Saturday, June 20, 2009

Health Care Nightmare Coming to a Hospital Near You

The Health Care plan being put forth by the administration is currently up for debate and as Christians, we need to be in prayer that the right kind of plan is presented that will be fair for all people and will not further bankrupt our nation, which is where we certainly are headed with all the current spending that is going on...we are certinaly seeing this nation being brought to her knees through financial mismanagement that will usher in the age of the ant-Christ, which I believe will occur very soon...the following article shows us exactly how corrupt and morally bankrupt we truly are...May God have mercy...

The Obamacare horror story you won't hear

Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/19/2009 7:20:00 AM

The White House, Democrats and MoveOn liberals are spreading healthcare sob stories to sell a government takeover. But there's one healthcare policy nightmare you won't hear the Obamas hyping. It's a tale of poor minority patient-dumping in Chicago -- with first lady Michelle Obama's fingerprints all over it.
Both Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa and Democratic Rep. Bobby Rush of Illinois have raised red flags about the outsourcing program run by the University of Chicago Medical Center. The hospital has nonprofit status and receives lucrative tax breaks in exchange for providing charity care.
Yet, in fiscal year 2007, when Mrs. Obama was employed there, it spent a measly $10 million on charity care for the poor -- 1.3 percent of its total hospital expenses, according to an analysis performed for The Washington Post by the nonpartisan Center for Tax and Budget Accountability. The figure is below the 2.1 percent average for nonprofit hospitals in surrounding Cook County.
Rep. Rush called for a House investigation last week in response to months of patient-dumping complaints, noting: "Congress has a duty to expend its power to mitigate and prevent this despicable practice from continuing in centers that receive federal funds."
Don't expect the president to support a probe. While a top executive at the hospital, Mrs. Obama helped engineer the plan to offload low-income patients with non-urgent health needs. Under the Orwellian banner of an "Urban Health Initiative," Mrs. Obama sold the scheme to outsource low-income care to other facilities as a way to "dramatically improve healthcare for thousands of South Side residents."
In truth, it was old-fashioned cost-cutting and favor-trading repackaged as minority aid. Clearing out the poor freed up room for insured (i.e., more lucrative) patients. If a Republican had proposed the very same program and recruited black civic leaders to front it, Michelle Obama and her grievance-mongering friends would be screaming "RAAAAAAAAACISM!" at the top of their lungs.
Joe Stephens of The Washington Post wrote, "To ensure community support, Michelle Obama and others in late 2006 recommended that the hospital hire the firm of David Axelrod, who a few months later became the chief strategist for Barack Obama's presidential campaign. Axelrod's firm (ASK Public Strategies) recommended an aggressive promotional effort modeled on a political campaign -- appoint a campaign manager, conduct focus groups, target messages to specific constituencies, then recruit religious leaders and other third-party 'validators.' They, in turn, would write and submit opinion pieces to Chicago publications."
Some healthcare experts saw through Mrs. Obama and PR man Axelrod -- yes, the same Axelrod who is now President Obama's senior adviser. But the University of Chicago Medical Center hired ASK Public Strategies to promote Mrs. Obama's initiative. Axelrod had the blessing of Chicago political guru Valerie Jarrett -- now a White House senior adviser.
Axelrod's great contribution: re-branding! His firm recommended renaming the initiative after "internal and external respondents expressed the opinion that the word 'urban' is code for 'black' or 'black and poor.' ...Based on the research, consideration should be given to re-branding the initiative." Axelrod and the Obama campaign refused to disclose how much his firm received for its genius re-branding services.
In February 2009, outrage in the Obamas' community exploded upon learning that a young boy covered by Medicaid had been turned away from the University of Chicago Medical Center. Dontae Adams' mother, Angela, had sought emergency treatment for him after a pit bull tore off his upper lip. Mrs. Obama's hospital gave the boy a tetanus shot, antibiotics and Tylenol, and shoved him out the door. The mother and son took an hour-long bus ride to another hospital for surgery.
I'll guarantee you this: You'll never see the Adams family featured at an Obama policy summit or seated next to the first lady at a joint session of Congress to illustrate the failures of the healthcare system.
Following the Adams incident, the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) blasted Mrs. Obama and Axelrod's grand plan. The group released a statement expressing "grave concerns that the University of Chicago's policy toward emergency patients is dangerously close to 'patient dumping,' a practice made illegal by the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA)" -- signed by President Reagan, by the way -- "and reflected an effort to 'cherry pick' wealthy patients over poor."
Rewarding political cronies at the expense of the poor while posing as guardians of the downtrodden? Welcome to Obamacare.


Wednesday, June 10, 2009

A Quick Glance at Government Run Health Care...

Good Morning...

Many are wondering what Government Run Health Care will look like...the following is an analysis of the Bills making their way through Congress with the Senate version being compared to the House version and a summary at the end...Educate yourself!

Understanding the House Democrats’ health care bill
Posted Tuesday, June 9th, 2009, at 10:30 am

Yesterday I posted and described the draft Kennedy-Dodd health care bill. Today I would like to do the same for an outline produced by House Democrats.

Here is a three-page outline of “Key Features of the Tri-Committee Health Reform Draft Proposal in the House of Representatives,” dated yesterday (June 8, 2009).

The three committees are:

The House Ways & Means Committee, chaired by Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Pete Stark (D-CA).
The House Energy & Commerce Committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA). The Health Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ).
The House Committee on Education & Labor, chaired by Rep. George Miller (D-CA). The Health, Employment, Labor and Pensions Subcommittee is chaired by Rep. Robert Andrews (D-NJ).
The document suggests this is a joint product of the three committees and/or their subcommittees. My sense, however, is that it is Speaker Pelosi who is driving the bus. This is in contrast to the Senate, where the committee chairmen (Kennedy/Dodd and Baucus) appear to have the pen, in less well-coordinated efforts.

Kennedy-Dodd and the House bill outline are remarkably similar. Whether this represents House-Senate coordination or parallel thought processes is unclear.

I think the easiest way for me to present the House bill outline is in comparison with the Kennedy-Dodd bill. So here my description from yesterday of the Kennedy-Dodd bill, with today’s comparison to the House bill outline in red. I hope it’s comprehensible and useful this way. If you read yesterday’s post, you can skim the text in black and focus on the new text in blue.

Here are 15 things to know about the draft Kennedy-Dodd health bill and the House bill outline.

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would create an individual mandate requiring you to buy a “qualified” health insurance plan, as defined by the government. If you don’t have “qualified” health insurance for a given month, you will pay a new Federal tax. Incredibly, the amount and structure of this new tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and Health and Human Services (HHS), whose only guidance is “to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).” The new Medical Advisory Council (see #3D) could exempt classes of people from this new tax. To avoid this tax, you would have to report your health insurance information for each month of the prior year to the Secretary of HHS, along with “any such other information as the Secretary may prescribe.”
The House bill also contains an individual mandate. The outline is less specific but parallel: “Once market reforms and affordability credits are in effect to ensure access and affordability, individuals are responsible for having health insurance with an exception in cases of hardship.”

The Kennedy-Dodd bill would also create an employer mandate. Employers would have to offer insurance to their employees. Employers would have to pay at least a certain percentage (TBD) of the premium, and at least a certain dollar amount (TBD). Any employer that did not would pay a new tax. Again, the amount and structure of the tax is left to the discretion of the Secretaries of Treasury and HHS. Small employers (TBD) would be exempt.
The House bill outline also contains an employer mandate that appears to parallel that in Kennedy-Dodd: “Employers choose between providing coverage for their workers or contributing funds on behalf of their uncovered workers.”

In the Kennedy-Dodd bill, the government would define a qualified plan:
All health insurance would be required to have guaranteed issue and renewal, modified community rating, no exclusions for pre-existing conditions, no lifetime or annual limits on benefits, and family policies would have to cover “children” up to age 26.
The House bill outline is consistent with but less specific than the Kennedy-Dodd legislative language. The House bill outline would “prohibit insurers from excluding pre-existing conditions or engaging in other discriminatory practices.” I will keep my eye on what “other discriminatory practices” means in the legislative language. Does that mean that a health plan cannot charge higher premiums to smokers?

Like the Kennedy/Dodd bill, the House bill outline would preclude health plans from imposing lifetime or annual limits on benefits: “Caps total out-of-pocket spending in all new policies to prevent bankruptcies from medical expenses.” This would raise premiums for new policies.

The House bill outline “introduces administrative simplification and standardization to reduce administrative costs across all plans and providers.” I don’t know what this means, but suggest keeping an eye on it.

A qualified plan would have to meet one of three levels of standardized cost-sharing defined by the government, “gold, silver, and bronze.” Details TBD.
Same: “… by creating various levels of standardized benefits and cost-sharing arrangements…”. It also contains this addition relative to Kennedy-Dodd: “… with additional benefits available in higher-cost plans.”

But note the “various levels of standardized benefits.” This appears to be more expansive government control of health plan design than in the Kennedy-Dodd draft.

Plans would be required to cover a list of preventive services approved by the Federal government.
This is unspecified in the House bill outline. We’ll have to wait to see legislative language. The House bill would require plans to “waive cost-sharing for preventive services in benefit packages.”

A qualified plan would have to cover “essential health benefits,” as defined by a new Medical Advisory Council (MAC), appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. The MAC would determine what items and services are “essential benefits.” The MAC would have to include items and services in at least the following categories: ambulatory patient services, emergency services, hospitalization, maternity and new born care, medical and surgical, mental health, prescription drugs, rehab and lab services, preventive/wellness services, pediatric services, and anything else the MAC thought appropriate.
This appears parallel but is less specific for now: “Independent public/private advisory committee recommends benefit packages based on standards set in statute.” I find the “standards set in statute” interesting. It suggests that provider and disease interest groups will have two fora in which to lobby for their benefits to be mandated: Congress, and the advisory committee.

The MAC would also define what “affordable and available coverage” is for different income levels, affecting who has to pay the tax if they don’t buy health insurance. The MAC’s rules would go into effect unless Congress passed a joint resolution (under a fast-track process) to turn them off.
The House bill outline is silent on this.

Health insurance plans could not charge higher premiums for risky behaviors: “Such rate shall not vary by health status-related factors, … or any other factor not described in paragraph (1).” Smokers, drinkers, drug users, and those in terrible physical shape would all have their premiums subsidized by the healthy.
The House bill outline says it would “prohibit plans [from] rating (charging higher premiums) based on gender, health status, or occupation and strictly limits premium variation based on age.” If the bill were to provide nothing more, this would appear to parallel the Senate bill and preclude plans from charging higher premiums for risky behaviors.

Guaranteed issue and renewal combined with modified community rating would dramatically increase premiums for the overwhelming majority of those Americans who now have private health insurance. New Jersey is the best example of health insurance mandates gone wild. In the name of protecting their citizens, premiums are extremely high to cover the cross-subsidization of those who are uninsurable.
The House bill outline is silent on guaranteed issue and renewal. I’m going to make an educated guess that the bill includes these provisions as part of “other discriminatory practices,” and they have just left them out of the outline. Given the philosophy behind this outline (with which I disagree), it would be a striking omission. But for now, the outline says nothing specific on these topics.

The bill would expand Medicaid to cover everyone up to 150% of poverty, with the Federal government paying all incremental costs (no State share). This means adding childless adults with income below 150% of the poverty line.
The House bill outline “expands Medicaid for the most vulnerable, low-income populations,” so we have no specifics other than that there’s an expansion. I cannot tell if this is expanding eligibility or benefits. The outline also “improves payment rates to enhance access to primary care under Medicaid.” I assume this means the bill would expand the Federal share paid of each dollar spent by a State Medicaid program on primary care, rather than the Federal government actually mandating specific payment rates to be implemented by States. Federal micromanagement of specific Medicaid provider payment rates was eliminated in the mid 1990’s.

People from 150% of poverty up to 500% (!!) would get their health insurance subsidized (on a sliding scale). If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $110,000 would get a small subsidy. The bill does not indicate the source of funds to finance these subsidies.
The House bill outline has a sliding scale up to 400% of poverty. If this were in effect in 2009, a family of four with income of $88,000 would get small subsidy.

People in high cost areas (e.g., New York City, Boston, South Florida, Chicago, Los Angeles) would get much bigger subsidies than those in low cost areas (e.g., much of the rest of the country, especially in rural areas). The subsidies are calculated as a percentage of the “reference premium,” which is determined based on the cost of plans sold in that particular geographic area.
The House bill outline is not specific on this point. I would not expect it to be – this is something you can tell only from legislative language.

There would be a “public plan option” of health insurance offered by the federal government. In this new government health plan, the federal government would pay health care providers Medicare rates + 10%. The +10% is clearly intended to attract short-term legislative support from medical providers. I hope they are not so naive that they think that differential would last.
The House bill outline “creates a new public health insurance within the Exchange … the public health insurance option competes on ‘level field’ with private insurers in the Exchange.” There are no specifics on how the public plan would work, or on provider payment rates.

Group health plans with 250 or fewer members would be prohibited from self-insuring. ERISA would only be for big businesses.
The House bill outline is silent on this point.

States would have to set up “gateways” (health insurance exchanges) to market only qualified health insurance plans. If they don’t, the Feds will set up a gateway for them.
The House calls it an Exchange rather than a Gateway. While the Senate bill would tell each State, “Create a Gateway or we’ll create one for you,” the House bill outline says to each State, “We’re creating a single new national Exchange. You’re in it unless you develop your own State or Regional Exchange.”

Health insurance plans in existence before the law would not have to meet the new insurance standards. This creates a weird bifurcated system and means you would (probably) be subject to a different set of rules when you change jobs.
The House bill outline appears to parallel the Kennedy-Dodd draft: “Phases-in requirements to benefit and quality standards for employer plans.” This means that new plans will be more expensive than old plans. It also means they’re creating a bifurcated system with all sorts of perverse unintended consequences for employment flexibility.

The bill does not specify what spending will be cut or what taxes will be raised to pay for the increased spending. That is presumably for the Finance Committee to determine, since it’s their jurisdiction.
The House bill outline lists specific topics for changes to Medicare reimbursement:

Changing (how?) the Medicare reimbursement for doctors, called the “Sustainable Growth Rate” (SGR).
“Increasing reimbursement for primary care providers”
“Improving” the Medicare drug program. I won’t be surprised if, when I see the specifics, I disagree that their changes are “improvements.” In the past this has meant having the federal government mandate specific prices for drugs.
Cutting payments to Medicare Advantage plans.
Expanding low-income subsidies for seniors and eliminating cost-sharing for all preventive services in Medicare.

The House bill outline also uses positive language to describe things that might generate budgetary savings from Medicare and/or Medicaid. The hospital readmissions point is specific. The first two points could increase or decrease federal spending, depending on the specifics.

“Use federal health programs … to reward high quality, efficient care, and reduce disparities.”
“Adopt innovative payment approaches and promote[s] better coordinated care in Medicare and the new public option through programs such as accountable care organizations.”
“Attack the high rate of cost growth to generate savings for reform and fiscal sustainability, including a program in Medicare to reduce preventable hospital readmissions.”

The bill defines an “eligible individual” as “a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully admitted to the United States for permanent residence or an alien lawfully present in the United States.”
The House bill outline is silent on this point.

The bill would create a new pot of money for state gateways to pay “navigators” to educate people about the new bill, distribute information about health plans, and help people enroll. Navigators receiving federal funds “may include … unions, …”
The House bill outline is silent on this point.

This would have severe effects on the more than 100 million Americans who have private health insurance today:

The government would mandate not only that you must buy health insurance, but what health insurance counts as “qualifying.”
Health insurance premiums would rise as a result of the law, meaning lower wages.
A government-appointed board would determine what items and services are “essential benefits” that your qualifying plan must cover.
You would find a tremendous new disincentive to switch jobs, because your new health insurance may be subject to the new rules and would therefore be significantly more expensive.
Those who keep themselves healthy would be subsidizing premiums for those with risky or unhealthy behaviors.
Far more than half of all Americans would be eligible for subsidies, but we have not yet been told who would pay the bill.
The Secretaries of Treasury and HHS would have unlimited discretion to impose new taxes on individuals and employers who do not comply with the new mandates. (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)
The Secretary of HHS could mandate that you provide him or her with “any such other information as [he/she] may prescribe.” (The House bill outline is not specific on this point.)
I strongly oppose the Kennedy-Dodd bill and the House Tri-Committee bill.

If this topic interests you, I highly recommend Jim Capretta’s blog Diagnosis.

Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Jesus is Coming...Soon!

In recent days, the so-called religious left have increased their chatter about how people who believe in end-times prophecies are a real danger to peace in this world. The following article reveals to just what extent this is going on and shows us just how close we are to the coming of the King!

Excerpts from

Brian McLaren wants end-time believing Christians "robustly" confronted

May 4, 2009

Source article: HERE

of previous reports from Lighthouse-Trails


"[B]eloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour: Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming?" II Peter 3:1-4
If you are a Christian who believes that the Bible is God's inspired Word and believe that Jesus Christ will be coming again, you are being marginalized. And you might not even know it. It may surprise you to know where this marginalization is coming from. We're not speaking of the world today . . . we are talking about people who say they are Christians and who happen to be very influential. In fact, one of them, Rick Warren, was just named by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the entire world.1
In an April 2009 article in Sojourner's magazine by emerging church leader, Brian McLaren, McLaren clearly has targeted Christians. But not just any Christians. McLaren is talking about Christians who believe Jesus Christ is coming back again, suggesting that these type of Christians are the reason there is no peace in the Middle East. He says what these end-time believing Christians are doing is "terrible," "deadly," and "distorted."
McLaren says that he grew up with a dispensational view (the belief that Jesus Christ will return and establish his kingdom on earth) but has come to realize this view is "morally and ethically harmful." He likens this belief system to racism in the 50s and 60s and says:
"These doctrinal formulations often use a bogus end-of-the-world scenario to create a kind of death-wish for World War III, which -- unless it is confronted more robustly by the rest of us--could too easily create a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Anyone who is familiar with the writings of occultist Alice Bailey or New Age author and futurist Barbara Marx Hubbard knows that they believe this very thing. In fact, McLaren is sounding more and more like them all the time, and his article in Sojourners is further proof of that.
It isn't just Bible-believing Christians who McLaren is upset with - he's also angry about Israel and the very idea that she is a special nation in the eyes of God. This is why he names Christian Zionists and Dispensationalists in particularly, because they tend to be two groups who hold fast to the belief that Israel is indeed a special nation to the Lord.
It is ironic that just a week ago, the House of Representatives passed the HR1913 hate crimes bill, which is supposed to deter hateful behavior toward others. Here, McLaren, who was chosen to be an advisor to Obama (a strong proponent of hate crime legislation), is speaking so hatefully about those who hold to biblical beliefs saying they must be robustly confronted by "the rest of us" [all human beings except the biblical ones].
Others have joined McLaren in this effort to silence and marginalize biblical Christians. Rick Warren's chief apologist (and we were told, a staff member at Saddleback) recently posted an article on the Internet that said ministries that defend the faith (he referenced Lighthouse Trails) were like mentally unstable cultists, "who are not normal people, average complainers, critics and typical dissidents who are generally unhappy about life itself . . . they are deadly." (Please contact Saddleback Church if you wish to verify this: (949) 609-8000.)
Tony Campolo, in his book Speaking My Mind, says that "'rigid' Christians who believe in the possibility of Jesus' soon return" are "the real problem for the whole world." According to Campolo, they are to blame for wars, and a host of other evils in the world. This is what Alice Bailey and Barbara Marx Hubbard believe--and their obvious hostility towards believers shouts out from the pages of their writings.
There are others too who speak in derogatory language about Christians who believe Titus 2:13, which is: "Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ." In Mark Driscoll's book Vintage Jesus, he ridicules Christians who believe there will be an Armageddon and a rapture (pp. 44, 157).
Perhaps one of the more serious attacks on Christians waiting for Christ's return (serious primarily because of his huge influence) comes from Rick Warren where he states in The Purpose Driven Life that those who study Bible prophecy are not fit for the kingdom of God. Most readers may have missed this because of the way the passage is organized, but if one studies this carefully, with a Bible by their side, it is not difficult to see. Roger Oakland explains:
"Warren tells readers to think about something other than Bible prophecy: 'If you want Jesus to come back sooner, focus on fulfilling your mission, not figuring out prophecy.'
"Warren ends this section of his book by stating that Satan would have you 'sidetracked from your mission' and by quoting Jesus out of context, Warren says, 'Anyone who lets himself be distracted [by studying Bible prophecy] from the work I plan for him is not fit for the kingdom of God' (Living Bible). But Jesus was not referring to His return when He made that statement, which in the King James Version says: 'No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God' (Luke 9:62). The Purpose Driven kingdom of God leaves no room for Bible prophecy, and in fact, condemns those who study it. The apostle Peter, inspired by the Holy Spirit, had a different view. He writes:
'We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts.' (II Peter 1:19)
"Christians are called to witness and be watchmen. No Scripture exists that tells us to ignore the events that have been pointed out as signposts indicating the return of Jesus. If we do, we might be like the foolish virgins who fell asleep waiting for the bridegroom" (Matthew 25:1-13).(from Faith Undone, pp. 154-157
In Warren Smith's book, Reinventing Jesus Christ, Smith discusses something Barbara Marx Hubbard calls the Selection Process. This is a process that New Agers believe in which Armageddon will only have to happen if those who believe in it (biblical Christians) remain on the earth for thus there would be a self-fulfilling prophecy. She believes, as does Alice Bailey (the woman who coined the term New Age), that the world cannot evolve, and there cannot be peace until it is rid of these kind of people. If it is, then there can be what is termed an Alternative to Armageddon. Sound far-fetched? Just keep in mind that Barbara Marx Hubbard is a respected author -- in fact, she was instrumental in the early stages of what is now the lobbying group for the soon-to-be Department of Peace that over 60 Congressmen are supporting.
We believe that this effort to put labels like cultist on believers will only grow. Another example is emerging church writer Thomas Hohstadt, who asked in a recent article: "How Do We Know We Are Not in a Cult?" He answered this question by basically saying that you are a cult if you believe you have all the answers and if you believe truth can be contained or absolutely defined. You see, in emerging spirituality doubt and uncertainty are exalted, and the opposite "virtues,"--certainty and faith -- are condemned. Incredible as it seems, those who stand on the Word of God will, in the end, be called evil, deadly, and cultish.
The growing hostility against Bible-believing Christians continues. And yet, in Matthew 24:6, Jesus comforts us with these words:
"[S]ee that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet."
Let us remember and take heed to the words Jesus told his disciples:
"I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work" (John 9:4). As believers we will stand for the truth, but we will continue to love those who persecute. We are inspired by the many saints who have gone before and courageously, by His grace and strength, stood. "Therefore, brethren, stand fast." (II Thessalonians 2:15)


Source article:"


From The Family Research Council:

President Obama, fresh from a government takeover of General Motors, now has his sights set on your medical coverage. On Saturday, he told Congress it was "time to deliver" on his massive health care overhaul. One version of the President's plan, crafted by Sen. Ted Kennedy's (D-Mass.) Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, was circulated throughout the Hill on Friday. In it, all Americans are guaranteed some form of basic health care, and employers are ordered to provide coverage--or else. Of course the biggest hiccup is that Kennedy's committee has no idea how Congress would pay for such a plan, particularly since the U.S. is already borrowing almost 50 cents for every dollar it spends.

FRC's chief complaint with ObamaCare, apart from the trillions it would cost, is that this plan would force taxpayers to provide abortion coverage for the first time in U.S. history. When I met with a series of Senators last week, they too were concerned that the President wants to make "reproductive health care," including abortion, an essential part of his government-controlled system.

While the administration would force you to pay for abortions, it also leaves relatively no options for those faced with having to perform or promote them. The current plan lacks any clear conscience protections for medical workers, leaving the health care field exposed to even greater attacks. If the bill refuses to address the freedom of conscience, more of our doctors, nurses, and pharmacists will be forced to choose between their convictions and their careers.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Double Standards

Good Morning...The way that people are treated in this country by our news media and even the current administration is and for sometime now has been one of double has been really brought home by the recent treatmenst of the killer of Dr. George Tiller and the killer of the Army recruiters in Arkansas in the very next day...the following is an article by Michelle Malkin that makes for an interesting read:

Climate of hate, world of double standards

Michelle Malkin - Syndicated Columnist - 6/3/2009 10:05:00 AM
When a right-wing Christian vigilante kills, millions of fingers pull the trigger. When a left-wing Muslim vigilante kills, he kills alone. These are the instantly ossifying narratives in the Sunday shooting death of late-term abortion provider George Tiller of Kansas versus the Monday shootings of two Arkansas military recruiters.
Tiller's suspected murderer, Scott Roeder, is white, Christian, anti-government and anti-abortion. The gunman in the military recruitment center attack, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad, is black, a Muslim convert, anti-military and anti-American.
Both crimes are despicable, cowardly acts of domestic terrorism. But the disparate treatment of the two brutal cases by both the White House and the media is striking.
President Obama issued a statement condemning "heinous acts of violence" within hours of Tiller's death. The Justice Department issued its own statement and sent federal marshals to protect abortion clinics. News anchors and headline writers abandoned all qualms about labeling the gunman a terrorist. An almost gleeful excess of mainstream commentary poured forth on the climate of hate and fear created by conservative talk radio, blogs, and Fox News in reporting Tiller's activities.
By contrast, Obama was silent about the military recruiter attacks that left 24-year-old Pvt. William Long dead and 18-year-old Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula gravely wounded. On Tuesday afternoon -- more than 24 hours after the attack on the military recruitment center in Little Rock, Ark. -- Obama held a press conference to announce his pick for Army secretary. It would have been exactly the right moment to express condolences for the families of the targeted Army recruiters and to condemn heinous acts of violence against our troops.
But Obama said nothing. The Justice Department was mum. And so were the legions of finger-pointing pundits happily convicting the pro-life movement and every right-leaning writer on the planet of contributing to the murder of Tiller. Obama's omission, it should be noted, comes just a few weeks after he failed to mention the Bronx jihadi plot to bomb synagogues and a National Guard airbase during his speech on homeland security.
Why the silence? Politically and religiously motivated violence, it seems, is only worth lamenting when it demonizes opponents. Which also helps explain why the phrase "lone shooter" is ubiquitous in media coverage of jihadi shooters gone wild -- think convicted "Jeep Jihadist" Mohammed Taheri-Azar at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill or Israel-bashing gunman Naveed Haq, who targeted a Seattle Jewish charity or Los Angeles International Airport shooter Hesham Hedayet, who opened fire at the El Al Israeli airline ticket counter -- but not in cases involving rare acts of anti-abortion violence.
Even Jeffrey Goldberg of the left-leaning Atlantic magazine noticed the double standards. He called attention to a National Public Radio report on the military recruiter attack that failed to mention the religion and anti-military animus of the suspect. Wrote Goldberg: "Why not tell people what is actually happening in the world? We saw this a couple of weeks ago, when the press only gingerly acknowledged that the malevolent though incompetent suspects in the synagogue bombing-conspiracy case in New York were converts to Islam. How is the public served by this kind of silence? The extremist Christian beliefs of George Tiller's alleged murderer are certainly relevant to that case, and no one in my profession is hesitant to discuss them. Why the hesitancy to talk about the motivations of the man who allegedly killed Pvt. William Long?"
The truth is that the "climate of hate" doesn't have just one hemisphere. But you won't hear the Council on American-Islamic Relations acknowledging the national security risks of jihadi infiltrators who despise our military and have plotted against our troops from within the ranks -- including convicted fragging killer Hasan Akbar and terror plotters Ali Mohamed, Jeffrey Battle, and Semi Osman.
You won't hear about the escalating war on military recruitment centers on the op-ed pages of The New York Times -- from vandalism to obstruction to Molotov cocktail attacks on campus stations across the country; to the shutdown of a Pittsburgh military recruitment office by zealots holding signs that read "Recruiters are Child Predators"; to the prolonged harassment campaign against the Marine recruiting center in Berkeley, where Code Pink protesters called America soldiers assassins; to the bomb blast at the Times Square recruiting center last March.
And you'll certainly hear little about the most recent left-wing calls to violence by a Playboy magazine writer who published a vulgar list of conservative female writers and commentators he said he'd like to rape (the obscene slang word he used is not printable). The list was hyped by the magazine's publicity team and light-heartedly promoted by mainstream publications such as (founded by Washington Post reporters).
Is it too much to ask the media cartographers in charge of mapping the "climate of hate" to do their jobs with both eyes open?

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Dr. Tiller

Good Morning...

On Sunday morning, May 31, 2009, Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed in Kansas. You may be asking why is his murder, and yes, it was murder, is so note worthy. Dr. Tiller was one of a handful of doctors in this country who was willing to perform late-term abortions. He was indeed an evil man who personally killed untold numbers of human beings within the womb of their mothers. However, and let me be perfectly clear here, the murder of Dr. Tiller WAS WRONG! In any civilized society, we are forbidden from taking the law into our own hands. God has placed the civil authority in power as His instrument for the carrying out of justice. Even when that authority fails to bring about justice, even when that authority fails to protect the most innocent and helpless among us, we do not have the right to kill abortion doctors....
Last night I was watching some of the liberal talk shows on the liberal MSNBC network to see the reactions coming from them and without fail, they continued to talk about extremists Christians who continue to foment violence on doctors of abortion, clinics where abortions are performed and so forth in an effort to intimdate them into stopping their work. What bothered me the most is the thinking that we must kill in order to stop abortions, which some of the groups mentioned were I went to bed last night, the Lord would not let me sleep until this posting was formulated within my heart and mind...and here is that result:

If you are part of some group that believes that we must kill abortion doctors or bomb abortion clinics, STOP IT NOW! Do you not realize what damage you are doing to the cause of Jesus Christ? Do you not realize how many people will never give place to a hearing of the good news that Jesus saves because of what you are doing? On the one hand, there are multitudes of ministries who are trying to meet peoples needs and share that good news with them, but every time something like this happens, we are painted with the same brush...for every step forward we make, this action knocks us back several...and on the other hand, we have people who are mistakenly believing that they must meet the violence that occurs in the womb with killing and bombing...My mother used to always say, "Two wrongs do not make a right" and truer words were never spoken...I pray with all my heart that this land will be healed and turn to God before it is too late, but the only way that will happen is through Jesus Christ touching hearts and changing them, but without a hearing...that will not happen...

One of my favorite theologians is Dr. Al Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, who wrote a tremendous piece on this event:

A Wicked Deed in Wichita -- A Test for the Pro-Life Movement
Posted: Monday, June 01, 2009 at 3:58 am ET

The cold-blooded murder of Dr. George Tiller on Sunday morning presents the pro-life movement in America with a crucial moral test -- will we condemn this murder in unqualified terms?
For many years, Dr. George Tiller has represented the horrific reality of the abortion industry in this nation. Infamously known to the pro-life movement in America, Tiller was known as "Tiller the Killer" because of his well-known willingness to perform late-term abortions almost no other doctor in the nation would perform. Because of Dr. George Tiller, Wichita became the destination of choice for women seeking abortions in the late third trimester.
In 1993 Tiller was shot in both arms by an assailant. His clinic was regularly protested and was once bombed. Tiller had many brushes with the law, and just weeks ago he was acquitted of charges that he had colluded with another physician to illegally justify late-term abortions.
George Tiller was shot to death Sunday morning as he was serving as an usher at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita. Witnesses said that a lone assailant entered the church, shot Dr. Tiller with a single shot, threatened two others, and then fled the scene. A suspect was arrested hours later. Wichita police said that the unnamed suspect would likely face multiple charges as early as Monday.
Violence in response to the horror of abortion is rare, but not new. According to some news reports, Dr. Tiller was the fifth physician to be murdered by abortion opponents. In other cases, abortion clinics have been bombed and workers have been hurt or killed.
Proponents of abortion rights often charge that the rhetoric of the pro-life movement leads to violence. After all, we describe abortion as murder and point to the business of abortion as the murder of the unborn. We make clear that abortion is the taking of innocent human life and that what goes on in abortion clinics is the business of death.
We make these arguments because we know they are true. Abortion is murder. What goes on in those clinics is institutionalized homicide, often for financial profit. Abortion is a moral scandal and a national tragedy and a blight upon the American conscience.
But violence in the name of protesting abortion is immoral, unjustified, and horribly harmful to the pro-life cause. Now, the premeditated murder of Dr. George Tiller in the foyer of his church is the headline scandal -- not the abortions he performed and the cause he represented.
We have no right to take the law into our own hands in an act of criminal violence. We are not given the right to take this power into our own hands, for God has granted this power to governing authorities. The horror of abortion cannot be rightly confronted, much less corrected, by means of violence and acts outside the law and lawful means of remedy. This is not merely a legal technicality -- it is a vital test of the morality of the pro-life movement.
The Christian church has been forced by historical necessity to think through these issues again and again. The church has reached a basic moral consensus on issues of violence and governmental obedience, and this consensus requires that Christian citizens work within legal, judicial, and political means to persuade governing authorities concerning what is good, right, just, and honoring to God. Those who operate outside of this consensus and perform acts of violence are rightly understood to arrogate authority to themselves in a way that violates not only the laws of men but the law of God. Civil disobedience may be justified so long as the Christian is willing to suffer at the hands of the governing authorities, but is not justified if the citizen employs violence against the state or against other citizens.
In the case of Dr. George Tiller, the governing authorities failed again and again to fulfill their responsibility to protect all citizens, including those yet unborn. The law is dishonoring to God in its disrespect for human life. The law failed to bring George Tiller to account for what should have been seen as crimes against humanity. But this failure does not authorize others to act in the place of the government, much less in the place of God. The government must now act to prosecute and punish the murderer of Dr. George Tiller.
In October of 1859, John Brown led a violent attack upon the United States Arsenal at Harpers Ferry, Virginia. A radical abolitionist, Brown had already proved himself capable of violence for his cause. In 1856 he had led a gang that brutally killed several pro-slavery figures in Kansas. The raid on Harpers Ferry led to more deaths before Brown and his surviving rebels were arrested, charged with treason, and executed.
When John Brown was arrested, Henry David Thoreau defended the man and his violence, asking: "Is it not possible that an individual may be right and a government wrong? Are laws to be enforced simply because they were made? Or declared by any number of men to be good, if they are not good?"
Those are the very questions some are tempted to ask now, but these weighty questions cannot justify violence in the name of an honorable cause. Thoreau was right about the fact that the laws allowing slavery in the United States were immoral and unjustifiable. John Brown was right when he claimed that slavery was a blight upon the nation's conscience -- a wrong that had to be ended. Brown's logic led him to treason, and he was found guilty in a court of law and punished. Thoreau would refer to Brown as an "angel of light," but Thoreau never had to live with the consequences of his own attempt to justify murder, nor did he ever acknowledge the true character of the man.
The pro-life movement in America must not wage war against abortion by following the example of John Brown. Nor can we allow ourselves the luxury of the logic of defending the indefensible along the lines of Thoreau. We must confront this great evil of abortion from a higher plane, and know that the battle is ultimately in God's hands.
Murder is murder. The law rightly affirms that the killing of Dr. George Tiller is murder. In this we must agree. We cannot rest until the law also recognizes the killing of the unborn as murder. The killing of Dr. George Tiller makes that challenge all the more difficult.