Dear Friend,
You may or may not have signed the UN Petition for the Unborn Child and the Family. I am being a pest and sending this to you again because if you haven’t helped this campaign, I am asking you to do so now. If you have helped this campaign by signing the petition, I am asking you to send an appeal to all your friends and family to help this campaign. If you have already done that, please do it again!
The only way these types of internet campaigns work is by millions of people working together and sending repeated calls for help!
We intend to deliver one million names to the UN in support of the unborn child. I run C-FAM. We have been doing UN pro-life work full time for 12 years. You can check us out at http://www.c-fam.org to see that we are legitimate. We are in a unique position to run this campaign and to deliver one million names to our friends at the UN and to the UN Secretary General.
Read the petition HERE in one of 18 languages and then sign it, if you have not already. And then, I implore you to send a notice about this campaign to all of your friends and family, to your whole address book! We have gathered 611,998 as of 1:32 pm November 15. We have gathered 126,404 new names in the last six weeks. We need to move faster than that!
Please go HERE. Read the petition, sign it if you have not already and send the petition with your note to all of your family and friends. Do it now. Do not wait!
Yours sincerely,
Austin Ruse
President
C-FAM
Friday, November 20, 2009
Pray the St Bridget prayers
One of 15 prayers I say every night, from the St Briget prayers:
O Jesus! True liberty of angels, paradise of delights, remember the horror and sadness which thou didst endure when thy enemies , like furious lions, surrounded thee and by thousands of insults, spits, blows, lacerations and other unheard-of-cruelties, tormented Thee at will. In consideration of these torments and insulting words, I beseech Thee , O my Savior, to deliver me from all my enemies, visible and invisible, and to bring me under Thy protection, to the perfection of eternal salvation. Amen
O Jesus! True liberty of angels, paradise of delights, remember the horror and sadness which thou didst endure when thy enemies , like furious lions, surrounded thee and by thousands of insults, spits, blows, lacerations and other unheard-of-cruelties, tormented Thee at will. In consideration of these torments and insulting words, I beseech Thee , O my Savior, to deliver me from all my enemies, visible and invisible, and to bring me under Thy protection, to the perfection of eternal salvation. Amen
Are we surprised?
Council of Europe Debates "Gay" Adoption and Gender Re-Assignment
By Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Next week in Europe, a committee of human rights “experts” will discuss a draft recommendation on measures to “combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity to ensure respect for human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and to promote tolerance towards them.”
Proponents claim there is a need for “specific action” because homosexuals are still subjected to “homophobia, transphobia and other forms of intolerance and discrimination.” For starters, the 47 member states of the Council of Europe (CoE) should ensure that homosexuals have the right to adopt, to access assisted reproductive treatment like in-vitro fertilization and gender reassignment surgery, as well as give full legal recognition of such gender reassignment.
The recommendation calls for states to monitor any “direct or indirect discrimination” on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and to “ensure that legislative and other measures are adopted and effectively enforced.”
The recommendation lists documents from European and United Nations (UN) sources that it claims “recognize sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination” and takes note of last year’s controversial French-Dutch led statement on sexual orientation and gender identity which was signed by 66 nations in the General Assembly.
Critics point out that the UN statement cited by the recommendation is non-binding and was hotly contested when it was introduced at the UN General Assembly. In a clear showing that there is no international consensus on sexual orientation and gender identity, nearly sixty nations presented a counter-statement to the French-Dutch statement, and Russia, Belarus and the Holy See made separate statements also in opposition. The counter-statement condemned “all forms of stereotyping, exclusion, stigmatization, prejudice, intolerance and discrimination and violence directed against peoples, communities and individuals on any ground whatsoever, wherever they occur,” while defending the ability sovereign nations to enact laws that meet the “just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare.”
Conservative European insiders who are monitoring the draft recommendation told the Friday Fax that they were concerned that the draft recommendation shifts from the usual principle of "non-discrimination" to a new one of “non-distinction.” Where the principle of non-discrimination still allows discrimination in proportion to justified reasons, the principle of non-distinction makes no consideration of whether a differential treatment is fair or unfair, since it is the differential treatment itself which is prohibited.
Social conservatives are also concerned by another provision in the draft which states that “neither cultural, traditional, nor religious values, nor the rules of a "dominant culture" can be invoked to justify hate speech or any other form of discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.” They fear that this could inhibit the right of churches and other faith-based organizations to speak on the immorality of homosexual acts as they might be accused of inciting intolerance.
Following next week’s meeting of the steering committee on human rights, the draft recommendation will subsequently be discussed by the Committee of Ministers of the CoE. Larger in membership and older than the European Union, the CoE is considered the chief protector and promoter of human rights in Europe
By Samantha Singson
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Next week in Europe, a committee of human rights “experts” will discuss a draft recommendation on measures to “combat discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity to ensure respect for human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons and to promote tolerance towards them.”
Proponents claim there is a need for “specific action” because homosexuals are still subjected to “homophobia, transphobia and other forms of intolerance and discrimination.” For starters, the 47 member states of the Council of Europe (CoE) should ensure that homosexuals have the right to adopt, to access assisted reproductive treatment like in-vitro fertilization and gender reassignment surgery, as well as give full legal recognition of such gender reassignment.
The recommendation calls for states to monitor any “direct or indirect discrimination” on the grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity and to “ensure that legislative and other measures are adopted and effectively enforced.”
The recommendation lists documents from European and United Nations (UN) sources that it claims “recognize sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination” and takes note of last year’s controversial French-Dutch led statement on sexual orientation and gender identity which was signed by 66 nations in the General Assembly.
Critics point out that the UN statement cited by the recommendation is non-binding and was hotly contested when it was introduced at the UN General Assembly. In a clear showing that there is no international consensus on sexual orientation and gender identity, nearly sixty nations presented a counter-statement to the French-Dutch statement, and Russia, Belarus and the Holy See made separate statements also in opposition. The counter-statement condemned “all forms of stereotyping, exclusion, stigmatization, prejudice, intolerance and discrimination and violence directed against peoples, communities and individuals on any ground whatsoever, wherever they occur,” while defending the ability sovereign nations to enact laws that meet the “just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare.”
Conservative European insiders who are monitoring the draft recommendation told the Friday Fax that they were concerned that the draft recommendation shifts from the usual principle of "non-discrimination" to a new one of “non-distinction.” Where the principle of non-discrimination still allows discrimination in proportion to justified reasons, the principle of non-distinction makes no consideration of whether a differential treatment is fair or unfair, since it is the differential treatment itself which is prohibited.
Social conservatives are also concerned by another provision in the draft which states that “neither cultural, traditional, nor religious values, nor the rules of a "dominant culture" can be invoked to justify hate speech or any other form of discrimination, including on grounds of sexual orientation and gender identity.” They fear that this could inhibit the right of churches and other faith-based organizations to speak on the immorality of homosexual acts as they might be accused of inciting intolerance.
Following next week’s meeting of the steering committee on human rights, the draft recommendation will subsequently be discussed by the Committee of Ministers of the CoE. Larger in membership and older than the European Union, the CoE is considered the chief protector and promoter of human rights in Europe
Your U.N. at work, Funded by Obama
November 19, 2009
New UNFPA Report Goes Green to Promote "Reproductive Rights"
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released its annual State of the World Population Report yesterday, linking efforts to promote "sustainable development" and affect "climate change" to its "reproductive rights" agenda. Critics see the report as a thinly-veiled attempt to harness popular environmental concerns in service of population control.
The report, "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate," asserts that achieving "universal access to reproductive health" would both contribute to declines in fertility and "help reduce green-house gas emissions in the long run." It calls upon nations to "fully fund family planning services and contraceptive supplies."
Sounding alarmist, UNFPA claims that "The harsh realities of high per capita emissions among industrialized countries and swiftly rising ones among developing countries highlight the urgency of mobilizing all of humanity to stop collectively at the brink of this possible climate disaster zone." In a statement accompanying the report, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid avers that "rapid population growth and industrialization have led to a rapid rise in greenhouse gas emissions. We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster."
Peter C. Smith of the International Right to Life Federation observes that agencies such as the UNFPA always need a "looming disaster" to secure their funding." Smith sees the "true looming disaster" as the "demographic implosion of the developed world" which is being exported to the developing world. The report touts declining birth rates in Japan and the European Union (EU) as positives and criticizes higher fertility in the United States (US).
In places, the report disavows overt population control arguments and acknowledges development specialists such as Bangladesh's Atiq Rahman, who attributes climate change to "consumption patterns" rather than "demographic considerations." Yet it also asserts that "Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time." Further, the report states that "fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of 'population' in the climate debate. Nonetheless, some participants in the debate are tentatively suggesting the need at least consider the impacts of population growth." It points to an EU proposal "that population trends be among the factors that should be taken into consideration when setting greenhouse-gas mitigation targets."
Critics also point to the report's favorable citation of Obama administration's science czar, John Holdren, as signaling openness to coercive measures. In the 1970s, Holdren called for forced abortion and sterilization in his writings. Concern over UNFPA's role in facilitating China's one-child policy, which is beset by allegations of forced and sex-selective abortion, contributed to a recommendation by the US State Department under then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to suspend funding of the agency. In March of this year, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration policy and directed that $50 million be given to UNFPA, despite continued concerns over its China role.
New UNFPA Report Goes Green to Promote "Reproductive Rights"
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.
(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) released its annual State of the World Population Report yesterday, linking efforts to promote "sustainable development" and affect "climate change" to its "reproductive rights" agenda. Critics see the report as a thinly-veiled attempt to harness popular environmental concerns in service of population control.
The report, "Facing a Changing World: Women, Population and Climate," asserts that achieving "universal access to reproductive health" would both contribute to declines in fertility and "help reduce green-house gas emissions in the long run." It calls upon nations to "fully fund family planning services and contraceptive supplies."
Sounding alarmist, UNFPA claims that "The harsh realities of high per capita emissions among industrialized countries and swiftly rising ones among developing countries highlight the urgency of mobilizing all of humanity to stop collectively at the brink of this possible climate disaster zone." In a statement accompanying the report, UNFPA Executive Director Thoraya Obaid avers that "rapid population growth and industrialization have led to a rapid rise in greenhouse gas emissions. We have now reached a point where humanity is approaching the brink of disaster."
Peter C. Smith of the International Right to Life Federation observes that agencies such as the UNFPA always need a "looming disaster" to secure their funding." Smith sees the "true looming disaster" as the "demographic implosion of the developed world" which is being exported to the developing world. The report touts declining birth rates in Japan and the European Union (EU) as positives and criticizes higher fertility in the United States (US).
In places, the report disavows overt population control arguments and acknowledges development specialists such as Bangladesh's Atiq Rahman, who attributes climate change to "consumption patterns" rather than "demographic considerations." Yet it also asserts that "Each birth results not only in the emissions attributable to that person in his or her lifetime, but also the emissions of all his or her descendents. Hence, the emissions savings from intended or planned births multiply with time." Further, the report states that "fear of appearing supportive of population control has until recently held back any mention of 'population' in the climate debate. Nonetheless, some participants in the debate are tentatively suggesting the need at least consider the impacts of population growth." It points to an EU proposal "that population trends be among the factors that should be taken into consideration when setting greenhouse-gas mitigation targets."
Critics also point to the report's favorable citation of Obama administration's science czar, John Holdren, as signaling openness to coercive measures. In the 1970s, Holdren called for forced abortion and sterilization in his writings. Concern over UNFPA's role in facilitating China's one-child policy, which is beset by allegations of forced and sex-selective abortion, contributed to a recommendation by the US State Department under then-Secretary of State Colin Powell to suspend funding of the agency. In March of this year, the Obama administration reversed the Bush administration policy and directed that $50 million be given to UNFPA, despite continued concerns over its China role.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Another attack on Christians, and Jews
November 18, 2009 HOLIDAY GIFTS BANNED IN SCHOOL GIFT SHOP Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on the latest war on Christmas: The Byam Elementary School in Chelmsford, Massachusetts recently asked parents to donate holiday gifts to its holiday gift shop; the shopping days are December 1-4. Shopping guidelines informed that “Seasonal items such as snowmen, mittens, snowflakes are a big hit.” But it also had a list of “Items NOT Permitted.” The school was very specific about which items it considers taboo: “No Christmas, Chanukah or religious items,” and “No Santa, candy canes or stockings.” How snowmen made the cut but stockings did not was not explained. The school, of course, is observing Christmas by closing, yet it is not allowing Christmas gifts to be sold in its holiday gift shop, thus making it inexplicable why gifts celebrating the holiday being celebrated are banned. Some may see this as simply absurd. We don’t. We see it as pernicious: in the name of diversity and inclusion, the multicultural tyrants get to do what they have always wanted to do—censor Christmas. Parents upset by this authoritarian decision are meeting soon to overturn the ban. Give them support and let Dr. Jane Gilmore, the school’s principal, know how you feel. Contact her at:
gilmorej@chelmsford.k12.ma.us >
Dr. Gilmore
I am writing to you as a Catholic American who is wholly offended by the absurd and preposterous ban your school has placed on Christmas. What logic could you or your peers possibly be using? As I am sure you are well aware, this country was founded on religious freedom, that means freedom to witness and/or express your faith openly without bans or irresponsible rules prohibiting some religions why bending over backwards to honor others. This seems to me, to be nothing more than a pitiful and ignorant attempt to placate those who either do not believe in God at all or choose to worship Allah based on the teachings in the Quran over the Holy Bible meanwhile those same Islamics honor Jesus Christ and Moses. I have seen Muslims putting up Christmas trees , or Chanukah bushes. This country was founded predominantly by Christian men, built up by Christian and Judaic men and women...defended in countless wars by Christian and Judaic men and women. After hundreds of years of co-existance of these religions, and acceptance of each others ideas, why now have they become offensive? Is it because that .6% are now dictating to the rest of the United States of America what should or should not be? Are these religions really so offensive that they need to be obliterated in public schools altogether to pacify the select few? The public school system exists because of the tax payers, the parents whose children you are effectively discrediting for believing in Santa Claus and/or the birth of Christ, or the Jewish celebration of Lights?(chanukah) Why can’t they purchase or enjoy symbols of their faith? Who are you to make that decision, when these people pay your salary? Remember who it was that settled in Massachusetts,
whom the Pilgrims were, and who set up civilization. The agnostics, and atheist will always jump at a chance to put down GOD, or any happy celebration. At the same time space is provided for Muslims to celebrate their holidays, and yet they are only .6% of our country.
I thought that in our country Majority Rules. The Liberal thinking in this country, is not the Majority of the people in the USA, and though the people in charge of the schooling system appear to be Liberal, they are not the Majority in America, or Massachusetts. Has any vote been taken by the Majority of Massachusetts parents ? Why is it that our Minority is ruling, and the Majority of parents of children in this school are not heard? As an educator you should know full well that the words “separation of church and state” do not even appear in the First Amendment. What it does say is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment gives citizens the Freedom to Worship God without Government interference (Public schools being the “government interference” in this case). What you are doing, is basically violating the constitution, and our first Amendment rights.
The term "Separation of Church and State" can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. So, in January, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." In reading the full letter, it is quite clear that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." - Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment using the metaphor, "wall", to separate the government from interfering with religious practice. It is interesting to note that the First Amendment puts restrictions only on the Government, not the people! Quite unfortunately, the Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment, thus putting the restrictions on the People! This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice. The idiocy that continues in public schools based on this misinterpretation is rather incredible! People who claim to be educated and who, likewise, are entrusted to “educate” America’s youth are more often than not, the very individuals trampling on the most basic rights we hold dear. Is this what our children being taught?
Finally, statistics prove that about 78% of our country classify themselves as Christian, 4.7% Jewish, 1.6% Atheist, 0.6% Muslim, so how is it that the minority rule over the majority? I fear that if your school is permitted to perpetrate this ridiculous arbitrary rule, more will follow. This type of nonsense needs to be stopped before Americans lose their identity and America loses its heart and soul.
Contrary to what our inept president will have people believe, the United States of America IS still a predominantly Christian/Judaic nation.
I sincerely hope you will consider reversing this ludicrous decision.
Sincerely
Itzik Janowitz
gilmorej@chelmsford.k12.ma.us >
Dr. Gilmore
I am writing to you as a Catholic American who is wholly offended by the absurd and preposterous ban your school has placed on Christmas. What logic could you or your peers possibly be using? As I am sure you are well aware, this country was founded on religious freedom, that means freedom to witness and/or express your faith openly without bans or irresponsible rules prohibiting some religions why bending over backwards to honor others. This seems to me, to be nothing more than a pitiful and ignorant attempt to placate those who either do not believe in God at all or choose to worship Allah based on the teachings in the Quran over the Holy Bible meanwhile those same Islamics honor Jesus Christ and Moses. I have seen Muslims putting up Christmas trees , or Chanukah bushes. This country was founded predominantly by Christian men, built up by Christian and Judaic men and women...defended in countless wars by Christian and Judaic men and women. After hundreds of years of co-existance of these religions, and acceptance of each others ideas, why now have they become offensive? Is it because that .6% are now dictating to the rest of the United States of America what should or should not be? Are these religions really so offensive that they need to be obliterated in public schools altogether to pacify the select few? The public school system exists because of the tax payers, the parents whose children you are effectively discrediting for believing in Santa Claus and/or the birth of Christ, or the Jewish celebration of Lights?(chanukah) Why can’t they purchase or enjoy symbols of their faith? Who are you to make that decision, when these people pay your salary? Remember who it was that settled in Massachusetts,
whom the Pilgrims were, and who set up civilization. The agnostics, and atheist will always jump at a chance to put down GOD, or any happy celebration. At the same time space is provided for Muslims to celebrate their holidays, and yet they are only .6% of our country.
I thought that in our country Majority Rules. The Liberal thinking in this country, is not the Majority of the people in the USA, and though the people in charge of the schooling system appear to be Liberal, they are not the Majority in America, or Massachusetts. Has any vote been taken by the Majority of Massachusetts parents ? Why is it that our Minority is ruling, and the Majority of parents of children in this school are not heard? As an educator you should know full well that the words “separation of church and state” do not even appear in the First Amendment. What it does say is: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment gives citizens the Freedom to Worship God without Government interference (Public schools being the “government interference” in this case). What you are doing, is basically violating the constitution, and our first Amendment rights.
The term "Separation of Church and State" can be traced back to a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1802. In October 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut wrote to President Jefferson, and in their letter they voiced some concerns about Religious Freedom. So, in January, 1802 Jefferson wrote a letter to them in which he added the phrase "Separation of Church and State." In reading the full letter, it is quite clear that Jefferson was simply underscoring the First Amendment as a guardian of the peoples religious freedom from government interference.
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State." - Thomas Jefferson
Jefferson simply quotes the First Amendment using the metaphor, "wall", to separate the government from interfering with religious practice. It is interesting to note that the First Amendment puts restrictions only on the Government, not the people! Quite unfortunately, the Warren Court re-interpreted the First Amendment, thus putting the restrictions on the People! This is quite different from the wall Jefferson envisioned, protecting the people from government interference with Religious practice. The idiocy that continues in public schools based on this misinterpretation is rather incredible! People who claim to be educated and who, likewise, are entrusted to “educate” America’s youth are more often than not, the very individuals trampling on the most basic rights we hold dear. Is this what our children being taught?
Finally, statistics prove that about 78% of our country classify themselves as Christian, 4.7% Jewish, 1.6% Atheist, 0.6% Muslim, so how is it that the minority rule over the majority? I fear that if your school is permitted to perpetrate this ridiculous arbitrary rule, more will follow. This type of nonsense needs to be stopped before Americans lose their identity and America loses its heart and soul.
Contrary to what our inept president will have people believe, the United States of America IS still a predominantly Christian/Judaic nation.
I sincerely hope you will consider reversing this ludicrous decision.
Sincerely
Itzik Janowitz
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
The real story of the Health (UN-Care) Bills
Major Issue: Healthcare and Reaction to It
By Helen Moore: Permission by Dr Alan Keys:
The healthcare proposals are receiving opposition not only from Republicans but from Democrats as well. This brings together a number of the things we’ve been talking about throughout our webinar sessions.
Let’s Put this Into the Context of the Overall Issues We’ve Talked About:
Our Constitutional Form of Government
This should always be our foremost concern toward things. It should be quite natural to ask what the impact of any new legislation or policy will be on the Constitutional form of government in the US.
Proponents are talking about the ability to provide healthcare for everyone but that’s not what we are talking about. Sit back and consider the two fundamental sides:
There are those who say here is healthcare that will take care of all our problems—cover everyone, meet all our needs and insist it is the only answer. This argument focuses on results and the discussion is engaged by the opposition.
The opposition says this is not true; this will not be the result of the proposals being put forward. Instead, these proposals for healthcare will obstruct liberty.
Look at this and ask if the discussion is based on the real premise which is: What is the aim of the proposal? Is it to produce good results, efficiency, etc.?
Obama says if we take our existing Healthcare System and put it entirely under the control of the federal government this will produce good Healthcare.
What is the evidence for this?
Such systems exist in Russia, Canada, the UK, in many countries. But do they work? Are they less costly? There is no evidence to suggest they work or are less costly. People who live under such systems, when they have the wherewithal to do so, come to America to get Healthcare.
They come here because they want to come to the place where the Healthcare is the best in the world.
So the current administration wants to take a system recognized by people who are living under centralized, government controlled Healthcare as the best and who want to come here to take advantage of our system, and change it to imitate the very systems they are coming to our country to avoid. Yet this administration wants to go down this road to government controlled Healthcare and expects that the results are going to be better here than they are in other countries who have already gone down this path.
Think about this: A simple logical deduction from what I’ve just said; from the real proof the world has had with this Healthcare experiment.
In these government controlled systems we see less experience, less research, people denied access to Healthcare, people kept waiting, unnecessary deaths, poor diagnoses, and poor treatment. I can tell you from personal experience in a relative’s family that when a person finally gets through this maze to treatment and the patient dies on the operating table, the family is told they waited too long to get treatment.
No, the truth is the patient was victimized by the system. The delays in these government controlled systems are fatal because one misdiagnosis follows another. The system manipulates patients until they die. This is the reality of socialized, government run Healthcare.
These are real facts and the real experiences of a socialistic Healthcare system.
If a government wanted good results for Healthcare, they would not start by imitating systems with a veneer of EQUALITY in which people are mistreated until they die.
If we want to effectively reform Healthcare, we need to look at what makes our system superior and emphasize those things. We want to get more of what is good into our system; not replace what is good in our system with a system that has proved over and over to be a failure.
Economist, Milton Friedman, wrote an article in which he looked at government controlled Healthcare. His conclusion was that if you analyze what has been pushing the cost higher in our system and creating less efficiency, you find it has been those things in which the US had already gone down the road of socialized medicine under the guise of Medicare and Medicaid.
The third party payer—the insurance companies in our system also had a key role in raising cost and lowering efficiency because they have interfered with the interface between patient and doctor in the delivery of Healthcare. By placing themselves between the consumer in a position in which the consumer can no longer police the connection between their treatment and their provider.
If you want the best results, you would eliminate those parts of our system which imitate government controlled systems and put consumers back in the driver’s seat.
When you see some insisting we should go down a path that puts Healthcare more and more in control of the government, you should conclude:
They do not care about the results.
What they are really after is control, not results
There will be certain factions that will control what many Americans depend on for life and death.
Put all of this in the context of what we’ve seen over the past several months. They are taking control over other aspects of our life. They are gathering the reins of power and control not just in areas that have to do with foreign policy, etc (which are the real job of the federal government) but rather they are taking control of our businesses, of our credit, etc.
If this is their aim, then it would seem we are moving down a road in which every time you want to make a move you will need to get permission from the government and those who control the government.
I wish I could tell you that all that I’m telling you is hypothetical but I cannot. It is exactly how the totalitarian regimes have worked. In such a regime to have livelihood, a family, a home you are at the mercy of the central government.
This means there is a group of favored people who run government and others who garner favor with those in government who will control each person at the most fundamental level.
WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE DARK AGES—TO AN OPPRESIVE FORM OF DICTATORSHIP BY AN ELITE OLIGARCHY.
As an American what is your responsibility to accept any of this?
Our people are bound to preserve liberty. How can people do this when everything they do is dependent on this same group of people in government who control every aspect of their life?
They are usurping our ability to govern ourselves. We will reach a point where there will be no real elections. They will try to keep the appearance of government of, by and for the people but you will not have the substance of such self-government. There will be no ability for the people to stand apart from those in power.
Once you have put life and death experiences in the hands of a governing body, how can the people govern themselves and have any personal control over their government and their lives?
Even Republicans these days accept the false premise that pure motives are operating. It is so obvious that what is being proposed will not produce good results, so what is the real motive? We are heading toward the end of self-government.
They base their analysis upon the premise or claim that the people want a better system, but when you begin to examine it, you begin to get wind of the ideology at work. Start to look at some of the specifics:
People are quietly trying to use the public money to fund Planned Parenthood—an organization that exists to kill babies.
To achieve efficiency they will look at people who are at the end of life and they want to counsel them to make decisions to shorten their own lives for the sake of efficiency—the sake of the dollar. They will provide them with counselors who will help them come to grips with the “noble reality” of truth for the greater good. A MENTALITY OF EUTHANSIA.
Trust me, this is not about cost-effectiveness. There is a cost involved in killing babies and to keep older people alive. The message is that people who are getting older have a REDUCED POTENTIAL. THEY WANT TO SPEND MONEY, THEY SAY, ON PEOPLE WHO HAVE A GREATER POTENTIALITY QUOTIENT.
Think about this idea—they are saying that some people and some stages of life have greater potentiality than others. Well, the most potential exists at the beginning of life. So you would think if they wanted good results, efficiency, they would spend money to preserve life at the very beginning.
But you find in their proposals statements that support spending money to kill those at the beginning of life—at the point at which the most potential exists.
It’s all lies! They are willing to kill at the beginning of life and at the end of life. The underlying notion that shows the real nature of their premise which says that a person’s real potential cannot be measured in time or by God.
Dr. Keyes is spending a lot of time thinking about this and taking kind of a personal survey. He asks people: What years of your life would you be willing to give up? And what about the time of the lives of your loved ones who are most frail? The lives of those we love and value cannot be quantified.
Take a typical adolescent. They are mostly thinking about themselves. Eventually they grow older and reach the most important time of their lives—the time they share with others, have children, have grand children—all of this in their older years. These are the years in which largely they give comfort, guidance, care and love.
Compare the adolescent and the older person and think of spending money to preserve life at the selfish stage and to preserve life at the stage where you give more of yourself to others. Can you place a value of one over the other?
Obama and his people are objectifying people and taking away all those things that cannot be measured in dollars. They will do a calculation that to them will validate their offences against human dignity. The people who make these decisions will look at people with no regard for human life.
When we get to the point where we realize what is going on, we will understand this is not just Healthcare. It will have become a transformation of hearts and consciences to accept the objectification of grandma and grandpa based on the dollars it might take to keep them healthy and alive. [My own addition: They will have made us into cold, calculating, obedient zombies.]
We are walking down a path that has repeatedly been perpetuated by totalitarian governments. THIS IS WHAT ALL OF THIS IS REALLY ABOUT.
And it is what the American principles guard against. We need to think very carefully before we willingly give up these principles and freedoms.
By seeing the intrinsic value of each and every human life, we restrain human power that looks to control every aspect of our lives.
The value of human life is approaching zero!
The moral consequences of taking 1 or 10 or 100 or 1 million lives is approaching zero.
If 1 life has no value, then 1 million lives have no value.
There is a question not only of the form of regime which is developing but also a question of the formation of conscience that is developing.
The Obama faction will destroy consciences.
If you think this through, you will find in it the most important health issue of all. Think of the kinds of slaughters and purges that have gone on throughout history. Think of Nazi Germany; think of modern day Rwanda. What is being proposed to us both in Healthcare and in what is happening to our form of government comes from the same type of mentality that produced the horrors of Nazi Germany and modern Rwanda to name just a few of the regimes of slaughter in history-- complete control of lives and complete disdain for the value of life.
By Helen Moore: Permission by Dr Alan Keys:
The healthcare proposals are receiving opposition not only from Republicans but from Democrats as well. This brings together a number of the things we’ve been talking about throughout our webinar sessions.
Let’s Put this Into the Context of the Overall Issues We’ve Talked About:
Our Constitutional Form of Government
This should always be our foremost concern toward things. It should be quite natural to ask what the impact of any new legislation or policy will be on the Constitutional form of government in the US.
Proponents are talking about the ability to provide healthcare for everyone but that’s not what we are talking about. Sit back and consider the two fundamental sides:
There are those who say here is healthcare that will take care of all our problems—cover everyone, meet all our needs and insist it is the only answer. This argument focuses on results and the discussion is engaged by the opposition.
The opposition says this is not true; this will not be the result of the proposals being put forward. Instead, these proposals for healthcare will obstruct liberty.
Look at this and ask if the discussion is based on the real premise which is: What is the aim of the proposal? Is it to produce good results, efficiency, etc.?
Obama says if we take our existing Healthcare System and put it entirely under the control of the federal government this will produce good Healthcare.
What is the evidence for this?
Such systems exist in Russia, Canada, the UK, in many countries. But do they work? Are they less costly? There is no evidence to suggest they work or are less costly. People who live under such systems, when they have the wherewithal to do so, come to America to get Healthcare.
They come here because they want to come to the place where the Healthcare is the best in the world.
So the current administration wants to take a system recognized by people who are living under centralized, government controlled Healthcare as the best and who want to come here to take advantage of our system, and change it to imitate the very systems they are coming to our country to avoid. Yet this administration wants to go down this road to government controlled Healthcare and expects that the results are going to be better here than they are in other countries who have already gone down this path.
Think about this: A simple logical deduction from what I’ve just said; from the real proof the world has had with this Healthcare experiment.
In these government controlled systems we see less experience, less research, people denied access to Healthcare, people kept waiting, unnecessary deaths, poor diagnoses, and poor treatment. I can tell you from personal experience in a relative’s family that when a person finally gets through this maze to treatment and the patient dies on the operating table, the family is told they waited too long to get treatment.
No, the truth is the patient was victimized by the system. The delays in these government controlled systems are fatal because one misdiagnosis follows another. The system manipulates patients until they die. This is the reality of socialized, government run Healthcare.
These are real facts and the real experiences of a socialistic Healthcare system.
If a government wanted good results for Healthcare, they would not start by imitating systems with a veneer of EQUALITY in which people are mistreated until they die.
If we want to effectively reform Healthcare, we need to look at what makes our system superior and emphasize those things. We want to get more of what is good into our system; not replace what is good in our system with a system that has proved over and over to be a failure.
Economist, Milton Friedman, wrote an article in which he looked at government controlled Healthcare. His conclusion was that if you analyze what has been pushing the cost higher in our system and creating less efficiency, you find it has been those things in which the US had already gone down the road of socialized medicine under the guise of Medicare and Medicaid.
The third party payer—the insurance companies in our system also had a key role in raising cost and lowering efficiency because they have interfered with the interface between patient and doctor in the delivery of Healthcare. By placing themselves between the consumer in a position in which the consumer can no longer police the connection between their treatment and their provider.
If you want the best results, you would eliminate those parts of our system which imitate government controlled systems and put consumers back in the driver’s seat.
When you see some insisting we should go down a path that puts Healthcare more and more in control of the government, you should conclude:
They do not care about the results.
What they are really after is control, not results
There will be certain factions that will control what many Americans depend on for life and death.
Put all of this in the context of what we’ve seen over the past several months. They are taking control over other aspects of our life. They are gathering the reins of power and control not just in areas that have to do with foreign policy, etc (which are the real job of the federal government) but rather they are taking control of our businesses, of our credit, etc.
If this is their aim, then it would seem we are moving down a road in which every time you want to make a move you will need to get permission from the government and those who control the government.
I wish I could tell you that all that I’m telling you is hypothetical but I cannot. It is exactly how the totalitarian regimes have worked. In such a regime to have livelihood, a family, a home you are at the mercy of the central government.
This means there is a group of favored people who run government and others who garner favor with those in government who will control each person at the most fundamental level.
WE ARE GOING BACK TO THE DARK AGES—TO AN OPPRESIVE FORM OF DICTATORSHIP BY AN ELITE OLIGARCHY.
As an American what is your responsibility to accept any of this?
Our people are bound to preserve liberty. How can people do this when everything they do is dependent on this same group of people in government who control every aspect of their life?
They are usurping our ability to govern ourselves. We will reach a point where there will be no real elections. They will try to keep the appearance of government of, by and for the people but you will not have the substance of such self-government. There will be no ability for the people to stand apart from those in power.
Once you have put life and death experiences in the hands of a governing body, how can the people govern themselves and have any personal control over their government and their lives?
Even Republicans these days accept the false premise that pure motives are operating. It is so obvious that what is being proposed will not produce good results, so what is the real motive? We are heading toward the end of self-government.
They base their analysis upon the premise or claim that the people want a better system, but when you begin to examine it, you begin to get wind of the ideology at work. Start to look at some of the specifics:
People are quietly trying to use the public money to fund Planned Parenthood—an organization that exists to kill babies.
To achieve efficiency they will look at people who are at the end of life and they want to counsel them to make decisions to shorten their own lives for the sake of efficiency—the sake of the dollar. They will provide them with counselors who will help them come to grips with the “noble reality” of truth for the greater good. A MENTALITY OF EUTHANSIA.
Trust me, this is not about cost-effectiveness. There is a cost involved in killing babies and to keep older people alive. The message is that people who are getting older have a REDUCED POTENTIAL. THEY WANT TO SPEND MONEY, THEY SAY, ON PEOPLE WHO HAVE A GREATER POTENTIALITY QUOTIENT.
Think about this idea—they are saying that some people and some stages of life have greater potentiality than others. Well, the most potential exists at the beginning of life. So you would think if they wanted good results, efficiency, they would spend money to preserve life at the very beginning.
But you find in their proposals statements that support spending money to kill those at the beginning of life—at the point at which the most potential exists.
It’s all lies! They are willing to kill at the beginning of life and at the end of life. The underlying notion that shows the real nature of their premise which says that a person’s real potential cannot be measured in time or by God.
Dr. Keyes is spending a lot of time thinking about this and taking kind of a personal survey. He asks people: What years of your life would you be willing to give up? And what about the time of the lives of your loved ones who are most frail? The lives of those we love and value cannot be quantified.
Take a typical adolescent. They are mostly thinking about themselves. Eventually they grow older and reach the most important time of their lives—the time they share with others, have children, have grand children—all of this in their older years. These are the years in which largely they give comfort, guidance, care and love.
Compare the adolescent and the older person and think of spending money to preserve life at the selfish stage and to preserve life at the stage where you give more of yourself to others. Can you place a value of one over the other?
Obama and his people are objectifying people and taking away all those things that cannot be measured in dollars. They will do a calculation that to them will validate their offences against human dignity. The people who make these decisions will look at people with no regard for human life.
When we get to the point where we realize what is going on, we will understand this is not just Healthcare. It will have become a transformation of hearts and consciences to accept the objectification of grandma and grandpa based on the dollars it might take to keep them healthy and alive. [My own addition: They will have made us into cold, calculating, obedient zombies.]
We are walking down a path that has repeatedly been perpetuated by totalitarian governments. THIS IS WHAT ALL OF THIS IS REALLY ABOUT.
And it is what the American principles guard against. We need to think very carefully before we willingly give up these principles and freedoms.
By seeing the intrinsic value of each and every human life, we restrain human power that looks to control every aspect of our lives.
The value of human life is approaching zero!
The moral consequences of taking 1 or 10 or 100 or 1 million lives is approaching zero.
If 1 life has no value, then 1 million lives have no value.
There is a question not only of the form of regime which is developing but also a question of the formation of conscience that is developing.
The Obama faction will destroy consciences.
If you think this through, you will find in it the most important health issue of all. Think of the kinds of slaughters and purges that have gone on throughout history. Think of Nazi Germany; think of modern day Rwanda. What is being proposed to us both in Healthcare and in what is happening to our form of government comes from the same type of mentality that produced the horrors of Nazi Germany and modern Rwanda to name just a few of the regimes of slaughter in history-- complete control of lives and complete disdain for the value of life.
My reply to a Liberal
PuffinLady wrote:
I just came back from Germany. Looked into their Health Care. And contrary to what you all believe - it really does work! Our current healthcare system is horrendous and something seriously needs to be done.
With the Obama healthcare bill slowing down, it will be seen that he has no allegiance to anyone, now that he is in. The government is now running a campaign against getting a mammography every year.There was not one onconolgist on that panel, so who are these people that think this way?
In addition, they are aginst the men getting a PSA testing every year. They have already admitted that they will be cutting back on the medicare proceedures they will cover, and the latest to oppose Obama-care is CHINA, who buys tons of U.S.
Bonds, and they are worried that the cost will put the U.S. at risk of defaulting on their debts.
All of the voters that voted for this Nutjob,
backed by the worse Congress we have ever had, will realize, that they had committed one of the worse errors in voting, they could ever have done.
This healthcare bill, was not necessary. Those that needed help could have gotten help from the government, the cost would have been 1/6th of what it is estimated to cost, and the majority of American people that have healtcare (86%) would agree with that. They claim that there is millions upon millions of of dollars lost in medicare claims, by fraudulent claims, well then, nail those that are doing this. Don't just say that it is happening, go after those that are doing it. What they are doing, is throwing everyone who lives in Long Island in jail,because there are some people on Long Island that are committing crimes, does that make sense?
Forget about party lines, we are talking about people that are making the laws, AND ARE NOT BOUND BY THE SAME LAWS THEY ARE MAKING! Why don't they be the first ones to step up to the plate and agree to take this same health care they are trying to hang around our necks? If the government needs so much money, why doesn't the government mandate a 10% pay reduction for everyone that works for the government? How about the parkways shutting off the lights during the day and conserve energy and money, before looking to increase the Taxes on home owners? How about giving a bonus for workers who work for the county, that come up with ideas of how to save money? How about the money the government gives out and is mandated by congress, to pander to certain congressman and Senators? You want to clean up the waste, and conserve money, start in your own house before looking to increase taxes on
the American people.
Just thinking out loud
I just came back from Germany. Looked into their Health Care. And contrary to what you all believe - it really does work! Our current healthcare system is horrendous and something seriously needs to be done.
With the Obama healthcare bill slowing down, it will be seen that he has no allegiance to anyone, now that he is in. The government is now running a campaign against getting a mammography every year.There was not one onconolgist on that panel, so who are these people that think this way?
In addition, they are aginst the men getting a PSA testing every year. They have already admitted that they will be cutting back on the medicare proceedures they will cover, and the latest to oppose Obama-care is CHINA, who buys tons of U.S.
Bonds, and they are worried that the cost will put the U.S. at risk of defaulting on their debts.
All of the voters that voted for this Nutjob,
backed by the worse Congress we have ever had, will realize, that they had committed one of the worse errors in voting, they could ever have done.
This healthcare bill, was not necessary. Those that needed help could have gotten help from the government, the cost would have been 1/6th of what it is estimated to cost, and the majority of American people that have healtcare (86%) would agree with that. They claim that there is millions upon millions of of dollars lost in medicare claims, by fraudulent claims, well then, nail those that are doing this. Don't just say that it is happening, go after those that are doing it. What they are doing, is throwing everyone who lives in Long Island in jail,because there are some people on Long Island that are committing crimes, does that make sense?
Forget about party lines, we are talking about people that are making the laws, AND ARE NOT BOUND BY THE SAME LAWS THEY ARE MAKING! Why don't they be the first ones to step up to the plate and agree to take this same health care they are trying to hang around our necks? If the government needs so much money, why doesn't the government mandate a 10% pay reduction for everyone that works for the government? How about the parkways shutting off the lights during the day and conserve energy and money, before looking to increase the Taxes on home owners? How about giving a bonus for workers who work for the county, that come up with ideas of how to save money? How about the money the government gives out and is mandated by congress, to pander to certain congressman and Senators? You want to clean up the waste, and conserve money, start in your own house before looking to increase taxes on
the American people.
Just thinking out loud
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)