Obama's Mom Jeans!

I found this pretty freaking hilarious!

Of course the HuffPo people think he looks "super cool!" or as the always hip Arlen Specter would say, "super-duper" cool. Losers!

P.S. Boos for Obama in St. Louis?! Looks like he's not as infallible as previously thought!

More Pro-Choice Violence

Pro-Life Group Wants Justice Department to Investigate Death Threats, Gets Refusal

Abortion Advocate Nearly Runs Over Pro-Life Planned Parenthood Protester

Arkansas Man Faces July Trial for Nearly Hitting Pro-Life Advocates With Car

Abortion Advocate Attacks Pro-Life Group's Office, Tries to Disable Security System

And let's not forget about the SEVENTH instance of Planned Parenthood breaking the law by not reporting the statutory rape of underage girls:

Planned Parenthood Abortion Center Staffer: We Bend the Rules on Sexual Abuse

Related posts:

Pro-"Choice" Violence

Socialized Health Care Horror Stories: Cancer, Part 2

Before examining how socialized health care affects other conditions, I wanted to follow up on last week's cancer focus with two more cancer horror story articles from the United Kingdom.

UK Telegraph: Patients with suspected cancer forced to wait so NHS targets can be hit

People arriving at Accident and Emergency departments [Emergency Rooms in the United States] with symptoms which could indicate the aggressive spread of the disease are waiting weeks for diagnosis and treatment while “routine” cases are prioritised.

Hospital managers told researchers that treating desperately sick patients more quickly would “reflect badly” on their performance against Government cancer targets which only cover those referred to specialists by GPs.
...
Katherine Murphy, from the Patients Association, said the report provided “breathtaking” evidence of a confidence trick being played on the public, repeatedly told that waiting times for patients with suspected cancer are falling, while desperate cases were forced to the back of the queue.

She said: “This confirms our very worst fears, and exposes the scandal of what pernicious targets are doing to patients. We have seen other targets being used in ways that damage patient care, but of everything we have seen, this really is the cruellest of the cruel”.

Because of the pressure to cut down on the wait times inherent in universal health care, targets have been put in place to make sure hospitals meet certain time requirements. In response, hospitals put their focus on the cases that are counted towards the targets (i.e. cancer patients referred by GPs) and put the cases that don't count towards targets (emergency cancer patients) on the back burner. When the government runs health care, meeting warped government standards takes priority over treating the sickest.

UK Daily Mail: Britain's cancer shame as 15,000 elderly patients could be saved every year

UP to 15,000 Britons aged over 75 are dying needlessly from cancer each year, claim researchers.

Their lives could be prolonged if UK cancer survival rates matched the best in Europe and the US, it is claimed.

A new study is the latest to expose the gap between survival rates in Britain and other developed countries despite huge increases in NHS funding.

Researchers say many older sufferers have more invasive cancers, partly caused by later diagnosis of the disease either through delays in the NHS or by patients themselves.

Another factor is poorer treatment of patients here, compared with other countries which often have a wider range of drugs to use.

…

Shadow Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley said 'This report exposes the huge problems with Labour’s bureaucratic, tick-box culture. Their targets for cancer survival for the NHS only focus on the under 75s, so it’s not surprising older people are suffering.

15,000 senior citizens die every year because of the socialized health care system. Britain is considerably smaller than the United States, so the numbers would be far higher here if we were to follow the UK. The problems that lead to these preventable deaths are also hallmarks of universal health care: more delays, poorer treatment, less access to drugs, and more inhuman bureaucracy. Again, government targets have unintended and harmful consequences for patients.

Originally posted at American Issues Project Blog.

Happy Independence Day 2009!

HAPPY BIRTHDAY, AMERICA!!! And thank you to all the patriots, past, present & future who make our independence possible!

Obamercial Response

Check out Cato's response to the many inaccuracies of the #Obamercial last week:

AIP Socialized Health Care Horror Stories: Cancer

With Obamacare increasingly becoming the focus in Washington, it is important to highlight the horrors of government-run universal health care in other countries so it can be stopped here.

Here's are two recent stories on how government health care affects cancer treatment:

UK:

The cancer divide: Men are most at risk because the NHS prefers saving women, says cancer expert

It revealed that among cancers which affect both sexes, men are 60 per cent more likely to develop the disease and 70 per cent more likely to die from it. ...

As a cancer specialist for the past 30 years, I found the study depressingly predictable. It has long been clear to me that we men are unfairly discriminated against by an NHS which has unfairly favoured female health matters ahead of the needs of male patients. ...

For the fact is that politicians, eager to court the female vote, have long presided over a huge disparity in funding and treatment of female cancer patients at the expense of their male counterparts. ...

The truth is that by treating the NHS as a political football to be kicked in whichever direction they judge will win them the most votes, politicians have added hugely to the disparity between male and female cancer survival rates. ...

I believe we need to look at financial incentives as a possible answer. Recently, private health insurers have started offering reduced premiums for subscribers who agree to join gyms, and even ‘no claims discounts’ for those who remain healthy. Why shouldn’t the NHS adopt a similar approach?...

From this example we can see that when the government controls health care, politicians will use it to get votes from favored constituencies - at the expense of the health of others. Notice also how the author approvingly cites the practices of private health care to encourage better health outcomes.

Canada:

OHIP cost cutting complicates cancer treatment

Interleukin-2 is a protein in the human body that stimulates the immune system and helps infection-fighting cells multiply and grow. It is used to treat certain types of cancers such as advanced melanoma and renal cancer. IL-2 was approved by Health Canada several years ago, but its use is not as widespread in Canada as it is in the United States.

OHIP covers pre-approved IL-2 treatments in the U.S. for Ontario residents who need it, but Hunt has been waiting to get the life-saving drug for two months....

He sought treatment in Detroit and had a consultation with an oncologist there but didn't get OHIP's approval to proceed because of a simple mistake in the paperwork, Meghan said.

Frustrated, the couple spent hours on the phone, calling doctors, the Ministry of Health and local politicians, hoping that someone could help them.

But while they were scrambling to secure Hunt's treatment in Detroit, there was a change in OHIP rules.

OHIP will now only cover Hunt's cancer treatment in Buffalo, N.Y., where the Roswell Park Cancer Institute is the ministry's only "preferred provider" of IL-2 treatment for metastatic malignant melanoma and renal cell carcinoma. The Ministry of Health has a number of funding agreements with out-of-country health care facilities, which are chosen based on specific criteria.

After much bureaucratic wrangling, Hunt will finally meet with specialists in Buffalo today and find out when he can begin treatment there. But he still doesn't understand why he and his family have to make the four-hour trip instead of simply crossing the border to get the same medical care in Detroit.

First of all, the fact that Canada is sending its patients to the U.S. for proper care should be enough of an indication of the failures of their system - where will Canadians go if the U.S. gets socialized health care? Second, this story demonstrates the red tape and government control of where people can seek treatment, which is based on cost, not necessarily on better care or patient comfort.

These are just two examples of many of how poorly run universal health care is for cancer patients. Next week, we'll take a look at other aspects of the system.

Originally posted at American Issues Project Blog.

Top 100 Wasteful Stimulus Projects

Check out my blog post on the American Issues Project blog about Sen. Coburn's list of the Top 100 Wasteful Stimulus Projects!

.

Idiot Professor: REPUBLICANS should Apologize for Slavery?!

I was reading this WaPo article about the Senate voting to apologize for slavery - (I hope they only apologized on their own behalf, I have nothing to do with slavery, I have never owned a slave. My family came over in the last 100 years and was previously abused by the Turks, no apology forthcoming.)

Anyway, take a look at this RIDICULOUS quote from a college professor:

Even among proponents of a congressional apology, reaction to yesterday's vote was mixed. Carol M. Swain, a professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University who had pushed for the Bush administration to issue an apology, called the Democratic-controlled Senate's resolution "meaningless" since the party and federal government are led by a black president and black voters are closely aligned with the Democratic party.

"The Republican Party needed to do it," Swain said. "It would have shed that racist scab on the party."

Excuse me, lady, but it is actually quite fitting that the Democrat-controlled government made the apology - it was after all the REPUBLICAN party that freed the slaves! Remember that guy, Abe Lincoln? He was our first REPUBLICAN president.

Or perhaps she is thinking more of the Civil Rights area. Oh, but wait, Martin Luther King, Jr. was a REPUBLICAN! REPUBLICANS voted overwhelmingly for the Civil Rights Act - higher as a percentage than the Democrats and it was powerful Democrats in Congress who opposed it. Later, it was REPUBLICAN President Richard Nixon who started affirmative action.

But enough with the history lesson for this ignorant professor. Apparently, she thinks only HER present perception of the Republican party matters. Never mind that the resolution was about SLAVERY, ended by REPUBLICANS in the 1860s.

What have Democrats actually done for the black community? Are Democratically-controlled cities thriving? Like Detroit? Don't forget Katrina happened under the leadership of a Democrat mayor, city council AND governor. Republican-controlled Mississippi fared much better. Are students improving? Democrats are also the ones blocking black families from choosing better schools for their children. Are families flourishing? To Democrats, the answer to the problem of single motherhood is more abortion facilities in poor inner cities.

What is this "racist scab" she speaks of and do we really believe that apologizing would end the issue? What is so racist about Republicans? It is black Republicans who receive some of the worst open racial insults by black and white Democrats alike. Just ask REPUBLICAN National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

I guess what makes us racist is that we don't think of minorities as different or special - people are people. Republicans strive for a color-blind society, not a bean-counting one that strives for the "right" combination of the "right" color faces. We believe people should be judged by the content of their character, not the color of their skin. Wouldn't it be nice if Democrats did, too? But, alas, I guess then both parties would be called racist.

Just Say No to Bailing Out Beach Houses

Looks like Congress is again cooking up a bill that would send over taxpayer money to cover the poor financial decisions of others.

It's officially called the "Homeowners' Defense Act" but Competitive Enterprise Institue (CEI) has dubbed it the "Beach House Bailout:

So how did we get here?

Higher premiums serve to discourage investment and development in disaster-prone areas, such as Florida with it's hurricane season, however the higher prices are not politically popular and may appear unfair when the seas are calm and the weather clear. That may cause the government to attempt to drive prices down artificially, which serves as a market signal for more investment and development on the high-risk lands.

In Florida, politicians created a state-run insurance company with artificially low property insurance premiums backed by an implicit guarantee which encouraged people to build, like the celebrities building elaborate mansions on beaches in hurricane paths. This distortion in the marketplace drove many private insurance companies out of the state, leaving the state of Florida as the largest insurance provider.

When natural disasters hit, like a hurricane, the damage costs are higher, and thus insurance claims greater, than they would have been if the original premium signals had been obeyed and the beach houses not been built. Instead of spreading the risk throughout the private insurance sector, taxpayers are left footing the bill for massive claim payouts.

To cover their behinds so their constituents don't hold them accountable on this self-inflicted mess, many politicians like those in Florida want to spread the risk throughout the rest of the country through the "Homeowners' Defense Act," i.e. pass the buck on and seek a federal bailout. Of course, this would merely recreate the Florida model on a massive scale: the federal government will provide a guarantee and national taxpayers will be on the hook for payouts.

This idea is attractive to other states and localities that face increased natural disaster risks, but is unfair to low-risk states and taxpayers who choose to live and build in stable, safe areas who will end up having to bailout their irresponsible and risky neighbors.

To join CEI in saying "No Beach House Bailouts," sign their citizens petition here.

Originally posted at the American Issues Project Blog

More Birth Control = More Pregnancy and Abortion in UK

Pro-"choicers" like to say that if only there was more access to contraceptives there wouldn't be so many pregnancies and abortions. However, a peek at Great Britain where they do provide access more freely shows they have seen an increase in pregnancy and abortion.

In the UK Daily Mail article entitled Most teenage pregnancies now end with an abortion, we see this phenomenon:

Out of around 40,000 pregnancies more than 20,000 were terminated - the first time more had chosen this option than become mothers.

The figure is higher than 2007, when it just hit 50 per cent, and consistent with a steady upwards trend since the Government started its controversial Teenage Pregnancy Strategy in 1999.

Figures out on May 21 will also show that for the first time the number of abortions performed on women living in England and Wales topped 200,000.

The teenage pregnancy strategy, which has cost taxpayers more than £300million, was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010.

Ministers have tried to slash teenage pregnancies by freely handing out contraceptives and expanding sex education.

But the fall in pregnancy rates has not met Government targets, and in 2007 the rate actually rose.

Teenage pregnancy rates are now higher than they were in 1995. Pregnancies among girls under 16 - below the age of consent - are also at the highest level since 1998.

So the numbers went up at precisely the time they were working to reduce them. What was the government doing all this time to prevent teen pregnancy as the rates rose?

A Department of Health spokesman said: 'One of the key aims of this Government, as set out in the Sexual Health and Teenage Pregnancy Strategies, is to reduce the number of unintended pregnancies and consequently abortions, through better access to contraception.

'Prescribed contraception is available free of charge under NHS arrangements, and the Department of Health has recently invested additional funds to allow for improvements in contraception services.'

Did you read that? "Prescribed contraception is available free of charge!" Contraception is literally freely available and yet pregnancy and abortion rates have gone through the roof! Perhaps it is more of a cultural problem.

Abortion proponents are pleased with this result:

Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, has claimed: 'The fact that teenagers felt able to end their pregnancy in abortion is actually a positive sign.

'If they have other plans for their teenage years aside from motherhood, they felt more able to make that choice.'

Great, so throwing money and birth control at the problem not only is useless and counterproductive, it also leads to a greater acceptance and celebration of choosing abortion, which I guess is what the pro-"choicers" wanted all along. Funny how that works.

Memorial Day 2009

Veterans: Thank your for your service and sacrifice!

Pelosi's Medicine

This is really unbelievable. From the Politico article Dems: CIA briefers may have broken law we find these paragraphs:

Reyers and other Democrats currently on the committee told reporters Thursday that the GOP is waging a politically motivated attack on the speaker — and that she has received an unfair ride in the press.

The Democrats are complaining about politically motivated attacks and an unfair press? Are you kidding me?! Have they been on this planet for the last 8 years?!

The CIA and Porter Gross both contradict Pelosi's many changing statements, but suddenly it's a witch hunt and the CIA is lying.

"I tell you who you need to get — that's Hoekstra, who is running for governor
with irresponsible undertakings, and you tell him I said so," said Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), referring to Rep. Pete Hoekstra, the ranking Republican on the committee and a leading Pelosi critic.

Alcee Hastings gives the motivations of the Dems away when he tries to tell the media to "get" a Republican. That is what they are trying to do with these investigations into so-called "torture" - get Republicans and former Bush officials. This is all nasty political payback that threatens our national security and that's ok in the name of getting Republicans, but now that it's in the process of dragging down the Speaker, it's out of bounds.

Sounds like the Democrats don't like the taste of their own medicine. Perhaps they shouldn't be so quick to prescribe it.

What does empathy have to do with the Supreme Court?

I'm not that upset about Justice Souter retiring - it doesn't change the Supreme Court, just replacing one liberal for another. But I do want to talk about the ridiculousness of what Obama says he is looking for in a justice.

During the campaign, he said:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Well, first of all, all the justices are old, so they can all understand that. Justice Clarence Thomas KNOWS what it's like to be poor and African-American - but that doesn't count to Obama, it has to be a liberal without first hand experience who feels enough guilt to empathize with the perceived weaker side and rule in their favor no matter the circumstances. To him, empathy is more important than truth, heart over head.

Speaking of Justice Thomas, Obama has pretty much called him stupid:

"I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don't think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree."

(Of course it's only racist to question the intellect and qualifications of a black person if they're liberal, black conservatives are fair game for the worst racial taunts imaginable.)

When officially announcing the retirement of Souter, Obama again spoke of empathy:

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

Empathy has nothing to do with justice. You can empathize with someone all day long but they could still be wrong. Judges are supposed to be dispassionate and objective; empathy is all about emotions and subjectivity. I don't believe Obama in his second sentence where he pays lip service to the rule of law and constitutional traditions - his view of those are far different from the rest of the country.

I think the last sentence is telling; he seems to be saying, "I respect the constitutional values this country was founded on, but they need to be updated and I need someone to think of creative ways to do this." One example of a potential Obama update on our constitutional values would be to say, "the 2nd Amendment was great in the 17th century when people hunted for food or needed protection on the frontier, but today guns kill too many people and we need to control them."

Another Obama criteria is that the justice has to be as militantly pro-abortion as he is. I don't need to get into this except to say, maybe more empathy wouldn't be so bad:

Dr. Obama's prescription for swine flu

Obama on swine flu:

Keep your hands washed. Cover your mouth when you cough ... Stay home from work if you are sick. Keep your children home from school if they are sick.

Isn't this kinda like his "solution" to our oil problem?

Making sure your tires are properly inflated, simple thing, but we could save all the oil that they’re talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires and getting regular tune-ups.

What an inspirational leader!

Obama wants to remake US

To mark the 100th day of his rule as president, Obama took the opportunity to declare his intention to "remak[e] America.” (Reminds me of when Obama spoke of a "fundamental flaw" in the Constitution or when Michelle said it was the first time in her life she was proud of her country.) Thanks, Obama, but the Founding Fathers made this country just fine the first time. Apparently, he wants to be the Founding Father of the USSA.

I loved this comment by an Obama impersonator on Twitter:

RT @obamasthoughts We must re-make America; because we got off track somewhere along the line. (Personally, I think it was 233 years ago.)

It's funny, but it's sad because it's true. Lord, help me, I don't know how I'm going to get through the next 100 days, never mind next 3 1/2 years!

Miss California is the true Miss USA

Hot conservative mama

When I saw this headline: Miss California Sparks Furor With Gay Marriage Comments on Miss USA Telecast I immediately knew the only position that would cause "furor" and controversy would be that of support for traditional marriage. Of course, I was correct in my assumption.

From the article:

When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised."

SHOCK! HORROR! How controversial she express such a mainstream view that is shared with a large majority of Americans! Apparently, she gave the "wrong" answer:

Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement.

"As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family."

"Saddened?" Really, saddened? She is merely expressing the view of a majority of Californians and the laws of that state. Does he realize that his belief that "all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit" must allow for religions that exclude gay marriage? Or that "government should be able to discriminate against anyone" means that people who think gay marriage is wrong should also not be discriminated against? He says, "religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family" - so what is his beef, then? Never mind that Miss. California never expressly cited her religion as a reason for her answer. Gay marriage proponents never consider the many non-religious arguments against it.

And what were they expecting, really? As a generalization, the women who compete in pageants tend to be conservative in their values, seeking to be as American as apple pie. Feminists routinely criticize pageants "objectification" of women and especially protest the swim suit competition. Apparently gay men are huge fans of pageants, but it would have been truly controversial to the American people if she had expressed support for gay marriage. Perhaps the Miss USA pageant should not have allowed a question it would not accept a certain answer to.

Miss California's answer sparked a shouting match in the lobby after the show.

Does anyone think there would have been such a ruckus if she had given the politically correct answer?

But Prejean told FOXNews.com that she has no regrets and is happy with the answer she gave.

Good for her for standing up for what she believes in, even when it's not popular to a certain audience. I pray she has the strength to withstand the hatred and protest that will be directed at her in the coming days. If anyone knows of how we can send messages of support to her and her family, please let me know.

What I saw at the DC Tea Party Revolution!

I had the distinct honor and privileged of standing together with hundreds of thousands of Americans across the country today to voice our frustration over the massive expansion of government, it's reckless spending, taxes and "user fees" on everything, and general intrusion into our everyday lives and liberty. We chose to mark Tax Day with a national Tea Party!

I went to the DC Tea Party at Lafayette Square, which is a grassy park across from the White House. It was cold and rainy but that did not dampen the crowds' spirits. Unfortunately, because of the huge crowds, it was near impossible to see the stage or hear the speakers, so I walked around taking pictures of the scene.

Here is my visual diary of the DC Tea Party!

The first pics from the DC Tea Party as you're walking up the street to Lafayette Square. TONS of cars were honking for the sign that asked if you're over-taxed. (You can read signs better by clicking on the pictures)


Part of the crowd as I was walking toward it in Lafayette:



View of the Tea Party crowd with the White House as a back drop:



Look out! Right-wing extremists!



You can almost see the stage through all of the people:



Now there's a tax we can all get behind:


Kids say, "Don't steal our future!"


A smaller group of protesters in front of the White House:


A modern day patriot:


The grassroots protest were anyone could take the megaphone was in front of the White House, while the protest with national speakers was yards away in Lafayette Square across from the White House:


I enjoyed this sign:


Some basic economics for Obama to know about small businesses:


This is what TEA really stands for:



A sea of umbrellas around the stage:


Part of the crowd as I was leaving Lafayette Square:

Live Tweeting the DC Tea Party!

Please follow me, (@AlexaShrugged) on Tax Day, April 15, as I live Tweet and TwitPic the DC #teaparty!


.

The Queen receives an iPod from Obama

Blogging on AIP

Please check out AIP's blog as I blog there twice a week, typically Mondays and Wednesdays. Look for a new one out today on Earth Hour.

My pieces so far:

“Stunned. Stunned is the word.”

Rep. Barney Frank: March Porker of the Month

Lessons from Massachusetts: Health Care Reform

“Restoring Integrity?” Not Quite.

“Utterly Bemused” by New Diplomacy

Deducing Obama’s Plans Through Deductions