That said, my number one gripe about a national plan is that, like all other government programs, all tax-paying americans will be forced to dish out more of their hard-earned money to pay for those who aren't hard-working, as well as the handful who are and just couldn't afford health insurance because they were paying too much of their income to the government in taxes or are stuck working a low-paying job under some millionaire because they can't afford to 'go into business on their own'.
Our family is one of those families. Self-employed with four employees, we ended up owing more money in taxes than i'd made at most of my prior jobs in a year on something most americans aren't even aware of: "self-employment tax". Self-employment tax is a way the government collects for current welfare and existing healthcare programs. Most americans don't know about it because most americans work for someone else. You don't really come face to face with this until you escape the slavery of working for someone else. Your employer faces similar charges, but usually those are taxes that they get by filing as a big corporation, and there are certain other kickbacks a corporation receives.
We don't have healthcare right now. we lost our business when tax season came, and in addition to having lost (mostly) our jobs, being in tremendous debt to the government, being in debt for our home, and having three children to take care of, we just can't afford insurance, so every illness that eeds to get checked out, every medicine, and every x-ray, blood test or check-up we have comes out of our own pocket. Though supposedly "4 out of 5" american's don't have health care, most people probably don't realise how expensive 30 minutes at the cardiologist or 5 minutes with the family care nurse actually cost.
The current trend with the media is to go "mythbusting" the handful of spooky stories about the healthcare program being pushed by our wannabe-socialist government. I hadn't been aware of these myths (which was surprising, given the large number of 'radical right wing extremist' (to quote Napolitino) organizations i get emails from ... groups like the Libertarian Party, the NRA, the John Birch Society, the Republicans, and the numerous 'survivalist' blogs i subscribe to). In fact, the ONLY place i've heard these myths is from the promoters of the healthcare program themselves, and from the news media. This isn't to say that freaked out Springer-watching white trash and little old ladies in Ohio aren't passing a handful of emails on to their friends, but the "anti-healthcare movement' isn't anything it's made out to be.
How are these myths becoming so public, then? Like McCarthyism and "ratting out commies", the Obama administration (specifically the White House itself) recently began soliciting rumours and chain letters that were unfavorable to the President in its "facts are stubborn things" "fishy emails" blog. Nevermind that it is illegal for the president to create lists against the public ... the whitehouse blog specifically states:
"There is a lot of disinformation about health insurance reform out there, spanning from control of personal finances to end of life care. These rumors often travel just below the surface via chain emails or through casual conversation. Since we can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help. If you get an email or see something on the web about health insurance reform that seems fishy, send it to flag@whitehouse.gov"
according to 5 U.S.C. § 552a, the President cannot collect and maintain records describing how any particular individual chooses to exercise their 1st Amendment Rights unless a specific statute or the individual themselves authorize the collection of such data, AND it is used appropriately by law enforcement agencies. pretty much this sounds like it means if you forward an email to some friends, and they forward it, then someone sends it to the White House, Obama can keep track of the person who sent that email to them, but cannot use any of the other names in the email headers on the chain email. I guess we've got his word that he won't look at those names ...
but wait! just last week, numerous people were a bit freaked out that the White House sent them a spam when they'd never signed up for a mailing list. The White House apologized, but the "act first, apologize later" strategy looks strangely familiar (campaign mudslingling strategy of the Left!), and, as we learned from the campaign, when you put the lie out there, retracting it later is incredibly ineffective. (Later news indicated the email spam - about health care reform - the White House sent out WAS a result of data collected from forwarded emails).
i'd imagine they are trying to lump healthcare myths into the category of 'threats', so the exemption: "maintained in connection with providing protective services to the President of the United States or other individuals pursuant to section 3056 of title 18" can be used to avoid any legal issues. Talk about loopholes!
The blog page is still there, but the email address has been taken down, and now directs senders to a special new White House propaganda page: http://www.whitehouse.gov/realitycheck , where you can watch well-crafted video spots and see eye-catching graphics designed to officially tell you not to believe anything you hear about healthcarefrom anywhere other than the White House.
did i mention that Hugo Chavez is systematically shutting down or taking over media outlets in his country?
It is important to keep in mind that a strategy of frontal confrontation is rarely the 'winner'. The most effective attacks come through the back door or are surprises that sneaked in close while there was a distraction. While the most accessible venue - the news - is waving around the "look at these crazy myths!" banner ... while the average citizen is snickering at the "over 80 death board" and the "no vision care until you're blind in one eye" stories, the more disturbing legislation is sneaking in on various bills.
- The healthcare bill itself has a section making it obligatory, for example, for Social Services to visit your home before, during, and after pregnancy. Not only would this be expensive (where would all the money come from to hire the snitch squad to enter your home? Taxes!), but the horror stories of the current "guilty until proven innocent" child welfare services are too numerous to make any intelligent person think this is a good idea. (I should probably point out a connection to the designs of the devil - for those readers of religious conviction - what danger is it for the poor to be subject to such a law?
The children of the poor who fail the inquisitions would be taken away and placed into foster care. Foster parents will - if the existing trends continue to infect our culture - be 'qualified' by lacking religious affiliation or promising not to 'inflict' it upon the children for which they provide care, because "progressive" athiest activists will insist the home care be as sterile and 'superstition free' as our public schools, to provide an "equal" upbringing. Your child who had a dirty diaper on the day you couldn't afford food and welfare happened to show up would be taken away and denied the opportunity to be raised with exposure to your religious perspective).
- Another law going through right now that gives the government power to "quarantine" entire cities based on a simple declaration from the president. (if you haven't been following all the conspiracy news, the government has already built several large, barbed-wire encircled "FEMA camps" around the country, and you can find photos of those camps and their stores of unmarked busses all over online).
"Change" is here, and with it are the further losses of America's values and rights. Don't believe the myths on either side without checking the facts and details first.
sources:
http://www.jbs.org/freedom-campaign/5204
http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Facts-Are-S
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/u
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/1
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/cat
- Wher'bouts:Atop My Soapbox
- Weather:
annoyed
A Milwaukie news story reveals another instance in which persons are so determined to overthrow religion that they would put their entire community into physical discomfort to do so:
-------------
Judge Declines Immediate Elmbrook Ruling
By Diane Pathieu
BROOKFIELD - It's a fight over whether public schools can use a church auditorium to have graduation ceremonies.
Many parents like having the Elmbrook School District graduation ceremonies at Elmbrook Church because the large auditorium has padded seats and is air conditioned. "It’s just an excellent facility for hosting something like this," said mom Karen Reichert.
But some disagree and say a public school should not use a church facility to have a graduation event. "This is a clear violation of the Constitution, a clear violation of the separation of church and state," said Alex Luchenitser, litigation counsel for Americans United for Separation of Church and State.
"These students and family members are being forced to graduate in the sanctuary of a church underneath a huge cross that dominates the sanctuary. They're sitting in pews with bibles and hymnal books right in front of them."
"They are being forced to graduate in a religious environment, and that is an egregious Constitutional violation."
However, some schools have used the church for years.
Brookfield Central High School chose Elmbrook Church as its graduation site in 2000, and Brookfield East first decided to use it in 2002.
School officials say they chose the church because other spaces are too small or too expensive for the large event.
"(The schools') gymnasiums were small and couldn't accommodate all the people coming to the graduations," explained Elmbrook School District Superintendent Matt Gibson.
"They were hot. They were stuffy. They were not air conditioned. Parking was an issue, and frankly, it's less expensive for the district to rent a venue than to stage it within the school, with the custodial overtime, the take down, the set-up, etc."
Right now, school officials say they don't have a back up plan if the ceremonies have to move from the church.
The first graduation ceremonies take place at Elmbrook Church next weekend.
U.S. District Judge Charles Clevert Jr. heard arguments Friday on the Elmbrook School District's plans. He declined to immediately rule but promised to issue a decision before graduation practice next Thursday. If the decision comes that late and the district loses, it would give school officials a day or two to find a new site.
-------------
I just don't understand what kind of mentality could drive someone to demand their school district pay more taxpayer money for a cramped space with no parking, no air conditioning, and uncomfortable seats. Do the primary persons causing the lawsuit own a large venue that lost out on the contract?
My initial reaction was that "well, the church ought to donate its space for free" ... but that wouldn't change anything, and even an altruistic non-profit religious organization has to pay for the power to run all those air-conditioners and the janitors to clean the auditorium after the grubby citizens soil it, right?
Maybe the root of the problem isn't an infringement with their interpretation of "church and state", but the glaringly obvious fact that these anti-religious people are INTOLERANT OF OTHER'S BELIEFS. Think about it ... for all the claims of "intolerance" made against the faithful, who most publicly attacks the diversity or religious beliefs and practices? I don't know of any screaming throngs of hetrosexual Christians or Jews or Muslims who march outside gay clubs, chanting against them and displaying their heterosexuality. I don't know of any Sikhs or Buddhists who sue to have religious icons of other faiths removed.
The truth ... the hidden reality ... is that persons either raised in a faith or "converted" to a faith are actually more tolerant of any religious beliefs than those who left or never belonged to one in the first place. This is largely because persons of faith know the legitimacy of their spiritual beliefs and the changes wrought upon their lives by it. They know how perverted one must be to rob another of that satisfaction and joy.
The anti's, however, know no such joy, and in their skirting of religious devotion have contorted the whole thing into perceived dens of hatred and judgement ... when the only judgement they really receive is the searing of their own conscience.
I am a "devout" member of my church ... a Christian faith ... and my particular religion is a daily thing, or an hourly thing ... not one which worships one day a week for two hours and then goes back to the non-religious life. i say that ... not to "one up' my religious neighbors of other faiths, but to suggest that, of the plethora of religious sects out there, mine is probably representative of one who would more likely notice symbols and items that are not part of my belief, and therefore, buy the "standard' imposed by those combatting the faithful, i should be more offended than other church-goers.
In my church, we don't 'worship" the cross, we worship Christ. We are reverent about his crucifixion, but focus more on the gifts of repentance and eternal life he gave us as a result of his teachings and his atonement for our sins. Ouyr churches do not prominently display a cross. Would i be offended while attending a college graduation in a mega-church with a giant cross looming overhead? Not in the least bit.
To take it a step further ... would i be offended to attend such a function in a synagogue or monastery? (Not implying such would be open to this sort of activity, but if they were ...)? Not in the least bit. In fact, i would be just as "offended" (or not so) participating in the ceremony in a smelly gymnasium decorated with nothing. In all honesty, i welcome opportunities to "see hiow the other half lives' when i attend functions (funerals, concerts, speeches, friends' religious mileposts) in other religious places. It enriches my knowledge of the customs and beliefs of my neighbors, and my national family ... my community.
The idea of living in ignorance of my neighbors, or of being intolerant of their beliefs is terrifying. I can't comprehend telling them their sacrifice is not good enough when they donate time or space or money or sound systems or robes or a parking lot ...
This kind of hatred and censorship and division and elitism and bigotry that is spread by these sick and shallow individuals is why communities are no longer "close-knit". That leads to our states and our nation not being "one nation". Citizenship is dead in these people ... how DARE they blaspheme against God and soil our constitution with their vain claims!
source: http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/464
- Wher'bouts:State of Confusion
- Weather: angry
- Yodel:Pomp & Circumstance
today's news highlights something ridiculous and backward in our society:
"NO OCTOPI FOR DETROIT FANS IN PITTSBURGH"
"PIT BULL SET ON FIRE"
"KITTENS FOUND BURNED IN BRUSH FIRE"
"SEA TURTLE SAVED FROM POWER PUMP"
"DOG'S TONGUE GETS CAUGHT IN SHREDDER"
normally i'd be sitting there, right along side you, teary-eyed about a dog trying to lick a paper shredder, but i'm unfortunately aware that pets - animals - have been given higher priority than humans.
Think about it:
in 2003 or so, there was a animal shelter calender auction in Seattle which raised millions of dollars. That entire year, the cities homeless shelters raised less than a fraction of that amount to care for displaced people.
people have quit having children because of 'the commitment" or whatever, and have instead begun framing photos of their chihuahuas and cats and naming them "people-names" like "bert" or "caitlin".
if some jerk goes out and shoots a bag of unwanted puppies, he can go to jail. people might become more vocal about "spaying and neutering your pets" to prevent unwanted animals.
if, however, a 20 year old girl has had four abortions, she is not a criminal - she is empowered.
so it seems strange to some to put animals above people, and to others it seems strange to not do so. why the difference?
i think it has to do with an understanding (or misunderstanding) of God and our purpose on the earth.
God made all creatures, and we'd be rude and unthankful to destroy things God has created for us (GEN. 9:3)... but God never intended us to elevate his other creations - or any of his creations above him or ourselves. Creatures were made for the use of man ... to help us with hard labor, to make us happy, to supply us with clothing/shelter, milk (HEB.5:12), and to eat. (DEUT. 12:15)
He doesn't want us to run around devouring all the animals ... in fact, he urges us to eat meat sparingly ... but he does NOT tell us not to eat meat. in fact, in the Bible, He, through the Apostle Paul, even declares that in the last days (now), the doctrines of devils would have people refusing to marry and refusing to eat meat (1 TIM. 4:1-4):
1 [...] in the latter times some shall depart from the faith,
giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience
seared with a hot iron;
3 Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from
meats, which God hath created to be received with
thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.
4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be
refused, if it be received with thanksgiving ...
Most people in our time also either don't know, or have sadly forgotten that the first commandment God gave man, in the garden of eden while speaking to Adam and Eve was to "multiply and replenish the earth". They conveniently overlook the commandment to "not kill, nor do anything like unto it."
gotta write more later ...
Profile
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif)
inforodeo- inforodeo
- www.inforodeo.com
Syndicate
