Thursday, October 30, 2008
Is there anyone else out there that thinks that the poignant story we were spoon-fed about Sen. Obama suddenly rushing to his beloved grandmother’s side, all because he was so concerned for her health, was just a little too “touching?” According to the reports, she had recently fallen and broken her hip and needed to be hospitalized.
This, you may recall, is the very same grandmother that Obama disrespected and nationally labeled as “a typical white person,” even after her years of willing sacrifice, love and a singular devotion toward seeing that Obama received an excellent education and was well cared for throughout his life; something that both his father and his mother did not or could not seem to do for him.
With only 14 days left in the campaign, Obama whisked off to Hawaii, but not to his grandmother’s hospital bedside as you would have naturally thought for someone at death’s door, but to her home. Another curious circumstance was the fact that if it was serious enough for Obama to disrupt his entire campaign schedule, having to cancel speaking engagements and rallies because his grandmother was so desperately ill, why did he chose not to take Michelle and the two girls along? It just doesn’t ring true to me; how about you?
Coincidentally, the very same day that Obama made his sudden plans to go to Hawaii, a press release was made by Philip J. Berg, the attorney who filed suit against Barack H. Obama challenging his “lack of qualifications” to serve as the President of the United States because he did not have a valid, certified copy of his original birth certificate and/or an embossed, signed, paper certficate of live birth as verification that he was a natural-born citizen. The fact that Obama has continually ignored the issue and filed for dismissals in court should speak volumes to the American people. Why do you suppose Obama wouldn't just turn these documents in to the courts and make this whole thing disappear? Could it be that it's because these charges are true or is it because he has something to hide?
Currently, there is an appeal that has been filed and is now before the U. S. Supreme Court. The case is Berg v. Obama 08-cv-04083 and is referenced at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Glyla5R7B8. I know that there are those that are skeptical about whether this claim could possibly have any validity to it, but let me remind you of one thing: if all the stories that the Obama Campaign and FactCheck.Org have printed about how these charges against Obama are false and ridiculous are true, then why has this suit had enough merit to reach the highest court in the land? If this had all been resolved as Obama wanted you to think it had been, then why do you think he rushed to his grandmother's side? I personally think that he went there to double check that "Granny" didn't leave any incriminating evidence that would prove that he was actually born in Kenya or maybe on board a ship on the way to Kenya, like photos or even the missing birth certificate and certificate of live birth. Obama's grandmother from Kenya is only too happy to tell anyone that she sees that she was there the night he was born in the Kenyan hospital. She's a proud Kenyan grandmother whose grandson is running for President of the United States and she is understandably proud. This grandmother hasn't been asked to lie about that night yet, but time will tell.
FactCheck.Org, you may or may not know, is actually "The Annenberg Political Fact Check Organization" and is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, established in 1994 by Walter Annenberg. They have concluded by examining whatever document they had before them (it's been reported to have been a copy of his half-sister Auma's birth certificate, doctored with PhotoShop imaging to look like an "Obama-original") that it is, in fact, a certified copy of his original birth certificate. See their report here: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html. One more important note I think I should make is that FactCheck.Org is primarily funded by the Annenberg Foundation. Are you getting clued in to just how "cozy" this all is yet? No? Well, read on.
The name "Annenberg" may seem familiar to you because that "coincidentally" is also the name of the project that Obama was chairman of under guidance from none other than unrepentant terrorist, William "Bill" Ayers. Ayers personally hand-picked Obama to Chair the $100 million "Annenberg Challenge Projects" in Chicago, whose purpose was to reportedly improve schools in the area. Instead of giving money to the needy schools where it would have done the most good, Obama and Ayers chose to distribute the money to pet projects of theirs referred to as "external partners of the schools." Some of the recipients of these funds are as follows: "Peace School," which had a United Nations theme; a project centered around African-American studies; Trinity United Church of Christ whose pastor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, known to teach Black Liberation Theology and other divisive, subversive doctrine; and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife worked.
During a period of five years, Obama distributed the $60 million per year that was supposed to go to needy schools, to extremist organizations such as ACORN (Association for Community Organizations for Reform Now) whose primary function was to infuse students with their radical idealogy. ACORN is the same organization currently being investigated for voter fraud; the same organization that Obama previously worked for as a "leadership trainer" for their new recruits and also as one of their attornies in the 1995 suit that forced the state of Illinois to implement the federal "motor-voter" bill. In addition, while in his capacity as Chair of the Annenberg Challenge and after, monies were exchanged in contributions to his campaign and he also made sure that they continued to receive funding that they needed.
The same type of conflict-of-interest with regard to campaign contributions and funding being allocated to Annenberg affiliates brings the validity of the FactCheck.Org report into question. Here is the link to another study on the birth certificate that concludes without a doubt that it is a forgery: http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html. The U.S. Supreme Court will have to make the final determination on this one. I'm just wondering: What is Obama hiding?
This is just one more incident to be added to the growing number of misrepresentations, half-truths, secrets, and omissions that have become what seem to be what we can expect from Sen. Obama. Is that what you want from your next President? If not, then vote for honesty, integrity, and for the veteran who laid his life down for our country and our freedom instead. Vote for John McCain for President of the United States, 2008.
Until next time...stay safe, stay well, and may God bless America!
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
I had an appointment today with a doctor that I had never been to and had never heard of before, for the purpose of a "Worker's Compensation Second Opinion Evaluation." The translation for that in English is: I don't believe we want to pay for this treatment that you need and are entitled to, so if we jerk you around and stall long enough, maybe you'll give up, right? Wrong!
For those of you who don't know my background, I'll try to give you as condensed a version as I can. My first injury at work was during our annual inventory in the year of 1992. I hurt my left shoulder moving heavy price catalogs on to a shelf high above my head. Then during our next inventory in 1993, I reinjured my left shoulder lifting car brake rotors and I missed approximately 6 weeks of work, plus I had to work half days, wear a sling, go to physical therapy and really nurse it for months after I went back to work. I went to a hearing, they gave me a settlement, said I had some permanent loss of use of the shoulder and that if I ever hurt that shoulder again, no matter where I was or what I was doing, worker's compensation would cover the expenses as part of the settlement. I can't remember what term they used for that, though.
In March of 1995, I discovered that I had bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome. I had carpal tunnel release surgery on my right wrist in September of that same year and I have never been back to work since. The night of the surgery I had to sleep with my arm almost straight up in the air. It was absolutely purple! I told the nurses at the hospital that it was wrapped too tight and they wouldn't loosen the bandages; it throbbed and I was in agony because of it. I asked them to call my doctor and they said they couldn't get ahold of him and that they were sure the problem would resolve itself once I went home. Uh-huh...they wanted me out of their face!
When I got home, my roommate, Penny (she was later a bridesmaid in my wedding!) tried to locate my doctor, and then she called the hospital emergency room for advice. The ER told her that we would have to wait until morning and make an appointment with my doctor, which we did, but in the meantime, I was to sleep with my arm as highly elevated as possible.
Penny actually went out and constructed a platform with 2 slats on the sides for my arm to slide in between so I could fall asleep and not worry about my arm sliding down. I didn't get much sleep because of the throbbing and the pain, but I was able to use that device that she made later, when I got home from the doctor. The physician's assistant, who was actually there to assist in the surgery, was not happy with the nurses at the hospital at all! He took my bandages off and massaged my surgery area and then reapplied the bandages. It was so weird to look at the incision so soon after surgery. The way the skin opened up and looked like you could look right through to my bones without any blood showing--it was so cool!
Anyway, I have always had my suspicions that that was the reason or at least a major contributing factor to my getting RSD (reflex sympathetic dystrophy) or CRPS (complex regional pain syndrome), which are both basically just chronic pain syndromes that resulted from trauma to the body, such as surgery, injury or illness, and are characterized by severe pain, swelling and changes in the skin with additional evidence of obvious nerve damage.
At any rate, because I have been suffering from the RSD/CRPS since 1995 and have not been able to go back to work, the Worker's Compensation Insurance Company has not been very happy with me. They have sent me for several "second opinion evaluations" about my RSD/CRPS and the most recent one was last year (2007). Can you imagine that? At that point it had been twelve years and at least that many doctors had all confirmed that diagnosis.
My most recent injury was a reinjury to my left shoulder that happened in December of 2007 while I was lifting the corner of our mattress, trying to slip the fitted sheet over the edge. I don't normally attempt anything near that heavy in the line of housework because I'm not really able to do those things anymore, but I wanted to surprise my husband and get that done for him. What a mistake! It cost him plenty; because of my stupidity, (which he calls sweetness) he has had to do even more work than usual. This is the injury that necessitated the second opinion evaluation, which was accomplished today.
Finally...what I didn't tell you was that I have had the audacity to tell my Worker's Compensation Insurance Company "No Thankyou" when they had asked me just a few weeks prior to their scheduling this "second opinion evaluation" appointment, to please consider taking an early settlement on my case. When that happens, they give you a lump sum of the monthly cash payments that you receive from them, for a total period of five years. In other words, they give you a check for 60 months worth of your payments, all at one time. If they had been paying for your medications and office visits as well, you would no longer receive those benefits. They have been trying to get me to settle for about 10 years and at one point, one of the adjusters actually discussed it with me on the phone.
"Are you sure you don't want to settle now? That's quite a chunk of change all at once. I'm sure you and your husband could think of something to use it for," he said. I know he must have thought I would jump at the chance and that maybe I was one of those dumb bimbos that would fall for it, but he didn't know me...at all.
"You're kidding, right?" I asked him sarcastically. I didn't like his condescending tone and I decided I would let him know I wasn't as stupid as he thought I was.
"Excuse me?" was his haughty reply.
"Well, I was sure you must be joking. You were, weren't you?" I asked. No reply. "I mean, after all, you're offering a settlement for five years and I've probably got thirty or even forty years left. I'd be crazy to accept that, right?" Still no answer. I was enjoying this. "Not to mention the cost of my monthly office visits...and those medication! The cost of my medications is astronomical! Well, you already know that, right?" Still no answer. I smiled. "Are you still there?"
"Yes, I'm here," he answered curtly.
"Oh, I was worried for a second there. Did you hear what I said?" I asked him, knowing full well he heard every word, but I was enjoying rubbing it in.
"I heard you!" he snapped.
"Oh dear. Have I said something that has offended you?" I asked in my sweetest, most innocent voice.
"No. I'll let the office know that you don't want to settle."
"Ever," I said, firmly.
"What?" he asked.
"I said, ever. Tell them that I don't want to settle, ever. That way they won't have to waste your time or mine again."
"Got it. Bye." And that was that. Until next time, that is.
Monday, October 27, 2008
My answer to this question is a resounding yes, but probably not for the reason you think.
When our ancestors wrote the United Stated States Constitution, they tried to think of every conceivable thing that may happen in the future, based on what they knew to be true at that moment. In good faith, they drafted what is known to us as The Bill of Rights or the Amendments, of which there are now a total of twenty-seven (27).
In the First Amendment, it states the following:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
There have been many disagreements as to the meaning of this particular amendment, but to me, the meaning is crystal clear. Our Country was founded on biblical principles, by Christian men who crossed the ocean in order to preserve that religious freedom, not remove it from their lives! It is well-documented that they prayed together before each meeting and asked the Lord for guidance when deciding what the wording would be for the Constitution. James Madison, who was the chief framer of the United States Constitution said:
"We have staked the whole future of American Civilization...upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Does it sound like it was the intention of our Founding Fathers to separate our Creator from our lives while governing the people, which is one of the most important responsibilities that one may be called to do in his/her service to others? I think not.
My interpretation of this situation is that anti-Christian liberals are trying to push their agenda for our nation, which is that it be Godless, so that our children can have freedom "from" religion, not freedom "of" religion." They would like nothing better than to destroy the roots and foundation of our great nation and replace them with Marxism, unequal justice, deceitfulness and anything that is the opposite of truth, justice, honesty and the Christian values set forth in the Constitution of the United States.
The Constitution was not written to give religious content to our nation, but rather, the Constitution was intended to be and is an instrument that protects and perpetuates the already existing religious values of our nation. It would probably even come as a huge surprise to many people to discover that nowhere in the Constitution does the phrase "separation of church and state" appear. In fact, there has never been a document of state that has even proposed such a concept, but the phrase has been passed around so much, that it is as much believed as one of the gospels.
In 1947, Justice Hugo Black made a ruling with the United States Supreme Court in the case of Everson vs. Board of Education. In that ruling, Judge Black took the First Amendment clause that read: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" and ruled that the absolute meaning of that clause was that any aid or benefit to religion from governmental actions is unconstitutional. As Justice Black stated, "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
When the First Amendment was passed, it had only had two main purposes. First, was to prohibit the government from mandatorily establishing a "Church of the United States" and declaring that one particular religion be the religion of the region, such as Britain had done. This was in response to concerns expressed by some Baptist clergymen of Danbury, Connecticut in a letter that Thomas Jefferson received from them in January 1802. Jefferson answered that letter, assuring them about the "wall," which had a one-directional purpose and that was to protect the church from the state. The church should always be free to teach biblical values to the people, while at the same time keeping the government out of the church. Our ancestors crossed the ocean, founded this great Country, and fought to preserve and protect those freedoms!
Secondly, the part of the First Amendment in which many people have of late decided to disagree, is the part that had been interpreted as follows: “the government should not impede or interfere with the practice of free religion.” The voice of religion is not supposed to be removed from public debate, but protected so that each religion can have its say. The First Amendment was intended to be a safeguard so that the state has no jurisdiction over the Church, thus protecting it, but if non-believers and other First Amendment dissenters have their way, they will remove the Church from every forum and totally disestablish it.