Swine Flue Deja Vu

I recently wrote a post titled "Should You Get the H1N1 Vaccine?" Since that post, I discovered some very important information about the Swine Flue pandemic, though some of you may have already heard about this discovery.

If you're middle-aged American this whole "Swine Flue pandemic" thing might sound familiar. Why would it sound familiar? Oh yeah. Because it has been done once before in this country in 1976. The following two news clips are from CBS' 60 minutes and reveal some of the shortcomings of the H1N1 vaccine and some of the unscrupulous tactics of the government and pharmaceutical companies to create mass hysteria and sell mass quantities of vaccines. Of particular interest is the gross negligence on the part of the government in failing to release information concerning serious side effects and the commercials the government aired to persuade millions to get vaccinated. Interestingly, during the 1976 pandemic (or nondemic) the government focused on the elderly. Today, its children and pregnant women who are urged to get vaccinated. I'll let you draw the inferences from that observation.






As always, I encourage you to subscribe to The Ornery Conservative. It's easy and free. Also, you can follow me on Twitter for updates.

Should You Get the H1N1 Vaccine?

Here is a video of Gary Null at a NY hearing which took place after the state of New York tried to impose the H1N1 vaccine on all its citizens.





Read this article about how British Columbia will stop using the H1N1 vaccine in light of a study they did which suggests that persons who have received the vaccine are twice as likely to get the diesease.

Besides increasing your chances of contracting the disease, the vaccines have Thimerosol, which is a known neurotoxin that will destroy the synaptic connections in your brain. Because of Thimerosol and other dangerous chemicals, many persons have suffered irreparable neurological damage like the girl featured in the video below; it is especially dangerous for children.




The bottom line is that you have the right to self determination, i.e., the right to decide what goes in your body. If you choose to be vaccinated, make sure its an informed decision and not because someone tells you that you should.

Pelosi’s Healthcare Bill: a Terminal Disease

We have been fed serving after serving of compelling rhetoric by President Obama and the Spendocrats throughout this healthcare debate telling us that we must act now to help all those poor Americans who are not getting healthcare. The major problem we face in this bill and in many other political issues is that our crafty politicians know that when they shroud their agenda into an argument that plays on Americans’ generosity and desire for equality they can sell us a ticking time-bomb and we’ll buy it with a smile on our face and give our life savings for it. This bill would be a terminal disease for America for so many reasons; I’ve briefly underlined just a few of the major issues involved with passing this bill.

Irreversibility

One of the biggest problems I have with socialistic programs like Medicare and this healthcare bill is that they are essentially irreversible. Don’t think for a moment that when this legislation blows up and costs go through the roof that the Democrats will say “oops. We messed up. I guess we’re going to scrap this legislation.” Nor, will the Republicans be able to do reverse the bill because there will be millions of people receiving free healthcare who would be outraged. So, just like Medicare trudges on in spite of the fact that it is a failed program, so too will this legislation continue to grow and overburden Americans until it finally breaks us.

Unaffordability

The fact that this bill is called the “Affordable Health Care for America Act” is a farce. There is nothing affordable about this bill. The CBO estimates that this bill will cost over $1 trillion dollars in the first decade. I think it is rather self-evident that Congress has a long history of underestimating costs of its proposed bills, and it is doing so with this bill. There is no way we can afford this. Please understand, first and foremost, that the estimation is skewed because the government will collect revenue for 10 years to give 7 years of service. So, what happens for the next ten years? Also, keep in mind that Pelosi and the Spendocrats cut out the $250 billion that will be given to doctors. They are going to pass a separate bill for doctors’ compensation to avoid adding the number to the total cost of this bill—only in Washington is such a tactic rational or ethical.

Pelosi plans on paying for this trillion-dollar disaster by taxing the wealthiest people in America; specifically, she wants to raise taxes to an astounding 45% on all persons who earn over $500,000. Mark my words; this will not happen. These people are not going to sit idly by while their wealth is plundered, nor is there any way that this tax will be able to sustain the massive cancer of costs that this bill would create. The cost of running Medicare has doubled every four years since 1966. The reality is that this program will probably cost around $3 trillion by the end of the first decade and will grow unrestrained until it brings us to our death bed.

What about the Medicare cuts? President Obama said this bill would be paid for by Medicare cuts; what about that? Good question. Supposedly, the federal government, which hasn’t cut costs since Regan was there, is going to raise $400 billion by cutting out waste in Medicare. Well, I say if it’s that easy to cut the Medicare costs, why hasn't Washington done it? Do that first and then come talk to me about healthcare reform. Even if Washington can cut $400 billion—I’m not buying it—but even if they can, that’s not going to cover the tab when this thing doubles or triples or worse in the coming years. Remember, Medicare currently has $34 trillion in unpaid liabilities. That’s just for the elderly. What’s going to happen when you allow the government to take over healthcare for everyone.

2048 Pages

Perhaps the single scariest facet of this bill is that it is an incomprehensible mess. You do not need 2048 pages to state what they have said this bill states. No ordinary American and most of Congress does not really know what is in this bill. We don't know what little surprises this behemoth is hiding? If Washington wanted to play straight with Americans, they would write a lucid and legible bill, and I’m not buying this notion that legislative language has to be this way; this bill is deliberately protracted and obscure. To vote for this bill is to hand Obama, Pelosi and the Spendocrats a blank check and say “I don’t know what you’re doing, but I trust you.”

I agree that our healthcare system needs to be reformed, but this bill embodies the worst possible solution to the problem, which is why I only slightly disagree with the Wall Street Journal when it says this bill is the “worst bill ever.” It’s not the worst bill ever; that award goes to the Cap-and-Trade bill, but this healthcare bill is a close second.

Subscribe to The Ornery Consevative.

Update to NJ Indoctrination

Last week I posted a piece about the offensive indoctrination song that was sung by children at the Bernice Young Elementary school under the leadership of Denise King, principal of the school. If you missed the post, here is a link.

Today, October 12, 2009, 70 protesters met outside of the elementary school while the school was in session and demonstrated against the school for its indoctrination of youth. Click here to read the AP News article.

Offensive Indoctrination Video

This video popped up and was all over FOX news for a couple of days at the end of September. I wanted to post the video for those that have not seen it; and once you've seen it, I have a couple brief thoughts about the video.

Indoctrination

It is completely unfair to teach children to praise Obama or the Democrats. Doesn't this seem Orwellian? What's different between teaching children that Obama is such a great president and savior and the indoctrination in 1984 that Big Brother is so good and will always take care of us?

Irreverence

I think I'm at least equally offended if not more offended by the fact that the tune of the second song is the "Battle Hymn of the Republic." How dare that teacher sing about Obama's "great accomplishments" (I'd like to know what those are) to the tune of a song that is sacred to America. What's more is that the Battle Hymn of Republic is deeply spiritual, referencing Christ on many occasions. In fact, most churches keep it in their cannon of hymns that are sung by choirs all over this country as a way to worship Christ; and yet, the principal of Bernice Young Elementary somehow thought it appropriate to use this hymn to praise Obama, a man who is Christian only by name and only for political gain. I find this song to be deeply sacrilegious.

Denise King

In case you are outraged by this video or by the offensive use of our sacred song and want to know the person responsible, it is Ms. Denise King, principal of Bernice Young Elementary. Ms. King stated that she has no remorse for this Obama song and would allow it happen again. If you think this is outrageous and want to let Ms. King know your thoughts, here is her email: dking@burltwpsch.org

Must See ACORN Video

ACORN, The Association of Community Organization for Reform Now, is once again receiving some negative attention for their illegal methods. ACORN, an organization dear to President OBama, has been caught committing voter fraud, cheating on taxes, breaking into foreclosed homes, and now watch as two members of ACORN rack up 8 more illegal actions in this video. This is an undercover video with this basic test: James O' Keefe and Hanna Giles pretend to be a pimp and his prostitute who are seeking Acorn's help in setting up their illegal business, buying a house, and trafficking minors from El Salvador to also be pimped out. The idea behind this test, according to James O'Keefe, was that this test would "bare ACORN's true soul."

Remember, this organization is run by your tax dollars.

On Health Care

After reading much of the healthcare bill and listening to the arguments made on both sides, I have decided that this bill is horrible. I began with an open mind, but it did not take long to realize that this bill is bad policy. Here are my reasons:



Government Control:

I can never support any bill that grows the central government and provides more ways for the Federal government to control our lives. This bill would increase taxes on everyone, but especially small business owners at a rate of 8% of gross revenue. It would allow the government to dictate to insurance companies what their profits can be. It would allow the government to dictate to our doctors what medicines and treatments to use. It provides for an implantable RFID device (That’s right. Another governmental attempt to implant us all. More on this later.). The bottom line is that this bill is a giant step forward down the path of quashing your freedom.

We Can’t Afford It

All across the country, people are forced to postpone purchases because they simply cannot afford it. This idea of getting only what you can pay for hasn’t occurred to Washington, and we cannot afford this healthcare bill. They say it will cost $1 trillion initially, but who really knows. Inevitably, it will cause us to go further into debt, print more dollars, and raise taxes—as if we’re not taxed enough.

Governmental Administrative Failure

According to Representative Louis Gohmert, the expense for Medicaid and Medicare is roughly $9,200 per year per household. Gohmert concluded “we’re not getting our money’s worth.” If the government runs Medicaid and Medicare this inefficiently, how do you think they will do with a comprehensive healthcare program? That’s scary, isn’t it? So, my next question is what government programs would you argue are run efficiently? Seriously, think about it for a minute. What program or even what agency that is under the direct control of the Federal government embodies sound administrative execution? Get back to me on that one.

Dissent on Moral Grounds

Finally, I disapprove of this bill on moral grounds. As Representative Paul Broun said, “this bill will kill people.” I cannot support a bill that allows bureaucrats to say they won’t approve a certain treatment because it costs too much. I cannot support a bill that casts seniors aside. The bill is ethically wrong, and I’m shocked that the Democrats can find even 10% approval from amongst the general public on this issue.

Finally, I wanted to elaborate a bit on the implantable chip because no one else is mentioning it. You’ll find it all the way down in Section 2521 of Subtitle C. National Medical Device Registry under Title V. Other Provisions. Essentially, the bill states that a class II implantable chip will be used on each person who seeks coverage under this policy. The chip is an implantable radiofrequency transponder device, which has already been approved by the FDA. The basic idea is that the chip would hold all your medical records and insurance claims, which could be scanned by any medical personnel to access medical information more quickly and readily, but it could also hold any other information that they deem necessary, not to mention the ability to track your location wherever you are.

This is, as far as I can tell, the same end result they were pushing for with the Real ID Act that America rejected as a gross intrusion of privacy. Now, they are sneaking it in the back door on page 1001 of the healthcare bill.

I’m not against my medical provider keeping my medical records. I get the point. And if my medical provider ever does end up to be the government, I would want the government to know about all my medical conditions, but they can keep this information on a good, old-fashioned hard rive that rests outside of my body. They do not need to implant me. They do not need a radio transponder device inside of me to provide good health care. This is 1984 meets the Book of Revelations, and I’ll have no part of it. You can keep your healthcare Mr. Obama. I’ll keep my freedom.

Did you like this article? Subscribe for free to The Ornery Conservative.

They're Rolling Over in Their Graves

I had to post this video; it is so clever. Enjoy.

Federal Judge Refuses Injunction on Proposition 8

The Proposition 8 battle wages on, and I am sure that it will inevitably make its way to the Supreme Court. On Thursday, Federal Judge Vaughn Walker ruled against a request for injunction that was filed by those opposed to Proposition 8. Here is an excerpt of the email I received from Anthony Pugno, general counsel of protectmarriage.com concerning the ruling:

Dear Friend,

I write with great news from San Francisco! Our Proposition 8 Legal Defense Fund has won a key victory in the early rounds of the latest legal assault against traditional marriage.

As you know, on the heels of our victory at the California Supreme Court to uphold Prop 8, a new legal challenge was filed in May, this time in Federal Court, to invalidate the will of the people. Their claim is that Prop 8 violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Notably, they asked the Federal Courts to suspend Prop 8 while this lawsuit works its way through the courts, which would have reopened the floodgates of same-sex marriage licenses in California.

Today, in yet another victory for traditional marriage, Judge Vaughn Walker refused to grant the plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction designed to put Prop 8 on hold. The Court’s action supports the will of the people who voted to restore the definition of traditional marriage last November as between a man and a woman, and for that we are grateful.

Marriage between a man and a woman predates government, is recognized as the foundation of the family and has been the will of the people in California and 43 other states every time the people have been allowed to vote on the issue. Today’s ruling maintains the time-honored meaning of marriage. Any argument that the longstanding meaning of marriage that has served humanity for many millenniums somehow violates basic Constitutional rights is preposterous, and we are confident that this early victory in the latest challenge foretells an ultimate victory for marriage in the courts, even if we must go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Equal Protection Clause

The Equal Protection Clause, which is the foundation of this legal challenge, is part of the 14^th Amendment and says “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

The clause is only that part that has been made bold, but I included the rest of the first section of the 14^th amendment for context. Passed in 1868, the fourteenth amendment was especially meant to protect former slaves, though it has been used in many cases that claim discrimination toward racial minorities, women, handicapped persons, homosexuals, and voters (Bush vs. Gore), though most of the time it has been used in vain as a legal challenge.

Similar Arguments

In Romer vs. Evans, Justice Scallia argued that “the Constitution does not prohibit what virtually all States had done from the founding of the Republic until very recent years—making homosexual conduct a crime." The same argument could be used concerning marriage. The constitution does not speak on homosexual marriage, but the republic has had laws against it since the inception of the country, so how could it be said to be unconstitutional? Rehnquist joined the dissent, arguing that the Constitution makes no mention of this subject, so it should be left to “normal democratic means.”

The Case in a Nutshell

In this case, the plaintiff (gay community) will argue that marriage is a fundamental right, and that Proposition 8 is depriving them of that right, appealing to the Equal Protection Clause. The defense (protectmarrigage.com) will probably make a couple arguments. First, marriage predates government and the constitution and has always been the appellate for the union of a man and a woman. They will also argue something to the effect that it was not a governmental body that gave the idea for the law, but was the will of the people of California, and that it was done fairly and correctly.

Implications

If they affirm Proposition 8, the Supreme Court will be saying that the will of the people is the ultimate authority in the states, and that certain groups may be forced to make sacrifices to uphold that will. In reality, however, the justices could easily argue that no rights are being infringed; gays still can unite themselves in a civil union, adopt children, receive tax breaks, etc.

On the other hand, if the Supreme Court overturns Proposition 8, then they will be saying in effect, that the will of the people is not the ultimate authority in the individual states. They will be saying that laws cannot be passed on the basis of perceived morality, and they will open the doors to new legal challenges regarding bigamy, incest, bestiality, etc; for, how can they say that homosexuals are being discriminated and still prosecute others for these other sexual preferences. If it is overturned, it would assuredly lead to legislation that would make same-sex marriage legal in every state.

For me, I see this whole movement as a degradation of our society. How broad a scope do we allow this Equal Protection Clause to have? At what point will morality be so far removed from our society that there will be no boundaries in our behavior? When will incest become accepted? When will prisoners claim protection under the Equal Protection Clause? When will Sex Offenders claim that being forced to register is a violation of this clause? In other words, would an overturn of this ruling help protect a discriminated class of our society or would it show that we are simply becoming ever more amoral and wicked? Will it start a slippery slope of litigation that plunges us further and further from the god-fearing, religiously stout, country we were in our infancy? My prayer is that the Supreme Court will, when the time comes, uphold the sacred institution of marriage as the bonding of a man and a woman.

H.R. Bill 2454: Selling Out the American Economy

I’m amazed to a degree that I have not often felt because of the passing of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. I’m amazed that Americans and even congressmen can be so easily sold. Perhaps it’s my five years experience as a sales manager that makes it so easy for me to sniff out a sales pitch, and all hoopla and rhetoric from Obama, Gore, Pelosi and others is nothing if not a shameless sales pitch. We’ve been told over and over (as if we were 3^rd graders) that this bill will give us more jobs. Isn’t that wonderful? Don’t you boys and girls want more jobs? Just like the stimulus package was supposed to be about more jobs; that worked out great, didn't it?

If you haven’t learned it yet, there is one lesson that every American needs to internalize when deciphering whether or not a bill will be beneficial. Just forget what the politicians say, the professional pitchmen, and just look at what will happen. Here’s what you, the American people are getting:

· Satisfaction that are reducing green house gases, specifically carbon, though carbon is a naturally occurring gas that has never been shown to be harmful.

· Satisfaction of knowing that America is leading the way to creating a greener earth.

Now these two outcomes are certainly not bad in any way. We can all agree it’s good to try to be as green as we can, but let’s look at the price you will have to pay. If this bill passes, these effects are certain:

· Higher costs for electricity. In fact, you may be paying as much as double what are you currently paying.

· Immediate additional expenses for all business to pay for carbon credits under the cap and trade program, which will add roughly 2-3 trillion dollars of extra expenses by 2012 for the businesses that provide the products and services we use. These businesses will either pass the expense on to you increasing your expenses or close down because foreign companies will be able to produce or provide these services at a cheaper price.

· A massive loss of jobs; estimated to be as much as 1.3 million jobs each year.

· A massive spider-web-like bureaucracy that will invent many new regulatory agencies and expand many current agencies. In fact, the ever growing American bureaucracy is the only venue that will see new jobs.

We all want the satisfaction of cleaner air and cleaner energy, but this bill is the most wrong way to go about it. As long as we’re using the metaphor of the sales process, let me tell you how this transaction happened in the House. This bill is a 1200 page monster that was given to the members of the House less than 24 hours before the vote. Then, at 3:09 AM, the morning before the vote, another 300 page amendment was dumped into the mix. Ask yourself would you sign a contract that obligates you and your family to pay 30-40 percent higher energy costs, pay higher rates for goods and services, ship American money overseas to plant more trees in India, for instance, and cause some of your neighbors to lose their jobs all without reading the contract? If you are saying “Absolutely Not,” well, guess what? You absolutely just did through your elected Representative. John Boehner, Representative from Ohio, said in his speech on the floor of the House, “This is the biggest job-killing bill that has ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives in the history of this country.”

The only way to get greener energy is to force the Democrats to untie our hands and let us drill more oil, produce more nuclear energy, and use our tax dollars to build solar and wind energy sources instead of using it to grow government. It must be a gradual process, not overnight mandates that will snuff out every energy-intensive industry in our economy. I urge you to call your senator, not write, call your senator and make sure he understands that you want this bill blocked. It will be up to the Senate to save us from this impending disaster.

The following two clips are from Tom Mcclintock, Republican representative from California, and John Boehner, Republican from Ohio. Watch them both.

If you want to know who will benefit from this bill, read my blog post "Al Gore: Moral Leader or Mega Salesman," and as always you can subscribe for free to The Ornery Conservative to get automatic updates.