May the Lord Bless Them and Keep Them...

This video goes out to all our fighting men and women, retired or not active or reservist, serving in every one of the four branches.

A Keepable New Year's Resolution!

Yes, you read that right. I believe I've found one. Little Miss Attila brought it to my attention, via Hillbuzz. LMA suggests, with help from Hillbuzz, that you, myself, and other fellow bloggers pick one "issue of our times" and become experts on it by reading and researching stories. After becoming experts on such stories, we report and blog about them throughout the year. Sounds like a great idea to me. I believe I might have found my issue, in the form of the new end-of-life provision that has been written back into Obamacare by way of the "secretary shall determine" language.

Since I can't find the link for the article, here it is in print, as I copied and pasted it to read later:

Remember the "death panel" scare in last year's health care debate? Sarah Palin and others served up ominous warnings that a House health care overhaul bill would give federal bureaucrats life-and-death power over medical treatment for people approaching the end of their lives.

Those fears were overblown. But the political furor forced Democrats to scrap a provision that would have paid doctors to give Medicare patients end-of-life counseling once every five years.

Now comes word of new Medicare rules that some critics say resurrect the "death panels."

Relax. These new rules are more Marcus Welby than Jack Kevorkian.

Right now, Medicare will pay a doctor for one end-of-life planning session with a Medicare patient. That may include help on how to prepare an "advance directive," a patient's instructions to his doctors about what to do if the patient becomes too sick to make his own medical decisions.

---

Chicago Shopping Overwhelming Offers: Always 50% off or more from your favorite brands >>

---

Starting Jan. 1, Medicare will pay for an annual session, if needed, as part of a broader "wellness" visit.

That's it. The counseling sessions are voluntary. The government won't tell doctors what to discuss with their patients. It won't pressure physicians to push patients into living wills or advance directives.

It's a smart move.

Research shows that end-of-life planning is valuable: A recent British Medical Journal study concluded it "improves end-of-life care and patient and family satisfaction and reduces stress, anxiety and depression in surviving relatives."

The study also noted that "patients welcome advance care planning and expect health professionals to initiate discussions."

That doesn't always happen, of course. Many patients don't have these conversations with their doctors, says Dr. Robert Berenson of the Urban Institute.

Reason One: Some doctors avoid starting end-of-life talks because it makes them uncomfortable.

Reason Two: Doctors are paid to deliver more aggressive treatment, even if it's futile. Berenson tells us that many patients are not fully informed about treatment options and the prognosis for success. Even if they choose a less aggressive treatment plan, some doctors ignore or overrule those preferences. "In other words, doctors are often more heroic than patients are," he says.

In a 2009 Urban Institute study, Berenson and his co-authors suggested a raft of ways to pay for health care reform. They estimated that the government could save $90 billion over 10 years, not by denying care but by better managing end-of-life care. That means helping terminally ill patients avoid futile treatment and manage their pain once they choose to stop treatment. It also means focusing on comfort and emotional support, not on exhausting every option technology offers.

Families, patients and doctors reach excruciating decisions every day about whether to extend treatment in the face of steep odds or to choose a less aggressive course. What families and patients decide is often guided not just by financial concerns, but by religious principles and deeply held moral beliefs.

The new rule changes none of that. But it does encourage doctors to open those tough conversations about death. To let patients know that they can largely control what is and is not done in the final days of their lives. That their families won't be forced to make agonizing decisions. That's a tremendous relief for many patients, and the families they leave behind.

Let me know what you think!

New York Unions: EPIC FAIL

As if there were more evidence needed that public sector unions were a bad idea, there comes this story out of Mayor-for-Life Michael Bloomberg's fiefdom of New York City. Read the story here if you can stomach it. I was surprised that I could, come to think of it.

Apparently the reason for the slowdown of the plowing was to protest the idea that New York's union gravy train was having to come to a stop due to lack of funds. Mayor Bloomberg, to his credit, was trying to make budget cuts that would save the city from insolvency. How horrible, I know.

a highlight passage from the article is this:

Miles of roads stretching from as north as Whitestone, Queens, to the south shore of Staten Island still remained treacherously unplowed last night because of the shameless job action, several sources and a city lawmaker said, which was over a raft of demotions, attrition and budget cuts.

so nice to see that the unions put themselves first rather than the unwashed masses, isn't it? Bleh.

Oh, and as an added bit of dark humor, someone actually thinks it's a good idea that Alan Grayson run for president!

She of the Fuzzy Slippers

Fuzzy Slippers has been a follower of mine for almost a year now, but I haven't until recently decided to follow her in return. Apologies to her for this egregious oversight. After perusing her site, I came across a few interesting posts of hers. Most recently the open letter to the world stating the American people's desire to do the very opposite of what our wannabe president is doing. Read the whole thing here.

May all her predictions come true quickly.

Continuing to fight the good fight.

Jesus Did not Speak English...Well DUH!!!

Even in faith based documents I find left wing lunacy, it seems. My fiancé just gave me a book with an article inside it entitled Jesus did not Speak English. My Loony senses went off almost immediately, and I delved inside, giving the article a read. From a purely faith based perspective, the article makes a good deal of sense. Until it actually starts talking about it’s intended subject matter, that is. What is that subject matter, exactly? Well, it’s illegal immigration. Yep. That’s right. Illegal immigration. Somehow, some way, the person that wrote this article equates the teachings of Jesus Christ with an open borders philosophy. How, you ask? Well, like most misguided souls who try to use scripture to make their point, he cherry picks the scripture he needs while completely ignoring common sense, as well as other, equally valid scriptural arguments.

Item one: he puts the caption “Jesus did not speak English” on a marquee outside the church she goes to. Several comments that graced his mail after that included remarks about how obvious it was that the Savior of course didn’t speak English, given that English was not yet a language. Apparently he didn’t realize at the time that people might misconstrue his message’s intent, which was that Jesus didn’t speak English, and therefore he wouldn’t have persecuted illegal immigrants because of their own inability to speak it. What?

Item 2: The people who complained apparently did so because they wanted to perpetuate some myth about Jesus speaking English and agreeing with their way the world worked. That in and of itself is somewhat ludicrous, since the world didn’t work the same way in the first century that it now works in the 21^st. Sure, the basics are the same, but all the complexities are different. Anyway, on with my point. He bases this assessment on absolutely nothing, implying, in my view, that people who believe in Jesus automatically believe that he was whatever ethnicity the individual complainer was, spoke English, and believed everything that that individual believed and nothing else. And of course, no evidence to support this crackpot theory, either. Oy.

Item 3: The cherry picked Scripture quotes. You knew they were coming. Second column of the first page of the article brings up the idea of persecuting the stranger, which is what appears to be the crux of the article. She makes reference to the Israelites, specifically:

Exodus 23:9: You shall not oppress a resident alien; you know the heart of an alien, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Leviticus 19:34: the alien who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the alien as yourself for you were aliens in the land of Egypt.

Deuteronomy 24:17: You shall not deprive a resident alien of justice.

Icing on the cake is Matthew 25:43: I was a stranger, and you did not welcome me.

For those who are unaware, Exodus and Leviticus both deal specifically with the Jews and their time in the desert after Moses led them out of Egypt. God is warning the Israelites in that verse that they were once strangers, and so had better not treat other strangers the way Pharaoh treated them. Good advice, but last time I checked it isn’t the same thing as dissolving a nation’s borders and allowing any Tomas, Ricardo and Enrique to come in without learning their motives.

The article goes on to state the obvious, telling readers that already believe in God that he is the God of Creation, and therefore everyone on the planet is a brother or sister in Christ. Of course they all are! In his assessment, though, the pastor neglects to mention yet another piece of Scripture, dealing specifically with the division of responsibilities and reverence concerning God and man. Namely, “Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar’s. Render unto God that which is God’s.” Last time I checked, nations had a responsibility to police their borders and keep an eye on who comes in here. At least, every other country in the world seems to be able to police their borders without getting flak for being racist. Having an official language does not mean you have an inherent dislike towards outsiders. Having an official language, in fact, would make things easier to communicate because EVERYONE IN THE COUNTRY WOULD SPEAK THE SAME LANGUAGE!!! Why is that so difficult for “open borders” types to understand?

The pastor even acknowledges in the article that “government runs more efficiently if our law, rules, and regulations are effectively communicated.” Great. I agree. Unfortunately he ruins it by saying in the same breath: “Why would we hamstring our elected leaders by requiring that they act as if a language barrier did not exist?” What? When did wanting an official language for the country equate to ignoring the fact that a language barrier existed? If we were doing that, why would we have implemented the Ellis Island program a hundred years ago? If we were truly ignoring a language barrier, we wouldn’t bother even letting these people in the country in the first place! We’d just seal off the borders and force people to cross illegally (which they already do anyway, btw).

Another question I have is this: Why, as the article implies in its attitude, is enforcing immigration law automatically lumped in with a lack of hospitality? People who are here illegally have shown us what they think of our country’s laws by BREAKING THEM! Why are we not allowed to be more like Joe Arpaio in Arizona and enforce our immigration laws? Mexico has downright draconian laws. Laws so fiercely enforced that the flow of South American illegals is significantly less than that of Mexico itself, largely because the SAs are afraid of being caught by the Federales!

Basing an argument entirely on faith is doomed to failure, as this one was. Not that I have anything against the priest, mind you, but come on! We can’t enforce our border laws because to do so would be un-Christian? What if a terrorist with a dirty bomb slipped in and blew up a school full of Catholic kids? Would that make the guy change his mind? I certainly hope so!

Motivation Monday

Well, this marks the first ever official Motivation Monday. And having the honor of gracing the first ever post for this is Gina Corano, in a photo from her Maxim spread from a while back. Enjoy.

Euthanasia by Any Other Name...

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well, that appears to be exactly what some in the Obama administration are doing concerning the much crowed about "end of life" provision that was stripped from the original monster we call a "bill" named Obamacare. Well, boys and girls, it looks like they're going to try to slip it in. Via memeorandum:

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Sounds great, doesn't it? Sounds like we're getting more choices with out healthcare, doesn't it? Well, keep on reading, true believers:

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

Regulation process, huh? Isn't that the same as legislation by fiat? Also, interesting little factoid for those who don't know: It's not just Republicans who are opposed to this bill, and this end of life provision. The whole bill had bipartisan opponents from all walks of life. Not to mention, the Republicans of the 111th Congress were about as able to stop Obama as a wall of paper was to stop bullets from a rail gun.

Things will change, hopefully, with the initiation of the 112th Congress, which they say will begin with a reading of a little document we like to call the Constitution of the United States of America. Hopefully they can kill this damned end of life provision while they're at it, since that was one of their principal election platforms in the midterms. If they don't, I'm sure there'll be hell to pay. From me at least if from no one else.

Oh, sure. The article starts out innocently enough, seemingly telling each of the readers that it will only incentivize doctors to council patients about what kind of treatment they want. Really? I don't buy it. Reason being because the article states that the government will specifically subsidize those doctors who recommend end of life care for their patients. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this provision already in the original bill and taken out because of a major hooplah that was caused by the bill's opponents? Mark Billing, who was subbing for Rush today on his show, confirms that yes, indeed, that was the case. Not only that, but according to him the language is even stronger now than it was in its original form. And its original form was specifically labeled "indefensible". Well, if this provision was indefensible then, what makes them think its defensible now?

The answer, dear readers, is that it is not. Obama has, using the rule making authority given to him by the passage of this 2000 page paperweight to recraft Obamacare into exactly what he wanted it to be before the town hall meetings of 2009 forced him to make promises that he had no intention of keeping.

God help us all in these trying times, and may the new Congress keep their heads and listen to those who gave them their consent just one short month ago.

Update: Left Coast Rebel beat me to posting this first, so here's some of his take on the issue:

Some Basics:

• Think of end-of-life counseling from the Obama White House as carrots dangled in front of doctors, financial "incentives" for doctors to discuss “options” for end-of-life care. As stated in the NYT, that may "include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," or a continuance of Obama's "take this pill and go home" solution to medical costs.
  
• Under this new regulatory regime, doctors could ostensibly be the pawns of cost-curve-bending bureaucrats. To put this into perspective, ponder a Greece-like meltdown of our financial system/government in the future and the way then that these rules would be implemented. Better yet, think of this amount of power held in the wrong hands. How would the elderly be "counseled" during a time of national crisis? Moral hazard? Who determines that doctors have pure motives, instead of purely financial motives as they counsel in end-of-life situations?
  
• Team Obama (has again) done a complete 180 degree turn on the American people, going behind the back of both the American public and the Democrat-controlled Congress that took the death panel language out the legislation due to public outcry.
  
• Obama has been able to insert the death panel regulations due to the ambiguous "the Secretary shall determine" language that appears five times in the final 2000 page Senate version of Obamacare giving the "Secretary" (in this case, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius) the ability to implement (at their discretion) such a rule. The end-of-life regulation was finalized in November, brought to light the day after Christmas, and takes effect January 1, 2011. How's that for transparency, hope and change?
• The regulation is yet another example that Obamacare is simply the skeleton template of socialized, government-run health care. As Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection states, "Obamacare simply is the infrastructure. The details and the demons will be worked out in regulations." The end-of-life regulation is such a detail and demon.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

One Last Christmas Treat

Well, the gift giving season is almost over. 364 more days until next time, but I suppose there's nothing I can do about that. I'll be easing back into the political rants over the next few days. Meantime, as a farewell to the season, here's a little Animaniacs, courtesy of Little Miss Attila and Youtube:

And the Angel Gabriel Said Unto Them "Fear not, for I Bring you Tidings of Great Joy"

And so do I, your humble Crusader for constitutional justice. Another Christmas has arrived and, as I sit and wait for the better half and her mother to wake so we can ope gifts before heading up to my parents' house, I have yet another video to share. Imagine, if you will. what things would have been like if the wisemen, Mary, Joseph, and others had access to such things as Google Maps, Twitter, and Facebook to spread their message of hope:

Everything Matters, Except that Nothing Really Does

My mother continually tried to drill that into my head over recent months, wherein I was dealing with more than a little depression over the fact that I'm pushing thirty and still haven't decided what I want to do with the life God gave me. As the sentence is an obvious paradox (how can everything matter if nothing does?) it took more than just mental prowess to puzzle it out. Of course, that didn't stop me from trying to analyze the statement from every intellectual angle I could before causing my brain to overheat and myself to give up in anger over not being able to solve the riddle.

Enter two friends of mine who attend the United Methodist Church here in Roseville, California. They invited my fiance and me to their Christmas Eve service, which we've just returned from, and I'm still aglow with the injection of faith I received by being around others who believed as I did, that Jesus Christ was born to save the world from its own sins, and that those who accepted Christ into their hearts would join him and his Father in Paradise.

Obviously, this proved to be just the prescription I needed to shed a good deal of the poison I'd been ingesting in the form of "all politics all the time." unfortunately this meat also hearing about the constant attacks on people of faith by those who don't believe, and even some who do. Needless to say, a steady stream of negative stories concerning your core beliefs can wear away at your resolve.

And yet, like the cavalry arriving at the last reel of an old "cowboys and Indians" flick, I was rescued not by soldiers on horses, but by songs of praise for the Son of God. Hearing "Angels we have Heard on High", "Oh Come all Ye Faithful", and other spiritual tunes filled me with the holiday cheer that, despite my efforts to spread it here in various other posts, I wasn't feeling very much of. Fortunately, that's changed, just in time for Jesus's birthday. As far as I'm concerned, that's the best Christmas gift of all: learning and relearning the real reason we celebrate this day and being able to fully appreciate it as a result.

That said, I will once again be delving into the poisonous realm of politics once the holiday season is over, as the bad doesn't go away just because you've been exposed to the good. However, I think I'll be able to go through it now with a more open perspective. I've always been a big picture guy, but I think for a while now I've been missing the REAL big picture: This life only matters for as long as it lasts. Eternity is forever.

Sorry guys, no boobs today

I came to a realization recently that I've probably been overdoing the Rule Five posts due to lack of material. To that end, my fiance has found a video for me to post that will, if you have any type of sense of humor at all, will make you laugh uproariously. Since it is making fun of political correctness towards Christmas, it does skirt the edge of my self imposed "no politics rule", but meh. It's funny. here it is:

A Special Thanks...

I was going to do this about two dozen posts ago, but given my propensity for outrage and short attention span, that didn't happen. Instead of thanking those who read the drivel I post on average of two or three times a week, I went on and on posting about one or another stupid thing Washington was doing to force us into becoming mindless sheeple. Not that that isn't important, but without acknowledging those who listen, it would seem there is little point in continuing to speak. After all, what is a leader without followers?



So here's a special thinks to the following:



Left Coast Rebel



The Other McCain



Little Miss Atilla (traffic just started coming in from her site)


And all those on my tin-foil-hat-wearer list.

Merry Christmas to all of you, and may you all be safe this Christmas season!

As a bonus, here's some Ashlie Hartman Cheesecake, pursuant of McCain's Rule Number Five:

History Once Again Repeats itself.

So there I was, driving along to my weekly game of Pathfinder (I'm a tabletop role-player better known to normal folk as a "geek", and have been since high school) and I suddenly notice that the gauge on the dashboard that monitors radiator heat decided to tilt a little further to the right than I'm comfortable with. After a few minutes of praying that it would go back down, I realized soon that such a thing was not going to happen and had to pull over several times to let the stupid thing cool down. Having been through four other vehicles that had this problem, I realized that there was a big problem coming down the pike. So, after that little bit of drama, I decide to turn around and go home before something bad happens. Too little, too late it would seem.

I stalled on the road at the corner of Stanford Ranch and Sunset in Rocklin, fortunately right near a 7-11 where I could get to a phone right away. I called the better half and told her what happened, then the tow truck and at least managed to get home safely.

The major problem now is that I don't have a car that can reliably transport me to where I need to go. However, there are a few bright sides to this whole dust up.

1. I now am limited in how I can spend my money, thus allowing me to focus on paying down necessary credit card bills, since I no longer have to buy gas, oil, radiator coolant, or any such thing until such time as the car either gets fixed or is replaced. The latter option of those two is more likely, I think.

2. Work isn't a problem, since my co-workers have my back and are willing to transport me to and from.

3. Still don't have to miss the Pathfinder game, since those friends of mine are also willing to pick me up.

4. I made it home safe and sound and am fully capable of getting through this, as it's nothing I haven't been through before.

But just because I'm looking on the bright side doesn't mean I'm not going to need cheering up, so in an effort to cheer myself up, I'm posting this pic of Lucy Pinder.

Apparently though, fate conspires against me even as I attempt to make the most of a bad situation. Now I'm forced to use my fiance's laptop rather than my own, because now my ADAPTER has given up the ghost. Or rather, the connector attachment has. If I had a replacemet there would be no problem, but I don't. Alas.

This promises to be an excellent Holiday season...

Right....

A Reason to Take the Laptop to Work

Well, I just got hit with a nice surprise. My page views have doubled since I started posting pics of such babe-i-licious figures as Autumn Reeser, Gemma Atkinson, and the extremely blessed Lucy Pinder. Since several dozen more of you seem to be interested, here's another screen shot of Autumn, Gemma, and Lucy. More babes to come in future, loyal readers.

About that Previous Post

Yeah, okay, so I lied about not posting any more rule 5 pics until next week. When you see Lucy Pinder, though, can you blame me? The other chick's not bad, either.

A Little Information Regarding Your Humble Crusader

Well, this is interesting. Ever since my pledge not to post anything political until after Christmas, I've been trying to figure out what else I can post about, only to find that I have very little other than political news and opinion to post at all. My attempts at Stacy McCain's Rule 5 provide some material, as well as eye candy for my loyal readers, but not wanting to overdue such posts, I've decided to refrain from posting another until next week, which will from then on be known as Motivation Mondays. Right Girl has taken Topless Wednesday, R.S. McCain has Rule 5 Sunday, and USA Admiral has his Friday Pin-ups, so I can't use those names without appearing unoriginal.

In fact, since I'm restricted as far as politics and don't really feel like cheapening this post with pictures of scantily clad women, maybe I should do something I don't normally do and get a little personal. After all, not many of you know a lot about me, since I haven't exactly been forthcoming, so here goes:

Being born in a small town in Nevada, I was one of those "small town" kids. Carson City, back then, was a "blink and you'll miss it" type of town, despite being the capitol of the Silver State. It still is, but it's fast becoming a "blink and you MIGHT miss it" type of town.

My childhood I won't get into too much, since it was pretty typical. I went to school, had friends, was made fun of for various stupid things, played outside, and such things. Nine years old saw me move to what I would later learn was the liberal bastion of idiocy known as California. Back at that age, however, I didn't care a whit for political parties, voting, or anything of the sort given that I couldn't vote. I've lived here ever since, now residing in Roseville and blogging about various subjects when outraged, incensed, or just plain bored.

And that's me in a nutshell. If you'd like to know more, the comment section is wide open for such questions.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight

More Rule 5 Hotness...in a Santa Hat

Lucy Pinder is my choice for today's Rule 5 post. Enjoy, and be careful getting saliva on the keyboards, boys.

The Reason for the Season

I absolutely adore the Mormon Tabernacle Choir. As a music student myself I can appreciate the hard work that goes into singing a song as beautifully as they do. Here's the group singing "The First Noel. Enjoy.

Because I'm bored and it's a Slow Blog Day

Once again I make an attempt to abide by Stacy McCain's Rule #5. this time two photos for your viewing pleasure. One of the sizzling Gemma Atkinson (Above), and the other a wallpaper of the mouthwatering Autumn Reeser (Right).

Yeah, I know. Men are pigs, and I apparently am no exception. Then again, last I checked, looking at beautiful women isn't a crime.

My First Attempt at Rule Five

I'm not usually a practitioner of Robert Stacy McCain's Rule Number Five, but I figure what the hell? It can't hurt the traffic at the site, and who knows? Maybe it'll do for me what it's done for McCain, as well as USA Admiral and his Friday pin ups. So here goes. First on my list of Rule Five candidates, the smoldering hot bit of loveliness known as Gemma Atkinson.