Learning from history isn’t President Obama’s strong suit. He hardly remembers what he said , even promised in his own speeches. History will repeat itself and naivete is a deadly flaw.
Category Archives: Government
“THOU SHALT NOT COVET A NEIGHBORS GOODS” – AGAINST REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH
John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States
1787Works 6:8–9
Suppose a nation, rich and poor, high and low, ten millions in number, all assembled together; not more than one or two millions will have lands, houses, or any personal property; if we take into the account the women and children, or even if we leave them out of the question, a great majority of every nation is wholly destitute of property, except a small quantity of clothes, and a few trifles of other movables. Would Mr. Nedham be responsible that, if all were to be decided by a vote of the majority, the eight or nine millions who have no property, would not think of usurping over the rights of the one or two millions who have? Property is surely a right of mankind as really as liberty. Perhaps, at first, prejudice, habit, shame or fear, principle or religion, would restrain the poor from attacking the rich, and the idle from usurping on the industrious; but the time would not be long before courage and enterprise would come, and pretexts be invented by degrees, to countenance the majority in dividing all the property among them, or at least, in sharing it equally with its present possessors. Debts would be abolished first; taxes laid heavy on the rich, and not at all on the others; and at last a downright equal division of every thing be demanded, and voted. What would be the consequence of this? The idle, the vicious, the intemperate, would rush into the utmost extravagance of debauchery, sell and spend all their share, and then demand a new division of those who purchased from them. The moment the idea is admitted into society, that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If “Thou shalt not covet,” and “Thou shalt not steal,” were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society, before it can be civilized or made free.
What’s at stake if Obama goes 0-3 with Egypt | Fox News
Michael Amerhom Youssef writes:
…”while millions of Egyptians responded to Morsi’s ouster by joyfully dancing in the streets, the Muslim Brotherhood advisers in the White House helped Obama produce a non-descript statement
. With his wishy-washy message about those who are democratically elected, Obama confirmed in Egyptian minds that he is in the pocket of the Muslim Brotherhood.
It is downright depressing to see the leader of the free world unable to comprehend the Islamic understanding of democracy. To the Islamist, democracy means “one man, one vote, one time.” Once they have their power, there’s no reason to ever have another election.
Thank God for the wise and courageous Egyptian people who comprehended that plan and stopped it before it was too late.”
(Michael Amerhom Youssef was born in Egypt in 1948. He studied at Moore Theological College in Sydney, Australia and was later ordained there as a minister. His ancestors, like all Christian ancestors, belonged to the Coptic orthodox church. He is a third generation protestant. Youssef moved to the United States with his wife in 1977. In 1978, he received a master’s degree in theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in California. In 1984, he became a United States citizen. Youssef founded The Church of the Apostles in Atlanta in 1987 and currently leads a congregation of over 3,000.)
Some in Congress have argued that Morsi’s ouster was a “coup” by the Egyptian military to depose a democratically elected leader, which under U.S. law triggers a suspension of U.S. aid.
Coup, schmoo. If so, President Obama needs to go to Congress and request a waiver.
Morsi might have been democratically elected, but so was Hitler. Once elected, Hitler set about systematically crushing anyone who disagreed with him — in Parliament, in the Courts, in the military, in the media.
Hitler persecuted religious minorities. Morsi was well on his way to doing the same thing in Egypt, sacking opposition leaders, putting his Muslim Brotherhood cronies in power, ignoring Muslim Brotherhood persecution of Christians.
Looking back, the world would have been a better place if the German military had succeeded in ousting Hitler when they had the chance. Thank goodness the Egyptian military was wiser.
Right now, the world is focussed on Egypt’s political machinations — was it a “coup”?
What will the Muslim Brotherhood do next? What will Obama do?
But even in Egypt, “it’s the economy, stupid.” After just one year in office, the Muslim Brotherhood has so mangled things that the Egyptian economy has gone into free fall.
via What’s at stake if Obama goes 0-3 with Egypt | Fox News.
Bill O’Reilly: Bernie Goldberg Column – Bernie’s Column: When Is a Scandal Not A Scandal?
I don’t like reading the New York Times in the morning because I’m always afraid my head will explode and that would make it difficult to go through the rest of the day. My aforementioned head almost did explode when I read this headline on page one:
I.R.S. Focus on Conservatives
Gives G.O.P. an Issue to Seize On
Get it? The real story isn’t that the IRS abused its considerable power by giving special scrutiny to groups with the name “Tea Party” or “Patriot” in their title … or that they actually went far beyond those keywords and took aim at groups seeking to “make America a better place to live” or those who would “criticize how the country is being run.” No, the real story is that this gives Republican an issue to seize on.
Aren’t Democrats interested in seizing on this despicable behavior by one of the most powerful agencies of the federal government? The New York Times, I’m guessing, never thought about that.
Here’s the problem, as succinctly summarized on Hot Air:
“If it’s a scandal involving Republicans, the story is the scandal. If it’s a scandal involving Democrats, the story — or at least a significant part of it — is whether and how Republicans will ‘politicize’ the scandal for their advantage.
Bingo!
It’s the same with Benghazi. Liberal journalists are more concerned with how Republicans will use the apparent cover-up to hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances in 2016 than they are with finding out what really went wrong and who tried to mislead the American people about it.
Here’s Exhibit A, a headline in the Los Angeles Times: ““Partisan politics dominates House Benghazi hearing” … as if this is Washington politics as usual and we’re not going to learn anything from the witnesses who swore to tell the truth.
Too many Washington journalists see everything through a prism of politics. Benghazi isn’t about the death of four Americans … it’s about the future of Hillary Clinton. The IRS scandal isn’t about the abusive use of federal government power … it’s about how the GOP wil
via Bill O’Reilly: Bernie Goldberg Column – Bernie’s Column: When Is a Scandal Not A Scandal?.
Incredible 3D scans allow parents to see foetus SMILING and MOVING in stunning detail | Mail Online
Incredible 3D scans allow parents to see foetus SMILING and MOVING in stunning detail | Mail Online.
- The state-of-the-art software adds extra detail to 3D ultrasound scans
- Software developed by Dr Bernard Benoit to help detect malformations
- Expectant parents can see unborn baby smiling and kicking in the womb
The software takes a conventional 3D ultrasound scan and adds colour, skin texture, lighting and shadows.
The incredibly detailed pictures of the foetus allow parents to see their baby’s face before it is born
The images are created by adding colour, skin texture and shadows to conventional 3D scans
The technology was developed by world renowned Dr Bernard Benoit known for his work on foetal scans
The technology gives unparalleled clarity and allows parents to see the face of their child before it is born.
There is also a 4D version which means mothers and fathers are able to see their baby smiling and kicking in the womb in realtime.
They could even turn it into a DVD.
The software is allowing doctors to detect problems in a foetus much sooner than before.
It also removes background details that can often obscure the foetus.
Expectant parents can see their unborn baby move around on a DVD
The state-of-the-art technology shows unborn twins in unparalleled detail
The amazing pictures can even be taken when the foetus is very small
It has been developed by Dr Bernard Benoit of the Princes Grace Hospital, Monaco.
He is known around the world for his focus on introducing innovative ultrasound technologies.
The keen photographer specialises in detecting malformations in a foetus within the first trimester.
The images are far more detailed than the grainy 2D images usually offered by the NHS.
Many hospitals offer paid-for 3D images but the NHS and the Health Protection Agency warned expectant parents against getting unnecessary scans simply to get the souvenir pictures.
The 3D images are far more detailed the grainy 2D scans that are normally provided by the NHS
The technology is allowing doctors to detect problems with a foetus much sooner than before
This 3D ultrasound scan of a foetus is taken at just six weeks into the pregnancy
30-week-old baby yawning for the camera
How It Feels to Withdraw Feeding from Newborn Babies
Why should we care about euthanasia as present in Britain? I care because we are following in their footsteps. How soon before Obama-care mandates cost cutting methods effecting care of the elderly and the weakest among us. Abortion is only the beginning! How opposed to “First, do no harm, or, in Latin, primum non nocere,” a medical injunction of the “Hippocratic oath” is this:
Sue Reid and Simon Caldwell report”
“THEY WISH FOR THEIR BABY TO GO QUICKLY. BUT I KNOW, AS THEY CAN’T, THE UNIQUE HORROR OF WATCHING A CHILD SHRINK AND DIE
Here is an abridged version of one doctor’s anonymous testimony, published in the BMJ under the heading: ‘How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn babies’.”
The voice on the other end of the phone describes a newborn baby and a lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies. I have a growing sense of dread as I listen.
The parents want ‘nothing done’ because they feel that these anomalies are not consistent with a basic human experience. I know that once decisions are made, life support will be withdrawn.
Assuming this baby survives, we will be unable to give feed, and the parents will not want us to use artificial means to do so.
Regrettably, my predictions are correct. I realise as I go to meet the parents that this will be the tenth child for whom I have cared after a decision has been made to forgo medically provided feeding.
A doctor has written a testimony published under the heading: ‘How it feels to withdraw feeding from newborn babies’
The mother fidgets in her chair, unable to make eye contact. She dabs at angry tears, stricken. In a soft voice the father begins to tell me about their life, their other children, and their dashed hopes for this child.
He speculates that the list of proposed surgeries and treatments are unfair and will leave his baby facing a future too full of uncertainty.
Like other parents in this predicament, they are now plagued with a terrible type of wishful thinking that they could never have imagined. They wish for their child to die quickly once the feeding and fluids are stopped.
They wish for pneumonia. They wish for no suffering. They wish for no visible changes to their precious baby.
Their wishes, however, are not consistent with my experience. Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days.
Parents and care teams are unprepared for the sometimes severe changes that they will witness in the child’s physical appearance as severe dehydration ensues.
I try to make these matters clear from the outset so that these parents do not make a decision that they will come to regret. I try to prepare them for the coming collective agony that we will undoubtedly share, regardless of their certainty about their decision.
I know, as they cannot, the unique horror of witnessing a child become smaller and shrunken, as the only route out of a life that has become excruciating to the patient or to the parents who love their baby.
I reflect on how sanitised this experience seems within the literature about making this decision.
As a doctor, I struggle with the emotional burden of accompanying the patient and his or her family through this experience, as much as with the philosophical details of it.
‘Survival is often much longer than most physicians think; reflecting on my previous patients, the median time from withdrawal of hydration to death was ten days’
Debate at the front lines of healthcare about the morality of taking this decision has remained heated, regardless of what ethical and legal guidelines have to offer.
The parents come to feel that the disaster of their situation is intolerable; they can no longer bear witness to the slow demise of their child.
This increases the burden on the care-givers, without parents at the bedside to direct their child’s care.
Despite involvement from the clinical ethics and spiritual care services, the vacuum of direction leads to divisions within the care team.
It is draining to be the most responsible physician. Everyone is looking to me to preside over and support this process.
I am honest with the nurse when I say it is getting more and more difficult to make my legs walk me on to this unit as the days elapse, that examining the baby is an indescribable mixture of compassion, revulsion, and pain.
Some say withdrawing medically provided hydration and nutrition is akin to withdrawing any other form of life support. Maybe, but that is not how it feels. The one thing that helps me a little is the realisation that this process is necessarily difficult. It needs to be.
To acknowledge that a child’s prospects are so dire, so limited, that we will not or cannot provide artificial nutrition is self selecting for the rarity of the situations in which parents and care teams would ever consider it.
Be Holy! 