Thursday, April 30, 2009

RealClearPolitics - The Attack On Doctors' Hippocratic Oath

At least the Obama administration is consistent on treatment of the gravely ill - just let them die.

The Attack On Doctors' Hippocratic Oath

By Betsy McCaughey

Patients count on their doctor to do whatever is possible to treat their illness. That is the promise doctors make by taking the Hippocratic Oath.

But President Obama's advisers are looking to save money by interfering with that oath and controlling your doctor's decisions.

Ezekiel Emanuel sees the Hippocratic Oath as one factor driving "overuse" of medical care. He is a policy adviser in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a brother of Rahm Emanuel, the president's chief of staff.

Monday, April 27, 2009

TARP: The Looming Debacle

It seems the $700 BILLION TARP program has grown a bit - say 4 times.  Anyone getting to vote on this??  Any debate before Congress??  Any ability for the common man to have their say through the vote of their representative??  Is that really too much to ask??

TARP: The Looming Debacle

Share Post Print

April 27, 2009 Posted by John at 8:00 AM

On April 21, the Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program Act of 2009--"SIGTARP"--submitted his quarterly report to Congress on his office's activities in relation to the TARP program. The report is a disquieting document that should be read by every American--certainly be every taxpayer.

The Inspector General's report documents the stunning and at least partly illegal expansion of TARP from the $700 billion originally allocated by Congress to what is now a $3 trillion complex of programs. This chart shows the various programs that are now included within SIGTARP's oversight, and how they have expanded from the initial $700 billion. Note that some of the programs are still incipient; $3 trillion is by no means a final number. Click to enlarge:


Sunday, April 26, 2009


What will your doctor be willing to work for under a socialized healthcare system?  Would they work for $53,000 per year??



Published: April 25, 1982

Medicare, Canada's publicly financed comprehensive health system, is once again being battered by thousands of angry doctors agitating for higher incomes.

In Ontario, Canada's largest province, 15,000 doctors have been staying away from their offices or refusing to perform some services, such as prescribing drugs by telephone. Some 5,500 general practitioners in Quebec, the second largest province, are threatening to close their offices for a day next week.


Well before the cuts, doctors' incomes were losing ground to those of other professional groups, the Medical Association says. It cited tax figures indicating that between 1971 and 1977 lawyers, dentists and accountants increased their incomes at a much faster rate than doctors. In Ontario, according to an association spokesman, the average net income for a doctor is about $53,000 a year.

Article | A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work

A glimpse of our future healthcare system.

A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work

July 26, 2007

By David Gratzer

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. As a Canadian, I had soaked up the belief that government–run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people.

My health care prejudices crumbled on the way to a medical school class. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute.

Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care.

Friday, April 24, 2009

Iowa's Attorney General expects Iowans to ignore their conscience or face criminal charges.

I live in a wonderful state filled with kind and hard working people.  It is a state that lives family values, one of which is a belief that marriage is a sacrament that unites a man and a woman.  Through the results of a trial and the decision of our Supreme Court, we Iowans now discover that this is simply an error in our judgement and that beginning April 27th court recorders that refuse to issue marriage licenses may be prosecuted.  Of course, Iowa has a "right of conscience" statute but it seems the AG has little interest in that.  I suspect this will lead to more court time, more trials, more judicial decisions.  How about this - let the people vote or, at the least, let their elected legislators vote.

State threatens locals: Marry 'gays' – or else

Attorney general: 'We must live by and follow what the courts decide'

Posted: April 24, 2009
12:10 am Eastern

By Bob Unruh

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller

Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller is warning the county recorders' offices in his state that workers must process "marriage" licenses for same-sex duos or face possible charges in a court of law.

"If necessary, we will explore legal actions to enforce and implement the court's ruling, working with the Iowa Dept. of Public Health and county attorneys," he warned on his website.

But an announcement today from a statewide pro-family organization and a public interest law firm with a reach that goes around the world means the issue of same-sex weddings eventually could end up back in court.

The statements from Miller relate to the state Supreme Court's decision that Iowa must provide same-sex couples access to the state's marriage processes.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Obama legal team wants defendants' rights limited

The continued assault on American's rights by The Big "O".

Obama legal team wants defendants' rights limited

Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule long-standing law that stops police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.

The administration's action - and several others - have disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups that expected President Barack Obama to reverse the policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, after the Democrat's call for change during the 2008 campaign. - Hillary Clinton Defends Worldwide Abortion Rights

The American dream now includes the culture of death. My tax dollars are now being used to kill the unborn world wide. Is that what we, as a nation, stand for?

Hillary Clinton Defends Worldwide Abortion Rights

Thursday, April 23, 2009 6:55 PM

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, testifying in Congress, defended the right to abortion worldwide and the Obama administration's decision to finance family planning overseas.

Clinton stood her ground against Christopher Smith, a Republican lawmaker from New Jersey who strongly opposes abortion.

Smith, speaking during Clinton's first hearing in the House Foreign Affairs Committee since she became top diplomat, asked if President Barack Obama's team sought to influence African and South American countries on abortion.

"Congressman, I deeply respect your passionate concern and views which you have championed and advocated for over the course of your public career," Clinton told him.

"We, obviously, have a profound disagreement," the chief US diplomat said.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

The deliberate weakening of our sovereignty by the Obama administration continues.

Janet Napolitano decides crossing our border without authorization is not a crime - no, really - it's not a crime.  Via Malkin from the weekend interview of Napolitano on Larry King:

She said this on CNN over the weekend:

KING: A lot of Democrats in Congress want to you investigate [Joe Arpaio]. They think he is over the line. He says he is just enforcing the law and the problem is the federal government.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, Sheriff Joe, he is being very political in that statement, because he knows that there aren’t enough law enforcement officers, courtrooms or jail cells in the world to do what he is saying.

What we have to do is target the real evil-doers in this business, the employers who consistently hire illegal labor, the human traffickers who are exploiting human misery.

And yes, when we find illegal workers, yes, appropriate action, some of which is criminal, most of that is civil, because crossing the border is not a crime per se. It is civil. But anyway, going after those as well.

Yes, California, There Is an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Cato @ Liberty)

More on the 2nd Amendment win in California.

Yes, California, There Is an Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Posted by Ilya Shapiro

Well, today the Ninth Circuit (the federal appellate court covering most Western states) ruled that the Second Amendment restricts the power of state and local governments to interfere with individual right to have guns for personal use.  That is, the Fourteenth Amendment “incorporates” the Second Amendment against the states, as the Supreme Court has found it to do for most of the Bill of Rights.  I rarely get a chance to say this, but the Ninth Circuit gets it exactly right.

Is Your Minister a 'Hate Crime' Peddler? - HUMAN EVENTS

Congress begins the attack on free speech.  Hello?  America?  Anyone out there???

Is Your Minister a 'Hate Crime' Peddler? - HUMAN EVENTS

by  Andrea Lafferty


The George Orwell congress resumed its session yesterday.  Not content to attempt to end the secret ballot by the “Employee Free Choice Act,”  the House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to mark up and pass the equally-Orwellian “Hate Crimes” bill, HR 1913.
Just as the “Employee Free Choice Act” would end free choice, the “Hate Crimes” bill would criminalize free speech.  No, it’s not another version of the “Fairness Doctrine” – which is fair to all except conservatives.  The “Hate Crimes” bill wants to criminalize speech that insults politically-fashionable minorities, such as gays.

Monday, April 20, 2009

A win for the 2nd Amendment - from the 9th Circuit no less.

A solid finding for the right to bear arms - from the 9th Circuit Court no less.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

Consent of the Governed

When our founders were drafting the Constitution and determining the form of government they wanted for this new country, they evaluated two primary types, Democracies and Republics. Their paramount concern when choosing a path for this new government was that the leaders and direction would be determined by the “consent of the governed”. Let that phrase sink in for a moment: “consent of the governed”. They were particularly interested in Greek democracy and its failure. This was their primary example for a direct democracy - where virtually all decisions were made by the direct and individual vote by each citizen. They decided that its failure in Greece came about in part because it was impossible for each citizen to be fully informed on each and every topic and that their votes, while certainly cast by the governed, were cast by people knowingly ignorant of the issue and thus cast without a full understanding of what they were voting for.

They chose as their direction a Republic. The governed would be represented by individuals that were directly elected by them or by individuals selected by people the governed had elected. These were local people, people they had the opportunity to know, to talk to. People raised in their region that shared their sense of values. People whose primary reason for standing for election was a sincere desire to serve their friends by serving in their nation’s government, and then leaving office and returning to their community – to be replaced by another civil servant. This rotation of people was to ensure that those elected would remain tied to their home communities rather than being consumed by the power of the federal government. Thus the “consent of the governed” would be refreshed with each new legislator sent off to the federal government.

The other advantage of a republic was that this elected and trustworthy neighbor would be able to devote their efforts to understanding the legislation presented for consideration. Rather than each individual citizen of the 13 colonies being required to understand the content of each and every bill introduced, argued and voted on, the belief was that since the elected representative and each selected (in the early days) senator would naturally have the best interests of their constituents at heart and cast their vote with these interests in mind.

This approach then met the test of “consent of the governed”. The Representative Republic was born.

So how is this working today? Honestly, I have more than a few concerns. While I am certainly as partisan as they come, and proudly so, this particular issue rises above partisanship and directly effects the ability of our country to survive as the Representative Republic it was meant to be. Let me share a few examples that concern me:

This week’s ruling by the Iowa Supreme Court that gay marriage is an “equal treatment under the law” issue and now legal within the state of Iowa. My frustration is not with the verdict, though I support civil unions and not marriage for gays, but with the simple fact the people of Iowa had no say in the matter. This was an argument generated out of whole cloth by a single court verdict and elevated to the Supreme Court of Iowa level. A decision made, not by the people of Iowa, but by a single court. This is not “consent of the governed” but rather a single branch of government imposing its will on the governed.

Next, the current flurry of bailouts throughout our country. I have run my small business in Vinton for nearly 28 years. At times, frankly, I have struggled mightily. Yet, if I would have reached a point where I could have not continued, I would have simply been forced to close my doors and fail. Now, we find that TRILLIONS of dollars of the American taxpayer is being used to prop up companies that are failing. The housing bailout called TARP was created in weeks this past fall, ran over one thousand pages in length and was voted on without a single Legislator or Senator having actually read the bill. It passed. And was promptly changed by then Secretary Paulson without the consent of congress. And it still isn’t working with over 25% of newly refinanced home loans already in default for a second time. How does voting for a bill, without fully reading and understanding it, costing trillions of our hard earned dollars, pass the “consent of the governed” test?

Third, the Federal Reserve printing a TRILLION dollars in money to purchase even more bad loans from banks on the brink of bankruptcy. This was an act, executed with no debate at all. Article 1 of the Constitution clearly states that all bills regarding raising revenue must begin in the House of Representatives. Honestly, I am unclear how the Fed can simply print a trillion dollars. Regardless, again, how does this decrease in the value of the dollar, without any debate by any elected official represent the “consent of the governed"?

Forth, the auto bailout. We, the people, now own GM and Chrysler. And we paid too much – over 30 BILLION to date. If you went on the stock exchange, purchased every piece of stock – EVERY SINGLE, SOLITIARY PIECE OF STOCK AVAILABLE ON THE PLANET – you would only spend $1.28 billion as of Friday, April 3rd. We have spent 23 times more on GM than it is worth. By what possible description is this a good deal?? And, they are asking for more – much more. Was there a single vote for the initial round of GM bailout money? Nope, not a single vote, only then President Bush’s signature. Again, referring to the goal of the founders that our elected representatives would serve the best needs of their constituents, how does spending this amount of American’s hard earned money on a company in failure meet the “consent of the governed”? Would you buy GM stock??

Let’s not forget our energy needs. The people of America have spoken in a loud voice, use our own resources and stop depending on foreign countries with anything but our well-being on their mind. And yet, even with the expiration of the off-shore drilling ban this past October, members of congress are moving quickly to reinstate it. How does this further our national security? Our resources – oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear – should be used to their fullest to ensure our ability to grow and exist as a nation. I am confused when a clear majority of Americans are in favor of using these resources and the Congress’s stubbornly resisting this meets the “consent of the governed” test.

Illegal immigration and the security of our borders. This is certainly a hot-button issue that has its flames fanned by both sides of the issue. However, it is a perfect example of how “consent of the governed” could quite simply resolve the issue. The issue has never revolved around the idea of immigration. All of us are here because, originally, one of our ancestors left the “old country” and immigrated to the US. And, we have long had laws in place that handled this exact issue. There are very clear procedures in place that states the process that needs to be followed when immigrating to the US as well as quotas from each country. If these laws need to change, if the quotas need to be raised – then present these to the American people. Have the legislators discuss this with the people of their district – and the change them. Offering a blanket amnesty of people who have violated the laws of our country does not – by any stretch of the imagination – meet the “consent of the governed”. Additionally, the vast majority of Americans want a secure border with Mexico – period. One of the basic duties of the government of the United States is to secure our borders. The fact that our Congress and numerous administrations fail to do this single task seems to fly in the face of the “consent of the governed”.

There are a large number of other examples where I, or friends, have commented that they simply didn’t know how the government could do “that” – whatever “that” was in the moment. The truth is, they can’t. Our elected officials serve at our pleasure. They are expected to listen to the folks back home, to actually read the bills they vote for, to understand the effects of the legislation they pass and to honor their position as servants of the people each and every day they are in office. They have forgotten. Our federal and state governments are in the midst of a spending orgy the likes of which we, as a country, have never seen. The Obama administration is proposing a budget that spends more money than all of the previous administrations combined. Their own CBO has estimated annual budget deficits of over a TRILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR as far as they can predict into the future. We will be passing on to our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren a debt that they will simply be unable to pay. I do not believe, in my heart, that this is the wish of any American. We need to remind ourselves that these folks are in office by the “consent of the governed” and that they answer to us. If we, as citizens, are expected to live within our budgets, we expect to have our government do so as well.