http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1235921/Midwives-meltdown-A-NHS-worker-reveals-understaffed-maternity-wards-sinking-chaos.html
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Religious Freedom
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/091215america.html
Today is an important day in the United States, yet few Americans know it.
Most Americans know the Constitution was ratified by thirteen original colonies in 1789. What most don't know is its first ten amendments – known collectively as the Bill of Rights – were added to the Constitution on December 15, 1791. In 1941, one hundred and fifty years later, December 15th was officially proclaimed Bill of Rights Day.
Does it matter? Yes, because you and I are engaged in what may be the most important battle of our time, with a compelling moral urgency not before seen. Regrettably, we may all be slow to grasp the severity of the assault.
The battle to which I refer is the full-scale war to destroy the religious liberties we cherish. It is overt, relentless, pervasive, and well-funded.
Liberties under Attack
The Bill of Rights is a proclamation of liberties, including freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and much more. Today those hard-fought rights of liberty – especially religious liberty – are under unceasing attack as the absence of core moral and spiritual values in our political life increases seemingly by the day. Values we cherish, and our divine right to honor those values, will almost assuredly be the most important political question of the twenty-first century.
A half century ago President David O. McKay said, "One of the most important urgent needs today is the preservation of individual liberty." That need is even more urgent today. President McKay continued, "When we fight for freedom of speech, the right to worship, we fight for the preservation of the very soul of America. Lose that soul, and we lose our liberty."
Prophets throughout this dispensation have consistently voiced a warning. About the Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties of individual religious choice, the Prophet Joseph Smith, joined by his Liberty Jail cellmates, wrote: "This principle guarantees to all parties, sects, and denominations, and classes of religion, equal, coherent, and indefeasible rights; they are things that pertain to this life; therefore all are alike interested; they make our responsibilities one towards another in matters of corruptible things, while the former principles do not destroy the latter, but bind us stronger, and make our responsibilities not only one to another, but unto God also."
Elder Dallin H. Oaks of the Quorum of the Twelve recently said, "Surely the First Amendment guarantee of free exercise of religion was intended to grant more freedom to religious action than to other kinds of action. Treating actions based on religious belief the same as actions based on other systems of belief should not be enough to satisfy the special place of religions in the United State Constitution."
Religious liberty was, for the most part, reasonably secure until the last quarter of the twentieth century. What infringement on religious liberty did occur was primarily through judicial activism.
Judicial Activism
Obviously, judicial activism remains a serious concern. The federal bench is replete with vacancies. As of last month, President Barrack Obama had nominated twenty-one individuals to the federal appellate bench, more than ten percent of the total appellate court strength; six more appellate vacancies are anticipated. The Fourth Circuit alone, widely recognized as one of the most conservative courts in the land, has five vacancies. At the federal district court level, seventy-two vacancies exist, about ten percent of the total.
Mr. Obama has already filled one Supreme Court position. A second opening on the Court may be imminent with the anticipated retirement of 89-year old Justice John Paul Stevens. Most court watchers expect both new Justices are likely to embrace traditional activist positions.
The Battle Moves to Regulatory Processes
But now the battleground is expanding beyond the courts. Today the battle rages in federal, state, and municipal legislative and regulatory processes, aided and abetted by the growing exclusion of moral and spiritual values from political life.
Before taking office, Mr. Obama wrote about the inhospitable confirmation process endured by federal judicial nominees: "I wondered if, in our reliance on the courts to vindicate not only our rights but also our values, progressives had lost too much faith in democracy. Elections ultimately mean something … Instead of relying on Senate procedures, there was one way to ensure that judges on the bench reflected our values, and that was to win at the polls."
That view was further expressed by Yale law professors Jack Balkin and Reva Siegal, both committed Obama supporters, who advocated rethinking the activist agenda in "The Constitution in 2020". They point out that an abundance of non-judicial avenues exists to reshape the Constitution. "But courts can only push so far out against what the people believe. They can lead, but they have to get some degree of take-up from the legislature, or nothing is going to change."
Influential individuals and groups are zealously at work today, committed to reshaping the Constitution through public policy and legislation by turning to presidential appointees and elected officials instead of only to the historic judicial approach. Their expressed focus on a legislative and regulatory agenda embraces a frightening multitude of secular views contrary to religious liberty and doctrinal truths.
Consider that government's budgets are in reality moral documents – for therein are found the priorities of a city, state, or nation, and even international organizations such as the United Nations. Today it is in such traditionally unexciting spending plans that public policy is being drastically altered to embrace secular values and infringe upon the free exercise of religion.
Religious values, and our vigorous defense thereof, are much more extensive than only our beliefs concerning same-sex marriage and abortion. Indeed, under broad attack is the very fundamental issue of worshipping how and when we choose and without government constraint or interference.
Sacred to Us
Religious liberty is sacred to us. "We believe that rulers, states, and governments have a right, and are bound to enact laws for the protection of all citizens in the free exercise of their religious belief; but we do not believe that they have a right in justice to deprive citizens of this privilege, or proscribe them in their opinions, so long as a regard and reverence are shown to the laws and such religious opinions do not justify sedition nor conspiracy." [D&C 134:7] "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may. [11th Article of Faith]
Of America's future, President Abraham Lincoln said, "America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." You and I cannot allow that to happen.
In defending those hallowed freedoms, I offer eight suggestions we as Latter-day Saint citizens may consider as regarding religious liberty:
- We must define our individual citizenship by doctrine as well as by action.
- We must acknowledge that citizenship requires personal responsibility, respect, and civility.
- We must become voices of advocacy for a political discourse which neither ignores nor threatens religious values.
- We must make our considerable voices heard in the face of alarming moral decline and unrestrained secular advocacy.
- We must consciously engage in a constructive defense of a consistent religious and moral independence, while striving to avoid the ideologically distorted categories of liberal and conservative.
- We must appeal to like-minded individuals of all faiths and across the political spectrum, looking beyond doctrinal differences and political party lines to build alliances with others of shared values while assiduously avoiding mean-spirited divisiveness.
- We must work to restore the historic public policy implications of religious and moral values, and to return an element of faith to the public square.
- We must exert ourselves at every level of government to protect our treasured religious liberties, including the free exercise of our own religion.
The United States of America, the nation where the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored, was founded upon religious and political ideals. You and I have a twin duty of discipleship and citizenship to ensure the protection of those religious ideals, to promote a more engaged dialogue on politics and faith, and to preserve the founding American ideal of respect for religious liberty.
President Spencer W. Kimball said, "The only way we can keep our freedom is to work at it. Not some of us. All of us. Not some of the time, but all of the time. So if you value your citizenship and want to keep it for yourself and your children and their children, give it your faith, your belief, and give it your active support in civic affairs." His counsel is just as relevant today.
Monday, December 14, 2009
The government monitoring what political protestors put up on Facebook and Twitter
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2009/12/government-monitoring-what-political.html
12/14/2009
The government monitoring what political protestors put up on Facebook and Twitter
This is pretty scary. Why would the government be looking at Facebook to monitor "political protesters"? One also wonders what percentage of the Facebook pages reveal information about tax delinquents.
The government is increasingly monitoring Facebook, Twitter and other social networking sites for tax delinquents, copyright infringers andpolitical protesters. A public interest group has filed a lawsuit to learn more about this monitoring, in the hope of starting a national discussion and modifying privacy laws as necessary for the online era.
Law enforcement is not saying a lot about its social surveillance, but examples keep coming to light. The Wall Street Journal reported this summer that state revenue agents have been searching for tax scofflaws by mining information on MySpace and Facebook. In October, the F.B.I. searched the New York home of a man suspected of helping coordinate protests at the Group of 20 meeting in Pittsburgh by sending out messages over Twitter.
In some cases, the government appears to be engaged in deception. The Boston Globe recently quoted a Massachusetts district attorney as saying that some police officers were going undercover on Facebook as part of their investigations. . . . .
Thursday, December 10, 2009
44% want Bush back over Obama...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1209/Bush_closes_the_gap.html
Main Content
Main Content
Bush closes the gap - Ben Smith: Bush closes the gap
December 09, 2009
Categories:
Bush closes the gap
Public Policy Polling:
Perhaps the greatest measure of Obama's declining support is that just 50% of voters now say they prefer having him as President to George W. Bush, with 44% saying they'd rather have his predecessor. Given the horrendous approval ratings Bush showed during his final term that's somewhat of a surprise and an indication that voters are increasingly placing the blame on Obama for the country's difficulties instead of giving him space because of the tough situation he inherited. The closeness in the Obama/Bush numbers also has implications for the 2010 elections. Using the Bush card may not be particularly effective for Democrats anymore, which is good news generally for Republicans and especially ones like Rob Portman who are running for office and have close ties to the former President.
(via Political Wire)
Marxism for pre-K through high school kids?
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/12/07/next-week-on-the-history-channel-hollywood-stars-introduce-your-kids-to-marxism/
Kids to Meet Marx in School – Care of Hollywood and The History Channel
by Patrick CourrielcheChildren are uniquely malleable beings, readily convinced of magically colorful tales – Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are the first that come to mind. This innocence is beautiful, but it is a quality that can easily fall victim to radically foreign ideas if taught consistently and pervasively at an early age. One need only look at the birth of fascism or socialism to see a recipe for how radical ideas become ubiquitous among a nation's youth.
Enter Howard Zinn – an author, professor and American historian – who, with the help of Hollywood and the History Channel, intends to change the way our pre-K through high school children learn American history. His current curriculum suggestions, like introducing three-year-olds to the lynching of African-Americans, or quizzing seven-year-olds on which Presidents owned slaves, should be a red flag to parents.
Zinn has spent a lifetime teaching college students about the evils of capitalism, the promise of Marxism, and his version of American history – a history that has, in his view, been kept from students. His controversial 1980-book The People's History of the United States paints traditional American history as a façade – one that has grotesquely immortalized flawed leaders and is based on principles that victimize the common man. In 2004, Zinn wrote a companion book entitled Voices Of A People's History Of The United States, which includes speeches and writings from many of the people featured in The People's History.
These two books have now become the basis for a new documentary, entitled The People Speak, to be aired December 13th at 8pm on the History Channel. The trailer portrays the documentary as a collage of compelling one-person readings, told through the words of "ordinary" people who have struggled throughout American history against oppression. Produced by Zinn, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, and Chris Moore, the documentary appears to be cloaked, ironically (given Zinn's admitted socialist agenda), in many of the traditional ideas that were behind our founding. The verdict is still out on the doc, but it is not for the books that inspired the film as well as the educational initiative associated with it.
Perhaps due to their one-sided perspective of America's past, Zinn's history books have largely been limited to colleges and universities, until now. In the press release announcing the broadcast, HISTORY introduced a partnership with VOICES Of A People's History Of The United States, a nonprofit led by Zinn that bares the same name as his companion book, to help get his special brand of history into classrooms.
Delving into Zinn's nonprofit is where this story gets interesting, and the organization's grade school educational ambitions concerning.
VOICES' function is to provide live performances of readings from the book Voices of a People's History as well as educational materials to schoolteachers. The nonprofit's site provides teachers with resources, including a teaching guide that explains how to get students excited about Zinn's history books. Their educational materials also includes the Zinn Education Project, a resource for teaching Zinn's perspective of American history to – drum roll please – pre-Kindergarten through high school students! Included in the curriculum for pre-K students (that's three and four year-olds) is "Rethinking Columbus," which counters "the myth of Columbus." In Zinn's view, our pre-K children "need to hear from those whose lands and rights were taken away by those who 'discovered' them."
Another teaching lesson for our three-year-old students is "One Country! One Language! One Flag!" that includes teaching ideas for "examining the history of the Pledge of Allegiance and the political milieu in which it was written." The teaching plan suggests introducing our pre-K-ers to the lynching of African-Americans in the 1880s, and introducing the history of violence and discrimination against minority groups. It also proposes a discussion on an old "One Language!" chant allegedly used in classrooms up until 1942, and poses teachers with the question, "Why not lead kids in the original Pledge to the Flag, including the 'One Language!' chant and the Nazi-like salute, and then lead a discussion about the politics of the Pledge?"
This discussion is proposed for kids age three to seven?
Zinn also includes a youngster version of his influential book entitled A Young People's History of the United States as an introduction to his untold American History. The publisher of the book highlights a review by the magazine Socialist Review, who proclaimed "Howard Zinn has adapted his People's History of the United States for younger readers, but in no way do these books pull their punches. Zinn feels the younger reader is entitled to look at US history honestly."
The background of the board of directors and advisers of VOICES' can only be described as jaw dropping and begins to show a clear motive behind teaching this predominantly anti-American history at such a young age.
Made up of several notables including Zinn, Kerry Washington, and Marisa Tomei, all of whom make appearances in the documentary, the VOICES board also includes radicals who play a role in our public schools. Brian Jones, a New York teacher and actor, is a board member of VOICES and has also played the lead in Zinn's play Marx in SoHo. You can see Jones speaking about Zinn and the play below, recorded for a performance in Greece, where he extols the benefits of this one man play as a tool to introduce people to Marx's ideas:
Jones is also a regular contributor to Socialist Worker, International Socialist Review, and speaks regularly on the beneficial principles of Marxism, including this year at the 2009 Socialism Conference. He recently gave a speech on the failure of capitalism, proclaiming that "Marx is back."
Sarah Knopp, a Los Angeles high school teacher, is also on Zinn's Teacher Advisory Board. Like Jones, Knopp is also a regular contributor to International Socialist Review, Socialist Worker, is an active member in The International Socialist Organization, and was also a speaker at the 2009 Socialist Conference. Here is Knopp speaking about the benefits of socialism, how capitalism destroys lives, and how she advocates workers taking over their factories:
Is it becoming clearer why this group might want to teach children to think poorly of the American system?
Then there is Jesse Sharkey, a schoolteacher in Chicago. Sharkey is another of Zinn's Teacher Advisory Board Members and, completely uncharacteristic of this group, is a contributor to… Socialist Worker.
This is the group that the History Channel is working with "to develop enhanced, co-branded curriculums for a countrywide educational initiative." If readers choose to watch The People Speak, which we at BigHollywood encourage, keep in mind the context of the documentary's creator and the pre-K to high school curriculum that the History Channel and VOICES could possibly create given the makeup of the board members.
I am not advocating that we spare our kids the harsh truths of American history, but I am suggesting, given Zinn's far-left political affiliation, this project is designed to breakdown our vulnerable children's views of American principles so that they can be built back up in a socialist vision.
Zinn's one-man play Marx in SoHo provides an example of his attempt to reestablish the socialist ideology. The play, created in 1999, places Marx in New York after bargaining with the authorities of the after-life for a chance to come back to earth to clear his name. At the end of the cold war, Zinn felt that Marxism was unfairly discredited through being anchored to the fall of the Soviet Union. Through the play, Zinn wanted "the audience to see Marx defending his ideas against attack." Those associated with the play have described it as an attempt to reestablish Marx's philosophic and economic outlook – a philosophy that views capitalism as corrosive to the human condition. It doesn't take a great leap to surmise that instilling in children a pessimistic view of the American experience could make his ideas more palatable.
Zinn's socialist philosophy has definitely made its way into the documentary, including a speech by prominent socialist Eugene Debs. In his speech, which is a prose to the ills of the capitalist system, he speaks to a court that convicted him of sedition:
"I am opposing a social order in which it is possible for one man, who does absolutely nothing…to amass a fortune of hundreds of millions of dollars while millions of men and women who work all the days of their lives secure barely enough for a wretched existence."
The promotional videos can be viewed here:
It is not surprising to me that there are groups sympathetic to Marx's ideas throughout our country. What is surprising is that the most powerful persuasion machine in the world (Hollywood) and the History Channel would provide Zinn such a prominent soapbox to stealthily build a case for a destructive ideology to our children, and as a result mainstream his ideas with the magic of cool music, graphics, and celebrity. Groups that push Marx's philosophy are like a virtual organism that will not die off even when stung by the undeniable historical evidence showing human behavior makes such a system unsustainable. If we let this virtual organism into our grade schools, it will take decades for our kids to unlearn the ideology.
And if there are any doubts of the intentions of Howard Zinn's movement, I provide a quote of his in closing. When a reporter asked Zinn, "In writing A People's History, what were you calling for? A quiet revolution?" Zinn responded: "A quiet revolution is a good way of putting it. From the bottom up. Not a revolution in the classical sense of a seizure of power, but rather from people beginning to take power from within the institutions. In the workplace, the workers would take power to control the conditions of their lives. It would be a democratic socialism."
It appears that Zinn's ilk have started the institutional phase of their agenda.
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Reid doubles down on slavery analogy
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/71207-reid-doubles-down-on-slavery-analogy
Reid on Monday said Republicans were displaying the same mindset as those who defended slavery.
"If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' "
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele suggested Democrats should strip Reid of his leadership position if he does not apologize for the comments, but Senate Democrats on Tuesday defended him. Democratic Conference Secretary Patty Murray (Wash.) said there was no discussion of the topic within the caucus and no talk of a Reid apology.
Reid doubles down on slavery analogy
- 12/08/09 02:51 PM ET
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday defended his remarks from Monday comparing congressional Republican opposition to healthcare to the 19th-century debate over slavery, accusing his GOP critics of "distorting" his intent.
"At pivotal points in American history, the tactics of distortion and delay have certainly been present," Reid said. "They've certainly been used to stop progress. That's what we're talking about here. That's what's happening here. It's very clear. That's the point I made — no more, no less. Anyone who willingly distorts my comments is only proving my point."
"If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said, 'Slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.' "
Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele suggested Democrats should strip Reid of his leadership position if he does not apologize for the comments, but Senate Democrats on Tuesday defended him. Democratic Conference Secretary Patty Murray (Wash.) said there was no discussion of the topic within the caucus and no talk of a Reid apology.
I doubt anyone really ever expected an apology from Mad King Harry, who thinks taking freedom of choice away from people through government control is progress and that the only thing that was wrong about slavery was that individuals owned people and not the state.BY on 12/08/2009 at 15:41
harry reid is to us what sonny bono was to cher - HARRY YOU'RE HOLDING US BACK BOY - JUST QUIT!!!BY on 12/08/2009 at 15:50
Uh, which party got rid of slavery, and which party has a member who used to belong to the KKK?BY on 12/08/2009 at 15:50
cheers for Harry.BY on 12/08/2009 at 16:00
Willow has it a bit wrong. Under the present system - private only - my daughter has total freedom of choice. She can be, and has been, turned down by every and all private insurance companies. Why - well because, 15 years ago she had a health issue. Now, although in excellent health, she cannot buy insurance. That is what our system does to us today. If Willow's worst nightmare - a public option - came true, the horrible result would be —- my daughter could buy insurance.Willow, and all who are afraid of the public option, should listen just a bit less to the insurance companies' propaganda.BY on 12/08/2009 at 16:02
Mr. Reid, I am an african american and I understood exactly what you were saying. GOPrs don't realize that we pulled the wool from our eyes about them a long time ago. No apology necessary.BY on 12/08/2009 at 16:05
Willow demonstrates Reid's point - exactly when did Reid say the only thing wrong with slavery was the government didn't own the slaves? NEVER SAID IT. NOTHING in the health care reform bill takes away my freedom of choice regarding health insurance. I can still buy any plan I want.Two more falsehoods by those who will stoop to any level to stop this bill.BY on 12/08/2009 at 16:08
DEMO HYPE - As I stated before "the wool is gone" the only reason you fought to free slaves is because you were not actually fighting for them - but fighting for a piece of the pie - don't get it twisted.BY on 12/08/2009 at 16:08
How much longer must we suffer fools??? How in the world did we allow these non-Christian, non-patriots into office?We are heading to h*ll in a handbasket and we continue to allow these *ssh*les to "govern" us?When will out military leaders rescue us from this abomination in Congress? We cannot rid the congress of them by voting sine they have enslaved millions to the Government dole who will obediently vote them back into office.It's a lose-lose proposition. it's time for action, no matter how unpleasant.BY on 12/08/2009 at 16:09
Beyond the pale…BY on 12/08/2009 at 16:09
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Obama's 47 Percent Approval Lowest of Any President at This Point
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/12/08/obamas-percent-approval-lowest-president-point/
- FOXNews.com
President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.
RECOMMEND (26)
President Obama's job approval rating has fallen to 47 percent in the latest Gallup poll, the lowest ever recorded for any president at this point in his term.
Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford and even Richard Nixon all had higher approval ratings 10-and-a-half months into their presidencies. Obama's immediate predecessor, President George W. Bush, had an approval rating of 86 percent, or 39 points higher than Obama at this stage. Bush's support came shortly after he launched the war in Afghanistan in response to the terror attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said he doesn't "put a lot of stock" in the survey by Gallup, which has conducted presidential approval polls since 1938, longer than any other organization.
"If I was a heart patient and Gallup was my EKG, I'd visit my doctor," Gibbs said in response to questions from Fox. "I'm sure a six-year-old with a Crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is daily Gallup trend. I don't pay a lot of attention to the meaninglessness of it."
Gallup Editor-in-Chief Frank Newport responded: "Gibbs said that if Gallup were his EKG, he would visit his doctor. Well, I think the doctor might ask him what's going on in his life that would cause his EKG to be fluctuating so much. There is, in fact, a lot going on at the moment -- the health care bill, the jobs summit, the Copenhagen climate conference and Afghanistan."
The new low comes as Obama struggles to overhaul the nation's health care system and escalates America's involvement in the Afghanistan war. He is also presiding over a deep and prolonged recession, with unemployment at 10 percent.
"There's no doubt Obama's 47 percent is mainly a result of the continuing bad economy," said Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics. "But there is also a growing concern about government spending and debt, and a sense that Obama is trying to do too much, too soon."
He added: "President Obama has reason to be concerned about his ratings. Even in tough times, presidents have usually been able to stay above the critical 50 percent mark in the first year, when the public is most inclined to give the new incumbent the benefit of the doubt."
Obama officials have not always shown disdain for Gallup. During last year's presidential campaign, Obama adviser David Plouffe, trumpeted "the latest Gallup poll" to reporters because it showed that 53 percent of Americans did not find Obama Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, "trustworthy."
When Gallup began taking presidential approval polls 71 years ago, Franklin Roosevelt had been president for more than five years. During his remaining time in office, his job approval rating never fell below 48 percent.
The next 11 presidents, both Democrats and Republicans, all had higher job approval ratings than Obama at this stage of their tenure. Their ratings were:
-- George W. Bush, 86 percent
-- Bill Clinton, 52 percent
-- George H.W. Bush, 71 percent
-- Ronald Reagan, 49 percent
-- Jimmy Carter, 57 percent
-- Gerald Ford, 52 percent
-- Richard Nixon, 59 percent
-- Lyndon Johnson, 74 percent
-- John Kennedy, 77 percent
-- Dwight Eisenhower, 69 percent
-- Harry Truman, 49 percent
The poll is an average of a three-day tracking of 1,529 adults taken Dec. 4-6. It has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Comments (623)