July 28, 2017
Stop making doctors the slaves of computers
"The doctor will see you now.” It’s a common phrase, but no longer true. Even in the exam room, you’re unlikely to make more than fleeting eye contact with your doctor.
That’s because federal laws and regulations have turned doctors into robotic clerks. Your doctor has to stay glued to the computer screen, clicking boxes, following prompts and posing questions the federal government wants asked, never mind your reasons for being there. The biggest loser is you, the patient.
But help is on the way. The Trump administration has started rolling back these regulations. Fortunately, this regulatory relief does not depend on repealing ObamaCare.
You can blame former President Barack Obama for the demise of the eye-to-eye conversation with your doctor. Back in 2009, he signed into law the HITECH Act, compelling doctors and hospitals that accept Medicare or Medicaid payments to use electronic medical record systems in a "meaningful” way — or pay a hefty penalty.
What’s "meaningful”? Obama’s tech czar Dr. David Blumenthal explained that it’s not just about getting rid of paper files and "putting machinery in offices.” Blumenthal, an admirer of European-style, single-payer health care, wanted top-down control of how doctors practice. "Meaningful” meant doctors following "embedded clinical decision supports.” Translation: The feds wanted computers telling doctors what to do.
The Obama administration claimed this centralized approach would improve care and save money. It’s done the opposite. Primary care doctors spend as much time following computer commands as they do interacting with their patients, according to a recent study in Health Affairs.
Jeffrey Moses, an interventional cardiologist at Columbia Presbyterian, complains the system is "taking the doctor’s eyes off the patient.” It places "little value on the doctor patient bond,” he adds.
Read the rest!
Steven Lyazi, my young friend in Uganda, had another brush with malaria a few weeks ago. He writes about it in his latest article, and offers his thoughts on African versus environmentalist priorities. Malaria drains some $100 billion a year from African economies, he notes, and kills over 400,000 people a year, mostly in Africa.
"And yet,” he says, "global green campaigners endlessly spend money trying to prevent Africans from using fossil fuels, promoting renewable energy and trying to sell us little solar ovens. But this great generosity does nothing to address the horrible realities of people dying now – day after day, year after year. Greens worry constantly about Africans being exposed to insecticides. We worry about dying from malaria
Enemies of humanity
Mosquitoes and uncaring environmental activists perpetuate poverty, disease and death
After being infected again with malaria last July, I spent almost a month in a Kampala hospital. Paying for my treatment was extremely difficult, as it is for most Ugandan and African families. I was lucky I could scrape the money together. Many families cannot afford proper treatment.
Where and how can they get the money to go back to the hospital again and again, every time a family member gets malaria, when they also need food, clothes and so many other things – or malaria makes them so sick that they can’t work for weeks or even months? Many parents can do nothing except watch their loved ones die in agony, and then give them a simple burial.
Far too many people still die from malaria every year in Africa, the vast majority of them women and children. Too many more die from lung and intestinal diseases, because we don’t have electricity, natural gas, clean water, or decent modern homes, clinics and hospitals.
Malaria also makes many people so weak that they die from other diseases that people in Europe and the United States rarely even hear about, like chronic dysentery. It saps people’s strength for years and leaves them with severe liver and kidney damage. Cerebral malaria causes lifelong learning and memory problems.
All these diseases create enormous barriers to Africa’s economic growth. They drain our national healthcare budgets and deepen our poverty. Malaria control and treatment alone cost Africa over $12 billion annually. Uganda alone spends $11 million a year fighting it. The disease drains an estimated $100 billion every year from the African economy.
Malaria also hits India and other countries really hard. The World Health Organization (WHO) says it drains India’s economy of as much as $2 billion every year. Billions in wages are lost, because people die or are absent from work, have low productivity due to fatigue, and have to spend so much on bed nets, insecticides, bug repellants, medicines, treatments and hospital care.
Terrible roads mean that, even when AIDS and other drugs are shipped to African countries, few people receive them. Many sit in warehouses until their expiration date passes, and then those expired drugs get sold on the black market. People buy them, and die. Other times, they take drugs until they feel better, and then sell the rest of the prescription. Then a more deadly, resistant malaria comes back and makes them even worse.
And yet global green campaigners endlessly spend money trying to prevent Africans from using fossil fuels, promoting renewable energy and trying to sell us little solar ovens. But this great generosity does nothing to address the horrible realities of people dying now – day after day, year after year. Greens worry constantly about Africans being exposed to insecticides. We worry about dying from malaria.
We don’t need enemies of humanity. What we need is financial and political support to conquer malaria, lung diseases and intestinal parasites. We need clean water and affordable, reliable electricity in our villages and cities. We need modern hospitals.
We need environmental activists to realize how important fossil fuels and hydroelectric plants are to having decent, healthy living standards, lights, computers, the internet, clean hospitals, clean water, and everything else modern countries have.
We need them to support us Africans in preventing malaria in the first place – which means we need more than bed nets. We need campaigners to recognize that we have the same rights as people in modern, rich, industrialized countries to decent living standards and modern technology.
Malaria viruses are constantly mutating, making available treatments less effective. Many families cannot afford the drugs, and many of the drugs are fake, just packaged to look like the real thing. People spend money on them, they don’t help at all, and people die.
The WHO says over 3 billion people around the world are still at risk of getting malaria. In 2015, there were 212 million cases of malaria and 438,000 people died, the vast majority of them in Africa.
Many of these illnesses and deaths could be prevented if just a few simple steps were taken right now, especially by allowing and encouraging countries to use preventive measures that work, like DDT.
So many people have access to medical care only on an irregular basis. Others have never learned how to take proper care of themselves or their children. But the most fundamental problem is malaria-carrying mosquitoes that are the source of our biggest scourge. And there is a readily available life-saving solution – DDT and other pesticides to kill mosquitoes and keep them out of our homes.
To me, there is simply no substitute for DDT. It is the most affordable, longest lasting, most effective mosquito repellant in existence. Sprayed in tiny amounts on the walls of traditional homes, just once or twice a year, DDT repels mosquitoes from the entire house, kills any that land on walls, and perplexes or irritates any that are not killed or repelled, so their urge to bite is gone.
Other pesticides that some activists say we can use are not as appropriate, or they are up to six times more expensive than DDT, or they have to be sprayed much more often. Every dollar spent this way is a dollar that’s unavailable for safe drinking water, electricity and other critical needs.
DDT for indoor residual spraying programs is rejected because it is supposedly dangerous to the environment and might be detected in our blood or on agricultural products. We use it carefully, it is less dangerous than other pesticides, and being able to detect it does not mean it is a risk to anyone. No one has ever died from it, and it can help prevent malaria and other diseases that ruin our lives and kill us.
Where DDT is used in the developing world, malaria cases and deaths often drop by 80% or more.Enemies of humanity
But too many politicians and activists have made it impossible to prevent the disease by killing and repelling mosquitoes. They constantly oppose DDT use and insist that developing countries rely on insecticide-treated bed nets, larvae-eating fish and other strategies that are simply inadequate.
Malaria is no longer a killer in western countries – because they used DDT to help eradicate the disease decades ago. That may be a key reason as why many well-off westerners talk about environmental considerations being supreme, and tell Africans and other third world countries not to use pesticides because of supposed health risks and environmental damage.
Malaria also has nothing to do with global warming. It existed for centuries in northern Europe and even in Siberia. The same mosquito species still live there. They just don’t carry malaria anymore, and so cannot transmit it to people. That’s what we want to do in Africa.
Americans would never tolerate being told they could not protect their children – or that they should rely on bed nets or wait more long years for new drug treatments or magic mosquitoes that cannot carry malaria. But Africans are repeatedly told we have to be content with exactly these limited safeguards, while parents and children get sick and die. That is inhumane and imperialistic.
If wealthy nations and NGOs really want to help developing nations, they should support fossil fuel power plants for reliable, affordable electricity. They should support DDT as an important part of the solution to eradicate this serial killer, so that Africans can work, spend less on malaria, have more money for other healthcare and family needs, and develop as much as rich nations have.Steven Lyazi is a student and worker in Kampala, Uganda. He served as special assistant to Congress of Racial Equality-Uganda director Cyril Boynes, until Mr. Boynes’ death in January 2015. He plans to attend college and help his country and Africa get the energy and other modern technologies they need.
July 27, 2017
The Pakistani McDonalds employees turned IT specialists for Debbie Wasserman Schultz and about 30 other Democrats met with Barack Hussein Obama.
According to The Gateway Pundit
"A search of guests at the White House show that Imran’s younger brother Abid was a guest at the White House on Thursday, November 21, 2013. He arrived at 5pm and didn’t depart for 7 hours. He attended with another 17 individuals.
What was the IT Specialist doing at the White House for 7 hours after 5pm in 2013, why was he there, who was with him and where was Obama?"
What indeed? Were these guys the "Russian hackers" who hacked the DNC server? We only have the word of Crowdstrike, a for-profit IT firm brought in by the Democrats after the hack. No government agency has examined the servers, so any information we have on this comes from Crowdstrike. The founder and CEO of crowdstrike is a Russian expatriate who came to America when he was a young man, by the way.
The DNC paid Crowdstrike so why, if there is some sort of criminality involved, do we expect this company to give us anything but what the Democrats want?
The more I look at this the more the whole thing appears to be an inside job - and a criminal attack on the legally elected President.
Oh, and by the way, the Democrats blocked testimony by the head of Fusion GPS, the company that fabricated the "Golden Shower" dossier that has been proven to be a lie designed to smear Donald Trump.
What are the Democrats afraid of?
Scaramucci thinks Reince Preibus is the leaker.
Even if he is not, he is Chief of Staff and has been an abject failure in plugging them. I have wondered for some time why Trump hasn't fired the former GOP party boss and penultimate insider.
It looks like Trump made a great choice with Scaramucci, who appears determined to clean out the nest of GOP and former Obama vipers.
A FORMERLY transgendered man supports President Trump's military ban.
From the Daily Signal:
"When I discovered Congress voted earlier this month to not block funding for transgender-related hormone therapies and sex change surgeries, I wondered if it considered how devastating this will be to the fitness, readiness, and morale of our combat-ready troops.
In July, the House of Representatives voted down Missouri Republican Rep. Vicky Hartzler’s amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, which would have banned the military from funding such treatments.
Paying for transition-related surgeries for military service members and their families is beyond comprehensible.
Perhaps they have forgotten that our military was forged to be the world’s strongest fighting force, not a government-funded, politically correct, medical sex change clinic for people with gender dysphoria."
Get that? Congress - the REPUBLICAN CONGRESS - refused to stop funding for the most elective medical proceedure around. Funny; they don't fund nose jobs, or silicone implanted breasts, but they will fund the very expensive proceedure to make a man or woman appear to be the sex other than that which Nature and Nature's God intended.
Congress won't fund a border wall to protect the citizenry of the United States but they will fund medical services so a dude can feel like a woman.
The article continues:
"Gender dysphoria, the common diagnosis for one who feels at odds with his or her birth gender, develops from prolonged anxiety and depression. People are not born that way.
The "proof” for a diagnosis of gender dysphoria is having strongly held feelings—but feelings can and often do change over time.
The military is expected to prepare its members in warfare: to kill, destroy, and break our enemies. The most important factors in preparing a strong military are not hormone therapy, surgical sex changes, or politically correct education.
We need psychologically fit, emotionally sound, highly trained troops to protect our nation from its enemies.
While countless homeless vets are currently sleeping under cardboard boxes, or waiting for life-saving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs, we learn that transgender military recruits now qualify for preferential coverage for sex change procedures that are scientifically unproven and extremely costly."
Indeed. The military is not there to promote societal change or act as a laboratory for social experimentation, or to give people jobs or special benefits. It is there solely to protect the public, and to do that the military has to be, well, tough. A person who is confused and distraught is hardly one who will fit in well with the cohesion of a military unit.
I am going to committ a mortal sin in the pc era, but until just a decade ago men who dressed in women's clothing were considered weird, and, frankly, they are; if there are societal norms, then a minority as small as the "transgendered " - what we used to call transvestites or less sensitively "sissies" are out there. It is not just another condition, like having brown eyes or a tendency to a belly; it is a very deep psychological dysfunction in which a person is confused by a fundamental issue. If a man says he is Napoleon Bonapart we put him in a hospital and give him loving care, but if he says he is Josephine we say he is a persecuted minority and should have special legal status.
The television show MASH portrayed Corporal Klinger as a aguy trying to get out of the war by dressing as a woman, and it was fodder for high comedy because of the ridiculousness of it. In fact, that they wouldn't kick him out was part of the comedy (and they would have even if they knew he was faking because NOBODY goes to that extent - and risks their future that wrecklessly - if they are normal.) Cross-dressing has always been grist for comedy; look at the humor of Monty Python, for example. It's funny because it is illustrative of an unsound psyche, something we all fear and so laugh at. Not that we fear the trans individual so much as the unbalanced mind. It is our fundamental fear of chaos.
And that is precisely what is wrong with this; we are promoting chaos in the minds and hearts of our citizenry by turning a sickness into a civil right.
Transgenderism is at odds with reality. It is a fundamental denial of what is real. As author Phillip K. Dick once stated "REality is that thing which, when you stop believing in it, won''t go away" and he was right. But America, staring into the abyss as devotedly as Narcissus stared into his mirror, has come to believe that we are gods unto oru own right and that what we choose to believe defines reality. Well, it just won't go away.
The article continues:
Yet, no matter how skilled the surgeon, or how much money is spent, it is biologically impossible to change a man into a woman or a woman into a man. The change is only cosmetic.
The medical community continues to recommend this radical "treatment” in the absence of scientific evidence that people are better off in the long run. This population attempts suicide at a rate of 40 percent.
Even after the full surgical change, they attempt to end their lives, or tragically succeed.
Over 60 percent of this diverse population suffer from co-existing mental disorders. Consider Bradley Manning (now Chelsea Manning), a former Army soldier who was so psychologically and emotionally unbalanced that he stole confidential documents from the military and forwarded them to WikiLeaks."
It is one thing to allow someone to choose to mutilate themselves, another to demand you and I pay for it.
Illinois Senator Tammy Duckworth, disabled from injuries received when her Blackhawk was shot down in combat "if the American troops risking their lives to help save me were gay, straight, transgender or anything else. All that mattered was they didn't leave me behind." Here we see illogic on several levels:
a. The primary mission of the military is NOT to rescue injured personnell but rather to injure the enemy's personnell.
b. This ignores the importance of cohesion for the rescuers, who may be less then working as a unit when they have such "diversity" in their midst. The military functions when everyone is a soldier; there are no differences that can or should be nurtured. Placing transvestites into the mix means adding an indigestible ingredient to the soup, making it a salad. If Duckworth wants to be rescued she needs to understand that her chances are better without the distractions of a man who thinks he is a woman.
c. The whole purpose of transgenderism is to make a man into a woman, which is, quite frankly, antithetical to the fundamental core of the military. There are women in the military who do a good job - primarily in suppport roles because they don't have the natural aggression, by and large, taht is required for combat, nor the physical strength. Now, the purpose of transgender medical treatment is to make the man physically into a woman, which means by it's very nature making the soldier weaker physically and less aggressive. In other words, it is a intended to make someone less competent as a fighting man. Woman soldiers are largely overcoming their natural femininity on purpose to be soldiers, but transgendered are purposely trying to be less masculine. Does anyone really want to put his or her life in the hands of someone who is actually seeking to be weaker and softer? Not in that situation.
In the final analysis there is no logic to this; it is just a new politically correct thing. Service in the military is not a right but a privilege, and the transgendered can find other ways to serve their country.
Yesterday Michael Gallagher - a radio host I admire - kept pushing the question "what do you say to someone who wants to serve but is told they can't because of this?" I would say get over it. There are all manner of things we cannot do in this life. I can't play pro football and never could because I am not big enough, for example. Nature ultimately deals us our hand and we have to play it. If you think of yourself as transgendered you are free to pursue that, but then you have to give certain things up (like your male genitalia) and one of those things is military service. You can choose NOT to be transgendered; while you may FEEL like a woman, nobody is forcing you to get hormone replacement, or to have surgery, or forcing lipstick on your mouth. If you have enough masculinity to be a soldier you have enough to not be a woman. Suppressing urges is what it means to be an adult.
If you want to serve your country try other ways. I've never served in the military but I feel I have served my country nonetheless. How about volunteering your time helping with, say, the Wounded Warrior Project?
But that's not the point and never has been. The point of all of this is to dismantle the military as a fighting force. Imagine how our enemies will feel when they meet Corporal Klinger on the battle field! This is horribly destructive to military readiness and the Left knows it. It is horribly destructive to the society at large and the family, and they know that too; they want to transform America and the world, and to do that they must break every and all traditional institutions and practices. Transgenderism - the idolatrous belief that a person is his own god and can choose reality for himself - is clearly a disastrous idea for society at large. Being male or female is at the root of human nature.
Donald Trump absolutely did the right thing here.
From Friend Ken, including his reaction. I agree totally.
Our culture has fallen off a cliff if a cheese store thinks its 'clever' to market its product in this manner.
A NOTE FROM TIM:
Notice the little dig at the end to Donohue "have a blessed day". A person who says what she said thinks religion is a joke or worse, and that last was sarcasm in the extreme. What a filthy scumbag.
I'll bet this woman supported the attacks on Christian bakers and pizza makers and the like, too.
e'mail the store owner at email@example.com.
A NOTE FROM JACK KEMP:
This isn't going to be accepted, even by NY standards of behavior. They will lose business for such a crude remark. Fancy cheese stores are frequented by people who consider themselves somewhat cultured (whether the customers are or not). This could get a public protest and be in the NY Daily News and NY Post within days.
I hope you're right. But remember, Leftists absolutely hated Mother Teresa because she did what they believed the state should do.
A NOTE FROM DAVID DICKINSON:
The exercise of free speech is not always to our liking, but it is permitted. What our wonderful free market capitalist system permits, of course, is the equally powerful exercise of spending discretion. But you can fuggedaboudit on the apology, I'm pretty certain that whatever would be offered would not exactly drip with sincerity.
A REPLY FROM DANA:
I'm sure this store will get plenty of business in its own neighborhood, which is all that really matters. You and I wouldn't go into it, of course.
New Yorkers prize their cheese shops, or used to, at least. I have (or maybe had) a novel about a guy moving to The Apple where one of the main themes was where the protagonist is told "you've got to move to [such and such a neighborhood] because there's this really, really great cheese shop. Johnny Carson really loves it." Eventually the guy moves there and finds out that the cheese shop recently moved to Sioux Lookout, Montana (not making up that city name!). Or maybe it was North Dakota.
The guy should just have moved to Wisconsin if he wanted cheese that badly.
I once suggested to American Thinker editor Thomas LIfson that he link to an old Youtube video of this song from the 1946 musical Annie Get Your Gun (with either Betty Hutton or Judy Garlant) in connection with Elizabeth Warren. Lifson rejected my idea. Now someone else who knows some old musicals put together a video with exactly that song - and it was back in 2012 when Warren was running for the Senate.
I guess Lifson considered it too "racist" for Amer. Thinker. But, as this newer video states, it is Warren who has been exploiting Native Americans nowadays.
Musical advice for Wasserman-Schultz and her IT consultant
NEW YORK CITY — New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo traveled to Washington D.C. Wednesday to seek federal funding for the city’s failing transport system, a month after Cuomo declared a state of emergency for the MTA and warned of a "summer of h**l” for commuters. Cuomo met with Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao to discuss a funding of "The Gateway Tunnel” — a new tunnel between New Jersey and New York in order to ease congestion on the interstate railways. "The Gateway Tunnel is critical for rail traffic entering New York and the entire Northeast.
Lucianne reader's comment:
Hmmmm. This pompous jerk banned official state travel to MY state (over boys dressing up like girls to use girls bathrooms and showers) but is asking taxpayers from MY state to bail out his failing subway system??????
Go pound sand.
Jack, who rides the NY subway has an historical footnote and comment as well:
Gov. Cuomo's father, Gov. Mario Cuomo, when he was in office and ran for Mayor of NY City against Ed Koch in the Democratic primary, used this false homosexual slur against Ed Koch: Vote for Cuomo and not the homo(sexual). Mario lost that primary to Ed Koch. And this subway rider also hopes that Washington turns down this request for money from the current Gov. Cuomo who wasted Metropolitan Transit Authority money on decorative lights on NY City bridges. He did it because it wasn't HIS money, just some "little people" taxpayers. I say vote for Trump - and not the rump.
The same kind of smokescreen with which longtime Hillary shill Debbie Wasserman-Schultz now uses to smear American citizens demanding answers as ‘Islamophobes’
Dems Try The Islamophobe Card In Defense of Wasserman Schultz’s Arrested IT Guy
By Judi McLeod —— Bio and Archives July 26, 2017
Crafty Democrats blame "massive Federal Islamophobia” for Rep. Debbie (aka ‘Blabbermouth”) Wasserman Schultz’s , top IT Guy Imran Awan, who spread like a plague among her Democrat colleagues in the House, being outed by the FBI.
"Massive Federal Islamophobia”?
Try massive ‘Liarophobia’, Ms. Blabbermouth because that’s what millions of deplorables really deplore most; elected politicians who lie like the proverbial rug to the masses they are so handsomely paid to represent.
Awan, under investigation by the FBI for bank fraud and cybersecurity abuses, was arrested at Dulles International Airport and relieved of his passport as he was trying to make his getaway to his home country of Pakistan.
Ironic beyond words how a progressive politician dubbed "blabbermouth” would keep a blabbermouth staffer on her payroll—even while knowing he was under FBI investigation.
With Internet Technology stars of Silicon Valley, including top Google IT experts savvy enough to run the digital campaigns of Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Clinton having easy access to the White House, why was it necessary to hire a clan of Pakistani-born brothers, who investigating authorities suspect may have put sensitive House information on the "cloud” for al to see?
Was it to provide the smokescreen needed to keep the Russians-Stole-The-Election conspiracy going until the results of the 2016 presidential election could be overturned by ridding the U.S. of duly elected President Donald Trump?
Liarphobes , Clinton-smeared as the "deplorables” really want to know.
"And now Democrats are rushing to defend him, saying he’s the target of massive federal Islamophobia. What a crock. (Washington Times, July 26, 2017)
"Wasserman Schultz said through a spokesman that Awan was simply a "part-time employee, but his services have been terminated,” Mediaite reported.
"Oh, but he’s more, much more, than that.
"Awan is the same guy who has made big bucks on the back of taxpayers for years, all while having largely unfettered access to computer-stored data from House Democrats. Can you say security breach?
"He’s also the same guy who just made a curious transfer of $283,000 to two individuals in Pakistan from his Longworth House Office Building, as reported by the Daily Caller News Foundation. He’s also the same guy whose wife and children just left America for Pakistan, reportedly carrying more than $12,000 in cash.
"And he’s also the same guy who’s been under FBI investigation for some time for allegedly double-billing House members for items like computers, iPads and other technological equipment. He had quite a racket going on; Awan’s two brothers and their wives also served as IT staffers for House Democrats — for the last 10 years or so.
"It’s a family business. A lucrative one, as well.
"Between the time Awan started working for Wasserman Schultz in 2005 and his family members were let go, earlier this year, they had collectively earned more than $4 million in tax paid salaries. In February, House members were alerted to potential for abuse and let go Awan’s family members.
"Until just recently, Wasserman Schultz refused to fire Awan, however, and even went so far in her defense of him that she recently refused Capitol Police’s request to search a laptop belonging to him.
"And just this week?
"Just this week, the FBI seized smashed hard drives from Awan’s home.
"Nothing suspicious there, right?
"Agents with the U.S. Capitol Police, Border Protection and the FBI stopped him Tuesday at the airport, where he was headed to Pakistan by way of Qatar.
"Part of the investigation involves what information the family had access to, and what they did with it. Awan, for instance, has been charged with fraudulently taking out mortgages as part of one of several alleged financial schemes — conducted at a time when he had access to emails and files of dozens of members of Congress and to information tied to Wasserman Schultz’s former Democratic National Committee organization. Feds also think the family may have put sensitive House information on the "cloud,” leaving it open for others to view.
"And what do the Democrats have to say about all this?
"Unbelievably enough, they’re siding with Awan.
"Rep. Gregory Meeks of New York, for instance, suggested police have simply framed Awan because he was born in Pakistan.
"Awan and his family are of Pakistani descent and according to Democrat sources, their ethnicity is ‘a factor in the attention they’re receiving,’ ” Mediaite reported.”
Reps. Wasserman Schultz and Meeks should be told straight up that a hacker is a hacker, Pakistani, American or of any other ethnicity.
"Democrats truly couldn’t be any more blinded by partisanship. They’re obviously so willing to do the catering of their leftist base — to fight hard for their open-border activists, their Muslim apologists in the lobby world, their progressive bulldogs — they’d put the security of the nation second to the get-away car of a federally suspected fraudster. Makes you wonder what Democrats are really trying to protect — what Democrats are really trying to hide.” (Washington Times)
That the Anwars are a possibly deliberate smokescreen to keep the Russian conspiracy alive, is what the Democrats are "really trying to hide”.
The same kind of smokescreen with which longtime Hillary shill Debbie Wasserman-Schultz now uses to smear American citizens demanding answers as ‘Islamophobes’.
A NOTE FROM DANA MATHEWSON:
Since the term "racist" has lost a lot (but unfortunately not all) of its power, they have to have a new one to use to shut down discussion. "Islamophobia" seems to be it.
Yes, I'm sure the average Wisconsin voter will dismiss this as not as important as Trump insulting transsexuals by not allowing them in the military. NOT. But Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer think that's the case. That new plant will not get you invited to any Washington parties, so take that, Trump! The Democrats really care - about .0007 percent of the population.
In what's being called the largest economic development project in state history, Taiwanese electronics giant Foxconn plans to build a $10 billion plant in Wisconsin that would create liquid-crystal display panels and employ as many as 13,000 people.
The planned Wisconsin plant is expected to open in 2020 and be part of a 20 million square-foot campus on at least 1,000 acres -- a location Gov. Scott Walker has dubbed "Wisconn Valley."
The state would offer $3 billion in economic incentives, Walker said.
The plant -- announced Wednesday at a White House ceremony by President Donald Trump, Walker and others -- could be the first of several facilities the company wants to build in the United States.
END OF QUOTE
July 26, 2017
A British judge, not content with killing poor little Charlie Gard in pursuit of the penultimate power of the STate, has ordered he be sentenced to die in a hospice rather than his home, as his family has requested.
According to the Telegraph:
The hospital has argued that Charlie needed invasive ventilation that only be provided by a hospital in an intensive care unit.
At an emotional hearing on Tuesday, Great Ormond Street said Charlie could die at the hospital or in a hospice it has found for him.
The judge said if an agreement could not be reached by noon on Thursday, Charlie would be moved to a hospice and life support treatment would end soon after.
Charlie's mother, Connie Yates, became distressed as the judge made his decision.
But Great Ormond Street Hospital, which is caring for the terminally ill child, had objected to the plan.
She left court crying and said: "I hope you are happy with yourselves."
Speaking in court on Wednesday, Grant Armstrong, acting for Charlie's parents, said Great Ormond Street Hospital nurses had volunteered to care for Charlie at a hospice if the judge agreed to it.
Mr Armstrong said: "Ironically, the position I am informed today is several of the nurses at Great Ormond Street have volunteered to assist with the care for Charlie. May I pay tribute to those nurses for volunteering."
""The parents wish for a few days of tranquillity outside of a hospital setting," Mr Armstrong said. "The parents had hoped that Great Ormond Street would work with them."
He said the couple felt there was a "brutality" in taking Charlie to a hospice.
Barrister Katie Gollop QC, who leads Great Ormond Street's legal team, said staff were not creating "obstacles".
She said nothing could be further from the truth - she said staff had "moved heaven and earth" for Charlie. But she said the couple's needs had to be balanced against Charlie's best interests."
See, the State has the ultimate say over this child - not the parents. The nurses so kindly offered to care for the child, a child who is not theirs to care for. Either we own ourselves and by extension our own families or the State does. In Britain it is the State. America will become like that if we continue down the path of single payer aka socialized medicine.
They couldn't even give that small victory of allowing the parents final custody, because it would mean the parents ultimately have final authority. Now, under this viewpoint, the parents are mere caretakers, and have no ultimate rights.
Brutality? You bet your life it is. This was an act of state sponsoraed terrorism.
Charlie Gard's parents, stonewalled by their government and the Euro-socialist high command for five months, their child effectively kidnapped by the State, have finally been forced to accept that it is now too late to hope that their baby might be saved. They have therefore withdrawn their application to take him to an American hospital for experimental treatment. He will soon die.
There are numerous important lessons to take from this case and never forget:
(1) Socialized health care means state ownership of the individual, pure and simple.
(2) Progressive paternalism is opposed on principle to parental authority – i.e., to private families as the indispensable building blocks of civil society.
(3) Under socialism, even medicine – the ancient vocation dedicated to preserving and enhancing life at all cost – becomes enmeshed in the progressive death cult, according to which individual lives are mere variables in an abstract calculus based on social utility and budgetary value. (Of course, the socialists always find pretty euphemisms to mask their hateful coldness – e.g., "death with dignity" and "quality of life.")
final act of this tragedy – Charlie's parents giving up their fight at
last – holds one more important reminder for us, one that transcends the
particularities of this sad case and takes us to the very motor of the
progressive machine: all that progressives need to achieve their aims is
to stand firm against the cry of liberty
Gard and Connie Yates argued, begged, and fought in court for months to
take their sick child to doctors who were prepared to offer him a
last-ditch effort at survival. They raised
And please don't waste your breath on those who would argue that a baby should not be a "guinea pig" for medical experiments. All medical progress begins with someone who has run out of conventional hope taking a chance on a new, previously unproven "experiment." (Someone had to receive the first heart transplant, the first polio vaccination, etc.) And since Charlie's illness is one that kills infants, the first patient to undergo experimental treatment will necessarily be a baby, and precisely one whose doctors have failed to help him with conventional treatments. Contrary to the deliberately ghoulish phrasing used by the British government hospital to characterize the American doctor's proposed "experiments" as a form of cruelty to a child who has "suffered enough," throwing caution to the wind is exactly what one may wish to do when a child's life is at stake. Unless one has no particular interest in the life of that child, as will be the case at a socialized hospital.
Remember Hillary Clinton's famous response when challenged on what she and President Obama really knew about the
Benghazi attackers in real time, while Americans were being murdered as
the administration did nothing: what difference, at this point, does it
make? "At this point," as I wrote at that time, gave the game away.
Hillary was revealing the essence of progressivism's modus operandi:
stall for time until the facts become hazy, the issues become diluted,
and the public's memory fades. Finally, the most urgent matters of
justice, life, and death will seem a little abstract, somewhat academic,
no longer important. People will acquiesce to tyranny and abide the
most revoltingly conscienceless behavior from the government out of
Charlie Gard's passive-aggressive killing at the hands of State "doctors" is a perfect allegory for progressivism's "long march through the institutions." Insisting that they are looking out for a child's best interests, the State decides that dying is in his best interest. When his parents assert their authority to take all possible steps to save their child's life (at their own expense, as freedom requires), the State uses this language of "the child's interests" to deny the parents their authority, thereby making a blunt stand against the family as such, in effect creating a conflict of interest between the parents and Charlie, and upholding itself (the State) as Charlie's defender against these irrational parents.
Sidetracking the parents' concern for their child with lawyers, courtroom battles, and media wars, the socialists know that all they have to do is delay long enough, and Charlie's condition will finally worsen to the point where the parents will lose by default. If they even tried to continue the fight now, public opinion would turn against them, and the hospital's accusations that the parents are not competent to decide Charlie's fate would start to seem reasonable. Backed into this corner, Chris and Connie concede defeat.
the hospital and the British Parliament will make suitably grave
remarks about how tragic it is to lose "this beautiful baby" (whom they
killed), and how much their
But the public outcry will die down; Charlie's death will, given the time-distorting elasticity of memory, begin to look like a vindication (rather than condemnation) of the government's decision; and the real issues at the heart of this case – progressivism's crushing of the private family and socialized medicine's absolute rejection of the natural rights to self-ownership and self-preservation – will be lost in the fog.
The fog. We use that expression a lot in this era. The fog of misinformation. The fog of mixed motives. The fog of conflicting interpretations.
The fog is somewhat endemic to the human condition. It is also a chief weapon of progressive authoritarianism. All that progressives need to advance their agenda is the chutzpah to force their will on the people at first – and then the willpower to wait, to ignore the pleas for freedom, the cries of justice, until slowly, inevitably, the fog begins to settle around all of us, and, like Charlie Gard's parents, we are forced to give up, tired and forlorn.
This is how progressives have defeated Chris and Connie. This is how Hillary Clinton defeated the Benghazi hearings. This is how Obamacare, which was hated at the outset and forced upon a country that didn't want it, is now almost universally accepted as America's historical wedge leading to full single-payer health care, exactly as it was intended to be.
The fog is progressivel yswallowing all of us, throughout the world, and individual liberty is fading into the mist, step by step. This is how socialism wins.
The Islamophobia Industry Killed Justine Damond
accommodation and consideration. That idea has just taken the life of Justine Ruszczyk Damond.
I want to take a moment to recognize Officer Mohamed Noor, the newest Somali officer in the Minneapolis Police Department. Officer Noor has been assigned to the 5th Precinct, where his arrival has been highly celebrated, particularly by the Somali community in and around Karmel Mall.
I really don't think Trump will sit idly by. I saw this one today, not in relation to Iran, but to Iran's pimp: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/07/25/china-reportedly-preps-for-crisis-along-border-with-north-korea.html
July 25, 2017
16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.
18 Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.
Three Square Market, the Wisconsin-based tech company that supplies equipment to mini markets, is offering to implant a microchip in the hand of employees so they may skip cash or credit cards in break rooms and make purchases with the wave of a hand.
According to CBS News
"Three Square Market plans to implant chips in the hands of volunteers among its workforce. The technology replaces identification cards used to open doors and operate office equipment.
CBS News correspondent Jamie Yuccas reports the company, which is based in River Falls, has 80 employees. Privacy concerns have been raised by the plans.
Three Square Market will likely use the technology the most in the break room. To pay for a candy bar or a bag of pretzels, all an employee would have to do is flick their wrist.
By next week, over 50 employees will have bionic hands, with a credit card chip implanted near their wrist."
And there is more to this than just buying candy bars or soda. From the article:
""It's for entrance to the building, logging into computers, making purchases in our break room market, things of that nature," Westby said.
Employees will now have two ways to get into the building. They can either use the traditional keypad with their identification number, or if they're microchipped, they can just use their hands and swipe. That will allow them to open the door."
The implications should be obvious (but clearly aren't as so many of the people in this article think it's a great idea); implemented on a mass scale and made mandatory, we can end drug trafficking, restrict terrorism, prevent crimes, stop fraud and theft, and accomplish all sorts of wonderful things. But the price is freedom and privacy - and if the Bible is to be believed our very souls:
"And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name".
Even if you aren't a Christian this should frighten you. How can anyone think this is a good idea? You are giving absolute power to an overlord. If this world is all there is, one must still question if it is worth it. I would say no.
And what dreams may come?
Pee Wee Ryan, the sad clown of a House Speaker, says Robert Mueller is "anything but" a partisan hack. According to Breitbart:
A listener asked Ryan a question about why Republicans in Congress are not doing more to defend Trump against "what is becoming an obvious witch-hunt.”
Ryan replied, "Remember, Bob Mueller is a Republican, who was appointed by a Republican, who served in the Republican administration, and crossed over — I mean and stayed on until his term ended.”
He continued, "I don’t think many people are saying Bob Mueller is a person who is a biased partisan. He’s really, sort of, anything but.”
He added, "The point is, we have an investigation in the House, an investigation in the Senate, and a special counsel, which sort of de-politicizes this stuff and gets it out of the political theater, and that is, I think, better to get this off to the side. I think the facts will vindicate themselves, and then let’s just go do our jobs.”
Mueller is a very good friend of fired FBI Director James Comey, the man who laid out an ironclad case against Hillary Clinton then refused to refer her for prosecution, and whose bureau was busily leaking information detrimental to Donald J. Trump.
But that doesn't mean he is biased. Where one can see bias is in the company Mr. Mueller keeps, and Mr. Mueller has appointed radical Trump-hating Democrats as his assistants. And he recently added several more.
As I pointed out here Robert Mueller is a pure creature of the swamp and always has been.
From my own article:
"If a person is respected by both sides in Washington you can bet he is a duplicitous weasle. Comey was such. Former "plamegate" counsel Patrick Fitzgerald was another. If you are a Conservative you had better grab your socks, because you are going to have them knocked off, and not in a good way.
Robert Mueller is entirely a creature of the Establishment. He started his legal career working for a law firm in San Francisco, the leftist capital of America. He moved to the Northern District of California where he worked as a U.S. attorney in the home of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. This alone should make the man suspect. He moved from Frisco to Boston, the other citadel of Satan, where he made a name for himself as a prosecutor. Like all Establishment elitists, he moved in and out of government, taking jobs as partners of law firms between government gigs.
In Boston he worked for Hill and Barlow, venerable law firm that defended the communists Sacco and Vanzetti. Three former Massachussetts Governors - Endicott Peabody, Michael Dukakis and William Weld; = worked for Hill and Barlow, as did Deval Patrick, so it is a jumping off spot for political careers. Mueller also worked for Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr, Senior partner William Weld chaired Michael Dukakis' presidential campaign. The law firm defended pro-bono the U.S. Army in the McCarthy-Army hearings (where Sen. McCarthy was investigating communist infiltration into the military.)
Mueller was also pay master on the Volkswagon settlement. Certainly nobody of a conservative - or even impartial - bent would take such a job as the settlement was solely an attck on Volkswagon because they tried to buck Obama's radical EPA regulations. Mueller also defended the government's massacre at Ruby Ridge.
Now, I know that an upwardly mobile man will likely have associations with leftist supporting law firms, but one must wonder how much of this rubbed off. Mueller was unquestionably an insider, and one who was not one bit offensive to these types.
George Bush appointed Mueller in 2001, shortly after taking office after the bitterly contested election of 2000. Naturally the RINO Bush would choose someone the Democrats would not object to, and he was so pleasing to them that Barack Hussein Obama (Peace be upon him!) kept Mueller on for two years after taking office. Clearly he is a man the Left finds pleasing. But nothing comes free from liberals or Democrats, and I suspect the bill is now due.
When Bush appointed Mueller no less a partisan hack than Patrick Leahy sang his praises:
"But Leahy said Mueller, a veteran prosecutor credited with turning around the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco after his appointment there in 1998, is the right man for the job. "I applaud President Bush for his appointment," the senator said."
The fact is this is a witch hunt, and Ryan and everybody else in Washington knows it. The reality is they WANT Trump to be taken down, or if that is not possible at least paralyzed, thus showing the world that an outsider cannot be effective and thus thwart any future insurgency in the future. The ruling class stands with each-other first and foremost.
Ryan needs to be replaced as Speaker. It's time the GOP declares the seat vacant.
Cliff Kincaid gives a rundown on how the Russians colluded with Western liberals to create and promote the Global Warming scare.
If the media really is worried about Russian collusion perhaps they should start here.
32 queries taking 0.323 seconds, 139 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.