“I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of Progressive Liberalism, and to the Dictatorship for which it stands, one Nation under Government, divisible, with liberty and social justice for the faithful only.”
- Oh, am I going to get labelled a homophobe and a “hater” again for this one. 🙂
- Oh well. They’d do it anyways. Reality doesn’t matter, the Narrative does.
- But the Liberal’s favorite cudgel of social and legal enforcement was used again this week when the Federal Government overturned a voter approved State Constitutional Amendment on gay marriage.
- The Court of Social Justice & Liberalism has struck again.
- I wonder if this applies to all the Illegal Aliens the Feds say we aren’t allowed to catch also? 🙂
- Am I against gay marriage? Nope.
- Am I against liberals “supremacy” clause and their need to destroy you in court if you cross them, HELL YEAH!
- But since the Leftist Gay Narrative is that they are next great Civil Right struggle and they are the oppressed and their cause is righteous and “moral”, rational thought is not possible. So you’re a “hater” if you disagree with, period.
- So will Wedding venues that refuse to hold a Gay Wedding be subjected to the Gay Mafia Hammer?
- Businesses already have to watch out for the Gay Thought Police prowling around to destroy them if they do or say the wrong thing.
- That’s my objection.
- But I’m evil automatically in Big Gay Brother’s eyes, so don’t bother listening to me. 🙂
- A little history, that an irrational gay pride activist will not even comprehend in their haze of righteousness, so here goes.
- Back in the early 1980’s when I was a freshmen in college I encountered my first gay people ever and you know what I thought– So what, I don’t care. They were good people and that matters more than their sexual proclivities.
- I truly didn’t care.
- Actually, they were more accepting and better people than a lot of heterosexuals were back in the day to be honest.
- My college roommates for a time consisted of a Gay Man, a Witch, and a Satanist, all under one roof. All friends. No political agenda AT ALL!
- And well before it was “fashionable”.
- Hell, it was considered I must be gay because I keep hanging around with gays.
- So you see, I am not a “hater”. (I can here the leftist snark “Oh, he had a few gay friends…”)
- But to the modern gay rights activist I must be a “hater” because I disagree with their need to FORCE their life style and your acceptance of it at the point of a Law Book and destroy good and decent people for the simple fact that they don’t want to kow-tow to them. Those filthy peasants!
- After all, THE AGENDA IS THE AGENDA!
- I think they were winning in general without being so heavy-handed and impatient. Their indoctrination techniques over the last generation or so were having the desired effect. But their secular hatred for the “Christian Right” and their own self-aggrandized Sanctimony gets the better of them.
- They’d been working on it for decades, just like Obamacare took 90 years, many were patient.
- But the squeaky activist gets the law greased.
- So I can accept gay marriage because I always have, BUT the activist, no, sorry, you’re just another bunch of totalitarian social justice liberals who want what they want, when they want it, because they want it, and if you object you must therefore, by default be EVIL.
- The oppressed become the oppressor, but because of righteous blindness can’t and won’t see it that way.
- They are the triumphant aggrieved sackers of Christian Right “extremism”, after all.
- Arizona’s governor, Jan Brewer, who has clashed with President Barack Obama over immigration and border security, said in a statement that federal courts have gone against the will of voters and eroded the state’s power. “Simply put, courts should not be in the business of making and changing laws based on their personal agendas,” Brewer said. (AP)
- But personal agendas is the only thing The Left understands. They want it, you’re evil, you must be crushed! Period.
- The federal court decision bars Arizona officials from enforcing a 1996 state law and a 2008 voter-approved constitutional amendment that outlawed gay marriage.
- The Feds are The Supreme Law of The Land and you peasant will do as you are told or else!
- So who’s next on their target list. Who do they want to crush next in their crusade to FORCE you do things their way or else??
- Among the couples there were Bailey and Majors (outside the courthouse). Though marriage never seemed possible to them in their youth, they began to get hope in recent years as the nation started to debate the legality of same-sex unions.
Despite all the joy they felt Friday, Bailey said it was still hard to express her feelings about such a sweeping social turn-around that she witnessed in her lifetime.
There was no sweeping “social change”. There was a LEGAL hammer slammed into the State’s nuts and then they were cut off. That is not “social change” that is Legal ENFORCEMENT of one’s agenda regardless of any “social” feelings to the contrary.
It’s a LEGAL victory, not a “social” victory.
As The Doctor in “Doctor Who” last week said:
“People with guns to their heads cannot mourn”
- Big Gay Brother is watching you citizen, and you better not step out of line or else the Thought Police will come down on you…
- Next up, Polyamory!!! 🙂
The Peter Principle in action again? Or maybe we should just label it the Obama Principle since incompetence is so normal for him and his cronies and sycophants.
The second term game of Obama cabinet musical chairs kicked into high gear Thursday when Attorney General Eric Holder suggested that he might leave soon. He would join Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Treasury Secretary Tim Geither and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood on the exit list.
Names immediately surfaced of those who might replace Holder including Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, who has steered her department through controversial issues and come out generally unscathed. (because the Liberal media is in her corner).
She was so incompetent (which is what Obama wanted) she might become THE law enforcement officer for the next 4 years.
God help us all.
But then again, the American people are asleep at the wheel barreling towards a cliff so they don’t care as long as “Dancing with Stars” and “Jersey Shore” is one life is good.
Down with Evil White People!
American 2012: No Hand Ups, Just Hand Outs! 😦
If your organization has a policy or practice that doesn’t benefit minorities equally, watch out: The Obama administration could sue you for racial discrimination under a dubious legal theory that many argue is unconstitutional.
President Obama intends to close “persistent gaps” between whites and minorities in everything from credit scores and homeownership to test scores and graduation rates.
His remedy — short of new affirmative-action legislation — is to sue financial companies, schools and employers based on “disparate impact” complaints — a stealthy way to achieve racial preferences, opposed 2 to 1 by Americans.
Under this broad interpretation of civil-rights law, virtually any organization can be held liable for race bias if it maintains a policy that negatively impacts one racial group more than another — even if it has no racist motive and applies the policy evenly across all groups.
This means that even race-neutral rules for mortgage underwriting and consumer credit scoring potentially can be deemed racist if prosecutors can produce statistics showing they tend to result in adverse outcomes for blacks or Latinos.
Already, Attorney General Eric Holder has used the club of disparate-impact lawsuits to beat almost $500 million in loan set-asides and other claims out of the nation’s largest banks.
In addition to the financial settlements — which include millions in funding for affordable-housing activists — Bank of America, Wells Fargo and SunTrust have all agreed to adopt more minority-friendly lending policies.
Though the administration seeks equal credit outcomes, regardless of risk, across the entire banking industry, it doesn’t have to sue every bank to achieve its goal. As a prophylactic against similar prosecution, IBD has learned the American Bankers Association recently advised its 5,000 members to give rejected minority loan applicants a “second look,” which it says “can result in suggested changes in underwriting standards.”
Also, the administration sent a chill through the financial industry earlier this year when it announced its new credit watchdog agency will join Justice, as well as HUD, in using the disparate-impact doctrine to enforce civil-rights laws.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau chief Richard Cordray warned companies the agency will “protect consumers from unfair lending practices — as well as those that have a disparate impact on communities of color.” He added:
“That doctrine is applicable for all of the credit markets we touch, including mortgages, student loans, credit cards and auto loans,” as well as small-business loans.
For the first time, the nation’s consumer credit reporting agencies, including Equifax, Experian and TransUnion, will come under federal review. CFPB examiners will subject these companies and others to an “effects test” to make sure credit transactions are racially balanced.
Those who reject minority applicants for credit cards or charge them higher loan rates had better be prepared to prove to Cordray’s diversity cops they aren’t racist. Many have already decided it’s safer to give black and Latino applicants preferential treatment, which of course is racism of another kind.
Other targets of the administration’s “racial justice” juggernaut include: standardized academic testing, professional licensing examinations, employee background checks, voter ID requirements, student disciplinary codes, prison sentencing guidelines — you name it.
The goal is to equalize outcomes based on race without regard for performance or merit.
According to Roger Clegg, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, President Obama is committed to “aggressively pushing the ‘disparate impact’ approach to civil-rights enforcement” through which “the federal government insists that the numbers come out right — even if it means that policemen and firefighters cannot be tested, that companies should hire criminals, that loans must be made to the uncreditworthy, and that — I kid you not — whether pollution is acceptable depends on whether dangerous chemicals are spread in a racially balanced way.”
Last month, moreover, the Education Department pressured the Oakland school district to impose “targeted reductions” in the number of black students suspended.
The department charged that Oakland’s disciplinary policy has a “disparate impact” on African-American students, who are suspended at higher rates for violent behavior.
The Oakland case is the first of some 20 such investigations of school districts across the U.S. “The Obama administration is pressuring school districts not to suspend violent or disruptive black students if they have already disciplined ‘too many’ black students,” said Competitive Enterprise Institute counsel Hans Bader.
Education is also investigating a “disparate impact” complaint recently filed by the NAACP alleging the entrance exam used by selective New York City high schools illegally discriminates against blacks.
Through disparate impact suits, Holder has forced banks to adopt racial lending quotas and even open branches in minority neighborhoods.
He’s authorized five more lending-discrimination suits, while opening another 30 investigations against banks. And he’s just getting warmed up.
“The question is not does (affirmative action) end, but when does it begin?” Holder said in February at a Columbia University forum. “When do people of color truly get the benefits to which they are entitled?”
But a landmark disparate-impact case was scuttled at the last minute this year when the petitioner withdrew it under pressure from Holder’s civil-rights chief.
Congress is probing the unusual arm-twisting — which included what appears to be a corrupt quid-pro-quo bargain — that led to the case being dropped.
Most agree that had the Magner v. Gallagher case gone forward, the high court would have struck down the use of disparate impact and effectively shut down the administration’s witch hunt against lenders.
On the campaign trail, Obama was mum about his disparate-impact strategy and rarely talks at all about race.
He’s no doubt aware of polling in his last presidential bid which found 56% of voters harbored fears he’d favor African-Americans. But his 2006 writings inform us.
To close the “stubborn gap that remains between the living standards of black, Latino and white workers,” then-Sen. Obama proposed “completing the unfinished business of the civil rights movement — namely, enforcing nondiscrimination laws in such basic areas as employment, housing and education.”
He added: “The government, through its prosecutors and its courts, should step in to make things right.”
Barack Milhouse Obama-Nixon.
Stacked up, Obama-Nixon’s whoppers would make even Bill Clinton blush. Here’s a sampling:
Lie No. 1: Obama has repeatedly claimed his white grandfather, Stanley Dunham, “fought in Patton’s army,” when he was a clerk with no combat in WWII.
Lie No. 2: Obama claimed Dunham, a communist sympathizer, signed up for duty “the day after Pearl Harbor,” when in fact he waited six months.
Lie No. 3: Obama claimed his father “fought when he got back to Kenya against tribalism and nepotism, but ultimately was blackballed from the government,” when in fact he fought against capitalism and lost his job when he advocated communism.
Lie No. 4: Obama has claimed his late mother’s health insurer refused “to pay for her treatment” for cancer while citing a “pre-existing condition,” when Cigna paid all her hospital bills and never denied payment.
Lie No. 5: Obama claimed he and a black high school friend named “Ray” were ostracized in Honolulu, when in fact the friend, Keith Kakugawa, was half-Japanese, and neither of them experienced discrimination.
Lie No. 6: Obama claimed the father of his Indonesian stepfather was killed by Dutch soldiers while fighting for Indonesian independence, when in fact the story turns out to be “a concocted myth in almost all respects,” Maraniss found.
Lie No. 7: Obama claimed his parents decided to marry in the excitement of the Selma civil-rights march of 1965 — and that he personally has “a claim on Selma” — when in fact they were married several years earlier.
Lie No. 8: Obama claimed his father got to study in the U.S. thanks to JFK’s efforts to bring “young Africans over to America,” when in fact the Kenyan airlift his father participated in occurred in 1959 under Ike.
Lie No. 9: Obama submitted a phony bio to his book publicist claiming he was “born in Kenya.”
Lie No. 10: Obama denied being a member of the socialist New Party, when a member roster of the Chicago chapter of the party lists him joining on Jan. 11, 1996.
Lie No. 11: Obama claimed he had only a passing acquaintance with Weather Underground terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, when in fact they held a fundraiser for their Hyde Park neighbor in their living room, and years later, while Obama served in the U.S. Senate, hosted a barbecue for him in their backyard.
Lie No. 12: Obama claimed he never heard Rev. Jeremiah Wright spew anti-American invectives while sitting in his pews for 20 years, when in fact Obama was moved to tears hearing Wright condemn “white folks” and the U.S. for bombing other countries and even named his second book after the sermon.
Lie No. 13: Obama claimed he got in a “big fight” with old white flame Genevieve Cook, who after seeing a black play asked “why black people were so angry all the time,” when in fact she never saw the play nor made the remark. (IBD)
Employers likewise cannot rely on policies that may be here today and gone tomorrow, whether these are temporary tax rates designed to look good at election time or temporary immigration policies that can backfire later if employers get accused of hiring illegal immigrants.
Why hire someone, and invest time and money in training him, if you may be forced to fire him before a year has passed?Kicking the can down the road is a favorite exercise in Washington. But neither in the economy nor in their personal lives can people make plans and commitments on the basis of government policies that suddenly appear and suddenly disappear.
Like so many other Obama ploys, his immigration ploy is not meant to help the country, but to help Obama. This is all about getting the Hispanic vote this November.
Gee, you mean it’s all about HIM! and you are just a tool to benefit HIM!? 🙂
Yet Buffett had little reason to worry; his insider political connections afforded him two guarantees. First, many members of Congress were themselves investing heavily in Berkshire Hathaway throughout the bailout talks–a move that may simply have been a good investment in an unsteady time, or else a shrewd exploitation of unique information. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), for example, snatched up $130,000 worth of Berkshire Hathaway stock. Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) also bought shares in Berkshire Hathaway, as did Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO), who purchased half a million dollars’ worth just days after the Wall Street bailout bill was signed. Second, Buffett knew he had an ally in the surging Barack Obama. Buffett had backed Obama in 2008. And as Obama has himself conceded, “Warren Buffett is one of those people that I listen to.”
When the TARP bailout passed, Berkshire Hathaway firms received a staggering $95 billion in bailout cash from U.S. taxpayers. In total, TARP-assisted companies made up almost a third (30%) of Buffett’s entire publicly disclosed stock portfolio. The payoff: by July 2009, Buffett’s Goldman bet and his congressional jawboning had yielded profits as high as $3.7 billion.
Incredibly, in a breathtaking public relations move, Buffett publicly complained that the government bailouts had put his company at a disadvantage, because funders “who are using imaginative methods (or lobbying skills) to come under the government’s umbrella–have money costs that are minimal.” Rolfe Winkler of Reuters best captured Buffet’s audacity: “It takes chutzpah to lobby for bailouts, make trades seeking to profit from them, and then complain that those doing so put you at a disadvantage.”
Still, despite Buffett’s apparent, and brazen, display of crony capitalism and political manipulation to produce billions in profits, Schweizer says that the most egregious part is that his behavior appears to have been entirely legal. Buffett merely leveraged his unique and powerful political connections to turn taxpayer money into massive private profits.
Now, with the 2012 presidential election right around the corner, Buffett plans to back President Obama again. In August 2011, the two men vacationed together in the plush surroundings of Martha’s Vineyard. Shortly thereafter, Buffett hosted an Obama fundraiser in New York City where contributors spent $35,800 for VIP tickets and the chance to discuss the economy with the Berkshire Hathaway CEO.
If Buffett’s political track record is any indication, his time spent alongside President Obama was an investment intended to yield a high rate of return–at taxpayers’ expense. (Big Government.com)
Aw shucks, Tax me More Warren is part of the disease, what a shock. And of Course, Obama has his ‘full support’ $$$$
In January, Obama specifically said, “But at a time when our discourse has become so sharply polarized – at a time when we are far too eager to lay the blame for all that ails the world at the feet of those who think differently than we do – it’s important for us to pause for a moment and make sure that we are talking with each other in a way that heals, not a way that wounds.”
We were told to change our rhetoric, to have a new “tone” of civility free of violent references.
Fast forward to now, and Obama’s Vice President Joe Biden, is telling unions they “fired the first shot” at a campaign events.
“Folks, you fired the first shot. It’s not about Barack Obama. It’s not about Joe Biden. It’s about whether middle-class people are going to be put back in the saddle again – because you are the people who make this country move,” Vice President Joe Biden said at a campaign event in Ohio today.
Thanks for leading by example, Biden.
But then again, The Unions are the Brownshirts, the army of this Adminstration and as has been chronicled in this blog many times, the incestuous $$ partners of Democrats.
So the Circle of Sleeze continues. But don’t worry, it’s <fill in the blank>’s Fault! 🙂
Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain…
What is old, is new again. It’s not like Liberals actually care what you think. They just want to force you to think their way.
In his speech, Obama referred to “immigrants” six times and “immigration” seven times and said the United States is a “nation of laws.” But he did not use the words “legal” or “illegal” in his speech.
“It can be tempting to think that those coming to America today are somehow different from us,” Obama said. “And we need to not have amnesia about how we populated this country.”
Obama said we should “look at that migrant farmer and see our own grandfather disembarking at Ellis Island, or Angel Island in San Francisco Bay,” he said, “and to look at that young mother, newly arrived in this country, and see our own grandmothers leaving Italy or Ireland or Eastern Europe in search of something better.”
Notice the Orwellian use of language (or lack of it- like legal and illegal). Classic Orwell.
Notice, that Ellis Island was Legal Immigration and crossing the border without permission, documentation or any kind of screening at all, is made to be the equivalent.
Illegal Immigrant= Immigrant. Not distinction.
So if you think there is one, it must be because of race. 🙂
So when did you stop being a racist? 🙂
And you can never, ever be too hyperbolic if you’re a liberal…Case in point:
The public relations campaign for President Obama’s latest revival of “immigration reform” makes one thing crystal clear: This is not, and never has been, about homeland security. This is not, and never has been, about economic security. It’s about political security, plain and cynical.
In conjunction with Tuesday’s renewed White House push in Texas for a “new pathway to citizenship” for millions of illegal immigrants, disgruntled Latino activists are ratcheting up their radical anti-enforcement rhetoric. Illinois Democratic Rep. Luis Gutierrez — a persistent critic on Obama’s left flank — lambasted federal workplace enforcement raids this weekend. On Sunday, he repeated his hyperbolic attacks on homeland security agents “terrorizing” neighborhoods and ripping babies from the breasts of nursing moms. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano made no public effort to defend her employees.
On campuses across the country, unhappy ethnic college student groups have turned up the heat on Democrats to resurrect the “DREAM Act” nightmare for the 12th time in a decade. The legislation — persistently rejected by a bipartisan majority on Capitol Hill — would provide illegal aliens (not just teenagers, but students up to age 35) federal education access and benefits, plus a conditional pass from deportation and a special path toward green cards and U.S. citizenship for themselves and unlimited relatives.
Obama argues that his comprehensive amnesty plan would boost America’s bottom line. But the open-borders math doesn’t add up. The Congressional Budget Office score of the last DREAM Act package estimates that “the bill would increase projected deficits by more than $5 billion in at least one of the four consecutive 10-year periods starting in 2021.” And that doesn’t include the costs of the unlimited family members the millions of DREAM Act beneficiaries would be able to bring to the U.S. A separate cost analysis by the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies concluded that the illegal alien DREAM Act bailout would cost taxpayers $6.2 billion a year and “crowd out” U.S. students in the classroom.
To help gloss over those sobering realities and blur the lines between legal and illegal immigration, Obama summoned Latino celebrities such as actresses Eva Longoria and Rosario Dawson. The starlets — deemed important “stakeholders” in the immigration policy debate by the celebrity in chief — have served as glamorous distractions from the vocal complaints of Southwest governors, ranchers, farmers and other victims of continued border chaos. These are the real stakeholders whose lives and livelihoods are at risk. But none had a seat at the Hollywood-filled table.
While proudly emphasizing her ethnic loyalties, Dawson (an outspoken critic of Arizona’s immigration enforcement law) insists immigration reform “isn’t just a Mexican” or Latino issue. But for more candid liberal strategists, the illegal alien amnesty bandwagon is nothing more than a tool to motivate current and future Latinos to protect the Democrats’ grip on power. Eliseo Medina, secretary treasurer of Obama’s deep-pocketed backers at the Service Employees International Union, laid out the stakes in an interview with MSNBC:
“Clearly with immigration reform and any other kind of reform that would benefit the Latino community, we have to make sure that our voices are heard in the ballot box. There are approximately 23 million Latinos that are eligible to vote, yet only 10 million voted in 2008.”
SEIU’s goal: “If we increase the turnout from 10 million to anywhere between 12 and 15 million, we’re going to have an outsized impact on the election in 2012.”
If, as widely expected, Obama fails to deliver amnesty through the legislative process, there’s always amnesty by executive fiat. White House insiders first floated the idea in June 2010 to unilaterally extend either deferred action or parole to millions of illegal aliens in the United States. This administration has accomplished its major policy agenda items through force, fiat and fraud. Immigration will be no different.
Unfortunately for the law-abiding, there is no Hollywood-Washington-Big Labor lobby to speak for them. While Obama’s homeland security officials hang their “mission accomplished” banner over the border, the feds have barely made a dent in the three-year naturalization application backlog or the 400,000-deportation fugitive problem.
Meanwhile, law enforcement witnesses told a House subcommittee last month that border smuggling has grown so out of control that federal prosecutors are simply declining to pursue cases. Cochise County, Arizona, Sheriff Larry Dever testified about the feds’ so-called “Turn Back South” policy — which includes lowering thresholds for drug and smuggling prosecutions, and permitting border-crossers at least seven strikes before being charged with immigration misdemeanors. And just last week, the General Accounting Office reported another massive 1.6 million illegal visa overstayers backlog — a problem exposed by five of the 19 September 11 hijackers who benefited from systemic failure to enforce visa regulations.
So much for “never forget.” (Michelle Malkin)
There’s a lot of wrestling today over what Barack Obama’s immigration speech means. I would submit it means about the same thing it did the last time he gave it— in July 2010.
Below are the pertinent parts of, well, both speeches. Remember when the 2010 speech kicked off a serious, concentrated effort to move comprehensive immigration reform through Congress through the heroic efforts of Obama, the bipartisan zen master? Yeah, me neither. Often, an Obama speech is just a kick-off for…more Obama speeches.
2011: At times, there has been fear and resentment directed towards newcomers, especially in hard economic times.
2010: Now, we can’t forget that this process of immigration and eventual inclusion has often been painful. Each new wave of immigrants has generated fear and resentments towards newcomers, particularly in times of economic upheaval.
2011: And then when I think about immigration I think about the naturalization ceremonies that we’ve held at the White House for members of our military. Nothing could be more inspiring. Even though they were not yet citizens when they joined our military, these men and women signed up to serve…
Another was a woman named Perla Ramos who was born and raised in Mexico and came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and joined the Navy. And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history we write day by day.”
2010: This past April, we held a naturalization ceremony at the White House for members of our armed forces. Even though they were not yet citizens, they had enlisted. One of them was a woman named Perla Ramos — born and raised in Mexico, came to the United States shortly after 9/11, and she eventually joined the Navy. And she said, “I take pride in our flag and the history that forged this great nation and the history we write day by day.”
2011: What matters is that you believe in the ideals on which we were founded; that you believe that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. (Applause.) All of us deserve our freedoms and our pursuit of happiness. In embracing America, you can become American.
2010: …and that being an American is not a matter of blood or birth. It’s a matter of faith. It’s a matter of fidelity to the shared values that we all hold so dear. That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.
2011: We can point to the genius of Einstein, the designs of I. M. Pei, the stories of Isaac Asimov, the entire industries that were forged by Andrew Carnegie.
2010: The scientific breakthroughs of Albert Einstein, the inventions of Nikola Tesla, the great ventures of Andrew Carnegie’s U.S. Steel and Sergey Brin’s Google, Inc. -– all this was possible because of immigrants.
2011: That’s the promise of this country — that anyone can write the next chapter in our story
2010: That’s what makes us unique. That’s what makes us strong. Anybody can help us write the next great chapter in our history.
2011: That’s one reason it’s been so difficult to reform our broken immigration system. When an issue is this complex, when it raises such strong feelings, it’s easier for politicians to defer until the problem the next election.
2010: Unfortunately, reform has been held hostage to political posturing and special-interest wrangling -– and to the pervasive sentiment in Washington that tackling such a thorny and emotional issue is inherently bad politics.
2011: Today, there are an estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants here in the United States. Some crossed the border illegally. Others avoid immigration laws by overstaying their visas. Regardless of how they came, the overwhelming majority of these folks are just trying to earn a living and provide for their families.
2010: The overwhelming majority of these men and women are simply seeking a better life for themselves and their children.
2011: Also, because undocumented immigrants live in the shadows, where they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses that skirt taxes, and pay workers less than the minimum wage, or cut corners with health and safety laws, this puts companies who follow the rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime or just a safe place to work, it puts those businesses at a disadvantage.
2010: Many settle in low-wage sectors of the economy; they work hard, they save, they stay out of trouble. But because they live in the shadows, they’re vulnerable to unscrupulous businesses who pay them less than the minimum wage or violate worker safety rules -– thereby putting companies who follow those rules, and Americans who rightly demand the minimum wage or overtime, at an unfair [dis]advantage. (Mary Katherine Ham)
So what if they were defeated the last time and the time before that. Liberals don’t care.
As Charlie Sheen would say, “winning!” 🙂
The Nationalized Health Care of Canada has stuck again.
This is ongoing and started earlier this week but Wisconsin took up the time.
If this doesn’t outrage you, you must be dead, or a Liberal.
But it’s coming to an ObamaCare near you…
London, Ontario Free Press: Jane Sims The London Free Press Moe Maraachli keeps the snapshots of his dying baby boy in an envelope in his jacket pocket.
He pulls out the photos of the son he’s about to lose, trying to understand how a hospital, an Ontario health-related board assigned to judge consent issues, and a London court could say he and his wife can’t take Baby Joseph home to Windsor to die.
“I do my best for my baby. I do my best,” he said Thursday outside the London courthouse, tears in his eyes.
“This is killing, this is criminal . . . I’m sure this is murder.”
This Monday, on Family Day in Ontario, Joseph Maraachli, who’s in a vegetative state from a neurodegenerative disease, will die after his breathing tube is removed from his tiny body at a London hospital, ending an ethical and legal dilemma that tried to balance unwanted suffering with the needs of a child and his family.
“I lose my baby,” his father, 37, who came to Canada from Lebanon 11 years ago, said. “They take him from me.”
“I don’t lose my baby like God take him. They take him. They want to take him.”
“It was basically our family’s word versus the medical system’s world,” said his aunt, Samar Nader, who’s sure she saw Joseph respond to her this week when she touched his head.
“I think in medicine, they’re just looking at the world from a black and white point of view.”
“The family understands the child and for us to witness his death on Monday . . . I don’t know,” she said.
An emotional Superior Court Justice Helen Rady, who called it “heartbreaking” and “such a sad and difficult case”, decided Thursday not to allow the family’s appeal of a decision last month by Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board to have the child’s breathing tube removed and put in place a do-not-resuscitate order and palliative care.
The baby’s father and mother, Sana Nader, 35, wanted the same treatment for Joseph as was given to their daughter before she died, eight years ago at 18 months – give Joseph a tracheotomy and ventilation, and allow them to take him home to die what they would be a peaceful death.
But Joseph’s doctors say while a tracheotomy – an incision is made in a patient’s airway, to help breathing – may prolong the baby’s life, it’s futile in this case and would likely cause much discomfort. It would certainly also increase the risk of infection and pneumonia, they argue.
“The medical officials would not want this little boy to suffer,” Rady said.
When born in January 2010, Joseph, now 13 months, was a beautiful, normal baby.
But five months later he started having seizures like his sister. By June, he couldn’t swallow.
In October, he stopped breathing while travelling with his parents. He was taken to an Ingersoll hospital, then rushed to the London Health Sciences Centre’s pediatric critical care unit where he’s been ever since.
His father has stayed in London to be with his son.
His mother is in London every weekend and returns to Windsor to look after the couple’s other son, Ali.
Joseph’s on a ventilator and fed through a tube. He’s in what the doctors call “a persistent vegetative state.” The doctors say he’s blind and deaf.
He’s missing all five brain stem reflexes considered necessary for life – gag, cough, eye movement, pupil and cornea responses. His brain deterioration is irreversible.
A team of doctors, including a world-renowned pediatric expert from Toronto’s Hospital for Sick Children, has examined Joseph and agrees he’s dying of the same progressive neurodegenerative disease that claimed his sister.
Joseph’s doctor told the adjudication board that doctors “reluctantly” gave the couple’s daughter a tracheotomy. Since then, doctors have learned “substantially” more about the procedure and determined it isn’t right for Joseph.
The board agreed with Joseph’s attending doctor that the baby has “no hope or chance of ever recovering.”
“While we feel a great deal of empathy for the parents, we held that their view was not in any way realistic,” the board said, adding Joseph’s parents “were blinded by their obvious love” for their child.
The State Board knows better!!! Sound ObamaCare-ish? Yes!
Obamacare establishes the Independent Payment Advisory Board, whose stated responsibility is to develop proposals to reduce the growth of Medicare spending.
His parents fear Joseph will choke to death once the tube is removed. They say he responds to their touch and wanted the board to see him in hospital before deciding.
Rady said it’s unclear what the board would have seen had its members agreed. And she noted that while Joseph’s head and body have grown, it doesn’t mean the medical assessments are wrong.
The case digs deeply into the delicate balance of life versus. suffering.
Ethicist Margaret Somerville, of McGill University’s Centre for Medicine, Ethics and Law, said the case is “a judgment where the parents are giving priority to the prolongation of life and the doctor is giving priority to the quality of that life.”
“I’m sure there’s no doubt in this case that this child has a very poor quality of life, but we do know that health care professionals judge quality of life much lower than people themselves do.”
Somerville said such quality-of-life decisions are delicate and often at odds. What needs to be examined is why the family doesn’t agree with the decision and if their reasons are acceptable, she said.
The board had ordered Joseph’s breathing tube be removed Friday, but Rady said that wasn’t sensitive to the family’s need.
Instead, she ordered they comply by Monday – a statutory holiday in Ontario, to celebrate family – “to afford the whole family adequate time to say their good-byes.”
Rady’s voice broke when she addressed the family. “I hope that in time you’ll find peace,” she said.
Joseph’s father wasn’t satisfied. “It’s not help,” he said later.
His lawyer, Geoff Snow, said he understands Rady’s decision but added, “the loss of a child in any circumstances is tragic and it’s unfortunate that there’s not more than could have been done.”
Lawyer Julie Zamprogna Balles, who acted for the doctor, said Rady’s decision was “well-reasoned and compassionate.”
While the case had “very sad and unfortunate circumstances,” everyone involved, she said, have “focused on Little Joseph’s best interests.”
But a grieving Moe Maraachli said there’s “no humanity” in Canada. He expressed a desire to die himself.
“I stay with him until the last moments and hopefully I go with him,” he said.
THE ETHICAL ISSUE
Whether to provide medical intervention to prolong the life of a dying child who’s in a persistent vegetative state.
THE LEGAL ISSUE
Whether to allow an appeal of a decision by an Ontario health-based board that adjudicates consent issues, to take the child off life support.
LONDON, Ont. – A father who has been battling to stop a London, Ont., hospital from removing his terminally ill son from a ventilator stood his ground Monday and defied a court order requiring him to give consent.
Moe Maraachli says he and his wife Sana Nader are happy the breathing tube keeping their 13-month old son Joseph alive has not yet been removed.
But their fight to get the boy a tracheotomy so they can take him home to die isn’t over.
“I’m very excited because my son doesn’t remove his tube today,” said Maraachli, who has been sleeping at the hospital since Friday.
“All my family is happy. We are happy. We feel it’s really Family Day today.”
The Windsor, Ont., couple has been fighting for months against doctors at Victoria Hospital in London who say their son should be removed from life support because he will not recover from the rare neurological condition that has left him in a vegetative state.
The family fears Joseph will suffer a painful death if the ventilator is removed, and prefers that a tracheotomy be performed so they can take him home to live his remaining days surrounded by people who love him.
The couple’s 18-month-old daughter died almost nine years ago from a similar medical condition. She had a tracheotomy and lived at home for six months before she died, said Maraachli.
But, last Thursday, Ontario Superior Court Justice Helen Rady ordered the couple to agree to take Joseph off the ventilator by 10 a.m. Monday.
The judge was upholding a decision already made by Ontario’s Consent and Capacity Board.
Because the London hospital could not get consent to remove the breathing tube from Joseph’s parents or other family members, it has the right to seek consent from the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee, said Mark Handelman, Maraachli’s lawyer.
But Maraachli is hoping his son Joseph will be transferred to Michigan’s Children’s Hospital in Detroit.
Joseph has been treated there before under the Ontario Provincial Health Insurance Plan and the family feels they would have another chance at persuading doctors to perform a tracheotomy if he returns there.
The couple’s friends recently contacted the U.S. hospital about a transfer and the London Health Sciences Centre, which Victoria Hospital falls under, was asked to send Joseph’s medical records there on Sunday.
The London hospital sent Joseph’s medical chart by courier to Detroit on Monday, said spokeswoman Laurie Gould.
“At this point in time we have not received any request for transfer,” said Gould.
If a transfer request is made, Gould said her hospital would contact the public guardian and “wait for their direction.”
The London hospital would not need permission from the public guardian to transfer Joseph to Michigan, said Handelman.
Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, called the baby Joseph case sad and tragic.
Schadenberg questioned why doctors, not parents, should have the final say over their baby’s care.
“Is it right that the doctor has now so much power?” asked Schadenberg.
“I think the balance of power has shifted in Ontario too far, and I’m getting very concerned about who has the right to decide.”
Gould said the case is certainly “emotionally charged.”
The hospital has received calls and emails from the public, some offering prayers for the baby, who’s been at the hospital since October, she said.
As cars honked their horns, a couple of dozen people holding signs and photos of the baby held a vigil outside the hospital Monday morning, an hour before the baby was to be removed from the ventilator.
Maraachli’s sister-in-law Samar Nader said the family is “relieved and thankful” for all the support they’ve received from the public.
“It’s true that miracles do happen and I would never have expected for my nephew to live past 10 o’clock without the people’s help,” she said.
(CNN) — A Canadian family fighting to keep their 13-month-old son on a breathing tube says they have been denied a request to have him transferred to a hospital in Michigan.
Moe and Sana Maraachli refused to sign consent when Canadian health officials determined their son Joseph, who suffers from a progressive degenerative neurological disease and was in a persistent vegetative state, should be removed from life support. Joseph is being treated at the London Health Sciences Centre in Ontario.
The Maraachlis reached out to the Children’s Hospital of Michigan in Detroit in hopes of having their son transferred there for continued care.
Family spokesperson Sam Sansalone said the hospital initially agreed to accept the transfer. He said he has since received an email indicating the request has been denied.
Sansalone forwarded an email from the Detroit hospital that he said explains that after a review of Joseph’s records by neurological and intensive care physicians, “we cannot offer Joseph anything that he has not been provided already during his current admission by his current clinical care team … transfer to our facility will not provide him or the family any benefit.”
Vickie Winn, a spokesperson from the Children’s Hospital, confirmed Joseph is not a patient at the hospital but could not offer further comment, citing patient privacy laws.
Sansalone said the family is pursuing at least three other hospitals in other states.
The family says the hospital has it wrong and that their son is not in a persistent vegetative state. Sansalone said they have noted experiences where the baby has responded to being tickled and has jolted when he felt discomfort with examinations or the feeding tubes. They say these are signs he might still have brain function.
However, Canadian health officials disagree. On February 17, they decided Joseph should be removed from life support. The family was given until February 21 to say their goodbyes and sign the consent, but they have yet to do so.
The Maraachlis are seeking a second opinion from what they consider to be an objective source that can review the more than 1,000 pages of Joseph’s medical records and provide a better assessment of their son’s treatment options.
If he is beyond hope, they want him to be able to receive a tracheotomy, where he can be transferred home and die in the care of family instead of in a hospital.
Experts say even if the family is granted this request, caring for a child in this condition is an arduous task.
Dr. David Casarett, director of research and evaluation at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wissahickon Hospice, says patients at home with tracheotomies need monitoring to make sure the airway is clear of secretions, the skin is clean and dry and someone can make sure the incision at the tracheotomy site does not get infected.
“A child’s care would be much more complex if a home ventilator is required, since the parents would need to manage the ventilator with the help of a nurse and respiratory therapist,” he said.
Suzanne Vitadamo, spokesperson for the Terri Schiavo Life & Hope Network and Terri’s sister, issued the following statement:
“It is unacceptable for Canadian Health Allocation Officials and/or the Canadian Government to make decisions for Joseph that will end his life and deny the wishes of his loving parents.
“Every patient, regardless of age, has a right to proper and dignified health care. It is frightening to once again see government usurp the God-given rights of parents to love and care for their child at home, especially when the child is dying.”
We are from the Government and we are here to help you, control you, and make decisions for you.