Wednesday, March 31, 2010

New York Times Columnist, Paul Krugman, Says Death Panels are Going to Save 'a lot of Money'

Sarah Palin was right!! -- Death Panels are in the health care law.

The Liberal New York Times commentator Paul Krugman says the so-called "death panels" established by President Obama's trillion-dollar nationalized health-care plan will end up saving "a lot of money" for the government. 

WND columnist Jane Chastain recently wrote on this very subject:
"This bill sets up an Independent Medicare Advisory Board, which is to recommend cuts for the sole purpose of limiting the amount of resources going to Medicare patients. Some have called it a 'Death Panel,'" she wrote.

"You may think this is harsh, but if this bill passes, many seniors will die prematurely because the recommendations of these unelected bureaucrats will go into effect. Congress is not required to act on them!"

"Obama … wants Granny to believe that she will be able to receive that operation or treatment that could save or extend her life. Nothing could be further from the truth! There is a reverse incentive in this bill that actually penalizes Granny's primary-care physician if he or she is in the top 10 percent of doctors who refer patients to specialists. This puts a wedge between Granny and the doctor she trusts to act in her best interest."

Richard Poe, a New York Times best-selling author, documented in a previous report for WND how the government's plan to cut health care costs will do just that: cut health care for somebody.

"The only question is whose," Poe wrote. "The numbers make clear that most of these cuts will have to come at the expense of those who need health care the most – the elderly, the disabled and the gravely ill."

He cited Obama's confirmation that, "Older, sicker societies pay more on health care than younger, healthier ones."

"He is right," Poe wrote. "According to a 2006 study by the Department of Health and Human Services, five percent of the U.S. population accounts for nearly 50 percent of health care spending in America. Who are those five percent? Most are people over 65 years of age with serious, chronic illnesses.

"By contrast, the study notes, half of the U.S. population 'spends little or nothing on health care… with annual medical spending below $664 per person.' These, of course, are mostly healthy young people – people without serious, chronic illnesses," Poe wrote.

"Obviously, Obama will not meet his cost-cutting targets by reducing care to healthy young people. They are already spending next to nothing. It is the old, the dying and the chronically ill whose health care he will cut. The numbers make this clear," Poe said.

Some of those "old, the dying and the chronically ill" appear to be catching on. According to a report from Fox News, an estimated 60,000 members of AARP, which endorsed "Obamacare," have turned in their cards, cancelling their memberships, in recent weeks.

Poe elaborated on his concerns about the president's plan.

"How will Obama cut costs? His June 13 radio speech gave some hints. Obama said his plan would provide 'incentives' to doctors to 'avoid unnecessary hospital stays, treatments and tests that drive up costs,'" Poe wrote.

"And what sort of treatment does Obama consider 'unnecessary?' In an ABC News special June 24, he implied medical treatment might be wasted on elderly people with grave illnesses, citing his own grandmother as an example," he said.

"Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but taking the painkiller," Obama concluded.

Poe also documented how such health care limits already are being used overseas, including the United Kingdom where "British elders are routinely denied treatment for cancer, heart disease and other deadly illnesses."

Further, such "death" boards already are operating in Oregon, where officials with the state Health Plan agreed to refuse a patient life-extending cancer drugs, but volunteered to pay for her to commit suicide.

He reported Barbara Wagner of Springfield, Ore., was diagnosed with lung cancer in 2005. Chemotherapy and radiation put her cancer into remission. But the cancer returned in May 2008.

Wagner's doctor prescribed Tarceva, a pill which slows cancer growth. There was a good chance it might extend her life by a few weeks or even months.

At age 64, Wagner had two sons, three daughters, 15 grandchildren and seven great-grandchildren. Every moment she could spend with her loved ones was precious, he noted.

But Oregon's health commissars nixed the plan. Her Tarceva treatment would cost $4,000 per month. Wagner was going to die anyway, so why waste the money?

Wagner received a letter stating that the Oregon Health Plan would not approve any treatment for her "that is meant to prolong life, or change the course of the disease …" However, if Wagner opted for physician-assisted suicide, Oregon would be happy to pick up the tab, said the letter.

Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon and costs only about $50.

H/T WorldNetDaily

In Defense of Pope Benedict XVI

During this Holy week, we are seeing more and more Judases come out of the woodwork to accuse and crucify Pope Benedict XVI falsely just like so many, many years ago when Judas betrayed Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane. There are political motives to crush the Catholic Church from the inside, promote a false Americanized Catholic Church and force it to change its traditional values and the Doctrine of the faith. These attacks are being done because the Pope has stood up to the liberal demonization of the Church by defending traditional values and speaking out against homosexuality, gay marriage, and women priests. Liberals over the years have distorted the teachings of the Church by promoting homosexuality, homosexual marriage, women priests. These same individuals are the ones have caused and are responsible for the priest sexual abuse scandals. The people who have disgraced the Church and are trying to destroy it from within are in fact dissenting from the Magisterium.

In my life, I am one of the people that has been the hardest on priests and the Church because of the sexual abuse scandal. I was not sexually abused but let’s just say I might have well have been given a flash or preview of the future into the huge cover ups of sexual abuse that was committed by priests within the Church. This is unconscionable! These priests betrayed both the trust of children and God when they abused their role as priests by committing such horrendous acts. These priests stripped away childrens’ innocence from them and misused their trust all so that they could appease their feelings. Pope Benedict has acted as swiftly as possible to remove the priests who sexually abused children. I feel that it is my duty as a Catholic to defend the Pope and his honor when his character is wrongly assassinated by both the secular community and dissenters from within the Church who seek to destroy the very foundation of the Catholic Church.

Here is some evidence to show that Pope Benedict (then Cardinal Ratzinger) had no part in any cover up of the priests' sexual abuse scandals:

Fr. Lawrence Murphy was the Judicial Vicar for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee from 1995-2003 and is writing to clarify details and reveal the reality of the abuse cases with regards to Cardical Ratzinger who is now Pope Benedict XVI.
Fr. Murphy says:
I will limit my comments, because of judicial oaths I have taken as a canon lawyer and as an ecclesiastical judge. However, since my name and comments in the matter of the Father Murphy case have been liberally and often inaccurately quoted in the New York Times and in more than 100 other newspapers and on-line periodicals, I feel a freedom to tell part of the story of Father Murphy’s trial from ground zero.
As I have found that the reporting on this issue has been inaccurate and poor in terms of the facts, I am also writing from a sense of duty to the truth.
The fact that I presided over this trial and have never once been contacted by any news organization for comment speaks for itself.
My intent in writing this column is to accomplish the following:

To tell the back-story of what actually happened in the Father Murphy case on the local level;

To outline the sloppy and inaccurate reporting on the Father Murphy case by the New York Times and other media outlets;

To assert that Pope Benedict XVI has done more than any other pope or bishop in history to rid the Catholic Church of the scourge of child sexual abuse and provide for those who have been injured;

To set the record straight with regards to the efforts made by the church to heal the wounds caused by clergy sexual misconduct. The Catholic Church is probably the safest place for children at this point in history.

Before proceeding, it is important to point out the scourge that child sexual abuse has been — not only for the church but for society as well. Few actions can distort a child’s life more than sexual abuse. It is a form of emotional and spiritual homicide and it starts a trajectory toward a skewed sense of sexuality. When committed by a person in authority, it creates a distrust of almost anyone, anywhere.

As a volunteer prison chaplain in Alaska, I have found a corollary between those who have been incarcerated for child sexual abuse and the priests who have committed such grievous actions. They tend to be very smart and manipulative. They tend to be well liked and charming. They tend to have one aim in life — to satisfy their hunger. Most are highly narcissistic and do not see the harm that they have caused. They view the children they have abused not as people but as objects. They rarely show remorse and moreover, sometimes portray themselves as the victims. They are, in short, dangerous people and should never be trusted again. Most will recommit their crimes if given a chance.

As for the numerous reports about the case of Father Murphy, the back-story has not been reported as of yet.

In 1996, I was introduced to the story of Father Murphy, formerly the principal of St. John’s School for the Deaf in Milwaukee. It had been common knowledge for decades that during Father Murphy’s tenure at the school (1950-1974) there had been a scandal at St. John’s involving him and some deaf children. The details, however, were sketchy at best.

Courageous advocacy on behalf of the victims (and often their wives), led the Archdiocese of Milwaukee to revisit the matter in 1996. In internal discussions of the curia for the Archdiocese of Milwaukee, it became obvious that we needed to take strong and swift action with regard to the wrongs of several decades ago. With the consent of then-Milwaukee Archbishop Rembert Weakland, we began an investigation into the allegations of child sexual abuse as well as the violation of the crime of solicitation within the confessional by Father Murphy.

We proceeded to start a trial against Father Murphy. I was the presiding judge in this matter and informed Father Murphy that criminal charges were going to be levied against him with regard to child sexual abuse and solicitation in the confessional.

In my interactions with Father Murphy, I got the impression I was dealing with a man who simply did not get it. He was defensive and threatening. CONTINUED HERE

Fr. Raymond J. de Souza responds here to the outrageous NYT article.  I will not pass along that piece of hate filled anti-Catholic propoganda.

There is a HUGE cover up under way. See here:

WORCESTER, MA. A former pastor Andrew J. Bierkan, 54, at the First Congregational Church of Sutton who now heads a church in Ohio has been indicted here on charges of unnatural rape of a child and posing a child in a state of nudity. He is now pastor of St. Paul United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to Worcester District Attorney John J. Conte. (Worcester Telegram & Gazette, August 13, 2003)

Eddie Thomas, pastor of St. Luke Baptist Church in Ringgold, LA., is arrested and charged with indecent behavior with a juvenile, aggravated incest and pornography involving a juvenile. (the Shreveport Times, July 17, 2003)

South Austrailia, AUS. A South Australian police task force into child sex abuse within the Anglican Church had identified 217 victims and 48 possible offenders, police said today. However the number of victims could rise to more than 400 as investigations continued, Police Commissioner Mal Hyde said. Mr Hyde today likened the scale of police investigations into child sex abuse to those for the infamous Snowtown bodies-in-the-barrels murders in 1999. (The Age, July 16 2003)

Lake Wales, FL. The pastor at the Church of the Nazarene has been charged with sexually assaulting a male 17-year-old youth leader three times in 2001. The Rev. Gene Francis, 52, of Lake Wales, was arrested Tuesday and charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor. (Sarasota Herald-Tribune, June 4, 2003)

Tuscon, AZ. The Rev. David Valencia, 47, assistant pastor of a Pentecostal church is expected in court Wednesday on rape charges issued by Pennsylvania authorities. In Pennsylvania, Valencia was an assistant pastor at Christ Church at Grove Farm, an interdenominational church that uses Anglican liturgy. The pastor of Christ Church, the Rev. John Guest, told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that Valencia was dismissed in late 2001 because he was found to have pornography on an office computer after he was warned about a similar incident months earlier. (Tucson Citizen, May 31, 2003)


ALL SEX ABUSE SCANDALS ARE BOTH HORRENDOUS AND UNCONSCIONABLE. Hmmm... But, it is becoming clear that the secular community (particularly liberals) along with Church dissidents have an axe to grind and a vendetta against the Catholic Church.  The truth must be exposed!

Rove States: "I Didn't See Any Restraint by Democrats When They Were Attacking George W. Bush"

Rove Stated: "Politics is necessarily about differences, there are big differences between parties and big differences on policy"

Violence is not the answer.  But when our politicians are belligerently ignoring the citizens there are going to be consequences for them.  People are going to be angry when they feel that both they and their words have been bulldozed over by their representatives - when instead of having a debate where their representatives listen to them and adhere to their constituents' wishes they replace it with their political agenda - there will be consequences for those politicians at the polls in November.

H/T HotAirPundit

Monday, March 29, 2010

Some Monday Funnies!!

Another Politically Motivated Attack- Brick Hurled Through GOP Office Window in Michigan

A brick was thrown through the window of the “Fix Michigan Center” in Genoa Township over the weekend in what they are calling “politically-motivated violence.”
A brick smashed through the office today of the Michigan Republican Party in Howell. reported:

A brick hurled through the window of the Michigan Republican Party’s office in Howell has the words ”Long Live the USA” and “God Bless the USA” scrawled on it, according to Livingston County Sheriff’s investigators.

The vandalism was discovered this morning by staff at the GOP’s Fix Michigan Center office, according to state GOP spokesperson Jennifer Hoff. No one was injured when the large, storefront window was smashed, she said. The office is located in a strip mall on Grand River Avenue, the main drag through Howell.

Michigan Republican Party Chief of Staff Josh Venable called it a politically motivated act.

“This type of reckless vandalism has no place in our democracy. While those who oppose us have resorted to throwing bricks, Michigan Republicans remain steadfast in our mission to fix Michigan,” Venable said in prepared statement.

The violent incidents that have been perpatrated against GOP member's offices is despicable. And, the fact that the MSM have not covered these attacks is despicable and displays a lack of ethics by them as well.  The MSM is aiding the Democratic Party in their blatant cover ups of newsworthy stories.  
H/T Gateway Pundit

In Defense of Sarah Palin

This is an excellent article explaining how some conservatives, many of whom are elitists, actually do not espouse the same conservative beliefs as either Reagan or the conservative citizens in America do today. These so-called conservatives seem to be failing the William F. Buckley test.



Nothing annoys certain of my fellow conservative intellectuals more than when I remind them, as on occasion I mischievously do, that the derogatory things they say about Sarah Palin are uncannily similar to what many of their forebears once said about Ronald Reagan.

It's hard to imagine now, but 31 years ago, when I first announced that I was supporting Reagan in his bid for the 1980 Republican presidential nomination, I was routinely asked by friends on the right how I could possibly associate myself with this "airhead," this B movie star, who was not only stupid but incompetent. They readily acknowledged that his political views were on the whole close to ours, but the embarrassing primitivism with which he expressed them only served, they said, to undermine their credibility. In any case, his base was so narrow that he had no chance of rescuing us from the disastrous administration of Jimmy Carter.

Now I knew Ronald Reagan, and Sarah Palin is no Ronald Reagan. Then again, the first time I met Reagan all he talked about was the money he had saved the taxpayers as governor of California by changing the size of the folders used for storing the state's files. So nonplussed was I by the delight he showed at this great achievement that I came close to thinking that my friends were right and that I had made a mistake in supporting him. Ultimately, of course, we all wound up regarding him as a great man, but in 1979 none of us would have dreamed that this would be how we would feel only a few years later.

What I am trying to say is not that Sarah Palin would necessarily make a great president but that the criteria by which she is being judged by her conservative critics—never mind the deranged hatred she inspires on the left—tell us next to nothing about the kind of president she would make.

Take, for example, foreign policy. True, she seems to know very little about international affairs, but expertise in this area is no guarantee of wise leadership. After all, her rival for the vice presidency, who in some sense knows a great deal, was wrong on almost every major issue that arose in the 30 years he spent in the Senate.

What she does know—and in this respect, she does resemble Reagan—is that the United States has been a force for good in the world, which is more than Barack Obama, whose IQ is no doubt higher than hers, has yet to learn. Jimmy Carter also has a high IQ, which did not prevent him from becoming one of the worst presidents in American history, and so does Bill Clinton, which did not prevent him from befouling the presidential nest.

Unlike her enemies on the left, the conservative opponents of Mrs. Palin are a little puzzling. After all, except for its greater intensity, the response to her on the left is of a piece with the liberal hatred of Richard Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush. It was a hatred that had less to do with differences over policy than with the conviction that these men were usurpers who, by mobilizing all the most retrograde elements of American society, had stolen the country from its rightful (liberal) rulers. But to a much greater extent than Nixon, Reagan and George W. Bush, Sarah Palin is in her very being the embodiment of those retrograde forces and therefore potentially even more dangerous.

I think that this is what, conversely, also accounts for the tremendous enthusiasm she has aroused among ordinary conservatives. They rightly see her as one of them, only better able and better positioned to stand up against the contempt and condescension of the liberal elites that were so perfectly exemplified by Mr. Obama's notorious remark in 2008 about people like them: "And it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." 

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Lib Malloy Calls for Deaths of Limbaugh, Beck, O'Reilly; Silent MSM= ILLEGITIMATE Pimps R' US

Mike Malloy, a liberal talk show host, has displayed journalistic malpractice by calling for the deaths of Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, and Glenn Beck. Have I heard one peep from the MSM calling out Mike Malloy for his incendiary comments? NOPE. The MSM is illegitimate. They need to give up their day jobs because they really suck at it. MSM, give it up and find a new career where you might actually be able to live up to the ethical standards of your new employment. Maybe, clowns or pimps would be good jobs? The MSM is a joke. Plus, the MSM is an arm of the Democratic Party just pimping out their leftist agenda for Obama. They are the little pimps listening to and following the head pimp and obey his every command just like a bunch of hypnotic robots that have no brains, and thus rendering them incapable of thinking for themselves. They have drank the Obama Kool-Aid, drenched in it from head-to-toe, inside and out, and have been mesmerized into a state of pathetic journalistic malpractice. Mike Malloy is not only fanning the flames he is igniting, stoking, and spreading those flames so that grave harm may come to Limbaugh, O'Reilly, and Beck. This is outrageous and I do not condone violence, period. The silence of the media in NOT taking a stand against Mike Malloy's outrageous statements makes them complicit, and they should be held responsible in some fashion if some act of violence does occur against Beck, O'Reilly, or Limbaugh. There are some congressmen and pathetic MSM propagandists who are stoking the flames, distorting the reality about the Tea Party movement and spreading outright lies claiming that the Tea Party movement and the GOP is promoting violence because of the Democrats usurpation and outright misconduct in their ignorance shown to the American people. This is flat out LIE and wrong!!! The TEA PARTY movement is PEACEFUL!!! Democrats and Obama through their actions have plain as day said FUCK YOU to the American people, and shoved this piece of crap bill down our throats all so that they can have more power and control over our lives. They couldn't give a rat's ass about the American public or the President and Democrats would have tried to sell the bill, compromised and listened to what portion of the bill citizens liked before the bill was shoved down our throats, instead of trying to sell this monstrosity afterward. The Tea Party is a movement that promotes taking back our country via the use of peaceful means - by voting and informing the rest of America about all the disinformation that the President and the Democrats have relayed to the American people regarding this bill that just became law.

For many years the MSM in its pitiful negligence ignored the Left's threats against President Bush while he was in office. And, now the MSM is touting far and wide their false propaganda that the few who have gone off the deep end somehow makes up the totality of the Tea Party movement when there is no empirical evidence to even suggest that any of these displays of violence are in fact connected to the Tea Party movement in any way, shape, or form. The MSM has violated its ethical obligations. Their needs to be a clean sweep of ALL of the MSM and some real ethical jouranalists need to be brought in as their replacements. Below, I will show you the pictatorial evidence I obtained from ZOMBLOG. There is further evidence of the death threats that were made against President Bush at ZOMBLOG. Obama and the Democrats are intent on destroying the very Foundation of our ountry and shredding the U.S. Constitution. And, as citizens of this great nation we must abide by the Constitution, start the new Revolution at the ballot box in November and vote out both the RINOS and Democrats peacefully. God Bless the USA!!!

H/T Gateway Pundit for video

Saturday, March 27, 2010

A Common Sense Solution that Needs to be Followed by ALL of Our Representatives

Article 5 of the Constitution states:

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

H/T LandShark 5150

Freedoms Lost Under Passage of Health "Reform" Law

Shawn Tully of Fortune sifted through both health care bills and found out that in both of them, Obama's claims that Americans will be able to keep their existing health plans isn't true.  The bills reveal a web of restrictions, fines, and mandates that would radically change your health-care coverage.

"If you prize choosing your own cardiologist or urologist under your company's Preferred Provider Organization plan (PPO), if your employer rewards your non-smoking, healthy lifestyle with reduced premiums, if you love the bargain Health Savings Account (HSA) that insures you just for the essentials, or if you simply take comfort in the freedom to spend your own money for a policy that covers the newest drugs and diagnostic tests -- you may be shocked to learn that you could lose all of those good things under the rules proposed in the two bills that herald a health-care revolution.

In short, the Obama platform would mandate extremely full, expensive, and highly subsidized coverage -- including a lot of benefits people would never pay for with their own money -- but deliver it through a highly restrictive, HMO-style plan that will determine what care and tests you can and can't have. It's a revolution, all right, but in the wrong direction."

Here is more information on just five of the freedoms we just lost because of the passage of Obamacare.

Here are 20 more freedoms, as patients, that we just lost under Health care "reform" :

1. You are young and don't want health insurance? You are starting up a small business and need to minimize expenses, and one way to do that is to forego health insurance? Tough. You have to pay $750 annually for the "privilege." (Section 1501)

2. You are young and healthy and want to pay for insurance that reflects that status? Tough. You'll have to pay for premiums that cover not only you, but also the guy who smokes three packs a day, drink a gallon of whiskey and eats chicken fat off the floor. That's because insurance companies will no longer be able to underwrite on the basis of a person's health status. (Section 2701).

3. You would like to pay less in premiums by buying insurance with lifetime or annual limits on coverage? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer such policies, even if that is what customers prefer. (Section 2711).

4. Think you'd like a policy that is cheaper because it doesn't cover preventive care or requires cost-sharing for such care? Tough. Health insurers will no longer be able to offer policies that do not cover preventive services or offer them with cost-sharing, even if that's what the customer wants. (Section 2712).


Ted Nugent Calls Out the Pigs (a.k.a. Democrats) & Their Orgy of Waste; Pink Floyd Calls Out WH Pigs

Friday, March 26, 2010

Both Raymond Arroyo & Michael Voris on Culture Wars Within Catholic Church

This is about the culture wars within the Catholic Church. They are focusing on the nuns and organizations who have been and still are dissenting from Catholic Church's teachings. They are misrepresenting the Church and what is exactly in Obamacare, which is now a health care law.

How Universal Health Care Will REALLY Affect For the Poor

The State is requiring the Boston Medical Center to operate at a loss which could result in the hospital treating the poor inadequately.  Is this the State forcing the hospital into bankruptcy, closing, and thus resulting in hurting the poor-the opposite effect that unversal health care was intended to have.  This is the model that the President touted and with Obamacare, wanted to mimick closely. So, does this mean that hospitals all across America are going to be forced to run in the red, go bankrupt, close their doors, and ultimately hurt the poor and the rest of American citizens?  Quinn's Law from Jim Quinn of Quinn & Rose in the Morning states that liberalism always produces the exact opposite of its stated intent.

From the Boston Globe:
"Boston Medical Center filed suit yesterday against the state, accusing officials of illegally cutting payments made to the hospital for treating thousands of poor patients, a decision executives said could financially unravel the urban hospital’s key services."

The Bill that Doesn't Give a Crap About the American People

H/T The Wolf Files

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Eric Cantor Has Received Threats and Says Dems are "Dangerously Fanning the Flames"

Eric Cantor has received threats both before and after the health care bill's passage in Congress. But, a shot was fired through the window of Eric Cantor's office in Virginia after the passage of Obamacare. This is unconscionable. But, I haven't heard any Democrats denounce violence like I have heard the Republicans denounce violence. This violence is unacceptable and people who disagree must move on in discussion, and we who want to repeal this bill must reboot or reload and continue our efforts so that we may repeal this bill.

Does Obamacare Signal U.S. Empire Decline?

Krauthammer: Obama Administration's Treatment of Israel "Would Mean Strangling the Jewish Areas in Jerusalem"

There seems to be a bias within the Obama administration and within the liberal community against the continued building of Israeli settlements. One sovereign does not have the right to make those kinds of demands of another sovereign nation. But, regardless, there is no International mandate saying Israel has no right to build settlements. There was in fact no agreement that Israel would stop building settlements altogether.  Is this evidence that liberals are in fact promoting any agenda that opposes Judeo-Christian principles?  Or at least reform Israel into a Muslim State instead of a Jewish State?  Israeli settlements are indeed more than legitimate as you will see here.

"The Palestinian call to remove all Jewish presence from the disputed territories is not only discriminatory and morally reprehensible; it has no basis either in law or in the agreements between Israel and the Palestinians.

The various agreements reached between Israel and the Palestinians since 1993 contain no prohibitions on the building or expansion of settlements. On the contrary, they specifically provide that the issue of settlements is reserved for permanent status negotiations, which are to take place in the concluding stage of the peace talks. The parties expressly agreed that the Palestinian Authority has no jurisdiction or control over settlements or Israelis, pending the conclusion of a permanent status agreement.

It has been charged that the provision contained in the Israel-Palestinian Interim Agreement prohibiting unilateral steps that alter the status of the West Bank implies a ban on settlement activity. This position is disingenuous. The prohibition on unilateral measures was designed to ensure that neither side take steps that would change the legal status of this territory (such as by annexation or a unilateral declaration of statehood), pending the outcome of permanent status talks. The building of homes has no effect on the final permanent status of the area as a whole. Were this prohibition to be applied to building, it would lead to the unreasonable interpretation that neither side is permitted to build houses to accommodate the needs of their respective communities." CONTINUED HERE

Here is Charles Krauthammer pointing out the absurdity of the Obama administration's position on Israeli settlements:

Here are some facts showing how Palestinian leadership has violated International agreements:

Tuesday, March 23, 2010

Al Sharpton Claims Citizens Voted for Socialism & Drank the Socialism Kool-Aid

So, Al Sharpton speaks at least half the truth for once. This is socialist health care. I would guess that about half of the citizens that voted for Obama did vote for him because of his socialist beliefs. When Obama said to "Joe the Plumber" that he intended to spread the wealth that should have been a clue to people of Obama's socialist beliefs. But, some may have been so enamoured with his smoke and mirrors slogan of "hope" and change" that they drank his Kool-aid and ignored the reality of his socialist and radical beliefs. Obama tried to appear as a centrist on the campain trail. Now, it is self-evident that the people who were not educated in the area of politics got snookered when they thought that they were voting for a centrist and in fact ended up voting for an avowed Leftist who surrounds himself with radicals, Socialists, Communists and Marxists, and has sorrounded himself with these types of people for years. Voters didn't want a Bush-like or a Bush-lite candidate like McCain so they voted for a political candidate that was different. But, I doubt that half of voters actually were voting for socialist medicine. They were voting for "change" and health care reform, but not this type of health care "reform". The aforementioned-Communism, Socialism, Marxist- are all related to one another. It just depends how radical the individual is, as to which of these political ideologies the person chooses to follow. Of course the poor want a free handout. Who really wants to work? Not many people. But, most people take the responsibility and initiative to take care of themselves and their own needs. Of course its different if the person is truly sick and can't take care of themselves. The sick deserve charity. They deserve to be helped. Socialists, like Obama, are just cheating the poor out of having a sense of fulfillment and personal responsibilty by having them indebted to the government. The Democrats are chaining them down like dogs who are laying around just waiting for their next meal or welfare check to come along. Conservatives see them as an indivisual human being with needs and not just a part of the collective. Conservatives love to help lift people up and help them better themselves. They want to help the poor be successful and make as much money as possible. Conservatives value that entrepreneurial spirit, want people to achieve their goals, while socialists limit the individuals' success and ability to achieve their goals in life. Yes, Al Sharpton, Obama's policies are at the least socialist and this health care bill is bad for America, and goes against everything that the Founders fought to achieve for this country-Liberty and Freedom. We will fight back, like revolutionaries, and repeal this Obamascare bill.

Eagle Freedom Links -- Tue 3-23-10


Mind-Numbed Robot gives an update that a moron judge ordered notorious terrorist freed.  

Left Coast Rebel has some analysis on the citizens' support or lack thereof of Obamacare.

Bungalow Bill's Conservative Wisdom discloses that Obama's health reform will raise your premiums

The Oracular Opinion gives us inspiration for citizens to rise from the ashes.

Woodsterman posted Newsbusters for us to view.

Musings of a Vast Right-Winger reveals how Obama screwed Israel by blocking delivery of bunker busters

Let The Truth Be Known gives an eye-opening experience as to how the Girl Scouts are Going down the Sewer.

Cube at The BLOG points out the change we don't need.

Edwin Feulner says Obamacare can be repealed.

George Will describes Obamacare & the Democratic Party's vocation- promoting dependency.


Video Examines Evidence That Obama is a Closet Muslim

This video needs to go viral.  This video examines the evidence that Obama is a closet Muslim.

Monday, March 22, 2010

Ronald Reagan -- Speech on Socialized Medicine

I think that this speech is appropos today. We must keep our chins up.  We can fight against Obamacare-socialized medicine- and stop it from infecting our population. We can repeal this in the courts.  This was adopted against the will of the people and we will round up the troops, like good patriots and reinstitute conservatism, like our Founders intended. We will prevail and gain back both our freedom and liberty.

Historic Speech by John Boehner on Bloody Sunday

Democrats VOTE YES and ignore the will of the people.

I Want My Country Back!

This is a re-post from Hyphenated American's blog.  His words ring oh so true today.  The health care vote that took place last night has contributed to the death of America as we know it. 

It seems like the ultra-liberals have been able to bribe and coerce enough congress-scumbags to pass the Obamacare. And as I said before, there would be hell to pay for this monstrosity. Obamacare is the very definition of unlimited government - the threat of which was forewarned by the Founding Fathers more than two centuries ago. The federal government, which is up to its neck in debt and unfunded liabilities, decided to launch the biggest entitlement of all times – the medical care for all. The spending on this new entitlement will surely dwarf many if not most of Federal programs and will make the bankruptcy of federal and state governments inevitable. The time of reckoning is at hand, brothers and sisters. Obamacare is the last breath of the liberal order – and it’s time to take America back from the party of thieves and looters.

All patriots of this nation must stand together and fight back. United we will win! There is no blue or red America anymore – there are only those that believe in America the beautiful, America the free, America the shining city on the hill – and those that believe in welfare socialism and government servitude. Today, we fight not only for our personal well-being – but for the dignity and honor of this country, for the right to look into the eyes of our children and say – we defended this nation from the perils of socialism. In November 2010, we will answer the crucial questions of our times - are American people worthy of the efforts of the Founding Fathers? Will American people have the right to proudly say “We are Americans” – or will they forever live in infamy and indignity of welfare socialism?

I am glad that the Democratic Party passed the Rubicon. From now on, there is no coming back for the liberal elites, no talks of compromise and middle-ground. Today, it is abundantly clear that we either will live in Obama's America or America that our Founding Father envisioned. You cannot have both.

The November elections will be the most important elections in our lifetime. If you don’t vote for America in November – you don’t deserve to be called an American.


Sunday, March 21, 2010



Laura Ingraham Reveals How Rep. Gutierrez Is a Democrat First and Foremost & Abandons Catholic Faith

Another "Catholic" Democrat, Rep. Gutierrez, shows how his Catholicity plays absolutely NO role in his political life.  This man is an immoral bastage who only follows his faith for an hour on Sundays.  The separation of Church and State was not meant to eliminate a representative's religious beliefs or suspend their beliefs in time while they're representing the American people.  The separation of Church and State is so one religious entity doesn't control the government, but not to eliminate one's faith or freedom of religion from one's life while serving the public.  But, that's what Catholic Democrats do-they serve as a Democrat first and foremost, and maybe as a Catholic second, if at all.  They don't incorporate their faith and morality into their public life.  Laura Ingraham shows just how much Democrat Catholics are a bunch of hypocrites with regards to their faith and the application of their faith or lack thereof while serving the public in government positions.  It sure looks like Rep. Gutierrez is not a Catholic in good conscience.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Liberal CHA & Liberal Nuns Lead Catholic Flock Astray

The Senate Bill does not contain the anti-abortion language that the House Bill contains in it. The House Bill makes it crystal clear-100% guaranteed that no federal funds or taxpayer monies would be used for abortions- and the Senate version does not and leaves wiggle room for Democrats to sneak in federal funding of abortion. R. Keehan, CHA, and nuns. The flock must be more attentive, and faithful in its adhering to the Church’s Magisterium and its teachings instead of being blind followers of “Catholic” organizations and “Catholic” nuns that may or may not have there best interests at heart and seem to be leading their flock astray. There continues to be a Holy War of words within the Catholic Community as to whether the language in the Senate Health Care Bill allows for the federal funding of abortions or not.

“The White House has touted the support of a group of liberal Catholic nuns in an effort to win over conservative House Democrats who believe the final health care bill they will vote on contains restrictions on abortion funding that they and Catholic bishops say don't go far enough.

“On Saturday, the chief executive of the Catholic Health Association, which represents more than 600 hospitals that do not provide abortions as a matter of conscience, wrote on the group's Web site that although the legislation isn't perfect, it represents a "major first step" toward covering all Americans and would make "great improvements" for millions of people.”

But on Monday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops took issue with the hospital association's belief that defects to the bill will be fixed after passage.

"Assurances that the moral objections to the legislation can be met only after the bill is passed seemed little like asking us, in Midwestern parlance, to buy a pig in a poke," Cardinal Francis George, president of the conference said on the group's Web site. This Bill deliberately excludes the language of the Hyde Amendment which excludes federal funding of abortions. He explains that by supporting this bill the Cost is Too High; The Loss is Too Great.

The Rev. Frank Pavone, national director for Priests of Life, blasted the liberal nuns, saying their statement in support of the bill "does not represent 59,000 nuns; it represents approximately 59 nuns who signed it."

"It is absurd to advocate social justice while risking the expansion of a holocaust," he said. "The right to life is at the heart of social justice. We can't pursue one by sacrificing the other."

In this article, Professor Jost claims that this bill is Pro-Life. The CCBC have spoken out against the Senate Health care Bill on two counts. The Bishops take issue with the Senate’s Bill primarily due to its serious flaws on abortion and conscience rights. Here is the Bishops response to Timothy Jost’s article.

Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, Bishop William Murphy, and Bishop John Wester have spoken up and stated the reasons here as to why this health care bill does indeed extend abortion coverage.

“The three-- who chair the bishops’ committees on pro-life activities, justice and human development, and migration respectively-- note that “the Senate bill extends abortion coverage, allows federal funds to pay for elective abortions and denies adequate conscience protection to individuals and institutions.”

“The House bill provides that no one has to pay for other people's abortions, while the Senate bill does not,” they continue. “While the Senate provides for one plan without abortion coverage in each exchange, those who select another plan in an exchange to better meet the special needs of their family will be required to pay a separate monthly fee into a fund exclusively for abortions. This new federal requirement … is a far more direct imposition on the consciences of those who do not wish to pay for the destruction of unborn human life than anything currently in federal law.”

“Those who would expand federal participation in abortion, require people to pay for other people's abortions, and refuse to incorporate essential conscience protections (both within and beyond the abortion context) are threatening genuine reform,” they add. “With conscience protection as with abortion funding, the [bishops’] goal is to preserve the status quo.”

The Council of Major Superiors of Women Religious (CMSWR) in adherence with its fidelity of the Magisterium have come out against the health care bill and stated: “Protection of life and freedom of conscience are central to morally responsible judgment,” the CMSWR statement concluded. “We join the bishops in seeking ethically sound legislation.”

The Bishops are also complaining about the rights of illegal immigrants.

In my opinion, the rights of illegal immigrants is irrelevant with relation to health care reform because IMO the Catholic Church and its Bishops have no right to demand that the United States gives up its sovereignty rights with regards to its National Security and its States’ rights in demanding that immigrants come here the proper way- legally- and be able to enforce the laws of the land.

The CHA, Sr. Keehan, and those little old nuns that think they know best, don’t. They are for the “greater good” and are leading their sheeple, their flock, astray since they are promoting a warped version of social justice at the expense of unborn lives. ALL Catholic persons and agencies and have a moral duty to stand up and denounce any form of moral relativism that promotes the “greater good” which involves wording that violates the teachings of the Magisterium. If one more innocent unborn human life results in death because these “Catholics” support this bill then the blood of that child will be on their hands. This is about standing up for the most vulnerable in our society that aren’t able to speak for themselves. The poor are able to speak up and while it is worthy to stand up for the poor and do good deeds, it must not be done while allowing the Federal funding for abortion-wording of the bill-to stay in place. As Catholics and Christians, we may not stand by and do nothing, or accept this unacceptable abortion language in the Bill that promotes intrinsic evil, authorizes the holocaust of innocents and allows abortion funding. We must call out these so-called Catholic agencies and Orders that our leading our Catholic or Christian flock astray.


Obamacare: If This Passes, a Poll Showed 46% of Doctors Will Retire Which will Lead to Mega-Rationing

Obamacare will lead to rationing.  If you think that there is rationing now, then there will really be a huge increase in rationing if 46% of doctors retire or leave their practice if Obamacare is passed.  Obamacare is going to hurt both Americans and America. But, was that its intended purpose?  Who knows with this radical administration and its radical agenda that wants to "transform" America and force tyranny upon its citizens.  So, congressman vote yes, at your own peril.

Here is a repost from Musings of a Vast Right-Winger:

Washington, DC ( -- A new poll that should cause significant concerns for backers of the pro-abortion Senate health care bill finds nearly half the nation's physicians would consider quitting if the bill becomes law. The survey, appearing in the New England Journal of Medicine, indicates 46 percent of doctors would consider leaving their practice.

The poll finds 46.3% of primary care physicians (family medicine and internal medicine) feel that the passing of a public option will either force them out of medicine or make them want to leave medicine.

Doctors also seem to understand the impact that will have as 72% of physicians feel that a public option would have a negative impact on physician supply, with 45% feeling it will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 27% predicting it will “decline or worsen somewhat.

The medical journal issued an editorial saying it didn't think that many doctors would quit but did worry about the adverse impact.

“While a sudden loss of half of the nations physicians seems unlikely, a very dramatic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality as an unexpected side effect of health reform," it said.

Another 62.7% of physicians feel that health reform is needed but should be implemented in a more targeted, gradual way, as opposed to the sweeping overhaul that is in legislation.

The respected medical journal also found 41% of physicians feel that income and practice revenue will “decline or worsen dramatically” and 30% feel income will “decline or worsen somewhat” with a public option.

Just 28.7 percent of doctors support the pro-abortion health care bill pending in the House

The Medicus Firm, a leading physician search and consulting firm based in Atlanta and Dallas, conducted the survey.

Kevin Perpetua, managing partner for the Medicus Firm, commented on the study, according to CNS News.

“Many physicians feel that they cannot continue to practice if patient loads increase while pay decreases,” Perpetua said in the study. “The overwhelming prediction from physicians is that health reform, if implemented inappropriately, could create a detrimental combination of circumstances, and result in an environment in which it is not possible for most physicians to continue practicing medicine.”

“Health-care reform and increasing government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician workforce to break down," he concluded.

H/T Musings of a Vast Right-Winger
H/T Life News

Friday, March 19, 2010

Rand Paul-March 23rd Money Bomb

 H/T goes to The Humble Libertarian

Ron Paul's Common Sense Solutions For Health Care Problems

This is a wonderful repost from My Thoughts on Freedom in which Chris posted Ron Paul's common sense solutions to the health care problems in America.

Before the US House of Representatives, September 23, 2009

Government has been mismanaging medical care for more than 45 years; for every problem it has created it has responded by exponentially expanding the role of government.

Points to consider:

1.No one has a right to medical care. If one assumes such a right, it endorses the notion that some individuals have a right to someone else’s life and property. This totally contradicts the principles of liberty.

2.If medical care is provided by government, this can only be achieved by an authoritarian government unconcerned about the rights of the individual.

3.Economic fallacies accepted for more than 100 years in the United States have deceived policy makers into believing that quality medical care can only be achieved by government force, taxation, regulations, and bowing to a system of special interests that creates a system of corporatism.

4.More dollars into any monopoly run by government never increases quality but it always results in higher costs and prices.

5.Government does have an important role to play in facilitating the delivery of all goods and services in an ethical and efficient manner.

6.First, government should do no harm. It should get out of the way and repeal all the laws that have contributed to the mess we have.

7.The costs are obviously too high but in solving this problem one cannot ignore the debasement of the currency as a major factor.

8.Bureaucrats and other third parties must never be allowed to interfere in the doctor/patient relationship.

9.The tax code, including the ERISA laws, must be changed to give everyone equal treatment by allowing a 100% tax credit for all medical expenses.

10.Laws dealing with bad outcomes and prohibiting doctors from entering into voluntary agreements with their patients must be repealed. Tort laws play a significant role in pushing costs higher, prompting unnecessary treatment and excessive testing. Patients deserve the compensation; the attorneys do not.

11.Insurance sales should be legalized nationally across state lines to increase competition among the insurance companies.

12.Long-term insurance policies should be available to young people similar to term-life insurances that offer fixed prices for long periods of time.

13.The principle of insurance should be remembered. Its purpose in a free market is to measure risk, not to be used synonymously with social welfare programs. Any program that provides for first-dollar payment is no longer insurance. This would be similar to giving coverage for gasoline and repair bills to those who buy car insurance or providing food insurance for people to go to the grocery store. Obviously, that could not work.

14.The cozy relationship between organized medicine and government must be reversed. Early on, medical insurance was promoted by the medical community in order to boost re-imbursements to doctors and hospitals. That partnership has morphed into the government/insurance industry still being promoted by the current administration.

15.Threatening individuals with huge fines by forcing them to buy insurance is a boon to the insurance companies.

16.There must be more competition for individuals entering into the medical field. Licensing strictly limits the number of individuals who can provide patient care. A lot of problems were created in 20th century as a consequence the Flexner Report (1910), which was financed by the Carnegie Foundation and strongly supported by the AMA. Many medical schools were closed and the number of doctors was drastically reduced. The motivation was to close down medical schools that catered to women, minorities and especially homeopathy. We continue to suffer from these changes, which were designed to protect physician’s income and promote allopathic medicine over the more natural cures and prevention of homeopathic medicine.

17.We must remove any obstacles for people seeking holistic and nutritional alternatives to current medical care. We must remove the threat of further regulations pushed by the drug companies now working worldwide to limit these alternatives.

True competition in the delivery of medical care is what is needed, not more government meddling.

H/T goes to My Thoughts on Freedom