Not only was our President not explaining videos while he was Congressmen in 2003 that he did support a single payer system see Video of Obama's response to whether or not he has supported a single payer health plan or not but his comparison of the public option to that of our US Post Office may not have been the best comparison to make considering the report made below just a couple of days after Obama said this.

Obamacare: The “Post Office” of Health Care Plans



At his orchestrated townhall event today, President Obama defended the notion that his government-run public health care plan wouldn’t crowd out private insurers by referencing the symbiotic relationship between UPS, Fedex and the Post Office. Bad timing Mr. President. On Friday, the New York Times Business Section actually called for the privatization of the post office amid staggering losses, and even said it was in “General Motors territory.” So while the President sells you on his “post office” of health care plans, here are some questions to consider:

1.) The U.S. Post Office is the only entity allowed by federal law to deliver first class mail to your mailbox. In fact, Fedex and UPS are strictly prohibited from delivering “non-urgent” letters. If the government can fairly compete and is setting fair rules, wouldn’t the post office be open to competition at your mailbox?

2.) If Americans were offered “free” postage paid for by massive government spending and tax hikes, would Fedex and UPS still exist?

3.) The Post Office is on track to lose a staggering $7 billion this year alone. How will a government-run health care plan manage taxpayer resources more efficiently?

4.) Postmaster General John Potter says he lacks the “tools” necessary to run the Post Office effectively like a business. Would a government-run health care system have the tools it needs to run as effectively as the private sector entities it is replacing?

5.) On the one hand, the President remarks how great his public health care plan will be. On the other hand, he notes it won’t be good enough to crowd out your private insurance, i.e. the Post Office comparison. So which is it Mr. President? Will it be so great that private insurance disappears or so awful that it isn’t worth creating in the first place?

6.) But the most important question is this: if you have an urgent piece of mail you need delivered, life or death, who are you going to call? Everyone saying the government…please raise your hands. (crickets)

The most frightening line from Joe Nocera’s New York Times piece is this: “As for Mr. Potter himself, while he may want more freedom to run the Postal Service like a real business, he, too, seemed surprisingly wedded to outmoded ideas about mail service in America. ‘This country needs to have and to protect universal service,’ he said.”

Protecting universal service at the expense of cost, innovation, and quality of care. Sound familiar?"

Share/Bookmark







AP explains exactly how abortions will be funded at tax payers expense via this health care bill as it stands thus far. Very informative article...

Gov't insurance would allow coverage for abortion

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR (AP)

August 5, 2009

The Associated Press

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 life 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. The dispute could come to a head with House and Senate floor votes on abortion this fall, a prospect that many lawmakers would like to avoid.

"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." The church can't accept a public plan that covers abortion, he said.

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."

But Senate staffers said Capps' compromise is unacceptable to Republican senators.

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.

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 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. However, a bipartisan group of Finance Committee senators is discussing the issue and may take a different approach.

As the House and Senate bills stand now, 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 voted down by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, the same panel that approved Capps' amendment. It's not likely to be the end of the story.

Aides to Reps. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., who sponsored the restrictive proposal that lost in committee, said the pair will press for a separate vote on abortion funding when the health care bill comes before the full House this fall.

Abortion opponents say private plans in the insurance exchange could be allowed to cover abortion, but only if it's offered under a separate, supplemental policy that individuals would have to buy on their own.

"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."

(This version CORRECTS that federal funds for abortions are now restricted to cases involving rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother instead of danger to the health of the mother.))

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved."

Share/Bookmark

Yesterday was posted these comments:

Quick Comments about some polls and articles over the weekend

First, President Obama's overall approval rating is at 47% which ties his worst ever performance and 52% disapprove but what is more telling is 41% strongly disapprove which is Obama's worst strong disapproval rating yet while only 32% strongly approve. Below is a poll on ObamaCare that 44% strongly disapprove and over all disapproval is 53%. There is currently some talk about possibly taking out the public option over the weekend see New York Times article titled ‘Public Option’ in Health Plan May Be Dropped . But for now it is just talk who knows really which way it will go."

To put the below articles conclusion first see below paragraph:

"If the language that comes out of the Senate looks anything like what Schumer is proposing, then there is no real difference between co-ops and the public plan. If, on the other hand, the Senate produces something that; 1) is not funded by the federal government 2) is not “government-run and government-controlled”; but instead 3) is “membership-run and membership controlled” then co-ops would be acceptable."

Now on to the article in its entirety from The Heritage Foundation. See below article....


Morning Bell: Public Option Is Not Dead Yet

The headlines are encouraging: The AP reports, “White House appears ready to drop ‘public option’.” Politico reads, “White House backs away from public health care option.” And the front page of USA Today says, “Obama may drop public option in health care.” These headers all stem from Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius’ comment on CNN Sunday Morning that the public option “is not the essential element” of President Barack Obama’s health care plan. But by Sunday night the White House was already walking back Sebelius’ statement.

An anonymous administration official told The Atlantic that Sebelius “misspoke” and White House health reform communications director Linda Douglass released a statement explaining: “Nothing has changed. The president has always said that what is essential is that health-insurance reform must lower costs, ensure that there are affordable options for all Americans and it must increase choice and competition in the health-insurance market. He believes the public option is the best way to achieve those goals.”

Obama’s allies on the left are equally emphatic about the non-death of the public option. Democracy for America head Howard Dean told the Washington Post, “I don’t think this bill is worth passing without a public option.” And Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, told CNN, “It would be very, very difficult [to pass Obama's plan] without the public option.” But Democrats in the Senate are singing a slightly different story. Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) told Fox News Sunday that “there never have been” enough votes for a public option in the Senate, and that continuing to fight for it would be “just a wasted effort.”

But that does not mean that Americans fighting against government-run health care are out of the woods yet. Conrad insists that the Senate could pass health reform that includes health insurance co-operatives. Co-operatives do have a long and proud tradition in many sectors of the U.S. economy, but details matter. Conrad says these health co-ops will not be “government-run and government-controlled” but instead “membership-run and membership controlled.” But others in Conrad’s caucus have a starkly different co-op goal. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is pushing a vision of co-ops that are: 1) run by the government, preferably the federal government; 2) funded or subsidized by the government; or 3) includes plans chosen by the government.

If the language that comes out of the Senate looks anything like what Schumer is proposing, then there is no real difference between co-ops and the public plan. If, on the other hand, the Senate produces something that; 1) is not funded by the federal government 2) is not “government-run and government-controlled”; but instead 3) is “membership-run and membership controlled” then co-ops would be acceptable.

Of course, the public plan is just one of the more objectionable parts of Obama’s health care plan. The individual and employer mandates, the expansion and federalization of Medicaid, the creation of a new health czar, not to mention the trillion dollar cost of the new plan, are all still intact. If, as Sebelius insists, the White House wants health reform to increase “choice and competition” than there are a number of conservative alternatives in the House and Senate that do just that by pursuing health reform through a “patient-centered” approach. The White House’s rhetoric is rapidly moving away from an expert/government-centered approach to health care and towards a more market/consumer model. Let’s hope their actions start matching their words.

Quick Hits:

Share/Bookmark



Related: Cost of Government Day reports it costs 61.34% of our national income to run our Government
What is the Government going to do with all those clunkers that still have life in them?
Republicans stop $8.7 million of tax payers money from going to connect Whalers to their ancestors
Video: ABC News exposes tax payer funded stimulus package is creating more signs and helping more mice then creating jobs.
$18 million of tax payers money being spent to redesign Recovery.gov web site when Recovery.org is doing it faster and better without higher taxes.-These are just the recent. See label for much more.

Share/Bookmark



vs



Who are voters in America believing so far?

54% Say Passing No Healthcare Reform Better Than Passing Congressional Plan

Voters Skeptical About Health Care Reform Claims Made By Pelosi and Hoyer-"Forty-five percent (45%) of voters nationwide think Pelosi and Hoyer are wrong when they say the passage of health care reform will mean more affordable coverage for all Americans. But 36% share the Democratic Congressional leaders’ view and believe health care will become more affordable if the plan passes. Eighteen percent (18%) are undecided...Just 27% of all voters agree with the senior House Democrats that if the health care reform being considered by Congress is passed, it will mean more patient choice. Forty-nine percent (49%) disagree and do not believe more patient choice is likely, and 24% are not sure...Voters by a three-to-one margin say cost is a bigger health care problem facing the nation than the lack of universal health insurance coverage"

Related: Gallup and Pew Research just released public opinion polls on health care town hall protests. GOP has first time lead over democrats on health care.
Poll after Poll prove that the townhall protesters concerns are the concerns of a majority of Americans

Share/Bookmark

Here is the whole context of the question.



Here is Obama in 2003 clearly supporting a single payer plan.



Did Obama forget about his 2003 speech? Why did not Obama explain the content in this video? Those who are concerned about this have a legitimate concern for many unanswered questions remain and President Obama should know of this video. His White House spokesperson sure did back on 08/04/2009 see: White House vs those "scaring" the public on ObamaCare over the issue of the public option being a step toward universal health care or not.

Also, see below videos and comment by Michael Moore at: Michael Moore: "If a true public option is enacted - and Obama knows this - it will eventually bring about a singly payer system"



Also, see long time democrat from Massachusetts (who has a universal health care system) of all states answering a question about single payer with a revealing answer. Not to fail to mention that only 26% of voters in Massachusetts consider their health care reform a success.



Related: AARP releases statement that they are not on board with ObamaCare even though Obama says they are
Obama is comparing apples with oranges in comparing the public option to the options members of congress have.
New Whitehouse Reality Check web site needs a Reality Check itself.
New Whitehouse Reality Check web site needs a Reality Check itself. II
White House vs those "scaring" the public on ObamaCare over the issue of the public option being a step toward universal health care or not.
Poll after Poll prove that the townhall protesters concerns are the concerns of a majority of Americans
Gallup and Pew Research just released public opinion polls on health care town hall protests. GOP has first time lead over democrats on health care.

Share/Bookmark

Further evidence that God's way is the best way. See Abstinence-based education in Texas is working. Teen pregnancies down 24% and abortions down 41%.
Young women who entered British tax payer funded government program designed to reduce pregnancy were "significantly" more likely to become pregnant. etc etc see label

Life News reports interesting findings using Centers for Disease Control (CDC) statistics.

" Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new report relying on data from the Centers for Disease Control finds the states that accepted abstinence education funding saw greater reductions in teen abortions compared to states that didn't. The information provides another argument in favor of funding abstinence education programs.

The Texas-based pro-life group San Antonio Coalition for Life has put out the new report and it compared CDC abortion figures to the list of states accepting or rejecting the funds.

From 2001 through 2005, abortion advocates were successful in getting 17 states to reject the federal grants for abstinence funding. The results show they were worse off for their decisions.

For teen girls under the age of 15, the CDC figures showed a 7.5% decrease in abortions in states rejecting the abstinence funding but a larger 23.1 percent decrease in abortions among states accepting the grants.

Examined another way, the group says, "The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 208% greater reduction in abortions among girls 14 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education."

Overall, abortions on girls under 15 were 37.3 percent higher in states that rejected the monies.

The group also examined the abortion rates for teenage girls between the ages of 15 and 19.

While states rejecting the funding saw a 5.2 percent decrease in abortions, states accepting the funds experienced a much larger 20.5 percent decrease.

Viewed another way, states accepting abstinence funding showed a 294.2% greater reduction in abortions among girls 19 years old and younger compared with states that rejected the funds.

"Overall, the teen abortion rate among girls 19 years old and younger for states which rejected abstinence only funding was 48.2% higher than in states which had accepted funding," the group indicated.

Jill Stanek, a pro-life nurse and blogger, noted the study and said the results have significant consequences for abortion and abstinence policy.

"What I'd like to know is when the Obama administration will prove they truly want 'common ground' by endorsing the benefits of abstinence education," Stanek said. "Oh, but wait, that type of education won't line the pockets of the abortion industry or Planned Parenthood. No wonder their denial is so strong."

She said members of Congress should have paid attention to these figures before making decisions to cut abstinence funds.

"Even with these facts (certainly not publicized by the mainstream media) from the CDC, a Senate Panel voted to effectively end abstinence-only education funding," she said.

"With all of their crowing about how 'abstinence education doesn't work,' pro-aborts may want to take note," she says.

States rejecting the abstinence funding included Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Related web sites:
San Antonio Colaition for Life - http://www.sacfl.org
Jill Stanek - http://www.jillstanek.com

Share/Bookmark

Related: Sex ex lobby in the UK is lobbying to end parent's ability to opt their children out of sex ed
Video: Tim Tebow stumps reporter's question on whether or not he is saving himself for marriage
Young women who entered British tax payer funded government program designed to reduce pregnancy were "significantly" more likely to become pregnant.
Abstinence-based education in Texas is working. Teen pregnancies down 24% and abortions down 41%. etc etc etc see label And more importantly what about eternal life and death for that see John 3:16 and trust. Below is articel by The Daily Telegraph's Ed West.

Casual sex is a 'luxury' the poor can ill afford

The misguided belief that casual sex is harmless as long as contraception is readily available has been disastrous for society’s poorest, a commentator has warned.

Handing out condoms to youngsters doesn’t work, says The Daily Telegraph’s Ed West, because “it simply normalises the behaviour that leads to teenage pregnancies”.

Widely available contraception has given the impression that fertility can be completely controlled, when in fact it “still requires discipline, care, health and luck”, Mr West argues.

“It’s that sort of luck that the poor can’t afford to depend on”, he says.

“Too often the Summer of Love is followed by the spring of single parenthood”.

Comparing the problem of teenage pregnancy to that of other social problems, Mr West points out “if you make usury more easily available, more people will get in debt.

“Likewise if you make drink more available you will get more alcoholics, and if you make gambling easier more people will become gambling addicts.”

Although the effects of casual sex can be more random, he says, “one thing’s for certain – if you promote casual sex among children as the norm, rather than an aberration, then more accidents will happen.

“That’s why the government policy of promoting casual, protected sex is not working.”

Mr West says the sexual revolution and advent of the contraceptive pill was “a middle-class affair”.

He says “the baby boomer generation were the wealthiest in history and believed sexual prudery was no longer necessary, and my generation were brought up thinking it was an outdated superstition.

“We’re now realising that there were some very good reasons for it.”

He concludes: “For the poor, the sexual revolution was a disaster.

“And they will continue to suffer while idiotic government officials stalk the council estates of England handing out condoms.”

Share/Bookmark

Sometimes readers don't get to the end of an article. This one is important, "Worldwide, the country with the lowest maternal death rate is Ireland, a nation that prohibits abortion and whose constitution explicitly protects the rights of the unborn."

LifeSiteNews.com reports: UN Health Data Show Liberal Abortion Laws Lead to Greater Maternal Death

By Aracely Ornelas

NEW YORK, August 13, 2009 (c-fam.org) - The world's largest abortion provider, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), has recently acknowledged an alarming "surge" in maternal deaths in South Africa, challenging the pro-abortion mantra that liberal abortion laws decrease maternal mortality. Maternal deaths increased by twenty per cent in the period 2005-2007 in South Africa, a country that since 1996 has had one of the most permissive abortion laws on the African continent.

While deaths attributable to HIV/AIDS account for the biggest portion of maternal deaths in South Africa, IPPF acknowledges that a portion of deaths are "due to complications of abortion" in a country where the procedure is legal and widely available.

Developing countries have been badgered in recent years by various United Nations agencies and pro-abortion civil society organizations, including IPPF, to decriminalize abortion as a measure to reduce maternal mortality rates. However, the latest IPPF revelation is the latest fact in a growing body of evidence showing the opposite relationship in which legal abortion and high maternal deaths coincide.

To illustrate, the nation with the lowest African maternal mortality rate is Mauritius, according to a 2009 World Health Organization (WHO) report. Mauritius' laws are among the continent's most protective of the unborn. The report further shows how countries that have decriminalized abortion in recent years in response to pressure, such as Ethiopia, have failed to lower dramatic maternal death rates. Ethiopia's maternal death rate is 48 times higher than in Mauritius.

According to WHO, the country with the lowest maternal mortality rate in South America is Chile, which protects unborn life in its constitution. The country with the highest is Guyana, with a maternal mortality rate 30 times higher than in Chile. Guyana has allowed abortion without almost any restriction since in 1995. Ironically, one of two main justifications used in liberalizing Guyana’s law was to enhance the "attainment of safe motherhood" by eliminating deaths and complications associated with unsafe abortion.

Nicaragua has been in the crosshairs of the international pro-abortion lobby since it amended its law three years ago to grant full protection to prenatal life. Sweden, for example, reportedly cut over $20 million in foreign aid as a result. More recently, Amnesty International issued a report claiming maternal death rates increased following Nicaragua's law going into effect. Media critics, however, have contested the veracity of Amnesty's claims , and Nicaraguan government statistics show a decline in maternal deaths since 2006.

Similarly, WHO statistics for the South East Asia region show Nepal, where there is no restriction on the procedure, has the region's highest rate of maternal mortality. The lowest in the region is Sri Lanka, with a rate fourteen times lower than that of Nepal. According to the pro-abortion public interest law firm Center for Reproductive Rights, Sri Lanka has among the most restrictive abortion laws in the world.

Worldwide, the country with the lowest maternal death rate is Ireland, a nation that prohibits abortion and whose constitution explicitly protects the rights of the unborn."

Share/Bookmark

Related: White House vs those "scaring" the public on ObamaCare over the issue of the public option being a step toward universal health care or not.
New Whitehouse Reality Check web site needs a Reality Check itself.
New Whitehouse Reality Check web site needs a Reality Check itself. II
AARP releases statement that they are not on board with ObamaCare even though Obama says they are

About the American College of Surgeons


The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 74,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world. For more information,

visit www.facs.org.

Statement from the American College of Surgeons Regarding Recent Comments from President Obama

CHICAGO—The American College of Surgeons is deeply disturbed over the uninformed public comments President Obama continues to make about the high-quality care provided by surgeons in the United States. When the President makes statements that are incorrect or not based in fact, we think he does a disservice to the American people at a time when they want clear, understandable facts about health care reform. We want to set the record straight.

Yesterday during a town hall meeting, President Obama got his facts completely wrong. He stated that a surgeon gets paid $50,000 for a leg amputation when, in fact, Medicare pays a surgeon between $740 and $1,140 for a leg amputation. This payment also includes the evaluation of the patient on the day of the operation plus patient follow-up care that is provided for 90 days after the operation. Private insurers pay some variation of the Medicare reimbursement for this service.

Three weeks ago, the President suggested that a surgeon’s decision to remove a child’s tonsils is based on the desire to make a lot of money. That remark was ill-informed and dangerous, and we were dismayed by this characterization of the work surgeons do. Surgeons make decisions about recommending operations based on what’s right for the patient.

We agree with the President that the best thing for patients with diabetes is to manage the disease proactively to avoid the bad consequences that can occur, including blindness, stroke, and amputation. But as is the case for a person who has been treated for cancer and still needs to have a tumor removed, or a person who is in a terrible car crash and needs access to a trauma surgeon, there are times when even a perfectly managed diabetic patient needs a surgeon. The President’s remarks are truly alarming and run the risk of damaging the all-important trust between surgeons and their patients.

We assume that the President made these mistakes unintentionally, but we would urge him to have his facts correct before making another inflammatory and incorrect statement about surgeons and surgical care.

About the American College of Surgeons
The American College of Surgeons is a scientific and educational organization of surgeons that was founded in 1913 to raise the standards of surgical practice and to improve the care of the surgical patient. The College is dedicated to the ethical and competent practice of surgery. Its achievements have significantly influenced the course of scientific surgery in America and have established it as an important advocate for all surgical patients. The College has more than 74,000 members and is the largest organization of surgeons in the world.

Web site: www.facs.org

Share/Bookmark

It doesn't sto there. Below article is another article from Jill Stanek with proof that Planned Parenthood is hiring also. Is Big Media going to report on this?

If You Can't Beat 'Em, Buy 'Em!

Proving that the President "can buy me love," the blog of the Los Angeles Times has uncovered a web ad that shows how desperate the Left is for support. The Fund for the Public Interest is actually offering to pay "volunteers" to support the President's takeover. "Work to pass Obama's health care plan and get paid to do it! $10-15 hr!" The ad promises anywhere from $400-$600 a week to people who agree to rally on the administration's behalf, presumably at townhall meetings. Maybe the slogan should be "Work for change--and make some too!" Not everyone has pure motives, but it's somewhat ironic that the Left blames conservatives for "manufacturing" anger when their groups are hiring it!

Of course, this strategy is bound to be more productive than the leadership's contribution, which has largely consisted of public name-calling. Just this week, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) joined the messaging train wreck and called angry voters "evil-mongers." Yesterday he thought better of the term, telling reporters sheepishly, "I maybe could have been less descriptive. I doubt you'll hear it from me again."

Speaking of things that Americans are hoping not to hear more of, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley (R) confirmed today that his chamber's Finance Committee dropped the controversial "end-of-life provisions" from its bill "because of the way they could be misinterpreted and implemented incorrectly..."

In recent days, the issues of rationing and assisted suicide have heated up in the press and across the country--so much so that the U.S. House is having difficulty keeping up with voter emails. According to a report in the Associated Press, the congressional computers are overwhelmed with messages. Jeff Ventura with the House administrative office, said, "It is clearly health care reform. There's no doubt about it."

People have plenty of concerns, particularly as old quotes surface from the President's health care "czar," the brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. In the past, Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel advocated a health care system in which services "should not be guaranteed" to anyone whose circumstances or conditions "[prevent them] from being or becoming participating citizens." (The Hastings Center Report, November-December 1996). He also said it should give priority to those who are "between roughly 15 and 40 years..." The question then becomes who--and what--defines a "participating citizen"? Would older or disabled Americans be excluded from care because they aren't perceived by Washington as contributing members to society? Emanuel also writes in the Journal of the American Medical Association (June 18, 2009) that "Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously...." When it comes to doing "no harm," this is one patient who's grateful they do!

Los Angeles Times: Wanted: Obama healthcare reform volunteers willing to be paid $15 an hour
Read Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel's report

Jill Stanek reports....

Breaking news: Planned Parenthood recruits staff on Craigslist to keep abortion in Obamacare

This ad popped up on Craigslist yesterday (click to enlarge):

healthcare pp chicago.jpg

While Planned Parenthood has been swearing up and down abortion isn't in Obamacare, here's an ad placed by PP Chicago stating quite the contrary....

"Anti-choice forces... want to exclude reproductive health care." Of course "reproductive health care" is code for abortion, and if you're not quite positive, hello, what have "anti-choice forces" been fighting in Obamacare?

Grassroots Campaign is a "team of organizers..." catering to the "progressive community," btw.

Also see this tweet by PP CEO Cecile Richards 2 days ago:

Cecile tweet.jpg

Abortion proponents have been laying low in recent days, but they're still hard at work in conjunction with the White House to keep abortion in nationalized healthcare. Read Richards' Facebook entry yesterday to learn the new angle, which includes, believe or not, concern for childbearing:

Women are charged higher health insurance premiums because -- NEWS FLASH - we bear children! Wouldn't you think we would get a medal instead of higher insurance costs?....

Women get the short end of the stick from the insurance industry, so, yes, of course, we want national standards!...

Women need affordable health care that covers OUR needs - from childbearing to Pap smears to mammograms.

And the A-word. Funny how the CEO of the United States' largest abortion provider forgot about that.

Share/Bookmark

Click image to the left for George Washington's first proclamation in his own hand writing as President and thus America's very first proclamation by it's Presidency. Many consider George Washington to be the "Father of America". My wife and I some years ago vacationed to Washington DC and visited George Washington's house and at the tomb of Washington is plaqued John 11:25,26: "I am the Resurrection and the Life; sayeth the Lord. He that believeth in Me, though he were dead yet shall he live. And whosoever liveth and believeth in Me shall never die.". See Read and view image of America's very first presidential proclamation in Washington's own handwriting. Just a good reminder for Americans of our roots and to think about getting back to them.

HealthCare

Quick Comments about some polls and articles over the weekend

First, President Obama's overall approval rating is at 47% which ties his worst ever performance and 52% disapprove but what is more telling is 41% strongly disapprove which is Obama's worst strong disapproval rating yet while only 32% strongly approve. Below is a poll on ObamaCare that 44% strongly disapprove and over all disapproval is 53%. There is currently some talk about possibly taking out the public option over the weekend see New York Times article titled ‘Public Option’ in Health Plan May Be Dropped . But for now it is just talk who knows really which way it will go.

Other telling polls

Gallup and Pew Research just released public opinion polls on health care town hall protests. GOP has first time lead over democrats on health care.

Support for current plan to reform health care in congress is at an all time low and 44% of the 53% that oppose strongly oppose

Poll after Poll prove that the townhall protesters concerns are the concerns of a majority of Americans

Fact Checking our President


AARP releases statement that they are not on board with ObamaCare even though Obama says they are

Obama is comparing apples with oranges in comparing the public option to the options members of congress have.

New Whitehouse Reality Check web site needs a Reality Check itself.

New Whitehouse Reality Check web site needs a Reality Check itself. II

Breaking News: Obama's Fact Check site refutes Obama's recent town hall meeting speech over single payer health care

Abortion

Just because Planned Parenthood is not named in the health care bill does this mean they will not get tax payers money from the health reform bill? and Planned Parenthood fined $700,000 for Medicaid overbilling on abortion

Video of congresswoman in California at town hall meeting responds to question with: "abortion will be covered as a benefit...I think it should be."

Video exposing language in the bill that answers the question: Will abortion be covered in Health Care Reform bill.

Debate

Video: Howard Dean vs Mike Franc on CNBC concerning Health Care-This quick debate may need to be viewed in an alternative browser.

Should the US have Universal Healthcare? - OpposingViews.com

Town Hallers

Video: Town Haller on MSNBC has good reason for not believing Obama on single payer health care coverage and Michael Moore: "If a true public option is enacted - and Obama knows this - it will eventually bring about a singly payer system"

Excellent video potrayal in support of town hall protesters

Union members gang up against black conservative protester and many more Health Care Protest videos

Liberal Media Bias

Chris Matthews suggests protesters are racially charged.

Is Chris Matthews blind or what? Judge for yourself.

Video


Obama Watch

Video: White House press secretary vs Congressman Price on why bi-partisanship and common ground and reaching cross the aisle are not happening

Have you been getting emails from the White House lately and are wondering why?

Video: Leading feminists congresswoman Boxer and now Clinton get offended.

Democrat leaders when John McCain was running for presidency said we need full transparency what about Obama

How did Department of Homeland Security determine that "right-wing extremism" was a security threat? We now know...

Pro-life

Excellent video released in defense of the lives of the unborn.

Sermon

Video Sermon on Sexual Sin at Mars Hill Church

Debate

Ray Comfort vs Thunderf00t first 30 minutes on YouTube

Taxes


Cost of Government Day reports it costs 61.34% of our national income to run our Government

What is the Government going to do with all those clunkers that still have life in them?

First Amendment Case Victories


Welcome all conservative students to Gonzaga University's Manager of events, "almost all stupid people are conservatives" andUniversity of Iowa department of History has no Republicans and College of Law has one but hired 20+ years ago.-These posts do not show a case victory but why these cases are necessary.

Conservative and Religious Student Clubs gain two court victories this week and believe it or not court rejects challenge to recitation of the pledge

Liberal Media Bias


New York Times fails to mention Sen. Dodd as democrat when allegations arise but makes mention when he is cleared

Education


Brand new nationwide study confirms homeschooling beats public schooling across all demographics

Pro-Life


Pro-life displays at the "biggest open-air festival in Europe" "Przystanek Woodstock" in Poland destroyed

Economy


Obama repeatedly promised during and after his campaign that 3.5 millions jobs by the end of 2010. Chart revealing where we are at.

International


India officially added to US Commission on International Religious Freedom, persecution in Pakistan, beheadings in Somalia and christian runaway

Ian Paisley Jr speaks out against the hypocrisy of the treatment of Christianity by some on the left in England

Logic


Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of Reification - Jason Lisle at Answers in Genesis

Values Voter News Stats

Values Voter News just recently added a rating system to posts late July. Values Voter News has received its first two ratings. Both the reader rated the post poor.

Here are the actual posts themselves: University of Iowa department of History has no Republicans and College of Law has one but hired 20+ years ago. and Excellent video interview of Kristan Hawkins making some great points in the health care debate on coverage..

Not sure why they were rated poor but if it was for the content the reader may want to review the label and the most recent posts concerning the subject at Welcome all conservative students to Gonzaga University's Manager of events, "almost all stupid people are conservatives" and Conservative and Religious Student Clubs gain two court victories this week and believe it or not court rejects challenge to recitation of the pledge

As far as Excellent video interview of Kristan Hawkins making some great points in the health care debate on coverage. it does seem Kristan has made a decent points. A health care system that is quicker then another would indeed benefit patients in situations like hers. So which system provides quicker care? See John Stossel of 20/20 reflects views of many who are concerned of the US heading in the direction of government ran universal health care. for more and Many videos documenting the problems with universal health care which Big Media seems to ignore.

Share/Bookmark

And more...

India


From Religioun Clause a blog by Howard Friedman Professor of Law Emeritus University of Toledo. Excellent resource for these issues...

India Added To USCIRF's Watch List

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom yesterday added India to the 11 countries already on its "watch list," a notch below the 13 designated as "countries of particular concern. (See prior posting.) The move came as USCIRF released its country report on India-- added as a chapter to its 2009 annual report. In a press release announcing its action, USCIRF said that the new concern about India stems from "the disturbing increase in communal violence against religious minorities– specifically Christians in Orissa in 2008 and Muslims in Gujarat in 2002 – and the largely inadequate response from the Indian government to protect the rights of religious minorities." A planned visit by USCIRF members to India never materialized as India delayed approving visas for those scheduled to go. (See prior posting.)

Somalia

4 Christian Orphanage Workers Beheaded in Somalia

Pakistan

Muslims burn 6 Christians to death after false allegations



".- Religious extremists struck again in Pakistan on Saturday when a violent mob of Muslims looted and burned a Christian neighborhood, killing six Christians by burning them to death. The attacks took place in reaction to a rumor that the Koran was desecrated in a nearby village.

The violence, which took place in the central Punjab town of Gojra City, occurred early on Saturday when a throng of Muslims surged into the Christian quarter, setting all 40 of the Christian houses and two churches aflame.

As the crowd of Muslims approached Gojra City, Christians fired shots at them in self-defense.

Six Christians—four women, a man and a 7 year-old child—were burned to death in the attacks...."

Kyrgyzstan

Forum18.org out of Norway reports:

"Unregistered communities of Protestant Christians, Hare Krishna devotees and Ahmadiya Muslims in many parts of Kyrgyzstan have been ordered by the authorities to stop meeting for worship, Forum 18 News Service has found. In some cases, communities have been told that state registration in the capital Bishkek does not allow religious activity elsewhere. One Protestant church in the north-west told Forum 18 that they had been unsuccessfully trying for two years to register, but that they "would not be registered unless they had 200 signatures. How can we collect 200 signatures if we are not allowed to function normally?" Asked what would happen to religious communities who have less than 200 members, and so cannot be registered, an official of the State Agency for Religious Affairs told Forum 18 that "there is a Law, and we will deal with them accordingly." An employee of the State Agency recently told a person known to Forum 18, who wished to remain unnamed for fear of state reprisals, that after the July presidential elections there would be "a massive campaign against religious groups meeting illegally."

China

U.S. Congressman Pays Tribute to Chinese Martyr Watchman Nee-From Chinaaid.org

August 12, 2009

WASHINGTON, D.C. – On July 30, Congressman Christopher Smith (NJ-04) spoke from the House of Representatives’ floor to pay tribute to Chinese Christian martyr Watchman Nee. Congressman Smith wanted to recognize Nee, who is known around the world for his Christian witness and influence, and whose books are still banned in China today.

Christianity Today magazine recently honored Watchman Nee as one of the 100 most influential Christians of the twentieth century. Nee was imprisoned for his faith in 1952 and died in 1972 in a labor camp farm.

In his speech, Congressman Smith stated:

“Madam Speaker, it is estimated that China has more than 100 million Christians, and millions of them consider themselves spiritual heirs of Watchman Nee. Millions more are rightly proud of the contribution Watchman Nee made to global Christianity—he was the first Chinese Christian to exercise an influence on Western Christians—and indeed of his contribution to world spiritual culture. It is sad that the works of Watchman Nee are officially banned in China—even as they are being discovered afresh by a new generation of Western Christians. It is my hope that Watchman Nee’s collected works can be freely published and distributed within China.”

Read Congressman Smith’s speech from the House floor regarding Watchman Nee."

US



UN


Woman Quits U.N. to Fight Against Sharia Law

Share/Bookmark


Share/Bookmark

Treatment of Christians is 'hypocritical' says Paisley

Friday, 14 August 2009

Ian Paisley Jnr has spoken out against those who claim to be “defenders of ‘liberty’” yet “can’t tolerate Christianity”, particularly in the public square.

Mr Paisley, a member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, was commenting in light of US President Obama’s controversial nomination of a professing Christian to a senior health post.

In an article for the Belfast News Letter, Mr Paisley said Francis Collins was facing growing opposition because “he dared to defend belief in God as being ‘reasonable’”.

Mr Paisley continued: “Really it may be an exaggeration but at times I feel we are getting to the point where anyone seeking public office or who seeks to play a role in modern society and who happens to have a shred of Christianity about them will be required to sign a recantation of their beliefs.”

Mr Paisley, whose father was formerly the First Minister of Northern Ireland, cited several recent cases where Christian public sector employees have been in trouble for expressing their beliefs.

He said: “It offends me that expressions of Christianity are so muzzled by some for fear of offending others yet those very same defenders of ‘liberty’ would not raise a single word of objection to those who insult Christian values or beliefs.”

He also raised concerns over the way in which Christian terms are frequently used as “curse-words” on television and radio without any opposition.

“Could you imagine the outrage if Christians or non-Christian contributors on radio or television actively and regularly used the name of Allah or Buddha in such a profane or irreverent manner as a general and abusive curse-word”, Mr Paisley asked.

“It would certainly not be allowed and if broadcast would provoke an outcry of national proportions. Why the hypocrisy?

“Well the answer is quite simple. This is now a country either so familiar with Christianity that it now holds those very values and the name of Christ in utter contempt, or else it is so fickle it feels you must go out of your way to appeal to those of a non-Christian view and abandon all sense of your own belief.”

Share/Bookmark

Part 1



Part 2



Part 3

Share/Bookmark

Click on link to the left for subscription to Answers Magazine. Great for the family and family worship to bring a biblical interpretation into the realm of the sciences.

Next Sunday will be posted from this series the fallacy of Equivocation. See label for more.

Logical Fallacies: The Fallacy of Reification

Reification is attributing a concrete characteristic to something that is abstract. Perhaps you have heard the old saying, “It’s not nice to fool Mother Nature.” This is an example of reification because “nature” is an abstraction; it is simply the name we give to the chain of events in the universe. Nature is not a person and cannot literally be fooled, since nature does not have a mind. So, this expression would not make sense if taken literally.

Of course, not all language should be taken literally. There is nothing wrong with reification as a figure of speech. It is perfectly acceptable in poetry. Even the Bible uses reification at times in its poetic sections. For example, Proverbs 8 personifies the concept of wisdom. This is a perfectly acceptable (and poetically beautiful) use of reification.

However, when reification is used as part of a logical argument, it is a fallacy. The reason for this is that using such a poetic expression is often ambiguous and can obscure important points in a debate. It is very common for evolutionists to commit this fallacy. Let’s look at some examples of the fallacy of reification as they are commonly used in evolutionary arguments.

Sometimes in an argument, an evolutionist will say something like this: “Nature has designed some amazing creatures.” This sentence commits the fallacy of reification because nature does not have a mind and cannot literally design anything. By using the fallacy of reification, the evolutionist obscures the fact that the evolution worldview really cannot account for the design of living creatures. (Keep in mind that he may be doing this unintentionally). God can design creatures because God is a person. Nature is a concept and cannot design anything.

“Creationists say the world was created supernaturally, but science says otherwise.” Here the person has attributed personal, concrete attributes to the concept of science. In doing so, he or she overlooks the important fact that the scientists draw conclusions about the evidence and verbalize such conclusions—not “science.” Science is a conceptual tool that can be used properly or improperly. It says nothing. It does not take a position on issues. So, this common example of reification is logically fallacious.

“The evidence speaks for itself.” This expression is quite common, but when used as part of an argument, it is the fallacy of reification. Evidence does not speak at all. Evidence is a concept: the name we give to a body of facts that we believe to be consistent with a particular point of view. People draw conclusions about evidence and verbalize their thoughts. But evidence itself does not have thoughts to verbalize.

Evolution figured out a way around these problems.” I have a heard a number of evolutionists say something along these lines when attempting to explain some intricately designed biological system. But, of course, evolution is a concept. It has no mind and cannot figure out anything. So, this example again obscures the difficulty in accounting for design in the universe without appealing to a mind. It is a fallacious use of reification.

Even the phrase natural selection is an example of reification and could be considered a fallacy if used in an argument. Nature cannot literally select. This phrase is so commonly used that we might not call it a fallacy providing the meaning is understood by all. We do believe in the concept called “natural selection.” Yes, organisms that are well-suited to an environment are more likely to survive than those that are not well-suited. (This is tautologically true and is something that both creationists and evolutionists believe).

But, suppose we asked, “Why is it that animals are well-suited to their environment?” If an evolutionist answered “natural selection,” this would be the fallacy of reification. It poetically obscures the true reason that animals are designed to survive—God.

If you think about it, natural selection does not actually explain why we find organisms suited to their environment. It only explains why we do not find organisms that are unsuited to their environment (i.e., because they die). It is God—not “nature”—who has given living beings the abilities they need to survive"

Share/Bookmark

Click image to the left for image of Washington's own handwritten copy found at The Library of Congress here.

In the list of Proclamations from Washington to Obama at The American Presidency Project at the University of California, Santa Barbara is listed Presidential Proclamations Washington - Obama and the very first one shows George Washington's proclamation in October of 1789.

Is it not providential that the very first proclamation proclaimed by the very first president of the United States is a proclamation of acknowledgement of "the providence of Almighty God...".

Below is copied the text of that proclamation from the same site at The Library of Congress that provides the image to the left. But first, some verses came to mind from the scriptures after reading this proclamation and many more like it from our forefathers.

"Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools...
even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind..."-Contained in Romans 1:19-28.

Below is Washington's proclamation at the request of both Houses of Congress to be thankful and retain God in our knowledge.

"By the President of the United States of America, a Proclamation.

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor-- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be-- That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks--for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation--for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war--for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed--for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted--for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

and also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions-- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually--to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed--to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord--To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us--and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789.

Go: Washington"

Share/Bookmark