Archive for the ‘Governmental Reach’ Category

Great Danger in “Guidelines”

Nov 17, 2009 Governmental Reach, Health Care, Obama Administration

Today’s news that the U.S. Preventative Task Force has changed its advice that women should start regular mammograms at 50 rather than 40 will surely anger cancer organizations and medical doctors worldwide.  The anger should not stop there, however.  As we are in the midst of a debate on nationalized health care this has staggering ramifications on the health care that Americans could come to expect under government-controlled health care.  Consider two points:

  • The “numbers” show that a 40-year-old woman has a .19 percent chance of dying of cancer before she turns 50, so it’s quite reasonable that government-controlled health care will not cover mammograms before the age of 50.
  • Groups of people – death panels – will decide what kind of health status of people (including age, likelihood of success, etc.) get treatment and what kind of treatment

When you put these two factors together, you get a health care system that is both deciding you cannot be screened for an illness before a certain age, and then determining whether or not you can be treated if you do get the disease anyway.  Your only recourse is to pay for this screening out of your own pocket.

Now this is a true women’s issue, and one that should have all women in this great land very, very afraid of government-controlled health care.  Call your Senators now and oppose the public option!

Tags: , ,

Working on your own demise

Nov 3, 2009 Governmental Reach, Obama Administration

Today’s elections point out something very interesting.  That something is not new, and in fact it seems to be the rule more than the exception, but it’s brought to light again today.  That something is the idea that the country chooses its representation based on the motivation and interests of the electorate, the elected (including those who won on a recount or several recounts) think that it extends to their entire agenda, and then the elected begin to work on their demise in full force.  In fact, when it comes to the presidency, they call this effort “The First 100 Days.”

Today we will see this referendum on governmental reach in all of the key races.  There are places where conservatives should have no chance at winning, considering the results of just a year ago.  There is even a place where a 3rd party candidate is going to win just to spite the president AND the liberalization of the so-called conservative party.

Mary Kate Cary of U.S. News and World Report points out that it is no other than fiscal conservatism that is winning out.

Maybe it’s because they can see what’s happening. Democrats can read the polls: Independent swing voters are moving toward the right, and the Republican base. The wide American mainstream is broadening to include fiscal conservatives—yes, some of whom have all sorts of opinions on social issues—but they are united in their concern about the growing size and scope of government. Wasn’t that the lesson of August’s tea parties—that people of all stripes are concerned about massive government growth? Isn’t that what’s really threatening the left?

This is something that happens on both sides of the aisle, though tonight will be a referendum on the one year of government overreach by the Obama Administration.  It will be spun as something entirely different, but there’s simply no other reason why fiscal conservatives would be winning in these areas that were so largely won by Obama just one year ago.

Tags: , , ,

Thursday round-up on health care

Sep 10, 2009 Blogging's Best, Governmental Reach, Health Care, Obama Administration

There are some great pieces that have come out this morning regarding the health care debate, and particularly as President Obama’s speech last night affects it.

We start with Fred Barnes, where he was looking for the answers to five basic questions to see if the president had gotten back on track in the debate. Among them:

4) Did he demonize the health care providers he’s actually made deals with? Well, not all of them, but the health insurers took their usual beating.

5) Did he repeat the false claims he’s made repeatedly in earlier speeches? Yes indeed. He brought up nearly all of them, including the ones on no abortion coverage, no loss of one’s current health insurance, and the “savings” that would come from more preventive care.

Terry Madonna and Michael Young write, today, that not only is the conservative right gaining some momentum, but the left is becoming increasingly impatient with him.

The subtext of these and dozens of similar stories is crystal clear-Obama is in early trouble and the fate of his presidency may be at stake. The presidency that many thought might resemble FDR’s is looking more and more like Jimmy Carter’s. The aspirations of last November are becoming the trepidations of this September.

Madonna and young state that it’s not even out of the question that, among challenges from the conservative right, Obama could even be in store for a challenge from the liberal left come 2012.

The San Diego Union-Tribune, calling the speech a “missed opportunity,” sums up the problem with the president’s claims nicely:

We need to have a full and open debate about these concerns. But based on his speech last night, Obama would have us believe that he has a blueprint for a health care system that miraculously would be both much cheaper and much bigger — and the only thing that those who doubt him can offer is “misinformation.”

Sorry, Mr. President. That’s just not true.

In the end, keep in mind that even Congress “cackled” at the comment Obama made that “there remain some significant details to be ironed out.”

If you enjoyed this post, please use the “Tweet this!” button to share with your Twitter followers.

Tags: ,

Recommended political blog

Sep 9, 2009 Blogging's Best, Governmental Reach

David Carlson has taken his political commentary to a new blog.  Please make sure to visit him over at The Liberty Blogger.  Of particular interest to me, see his post on school vouchers.

Tags: , ,

Minnesota State Fair Poll Results

Sep 8, 2009 Governmental Reach, polls

The Minnesota House of Representatives have released their state fair poll results, and there are some very interesting tidbits in it, including opinions on the use of medical marijuana and the use of two fishing poles at once.

Here are the results. (PDF)

Choose your life path…in 9th grade

Jun 6, 2009 Governmental Reach

I am catching up on my stack(s) of reading material that I have fallen behind on over the last several months and finally got to the January edition of Session Weekly.  In it, I see where the “Governor’s Workforce Development Council” recommended policy where each student, from 9th grade on, would be required to have a career plan in place and have it reviewed annually until they were through with high school.

Rep. Steve Gottwalt (R-St. Cloud): “I get awfully concerned when we’re talking about mandating things on ninth graders and graduates in high school.  The fact that we might require them to start building a creer path too early or too arbitrarily is a bit of a concern.”

Yet another instance where government considers themselves omniscient, and can quickly and efficiently make decisions that often take people a lifetime to make (for good and bad reasons).  Yet another example where communistic ideas are creeping into our everyday lives, and without much of a fight, while people like Rep. Jeanne Poppe continue on a dangerous course.

“Ninth grade, to me, is almost too late to be thinking about where they want to be going,” said Poppe.

It’s all fun and games until some “expert” tells a 9th grader that it’s unrealistic that they will be a bio-medical engineer and starts them down a path far less challenging and rewarding.  The “program” could self-fulfill their own prophecies, but that won’t make it a successful one.

Today is the day you have let us down

May 26, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Governmental Reach, Obama Administration, Supreme Court

As President Obama prepares to announce his first Supreme Court nominee in a little over a hundred minutes, we are finally seeing the true consequences of the irresponsible voter.  When tasked with a decision between two men who could win, some chose the wrong one to be a part of history.  Some chose a third party on some impractical principle.  Others chose simply not to vote, because the better option wasn’t “better enough.”  Today, it finally comes to fruition.  All three of those groups have let us down, and the Constitution of this great nation takes another knife in the back.  Ironic, isn’t it, falling the day after we remembered the fallen soldiers who fought for this great land?  A Supreme Court nominee is the longest lasting, in certain terms, consequence of any presidency.  Selfishness at the polls will last long, long into the night and cost many their freedom and many more their lives.

There will be plenty of wailing when this announcement is made.  Unless you voted for the only option better than the reality that we have, I don’t want to hear it from you.  At least not today.

Update: It looks like it is going to be Judge Sonia Sotomayor.

Should Mrs. Hauser be prosecuted?

May 21, 2009 Governmental Reach

One of questions that has arisen in the case of the 13-year-old boy and his mom who are on the run after the government decided to start parenting is whether or not the mother should be prosecuted for a crime.  Unfortunately for her, she knew what she was doing in fleeing and missing a court appearance she was required to make.  We live in a land where it is expected that its citizens follow the law of it by participating in the justice system and accepting the decisions made there (certainly while appealing any decisions that we think are wrongly made).  Therefore, I think government must prosecute her, upon finding her in this country, just like they would anyone else in that case.

That said, I think a strong case can be made in her defense that this was merely a case of self-defense.  Was her or her son’s life put in danger by the decision of the court, which ultimately led her to flee?  No.  In her mind, however, that decision did put her and her son’s eternal soul in danger, and thus it was worth going to any length to preserve that.

These are the kinds of problems that arise when government sticks their collective noses into decisions they have no business being involved in.  I still hold out hope that the family will change their minds, while there is time, and have the boy treated.  I think the court system will be somewhat lenient with the mother if she returns.  Still, I say this as someone who does not believe chemotherapy is intrinsically evil, and I hope most that this family follows their conscience while seeking Truth.

Tags: , ,

Where is the tipping point?

May 20, 2009 Five Non-Negotiable Issues, Governmental Reach, Obama Administration

By now, most everyone has heard the story of the 13-year-old from Sleepy Eye, Minnesota.  Daniel Hauser’s parents claim that is against their religious beliefs to undergo a chemotherapy treatment for the disease that has a relatively successful treatment.  Daniel backs up his parents’ claim, and says he wishes to forego that treatment.  A court has since ruled that he should receive treatment and Daniel’s mom has taken him and fled their hometown, also missing a court appearance.

This is a terribly sad situation.  First off, I want to state that if I were in the place of the Hauser parents (oh, God, please forbid) I would want treatment for my child.  I think medicinal remedies are a gift from God when used in truthful and moral ways.  The Hausers, though, do not believe in using anything that “attacks” the body.   Now, due to their fear of having government and court decisions imposed upon them and their religion, there is a widening search for them as they have gone on the run.

From a Christian’s standpoint, this is a very troubling situation.  As our nation has taken a turn for the worse under the Obama Administration in terms of life issues, I have had several discussions with friends and family about the very real possibility that Christians are going to have to, as obligated by what is most important to them – Christ, fight against government in order to preserve Truth.  I think there is roughly one non-violent solution, and that is what is currently being employed: make a run for it.  Upon the police or FBI showing up at your doorstep, though, what would you do?  At what point would you be able justify an action under the umbrella of self-defense in order to prevent government from infringing on your religious beliefs?

Government no longer has any regard for religion, and there is only such a thing as a separation of church from state (the state feels no need to keep out of the business of church).  Government has been slowly but steadily picking a fight with Christians and, while many Christians have simply given way to government and pop culture, there is a large contingent of Christians who simply will not give in.  These are Christians who will even go to martyrdom in order to save their own souls.  These are Christians who realize that giving in to government in this life could endanger their eternal life, the life that is truly important to them.

Here’s rooting for Daniel Hauser and his family.  I pray for the healing hand of God to touch Daniel, and I pray that his family’s wishes are kept at the forefront of what is important.  Government only lives in this finite, earthly world.  Our souls live on forever.

Tags: , ,

Are conservatives losing the polling war?

Mar 14, 2009 Governmental Reach

I was caught off guard this morning by a phone poll from an public education organization.  I always hate to turn them down because there are politicians, like Obama, who value popularity greatly and develop policy around polls.  I know it isn’t right, but it’s the way it is.  My main goal with these polls is to say that:

  • Public education is overfunded
  • Public education is not providing the skills needed to succeed in this world
  • We need a voucher system that allows for some incentive for schools to do better and attract students (or get out of the business)
  • I’m disappointed that alternative lifestyles, for which there is significant evidence that they are hurting people and society overall, are presented in a way that is equal to those lifestyles that have been the foundation for good, working societies

At one point I was asked the following question:

Do you believe that public education is adequately funded, somewhat adequately funded, somewhat inadequately funded, or inadequately funded?

I proceeded to tell the person polling me (fortunately it wasn’t a machine) that I thought that public education was terribly overfunded and I wasn’t sure which of the four categories that fit in.  I suppose I should have said it was adequately funded, though I didn’t want to give the idea that I was happy about the amount of tax dollars taken from me to achieve far less than private education was doing (on far fewer dollars).  I think it was ultimately decided that my answer should be inadequately funded.  Surely this will look, in the final numbers, like I was one of the people willing to give more money to “improve education for our children.”  Of course, there were other answers that got to the crux of this, but public education advocates will surely use the better of the two numbers.

This led me to wonder: Are public polls skewed to give the impression that conservatives and libertarians sometimes agree with ultra-liberal views?  Are the questions designed such that no answer would fit the conservative/libertarian mindset very well, and so we are left to choose one of the others, all of which can be spun to oppose our actual viewpoint on the issue?

I would appreciate your comments on this.

Tags: , , ,