Jobs summit not about job creation?

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 Comments

So... if it's not about job creation, what's the point? I suppose it's just another attempt to give the *appearance* of actually caring about the economy they are trying so hard to destroy.

Red State has a great "fact check" overview of the dems claims on jobs and the economy over the last few months.

On a lighter note, here's a funny video (from Harry Reid's opponent in the upcoming election) about the search for the missing stimulus jobs.

Read full post >>

Veterans Day

Wednesday, November 11, 2009 Comments

A heartfelt thank you to those who have served or are serving in our military and their families. Freedom isn't free, and I am eternally grateful for the courage and sacrifice of our armed forces who defend freedom here and abroad.

Read full post >>

Let your voice be heard

Tuesday, November 3, 2009 Comments

Read full post >>

Quit making things up

Monday, November 2, 2009 Comments

Read full post >>

"We're going to let you die"

Friday, October 16, 2009 Comments

H/T: Gateway Pundit and Verum Serum

Here is Robert Reich, former Secretary of Labor under Clinton and more recently an Obama economic adviser having a moment of brutal honesty about healthcare "reform." This was a speech he gave at UC Berkeley in 2007, in which he shares what a candidate for president would say, if that candidate were being honest and not worried about getting elected:

You can here the full audio clip here. The Wall Street Journal has the full transcript here.

On care for seniors:

"And by the way, we are going to have to--if you're very old, we're not going to give you all that technology and all those drugs for the last couple of years of your life to keep you maybe going for another couple of months. It's too expensive, so we're going to let you die."

On who's going to pay for it all:

"I am going to try to reorganize it to be more amenable to treating sick people. But that means you--particularly you young people, particularly you young, healthy people--you're going to have to pay more."

And on the effects of gov't forcing drug companies, medical suppliers, and insurance companies to reduce costs:

"But that means less innovation, and that means less new products and less new drugs on the market, which means you are probably not going to live that much longer than your parents."

Which by the way, isn't saying much - your parents won't be living that long either based on the first quote.

No surprise, the MSM has yet to report on this...

Read full post >>

Obama leads the charge AGAINST freedom of speech?!

Wednesday, October 7, 2009 Comments

I posted on this video a while back (video reposted below for reference), with the comment:

Obviously this would be unconstitional in the United States, and I don't see any indication in the report that the U.S. is actually considering this (thank goodness) but I think it's good to be aware that this is out there.

Well, I stand corrected. Not only is the U.S. considering this, apparently the Obama administration is taking the lead in pushing it forward.

From the Weekly Standard, dated Monday 10/5:
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.
So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt--a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.
In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not "restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States."

The Obama administration's debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.
Click here to read the whole article.

Interestingly enough, although they speak in terms of "religious tolerance" the only religion any of the folks supporting this seem interested in "protecting" is Islam. I see no reference to complaints about defamation of Christians or Jews, or Buddhists or Hindus, or atheists or anyone else. I would not want any such "protections" in the form of limits on free speech - the freedom of expression is a fundamental right that must be protected at all costs, even if it means that someone (probably everyone) is going to be offended at some point in time. I would much rather risk being offended than give up such a vital freedom as that of free expression.

That our own government seems willing to not only sign on but lead the charge to violate our own Constitutional rights in the name of fostering international "consensus" is absolutely unacceptable. If they think such actions will garner favor among our enemies, they are wrong. It will only garner further contempt from both enemies and allies (and the current administration seems quite confused as to which is which) as we will be seen as weak, abandoning our principles.

More on this here:
Obama signs up to stop YOUR freedom of speech at UN. Happy now?
Obama Introduced UN Resolution To Limit Free Speech

Here is the video referenced above:

Read full post >>

Imagine going to the doctor... DMV-style!


H/T Alexa Shrugged

Read full post >>

Healthcare Ad Parody


H/T Alexa Shrugged

For all the celebrity "experts" (too funny)

Read full post >>

Even Jon Stewart is on the MSM's case over this one...

Monday, September 21, 2009 Comments

The so-called "mainstream media" (I rather like Glenn Beck's new term "fringe media") is finding out the hard way that ignoring a story doesn't make it go away. It only serves to reveal just how out-of-touch they are with what's going on in America and to hasten their rapid descent into irrelevance.

It's a little hard to ignore things like systemic corruption at an organization that receives billions in taxpayer funds and just happens to have close ties to the president.

You know it's bad when Jon Stewart actually calls them out on it. This is hilarious:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
The Audacity of Hos
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealthcare Protests

Read full post >>

Remembering Joseph Maffeo

Friday, September 11, 2009 Comments

Joseph Maffeo, age 30, was a firefighter with Brooklyn’s Ladder 101. The day before 9/11, he chose to work a 24-hour overtime shift. He was still on duty when the call came in regarding the terrorist attack at the World Trade Center. He was one of 343 firefighters who lost their lives that day in the line of duty.

But this is not about Joseph Maffeo’s death, it’s about his life.

Known as “Joey Pockets” because he sewed so many pockets onto his gear to make room for gadgets, Joseph was a resourceful handyman who always seemed to have just what he needed for a job or project.

Growing up, he had two close friends – T.J. Beinert and Bobby Melloy – who spent so much time together that they became known as “the Three Musketeers.” As teenagers, his friend Bobby got an old Cadillac and the three of them sawed off the top to make it into a convertible.

Joseph met his wife Linda while she was working as a bank teller. He sold his share of a fishing boat he owned with his friends to buy an engagement ring.

Recalling the day he asked her out, Linda said, "I never gave my number out to customers, but he had the gentlest eyes I had ever seen."

He and his wife have a son named Christopher Joseph, who was just 1 year old at the time. He loved his family and is remembered as a devoted husband and father. He spent countless hours playing blocks with his son and was known to leave fresh daisies in his wife’s car.

Joseph stayed busy – he worked a second job building houses with his brother-in-law and was studying to become a lieutenant in the Fire Department.

Joseph’s legacy of kindness and giving of himself lives on through the Joseph Maffeo Foundation, a charitable organization started by his family to help their community.

My thoughts and prayers are with Joseph's family and friends today. We will never forget.

To read more remembrances of the lives of those America lost on 9/11, please visit Project 2,996.

Read full post >>

Thoughts on the president's school speech

Monday, September 7, 2009 Comments

It's a bit long (especially for young children) but here it is in its entirety. My comments are below.

Prepared Remarks of President Barack Obama
Back to School Event

Arlington, Virginia
September 8, 2009

The President: Hello everyone – how’s everybody doing today? I’m here with students at Wakefield High School in Arlington, Virginia. And we’ve got students tuning in from all across America, kindergarten through twelfth grade. I’m glad you all could join us today.

I know that for many of you, today is the first day of school. And for those of you in kindergarten, or starting middle or high school, it’s your first day in a new school, so it’s understandable if you’re a little nervous. I imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. And no matter what grade you’re in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could’ve stayed in bed just a little longer this morning.

I know that feeling. When I was young, my family lived in Indonesia for a few years, and my mother didn’t have the money to send me where all the American kids went to school. So she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, Monday through Friday – at 4:30 in the morning.

Now I wasn’t too happy about getting up that early. A lot of times, I’d fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. But whenever I’d complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and say, "This is no picnic for me either, buster."

So I know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. But I’m here today because I have something important to discuss with you. I’m here because I want to talk with you about your education and what’s expected of all of you in this new school year.

Now I’ve given a lot of speeches about education. And I’ve talked a lot about responsibility.

I’ve talked about your teachers’ responsibility for inspiring you, and pushing you to learn.

I’ve talked about your parents’ responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox.

I’ve talked a lot about your government’s responsibility for setting high standards, supporting teachers and principals, and turning around schools that aren’t working where students aren’t getting the opportunities they deserve.

But at the end of the day, we can have the most dedicated teachers, the most supportive parents, and the best schools in the world – and none of it will matter unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. Unless you show up to those schools; pay attention to those teachers; listen to your parents, grandparents and other adults; and put in the hard work it takes to succeed.

And that’s what I want to focus on today: the responsibility each of you has for your education. I want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself.
Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide.

Maybe you could be a good writer – maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper – but you might not know it until you write a paper for your English class. Maybe you could be an innovator or an inventor – maybe even good enough to come up with the next iPhone or a new medicine or vaccine – but you might not know it until you do a project for your science class. Maybe you could be a mayor or a Senator or a Supreme Court Justice, but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team.

And no matter what you want to do with your life – I guarantee that you’ll need an education to do it. You want to be a doctor, or a teacher, or a police officer? You want to be a nurse or an architect, a lawyer or a member of our military? You’re going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. You can’t drop out of school and just drop into a good job. You’ve got to work for it and train for it and learn for it.

And this isn’t just important for your own life and your own future. What you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. What you’re learning in school today will determine whether we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future.

You’ll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learn in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and AIDS, and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. You’ll need the insights and critical thinking skills you gain in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness, crime and discrimination, and make our nation more fair and more free. You’ll need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in all your classes to build new companies that will create new jobs and boost our economy.

We need every single one of you to develop your talents, skills and intellect so you can help solve our most difficult problems. If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country.

Now I know it’s not always easy to do well in school. I know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork.
I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.

So I wasn’t always as focused as I should have been. I did some things I’m not proud of, and got in more trouble than I should have. And my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse.

But I was fortunate. I got a lot of second chances and had the opportunity to go to college, and law school, and follow my dreams. My wife, our First Lady Michelle Obama, has a similar story. Neither of her parents had gone to college, and they didn’t have much. But they worked hard, and she worked hard, so that she could go to the best schools in this country.

Some of you might not have those advantages. Maybe you don’t have adults in your life who give you the support that you need. Maybe someone in your family has lost their job, and there’s not enough money to go around. Maybe you live in a neighborhood where you don’t feel safe, or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren’t right.

But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying.

Where you are right now doesn’t have to determine where you’ll end up. No one’s written your destiny for you. Here in America, you write your own destiny. You make your own future.

That’s what young people like you are doing every day, all across America.
Young people like Jazmin Perez, from Roma, Texas. Jazmin didn’t speak English when she first started school. Hardly anyone in her hometown went to college, and neither of her parents had gone either. But she worked hard, earned good grades, got a scholarship to Brown University, and is now in graduate school, studying public health, on her way to being Dr. Jazmin Perez.

I’m thinking about Andoni Schultz, from Los Altos, California, who’s fought brain cancer since he was three. He’s endured all sorts of treatments and surgeries, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer – hundreds of extra hours – to do his schoolwork. But he never fell behind, and he’s headed to college this fall.

And then there’s Shantell Steve, from my hometown of Chicago, Illinois. Even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods, she managed to get a job at a local health center; start a program to keep young people out of gangs; and she’s on track to graduate high school with honors and go on to college.

Jazmin, Andoni and Shantell aren’t any different from any of you. They faced challenges in their lives just like you do. But they refused to give up. They chose to take responsibility for their education and set goals for themselves. And I expect all of you to do the same.

That’s why today, I’m calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education – and to do everything you can to meet them. Your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework, paying attention in class, or spending time each day reading a book. Maybe you’ll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity, or volunteer in your community. Maybe you’ll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look, because you believe, like I do, that all kids deserve a safe environment to study and learn.

Maybe you’ll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn. And along those lines, I hope you’ll all wash your hands a lot, and stay home from school when you don’t feel well, so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter.

Whatever you resolve to do, I want you to commit to it. I want you to really work at it.

I know that sometimes, you get the sense from TV that you can be rich and successful without any hard work -- that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality TV star, when chances are, you’re not going to be any of those things.

But the truth is, being successful is hard. You won’t love every subject you study. You won’t click with every teacher. Not every homework assignment will seem completely relevant to your life right this minute. And you won’t necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try.

That’s OK. Some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who’ve had the most failures. JK Rowling’s first Harry Potter book was rejected twelve times before it was finally published. Michael Jordan was cut from his high school basketball team, and he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. But he once said, "I have failed over and over and over again in my life. And that is why I succeed."

These people succeeded because they understand that you can’t let your failures define you – you have to let them teach you. You have to let them show you what to do differently next time. If you get in trouble, that doesn’t mean you’re a troublemaker, it means you need to try harder to behave. If you get a bad grade, that doesn’t mean you’re stupid, it just means you need to spend more time studying.

No one’s born being good at things, you become good at things through hard work. You’re not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. You don’t hit every note the first time you sing a song. You’ve got to practice. It’s the same with your schoolwork. You might have to do a math problem a few times before you get it right, or read something a few times before you understand it, or do a few drafts of a paper before it’s good enough to hand in.

Don’t be afraid to ask questions. Don’t be afraid to ask for help when you need it. I do that every day. Asking for help isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. It shows you have the courage to admit when you don’t know something, and to learn something new. So find an adult you trust – a parent, grandparent or teacher; a coach or counselor – and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals.

And even when you’re struggling, even when you’re discouraged, and you feel like other people have given up on you – don’t ever give up on yourself. Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America isn’t about people who quit when things got tough. It’s about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best.

It’s the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago, and went on to wage a revolution and found this nation. Students who sat where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a Depression and won a world war; who fought for civil rights and put a man on the moon. Students who sat where you sit 20 years ago who founded Google, Twitter and Facebook and changed the way we communicate with each other.

So today, I want to ask you, what’s your contribution going to be? What problems are you going to solve? What discoveries will you make? What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?

Your families, your teachers, and I are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. I’m working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment and computers you need to learn. But you’ve got to do your part too. So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it.

Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.

My thoughts

Well, let's start with the positive. There are some really good lines in this speech. For example:
"Every single one of you has something you’re good at. Every single one of you has something to offer. And you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. That’s the opportunity an education can provide."

This is exactly what we tell our kids all the time, it's absolutely true and something all children need to understand. No matter what your challenges may be, everyone has strengths and something to offer.

And then there's this, also a good message in my opinion:
"But at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life – what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you’ve got going on at home – that’s no excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude. That’s no excuse for talking back to your teacher, or cutting class, or dropping out of school. That’s no excuse for not trying."

There are other positive messages. Learning from our failures rather than letting them discourage us, and not giving up. Recognizing that learning takes time and persevering in our efforts. Not being afraid to ask questions. The importance of setting goals. All good things, of course. Not necessarily the president's job to tell our children these things, but nonetheless things it doesn't hurt to hear from multiple sources in addition to parents.

However, peppered throughout the speech was a recurring theme of not just studying and working hard, but doing it "for your country." Huh? Who thinks to themselves, "it's for the good of the country" when they sit down to study for a test, or ponder whether to stay in school or not? Here are a few examples:
"If you don’t do that – if you quit on school – you’re not just quitting on yourself, you’re quitting on your country."

"Because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country."

"who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best."

"What will a president who comes here in twenty or fifty or one hundred years say about what all of you did for this country?"

Am I the only one who finds those statements more than a little creepy? A bit too "you will be assimilated, resistance is futile" collectivist thinking for my liking.

And then there's this:
"So I expect you to get serious this year. I expect you to put your best effort into everything you do. I expect great things from each of you. So don’t let us down – don’t let your family or your country or yourself down. Make us all proud. I know you can do it."

"I expect"?! As a parent I just find the tone there a little insulting. Kind of like his reference to "parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track, and get your homework done, and don’t spend every waking hour in front of the TV or with that Xbox." I don't need the president telling me how to raise my children any more than I need him telling my children to work hard in school. It's not his place. Now, it's possible his intention there was to back up the message from parents, so I can give him the benefit of the doubt on that one.

But did you notice that reference to "country" stuck in there yet again? What's with that?

Study hard... for your country. Stay in school... for your country. Do your best... for your country. Don't let your country down.

Don't get me wrong, there are times when it's appropriate to do things for the sake of our country. I was raised in a military family, and have friends and family members who have made sacrifices for this great nation. But that seems to me a rather "adult" concept. Does it really apply to school attendance and studying?

I studied hard in school because it was necessary to meet personal goals I had set for myself, and because I knew it was important to my future. Had I dropped out of school, I would have disappointed myself, my parents, and probably many of my teachers. But the whole country? Really? That's quite a responsibility to place on children, especially young children.

Is it so wrong to do those things because it's what YOU want to do? For the intrinsic value in it - it's meaning to you personally, not because someone else expects it of you? Because it's in your own best interest? Because your future, and that of your future children, hangs in the balance? Isn't that more important than some nebulous "do it for your country" mantra?

Is this not planting a seed in the minds of children that we should make personal decisions based on what is good "for our country"? Is this not subtly suggesting to our children that "do it for your country" is a valid argument for taking a particular action? That the impact on "the state" should enter into our personal decision-making process, even for matters such as studying?

The "it's for the common good" argument raises red flags for me, as it has often been misused to promote actions that are detrimental to individuals (and thus, harmful to the society despite their claims to the contrary).

Today the appeal is benign enough. Who doesn't think it's a good idea to encourage kids to work hard in school?

But what will tomorrow's request / suggestion / call to action be?

Read full post >>

Blood Money Trailer

Saturday, September 5, 2009 Comments

From Jill Stanek:

"I normally like to preview pro-life movies before publicizing them, but the director of Blood Money has made a special request that makes sense. He wrote me:
If abortion is the front line of the healthcare plan, we need to get people to see the trailer, where Dr. Clowes talks about the giant facilities being built by Planned Parenthood.

[Also], we already have 3 distributors interested in seeing it once it is complete. So if we can show there is an interest in the public seeing it in theaters we will have a stronger case to present to them for doing so.

Here's the trailer:

I knew Planned Parenthood was corrupt and lacking a moral compass of any kind, but I had no idea just how insidious this organization is... please take a moment to watch this and share it with others.

You can also click here to show your support for the film.

Read full post >>

The ad the state-run media doesn't want you to see


From Gateway Pundit:

ABC had no problem showing Obama's infomercial on socialized medicine, broadcast directly from the White House. They refused to air any opposing views at the time to present a balanced view. And now both ABC and NBC are refusing paid advertising that is critical of Congress' proposed healthcare plan.

I've seen the networks airing ads in favor of gov't-run healthcare, so the claim that they don't air "partisan" ads doesn't hold water. Thank goodness the state-run media is not the only source of information in this country (at least for now).

Here's the ad:

Read full post >>

Obama's address to school children

Wednesday, September 2, 2009 Comments

H/T: The Dana Show

A letter from the Dept of Education to school principals reads:

President Obama announced that on September 8 — the first day of school for many children across America — he will deliver a national address directly to students on the importance of education. The President will challenge students to work hard, set educational goals, and take responsibility for their learning. He will also call for a shared responsibility and commitment on the part of students, parents and educators to ensure that every child in every school receives the best education possible so they can compete in the global economy for good jobs and live rewarding and productive lives as American citizens.


This is the first time an American president has spoken directly to the nation's school children about persisting and succeeding in school. We encourage you to use this historic moment to help your students get focused and begin the school year strong.

Read the whole thing here. Frankly, I don't need the president or anyone from government to tell my children to work hard and study in school. They are already getting that message from me, my husband, and their teachers.

But this is apparently more than just a speech, there are activities outlined for before and after the speech. Exactly how much of our children's educational time do they intend to spend on this little pep rally?

Here are a few of the suggestions for teachers:
Before the Speech:
Teachers can build background knowledge about the President of the United States and his speech by reading books about presidents and Barack Obama and motivate students by asking the following questions: Who is the President of the United States? What do you think it takes to be President? To whom do you think the President is going to be speaking? Why do you think he wants to speak to you? What do you think he will say to you?

Why is it important that we listen to the President and other elected officials, like the mayor, senators, members of congress, or the governor? Why is what they say important?

During the Speech
As students listen to the speech, they could think about the following: What is the President trying to tell me? What is the President asking me to do? What new ideas and actions is the President challenging me to think about?

Students can record important parts of the speech where the President is asking them to do something. Students might think about: What specific job is he asking me to do? Is he asking anything of anyone else? Teachers? Principals? Parents? The American people?

After the Speech
Teachers could ask students to share the ideas they recorded, exchange sticky notes or stick notes on a butcher paper poster in the classroom to discuss main ideas from the speech, i.e. citizenship, personal responsibility, civic duty.

Students could discuss their responses to the following questions: What do you think the President wants us to do? Does the speech make you want to do anything? Are we able to do what President Obama is asking of us? What would you like to tell the President?

Extension of the Speech
: Teachers can extend learning by having students

Write letters to themselves about what they can do to help the president. These would be collected and redistributed at an appropriate later date by the teacher to make students accountable to their goals.

Create artistic projects based on the themes of their goals.

I highlighted a few that I take issue with. Why are they teaching our children that we should listen to elected officials and view them as authority figures? In America, our elected officials work for US, they are supposed to represent us and it is they who should be listening to us, not the other way around.

Perhaps the "ram it down their throats" Congress got tired of hearing "you work for us" at the town halls and the administration thought it would be a great idea to scrub that notion from the minds of today's children?

And perhaps this is all innocent enough... but as American Elephant put it:
...viewing this administration’s track record doesn’t afford such benefit of the doubt. When the President browbeats property owners who want to protect their legal rights… when the President admits he doesn’t know the facts but impugns the integrity of a police force… when the President calls me a liar for reporting what is actually in the health care bills and encourages my neighbors to report me to some enemies list… when the President apologizes to nations around the world and bows to a Saudi king… he loses the benefit of the doubt. As a socialist who has surrounded himself with Marxist and racist radicals all of his life, he loses the benefit of the doubt.

Without benefit of the doubt, the President doesn’t get to speak to my children unchallenged.

Call your child's school, and if they're planning to participate in this, you may want to consider keeping your children home that day.

Read full post >>

Don't underestimate the will of the American people

Saturday, August 29, 2009 Comments

This aired on Glenn Beck's program last night, very inspiring.

In the clip, he said this was based on a clip he rec'd from a mother and son, I think this may be the one he was talking about. Also well worth watching, this was done by a high school student:

Read full post >>

"It ain't [America] no more, OK?"

Friday, August 28, 2009 Comments

What the @%&#?!?

I respect our police officers and the fact that they have difficult jobs. I believe the vast majority of officers are hard-working people who strive to do the right thing.

That being said, I find this encounter disturbing. The officer in question can't offer an actual reason for his request to remove the sign, except to finally say it's because it has a picture on it (huh?). Then he threatens to "charge you with whatever I wanna charge you with." And when the person videotaping says, "this used to be America" the officer answers with "It ain't no more, ok?"

Again, what the @%&#?!?

Read full post >>



"Some of the things you're about to hear are both shocking and hilarious."

Read full post >>

Freedom of speech an "exaggeration"?

Thursday, August 27, 2009 Comments

H/T kHat43 and RightKlik

Disturbing views from Obama's diversity czar, Mark Lloyd.

From CNS News:

Mark Lloyd, chief diversity officer of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), called for a “confrontational movement” to combat what he claimed was control of the media by international corporations and to re-establish the regulatory power of government through robust public broadcasting and a more powerful FCC.


“It should be clear by now that my focus here is not freedom of speech or the press,” he said. “This freedom is all too often an exaggeration. At the very least, blind references to freedom of speech or the press serve as a distraction from the critical examination of other communications policies.”

“[T]he purpose of free speech is warped to protect global corporations and block rules that would promote democratic governance,” said Lloyd. “[T]he problem is not only the warp to our public philosophy of free speech, but that the government has abandoned its role of advancing the communications capabilities of real people.”

"Democratic governance" is a nice euphemism for "government control." And who exactly count as "real people"? If some people are "real," are others "fake"?

Last time I checked, between the internet, television (cable / satellite), radio, newspapers, magazines, etc. anyone and everyone who wants to have a voice has that opportunity. Likewise anyone can find what they want to watch / read / listen to from all over the spectrum of ideas. The last thing we need is the government stepping in to control what Americans see and hear. Constitutional rights are not an "exaggeration" for the government to curtail, they are the rights of every citizen. It is becoming more clear to me every day that there are significant forces in government that would like nothing more than to take all our freedoms and control every aspect of our lives. Each of needs to keep standing up for our freedoms or we will lose them.

Read the whole article here.

More from the Examiner here.

Read full post >>

Reagan on socialized medicine

Sunday, August 23, 2009 Comments


Read full post >>

Health Reform & Wait Times - Lego illustration

Tuesday, August 18, 2009 Comments

From 10000Pennies

"In 2006, Massachusetts passed health care reform that implemented a number of policies that are now being mirrored in the Obama health reform plan. The president has repeatedly claimed that his plan will lower health care costs but not decrease health care quality. This visualization looks at how the Massachusetts plan has panned out in terms of cost and wait times."

Read full post >>

Project 2,996

Monday, August 17, 2009 Comments

From the Project 2,996 website:

Project 2,996 is a tribute to the victims of 9/11.

On September 11, 2006, more than 3,000 bloggers joined together to remember the victims of 9/11.

Each year we will honor them by remembering their lives, and not by remembering their murderers.

If you would like to help out, by pledging to post a tribute on your own blog on 9/11 of this year, click the button at the top of the sidebar. Then, use the web to learn something about the life of the name you are given, and on 9/11, post your tribute your blog or website.

But, and this is critical, the tributes should celebrate the lives of these people–kind of like a wake. Over the last 5 years we’ve heard the names of the killers, and all about the victim’s deaths. This is a chance to learn about and celebrate those who died. Forget the murderers, they don’t deserve to be remembered. But some people who died that day deserve to be remembered––2,996 people.

Please consider signing up to write a tribute. So far there are 365 names assigned out of 2,996. Click here to sign up.

Read full post >>

Should we treat them differently?


H/T: Jill Stanek

Read full post >>

The worth of children

Saturday, August 15, 2009 Comments

It's bad enough that many do not consider unborn children to be persons with human rights (and in fact our current law holds that view). But Obama's science czar, John Holdren, believes that children are not "human beings" until many years after birth.

From CNS News, via John Lott:

President Obama’s top science adviser said in a book he co-authored in 1973 that a newborn child "will ultimately develop into a human being" if he or she is properly fed and socialized.

"The fetus, given the opportunity to develop properly before birth, and given the essential early socializing experiences and sufficient nourishing food during the crucial early years after birth, will ultimately develop into a human being." (emphasis added)

When, exactly, does Holdren believe children become "human"?

Another Obama czar, regulatory czar Cass Sunstein, is a big believer in the ideas of Peter Singer. According to David Martosko, that includes the idea that "animals should have some of the same rights as humans, in fact, greater rights than some people." Peter Singer also advocates "making it legal to kill disabled infants up to 28 days after birth as well as older 'non-persons with disabilities.'" Some quotes:
"[K]illing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."

"No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time."

"Killing a disabled infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Very often it is not wrong at all."

"During the next 35 years, the traditional view of the sanctity of human life will collapse under pressure from scientific, technological, and demographic developments. By 2040, it may be that only a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists will defend the view that every human life, from conception to death, is sacrosanct."

Sources: Princeton University
Practical Ethics, 2nd edition, Cambridge, 1993, pp. 175-217
The Sanctity of Life, Foreign Policy, Sept/Oct 2005

And then there's Ezekiel Emanuel's opinions on the lives of infants and young children, as well as individuals with disabilities, deserving less consideration than those of older children and adults (well, before they become elderly, anyway).

All of these people are entitled to their opinions and have the 1st amendment right to express their beliefs. But I find it disturbing that our President would surround himself with not one but several people who hold such views on the intrinsic value of children.

Then again, our President himself has expressed opinions against the notion of the sanctity of life.

To be fair, I do not doubt his devotion as a father to his own daughters. Certainly he loves them very much and wants only the best for them, as any father would.

And yet during the 2008 presidential campaign, he said that if his daughters made a "mistake," he wouldn't want them, "punished with a baby." He also argued against a bill that would have required medical care be provided to babies who survived botched abortions, claiming that such a law would "burden" doctors and women who had intended to abort their babies. The theme running through both of those statements is that he seems to see children, at least those not "wanted" by their parents for whatever reason, as "burdens" not worth protecting.

Does the president agree with the views of his advisors on the worth of children? I really don't know, and I certainly hope not. But if he doesn't, I can't help but ask - why has he chosen so many advisors with such views? And how might those views come to influence public policy in his administration?

Read full post >>

Disproportionate Response



"angry mobs" of "right-wing extremists"

"brown-shirts" ... "carrying swastikas" (aka Nazi's)


"political terrorists"

"reminiscent of... Timothy McVeigh"

and when the existing lexicon just wasn't enough to convey their contempt, they made up a new term: "evil-mongers"

Wow. These mobsters that members of the United States House and Senate, along with the Obama administration, and the MSM keep warning us about sound truly terrifying don't they?

Dana Loesch shared some pictures of them on her blog.

*** Warning - GRAPHIC photos ***
You've been warned. I am not responsible for any nightmares that result from witnessing these frightening photos of mobs in action.

You can see more photos here.

It's more than a little ridiculous, isn't it? The disproportionate response from the left only underscores how desperate they must be to ram this monstrosity of Obamacare down our throats. But now that people have seen what is in the bill they aren't happy with it, and are being denigrated and maligned for nothing more - and nothing less - than exercising their right of free speech under the Constitution.

And as much as they'd like us to believe this is a "fringe" response, not indicative of the country at large - the polls say otherwise. The latest Rasmussen polls show that 53% of Americans are opposed to the healthcare bill. And really, this is about a lot more than healthcare - it's about freedom. It's about not having to worry about a government-induced scarcity of care in which the opinions of Ezekiel Emanuel or John Holdren may influence decisions on whether our families are "worth" getting medical care.

Interestingly enough (though hardly surprising), the response of the left to Americans voicing concerns about healthcare is fraught with blatant hypocrisy.

For example, Nancy Pelosi only thinks you're "un-American" if you disagree with her. She's "a fan of disruptors" if she agrees with them:

More here, here, and here. (Warning - for real this time - some of the pictures in that last link contain offensive language and nudity but hopefully won't give you nightmares).

Read full post >>

Be a voice for the unborn

Friday, August 7, 2009 Comments

This is a very well-done video about being a voice for the unborn, by 12-yr-old Anthony Matzke. This video is the 12-and-under winner of Lia's Challenge: Pro-Life video contest.

Please take a moment to watch:

H/T: Mommy

Read full post >>

Opposing views and free speech


"Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views." -- William F. Buckley, Jr.

The left can't get their heads around the concept that Americans all over the country oppose their plans for a government takeover of healthcare, so they respond with name-calling and ridicule while the Obama administration goes further and asks supporters to report any "fishy" emails or even casual conversation opposing the president's healthcare reform to the White House. Spy on your friends and neighbors and report anyone who isn't falling in line behind the president's plans to implement a plan that would limit choices, reduce quality, significantly increase debt and healthcare costs, and necessarily result in rationing by a central governmental board.

What exactly does the White House plan to do with all these reports? If they're putting together some kind of "enemies list," it's going to be a very, very long list considering that 53% of Americans oppose the health care bill.


If I can add one more thought:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say, we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration." ~Hillary Clinton

I agreed with Hillary then, and I agree with her now. Unfortunately, those of us opposed to Obama's policies are being called much worse than "unpatriotic," we are being called extremists and dangerous. We are maligned as "angry mobs" simply for asking questions and wanting to have our voices heard. And these things aren't coming from just people on the left who disagree with us, which would be fine. These misrepresentations and attempts at intimidation are coming from the president and his administration, as well as our elected representatives in Congress, and they are attempting to shut down our voices through intimidation. Personally, I don't think it's going to work (thank goodness).

Folks, we have a president who goes out of his way to support and engage with terrorists and tyrants, enemies of our nation, and yet his administration is actively attacking everyday Americans simply for exercising their 1st amendment rights of free speech to question and debate his policies.

Keep standing up, America.

And if your elected officials are planning to oppose the healthcare bill, don't think you're off the hook! Attend their town halls to express your support. They need to know that we are behind them, because they will be under tremendous pressure to change their votes.

Read full post >>

Imagine the Potential #3



H/T: Mommy

Read full post >>

This is for the soldiers

Wednesday, August 5, 2009 Comments

Another great tribute from Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) and Drowning Pool. Visit to read and sign the petition.

Read full post >>

Healthcare Plan B: Next worst thing

Tuesday, August 4, 2009 Comments

Earlier I wrote about the dangers of the "public option" in Obama's plan. Even without a so-called "public option," Obama's Plan B isn't much better, as it would still bring about massive government control - essentially still a gov't takeover of the health insurance industry but with the facade of a free-market system.

From The Weekly Standard:

Plan B is no day at the beach for health insurers. By imposing an exhaustive array of regulations and installing a powerful national health commissioner, it would turn health insurers into public utilities. They'd be assured a small profit, but competition among insurers would be gone and bureaucrats would be in charge.


As you might expect, there are many, many problems with Plan B. Its first impact would be on health insurers. All but the largest five or six of 1,300 insurers across the country would be out of luck. Since Plan B would reduce the profits for insurance companies, and those with smaller margins--namely, regional, state, and local insurers--probably wouldn't be able to compete.

"It's another chapter in the book on crony capitalism," says Republican representative Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, who first described Obamacare 2.0 as "Plan B." "The government erects barriers to entry against the smaller and most innovative insurance companies and leaves the big, established firms in place."

Insurers would be allowed to offer new policies after 2013 only if they joined a government-operated "exchange." And the policies would have to include a minimum--and more extensive and expensive--set of benefits. This would deny smaller firms their competitive advantage of offering insurance packages with fewer benefits, specially tailored for a client's needs.

Ryan raised this point recently during a hearing of the House Ways and Means Committee, asking about a small Milwaukee insurer. The answer he got was unequivocal. The firm couldn't offer new policies outside the exchange.

The biggest impact of Plan B would be on all of us, assuming it retains most or all of the regulatory requirements and details of Obamacare. There would be victims and beneficiaries. As insurers go out of business, people would lose the coverage they've chosen. Young people, the healthy ones, would suffer even more. They'd have to pay far more for their coverage. Cheap catastrophic plans and cost-saving health savings accounts would be unavailable. By paying more, those in their 20s and 30s would subsidize the old and sick.

With all the new benefits--for mental health treatment and "professional services" and "well baby/child" services--the total cost of health insurance is bound to soar. The poor and uninsured will need a subsidy. Caps on out-of-pocket expenses will increase the cost of insurance. And so on. The price will have to be paid through higher premiums and tax hikes.

Read the whole article here.

Read full post >>

John Stossel on healthcare reform


One of the saddest parts is at the end when they reveal who does have access to top-notch medical care in Canada...

Read full post >>

Obama in his own words: his plan will eliminate private insurance

Monday, August 3, 2009 Comments

"I don't think we're going to be able to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There's going to be potentially some transition process." - Barack Obama, 2007

"I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal healthcare plan... That's what I'd like to see." - Barack Obama, 2003

"If we get a good public option, it could lead to single-payer and that's the best way to reach single-payer." - Barney Frank, 7/27/09

"... 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 will put the private insurance industry out of business and lead to single payer... He was right. The man was right." - Jan Schakowsky, 4/18/09

And yet Obama has the audacity to say:

"Let me also address an illegitimate concern that's being put forward by those who are claiming that a public option is somehow a trojan horse for a single-payer system." - Barack Obama, 6/15/09

"Illegitimate" concern? Seems pretty clear to me that the so-called "public option" is, in fact, intended to be a gateway to a single-payer system.

Although I suppose based on the video below, perhaps the term "trojan horse" is inaccurate, since the intention is not exactly hidden, but out in plain sight for anyone who cares to see it:

"Someone once said to me this is a trojan horse for single-payer and I said, 'well, it's not a 'trojan horse,' right? It's just right there! I'm telling you. We're going to get there, over time, slowly, but we'll move away from reliance on employer-based health insurance, as we should. But we'll do it in a way that we're not going to frighten people into thinking they're going to lose their private insurance. We're going to give them a choice of public and private insurance when they're in the pool and we're going to let them keep their private employment-based insurance if their employer continues to provide it. - Dr. Jacob Hacker, 7/21/08 (emphasis added)

Read full post >>

A tribute to our military


This is absolutely beautiful. Watch it, share it.

Visit Operation Gratitude at for ways to support our troops.

Read full post >>

Milton Friedman on capitalism


I came across this via @Mom4Freedom on Twitter and Carpe Diem. Milton Friedman on why capitalism and free markets are far better than any other system:

Read full post >>

10 million watchdogs

Saturday, August 1, 2009 Comments

If you've been listening to or watching Glenn Beck lately you've already heard about this, but in case you haven't (where have you been? hehe), thought I'd post this to spread the word.

Personally I love the idea because there is so much going on, everyday it's something else. It's easy to feel overwhelmed, almost to the point of wanting to just shut it all out and go hide under the bed or something, but we can't do that because we owe it to our children to STAND UP and fight back to preserve freedom.

From Glenn Beck:

be a constitutional watchdog because we need to stop these people in their tracks, and the one thing I learned is while there is one thing about one watchdog, there's something more than twice as powerful in two watchdogs. Now imagine with the radio audience and the television audience, imagine ten million watchdogs. I need you in the next couple of days to help me. This is like a 100 front war. He is overwhelming the system. It is right out of the playbook from Saul Alinsky. It is what a community organizer does: Overwhelm the system.


We don't need the mainstream media anymore. The paradigm is about to shift. Don't worry about the media. The media will find themselves in the dustbin of history. We have each other.


help me define what the fronts are. What are the lines that they are moving in and pushing on. For instance, healthcare cannot be passed. No form of universal healthcare. Because it is not about the healthcare. It is about the structure, and I will outline this in the next few days. Structure is what matters. Nothing else matters. Structure is what matters. We need to watch the czars. We need to watch cap and trade, structure on cap and trade. We need to watch ‑‑ quite honestly we need to guard, as much as I hate every member of congress, we need to guard congress because the executive branch is devouring all other branches. They are devouring it, and the people in congress are so stupid, so insipid or so in on the game, they are going to find themselves irrelevant wildly fast [ed note: I blogged about this recently in reference to the czars]. We must guard all three branches of government. It is a shell game. It is a transformation. And what I said to you over a year ago, you will wake up someday and your country will not be the same. It's happening, and it's happening right now. But one person can't watch it all. No media source can even do it.


here's the great thing. You don't have to watch them on all fronts. There are 10 million listeners. Pick the thing that interests you. Are you into guns? Are you into healthcare? Do you know it? Do you feel it? Do you watch something on TV and say, "I know this, I know what they're doing!" Follow it! Don't pay attention to all of it. You'll get lost. That's what they want us to do. So don't follow all of it. Follow the thing that your gut says "This is important and I understand this and I get this." Just follow that one thing and alert me. We will put the gears into at least neutral. Eventually we will jam that back into reverse. And if we don't, we'll strip all the damn gears because it will be time to get out of the car and rebuild it the American way. So I ask you, will you be a constitutional watchdog. The time has come to bark and to bark loudly. Understand what this means. What this means is you may be called a racist, a homophobe, a hate monger, you want to starve children. Whatever it is, whatever your category is, they will find a way to ridicule you because that's what Saul Alinsky taught them to do: Have no fear. No fear no more! Stand up! You know the truth. Stand for the truth because only the truth will set us free.

Read the whole thing here.

Read full post >>

Obama advisor: care should be reserved for non-disabled "participating" citizens


More on rationing from the ever-creepy Ezekiel Emanuel (BO health policy advisor). H/T Gateway Pundit

The New York Post writes:

Emanuel bluntly admits that the cuts will not be pain-free. "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change," he wrote last year (Health Affairs Feb. 27, 2008).

Savings, he writes, will require changing how doctors think about their patients: Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, "as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others" (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.

Many doctors are horrified by this notion; they'll tell you that a doctor's job is to achieve social justice one patient at a time.

Emanuel, however, believes that "communitarianism" should guide decisions on who gets care. He says medical care should be reserved for the non-disabled, not given to those "who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens . . . An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia" (Hastings Center Report, Nov.-Dec. '96).

Translation: Don't give much care to a grandmother with Parkinson's or a child with cerebral palsy.

And who decides what constitutes a "participating" citizen? People like Emanuel? Scary, scary thought.

Read the whole NYP article here

Related post: Obama health policy advisor on rationing

UPDATE (7/7/09)

More on this in the following speech from Rep. Michele Bachmann:

Read full post >>

Obama health policy advisor on rationing

Tuesday, July 21, 2009 Comments

If Obamacare is implemented, it stands to reason that demand for care will go up while supply of care will go down. On the one hand, I believe that some doctors will choose to leave practice (and students will opt to avoid medical school) rather than work under even more government control than already exists. Aside from that, the government is fixated on "cutting costs" with regard to healthcare despite it's free-spending ways when it comes to everything else.

Such an environment will create a scarcity of care, much like what has already happened in countries with socialized medicine like Canada and Britain, which invariably leads to government rationing of care. Given that, it's worth asking how will care be rationed?

For some insight into that, we can look to the recommendations of Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, NIH bioethicist (an ironic title IMO), Rahm Emanuel's brother, and most importantly, Barack Obama's "Special Advisor for Health Policy."

So, what are Dr. Emanuel's views on rationing of care? He recently coauthored an article on the topic, "Principles for allocation of scarce medical interventions," in the Lancet. While the article references specific care like organ transplants, kidney dialysis, and vaccines in the event of a pandemic, it is also clearly meant to apply any time there is a "scarcity" of care (which Obamacare would undoubtedly create).

After considering a number of possible rationing methods that could be used, Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues recommend a combination of criteria which they call the "complete lives system":

"It prioritises younger people who have not yet lived a complete life and will be unlikely to do so without aid. ... also supports modifying the youngest-first principle by prioritising adolescents and young adults over infants (figure)."

While I was disgusted to see the curve take a nose-dive around age 50, I can't say I was surprised, based on Obama's recent statement regarding the elderly, "Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," (translation, go home and die?). However, I admit I was surprised (and appalled) to see babies and young children also targetted to be denied care. What would this mean for preemies? Would life-saving NICU care be deemed "too expensive" by the bureacrats?

It gets even worse when you see his justification for such discrimination against the "very young."

"Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. Similarly, adolescence brings with it a developed personality capable of forming and valuing long-term plans whose fulfilment requires a complete life. As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old child dies and worse still when an adolescent does'; this argument is supported by empirical surveys. Importantly, the prioritisation of adolescents and young adults considers the social and personal investment that people are morally entitled to have received at a particular age, rather than accepting the results of an unjust status quo."
That paragraph is just wrong and abhorrent on so many levels. What parent considers their love and time spent parenting as an "investment"? What parent would consider the loss of a baby less tragic than the loss of an older child? What parent would agree that it is acceptable to let a baby or young child die on the grounds that they haven't "invested" much time in that child yet (or worse, that the state hasn't "invested" in their education yet)? And to say, "this argument is supported by empirical surveys"?! WHO THINKS LIKE THAT?!? It makes me physically ill. No wonder these people don't care to protect the unborn or even newborns. If babies, toddlers, and even children who haven't yet reached adolescence mean so little to them, surely an unborn child would be worth even less in their eyes. I guess that answers my question about preemies...

Here's more:

"A young person with a poor prognosis has had few life-years but lacks the potential to live a complete life. Considering prognosis forestalls the concern that disproportionately large amounts of resources will be directed to young people with poor prognoses."
And who determines prognoses? Something tells me it won't be doctors and families.

"When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated (figure)."
Attenuated. Good luck with that. How's that "hope and change" working out for ya?

As to potential objections that such a policy discriminates against the elderly, the authors have this to say:

"Treating 65-year-olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
Sure, ok. Well, I feel better now. It's not like we'd be discriminating against anyone on the basis of age or anything. :rolls eyes:

On the need to influence public attitudes to accept such a system:

"the complete lives system requires only that citizens see a complete life, however defined, as an important good, and accept that fairness gives those short of a complete life stronger claims to scarce life-saving resources."
In other words, the belief in the sanctity of life in general must go, and be replaced by the notion that a "complete life" is more important than just any life, that some lives are more worthy of saving than others. If you're over 40, just accept that you need to step aside and not expect much care, someone younger has a "stronger claim" to that care. And if your child is not yet 15 or determined to have a lower "prognosis," accept that someone older or healthier has a "stronger claim" to care. Anyone else feeling outraged yet, or is it just me?

But, let's not be too hasty. They're not quite advocating this system be applied to the entire health care system, at least not until we take some other steps first:

"Accepting the complete lives system for health care as a whole would be premature. We must first reduce waste and increase spending."
Huh? I thought we were supposed to be making healthcare more affordable, not increasing spending... won't that just increase the cost to taxpayers under a government-controlled system?

Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues are careful to distance themselves from so-called "objective" methods of discounting the value of life on the basis of disability or "quality of life," but their objection is to the attempt to quantify it. They have no problem with more qualitative methods of taking "instrumental value" into account. The fact that they advocate only resorting to that in the event of an "emergency" might be intended to reassure us, except that our current government is in a constant state of "crisis."

So what do they mean by "instrumental value"?

"Instrumental value allocation prioritises specific individuals to enable or encourage future usefulness. ... Responsibility-based allocation—eg, allocation to people who agree to improve their health and thus use fewer resources—also represents instrumental value allocation."
What exactly does "usefulness" mean? While they claim their system doesn't discriminate on the basis of disability, does anyone reading this really think that such language won't be used to discriminate against those with special needs if some bureacrat decides their "future usefulness" is less than someone else's? And how about anyone deemed "inconvenient" to society? What is the criteria for "usefulness," who decides, and why should it even matter? Can you imagine going to the doctor and being asked questions to determine your "usefulness" to society before being offered any care? The idea is unconscionable, and the sanctity of all life would be meaningless under such a system.

Where have we heard such notions before? I hate to bring up Nazi references but the similarities in thought are there. The Nazis also believed in "life unworthy of life" and saw the elimination of such people as a "healing" process for society as a whole. To be clear, Dr. Emanuel and his colleagues are NOT advocating killing anyone as the Nazis did, but denial of care via rationing would ultimately result in needless loss of life. Most importantly, it would result in loss of life that would not occur under our current system. Emanuel & friends obviously saw the potential for readers to see such parallels because they addressed it:

"Ultimately, the complete lives system does not create 'classes of Untermenschen whose lives and well being are deemed not worth spending money on', but rather empowers us to decide fairly whom to save when genuine scarcity makes saving everyone impossible."
Whew... I feel better now. Well, not exactly. Obamacare will CREATE "genuine scarcity" in many, many areas where it does not exist today, making such decisions more and more "necessary." And in reality, denying or limiting care is no less than a death sentence in many cases.


"To achieve a just allocation of scarce medical interventions, society must embrace the challenge of implementing a coherent multiprinciple framework rather than relying on simple principles or retreating to the status quo."
Interestingly, Obama tends to favor that term "status quo" also, and he uses it in a similarly derisive tone. Heaven forbid we hold onto a system that doesn't require rationing, especially centralized rationing, for the vast majority of care.

We keep hearing about how our current healthcare system is in a state of crisis. It's not. Are there some things that need to be improved? Of course, it's not perfect. But let's not burn down the whole town just to fix a few potholes in the road.

Read full post >>