Individual freedom is being assaulted from so many different directions the sheer weight of the assaults can cause the hardiest of us to buckle. Yet, there are still some who believe the government has only our best interests at heart. I find that sentiment mind-blowing in the face of what the government is doing.
… This study should include incentives such as “higher rates of reimbursement or other incentives for such health care providers to use electronic health records” and “promoting low-cost electronic health record software packages that are available for use by such health care providers.”
Read it all. Apparently, our ever so magnanimous government doesn’t care about the assault on our private records or the sharing of such records across agencies as their new health care legislation will require it.
As one friend put it:
practice dictates that if you want to keep something private, don’t
share it. If data is shared by more than one entity, none of the
parties knows who leaked it. Eventually, anything shared becomes
public knowledge. This is one more case of the unwary opening
Pandora’s box.” (Thanks, Loren.)
But that’s not possible, is it? The government is supposed to take care of us, right? Right?
Their website is full of blatant lies. They claim that Net Neutrality would not be a new regulation, when in fact the whole point of the push is to get new regulations in place backed by the so-called Internet Freedom Preservation Act currently in the House. Obama’s FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski also made that much plain in a recent speech, that he wants the FCC to be an active, aggressive force on the Internet, picking winners and losers in private network policy disputes.
Again, read the whole article.
Every student who brings someone to the polls to vote in the city council elections in Athens, OH gets $5.00.
Nice. But is that illegal?
Of course, it’s illegal. When did legality ever stop a liberal from doing what a liberal wants to do? They have a “cause” and this is merely the means to the end. Never mind that most of us don’t want the end they want.
A new union contract would have lowered Ford’s labor costs in line with General Motors Corp. and Chrysler Group LLC. It also included a no-strike provision. Workers are barred from striking Ford’s domestic rivals for several years as a condition of their bankruptcy restructurings.
“The UAW contract is up in 2011, and I think there could be a strike,” said John Wolkonowicz, an analyst with IHS Global Insight in Lexington, Mass.
Isn’t that bit like union workers sabotaging a competitor because they now have a stake in the other two companies? Nah, the government owns the union workers, too, now doesn’t it?
Wouldn’t that make union bosses the overseers of the government owners’ plantations? I thought slavery was dead in this country. Apparently, the Democrats want to go back to the future.
A San Francisco cosmetics company has ignited an outcry among pro-lifers for including an unexpected ingredient in its anti-aging creams: skin-cell proteins from an aborted fetus. […]
In a statement released Friday, in response to a wave of condemnation from pro-life and religious blogs, Neocutis defended the use of its trademarked ingredient, Processed Skin Cell Proteins, or PSP, arguing that the fetal cell line was harvested in a responsible, ethical manner for use in treating severe dermatological injuries.
The company compared its situation to that of researchers who used fetal kidney cells to develop the polio vaccine.
It’s not as if they’re human, after all. That would be murder wouldn’t it? Murder for hire, if you want to put a fine point on it considering abortionists are paid to do the dirty work. And then they sell the bodies of the slain innocents to others for a bit more?
It’s not as if you’re not pro-choice. Oh no, we wouldn’t want to interfere with the government ruling that killing innocents is legal as long as it isn’t civilian casualties in the midst of fighting wars against terrorists who find safe havens among those civilians.
It’s for the children, after all, isn’t it? To make beauty products so others don’t have to age gracefully.
If the government can’t manage vaccinations with any level of competency, how do we expect them to manage health care? By creating more government agencies (read: bureaucracies), of course.
Over the next decade, welfare spending will amount to $30,000 per person per year — $120,000 for a family of 4 per year — 56% of which (or $67,200) goes to the recipients.
Moreover, these direct costs do not cover the concomitant costs for enterprises. That is, many organizations apply to whole populations, although their justification is the needs of the “poor.” For example, most people can afford education, but to guarantee it for the poor, there is public education for most, as well as subsidies. The same holds for establishing Social Security, Medicare, housing, health insurance, and industrial policy. There are then huge additional costs to the taxpayers and to the recipients of services who are not “poor.”
How much more than the 36% already being spent will these new bureaucracies cost? I wouldn’t put it past the government to flip those numbers. We can do without, of course. We might starve, freeze to death, or have a heat stroke but we’ll have health care if we do, right?
You can continue to believe in government’s goodwill if you choose. But don’t expect me to “jump off the Brooklyn Bridge” with you. If you keep trusting a government that has proven untrustworthy, this is what you get. You can make excuses all you want or say you didn’t sign onto this but if you support any part of it, you support the whole.
One person critiquing said this post seems disjointed but it’s not really. They are widely varying topics but are all these things are being perpetrated by the government simultaneously.
What the government is doing is assaulting us with a dozen skirmishes at once all taking place in the same general location but with different foci; the individual’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the right to make our own decisions based on our individual circumstances as to what is best for us. When we focus on one point of attack we risk losing sight of the other battles taking place around us. These battles are orchestrated to keep us off balance in the hopes that one of them will gain them an opening and their desire of government for the government in spite of the people.
Crossposted to Hillbilly Politics