Friday, April 24, 2009

The Blood of Babies

I heard about this while listening to Glenn Beck on the radio. It sounded a little out there so I decided to do a little investigation of my own.

The story on the radio was about a nurse in Minnesota filing a lawsuit against the collecting and saving of the blood taken from infants that is used to test for diseases. Minnesota along with all other forty-nine states have mandatory blood testing for infants born in the state. The blood is tested for certain diseases that can be caught early and prevent some of the complications that otherwise would go unnoticed until it was too late. Minnesota law reads that the blood samples are to be destroyed after testing for these diseases.

That doesn’t sound too far out of line. Many states may exceptions for religious reasons. Yes, some people don’t believe in giving blood or receiving transfusions. That’s a whole nother blog.

SIDE BAR ISSUE: In the state of Nebraska, they don’t make exceptions for religious reasons. One couple who stood against the tests for religious reasons felt the wrath of the government. They had birthed their child at home using a midwife. The child was doing fine. The parents went down to get a birth certificate and the problems began. While going through the court process, one brave judge felt he was above the law and ordered the police to enter their house and take the infant away by force. The mother who was nursing had the child taken away before she could finish feeding it. The police ignored the infants cried for food and his mother, the cries of the other children and the sobs of the mother begging to at least let her finish feeding her baby. The mother wasn’t allowed to pump her milk to be given to the infant.

The parents took the police, child protection and the judge to court. They sued for violation of their constitution right as parents. In the end, they won the case but little or nothing happened to the people in authority that abused their power by tramping over the parent’s rights.
The original story is about the hospitals in Minnesota performing the blood tests that are required by law and then not destroying the samples. A lawsuit was brought and the presiding judge ruled that the blood samples had to be destroyed. The defendants say that they weren’t going to destroy them and then appeal the judge’s order. It turns out that the court of appeals judge also ruled that they blood samples had to be destroyed. Once again the defendant refused to destroy the samples. They are currently trying to get a law passed preventing them from being destroyed. The defendants have been violation the state law for the past ten years.

Once on the net I discover another similar case going on in Texas. They are "claiming they have unlawfully and deceptively collected blood samples from their children at time of birth and stored those samples indefinitely for undisclosed research purposes, without plaintiffs’ knowledge or consent."

Why the big fuss over a few drops of blood taken because of a mandatory law? "The suit also claims that the agencies violate standard, mandatory medical research protocols of obtaining informed consent from subjects before they are studied, using a method that clearly explains to them all the privacy ramifications."

Are these crazies who want to stop testing infants? "The Plaintiffs do not object to the state’s mandated newborn screening program so long as safeguards are in place to destroy an infant’s samples within a reasonable period."

The government, "They claim they are doing some kind of ‘research,’ but to do research you don’t need to have the blood and genetic material from everyone in society. This raises the specter of a DNA data bank, which can too easily be matched with other personal information the government collects, such as social security numbers and fingerprints."

What would be the purpose of a DNA Data bank?

What are the opportunities of abuse?

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Great Song!

I heard this today on Rush and just had to post it. The song is by Paul Shanklin, the video is not. I've got the lyrics below incase you can't understand Barney Frank!

Sung to Dancing Queen by Abba

Banking Queen

You can build.
You can buy.
Any house your heart desires.
Oo zero down.
I am the banking queen.

Friday night and your cash is low.
I know a place that you can go.
Oh, get your house and use it.
Go ahead abuse it.
You can do anything.

Go out and have a fling.
I am the banking queen.
Old and sweet didn’t do a thing.
Banking queen.
Don’t complain or you’ll hear me scream oh yeah.

You can build.
You can buy.
Any house your heart desires.
Oo zero down.
I am the banking queen.

Told the bankers hey you guys.
Make the loans or it’s your behind.
My friends at Fannie sure need it.
Do it my way or beat it
Why are the stocks crashing?

That doesn’t mean a thing.
I’m still the banking queen.
Never spanked for a single thing.
Banking queen.
Don’t complain or you’ll hear me scream oh yeah.

You can build.
You can buy.
Any house your heart desires.
Oo, zero down
I am the banking queen.
I am the banking queen.

Morality on the decline....

As I've been commenting about in other posts, I am very concerned about the moralilty of this country. Here's a recent story that helps prove my point.

FDA Says 'Yes' to Plan B Morning-After Pill for 17-Year-Olds

"Well, it's official. The Food and Drug Administration yesterday said it will allow 17 year olds to purchase the Plan B "morning after" pill over the counter. Until now, the contraceptive product—which prevents pregnancy if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex—was available only for those 18 and over who presented a valid ID to a pharmacist behind the counter. Younger teens needed a prescription to get access to it."

I know people on this blog have stated that anything goes once you're an adult. Well, 17 to me isn't an adult and the fact that children can get access to this product over the counter is just amazing to me. Way to take parents out of important decisions in their childs life.

Is Homosexuality worse for society than Adultery?

We have had so much talk about the gay agenda I thought I would approach things from another angle.

So which harms society more? The Bible says both are sins. I would have to say adultery does more harm. My reasons are: No matter how the gays try to spin it there aren't that many of them out there. Therefore it affects a smaller portion of the population. Also most gay couples don't have kids. Adultery often leads to divorce which has a detrimental effect on kids. Adultery effects more than just the couple involved. It also effects the cheating partners lover as well as their family. Divorce has a gigantic effect on society. Lost wages, hurt kids, health issues etc.

So if we are worried about society and gay marriage should we be punishing adulterers more?

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

An Oxymoron

The service law expands ways for students and seniors to earn money for college through their volunteer work. It aims to foster and fulfill people's desire to make a difference, such as by mentoring children, cleaning up parks or buildings and weatherizing homes for the poor.

More of your tax dollars going up in smoke. How can it be volunteer work if you earn money for doing it?

Only 34% Now Blame Humans for Global Warming


McCain facing 2010 primary

Chris Simcox, the founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps and a prominent figure in the anti-immigration movement, is announcing today he's resigned from the group to run in the 2010 Senate primary.


Strip Search of 13 year old?

WASHINGTON – An Arizona teenager's lawyer is telling the Supreme Court that school officials were out of bounds when they ordered her to remove her clothes during a search for the equivalent of two Advils.

Redding says school officials did not have reasonable grounds to believe she was hiding pills in her underwear, and says the pills did not pose a public health threat serious enough to justify a strip search. School officials say they did not violate Redding's rights and say courts should defer to school officials' judgment in situations involving potential drug abuse on school grounds.

My children are all raise but I still have to worry about some crazy local school official doing something this stupid. At thirteen, I believe my girls would have told them to go to hell and said, call my father. I think that my grandchildren have been given the same directions.

Those of you who have children, what would you have done? What will you do to give you children enough backbone to stand up to someone like this? I taught them to respect authority but beware of anything that didn't seem right.

Recovered guns?

We learned that President Obama's cabinet has a problem with what the meaning of is is. When questioned about 90% of the guns recovered in Mexico coming from the US, the spokesman admitted that "recovered" meant guns that the Mexican government actually turned over to the US government, NOT the total number of guns taken by the Mexican government.

The Mexican government only turn over guns to the US government that have US serial numbers and have a chance to be traced. By far, most of the guns in Mexico come from overseas, i.e. the AK47. So now, it all depends upon what the meaning of "recovered" is.

A Tax or Attacks?

"Wait a minute now......
I didn't authorize ATTACKS on Pirates,
I authorize A TAX on Pirates."

Monday, April 20, 2009

Miss USA and PC answers

Perez Hilton: 'The Way Miss California Answered Her Question Lost Her The Crown' from

Perez Hilton, a self-acclaimed flaming gay was one of the judges at the Miss USA 2009 pageant. He asked Miss California Carrie Prejean a question about same-sex marriage> She answered, "Well I think it's great that Americans are able to choose one or the other." Then she made the fatal PC mistake. She said that her family and she "believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman". For that remark, Perez Hilton graded her down and she came in second.
Apparently tolerance for personal beliefs only go one way. Those people who don’t want others to force their morality down their throats feel perfectly validated penalizing someone that disagrees with them. Miss Prejean could have given the PC answer and would right now be the reigning Miss USA.

Can you imagine if one of the judges had asked the same question that was known to be pro-traditional marriage? Can you imagine the outcry of intolerance had that judge then stated that the contestant that gave the PC answer as a stupid bitch? Tey would be calling for his hide if he admitted that he graded that contestant down because of her answer.

Homosexuals don’t want us to force our views upon them but heaven help us if we differ from their views and they are in a position of power to punish or do those that disagree harm.

By the way, I think beauty pageants are stupid.

Dog-fighting videos at heart of Supreme Court case

News Link

Kinda what to know what side "True" Conservatives come do on this free speech issue?

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Means Tested Retirement

Social Security Means Testing has meant different things at different times in our history. At one point you weren’t allowed to earn any income and receive SS benefits. "If one received any income from employment covered by the Social Security Act, one would lose his entire benefit for each month in which this occurred. This very stringent provision, known as the "retirement earnings test," is, of course, the same thing as a means test."

There were several changes over the years. In 1950, "Suddenly the self-employed elderly found their Social Security benefits suspended if they earned more than $75 in a given month – proof that the retirement earnings test functioned just like a means test." "By 1978 the test merely reduced benefits by $1 for every $2 of earnings above $4,000 for beneficiaries aged 65". Once SS benefits were not taxed, that changed, "In the 1983 legislation rescuing Social Security from financial crisis, Congress made benefits subject to taxation for the first time".

"Ten years later, the benefit tax screw got turned again. In 1993 Congress increased the share of benefits subject to taxation, from 50 percent to 85 percent for single beneficiaries who had "combined incomes" above $34,000, and for married couples filing joint returns with "combined incomes" exceeding $44,000. Below these levels, the share subject to tax remained at 50 percent. This, of course, makes benefit taxation more progressive, therefore ever more like a means test. The higher your income, the more benefit you lose." No Social Security Means Test, Eh? Guess What? by John Attarian

Full retirement is inching its way up and soon could be 67 years old or more. We were told that SS was a retirement plan. It has turned into another tax bucket for the government to reach into.

Something unexpected happened along the way. Life expectancy was under 65 when the SS bill was put into effect. The writers couldn’t foresee that so many people would not only live past sixty-five, they didn’t realize that the life expectancy in 2005 would be 77.8 years old. That fact is what is causing the problem with SS solvency. They never expected people to live long enough to collect what they paid in, let along outlive their deposits.

As a concerned citizen speeding rapidly towards retirement, I have a little "means testing" that I feel should be enacted. It is time to bring federal and state employees including governmental politicians in line with the private sector.

When employed in the private you can retire before you turn 65 years of age but your benefits are cut drastically. One case that I am familiar with cut the benefit 50% if you retired at age 55. Why should non-military federal and state employees be able to retire at age 40 and draw a full pension and then become employed full time to earn another retirement package? If a federal or state employee wants to retire after 20 years of service, they should have two choices. Take payment at severely reduced rates, the same as in the private sector or wait until 65 to receive their full retirement amount.

Why should politicians be able to collect a retirement payment for the rest of their lives when the public has voted them out of office? It shouldn’t matter if the politician was voted out of office or retired. He/she should have the same option, accept a reduced retirement payment or wait until they turn 65 to receive their full payment. Politicians shouldn’t be eligible for retirement until after three terms as senator, nine terms as representative or a combine time of eighteen years in office.

Let’s take a look at the office of the President of the United States. When the benefit plan was first set up, it was expected that the ex-president might live ten years after retiring from office. As it is now, a person could get elected and live thirty-forty years after serving.
When taught in school about what the presidents received after they served. I was told that you didn’t want a past president living on welfare. You don’t want the past presidents to have to go out and work for a living.

I am for means testing the office of president to be, if he/she has the means, they may get testy but they don’t get the money. I don’t care if the outgoing president is Republican, Democrat or Independent, if they have a net worth of 1 or 2 million dollars I have lived through nine past presidents and not a one of them were ever hurting for money. Not a one of them felt it below themselves to go out and "work" by giving speeches or making a book deal.

I don’t know how much money this would save. It may not be billions but it would be hundreds of millions. It’s time that public servants start living a little more like the citizens that pay their wages and retirement benefits.

Cap and Trade or Capture and Enslave?

Dear Senator ****,

We it looks as if the question of party loyalty is about to be called into play once again. After reading about the carbon-cap plan and how democratic senators from the central and southern states will hold sway, I wondered who would win out, the Democratic Party or the Nebraska citizens that you represent?

Cap and Trade could better be called capture and Enslave because that is what it will be doing to the citizens of America. It will be another hidden or not so hidden tax upon the American Public. What has happened is that the government has reached the limits of openly taxing it’s citizens and is moving towards another way to reach into the tax payer’s pockets. It began with sales taxes, the excise fees and user fees.

Now they want to tax carbon use under the pretense that it will make our air quality clean. We haven’t been able to build a wall on our northern border to keep the frigid winter air out, how are we going to keep the pollution from countries like China, that won’t be using cap and trade from riding in on the jet stream?

President Obama stated that he wanted to let science take its place in the global warming/climate change debate. It’s time that he starts listening to the hundreds and thousands of qualified scientists who discount mane made climate change.

Why is it great for France to have 75% or more of its electricity coming from nuclear power and yet nuclear power isn’t part of the proposed Democratic Party’s solution? When will the new drilling for clean burning gas off of our coast begin? Why isn’t this part of the DNC’s plan to reduce carbon emissions?

Is it because those options don’t allow the federal government to reach as deep into our pockets?


I sent this to both of my US Senators. The only thing that they fear more than the call for party loyalty is an angry mob of citizens. If you are against the cap and trade of carbon then you need to write your senator too.