Monday, May 2, 2011
With the news of Osama Bin Laden's death, I am glad that one threat to the safety and peace of America and her citizens is gone. Unfortunately hate spreads like a cancer and there are certainly others that will continue to plot against us. Thankfully, those who have pledged to protect us and the Constitution know this and will continue to be vigilant.
I am proud of our military who was relentless in their search and dedication to bring justice to the many who suffered and died as the result of Osama's terrorist attacks against the USA. To the military who has, does, and will protect us and our freedoms I say, "Thank you."
I smiled (BIG) at the facebook post: "May 1st, the day Osama found out that the story of the 72 virgins waiting for him was bunk" -news report. Fun and clever.
The bigger truth is that a man entered eternity without Christ. Ezekiel 18:32 says, "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!" God's heart desire is that every person would turn from evil and be reconciled to Him. God has made himself a way for all and any who would choose to embrace that gift of forgiveness and life and He leaves that choice of whether to accept or reject Jesus' payment to us. As Romans 6:23 says, "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." "But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8)
Osama Bin Laden made his choices. Justice was carried out.
"For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son." - Jesus (John 3:16-18)
Thursday, October 29, 2009
I was reading an article in the New York Times yesterday about the Congressional Race in New York's 23rd district. There is a three way race: Bill Owens - Democrat, Douglas Hoffman - Conservative Party, Dede Scozzafaza - Republican.
It is alarming to me that people, who are supposedly in the know, think that electing someone with the desired label next to their name is all that is needed when that person's beliefs and record show that they have little in common with their label. In this case, Dede Scozzafaza has been endorsed by Newt Gingrich who believes that the Republican party must prioritize getting its numbers up. I think Newt is wrong. We must first take a stand for our principles. Compromising our principles is not a way to win support but to become obsolete as an option.
Why should I or any other conservative vote for a person/label who doesn't and won't support my principles, beliefs, and values? I would think that Mr. Gingrich would have learned a lesson by the example of Senator Arlen Specter who happily took Republican money and endorsements but switched labels when it was beneficial for himself.
I agree with Sarah Palin when she wrote on facebook, "Unfortunately, the Republican Party today has decided to choose a candidate who more than blurs the lines, and there is no real difference between the Democrat and the Republican in this race. This is why Doug Hoffman is running on the Conservative Party's ticket."
Doug Hoffman says that he values "smaller government, less taxes, fiscal responsibility and not spending money you don’t have". I think a lot more of our senators and representatives need to learn some fiscal responsibility - especially since it is NOT their money that they are wasting.
One may wonder what some other district's election has to do with anything. My answer is that each of the elected members of Congress vote on laws concerning all Americans, not just their own district. What can you do? You can spread the word and you can support Hoffman's campaign.
Send a message to Washington: We are silent no more.
Friday, August 28, 2009
I just sent a letter to President Obama via Susan B. Anthony List. In the letter are the facts concerning the funding of abortion in the current congressional health care bill. Because this form letter has such good information, I posted it here for you to read. If you would like to send a letter to the President demanding the truth be told, you may write your own or go to http://www.sba-list.org/obama.
Dear President Obama,
As one of your constituents, I am disappointed that you have chosen to mislead the American people in regard to abortion funding in the health care bill.
On August 19th, you stated: “You've heard that this is all going to mean government funding of abortion. Not true. This is all, these are all fabrications that have been put out there. . .”
President Obama, you are misleading the American people. Here are the facts:
The Capps Amendment, as passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, explicitly requires every enrollee of a government-subsidized health insurance plan to be charged an extra fee to cover abortions. The federal agency administering the health care plan will collect the premium money, receive bills from abortionists, and send the abortionists payment checks from the federal Treasury account.
In response, many pro-abortion politicians are hiding behind the Hyde Amendment, but the truth is the Hyde Amendment does not apply because federal subsidies for private plans and start up money for the public plan are directly appropriated under H.R. 3200.
Therefore, I demand that you oppose any health care bill unless abortion is explicitly excluded from the scope of any federally mandated, federally subsidized, or federally defined health insurance plans.
President Obama, my concerns are not fabrications, they are facts. They are facts that even the mainstream media confirms. Consider these quotes:
“The health-care reform proposed by House Democrats, if enacted, would in fact mark a significant change in the federal government's role in the financing of abortions. […] So in effect, anyone who wanted to sign up for the public option, a federally funded and administered program, would find themselves paying for abortion coverage. […] Nonetheless, the new system differs markedly from the old federal policy of not involving the government in abortion services unless issues of rape, incest or the life of the mother are at play.” - TIME, August 24, 2009, “How Abortion Could Imperil Health Care Reform.”
“Health care legislation before Congress would allow a new government-sponsored insurance plan to cover abortions, a decision that would affect millions of women and recast federal policy on the divisive issue.” -The Associated Press, August 5, 2009, “Gov’t Insurance Would Allow Coverage for Abortion.”
“Obama has said in the past that ‘reproductive services’ would be covered by his public plan, so it’s likely that any new federal insurance plan would cover abortion unless Congress expressly prohibits that… Therefore, we judge that the president goes too far when he calls the statements that government would be funding abortions ‘fabrications.’”-Factcheck.org, August 21, 2009, “Abortion: Which Side is Fabricating?”
President Obama, the current health care reform proposals, if enacted, would result in the greatest expansion of abortion since the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision imposed abortion on America in 1973.
Polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Americans are pro-life. Abortion must be explicitly excluded to ensure the pro-life views of Americans are properly reflected in any health care reform effort.
Susan B. Anthony List Activist
Thursday, August 27, 2009
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free."
- President Ronald Reagan
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
What is the purpose of the Congressional Health Care Plan?
To begin the statement of purpose is "To provide affordable, quality health care for all Americans and reduce the growth in health care spending, and for other purposes." The emphasis is mine because when I read that, I immediately wondered what other purposes are in this health care bill?
Will you be able to keep your current health insurance plan?
On page 16, Section 102, ironically titled "Protecting the Choice to Keep Current Coverage", states that individual health insurance issuer cannot enroll new individuals on or after the first day of Y1 (which is 2013) except for new dependents of current individuals who are already covered. Neither can the health insurance issuer change any of its terms, conditions, benefits, or cost-sharing. If a health insurance company is so regulated as to be unable to accept new clients or make any changes whatsoever that company will be put out of business. No new clients equals a dying business. Page 19, lines 1-5 states that individual insurance coverage offered on or after the first day of 2013 must be "an Exchange-participating health benefits plan". What is that? Page 116, line 10-12 tells us that an Exchange-participating health benefits plan is referred to as "public health insurance option." Some "option" that is! The answer is that if you have individual health insurance coverage, you may be able to keep it for awhile but it won't be long before your insurance company would be forced out of business and your only option would then be the public option.
Who will run the "Public Option"?
There are many people listed in just the first 40 pages who will be responsible for portions or all of the government run insurance plan. There will be a Health Benefits Advisory Committee which will include: the Surgeon General (who is appointed by the President) will be a member and the chair of this Committee, 9 non-federal employees appointed by the President, 9 non-federal employees appointed by the Comptroller General of the United States (who is appointed by the President), and an even number (up to 8) of Federal employees and officers appointed by the President. At this time there is both an Acting Comptroller General of the United States and an Acting Surgeon General who will be replaced by a President Obama appointee. 2/3 of this Health Benefits Advisory Committee will be directly appointed by the President and 1/3 of the Committee will be appointed by a person who was himself appointed by the President. The job of the Committee is to recommend covered benefits and essential, enhanced, and premium plans to the Secretary of Health and Human Services as stated on page 32, line 22-25.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services is to establish the office of ombudsman for the public health insurance option. (I have not yet read what the ombudsman is supposed to do.) Page 116, line 14-17 tells us that the Secretary designs the "options" of the Exchange benefit levels: basic, enhanced, premium, and premium-plus. (Is that supposed to be the "competition" I hear about?) The Secretary shall collect such data as required to establish premiums and payments rates for the public option as stated on page 118, lines 4-9.
Then there is the establishment of the Health Choices Administration, an independent agency in the executive branch of the Government, which will be headed by the Health Choices Commissioner who is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Read this for yourself in Section 141 on page 41. The Commissioner shall collect data for the purposes of carrying out Commissioner's duties... and may share such data with the Secretary of Health and Human Services. (page 43, lines 19-24) The Commissioner, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, and the Secretary of Labor shall conduct a study of the large group insured and self-insured employer health care markets. (page 21, lines 23-26) Page 42, line 12 states the Commissioner is responsible for the establishment and operation of a Health Insurance Exchange which is the Public Option. (page 116, line 14-17)
To sum up, the Public Option will be run by a newly established government agency in the executive branch, a Commissioner appointed by the President, the Surgeon General appointed by the President, the Secretary of Health and Human Services appointed by the President, and a Committee which is 2/3 appointed by the President and 1/3 appointed by a presidential appointee. Does anyone else see a massive power grab by the Executive Branch of the Government?
Who will choose your coverage?
In all these 1,017 pages, the specific coverage and exceptions of benefits and the cost to us is not specified but instead power is given to the above listed people (most of whom are yet to be appointed) to choose insurance for you instead of you having the power to choose your own plan, or choose not to be insured, or the amount of coverage you want for yourself.
Just as you only see the tip of a massive iceberg, so the health care bill only shows us portions of what is its entirety. The rest will be determined after power has been handed over to the Government. Will the United States choose a collision course with this monstrosity? I hope not.
If this posting makes you feel overwhelmed, just consider that I've only partially commented on the first 40 pages and those pages to which they referred. There is much more to come.... another day.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
President Obama has nominated his first Supreme Court Justice, Sonia Sotomayor. When he spoke of selecting a Supreme Court justice, he said he wanted to choose a woman or a minority. Sonia Sotomayor is both a woman and Hispanic. This limited idea of what sex or race from which to choose bothers me. Should he not simply choose the best person for the job instead of choosing the best from a certain group? Is the United States not worthy of the best? If a Hispanic woman happens to be the best then that is great. Good for her. However, I do not think that Sonia Sotomayor is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.
Judge Sotomayor has stated that "a court of appeals is where policy is made." Really? Perhaps someone should let the legislature know that their services are no longer needed because I'm pretty sure that is why they are working. The legislature makes the laws. We do not need legislating from the bench. A court's job is to interpret the law and decide cases brought before it.
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” This is a statement made by Sotomayor! How does that sound to you? What about this? I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life. I suggest that if a white male judge made this statement he would be lambasted with criticism and not given a chance at advancement and rightly so. Justice is to be blind. The law is to be enforced fairly without favoritism to one sex, race, or ideology. If her race, sex, and experiences trump the Constitution and federal laws then she should not be a Supreme Court Justice. According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:
"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
Regarding the preborn, Senator Jim DeMint stated "When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it. This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages -- and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings." I would expect someone who has made decisions about abortion to have considered all the facts instead of simply dismissing that there is another human life to consider in a case.
As she testifies before the Senate judicial committee this week she is not getting great reviews.
In response to Senator Coburn on the use of foreign law, Sotomayor says, “There’s a public misunderstanding of the word ‘use.’" Really? Please don't insult Americans by telling us we don't know the meaning of simple words.
When asked if a person has the right to self-defense, she wavers. She starts talking about if she were to go home and get her gun... Um, excuse me, even most crime show watchers know that is not self-defense but revenge. Maybe someone should buy Judge Sonia a dictionary. Certainly I'm not the only one who wonders why she feels as though she must cloud questions and answers with political non-sense.
Republican senators are being criticized for the questions they are asking. Should they go easy on her because she is a woman? I thought women wanted equality. When you are considering someone for such an important job that is a lifetime appointment, you would be negligent not to determine how that person will perform that job. I find it ironic that a person can be chosen for a position based on their sex or race and then criticism of that person's policies is called racist.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
There are several great editorials about what is happening in Iran: One by Peggy Nonoon, one by Paul Wolfowitz, and another by Charles Krauthammer. The protesters are trying hard to get their message out to the world and their government is trying just as hard to silence them. This week the United States House of Representatives passed a resolution in support of the Iranian citizens. The resolution states:
Expressing support for all Iranian citizens who embrace
the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law, and for
Resolved, That the House of Representatives—
(1) expresses its support for all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of
freedom, human rights, civil liberties, and rule of law;
(2) condemns the ongoing violence against demonstrators by the Government of Iran and pro-government militias, as well as the ongoing government suppression of independent electronic communication through interference with the Internet and cellphones; and
(3) affirms the universality of individual rights and the
importance of democratic and fair elections.
Will President Obama support hope and change in Iran? Will he take a stand against tyranny? I hope so.
Perhaps their struggle for freedom will remind us that freedom is not something we should take for granted. Freedom lost is hard to regain. As we stand in spirit with Iranians, let us not give up our freedoms here. Let us be free to speak, free to disagree, free to give input, free to compete, free to pray, and free to worship. Let FREEDOM ring. In Iran. And in America.