Custom Module

Javascript code is currently being verified.

Weblog

Monday, 09 November 2009

  • Divided We Fall

    The Democrats’ health care legislation passed the House of Representatives on Saturday by three votes. Under the Democrats’ plan, should you fail to obtain health insurance, you will go to jail for five years.

    Leading up to the vote, pro-lifers engaged in a battle against each other over the “Stupak Amendment” offered by pro-life Democrat Bart Stupak. By Sunday, pro-lifers were suffering numerous recriminations from their allies. The logic is that had Stupak not passed, there would be enough votes to ensure the health care bill did not pass.

    While I tend to agree with the argument, I think we miss a central point: Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats would have just done something else to get the legislation passed. By using pro-life issues, however, the Democrats were able to divide the GOP.

    As the sun rises this Monday morning, let’s consider a few points.

    1. Whether Stupak passed or not, the health care legislation would have passed on Saturday. In fact, most of the Republican leaders on the Hill encouraged a yes vote for the Stupak Amendment because (A) its passage would send a strong message that there is a pro-life majority in the House of Representatives and (B) its passage would not affect the final outcome. Regardless of how you view Stupak, we know now there is a pro-life majority in even this Democratic House of Representatives and Stupak very clearly will not affect the final outcome.

    2. We know that this House legislation is dead on arrival in the United States Senate. As a result of its passage, a number of Blue Dog Democrats are now extremely vulnerable to defeat, as are a number of others. The act of voting for the legislation, and the anger generated by it receiving a majority vote, will doom a significant number of Democrats.

    3. Because the Stupak Amendment passed, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and a host of power left-wing interest groups that supported Obamacare, now are joined with a bunch of groups on the right in opposition to the measure.

    4. Passing Obamacare in the manner it passed Saturday has created fresh, new divisions within the Democratic Party. While the media would prefer to look at Republican divisions, the Democrats are so full of gaping wounds now, they might bleed to death by November of 2010.

    I think the Stupak Amendment was an instance of the pro-life community not seeing the forest for the trees and it should have been opposed. But I am willing to admit I could be wrong. What I do know is that the House Republican Leadership has been very, very good at combating the Democrats’ legislative agenda. That House GOP Leadership encouraged a vote for Stupak should not be second guessed lightly. It is a lot easier for me to Monday morning quarterback the vote than it was for these men and women on the front lines to make a decision.

    At the end of the day we need to trust the people who said a yes vote was worth casting. Now is also not the time to throw the pro-lifers under the bus. They stand with us and, because of their tough stance, we are now ironically joined by pro-abortion groups standing shoulder to shoulder with pro-life groups in opposition to Obamacare.

    Life is fully of ironies. Let’s savor this one and fight on.

  • Another Czar Bites The Dust

    In the flurry of news this week, you may have missed another body tossed under the insatiable Obama bus: Internet Czar Susan Crawford.

    The Obama administration has faced a vocal and growing opposition to the radical so-called net neutrality advocated by folks like Crawford and FCC Chair Julius Genachowski. Bi-partisan opposition, I hasten to add. The radicals in the administration, whose views are shared by the President, in true czar fashion avoid honest debate on the issue at all costs. Even, it would seem, internally.

    From The American Spectator:

    “[Summers] and other senior Obama officials were unaware of how radical the draft Net Neutrality regulations were when they were initially internally circulated to Obama administration officials several weeks ago. ‘All of sudden Larry is getting calls from CEOs, Wall Street folks he talks to, Republicans and Democrats, asking him what the Administration is doing with the policies, and he isn’t sure what they’re talking about,’ says one White House aide. ‘He felt blind-sided, and Susan was one of those people who heard about it.’”

    This looks to be classic scrambling for cover on the part of Summers. As Big Government notes:

    Sources say that such ongoing concern and criticism regarding the push for net neutrality could further impact the thinking of key Obama advisers -including Summers and potentially Obama strategist David Axelrod -and ultimately result in the administration backing away from net neutrality entirely. The White House aide cited by the Spectator notes that radical figures within the administration “are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.”

    That last line is a keeper. The full quote obtained by the American Spectator: “They haven’t done us any good on any level, and now they are just a bunch of targets on our back that we can’t shake.” Yes, that’s in reference to the radical elements appointed all over the administration, not just the net neutrality extremists.

    This won’t be the end of the net neutrality war. Nothing with the Obama administration ever seems to end. But it is one more radical leftist shown the door, and that’s a good thing on its own. It’s also yet another reminder of that Neil Steven’s refrain: Elections Have Consequences.

Tuesday, 03 November 2009

  • School counselor targeted for supporting Maine’s pro-marriage Question 1

    Portland, Maine, Nov 3, 2009 / 02:52 am (CNA).-  
    A high school counselor is the subject of an ethics complaint to the Maine licensing board because of his appearance in a TV ad in favor of Maine’s Question 1, which would secure the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. His defenders say the complaint is an attempt to silence supporters of marriage.

    Donald Mendell, a licensed counselor at Nokomis Regional High School, is the subject of a complaint accusing him of violating the state’s code of ethics for social workers because of his expressed position on marriage.

    Mendell appeared in a “Vote Yes on 1” ad that would repeal a recent law that recognized same-sex “marriages.” The vote on Question 1 will take place on November 3.

    According to a press release from the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), which is representing Mendell, the ad he participated in was a response to a “Vote No on One” ad that featured a Nokomis teacher encouraging a “no” vote from a classroom at the high school itself.

    The complaint claimed that Mendell made public comments that “can endanger or promote discrimination.” It also noted that Mendell’s description of a fellow teacher as a “gay activist” violated the ethical code’s provision against “unwarranted negative criticism” of colleagues in communications.

    The complaint also charged that Mendell has a “long history of being unsupportive of GLBTQ issues” and was “very vocal” in opposition to a homosexual student group. It cited a student who thought Mendell’s participation in the ad showed him to be “racist against gays,” and claimed another student thought the counselor’s actions would make students who believe they are homosexual feel Mendell is less accepting of them.

    ADF Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks criticized the complaint, saying:

    “No one should have their livelihood placed in jeopardy because they believe marriage is the union of a man and a woman. This threat to Don, his family, and his career makes clear that those in favor of redefining marriage also want to penalize and silence those who don’t agree with them. So, the definition of marriage is not the only thing at issue here. Free speech, freedom of conscience, and religious liberty are also in danger.”

    Mendell has 30 days to respond to the complaint.

  • Curbing a Constitutional Crisis

    These are the times that try conservatives’ souls.

    A liberal president wants funding for defense slashed. Congress aims to increase taxes and regulate just about everything. Activist judges create new “rights” while ignoring long-standing precedent.

    So why remain upbeat? Because our country still has the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. They’re the touchstones of our liberty -- and the conservative trump cards in the battle of ideas.

    “We don’t need to remake America, or discover new and untested principles,” writes scholar Matthew Spalding in his latest book. “The change we need is not the rejection of America’s principles but a great renewal of these permanent truths about humanity, politics, and liberty -- the foundational principles and constitutional wisdom that are the true roots of our country’s greatness.”

    In short, we need a roadmap back to where our country should be. That’s where Spalding’s “We Still Hold These Truths: Rediscovering Our Principles, Reclaiming Our Future” comes in. It outlines the core principles of liberty, details the progressive liberals’ assault on those principles, and explains why and how we must defend and reapply them if we are to save our country.

    Every American should know the founding principles of our country. “The meaning and power of these ideas will be lost in the course of a lifetime if they are not taught to each generation of students,” Spalding warns. “The public mission of our schools in the past was to transmit this knowledge to young Americans as the most important requisite for democracy. This must be the mission of our schools again.”

    But there’s no need to wait for a new generation of citizens to rise and lead us. Elected officials should also act.

    “One small step in this direction would be to require all legislation to contain an explanation of its constitutional authority, compelling at least a consideration of each proposal’s constitutional legitimacy,” Spalding writes. Policymakers should also work backward, reviewing existing laws and regulations to ensure they pass constitutional muster.

    “Too many programs, once started, are automatically reauthorized and become part of the permanent bureaucracy,” Spalding writes. That’s why Congress should “periodically review and authorize anew every major program, creating an ongoing mechanism that would work against the steady, automatic expansion of government. Rather than assuming their permanence, Congress should subject government programs to regular reevaluation of their authority, purpose, and effectiveness.”

    But these days, Congress passes 1,000-page bills that most members have no time to read, let alone consider. Instead of deliberating, American lawmakers spend much of their time overseeing an unelected bureaucracy of regulatory policymakers.

    In fact, Spalding notes, “Although the Constitution vests legislative powers in Congress, the majority of ‘laws’ are promulgated by administrative agencies in the guise of ‘regulations’ --a form of rule by bureaucrats who are mostly unaccountable and invisible to the public.”

    Of course, as lawmakers retake their traditional role, judges will need to reduce their intrusion into policy-making.

    “It is generally supposed that judges have the final say concerning every constitutional question,” Spalding writes. “These arguments need to be challenged and overcome in the public view, both as a matter of historical accuracy and a necessary condition for reinvigorating limited government, constitutionalism, and the rule of law. By allowing the Constitution to be treated as a malleable document, we should not be surprised that the ‘living’ Constitution has deadened the political mind of many Americans.”

    Sad but true. In the years ahead, let’s hope that Spalding’s book becomes a textbook to reopen our students’ political minds.

    The principles of our Declaration and our Constitution must again become “an expression of the American mind,” as Thomas Jefferson once said. We can -- and must -- insist that our leaders again abide by true constitutional principles. But we also must rediscover these principles as a people if we are to reclaim our future.

  • Pelosi’s health care bill creates 111 new federal Obamacare bureaucracies

    The House Republican Conference has compiled the following list of the 110 new Obamacare boards, bureaucracies, commissions, and programs created in H.R. 3962, Speaker Pelosi’s legislation for a government takeover of health care:

    1.     Retiree Reserve Trust Fund (Section 111(d), p. 61)

    2.     Grant program for wellness programs to small employers (Section 112, p. 62)

    3.     Grant program for State health access programs (Section 114, p. 72)

    4.     Program of administrative simplification (Section 115, p. 76)

    5.     Health Benefits Advisory Committee (Section 223, p. 111)

    6.     Health Choices Administration (Section 241, p. 131)

    7.     Qualified Health Benefits Plan Ombudsman (Section 244, p. 138)

    8.     Health Insurance Exchange (Section 201, p. 155)

    9.     Program for technical assistance to employees of small businesses buying Exchange coverage (Section 305(h), p. 191)

    10.   Mechanism for insurance risk pooling to be established by Health Choices Commissioner (Section 306(b), p. 194)

    11.   Health Insurance Exchange Trust Fund (Section 307, p. 195)

    12.   State-based Health Insurance Exchanges (Section 308, p. 197)

    13.   Grant program for health insurance cooperatives (Section 310, p. 206)

    14.   “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321, p. 211)

    15.   Ombudsman for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 321(d), p. 213)

    16.   Account for receipts and disbursements for “Public Health Insurance Option” (Section 322(b), p. 215)

    17.   Telehealth Advisory Committee (Section 1191 (b), p. 589)

    18.   Demonstration program providing reimbursement for “culturally and linguistically appropriate services” (Section 1222, p. 617)

    19.   Demonstration program for shared decision making using patient decision aids (Section 1236, p. 648)

    20.   Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicare (Section 1301, p. 653)

    21.   Independent patient-centered medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302, p. 672)

    22.   Community-based medical home pilot program under Medicare (Section 1302(d), p. 681)

    23.   Independence at home demonstration program (Section 1312, p. 718)

    24.   Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (Section 1401(a), p. 734)

    25.   Comparative Effectiveness Research Commission (Section 1401(a), p. 738)

    26.   Patient ombudsman for comparative effectiveness research (Section 1401(a), p. 753)

    27.   Quality assurance and performance improvement program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1412(b)(1), p. 784)

    28.   Quality assurance and performance improvement program for nursing facilities (Section 1412 (b)(2), p. 786)

    29.   Special focus facility program for skilled nursing facilities (Section 1413(a)(3), p. 796)

    30.   Special focus facility program for nursing facilities (Section 1413(b)(3), p. 804)

    31.   National independent monitor pilot program for skilled nursing facilities and nursing facilities (Section 1422, p. 859)

    32.   Demonstration program for approved teaching health centers with respect to Medicare GME (Section 1502(d), p. 933)

    33.   Pilot program to develop anti-fraud compliance systems for Medicare providers (Section 1635, p. 978)

    34.   Special Inspector General for the Health Insurance Exchange (Section 1647, p. 1000)

    35.   Medical home pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1722, p. 1058)

    36.   Accountable Care Organization pilot program under Medicaid (Section 1730A, p. 1073)

    37.   Nursing facility supplemental payment program (Section 1745, p. 1106)

    38.   Demonstration program for Medicaid coverage to stabilize emergency medical conditions in institutions for mental diseases (Section 1787, p. 1149)

    39.   Comparative Effectiveness Research Trust Fund (Section 1802, p. 1162)

    40.   “Identifiable office or program” within CMS to “provide for improved coordination between Medicare and Medicaid in the case of dual eligibles” (Section 1905, p. 1191)

    41.   Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (Section 1907, p. 1198)

    42.   Public Health Investment Fund (Section 2002, p. 1214)

    43.   Scholarships for service in health professional needs areas (Section 2211, p. 1224)

    44.   Program for training medical residents in community-based settings (Section 2214, p. 1236)

    45.   Grant program for training in dentistry programs (Section 2215, p. 1240)

    46.   Public Health Workforce Corps (Section 2231, p. 1253)

    47.   Public health workforce scholarship program (Section 2231, p. 1254)

    48.   Public health workforce loan forgiveness program (Section 2231, p. 1258)

    49.   Grant program for innovations in interdisciplinary care (Section 2252, p. 1272)

    50.   Advisory Committee on Health Workforce Evaluation and Assessment (Section 2261, p. 1275)

    51.   Prevention and Wellness Trust (Section 2301, p. 1286)

    52.   Clinical Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1295)

    53.   Community Prevention Stakeholders Board (Section 2301, p. 1301)

    54.   Grant program for community prevention and wellness research (Section 2301, p. 1305)

    55.   Grant program for research and demonstration projects related to wellness incentives (Section 2301, p. 1305)

    56.   Grant program for community prevention and wellness services (Section 2301, p. 1308)

    57.   Grant program for public health infrastructure (Section 2301, p. 1313)

    58.   Center for Quality Improvement (Section 2401, p. 1322)

    59.   Assistant Secretary for Health Information (Section 2402, p. 1330)

    60.   Grant program to support the operation of school-based health clinics (Section 2511, p. 1352)

    61.   Grant program for nurse-managed health centers (Section 2512, p. 1361)

    62.   Grants for labor-management programs for nursing training (Section 2521, p. 1372)

    63.   Grant program for interdisciplinary mental and behavioral health training (Section 2522, p. 1382)

    64.   “No Child Left Unimmunized Against Influenza” demonstration grant program (Section 2524, p. 1391)

    65.   Healthy Teen Initiative grant program regarding teen pregnancy (Section 2526, p. 1398)

    66.   Grant program for interdisciplinary training, education, and services for individuals with autism (Section 2527(a), p. 1402)

    67.   University centers for excellence in developmental disabilities education (Section 2527(b), p. 1410)

    68.   Grant program to implement medication therapy management services (Section 2528, p. 1412)

    69.   Grant program to promote positive health behaviors in underserved communities (Section 2530, p. 1422)

    70.   Grant program for State alternative medical liability laws (Section 2531, p. 1431)

    71.   Grant program to develop infant mortality programs (Section 2532, p. 1433)

    72.   Grant program to prepare secondary school students for careers in health professions (Section 2533, p. 1437)

    73.   Grant program for community-based collaborative care (Section 2534, p. 1440)

    74.   Grant program for community-based overweight and obesity prevention (Section 2535, p. 1457)

    75.   Grant program for reducing the student-to-school nurse ratio in primary and secondary schools (Section 2536, p. 1462)

    76.   Demonstration project of grants to medical-legal partnerships (Section 2537, p. 1464)

    77.   Center for Emergency Care under the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (Section 2552, p. 1478)

    78.   Council for Emergency Care (Section 2552, p 1479)

    79.   Grant program to support demonstration programs that design and implement regionalized emergency care systems (Section 2553, p. 1480)

    80.   Grant program to assist veterans who wish to become emergency medical technicians upon discharge (Section 2554, p. 1487)

    81.   Interagency Pain Research Coordinating Committee (Section 2562, p. 1494)

    82.   National Medical Device Registry (Section 2571, p. 1501)

    83.   CLASS Independence Fund (Section 2581, p. 1597)

    84.   CLASS Independence Fund Board of Trustees (Section 2581, p. 1598)

    85.   CLASS Independence Advisory Council (Section 2581, p. 1602)

    86.   Health and Human Services Coordinating Committee on Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1610)

    87.   National Women’s Health Information Center (Section 2588, p. 1611)

    88.   Centers for Disease Control Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1614)

    89.   Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Office of Women’s Health and Gender-Based Research (Section 2588, p. 1617)

    90.   Health Resources and Services Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1618)

    91.   Food and Drug Administration Office of Women’s Health (Section 2588, p. 1621)

    92.   Personal Care Attendant Workforce Advisory Panel (Section 2589(a)(2), p. 1624)

    93.   Grant program for national health workforce online training (Section 2591, p. 1629)

    94.   Grant program to disseminate best practices on implementing health workforce investment programs (Section 2591, p. 1632)

    95.   Demonstration program for chronic shortages of health professionals (Section 3101, p. 1717)

    96.   Demonstration program for substance abuse counselor educational curricula (Section 3101, p. 1719)

    97.   Program of Indian community education on mental illness (Section 3101, p. 1722)

    98.   Intergovernmental Task Force on Indian environmental and nuclear hazards (Section 3101, p. 1754)

    99.   Office of Indian Men’s Health (Section 3101, p. 1765)

    100.Indian Health facilities appropriation advisory board (Section 3101, p. 1774)

    101.Indian Health facilities needs assessment workgroup (Section 3101, p. 1775)

    102.Indian Health Service tribal facilities joint venture demonstration projects (Section 3101, p. 1809)

    103.Urban youth treatment center demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1873)

    104.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for diabetes prevention (Section 3101, p. 1874)

    105.Grants to Urban Indian Organizations for health IT adoption (Section 3101, p. 1877)

    106.Mental health technician training program (Section 3101, p. 1898)

    107.Indian youth telemental health demonstration project (Section 3101, p. 1909)

    108.Program for treatment of child sexual abuse victims and perpetrators (Section 3101, p. 1925)

    109.Program for treatment of domestic violence and sexual abuse (Section 3101, p. 1927)

    110.Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1966)

    111.Committee for the Establishment of the Native American Health and Wellness Foundation (Section 3103, p. 1968)

    Is the cost of all this new bureaucracy included in the $1 trillion cost of the House Democrats latest version of Obamacare?

str8tguy69

  • Visit str8tguy69's Xanga Site
    • Name: Kevin
    • Birthday: 5/26/1969
    • Gender: Male
    • Member Since: 10/27/2008

Weblog Archives

Don't worry - your calendar is here… to see it in action just click "Save" above and refresh the page.

About Me

  • married 20 years and we have 3 kids ,I am currently working on a degree in Christian counseling..I have dedicated my life to what Paul tells us In {2Cor. 1: 3-5} The God of all comforts us so we in turn can comfort others

Pulse

str8tguy69 has no pulse!...