Friday, May 31, 2013


Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) was the only featured guest at a New York Republican Party dinner Wednesday night, which a spokesman said raised nearly $750,000. During his 35-minute speech that roused a crowd of high-profile New York Republicans, it couldn't have been clearer where the GOP's rising star from Texas wanted to move — away from the divisive rhetoric of a failed 2012 for Republicans and onto a path that could set them up for success in 2014 and 2016. His speech served as a direct rebuke to the campaign of 2012 Republican nominee Mitt Romney. It will only further chatter about his future ambitions, including a potential 2016 run for president. "I am going to suggest that the last election can be explained in two words: 47 percent," Cruz said, referencing Romney's infamous speech to donors at a fundraiser last year. At this fundraiser, Cruz took a profound shot at Romney's narrative. "I think Mitt Romney's a good and decent man, and he ran a very hard campaign. But what I mean is the narrative of the last election. The narrative of the last election was, 'The 47 percent of Americans who are not paying income taxes, who in some way are dependent upon government. We don't have to worry about them.' That's what was communicated in the last election. "I have to tell you, as a conservative, I cannot think of an idea more opposite to what we believe. I think Republicans are and should be the party of the 47 percent." It was a message, a Cruz aide later said, that needs to be communicated to the party a lot more — a party that embraced and, in some ways, fueled the fire of Romney's remarks.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Thursday, May 30, 2013


As a most cherished friend and an immensely loyal supporter, I'm writing you today to say THANK YOU for all you have done both for me and my campaigns.

As a special thank you, I have prepared a personal video just for you that I hope you will view right now. I'm excited to share this important breaking news about a decision I have made with you first.

After watching the video, I hope you will provide me your feedback or leave a comment.

Again, from the bottom of my heart, thank you for your continued support. I look forward to working with you in my future endeavors.


Wednesday, May 29, 2013



By Alan Caruba

The conclusion of the trial of Dr. Kermit Gosnell, convicted of first-degree murder in the killings of aborted babies and involuntary manslaughter in the drug-overdose death of a patient, ignited a renewed national discussion of abortion in America. The discussion has not been aided by the mainstream media that, for the most part, ignored the trial.

According to a report in a British newspaper, a Houston doctor, Douglas Karpen, has been accused by four former employees of delivering live babies during third-trimester abortions and killing them by either snipping their spinal cords, stabbing them in the head with a surgical instrument, or twisting their heads off with his hands. The accusations are being investigated by the Texas Department of State Health Services.

The decision by the United States Supreme Court in 1973, known as Roe v. Wade, ran counter to the widespread belief that abortion, except in the case of saving the mother’s life or as the result of rape and incest, should not be permitted. The Court ruled that a woman’s right to privacy under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment included her decision to have an abortion. The right to an abortion, however, did not extend to what the Court deemed“viability”, the ability of the baby to live outside the mother’s womb. The seventh month, 28 weeks, was cited, though the Court noted it could occur at 24 weeks.

Pro-life advocates believe that a fetus is a human being at the moment of conception. Modern technology has confirmed that a fully formed fetus is indeed a human being in every way short of the birth process.

It has been just over forty years since the Court’s decision. In 2012 The National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) released a report that estimated the number of abortions at 54,559,615 based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. According to the CDC, in 2010 there were 3,999,386 births in the U.S., a rate of 13 per 1,000 of the population. Of these, 40.8% were born to unwed women.

No matter how you look at such statistics that is a lot of dead babies and it can be argued that a society that permits what amounts to mass murder has lost its moral bearings. A society in which many babies are born to single mothers is inviting a raft of social problems. I didn’t give much thought to the Supreme Court decision in 1973 and, in retrospect, I should have.

It is instructive that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg spoke at the University of Chicago Law School on the 40th anniversary of Roe v. Wade in early May and had some strong reservations about the decision that occurred before she became a member of the Court. “The court made a decision that made every abortion law in the country invalid, even the most liberal. We’ll never know whether I am right or wrong…things might have turned out differently if the court had been more restrained.”

The fact that there still remains active opposition to abortion is a tribute to those who still believe that morality is important, that issues regarding the sanctity of life count for something. There are, however, those for whom this and other issues, the right to express one’s views, and the ability to fund the sharing of those views, must be oppressed.

The Catholic Church in America comes to mind for its steadfast opposition to abortion. For others there is the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC). I recently received a copy of a letter the NRLC sent to U.S. Senators regarding the “Follow the Money Act of 2013” (S.791).

The issue, however, was not about abortion per se, but the ability of the NRLC to raise funds for the advocacy of its views. I was astounded to learn that, in the wake of revelations about the way the Internal Revenue Service has been used to thwart organizations that include the Tea Party movement, others self-identifying as “patriots”, and still others who engaged in educating people about the Constitution, from receiving a tax exempt status that would aid their ability to raise funds to advance their views.

Even the Supreme Court has ruled that money is, in many ways, the equivalent of free speech.

The NRLC letter was signed by David N. O’Steen, PhD, its Executive Director and Douglas Johnson, its Legislative Director.

“The ‘Follow the Money Act’ would be better titled the ‘IRS Political Speech Overseer Act of 2013.’ The bill is a 47-page compendium of devices for government intimidation of nonprofit advocacy organizations that communicate with the public about federal public policy issues, and about the positions and votes of those who make our laws. The bill would make the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the Secretary of the Treasury (a political appointee), into overseers of an ever-expanding maze of restrictions on independent speech about legislative and political matters, and into executioners for nonprofit groups that offend the powers-that-be.”
The sponsors of S. 791 are Senators Wyden (D-Oregon) and Murkowski (R-Alaska) and the bill was introduced on April 23 before the IRS scandal broke into the news.
Citing an analysus of the bill by the Center for Competitive Politics, the letter quoted it, noting that “The bill would radically expand the reach of government regulation on speech critical of elected officials and force many, if not nearly all, advocacy groups to register and file burdensome reports with the federal government. The registration and reporting scheme also includes the threat of stiff tax penalties on groups and individuals, along with an organizational death sentence that could be imposed by the IRS for errors. If enacted, this bill would dragoon the IRS into a role as political campaign enforcer, a role the IRS is ill-equipped for and does not want. . . .”

The bill defines “Independent Federal Election-Related Activity (IFERA) to include:“any expenditure that...considering the facts and circumstances, a reasonable person would conclude is made solely or substantially for the purpose of influencing or attempting to influence the nomination or election of any individual to any Federal office (includingan expenditure for a public communication that promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes a candidate)…” (Emphasis added)

Influencing who gets nominated or elected in America is a very good definition of the democratic process and the right of any citizen to participate in that vital outcome. It is the essence of free speech.

Forgive the pun, but S.791 is an abortion. It is a bill that would throttle public advocacy and the blunt instrument it would use to do so is the Internal Revenue Service, the same government agency that is now in charge of administering Obamacare.

The enemies of free speech are numerous and we are already witness to the way the Obama administration is seeking ways to throttle it in America. The Follow the Money Act must be defeated or your voice and your vote will be silenced and neutered.

©Alan Caruba, 2013

Tuesday, May 28, 2013

Boy Scouts Of America Are Finished

Wonderful Opportunity for NEW Group!

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

"The Boy Scouts of America threw open its ranks Thursday to gay Scouts but not gay Scout leaders - a fiercely contested
compromise that some warned could fracture the organization and lead to mass defections of members and donors.
Of the roughly 1,400 voting members of the BSA's National Council who cast ballots, 61 percent supported the proposal drafted by the governing Executive Committee. The policy change takes effect Jan. 1." SOURCE:
The Scouts are going to be hurt -- not just the organization but the millions of former and current Scouts. Either way, sponsorships will be pulled, lots and lots of sponsorships. Multiple numbers of Christians and members of Christian organizations will abandon the Scouts.
This was a singular moment for the Scouts -- a "High Noon" moment, if you will, for the national leadership of the Scouts. Seems to me they should have practiced what they have taught all these decades by taking a stand, as men, and doing the "right thing."
But, in my opinion, they did not.
See, there are very, very, few men of sterling character and conviction these days -- in any organization. Doing the right thing because it IS the right thing to do, is seen as quaint, and frankly, a little weird in modern America. And it has taken a huge toll on American society. It has hollowed America out. It has removed our core and left us a limp relic of our former selves. This latest decision by the BSA simply affirms that.
"On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight."
(The Scout Oath)
I suppose the last phrase of the BSA oath above ( ... and morally straight) will, of necessity, be removed from the Scout Oath.
What a world we have created, eh? The decline and fall of America certainly is painful to those with enough sense to see it for what it is. The few Americans who retain situational awareness understand that America "is in an advanced state of cultural decadence." Let's face it: We have become degenerate in mental and moral qualities.
As evidence (as if MORE evidence was needed) the problem the BSA has been wrestling with should not even be in question. But we, as a nation have so deluded ourselves and so submerged ourselves in moral relativity (political correctness) and decadence that we are -- finally -- blinded to the truth. It is all around us, but we can no longer see it. We are simply too far gone.
"We are deeply saddened," said Frank Page, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's executive committee after learning of the result. "Homosexual behavior is incompatible with the principles enshrined in the Scout oath and Scout law."
The Assemblies of God, another conservative denomination, said the policy change "will lead to a mass exodus from the Boy Scout program." It also warned that the change would make the BSA vulnerable to lawsuits seeking to end the ban on gay adults.
Texas Gov. Rick Perry also expressed dismay.
'While I will always cherish my time as a Scout and the life lessons I learned, I am greatly disappointed with this decision,' he said." SOURCE:
BSA youth membership has fallen from it's peak membership of a little over 4 million to the current roughly 2 and-a-half million. According to the article cited above -- "Of the more than 100,000 Scouting units in the U.S., 70 percent are chartered by religious institutions."
And then there is this: "Boy Scouts' Woes Continue With Assault by Atheists"
"On the heels of the news that they caved in to pressure from the homosexual lobby and will allow participation by boys who identify as “gay,” the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) are facing a new assault, this time from the nation's organized atheists. On May 24 the Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) fired a warning shot over the bow of the BSA concerning the group's requirement that both participants and leaders express faith in God. The godless group applauded the BSA's initial surrender to the demands of homosexual activists, but challenged the scouting organization on its decision to retain a policy that “bars atheist and freethinking members.” SOURCE:
No surprise here! Weakness emboldens one's adversaries. The BSA, in demonstrating their weakness last week, simply opened up the door for more assaults, assaults that will ultimately strangle the organization right out of existence.
They say that when one door closes another opens. Seems to me a door just opened for an entirely new organization for young men and boys who want to be a member of a male youth organization that lives by the the standards espoused in the BSA oath. It can be done and most likely WILL be done -- and soon.
We hope so!
© J. D. Longstreet
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!: (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

Monday, May 27, 2013




Tea Party gets a bump after being targeted by IRS

The Tea Party movement is showing signs of a resurgence following the revelation that the IRS targeted groups and other politically conservative organizations for the past several years.

A recent poll shows Americans have a more favorable opinion of the less-government, anti-tax groups. And one of the biggest groups in the grassroots movement told this weekend that fundraising and donations have increased since news of the IRS targeting broke earlier this month. 

However, one of the biggest remaining questions is whether the Tea Party can take the momentum in the 2014 elections.

The movement started in 2009 as a reaction to the federal government’s multibillion-dollar bank bailouts in the recession and played a major role in the 2010 midterm elections by backing conservative candidates who helped Republicans take control of the House. However, critics during the 2012 election cycle repeatedly argued the movement had become less relevant.

“We’re definitely seeing a spike in both interest and contributions,” Sal Russo, co-founder of the California-based Tea Party Express, told Fox on Saturday.

Though Americans responded with anger and disappointment over the news that such groups seeking tax-exempt status were targeted in 2011 and 2012 for additional IRS vetting, Russo said Tea Party members also feel vindicated and energized.

“They knew spending was out of control and their (political opponents) would stop at nothing,” Russo said.

Russo made his comments one day after a Rasmussen Reports poll showed 44 percent of likely U.S. voters now have a favorable opinion of the Tea Party, 14 percentage points higher than in January and just 7 points below the record high of 51 percent in April 2009.

In addition, the percentage of voters who had an unfavorable opinion of the movement was down 5 points from earlier this year, to 44 percent.

The May 21-22 phone survey of 1,100 likely voters by the conservative-leaning polling firm also found 18 percent had a very favorable opinion while 25 percent had a very unfavorable one. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.

Company President Scott Rasmussen told Fox on Sunday the poll showed Tea Party support among Republicans surged from 61 to 80 percent.

Such a change could impact the internal struggles within the party, particularly between the Republican-controlled House’s conservative caucus and the more moderate chamber leadership.

However, Rasmussen thinks the IRS targeting has the potential to thrust the Tea Party into the 2014 elections and that the scandal might have a bigger impact on Democrats.

“This and some of the other recent stories really cut into the heart of President Obama’s agenda, which is faith in government,” he said. “And his health-care plan is tied to the IRS. The large question is will the Democrats’ brand remain tainted.”

Russo was enthusiastic about 2014, saying he was working this weekend on potential races. But he was uncertain about how long the scandal might remain in the voters’ consciousness.

“It’s too early to tell,” he said. “But a lot of people are looking at the Tea Party right now.”


Dear Fellow American,

Freedom isn't free, and Memorial Day is the one day out of 365 that all Americans take a moment to reflect upon why we're blessed to live in the land of the free and home of the brave—our veterans and active duty troops.

You know me as an actor, but you may not know that I spend a substantial amount of my free time supporting military charities, like the American Veterans Center, host of the annual National Memorial Day Parade in Washington, DC.

For nearly 70 years, Washington, DC, was without a parade on our Armed Services' most sacred day. In 2005, the American Veterans Center revived the tradition of a Memorial Day parade in our nation's capital, and today it serves two vital civic purposes: to give the general public the opportunity to honor our service members and pay tribute to our veterans, while allowing active duty troops, veterans, and re-enactors showcase the sacrifice of all our veterans in an exciting procession of American history the whole family can enjoy.

I'm honored to serve as the Honorary Grand Marshal of the National Memorial Day Parade, and I hope you'll join me this year. Even if you can't come all the way to Washington, DC, you can march alongside me through the Virtual Boots on the Ground—the online parade.

Please follow this link to register for the virtual parade, select your avatar, and join thousands of patriots across the country to honor America's veterans from the Revolutionary War to the war in Afghanistan.

After you complete your registration, please make a generous tax-deductible contribution to support the American Veterans Center's efforts throughout the year, including events for wounded veterans at Walter Reed/Bethesda Naval Hospital, programs to educate our youth about the history of America's veterans and their legacy, and the publication of American Valor Quarterly. Whether you can give $25 or $2,500 your contribution will make a huge impact on what the American Veterans Center is able to provide for our veterans throughout the year.

I remember the way our Vietnam Veterans were treated upon returning home. It was a difficult time in our country's history and we must do all we can to make sure that when our men and women are sent to war they are never again forced into the shadows and treated badly, as our returning Vietnam Veterans were. That's one of the reasons I am so active in the veterans' community.

Taking the time on Memorial Day is the least we can do to honor and remember the men and women who have sacrificed family relationships, jobs, and economic stability to go off and fight for our country. So whether you live in the Washington Metro Area and plan to attend this year's parade or you live as far away as Hawaii or Alaska, I encourage you to join us on May 27, 2013, to honor America's veterans.

Please follow this link to register for the Virtual Boots on the Ground parade and join thousands of veterans, active duty troops and civilians across America to pay tribute to our veterans. Then please make the most generous, tax-deductible contribution you can afford to the American Veterans Center to support the parade and our activities throughout the year.

With your support and participation in the virtual parade, we'll promote our veterans' legacy, remember those who gave all, and preserve their sacrifices. Thank you in advance.


Gary Sinise
Honorary Grand Marshal, National Memorial Day Parade

P.S. Join me on May 27, 2013, to pay tribute to America's veterans and active duty troops and remember that freedom is not free by participating in the National Memorial Day Parade. Please follow this link to register, select your avatar, and join millions of your fellow patriots on Memorial Day. After you register for the virtual parade, I hope you'll make a generous tax-deductible contribution to support the efforts of the American Veterans Center.

The National Memorial Day Parade is a project of the American Veterans Center. Donations to the American Veterans Center are 100% tax-deductible.



There is one problem with the entirely justified if self-interested media squawking about the Justice Department snooping into the phone records of multiple Associated Press reporters and Fox News's James Rosen. 

The problem is that what the AP reporters and Rosen did arguably violates the letter of the law. 

The search warrant in the Rosen case cites Section 793(d) of Title 18 of the U.S. Code. 

Section 793(d) says that a person lawfully in possession of information that the government has classified as secret who turns it over to someone not lawfully entitled to posses it has committed a crime. That might cover Rosen's source. 

Section 793(g) is a conspiracy count that says that anyone who conspires to help the source do that has committed the same crime. That would be the reporter. 

It sounds like this law criminalizes a lot of journalism. You might wonder how such a law ever got passed and why, for the last 90 years, it has very seldom produced prosecutions and investigations of journalists. 

The answer: This is the Espionage Act of 1917, passed two months after the United States entered World War I. In his 1998 book "Secrecy," the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan tells the story of how it came into being. 

Congress was responding to incidents of German espionage before the declaration of war. In July 1916, German agents blew up the Black Tom munitions dump in New York Harbor. The explosion was loud enough to be heard in Connecticut and Maryland. 
The Espionage Act was passed with bipartisan support in a Democratic Congress and strongly supported by Democratic President Woodrow Wilson. 

Wilson wanted even more. "Authority to exercise censorship over the press," he wrote a senator, "is absolutely necessary." He got that authority in May 1918 when Congress passed the Sedition Act, criminalizing, among other things, "abusive language" about the government. 

Wilson's Justice Department successfully prosecuted Eugene Debs, the Socialist candidate who received 900,000 votes for president in 1912, for making statements opposing the war. 

The Wilson administration barred socialist newspapers from the mails, jailed a filmmaker for making a movie about the Revolutionary War (don't rile our British allies) and prosecuted a minister who claimed Jesus was a pacifist. 

German language books were removed from libraries, German language newspapers forced out of business, and one state banned speaking German outdoors. 

It was an ugly period in our history. It's also a reminder that big government liberals can be as much inclined to suppress civil liberties as small government conservatives -- or more so. 

Fortunately things changed after Wilson left office. A Republican Congress allowed the Sedition Act to expire in 1921. 

Debs, who received 915,000 votes for president in 1920 while in Atlanta federal prison, was pardoned by Republican President Warren Harding (a former journalist) and invited to the White House. 

The Espionage Act of 1917 remained on the books and was amended to cover news media. But it was used sparingly. 

Franklin Roosevelt, who served in the Wilson administration, didn't use it in World War II. When his attorney general urged him to prosecute the Chicago Tribune for a story three days before Pearl Harbor detailing military plans for a possible world war, he brushed the recommendation aside. 

That despite the fact that New Deal Democrats were as paranoid about the Republican and isolationist Tribune as conservatives have been in recent times about The New York Times. 

Roosevelt did order the internment of West Coast Japanese-Americans in 1942. But an act apologizing for that and providing restitution was passed with bipartisan majorities and signed by Ronald Reagan in 1988. 

Presidents and attorney generals of both parties have been reluctant to use the Espionage Act when secret information has been leaked to the press because they have recognized that it is overbroad. 

They have understood, as Moynihan argues in "Secrecy," that government classifies far too many things as secrets, even as it has often failed to protect information that truly needs to stay secret. 

Barack Obama and his Justice Department seem to be of a different mind. They have used the Espionage Act of 1917 six times to bring cases against government officials for leaks to the media -- twice as many as all their predecessors combined. 

"Gradually, over time," Moynihan writes, "American government became careful about liberties." Now, suddenly, it seems to be moving in the other direction. ^ | May 27, 2013 | Michael Barone

Sunday, May 26, 2013


Obama speech suggests possible EXPANSION of drone strikes...

'Kill courts'...


A French soldier patrolling a business neighborhood west of Paris was stabbed in the neck and injured on Saturday by a man who fled the scene and is being sought by police, President Francois Hollande said. 

The 23-year-old was patrolling in uniform with two other soldiers as part of France's Vigipirate anti-terror surveillance plan when he was approached from behind around 6 p.m. and attacked with a knife or a box-cutter. 

A police union spokesman said surveillance footage of the attacker showed him as tall and bearded, aged about 35, possibly of North African origin and wearing a white Arab-style tunic. 

Hollande, in the Ethiopian city of Addis Ababa, commented on the stabbing to say police were hunting for the attacker but did not provide any details about his identity or any possible motivation for the attack. 

"We still don't know the exact circumstances of the attack or the identity of the attacker, but we are exploring all options," Hollande told journalists. 

Three days after a British soldier was killed in a London street by two men who said they acted to avenge violence against Muslims, the attack near Paris raised questions about a possible copycat attempt to kill a French soldier. 

Interior Minister Manuel Valls noted the similarity in an interview on France 2 TV saying the attacker was clearly trying to murder his victim, but he added that it was too early to offer any theories. 

"Let's be prudent for now," Valls said of the attacker's identity and motivations. "Everything is being done to arrest this individual." 

Defence Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian

(Excerpt) Read more at ...








Saturday, May 25, 2013


RUSH: The 2012 election honestly deserves an asterisk next to it. There was a flat-out effort to suppress the conservative vote in this election while everybody was listening to the allegation that conservatives wanted to suppress the black or gay vote.


Die Freihiet, the German political party, is called, in full, Freedom Civil Rights Party for More Freedom and Democracy (Die Freiheit Bürgerrechtspartei für mehr Freiheit und Demokratie).

Freedom was founded in October 2010 by the Berlin parliamentarian René Stadtkewitz.

Stadtkewitz was expelled from the Christian Democratic Union in 2010 after inviting Dutch politician Geert Wilders of the Party for Freedom (PVV) to give a speech in Berlin. A number of other politicians, who left their respective parties, also joined Stadtkewitz.




Friday, May 24, 2013


Let's do a brief review here:

- Two FBI agents involved with the Boston investigation, seemingly fell out of a helicopter last week, and died.

- Witness/suspect in Orlando shot dead? IMHO, protocol would have had the officers frisking the alleged perp before the interview. What happened there?

- FBI and MASSACHUSSETTS state police were on the scene and NO Orlando, Orange County or FDLE personnel present at THE ORLANDO FEDERAL BUILDING in the downtown where, in fact, the execution on presidential orders happened. 

Clearly, Obama doesn't want the conspiracy behind the Boston Bombings exposed, as it runs against the Regime's propaganda spin and is willing to murder in order to hide the truth.

An FBI incident review team from Washington, D.C., is in Orlando today, a day after a Russian man who knew Boston Marathon bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot dead by an agent. 

Federal and Central Florida law enforcement agencies are still collecting and processing evidence from the shooting scene at a condominium complex on Peregrine Avenue, near Kirkman Road and Universal Orlando, where Ibragim Todashev was shot early Wednesday. 

Initially, FBI officials said Todashev, 27, became violent and lunged at an agent with a knife while he was being questioned about Tsarnaev and an unsolved 2011 triple murder in the Boston suburb of Waltham. The agent, acting on an "imminent threat," then shot Todashev, they said. 

However, later in the day, some of those officials had backed off that preliminary account, and it's no longer clear what happened in the moments before the fatal shooting, The Associated Press reported.

Read more at ...


Photos: New photos, including above, from Trayvon Martin's cell phone shows the slain Florida teenager blowing smoke rings, a gun and what appears to be a marijuana plant




A Bar Code on a Wrist Band

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
America's medical community is in a state of severe decline. The way medicine is practiced and care given to America's medical patients has dropped to a level I have never experienced before in my lifetime and I have been hospitalized at least eighty times since the mid 1960's.
I blame two things: Government and computers. There are other reasons, to be sure, but these are the two most prominent to me, at least. Combine the two and you have something akin to chaos in a medical facility.
Understand: When a chain of computers is used in any process, that process is only as fast as the slowest computer user within the chain. Some people's computer skills are excellent. Others are not.
RN's now have those little roll around computers they constantly roll from one patient's room to another. Everything they do -- to and for the patient -- is entered in the patient's records on that computer.
In the good ole days, before computers, patient care was a hell of a lot faster and, in this semi-professional patient's opinion, way more efficient.
Like nearly all businesses, and that's what hospital's really are, these days they are trying to do more with fewer employees.
The recent recession affirmed something in business's collective mind. The fewer employees you have the wider your profit margin -- if you can maintain production at a sufficient level.
Of course, it's a bit more complicated than that. The staff must be able to do more, to work harder, and in some cases work longer hours. They will do it because the number of unemployed people waiting for their job is staggering. (High unemployment is a boon to business.) The employee knows his employer will have no problems replacing him immediately. So he produces to the maximum for the boss.
For the company, production goes up, payroll comes down, and the profit margin grows wider -- all good for business.
I expect the above will be the new normal in American business -- if not in global business.
Hospitals are a service industry. I know that doesn't sound sexy today. Nevertheless, at bottom, ALL hospitals are just that.
Operating any service industry at the bare minimum will, over time, reduce the services and the quality of the services administered by that business. That's bad for both the consumer of those services and the business, itself.
Many hospitals have cut their staffs just as other industries have done. In my opinion, there is no way a healthcare facility can avoid reducing the quality of care the patient receives when they don't have enough people to keep the operation running smoothly and efficiently.
To all of the above -- add government regulations -- and you have a nightmare. And it will only get worse, much worse, under Obamacare.
You know, one of the great inventions in America was the community or county hospital. They were a source of pride for the citizens of that community. Admittedly small with limited resources, they were, however, staffed with people from the community whose families would be receiving care in the institution in which they worked. These small hospitals did yeoman's work in their communities.
In small communities patients knew the individual members of the staff and vice-versa. Doctors were referred to by their first names, because the patient went to church with them, attended PTA meetings and Little League ball games with them. They, too, were an integral part of the community.
Usually the community hospitals were run by an administrator who answered to a board of trustees, who answered to the county commissioners, who answered to the citizens of the community.
Across much of America that has now changed -- and change is NOT ALWAYS GOOD!
Many community hospitals have now been leased to large corporations that manage and operate hospitals for profit all over the country.
Suddenly that community (or county) hospital becomes a regional healthcare facility. At this point, two steps have been taken away from the community where the hospital was born. It is no longer a community hospital and it is no longer answerable to the citizens who ultimately own it.
Then the company running the facility brings in staff doctors. Some are known by a relatively new title -- "Hospitalist." They may be great doctors but they have nothing in common with the community and do not have the bond or the trust of the patients they see.
If you are not familiar with the term hospitalists, you're not alone. Even my thesaurus didn't have it. Turns out the term hospitalist was first coined by Robert Wachter and Lee Goldman in a 1996 New England Journal of Medicine article. Hospitalists' activities may include patient care, teaching, research, and leadership related to hospital care. SOURCE:
Many patients attempt to avoid the hospitals employing hospitalists. I'm one of them.
We have gone from being greeted in the admitting office or the emergency department by our first names to this: "Please give me your full name and date of birth." During my most recent visit to a medical facility I reckon I was asked to provide my full name and date of birth several times and hour. It was even required just to receive my food tray from the hospital kitchen.
In my opinion, we are observing a massive make-over of the healthcare delivery system in America and, frankly, I don't like it -- at all.
Patients are now only a name on a chart or a bar code on a wrist band. It's just one more thing about this new America that I don't like.
© J. D. Longstreet
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!: (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)

Thursday, May 23, 2013

"Congressman Trey Gowdy - You're not the boss of me now"


Yes, no, maybe I don't know Can you repeat the question? You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big Life is unfair, so I just stare at the stain on the wall where The TV'd been, but ever since we've moved in it's been empty Why I, why I'm in this room There is no point explaining You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big Life is a test, and I confess I like this mess I've made so far Grade on a curve and you'll observe I'm right below the horizon Yes, no, maybe, I don't know Can you repeat the question? You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big Life is unfair


Mark Sullivan (a.k.a. "Shit Head Mark") was Director of the U.S. Secret Service during the Benghazi Massacre of our Libyan ambassador and his heroic special forces operatives who were killed along with him on 9/11/12.

Unfortunately for the American Republic, Mark Sullivan is a worthless parasite and spineless jelly fish who, even though retired and living large on a generous taxpayer funded account, refuses all efforts made by this journalist - and many others - to tell where President Obama was located for the seven hours it took for a couple of hundred dastardly and cowardly Islamofascist terrorists to murder our gallant men at Benghazi.

I would remind Retired Citizen Mark Sullivan that he took a sacred oath before God to support and defend the Republic against all enemies, and clearly President Obama has become the greatest enemy of the American People in our history; therefore, any member of Obama's Executive Branch, active or retired, who does not come forward to inform the public of vital information concerning President Obama's location on THE NIGHT OF THE LONG KNIVES in Libya, joins the ranks of infamous American traitors.



America Doesn't Need A President

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
By now we all recognize that the current occupant of the Oval Office is definitely NOT a type "A" personality.
For a time, the President -- and his family -- were enjoying, on average, a vacation a month at taxpayer expense.
In a December, 2011, ABC News interview, Mr. Obama told Barbara Walters, “There is a deep down, underneath all the work I do, I think there’s a laziness in me. It’s probably from, you know, growing up in Hawaii, and it’s sunny outside and sitting on the beach.” SOURCE:
Obama's work ethic HAS been called into question from time to time. Of course, the
person having the temerity to mention it is instantly hammered by the President's "Press Phalanx."
But it remains a nagging point of interest what with well over a hundred rounds of golf under his belt and all the vacations and traveling, making campaign speeches -- even when he is not a candidate -- plus all the travel he does to fundraisers, etc..
It all begs the question: Who's minding the store?
You'd think that with the country in the mess it's in, the Chief Executive would be hard at work making a yeoman's attempt to solve the nation's problems and get the country back on course.
Nope! Ain't happening.
So -- who IS running things? Darned if I know!
When there is good news to report it seems everyone in the West Wing is ready and willing to step forward and take credit. But -- when something goes wrong, nobody knows anything about anything -- period. Funny how that works, eh?
I mean, consider the Benghazi mess. Nobody even knows where the President was! Well, they won't admit it if they do. Of course, all this just makes me wonder -- even more -- where the hell WAS the President, anyway?
So far as the mess with the AP telephones and the IRS strong arming conservative groups, nobody at the White House knows anything.
So what do they do all day, huh? I mean besides planing menus, and scheduling fund raisers for the President, and speaking engagements, that sort of thing, do they ever get around to running the government?
In an article at The Washington Times written by Eric Golub the point is made thusly: "Conversations must begin honestly. It is perfectly legitimate to analyze leaders with critical lenses. People fight and die for this freedom.
Times are serious, and Obama may not be. The question of whether Obama is lazy evokes everything from discomfort to rage. Yet asking and answering questions provokes “national conversations” that President Obama cherishes. SOURCE:
Mr. Golub goes on in the same article to note the following: "Not one example exists of anything significant happening specifically because of intense Obama engagement and effort." Mr. Golub continues: "Obama loves speaking but appears to loathe governing. Speaking is glamorous. Governing is boring and tedious. He constantly tells everybody else to 'get to work' while he is AWOL. SOURCE:
Mr. Golub concludes his column with this: "It insults millions of hard-working Americans of all races to give him unearned credit. Once the platitudes are removed, supporters will not find a single policy accomplishment in his entire first term that has anything to do with him.
Others did the heavy lifting while he took credit and deflected blame.
This does not make him a bad guy. It just makes him unmotivated, or in simpler terms, lazy." SOURCE:

Mr. Obama has proven that America really doesn't NEED a President. Heck, we could have someone sent over from "central casting" to fill the slot for photo ops, and such. The Press Secretary could handle press conferences -- as he does nearly every day, anyway. And there are any number of polished public speakers in the cabinet.
Maybe we have reached a point in the evolution of the country at which we ought to reevaluate the importance of the Executive Branch of the government. Maybe we ought to change the office of the Presidency to merely a ceremonial post -- I mean, now that we know we don't really NEED a President -- thanks to Obama.
© J. D. Longstreet
VISIT J. D. Longstreet's "INSIGHT on Freedom" Face Book Page!!: (Just click on the link for more conservative commentary by J. D. Longstreet and other popular conservative writers!)