Saturday, September 19, 2009
Tree of Revolution
You have to go and watch this monologue of Glenn Beck because it really opens your eyes as to what is going on in DC. You will NOT hear this from the fringe media, that is for certain!
Monday, August 31, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
Death Panels--read this
The President's chief medical adviser makes the President out to be a liar--again in this article. Be sure to read the whole thing if you don't think rationing will happen or there aren't death panels.
* The Wall Street Journal
* OPINION
* AUGUST 27, 2009, 12:52 P.M. ET
Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief
White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care.
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.
The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.
[mccaughey] "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" The Lancet, January 31, 2009
The Reaper Curve: Ezekiel Emanuel used the above chart in a Lancet article to illustrate the ages on which health spending should be focused.
Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."
In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).
Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.
"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."
Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)
In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).
To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007).
Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.
Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."
This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel's views.
Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
Is this what Americans want?
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
* The Wall Street Journal
* OPINION
* AUGUST 27, 2009, 12:52 P.M. ET
Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief
White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the 'overuse' of medical care.
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.
The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.
[mccaughey] "Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" The Lancet, January 31, 2009
The Reaper Curve: Ezekiel Emanuel used the above chart in a Lancet article to illustrate the ages on which health spending should be focused.
Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."
In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).
Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.
"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."
Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)
In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).
To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007).
Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.
Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."
This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel's views.
Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
Is this what Americans want?
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Factcheck.org
OK, I've said this before and I say it again here--our current President is less than totally honest. He is deceptive actually. Look at this website www.factcheck.org and see what it says about his fabrication about federal funds paying for abortions. He lied!
Friday, August 21, 2009
Health Care--how about IMPROVING not overhaul?
I want to list 4-5 things here that would solve what needs to be done to the health care system here in the US. These would accomplish the basic issues that President Obama has said are at the root of his desire to overhaul the system.
1) Tort Reform--Change the system that allows frivolous lawsuits which end up running up the cost of providing care in the US. Force the losing party to pay all expenses. Limit the damages that can be awarded for punitive purposes to $250,000. Do nothing to actual economic loss or medical care cost awards. Make it easier for the defendant, if found not guilty, to counter-sue for pain and suffering and loss of wages. Take the incentive away from trial lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits that force doctors to practice defensive medicine which result in more tests being ordered and more money being spent.
2) Make health insurance portable and permanent for the patient. Let the patient take the policy they have at their employer with them when they leave for the same cost as it was to the employer. When the individuals health issues begin to cost more because of health issues, allow the policy premium to be raised up to a certain percentage yearly. Prevent the insurance company from dropping those who are most expensive to cover but allow them to charge competitively. This would remove the burdensome cost of COBRA and private policies that we see being sold to people today and it would remove any refusal of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Give the person a $10,000/year tax credit to pay for their insurance premiums.
3) Allow health insurance to be portable across state lines so that when people move, they can take the insurance with them--just like car insurance. I have had the same car insurance company for 20 years and have lived in 3 different states. The same should be allowed for health insurance and it would eliminate a certain number of uninsured due to moving from place to place. It would also make insurance companies more competitive because they would be forced to cover over a broader area.
4) Take Medicare and Medicaid and turn them over to a private insurer who would then commit to covering all those currently on each plan at their current rate. Their premiums would be covered by the Federal Government and any increase in their premium would have to be approved by an Insurance Regulatory Board. This would certainly be less than the trillion dollar tag on the proposed take-over of the industry. For those on Medicaid, put a limit on the length of time they could be on it. Make it a stop gap for troubled time. Those who could not get off Medicaid due to mental, physical or other issues would be transferred to the Medicare program. Reform welfare to be a limited time resource to those down on their luck who need help but remove it from being a way of life.
5) Change the way reimbursement is done to providers. Set a price for all insurances and pay that price. Eliminate the tapering of reimbursement based on location etc. Eliminate the over burdensome regulations that make it virtually impossible to understand how reimbursement works with federal agencies. Pay for preventative health care the same as you pay for those who are sick. Give tax incentives to those who have done their routine physicals and screening exams that are recommended by the medical industry. This would improve prompt diagnosis of illnesses like breast cancer, colon cancer etc and not just take the financial burden off the patient for the care, but pay them, via tax credits, for aggressively seeking that care.
6) If someone is in the country working as an immigrant--legal or illegal, encourage the development of an alien health insurance policy that would cover their medical care so that small hospitals in rural communities would not be ruined by providing care for aliens--illegal and legal--like is happening now. This would also provide a data base for those who are entering the country and help maintain control on their location. If someone presented to an emergency room without coverage, they would be required to sign up at that point or they would not be provided care--tough but appropriate.
7) Totally revamp the way health insurance policies are identified to the provider. Require a card with a picture of the patient to prevent fraud AND a single number system that would identify that patient across the entire country. If I see that number in California and New York at the same time, I know fraud is being perpetrated by one party or the other. UPS can tell me every step of my package location when I order something from the moment it is ordered to the moment it is delivered. Why can't we identify where every person in the US is as they get their medical care.
If we would do these things, the number of uninsured would plummet to zero because every individual would be required to be covered but it would be by independent insurance companies and not the federal government. The system would be more efficient and the care would improve, as would the health of the national population!
Just some thoughts from a provider of medical care!
1) Tort Reform--Change the system that allows frivolous lawsuits which end up running up the cost of providing care in the US. Force the losing party to pay all expenses. Limit the damages that can be awarded for punitive purposes to $250,000. Do nothing to actual economic loss or medical care cost awards. Make it easier for the defendant, if found not guilty, to counter-sue for pain and suffering and loss of wages. Take the incentive away from trial lawyers to file frivolous lawsuits that force doctors to practice defensive medicine which result in more tests being ordered and more money being spent.
2) Make health insurance portable and permanent for the patient. Let the patient take the policy they have at their employer with them when they leave for the same cost as it was to the employer. When the individuals health issues begin to cost more because of health issues, allow the policy premium to be raised up to a certain percentage yearly. Prevent the insurance company from dropping those who are most expensive to cover but allow them to charge competitively. This would remove the burdensome cost of COBRA and private policies that we see being sold to people today and it would remove any refusal of coverage for pre-existing conditions. Give the person a $10,000/year tax credit to pay for their insurance premiums.
3) Allow health insurance to be portable across state lines so that when people move, they can take the insurance with them--just like car insurance. I have had the same car insurance company for 20 years and have lived in 3 different states. The same should be allowed for health insurance and it would eliminate a certain number of uninsured due to moving from place to place. It would also make insurance companies more competitive because they would be forced to cover over a broader area.
4) Take Medicare and Medicaid and turn them over to a private insurer who would then commit to covering all those currently on each plan at their current rate. Their premiums would be covered by the Federal Government and any increase in their premium would have to be approved by an Insurance Regulatory Board. This would certainly be less than the trillion dollar tag on the proposed take-over of the industry. For those on Medicaid, put a limit on the length of time they could be on it. Make it a stop gap for troubled time. Those who could not get off Medicaid due to mental, physical or other issues would be transferred to the Medicare program. Reform welfare to be a limited time resource to those down on their luck who need help but remove it from being a way of life.
5) Change the way reimbursement is done to providers. Set a price for all insurances and pay that price. Eliminate the tapering of reimbursement based on location etc. Eliminate the over burdensome regulations that make it virtually impossible to understand how reimbursement works with federal agencies. Pay for preventative health care the same as you pay for those who are sick. Give tax incentives to those who have done their routine physicals and screening exams that are recommended by the medical industry. This would improve prompt diagnosis of illnesses like breast cancer, colon cancer etc and not just take the financial burden off the patient for the care, but pay them, via tax credits, for aggressively seeking that care.
6) If someone is in the country working as an immigrant--legal or illegal, encourage the development of an alien health insurance policy that would cover their medical care so that small hospitals in rural communities would not be ruined by providing care for aliens--illegal and legal--like is happening now. This would also provide a data base for those who are entering the country and help maintain control on their location. If someone presented to an emergency room without coverage, they would be required to sign up at that point or they would not be provided care--tough but appropriate.
7) Totally revamp the way health insurance policies are identified to the provider. Require a card with a picture of the patient to prevent fraud AND a single number system that would identify that patient across the entire country. If I see that number in California and New York at the same time, I know fraud is being perpetrated by one party or the other. UPS can tell me every step of my package location when I order something from the moment it is ordered to the moment it is delivered. Why can't we identify where every person in the US is as they get their medical care.
If we would do these things, the number of uninsured would plummet to zero because every individual would be required to be covered but it would be by independent insurance companies and not the federal government. The system would be more efficient and the care would improve, as would the health of the national population!
Just some thoughts from a provider of medical care!
Civil War???
Jon Voigt is asking a question that many are thinking. I have heard it from patients I see, military men I know, government employees I am friends with. It isn't an unspoken question but the Washington Times is putting it to print?
The Washington Times
Friday, August 21, 2009
Inside the Beltway
Jennifer Harper INSIDE THE BELTWAY (Contact)
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
A Hollywood conservative has headed East. It's "Freedom Concert" time for Jon Voight. The Academy Award winner will join Sean Hannity in Cincinnati and Atlanta this weekend to honor fallen soldiers and present college scholarships to surviving children. Mr. Voight -- a warrior himself in many ways -- has been cogitating about the state of America, meanwhile.
"There's a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?" Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.
"We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation."
Be outraged, Mr. Voight advises.
"Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book 'Rules for Radicals,' by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods," he continues, citing a television campaign critical of the Republican Party and contentious town-hall meetings about health care reform.
"The real truth is that the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government-run health care plan forced upon them," Mr. Voight says. "So I ask again. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?
The Washington Times
Friday, August 21, 2009
Inside the Beltway
Jennifer Harper INSIDE THE BELTWAY (Contact)
CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE
A Hollywood conservative has headed East. It's "Freedom Concert" time for Jon Voight. The Academy Award winner will join Sean Hannity in Cincinnati and Atlanta this weekend to honor fallen soldiers and present college scholarships to surviving children. Mr. Voight -- a warrior himself in many ways -- has been cogitating about the state of America, meanwhile.
"There's a real question at stake now. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?" Mr. Voight tells Inside the Beltway.
"We are witnessing a slow, steady takeover of our true freedoms. We are becoming a socialist nation, and whoever can't see this is probably hoping it isn't true. If we permit Mr. Obama to take over all our industries, if we permit him to raise our taxes to support unconstitutional causes, then we will be in default. This great America will become a paralyzed nation."
Be outraged, Mr. Voight advises.
"Do not let the Obama administration fool you with all their cunning Alinsky methods. And if you don't know what that method is, I implore you to get the book 'Rules for Radicals,' by Saul Alinsky . Mr. Obama is very well trained in these methods," he continues, citing a television campaign critical of the Republican Party and contentious town-hall meetings about health care reform.
"The real truth is that the Obama administration is professional at bullying, as we have witnessed with ACORN at work during the presidential campaign. It seems to me they are sending down their bullies to create fist fights among average American citizens who don't want a government-run health care plan forced upon them," Mr. Voight says. "So I ask again. Is President Obama creating a civil war in our own country?
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Obama's Track Record...NOT GOOD! UPDATED
UPDATE--8/25/2009
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION UNDERESTIMATES THE DEBT AND UNEMPLOYMENT--CAN THEY GET ANYTHING RIGHT? WHY IN HEAVEN'S NAME WOULD WE TRUST THEM WITH HEALTHCARE?
ORIGINAL NOTE--
I am going to make a statement here and then I am going to prove it through facts laid out in a step by step process. President Obama's administration has been in office 7 months and has a very, very bad track record for the past 7 months. He has, on average, one MAJOR screwup a month and it is taking it's toll. Let me lay some of them out for you! (none of them relate to any of the conspiracy theories we've heard so much about)
First, let's track backwards for now--The Presidents administration MAY have broken the law by soliciting the American people to send in reports of those who are putting out 'fishy' information about the health care debacle. Recognizing this they have taken down the email address used to report, and threaten, free speech. The White House can NOT destroy these records and has to keep them to be archived after he leaves office. Some have questioned if the White House is creating an enemies list? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26188.html)
Second, linked to the first, the White House has sent out a spam email to many people by David Axelrod with regard to the healthcare overhaul. The problem is, many of the people emailed don't know how the WH got their email address and have never asked to be sent any emails from the administration. Why is this important? Because it is illegal for the WH, once it collects names and addresses to destroy those lists and there is some question as to the legality of how these email addresses were collected in the first place. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A4R4F01&show_article=1)
Third, this is one of those bigtime screwups that is going to be studied for years on how NOT to do something. The President has made one of his major goals was to overhaul the American health care system. He has said over and over again that "his plan" would do this or that but has NEVER released what 'his plan' is. He left it to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrat party to draw up a liberal takeover of a system in which 80% of the people are happy with the current system. This process has been such a debacle that there is talk now about starting all over again! The rebellion by the American people have shown over this issue reveal a total lack of understanding by the entirety of those in charge in DC that they work for US, not the other way around! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/17/blue-dog-excellent-idea-to-start-over-on-health-care/)
Fourth, do you remember when Nancy Pelosi and Leon Panetta went apoplectic over the plan the CIA had for assassination squads and how the Democrat Congress was outraged over this plan and operation that was 'hid' from them? Well, it turns out, and you won't hear this on main-stream media that Panetta jumped the gun on this whole ordeal. You see, there wasn't such an operation in place. The 'operation' was nothing more than a power-point presentation. It had never been implemented and was definitely NOT operational. Where is the media covering this? Yeah, I don't know either! (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-18/spy-agency-fiasco/?cid=hp:mainpromo3)
Fifth, foreign policy has been a disaster the past several months also. The President has been on a tour since his inauguration apologizing to every corner of the earth for America's existence. He has apologized on the African continent, the Asian continent, European continent and North American continent. He has assumed that he has the authority to apologize for all of us but there are a number of us who aren't sorry for being who we are. This nation has made mistakes and we have, and still are, trying to correct them but this nation is the most giving and most compassionate people the world has known. We don't like being taken advantage of or attacked and we will respond accordingly. If the world doesn't like that, too bad. Rather than focus on what a true statesman should, he is more focused on the world liking him! (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103901)
Sixth, the president seems to want to distance us from the Christian heritage that has seen us through 200 years of history. He has decided that he can make the declaration that 'we are no longer a Christian nation.' Mr. President, I have a little news-flash for you, "You do not have the power or authority to redefine history!" We ARE a Christian nation and have always been a Christian nation because of Christianities influence on the founding and history of this nation. You have no ability to change that. You need to embrace which ever religion you are following. If you want to be a muslim, fine but if you are a Christian, start acting like it! (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103901)
Seventh, the Presidents handling of the Gates/Crowley affair was a total revelation of his view on racism in this nation. He bungled the handling of that whole affair from the beginning. In his bungling of the affair he revealed a chip on his shoulder and a radical view of race relations and his desire to try and change things. The entire thing could have been subdued by the simple statement, "I don't have all the information so I cannot comment on it!" (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103901)
I will stop there but I could go on and on, that means there is a greater than one a month screwup by this administration. In each of these screwups, the administration has tried to shift the blame to someone else. That reveals an even more unsightly character of this President. It's going to be a long 4 years!
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION UNDERESTIMATES THE DEBT AND UNEMPLOYMENT--CAN THEY GET ANYTHING RIGHT? WHY IN HEAVEN'S NAME WOULD WE TRUST THEM WITH HEALTHCARE?
ORIGINAL NOTE--
I am going to make a statement here and then I am going to prove it through facts laid out in a step by step process. President Obama's administration has been in office 7 months and has a very, very bad track record for the past 7 months. He has, on average, one MAJOR screwup a month and it is taking it's toll. Let me lay some of them out for you! (none of them relate to any of the conspiracy theories we've heard so much about)
First, let's track backwards for now--The Presidents administration MAY have broken the law by soliciting the American people to send in reports of those who are putting out 'fishy' information about the health care debacle. Recognizing this they have taken down the email address used to report, and threaten, free speech. The White House can NOT destroy these records and has to keep them to be archived after he leaves office. Some have questioned if the White House is creating an enemies list? (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0809/26188.html)
Second, linked to the first, the White House has sent out a spam email to many people by David Axelrod with regard to the healthcare overhaul. The problem is, many of the people emailed don't know how the WH got their email address and have never asked to be sent any emails from the administration. Why is this important? Because it is illegal for the WH, once it collects names and addresses to destroy those lists and there is some question as to the legality of how these email addresses were collected in the first place. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9A4R4F01&show_article=1)
Third, this is one of those bigtime screwups that is going to be studied for years on how NOT to do something. The President has made one of his major goals was to overhaul the American health care system. He has said over and over again that "his plan" would do this or that but has NEVER released what 'his plan' is. He left it to Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and the Democrat party to draw up a liberal takeover of a system in which 80% of the people are happy with the current system. This process has been such a debacle that there is talk now about starting all over again! The rebellion by the American people have shown over this issue reveal a total lack of understanding by the entirety of those in charge in DC that they work for US, not the other way around! (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/08/17/blue-dog-excellent-idea-to-start-over-on-health-care/)
Fourth, do you remember when Nancy Pelosi and Leon Panetta went apoplectic over the plan the CIA had for assassination squads and how the Democrat Congress was outraged over this plan and operation that was 'hid' from them? Well, it turns out, and you won't hear this on main-stream media that Panetta jumped the gun on this whole ordeal. You see, there wasn't such an operation in place. The 'operation' was nothing more than a power-point presentation. It had never been implemented and was definitely NOT operational. Where is the media covering this? Yeah, I don't know either! (http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2009-08-18/spy-agency-fiasco/?cid=hp:mainpromo3)
Fifth, foreign policy has been a disaster the past several months also. The President has been on a tour since his inauguration apologizing to every corner of the earth for America's existence. He has apologized on the African continent, the Asian continent, European continent and North American continent. He has assumed that he has the authority to apologize for all of us but there are a number of us who aren't sorry for being who we are. This nation has made mistakes and we have, and still are, trying to correct them but this nation is the most giving and most compassionate people the world has known. We don't like being taken advantage of or attacked and we will respond accordingly. If the world doesn't like that, too bad. Rather than focus on what a true statesman should, he is more focused on the world liking him! (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103901)
Sixth, the president seems to want to distance us from the Christian heritage that has seen us through 200 years of history. He has decided that he can make the declaration that 'we are no longer a Christian nation.' Mr. President, I have a little news-flash for you, "You do not have the power or authority to redefine history!" We ARE a Christian nation and have always been a Christian nation because of Christianities influence on the founding and history of this nation. You have no ability to change that. You need to embrace which ever religion you are following. If you want to be a muslim, fine but if you are a Christian, start acting like it! (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103901)
Seventh, the Presidents handling of the Gates/Crowley affair was a total revelation of his view on racism in this nation. He bungled the handling of that whole affair from the beginning. In his bungling of the affair he revealed a chip on his shoulder and a radical view of race relations and his desire to try and change things. The entire thing could have been subdued by the simple statement, "I don't have all the information so I cannot comment on it!" (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=103901)
I will stop there but I could go on and on, that means there is a greater than one a month screwup by this administration. In each of these screwups, the administration has tried to shift the blame to someone else. That reveals an even more unsightly character of this President. It's going to be a long 4 years!
Monday, August 17, 2009
No longer public servants but now believe they are ultimate authority!
If I lived in this mans congressional district, I would lead the charge to have this man removed from office for dereliction of duty! He has forgotten who he works for. he had decided that HIS view supersedes those of his constituents. He actually says that he would vote AGAINST the interests of his constituents. He needs to be run out of town on a rail....sorry Washington, you work for us NOT yourselves!
Friday, August 14, 2009
Congressman Lee and fake doctor
This ought to (pardon my french) piss you off! You want to know why we think those in DC are stinking liars? Watch this video. The lady is a fake. She is NOT a doctor but a democrat activist asked to show up at the meeting. Yeah, we think you people in DC are liars and this proves it!
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Dearborn MI--Muslim Capitol in America
Watch this video and see if you can imagine America under Islamic law...
Sunday, August 09, 2009
UNRULY MOB DEMANDING HEALTH CARE!
OK, so that isn't a headline you're seeing in the papers today is it! Why not? Where are the hordes demanding that the industry be taken over by the government? Oh, yeah...they don't exist!
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Do you want YOUR taxes paying for abortion?
Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion
AP
By RICARDO ALONSOZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer - 1 hour 24 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – 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.
Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.
Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.
Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs.
"We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "We don't want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion."
Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said abortion opponents "want an abortion ban in private insurance, and that's not neutrality at all _ that's a radical departure from current law. They want something far more extreme than where I think the American public is."
A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and the conscience rights of clinicians. It would allow the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.
"It's a sham," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. "It's a bookkeeping scheme. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan."
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., author of the compromise, said she was trying to craft a solution that would accommodate both sides. Her amendment also would allow plans that covered no abortions whatsoever _ not even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother _ to be offered through the insurance exchange.
"With all due respect, not everyone adheres to what the Catholic bishops believe," said Capps, who supports abortion rights. "Our country allows for both sides, and our health plan should reflect that as well."
For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered.
A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.
But the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.
The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.
The Democratic health care legislation as originally introduced in the House and Senate did not mention abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.
Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.
It would mirror the private insurance market, where abortion coverage is widely available. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002, while a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had coverage for abortions. The studies asked different questions, which might help explain the disparity in the results.
In the Senate, the plan passed by the health committee is still largely silent on the abortion issue. Staff aides confirmed that the public plan _ and private insurance offered in the exchange _ would be allowed to cover abortion, without funding restrictions.
Under both the House and Senate approaches, the decision to offer abortion coverage in the public plan would be made by the health and human services secretary.
Abortion opponents are seeking a prohibition against using any federal subsidies to pay for abortions or for any part of any costs of a health plan that offers abortion. Such a proposal was rejected by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the same panel that approved Capps' amendment.
But abortion opponents say they can't accept a public plan that would cover abortion. And they say private plans in the insurance exchange should offer abortion coverage separately, as an option.
"You can have a result where nobody has to pay for other people's abortions," said Doerflinger.
Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said applying the current restrictions for federal employees and low-income women to a program intended for the middle class will provoke a backlash.
"There is a difference between picking off one group of women here and one group there and something that would affect a very large group," Hartmann said. "Everyone would like to avoid that fight."
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Southeast Asia Pte. Ltd. (Co. Reg. No. 199700735D). All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Community | Intellectual Property Rights Policy | Help
AP
By RICARDO ALONSOZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer - 1 hour 24 minutes ago
WASHINGTON – 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.
Federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the health of the mother. Abortion opponents say those restrictions should carry over to any health insurance sold through a new marketplace envisioned under the legislation, an exchange where people would choose private coverage or the public plan.
Abortion rights supporters say that would have the effect of denying coverage for abortion to millions of women who now have it through workplace insurance and are expected to join the exchange.
Advocates on both sides are preparing for a renewed battle over abortion, which could jeopardize political support for President Barack Obama's health care initiative aimed at covering nearly 50 million uninsured and restraining medical costs.
"We want to see people who have no health insurance get it, but this is a sticking point," said Richard Doerflinger, associate director of pro-life activities for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. "We don't want health care reform to be the vehicle for mandating abortion."
Donna Crane, policy director for NARAL Pro-Choice America, said abortion opponents "want an abortion ban in private insurance, and that's not neutrality at all _ that's a radical departure from current law. They want something far more extreme than where I think the American public is."
A compromise approved by a House committee last week attempted to balance questions of federal funding, personal choice and the conscience rights of clinicians. It would allow the public plan to cover abortion but without using federal funds, only dollars from beneficiary premiums. Likewise, private plans in the new insurance exchange could opt to cover abortion, but no federal subsidies would be used to pay for the procedure.
"It's a sham," said Douglas Johnson, legislative director for National Right to Life. "It's a bookkeeping scheme. The plan pays for abortion, and the government subsidizes the plan."
Rep. Lois Capps, D-Calif., author of the compromise, said she was trying to craft a solution that would accommodate both sides. Her amendment also would allow plans that covered no abortions whatsoever _ not even in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother _ to be offered through the insurance exchange.
"With all due respect, not everyone adheres to what the Catholic bishops believe," said Capps, who supports abortion rights. "Our country allows for both sides, and our health plan should reflect that as well."
For years, abortion rights supporters and abortion opponents have waged the equivalent of trench warfare over restrictions on federal funding. Abortion opponents have largely prevailed, instituting restrictions that bar federal funding for abortion, except in cases of rape and incest or if the mother's life would be endangered.
A law called the Hyde amendment applies the restrictions to Medicaid, forcing states that cover abortion for low-income women to do so with their own money. Separate laws apply the restrictions to the federal employee health plan and military and other programs.
But the health overhaul would create a stream of federal funding not covered by the restrictions.
The new federal funds would take the form of subsidies for low- and middle-income people buying coverage through the health insurance exchange. Subsidies would be available for people to buy the public plan or private coverage. Making things more complicated, the federal subsidies would be mixed in with contributions from individuals and employers. Eventually, most Americans could end up getting their coverage through the exchange.
The Democratic health care legislation as originally introduced in the House and Senate did not mention abortion. That rang alarm bells for abortion opponents.
Since abortion is a legal medical procedure, experts on both sides say not mentioning it would allow health care plans in the new insurance exchange to provide unrestricted coverage.
It would mirror the private insurance market, where abortion coverage is widely available. A Guttmacher Institute study found that 87 percent of typical employer plans covered abortion in 2002, while a Kaiser Family Foundation survey in 2003 found that 46 percent of workers in employer plans had coverage for abortions. The studies asked different questions, which might help explain the disparity in the results.
In the Senate, the plan passed by the health committee is still largely silent on the abortion issue. Staff aides confirmed that the public plan _ and private insurance offered in the exchange _ would be allowed to cover abortion, without funding restrictions.
Under both the House and Senate approaches, the decision to offer abortion coverage in the public plan would be made by the health and human services secretary.
Abortion opponents are seeking a prohibition against using any federal subsidies to pay for abortions or for any part of any costs of a health plan that offers abortion. Such a proposal was rejected by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the same panel that approved Capps' amendment.
But abortion opponents say they can't accept a public plan that would cover abortion. And they say private plans in the insurance exchange should offer abortion coverage separately, as an option.
"You can have a result where nobody has to pay for other people's abortions," said Doerflinger.
Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women's Policy Research, said applying the current restrictions for federal employees and low-income women to a program intended for the middle class will provoke a backlash.
"There is a difference between picking off one group of women here and one group there and something that would affect a very large group," Hartmann said. "Everyone would like to avoid that fight."
Copyright © 2009 Yahoo! Southeast Asia Pte. Ltd. (Co. Reg. No. 199700735D). All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Community | Intellectual Property Rights Policy | Help
Monday, August 03, 2009
Sunday, August 02, 2009
New Demons of the Democratic Party
The Democrats are up to their old tricks. Demonize someone so they can divert attention away from themselves. You know how they are and what they've done for the past several years.
First and foremost, demonize George Bush. If all else fails, go back to blaming everything on him.
Next, you demonize Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio.
Then you jump to the oil companies--those mean companies that seem to think they need to make a profit for their shareholders.
Then you demonize the entire healthcare industry and when that doesn't get traction, you begin to isolate certain segments. You know those big bad insurance companies that are evil and are the real problem.
You know those doctors and the hospitals, their kinda bad also cause they seem to think they need to make a profit.
Yeah, you see, it's everyone else who is to blame. It's the banks or the mortgage companies or whoever you choose, just don't lay the blame where it really should lie...at the feet of the leaders in DC. Primarily the Democrat Party but to a certain degree the Republicans also.
They have screwed this country up so bad but won't accept any of the blame and seem to thing the American People are stupid enough to buy their nonsense. No wait, perhaps we are that stupid...seems to be working for them.
First and foremost, demonize George Bush. If all else fails, go back to blaming everything on him.
Next, you demonize Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio.
Then you jump to the oil companies--those mean companies that seem to think they need to make a profit for their shareholders.
Then you demonize the entire healthcare industry and when that doesn't get traction, you begin to isolate certain segments. You know those big bad insurance companies that are evil and are the real problem.
You know those doctors and the hospitals, their kinda bad also cause they seem to think they need to make a profit.
Yeah, you see, it's everyone else who is to blame. It's the banks or the mortgage companies or whoever you choose, just don't lay the blame where it really should lie...at the feet of the leaders in DC. Primarily the Democrat Party but to a certain degree the Republicans also.
They have screwed this country up so bad but won't accept any of the blame and seem to thing the American People are stupid enough to buy their nonsense. No wait, perhaps we are that stupid...seems to be working for them.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
Big Brother is here!
Look at this video. You think that Beck is nuts? Watch this...I just flat don't trust the federal government any longer. I think there are dark dark forces at work to destroy our nation.
THIS video is NOT the same as the one above but makes a good point also.
THIS video is NOT the same as the one above but makes a good point also.
Tuesday, July 28, 2009
Hypocrisy beyond belief
This president is a hypocrite. I know that doesn't shock you for me to say that but listen to this sound bite and decide for yourself!
The Bush Administration is trying to rush things through and not letting people read the bills they are voting on.--give me a break.
The Bush Administration is trying to rush things through and not letting people read the bills they are voting on.--give me a break.
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
President Obama--Apologies--an open letter
Dear Mr. President,
You have been President for six months and during that time you have apologized to the world in at least 4 different speeches on at least 3 different continents (Europe, Africa, North America). I guess this is an attempt to get the world to like us again and also an attempt to get the Islamic community to be less disdainful of the United States. Mr. President, enough is enough. You've gotten your point across.
You spent the first 1/8th of your Presidency revealing your own disappointment with your nation. You have revealed a personal bias toward YOUR home nation because you perceive some deficit in her interaction with the rest of the world. Can I tell you Mr. President, you do not speak for all of us. I am NOT sorry for the greatness of this country. Do we have problems, sure! Do we make mistakes, absolutely. The difference between us and many other nations in the world you have been apologizing to is that WE at least attempt to correct those problems and mistakes. Can the same be said of the religious persecution of Saudi Arabia? Can the same be said of the Iran and it's suppression of the recent uprising or can you address the slaughter of the Chinese recently who wanted the same freedom we, in the US have (at least for now)? No you can't say that of those nations. YET, you are willing to sit down with those dictators and terrorists and discuss joint efforts to improve the world.
Mr President, when good compromises with evil, evil wins! That is the premise of the Holy Scripture that you profess to follow. Salt and Fresh water CANNOT flow from the same spicket! It just can't happen. You have said that we must live by the principles that have gotten us to this point and at the same time you denigrate the fact that those principles are based on the Judeo-Christian founding of this nation.
Mr. President, STOP apologizing! If the world does not appreciate who we are and what we've done for them, let them send our troops home. Let them send our international assistance back to us. Let them pay their debt to us and we'll leave them alone. If they don't want our assistance, that is fine, we can use it here in our own nation--like paying for the first stimulus package or all the other debt we've gotten into lately.
Yes Mr. President, you have the privilege of representing the last best earthly hope for the rest of the world, please start acting like you believe it!
Sincerely,
Steve Buckles
You have been President for six months and during that time you have apologized to the world in at least 4 different speeches on at least 3 different continents (Europe, Africa, North America). I guess this is an attempt to get the world to like us again and also an attempt to get the Islamic community to be less disdainful of the United States. Mr. President, enough is enough. You've gotten your point across.
You spent the first 1/8th of your Presidency revealing your own disappointment with your nation. You have revealed a personal bias toward YOUR home nation because you perceive some deficit in her interaction with the rest of the world. Can I tell you Mr. President, you do not speak for all of us. I am NOT sorry for the greatness of this country. Do we have problems, sure! Do we make mistakes, absolutely. The difference between us and many other nations in the world you have been apologizing to is that WE at least attempt to correct those problems and mistakes. Can the same be said of the religious persecution of Saudi Arabia? Can the same be said of the Iran and it's suppression of the recent uprising or can you address the slaughter of the Chinese recently who wanted the same freedom we, in the US have (at least for now)? No you can't say that of those nations. YET, you are willing to sit down with those dictators and terrorists and discuss joint efforts to improve the world.
Mr President, when good compromises with evil, evil wins! That is the premise of the Holy Scripture that you profess to follow. Salt and Fresh water CANNOT flow from the same spicket! It just can't happen. You have said that we must live by the principles that have gotten us to this point and at the same time you denigrate the fact that those principles are based on the Judeo-Christian founding of this nation.
Mr. President, STOP apologizing! If the world does not appreciate who we are and what we've done for them, let them send our troops home. Let them send our international assistance back to us. Let them pay their debt to us and we'll leave them alone. If they don't want our assistance, that is fine, we can use it here in our own nation--like paying for the first stimulus package or all the other debt we've gotten into lately.
Yes Mr. President, you have the privilege of representing the last best earthly hope for the rest of the world, please start acting like you believe it!
Sincerely,
Steve Buckles
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Roller Dancing Babies....too good not to pass on
This is just too good not to pass on. Brought a smile to my face today
Monday, July 06, 2009
Sarah Palin's resignation
Her is what I got out of her press conference Friday:
1) She is not running for re-election so rather than be a lame-duck, let the Lt Gov take the helm and run for the office himself.
2) She has amassed a $500,000 debt trying to fend off non-sense ethics complaints that would only continue as long as she was governor.
3) The state of Alaska has already spent $2 Million dollars fending off the stupid ethics complaints--dollars that could have been used for schools or teachers or police.
4) Her family had been harassed enough in the past year by the stupid main street media that will NEVER understand who she, and they, are.
5) It would be better for the state to step out of office and turn it over to the Lt Gov who isn't a lightning rod for every left wing kook out there.
OK, I'm an average man out here in Middle America. If I can get this, others don't get it because it doesn't fit into their agenda they have to tear her down already.
1) She is not running for re-election so rather than be a lame-duck, let the Lt Gov take the helm and run for the office himself.
2) She has amassed a $500,000 debt trying to fend off non-sense ethics complaints that would only continue as long as she was governor.
3) The state of Alaska has already spent $2 Million dollars fending off the stupid ethics complaints--dollars that could have been used for schools or teachers or police.
4) Her family had been harassed enough in the past year by the stupid main street media that will NEVER understand who she, and they, are.
5) It would be better for the state to step out of office and turn it over to the Lt Gov who isn't a lightning rod for every left wing kook out there.
OK, I'm an average man out here in Middle America. If I can get this, others don't get it because it doesn't fit into their agenda they have to tear her down already.
Sunday, July 05, 2009
Finally Home--MercyMe
This video has a major message but the words to the song carry a much deeper meaning. Both meanings are very appropriate this July 4th holiday! The emotion this video brought back caught me by surprise!
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
South Carolina Gov Mark Sanford
One thing you'll not be able to accuse me of--being inconsistent. "Mr. Sanford, you need to resign as the Gov of South Carolina!" I said the same of Democrats guilty of adultery and I'll say the same of Republicans.
Adultery is the abandonment of your vows to your spouse, thus it is a breach in trust between the closest people in your life. This trust issue cannot be isolated to one area in your life and impacts every area and it makes you ineffective. I believe this for politicians and I believe this for those in ministry. Vows however are sacred and when you break them, you sin. You must pay the price of this sin and those consequences are pretty steep sometimes.
Adultery is the abandonment of your vows to your spouse, thus it is a breach in trust between the closest people in your life. This trust issue cannot be isolated to one area in your life and impacts every area and it makes you ineffective. I believe this for politicians and I believe this for those in ministry. Vows however are sacred and when you break them, you sin. You must pay the price of this sin and those consequences are pretty steep sometimes.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Global Warming
I just read a post by someone on an article about the Democrat meeting on global warming 'blowing-up' and this guy said, "Ever notice that as the ice melts, we find the frozen remains of humans. We've been there before!" That really struck a nerve with me. Those frozen remains must have been when our ancestors were causing 'global cooling'. Wonder how they caused that. Did they suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and suddenly make the climate more cold so the ice suddenly engulfed them?
I agree with the man who blogged on the article. We are in a cycle on this planet in it's relationship with the sun. It is no more complicated than that. Ice melts and it forms again. The planet cools and then heats up again. It is idiotic to blame whatever amount of warming there is to mankinds wreckless use of carbon.
I agree with the man who blogged on the article. We are in a cycle on this planet in it's relationship with the sun. It is no more complicated than that. Ice melts and it forms again. The planet cools and then heats up again. It is idiotic to blame whatever amount of warming there is to mankinds wreckless use of carbon.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Letter to Glenn Beck! AMEN SISTER
Glenn Beck: I got a letter from a woman in Arizona. She writes an open letter to our nation's leadership: I'm a home grown American citizen, 53, registered Democrat all my life. Before the last presidential election I registered as a Republican because I no longer felt the Democratic Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. Now I no longer feel the Republican Party represents my views or works to pursue issues important to me. The fact is I no longer feel any political party or representative in Washington represents my views or works to pursue the issues important to me. There must be someone. Please tell me who you are. Please stand up and tell me that you are there and that you're willing to fight for our Constitution as it was written. Please stand up now. You might ask yourself what my views and issues are that I would horribly feel so disenfranchised by both major political parties. What kind of nut job am I? Will you please tell me?
Well, these are briefly my views and issues for which I seek representation:
One, illegal immigration. I want you to stop coddling illegal immigrants and secure our borders. Close the underground tunnels. Stop the violence and the trafficking in drugs and people. No amnesty, not again. Been there, done that, no resolution. P.S., I'm not a racist. This isn't to be confused with legal immigration.
| |
Two, the TARP bill, I want it repealed and I want no further funding supplied to it. We told you no, but you did it anyway. I want the remaining unfunded 95% repealed. Freeze, repeal.
Three: Czars, I want the circumvention of our checks and balances stopped immediately. Fire the czars. No more czars. Government officials answer to the process, not to the president. Stop trampling on our Constitution and honor it.
Four, cap and trade. The debate on global warming is not over. There is more to say.
Five, universal healthcare. I will not be rushed into another expensive decision. Don't you dare try to pass this in the middle of the night and then go on break. Slow down!
Six, growing government control. I want states rights and sovereignty fully restored. I want less government in my life, not more. Shrink it down. Mind your own business. You have enough to take care of with your real obligations. Why don't you start there.
Seven, ACORN. I do not want ACORN and its affiliates in charge of our 2010 census. I want them investigated. I also do not want mandatory escrow fees contributed to them every time on every real estate deal that closes. Stop the funding to ACORN and its affiliates pending impartial audits and investigations. I do not trust them with taking the census over with our taxpayer money. I don't trust them with our taxpayer money. Face up to the allegations against them and get it resolved before taxpayers get any more involved with them. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, hello. Stop protecting your political buddies. You work for us, the people. Investigate.
Eight, redistribution of wealth. No, no, no. I work for my money. It is mine. I have always worked for people with more money than I have because they gave me jobs. That is the only redistribution of wealth that I will support. I never got a job from a poor person. Why do you want me to hate my employers? Why ‑‑ what do you have against shareholders making a profit?
Nine, charitable contributions. Although I never got a job from a poor person, I have helped many in need. Charity belongs in our local communities, where we know our needs best and can use our local talent and our local resources. Butt out, please. We want to do it ourselves.
Ten, corporate bailouts. Knock it off. Sink or swim like the rest of us. If there are hard times ahead, we'll be better off just getting into it and letting the strong survive. Quick and painful. Have you ever ripped off a Band‑Aid? We will pull together. Great things happen in America under great hardship. Give us the chance to innovate. We cannot disappoint you more than you have disappointed us.
Eleven, transparency and accountability. How about it? No, really, how about it? Let's have it. Let's say we give the buzzwords a rest and have some straight honest talk. Please try ‑‑ please stop manipulating and trying to appease me with clever wording. I am not the idiot you obviously take me for. Stop sneaking around and meeting in back rooms making deals with your friends. It will only be a prelude to your criminal investigation. Stop hiding things from me.
Twelve, unprecedented quick spending. Stop it now.
Take a breath. Listen to the people. Let's just slow down and get some input from some nonpoliticians on the subject. Stop making everything an emergency. Stop speed reading our bills into law. I am not an activist. I am not a community organizer. Nor am I a terrorist, a militant or a violent person. I am a parent and a grandparent. I work. I'm busy. I'm busy. I am busy, and I am tired. I thought we elected competent people to take care of the business of government so that we could work, raise our families, pay our bills, have a little recreation, complain about taxes, endure our hardships, pursue our personal goals, cut our lawn, wash our cars on the weekends and be responsible contributing members of society and teach our children to be the same all while living in the home of the free and land of the brave.
I entrusted you with upholding the Constitution. I believed in the checks and balances to keep from getting far off course. What happened? You are very far off course. Do you really think I find humor in the hiring of a speed reader to unintelligently ramble all through a bill that you signed into law without knowing what it contained? I do not. It is a mockery of the responsibility I have entrusted to you. It is a slap in the face. I am not laughing at your arrogance. Why is it that I feel as if you would not trust me to make a single decision about my own life and how I would live it but you should expect that I should trust you with the debt that you have laid on all of us and our children. We did not want the TARP bill. We said no. We would repeal it if we could. I am sure that we still cannot. There is such urgency and recklessness in all of the recent spending.
From my perspective, it seems that all of you have gone insane. I also know that I am far from alone in these feelings. Do you honestly feel that your current pursuits have merit to patriotic Americans? We want it to stop. We want to put the brakes on everything that is being rushed by us and forced upon us. We want our voice back. You have forced us to put our lives on hold to straighten out the mess that you are making. We will have to give up our vacations, our time spent with our children, any relaxation time we may have had and money we cannot afford to spend on you to bring our concerns to Washington. Our president often knows all the right buzzword is unsustainable. Well, no kidding. How many tens of thousands of dollars did the focus group cost to come up with that word? We don't want your overpriced words. Stop treating us like we're morons.
We want all of you to stop focusing on your reelection and do the job we want done, not the job you want done or the job your party wants done. You work for us and at this rate I guarantee you not for long because we are coming. We will be heard and we will be represented. You think we're so busy with our lives that we will never come for you? We are the formerly silent majority, all of us who quietly work , pay taxes, obey the law, vote, save money, keep our noses to the grindstone and we are now looking up at you. You have awakened us, the patriotic spirit so strong and so powerful that it had been sleeping too long. You have pushed us too far. Our numbers are great. They may surprise you. For every one of us who will be there, there will be hundreds more that could not come. Unlike you, we have their trust. We will represent them honestly, rest assured. They will be at the polls on voting day to usher you out of office. We have cancelled vacations. We will use our last few dollars saved. We will find the representation among us and a grassroots campaign will flourish. We didn't ask for this fight. But the gloves are coming off. We do not come in violence, but we are angry. You will represent us or you will be replaced with someone who will. There are candidates among us when hewill rise like a Phoenix from the ashes that you have made of our constitution.
Democrat, Republican, independent, libertarian. Understand this. We don't care. Political parties are meaningless to us. Patriotic Americans are willing to do right by us and our Constitution and that is all that matters to us now. We are going to fire all of you who abuse power and seek more. It is not your power. It is ours and we want it back. We entrusted you with it and you abused it. You are dishonorable. You are dishonest. As Americans we are ashamed of you. You have brought shame to us. If you are not representing the wants and needs of your constituency loudly and consistently, in spite of the objections of your party, you will be fired. Did you hear? We no longer care about your political parties. You need to be loyal to us, not to them. Because we will get you fired and they will not save you. If you do or can represent me, my issues, my views, please stand up. Make your identity known. You need to make some noise about it. Speak up. I need to know who you are. If you do not speak up, you will be herded out with the rest of the sheep and we will replace the whole damn congress if need be one by one. We are coming. Are we coming for you? Who do you represent? What do you represent? Listen. Because we are coming. We the people are coming.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Sabbath and Hobbies
My wife and I made some decisions at the beginning of this year that were stimulated by getting a vision for the year for her and I. Since I believe God has a specific plan for each of us, He will show us each year a vision or understanding of what He wants for us in the coming year. We felt like He was telling us to be more intentional about taking sabbaths in order to rest and recover so we began to take a weekend every month or two and just getting away. We also specifically planned a week away on vacation to relax and recharge. Being intentional about this has really paid off. We are indeed more rested and less stressed. We are finding time for each other more than we have for several years.
I also picked up an old hobby and am in the process of dusting it off and regularly participating in it again. That hobby is flying. I have my pilots license but hadn't flown for 15 years, until last Saturday. I went up for a little over an hour--in rough, turbulent air, with a crosswind on landing--and it was a blast. I remembered why I picked it up in the first place. The instructor actually expected me to land the plane after our initial landing. So I flew around for awhile and couldn't do much because of the turbulence so we went back to the airport for 'touch and go's'. It really was like riding a bike. After the first landing in which he showed me the ropes again, he allowed me to land 3 more times in a gusty crosswind. It was great! I have my medical today and will continue with an instructor til he AND I are comfortable turning me loose. I'll then take my biennial flight review and be off and flying again on my own!
I say both of these things as an encouragement to you to find time for yourselves. Work is fine and can be a stress reliever to a degree but you have to purposefully take time off to recover and find something relaxing and fun to do in order to recharge. I know I'm much better because of it!
I also picked up an old hobby and am in the process of dusting it off and regularly participating in it again. That hobby is flying. I have my pilots license but hadn't flown for 15 years, until last Saturday. I went up for a little over an hour--in rough, turbulent air, with a crosswind on landing--and it was a blast. I remembered why I picked it up in the first place. The instructor actually expected me to land the plane after our initial landing. So I flew around for awhile and couldn't do much because of the turbulence so we went back to the airport for 'touch and go's'. It really was like riding a bike. After the first landing in which he showed me the ropes again, he allowed me to land 3 more times in a gusty crosswind. It was great! I have my medical today and will continue with an instructor til he AND I are comfortable turning me loose. I'll then take my biennial flight review and be off and flying again on my own!
I say both of these things as an encouragement to you to find time for yourselves. Work is fine and can be a stress reliever to a degree but you have to purposefully take time off to recover and find something relaxing and fun to do in order to recharge. I know I'm much better because of it!
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Divorce Agreement
Sent to me from a friend--very interesting!
DIVORCE AGREEMENT
THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.
American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood ..
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us..
You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.
P. S. S.
And we won't have to press 1 for English.
DIVORCE AGREEMENT
THIS IS SO INCREDIBLY WELL PUT AND I CAN HARDLY BELIEVE IT'S BY A YOUNG PERSON, A STUDENT!!! WHATEVER HE RUNS FOR, I'LL VOTE FOR HIM.
American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters, et al:
We have stuck together since the late 1950's, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and will not ever agree on what is right so let's just end it on friendly terms. We can smile and chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and go our own way.
Here is a model separation agreement:
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by landmass each taking a portion. That will be the difficult part, but I am sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy! Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate tastes.
We don't like redistributive taxes so you can keep them. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. Since you hate guns and war, we'll take our firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military.
You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell (You are, however, responsible for finding a bio-diesel vehicle big enough to move all three of them).
We'll keep the capitalism, greedy corporations, pharmaceutical companies, Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have your beloved homeless, homeboys, hippies and illegal aliens. We'll keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, greedy CEO's and rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and give you NBC and Hollywood ..
You can make nice with Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer places that threaten us..
You can have the peaceniks and war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we'll help provide them security.
We'll keep our Judeo-Christian values.. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley McClain. You can also have the U.N.. but we will no longer be paying the bill.
We'll keep the SUVs, pickup trucks and oversized luxury cars. You can take every Subaru station wagon you can find.
You can give everyone healthcare if you can find any practicing doctors. We'll continue to believe healthcare is a luxury and not a right.
We'll keep The Battle Hymn of the Republic and the National Anthem. I'm sure you'll be happy to substitute Imagine, I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing, Kum Ba Ya or We Are the World.
We'll practice trickle down economics and you can give trickle up poverty your best shot. Since it often so offends you, we'll keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along to other like minded liberal and conservative patriots and if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the spirit of friendly parting, I'll bet you Answer which one of us will need whose help in 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J. Wall
Law Student and an American
P.S. Also, please take Ted Turner, Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, & Jane Fonda with you.
P. S. S.
And we won't have to press 1 for English.
Friday, June 05, 2009
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Your taxes are going up again!
If you get health insurance from your employer, it appears that your going to start paying taxes on that benefit. The very thing that Candidate Obama criticized Sen McCain for, he is about to do. The lie continues to grow--you won't pay more taxes if you make less than $250k--wanna bet!
Monday, June 01, 2009
Bailouts and bankruptcy
How much money would the US have saved if GM and Chrysler had been allowed to go through limited bankruptcy like many Republicans advocated prior to the bailouts? Billions perhaps? Whatever!
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Partial Birth Abortion doc killed in church today.
Dr. George Tiller was killed while at church today in Wichita Kansas . He is one of a few docs who performed the barbaric partial birth abortion procedure. I will be the first to say that this was murder pure and simple and the killer is as guilty for taking a life as I believe Dr. Tiller was. The murderer of Dr. Tiller should face rapid and just punishment and shoul remind all of us who are anti-partial birth abortion that carrying out vigilente justice is not what God has called us to. It is a shame that someone would take being the judge and jury and executioner into their own hands. That was wrong, plain and simple! God have mercy on Dr. Tiller and his murderer.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
It has begun...
...Vice President Joe Biden told us that within 6 months the world would challenge President Obama. It has begun. North Korea is exploding nuclear warheads underground and firing missiles out over the Pacific. They have now voided the 1953 peace treaty ending the Korean war. Iran has sent a fleet of ships into international waters and continues to expand it's nuclear program. Former allies are pulling back from their support for our nations. China is growing stronger financially and militarily.
Do you really think....no I won't even say it. God help us!
Do you really think....no I won't even say it. God help us!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
