About Me

Name: flagwaver
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

ANational Emergency?

On Saturday President Obama officially declared the H1N1 "Swine Flu" a national emergency allowing for some restrictions of producing medicines to combat the illness to come to the market in an expidited manner. Since this is a major pandemic we're facing, something had to be done yesterday to make us all safe from the flu...because if it weren't we are all going to DIE!!!
 
But I swear I have heard this song before about a different variant of the flu. To channel Estelle Getty as Sophia Petrillo, "Picture it: 2003 to 2006." A pandemic that is going to ravage the world comes out of Asia, threatening mankind as we know it. People were urged to get vaccinated,  as it was the only way to combat the spread of the dreaded Avian Flu. The only thing was, the pandemic that we were allegedly faced with never materialized. Even CBS News, despite their alarmist headline had to report that from 2003 when the Bird Flu swept out of Asia like a viral Ghengis Khan, until 2006 there were a whopping, amazing, devastating 184 deaths WORLDWIDE in the "pandemic"! 184 whole people out of population of billions died in this pandemic that threatened to destroy humanity as we knew it! Scary stuff, huh?
 
If the president wanted to declare something a national emergency he would be well served to ignore the PANDEMIC!!!!! warninigs from papers like the Washington Post. According to an October Post story, "Since the pandemic began at least 3,873 Americans have died from complications associated with the flu, primarily the H1N1 virus, including at least 28 pregnant women." See, the Post has proven that Swine Flu is a killer, right? Well....not so much. Because what the Post doesn't tell you is that there is an even deadlier strain of flu to be dealt with that kills more people per year than the roughly 1000 Americans, including 76 under the age of 18, than H1N1 has struck down.
 
If the president were serious about protecting us from a flu bug that has the potential to wreak havoc on America, he would shift focus from the Swine Flu and focus on the real threat. Seasonal Flu.
 
Seasonal flu?
 
Yes, seasonal flu. You read it right, as shocking as it might be.
 
As much attention as the Swine Flu gets in the media and from the government, there have only been about 5000 deaths worldwide attributed to the virus, and as said before, only 1000 deaths here in America. By contrast, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention there are on average 36,171 deaths in America alone attributable to the seasonal flu, with an average of 68 of those being children under the age of 18. Yet, we are deluged with stories about the deadly nature of H1N1 and the need to fight it with all of our resources!
 
Why is that, you ask?
 
Because the Swine Flu isn't about the disease or about the health of the people here, it is all about the politics of the situation. Hyping the virus allows the the administration to take focus off of the problems they are having on healthcare reform, and it allows the government to take just a bit more of your freedom from you. When certain government officials start saying that you must get the vaccine, that should raise your hackles. What business of the government's is it if you get a flu shot or not? But if they can force you to get that vaccine, what other medical treatments can they force you to get? And if  the government can get you focused on the H1N1 virus, they think they can get you to stop paying attention to what they're trying to do to the healthcare sector in this country. If they can convince you that H1N1 is the biggest story going, maybe they can slip a public option right past you.
 
Conspiratorial? Maybe.
 
But would you put it past the Outfit in charge in the White House? I wouldn't.
 
So settle in here and watch the crises pile up, at least according to the White House. Because a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

ObamaCare's Bloody Shirt Moment

“Waving the bloody shirt” is a timeworn political ploy first used by the venerable Republican Party in the aftermath of the Civil War. After the war, in order to get controversial legislation passed through the Congress the Republican Party would not so subtly remind the public in general, and the Democratic Party in particular, just who had fought first to preserve, and later to reunite the Union…and whom had worked to tear it asunder. By using such rhetoric, and by sometimes literally waving a shirt allegedly stained with the blood of Union soldiers spilled in the War Between the States, the Republicans were able to silence Democratic opposition to all manner of policies. “Waving the bloody shirt” was used in part to give us the so-called Reconstruction Amendments that outlawed slavery, made the former slaves citizens of the United States, and granted them the right to vote. The tactic was also used to help in the passage of the first civil rights legislation in the history of the Republic in the years of 1866, 1872, and 1875.

In the decade of the 1960s the Democratic Party brought the tactic back with a vengeance after the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Nearly every major piece of legislation that Lyndon Johnson wanted passed was foisted onto a mourning public as one of Kennedy’s major legislative priorities, which allowed Johnson to get just about anything through the Congress and onto his desk. It seemed that everything from the Job Corps, to Operation Head Start, to Medicare were packaged by the wheeling-dealing Johnson as one of Jack Kennedy’s most cherished ideas, and in the shocking aftermath of Kennedy’s murder no one wanted to be seen as thwarting the last wishes of King John of Camelot, so several trillion dollars later we are still stuck with LBJ’s Great Society schemes.

Since then, politicians have used some variation of the bloody shirt in nearly every decade, especially when there is a war being fought. John Kerry and his band of lying miscreants used it in the fraudulent Winter Soldier hearings; George H. W. Bush did it when he campaigned in 1988 with the badge of a slain New York City police officer as a symbol of why we needed to fight the War on Drugs; and various politicians use the tactic when they stage photo ops with wounded servicemen to show their support for the troops. The bloody shirt will occasionally recede into the political closet, but it never truly gets retired.

With the death of Edward “Teddy” Kennedy, the Democrats have decided to dust off the bloody shirt again and wave it wildly in a last desperate attempt to resurrect a healthcare bill that seems to be dead on arrival. Senator Robert Byrd (Klan-WV) has proposed that the bill (or bills) winding through the Senate be named in honor of Senator Kennedy, whom everyone recognizes as a staunch supporter of a nationalized healthcare bill in a last ditch attempt at getting the sympathy vote for a bill that the majority of the people of America simply do not want. The line of thinking seems to be that Kennedy’s death should be used as a catalyzing agent to bring any recalcitrant Democrats around on the issue, and to stir up some much needed public support for the failing plan. What this line of thinking ignores is the most obvious point in the whole debate: The people do not support this idea! No matter whom the bill is named for, or said to be in memoriam of, the American people have spoken in poll after poll and the conclusion is always the same: We don’t want government run healthcare or government issued health insurance.

What is really appalling about this idea is the base motives involved in even making the proposal. The vast majority of the members of the United States Senate publicly claim to have been friends and admirers of Senator Kennedy, but before his body could get cold or his family could properly mourn his passing, his “friends” in the Democratic Party began plotting to use his passing as a political tool to pass their beloved healthcare legislation. They had barely begun rewriting the history of his life to make him into some type of tragic/heroic figure before they struck upon the idea to use his death as the bloody shirt they hoped would get them  power over one-sixth of the American economy. Alas, I should not have been surprised with this after the way the memorial for Senator Paul Wellstone was hijacked and turned into an impromptu anti-Bush political rally; yet it is just as unseemly now as it was then, and I had hoped they would avoid exploiting the death of their treasured “friend” for naked political gain.

However, no matter how enthusiastically they wave this bloody shirt, it will probably not have its intended effect. Even if the American people were united in their love and admiration of Teddy Kennedy, it probably would still not be enough to shake them from their fears of the federal government doing to American healthcare and health insurance what they have done with the postal service and Social Security. The American people will not fall for such a shameless ploy, and the Democrats should be embarrassed by their attempts at exploiting the death of one of their own in the pursuit of political power. Alas, we know that they won’t because liberal Democrats may feel your pain, but they feel no shame.

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (12) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A Compelling State Interest

By now everyone that has been paying attention to the news is familiar with the story of 13 year old Danny Hauser and his mother who fled the jurisdiction of a family court in Minnesota after refusing to submit to chemotherapy to treat his blood cancer. His family has claimed that their religion discourages the use of medical procedures such as chemo, and they prefer to pursue a treatment based on alternative medicine and herbal/natural remedies. The medical establishment claims that the only effective treatment for young Mr. Hauser is the chemotherapy, without which they assure us he will most likely die. And when the medical establishment makes such a pronouncement and involves the courts, the courts come down squarely on the side of the medical establishment and decide that there is a "compelling state interest" in making sure that the boy goes through the chemo, because the state is committed to maing sure that he lives.
 
Maybe it's just me, maybe I have a little strak of the libertarian in me, but this decision reeks of statism. And it also smells of one part of the establishment using its coercive powers to prop up and legitimize the opinions of another part of the established order. It bothers me that on the say-so of medical experts the courts have decided that they have the right to tell the Hauser family that their religious rights have no effect in the life of their child. They are not allowed to make a decision on the medical treatment that their child faces, because it is not the normal way things are done. The court is in essence saying that they, in consultation with medical experts have the right to force a medical treatment on a child in spite of the wishes of the parents, and in the face of their religious beliefs. According to the state, the state has a more compelling interest in the child's well-being than the parents!
 
I do not really know what the religious practices are of the Hauser family, but it worries me to see a court decide that they have no religious rights that the court is bound to respect. We make allowances for religions that sacrifice small animals, we allow Wiccan worship, we allow radical Islam to be practiced in this country, but we suspend religious toleration when the medical establishment makes a godlike pronouncement on life and death? What is the point of a Constitution or the rights it lays out if courts and doctors can abrogate them at will?
 
I don't know what the right course of treatment is for Mr. Hauser, but I do know that I stand with the parents in their defiance of this court ordered treatment. If liberty is to mean anything, if we are to be truly free then we should be free to choose our own paths in life...including any medical treatment we choose to seek refuse. I refuse to believe that any judge, doctor, state employee, or government official is better able to make parental decisions or has the best interests of a child in mind more than a loving parent. While I understand the state have an interest in protecting the lives of children in abusive or neglectful circumstances, I don't see that interest in this case. What I see is a state and a medical establishment telling the parents of this boy, "The doctors say he will die without the treatments they are paid to dispense, and we know better than you how to raise your child. So do as we say, or we will hunt you down like you are the Unabomber." And that to me friends, is where statism butts against the rights of the individual...and I will always stand for the rights of the individual over the encroachment of the state into our lives.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (26) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »