Conservative Single Guy

by Scott Schneider

Sharise Parviz is a tremendously talented and skilled actress who has been termed the “conservative bombshell”. After turning down a television role and eschewing the Hollywood industry to broadcast her strong conservative message, she has founded her own film production studio called Fantasy Films Inc where she has; among other things, filmed her “Restrained No More” parody video series. In her short videos, Sharise uses her amazing talent and voice acting abilities to craft entertaining, amusing, and hilarious shorts about the follies and foibles of the Obama Administration and the current political atmosphere in the United States. In shorts like, “Health Care Scare” she puts on a red wig, becomes Nurse Betty and dons a nursing uniform to banter about the realities of government-run health care; later on Nurse Betty appears again in “Nurse Betty Does Hollywood”, complete with whimsical music and song-and-dance criticism of how Hollywood actors portray ObamaCare as being free without even considering the cost. In other shorts like “Rhonda On her Soapbox”, Sharise plays first a buxom, pigtailed brunette chattering in a southern-accent about how having her taxes raised is not compassionate. In the “Goddaughter” she poses cigar-smoking, tough-talking mob-boss reaming the Obama administration for playing the race card against those who simply oppose his proposals. For pure Holiday enjoyment, she showcases her singing abilities in “ObamaBaby”, a take on Eartha Kit’s sensuous 1954 Christmas song (supposedly recorded by Marilyn Monroe but never sung by her), even having her kids play a part in the festivities. She even dons an Asian Kung-Fu style costume and becomes Susumu in his Asian kitchen talking railing about how environmental standards are starving Califnornia farmers of irrigation water. I recently had the pleasure of interviewing Sharise and captured some of her amazing story of being a conservative actress and producer living in Hollywood.

1. You began your “Restrained No More” video series on YouTube in September 2008. What inspired you to do this?

I started my show in October, 2008, never meaning it to turn into a show. I was just so frustrated with what I was seeing during the Obama/McCain campaign. The media bias, the deceit, the hypocrisy coming from the Obama Campaign as well as the sitting on the fence, weak delivery that came from McCain, (certainly not the conservative choice but one we didn’t seem to have a voice in.)

Disgusted, I needed to vent and so I just turned on my webcam and created a couple of quick characters and shot away. What a catharsis! However, my little web cam videos got such a response and I was asked if I would be doing more. Since I hadn’t planned on it, I asked my husband, “How the heck do I continue” and he said, “Just expand on what you scream at the television” And so that’s what I do.

No, I have to admit, i wasn’t as politically involved before then. Busy working in Hollywood, raising and home-schooling my kids, left me little time. Though I became more involved after 9-11(as so many did) certainly not to the extent I am now but yes, have always been conservative- not so much because I thought about it politically as much as that conservative values are common sense values and made sense, to me, in the real world.

2. Being a conservative-minded actress and personality, how challenging is it for you to find work in your field?

I have been a performer all my life as a dancer and actress and when I attended college as an acting major, it was hard to keep my mouth shut. Some of the liberal garbage coming from the professors was enough to make you puke. Needless to say, I never quite fit in. See, unlike the other students, I had already had a child and was dealing with real world circumstances, not make believe, “we are all one” kind of crap, so I never got sucked into the indoctrination that so many college students do.

As a professional, yeah, it is pretty tough. You learn quite quickly if you want a job, keep your mouth shut. And I did for a while. But again, being able to keep my mouth shut for only a little awhile, it didn’t take long to expose myself. I got tired of coming out of a rehearsal or an audition, after hearing things like, “Now that Obama is in office, there will be no more war,” and banging my head up against the steering wheel of my car to keep from exploding.

I have always been very picky about the work I decided to do and if it didn’t fit into the values I had, would turn it down. My agent was none too pleased when Iturned down a lucrative TV role because I didn’t agree with the message and since I started my political show, well, let’s just say, we have since parted ways.
But I kept reminding myself better to lose a job, than my mind.

Sharise doing "Nurse Betty" a parody on ObamaCare.

3. Do you have a fair number of conservative-minded contacts in Hollywood or are most of your colleagues outside of the industry?

The great thing is that more and more conservatives in Hollywood are finally “coming out of the closet” yes, I am meeting and getting to know and work with many now. It is wonderful to see so many not satisfied with speaking in hushed tones and hiding in the shadows. Conservatives are making themselves heard in Hollywood and it is about time. I think the boldness of those like Gary Sinise and Jon Voight, has encourage others to stand up and speak out. Thank God!

4. Who do you find appreciates you the most for your satire and the acting roles that you have played in some of your more conservative movie roles?

Actually I have a pretty diverse audience. Men And women seem to like the message and style of my show and I get all ages, and from other countries (who are fighting their own fight for freedom!) I definitely get the hate mail form a lot of Liberals and many Christians say I am not conservative enough in my presentation. But you can’t please them all, right? Mostly the response has been really fantastic and surprisingly I have been able to reach many who sit on the fence politically. Because I hold the Republicans feet to the fire in my videos, as well and am not just some “party girl,” I have been able to reach out beyond conservative Republicans. That is so important to me and one reason I continue to produce my show on YouTube- because many will come and watch my show who might not feel comfortable going to another conservative outlet.

We as conservatives have to extend the hand to those disillusioned from the choice they made in voting for Obama-and there are lots of them. These folks feel they really don’t know where they belong and so we have to open our hand to them and show them conservatives are not all evil, wicked , mean, and nasty (well, at least not all the time) .

I have been questioned on why I use the approach I do and as a Christian shouldn’t I be more modest, watch my language, etc,? Here is my answer

Every video I make, every character I create comes out of an idea. I put much thought and prayer into my work and while many are not thrilled with my approach, others can laugh at the absurdity of it. The idea is take the message seriously, but not the messenger
There is enough agony in the world, why add to it?

I am not here to seek approval or please everyone. If I were I wouldn’t be doing what I am doing, knowing full well I will make enemies, on the left for my content and on the right for my delivery
And I would still be playing the Hollywood game.

But I felt as a performer and person, I had a drive bigger than Hollywood could fill and a purpose greater than myself and that is why I am here. I pray for wisdom in all I do- as a Christian, wife, mother and performer-knowing I am as imperfect as the next person. But all I can do is trust God will lead me down the path he wants to take me. I sometimes question why I am doing something a certain way but I have learned thru much trial in my life, I don’t need the answer why only what. The why is usually revealed later. And if I focus on Why, why, why? then I remain motionless and useless. Sharise Parviz on her YouTube page.

5. What was your goal in founding Fantasy Films LLC and what are some of the projects you are working on currently?

Fantasy Films…well, after losing my agent and not hiding who I was anymore, I had to ask myself if acting was still something I wanted to do. It was. . .it is in my blood. But I decided if I am going to do it, I am going to do it my way. I want more creative control and choice in the work I do. (the problem with being an “actor” is that you are at the mercy of the director and editor, so you may give a performance that in the end looks nothing like you intended), yeah, this doesn’t sit well with me.

With FF (fantasy films), I want to hire other like-minded individuals who might not get a chance to work elsewhere and produce works on the conservative side: pro American values, pro family; films that deal with what we are currently dealing with in the world, asking and dealing with the tough stuff- but still fun and entertaining, please! And I do like to blow stuff up-so lots of action and fantasy.

Currently, I am in pre-production on some short films and a developing feature film about an undercover female agent in Iran.

6. Tell me about some of the conservative causes and activities you’ve been involved in. Can you give me the names of some candidates in California for 2010 that excite you?

I try to be as active as I can. I attend tea parties, rallies, I just spoke at the Young Republicans Convention. I am very active in promoting organizations that support our veterans and soldiers. This is probably one of my biggest passions. Our soldiers, past and present, deserve our love and support. No matter, whether you agree with the war or not, this is about our men and women in uniform – who make the sacrifice to leave their families, security and home for this country and for us as well as for the defense of others. God bless them; other than that, producing Restrained No More takes up a lot of time. Since I write, direct, shoot and edit it all myself, I find it has been one of the most productive ways I can speak out for the conservative movement

Follow Sharise on the Internet:
http://www.restrainednomore.com
http://www.youtube.com/user/RestrainedNoMore#p/u/10/9vfiK-dszVE
http://www.shariseparviz.com/
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1449302/
http://www.facebook.com/people/Sharise-Parviz/1226081990
http://www.myspace.com/shariseparviz

by Scott Schneider

Twila Brase is a regionally and nationally known activist and speaker about the danger of the volatile issues of proposed government-sponsored health care reform that have put many Americans up-in-arms over the past 9 months. She has been the CEO of the Citizens’ Council on Health Care (CCHC), headquartered in St. Paul, Minnesota for 15 years and has used her leadership to warn average Americans of the dangers of a government-sponsored health beauracracy long before ObamaCare fueled the ire of TEA party activists and right-center Americans. In 2009, she was named by Modern Health Care Magazine http://www.modernhealthcare.com/section/100mp#as one of the “100 most influential people in health care” (75th on the list with Obama being #1) and her efforts with the CCHC have led to policy changes on several different levels both regionally and nationally. I recently interviewed Twila on the state of ObamaCare in early 2010 and also asked her about some of the other pertinent issues the Council has been involved in.

1. Give me a little bit of background about yourself and how you came to involved with the Citizens Council on Health Care:

I co-founded Citizens’ Council on Health Care in 1995 in response to the realization that the State of Minnesota had passed a law similar to HillaryCare in 1992. At the time, I was working as a public health nurse in a suburban school district. I took a leave to become the President and CEO of CCHC, and subsequently resigned from nursing a year later. I have been head of the organization since its founding 15 years ago.

My credentials include first and foremost, citizenship. Second, I am a registered nurse and a Public Health nurse. In the years before CCHC began I cared for many patients, first as an emergency room nurse and then as a school nurse. At a time when government bureaucrats and corporate health plan executives are attempting to standardize the practice of medicine into one-size-fits-all treatment protocols, I understand the uniqueness of patients and the danger and indignity of rigid standardization of care.

2. Tell me about the influence of the American People in slowing and potentially stalling Obama/Pelosi/ReidCare? Can you describe what you have seen firsthand?

The sleeping giant that is the American people is awake at last. People have used their free time to attend Town Halls. They have built amazingly creative and pointed signs to wave at rallies. They have written letters, sent emails, and phoned members of Congress. They have expressed frustration when Congressional response letters didn’t even address their concerns, a Member’s voice mail was full, Tele-town Halls were held by members of Congress to keep people distant, newspapers tried to downplay or dismiss their concerns, and they were called “tea baggers” rather than the patriots they are. Three buses of Minnesota patriots took three long sleepless days to go to and from a D.C. rally. Others paid for planes, trains and gas. People outside of Massachusetts sent donations to Massachusetts just hoping to get Scott Brown elected.

Patriots across the country raised their voices to be heard and it made all the difference. Without them, we would have had socialized medicine in July when President Obama wanted to sign it into law. We would have had it in October and again in December. But the fear of the American people is what weighed on the hearts, minds, and decisions of members of Congress. The battle is not over, but the power of the people was made clear.

3. Is it way too early, in your opinion, to declare Obamacare dead?

Yes, it is way too early. President Obama says he’s not giving up and we should take him at his word. Back in 1994, HillaryCare was declared dead. It never died. Laws passed in 1996, 1997, and 1999 enacted significant and landscape-changing portions of HillaryCare without much public notice or discussion.

In 1996 Hillary’s “administrative simplification” language was enacted in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Out of that came the end of medical privacy and patient control over their medical records. The so-called HIPAA “privacy” rule gives 600,000 entities plus their contractors access to the private medical record without patient consent. Local, state and federal officials now have access to conduct surveillance on the patient-doctor relationship. Government measuring and reporting systems will soon allow federal and state officials to track physician decisions, compare them to government-issue treatment protocols, score physician compliance, and financially penalize the non-compliant…or worse: Disciplinary, licensure, or physician credentialing penalties could follow.

We encourage people not to sign the HIPAA forms at their doctors office. The forms do not protect privacy; they simply disclose how much your data can be shared without your consent and how little privacy you have. The law does not require you to sign it; it simply requires them to make a good faith effort to get you to sign it. Whether you sign it or not will not impact who has access to your medical records, however, if you complain in the future about how your data was shared, the clinic will not be able to hold the signed form against you.

There are now mandates for interoperable (“on the grid”) electronic health records. In Minnesota, all hospitals and health care providers must have an interoperable electronic health record by 2015. Patient data will be digitized and made available online without patient consent. This bill, unfortunately, was supported and signed by Governor Pawlenty.

At the federal level, because of the 1996 law, the federal government is working to create a national health information network (NHIN), or as I like to call it, a National Health Surveillance System. At the federal level, the economic stimulus bill gave $19 billion for its development. Fully implemented the system will create longitudinal medical records on every individual, allow profiling of patients and doctors, allow government and other research on all citizens using access through the NHIN, and establish government control over the practice of medicine.

The goal of the HITECH Act, part of the 2009 stimulus bill, as signed by President Obama, is the “utilization of an electronic health record for each person in the United States by 2014.” To that end, by 2011, physicians must be “meaningful users” of electronic health records in order to receive the $44,000 in incentive payments authorized by the Act. In other words, if they do not use EHRs in a way defined by the government as “meaningful,” they will be penalized. Furthermore, if doctors do not have EHRs by 2015, their Medicare payments will be reduced.

In 1997, the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP) was enacted. This is Medicaid for the middle class, starting with the children. According to White House documents, KidsFirst was Option #2 in Hillary’s plan. They planned to start with the children, add their parents, and eventually pull more and more of the population into government subsidized health care programs. The name of the program was recently changed to Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), but I still call it S-CHIP only this time the “S” stands for “Socialized.”

[History is telling. The public defeat of a big plan can be enacted in incremental, more bite-size pieces. News reports suggest that such a plan is now under discussion in Washington, D.C.

That's how Hillary did it. Once HillaryCare was defeated, the public gave a sigh of relief, and the Clintons passed much of the bill in the years that followed.

To secure Republican votes, they often added a little sweetener, like the hog-tied Medical Savings Account pilot project in the 1996 Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA). Thus, Hillary's efforts led to:

1. Moving the middle class into Medicaid through S-CHIP, the State Childrens' Health Insurance Program (Balanced Budget Act of 1997) - this was KidCare or Option #2 on the Clinton's work plan to impose national health care.
2. Eliminating individual consent rights over private medical data and giving government broad access to medical records (HIPAA 1996) - private data empowers government control.
3. Creating a national health information and surveillance system by requiring national ID numbers and national electronic data standards (HIPAA, 1996).
4. Monitoring patients and doctors through a government reporting system (Healthcare Research and Quality Act, 1999) Mandating physician use of electronic medical records for patient care and government reporting by 2015 (Economic Stimulus 2009) - the non-compliant doctors and clinics face financial penalties.

Twila Brase in the CCHC newsletter from January 28, 2010]

In 1999, the Healthcare Research and Quality Act of 1999 was passed. This Act established a reporting system for government oversight and measurement of cost and “quality and outcomes” of hospitals, clinics, and the medical profession. Although voluntary, officials intend to make it mandatory. In the proposed health care reform bills, the Secretary of Health and Human Services is empowered to “establish national priorities for performance improvement” and to “develop quality measures for the delivery of health care services in the United States.” (HR 3962, pp883-890) Medicare reimbursements may soon depend on physician reporting of government-issued measurement indices.

These three were all proposed in HillaryCare. They are now law in America.

4. If Obama offers concessions to the Republicans would you advise the Republicans to balk?

My concern is that many Republicans in Congress are either not actually conservative, or they have forgotten that the U.S. Constitution prohibits some of their own proposals

For instance, too many Republicans voted for the three mini-HillaryCare bills previously mentioned. And too many Republicans also bought into the idea of an individual mandate, either a hard mandate as in ObamaCare, or a soft mandate like the one in the Coburn/Ryan bill—which enrolls citizens in health insurance without their consent and puts the burden on them to opt-out if they object.

In fact, Len Nichols from the New America Foundation said the mandate was originally a Republican idea, developed by Mark Pauly for George Bush Sr. to compete with the Democrats employer mandate (PoliticoPulse, Feb 16, 2009). In 1993 John Chafee (R-RI) and 21 other members introduced an individual mandate bill during the HillaryCare debate. Four of the co-authors are still in Congress (Sens. Hatch, Grassley, Bennett and Bond), PoliticoPulse reports.

As we recently discovered in the ObamaCare debate, the IRS enforcement of the mandate could lead to fines and jail time. Where does the Constitution allow that infringement on freedom? It would be an unprecedented federal action according to the Congressional Budget Office.

In addition, too many Republicans, including Governor Tim Pawlenty here in Minnesota, believe that government can and should measure the performance of doctors, clinics, and hospitals; that private patient data should be sent to the government to analyze, score and financially penalize doctors according to how well they conform with the way government thinks doctors should practice; that government should get in the middle of the confidential patient-doctor relationship to influence treatment decisions and limit access to care; that every patient encounter with the medical system should be part of a government record. All these things are part of the 2008 health care reform bill that Governor Pawlenty signed into law and still publicly claims to support.

These exam room surveillance laws socialize medicine step-by-step until eventually government fully ties and controls the hands of doctors and consumes the insurance industry.

Our laws should empower people, not government. Power given to the government is power taken from the people. The regulatory regime of laws, rules and required reporting ties people up like a spider web around a fly, and the rights of law-abiding individuals are infringed.

Republicans need to remember, as do Democrats, that they took an Oath to protect and defend the Constitution and the rights of all Americans under it. If President Obama wants a single-payer system or anything that will bring us closer to it, Republicans and Democrats should refuse. If President Obama wants to get to ObamaCare socialized medicine piece by piece as Hillary did, Republicans and Democrats should loudly object and refuse. This is not about politics or party. This is about the preservation of the United States of America and the protection of the integrity of medicine and the ethics of patient care. Republicans and Democrats should be working to empower and protect the people, not put them at the mercy of bureaucrats, politicians, and political appointees.

5. Is there any part of ObamaCare that you feel at all comfortable with from a free-market, conservative standpoint?

No. The only good part of ObamaCare is that it woke up the country to the growing internal threat to their personal freedom that has been building since the imposition of Medicare (socialized medicine for the elderly).

6. What is the Baby DNA Project and how does this issue affect the average American?

The CCHC Protect Baby DNA Project is a public awareness campaign to alert parents to the taking, storage, use, and sharing of newborn DNA by state government for genetic research and other purposes. Parents, and eventually these baby citizens who grow up into adult citizens, need to know that government is claiming ownership over the DNA and genetic code of citizens at birth.

State health officials are using Baby DNA for government research without parent consent and they are providing it for private corporate research. States have been doing this of their own accord, without legislative authority. Texas parents just sued under the Fourth Amendment and the Texas Department of Health (DOH) was forced to destroy their 4.2 million blood spot collection of baby DNA taken from Texas newborns. However, the TX DOH is now allowed under a 2009 law to store and conduct research on all new newborn blood spots if the parents do not object. This is considered the right of dissent. However, in the midst of labor, delivery, and the exhaustion and excitement of a new baby, there should be informed consent requirements, not simply permitted dissent.

At issue is who owns your DNA. We know individuals do, but those who see DNA as a genetic gold mine with great profit and policy-making potential seek to eliminate private property rights over DNA. They wish to use every blood specimen, fluid, tissue and organs that a patient happens to leave behind at a hospital, clinic, or laboratory for their own research and profit purposes.

Parents also need to know that the baby’s blood is taken from the baby’s heel by the hospital and sent directly to the state Health Department and/or their contractors for genetic testing. Newborn screening is actually newborn genetic testing. The newborn genetic testing program should no longer be conducted by government. State legislators should repeal state health department authority and funding for the program. The screening should be conducted by hospitals, as all other laboratory tests, with the consent of informed parents. Parents should be able to decide if or for how many conditions their children should be tested.

Parents should also be informed of the risks of newborn genetic testing, including the risk that the child may grow up to wish the testing had not been done or to wish that the results were not in his or her permanent medical record threatening his employment, insurance, and procreation options. There are other risks, but in particular, parents need to know that when their child is tested, the test provides a partial genetic screen of the mother.

The President’s Council on Bioethics under President G.W. Bush suggested in their 2008 Newborn Screening Paper http://www.bioethics.gov/reports/newborn_screening/index.html that newborn screening may lead to eugenics, essentially an elimination of certain types of individuals from the population. I wrote a report called “NEWBORN GENETIC SCREENING: The New Eugenics?” http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/148821.php to highlight these concerns. Newborn screening is not a simple test or a non-controversial issue. It’s genetic testing at birth.

Some advocates of newborn screening propose sequencing the entire genome of every baby at birth, unlocking all the potential diseases, disabilities, and mental leanings of every newborn citizen. This is a serious infringement of the individual’s right to not know about their own genes and the individual’s right to not be known. Genetic data is only predictive. The child may or may not ever get the condition. Yet, how that data could be used in the future to contain health care costs should make every parents hair stand on end.

Twila and Michele Bachman!

7. Can you tell me about some of the policy victories and reforms you have helped champion over your years of leadership on the Council?

In addition to informing and engaging citizens on the dangers of ObamaCare, we are tackling the government imposition of treatment protocols (rationing directives), government report cards on physicians, the MN health information exchange (HIE), and the National Health Information Network (NHIN). We are also encouraging policies that put patients and doctors back in charge of medical decisions, including cash for care payments, real insurance (catastrophic) rather than prepaid health care (health plans), consent requirements for access to patient data, personal ownership of portability of health insurance, the end of employer-sponsored coverage, the cost-effectiveness of joining a medical sharing group (we just released a paper on it), and a compassionate exit strategy for Medicare.

We are constantly reminding the public that “Coverage is not care.” The debate over ObamaCare is focused on coverage which misses the fact that the bill plans to “cover” people by limiting access to “care.” Nationwide, we are championing the issues related to protecting baby DNA, patient control over medical records, the right not to be a research subject, non-insurance coverage options (medical sharing groups), a compassionate exit strategy for Medicare and Individualized Patient Care (end to rigid protocols) nationwide.

Our greatest victories have been in the realm of medical and genetic privacy. We understand that privacy is not about privacy ultimately. It’s about control. He who holds the dollars – and the data – make the rules. We have defended the Minnesota Medical Records law which requires consent for access to medical records by researchers outside the institution holding the medical records. Regarding baby DNA, we helped parents file a lawsuit against the Minnesota Department of Health. That lawsuit is now under appeal.

Our Baby DNA efforts have spread outside Minnesota. Our press release caught the attention of a Texas reporter who looked into the TX Department of Health baby DNA practices. Her articles led to the Texas lawsuit referenced above and to the destruction of the 4.2 million baby DNA samples. We have recently helped edit Baby DNA legislation in Tennessee. We hear from parents all over the country trying to prevent warehousing and use of their baby’s DNA.

In addition, we defeated through a Citizen Petition Campaign the Minnesota Department of Health’s attempt to establish government “best practices” in the practice of medicine.

Another petition campaign defeated Governor Pawlenty’s plan to establish a Minnesota Health Insurance Exchange similar to what is proposed in ObamaCare. We defeated it two years in a row with the help of insurance agents and others.

We have also assisted the public in staying informed on and taking effective action against ObamaCare.

We use our e-mail newsletter, our various Twitter sites, our YouTube site, rack cards, a babyDNA business-sized card, and every speaking opportunity to share our information and insights.

To find out more information on Twila and her efforts or to donate:

http://www.cchconline.org/

Or contact:

Citizens’ Council on Health Care
1954 University Avenue West, Suite 8, St. Paul, MN 55104
Phone: 651.646.8935 / Fax: 651.646.0100.

Photo Courtesy of americasfuture.org

At 26, Amanda Carpenter has already been a nationally known author, blogger, TV personality, and a star reporter for the Washington Times, and it would seem like she has it all going for her, but it wasn’t always that way.

Amanda was in her senior year of college, a lonely transfer at Ball State, participating in the debate team. She had found her experience wading through the red tape to obtain financial aid very frustrating and the wild spending habits of her liberal school administrators even more frustrating.

“I approached the journalism Deparment and asked them if I could write about it in the school newspaper,” she told me. “And they said ‘no’ so I started my own Web site and wrote about it on there.”

When she spoke about them on her own Web Site she called BSYOU.net, she found herself on the wrong side of the campus fence.

“The teachers could not imagine that a student would do this, not being a part of the school. A month after that the school newspaper was writing editorials against me and the press made big deal about it.

Mike Pence gave me a call and asked me how I was doing. I had no idea who he was. I never belonged to any college Republican clubs or went to any meetings and after when I finally went to my first one, some people there didn’t want me to hang out because some of the things that I put on my Web site were so controversial to the school.”

On the Website she expressed her opposition to a campus speaking engagement by Eric Schlosser, author of Fast Food Nation, because he was being paid $15,000 for a four-hour visit. She fashioned a “Wanted” ad for a professor, Abel Alves, who had recently been arrested for trespassing. “He said that I committed a hate crime, because I allegedly made him look Arab in the photo, which was just his university photo,” she laughs. “He had a beard.”  She believed was indoctrinating his students with leftist propaganda and a student named Chris Wendt actually created a Web page with copies of the posters intermixed with pornography pictures to make it look like Amanda was wanted as a porn star.

“I took the pictures into administration and I asked them do something about it,” she recalls. “And they did nothing. They told me that because it was done on a student’s own Web site and not on a school Web site, that there was nothing they could do about it.”

With alienation from her peers and being declared public enemy #1 by her professors, how did she get through it?

“Work,” she says. “I worked total of 26 jobs in my college years, mostly retail and waitressing at several restaurants. I was a stat girl for the football team, did landscaping. I just focused on my studies and kept busy.”

Some of the places she lists she worked at include Club Paradise, Mezza Luna, Bath and Body Works, Sunglass Hut, the Bracken Library (the 2 a.m. shift) and a downtown eatery in Muncie called Mezza Luna.

A native of Flint, Michigan Amanda had originally transferred to Ball State from Trine State, a small, private college in Angola, Indiana where she had landed a scholarship to pitch softball until her shoulder blew out.

“It was 3 hours away from Flint Michigan and that was as far as my car would go,” she laughs. “And I went to Ball State because it was 3 hours away (from Trine State) and that was as far as my car would go and that was how I made the decision.”

On the serious side, Amanda says her decision to end up at Ball State was based on a factor that would figure monumental in her life.

“They had a debate team and I thought that was exciting,” she says.

It became a real bright spot for Amanda who learned to hone her skills politically and, after having never been involved in any ideological association her entire life came the conclusion that she was a conservative.

“I just found that I was the type of person whose beliefs were conservative. My belief in fiscal responsibility and the way that I got into the school on my own and the way I executed my life on campus showed me that politically I was a conservative.”

On April 3, 2005 Amanda’s along with her debate partners were named national champions at the end of a 2 day National Education Debate Association tournament held at Ball State. Amanda was named debate team All-American.

With the realization that she was a dyed-in-the-wool conservative and a skilled debater, Amanda graduated from Ball State with a degree in Communications Studies in June 2005.  She landed an internship with the Arlington, Va.-based Leadership Institute. The discoveries and the experiences that came with it gave her the impetus to seek out her first job at the conservative magazine Human Events and she moved to Virginia to begin as it’s Capitol Hill Correspondent in August 2005. She says she has one man to thank for her time at Current Events.

“The man who hired me, Terry Jeffries, mainly because he gave me a chance. He is the one who gave me a tape recorder, sent me to Capitol Hill and told me to just ask them questions. And he didn’t care that I didn’t know anybody and that I hadn’t done it before, he just cared that I went to Capitol Hill and asked them questions and came back and put the quotes together. And he challenged me to do research. He would take into his office and we’d talk about a story and he would ask me the tough questions, ‘Okay where do you find this, where do you find that.’ I was very grateful that he was able to do that for me. That was the toughest part of learning.”

Being a novice reporter on Capitol Hill handed Amanda a steep learning curve but she was a quick study and like anything else new, it came with its myriad of fascinating experiences.

“One of the first times I was on the Hill. I got sent up there with a tape recorder to ask people some questions and I didn’t know who most of these peole were but I knew Tom Coburn and I went to ask him a question about an abortion bill and he just ripped into me! I don’t know if he thought that I was a liberal reporter or if it was just that the issue set him off but that time he really went after me. After that, whenever I talked to him, though he was a lot more relaxed.”

In an interview in Muncie Magazine, she recalls having to develop the instinct to nearly stalk congressmen in order to get a scoop and she distinctly recalls Senator Carl Levin running away from her in order to avoid giving her a quote.

The job at Human Events worked like a charm for Amanda and as she quickly grew in her job skills and excelled at researching, she developed the idea to write a book. Released in 2006, The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy’s Dossier on Hillary Rodham Clinton, chronicles the former first lady’s life of scandals and backroom deals ignored by the mainstream press. The publication of the book led to Amanda’s first TV appearance on Hannity and Colmes in 2006, which opened the floodgates for her as a media personality. Since that first appearance, Amanda has been seen on BBC, The O’Reilly Factor, Red Eye, The Big Story with John Gibson, MSNBC’s Tucker, PBS’s To the Contrary, CNN’s Larry King Live, and Reliable Sources with Howard Kurtz and others.

In May 2007 she decided it was time for a change and moved on to Townhall.com to take a position as their national political reporter.

“I went to Townhall after working as a reporter for Human Events from 2005 to 2006 because it offered to give me the ability to take on more blogging, video, and television exposure and it worked out really well from that respect.”

Aside from her frequent columns and blogging on Townhall, she also introduced herself as a video presence with The 5 with Amanda Carpenter series, archives of which are still available online. On March 1 of 2009, she positioned herself even further up the ladder when she became a political reporter for the Washington Times, where for nearly 9 months she wrote her daily Hotbutton columns and worked on a myriad of other projects.

Amanda, featured in "Hotbutton" columns at the Washtington Times.

At age 26, her quick rise in conservative media circles lies in stark contrast to the dark days she went through at Ball State. She married in December 2008 and is currently living in the DC area where she is most politically active. In the spare time that she has, she falls back on a few things she enjoys the most.

 ”I live on my computer and I love to research. I love make-up consumer research sites makeupalley.com. I look at everything shampoo, make-up, soap, and you can review it and buy it online and I buy most of my stuff on line. I’m also a voracious reader of women’s magazines, Glamour, Vanity Fair, Marie Claire. They’re awful magazines but for some reason I just can’t stay away from them. I put them down for a while a ways back but then I started blogging politically for Glamour Mazagine’s Glamocracy blog during the 2008 elections and I ended up reading them all again.”

She also enjoys walks with her miniature schnauzer, Wiki.

“My dog is a female, black miniature schnauzer, named Wiki. I originally named my dog Arwen, and I didn’t know that, that was a character in the Lord of The Rings Triliogy. I don’t ever watch any movies. So in the Virginia city are where I lived at the time, when I was walking my dog, I kept running into people who kept asking, “Oh did you name her after that character from the ‘Lord of the Rings’? and I didn’t know what to say so to get out of those convesations I eventually changed her name to “Wiki” which means ‘quick’ and ’small’ and ‘light’ which is very appropriate.”

She holds no ill-will against Tom Coburn for that original dust-up on Capitol Hill and in fact, the run-in cemented her respect for him.

“I love him,” she tells me about Coburn as a Senator. “And also Jim DeMint. These two men buck their own party and really face a long and lonely life in the Capitol. They really make it hard on themselves and they don’t have too but they do it for the good of themselves and their own beliefs.”

She also has her feminine political heroes as well.

Amanda, a normal day on Twitter

“Marsha Blackburn. She is sweet as pie, sugar, any of the those things. And Liz Cheney who just started her own blog KeepAmericaSafe.com (with columnist Bill Kristol) about American National Security and I think that’s a platform she could run off of. She’s a phenomenal woman who just puts herself out there with her dad defending America and she doesn’t have to.”

Her admiration for DeMint has most recently elevated her to the next stop on the conservative career heirarachy: As of January 25, 2010, DeMint’s congressional office sent out a press release that she had taken a position as senior communications advisor and speech writer.

“Amanda is an exceptionally talented writer and I’m proud to welcome her to our team.  She has spent years reporting on the failures of out-of-control government, and she is committed to advancing solutions that increase freedom and opportunity for all Americans.” said a press release on the DeMint Website.

“I’ve long admired Senator DeMint for the battles he’s waged to limit the size of government and decrease spending,” said Amanda in the same press release. “He is a relentless advocate for conservative principles. I’m thrilled to join his team and help promote those ideas.”

Just another stop on the career enhancement express for this rising conservative woman from a small city in Michigan.

Follow Amanda on Twitter and Facebook:

http://twitter.com/amandaCarpenter

http://www.facebook.com/amanda.carpenter?ref=search&sid=1321102270.919657064..1

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/tales_from_the_bin_laden_clan_FotvaRLEtYyNGoPTTlcLwK/1
Updated: Sun., Oct. 11, 2009, 10:47 AM

By SUSANNAH CAHALAN

Last Updated: 10:47 AM, October 11, 2009

Posted: 2:57 AM, October 11, 2009

One night in Khartoum, Sudan, Osama bin Laden decides to take his family — four wives, 14 children — on a camping trip.

He drives into the desert, finds an isolated spot, then has his oldest sons dig ditches in the sand, long enough to fit each person. It’s the early 1990s, and bin Laden believes there’s a war coming between Muslims and the Western infidels. This is training.

“You must be gallant. Do not think about foxes or snakes,” he says. “Challenging trials are coming to us.”

Each child, including a few 1- and 2-year-olds, lies in a hollow. There is no water or food.

As night falls, a child’s voice whispers in the darkness, “I’m cold.”

“Cover yourself with dirt or grass,” bin Laden snaps. “You will be warm under what nature provides.”

Bin Laden’s first wife, Najwa, doesn’t like that idea, but, “I reminded myself that my husband knew much more about the big world than any of us. We were all pearls to my husband, and he wanted to protect us.”

That’s what it was like “Growing Up bin Laden,” the title of a forthcoming memoir (St. Martin’s Press) co-written by Najwa, who remains married to the monster, though she now lives apart from him in an undisclosed Middle Eastern location, with her fourth son — of 11 children — Omar.

It’s a world where women are never allowed outside the house, 12-year-old daughters are married off to 30-year-old al Qaeda fighters, pet dogs are used for target practice and the biggest household fight is over whether Islam allows refrigerators. “Jon & Kate Plus 8″ it ain’t.

It is not the life that Najwa, now 51, would necessarily have chosen for herself, though she accepts it because “my husband says it is so.”

She neither defends nor lashes out at Osama. Terrorism is what he does for a living; all she needed to worry about was keeping his house in order.

Despite her neutrality, her story is still an indictment — showing us a terrorist leader who is embarrassed easily, obsessed with a long-dead father, terrified of women, and who thinks of his children as nothing more than cannon fodder.

Najwa grew up a rebel in the port city of Latakia in Syria. She refused to hide her hair and wore colorful dresses that didn’t cover her face or arms. She attended school, played tennis and was a fledgling artist who painted portraits and landscapes.

She met her first cousin Osama, the 9-year-old son of her father’s sister, when she was just 7.

“He was such a serious, conscientious boy,” she writes. “He was proud, but not arrogant. He was delicate, but not weak. He was grave, but not severe.”

He was also “shyer than a virgin under the veil.”

Osama was the son of Mohammed bin Laden, a construction kingpin and one of the wealthiest men in Saudi Arabia. He had the habit of calling his sons for inspection, then whipping them with a cane if they did not line up exactly by height.

Though conservative in most other ways, Mohammed delighted in having his wives re move their veils, then asking his nervous servants to pick the most beautiful one. Osama’s mother, tired of these shenanigans, divorced him.

Osama had a one-on-one conversation with his father only once. At age 9, he decided he would like a car. Escorted by his stepfather, he petitioned Mohammed.

“I will not give you a car. I will give you a bicycle,” the father replied. Osama went home crushed and gave the bike to a younger brother.

Then, as Osama recounted to his son Omar years later in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan, “one day several weeks later I received the biggest shock of my life. A shiny new car was delivered. For me! That was the happiest day of my young life.”

Soon after, Mohammed was killed in a plane crash, an event Omar believes left deep scars.

“Although my father was never one to complain, it is believed that he keenly felt her lack of status, genuinely suffering from his father’s lack of personal care and love.”

Osama concentrated on reli gious schooling, becoming more conservative by the year. His way of flirting was by saving the best grapes from Najwa’s back yard for her.

Their wedding in 1974 — she was 15, he was 17 — was a telling precursor to a joyless marriage. Dancing, joking and laughing were forbidden at the nuptials.

They immediately departed for Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where she was forced to wear the “dreaded veil” and full-length black robes. Her schooling was discontinued, tennis lessons canceled, her artwork forgotten. Najwa was almost perpetually pregnant, as Osama said it was important to make many warriors for Islam.

She lived a life in purdah, where females socialize only with members of their family. In nearly 30 years of marriage, she left the confines of her home only to visit relatives and to move to a different house.

Air conditioning, televisions, phones were all banned. Toys given as gifts to the children were destroyed.

Omar’s asthma was treated with honeycombs and onions, since modern medicine wasn’t allowed. Everything the family ate had to be bought the same day, since refrigerators were out of the question.

Bin Laden took three more wives — one picked by Najwa, though she admits that “few women dance with joy when they contemplate sharing their husband with other women.”

In 1979, the couple visited America. Bin Laden went to see Abdullah Azzam, a teacher and mentor of bin Laden who preached about jihad in Los Angeles, while Najwa stayed in Indianapolis with a family friend.

She recalls how a man stared at her black Saudi robes, veil and head scarf as they waited for a return flight to Saudi Arabia at the airport.

“With a jaw dropped open in surprise, and curious eyes growing as large as big bugs popping out of his skull, he actually stopped to gape at my veiled face,” she says.

“I wondered what my husband was thinking. I took a side glance at Osama and saw that he was intently studying the curious man.”

Najwa says Americans were kind and friendly, but the country was not to her conservative tastes. “My husband and I did not hate America, yet we did not love it,” she writes.

Bin Laden became a hero in Saudi Arabia because he fought the Russians in Afghanistan. But he began to clash with the royal family after they ignored his offers of military aid and instead let Americans liberate Kuwait in 1991.

The final straw, Omar writes, was when his father saw female American troops on his soil.

“Women! Defending Saudi men!” he cried.

Under pressure from the king, Osama went into a self-imposed exile in the Sudan.

Najwa and Omar describe two Osamas here. One happily tends his garden, delighting in sunflowers. The other walks with a Kalashnikov and a cane, wielded if any of his sons showed their eye teeth while smiling.

One is so embarrassed when his boat goes out of control that he slips into the water so no one can see him. The other rants into a Dictaphone, spouting epithets about America and Israel, pausing only to listen to his favorite station — the BBC — on a small radio.

One is a legend who has radicals visiting “to breathe the same air.” The other is a wounded man, secretly blinded in his right eye by a flying chunk of metal in his youth, who trained himself to use his left hand rather than being seen as weak by a culture that rejected the disabled, Omar says.

Pets met horrible ends. A monkey the children loved was run over by one of Osama’s men. Bin Laden had told him that “the monkey was not a monkey at all, but was a Jewish person turned into a monkey by the hand of God.”

A litter of puppies the boys adopted was gassed by al Qaeda fighters to see how long it would take them to die.

Finally, under pressure from the royal family and after assassination attempts, Sudan kicked Osama out.

In 1996, he found shelter with the Taliban and set up camp in earthen huts in the mountains of Tora Bora. Najwa’s kitchen consisted only of a portable gas burner to make food for 10 kids. The children slept on cotton mattresses on the concrete floor, and there was no furniture.

Bin Laden drafted his sons to be suicide bombers.

“Listen, my sons, there is a paper on the wall of the mosque. This paper is for men who are good Muslims, men who volunteer to be suicide bombers,” Omar recalls him saying repeatedly. One of Osama’s youngest sons ran to the mosque to sign up; his father did nothing to stop him.

When Omar responded with anger, bin Laden told him, “You hold no more a place in my heart than any other man or boy in the entire country.”

Omar once approached his father about his jihad obsession.

“My father, when is this killing and war going to stop?” he asked his father.

Bin Laden responded, “Would you ask a Muslim when he was going to stop praying to God? I will fight until my dying day! I will fight until I breathe my last breath! I will never stop my fight for justice! I will never stop this jihad!”

As for why bin Laden focused on America, he said: “Remember this: America and Israel are one bicycle with two wheels. The wooden wheel represents the United States. The steel wheel represents Israel. Omar, Israel is the stronger power of the two. Does a general attack the strongest line in battle? No, he concentrates on the weakest part of the line.”

A 20-year-old Omar eventually fled Afghanistan and begged his mother to do the same. Najwa decided to leave; her husband reluctantly conceded.

In the first week of September, Najwa handed Osama a ring as a token of her love.

“No matter what you might be told, I will never divorce you,” he said.

As she stepped foot in Syria a few days later with three of her children, the world changed. She watched the television in horror as the Twin Towers fell, claiming the lives of 2,991 people.

Though she refuses to criticize — or even implicate — her husband, she says: “I can only think and feel with my mother’s heart. For every child lost, a mother’s heart harbors the deepest pain. None can see our sons grow to men. None can see our daughters become mothers.”

Najwa says she has not spoken to Osama since the attacks and does not know where he is.

Omar, who has completely rejected his father and is petitioning to live in England, was at his uncle’s house in Saudi Arabia when he learned of the attacks.

“Come quickly!” his uncle said. “Come and see what my brother has done! See what your father has done! He has ruined our lives! He has destroyed us!”

By Jim O’Neill:

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/14700
“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.”—George Soros

“George Soros is an evil man. He’s anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and
anti-good.” —Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America’s moral decline, at the feet of one man?

It is indeed possible.

If George Soros isn’t the world’s preeminent “malignant messianic narcissist,” he’ll do until the real thing comes along. Move over, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There’s a new kid on the block.

What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath’s lack of conscience. He considers himself to be a world class philosopher, despises capitalism, and just loves social engineering.

Uh oh. Can you say “trouble,” boys and girls?

Soros is a real life version of Dr. Evil—with Obama in the role of Mini-Me. Which is not as humorous as it might at first sound. In fact, it’s bone-deep chilling.

György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary. Soros’ father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto—a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.

The Schwartz’s, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s. Soros is an Esperanto word meaning “to soar.”

In 1944 Hitler’s henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary, to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews. The Soros children were all given fake identity papers, and were shipped out to various Christian families. George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.

Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.”

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Joshua Muravchik notes that, “70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year. They were dying and disappearing all around him, and their numbers no doubt included many whom he knew personally. Yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.”

During an interview with “Sixty Minute’s” Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his “best year:”

Sweetness & Light

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who
swore that you were his adopted godson.

SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the
psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

SOROS: Not, not at all. Not at all.

KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

SOROS: No.

Of course he didn’t feel guilty. Soros has the moral depth of a clam. Nonetheless, he has said, “my goal is to become the conscience of the world.”

In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having “carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

Can you imagine the results of this messianic sociopath being “the conscience of the world?” Ye gods.

Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper’s death in 1994. Two of Popper’s most influential teachings concerned “the open society,” and Fallibilism.

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.

The “open society” basically refers to a “test and evaluate” approach to social engineering. Regarding “open society” Roy Childs writes, “Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper’s advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess.

In 1956 Soros moved to New York City, where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation.

Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.

In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for “The American Thinker” she says, “Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically…almost overnight.”

In 1994 Soros crowed in “The New Republic” that “the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.” The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be “one of the greatest social robberies in human history.” The “Soros Empire” indeed.

In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia. At the time, Malaysia’s Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros “a villain, and a moron.” Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, “We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people.” (Source)

The website Greek national Pride reports, “[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros’ role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality.”

France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars. (Source)

Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for “illegal market manipulation.” Elizabeth Crum writes that “The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized. [Soros’] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary’s economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.” (Source)

Soros’ grasp, greed, gluttony have a global reach
My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach.
But what about America? Soros told Australia’s national newspaper “The Australian” “America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out,” he said, adding that the time has come for “a very serious adjustment” in American’s consumption habits.

Ready to tighten your belts, America?

World financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”
Soros also told “The Australian” that the world financial crisis was”stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”

Stimulating. Have you found the job losses, house foreclosures, and incredible national debt—stimulating? Me neither.

Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil (yes, billion with a “b”), in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama’s largesse towards Brazil, came shortly after Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).

Tait Trussel writes, “The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil, but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security.”

Do you get the feeling that American taxpayers are being treated like gullible suckers?

(By the way, if you want a short primer on Far Left economics—and a great cartoon from a 1911 St. Louis Post-Dispatch—go to actor Michael Moriarty’s website).

A blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. This is their mission: “This blog is dedicated to all…who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of…George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day stop preying upon the world’s poor…that justice will be served.”

Back to America. Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago Bill O’Reilly said on “The O’Reilly Factor” that “Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous….” (Source)

In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, “Soros uses his philanthropy to change—or more accurately deconstruct—the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His “open society” is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of an ideology of rights and entitlements.”

Perhaps the most important of these “whistle blowers” are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book “The Shadow Party” outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel.

Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years. I don’t have time to do the subject justice in this article, but FrontPage’s Jamie Glazov has an excellent interview with Richard Poe, which will fill you in on many of the facts.

The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration.

DiscoverTheNetworks.org (another good source) writes, “By his [Soros’] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government—a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup.”

The above quote was, of course, written before the Presidential Election. So was the following quote from a November 2008 edition of the German magazine “Der Spiegel,” in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS should do after taking office. “I think we need a large stimulus package….” Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right.

Soros also said that “I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights.”

Any of this sound familiar?

Although Soros doesn’t (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.

Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by “The Baltimore Chronicle’s” Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.

In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton—Dick Cheney’s old stomping grounds.

When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time. Republican Senator John McCain was the keynote speaker at the “Soros Convention” (so labelled by the late Robert Novak) in Philadelphia.

Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren’t bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA.

And I musn’t forget to mention Soros’ involvement with the LSM (Lame Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to.

As Matthew Vadum writes, “The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives.”

Richard Poe writes, “Soros’ private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America’s traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments
in social engineering.”

Some of the many NGOs (None Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org.

Poe continues, “Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia.”

As I’ve said before, America currently faces the greatest challenge to its existence as a free republic since the Civil War. And as we go, so goes the world.

So is Soros to blame for all of America’s woes?

Without Soros, would the Saul Alinsky Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? Yes, yes, yes, and yes—but to much less of a degree.

The purpose of this article is to point out that without the financial skullduggery and Machiavellian manipulations of Soros, America would be a considerably safer, saner, and stabler place to live.

America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America.

His conduct has been immoral, duplicitous, and traitorous. Stripping Soros of his U.S. citizenship, should be one of the first steps taken during the upcoming courtroom trials.

And trials there must be. No matter the cost, the nest of vipers on Capitol Hill, and all of the traitors in the government at large, must be brought to task for their behavior, or a free America is doomed.

The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

These days, Patrick Henry’s sentiment is more than just some quaint hyperbole from long ago—it’s a slow burning, but intense, glow that fires our courage and heart.

Laus Deo.

(91) Reader Feedback | Subscribe

Jim O’Neill
Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won “First Place” in the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award. The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with the money she won from successfully suing the National Enquirer for libel

This Week’s Post Was Suggested By Beth

Cpl. Benjamin S. Kopp
21 years old from Rosemont, Minnesota
3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment
July 18, 2009

Ben Kopp has been a fighter since the day he was born. When he was born his mother was given morphine to stop her labor so the doctors could deliver her via a cesarean section. But it caused his heart rate to slow and when he was born he wasn’t breathing. But he recovered to the amazement of everyone. “Ben has always been up for a challenge,” said his mother, Jill Stephenson. “He came into the world a fighter.”

On July 10, 2009, Cpl. Benjamin Kopp was wounded in the Helmand province of Afghanistan. He was hit in the knee that hit his popliteal artery and the loss of blood caused him to go into cardiac arrest on the operating table at a battalion surgical center. As a result of his injuries, Cpl. Kopp developed swelling in his brain was put into an induced coma to try and save his life. But he died on July 18.

But his service didn’t end with his passing. Upon his death, by his own desire, his organs were donated to people in need saving their lives.

“Please continue to say prayers for all of the men and women who so proudly serve our country,” Stephenson wrote online. “Ben had a deep love of country and has just left a legacy of heroism for all of us to cherish. Be as proud of him as I was as his mother.”

You can read much more about Cpl. Benjamin S. Kopp here.

These brave men and women sacrifice so much in their lives so that others may enjoy the freedoms we get to enjoy everyday. For that, I am proud to call them Hero.
We Should Not Only Mourn These Men And Women Who Died, We Should Also Thank God That Such People Lived

This post is part of the Wednesday Hero Blogroll. For more information about Wednesday Hero, or if you would like to post it on your site, you can go here.

Tell Congress to REJECT ObamaCare!

FaxDC.com wants to send this urgent and personalized Blast Fax message to all 535 members of the House and Senate for YOU.

Alert: The health insurance industry is warning that a comprehensive Senate bill would increase the cost of a typical policy by hundreds, or even thousands, of dollars a year after lawmakers eased up on the requirement that all Americans get coverage.

The stinging attack, on the eve of a pivotal Senate vote, sent a clear message to President Barack Obama and congressional Democratic leaders who have been making headway on overhauling the nation’s healthcare system. The industry fears that a weakening of the penalties for failing to get insurance would let Americans postpone getting coverage until they get sick.

The industry has worked for months behind the scenes to help shape healthcare reform. Unlike the 1990s, when the insurance industry contributed to the failure of President Bill Clinton’s health overhaul, it has found the promise of millions of more people getting coverage too alluring to resist. Translation: millions of new consumers buying policies.

The industry wants lawmakers to expand coverage, not lessen the penalties that would reduce the number of people. The Senate Finance Committee is slated to vote on its 10-year, $829 billion bill on Tuesday, but more important to the industry are the steps beyond the panel’s decision.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will be merging the bill with a companion measure from the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, with the goal of a sweeping, affordable bill. In the House, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Democratic leaders have been pulling together legislation from three committees.

Angered by the insurance industry’s late-in-coming cost estimate, a spokesman for Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont, questioned the credibility of the numbers.

“It’s a health insurance company hatchet job, plain and simple,” said the spokesman, Scott Mulhauser.

Late Sunday, the industry trade group America’s Health Insurance Plans sent its member companies a new accounting firm study that projects the legislation would add $1,700 a year to the cost of family coverage in 2013, when most of the major provisions in the bill would be in effect.

Premiums for a single person would go up by $600 more than would be the case without the legislation, the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis concluded in the study, which the insurance group had commissioned.

“Several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause healthcare costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system,” Karen Ignagni, the top industry lobbyist in Washington, wrote in a memo to insurance company CEOs.

The study projected that, in 2019, family premiums could be $4,000 higher, and individual premiums could be $1,500 higher.

Baucus spokesman Mulhauser said the study is “seriously flawed” because it doesn’t take into account provisions in the legislation that would lower the cost of coverage, such as tax credits to help people buy private insurance, protections for current policies, and administrative savings from a revamped marketplace.

White House healthcare spokeswoman Linda Douglass concurred. “This is an insurance industry analysis that is designed to reach a conclusion which benefits the industry, and does not represent what the bill does,” she said.

The Baucus plan, which faces a final committee vote on Tuesday, got a boost last week when the Congressional Budget Office estimated it would cover 94 percent of eligible Americans while reducing the federal deficit.

But the PricewaterhouseCoopers analysis attempted to get at a different issue: costs for privately insured individuals.

It concluded that a combination of factors in the bill and lawmakers’ decisions as they amended it would raise costs.

The chief reason is the lawmakers’ decision to weaken proposed penalties for failing to get health insurance, the report said. The bill would require insurers to take all applicants, doing away with denials for pre-existing health problems. In return, all Americans would be required to carry coverage, either through an employer or a government program, or buying it themselves.

But the CBO estimated that, even with new federal subsidies, about 17 million Americans still would be unable to afford health insurance. Faced with that affordability problem, senators opted to ease the fines for going without coverage from the levels Baucus originally proposed. That will only let people postpone getting coverage until they get sick, the industry says.

Other factors leading to higher costs include a new tax on high-cost health insurance plans, cuts in Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors, and a series of new taxes on insurers and other healthcare industries, the report said.

“Health reform could have a significant impact on the cost of private health insurance coverage,” it concluded.

Insurers played a major role in defeating then-President Bill Clinton’s healthcare plan in the 1990s. Sunday, the industry stopped short of signaling all-out opposition. “We will continue to work with policymakers in support of workable bipartisan reform,” Ignagni said in her memo. (Newsmax)

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/62591-finance-healthcare-vote-will-require-a-leap-of-faith-for-senators-industry-groups?page=2#comments

By Jeffrey Young – 10/12/09 06:00 AM ET

Several members of the Senate Finance Committee will have to make leaps of faith if the panel is to approve a healthcare reform bill on Tuesday.

Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) got a big boost in the form of a favorable score from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) last week, but it did very little to assuage the skeptics on his panel.

Baucus needs 12 votes, but two Democrats, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia and Ron Wyden of Oregon, in particular remain disgruntled about his bill. The lone possible Republican supporter, Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine), refuses to state her intentions.

If more than one of those three senators joins the panel’s Republicans and votes against the bill, healthcare reform would suffer a tough blow on Tuesday and might not recover.

It’s likely Baucus will have the votes. Committee chairmen generally don’t schedule a vote they won’t win, and at least two of the three senators are likely to make a leap Tuesday in the hope the bill will improve as it moves forward.

The fact that critics of the Baucus bill such as Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) are already strategizing for the floor debate is a strong indication that Baucus will have the support he needs on Tuesday.

Outside the Senate, important lobbies have a huge stake in the Finance vote, as they hope the bill that lands on Obama’s desk will look much like the one Baucus’s panel will vote on Tuesday.

Many of those industries have already made the leap; they offered support for healthcare reform in exchange for concessions from President Barack Obama or Baucus, and now they hope those concessions aren’t watered down by the legislative process.

Rockefeller declared before the markup began that he was prepared to oppose Baucus’s bill for a long list of reasons, not the least of which is the concern — shared by most Democrats and by Snowe — that the legislation does too little to make health insurance affordable.

Despite winning some concessions from Baucus, and despite intense lobbying by Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), Rockefeller still has not confessed to a change of heart, though he said late last week that the CBO score was good.

CBO concluded the Baucus bill would cost $829 billion and reduce the deficit by $81 billion while expanding coverage to 29 million.

Wyden espouses similar misgivings about affordability but also strongly believes the Baucus bill is too timid and does practically nothing to expand the choice of insurance to consumers, especially those who get their coverage at work.

Critics unsatisfied with Baucus’s efforts to win them over have said they’ll press their case with Reid, who must meld the Finance bill with a more liberal measure approved by the Senate Health panel.

Reid’s efforts and pressure from Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the House could nudge the bill in the direction favored by Rockefeller and Wyden, at least to an extent.

But that could be a problem for Snowe and some industry groups.

Snowe has deep concerns about affordability and about the burden an individual mandate would place on those who don’t have the money to buy good insurance.

The healthcare industry groups that have gone to great lengths to maintain a positive front about reform have always seen the Finance Committee as their best hope. The hospital and pharmaceutical industries went so far as to strike deals with Baucus and the White House to limit their exposure to $155 billion and $80 billion, respectively.

Now those groups have seen their deals scotched, even before Reid melds the Senate measures and the House and Senate have a conference.

First, the Joint Committee on Taxation increased its estimate by roughly 30 percent for the fees Baucus would levy on drug makers, health insurers and medical device companies.

Because these companies would not be allowed to deduct the cost of those fees from their taxable income, the assessments rose from $17.2 billion to $22.2 billion for drug companies, from $40.5 billion to $60.4 billion for insurers, and from $29.9 billion to $38.6 billion for device makers.

All of the health groups are also highly concerned about the fact that Baucus’s bill would cover only 94 percent of legal U.S. residents and 91 percent overall, including illegal immigrants, and that the individual mandate to obtain health coverage was relaxed.

The result, they contend, is a level of coverage that would fail to produce the increase in business they need to offset the revenue they would lose. The bill would cut Medicare payments by $400 billion, and health insurance companies also would have added expenses from new federal regulations.

While lobbying feverishly to protect their interests, these lobbying groups face a tough decision about whether — or when — to start fighting against the entire healthcare reform enterprise. Meanwhile, they are biding their time.

OCTOBER 11, 2009

Subject: Obamacare plan hides true cost with 3 years of taxes
before benefits start
From: Patriot@FaxDC.com
Date: Sun, October 11, 2009 5:18 pm
To: scott@conservativesingleguy.com

OBAMACARE PLAN HIDES TRUE COST WITH 3 YEARS OF TAXES BEFORE BENEFITS START

Tell Congress to REJECT ObamaCare!

FaxDC.com wants to send this urgent and personalized Blast Fax message to all 535 members of the House and Senate for YOU.

Alert: Sixty years is how long Democrats say they’ve been pushing for legislation that provides health care access for all Americans. They’ll have to wait another three if President Barack Obama gets a bill to sign this year.

Under the Democratic bills, federal tax credits to help make health insurance affordable for millions of low- and middle-income households won’t start flowing until 2013 – after the next presidential election. But Medicare cuts and a sizable chunk of the tax increases to pay for the overhaul kick in immediately.

The eat-your-vegetables-first approach is causing heartburn for some Democrats. Three years is a long time to wait for dessert, and opponents could capitalize on misgivings about the complex legislation to undo what would be a signature achievement for Obama.

“The real danger is that health reform could be vulnerable to what we see with the stimulus package,” said Democratic health policy consultant Peter Harbage, referring to criticism that Obama’s $787 billion economic plan hasn’t stemmed rising unemployment. “There needs to be more focus on what can you do quickly so that real people will start seeing change sooner, rather than later.”

Said Judy Feder, a senior health official in President Bill Clinton’s administration: “Just as we are fending off ideological attacks to get the bill passed, we will be fending them off as we implement the law.”

Obama administration officials and Democratic lawmakers say the reason for the three-year wait is the time it’s going to take to set up insurance marketplaces, write consumer protection rules and reconfigure the bureaucracy to carry out the legislation. It took President George W. Bush’s administration two years to phase in the Medicare prescription benefit, a more modest undertaking.

“It’s very important to get the execution right,” White House budget director Peter Orszag told The Associated Press in a recent interview.

There’s another reason, less talked about: to make the costs of the plan seem more manageable under congressional budgeting rules.

Lawmakers use a 10-year accounting window to assess new programs. Starting the Medicare cuts and some of the taxes in the early years – and pushing the bulk of new spending into the latter years – helps keep the cost of the health care overhaul within Obama’s $900 billion limit. Bush used the same kind of maneuver to push the Medicare benefit through Congress.

“It means that the full cost of the program is underestimated in the 10-year window that you are looking at,” said Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare for former President George H.W. Bush. “It’s not like we’ve never seen this before, but people need to understand what’s going on.”

Congressional Democrats are defensive about their slow-motion rollout.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., addressed the concerns in a recent news release captioned: “What You Get Right Away.”

Among the major short-term improvements in his bill would be a benefit for people on Medicare, who already have insurance coverage. Starting in 2010, those who fall into the Medicare prescription plan’s coverage gap would get a 50 percent discount off the price of brand-name drugs.

In 2011 and 2012, certain small employers with fewer than 25 workers could get a tax credit for up to 35 percent of what they contribute toward the cost of employee coverage. That could encourage some companies that don’t offer coverage to do so, but it’s more likely to shore up those who already do.

To answer Obama’s call for an immediate end to insurance company discrimination against the sick, Baucus would set aside $5 billion from 2010-2013 to help states provide affordable coverage to people denied because of a medical condition. The money would be apportioned to high-risk insurance pools that many states have set up.

It may not go far enough. State high-risk pools now spend about $1 billion a year and cover only 200,000 people.

“With $5 billion and (other) improvements, they probably can double that enrollment, maybe a bit more, but that may not reach everybody who needs the immediate help,” said Karen Pollitz, a Georgetown University research professor.

The House Democratic bill tries to provide some immediate relief. For example, insurance companies could not cancel coverage just because a policyholder develops an intractable disease such as cancer.

Yet all of that has failed to make much of an impression on the Congressional Budget Office, the umpire of the costs and benefits of legislation. The CBO estimates that under the Senate Finance Committee bill, the number of uninsured will stay stuck around 50 million from 2010 through 2012, until federal tax credits start flowing the following year.

If there’s a silver lining in the three-year wait, it’s that it will give individuals and families time to prepare for a new federal requirement to carry health insurance, starting in 2013. That won’t be a problem for the majority who with employer or government coverage. But even with the tax credits that Democrats are proposing, many middle-class families that buy their own coverage still may be unable to afford it, and risk being assessed a penalty.

But lawmakers may have figured out how to use time to their advantage. The Senate Finance Committee voted to pare down the penalties and postpone them until 2014. Because the fines would be collected through income taxes, no one will get a bill until April 2015.

That would be a full two years after the government starts handing out carrots in the form of health insurance tax credits. Conveniently or coincidentally, it’s also safely after the 2014 congressional midterm elections. (AP)

DO NOT BE SILENCED BY ANYONE STAND UP! MAKE YOUR VOICE HEARD!

TAKE ACTION: Send YOUR blast FAX to ALL 535 Congressman NOW!

To visit FaxDC.com, click here: http://faxdc.com/

To view Your Fax Message, click here: http://faxdc.com/healthcare.htm

To Fax Blast Capitol Hill, click here: http://faxdc.com/healthorder.htm

Fax Specials, click here: http://faxdc.com/flagbearer.htm

To view the Ultimate Protest Package, click here: http://faxdc.com/ultimateprotestpackage.htm

Be part of the FaxDC.com Army and subscribe to the Auto-Fax Program
$ 25.00 per month at: http://www.faxdc.com/friends.htm

Thank You Patriot! Your friends at FaxDC.com

NOTE: Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who supports saving America and Protecting our Middle Class. Thank you!

OCTOBER 10, 2009

http: //www.anncoulter.com/

America’s lower life expectancy compared to countries with socialist health care proves that their medical systems are superior.

President Obama has too much intellectual pride to make such a specious argument, so instead we have to keep hearing it from his half-wit supporters.

These Democrats are all over the map on where precisely Americans place in the life-expectancy rankings. We’re 24th, according to Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. Barbara Boxer; 42nd, according to Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell; 35th, according to Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson; and 47th, according to Rep. Dennis Kucinich. So the U.S. may have less of a “life expectancy” problem than a “Democratic math competency” problem.

But also, as described in last week’s column, the citizenry’s health is not the same thing as the citizenry’s health care system.

Besides America’s high rate of infant mortality — based on biology and lifestyle choices, not medical care — Americans are also more likely to overeat or smoke than people in other developed nations. And the two biggest killers in the Western world are obesity and smoking.

Liberals shouldn’t have to be reminded how fat Americans are, inasmuch as they are always chortling about it. A 2004 New York Times article leeringly quoted a foreign doctor, saying: “We Europeans, whenever we came to America, we always noticed the enormous number of obese people on the streets.” I note that these are the same people who openly worship Michael Moore.

Somewhat surprisingly to those of us who have long admired France for its humanitarian smoking laws, until the mid-1980s, Americans had had the highest rate of smoking in the developed world. This makes patriotic Americans like me wonder if there’s a way to get Michael Moore to start smoking. (You know, just to keep his weight down or whatever.)

To be fair, the French are still being exposed to large amounts of smoke due to all the cars being set on fire by Muslims.

In 2003, America led the world in smoking-related deaths among women — followed by Hungary. Simply excluding all smoking-related deaths from the World Health Organization’s comparison of life expectancies at age 50 in 20 developed nations would raise U.S. women’s life expectancy from 17th to 7th place and lift American men from 14th to 9th place.

Americans are also more likely to die in military combat than the whimpering, pant-wetting cowards our military has spent the past 70 years defending — I mean, than “our loyal European allies.” This is a health risk Europeans have managed to protect themselves against by living in a world that contains the United States military.

These are risk factors that have nothing to do with the health care system. To evaluate the quality of our health care, you have to compare apples to apples by looking at outcomes for specific medical conditions.

Although the United States has a higher incidence of heart disease, cancer and diabetes compared to Europe — because of lifestyle choices and genetics — it also has better survival rates across the board for all these medical problems.

The most revealing international comparisons look at cancer survival rates, because of the universally extensive record-keeping for this disease.

A European study found that, compared to 18 European countries, the U.S. had strikingly higher five-year survival rates in all 12 cancers studied, except for one: stomach cancer. Even there, the survival rates were close — and the difference was attributed to the location of the cancer in the stomach.

For all types of cancers, European men have only a 47.3 percent five-year survival rate, compared to 66.3 percent survival rate for American men. The greatest disparity was in prostate cancer, which American men are 28 percent more likely to survive than European men.

European women are only 55.8 percent likely to live five years after contracting any kind of cancer, compared to 62.9 percent for American women.

In five cancers — breast, prostate, thyroid, testicular and skin melanoma — American survival rates are higher than 90 percent. Europeans hit a 90 percent survival rate for only one of those — testicular cancer.

Most disturbingly, many cancers in Europe are discovered only upon the victim’s death — twice as many as in the U.S. Consequently, the European study simply excluded cancers that were first noted on the death certificate, so as not to give the U.S. too great an advantage.

There are no national registries for heart disease, as there are for cancer, making survival-rate comparisons more difficult. But treatments can be measured and, again, Americans are far more likely to be on medication for heart disease and high cholesterol — medications that extend the lives of millions, developed by those evil, profit-grubbing American drug companies.

To get to the comparison they like (America is not as good as Sweden!), liberals have to slip in the orange of “life expectancy,” and hope no one will mention monster truck races, Krispy Kremes and Virginia Slims. As the old saying goes: Life doesn’t last longer in socialist countries; it just feels like it.

COPYRIGHT 2009 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL UCLICK
1130 Walnut, Kansas City, MO 64106