California Appeals Court Stands for English Only

By Theosebes

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.

DOMA Doomed by Obama?

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!

By Kelli Krauss

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

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.”

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

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!

By Lenice Moynihan

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

By Theosebes

“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!

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:

Copyright 2009 Missouri Musings

The Arrogance of one Administration

By Lenice Moynihan

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!

It is Called An Uprising!

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?

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.

Free Healthcare?

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

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

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!

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.

“Capitalism and Freedom” – Senator Jim DeMint

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

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

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.

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

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/

FREE TO CHOOSE ABORTION, NOT FREE TO CHOOSE YOUR HEALTH CARE: OBAMA'S OBSESSION WITH DEATH

Image by Ted Abbott via Flickr

by Kathy Barkulis


What will it take for ordinary Americans and politicians to wake up to the cold reality of nationalized health care as proposed by President Obama? Will it take a medical crisis in your own family? Will it take a medical crisis in your own personal life? Will it take an anonymous board of people appointed by the government deciding whether you can have life saving medicine or surgery? What has to happen to you before you say "ENOUGH"? It is easy to close your eyes when you and your family are healthy, but are you sure this will always be the case? And why is it that the choices Obama wants us all to have, are choices of death, and not choices of life?

So far, President Obama has not told the American people how he will pay for his grand experiment. They hinted at a national VAT tax, adding 20% on to the cost of goods at the manufacturing level, which will be passed down to consumers. They also hinted at taxes on soft drinks, beer, wine, cigarettes, etc., none of which will cover the entire cost of this plan, but will surely increase the cost of living to middle class Americans. This is the group Obama promised would have no new taxes. While I don't believe you can put a price tag on your healthcare, and easy access to it, I do believe we need to be told how it will be paid for.

But the most egregious aspect of Obama's "Medicare For All" plan is the federally appointed "health board" that will make decisions for the health care of Americans. Obama has insisted that citizens can choose to take the government plan or keep their own private insurance. But did you know that Obama plans to force private insurers to adopt the decisions of the federal health board, or face steep tax consequences? The reality of that situation will be that private insurance companies will not be able to provide health care at any cost, and employers will gladly hand over the responsibility to the government. Only the very rich will be able to afford effective and all inclusive health care. There will be no ability for insurance companies to compete with a "free" government plan. Before you can say "Pap Smear," the whole country will be under the umbrella of a nationalized system that rations out health care like a short order cook rations out hash. The rich will always get the health care they want under Obama's plan, and the rest of us will just get the health care Obama thinks we "need."

It's ironic that the Democrats, and Obama, shout from the rooftops about a woman's right to choose abortion, but none of them want Americans to have the right to choose their health care. Oh they say you'll have the right to choose your health care, but when you read their plan, there will be no choice for you and your family. They are planning to game the system so that you will have no choice left but to take the government plan. In the eyes of President Obama and Nancy Pelosi, it is better for all Americans to have a generic and highly bureaucratized health plan, than for some to have no health plan. Yet, even that argument is a lie. Right now, hospitals cannot refuse medical care to an American brought into their hospital for emergency treatment. And often they don't refuse care to non-Americans either. Just walk into any hospital emergency room in the country on any given day and look at how many people are qued up for treatment. The taxpayers already pay for that privilege, but we will pay far more under Obama's plan.

So I ask you again. What will it take for you to stand up and protest a nationalized health care system where a federal health board will decide what kind of medical treatment you get? Will it be your down syndrome child who needs a new heart valve? Will it be your mother who needs a hip replacement? Will it be your husband who needs an experimental drug for a rare disease? And will it take a federal health board to refuse that treatment for your family members? If so, it will be too late by then to do anything about it.

YOU MUST SPEAK OUT NOW. You can start by calling the four Republicans who plan on voting yes for Obama's health care plan. They are:

Chuck Grassley 202-224-3744
Olympia Snowe 202-224-5344
Orrin Hatch 202-224-5251
Susan Collins 202-224-2523

CALL THEM NOW and voice your opposition. CALL THEM EVERY DAY. Send their names and phone numbers to everyone you know.

Then, send them letters voicing your opposition using email and snail mail.

Second, write letters to the editors of your local newspapers. Send those letters repeatedly until they get published. Tell everyone you know to do the same.

Third, call radio talk shows and make your opinion known.

Fourth, and most important, call and fax members of Congress voicing your opposition. Crash their switchboards. You can go on-line and get phone numbers of Senators and Congressmen on http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ and many other websites, such as C-span.

Talk to your friends and relatives about this issue, and urge them to take action. Start the conversation by asking them this question: IF I FOUND OUT I HAD A RARE FORM OF CANCER THAT A GOVERNMENT HEALTH CARE PLAN REFUSED TO TREAT, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO SELL YOUR HOME TO RAISE MONEY FOR ME TO SAVE MY LIFE? During the silence that occurs after you ask that question, ask them instead to speak out in opposition of this plan by calling Congressmen and Senators. Ask them to write letters.

Apathy is not an option anymore. Our lives, and that of our families are on the line.

PRESIDENT OBAMA CAN'T HAVE CONTROL OF OUR HEALTHCARE UNLESS WE GIVE IT TO HIM WITHOUT A FIGHT.






Link: http://smartgirlpolitics.ning.com/profiles/blogs/free-to-choose-abortion-not