Christmas Trees

“He who has not Christmas in his heart will never find it under a tree!” …Roy L. Smith

By Marion Algier – The War on Christmas verses the Spirit of Christmas Series at AskMarion – 9

Every December we celebrate Christmas and part of this is a Christmas tree. Let’s tackle the history of the Christmas Tree

Many historians and anthropologists agree that the history of Christmas trees begins in post-primeval times, just as agricultural societies were developing across the globe. Christmas did not exist. It was simply, in one culture or another, a pagan celebration of the winter solstice. The winter solstice marks the shortest day of the year which usually occurs on the 22nd or 23rd of December. The boughs of evergreen trees were brought indoors to protect inhabitants from the evil spirits that could cause starvation and illness.

Ancient peoples also scattered evergreen boughs over their floors, doors and around the windows. In fact, the tradition of hanging an evergreen garland comes from the tradition of hanging evergreens over the mantelpiece to keep witches, ghosts and spirits from traveling down the chimney and into the house.

Evergreen boughs were also used to keep away illness. Scents such as pine, juniper and balsam are still used by aromatherapists today to fend off illness and winter depression.

Even the ancient Egyptians were thought to play a role in the history of Christmas trees. Of course there were no evergreen forests in ancient Egypt but during the solstice they filled their homes with palm rushes to protect themselves from evil and celebrate the return of their Sun God Ra.

European and Mediterranean cultures also have episodes in the long saga that is part of the history of Christmas trees. On the solstice, known as Saturnalia, the Romans decorated their homes with evergreen boughs. This honored the God Saturn whose domain was agriculture. Further north, the Celtic Druids used evergreens on the darkest day of the year to symbolize eternal life. These trees were not decorated as we know them today. They were not much more decorative than the famous Charlie brown Christmas tree. This is because the function of these evergreen boughs was more protective than celebratory.

By the 12th century indoor trees were brought inside. Nobody is sure why but originally Christmas trees were hung upside-down from ceilings at Christmastime. This was a popular custom in Central Europe. The upside down tree was seen as both as a symbol of Christianity and a pagan symbol. At that point Christianity was not wide spread and the tree may have been a nod to both pagan and Christian traditions.

It is widely believed that the history of the Christmas tree as we know it began in Germany in the sixteenth century. However few people realize that the tree was not brought inside and that in fact, the first decorated Christmas tree was a pyramid made of wood. These German indoor pyramids were decorated with boughs and candles. Often jars of pickles were set on the steps. The pyramid shape was not a direct inspiration from ancient Egypt but rather, the triangular shape was thought to represent the three points of the Holy Trinity – the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The next big development in the history of Christmas trees was tinsel. Tinsel was invented in Germany around 1610. At that time, tinsel was made of real silver and it tarnished easily thanks to the smoke from the Christmas tree candles. Silver was used for tinsel right up to the mid-20th century when it was replaced by aluminum.

The history of Christmas trees was non-existent in America until about the 1840s. They were sometimes displayed as curios in traveling sideshows. The Christmas tree decorating ritual was considered sacrilegious for most of the 17th and 18th century. It was seen as a mockery of the sober celebration of the birth of Christ. In fact in 1659, people were fined for hanging decorations. This law continued until the 19th century when the tradition was brought more into common practice by German and Irish immigrants to the United States. The practice was also made more acceptable when Queen Victoria decided to make a right side up floor-to-ceiling Xmas tree part of her décor in 1846.

One difference between European customs and American customs seemed to be that Europeans were more inclined to decorate their trees with food, cookies and candies (and even pickles!) whereas Americans were more into glitzy decorations. Also the European Christmas trees tended to be shorter (three to four feet in height) while the Americans preferred their trees to be sky-high. Both cultures however enjoyed decorating their trees with garlands of popcorns and electric lights.

In the 1950s America saw the advent of the first artificial Christmas trees. This event was celebrated by Charles M. Schulz famous fable about the Charlie brown Christmas tree. In this fable Charlie Brown is told by Linus, Lucy and Shroeder to go out and find the biggest flashiest aluminum tree to use as a decoration for their Christmas play. Instead Brown falls in love with the most pathetic tree ever and finds the true meaning of Christmas. You can buy a replica of this type of tree which is often called the “pathetic Charlie brown Christmas tree” online. True to the original cartoon, the tree boasts just one red Christmas ball ornament on a single bare limb.

The argument about which is better – a fake Christmas tree or a real Christmas tree still rages on today. The most recent development in the history of Christmas trees is the return of the upside down Christmas tree, which is disapproved by the church just as it was in the sixteenth century. If history keeps repeating itself the next trend we will see in Christmas trees is the ancient wooden pyramids that served as artificial trees in pagan times.

h/t: Bukisa

Christmas Trees ‘Round the World

The Capitol Christmas tree in Washington, D.C., is decorated with 3,000 ornaments that are the handiwork of U.S. schoolchildren. Encircling evergreens in the ‘Pathway of Peace’ represent the 50 U.S. states.

The world’s largest Christmas tree display rises up the slopes of Monte Ingino outside of Gubbio, in Italy’s Umbria region. Composed of about 500 lights connected by 40,000 feet of wire, the ‘tree’ is a modern marvel for an ancient city

A Christmas tree befitting Tokyo’s nighttime neon display is projected onto the exterior of the Grand Prince Hotel Akasaka.

Illuminating the Gothic facades of Prague’s Old Town Square, and casting its glow over the manger display of the famous Christmas market, is a grand tree cut in the Sumava mountains in the southern Czech Republic.

Venice ‘s Murano Island renowned throughout the world for its quality glasswork is home to the tallest glass tree in the world. Sculpted by master glass blower Simone Cenedese, the artistic Christmas tree is a modern reflection of the holiday season.

Moscow celebrates Christmas according to the Russian Orthodox calendar on Jan. 7. For weeks beforehand, the city is alive with festivities in anticipation of Father Frost’s arrival on his magical troika with the Snow Maiden. He and his helper deliver gifts under the New Year tree, or yolka, which is traditionally a fir.

The largest Christmas tree in Europe (more than 230 feet tall) can be found in the Praco Comarcio in Lisbon, Portugal. Thousands of lights adorn the tree, adding to the special enchantment of the city during the holiday season.

‘Oh Christmas tree, oh Christmas tree’: Even in its humblest attire, aglow beside a tiny chapel in Germany’s Karwendel mountains, a Christmas tree is a wondrous sight.

Ooh la la Galeries Lafayette! In Paris, even the Christmas trees are chic. With its monumental, baroque dome, plus 10 stories of lights and high fashion, it’s no surprise this show-stopping department store draws more visitors than the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower

In addition to the Vatican’s heavenly evergreen, St. Peter’s Square in Rome hosts a larger-than-life nativity scene in front of the obelisk.

The Christmas tree that greets revelers at the Puerta del Sol is dressed for a party. Madrid’s two-week celebration makes millionaires along with merrymakers. On Dec. 22, a lucky citizen will win El Gordo (the fat one), the world’s biggest lottery.

A token of gratitude for Britain’s aid during World War II, the Christmas tree in London’s Trafalgar Square has been the annual gift of the people of Norway since 1947.

Drink a glass of gluhwein from the holiday market at the Romer Frankfurt’s city hall since 1405 and enjoy a taste of Christmas past.

Against a backdrop of tall, shadowy firs, a rainbow trio of Christmas trees lights up the night (location unknown).

Senior Citizens Protest After Apartment Manager Bans Christmas Trees: ‘Where’s Our Freedom?’

Photo Credit: Andy Holzman/Daily News Staff Photographer

(Blaze) Residents at The Willows, a senior adult apartment complex in Newhall, California, are outraged after management banned the presence of Christmas trees and menorahs from communal areas within the building.

A memorandum was issued to residents by B Partners Group, demanding that the Christmas tree already present in one of the shared spaces be removed, as it is considered a religious symbol. Rather than backing down and complying, two dozen residents responded with a protest rally (featuring coffee and doughnuts). The group placed a sign on the tree that reads, “Please Save Our Tree.”

“We’re all angry. We want that tree,” Fern Sheel, a resident at The Willows, told the Los Angeles Daily News. “Where’s our freedom? This is ridiculous.”

“We could put out Easter baskets, have turkey for Thanksgiving but no tree for Christmas because it has Christ’s name in the beginning of Christmas,” added Edna Johnson, another outraged resident.

Another resident, Max Green is, is so frustrated that he’s considering witholding his rent.

“I’ve got grandkids and they come here and now they’ll ask, ‘Grandpa, where’s the Christmas tree?,’” he told the Daily News. “Then I’ll have to explain that someone said we couldn’t have one. What kind of message is that sending to the kids?”

This is the first time that the company, which has owned the building for four years, has issued such a directive. So far, B Partners Group has not responded to the furor.

(H/T: Todd Starns’ Fox News)

O’Reilly Jokes About ‘Obama Is a Muslim’ Truthers: President’s Christmas Trees Are ‘All Facing Mecca’

'Wicked': Farrakhan decries Santa and the Christmas tree

Additional War on Christmas Rages... stories from the Blaze:

- Ellen Degeneres’ Christmas Ad Sparks Conservative Protest:  ‘Christians Must Now Vote With Their Wallets’

- See These People Fail Miserably at a Basic Christmas Quiz: ‘Where Was Jesus Born?’

- Christians find live nativity "loophole" following atheist-led ban

- Church cancels Charlie Brown Christmas show after atheist angst

A Charlie Brown Christmas [Blu-ray]

- Jon Stewart: There's no War on Christmas

- TX teacher: Santa is fake

- Atheists push mock pasta-decorated Christmas tree

- How should Christians respond to the War on Christmas?

Related:

Hanukkah, Hanukah, Chanukah

European Markets or Christkindlmarkts Capture the Christmas Spirit

St. Nickolas Day

So Where Is the War on Christmas Coming From? – A Worthwhile Read!

Best Holiday Movie Classics – A Merry Christmas From Hollywood

God Rest Ye Merry Merchants – Christmas: An American Holiday and Tradition to Love and Preserve

Advent – The Season of Anticipation and Hope

The War on Christmas verses the Spirit of Christmas Series at AskMarion – with comments from Ben Stein

Red Kettles & Bell Ringers

Atheists intimidate Santa Monica into eliminating Nativity… And So the War on Christmas and Freedom of Religion Continues – Churches Thwart Nativity Ban By Putting Up Living Displays In Santa Monica

Black Friday Holiday Shopping Kick-off Overshadows True Meaning of Christmas

What Movies in History Best Captures the Spirit of Thanksgiving?

“Holidays Are Great and Fun To Share With Our Pets, As Long As We Avoid the No-No Foods”

Christianity & Gun Owners in the Crosshairs: Chilling Tactic Exposed

A great read: Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media’s Attack on Christianity

Technorati Tags: Christmas Trees,Seniors,First Amendment,American Traditions,American values,Charity,Christkindlmarkt,Christmas,Germany,holidays,Spirit of Christmas,The War on… The War on Christmas,war on Christianity,War on Christmas,War on Religion

Beck’s Back: TheBlazeTV Celebrates One-Year Anniversary With DISH Network Launch

by Tiffany Gabbay

Continuing on an upward trajectory, Wednesday marks the one-year anniversary of TheBlazeTV– formerly GBTV — with a significant expansion into the world of satellite television. Partnering with DISH Network, Glenn Beck’s online 24-hour news, information and entertainment network will now be available on television exclusively on DISH, joining a host of channels including MSNBC, BBC America, CNN, Current, Comedy Central and FOX News.

After launching exactly one year ago, TheBlazeTV rapidly grew into one of the world’s most subscribed-to online streaming networks. TheBlazeTV will be available to DISH viewers on channel 212 as part of DISH’s America’s Top 250 package or a la carte for $5 a month. The channel launches on Wednesday, September 12, at 5 p.m. EDT.

TheBlaze and its host of established and emerging talent including Andrew Wilkow, S.E. Cupp, Buck Sexton and Will Cain, will offer its programming as a free preview for all DISH customers through Sept. 26.

Of course, TheBlazeTV will continue to be available online at TheBlaze.com, where on-demand programs can be accessed with the click of a mouse-pad.

“After being phenomenally successful with his online streaming network, we’re pleased to host Glenn Beck’s return to broadcast TV, especially during this exciting and important political season,” said DISH CEO and President Joseph Clayton in an official press release. “With Glenn’s return, DISH is truly the one stop for news, opinion and perspective across the full political spectrum.”

Excited for the future, Beck added, “TheBlaze has helped revolutionize television over the Internet and now we are excited to bring the revolution back to traditional television.”

“TheBlaze will be home to news, information and entertainment programming with the facts and stories people care about most and we look forward to kicking things off with DISH.”

Christopher Balfe, CEO of TheBlaze also weighed in, stating that the goal of the company was to “deliver TV over the Internet, not Internet TV.”

“Twelve months later, we’ve succeeded beyond our wildest imagination with content that built one of the world’s largest subscription streaming networks,” he added.

The line-up of programs will continue to grow, as well as feature all of the familiar faces people from around the world have come to know — from The Glenn Beck Program to Liberty TreeHouse, Real News From TheBlaze, to a brand new program hosted by Andrew Wilkow.

What’s more, TheBlaze.com concluded August with its best month ever, hosting over 9 million unique visitors and is led by a formidable team of media veterans including: President and CCO Joel Cheatwood, formerly a Senior Vice President at FoxNews and CNN, President and Chief Revenue Officer Kraig Kitchin who co-founded Premiere Radio Networks, and Betsy Morgan, President & Chief Strategy Officer who formerly served as CEO of The Huffington Post and as a Senior Vice President at CBS News.

TheBlazeTV can now be found on DISH channel 212

Glenn discusses the future of TheBlaze

Well, anyone who hoped they’d seen the last of Glenn Beck on cable television had a very disappointing day. Glenn announced on radio that TheBlaze will debut on DISH today beginning at 5pm eastern time. (TheBlaze TV is still available online via subscription featuring on demand access.) Check out Glenn’s comments and plans for the future HERE.

Media reacts to Beck’s TheBlaze DISH announcement: Favorable? Find out HERE.

Technorati Tags: the Blaze,Beck,Glenn Beck,DISH Network,GBTV,satellite TV,success,victory,alternative media,truth

New Romney-Ryan Ads

A new ad from the Romney-Ryan campaign takes the Democrats' Medicare attacks on Paul Ryan head on. Watch the video below:

Video:  New Romney Ad: Obama Cut Medicare to Pay for Obamacare

"You paid into Medicare for years," the voiceover says. "Every paycheck. Now when you need it, Obama has cut $716 billion from Medicare. Why? To pay for ObamaCare. So now the money you paid for your guaranteed health care is going to a massive new government program that's not for you."

And Remember:  Nobody 55 or older will be affected by any Medicare changes made, but the program will be bankrupt by 2024 for people younger if nothing is done or changed!  Ryan’s plan will save the program for those under 55-years of age.

The campaign plans a large buy with this ad in important swing state media markets.

  Video: America Deserves Better

President Obama cannot run on his record, so he is committed to tearing down Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Obama’s campaign tried to use the tragedy of a woman's death for political gain. Then, Obama’s top campaign aides were caught lying about it. Doesn't America deserve better than a president who will do and say anything to stay in power, regardless of the truth?

Romney-Ryan: America’s New Dream Team and a Clear Choice – Updated

Technorati Tags: Romney-Ryan,Romney ads,Medicare,ObamaCare,Election 2012,2012 Election,America's Come Back Team,videos

Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans

Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a former senior official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in the Bush administration, warns that under Obamacare disabled seniors who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid will receive inferior care, according to a report by the New York Post.

Gottlieb, an American Enterprise Institute resident fellow, says these low-income people who are elderly or have disabilities will be uprooted from the tried-and-true Medicare fold and “herded” into state-run Medicaid plans as another phase of Obamacare grips the nation.

“It’s hard to see how they’ll be better off in bare-bones, and sometimes poorly-run state Medicaid plans than by getting access to Medicare options they were entitled to before Obamacare,” Dr. Gottlieb lamented on Friday.

A so-called Obamacare “demonstration” program kicking-off in January will turn over management of such “dual-eligibles,” along with the money that the federal government was spending on their medical care to any state that wants to climb aboard the latest federal money wagon.

Some cash-strapped states are jumping at the chance to capture federal Medicare dollars for their Medicaid programs, according to Gottlieb.

Indeed, some anxious states have already committed to automatically placing these folks in existing Medicaid plans. Big problem lurking here, says Gottlieb: Such plans often aren’t equipped to serve an older, sicker group of patients. “That will mean big savings for the state and worse care for the vulnerable,” he concludes.

The doctor cites significant examples:

• New York is looking to shift 700,000 “dual-eligibles” into a capitated managed-care model or HMO-style care. The target: Corral most of the elderly poor and disabled by 2015.
• California plans to move up to 1.1 million duals into its state-run Medicaid managed-care system.

These examples are but the tip of a huge green iceberg of big cash.
According to the Post report, Wall Street figures the entire “dual eligible” market at $350 billion a year.

While this is good news on The Street where the stocks of Medicaid HMOs are being bid skyward, Gottlieb is not consoled. “Care is likely to suffer. Many of these elderly poor also suffer from a lot of chronic ailments like diabetes and lung disease. [T]hese people have diverse medical problems, and have been most successfully served by Medicare programs that tailored services to their specific needs.”

Gottlieb’s bottom line: The Obamacare demonstration looks like an effort to shore up Medicaid by subsidizing it with Medicare dollars. “It’s another case of how Obamacare is designed to serve the existing health-care system, rather than transforming it to meet the needs of individual patients.”

Source: Newsmax.com: Expert: Obamacare to Herd Disabled Seniors to Bare-Bones Medicaid Plans

Wow… two ObamaCare death panel target groups rolled into one, the disabled and seniors.  Time for some major apologies to Sarah Palin who was soooo right!

Related:

“People 70 and Over Will Not Be Treated Under ObamaCare”… and You Thought DEATH PANELS Were Gone – Updated

Obama Embraces ‘Death Panel’ Concept in Medicare Rule

Replacing ObamaCare: True Insurance

By Daniel Anderson on April 30, 2012 - FreedomWorks

Consider this: Why does your job offer health insurance, but not auto insurance? Certainly, you need to be healthy to come into work, but most Americans also need a car to get to work. For that matter, why doesn’t your job offer home or life insurance? What makes health insurance a common, nearly-ubiquitous benefit of employment in the United States?

The prevalence of employer group-based health insurance in America is a result of World War II. During the lead-up to the war in the Great Depression, there was an enormous surplus of labor relative to demand. However, as millions of Americans were sent overseas to fight in World War II, the labor pool shrunk dramatically. At the same time, the demand for labor skyrocketed as the federal government poured enormous resources into war production, creating a massive industry that desperately needed workers.

Given these conditions, businesses would normally raise wages in order to attract workers. However, the federal government also imposed wage controls on many American industries. In order to get around these wage controls, businesses began to offer health insurance to lure in prospective employees, along with other “fringe benefits.”

Following the war, Congress created a tax code that rewarded employer group-based health insurance. If businesses provided their employees with health insurance, that insurance benefit would not be taxed. However, if businesses simply raised their employees’ wages, the wages would be taxed. Understandably, most businesses decided to offer health insurance to their employees instead of raises.

In this way, the federal government largely created the employer group-based health insurance system. This system is unique to the United States. Every other developed country has some form of government health care, whether it’s truly socialized medicine such as in Britain, or a single-payer system like in Sweden. Our system is a result of both the unforeseen consequences of government involvement in business, and the natural American aversion to big government.

For most Americans, employer-based health care works. A March 28th Reason-Rupe poll found that:

• 87% of Americans are covered by health insurance

• 63% of Americans with health insurance are covered by employer group-based plans

• 23% of Americans with health insurance are covered by Medicare or Medicaid

• 58% of Americans are satisfied with their overall health care

• 23% of Americans are dissatisfied with their overall health care

So, the vast majority of Americans have health insurance coverage, a majority of Americans with health insurance receive it through their employer, and a majority of Americans are satisfied with things as they are.

What does this mean?

Simply put, there’s little reason to dramatically alter health insurance in America as things stand. Unfortunately, the provisions in ObamaCare will force a radical, fundamental shift in health care from employer group-based health insurance to health insurance exchanges controlled by the federal government. ObamaCare won’t destroy the employer group-based system, but it will change the basic dynamics of the health insurance market.

Still, while the polling numbers strongly support the continuation of the employer group-based system, not everyone is happy with it. After all, more than a tenth of Americans lack coverage, and nearly a quarter of Americans are dissatisfied with their overall health care.

What’s the best way to respond to those numbers? Congress could follow the ObamaCare route: mandating insurance and expanding federal control of health care through government health plans. For most Americans, this unconstitutional and expensive path toward addressing the problem is unacceptable.

The solution to helping people left behind by the employer group-based health insurance system isn’t an expansion of the government group-based health insurance system. Instead, we ought to encourage true, individual insurance.

What are some of the benefits of true insurance? The main benefit is portability. For most Americans, losing or leaving their jobs means losing their health insurance as well, since the two are connected. This increases the hardship of the unemployed, while simultaneously discouraging entrepreneurial Americans from leaving their jobs and their health insurance in order to start their own businesses.

But if you purchase health insurance separately from your job, like you purchase auto or homeowner’s insurance, that insurance now stays with you regardless of your employment status. The portability of true, individual insurance helps to calm some of the anxieties that come with unemployment while also freeing up America’s entrepreneurs to start businesses and to create jobs.

True insurance’s portability also helps to deal with the problem of pre-existing conditions in health care. The problem of pre-existing conditions should not be overstated, as it only afflicts about 1% of Americans. Still, it was a key impetus behind the push for ObamaCare, and all health care policy experts who hope to implement reform must address it. While by no means a silver bullet, the ability to keep the same insurance provider throughout several jobs, and possibly throughout your entire career, helps to alleviate the pre-existing conditions problem.

Most people acquire their “pre-existing condition” during their adult life, while in the workforce. When that happens, their insurance will most likely cover the new condition, similar to other ailments. But once these people change jobs, they now suddenly have a “pre-existing condition.” The portability and continuity of true insurance would do a great deal to reduce the number of Americans who have trouble accessing health care due to their pre-existing conditions.

Finally, true insurance provides Americans with greater choice and freedom with their health care. In a sense, when you apply for a job today, you’re also applying for that job’s health plan. Unfortunately, you don’t really know the details of the health plan until you’ve already taken the job and the plan.

What if you purchase true, individual insurance? You can pick a plan that the right premium and deductible. You can ensure that the plan covers the things you want covered. In short, you can get a plan that appeals to you, instead of being forced into your employer’s pre-packaged plan, which may or may not cost what you would prefer or cover what you want covered.

So, there are several major advantages to a true insurance system. How do we encourage its growth? The most important step to growing the true insurance market is to equalize tax treatment of the employer and true insurance systems. Full deductibility of all health care expenditures would help to level the playing field in the insurance market, thereby increasing patient choice.

The employer group-based health insurance system works for most Americans, but it’s not perfect. For those Americans who would prefer something different, we ought to forgo government group-based health insurance like in ObamaCare in favor of encouraging true, individual health insurance.

TAKE ACTION: Urge your Members of Congress to cosponsor the Patient OPTION Act!

Source:  True Health Is True Wealth

March 23rd Second Anniversary of ObamaCare… March 26th a Future Day in American Infamy?

Photo:  The Foundry Blog

Friday March 23rd, 2012 is 2nd-year anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act, ObamaCare, into law,  Monday March 26th is the day the states take their case against the ObamaCare individual mandate (as well as the full law itself) to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).  It could end up being the day that saved America, or the day the Supreme Court helped America sink further into debt and further down the road toward Socialism.

If SCOTUS strikes down the individual mandate, ObamaCare will implode and die, giving America another chance at both surviving and re-addressing healthcare and Medicare.  If SCOTUS does not strike down the mandate, we will get a second chance to overturn the bill that will be the final nail in the coffin of American freedom in November 2012.  After that the only thing that will save us from ourselves is a total financial collapse.

Government-controlled/run healthcare is the jewel socialism and the most Progressive president and congress America has ever had crammed this bill down the throats of the American people without most of them ever realizing what happened. They even managed to force both the House and Senate to vote on this program, several times each, without reading the bills. Think about it.

There was a small group of people, the Tea Party and other patriots, who were engaged and did read those bills (at least one version), reviewed and  shared their findings, spoke out and traveled to Washington D.C. to stand up. I was one of those people… but nobody in Washington and not enough people in America listened.

Nancy Pelosi said, We have to pass the bill (without reading it… because there was not time) to find out what was in it?”.   They did… and now we, the American people, are beginning to find out what is in it… in dribs and drabs… one bad provision at a time. ObamaCare is fraught with broken promises and misrepresentations:  Obamacare’s Top 5 Broken Promises 

Well, we now have a group of doctors who have come together to get out the truth, the whole truth on how Obamacare will impact the health and welfare of your loved ones at: www.AmericanDoctors4Truth.org.  It is information absolutely vital for every American, especially if the SCOTUS does not over the full law or at least the individual mandate.

Remember the Democrat ad showing Paul Ryan throwing grandma off a cliff?

Well here is the response to that ad by www.AmericanDoctors4Truth.org based on the information of what really is in ObamaCare, now coming out. Please watch:

Video: The Whole Truth

It helps make the point by point case against ObamaCare.

My question is why nobody in Washington has read the full ObamaCare Bill in the meantime after it was passed and then spoken out… yelling from the rooftops?  Why?

Recently several important provisions have come to light.  Below are back-up articles and information for those who did not read the bill or at least the reviews of those who did:

Abortion, Birth Control an Woman’s Health:

Rep. Chris Smith on Obama Violating Own Executive Order, Funding Abortion

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

The Obamacare Second Anniversary: No Gift for Women

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate

Timing of War Over ObamaCare Mandatory Birth Control Payments… God’s Answer to Prayers for Intervention?

What is the real purpose of birth control? Why is all of this so important to progressives?

Obamacare Will Not Value Human Life – Proof Lies In A Killer Theory

Costs and Funding of ObamaCare:

Democratic Leaders Run From Budget Deadline As Health Law Threatens Nation’s Finances

Oops ObamaCare’s Cost Has Doubled

ObamaCare 2nd Birthday, No Surprise: Still Not Lowering Costs

Insurance and Doctors:

Side Effects: Doctors Fear Obamacare

Obamacare Knows Best?

Power Grab:

Updated: 5-Reasons Obama is Losing the Contraceptive Mandate Battle… But Could be Winning the Power Grab Mandate War

Religious Liberty:

Stand Up For Religious Freedom Nationwide Rallies Friday - Coalition to Stop the HHS Mandate

Religious Liberty: Obamacare's First Casualty

War On: Obama and ObamaCare verses Constitutional Patriots and Religious Freedom

‘We Will Not Comply’: Catholic Leaders Distribute Letter Slamming Obama Admin Contraceptive Mandate

Seniors and Rationing:

Meet the ObamaCare Mandate Committee

Obamacare rationing panels an ‘immediate danger to seniors’: former AMA president

Obamacare’s Second Anniversary: No Gift for Seniors

IPAB Spells Gloom And Doom For Medicare  -  Just yesterday (03.22.12) the House of Representatives voted to repeal key 'Obamacare' provision” IPAB  (the CLASS ACT has also been nullified)

Was told by a friend whose husband who works for one of our major hospitals here that the HR department posts upcoming news on a weekly basis on their bulletin boards throughout the hospital.

Late last week a posting went up stating: PER THE US FED GOVT, AS OF APRIL 24, 2013 THERE WILL BE NO CHEMO/RADIATION/MEDICATIONS/FOR ALL PERSONS DIAGNOSED WITH CANCER AT AGE 76. SURGICAL PROCEDURES WILL BE DONE ONLY IF THE SURGEONS CAN GET IT ALL. 

Taxes and ObamaCare Tentacles on house sales:

Thinking About Selling Your House After 2012?

Four Small Business Hikes in ObamaCare

Foundry:  The 10 Terrible Provisions of Obamacare You May Not Have Heard Of      

Alyene Senger  -  March 7, 2012 at 1:00 pm  (218)  - posted on the Foundry

Photo: The Foundry Blog

Obamacare includes such a variety and volume of negative policies that it’s hard to keep track of them all. Here is a list of 10 terrible provisions that every American should be aware of:

1. It increases taxes on families earning over $250,000. In 2013, the employee portion of the Medicare payroll tax will increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent for families earning $250,000 or more and individuals earning $200,000 or more. The income threshold is not indexed for inflation, so more and more middle-income families will be hit by the tax hike as time goes on.

1. It adds a new tax to investment income. The increased payroll tax rate is also applied to high-earners’ investment income for the first time beginning in 2013. It will hit capital gains, dividends, rents, and royalties, discouraging investment and harming economic growth.
2. It puts new limitations on those with HSAs and FSAs. Starting in 2012, Obamacare restricts the products that consumers may purchase with a Health Savings Account (HSA) or Flexible Savings Account (FSA)—such as over-the-counter medications—and increases the penalty for such non-qualified uses of HSAs. It also limits the amount taxpayers may deposit into an FSA to $2,500 a year in 2013.
3. It adds a new tax on those who purchase medical devices. In 2013, a 2.3 percent excise tax will be applied to medical devices, causing a $28.5 billion tax hike on medical device manufacturers. The industry will pay for this tax by reducing jobs and passing additional costs on to consumers.
4. It penalizes marriage. Obamacare creates new taxpayer-funded subsidies for the low and middle classes to purchase health coverage, but the structure of the subsidies allows two individuals to claim more in subsidies alone than if married. This discriminates against married couples and discourages marriage at almost all age and income levels.
5. It violates religious liberty. The Department of Health and Human Services included the full range of contraceptives, including abortion-inducing drugs, among the women-specific preventive services that Obamacare requires insurers to include with no cost-sharing. This mandate violates Americans’ conscience rights and religious liberty. Its narrow exemption for religious employers will force many who find these products morally objectionable—including religious charities, hospitals, and schools—to pay for them.
6. It puts Medicare decisions in the hands of an unelected board. The Independent Payment Advisory Board, a board of 15 unelected officials, will have the power to cut Medicare spending without congressional approval. These unaccountable government appointees will be able to restrict seniors’ access to providers, treatments, and services.
7. It puts a premium tax on health insurers. Obamacare adds a premium tax on health insurers that offer full coverage beginning in 2014. On average, the tax is expected to increase premiums by 1.9 percent to 2.3 percent in 2014 and between 2.8 percent and 3.7 percent by 2023. Combined with the other provisions in Obamacare, this tax will have a huge impact on the cost of premiums.
8. It creates a new unsustainable entitlement program. On top of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, Obamacare created a new long-term care entitlement called the CLASS program. It is actuarially unsound, unworkable, and unsustainable. As a result, the Administration has already put its implementation “on hold.”
9. It puts over half of all Americans on a government program. Because of Obamacare’s huge expansion of Medicaid and creation of taxpayer-funded subsidies to purchase health coverage, more than half of all Americans will be dependent on a government health care program (Medicare, Medicaid, or the government exchanges) by the end of this decade.

Again, we only have a few chances of getting rid of ObamaCare, 4 if you consider a total financial collapse:

1. Having the Supreme Court overturn it after the court hearing on March 23rd.
2. Rep. Paul Ryan has just released the GOP’s new budget proposal that includes the repeal and replacement of ObamaCare, however, short of a miracle, that budget will pass in the House but will never even be put up for a vote in the Senate.
3. Voting in anyone (anyone but Obama… ABO) in November and then having them overturn and repeal as much of the entire bill as possible, on day one of their presidency, and start over, which all the GOP candidates have vowed to do.
4. Experiencing a total financial collapse of the United States after which there will be no money for any programs, especially ObamaCare.

If none of the first three above is done, the government will gain control of an additional 6 to 10% of the U.S. economy through ObamaCare and the tentacles will go so deep and wide that it can never be unwound after 4-more years of Obama and his radical team. Government controlled healthcare is always the crown jewel and center of socialism, especially with what is written into the Affordable Care Act or ObamaCare.  And if you realize what is in this bill and what has been done, it is also obvious that Nancy Pelosi,  Harry Reid and President must be ousted or shamed into quitting!!

Realizing how unpopular ObamaCare is the President and the White House have been very quiet about the 2-year anniversary, but Nancy Pelosi held a celebration in Washington on Thursday.

The SCOTUS decision is going to be a nail-bitter.  Many feel that the individual mandate will be struck down in a 5 to 4 decision; the 4-conservatives on the bench plus Judge Kennedy against the 4-liberals on the bench, which include Sotomayor and Kagen appointed by Obama just for this fight.  We shall see.  And unwinding this monster will be a mess no matter what SCOTUS decides or which method with use.

"People 70 and over will not be treated under Obamacare… and you thought DEATH PANELS were gone"– Updated

Mark Levin received a phone call Tuesday night from a brain surgeon who had just been to Washington DC, learning about the requirements the government has in place with the Obama Health Care Plan. This is a must read. The surgeon says that if you are over 70, you will get “comfort care,” and that surgery can be performed “if” the government panel deems it necessary. It also reveals that the government language used to describe patients is “units.”

If you are over 70 and have a stroke, you can and will be denied surgery. The documents referred to by the caller are not public yet.

Here is the youtube of that call, posted by warrenherrick.

A transcription of that phone call appeared on Free Republic, posted by ‘Future Useless Eater.’ Thank you, FUE.

Transcript…

Caller: I heard you talking earlier about the government not knowing how to make pencils, and then you talked about brain surgeons, and I happen to be a brain surgeon, so I found your topic very interesting. And actually, I just returned from Washington DC, where we were reading over what the Obama Health Care Plan would be for advanced neurosurgery for patients over 70, which we all found quite disturbing.
…
Because as our population gets older the majority of our patients ARE getting over 70, which requires stroke therapy and aneurysm therapy, and basically what the document stated, was if you’re over 70 and you come in to an emergency room and you’re on government supported care, that you get ‘comfort care’.

Levin: wait an minute… what? what document? what’s the source for this?

Caller: This is the Obama’s new health care plan for advanced neuro-surgical care.

Levin: and who issued this? HHS?

Caller: Yes. And basically, they don’t call them patients, they call them ‘units’ and instead of… they call it ‘ethics panels’ or ‘ethics committees’ which get together and meet, and decide where the money would go for hospitals, and basically, for patients over 70 years, that advanced neuro-surgical care was not generally indicated.

Levin: So its generally going to be denied?

Caller: Yes, absolutely.

Levin: Ok, let me ask you this… is this public…? GO ahead…

Caller: If someone comes in at 70 years of age with a bleed in their brain, I can promise you I’m not going to get a bunch of administrators together on an ethics panel at two in the morning to decide that I’m ok to do surgery.

Levin: Let me ask you this… Is this published somewhere for the general public? In other words, where a pedestrian like me can get ahold of it?

Caller: Not yet, not yet.

Levin: So this was discussed just with your community, of neurosurgeons?

Caller: Yes, exactly. The AANS and CNS, the American Association of NeuroSurgeons and the Congress of NeuroSurgeons, because everybody knows cuts are coming in medicine, in reimbursement, and we’re the most expensive in all the fields of medicine, and we’re the smallest field.
But at two or three or four in the morning, we’re the ones that are in the operating room, and we will have to wait for an ethics panel to convene, and they’re not made up of physicians, they’re made of administrators, to decide whether a patient should receive our care.

Levin: So Sarah Palin was right? We ARE going to have these death panels, aren’t we?

Caller: Oh, Absolutely! I’m German by heritage, and I’ve read The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, and basically, they dont call them patients, they call them units, and if you’re a unit above a certain age, you get comfort care, instead of advanced neurosurgical intervention.

Levin: Now this… You went to a seminar in Washington D.C?

Caller: Yes, A few of my former partners, two of them have gone to work for… One runs the VA system, and one is head of the Congress of NeuroSurgeons out of DC.

Levin: And this information is based, you’re certain, on representations and information provided by HHS and other government officials?

Caller: Yep.

Levin: And when will the rest of us become aware of it? After the election?

Caller: Ah, Probably. There are so many things that the government keeps under control, that are used in surgery called HUD devices, or Humanitarian Use Devices, that we’re allowed to use now, because they haven’t undergone full FDA approval, and they’re just used in surgery, because people know its the right thing to do.

But the government can step in at any time, like they did two months ago with a device, and said, this device hasn’t met what we want, and there’s no exact criteria, and then they can take it away from us.

Levin: And the people who are telling you what to do, they don’t even know how to make a pencil, do they?

Caller: Exactly, that’s what I’m saying. And we always joke around, “it’s not brain surgery”, but you know, I did nine years after medical school, I’ve been in training ten years, and now I have people who don’t know a THING about what I’m doing, and telling me when I can and cannot operate.

Levin: All right, please keep in contact, will you? I have to go, but this has been a very very cruical call!

Update: This caller confirms that what Obama said to Jane Sturm was exactly what was planned for in Obamacare.

by jenkuznicki @ 10:40 am on November 24, 2011. Filed under Mark Levin Audio

Related:

Seniors Left Behind?

Useless Eaters

Obama “Fixed” Medicare…With Rationing

A Shovel Ready Project

Posted on June 24, 2011 by Guest Writer  John Goodman

While charges and counter-charges about Medicare are flying back and forth in Washington, hardly anyone seems to have noticed that Medicare’s financial problems have already been solved. They were solved by the health reform bill enacted last year, what some people call ObamaCare.

So why isn’t this front page news? Why aren’t people dancing in the street? Why isn’t the Obama administration boasting about this accomplishment far and wide? Probably because Medicare’s financial problems are slated to be solved by the unconscionable

rationing of health care for the elderly and the disabled, which will lead to the equivalent of death panels for senior Boomers and some disabled persons! Please stop laughing at Sarah Palin, she’s telling you the truth, and stop listening to the mainstream media and AARP, they aren’t!!

The most recent Medicare Trustees report conveys the same message as the last one: On the day that Barack Obama signed the health reform bill, Medicare’s long-term unfunded liability fell by $53 trillion. That sum is about three times the size of the entire U.S. economy. And, it gets better. Once the Baby Boomers work their way through the system, Medicare spending will grow no faster than the payroll taxes, premiums and general revenue transfers that pay for that spending.

So what does this mean for senior citizens who rely on Medicare? No one knows for sure. But it almost certainly means they will get less health care.

Last August, the Office of the Medicare Actuary predicted that within nine years Medicare will be paying doctors less than what Medicaid pays. Think about that. In most places around the country Medicaid patients have extreme difficulty finding doctors who will see them. As a result, they end up seeking care at community health centers and in the emergency rooms of safety net hospitals. In a few more years seniors will be in that same position — with this difference. From a financial point of view, the seniors will be perceived as less desirable customers than welfare mothers. Also, by that point one in seven hospitals will have to leave the Medicare system.

As Medicare Chief Actuary Richard Foster (page 282) said in the 2010 Medicare Trustees’ report, “Well before that point, Congress would have to intervene to prevent the withdrawal of providers from the Medicare market and the severe problems with beneficiary access to care that would result.”

But suppose Congress didn’t intervene. Suppose that the law continues on the books exactly as it is written.

Consider people reaching the age of 65 this year. Under ObamaCare, the average amount spent on these enrollees over the remainder of their lives will fall by about $36,000 at today’s prices. That sum of money is equivalent to about three years of benefits. For 55-year-olds, the spending decrease is about $62,000 — or the equivalent of six years of benefits. For 45-year-olds, the loss is more than $105,000, or nine years of benefits.

In terms of the sheer dollars involved, the planned reduction in future Medicare payments is the equivalent of raising the eligibility age for Medicare to age 68 for today’s 65-year-olds, to age 71 for 55-year-olds and to age 74 for 45-year-olds. But rather than keep the system as is and raise the age of eligibility, the reform law instead tries to achieve equivalent savings by paying less to the providers of care.

What does this mean in terms of access to health care? It almost certainly means that seniors will have extreme difficulty finding doctors who will see them and hospitals who will admit them. Once admitted, they will certainly enjoy fewer amenities (no private room, no gourmet meal choices, and no cable TV perhaps) as well as a lower quality of care. We will have a two-tiered health care system, with the elderly getting second class care.

All these problems will be exacerbated by what ObamaCare does in the rest of the health care system. In just two years, 32 million people will become newly insured. If economic studies are correct, they will try to double the amount of health care they have been consuming. In addition, almost everyone else (including most above-average income families) will be forced to obtain more generous insurance than they have today. With more coverage for more services these people will also try to greatly expand their consumption of care. Yet the health reform act did not create one new doctor or nurse or other paramedical personnel to meet this increased demand.

We are about to experience a system wide rationing problem, which will be reflected in longer waits at doctors’ offices, emergency rooms and clinics and delays in getting almost every kind of care.

In such an environment you will be at a real disadvantage if you are in a health plan that pays doctors less than what private plans are paying. The disadvantaged patients will be the elderly and the disabled on Medicare, poor families on Medicaid, and (if Massachusetts is any guide) people who are newly enrolled in government subsidized health plans.

And here is the final tragic irony: The most vulnerable population are the ones whose access to care is likely to decrease the most under a health care act that was widely touted at the time of its passage as a humanitarian measure~

John Goodman is President and CEO/Kellye Wright Fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis.

This article originally appeared on Conservative Battleline Online and is reprinted with permission.

h/t to A at  Sovereignty in Colorado  -  re-posted at Floyd Reports and at True Health Is True Wealth

And the items covered in this article are only the tip of the iceberg of what is wrong about ObamaCare!

There is only one solution to this and that is to repeal and replace ObamaCare in its entirety and well as the people who engineered and passed it!!

Is it Time to Push Cass Sunstein over the Cliff? - American Thinker

They laughed when Sarah Palin (R) mentioned death panels. And remember the liberal Agenda Project’s commercial showing a Paul Ryan look alike pushing Grandma off a Cliff? 

It is not Paul Ryan or the GOP… it is Cass Sunstein and the Democrats who will be pushing grandma over the cliff if ObamaCare is not repealed!!

You've seen the Democratic commercial of a man pushing a terrified wheelchair bound grandma off a cliff.  In real life the head driver and chief  pusher is Professor Cass Sunstein.

So now Cass Sunstein isn't laughing.  Because he is one of the chief proponents of death panels.  Of course he didn't call them that but nevertheless Palin accurately picked up his intention.  The former University of Chicago law professor (and doesn't that sound familiar?) and now Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, (yes,  this is a real position, not a fabrication of George Orwell) has disavowed them; has made light of his early academic research.

"I'm a lot older now than the author with my name was, and I'm not sure what I think about what that young man wrote," Sunstein, 56, told the House panel. "Things written as an academic are not a legitimate part of what we do as a government official. So I am not focusing on sentences that a young Cass Sunstein wrote years ago. So the answer is no."

Uh, Professor Sunstein, "things written as an academic," often funded by the government, are often exactly "a legitimate part of what we do as a government official;" the basis of programs for government officials.  So no, you can't ooze out of your past evil drivel so easily.  You wrote that paper "Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay" a mere eight years ago in 2003 when you were a not so young pup of 48, inhabiting the ivory towers of the University of Chicago located on the academic island of Hyde Park, so safely removed from the realities of Chicago and the real world.  No, you can't dismiss your responsibility for this.

Read what the 48 year old academic now turned government official wrote about older folks; they're worth less (one or two words depending on their age and infirmities).

Lives, Life-Years, and Willingness to Pay

"Many analysts, however, have suggested that the government should rely instead on the 'value of a statistical life year' (VSLY), in a way that would likely result in significantly lower benefits calculations for elderly people, and significantly higher benefits calculations for children," the 2003 paper said.

"I urge that the government should indeed focus on statistical life-years rather than statistical lives. A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people," it added.

(snip)

"Older people are treated worse for one reason, they are older. This is not an injustice.

(snip)

A program that saves young people produces more welfare than one that saves old people. Nor does a focus on life-years run afoul of ethical limits on cost-benefit analysis. It is relevant in this connection that every old person was once young, and that if all goes well, young people will eventually be old," Sunstein added.

"In fact, a focus on statistical lives is a more plausibly a form of illicit discrimination than a focus on life-years, because the idea of statistical lives treats the years of older people as worth far more than the years of younger people," the 2003 paper continued.

"The hard question involves not whether to undertake this shift, but how to monetize life-years, and here willingness to pay (WTP), despite its many problems, is generally the place to begin. Discussion is also devoted to the uses and limits of the willingness to pay criterion in regulatory policy, with reference to the underlying welfare goal and to the nature of moral and distributional constraints on cost-benefit balancing," it added.

The 2003 paper goes on to say, "Under the life-years approach, older people are treated worse for only one reason: They are older. This is not an injustice. Every old person was young once, and every young person will be old too (if given the chance). In fact an important form of reciprocity is built into the life-years approach. If regulatory policy is based on life-years, every person will, in a sense, be both benefited and burdened, and in exactly the same way. Indeed, every person will be both a beneficiary and a victim of the relevant discrimination. People--the same people--will be benefited when they are younger and burdened when they are older."

Cass Sunstein, over the cliff you go.

Source:  American Thinker  -  hat tip to: www.lucianne.com

Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness by Cass Sunstien

Red Alert!!!!!!  Related Video:  ObamaCare at the Center of Obama Depopulation Policy Exposed!

In True Alinsky Fashion… the Left Accuses the GOP of What They Are Planning

If you are not familiar with Saul Alinsky and his book that is a Bible to our present administration,  Rules for Radicals, its time…  The Obama White House and election committee will use Alinsky Methods, Cloward and Piven’s blueprint, Cass Sunstein’s Nudging and if necessary the tactics of their friends, like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn of the Weather Underground to promote their globalism, their Progressive goals and to steal the 2012 election if America does not wake up!!

It is ObamaCare that will through the Grandma over the cliff and in front of the death panel through rationing, but one of the Rules for Radicals is to turn the focus from yourself and from what you plan to do onto your adversary or opponent.

AARP is in the bag for the administration, but they are using their power and database to scare seniors into voting the opposite of what will save them and their healthcare… Medicaid and Medicare.  ObamaCare is big money for AARP!

Video:  Commercial shows Paul Ryan "Throwing Grandma over the cliff" commercial

How moral is it to create an anti-GOP political ad showing "Grandma thrown off a cliff" asks Neil Cavuto, today, interviewing  progressive advocate and creator of that ad, Erica Payne, Agenda Project Founder, "when you know that the plan being discussed exempts those  55 and older?"  Cavuto's outrage was enough to make him resurrect the "Death Panels".  Read Rest of Article Here

A "Duty to Die"?

One of the many fashionable notions that have caught on among some of the intelligentsia is that old people have "a duty to die," rather than become a burden to others.

This is more than just an idea discussed around a seminar table. Already the government-run medical system in Britain is restricting what medications or treatments it will authorize for the elderly. Moreover, it seems almost certain that similar attempts to contain runaway costs will lead to similar policies when American medical care is taken over by the government.

Make no mistake about it, letting old people die is a lot cheaper than spending the kind of money required to keep them alive and well. If a government-run medical system is going to save any serious amount of money, it is almost certain to do so by sacrificing the elderly.

There was a time-- fortunately, now long past-- when some desperately poor societies had to abandon old people to their fate, because there was just not enough margin for everyone to survive. Sometimes the elderly themselves would simply go off from their family and community to face their fate alone.
But is that where we are today?

Talk about "a duty to die" made me think back to my early childhood in the South, during the Great Depression of the 1930s. One day, I was told that an older lady-- a relative of ours-- was going to come and stay with us for a while, and I was told how to be polite and considerate towards her.

She was called "Aunt Nance Ann," but I don't know what her official name was or what her actual biological relationship to us was. Aunt Nance Ann had no home of her own. But she moved around from relative to relative, not spending enough time in any one home to be a real burden.

A "At that time, we didn't have things like electricity or central heating or hot running water. But we had a roof over our heads and food on the table-- and Aunt Nance Ann was welcome to both.

Poor as we were, I never heard anybody say, or even intimate, that Aunt Nance Ann had "a duty to die."
I only began to hear that kind of talk decades later, from highly educated people in an affluent age, when even most families living below the official poverty level owned a car or truck and had air-conditioning.

It is today, in an age when homes have flat-panelled TVs, and most families eat in restaurants regularly or have pizzas and other meals delivered to their homes, that the elites-- rather than the masses-- have begun talking about "a duty to die."

Back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann, nobody in our family had ever gone to college. Indeed, none had gone beyond elementary school. Apparently you need a lot of expensive education, sometimes including courses on ethics, before you can start talking about "a duty to die."

Many years later, while going through a divorce, I told a friend that I was considering contesting child custody. She immediately urged me not to do it. Why? Because raising a child would interfere with my career.
But my son didn't have a career. He was just a child who needed someone who understood him. I ended up with custody of my son and, although he was not a demanding child, raising him could not help impeding my career a little. But do you just abandon a child when it is inconvenient to raise him?

The lady who gave me this advice had a degree from the Harvard Law School. She had more years of education than my whole family had, back in the days of Aunt Nance Ann.

Much of what is taught in our schools and colleges today seeks to break down traditional values, and replace them with more fancy and fashionable notions, of which "a duty to die" is just one.

These efforts at changing values used to be called "values clarification," though the name has had to be changed repeatedly over the years, as more and more parents caught on to what was going on and objected. The values that supposedly needed "clarification" had been clear enough to last for generations and nobody asked the schools and colleges for this "clarification."

Nor are we better people because of it.

Duty to Die"?

by Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust

Holland Takes Euthanasia to the Extreme

Holland proposes giving over-70s the right to die if they 'consider their lives complete'

By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE
Last updated at 11:23 AM on 10th March 2010

World first: Holland will consider assisted suicide for over 70s

Assisted suicide for anyone over 70 who has simply had enough of life is being considered in Holland.
Non-doctors would be trained to administer a lethal potion to elderly people who 'consider their lives complete'.

The radical move would be a world first and push the boundaries even further in the country that first legalised euthanasia.

The Dutch parliament is to debate the measure after campaigners for assisted suicide collected 112,500 signatures in a month.

Euthanasia has been available for the terminally ill in Holland since 2002 in cases of 'hopeless and unbearable suffering' certified by two doctors, but this would be a far bigger step.

Supporters say it would offer a dignified way to die for those over 70 who just want to give up living, without having to resort to difficult or unreliable solitary suicide methods.

They might include widows and widowers overwhelmed by grief, those unwilling to face the frailties of extreme old age or people determined to ‘get out while they’re ahead’ and meet death on their own terms.
The assistants who administered the deadly cocktail of sedatives would need to be certified, campaigners said.

• A licence to kill? Assisted suicide case relatives won't be charged if they act out of compassion

And they would have to make sure that patients were not acting on a whim or due to a temporary depression, but from a heartfelt and enduring desire to die.

But critics say there is scope for the elderly to come under untoward pressure from unscrupulous relatives.
Many religious groups oppose any form of suicide on principle.

And the Royal Dutch Medical Association - which played a key role in supporting the nation's euthanasia law - fears patients would use the policy as a way of getting around their own doctors.

Although Switzerland allows assisted suicide in cases where someone is not terminally ill, the Dutch measure would go further.

'Own choosing': Renowned British conductor Sir Edward Downes and his wife Joan died together in the assisted suicide clinic Dignitas in Zurich

In July 2009, British conductor Sir Edward Downes, 85, and his wife Joan, 74, died together at the Dignitas suicide clinic outside Zürich 'under circumstances of their own choosing,' in the words of a family statement.
Sir Edward was not terminally ill, but virtually blind and deaf, while his wife was diagnosed with rapidly developing cancer.

In 2008 former rugby player Daniel James, 23, died at Dignitas. He had been paralysed from the waist down when his spine was dislocated in a training accident.

But Swiss law required Sir Edward and Mr James to hold and drink a lethal draught themselves, while in Holland the dose could be administered by a non-medical assistant.

Marie-Jose Grotenhuis of the Dutch 'Of Free Will' campaign said: 'We've been overwhelmed by the amount of reactions, especially because people took it so seriously and reactions were mostly positive.'

Several European countries allow some assistance to terminally ill people who wish to die. Belgium has followed the Dutch euthanasia model, while Britain and France allow terminally ill people to refuse treatment but stop short of allowing active euthanasia.

Around 2,500 euthanasia cases were reported in the Netherlands in 2009, rising gradually in the past decade as doctors have become more willing to disclose the practice.

Campaigners for the over-70s assisted suicide measure needed 40,000 signatures to force a debate in parliament and will do so after national elections on June 9.

The plan is certain to face resistance and if approved would still need to go through a lengthy process before becoming law.

The legalisation of euthanasia for the terminally ill was preceded by decades of discussion and quiet negotiation that attached stringent conditions and medical supervision.

Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1256670/Holland-proposes-giving-70s-consider-lives-complete-right-die.html#ixzz0hu6lCgjM

This should be an eye opener for all those pro-ObamaCare people who haven't read the bill or can't read between the lines...  Is there really anybody out there that thinks this is okay??  Or that 70 is that old??  Or that healthy people are every useless?? 


This is what we should be celebrating and shooting for:

2 of oldest people in US die: in NH 114, Mich. 113

Mon Mar 8, 9:34 pm ET


WESTMORELAND, N.H. – Two of the oldest people in the world have died on the same day.  Mary Josephine Ray, who was certified as the oldest person living in the United States, died Sunday at age 114 years, 294 days. She died at a nursing home in Westmoreland but was active until about two weeks before her death, her granddaughter Katherine Ray said.

"She just enjoyed life. She never thought of dying at all," Katherine Ray said. "She was planning for her birthday party."

Ray died just hours before Daisey Bailey, who was 113 years, 342 days, said L. Stephen Coles, a director of the Gerontology Research Group, which tracks and studies old people and certifies those 110 or older, called supercentenarians.

"It's very rare that two of our supercentenarians die on the same day," Coles said.

Bailey, who was born March 30, 1896, died in Detroit, he said. She had suffered from dementia, said her family, which claimed she was born in 1895.

Ray, even with her recent decline, managed an interview with a reporter last week, her granddaughter said.
Ray was the oldest person in the United States and the second-oldest in the world, the Gerontology Research Group said. She also was recorded as the oldest person ever to live in New Hampshire.

The oldest living American is now Neva Morris, of Ames, Iowa, at age 114 years, 216 days. The oldest person in the world is Japan's Kama Chinen at age 114 years, 301 days.

Ray was born May 17, 1895, in Bloomfield, Prince Edward Island, Canada. She moved to the United States at age 3.

She lived for 60 years in Anson, Maine. She lived in Florida, Massachusetts and elsewhere in New Hampshire before she moved to Westmoreland in 2002 to be near her children.

Ray's husband, Walter Ray, died in 1967. Survivors include two sons, eight grandchildren, 13 great-grandchildren and five great-great-grandchildren.

Morris, the Iowa woman now believed to be the oldest U.S. resident, lives at a care center. Only one of her four children, a son in Sioux City, is still alive.

"She has some hearing deficiencies and a visual deficiency, but mentally she is quite alert and will respond when she feels like it and isn't too tired," said her 90-year-old son-in-law, Tom Wickersham, who lives in the same care center.

Wickersham said he visits his mother-in-law — who plays bingo and enjoys singing "You Are My Sunshine" — nearly every day.

Related:

• 12 Surprising Signs That You Will Live To Be 100 - That used to be the goal of geriatric medicine
• Go Granny Go

Time to wake up America and Time to take the gloves off!!

Go Granny Go Video

2/3 of the HC Bill Passed Already! Hidden in the Stimulus Package that No One in Congress Read…