justice Department dropped all charges against the New Black Panther Party and the three members that were intimidating voters in Philadelphia on Election Day? Associate Attorney General Thomas J. Perrelli, the number three man in the Obama Justice Department, approved a decision in May to drop the charges even though the lawyers in the department’s Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division recommended that the Justice Department seek sanctions against the organization and the three individuals. The government had already won a default judgment in federal court against the three men. But, it is okay for Obama to have Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano monitor "right-wing extremists" who are those concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion, as well as returning war veterans. Congressman Frank Wolf of Virginia is not letting this go and has asked for an explanation on why the Justice Department dropped all charges against the New Black Panthers.

How about some transparency on health care reform? After all, Barack Obama said this during his Presidential campaign, "People say, 'Well, you have this great health care plan, but how are you going to pass it? You know, it failed in '93’, and what I've said is, I'm going to have all the negotiations around a big table. We'll have doctors and nurses and hospital administrators. Insurance companies, drug companies — they'll get a seat at the table, they just won't be able to buy every chair. But what we will do is, we'll have the negotiations televised on C-SPAN, so that people can see who is making arguments on behalf of their constituents, and who are making arguments on behalf of the drug companies or the insurance companies. And so, that approach, I think is what is going to allow people to stay involved in this process."

Did I miss this negotiation on C-SPAN? There is now video that shows Obama in 2003 and 2007 talking about his intention to have a single-payer government run health system and how many years he thinks it will take to phase out employer-provided health insurance. Yet he is actively campaigning and insisting that the American people not believe the claims that his health care push is a “Trojan horse” for a single-payer system.

If this is the transparency and honesty that we can expect from President Obama and his administration in leading this country, it is no wonder that the term “Chicago politics” has been used to describe their methods.

It is Called An Uprising!

2009-08-08T14:00:00.003-04:00

By Lenice Moynihan

I can not take it anymore! I can not believe the propaganda of this administration. We have the likes of Barbara Boxer attacking Americans for showing up at Town Hall meetings outraged over 8 months of illegal maneuvers by Obama and his Hench men. Hey Barbara, WE ARE THE PEOPLE, we are not Obama's sycophants. Our Constitution was written to limit government and you all have taken it upon yourselves to trample on our freedoms. You bet people are showing up at Town Hall meetings angry. Why wouldn't we be angry at an administration that is trying to take away our rights and give all power to the government? All the while raping us of our hard work by stealing our money and giving it to the unions and others who are owed for Obama's election. You have forgotten you represent us, we don't represent you. We could care less if our uprising hurts this President or any President. This country is not about the President and what he wants. This country is about the people and its majority. Americans have no interest in helping Obama corrupt this system worse than it already is. He has showed himself to be nothing but a liar and a coward. This is not what geniuses or true leaders are made of; he can't tell the truth because his idea of Utopia would sink like the Titanic.

Next we have Linda Douglas, the communications director for the White House, attacking Drudge and his reporting on Obama's health care plans. The Drudge Report ran a video of Obama admitting he wants a one payer system run by the government. We are also privy to a speech Barack gave back in 2002 showing his true ideology. Linda Douglas spends several minutes trying to down-play the report and refute its facts. Linda, we see Barack's mouth moving and we hear him clearly. We don't need your explanation of what he really said. Although Bill Maher would disagree, we are not that stupid.

Then we have Robert Gibbs who spends half his time giggling when a real question comes his way. Being the spokesman for Obama, he characterized the Town Hall meetings as "an angry mob." He also insisted that these people were bussed in by the insurance companies. After I was done being stunned by this description, I just started laughing. These people are unraveling before our eyes. They can't tell a fact, a truth, or understand what is happening around them. They misjudged the American people. This country was founded by men who risked their lives for FREEDOM. They created the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence so that government could not overpower the people. We love our country and the families that made it possible for the United States to come into being. Barack Obama and his Chicago style corrupt politics is no match for the true American.

I am appalled at the lengths this government has gone to lie, cheat and steal its way to the top. There were a few of us that were always awake but now we have company. Obama your time is running out. You are no match for the American heart and way of life. We understand this country is much more than a party affiliation. WE ARE THE PEOPLE! We will not give up our rights, our health care, our freedoms, our law, or our religion for anyone. Certainly not for someone who has no regard for the Constitution or the people it is supposed to preserve. This is called an Uprising. Obama you were born to lose this fight!

Harvey Milk a Hero?

2009-08-08T08:00:00.001-04:00

By Theosebes

What does Harvey Milk have in common with George Washington, Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King, Jr.? Absolutely nothing! Yet his supporters in California desire to elevate him to the same position that these great men hold in history by honoring him with his own “special” day. What did Harvey Milk ever do that places him on equal footing with Presidents, Veterans and Independence Day? Absolutely nothing! He was a vocal, flamboyant politician with an agenda, able to use his charisma and connection to make legislation happen. How is that much different from any of the politicians today? Perhaps, instead of a Harvey Milk Day in the Public Schools of California, we should make it “fair” for all politicians and call it “Politicians Who Push Their Agenda Day.” If Harvey Milk had not been murdered by a fellow politician, he wouldn’t be getting a day, but because of his death, he has been raised to iconic status for being an effective community leader. What I ask should be the criteria of such an honor? What gives an individual “hero” status deserving of singular attention by a school board, state or nation?

HE’RO, n. [L. heros; Gr. a demigod.]

1. A man of distinguished valor, intrepidity or enterprise in danger; as a hero in arms.

2. A great, illustrious or extraordinary person; as a hero in learning. [Little used.]

3. In a poem, or romance, the principal personage, or the person who has the principal share in the transactions related; as Achilles in the Iliad, Ulysses in the Odyssey, and Aeneas in the Aeneid.

4. In pagan mythology, a hero was an illustrious person, mortal indeed, but supposed by the populace to partake of immortality, and after his death to be placed among the gods.

America has lowered the bar for what defines a hero and because of this mis-definition, anyone can claim the title without doing anything for his or her fellow man. Harvey Milk is not a hero, he is not a man distinguished by valor, intrepidity or enterprise in danger. He may have served in the armed forces and we thank him for that service, but this does not deem him hero status and worthy of a day named in his honor. He lived a lifestyle that he chose to promote through the political process, rising up through the ranks and fighting for his homosexual community. But that doesn’t elevate him to hero status either, as most politicians fight for what he or she believes in, passionately and persistently. This is the just part of the job and Harvey Milk did his job. Give him a shiny gold star for his star chart and an “Atta boy”, but don’t give him a day of honor!

To place Harvey Milk on the level with great Americans who in fact hold hero status because of their lives, their personal integrity, and character, is to negate the very actions that made these individuals great and worthy of honor. We place hero status on athletes, actors, musicians and politicians, for what? What have most of these people done that can be deemed worthy of honorable mention? Most have gained popularity at best and infamy at worst, without a hint of serving their fellow man. Yet even in following the golden rule, one should never seek recognition, as this should be part of a civil society, not a heroic deed!

The firemen who saved people from the Twin Towers melting frame are heroes, because though it was their job, they continued to work around the clock for the love of their fellow man. Where is their calendar day? Why doesn’t the California School Board have a day for heroic 911 volunteers?

What about the men and women who paid the most extravagant price, serving our country and giving up their lives to protect our rights to even have this conversation? What about Cpl. Jason L. Dunham of Scio, New York, who posthumously received America’s highest military decoration two years and nine months after succumbing to a mortal brain injury while fighting in Iraq? What about the soldiers who gave it all and their families who sacrificed their loved ones for America. Perhaps they could have a day named in their honor for the California Public School system.

The mothers and fathers who care for their cancer-ridden child, living in and out of hospitals and fighting for every second of their beloved child’s life are worthy of hero status. Where is their day California?

What about the heroism of the child who undergoes chemotherapy and radiation, fighting to live, longing to play again? Do not these real life heroes deserve more recognition than Harvey Milk?

The Harvey Milk Day SB 572 is now lying on the desk of Governor Schwarzenegger. He has vetoed similar legislation, but is under much pressure to sign it into law this time. If signed, according to an email that is circulating, SB 572 would pressure every California public school to have an official Harvey Milk Day promoting the homosexual, bisexual, and transsexual agenda to children as young as kindergarten. The bill is written so broadly, that SB 572 would allow schools to determine what it considers suitable commemorative exercises.

State Senator Mark Leno reintroduced the bill and had Sean Penn, the actor who played Harvey Milk, at his side. Leno said that Penn’s Oscar demonstrates to Schwarzenegger that Harvey Milk now has “provincial interest” and therefore the Governor should sign it into law.

I long to accomplish a great and noble task, but it is my chief duty to accomplish humble tasks as though they were great and noble. The world is moved along, not only by the mighty shoves of its heroes, but also by the aggregate of the tiny pushes of each honest worker. Keller, Helen

Let our voices be the tiny pushes of honest Americans speaking loudly to Sacramento and to Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger letting him know that Harvey Milk should not have hero status or a day on the calendar. Call Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger at 916-445-2841 and let your opinion be known.

Boxer Belittles Again

2009-08-07T22:00:00.000-04:00

Barbara Boxer, a.k.a. “Ma’am", does not like what is happening all over the country at these town-hall meetings. According to Senator Boxer, who was interviewed by Chris Matthews, these “well-dressed” Americans who are concerned about the fast pass of a health care reform bill that will spend endless amounts of money and produce a government run fiasco, don’t really know anything. They are asking questions just to be difficult, obstructive, and because they just don’t like Obama. So we all have to dress badly for Boxer to take us seriously?

Her statements make clear that she thinks we don’t have the brains to process the garbage that comes out of Washington. We should accept hook, line and sinker what they want to pass and assume it is in the best interest of the American people. No debate, no questions, and if you do, it is because you don’t like Obama, as Boxer very clearly stated, “So all of this is a diversion by the people who want to, frankly, hurt President Obama.” She and many others in Congress seem to be perfectly fine with insulting the American people. With Al Franken, a.k.a. Stuart Smalley, now a Senator from Minnesota, they must be having daily affirmation meetings and reciting, “I'm going to do a terrific show today! And I'm gonna help people! Because I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and, doggonit, people like me!”

The American people have a right to express their opinion about the direction of the country especially to those in Congress directly representing them. It is funny how Barbara Boxer has no problem with Code Pink and their tactics of protest or many other radical groups who do actually organize and rally to protest, but is offended by an ordinary American voicing their opinion about the direction of health care and spending in this country. To her we are just ridiculous people who dress nicely and have gathered to make the President look bad. It is such a juvenile way to look at an opposing view and just shows how little she and many in Congress know about the mind of the American people, how little they think of the American people and how scared they are about what is rallying the American people.

I am glad that Barbara Boxer, a.k.a. “Ma’am”, is getting in front of the cameras along with her comrades in Congress because it continues to show how they snub the American people, especially those who pay attention, think and think differently. They are igniting a flame in more and more Americans who are fed up and finally standing up to be heard.

Health Care Reform is the House Built on the Sand

2009-07-26T08:00:00.006-04:00

^{24
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: 25And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. 26And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: 27And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it. 28And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine: 29For he taught them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.}

“My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what's broken and build on what works.” Really? Then why did the American people have to sit through an hour long gilded sales pitch for the 1,018 page health care reform package? There was nothing simple stated during the Presidential Press Conference regarding health care reform. Nothing to help the American people lean back and say, “This is simple and it makes dollars and sense.”

The average American, when faced with a problem that seems insurmountable, tackles each issue one step at a time. If the house is falling apart, the owner with common sense looks at what absolutely needs fixing so that he may continue to live in his house as he works to correct that particular problem. If the plumbing fails, one calls the plumber, not the bank to do a complete home makeover.

Our servants in Washington, the Congress and the President, should learn from those they serve and make one fix at a time. According to an analysis by Republican staff of the House Ways and Means panel, the deficit from the health care reform bill would be $760 billion by 2024, the end of the first 10 years of full benefits coverage. It would be $1.6 trillion by the end of the 2020s.

This is not how a well run American household handles expenses. They look at the absolute need before them, and spend the appropriate money to fix the immediate problem before tackling the lesser of the needs. Health care needs a fix, but not reform.

Obama’s very language, “Health Care Reform” demonstrates that he is waiting with the wrecking ball, to demo the already standing structure that has many durable and worthwhile features in order to redecorate according to his ideological tastes and beliefs. There is no thoughtful blueprint laid out to see what is worth saving, what needs a little new paint, and what represents the leaking faucet that must be replaced. There is no prioritizing as to what is absolute necessary, but only, “When it comes to the cost of our health care, then, the status quo is unsustainable. Reform is not a luxury, but a necessity. I know there has been much discussion about what reform would cost, and rightly so.”

Obama’s dream home is not a home in which America can afford to live. But like many who were caught up in the Real Estate boom, pulling equity from their over inflated homes, pouring it into a dream home reform project that they couldn’t afford and then losing it in foreclosure, so also is this Administration and Congress doing to our Country. They have no vested interest in the people, but are like the lenders in years past who at all costs, disregarded ethics and morals, sold mortgages to individuals they knew on paper couldn’t afford the ink they were signing with, all for the sake of power and prestige.

The irony is that the President, responding to a question from the Press Corp said, “I have the best health care in the world, I want to see that every American has good health care.” We the people may sit on his porch and have what he terms as “good” while those living in the White House and the Congressional Houses in Washington D.C., get the “best” insurance. If We the People are their employers, if they work for us, then how is it, that we get stuck with the crumbs off the king’s table? How is it that we, the rightful owners of the White House and the Houses of Congress are not even invited to the meal to participate in the discussion?

The Biblical parable about the wise and foolish man can speak to this very issue. In Matthew 7, Jesus talks about building a house, and though He was speaking about spiritual issues, it applies to the kind of decisions that men make and the effects those decisions have on the lives that they influence. The President, by virtue of his position affects Americans through his decisions. Judge for yourself, are the leaders of this country building a house on a rock or the sand? Do their decisions represent wisdom or is there great foolishness in their positions that will cause America to crumble in years to come?

Health Care Reform is just one of the houses being built on the sand. It will cause a huge collapse and the fall will be great.

Wise up America!

A King for a Country of No Substance!

2009-07-25T08:00:00.000-04:00

By Lenny Moynihan

It is easy to blame Obama for the situation we are in. After all, we Americans love to play the blame game. Of course, the trillions of dollars we will owe in debt is Obama's fault but we have to admit George W's second term lacked fiscal responsibility. Having said that, this spiral did not happen over night. We could not be at this place in time had the system and it's people not been broken a long time ago.

We have become a country of little substance and Obama is happy to be our town crier. He has crammed thoughtless and unread bills through the House and has high hopes of doing the same through the Senate. How did we get to this juncture in the first place? I believe one of the biggest movements to get us in this quandary is the New Age movement. I have studied Spiritual Metaphysics for over 10 years. The true understanding of the Metaphysical world and how it applies to matter is a life time education and requires diligence to practice. People have simplified the concepts of New Age and used them to create a world view. This world view is invested in a collective consciousness. The biggest problem with this world view is that it must be forced. True Nirvana could never be forced; thus, a perfect world on earth is unattainable.

Furthermore, true Metaphysical, New Age understanding does not require forced or demanded false morality. It is an evolution by the individual. For example, we have vegetarians putting more stock in the life of an animal than they do people. Most of these fanatics are pro-choice and see no issue with killing millions of babies. They do take issue with killing a cow though. This is an upside down thought system. In my opinion, this was the beginning of this upside down world we are living in now. We are the head of the food chain and a human life is more precious than that of an animal. Of course, I support organic farming. I have for years. I believe the food is better for you and the animals are treated with respect. This is a personal choice not a moral high ground. Many vegetarians demand that we all adopt their agenda for food choices but have no intention of changing their minds on abortion. They are much like religious fanatics that only allow one type of thought. Now Obama is using the New Age paradigm for health care and Cap and Trade. It is his idea of Nirvana and somehow these bills have more meaning than just a politician selling his wares. They are not a uniting factor if they are forced on the American people. The true premise of New Age is all actions create an action and that the Universe has a principled order to it. When you are bullying and hog-tying your people into life styles or lack of choice, you have misunderstood the idea of being united.

Our generation hooked on to the New Age agenda with authors like Mary Anne Williamson and Deepak Chopra. They both have had some good things to say; however, the problem lies within the interpretation that we must all come to the same resolve. According to Obama and his sycophants, that resolve is an Obama world. Dr. Deepak Chopra made huge sums of money in this great country of ours through book deals and TV appearances. He had no problem accepting the wealth a capitalist society offers. Yet the other day he wrote an article titled "Can we stop being a super power please?" This makes no sense since this country and it's freedoms and wealth buttered his bread. I guess it is OK for him to reap the riches of our country and enjoy its freedoms but now he has decided we must become more like a 3rd world nation.

Bono, another celebrity, is known for his activism for Africa. Although a noble cause, he did not do it alone. President Bush worked with him on his Aids project and helped quite a bit. Yet, I read in an article the other day how he dodged a hug with President Bush. He seemed to be bragging about this act of shunning. So, the moral high road is to help Africa but shun the President of the United States who helped you claim that goal.

Both Bono and Chopra tout themselves as above the fray. They see themselves as men of substance yet they are jokers just feeding their own personal agendas. (This is hard for me to say because I am a huge U2 fan!) They cow-tow to their audience and there is nothing original about them. The substance is only for what they see as important not for the good of the whole. Obama works in this same vein. He has a personal agenda and it is not for the betterment of our country. It is for his glory and aspirations of what he thinks our country should be. He lacks substance and has no understanding of a constitution that represents its people. He is a spoiled affront to our forefathers. If you read the biography of John Adams, you will see what a true hero looks like. He understood that in shaping America and serving her best, man had to remove his ego from the process. The above men mentioned are not fit to eat at our founders' table.

Our substance is only in the words not in deeds or actions. We like the idea of creating our experiences but when you study the nuts and bolts of Metaphysics it becomes a very different animal. Freedom is what creates a better man and more evolved spirit. Dictatorship breaks man and devastates spirit. We let ourselves go a long time ago and now we are reaping what we have sown. Yes, Obama is responsible for the chaos and careless acts he is making but we are responsible for giving away our freedoms so easily. Although we all did not vote for Obama, a lot of us did. This is because we seek outside ourselves for provision. Hopefully this awakened call is all we need to get back to self. If not, we surely will perish.

Birth Certificate Needed for all Other Americans Who Travel Outside the US

2009-07-18T08:00:00.000-04:00

By Theosebes

Last week, my niece, at the last minute had to fly to California from Ohio to get her legal, certified birth certificate to go on a Bahamian cruise. Within twenty-four hours, she had the document and was flying home for her planned vacation. Out of desperation and necessity, the family spent the extra money to obtain the needed birth certificate; how much more should our Commander In Chief take the necessary steps to obtain his own.

Obama on the other hand has not taken the time out of his busy schedule, even months prior to campaigning to get his certified copy of birth in order to fulfill the Constitutional mandate for the President of United States. If Americans must comply with the birth certificate laws in place to travel abroad, it stands to reason, that an American President also should have to comply as he gallivants across the globe promoting world peace.

Dr.Orly Taitz, the attorney for Maj. Stefan Frederick Cook was interviewed by conservative talk show host Rick Roberts. She posted on her blog the legal injunction on behalf of Major Cook who states, "[Then] any order coming out of the presidency or his chain of command is illegal. Should I deploy, I would essentially be following an illegal [order]. If I happened to be captured by the enemy in a foreign land, I would not be privy to the Geneva Convention protections," he said, as reported in WorldNetDailyExclusive.

Rick Roberts allowed Dr. Taitz to explain the circumstances in regard to the case and the legal precedent that has been dangerously set by the Army for revoking the deployment orders. Now, any military personnel who takes issue with serving under Barack Obama as Commander in Chief may cite this precedent and potentially be excused from deployment.

It seems that the President should just show his certified, hospital generated birth certificate and clear things up easily, without causing more speculation that perhaps he is not Constitutionally able to serve as Commander in Chief.

Meanwhile, MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann tonight called Cook a "jackass" and Taitz a "conwoman," as he labeled both of them the "worst persons in the world." He flayed the soldier as "an embarrassment to all those who have served without cowardice."

He called Dr. Taitz delusional and Major Cook a non-patriotic, pathetic “draft dodger”.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and border-bottom: 1px dotted #999 !important; font-weight:normal !important; height: 13px; color:#5799DB !important;">News about the Economy

A man of Barack Obama’s obvious power should be able to produce the desired document and ease the minds of the men and women that he is sworn to serve as Leader. It seems that if all Americans are required to obtain and use their birth certificate at some point in their lives, the President of the United States should also abide by the same standard.

If Disneyland requires a certified birth certificate to get in for free on one’s birthday, doesn’t it seem logical that the sitting President should also share his document willingly with those he serves in order to free the minds of the American people who are concerned with this matter? Perhaps Disneyland should invite Barack Obama to come for free on his birthday, but remind him to bring his birth certificate.

Free Healthcare?

2009-07-16T12:00:00.010-04:00

By Jenny Erikson

There are two types of “free.” Free as in freedom, and free as in beer.

Some things are essentially free. Rainbows, wildflowers, hugs and kisses from loved ones, and sometimes, a beer from a friend who says, “Don’t worry about it, I’ve got this one.”

As Americans, we are free citizens. It’s right there in the Declaration of Independence, a document that laid out the reasons why it was important for the colonies to break away from Britain’s “unwarrantable jurisdiction.” The Constitution lays out our freedoms; we are free to chose our own religion, to speak our minds, to assemble and petition, to own firearms, to raise our children as we see fit, to vote for a representative government, and we are even free to drink that free beer.

There has been a lot of discussion recently about socialized or “free” healthcare being introduced to the United States. Free healthcare? Where in the world are we going to find enough doctors (who, by the way, are trying to pay off an average of $140,000 in medical school debt each) willing to work for free in order to make sure that every American (or illegal immigrant pretending to be an American) has healthcare?

As a stay-at-home-mom, I work my tail bone off everyday. I’m the maid, the nanny, the chef, the chauffeur, the counselor, the life coach, the activities director, the secretary, the referee, and sometimes if my husband is lucky, I’m other things as well. I do it all for free, without being paid, because of my unbreakable and unending love for my family. But as much as I love my family, it is hard to do it all for free. Really hard. So I have to ask myself, “If it’s hard for me to work for free for my family, whom I love and cherish more than anything on the planet, how hard is it going to be for doctors to work for free for people they don’t even know?”

Free healthcare is an impossibility. There is no such thing as free beer. Your friend paid for it. Maybe he did it because it was his turn to buy, or maybe out of generosity or appreciation for your friendship. But he didn’t do it because the bartender said, “Sir, you make twice as much money as this man, so it is only ‘fair’ that you buy his beer for him.”

That’s what our government is trying to do regarding healthcare. It isn’t going to be free, because someone is going to have to pay for it (estimated cost is 1-1.5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years.) Doctors and nurses need to be paid, along with the scientists that develop new drugs, the engineers that build medical equipment, the architects that design hospitals, and even the janitors that keep the toilets clean. Taxes are going to skyrocket. Everything will be taxed, from the CO2 we breath out (double tax if that breath included nicotine), to sodas, and of course, to incomes.

It isn’t going to be free either, with “legislation that would require all Americans to have health insurance, prohibit insurers from refusing to cover pre-existing conditions and place other restrictions on the industry.”

I’m a grown up. I like my freedom. I like choosing my doctor, and I like that doctors can refuse patients. I like being free to choose my car, my vocation, my religion, my food, and my home. I like that all Americans have those freedoms, even if they choose differently than me. It’s precisely that freedom that makes our nation great. An entrepreneur is free to make or improve something, investors are free to fund it, and consumers are free to purchase it.

Our government is sliding down the slippery slope of oppressive power. Obama wants to tell us what to eat, what to drive, how to run our companies, and what medical treatments we may receive. Oh sure, we’ll still have a “choice,” but the taxes will be so crippling that it will “necessarily bankrupt” us. As history has shown us over and over, everybody’s a loser in a tyrannical state. The Cubans aren’t driving 50 year old cars and dying of malnutrition because they like it that way.

Jennie is a conservative Republican chick with a strong opinion and a smart mouth who loves her husband and kids with the ferocity of twenty tigers fighting over a meatball.

Sotomayor Bores on Purpose: She’s Looking to Get Hired

2009-07-15T18:35:00.000-04:00

By Anthony Bialy

A reality show about, sigh, soon-to-be-confirmed Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearings would be too dull for even Al Gore’s television station, if that’s possible. While her anti-nunchuk rant may have infuriated each and every ninja in the Senate, most of her statements have been Wonder Bread-bland. She’s ironically depicting herself as being more inoffensive than an Osmond.

Of course, this stands as remarkably sudden turnaround for the nominee: she’s instantly become unerringly sympathetic to those who support gun rights, has remained partly coy on the decidedly straightforward subject of abortion, and abruptly claims that her complexion doesn’t make her wiser.

But she’s flipped into tedious mode for a reason: the candidate is applying for a sweet gig. Sotomayor is undergoing a job interview, and she’s naturally going to be either positive or vague about her qualifications in the hope that the hiring managers won’t notice her rising red flags. She’s attempting nothing more than to gloss over her résumé’s rough patches. The native of the, let me double-check, Bronx is doing everything she can to downplay her infamous alleged richness of experience.

After all, Supreme Court Justice is a recession-proof job no matter what else President Obama unleashes on the poor economy. It comes with other benefits, too: the occupation currently pays $208,100 per year, offers a long summer recess, and requires no travel or heavy lifting. And, it’s of course a career for life once you land it.

Justice Samuel Chase was impeached but not removed in 1805; he was the first and last person to face an attempted banishment. At this point, a judge would have to get caught selling meth to war orphans on the court’s steps to put his or her employment status in danger.

It’s steady work during a time when the phrase “government job” may soon become redundant. Even better for Sotomayor, none of her bizarre decisions can be overturned by the Supreme Court if she’s herself on it; at worst, she’ll only find herself voting in the minority. This post would remove her chance of ever again being embarrassed by reversals.

Despite the procedure’s importance, many interviewers have been too busy inking their “HIRED” stamps to ascertain whether the aspirant deserves the post. Most glaringly, Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy cut off his New York counterpart Kirsten Gillibrand for sucking up to Sotomayor for too long. The Senate has reached a new low even by its own modest standards when someone like Leahy thinks a colleague is being too fawning toward a perfectly liberal future Court seat-filler.

It’s all dreadful to endure. The most exciting moments of the hearings will continue to be when rudely protesting dunces in the crowd interrupt with shrieks regarding their hostility to her nomination. And even those incidents will only be interesting because of the possibility that the loudmouths might deservedly get pepper-sprayed or tasered.

The only chance for a truly compelling event would be if Republican senators displayed any willingness to stand up for conservative ideals. Namely, they could call out Sotomayor for her obviously ingrained hostility to judicial restraint. That’s especially true in light of her novel claims that she’s now keen about adhering to the Constitution.

Opposition party members could focus on how her recent statements obviously conflict with her record. All they would have to do is highlight Sotomayor’s curious willingness as a member of the judiciary to pass and approve laws; making up policies herself is a type of governmental efficiency we don’t need. Jeff Sessions, Lindsey Graham, and maybe Jon Kyl are at least trying to show that she doesn’t deserve the position despite her salesmanship. But they’re going to end up being a minority of the minority.

Instead, most Republican lawmakers on the whole will lamentably acquiesce during the time between now and the vote. They’ve decided that, since they comprise only one-third of the Senate, the best strategy is to concede and be thankful the applicant isn’t even worse; oddly, they’re acting as if yielding will slingshot them back into power.

Their turnstile mentality means that Sotomayor will succeed in getting promoted from the Court of Appeals despite her evasiveness during the hiring process. The reluctance on the questioners’ part to provoke controversy makes for immensely uninteresting television. Oh, and it also leads to another activist landing on the Supreme Court.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and "Red Eye" Conservative in Western New York

Americans Are the Real Naysayers on Healthcare

2009-07-15T10:00:00.000-04:00

By Nichole Hungerford

“For those naysayers and cynics who think that this is not going to happen, don’t bet against us...We are going to make this thing happen because the American people desperately need it.” Emphasis not added!

This threatening statement made by President Obama comes amidst a Rasmussen poll demonstrating that as of today, 49% of Americans now at least somewhat oppose the Democratic healthcare reform proposal while 46% are at least somewhat in favor of it. This is a fairly dramatic change from a poll taken just two weeks ago where 50% were for, and 45% were against the proposal.

So, are conservatives winning the argument on this crucial issue? Are people beginning to see through the Obama deception? It is no surprise that in his most recent statements, Obama again exploits the crisis lie, characterizing the state of healthcare as a “desperate need.” In fact, Americans enjoy unparalleled healthcare, the vast majority of Americans are happy with their coverage, and all this with the added benefit of not having to suffer the appalling atrocities of socialized medicine. Of course, none of Obama’s radical agenda would ever stand a chance of being enacted without the guise of a “crisis” obscuring it, which is why he inevitably sounds the alarm on every issue that will expand the power of the federal government and the presidency. At this point, however, it sounds as if Obama is going to have to force this project on an unwilling populace who, let’s be honest Mr. President, are the real "naysayers" on this issue.

Sotomayor Extravaganza!

2009-07-14T18:00:00.000-04:00

By Nichole Hungerford

Yesterday began the hearings of judicial nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, and not a moment too soon for the liberal hate-writers who now have something to spew their baseless vitriol about besides Sarah Palin. In fact, I can give you the format of each pitifully predictable op-ed piece in advance: They will proceed with a brief introduction of sanctimonious, verbal love-making to Sotomayor, and devote the remainder of the article to irrelevant grandstanding against Justice Roberts. Sad, but formulaically true. The hearing will also be the first official capacity in which we will see comedian Al Franken (a.k.a., Stuart Smalley the fictional self-help guru) as he ascends his newly purchased Senate seat.

At this point, there is simply too much uncertainty about how Sotomayor would conduct herself on the court. She may not even be as liberal as her predecessor, David Souter. At the very least, we can reasonably be assured she won’t be any worse. She enjoys unrestrained affection from most Senate Democrats and considerable skepticism, although not heavy opposition, from Republicans. Republicans are especially interested in how she will explain several controversial, off-bench statements which will be addressed in the coming hearings.

Yes, I rant!

2009-07-14T08:00:00.000-04:00

By Lenny Moynihan

It seems the problem we have in America is this desperate need for an idol. Although both black and white communities have picked Obama as a top contender, this last week it seemed to be Michael Jackson. I am sorry that I need to point out color but it seems we are still doing that. Of course, we heard that Michael was more black than white and he really represented the black community. I think this was a similar argument with Obama. I recognize there will always be idiots in America and the world at large that are racist; thus, the fallen world we live in. Many of us have encountered some kind of prejudice some worse than others. I can say it was drilled into me by this society that I am not to see color. Was I the only one paying attention? I know I am not the only person that has lived my life this way so why can't the rest of you? To the black community and others that love to use the race card I say it is time to let the color go. We are an inflexible society that grabs onto issues and don't want to let them go.

I found out in my 20's that I am the steward of my destiny. This is not a left or right tenet, this is a life Truth. If I had personal problems and excess baggage, I would need to find the answers. If I wanted riches, I would need to work for them. If I wanted to be married with longevity, I would have to work at it. The common thread here is me working at it. I have spent a life time addressing my personal issues so I could be all that I could be. I am convicted in my beliefs and I have no need for a flesh and blood idol. I have filled my own voids because no one else can! It seemed Michael was a broken person although incredibly talented. Obama, to me, is an egomaniac. How can either of these men be an idol to fill my needs? More importantly, why are Americans so desperate for someone else to fix it for them?

I say we have lost our sense of self. The black community refuses to set aside color so every single issue must include that conflict. Obama refuses to let go of his agenda so we must watch our country's demise. The left refuses to let go of its hatred and vitriol speech so we must continue to look bad to other countries. The fundamental right clings to it's judgement; even though, Christ made it clear thou shall not judge. The white community is so busy being politically correct they have forgotten their own thoughts and feelings. In the end, none of this is working except for the government at large, or should I say as it gets larger!

We have become an insane nation and if you don't believe me turn on the news. Our government is not representing it's people. The glamour life style of pop stars and Hollywood don't represent us either. They are all thriving because of our needs for idols and the distraction of white noise. As a nation, we really need to get it together. We are 233 years old and we have become more immature not mature. The fundamental premise is the pursuit of the individual not BIG OVER GRASPING AND OVER REACHING GOVERNMENT. Instead we look to Presidents and pop stars to create our governance. This pattern is deadly. America take a good look at yourself. I ask you, do you like what you see?

We Behave Even When We (Tea) Party

2009-07-11T08:00:00.000-04:00

By Anthony Bialy

Maybe I should forward my pictures from Buffalo’s Independence Day Tea Party to the Department of Homeland Security. It wouldn’t be to help them save time when compiling Janet Napolitano’s Personal Enemies List: it’s more of a preemptive move against those who brand us as radicals for thinking the government shouldn’t be buying lots of stuff. If they’re still fretting about the seething rage among righties, we may as well make the case that attendees are as typical as zealots get.

We held a standard Tea Party. Specifically, a few hundred of us spent an hour or two listening to enthusiastic limited-government speakers while assembled in front of our majestic Art Deco City Hall. It was basically similar to other events across the nation: we were mostly like everyone else everywhere else.

That said, we face particularly onerous burdens based on where we are. Notably, we are subject to income tax for the privilege of living in the Empire State, a risible 8.75 percent sales tax in Erie County, and astoundingly high property tax rates that cost some homeowners more than their mortgages. We have to chant to ourselves, religious mantra-style, the ample benefits of living here just to keep from calling U-Haul.

We’re mostly upset because it’s unnecessary to take all that’s taken from us. There are innumerable examples of obviously genuine waste. But even worthwhile organizations should be funded by private citizens choosing to spend their money on them. Philharmonics, art galleries, and pro sports teams are all significant and wonderful assets, which means that people should be willing to spend their own money in support. If we benefit from them, we don’t need a government mandate to fund them.

Our party also featured the same extremists who criticize the educational system for its astounding expenditure per mediocre student. On a national level, count us among the disaffected reactionaries who think banks and car companies that run themselves into the ground can either dig themselves out or stay there. Barack Obama’s take on the free market is strangely expensive.

Tea fanatics also maintain that the government isn’t obligated to care for our fitness. Lost in the analysis of health care costs is the broader truth that it’s an individual’s duty to maintain his or her self. Simultaneously, we realize that doctors, hospitals, and the rest of us will always step up to help those in need; the true cynics are those who hold that charity only works when forced.

We’re also the same lunatics who oppose cap and trade simply because it will destroy the economy and attempt to force us to use limp power sources for the sake of not having any effect on the environment at all. Of course, the bill will only affect people and industries that use energy, so it’s not as if its consequences will be far-reaching.

In that regard, our foes don’t know history, or at least not our history. They don’t simply oppose distinctively American concepts like personal reliability and being left the hell alone; they don’t even realize that they’re valid options. They’re unable to get around the answer to the question that, if the government won’t attend to the details, who will?

On the other hand, the Tea Party gave us a chance to flaunt our historical knowledge, and not just because we used our First Amendment rights to stand up for our Tenth Amendment ones. For one, judging by the quantity of rattlesnake-clad flags being waved, we clearly know who Revolutionary bad-ass Christopher Gadsden was.

Plus, someone in the crowd at Buffalo’s Niagara Square was proudly flying a Green Mountain Boys flag. The green standard with 13 stars in a blue corner field would probably be misconstrued to be Mother Earth’s ensign by our commie hippie friends. It’s a mistake that would be made by the same types who only know of Ethan Allen as a fancy furniture builder.

By the same measure, John Hancock and Sam Adams would have been branded militant nuts today, but only by those who recognize the names. They would be hassled by dinosaurs like The New York Times and evening network newscasts along with newer reptilian incarnations on the web. The only thing worse would be that others would sadly find themselves unfamiliar with the heroes. For one, JoJo Biden would be confused as to why a financial guy and brewer, respectively, were being treated as menaces.

With that in mind, I’ll hold back and instead make those at DHS keep looking for the pictures of my individualistic comrades and me. They can stumble to http://www.twitter.com/AnthonyBialy if they’re really interested in seeing how we amassed and occasionally cheered as we behaved. Alternately, the feds can search for photos posted by one of the numerous other normal diehards based in a plethora of other cities.

It’ll be good for those keeping an eye on us: they can learn what we already know, namely that we just want to keep more of what we make. If we’re the biggest threat to security, consider this nation blessed. That was just another reason to have spent the rest of the Fourth celebrating.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and "Red Eye" Conservative in Western New York.

“Capitalism and Freedom” – Senator Jim DeMint

2009-07-10T08:00:00.001-04:00

This week GM won permission for a government-backed company to purchase GM brands including Buick, Cadillac and Chevrolet, in order to pay off millions of dollars of debt—elevating the phrase “big government” to a new level. As consumers are confronted by an ailing economy and a brittle banking system, how much longer will it be before the capitalist system becomes just a faded memory?

The following is an excerpt from Senator Jim DeMint’s new release Saving Freedom: We Can Stop America’s Slide into Socialism:

“America’s golden goose is our capitalist economic system. It has made us wealthy beyond anything the world has ever known. Yet our excesses and debt are leading us to demand more and more golden eggs. Our taxes, regulations, and legal liabilities on businesses are now the most onerous in the world. We haven’t yet killed the goose, but we have plucked her clean, and the socialist axe is at her neck…

We have seen the federal government’s ‘communal sector’ replace local decision-making in public schools, hamstring private sector health-care services, federalize local banking, socialize farming, nationalize road construction. We now have federal intrusion into almost every business sector. Government must provide a consistent and predictable framework of laws and regulations, but arbitrary intrusion and subjective interpretations of regulations destroys the operation of the free market. Capitalism and socialism will not work together.

America cannot have it both ways. We must decide if we want a free market economy or socialism. Mixing the central planning principles of socialism with the decentralized free-market principles of capitalism has not worked, and it is destroying American’s competitive advantage in the world. Using business to collect taxes, provide health care, maintain pension programs, promote affirmative action, support the unemployed, absorb the cost of emissions by cars and utilities, and pay for frivolous lawsuits is killing the goose that lays the golden eggs.

All of these functions are important and sometimes necessary, but Americans must understand that putting these costs on the backs of businesses does not save money; it obscures costs and creates inefficiencies that reduce competitiveness. Businesses don’t pay for anything; they pass along the cost of taxes, health care, pensions, and all other costs of doing business to their employees and customers. These expenses increase the cost of American workers but reduce their take-home pay. They also increase the cost of products, reduce competitiveness, and hurt profitability.”

In 314 pages, Senator DeMint argues against big government and calls for Americans to take back the power rightfully bestowed upon them by our founding fathers. He also calls for Americans to defend their personal freedom and provides action steps citizens can take to stop this slide into socialism.

Link: http://www.savingfreedombook.com/

Connect with Senator Jim DeMint online:

Twitter: @JimDeMint
Personal Site: JimDeMint.com
Senate Site: DeMint.Senate.gov

Dependence Day

2009-07-09T08:00:00.004-04:00

Upon celebrating the 4th of July, the birth of our nation under the Declaration of Independence in 1776, I couldn't help but wonder what direction our nation is free-falling to. Our Founding Fathers risked everything to fight for a country that they believed in. A free country. A country where "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." When America finally won her Independence from Britain, the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights were written with the purpose of limiting government. We fought for Independence and they knew that we needed to preserve it. We needed to create a country where the strong arm of the government could not interfere with our right to live free. Are we still that country? The country that stands for freedom and an individual's right to earn a good life? I am not so sure anymore. There are more and more people out there that think they deserve a good life and that the government should provide it. The current Democratic controlled Congress and President Barack Obama are only too happy to comply with this.

Since his inauguration on January 20th, President Obama and Congress have been spending tax payer money uncontrollably, have taken over a portion of the auto industry, are setting the stage to control and regulate more of the banking industry and Wall Street, and now they want to take over the health care system and pass a Cap and Trade bill that will raise prices for all Americans on everything from heating your home to things you purchase at the store. If the Cap and Trade bill passes in it's current form, a government agency will be created that will inspect your house before you can sell it and tell you what improvements need to be made to meet government "green" regulations. Just as medical decisions should be made by a doctor and the patient, shouldn't improvements on a home be made between the buyer and the seller based upon an independent home inspection? Not according to the current administration and those running Congress. They know what is best for every American.

Our President couldn't even get off the fence to come out with a strong stand on Iran, the election and the protests for freedom. First he said,"We're still waiting to see how it plays itself out...." and that "The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States." I am sure to the people protesting, there was a difference. To many who were protesting, it was not so much that Mousavi himself didn't win, it was the idea that Ahmadinejad could take an election illegally. Obama claims he didn't want to "meddle" in Iran's problems, but by making these comments and belittling what the people there were protesting, he did. If there was no difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi and both regimes would be hostile to the U.S. anyway, then why be so timid and not condemn the actions of the government?

It was only after coverage of the protests increased and the tragic shooting of a 26 year old woman by the Iranian Basij Militia while exiting a car, that President Obama decided to speak with stronger criticism on the actions of the Iranian government, "When a young woman gets shot on the street when she gets out of her car that's a problem." Mr. President, it is more than a problem, it is murder.

Now to the complete other end of the spectrum, when the Congress and Supreme Court of Honduras had their military remove the leftist leaning President Zelaya, Obama came out quick. He claimed immediately that it was "not legal" and that Zelaya should be reinstated as President. In fact Zelaya was corrupt, had mismanaged finances of the government and was trying to circumvent the Constitution of Honduras by extending his term of office. The Congress agreed with the Honduran Supreme Court's ruling that Zelaya was in violation of the their Constitution and the military complied by removing Zelaya. As Hans Bader stated in his article, Will Obama blackmail Honduras into installing a bullying would-be dictator?, "The Honduran military's role in enforcing the court order does not make it a "coup" any more than federal troops' role in enforcing the court-ordered integration of the Little Rock public schools in 1957 constituted a military occupation or takeover."

What is scary is that Obama stated that the "U.S. will stand on the side of democracy" so to him, Zelaya represented democracy! In taking this stance, President Obama has now found himself agreeing with Hugo Chavez, Fidel Castro and every other leftist dictator and leader in Latin America. I applaud Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen for taking issue with the Obama administration on it's reaction to Honduras.

In a letter to Obama, Ros-Lehtinen stated "the U.S. stance from the onset appears to have been focused on supporting one individual, President Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, irrespective of the Honduran constitution, rule of law, and democratic institutions. ... [T]here has been no apparent attempt by the U.S to discern the truth about the status of democratic and constitutional order in this Central American country, before making summary conclusions and issuing condemnations based on incomplete information." She ended the letter by saying she hoped the Obama administration "will not have the U.S. response hinge on unconfirmed reports and accusations by sources with a vested interest in ensuring a particular outcome that may, or may not be in the interest of the United States."

The Senate will soon start confirmation hearings for Judge Sonia Sotomayor, who President Obama has nominated for the Supreme Court of the United States. She has stated, "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." I argue that she does not see all people equally. She first sees ethnicity, then gender, and then the law, which she wants to create. In 2001, she said this, "Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage." Anyone who is a judge and makes it clear that they will be bringing their bias to the bench based on their heritage, gender and experiences, should not be anywhere near the Supreme Court.

Our country is changing. It is changing because we are being led by a man who lacks the knowledge of what freedom and democracy is, to be President of the United States of America. If the United States doesn't stand up to the government of Iran and doesn't give the people of Iran the message that we stand solidly with them in their struggle for freedom; if our leader doesn't see that in Honduras, the wheels of democracy were actually working in the ousting of Zelaya; if our President and Congress force government controlled health care and continue to take over industry after industry; if our government sees fit to impose taxes and create another federal bureaucracy to make the country "green", and if a judge gets confirmed to the Supreme Court who clearly doesn't see all people equally and sees her role as one to create law and not interpret it justly, where is our freedom headed?

The American people need to understand that if actions are not taken to stop the current trend of government interference in our lives and it's inability to stand up for the struggles of freedom in the world, we may be longing for the days of celebrating our hard fought-for Independence because we will be mourning our complacent birth of Dependence. Dependence on a government that thrives on power. The power to tell you what is right for you. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, " That government is best which governs the least, because its people discipline themselves."

No Job Lined Up = Palin Quitting?!

2009-07-08T08:00:00.000-04:00

By Theosebes

The Great American Panel was heated tonight on Hannity’s America as Bob Beckel opened his mouth and dripped sarcastic anger all over Sarah Palin’s decision to step down. His logic was because Sarah Palin didn’t have a job lined up, she quit on the people of Alaska. Beckel’s response angered me as I sat thinking to myself, “What if Sarah Palin decided to dedicate the next few years to her husband and family? What if she gave it all up because she knew her family needed her to be a full time mom? Is that not a job?” My ire was up when the illusion of joblessness was equated with quitting, the job of motherhood was relegated to non-work.

“How sad that Washington and the media will never understand -- it's about country," she (Palin) said. “Though it's honorable for countless others to leave their positions for a higher calling and without finishing a term, of course we know by now, for some reason a different standard applies for the decisions I make. But every American understands what it takes to make a decision because it's right for all -- including your family." http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/07/05/09/love-family-country-alaska-led-her-resign-palin

The Washington Post reported, “Palin offered few clues about her ambitions but said she arrived at her decision in part to protect her family, which has faced withering criticism and occasional mockery, and to escape ethics probes that have drained her family's finances and hampered her ability to govern. She said leaving office is in the best interest of the state and will allow her to more effectively advocate for issues of importance to her, including energy independence and national security.”

In a speech given by President Roosevelt in Washington on March 13, 1905, before the National Congress of Mothers, he shared, “No ordinary work done by a man is either as hard or as responsible as the work of a woman who is bringing up a family of small children; for upon her time and strength demands are made not only every hour of the day but often every hour of the night. She may have to get up night after night to take care of a sick child, and yet must by day continue to do all her household duties as well; and if the family means are scant she must usually enjoy even her rare holidays taking her whole brood of children with her. The birth pangs make all men the debtors of all women. Above all our sympathy and regard are due to the struggling wives among those whom Abraham Lincoln called the plain people, and whom he so loved and trusted; for the lives of these women are often led on the lonely heights of quiet, self-sacrificing heroism.” http://www.nationalcenter.org/TRooseveltMotherhood.html

No other woman in America has endured such a firestorm of hatred aimed at her and her children as Sarah has and yet she has demonstrated an inner strength, integrity and fortitude that every woman in America should honor, on both sides of the aisle. Quitter is not an adjective with which I would label Sarah Palin. Starter, achiever and doer are more in line with her character and the track record of her life. They are qualities that have helped her raise her family, love and support her husband, care for her newest baby Trig, and walk her daughter through an unexpected pregnancy, all while effectively governing Alaska.

Shame on the media and the bloggers like Shannon Moore for the visceral hate reporting they repeatedly practice. According to Newsmax.com, “Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin’s attorney, Thomas Van Flein, issued a four-page warning to mainstream news organizations over the weekend that he will sue on behalf of his client if 'defamatory material' relating to her or her family finds its way from Internet blogs to print.”

It is truly a shame when grown men and woman must have their tongues and typewriters muzzled by the threat of a defamation lawsuit in order to attain humane behavior.

The speculations won’t stop and the hate will not quit until Sarah Palin and all that she represents is silenced. The only reason for this kind of animosity is the fear of what a person or ideology represents to the one spewing the hate. Governor Palin may have stepped down from her job as Alaska’s executive, but she has never quit on that which is most important, and that is her family.

I Pledge Alliegence to the United Nations Flag?

2009-07-04T08:00:00.002-04:00

By Theosebes

This past Monday morning, Susan E. Rice, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations made a visit with Unicef to a classroom at the Harlem Children’s Zone. She spoke with an audience of eighth and ninth graders about volunteerism and shared that she hoped they would have similar opportunities to engage with the United Nations and with young people in the developing world as she had had. She said, “Your generation will have more to do than any other generation with people in other countries.” According to the New York Times article June 22, 2009, In Harlem, Ambassador to U.N. Urges Volunteerism, she shared about the civil war in Congo, and the supplies that Unicef, in honor of Harlam Children’s Zone, would be donating to this area. “Kids all over the U.S., and particularly here in New York, need to understand how their security, future and economic livelihood is linked to what happens in other parts of the world,” she said. “They’re not passive bystanders in this life, even as young people.”

Benign as this might seem, there is more to the story. Yesterday morning an email was sent out to members of Home School Legal Defense Association in regard to this visit. What the New York Times didn’t report was shared in the E-lert sent from HSLDA. http://www.hslda.org/elert/archive/2009/06/20090624132525.asp According to the email, Susan Rice told this group of students that the administration officials are actively discussing “when and how it might be possible to join” (that is, ratify) the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). As before, she also communicated what a disgrace it is that the U.S. would stand with only Somalia against such a widely accepted treaty.

Michael Farris, HSLDA Chairman asked the members to take action by calling the White House and their Congressional leaders, letting them know that they strongly oppose the “anti-family and anti-American treaty.” He also asked that calls be made to Ambassador Susan Rice’s office at the United Nations voicing these concerns.

A few hours after the initial E-lert from HSLDA, another email came through sharing this fantastic news: “The office of UN Ambassador Susan Rice has been inundated with calls! The first phone line we sent out has been completely shut down, and the voice mail system for all of their lines has been crashed.” http://www.hslda.org/elert/archive/2009/06/20090624163733.asp

Home Schooling families stepped up to represent not only their rights, but the rights of all Americans. The grassroots movement that took place yesterday must continue on a larger scale by educating all Americans about the danger of this U.N. treaty and placing calls to their elected officials.

Once again, our liberal friends in Washington, who claim to love America, are covertly hoping to ratify CRC making it the law of the land here in the United States helping to strip away the rights of parents in America and allow the U.N. to dictate what proper parenting looks like at a global level.

Both Drudge http://www.drudge.com/news/122366/us-may-join-un-childrens-treaty and Free Republic http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2278566/posts reported on this development on June 24, 2009, but this has been on the back burner for Barbara Boxer as reported earlier this year by FoxNews.com. “Sen. Barbara Boxer is urging the U.S. to ratify a United Nations measure meant to expand the rights of children, a move critics are calling a gross assault on parental rights that could rob the U.S. of sovereignty.” http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/02/25/boxer-seeks-ratify-treaty-erode-rights/

According to J. Michael Smith, HSLDA President, in Washington Times Op-ed—U.N. Treaty Might Weaken Families

“Article 43 of the CRC establishes an international committee on the rights of the child to examine compliance by member nations. This committee, which sits in Geneva, has final authority concerning interpretation of the language contained in the CRC.
Two central principles of the CRC clearly are contrary to current U.S. laws related to parent-child relationships. The CRC provides that in all matters relating to children, whether private or public, or in courts, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Additionally, nations should ensure that children are capable of expressing their views freely in all matters affecting them, giving due weight to the age and maturity of the child.
This is contrary to traditional American law, which provides that absent proof of harm, courts and social workers simply do not have the authority to intervene in parent-child relationships and decision-making. The importance of this tradition and practice is that the government may not substitute its judgment for that of the parent until there is proof of harm to the child sufficient to justify governmental intervention. It is clear that in two very important areas of the parent-child relationship, religion and education, there will be potential for tremendous conflict.
The international committee in Geneva, in reviewing the laws of practice of countries that have ratified the CRC, has expressed its concern that parents could homeschool without the view of the child being considered; that parents could remove their children from sex-education classes without the view of the child being considered; that parents were legally permitted to use corporal punishment; and that children didn’t have access to reproductive health information without parental knowledge.
The bottom line is the CRC would drastically weaken the United States’ sovereignty over family life, which would have a substantial impact on every American family."

To find out more on the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child, visit http://www.parentalrights.org/learn rn.

Our sovereignty as parents in America is threatened by the United Nations if our Administration and Congress ratify this treaty. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and teach my children to do the same. We must not lie down on this issue for the sake of our children and grandchildren. We must fight with everything we have to remain One Nation, Under God, not One Nation caving into the demands of the world.

The Tea Parties are Coming, the Tea Parties are Coming!

2009-07-03T18:35:00.000-04:00

By Theosebes

The Tea Parties are coming, the Tea Parties are coming! For a second showing, the Tea Parties are coming to a neighborhood corner near you on the Fourth of July, 2009. If the first event was missed, then participation is highly suggested. So come one, come all and bring your red, white and blue tea cups to share with others, in the ever growing frustration that has taken most Americans by storm.

Is the storm brewing as a result of our twenty first century Tea Tax or is there a greater angst, a deeper discontent than just the enormous deficit that will be handed down to our great, great-grandchildren? I suggest that as with the colonists of the 1760’s, the taxation without representation was only a part of a greater injustice that was imprisoning the patriots who gave so much for us, their great, great, great-grandchildren. Would men fight and die because the tax man, in this case Britain, was assessing “unfair taxes”? The taxation they faced was only twenty percent of those being taxed in England, so where did the cry for independence gain in fervor?

The issue that shook the world then and I believe is beginning to shake our world today is not just about the exorbitant taxes that Obama and Company are laying on the backs of millions, but the shackles brought on by an enormous government and the freedoms that are being stripped away, daily in the name of change, in the name of progress. The colonists didn’t shed their blood because they were angry that England was asking for more money, in fact after the War of Independence, colonists were taxed twenty fold more than they had been under the crown. The blood of these patriots ran on the soils of Lexington and Concord, Bunker Hill and Brandywine because their freedoms were being stripped away.

What freedoms have been confiscated from the hands of private citizens today and given to the oligarchy on the hill? To sum up: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have become endangered ideals under these ruling elite. Economic freedoms under government regulation, property rights, and the freedom to succeed and fail in business are just a few areas in which the government has overstepped the limits of its Constitutional powers as seen in the frantic vote of the Stimulus Bill. There is a strong arm push for mandatory government run health care. There is the deceit in the Obama plan for educational reform that strips parental rights to choose what is best for their children under the guise of the Convention on the Rights of Children, a treaty if ratified would supersede American law and sovereignty. The First Amendment is under attack through the Fairness Doctrine which was “rooted in the media world of 1949, when lawmakers became concerned that by virtue of their near-stranglehold on nationwide TV broadcasting, the three main television networks — NBC, ABC and CBS — could misuse their broadcast licenses to set a biased public agenda” this is being revisited by Pelosi and friends and yet we see Obama-mercials for his policies without the benefit of hearing from the other side of the discussion.

Fourth Amendment rights are under attack as Obama is using the oft-disproved contention that "90% of the guns recovered in Mexico come from the United States" as the stated basis of his support for the international treaty he is promoting. The treaty is formally known as the Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives and Other Related Materials (CIFTA) treaty.

The list of liberties at risk is lengthy and could not fit into a mere blog. Perhaps our greatest liberty, the right to worship God, as guaranteed under the First Amendment, is our most tragic loss. Any honest reader of history will recognize that many of the first settlers in America came for religious freedom and the cost that so many paid for such freedom was the utmost price, their very lives or the lives of their loved ones. Individuals die for those things which have intrinsic value and the right to worship God, unimpeded by the government, is one of those invaluable rights. Today we see this First Amendment right under attack as evidenced by the H.R. 1592 that is pending committee in the U.S. House. This is a bill that would “criminalize thought or emotion or even speech," said Glen Lavy of the Alliance Defense Fund. But I suggest that this attack began decades ago when the Supreme Court ruled in 1947 that it was unconstitutional for the government "to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion."² in Everson v. Board of Education 330 US 31.

Tom West of the Claremont Institute wrote, “The victory of relativism has made the Founders' understanding of religious liberty alien to us. Liberty today is taken to mean "the right to choose," the right to do whatever one pleases.

Surprisingly, both liberals and conservatives agree on this definition. Their disagreement is over the extent to which government should impose limits on abuses of liberty. A sign of our shared view of liberty is that we often speak of balancing liberty with order, with responsibility, or with community. If we define liberty as the unlimited right of the irresponsible will, we do have to look to a source outside of liberty for some restraint on it. But if liberty is inherently responsible liberty, as the Founders thought, it does not need to be balanced by anything. It contains within itself its own balance.

For the Founders, the irresponsible, irrational will is not free. It is enslaved. James Madison said that "the tyranny of their own passions" led the Athenians to condemn Socrates to death. What Madison meant by this phrase was spelled out by the Reverend Samuel West of Massachusetts in a 1776 sermon: "The most perfect freedom consists in obeying the dictates of right reason, and submitting to natural law. When a man goes beyond or contrary to the law of nature and reason, he becomes the slave of base passions and vile lusts. . . . Hence we conclude that where licentiousness begins, liberty ends."⁴
http://www.claremont.org/publications/pubid.669/pub_detail.asp

The liberty and freedom that Americans once enjoyed, free from governmental legislation, came from the idea of personal, conscientious self rule that denied self in the best interest of society or in closer context the best interest of one’s neighbor. There was also the belief of God or a Deity that had defined standards of behavior that human kind should follow because it was best for the individual and society. Because many Americans have shunned the notion that there is absolute truth and therefore absolute law, and because the government operates on the same premise, they legislated on what is good for now, for the ruling class, to remain relevant to the voting population. But those who have remained steadfast in the knowledge that there is in fact absolute truth and who temper their lives through self control and self rule for the best of society, will not only make a distinct stand against the direction of this type of government, but will also perhaps lose their rights to speak out against this abuse of power by the very government they hope to rebuild.

Alexis de Tocqueville wrote in Democracy in America, “It must never be forgotten that religion gave birth to Anglo-American society. In the United States, religion is therefore mingled with all the habits of the nation and all the feeling of patriotism, whence it derives a peculiar force….Christianity has therefore retained a strong hold on the public mind in America…Christianity itself is an established and irresistible fact.”

For this reason men and women have paid the ultimate sacrifice, not because they were angry that taxes were too high, but because loss of liberty was too costly. Freedom and liberty come from God, and the Christian religion has been the tool that has shaped this country from the beginning. Calvin Coolidge stated, “If American democracy is to remain the greatest hope of humanity, it must continue abundantly in the faith of the Bible.”

So let the Tea Parties begin, but let them begin with the purpose of regaining the liberties that the Left has so easily taken from the American people. The fight is for the future, the fight must begin now, or the wars of the past, the signatures on the Declaration of Independence, the sacrifices of the Founders, the Colonists, the Military, the fathers and mothers, who for hundreds of years have given their utmost, will die in vain, as the America they founded dies on the threshold of the twenty-first century.

The U.S. Foreign Policy Circus

2009-07-03T08:00:00.002-04:00

The current foreign policy stance held by the Obama administration, being heralded on the left as the way back into the good graces of other countries (including ones that want to destroy us), has been like watching a circus. President Obama is the ringleader with his blame America speeches and our State Department, headed by Hillary Clinton is like the car full of clowns. With every foreign affairs mishap, it's like another clown exiting the car. The question is how many clowns are in there?

First, Hillary Clinton went to Russia and met with Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. She gave him a plastic "red button" with Russian print on it that was supposed to say "reset" to represent the "reset" of relations between our two countries. Unfortunately, the Russian was wrong and the button actually said "overcharge." Apparently, they gave him the button that was meant for the American people.

Then Secretary Clinton went to Mexico where she continued to blame the U.S., citing the statistic that "90 percent of the weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the United States." In fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S. An ATF spokeswoman stated the statistic as being, "over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."

While in Mexico, Secretary Clinton stopped at the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe to leave a bouquet of white flowers, “on behalf of the American people." She then asked, "Who painted it?" to which the Monsignor responded “God!” She apparently did not do her homework. The image of Our Lady of Guadalupe was miraculously imprinted by Mary on the cloak of St. Juan Diego in 1531. Upon leaving the basilica, Mrs. Clinton told some of the Mexicans gathered outside to greet her, “You have a marvelous virgin!” Don't forget, this is "on behalf of the American people."

Secretary Clinton then went to China to beg and plead with them to keep buying U.S. debt. This was extremely important because the President and Congress are finding all kinds of ways to spend money that our country doesn't have and someone has to pay for it. Why not the Chinese and then eventually the next generation of Americans?

The U.S. then sent four detainees from Guantanamo Bay to the lovely island of Bermuda. Bermuda has control over it's own affairs which include immigration, but not foreign policy, defense or security, because they are still a British territory. Decisions on these matters would be made in London. Except if you are President Obama, the ringleader, then you let your operatives and State Department blindside one of our most reliable and important allies.

Meanwhile, North Korea continues to launch missile tests and threaten the U.S. with attacks if anything is done to prevent them or their pursuit of nuclear weapons. Our response, they are a "grave threat" and we are "looking into it." Now, because the Bush Administration took North Korea off the terror list, we are trying to decide if we should put them back on. It is like the green, red and yellow cards my kindergartner gets at school. If they are having a good day, they keep the green card next to their name. When they start misbehaving, they get the yellow card for a warning, and when the teacher has had it, the red card goes up along with a note home. Right now, North Korea has a yellow card and we are trying to decide if we want to switch them to red and send a note to the mother of all foreign affairs, the dysfunctional United Nations.

We also had members of the Congressional Black Caucus visit Cuba. "Former President Fidel Castro is very engaging, very energetic," said CBC Chairwoman Barbara Lee, a California Democrat. "Our conclusion is, given the new direction in our foreign policy, that it's time to look at a new direction in our policy toward Cuba." Lee and others gave much praise to Castro, saying that he was warm and receptive to them. Lee described her time with Castro as, “quite a moment to behold." Representative Bobby Rush, an Illinois Democrat said, “It was almost like listening to an old friend", and "In my household I told Castro he is known as the ultimate survivor." I guess that would be true if your old friend is a communist tyrant who is a human rights abuser, suppresses free speech, fair elections and imprisons political dissenters.

Now we have our State Department telling its embassies and consulates around the world that “they may invite representatives from the government of Iran” to their Independence Day celebrations which are gatherings that usually have hot dogs, red-white-and-blue decorations, fireworks and is a general celebration of America, it's roots and values. Nothing like a friendly barbecue to show that the communication lines are open with a government that wants to wipe Israel off the face of the earth and whose leader despises America.

This was announced right before Secretary Clinton went to El Salvador where she is trying to improve relations in Latin America because they are concerned about the influence that Iran has been gaining there. Of course while there, as is the pattern with the Democrats (they did it for eight years, so I guess habits are hard to break) Clinton blamed the Bush administration and their policy in Latin America for the Iranian influence.

Even with the ongoing violence taking place in Iran today, with protesters marching in the streets, risking their lives in opposition to the current government and their election controversy, State Department spokesman, Ian Kelly said, "There's no thought to rescinding the invitations to Iranian diplomats. We have made a strategic decision to engage on a number of fronts with Iran. And -- and we tried many years of isolation, and we're pursuing a different path now."

So to recap our foreign policy: we gave a plastic "red button" to Russia that didn't translate correctly; we went to Mexico and falsely accused the U.S. of supplying bad guys with guns; told the people in Mexico City that they have a "marvelous Virgin"; begged China to buy up more of our debt because we can't stop spending like drunken sailors; we sent Gitmo detainees off to live in a paradise governed by our ally without notifying them; we have scolded North Korea; engaged Fidel Castro, the communist dictator, and praised him; and now we are going to invite representatives from Iran to come and celebrate America's birthday with hot dogs, which depending on what kind you buy, they can't even eat because Muslims don't eat pork. With three and a half years left to this administration and it's foreign policy, I think the clown car is going to be really big.

The Medicare Trust Fund Will Run Out of Money in 8 Years. So, Lets put More People into the Program?

2009-07-01T08:00:00.003-04:00

By Jill Serbousek

The news coverage on Healthcare reform and Medicare can be very confusing these days. The current administration continues to tout Medicare as a model for reform. Then other reports discuss the fact that Medicare cannot be sustained without the help of the private insurance industry, who supplements a percentage of the Medicare bill. In the same Chicago Tribune article that reported the grim news about Medicare’s impending insolvency, I also found this quote: "Medicare is central to the effort to promote high-quality, affordable healthcare for all Americans," said Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, a member of the Social Security and Medicare Board of Trustees.

Here are a few of my questions:

1. Does Medicare really provide high-quality care? Compared to other countries, the answer is most likely YES. Compared to private insurance? Doubtful. Medicare pays a pre-negotiated “flat fee” based on a Diagnostically Related Group or DRG. So, if you were having surgery, the hospital and surgeon will get a fixed amount to care for you. This means that they will work hard to make sure that the cost of your care fits into that fixed/flat payment. Would your younger, non-Medicare, friends receive the same care? Maybe, maybe not. Since there is no flat fee to work with, the doctor may be more willing to utilize newer technology, in many cases, more current standard of care. Even if you pay more for your Medicare coverage, as do patients who are in a higher earning category are required to do, your care will be dictated by the same pre-negotiated flat fee for your condition/procedure. In fact, those patients will pay 2 to 3 times the amount in the Part B premiums than their lower earning counterparts, for the same care. For basic healthcare needs, Medicare is probably adequate in quality. Not sure that I would characterize it as “high” quality, knowing that the flat fee forces a rationing of technologies utilized.

2. Does Medicare provide “affordable” care? It depends on who you listen to, and who you are talking about. The Sebelius quote implies that Medicare provides affordable care, so much so that it should be offered to “all Americans.” She is most likely referring to the affordability to patients. However, there are reports that estimate up to 89% of Medicare recipients have a supplement because it’s commonly known that Medicare will only pay for about half of a retiree’s healthcare costs, leaving large gaps. So, who is Medicare affordable and cost-effective for? The government? It appears that way since they are using the program to pay for only half of the participants needs.

3. If 89% of Medicare participants need a Medicare Supplement to pay for up to half of their healthcare costs, and Medicare is going broke, how does it make the program a great “model” for reform? This is the big question. I’m still doing research. Still trying to figure out why the politicians think that expanding Medicare or coming up with a Federal Health plan is a good idea. Once thing I am sure about, my confidence in the success of a federal plan is low…..

Resources worth reading:
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/triage/2008/09/medicare-2009-p.html

http://www.online-health-insurance.com/health-insurance-resources/HFHC/content/medicare-supplements.htm

About Jill Serbousek:
Jill has been a marketing executive in the Medical Device industry for the past 20 years. First at Johnson & Johnson, then at Medtronic’s Spinal and Biologics business. She is a recognized expert, writer and frequent speaker on both web marketing and social networking in healthcare. Jill lives in Memphis, TN .

Link: http://www.healthandsharing.com/

Six Reasons Government-Run Health Care Is Bad for America, by Guest Blogger Rep. John Shadegg (R-AZ)

2009-06-30T08:00:00.001-04:00

Washington politicians are rushing to dramatically change America’s entire health care system in the few weeks remaining between now and Congress’s traditional August recess. They intend to create a vast, new government-run plan for hundreds of millions of Americans. This government takeover of private medicine will have devastating consequences. Here are some of the worst:

1. Your benefits will be taxed. We’ve heard the promise time and again, “Your taxes won’t go up one cent,”…unless you have health insurance. Now, Congressional Democrats are proposing to tax the employer-provided benefits most Americans rely on for their medical care. Health insurance already costs too much. Taxing the health care benefits of hardworking Americans will increase its cost even more and drive additional Americans onto a government health care program.

2. If you like what you have, you will lose it. A new government-run plan will destroy your private health care coverage. While proponents of such a plan claim they will allow people to keep what they have, a government-run program will destroy private care, making it uncompetitive and more and more expensive. Millions of Americans who currently have private insurance will be forced onto a government plan.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky, a member of the House Democrat leadership, in a moment of unguarded candor, recently acknowledged their goal: “[N]ext to me was a guy from the insurance company who then argued against the public health insurance option saying: it wouldn’t let private insurance compete, that a public option would put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single-payer … he was right!” [emphasis added].

3. Your care and drugs will be rationed. In every country with government-run health care, government health boards decide who is allowed to have what drugs, procedures, and treatments. For instance, Medicare patients were recently informed they would be denied virtual colonoscopies.

Resources will be stretched thinner than ever before, and patients will be denied care to keep costs down. In anticipation of this, the stimulus package included a $1.1 billion research provision so that, “those items, procedures, and interventions… that are found to be less effective and in some cases, more expensive, will no longer be prescribed” [emphasis added].

4. You will be placed on wait lists. Government care not only means rationing, it means bureaucracy and delays. In Massachusetts, the model state for universal coverage, one clinic has a wait list of at least 1,600 people—about four months—for an initial appointment. As one Canadian judge wrote, “Access to a waiting list is not access to health care.” What good is government coverage if all it gets you is a spot on a waiting list?

5. The quality of your care will plummet. Government insurance comes with strings attached for patients and doctors—and the incentives are all wrong. Already, Medicare rewards doctors for the volume of care provided, not for outcomes. If you get well, the doctor sees you less and his income decreases. This government model gives incentive to cram more patients and appointments into every day because quantity, not quality, are what counts. Just imagine: your doctor’s office or hospital will become more and more like the DMV.

6. You will have less choice and freedom. Government has expanded to an unprecedented size. It has taken over banks and car companies and sunk our nation into unthinkable debt. Every day, we see Washington creeping into our bank accounts, our minivans, and now even our doctors’ offices. Obamacare will mean losing one of our most intimate freedoms—the freedom to choose our medical care.

It is personal

2009-06-26T08:31:00.000-04:00

By Lenny Moynihan

The Republican party could take a lesson from the Democrats. This week we all found out that Governor Mark Sanford was having an affair. Today I read he is considering resigning. The Democrats have been caught in as many compromising positions as any Republican and many are still working in politics. The most famous names that comes to mind are Kennedy and of course Clinton. I remember Clinton's finger wagging in our faces through the TV as he told us, he did not have sex with that girl, or did he call her woman? In any case, he remained President and Kennedy remains a Senator.

It is the Democrats and their audience that have insisted for decades that the personal and professional life are not tied. Of course, Republicans know this is not true. We know how a man conducts himself behind closed doors is a good indicator of how he will do so in office. Having said that, marriage is hard and infidelity is often a caustic reaction. We are human and it is inevitable that we will sin. I have a much easier time understanding and forgiving someone a transgression such as this. I find Obama's continued pathological lying much harder to ingest or forgive.

The Dem's always want it both ways. The problem with our party is we have not learned this lesson. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. By this, I do not mean for us to give up our integrity. I do, however, hope that our party will realize scandal is part of the political game. Every time you are caught with your hand in the cookie jar does not mean you need to step down! If the left can stay in office, then surely a great Governor like Mark Sanford can too. We are all fallible and like Jesus said, who will throw the first stone? Oh yea, the Democrats and their current leader Obama. The President's lauding of a healthy life style while he sucks the smokes behind closed doors is laughable. Hey, he eats veggies though so it makes it all OK. I digress but with Obama in office how can I help it? I find him and his wife overly smug with nothing backing it up. I am no fan of the elite and have learned you must always look at what they do not what they say. It is said a man is only as good as his word so Obama is not worth much.

If we are to become a strong party again, we must accept the rise and fall of poor choices. Governor Mark Sanford, I for one do not want you to step down. I think you have potential to be a great leader and we need great leaders. You made a mistake, you admitted it and your wife is willing to reconcile. Unlike the Democrats we can actually learn from our mistakes. Just this week Barney Frank is at it again wanting to hand out loans to those who can't afford them. Wow, do they ever learn? Sorry, I digress again but this stuff is just so rich you can't make it up. Our party must not sweep such ills under the carpet but grab the microphone and say hey I made a mistake. Then prove your understanding of that mistake by making it right. Insanity is doing the same thing over again hoping for a different outcome. Hasn't the Democratic party reached their limit on that? It is truth and honor that makes one great. This is a skill the left seems to lack.

Whatever Is In The Heart Will Come Up To The Tongue

2009-06-22T08:00:00.002-04:00

Image via Wikipedia

http://www.feinberg.northwestern.edu/news/past-years/2008/2008L-January/fessler.html

“Whatever is in the heart will come up to the tongue.” Persian Proverb

Once again free thought and speech have been punished by the radicals who refuse to “tolerate" any who oppose their views. As Carrie Prejean was de-throned as California’s Queen, the queens in Hollywood and the media won a battle, but the war for free thought and speech wages on and is far from over.

Carrie Prejean, who was dethroned as Miss California, may take legal action against pageant officials. Prejean’s lawyer Charles Limandri told The Factor that, contrary to pageant allegations, his client fulfilled all her obligations. “There was never a scheduled appearance that she missed,” Limandri asserted. “She was set up by Keith Lewis of the Miss California pageant, who could not tolerate it when she said marriage should be between a man and a woman. He is a militant gay activist, he is an openly gay man, and he is an ideologue.” The Factor expressed confusion at the entire affair: “You’re saying this all goes back to Miss Prejean’s comment about marriage, and that Mr. Lewis is so angry about her answer that he’s putting his own job in jeopardy.” http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=latestTVShow#4

Let us step back and recall exactly the “who” and the “why” behind the speech police. I don’t recall a badge being issued to this segment of society giving them the right to silence the majority in favor of the millennial old tradition, marriage between a man and a woman. But Carrie has become the pin up girl who the intolerant homosexual community has demoralized and subsequently removed her rightfully earned crown.

Reflect with me about what occurred on that fateful night of Carrie’s demise. (Taken from an earlier post.)

Hate speech, at its finest, was flamboyantly on parade, bubbling up from the depths of a soulless man. Darkness was brought to life as visceral contempt spewed from the recesses of Perez Hilton's small, malicious heart, toward a young woman, Carrie Prejean, who had done him no wrong.

He has done those who stand on the side of Goodness a service as he so eloquently demonstrated the deep seeded hate that many in his celebrity circle also embody. All one needs to know about his social community and the sewer in which he dwells is to visit his blog site: perezhilton.com. Warning: Content not suitable for most.

Have we bred a society of animals, whose passions rule their hearts and whose hearts vomit out the wickedness in which it was educated? In the name of tolerance, has America turned a blind eye to what is considered decent social behavior? Where have the true gentlemen gone that once wielded the pen and shared the podium?

G. K. Chesterton stated that, “Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” Are the convictions of those who preach tolerance even true to the very definition from which it was derived?

According to Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913), TOL’ERANCE, n. [L. tolerantia, from tolero, to bear.] is: The power or capacity of enduring; or the act of enduring. The endurance of the presence or actions of objectionable persons, or of the expression of offensive opinions; toleration.

Today’s flippant usage has little to do with its origin; yet is indoctrinated into the minds of American children to be of greater importance than even love. No longer is the Golden Rule taught, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”; but rather “Lets all just get along,” regardless of whether one’s peers are demonstrating honorable character traits that build a virtuous society. We no longer press the mandate of chivalry and morals, but rather, America’s youthful society has learned that saying nothing for the “Good,” is being tolerant and merits an “A” in citizenship class. These children are now the adults that run the local news stations, judge Miss America Pageants and work for our Liberal Government.

Edmund Burke is credited with, “All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing” and one must ask: where are the men and women standing against evil? They are muzzled due to the fear of hate speech prosecution. They are fearful to offend and be called a bigot. Yet in the name of conviction, Carrie Prejean spoke words which she held to be truth and spoke them poignantly and peaceably while the Perez Hiltons of the Media and Hollywood scream hate speech and profanity. Carrie Prejean demonstrated the capacity of enduring the presence or actions of objectionable persons and their expression of offensive opinions.

One woman expressed her frustration in a letter to the editor of the North County Times. http://Letter to Editor by Nancy Popejoy…:

“I am so tired of being “tolerable” of other people’s opinions, only to have their “tolerance” of me turned into name-calling and throwing stones. I am a bigot if I don’t “agree” with you, a racist if I don’t “agree” with President Barack Obama and a homophobe if I believe a marriage should only be between a man and woman. If my opinion differs from yours, so be it. We are Americans and we all have that right. It is about time the “progressives” show me the same respect and be “tolerable.” The ones who are calling for “tolerance” of their beliefs are at it again with their “my way or the highway” thinking. The uproar over Carrie Prejean in the Miss USA pageant and her answer to a question about gay marriage, her personal beliefs and comment in support of keeping the traditional definition of marriage between one man and one woman has caused all in support of gay marriage to jump up shouting, “Hang her! She doesn’t agree with us.” Talk about intolerance and hypocrisy. Bigot, narrow-minded, intolerant … who does that sound like?” Nancy Popejoy, Murrieta, California

“We ought always to deal justly, not only with those who are just to us, but likewise to those who endeavor to injure us; and this, for fear lest by rendering them evil for evil, we should fall into the same vice.” (Hierocles).

Justice was dealt on the side of Right behavior this past week as the public spoke out against those who consistently trample moral character in the name of entertainment and protected by tolerance. Evil behavior can only masquerade for so long as “good society” before a shining light brings to evidence who is under the mask. Hollywood can keep going back to costuming for a new undercover look, but America saw through the glitz and one of their own stuck his foot in his filthy mouth and showed us what type of evil lurks under the disguise of tolerance.

Thomas Jefferson vs. ABC News

2009-06-21T08:00:00.004-04:00

By: Kelli Krauss

"The most effectual engines for [pacifying a nation] are the public papers... [A despotic] government always [keeps] a kind of standing army of newswriters who, without any regard to truth or to what should be like truth, [invent] and put into the papers whatever might serve the ministers. This suffices with the mass of the people who have no means of distinguishing the false from the true paragraphs of a newspaper." --Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson must be rolling over in his grave right now in agony to see the country that he believed in and stood so strongly for, be mocked by ABC News running an infomercial for the President and his health care plan out of the White House. This is surely not what the Founding Fathers intended when they wrote the Bill of Rights and ensured the freedom of the press.

ABC is set to air all their news shows from the White House for one day and they will be dedicated to promoting Obama's health care plan. In order to make sure that you are convinced and sold on it, a prime time special called "Questions for the President: Prescription for America" will also be aired that evening. In a town-hall-style setting, President Obama will answer questions presented by the audience members who will be selected by ABC News. ABC has refused a request by the RNC to have a representative of the party's plan on during the Obamathon and has also refused to let paid ads air during the program showing any opposing viewpoint.

Many are accusing ABC News and anchor Charles Gibson, and rightly so, of selling Obama's socialized health care plan "without any opportunity for opposing views." This is on the heels of a new study that shows ABC News coverage of President Obama's health care plan is favorable by a ratio of 3 to 1.

At what point did the press turn from the true whistle-blowers and finders of truth, of reporters on fact and not propaganda to the mindless, spineless drones they are now. There is a reason that the big three networks ABC, NBC and CBS viewership continues to fall as a news source. In the cable news arena, FOX consistently beats out the other news channels in prime-time. Now apparently this hurts President Obama's feelings as he stated in an interview with CNBC, " First of all, I've got one television station entirely devoted to attacking my administration."

When CNBC's John Harwood quickly identified the station as FOX News, the President responded,"Well, that's a pretty big megaphone, and you'd be hard-pressed, if you watched the entire day, to find a positive story about me on that front." He obviously doesn't watch FOX all day because they have opposing viewpoints on constantly and many of them are very positive of the President and his agenda.

Obama felt comfortable in continuing with this, "We welcome people who are asking us some, you know, tough questions, and I think that I've been probably as accessible as any president in the first six months–press conferences, taking questions from reporters, being held accountable, being transparent about what it is that we're trying to do. I think that, actually, the reason that people have been generally positive about what we've tried to do is they feel as if I'm available and willing to answer questions, and we haven't been trying to hide them all."

Accessible? Accountable? Transparent? This President and administration have been anything but. His so-called press conferences were nothing but teleprompter sightings with questions from reporters who were preselected. That's what I call accessibility. The only person that Obama holds accountable for anything is Bush. He whines and blames the Bush administration every chance he gets. The only transparency that Obama and his administration have displayed so far is letting the public know what restaurant and Broadway show he and his wife went to on date night.

Let's not forget his comment at the White House Correspondents dinner, "Most of you covered me; all of you voted for me, apologies to the Fox table." Joke or not, he knows who in the media serve as his "megaphone."

We are supposed to feel confident in a fair analysis of Obama's health care plan because ABC claims that they, and they alone will pick the people to take part in the town-hall-style question and answer session. They will ensure that the President will have to answer tough questions. This is the equivalent of a kid in school getting a copy of the math exam the night before it is given. There will be no tough questions for Obama and I am confident that ABC will make sure of that.

Grab a Calculator the Math is Getting Fuzzy

2009-06-20T17:00:00.005-04:00

By: Jill Serbousek

I admit to needing a calculator when doing math problems that involve multiple digits. I even resort to using a spreadsheet because my calculator isn’t great when doing problems in the trillions. So, as I read through the news reports, government reports and analyst summaries, I actually attempt to keep up with them on the math. Sometimes the methodology and assumptions are tough to understand, but the math should make sense right? The hardest part is that they never give you all of the numbers that are needed to reproduce their answers. Often the ‘denominator’ or some key factor is missing. When this occurs, I try to track down the source reports that are referenced. This is typically when I get really concerned…..

Here are some of the “facts” currently being discussed:

• An additional “$1 trillion over 10 years will be needed to cover the uninsured”, however, according to the Congressional Budget Office “36 million people would still be uninsured.” I need help understanding this one. Why would we change our entire healthcare system to compound the cost and not even take care of those that were supposed to receive help?

• Obama stated that the government could save $106B by cutting federal payments to hospitals. Wouldn’t cutting federal payments further hinder the Medicaid program’s success in caring for it’s participants?

• “…cost control (is) a coequal objective, just as important as the expansion of insurance coverage…” according to Rahm Emmanuel. Nobody will argue that reducing/controlling costs should always be a focus. However, I have yet to read an article where the government is willing to evaluate the costs that they directly impose on the healthcare industry. According to Christopher Conover, in 2004 the government imposed nearly $340B per year on regulation of the healthcare industry. I’m sure that this number has been increasing. His report also points out that almost half of this is wasteful. Hmmm… a great example of how regulation leads to increased costs. Why isn’t the government looking more closely at the cost/benefit of how they directly impact the overall costs?

• Another major cost factor that is being treated as the ‘elephant in the room’ is the cost of defensive medicine. It is unrealistic to reduce the cost of healthcare without also evaluating how the legal system drives up the cost of care with increased number of diagnostic tests, medical malpractice insurance, litigation, etc. Obama actually dipped his toe in the water with this topic, but took a cap on malpractice awards off the table. (Which, according to the reports, received a loud “boo” from the audience) Of course, he is a lawyer. Plus, one of the largest lobbying groups in America, who uses 95% of their PAC funds for the Democratic party, is the American Association for Justice. This is a fund for trial lawyers and law firms. You can learn more about all of the lobbying groups in America at Open Secrets’ website. This is an awesome and informative site.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/toppacs.php?Type=C&cycle=2008

• Speaking of the costs that “defensive medicine” adds to the system, it was shocking to me that the whitehouse’s healthcare economic report does not even address the cost of defensive medicine or government regulatory costs in their self-proclaimed “comprehensive” cost report on healthcare. Not even a mention. As if the entire cost of care and coverage is the fault of doctors, insurance companies and industry. Obama had the chance to recognize that defensive medicine is the reason why doctors order “more diagnostic tests than necessary” when he spoke to the American Medical Association this week. However, he chose to blame those alleged “unnecessary” tests on the doctor’s “financial incentives.” That is a VERY broad and unproven allegation. Just ask a doctor, any doctor in the United States, about their practice costs. They will ALL tell you that the threat of being sued is their biggest worry, and the insurance to help them if this happens is one of the largest, if not largest costs. Guess who this cost is passed to? The consumers/insurance companies who pay for the doctor’s services. We simply cannot reform healthcare costs without looking at legal costs associated with medicine.

About Jill Serbousek:
Jill has been a marketing executive in the Medical Device industry for the past 20 years. First at Johnson & Johnson, then at Medtronic’s Spinal and Biologics business. She is a recognized expert, writer and frequent speaker on both web marketing and social networking in healthcare.
Jill lives in Memphis, TN and sits on the Board of Directors for several important organizations in the Memphis area, including: National Civil Rights Museum, The Church Health Center, Memphis Academy of Science and Engineering Charter School and The Leadership Academy.

Bottom line: Other Countries Cut Out Services to Reach their Low Cost Status

2009-06-19T13:13:00.027-04:00

By: Richard G. Fessler, MD, PhD

Will a single payer health care system hold down the increasing cost of health care in the United States? President Obama and other proponents of this socialized form of health care argue that it will. Of course there are many ways to debate this question, but much objective evidence suggests that it will not. Let’s look at this from two perspectives. First, what does the comparative cost data between the United States and government controlled health care systems (such as Canada) tell us? Second, what are the financial implications of this “less expensive”, government controlled health care system for the American taxpayer?

Most international comparisons of health statistics are based on data collected by the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). According to the OECD, the United States spends more for its health care than any other country on earth, whether analyzed as dollars per person or percentage of GDP. One problem with these statistics, however, is that not all countries report their cost data using the same guidelines.1 Thus, often the statistics are comparing apples to oranges; or put another way, garbage in = garbage out! For example, Germany includes the cost of nursing care in their cost statistics, Great Britain does not.2 Other countries count hospital “beds” whether it is occupied and staffed or not, others only count it if both are true.3 Obviously, cost data for these countries will vary depending upon what they include and do not include.

A study by Gerald Anderson et al, published in Health Affairs attempted to more accurately assess health care costs across international borders.4 To do this, these authors calculated the average annual increase in the percentage of per capita spending on health care by OECD countries. As seen in the figure below, health care spending in nearly all of the studied OECD countries grew at about the same rate as the US, or greater! In fact, according to these researchers, the real expenditures for hospital and physician services actually decreased in the US during the 1990’s, putting the US well below the mean for other OECD countries. When you consider that the US has greater access to health care and technology, less rationing, and a host of health care stressors not seen in other countries (e.g. a higher rate of homicide, obesity, and AIDS), these results argue strongly for the “strength” of our current health care system.

Average Annual Real Growth in Per Capita Health Spending 1960-1998:
United States 2.6
United Kingdom 2.5
Canada 0.8
Australia 2.7
New Zealand 2.6
Germany 2.3
Netherlands 2.6
Japan 3.5

The figure above does show that the increase in per capita health spending was much less in Canada than any other country. What is not seen in the figure, however, is that it did this by cutting services to the extent that patient access to care was compromised. For example, block grants to Canadian provinces for health care were cut in 1986, 1989, and (cut IN HALF) in the second half of the 90’s.5 Provinces, in turn, cut funding to hospitals, cut physician fees, limited purchases of new technology, and removed coverage of some services from provincial insurance plans.5 As a result available hospital beds were reduced by 1/3 (6.6/1000 to 4.1/1000) between 1987 and 1995. 6 In Saskatchewan alone, over 50 hospitals were closed. In 2002 it was reported that the Canadian health care system was underfunded by over 5 billion dollars annually!7 Throughout this period, satisfaction with the Canadian health care system fell precipitously.

A strong argument can be made, therefore, that cost increases will not be held down by a government run health care monopoly. Moreover, it also seems likely that access to health care and health care technology will become more restricted. If the Canadian experience is repeated in the US, Americans will not be happy! The second question we wanted to address, was how much will this “less” expensive, (and inferior) health care system really cost the American taxpayer?

Estimates of the cost of the socialized health care system proposed by President Obama are not being disseminated yet, as all deliberations of his health care task force are being kept quite secret. (Wait, didn’t he campaign on a policy of transparency?) However, we can get an idea by examining the impact of policies enacted during the first 100 days of his administration. According to a study conducted by USA TODAY, it will cost EVERY American household $55,000 just to cover the commitments already made by the Federal government, and this doesn’t include the “big ticket” items such as “universal medicare”!8 The US government took on $6.8 trillion in new debt in 2008, and no end is in sight. That means that, right now, the US would already need to set aside $63.8 trillion in a lump sum to pay obligated benefits that won’t be covered by future taxes. (That’s a half million dollars debt for every household in America.) Where do you suppose that money is going to come from? When all the sleight of hand ends, it comes down to this, you either raise taxes, cut benefits (as seen in Canada above), or both. The more I study the “model” systems which President Obama’s health care policies are based upon, two things become very clear: 1) the quality of health care in the US will become significantly inferior to its current state, and 2) it will cost the American taxpayer MORE, not less! As a surgeon, my recommendation for or against surgery for every patient is based upon a realistic analysis of risk vs benefit. (In neurosurgery, you can’t afford to live in a fairy tale.) If the American public were my patient, I most certainly could not recommend proceeding down the reckless pathway proposed by our current President and his administration.

1 OE CD Health Ststems: Facts and Trends 1960-1991, “Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1993.”
2 Goodman, John C., Musgrave, Gerald L., Herrick, Devon M., Lives at Risk, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc, New York, 2004, pp 78.
3 Hensher, M., Edwards, N., Stokes, R., “The Hospital of the Future: International Trends in the Provision and Utilization of Hospital Care”, British Medical Journal 319:845-848, 1999.
4 Anderson, Gerald F., “Health Spending and Outcomes: Trends in OECD Countries 1960-1998.”Health Affairs (May-June) 2000. pp 150-157.
5 Gray, Gwen, “Access to Health Care Under Strain: New Pressures in Canada Amend Australia”, Journal of Health Politics, Policy, and Law, 23:905-947, 1998.
6 Possehl, Suzanne R., “Northern Plights”, Hospitals and Health Networks 71:56-60, 1997.
7 Spurgeon, David, “Canadians Need to Spend C$5bn More a Year on Health Care”, British Medical Journal 325: 1058, 2002.
8 Cauchon, Dennis, “Leap in US Dept Saddles Taxpayers”, USA Today, Friday, January 30, 2009.

Richard G. Fessler, M.D., PhD is a professor of Neurosurgery at Northwestern University in Chicago, Illinois. He is very active in the research and development of new surgical techniques that are designed to provide patients with less blood loss, faster recoveries and improved outcomes over traditional spinal surgery. You can learn more about Dr. Fessler’s work at Northwestern University’s Feinberg School of Medicine by visiting

American Heroes: In The Fight Against Radical Islam

2009-06-19T08:00:00.002-04:00

By Lt. Colonel Oliver North, USMC

The following story is an excerpt from Lt. Col. Oliver North's new release,
American Heroes: In the Fight Against Radical Islam.

"The explosion of a carefully planted IED mangled Sgt Edwards below his body armor. The first person to him was U.S. Navy medical Corpsman Christopher Anderson. The man they called "Doc" Anderson immediately applied tourniquets to Edwards' shattered limbs and started an IV to ward off shock.

As they raced for the LZZ to meet an inbound casualty-evacuation helicopter, Edwards looked up at the man who was checking his pulse and said, 'take care of my babies, Doc.'

Anderson shouted back, 'You're going to take care of your babies. You're going to be OK!'

Marine Sgt Gregory Edwards was on his third deployment to Iraq when new wounds sent him back to Walter Reed. In 2003 he had been part of the initial assault on Baghdad and saw the statue of Saddam Hussein toppled. He'd been wounded on his second deployment and spent time recovering at Bethesda and Walter Reed. When 1st Bn, 6th Marines, was slated for a third deployment, he insisted on going along.

This time, however Gregory Edwards' road to recovery would never end. Though the doctors operated on him more than thirty times, they couldn't save his shattered legs. When all the surgery was done, he had one stump above the knee, a stump below the other knee, and only one functioning hand.

'I lost my legs for the people of Iraq, so their children will be able to run around, just like mine. If time was turned back, I'd do it all over again," said Sgt Edwards, father of two."

This excerpt, taken from American Heroes, is dedicated to the hundreds of thousands of fathers who are standing on the front lines of war while their families anxiously await their return home.

"These 'heroes on the home front' are essential for the strength of our military as a whole and for the defense of this nation," said Lt. Col. North.

To celebrate Father's Day and honor the tremendous sacrifice made by so many fathers since the beginning of the war on terror, Lt. Col. North has made signed copies of his book available on his website, http://www.olivernorth.com/, throughout the month of June.

With more than 350 full-color images and exclusive access to even more stories from inside the trenches online, American Heroes presents a no-holds-barred, up-close look at this generation's citizen soldiers who have chosen the path of the patriot to go into harm's way.

We are a Center-Right Nation

2009-06-18T06:00:00.002-04:00

: Image by kimberlyfaye via Flickr

By Gayle Plato

Gallup Poll gives a clear snapshot of the country, we are a center-right nation, and accordingly, we see a trending toward more conservative values. Not since the mid 1990s, has the power in Washington presented such a paradox. We have a liberal Congress and White House, but we the people are not leaning left (Gallup Poll: http://tinyurl.com/loaftf).

The Contract With America, of the Republican revolution in Congress,1994, gets mentioned regularly in political circles. Yet the reality of it, what it was, and how it created a framework of service-oriented representation has not been paralleled. It made the careers of the creators and household names of some legislators. The Contract With America was a modern day Gettysburg Address in the truest sense of each document. Both were concise addresses to the people, timely, and deep with meaning

On April 15, 2009, I spoke for three small minutes, freezing from an odd Arizona cold front, confronted with protesters yelling in front of me. My Tea Party moment was not stellar: a bit nervous, and lost in the shuffle of being the inadvertent opening act to Arizona Representative John Shadegg, I stood there next to him, seeing former representative, JD Hayworth a few yards away on the radio; I felt odd. What a difference 15 years makes.

In late 1994, I was making a presentation at a workshop for educators about 'Resiliency.' It's basically the opposite of at-risk programming, with a focus on implementing protective factors, creating an environment of respect and mentorship with people, and a deep desire to achieve personal best. At-risk is about victimization of the soul, and funneling money at crisis intervention of victims. Victims are real and need help, but in order to stop building victims we need to foster social success. We need intrinsic, inalienable understanding of self-worth: resiliency.

At the presentation, I was asked to offer a document or professional article that exhibited resilient language and fostering of personal accountability. Most went to educational jargon; I went to current events. To a group of liberal educators, in a nice hotel ballroom in sight of the Space Needle, with roasty aroma of brewing espresso wafting in, I handed out a copy of the Contract With America.

You'd have thought I asked the folks to drink my Grandma's lukewarm Sanka decaf. I was literally a lead balloon bottoming out in front of my peers. I heard a colleague, I felt a friend, leaning in to another saying, "She's from Arizona so well, y'know..."

All I could do is move forward. I was younger than today and a bit better on my game. Yet, by the time I finished, the teachers could not deny that resiliency is apparent when expertly written. The Contract With America is the quintessential document of resiliency and I knew it. Fostering respect, limitations, concise defined parameters, and focus on the positive qualities of the citizen being courted, 'The Contract' is a brilliant piece of work.

On April 15th, I stood there next to two men who had come in to Washington D.C., under the Contract I valued, now here in Arizona at this 'Tea Party' with me, very distant from that eye I once had of the Needle. What happened to the Contract?

It seems to me, that we now have leaders who worry about themselves, their power, ongoing growth of government, and an oppressive angst about families, average Joes, just one pay check from being at-risk; all angry about disenfranchisement. We are smart enough to know when we had something and now see what we are losing. But the day was closing and sun setting on the Tea Party. I got up there and said, "It seems to me that these fifteen years later, our leaders are taking a contract out on America and I am not okay with that."

Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address is a true example of modern understanding of the audience, the issues, and the beat of the day. Lincoln’s words were brief and the speech cogent. As was the Contract With America, direct, offering heavy concepts in tight clips of modernity: it was it’s own paradigm shift. It stood alone.

Lincoln’s great speech didn’t wow anyone at the time read, and only now do we see the greatness of the brevity and grace in the simplicity. Jump to today and we see a need to rock the voters, wow the citizens, and rally the individual spirit. If the Tea Party movement is any indication, we are seeing a new wave of desire. The People want their country back and no more shell game political grifters of freedom.

Here is an excerpt of the Contract:

"As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives.
That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year's election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public's money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family.
Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act 'with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.' To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves."

From the The Contract With America, 1994, Republican Congressional Promise to the Voters.

Gayle Plato, 44, is a certified social studies teacher, and counselor with over 25 years experience working with children and families. Her experience includes work in higher education, local school districts, private practice, and a secondary level teacher of U.S. Government, Economics, and History. Gayle's writing has been featured at Arizona state blogs, parcbench.com, and at townhall.com. Gayle lives in Scottsdale, AZ, with her son; she can be reached at Twitter:@rightwoman, or platobesley@gmail.com

Obama's New Healthcare Ally?

2009-06-17T20:00:00.001-04:00

By: Laura Adelmann

President Obama has been saying for months that you can’t fix the economy without first fixing healthcare. Originally a supporter of single-payer government healthcare, Obama states that he now believes private insurance should remain, but in competition with a public government-run option. Obama has a very interesting partner in pushing his plan: ABC News.

On June 24, if you tune in to ABC, the news will be broadcasting from the White House, followed by a primetime special “Prescription for America.” This program will be a townhall style question and answer session with the President. ABC claims this program will present both sides of the healthcare debate. However, the only party who will be answering questions and using prime network time to sell his views will be Barack Obama.

Faced with a seemingly one-sided sales event for Obama’s healthcare agenda, Ken McKay, Chief of Staff for the Republican National Committee wrote to the head of ABC News. He requested the opportunity to share the Republican’s healthcare reform ideas. He was rebuffed.

ABC News claims that the audience who will question Obama on his healthcare agenda will be chosen exclusively by ABC. ABC suggests that this will somehow present both sides of the issue. ABC fails to realize that asking a challenging question of the President is not the same as having the opportunity to answer that question and the time to persuade Americans that government healthcare is what we need.

Considering the government takeover of GM and the President’s desire to expand the Fed to take over companies whose survival it deems necessary, it should come as no surprise that the media, already carrying water for Obama since day one, now seems to be serving as his propagandists. Conservatives need to call their congressmen, write to their local newspapers and talk to friends and family. All we can do is fight when the media appears to have taken sides.

Link: The Random Blog Post Generator Service

SGP101 INTRODUCES “SGP101 OPEN LINE WEDNESDAY"

2009-06-17T17:09:00.002-04:00

: Image via Wikipedia

WHEN: Wednesday, June 24, 2009
TIME: 7:00 to 8:00 PM EST

The SGP101 Political Director will be available to answer your specific POLITICAL CAMPAIGN related questions. You can call in on the conference call anytime between 7:00 and 8:00PM Eastern Time (EST) to ask your questions.

THIS IS NOT A TEACHING SESSION – THE ENTIRE CONFERENCE CALL IS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS - FUTURE "SGP101 OPEN LINE WEDNESDAY" SESSION DATES WILL BE SCHEDULED AND WILL BE POSTED WHEN REGISTRATION IS OPEN FOR THEM.

To register for OPEN LINE WEDNESDAY please click HERE.

Very Bad Medicine: a Surgeon’s Historical Perspective on Nationalized Healthcare

2009-06-17T08:00:00.004-04:00

By Daria Anne DiGiovanni

When my Blog Talk Radio co-host Stephen Rhodes and I sat down to interview Dr. Alphonse J. DiGiovanni, M.D., General and Vascular Surgeon last week (yes, Dr. Al also happens to be my dad) about the Obama Administration’s forceful push to nationalize medicine, I already had a fairly accurate understanding of the points the good doctor would make in defense of the free market, and the best healthcare system in the world.

Among other troubling things, socialized medicine would jeopardize doctor-patient privilege by giving government bureaucrats the power to interfere with the proper course of treatment (e.g. usurping the doctor’s authority to recommend a particular procedure or operation deemed necessary for the patient’s health); potentially force mothers-to-be to abort pregnancies determined to have fetal abnormalities (and pay doctors more money to intimidate parents into choosing abortion); and deny elderly patients recommended care simply because the state decides it is not worth the time and money to preserve a life that’s nearly over anyway.

Dr. Al eloquently opined on all of the above, but he also offered a history lesson as to how it all began, having been in practice since 1965. And just to set the record straight, he is not some wealthy physician born with a silver spoon in his mouth, fighting for a doctor’s right to make a lot of cash. Contrary to what liberals want Americans to believe, not every doctor was once a child of privilege. My father was born to Italian immigrant parents who came to the USA well into their 30s, in order to create a better life for their children. His dad was a humble tailor with a third-grade education; his mother a seamstress who only made it as far as the sixth grade.

The third of only four surviving sons, Alphonse was a hard-working, gifted student and athlete with a dream of playing professional baseball. When a shoulder injury forever shattered that worthy goal, my father turned to his second love—medicine, maintaining excellent grades throughout high school, college and medical school while simultaneously managing three jobs to finance it all. So when he speaks of the horrors of socialized medicine, it is not because he hates poor people; indeed it is because he knows from experience that when the government encroaches upon any industry, the results are bad for everyone.

Doctor, can you give us a bit of history as to how this all began?

“Actually, the first intrusion of government into medicine was the Foran Bill in 1947, which came on the heels of England’s development of national healthcare when they regrettably rejected Winston Churchill. In retrospect, I am glad the Foran Bill did not pass; but at the time I was a real liberal. I’d gone to a public high school for gifted students—Central High School in Germantown, Philadelphia where the social sciences division was totally left. All I got was how bad the Republicans were, and how good the Democrats and FDR were. That was when I first heard the term trickle-down economics, long before that criticism was leveled at Ronald Reagan.

“In college, I participated in a debating session in which I had to argue in favor of the Foran Bill, but as I immersed myself in study, I began to realize what the cons were. I still thought it was good for the country but my attitudes really changed over time with Barry Goldwater, and Ronald Reagan’s impassioned speech on his behalf. That was very telling for me, and it absolutely changed my outlook.

“Then along came the first successful government intrusion into medicine in the form of the Medicare Act of 1969, which was President Johnson’s aim for his historical legacy. And they managed to pass it by throwing an incredible amount of money at hospitals, who were then allowed to triple and quadruple their fee structures. So not only hospitals, but physicians were very well paid, thus blunting all of the adversarial components, as people who were once opposed to it softened. That is how they were able to pass Medicare.

From 1969 to the present-day, there’s been a progressive reduction in fee structures. And from what little is known about Obama’s plan, he is not going to throw the money into it that Johnson did—his plan is cradle-to-grave, purely socialistic. And there won’t simply be rationing of care for the elderly and disabled, but for everyone.”

What about Obama’s plan most concerns you?

“Well, I can’t really discuss specifics, because there’s not a whole lot of information out there yet. All we know at this point is that it is a general scheme of nationalization. And by the way they are attempting to speed it up and get it out there by August. My feeling is that they must already have their objectives in place, since this is a monumental undertaking. In general, I view socialized medicine as a gigantic game of Monopoly in which the government prints out a lot of money and masks the socialistic component in a euphemistic term—a ‘one-payer’ system. I would caution all Americans to be on the lookout for that.”

Are there any medical groups protesting this passage of this potential bill?

“Although it’s been fairly quiet up to this point, I think the response is going to pick up steam and medical organizations will begin to exert their influence on their representatives in D.C. As for the AMA, they’ve been tilting left for many years and are thus worthless, in my opinion.

“I base that on my own experience as a physician in Pennsylvania. Back when malpractice laws were established, the state asked me to give money to capitalize the system, not the insurance itself. It was determined that as a specialist, I owed $2,168, simply to capitalize; that amount was not the insurance premium itself.

“Originally, they’d wanted every doctor in PA to contribute $500, but the problem was that general practitioners and pediatricians balked at paying that much. Therefore, they were permitted to give just $250, while specialists like surgeons were required to cough up $2,168 to make up the difference. Again, that figure does not represent the premiums, which were very high.

“In 1965 when I went into practice, several values of liability coverage were available to suit an individual doctor’s needs. But all of that changed, and eventually it became mandatory that you had to purchase at least $1 million in coverage. Now at first, that didn’t seem so unreasonable, but by 1995 I’d already paid my annual $40,000 premium when they announced in October of that same year that I owed a supplementary charge of $16,000. By 1996 I’d had enough and decided to shut down my surgery practice.”

If you look at Great Britain, the doctors ration in the form of quota. And once that quota is satisfied, they are free to go on vacation. Can you elaborate on that?

“Sure, the British government assigns monetary priorities on healthcare; therefore so much allocated for certain services. And when that fund is used up, that’s it: the doctors have the prerogative to walk away and say ‘I am not going do this procedure again until next year,’ regardless of what is in the best interest of the patient. It’s not very good for anyone, the doctors or the patients.
“It also varies, what services you may get, depending upon surpluses. In Germany for example, their colonoscopy fund was used up in August. So if you needed a colonoscopy, you had to wait until the New Year to get one. You were basically put back at the end of the line, with no consideration of the urgency of your particular medical situation.

“And another thing they do in Great Britain is make patients wait to be seen by a doctor in ambulances in the parking lot, if they are unable to be looked at within four hours. Can you imagine leaving a patient out in the parking lot like that? It’s deplorable. The other negative aspect I hate to admit on the part of my profession is that this system also creates lazy doctors. The free market by nature rewards those who work hard and produce quality work, and this is also true in a free-market-based healthcare system: take away incentives and quality suffers. Again, that is ultimately bad for both patients and doctors.”

What about the effects on would-be doctors considering a career in medicine?

“When you get into these excessive costs, salaries will become stagnant. Over time, the pay scale will be reduced. One of the saddest byproducts of this is that I have many, many colleagues who have discouraged their own children from going into medicine because of the looming disaster, should Obama get his way. Most of the doctors I know are really devoted people who care about doing the very best job they can—not simply based on monetary rewards but because in a free system, they have the motivation do so.”

Do we really have a healthcare crisis?

“You know, one of my biggest problems with this whole debate is this notion that poor people are denied healthcare. This is simply untrue; no one that presents themselves to an emergency room is ever denied care because of their inability to pay. What it should be rightly termed as is a crisis in health insurance, which is due to many factors, including the overly litigious society we are living in and the negative influence of trial lawyers; the inability of consumers to cross state lines when purchasing the plan that best meets their needs; and of course, the growing number of illegal immigrants that overburden hospitals, especially in border states—an issue our government repeatedly refuses to address.

“Further that ‘47 million uninsured’ is a bogus figure I’ve been hearing about for the last twenty years. It does not include young people who choose not to purchase insurance, people who are in-between jobs and thus transitioning into new plans; and the inflationary impact of Medicare, which has made insurance unaffordable for many. There again, far from being a solution, government interference has only created an even bigger problem.”

Doctor, what are some of the moral implications of nationalized healthcare, aside from the rationing of services?

“Well as you know from Daria, I have a son with Down syndrome who is an absolutely beautiful, beautiful person. At the time of his birth in 1959, we didn’t have the diagnostic tests to determine abnormalities like Down’s ahead of time, but even if we had, we never would’ve terminated my wife’s pregnancy. Over thirteen years ago, my daughter Carolyn had a scare with her firstborn son when it was determined he was at a high risk of being a Down syndrome baby, but as it turned out, my grandson Christopher was born perfectly healthy.

“What I fear the most with a nationalized system is that doctors will be pressured to talk patients into having abortions when such diagnostic tests determine the presence of some sort of abnormality, whether it be Down syndrome or anything else. Further, the government could resort to actually paying doctors more money to perform abortions in these situations. Then at the opposite end of life, there’s a high probability that we as a nation could start engaging in euthanasia, based on someone else’s subjective idea of ‘quality of life.’ So it is very troubling from a moral perspective. Who among us is God? Who among us is perfect and empowered to decide who lives or dies? That sounds very much like Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler to me.”

Finally doctor, what can the average person do to fight this trend?

“I would encourage all Americans to make an effort to get educated, to really understand the dire implications of a nationalized system. Just look at Canada and other places, where even heads of state choose to come to America when they need major surgery. Everyday citizens from Canada regularly cross the border when they’re told they have to wait six months just to have a test.

“There’s a reason why we have the best healthcare system in the world. So get the facts and don’t just blindly accept the media spin. Then lobby your representatives in Washington. On the flip side, I believe it is now imperative for all doctors to inform their patients about the realities facing all of us should this horrendous bill pass. They have got to get over their fears of what their patients might think, and start speaking out. All of us have so much to lose if we don’t.”

Link: http://www.dariaanne.wordpress.com/

The Sky is Falling!

2009-06-16T17:00:00.002-04:00

Obama the need for health care is not a ticking time bomb, you are. You sound like Chicken little crying the sky is falling. Since you have been in office every other week you tell us just that. You continue to play on people's fears and use rhetoric to press emotional buttons. Now that really isn't the ploy of a thinking man but more like a con artist. Of course, you have found an audience of fools and they must take the blame for that.

There are many of us that do think for ourselves Mr. Obama and we think you are toxic for this country. You are only concerned with your agenda - to hell with our constitution. You do not seem the least bit interested in the private sector or our Bill of Rights. Something is rotten in Washington DC and me thinks it is you! Many of us see how you are trying to revoke the will of the people all the while creating a fascist state. This is based on your actions sir not your empty words. A thinking man understands he is judged by his actions. You could be a ventriloquist for all the times you have talked out both sides of your mouth.

There is an uprising in Iran due to a forged Presidential outcome. We have not heard word one from you on this revolution. We are told you are biding your time and watching. The Iranian people have the will to rise up against a totalitarian regime yet you are biding your time? Could this be because the corruption of this election is a little to close to home? We must ask ourselves are you more sympathetic towards Ahmadinejad or the people? You scare me Mr. Obama. You truly, truly scare me.

Never Waste a Crisis - Next Up: Health Care

2009-06-16T08:00:00.003-04:00

By: Kelli Krauss

“Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.” These are the words of Barack Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel. It appears that the President, his administration and a willing Democratic Congress are using Emanuel's rule to push through their agenda, without questions, at the expense of the American people.

After Barack Obama became President, he quickly worked to pass his stimulus bill, The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. He claimed that "A failure to act, and act now, will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession, a less robust recovery, and a more uncertain future," He pushed for such fast action that neither he nor Congress had time to actually read the bill, or maybe they didn't care to, that spent $787 billion dollars. The White House estimates that the government will create a record $1.8 trillion budget deficit this year which is more than four times last year's all-time high.

Since the passage of the stimulus bill, our economy has continued to decline and our unemployment rate is now at 9.4 percent, a 25 year high. Under Obama's plan, the unemployment rate was supposed to peak at 8 percent. The answer President Obama has come up with now is to spend more money even faster, though he admitted in an interview, "Well, we are out of money now. We are operating in deep deficits, not caused by any decisions we've made on health care so far."

Then came the announcement that Supreme Court Justice David Souter will retire in October. Once again, it must be a crisis because President Obama has set a deadline for a vote on nominee Sonia Sotamayor by the start of the Senate's five-week recess in August, and Senator Leahy has obeyed. Leahy announced the confirmation hearings will begin on July 13.

Apparently Senator Leahy made the announcement of the confirmation hearings before letting the Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee know the date had been set. The Republicans had urged for the hearings to be set for September since there are ten times as many cases to review than Justice Roberts had. Hearings in September would allow plenty of time for Sotomayor to prepare to take over in early October.

Senator Jeff Sessions has now asked Sotomayor to provide more detail on her questionnaire because some of her answers were incomplete. "The least we can expect is complete and full answers," commented Senator Sessions and six other Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed and joined Sessions in his written request to Sotomayor. The Democrats are following the rule, hold the hearings quickly, while answers are incomplete and no one has time to comb through her records because it's a crisis and, "they are opportunities to do big things."

So now to health care. President Obama is now making the rounds and campaigning (the thing he does best) on fast passage of a health care bill. He said, "We can't afford to put this off," in a meeting with Senate Democrats. "This window between now and the August recess I think is going to be the make-or-break period. This is the time where we've got to get this running."

Once again, we find ourselves with our President lecturing us on the need for fast action. Are we to move so fast again that there will be no time to actually read the bill? What happened to the promised 5 days of bills being out on the internet for the public to browse before being signed? Obama has said that rising health care costs are unsustainable for families, businesses and governments and wants immediate congressional action on a health care bill so it can be passed by the end of the year.

With the current administration, we can expect everything to be a crisis. Immediate action to a crisis with this administration and the Democrats in Congress, enables them to pass legislation or Supreme Court nominees, without any real debate or questions. This just shows that in the arena of ideas and solutions, the Obama administration and the Democrats have none.

So I leave you with Rahm Emanuel's words again, “Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste. They are opportunities to do big things.” When will the American people wake up and pull the blanket of wool, that Obama and the Democrats have so intricately weaved, off of their eyes?

Stop the finger pointing!

2009-06-14T16:00:00.000-04:00