What’s in a Name?

With all the uprising against Sarah Palin’s term “Death Panels” it seems appropriate to take a look at the name and see if another one would fit just as well. After all, “death” is such an unappetizing word, even to liberals. It’s so . . . well . . . final.

So maybe we should look at what the president himself called it in a speech on August 11 at a Town Hall meeting. Paraphrasing his paraphrase, it is a Medicare reimbursed consultation about end-of-life care. A little cumbersome. His explanation was: “So the intention of the members of Congress was to give people more information so that they could handle issues of end-of-life care when they’re ready on their own terms. It wasn’t forcing anybody to do anything.”

Give me just one small break here. Do you want to tell me why Medicare should get reimbursed for something that the patient, the family and the physician are perfectly capable of getting done on their own —at no charge? Go here  to see what Jerry McConnell has to say about section 1233.

The following was taken from Crippy’s World, http://crippy.me/ and makes me more than a little sick. The arrogance of the president is mind numbing:

OBAMA SAYS HE IS GOD’S PARTNER IN MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH

In an apparent attempt to justify the creation of "Death Panels" in his Obamacare bill, president Obama stated that "we are God's partners in matters of life and death". The statement was made during a August 19 conference call with rabbis.

From Politico:

A reader points out that President Obama's call with the rabbis today —as recorded in Rabbi Jack Moline's and other clerics' Twitter feeds — freights health care reform with a great deal of religious meaning, and veers into the blend of policy and faith that outraged liberals in the last administration.

"We are God's partners in matters of life and death," Obama said, according to Moline (paging Sarah Palin...), quoting from the Rosh Hashanah prayer that says that in the holiday period, it is decided "who shall live and who shall die."

The president was surely not speaking for me.

This man's hubris borders on a pathological mental disorder.

God help us!

Don’t forget this is the president who said during his campaign that his favorite Bible verse is John 16:3!

So, this is the guy who wants to decide what to do about the sick, the lame, and the halt. What better term that Death Panel? I believe the only objection the left has to it is that Sarah Palin named it first.

Love,

Granny

Ladies and Gentlemen—the President of the United States

I know this will come as a shock to you but I don’t know how else to break it. And let’s face it, we’ve all been secretly wondering who is pulling Obama’s strings. He doesn’t have the cajones to do all this himself. I still maintain he doesn’t have the smarts or the education. He can’t even form a sentence containing a subject, verb and object without a speechwriter and a teleprompter.

So, in my heart of hearts I’d been wondering about this for a long time. Now it’s official: Rahm Emanuel is President of the United States. If you read the article carefully, and then do a little research on Mr. Emanuel and keep in mind that he is a native Chicagoan, it will all make perfect sense. He cut his teeth on Chicago politics and thuggery. He operates on pragmatism. He had far more clout than the skinny little senator from Hawaii/Nebraska/Indonesia/Kenya. He was around when the future president was getting his indoctrination in Bill Ayers’ living room and hanging out with the rest of the left-wing Marxist America-haters. Don’t forget, Emanuel spent eight years in the Clinton White House soaking up the liberal milieu in an executive setting and making his portfolio fat with every dirty, slimy trick the left is capable of. He was a natural choice for Obama when he looked around and said, “Huh, guess I need a chief. Of staff.”

But wait, there’s more. Just to keep it in the family, Rahm’s brother, Dr. Death, blends quite nicely with the socialist agenda that is the signature of this administration. 

Right now Ezekiel Emanuel, Oncologist and one of Obama’s health advisors is backpedaling on some of his remarks which he has made regarding health care and the proposed healthcare bill. The above article was published in the New York Post and has been lambasted by many self righteous left-wingers on the grounds that much of the content was taken out of context—something they would never do, of course. Many of the statements were taken from a January 21 article in The Lancet which was, actually, co-authored by two others—Govind Persad and Alan Wertheimer— besides Emanuel. Included in the article is the above graph which I found fascinating in that it ended with age 70, which excludes my sister, my husband and my pastor. I ferreted around and found this post, which contains not only the graph, but some comments as well. You can look at this and get the idea if you don’t want to go to The Lancet.

“Doctors take the Hippocratic Oath too seriously, ‘as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of the cost or effects on others’ (Journal of the American Medical Association, June 18, 2008).

Yes, that's what patients want their doctors to do. But Emanuel wants doctors to look beyond the needs of their patients and consider social justice, such as whether the money could be better spent on somebody else.”

I was married to a doctor for seventeen years and he took the Hippocratic Oath very seriously. I don’t remember him picking and choosing between patients in the interest of “social justice.”

Dr. Emanuel got pretty upset over these quotes being take “out of Context” but, when the Hippocratic Oath is played fast and loose, no matter how out-of-context it becomes, when he advocates looking “beyond the needs of their patients,” context or no context, the perceived result is clear: assuming a mechanical, industrialized posture on the practice of medicine.

Unfortunately for Dr. Emanuel, Kathleen Sebalius, the esteemed Secretary of Health and Human Services, is also backpedaling from a remark she made over the weekend. "Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius said that government alternative to private health insurance is 'not the essential element' of the administration's health care overhaul. The White House would be open to co-ops, she said, a sign that Democrats want a compromise so they can declare a victory.” She indicated that public option wasn’t the end all/be all of the healthcare bill, and took a severe spanking for that. She later came out and said, “Nothing has changed,” and, in typical leftist fashion blamed someone else, claiming her message was distorted. In this case, it was the media, which is a poor choice for a liberal, since they lean so far to the left it's a wonder they don't meet themselves coming back. I’d love to blame the media for everything, and frequently do. But, because she was on tape, she kind of dug herself a new one.

Now we’re saddled with a multi-trillion dollar deficit, threatened with a healthcare bill that is obscene at best, and a president who can’t talk, much less think. No wonder he’s controlled by the bi-Emanuel machine, funded by the Soros machine and supported by the SEIU and ACORN machines. What a freak show.

Love,

Granny

The Worst Person in the World

Today I’ve been staying in the house nursing twenty-some chigger bites: still in my jammies, doused in Campho-Phenique, wearing a pair of my mother’s old cotton socks and trying not to scratch. Hung over from the 50mg. of Benadryl I took last night, placating myself with French Silk ice cream straight from the carton, and trying to deal with the latest outrage out of our toxic capitol.

This was the first article that came off my email. It speaks to me on many levels, but it definitely speaks for itself. What jumped out at me was the comment by Keith Olbermann. I realize it’s a month late, but I don’t follow Mr. Olbermann. He states that Major Stefan Cook is a “jackass” and the “worst person in the world.” Huh. Now let me get this straight. Mr. Olbermann would certainly know about jackasses. And so would most of the inhabitants of Congress, the White House, the mainstream media, and now, The Supreme Court. I’m more than certain that, given their collective egos, all of them have mirrors.

But the worst person in the world? That’s a very serious—and ambitious— accusation. Let’s see, first of all, who would be the judge of who the worst person in the world would be? Perhaps the wealthiest person in the world could make that decision. Umm, who would that be? I suppose we could toss around names like Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Carlos Slim Helú, depending on what day of the week it was. They’re certainly up there. But would any of them qualify as the judge of who the worst person in the world actually is?

Or perhaps the most powerful person in the world should determine it? Maybe he or she could judge the worst. I’m sorry, but every time I think of the most powerful person in the world I’m reminded of the mad scientist-type in the old cartoons, laughing maniacally and screaming, “Hahahahahahahahahahahaha! I will rule the world as soon as I annihilate Homer the Hero!”

He always got his comeuppance in the end, usually at the hands of Homer, but it was certainly fun getting our guts in an uproar and watching in white-knuckled agony as the evil antagonist cavorted around with his doomsday machinery and launched blistering epithets at the hapless world at large.

So. The most powerful person in the world? That’s a whole lot more subjective than the wealthiest person, no matter what day of the week it happens to be. Ban Ki-moon? George Soros? Barack Hussein Obama? Nah, scratch the last one. Puppets don’t count. I guess we could name them: Soros-Obama, but then I’d have to leave out the “Hussein” and we shouldn’t be allowed to forget the middle name. Okay: Soros-Hussein Obama. That works.

All right, then. Ban Ki-moon gets to decide who is the worst person in the world. His short list includes anyone who didn’t agree with the climate change myth. A list, I might add, that is growing at a gratifying rate. But, after a bit of research, I have decided on Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato Institute. I don’t presume to try to climb inside the mind of Mr. Ki-moon, but surely this gentleman must be a serious thorn in his flesh. The problem with Dr. Michaels is threefold: he bases his statements on facts, not emotion; he backs up facts with actual events; and then there’s that pesky history, which has not been revised yet.

Now it gets complicated. Who do we suppose would be the choice of the next powerful people–Soros/Hussien-Obama? Ah, so many conservatives, so little time. We could start with the big three: O’Riley, Limbaugh, Hannity. Has a nice ring to it. Then there’s Malkin, Coulter, Ingraham. Not to mention Levin. But my money’s on Glenn Beck. He’s a little edgier that Hannity, a little more spontaneous than Limbaugh, and a lot more unpredictable than O’Riley. As far as considering a woman, Obama has enough problems with what’s at home, in his cabinet, and in Congress (not to mention his big ole wife Sweetie Face) without the added burden of considering yet one more female in any capacity.

Do either of these two—uh— three men have the right to assert who is the worst person in the world? Does anyone? Does Keith Olberman? Yes, I know this is rhetorical, but at least I found this little diversion kind of a hoot, as I poured Campho-Phenique on my feet and sat around in yesterday’s lingerie.

As I pointed out at the beginning of this tirade, the article above speaks for itself. And when all is said and done two truths emerge: no living person has the authority to say who is the worst person in the world; and Keith Olbermann is still a jackass.

Love,

Granny

ACLJ • American Center for Law & Justice

Although most thinking American citizens are aware of this by now, it doesn't hurt to remind them of what our government is doing to squelch free speech. This latest outrage is spelled out in the link below.

Jan

ACLJ • American Center for Law & Justice

The AARP—Not Our Friend

Cecil has hated the AARP since I've known him, probably even before that. Since it didn't become my issue until much later than it became his I wasn't particularly concerned. Lately, though (perhaps because I get mail from them at least five days out of six) I have started paying more attention. Actually, I guess my interest began last year sometime when they started singing the praises of the hope and change guy from Chicago. That did it for me. But hey, everyone's entitled to his opinion. However, that didn't mean I had to be a member of AARP by default. I always wondered about the presumptuousness of the organization. You're fifty, therefore you're in. Not so fast. First of all, why don't they stop with all the tree-intensive mailings? One offer should suffice. Either I join or I don't.


Secondly, they are supposed to be working for seniors. You know, discounts, insurance, freebies, services. A real advocate for us old people. Now, however, they've joined the parade that marches for Obamacare. Not with my membership fees. On July 28th our president attended a town hall meeting about his health care plan and here is the transcript. With his typical slick-tongued technique, he made it all seem like a really wonderful idea—just like the stimulus package. If you go to the link you can probably find a You Tube version.

Finally, here is a fascinating editorial by Mark Tapscott, one of my favorite "opiners". It explains a lot about the Washington connection, which is the case in so many huge "service" organizations. The only thing not toxic about our nation's captiol is its monuments. Be sure and read the comments, too. The comments are the pulse of America. Thank God for what's left of the Constitution.

Keep the faith

Jan