Friday, July 31, 2009

More Questions on Health Care

Lee Cary has presented more questions that people should be asking their representatives but unfortunately few are.I am honored to be able to post them here.

Some wonder why the questions are not being asked and I have done a bit of speculating on the question and come up with perhaps a valid reason. In the 2008 election 53% of the voters cast their vote for the current occupier of the White House and it would seem that 95% of them are still sleeping or feeling the tingling up or down their leg so they don’t ask questions just as they didn’t prior to voting they simply follow like lemmings going over the cliff. That number is changing for the better it seems so perhaps during recess of Congress we will see more questions being asked by this group of folks. The other folks who didn’t vote for the current occupier don’t seem to be asking too many questions either. Many of them have simply shrugged and said ,”well we will have to live with it for the next four years”. Unfortunately that kind of thinking is what can lead to four more years of expanding socialism in the US. 45% or so are asking questions and this is a good thing because their representatives are going to have to have some answers for these folks if they want to be re-elected in 2010.

May I suggest that you join the percentage of folks who are asking questions regardless of your political affiliation.

Section 1121, Sustainable Growth Rate Reform, Subsection (c), Limitation On Physicians' Services Included in Target Growth Rate Computation To Services covered Under Physician Fee Schedule, stipulates a change in the language of the Social Security Act in section 1848(f)(4)(A) which today reads as follows:

"(A) Services included in physicians' services.-The term ‘physicians' services' includes other items and services (such as clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and radiology services) specified by the Secretary, that are commonly performed or furnished by a physician or in a physician's office, but does not include services furnished to a Medicare+Choice plan enrollee."

Obamacare proposes to change the language in the SSA bill to the following:

"(A) Services included in physicians' services.-The term ‘physicians' services' includes other items and services for which payment under this part is made under the fee schedule under this section, for services for practitioners described in section 1842(b)(18)(C) on a basis related to such fee schedule, or for services described in section 1861(p) (other than such services when furnished in the facility of a provider of services), but does not include services furnished to a Medicare+Choice plan enrollee."

Social Security Act 1842(b)(18)(C) reads: "A practitioner described in this subparagraph is any of the following: (i) A physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist (as defined in section 1861(aa)(5)). (ii) A certified registered nurse anesthetist (as defined in section 1861(bb)(2)). (iii) A certified nurse-midwife (as defined in section 1861(gg)(2)). (iv) A clinical social worker (as defined in section 1861(hh)(1)). (v) A clinical psychologist (as defined by the Secretary for purposes of section 1861(ii)). (vi) A registered dietitian or nutrition professional."

And, SSA Section 1861(p) refers to: "The term ‘outpatient physical therapy services' means physical therapy services furnished by a provider of services, a clinic, rehabilitation agency, or a public health agency, or by others under an arrangement with, and under the supervision of, such provider, clinic, rehabilitation agency, or public health agency to an individual as an outpatient..."

So what's the change? Well, it looks like the physician services covered in the existing SSA is downgraded by the definition of "practitioner" as meaning one of the non-physician specialists in the SSA section 1842(b)(18)(C) list above.

SO, is the sustaining growth rate cut in costs outlined in Section 1121(c) of the Obamacare bill gained by reducing physician services for seniors and low income persons who need it the most?

Section 1122, Misvalued Codes Under The Physicians Fee Schedule, offers a revision of SSA Sec. 1848 which includes adding this language:

"(i) In General.-The Secretary shall establish a process to validate relative value units under the fee schedule under subsection (b).

(ii) Components And Elements Of Work.-The process described in clause (i) may include validation of work elements (such as time, mental effort and professional judgment, technical skill and physical effort, and stress due to risk) involved with furnishing a service and may include furnishing a service and my include validation of the pre, post, and intra-service components of work.

SO, Obamacare is going to measure how much stress a physician is under and quantify their technical skill in order to pay accordingly? How's that work? (Particularly since only one "practicing physician" is required to be on the plan's board chaired by the Surgeon General.) Is the government going to put some sort of stress meter on the doc's wrist and require them to download readings to a central stress-monitoring data base (CSDB)?

Section 1145, Treatment Of Certain Cancer Hospitals, proposes to add a paragraph (18) to section 1833(t) of the Social Security Act. The addition pertains to specialized cancer hospitals. It reads:

"(18) Authorization Of Adjustment For Cancer Hospitals.- (A) Study.-The Secretary shall conduct a study to determine if, under the system under this subsection, costs incurred by hospitals described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) with respect to ambulatory payment classification groups exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services under this subsection as determined appropriate by the Secretary).

(B) Authorization Of Adjustment.-Insofar as the Secretary determines under paragraph (A) that costs incurred by hospitals described in section 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) exceed those costs incurred by other hospitals furnishing services under this subsection, the Secretary shall provide for an appropriate adjustment under paragraph (2)(E) to reflect those higher costs effective for services furnished on or after January 1, 2011.

So, what's 1886(d)(1)(B)(v) about? [WARNING: Skip this next part if you're not into the minutia of understanding cancer treatment options and go straight to the next "SO,".] Here's how that section reads in the Social Security Act:

"(I) a hospital that the Secretary has classified, at any time on or before December 31, 1990, (or, in the case of a hospital that, as of the date of the enactment of this clause, is located in a State operating a demonstration project under section 1814(b), on or before December 31, 1991) for purposes of applying exceptions and adjustments to payment amounts under this subsection, as a hospital involved extensively in treatment for or research on cancer,

(II) a hospital that was recognized as a comprehensive cancer center or clinical cancer research center by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health as of April 20, 1983, that is located in a State which, as of December 19, 1989, was not operating a demonstration project under section 1814(b), that applied and was denied, on or before December 31, 1990, for classification as a hospital involved extensively in treatment for or research on cancer under this clause (as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this subclause), that as of the date of the enactment of this subclause, is licensed for less than 50 acute care beds, and that demonstrates for the 4-year period ending on December 31, 1996, that at least 50 percent of its total discharges have a principal finding of neoplastic disease, as defined in subparagraph (E), or

(III) a hospital that was recognized as a clinical cancer research center by the National Cancer Institute of the National Institutes of Health as of February 18, 1998, that has never been reimbursed for inpatient hospital services pursuant to a reimbursement system under a demonstration project under section 1814(b), that is a freestanding facility organized primarily for treatment of and research on cancer and is not a unit of another hospital, that as of the date of the enactment of this subclause, is licensed for 162 acute care beds, and that demonstrates for the 4-year period ending on June 30, 1999, that at least 50 percent of its total discharges have a principal finding of neoplastic disease, as defined in subparagraph (E); and, in accordance with regulations of the Secretary, does not include a psychiatric or rehabilitation unit of the hospital which is a distinct part of the hospital (as defined by the Secretary). A hospital that was classified by the Secretary on or before September 30, 1995, as a hospital described in clause (iv) shall continue to be so classified notwithstanding that it is located in the same building as, or on the same campus as, another hospital."

SO, what impact will Obamacare have on hospitals across the country that specialize in cancer treatments? (If the knee-jerk answer is "none"...) Well, Section 1145, which proposes to add language to the Social Security Act, seems to indicate that when their specialized care is more expensive than "other hospitals" furnishing cancer treatment, their costs may not be covered by Obamacare.

So what's the expected impact on those hospitals and their cancer patients?

Time is running and folks we had better be asking our representative these questions when they are in the area for August break. If you fail and this fiasco passes you will have no one to blame but yourself.

Thursday, July 30, 2009


In follow up to HEALTH CARE here are some legitimate questions that Congress and “We the People” should be asking and demanding answers for.

Lee Cary at American Thinker has set forth these very troublesome questions to OBAMACARE and I take the opportunity to share them here with you.

*(Page 30) According to Section 223, Payment Rates For Items And Services, “The Secretary [of the Treasury] shall establish payment rates for the public health insurance option for services and health care providers consistent with this section and may change such payment rates in accordance with section 224.

Also, according to Section 225, Provider Participation, there are two schedules of payment terms for physicians. Preferred Physicians “agree to accept the payment rate established under section 223 (without regard to cost-sharing) as the payment in full.” And, Participating, Non-Preferred Physicians “who agree not to impose charges…that exceed the ratio permitted under section 1848(g)(2)(C) of the Social Security Act.

Section 1848(g)(2)(C) reads: “(C) After 1992.—For physicians' services furnished in a year after 1992, the 'limiting charge' shall be 115 percent of the recognized payment amount under this part for nonparticipating physicians or for nonparticipating suppliers or other persons.”

SO, Timmy Geithner will be responsible for deciding how much physicians make? (How does he do that when he can’t accurately calculate his own taxes?) What’s the projected cumulative impact on the income of U.S. physicians?

*(Page 167) Section 59B, Tax On Individuals Without Acceptable Health Care Coverage, “In the case of any individual who does not met the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of (1) the taxpayers’ modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over (2) the amount of gross income specified in sections 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.

SO, why is this plan sometimes referred to with the words “health care choices” when my only choices are to comply or pay a tax penalty? Exactly what are these “choices”?

*(Page 170) According to Section 59M (p. 171), “(2) Nonresident Alien. Subsection (a) [pertaining to the tax on individuals without acceptable health care coverage] does not apply to any individual who is a non-resident alien.”

SO, who pays for the health care for those in the U.S. on J-1 and F-1 visas? We citizen taxpayers?

(Page 59) Section 431, Disclosures To Carry Out Health Insurance Exchange Subsidies, amends section 6130 of the IRS Code of 1986 with language that enables the Health Choices Commissioner [in a previous installment of this series referred to as the “Commish”] access, via written request to the Secretary of the Treasury [Timmy Geithner], to taxpayer records including: “(i) taxpayer identity information with respect to such taxpayer; (ii) the filing status of such taxpayer; (iii) the modified adjusted gross income of such taxpayer; (iv) the number of dependents of the taxpayer; (v) such other information as is prescribed by the Secretary by regulation as might indicate whether the taxpayer is eligible for such affordability credits (and the amount thereof)…

SO, with my tax information available within the enormous bureaucracy required to stand-up “America’s Health Choices Act of 2009” how long before this information becomes available to operatives of the political party in power at the time? And, when can we expect affluent citizens to be denied government healthcare payment because their net worth is identified as beyond a certain level? Oh, and by the way, just how many more government employees will be hired to staff Obamacare? And, of what government workers’ union are they likely to become members?

: (Tracking through this one will hurt, but it’ll pay off - at the very end.) The Obamacare bill makes amendments to the Social Security Act (SSA), thereby requiring the reader to toggle back-and-forth between the two bills, as well as the IRS Code. Here goes:

*(Page 42) SSA, Section 1848, Subsection (j) reads as follows:
“(1) Category.—For services furnished before January 1, 1998, the term ‘category’ means, with respect to physicians' services, surgical services (as defined by the Secretary and including anesthesia services), primary care services (as defined in section 1842(i)(4)), and all other physicians' services. The Secretary shall define surgical services and publish such definitions in the Federal Register no later than May 1, 1990, after consultation with organizations representing physicians.

(2) Fee schedule area.—The term ‘fee schedule area’ means a locality used under section 1842(b) for purposes of computing payment amounts for physicians' services.

(3) Physicians' services.—The term ‘physicians' services’ includes items and services described in paragraphs (1), (2)(A), (2)(D), (2)(G), (2)(P) (with respect to services described in subparagraphs (A) and (C) of section 1861(00)(2)), (2)(R) (with respect to services described in subparagraphs (B), (C), and (D) of section 1861(pp)(1)), (2)(S), (2)(W), 2(AA), (3), (4), (13) (14) (with respect to services described in section 1861(nn)(2)), and (15) of section 1861(s) (other than clinical diagnostic laboratory tests and, except for purposes of subsections (a)(3), (g), and (h) such other items and services as the Secretary may specify).

(4) Practice expenses.—The term ‘practice expenses’ includes all expenses for furnishing physicians' services, excluding malpractice expenses, physician compensation, and other physician fringe benefits.”

Now, the pending House version of the healthcare deform, oops, reform bill proposes (in Section 1121, pages 241-244) to add a 5th paragraph to the SSA that reads as follows:

“(5) Service Categories.-For services furnished on or about January 1,2009, each of the following categories of physicians’ services (as defined in paragraph (3)) shall be treated as a separate ‘service category’ (A) Evaluation and management services that are procedure codes (for services covered under the title for – (i) services in the category designated Evaluation and Management in the Health Care Common Procedure Coding System (established by the Secretary under subsection (c)(5) as of December 31, 2009 and as subsequently modified by the Secretary); and (ii) preventative services (as defined in section 1861(iii) for which payment is made under this section. (B) All other services not described in subparagraph (A). Service categories established under this paragraph shall apply without regard to the specialty of the physician furnishing the service.

[Here, as elsewhere in life, the devil is in the details – sometimes the last detail.]

SO, as the incomes of physicians who specialize are brought, by this bill, into income equivalency with general practitioners (AKA family practice or primary care physicians), how will that impact the incentive for med students to specialize by undertaking years of additional training, often incurring substantial additional medical school debt and deferred income? Do primary care physicians represent a disproportionate percentage of the physicians that supports this bill?

Why aren’t these questions being asked?


*(PAGE numbers correspond with earlier post on HEALTH CARE)

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

The Walls Come Tumbling Down

It appears that the Canadians are more aware of the happenings in the US than fawning Lame Stream Media. Needless to say the LSM will never report anything as objective as the Canadian Press since they are in the pocket of “the One” and would do nothing to disturb the tingle that runs up or down their legs each time he opens his mouth ,even though it seems more of late he sticks his foot in deeper and deeper. It makes one wonder if he has been taking lessons from his “closeted’ VP Joe, foot in mouth, Biden.

The article was written in June of 2009 but is even more accurate today given the decline in poll number of “the One”.

Read it and I am sure you will agree that this report is very accurate in summing up “the Chief Occupier”.

The Canadian Press and Obama

"A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head" The Canadian Press.
Obama's White House is Falling Down
By Daniel Greenfield Thursday, June 11, 2009

In the sixth month of his presidency, Obama has turned an economic downturn into an economic disaster, taking over and trashing entire companies, and driving the nation deep into deficit spending expected to pass 10 trillion dollars.

Abroad, Obama seems to have no other mode except to continue on with his endless campaign, confusing speechmaking with diplomacy. It is natural enough that Obama, who built his entire campaign on high profile public speeches reported on by an adoring press, understands how to do nothing else but that.

Ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries

While the press is still chewing over Obama's Cairo speech, this celebrity style coverage ignores the fact that Obama's endless world tour is not actually accomplishing anything. Instead his combination of ego driven photo op appearances and clueless treatment of foreign dignitaries have alienated many of America 's traditional allies. Those who aren't being quietly angry at Obama, like Brown, Merkel or Netanyahu, instead think of him as as absurdly lightweight, as Sarkozy, King Abdullah or Putin do.

While his officials carry out their dirty economic deeds, Obama responds to any and every crisis as if it were a Mickey Rooney and Judy Garland musical, with a cry of, "Let's put on a show." Thus far Obama has put on "shows" across America , Europe and the Middle East . And what the adoring media coverage neglects to cover, is that Obama's shows have solved absolutely nothing. They have served only as high profile entertainment.

Neither alienating America 's traditional allies, through a combination of arrogant bullying and ignorance, nor appeasing America 's enemies, has yielded any actual results. Nor does it seem likely to. Islamic terrorism is not going anywhere, neither are the nuclear threats from North Korea and Iran . While Obama keeps smiling, the global situation keeps growing more grim.

At home, if Obama was elected as depression era entertainment, the charm of his smiles and his constant appearances on magazine covers appear to be wearing thin on the American public. Despite the shrill attacks on Rush Limbaugh or the Republican Enemy of the Weak-- the Democratic party of 2009, is polling a lot like the Republican party of 2008. The Democrats have suddenly become the incumbents, and the only accomplishment they can point to is lavish deficit spending, often on behalf of the very same corporations and causes they once postured against.

The European Union Parliament's swing to the right cannot be credited to Obama, though doubtlessly some European voters seeing socialist economic crisis management on display in the world's richest country decided they wanted none of it, but it is part of a general turning against federalism. And Obama's entire program is dependent on heavily entrenching federalism at the expense of individual and state's rights. Yet that is precisely his achilles heel with independent voters who are polling against more taxes and expanded government. And no amount of speeches by Obama can wish away his 18 czars or the national debt he has foisted on generation after generation of the American people.

That leaves Obama with a choice between socialism and the independent voter. And thus far he has chosen socialism.

Obama's tactic of hijacking Bush Administration era policies on the economy and the War on Terror, and exploiting them as trojan horses to promote his own agenda, have left him coping with a backlash from his own party, as well as general Republican opposition.

His Czars are meant to function as the bones in an executive infrastructure accountable to no one, but a lack of accountability isn't just another word for tyranny, but for incompetence. A functional chain of command is accountable at multiple levels if it is to function effectively. Obama's White House by contrast is in a state of over-organized chaos, the sort of organized disorganization that undisciplined egotistical leftists naturally create for themselves, complete with multiple overlapping levels of authority and no one in charge but the man at the top, who's too busy doing other things to actually be in charge.

Dennis Blair as National Intelligence, who collaborated with the Muslim genocide of Christians in East Timor , trying to muscle out the CIA to create his own intelligence network, is typical of the kind of chaos being spawned by every chief in an expanding government bureaucracy working to make sure that all the Indians answer to him. Similarly the National Security Council wrestling with the State Department, highlighted by Samantha Power getting her own specially created NSC position to butt heads with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, illustrates the state of conflict and chaos in American foreign affairs. A state of chaos so pervasive that incompetence has now become commonplace, and no one can even be found to double check the spelling of a Russian word that is meant to be the theme of American's diplomatic reconstruction with Russia , or to pick out a gift for the visiting British Prime Minister.

The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW

Meanwhile on the economy, Obama exploited the ongoing bailouts, transforming them from bailouts into takeovers meant to shift the balance of power in what had been a democracy and socially engineer not only corporations, but the lives of ordinary Americans. But the public's patience with corporate bailouts is at an end, most Americans were never happy with them to begin with, and want them to end. The death of Chrysler at the hands of Fiat and the UAW might look like a victory in the union ranks, but it doesn't play too well outside Detroit . And tacking on CAFE standards that will kill the pickup truck and the SUV will badly erode Obama in the swing states, if exploited properly in 2010 and 2012. Despite the constant media barrage, orchestrated out of the White House, the public is growing disenchanted with the performance of Obama and the Democrats.

With unemployment booming and the economy dropping, the jobs aren't there and the spending is out of control. Republicans today are polling better on ethics and the economy, than the Democrats are. That shows a trend which is likely to register in the mid-term elections in 2010, in the same way that the EU parliamentary elections served as a shock to the system.

In the opposition, Republicans are free to embrace the rhetoric of change, to champion reform and push libertarian ideas about the size and scope of government. In turn all Obama has is his celebrity fueled media spectacle world tour. A charade now serving as a parallel to the depression era entertainment that functioned as escapism in a dour time. But before long, it may be Obama that the American public will want to escape from.

A shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head

Obama has tried to play Lincoln, Reagan, JFK and FDR-- but in the end he can only play himself, a shallow, manipulative and egotistical amateur who is in over his head, and trying to drag the country down with him. Obama's White House is falling down and while the flashbulbs are still glittering and the parties are going on in D.C. and around the world, Obama and the Democratic Congress may be headed for a recession of their own.

Monday, July 27, 2009


It seems that the elected representatives of the People do not wish to take the time to read the so called Health Care Bill. Had they taken the time or if they take the time I believe the conversation on Health Care as put forth by the Chief Occupier will be over. Some who have read the description of the Third Reich’s T-4 Health Program equate the current proposal of ObamaCare to be very similar. I see some similarities as I have in many of his other plans for the US and have written about them in the past.

For those who have not read the plan here are a few of the “highlights” if I dare call them that. I think you will find them interesting and then wonder why your representatives are not interested in actually reading and questioning the entire farce of a plan.

( Thanks to Paula for the info. )

Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll
• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government..
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services

Saturday, July 25, 2009

From Ordinary to Extraordinary

Last week, we attended a spaghetti supper fund raiser for a group of young people who have been invited to attend the National Fine Arts Festival, a privilege they won through hard work and dedication. They have won awards at the state level in their special fields, such as music, songwriting, preaching, and drama. The first week in August, winning students from across the country will come together to celebrate the Extraordinary change students across the nation are making as they take up the call to their campus and are deployed in ministry all over the nation. I am proud to say that our grandson, Luke, won in the areas of songwriting and praise and worship band.

While we consumed the great spaghetti supper they served, we were privileged to hear some of these young people demonstrate their abilities in music and speaking.
I was particularly impressed by a young man named David Chambers. David is an ordinary young man who attends high school and does things other young people do, and then doing a bit extra. It was this extra bit that impressed me enough to share his short talk. While David is an ordinary young man, he spoke of extraordinary things and, in that moment of time, he became an extraordinary young man. It was not only his words but also his actions and reactions that caused me to view him as extraordinary. David spoke of another young man named David who, by doing the ordinary, became extraordinary.

I wish to share his talk with you. David will be presenting this same talk at the National Fine Arts Festival in Orlando in August. I apologize for not being adept enough to erase the introduction by one of the youth leaders given prior to David’s talk. It is brief, however, so stick with it and hear this ordinary young man's extraordinary words. I believe you, too, will then understand why I consider this young man to be extraordinary.

Listen to David's message here.

Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Bye Mr. Burdy, Sing a Sweet Song

Yesterday, July 21st I turned 65 but it doesn’t seem to be important, not to me at least. Today, July 22nd I lost my good friend and companion of over 8 years. His name was Mr. Burdy, a pretty little green parakeet that could sing the sweetest song on earth.

Mr. Burdy was always there to cheer me up even when I was sad with his songs and his antics. Burdy had a way of knowing when I was sad and he would seem to sing even more and sweeter to try to cheer me up. He’s not here today to cheer me up with a song and my heart is heavy.

He never demanded much except a little food, some water and a treat occasionally. He sometimes like the toys that I bought for him to swing on and play with and sometimes he just didn’t like them and certainly would let me know by taking them down and squawking until I took them out of his house. Mr. Burdy didn’t like to have his house rearranged or cluttered and would let you know in no uncertain terms. Move one of his toys just a little bit and he would work until he had it right back where it was and then would sit and stare at you as if to dare you to touch his possessions again.

He wasn’t one to want to be held or petted, just talk to him and play ball with him and he was a happy Burdy and would let you know by singing a sweet song.

I don’t know how old Mr. Burdy was. He was given to me in 1999 and was probably two or three years old then. It’s not important I suppose. What is important is the joy my little buddy brought to me and to those around the house. Today a bit of that joy is gone. There will be no more sweet songs, no more “ play ball Burdy” times, no more saying ‘pretty Burdy’ which always brought on a song. Today Burdy is singing his sweet song in Birdy Land which I know must be in heaven . If heaven doesn’t have sweet songs of birdy’s singing then something is missing.

So today I say goodbye and Sing a Sweet Song Mr. Burdy. I will lay him to rest beneath the big oak tree in the back yard surrounded by flowers and the sounds of other birdy’s singing.

Bye Mr. Burdy, Sing a Sweet Song!

Friday, July 17, 2009

Conspiracy Theory? Or Two Plus Two Equals

The World Health Organization (WHO) recently declared the swine flu a pandemic given the spread of the virus around the world. We haven't reported much on the swine flu, otherwise known as H1N1, because the whole "crisis" seems more than a bit overblown. After all, the plain old regular flu kills more than 50,000 Americans each year, while -- not to make light of it -- swine flu has claimed 211 lives, though, to be fair, this could be in part because of the extra-preparedness of organizations such as the WHO. Also, the federal government has committed more than $1.8 billion to buying vaccines for the virus. ( After reading the rest of this post you decide why the Feds have committed $1.8 billion for vaccines)But we are struck by the alarmist tone of the whole thing. Dr. Marie-Paule Kieny, WHO director of the Initiative for Vaccine Research, is so panicked that she's babbling almost incoherently: The H1N1 pandemic is "unstoppable" and "therefore ... all countries need access to vaccine," she cried. "Therefore"? Uh, if it's unstoppable, what good will vaccines do?

On the same subject Terence Jeffery of CNS News discusses more of the plan of doom :

CNS News editor in chief Terence Jeffrey also reports: that the bill calls for improved immunization coverage, including the use of "reminders or recalls for patients or providers, or home visits" to accomplish it. Yes, home visits.

Hmm now why would home visits be necessary? Oh remember how the census will be operated? If you fail to fill out the form properly you will receive a “home visit” from one of the ACORN census takers. Are the numbers beginning to add up or am I just imagining things?

Now link this with the following article which talks about the so called “swine flu pandemic” and how it is planned to instigate a crisis which will require people to be vaccinated. For what purpose, you read and you decide if the article holds any bearing to what is included in the OBAMACARE package.

There are other links provide through this main link which may be of interest.

Conspiracy theory or are the numbers beginning to add up? You decide!

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Obamacare: The Real Agenda

Mark Alexander of Patriot Post makes some very strong points in this week essay. I blogged about Sanger and Obama almost a year ago. This essay bears reading and then one should ask the question , who are the "unwanted " of Sanger and Holdren? Surely not the Leftist voter base, at least not yet, or could it be those who oppose the "fundamental transformation of the United States of America". I will leave it for you to decide for it is certainly a question that needs to be asked, soon, very soon.

Alexander's Essay – 16 July 2009

Team ObamaCare: Sanger, Ginsburg and Holdren

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." --Thomas Jefferson

Now that Barack Hussein Obama has undermined free enterprise by nationalizing major financial and manufacturing sectors of our economy, he has set his sights on the health care sector, which comprises almost 18 percent of the U.S. economy.

This shouldn't surprise us. After all, he did promise a "fundamental transformation of the United States of America," and his chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, did cite the current economic crisis as the means for doing so. "Rule 1: Never allow a crisis to go to waste," Emanuel said. "They are opportunities to do big things."

Of course, there is NO constitutional authority or precedent for this massive government intrusion into the private sector. But then, when do Leftists look to any authority higher than themselves?

Considering the prospect of Socialists in charge of dispensing health care from cradle to grave, I was reminded, by none other than Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that when one is in need of health care, one should not depend on folks who advocate a "culture of death."

In an interview last week, Ginsburg said that she thought "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."

This comment was not some senile blunder from an aging jurist noted for nodding off during High Court deliberations.

In fact, Ginsburg's candid assessment of the Left's advocacy for abortion as a means for controlling propagation of undesirable ethnic groups is based upon the writings of atheist social activist and leftist icon Margaret Sanger.

Some 50 years before Roe v. Wade, Sanger founded the American Birth Control League, which later became Planned Parenthood, now the largest perpetrator of abortions in the U.S.

Sanger asserted that ministry to the poor, a fundamental tenet of Christianity, is responsible for excessive numbers of "unwanted" ethnic breeds. "Those vast, complex, interrelated organizations aiming to control and to diminish the spread of misery and destitution and all the menacing evils that spring out of this sinisterly fertile soil, are the surest sign that our civilization has bred, is breeding, and is perpetuating constantly increasing numbers of defectives, delinquents, and dependents. My criticism, therefore, is not directed at the failure of philanthropy, but rather at its success. These dangers are inherent in the very idea of humanitarianism and altruism, dangers which have today produced their full harvest of human waste."

Ah, yes, "human waste."

Sanger characterized the poor as "human weeds, reckless breeders, spawning ... human beings who never should have been born."

In "Woman and the New Race," Sanger insisted that women create an enormous "debt to society [by] creating slums, filling asylums with the insane, and institutions with other defectives. ... Poverty and the large family generally go hand in hand. ... The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."

Of blacks, Sanger wrote, "We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

She advocated policies that ensured "more children from the fit, less from the unfit" in order to "to create a race of thoroughbreds." (Remember this quote the next time a liberal tells you that Fascists and Socialists have nothing in common.)

Sanger was certainly the 20th century's most noted American proponent of racist eugenics. However when we remind our liberal friends of the origins of Planned Parenthood, they sputter on about Sanger's support for eugenics being an anomaly of another time and context.

But Sanger's advocacy for the extermination of the "unwanted" is the basis of today's culture of death. Indeed, one of the adherents of eugenics now directs BHO's White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and is the co-chair of Obama's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.

John Holdren may not be openly advocating racial selection, but he clearly advocates mass sterilization and abortion in order to control human impact on the environment. This is nothing but a contemporary interpretation of Sanger's eliminating "human weeds" and "reckless breeders."

Holdren's modern day eugenics program is outlined in a book he co-authored, "Ecoscience," in which he calls for "a comprehensive Planetary Regime [in order to] control the development, administration, conservation and distribution of all natural resources."

One solution, writes Holdren, is "adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods" which would help weed out those "who contribute to social deterioration."

As for the constitutional authority, Holdren writes, "Indeed, it has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society."

"If some individuals contribute to general social deterioration by overproducing children," insists Holdren, "if the need is compelling, they can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility -- just as they can be required to exercise responsibility in their resource-consumption patterns -- providing they are not denied equal protection."

I suppose Holdren is Obama's "Czar of Compelling Needs."

As for global solutions, Holdren writes, "The Planetary Regime might be given responsibility for determining the optimum population for the world and for each region and for arbitrating various countries' shares within their regional limits. Control of population size might remain the responsibility of each government, but the Regime would have some power to enforce the agreed limits. If this could be accomplished, security might be provided by an armed international organization, a global analogue of a police force. Many people have recognized this as a goal, but the way to reach it remains obscure in a world where factionalism seems, if anything, to be increasing. The first step necessarily involves partial surrender of sovereignty to an international organization."

Holdren is of course careful about how his "Planetary Regime" might enforce these limits, but given the common bonds of Fascists and Socialists, a contemporary global solution with much more efficient ecological results than dismembering children in the womb would be to release a biological agent targeting mass populations in developing regions of Asia and Africa -- something like strains of Swine or Bird Influenza. After all, AlGorites consider climate change to be a crisis of global proportions, and such a crisis requires innovative solutions.

Holdren concludes, "This may be the last opportunity to choose our own and our descendants' destiny. Failing to choose or making the wrong choices may lead to catastrophe. But it must never be forgotten that the right choices could lead to a much better world."

In 1931, futurist H.G. Wells wrote of Sanger's proposed regime, "The movement she started will grow to be, a hundred years from now, the most influential of all time. When the history of our civilization is written, it will be a biological history, and Margaret Sanger will be its heroine."

Apparently, Obama's director of White House Office of Science and Technology Policy is prepared to do his part to sustain Sanger's legacy.

Given Holdren's musings about population control, should these folks be in charge of determining who receives what medical care?

Circling back to that same interview with Justice Ginsburg last week, here is how she defended a woman's right to end the life of her unborn child: "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman."

But in regard to ObamaCare, I doubt that Ginsburg would apply a similar standard: "The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice."

The Hippocratic Oath, until recently the de facto position of medicine, established the fundamental principle that a physician should "First, do no harm." Perhaps BO himself should take that oath -- not that he has shown any penchant for honoring the one he took for his current job.

Semper Vigilo, Fortis, Paratus et Fidelis!

Mark Alexander

"My first and foremost task will be the annihilation of the Jews." --Adolf Hitler, 1922

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." --Barack Hussein Obama, 2007

Tuesday, July 14, 2009


This article by Charles Colson was just too good to pass up and not post for others who may not read Mr. Colson’s daily take on things. For those who believe that the chief occupier can stop the rising seas they need to especially pay close attention to the story told in Mr. Colson’s writing. Unfortunately the leftist will ignore the story and call it “folklore” and continue with their foolish plans to “stop the warming”.

Mr. Colson ends his article with this: “Eventually, the tide will come in. Let’s pray that it’s only our vanity that gets washed away.” I might add and perhaps those foolish enough to believe they can stop the “tides”.

Surf's Up!
Climate Change and Hubris

July 14, 2009

As the story goes, the courtiers of the 11th-century Anglo-Scandinavian king, Canute, told him that he was “so great, he could command the tides of the sea to go back.”

Knowing that this was nonsense, Canute, a pious Christian, had his throne moved to the beach. As the waves came in, he commanded them to desist. When the waves paid him no mind, he proclaimed, “Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings. For there is none worthy of the name but God, whom heaven, earth and sea obey.”

Twenty-first century governmental leaders could learn a lot from this 11th-century Viking king.

At the recent G8 summit, the leaders of the world’s largest industrialized economies agreed to stop the world from getting too warm. Really. In their communique, they said that “the increase in global average temperature above pre-industrial levels ought not to exceed 2 degrees [Celsius].” Or 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

Just like it’s one thing to command the waves the desist and another to literally stem the tide, saying that temperatures ought not to rise and actually making that happen are entirely different matters.

By way of making that happen, the G8 communique calls for the 32 industrialized nations to cut CO2 emissions 80 percent by 2050. As you no doubt realize, 32 nations are more than 8 nations. That means that the G8’s plans to limit the world’s temperatures require that other countries join them in standing athwart the climate and saying, “Go back!”

Or, as German Chancellor Angela Merkel put it, “even if all G8 countries cut their emissions, we will not meet the 2 degree goal without the emerging economies.”

And the problem is that the emerging economies like China, India, and Brazil have no interest in yelling, “Go back!” Brazilian president Lula spoke for many when he said, “We don’t want to continue to be second-class citizens. We want to go to the top floor.” For that matter, Russia, a member of the G8, has said that it won’t “sacrifice economic growth for the sake of emission reduction.”

Nobody knows how, or even if, the kind of cuts being discussed can be made without sacrificing economic growth.

What is certain is that simply declaring that the world shouldn’t warm up more than we want won’t magically solve the technical and economic challenges.

To be fair, not everything about the pronouncement was Canute-like. For one thing, I am fairly certain that nobody was seated on a throne when the communique was released.

But while the Viking king knew the limits of his authority and competence, the hubris of world leaders today, in contrast, has us imagining that we can control the weather. As the G8 was setting the global thermostat, Bill Gates and others claimed to have developed a technology that suppresses hurricanes. I’m serious.

It isn’t only the weather. We also speak about “directing our evolution” through biotechnology. Our confidence in our ability to control nature knows no bounds.

Eventually, the tide will come in. Let’s pray that it’s only our vanity that gets washed away

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

See You Later, Joe

I haven’t really been up to writing much on the blog the last few days. I have needed time to grieve the death of a dear friend by the name of Joe Dennison. Joe left this world on July 3.

Joe lived in Greensboro, NC, with his much-praised wife. He was retired from the VA where his work with Veterans will be recorded as outstanding. He was indeed dedicated to those who faithfully served this country and seemed, at times, to have been lost in the system and forgotten by the very ones they served to protect. Even in retirement, Joe was dedicated to “his Vets” as he often called them in our correspondence. He did studies on why vets sometimes became homeless; why they turned to drugs and/or alcohol; and why their lives often landed on the junk heaps of society. Joe questioned everything and everyone trying to find the answers so that he could in some way stop the cycle and improve the quality of life for every Veteran, not just the lost souls.

Joe was also a professor at High Point University where he taught Social Work for a number of years prior to and after his retirement. He was as passionate about making better social workers of those who passed through his classes as he was in improving the lives of veterans. He would often write in e-mails about the number of papers left to grade and how long it took to grade papers that required students to think and write. Joe was not one who gave much credence to the multiple choice types of tests, I am sure. He would fight his way through them and, a few days later, I would get an e-mail of, "WHOOPEE, I’m finished. Now where were we in our conversation?" and so we would continue where we had left off.

Joe was the type of man who made you think and to sometimes adjust your own thinking. And if you presented an argument containing good evidence, then Joe would say, “I’d never looked at it that way, but, indeed, you are right. Thank you for presenting such a well thought out argument.” Few men I know would admit, as Joe did, "Hey, I was wrong," and then thank you for changing his mind on the subject.

It was probably back in 2003 when Joe and I first met on the News and Record Letter to the Editor Blog. Of course, I don’t think they called it a blog in those days, but it was fun just the same. We met online, and through the years, we kept our conversations going on the blogs and via e-mails. During that time, we shared our happy times, our sad times, thoughts and ideas on a variety of subjects, but one was our favorite and that was the plight of Veterans.

Joe was one of the few people who asked me to share my thoughts on the Vietnam War who was not just a curiosity seeker or trying to find some way to criticize. I was cautious at first, but as I became more and more comfortable, I was able to share thoughts and ideas with Joe that I had never even shared with family. I guess that may sound strange to some, especially considering all I knew was an e-mail address and what he has shared with me about his personal life. It was enough.

Joe could bring happiness through a smile, even a smile expressed only in words. He could enthuse one to write something better simply by a few words expressed in an e-mail. He had an infectious manner about him that one could clearly feel, even in the words of an e-mail or words on a blog. I guess I could say that Joe made you feel like he cared.

There is a poem called The DASH that recalls the line between the dates of birth and the dates of our death. The dash represents everything one has done between those two dates. The dash is a person's life. I know for certain that that dash will be crowded in Joe's stats, for he certainly left his mark on many, many people during his stay on this earth. He certainly made an impact on me.

I never got to see that smile or experience the pleasure of his company, but Joe was, indeed, my dear friend, and he will be sorely missed. Joe will not get to read this post on his computer, but I will send it just the same, just one last time. I will cherish the times we shared via our computers—the smiles, the tears, the joy, the enthusiasm, and most importantly, his love for God, his family and his country. I didn’t get to meet Joe here on earth as we had planned, for God had other plans for Joe on July 3rd, but I do know this: One day I will meet him, and we will hug like long-lost brothers, and then I will enjoy the warmth of his smile.

Below are just a few remarks that others have left about Joe. I hope that each of us will have a Joe in our life as we pass through this world.

He was a brilliant man who, with his kindly smile, subconsciously and infectiously brought comfort and joy to people around him. I will miss my friend Joe. (a former student and friend)

He had a passion for what he did that was contagious. (a former student)

He was so enthusiastic in his work for the veterans. I will miss his infectious smile and positive spirit.
(a former worker at the VA where they worked together)

Joe was a kind, loving, and special person, and we are blessed having encountered him in this life. (a neighbor)

Joe enriched the lives of many people as he shared his love of God, family, and community. (a friend)

So long, Joe! You will be missed.