It is that time of the year when Presidents rant and rave about the problem of government spending being out of control and they produce budgets that only add to the waste.  Barack Obama is no different; in fact, his budgets are the largest seen in US history.  Furthermore, his annual deficits are higher than the national debt was just a couple of decades ago.  Rhetoric aside, Obama is operating as if it is business as usual.

Peter Morici’s article title at FoxNews.com says it all, “Obama’s Budget — Straight From La La Land.”  In it, Morici notes that “Today, President Obama released his proposed 2011 budget, which forecasts the federal deficit will fall to $706 billion by 2014 or just 3.9 percent of GDP before rising again in 2015.”  The fantasy continues by noting that “To accomplish this feat, he proposes letting the Bush tax cuts expire and other spending cuts the Congress has rejected in the past. More extraordinary, though, the document assumes that real GDP grows at better than 4 percent a year over the four years from 2011 to 2014, and the economy does not encounter a serious recession.”  What is particularly interesting is that we have yet to recover from the economic down turn that we are currently in, yet Obama’s forecast is filled with optimism.

The truth of the matter is there are plenty of areas to cut spending.  In a perfect world, the Congress would be obliged to abide by its oath of office in which members agree to defend the US Constitution.  If they did such, they would find they are allowed to spend in seventeen different areas according to Article I, Section 8 of that document.  If they did that, budgets would always be balanced and our economic freedom would be vast.  Unfortunately, our world is anything but perfect.

There are numerous “real world” ways in which we can seriously cut the deficit and Elizabeth MacDonald points out some of them in a recent article at FoxBusiness.com.  The title will certainly get your attention: “$1.5 Trillion Ways to Cut the Deficit.”  The suggestions make sense, even if they do not have much hope in the political environment we live in today. Here are some examples:

An estimated $1.2 trillion in unused federal property. She notes that “The government owns and leases 3.87 billion square feet of property, and 55.7 million acres of land-meaning, one out of every forty acres. Real property asset value for all these holdings is estimated to be $1.2 trillion, says Citizens Against Government Waste, based on data from the Federal Real Property Profile created by the Bush administration, which helps federal agencies manage and dispose of their excess property.”  The examples that follow are numerous, and include Chicago’s Old Main Post Office, which is a 2.5 million square foot structure that costs over $2 million annually to maintain.  Than there is the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pennsylvania.  This airport cost over $200 million in government subsidies, even though the place has fewer passengers than security guards.  The list continues and it would be very easy to get to $1.2 trillion with little or no impact on any of our lives.

Than she notes “there is the $123.5 billion on government programs that have consistently failed.”  She may be a little kind with such a low number, but she covers makes perfect sense.  The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool found 218 government programs that were either “inadequate” or “ineffective” virtually throughout the entire government.  The OMB may be generous too, but there seems to be plenty of areas begging to be cut.

Than there is $98 billion in agency over payments that MacDonald notes.  The following are only a few examples:

–Health and Human Services: $55.1 billion, or 9.4%. Includes overpayment rates of 7.8% and 15.4% in the Medicare fee for service and Advantage programs, respectively.

–Labor: $12.3 billion, or 9.9%. Most of the overpayments were in the unemployment insurance program.

–Treasury: $12.3 billion, or 25.5%. These are attributed to overpayments in the earned income tax credit.

–Social Security Administration: $8 billion, or 1.2%, in overpayments.

–Agriculture: $4.3 billion in overpayments, or 5.9% of total department spending. Much of the waste was found in food stamp, school meals and federal crop programs.

–Transportation: $1.5 billion, or 3%. This waste was primarily found in the Federal Highway Administration planning and construction program.

–Veterans Affairs: $1.2 billion, or 2.7%. Waste here includes overpayments in the pension and other compensation programs.

–Housing and Urban Development: $1 billion, or 3.5%. All of the waste in this department was found in public housing and rental assistance.

–Defense: $849 million, or 0.5%.

–Homeland Security: $644.5 million, or 3.7%. The Homeland Security grant program as well as Disaster Relief Fund Vendor Payments were the primary guilty parties at this agency.

–Education: $599 million, or 2.1%.

One of my favorite issues to attack is corporate welfare.  What that means any more has changed significantly after the bailouts of Bush and Obama, but MacDonald’s article (referring to the research of the Cato Institute) points out $92 billion of easily identifiable spending.  “The figure includes direct cash payments, to farmers and research funds to high-tech companies, as well as indirect subsidies, such as funding for overseas promotion of specific U.S. products and industries. The cash payments come from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, HUD, and State.”

Than there are the earmarks, which we seem to all love to hate more than any other area of government expenditures.  Although they only come in at $19.6 billion (on over 10,000 earmarks), they are despised because they are part of a government approach to funding that is filled with deception.  The list, again, is impressive and here are a few examples:

$75,000 for Wayne Gomes Youth Baseball Diversity Foundation

$381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York, NY

$254,000 for Wool Research, Montana Sheep Institute

$2.2 million for Center for Grape Genetics, Geneva, NY

$1.8 million for swine odor and manure management research in Ames, Iowa

$4.4 million for the Army Center of Excellence in Acoustics

This, again is only the obvious…$1.5 trillion.  Imagine what we could accomplish if we were willing to suffer a little pain for the better of our Republic?

Here is the response I received from her office this past week.

Dear Mrs. Selby:

Thank you for writing to me to express your concerns about healthcare reform. I appreciate the time you took to write to me, and I welcome this opportunity to convey my opinions on how we should reform our health care system.

I support reforming our healthcare system. The key is to find a healthcare plan that will provide coverage to the millions of uninsured Americans and keep premium costs affordable, while not adding to our nation’s unsustainable federal budget deficit. On December 24, 2009, I joined 59 of my colleagues in voting to pass healthcare reform legislation. The “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” passed by a vote of 60-39. The differences between the Senate bill and the version passed by the House of Representatives must now be reconciled.

I voted for the legislation because I believe it makes several important improvements while preserving the parts of our system that work well. Some important changes will occur immediately and others will be phased in. It will provide immediate assistance, including tax credits for small businesses and $5 billion to help subsidize coverage for some people who have been denied due to preexisting conditions. And the legislation would shrink the Medicare prescription drug coverage gap by $500. As these health reforms take place, Congress will be able to assess and adjust the programs to improve healthcare for all Americans. All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner, reducing the budget deficit and preserving the solvency of Medicare.

I am enclosing my statement on the final passage of the Senate bill. I understand that we may disagree on this issue, but please know that I will keep your comments in mind when this legislation comes before the Senate for a final vote.

Again, thank you for writing. If you should have any further comments or questions, please feel free to contact my Washington, D.C. office at (202) 224-3841. Best regards.

Senator Dianne Feinstein

Statement on Health Insurance Reform
December 23, 2009

Mr. President– I rise in support of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2009, which will reform our nation’s health care system.

This is our chance to fix a broken system. We tried in 1993 and 1994, and failed. Over 15 years have passed since our last effort. This may be our last, best opportunity before we are forced to wait another 15 years for real reform. And our country cannot afford to wait another 15 years. Our system is simply unsustainable.

Now this bill is not perfect, and without question, there are items I would like to change. I believe it is a work in progress. However, it accomplishes several important objectives.

o The bill is incremental. There will be time to make needed adjustments before it is fully effective.
o It expands insurance coverage and provides new consumer protections from insurance company abuses.
o It does all this in a fiscally responsible way, reducing the deficit and prolonging the solvency of the Medicare Trust Fund.

Bill is incremental:
Throughout this process, I have argued that health reform should be incremental. I believe that in many ways, this bill is incremental. It leaves the best of our health care system in place. The majority of Americans with coverage continually say they are happy with their insurance. Under this legislation, they can keep what they like. The bill also will be phased in over the next several years. People in need of coverage will receive immediate help in many forms.

o Beginning in 2010, next year, the federal government will spend $5 billion to establish a high risk pool, which will provide subsidized coverage for those who have been denied private insurance on account of a pre-existing condition.
o Young adults will be able to remain on their parents’ health insurance until age 26. Many young adults currently lose their coverage as soon as they graduate from college; this will allow them to maintain their coverage while they find a job.
o Seniors enrolled in the Medicare prescription drug benefit will receive an additional $500 in drug coverage before they encounter the so-called “donut hole” coverage gap. This is the coverage gap that occurs after seniors spend $2,830 on prescription drug costs. They are then required to pay the full amount out of pocket, until their costs total $4,550. This additional $500 of coverage means that seniors will encounter a small gap in their drug coverage, and pay less out of pocket.
o There will be new limits on the amount of premium dollars that can be spent on non-health care expenses by all health insurance companies. This is very important. I have long worried that insurance companies spend too much on administrative expenses, like medical underwriting, claims processing, overhead, and profits and salary, and not enough on actual medical care.

(How is the government not going to have the same problem? Who will regulate them?)

Starting next year:
o Plans sold in the individual and small group markets must devote at least 80% of premium dollars to health care expenses.
o Plans sold to large groups must spend at least 85% of the premium funds they collect on health care services. This provision will give people the assurance that most of their premium dollars go to pay for care.
o Also next year, small business can receive tax credits to help cover the cost of covering their employees. These credits will be available on a sliding scale to employers with 25 or fewer employees, with average annual wages of $50,000 or under.
o Expansion of Community Health Centers. Beginning in 2011, the federal program that supports community health centers will begin to receive significant additional funding, totaling $10 billion through 2015.
This expansion of community care helps guarantee that we are providing not just coverage for medical care, but also access. A health insurance card does no good if no physician will accept it. These clinics provide care for all, and in many places, will be the backbone of a reformed health care system.

Finally, in 2014, the full scope of the reform effort will come in place. People will be able to compare their coverage options in newly created Exchanges, and in many cases, they will receive tax credits to help them purchase coverage.

This allows plenty of time to see how reforms are working, and if necessary, for Congress, the Administration, and states to make adjustments to ensure that health reform is effective.

Insurance Reforms and Exchanges:
The bill contains several critical insurance industry reforms that will help cover 31 million additional Americans. I am convinced that our country’s for-profit health insurance industry operates with profits, not people, in mind. And this legislation will contain a number of new standards that this industry will need to meet.

o They will not be allowed to discriminate based on gender.
o They will not be able to take away coverage once a person gets sick.
o They will not be able to charge more, or deny coverage entirely, based on an individual’s health history or preexisting conditions.

Insurance will be sold in regulated markets called Exchanges, where consumers can easily compare their different insurance options. Websites allow Americans to easily compare prices when shopping for airline tickets, and this will extend the idea to health insurance.

These Exchanges will work on behalf of consumers, to negotiate lower prices and to ensure that participating plans meet high standards. Consumers will receive clear information about what is covered and how much it will cost. They will have several different levels of coverage from which to choose.

Every Exchange will also offer two national plans, overseen by the federal Office of Personnel Management. This office ensures that federal workers and members of Congress have good health plan choices. One of the included plans will be offered by a non-profit company. For consumers in highly concentrated markets with only a few choices, these national plans will provide a new option for quality coverage.

Most importantly, these Exchanges will consider the previous behavior of insurance plans. If a company raises rates unfairly over the next several years, Exchanges will consider this, and decide whether or not they should be allowed to sell in these new markets.

This is a strong incentive for plans to treat consumers fairly.

Fiscally Responsible:
All of this is accomplished in a fiscally responsible manner. The bill saves money, and it saves Medicare.
It is clear that we cannot afford to continue on our current path.
It expands coverage to an additional 31 million Americans while reducing the federal budget deficit by $132 billion by 2019. Deficit reduction increases in the second ten year period that the bill will be in effect.

(How in heaven’s name can we spend so much on this program and reduce the deficit? Where is the logic?)

Now this is a major point of contention. I continue to hear the other side say that this bill will cost $2.5 trillion over 10 years. Even the Republicans’ own analysis shows that the bill will reduce the budget deficit. The Budget Committee’s Minority staff released an analysis that examines the bill’s net cost and savings over the next several decades.

o The Republican staff projects that the bill will reduce the deficit by $176 billion from 2014 to 2023.
o This number grows to $1.032 trillion from 2020 to 2029.
o The total net deficit reduction, according to Republicans, is $1.165 trillion from 2010 to 2029.

Let me say it again: these are partisan estimates, produced by Republican staff. And they show significant, meaningful deficit reduction.

The bill also takes a first step at prolonging the solvency of the Medicare program. Without action, Medicare will be insolvent in 2017. That is 9 short years from now.

(The government that wishes to fix our healthcare system has destroyed the one they have had their hands on, Medicare. Insolvent in 9 short years? And somehow we are to believe this new bill will not face the same demise?)

This bill extends Medicare’s solvency by approximately 4 to 5 years. Make no mistake, more must be done. The Chief Actuary at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid estimates that it extends solvency to 2026. And I believe this bill lays the groundwork to help make Medicare more sustainable.

(More sustainable, but not corrected. This bill only pushes the problem back to 2026, for another generation to fix.)

o It contains a Medicare Commission, which will examine the program and make recommendations to Congress on an expedited basis.
o Creates Accountable Care Organizations, in which physicians work together to provide more efficient care for patients, while sharing in some of the savings they generate for the Medicare program.
Controlling Entitlement spending must be a priority, and I believe this is an important step in the right direction.

California Concerns:
Throughout the health reform process, I have emphasized the importance of a health reform bill that meets the needs of large and complex states like California.

My state, without question, has one of the largest and most complex health care systems. As a result, we face some of the most complex challenges.

Over 6.6 million Californians are uninsured. The state is experiencing an unprecedented budget crisis. And even after health reform, the state will still have as many as 2 million undocumented, which will continue to strain public hospitals, emergency rooms, clinics and other providers.

(We in California are paying for 2 million illegal aliens, carefully disguised in politically correct language as the undocumented. These are, according to Mrs. Feinstein, a strain on our “public hospitals, emergency rooms, clinics and other providers.” We in California now want to invite the entire nation to subsidize our illegal alien nation. Welcome aboard!)

California’s public hospitals play a key role in meeting these needs and care for the poorest of the poor. These hospitals rely on payments called Medicaid Disproportionate Share Hospital (DSH) funding to cover their costs, both for the uninsured that they cover, and the very low reimbursement rates their receive from the Medicaid program. DSH funding accounts for, on average, 40% of public hospitals’ total funding.

I am pleased that the managers’ amendment has slightly reduced the annual cut to Medicaid DSH funding that California and other states that use their full allotments will receive.
Under the original bill, California would have received a 50% cut in Medicaid DSH once the rate of the uninsured in the state dropped by 45%.

o Under this version, the state’s allotment will only be cut by 35%.
o This reduces a $550 million cut to $385 million, for a savings of approximately $165 million per year to California.

States are now guaranteed to keep at least 50% of their current Medicaid DSH allotments, which will provide long-term stability to this critical program.

I am grateful to Senator Reid for making these adjustments, and I will continue to work with my colleagues in the House to keep as much of this critical funding intact as possible as the process moves forward.

The cost to California from the expansion of Medicaid remains a serious concern.
The bill will cover the full cost through 2016 generated by opening the program to all adults who earn less than $14,400 per year, which is 133% of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL). However, California will need to maintain this expansion, and will also have to find a sufficient number of doctors willing to take patients newly eligible for Medicaid.

This will cost money. Health reform should not bankrupt large states like California. Ensuring that health reform works for my state will be a top priority as this legislation moves to conference.
I am also concerned that the structure of the annual tax on the health insurance sector may have unintended consequences that will have a disproportionate impact on California. This tax will generate roughly $60 billion over the next 10 years.

The impact of this provision would be disproportionate on states such as California, which have a high proportion of fully-insured coverage. For example, 77 percent of the commercially enrolled population in California is enrolled in fully-insured health plans. This includes public employee plans such as CalPERS and the City and County of San Francisco.

The net result is that California would pay upwards of one-third more than the average state on a per capita basis. Many integrated non-profit health plans, some of which have been cited as models of efficiency, would face additional expenses and consumers would be impacted through higher premiums and limited choices.

(Article I, Section 9, (4) states: “No capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.” In other words, Congress can not levy a direct tax that is not equal for all citizens. Is this not then unconstitutional for the citizens of California?)

Now, an exemption is provided for non-profit insurers in the managers’ amendment. For example, non-profits with an overall medical loss ratio of 90 percent or better, or non-profits in a state which regulates premium increases could be exempt from the tax.

But, this would have a limited impact in California and our two largest non-profit insurers (Kaiser Permanente and Blue Cross/Blue Shield) may not qualify for the exemption. And, because California lacks an entity to regulate premium increases, the only way non-profit insurers in our state will likely qualify for an exemption is by meeting the medical loss ratio requirements (set at 90 percent overall in the bill). This is a high hurdle to meet and I worry these additional costs could appear in the premiums paid by Californians.

Need to Control Premium Increases:
The most important component of successful health reform remains controlling health insurance premium increases. I remain concerned that companies will attempt to take advantage of the period of time between the passage of legislation, and 2014, when Exchanges are up and running with new consumer protections. We have seen this with credit card companies since credit card reform legislation passed, and I fear health insurance will be no different.

I proposed an amendment to create a Medical Insurance Rate Authority, and to ensure that all insurance companies are subject to some type of rate review.

The amendment asks the National Association of Insurance Commissioners to produce a report, detailing the rate review laws and capabilities in all 50 states. The Secretary of HHS will then use these findings to determine which states are capable of doing sufficient rate reviews to protect consumers.

o In states where Insurance Commissioners have authority to review rates, they will continue to do so.
o In states without sufficient authority or resources, the Secretary of HHS will review rates, and take any appropriate action to deny unfair requests.
o This could mean blocking unjustified rate increases, or requiring rebates, if an unfair increase is already in effect.

This will provide all American consumers with another layer of protection from an unfair premium increase.
The amendment would also require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to establish a Medical Insurance Rate Authority as part of the process in the bill that enables her to monitor premium costs.

The Rate Authority would advise the Secretary on insurance rate review and would be composed of seven officials that represent the full scope of the health care system including:
o At least two consumers.
o At least one medical professional.
o And one representative of the medical insurance industry.
o The remaining members would be experts in health economics, actuarial science, or other sectors of the health care system.

Unfortunately, this amendment was not included, at the insistence of one member of our caucus. I look forward to working with conferees to find some way to ensure that more Americans are protected from unfair premium increases.

Conclusion:
With all the debate over offsets, CBO projections, premiums and matching funds, it is easy to forget that at the end of the day, we are talking about people. The bill we are debating, I believe, will save lives.

A lack of health insurance is more than an inconvenience, it can be deadly. Americans age 64 and under who lack health insurance have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those who have coverage (Dr. David Himmelstein/ Harvard Medical School Study, September 2009).

These are real people, who die earlier than they need to because of problems getting coverage, and problems with our health care system. Expanding health coverage is a moral issue, one that, I believe, reflects the character of our nation. In the richest country in the world, no one should die because they cannot afford health coverage.

(Mrs. Feinstein, give us one example of someone dying because they could not afford health coverage. In America, the uninsured get treated and the dying get needed medical help. The illegal aliens even get medical treatment, as you so clearly stated above. Don’t use the “Appeal to Pity” tactic, it does not become your position.)

For all of this bill’s imperfections, I am convinced that it will mean the difference between life and death for some people. And it is not every day that we can say that about a piece of legislation. We cannot pass up this opportunity. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this bill.

Also, may I take this opportunity to wish you a happy and healthy holiday season. And may 2010 be a good year for us all.

Sincerely yours,
Dianne Feinstein
United States Senator

Just a few thoughts to chew on, while the President continues to sell us this “Bill of Bads” during the State of the Union address this week.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Today’s Opinions And Editorials (medicalnewstoday.com)
• Rep. Frank Pallone: We can’t turn away from health care reform (middletownmike.blogspot.com)

Impossible. As the movie began, the characters brought to life the grief of an untimely and inexplicable death. The suicide of a teen is at the heart of the movie To Save A Life and the lives that are dramatically affected by it, are followed through out the two hour film. The lead character, Jake Taylor, played by Randy Wayne, of Dukes of Hazard fame, is a senior in high school, with the world as his oyster. The handsome star has the beautiful girl, the letter of intent to his dream university and popularity stemming from his basketball career. But his life is shattered when his childhood friend kills himself in the high school hallway. He begins his search for answers and carries around the “what-ifs” that haunt him.

The movie deals with the raw makings of a high school campus.  The popular kids get invited to the parties, the loners get mocked, and one day, a lonely boy has had enough, and takes his life.  There is nothing sugar coated in this Christian film, but a reality based look at what teens across this nation deal with as they walk out their front doors.  Topics like suicide, cutting, drinking, sex, pregnancy, and divorce are not what one would expect from a Christian film, yet they are dealt with in a manner that will in fact save a life.

Not only are the harsh realities of the secular world explored, but also the realities of Christian hypocrisy found in the youth group of the church that Jake Taylor seeks answers and solace.  He boldly stands up, during a youth event and asks the teens in the youth group if they really give a “damn” or if they are going through the motions.  He is convinced that there has to have been something he could have done to stop his friend Roger from taking his life. He begins to live for others, specifically reaching out to the loners on campus, in spite of the hostility he gets from his former friends.

I, at this point, must admit, that I was a very proud, card carrying Christian.  The movie was living up to what the trailer had enticingly promised and doing an artful job as well.  But perhaps the most authentic aspect of the film is found in the end, when the star isn’t found riding off into the sunset living happily ever after, but is shown living with the consequences of pre-marital sex and an un-planned pregnancy.  His dreams are sacrificially laid aside for his girlfriend, as he stands by her side through the pregnancy, delivery and adoption of their baby.  This is where real life meets real Christianity.

The producer and writer of the To Save a Life is Jim Britts, a pastor at  New Song Community Church in Oceanside, California and a film major from Biola University.  He states in an interview for Biola Magazine,

“It only came from this real experience of working with teens,” Britts says, “Looking back on it, I think He (God) had a plan for me being a screen-writing major and to get a heart for that and then to go into ministry and get a heart for that….The two really connected.   I don’t think I could have written the script if I didn’t do both.”  Brittany McComb

Britt’s love for God, for teens and his passion to see lives saved through the acceptance of God’s love during incomprehensible pain is deeply portrayed in this film.  As much as I tried to remain set apart and unbiased, I was unable to remain unmoved.  The God that is so boldly proclaimed in the movie, is the God that has boldly showed His love for this world by sending His Son Jesus Christ to die for sinful man.  This fact alone moved me to tears and cheers at the end of the showing.

The reviews may be mixed, but the Miami Herald said, “It features good acting, excellent production values and even a solidly eclectic musical score that ranges from rap to alternative.  Gary Goldstein wrote in the Los Angeles Times, “…appealing, poignant and inspiring in ways that are gentle and quite real…. not only potentially healing and elevating, but also kind of cool…. deftly acted, generally absorbing cautionary tale…” Others were not as generous, Andy Webster wrote in the New York Times, “Teenage martyrdom — the piety of it all…. But forget the lame performances and arch, preachy sentiment; the movie’s sham hip-hop and spurious alternative music alone should keep teenagers away. Thank goodness.”

The most important reviews however don’t come from news men sitting alone in a dark theater, but rather from those lives that are truly changed.  One girl stated on the To Save a Life website,

Rachel - Posted on January 31, 2010  ”Just saw this movie yesterday, and I cried so hard! I am somewhat depressed, and have considered suicide in the past. This movie expressed how I felt…alone, like no one cared. I loved the part where Jake is in the youth group and starts telling the kids not to be judgemental! I felt like it was so true. Thanks for impacting my life! Thanks to God and His redeeming love! Save a life!”

Another young man shared,

Geoff (Name changed for privacy) - Posted on January 31, 2010  ”I am 17 years old and I am a recovering cutter. For the longest time I relied on cutting as a crutch to keep me going; even though I was slowly killing myself along the way. Without all of the prayers, my scars would mean nothing but a sign of hatred and depression. But today, I see that they’re trophies that say God can help anyone through anything. Even a sexually confused, depressed, 17 year old outcast like me. God Bless.”

Finally, a young girl’s decision to not settle, but to live a changed Christian life,

Camille - Posted on January 30, 2010  ”I saw this movie with my youth group, and was litterally bawling by the end. This movie absolutely changed my life. Ya, I thought I was a good Christian before, but after seeing this, I know I can’t settle. There is always something more to do that will help in this world. The part that moved me the most was when Jake is in the youth group, and everyone is whispering and Jake stands to say something. My absolute favorite part of the movie is when he says, “What’s the point of all this if you’re not gonna let it change you?” and to me it is totally true. I also love the part when Jake brakes free from the security guard saying, “I have to make things right!”. These quotes inspire me. Don’t pass up the chance to make a difference. By tomorrow, it may be too late.”

These are the reviews that truly matter, because these are the ones who heard the message of the movie and decided to let it save a life.   Don’t let poor press keep you from taking a teen to this film; it will, in fact, impact your life.

(Still no word on charges being filed against Michael Jackson’s doctor.  We keep hearing “any minute now,” but we’ve been hearing that for weeks.)

Coroner’s findings:

They were two young women living the high life in Hollywood, both dying recently in the prime of their lives.  Was foul-play involved?  Not according to coroners’ findings just released in both cases:

1)  Actress Brittany Murphy died from cardiac arrest brought on by a combination of pneumonia and intoxication.

2)  Heiress Casey Johnson died from complications of her diabetes.

Study this:

Some patients thought to have been completely unconscious for years apparently have not been.  Imagine that, being aware of what was going on around you but unable to let anyone know for years.  One has to wonder what mental state a person would be in after years of that.  At least now these rare patients may have hope of communicating with the outside world again even if they never regain control of their bodies.  In scanning the brain waves of patients believed to be completely comatose, looking for any signs activity, it was discovered that a few of them could actually alter their brain waves in response to questions (e.g. think about one thing as a “yes” response and about something else as a “no” response, such that the scanner could detect the difference).

And finally:

With the swearing-in of new Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown this afternoon, the drastic changes to the American health care system proposed in the past year are highly unlikely to become law, and as you know if you read regularly, I think that’s a good thing.  The system’s not perfect, but more government involvement in it, I believe, would’ve made it worse, not better.  It sounds good to “guarantee” certain things, like food, shelter, and health care, to everyone, but whenever governments try to do that, they run up against the reality of human nature.  There’s always going to be a small minority of people in a society who simply can’t pull their own weight (i.e. can’t provide for their own basic needs).  So, in order to run the society efficiently and effectively, you need everyone who can pull his/her own weight to do so.  Then, you need some, hopefully many, people to pull more than their own weight, because that’s where you get excess, wealth, that can be used to help the truly helpless.  But how do you motivate every capable person to pull at least his/her own weight and hopefully more?  You may not like this answer, but fear is one of the primary and strongest motivators of human behavior.  Most people work and educate themselves and acquire skills and work some more in large part — subconsciously perhaps, but nevertheless in large part — because they fear what would happen to them (and to those who depend on them, e.g. their children), if they didn’t.  That fear is actually a good thing.  When you guarantee everyone that their basic needs will be met, you take away the fear, and you end up with capable people not pulling their weight, by choice rather than inability, and you start to get a burden of “need” that’s heavier and heavier and eventually difficult for the remaining, productive members of your society to bear.  Of course I want everyone to be healthy and to have access to care when they need it.  But I don’t want to promise it to them from birth.  I want them to wonder where it would come from if they don’t procure it for themselves.  And if they haven’t procured it for themselves and need it, I want them to have to explain to somebody why they need it and to appeal to that person or agency for help rather than being able to count on simply filling out a government form and having the help handed to them unconditionally.  In a sense, when you say to some people, “Have no fear,” you’re unintentionally, subconsciously, but effectively saying “have no motivation.”  Not having guarantees, allowing there to be some fear, incentivizes those who are able to pull their own weight (and more) to do so, and when they do, the group that truly can’t is small enough that voluntary assistance is more than adequate to meet their needs, especially in a society as generous as ours.  That doesn’t mean there aren’t plenty of things that the government can do to help make health care more affordable and accessible to people without mandating or guaranteeing or directly providing coverage/care — things like allowing people to purchase health insurance from companies across the country instead of just the ones operating in their home states — and if you’re interested in those, I wrote about them numerous times during 2008 in the run-up to the presidential election.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Judge Rules Sex Ads Not Craigslist’s Problem (abcnews.go.com)
• Internet rape case jolts Wyoming city (msnbc.msn.com)
• Doctors Set Up in Dominican Republic for Haitians (cbn.com)
• Five Freedoms you’ll lose in ObamaCare (hotair.com)
• Haiti Detains Americans Taking Kids Across Border (cbn.com)
• Napoleon, Obama, and Health Care ‘Reform’ (pajamasmedia.com)
• Open letter to President Obama: Keep government out of health-care decisions (hotair.com)
• Rasmussen: People starting to appreciate American health-care system (hotair.com)

Bishop Council Nedd II of the Chesapeake and the Northeast for the Episcopal Missionary Church and a member of the Project 21 national advisory council noted that “After virtually walking away from the gay community after the election, President Obama is all of a sudden taking up their cause again? Last week’s election (in Massachusetts) shows he has problems with Americans of all political stripes, but he appears to be focusing most intently on quelling the civil war rising against him in the left-wing of his party. One would think that — as his approach to national security is being questioning in the wake of the underwear bomber and his dithering on Afghanistan — that he would think of some other military-related issue to champion than one that could fracture his 2008 base even further. And then there is his post-Obamacare pivot to jobs that seems to be uneducated and aimless. Is 2010 to be consumed with ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ for the military and ‘don’t ask, don’t know’ on jobs?”

Mychal Massie, who is the chairman of Project 21 stated that “It is time that President Obama realized his job is more than giving speeches and blaming former President Bush. Instead, from his performance tonight, he continues to show his disconnect with what the American people want and need. With record numbers of people unemployed and home ownership at risk or lost for so many, to point out just two problems, we needed to hear more from him than blaming others. It is time for Obama to own up to this malaise as his own.”

Kevin L. Martin, also with Project 21’s national advisory council argues that while “Watching President Obama’s State of the Union Address, it felt like he was back on the campaign trail. Like on the trail, tonight’s rhetoric tends to differ from reality. What was on display was a bait-and-switch in which broken promises were rehashed and more pandering was thrown at the middle class as he pledged tax cuts, tax credits and job creation.”

R. Dozier Gray, a combat veteran and also a Project 21 member stated that “The President reminds us that one in ten Americans still cannot find work. Hard as I try, I simply cannot think of anything he has done to truly mitigate the problem. Mr. President, if you hated the bank bailouts why did you support them. Own it, sir.”

In addition to her work with Project 21 Lisa Fritsch is a writer and talk show host from Austin, Texas. She observed that “President Obama wonders why there is so much ‘cynicism’ out there. While his speech was full of ironies and folly, this is the worst. It is President Obama who is the cynic, because he doesn’t seem to believe in anything but the government. Though President Obama worked hard to try to connect with Americans, it is clear that his position on some of Americans’ top concerns — taxes, terrorism and health care reform — remain the same. And his idea of change is at odds with the average voter…”

Ellis Washington who is a member of the national advisory council for the Project 21 black leadership network and a former editor of the Michigan Law Review noted that “Obama in his first year raised the spending limit to unsustainable levels ($1.35 trillion); more than GWB did in 8 years and now Obama is championing a freeze on spending? President Obama’s first State of the Union Address painfully exemplifies that this clear and present danger to America is not Mr. Obama, but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man of this ilk with the presidency. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us — lack of common sense and good judgment.”

You will not typically find these opinions among black Americans in the mainstream media. The reason for this is simple, there is a disdain by the media and by the left in general when it comes to a “diversity of opinion” among minorities and women. Liberals have “fought” for the freedoms of the “down trodden” for years we are told. One of the freedoms they did not fight for, it appears is freedom of thought.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Black Conservative Response to State of the Union Address (gloucestercitynews.net)
• Obama Declares ‘I Don’t Quit’ in State of the Union (usnews.com)
• Obama Seeks to Indoctrinate High Schoolers ala Nazi Youth (rightpundits.com)
• Hillary: I probably won’t serve two terms as Secretary of State (hotair.com)
• WaPo/ABC poll a vote of no confidence in Obama (hotair.com)
• Obama Admits Health Care Reform May Die In Congress (huffingtonpost.com)

While the rest of the nation sat in awe of the events that took place in a special election in Massachusetts that put a Republican in a Senate seat held by a Kennedy for a half of century, President Obama concluded that such was a result of policy makers going too slow on health care reform.  He came to this conclusion in spite of the following:

• • The state of Massachusetts had been under a socialized health care system since 2006 and it has led to higher prices and rationed care.
  • In spite of the fact that Massachusetts is 3 to 1 Democrats, it still chose a Republican for the Senate.
  • If the voter rage in Massachusetts was due to Republican resistance to reform, why would they elect a member of the GOP to this office?

As I read these obvious facts it seems like the need for an explanation is laughable.  These points should be clear to the most casual observer, but Obama is building a policy strategy that is contrary to these facts.  This indicates that either he questions the intelligence of his constituents or his constituents should worry about the “Emperor’s new clothes” or, in this case, strategy.  This approach to governing may work with petty dictators who are not accountable to voters or other branches of government, but it is still highly questionable in the United States.

In regards to the branches of government, Obama has developed this knack of attacking the Legislative and Judicial branches as if they are not necessary in accomplishing his policy objectives.  In a special joint session of Congress in September 2009, Obama claimed that members of Congress who stated that the President’s health care bill would include illegal immigrants were distorting the facts.  Members had seen enough of the bill to know that the President was misleading the audience and compelled Cong. Joe Wilson (R-SC) to exclaim out loud, “You lie!”  We have rarely seen such a reaction from a member of Congress, then again, we have rarely seen such an attack by a president on the Legislative branch. In the President’s State of the Union address, the President again went on the war path at another branch of power.  In this case it was the Judicial branch and the Supreme Court.

During the President’s speech, Obama openly criticized a recent Supreme Court decision on corporate and other group funding of judicial races.  The President claimed that the Court reversed a century worth of opinion on the subject by allowing for such funding.  The reality is, there was very little court opinion on the subject until a few decades and virtually all of that was without precedence.  In spite of this, it was still surprising than that one Justice (Samuel Alito), actually shook his head and said something to the effect of “not true.”  This was another demonstration we have not witnessed during an event such as this, but we have never had a president quite like Obama.  All of these incidents point to problems in his future when it comes to governing.

President Obama Continues to Show Immaturity

Obama’s last job was US Senator, which he did not finish one term.  Before that he was a part time State Senator from Illinois and community organizer, neither of which are typical springboards for the highest office of the land.  What we do know from his experience and temperament is that he does not bring the necessary skills and understanding to serve in the highest office of our land.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Rasmussen: Obama post-SOTU comeback, or dead cat bounce? (hotair.com)
• State of the Union: Pivot or Divot? (rightpundits.com)
• CNN: Independents now reacting negatively to mere mention of “hope” by Obama (hotair.com)
• Ego, Obama’s Achilles’ Heel (americanthinker.com)
• Opportunist-in-chief complains about political opportunism (michellemalkin.com)
• Two sharp responses to Obama’s SOTU (michellemalkin.com)
• Sarah Palin: Mr. President: Please Try, “I’m Listening, People,” Instead of “Listen Up, People!” (conservatives4palin.com)
• Is Obama Bored? (rightpundits.com)
• After Mass. Upset, White House to Focus on Economy (cbn.com)
• SCOTUS Slammed at SotU: Alito Mouths ‘Not True’ to the President (abovethelaw.com)

No more!

Jews are growing increasingly disenchanted with the Democratic Party, a move one could hardly have imagined before the Obama presidency. And the RJC is gaining stature nationally as a vehicle of authentic “hope and change” within the Jewish American community.

Jewish liberals have always embraced social justice as a core value, but they are growing increasing suspicious of the Obama-Pelosi-Reid socialist utopian dream.
Barack Obama started his presidency with an astounding 83% approval rating among American Jews. Nine months later, that support had dropped to 64%. At the end of 2009, he was at 48%.

Jewish American scholar, commentator and author Norman Podhoretz says, “Our interests and our ideals, both as Americans and as Jews, have come in recent decades to be better served by the forces of the right.”

Podhoretz not only argues that anti-Semitism has been banished from the right over the past 40 years but points to a long history of Democrat Jews “seeing an anti-Semite under every conservative bed” while remaining blind to the reality that “anti-Semitism has found a hospitable new home on the left, especially where Israel is concerned.”

The RJC platform coincides with the same core principles that propelled Scott Brown to victory in the recent “Massachusetts Miracle.” At the top of the list is a vigorous approach to terrorism.
Where else is Obama losing support among voters? Let me count the ways!

ONLY …

… 43% say they would vote to reelect Obama.

… 37% would vote to reelect their Obama-supported Democratic congressman.

… 35% think global warming is a serious problem.

… 31% think foreign enemy combatants should be tried as civilians in the U.S. federal court system.

… 28% trust Obama to creates jobs in 2010.

… 21% think increased federal spending will help the economy.

… 18% think abortion should be legal in all circumstances.

… 13% think the stimulus bill helped save or create 600,000 jobs.

… 11% think Gitmo should be shut down immediately.

… 8% think Obama is keeping America safe.
The U.S. sent more than 165 people to Denmark for the 15th Copenhagen Climate conference.
It cost tax payers a BUNDLE. But heck, look at how many Super Important People just HAD to be there so they could forge some Super Important something or other … oh wait. They didn’t accomplish a damn thing, did they? And Anthropogenic Global Warming is a big scam besides.

To tell the truth, my only consolation in this is they say it was really, Really, REALLY cold while they were there. Now if we’d had to put out a million plus bucks to send them off to some warm, sandy beach to sip sweet boozey drinks out of coconuts, well, golleee, I’d be really pissed about that!

Attendees:
President Obama
Sen. James Inhofe
Sen. John Kerry
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and husband
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer
Rep. George Miller
Rep. Henry Waxman
Rep. Ed Markey and wife
Rep. Charles Rangel
Rep. Bart Gordon
Rep. James Sensenbrenner and wife
Rep. Sander Levin
Rep. Joe Barton and daughter
Rep. Fred Upton
Rep. Earl Blumenauer
Rep. Diana DeGette
Rep. Jay Inslee and wife
Rep. Shelley Moore Capito and husband
Rep. John Sullivan
Rep. Tim Ryan
Rep. GK Butterfield
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver
Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and husband
Rep. Marsha Blackburn
Stacee Bako
Don Kellaher
Wilson Livingood
Brian Monahan
John Lawrence
Karen Wayland
Drew Hammill
Kate Knudson
Bridget Fallon
Bina Surgeon
Mary Frences Repko
Nona Darrell
Tony Jackson
Josh Mathis
Phil Barnett
David Cavicke
Lisa Miller
Peter Spencer
Andrea Spring
Lorie Schmitt
Greg Dotson
Alex Barron
Christopher King
Shimere Williams
Tara Rothschild
Margaret Caravelli
Gerry Waldron
Ana Unruh-Cohen
Jeff Duncan
Eben Burnham-Snyder
Joel Beauvais
Michael Goo
Tom Schreibel
Harlan Watson
Bart Forsyth
Ed Rice
Steve Rusnak
Carey Lane
Matt Dempsey and wife
George Sugyama
Tom Hassenbohler
Plus, 31 additional unnamed Senate staff

State Dept:
Special Envoy Todd Stern
Secretary Hillary Clinton
Pershing Deputy U.S. Special Envoy for Climate Change
Maria Otero, Under Secretary for Democracy and Global Affairs
Ambassador Alejandro Wolff, Deputy Permanent Rep. United States Mission to the U.N.
Daniel Reifsnyder, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environment
Lilburn Trigg Talley, Director of the office of Global Change
Sue Biniaz, Deputy Legal Adviser
William Breed, Director of Climate Change Programs USAID

Energy Dept:
Steven Chu, Energy Secretary
Jean Chu, Spouse of the Energy Secretary
Rod O’Connor, Chief of Staff
Amy Bodette, Special Assistant to the Secretary
David Sandalow, Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs
Rick Duke, Dep. Assistant Sec. for Policy and International Affairs
Holmes Hummel, Senior Advisor to the Assistant Secretary for Policy and

International Affairs
Elmer Holt, Economist in the Office of Policy and International Affairs
Matt Kallman, Special Assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Policy and International Affairs
Dan Leistikow, Director of Public Affairs
Devin Hampton, Lead Advance Representative

Interior Dept:
Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar
Deputy Secretary David Hayes
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks Tom Strickland
Science Advisor Kit Batten
Senior Advisor of Global Change at USGS Tom Armstrong
USGS Director Marcia McNutt
Deputy Communications Director Matt Lee-Ashley
Jack Lynch (Security)
Dave Graham (Security)
Mike Downs (Security)
Director of Advance Tim Hartz

EPA:
Security Officer # 1 Security, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Marcus McClendon Director of Advance, Office of the Administrator
Security Officer # 2 Security, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Jennifer Jenkins Physical Scientist, Climate Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation COP 15 Negotiator
Shalini Vajjhala Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs COP-15 Negotiator
Maurice LeFranc Senior Advisor, International Climate Change, Office of Air and Radiation COP-15 Negotiator
Kimberly Todd Klunich Technical Expert, Climate Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation COP-15 Negotiator
Leif Hockstad Environmental Engineer, Climate Change Division, Office of Air and Radiation COP-15 Negotiator
Seth Oster Associate Administrator, Office of Public Affairs
David McIntosh Associate Administrator, Office of Rep.ressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Michelle DePass Assistant Administrator, Office of International Affairs
Security Officer # 3 Security, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance
Lisa Jackson Administrator, EPA
Gina McCarthy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation

White House Executive Office staff:
From the Office of Energy and Climate Change:
Heather Zichal
Tony Russell
Jake Levine
Joe Aldy

White House Executive Office staff:
From the Office of Science and Technology Policy:
John Holdren
Steve Fetter
Shere Abbott

White House Executive Office staff:
From the Council on Environmental Quality:
Nancy Sutley
Amy Salzman
Jess Maher

White House Executive Office staff:
National Security Council:
Mike Froman
Ed Fendley

White House Executive Office staff:
Communications:
Ben LaBolt

—————-
SOURCES:

The GOP’s common ground with American Jews by Kathy Banaszak – Jan. 26, 2010

Jews leaving Dems: ADL’s Foxman Alarmed by Clarice Feldman – Jan 27, 2010

One Year Later: The 40-Percent President By Brad O’Leary – January 27, 2010

Congress Went to Denmark, You Got the Bill By CBS News’ Sharyl Attkisson – Jan. 25, 2010

Related articles by Zemanta

• PAM DZAMA: Legislators’ Priorities Need Re-Prioritizing (kitsapsun.com)
• CBS: You won’t believe the costs of Congressional junket to Copenhagen (hotair.com)
• Palin and Jews (conservatives4palin.com)
• Sarah Palin’s Walmart Strategy (americanthinker.com)
• How Obama Can Make Friends and Influence People (pajamasmedia.com)
• Do Republicans and Conservatives Hate David Frum? (conservatives4palin.com)
• Who wants to be a Democrat? (michellemalkin.com)
• Stand Up for HillBuzz! (conservatives4palin.com)
• Obvious Opacity (americanthinker.com)
• Meltdown in PA: Toomey up 14 over Specter? (hotair.com)

For around a decade in the 1970s and early 80s, 30 Chileans who had studied under the University of Chicago’s Milton Friedman transformed their economy. Later known as the “Chicago boys,” these economists instituted policies of free trade, stable monetary policies, and deregulating the markets. They essentially de-politicized the economy and put Chile on the fast track of development.

As a result of these policies and the incredible economic turn around of this country, Chile is now poised to join the OECD. It struggled for years in the political and civil liberties front during the Pinochet years (although he drove, in a dictatorial fashion, the policies of economic reform that the nation enjoys today); but Freedom House now gives the country its top rating when it comes to political and other freedoms.

According to the Legatum Institute’s Prosperity Index, Chile tops the list of South America’s largest countries (those with populations over 10 million), supported by its high scores in governance, safety and security, and the contribution of its policies to economic growth. When you see the combination of change towards both political and economic freedom, you see a country that has created a situation in which the economy is significantly depoliticized, it is one ruled by law, and one in which the people are free to choose their destinies.

Chile has become a beacon of hope for countries that have suffered for generations under despots and demagogues and is a source of inspiration for Western countries that longed enjoyed freedom, but are now choosing a path towards serfdom. Chile could be a country to watch in the 21st century.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Is Costa Rica Really the Happiest Nation on Earth? (freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com)

• It leads to delays where, as in the case of Canada, patients wait for 17 weeks on average from the time a general practitioner says indicates that something is wrong until one visits a specialist

• It leads to rationed care, where people not only wait for years for things such as hip replacements, but often find themselves forced to pay for such out of their own pockets in foreign countries

• It has a negative effect on mortality rates, as we see those who suffer from certain diseases such as cancer, surviving half as long in countries like England compared to patients in the United States

• It has been linked to “economic euthanasia,” in which individuals are allowed (or even encouraged) to die because they are no longer economically viable since they no longer pay taxes. That is exactly what happened to my own grandfather in England • It leads to no recourse, as government officials “apologize” for their negligence or horrible mistakes, but there is no viable way of pursuing damages

These are fairly obvious and well known and observed by medical and policy professionals around the world. In spite of how horrible they are, their proponents tell us that “socialized medicine is better than nothing.” In fact, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer used those words recently. Our indigent population is provided for better in our current and flawed system than those under socialized medicine, so the reasoning simply does not make any sense.

To make matters worse are those effects that are less noticeable. I do not want to sound like a conspiracy therapist, but their implications are far reaching and threaten to undermine both our robust health care system and, historically, the most vibrant economy in the history of the world.

Socialized medicine is part of a “cradle to grave” approach to governing that puts enormous financial strain on individuals and undermines individual responsibility. The mega rich can be taxed to pay for the cost of such programs and still have plenty of resources to do what they want with their money. They can still start enterprises, buy additional businesses, buy new toys, and more. But for the vast majority of individuals in the upper middle class and lower, such excessive costs can literally drive people into a lower income bracket in terms of quality of life and spending power purposes. Such costs make it all the more difficult for people to invest in new tools, to transition from employee to self-employed, and to pursue the climbing of the rungs of the ladder towards economic success.

In essence, these types of programs actually protect the very wealthy from aspiring entrepreneurs that are attempting to achieve economic success of their own, this is among the reasons the rich support big government programs. They might be an inconvenience to them, but are devastating for those who want to be rich. It should not be a surprise then that, in the last presidential election, the highest income group supported Obama 3 to 1 over McCain. It is not only because they can afford to support it, but because it is a small price to pay to stay “competitive.”

Related articles by Zemanta

• Does the GOP Share Blame for Obamacare? (girlpundit.com)
• Shhh: White House negotiating for public option behind the scenes (hotair.com)
• Democrats Vow to Resurrect Healthcare Bill (usnews.com)
• Two Dems to oppose party’s health bill strategy (msnbc.msn.com)
• League of Women Voters urges quick response to nation’s health care crisis (medcitynews.com)

My husband and I were both twenty-one when we were married; in love, we knew we could conquer the world on a penny and a prayer. I was a college student, determined to go to law school and he was working the swing shift at $7.80 an hour. We were living the newly wed dream. We were not planning on having children for a very long time as we had life plans for our future; but the contraceptive didn’t work and we found ourselves just over six months newly married and pregnant. I cried almost every day of that pregnancy. The timing was a disaster in my mind. The finances were impossible. The dreams I had were dying before my very eyes. The theme song of my life was “I”. Yet because I knew that life began at conception, an abortion would be murder, plain and simple. Murder is a capital offense before God and I would not kill the life that was growing in me because it cut into my well laid plans. According to WebMD, I had all the classic reasons to justify an abortion and I fit the list of the most common reasons that teens and young women choose to have an abortion:⁴

• Awareness that they are not mature enough to have children.
• Knowledge that they are financially not able to support or care for children.
• Concern that having a baby would change their lives and compromise their (and a child’s) future. Many young mothers don’t ever manage to get the education and employment necessary to raise their children above the poverty line.

• Birth control (contraceptive) failure. Over half of all women who have an abortion used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant.³
• Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman’s health if the pregnancy is continued.

I could have checked off each one of these reasons and made the legally justified decision to end the pregnancy, but my belief that all life is sacred and that conception is the beginning of life, countered these selfish reasons to abort this baby.

I continued on with my life, as this new life grew inside mine. I walked to my political science classes, worked my part-time job and dealt with the emotions of life not going the way I planned it. My husband came with me to every doctor’s appointment and was my support. We saw our baby, looking very much like a baby on the ultra sound and we went to birthing classes to prepare for this event. I continued to cry. The day she was born, my tears dried up. Twenty years and four more children later, my life is very different from the one I had planned, yet I recognize that God knows better that me. I have talked to professionals who have lived their dreams in their pursued fields, but have missed out on what they have discovered as their most important calling on life. I specifically recall a conversation with my doctor, who had just begun practicing medicine. She and I both had had babies around the same time, and she was back at work, doing the job she had dreamed about for a most of her life. She said, “I would love to stay home with my baby, but I have medical school bills to pay and can’t afford not to work.” She was living her life long career dream, but was torn because her heart was with her son. Her work was noble, but she recognized what she was missing not being home. God gave me a gift of an unplanned pregnancy, because it altered my life course and gave me His life course instead. I am so grateful that I did not have to make the difficult decision to choose career over child raising. I don’t know if I would have chosen rightly. But God in His grace allowed me to hold my baby in my arms, while studying for finals and getting my degree; all the while recognizing that His plans are higher than mine and the job He had for me was to raise a family. Had I allowed my legal right to dictate what I would do about my unwanted pregnancy, I would be a radically different woman today. But I did what I knew to be true, in spite of my feelings, and I let life live. Today I have a beautiful daughter in college, about the same age I was when she was conceived, who is living to serve God and pursuing her dreams. My dreams continue to be molded by God’s best for me. I may not like the direction it is heading at a given moment, but I can rest knowing that He has a vantage point that I do not and that His eyes see eternity in all directions, while mine only have the past and the present in sight. If I had lived for the moment twenty years ago, lived in the emotion, decided that my selfish legal right was to abort my unwanted pregnancy, not only would I have lived with the guilt of murdering my first-born child, but also, I would have missed out on all that she has brought to my life and to the world. It must be stated that if I had ended this un-planned pregnancy, God in His grace and love would have forgiven me, when I turned to Him in repentance. I recognize God’s hand in my life, in high-definition hind-sight, that He was the strength, when I had no strength of my own, that helped me make the right decision to keep my baby. God gave us a precious daughter which we named Alethia, the Greek word for Truth, as her life has brought Truth into ours.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Sarah And Bristol Talk About Rasing Babies Together (thesarahpalinblog.com)
• The 14th murder victim of the Fort Hood jihadi massacre (michellemalkin.com)
• Bristol Palin Embraces Abstinence; Oprah Suggests Retraction? (conservatives4palin.com)
• Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of…Words (americanthinker.com)
• Trainwreck: Scozzafava holds photo op … outside Hoffman’s office (hotair.com)
• The gutsiest QB in the Super Bowl may be … (hotair.com)