13K in OOP Medical and Counting

Today we crossed over the 13K mark ($13,021.44)  in out of pocket medical expenses with 2 more bills posting. This doesn't include their bone marrow biopsies, MRI, u/s, 2 ER visits,and 4 doctor visits. I'd like to thank #obamacare , Barack and the Democratic party for jacking us over. We Still have $650 to meet our family deductible and $4,875.33 to meet our family OOP - pre- #obamacare we would have long since met our deductibles and OOPs AND we'd of been able to deduct more of our expenses AND been better off financially with the higher flex limit. But Barack and the Democratic lackeys don't care if my children die....who cares if we can't afford their meds and don't qualify for their compassionate assistance? S&J have $2,375.33 before they meet their new, higher and compassionate OOP max - remember, the $4,757 we've paid in med copays that Hussein increased do not go toward any deductibles or OOPs. We are officially SCREWED thanks to the racists in the Democratic party- I think they hate middle class white boys with chronic illness. Obviously, middle class white boys come from evil working middle class families and don't deserve for their families to be able to afford their medical bills. These evil middle class families must be destroyed and Obama and the Democratic party are hellbent on doing that.

Barack On the Fourth Amendment

"You can't have a hundred percent security and also then have a hundred percent privacy, zero inconvenience....."~Barack Hussein Obama

Mr. President, I prefer 100% freedom, 100% privacy (unless I use my freedom to choose otherwise). "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."~Benjamin Franklin

My government doesn't have the RIGHT to decide if any inconvenience by 4th amendment violations is worth any false sense of safety that might be gained.

Mr. President and all you idiots in Congress: You cannot legislate evil out of the world. Violating the God-given, Constitutionally protected rights of law abiding citizens didn't stop the Boston Bomber- even when his native country tipped you idiots off. The government doesn't have the right to violate my privacy without probable cause and a warrant. I suggest you read the 4th amendment of the US Constitution. It doesn't say it is a suggestion. It doesn't say you can conduct warrantless searches if you think it is what's best for me or my fellow countrymen.

 The 4th Amendment says: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

FreedomWorks Legislative Day

Yesterday, 90 people from FreedomWorks showed up at the General Assembly to let our legislators know we oppose common core. Our team walked around to each of the leaders offices- the leader of the House and the leader of the Senate. We also went to the office of each member of the Education Committee.

Greg Brannon, candidate for US Senate joined us yesterday. He's running for Kay Hagan's seat. It was great to see him out there. He'd delivered a baby that morning and had surgery that afternoon. When is the last time you heard of a candidate who continued to work while campaigning for office, much less joining in political activism?

Speaking with Thom Tillis

Me with Greg Brannon

Moral Mondays and Witness Wednesdays in Raleigh, NC

We were with a group at the General Assembly talking to our legislators about our opposition to common core yesterday. We saw a few of the Moral Monday folks walking around inside the building. They had a crowd of just over 100 people gathered around Reverend Barber outside. It was really a joke, to be honest with you. The newspaper reported that there were over 1,000 people attending the NAACP's Wednesday Witness yesterday. I can assure you, there were NOT 1,000 folks (see pictures below). Read the newspaper report here.

The rev. Barber was blathering on about, "Equality for all people!" as he stood next to women holding pro-choice signs. He also spoke about the school choice and scholarship programs destroying government schools. So, his message is this: Parents have the right to choose to murder their unborn children, but they do not have the right to choose the schools their children attend.

Moral Monday people support oppression. If you are opposed to school choice, you are saying that you support forcing poor students to remain in failing schools. If you oppose school choice, you are saying that these poor children do not deserve a chance at a better education. Could it be because Moral Monday folks WANT them to be uneducated so that they have more Democratic voters?

The crowd from behind. Rev Barber standing in front of the man with the Beige blazer.For reference, notice the man in the wheelchair and the black man in black pants, white shirt next to him.

This picture shows the rest of the crowd. The man in the wheelchair would be just off to the left had I moved back further....notice the black man in black pants and white shirt from above- he is standing next to the man in the wheelchair  There were not 1,000 people in attendance

Texas Principal Anti-First Amendment-Crack Pick of the Day

So, this kid in Texas deviates from his *approved* speech and now his principal is trying to punish him and upset his appointment to the Naval Academy? Read the story here.

I'd tell the principal to kiss my arse. Do you think if a Muslim referenced Allah the principal would say squat? No, he'd be too afraid of the impending Jihad waged on he and his family that he'd keep his mouth shut. Bring. It. On. All the way to the Supreme court, baby. This is a war we did not ask for, but one we will not back down from. Anyone who thinks I cannot reference my God based on my location on planet earth can suck it. And that includes, you, NSA. Suck it!

 I'm done with the lefties trying to limit my free speech based on my location on planet earth. My God-given, constitutionally protected right to free speech does not end because I enter a school or government building. It's time we teach those morons about LIBERTY. I will not be intimidated by lefties trying to tell me when and where I can make reference to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. The Constitution protects our right to free speech- it does not say that you have a God-given right to free speech only if other people agree with you and are not offended.... or unless other people say you can use certain words. I don't care who is offended- we have to put up with their BS crap all day long when we don't agree.

1st Amendment to the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Our founders did not place limits on free speech or exercising our religion. It doesn't say "only on Sundays" "Only in private" nor does it say, "these rights of the people shall not be exercised in a public or government building"

Further, the founders did not say that these rights could only be exercised when others agreed with said religion or free speech. It does not say the exercise of religion and free speech can only be exercised if others are not offended.

Note that it says NOTHING about permits being required to exercise these rights, either.  This Texas Principal is my crack pick of the day.

Did You Hear About the Obama Admin Scandal?

Bob: “Hey Jim, Did you hear about the Obama administration scandal?”
Jim: “You mean the Mexican gun running?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The State Dept. lying about Benghazi?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The IRS targeting conservatives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The Department Of Justice spying on the press?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Sebelius shaking down health insurance executives?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “The NSA monitoring our phone calls, e-mails and everything else?”
Bob: “No, the other one”
Jim: “The State Dept. (new today) interfering with an IG investigation on dept. sexual misconduct?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “HHS employees (also new today) being given insider information on Medicare Advantage?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”
Jim: “Clinton, the IRS, Clapper & Holder all lying to Congress?”
Bob: “No, the other one.”

ARE YOU AWAKE YET?

Common Core in North Carolina

• Common Core has been adopted by the North Carolina State Board of Education

• North Carolina students just sat for the first round of Common Core Exams

• Common Core in North Carolina tied to eligibility for Race to the Tops Funds (500 MILLION Dollars)

• Common Core is a take over of public education by the Federal Government

• Common Core IS NOT LOCAL CONTROL!

• States accepting Common Core must adopt the curriculum word for word
  

• States accepting Common Core may not add more than 15% additional content to the curriculum

• In certain subject areas, NC schools will not have access to Common Core Exam grades just taken (June) until the fall.  This means that students will have already started new coursework in these areas without knowing how they performed on the exam for the previous course.   

• These Common Core exams were untested

• These Common Core exams counted as much as 25% of a student’s final course grade
  

• North Carolina teachers were expected to administer Common Core Exams without knowledge of the complete curriculum

• We have heard of numerous cases across North Carolina where teachers apologized repeatedly to students for testing them without knowing that they had been able to fully prepare them for the exams

• Students who took Common Core exams have reported being unprepared – material on exams the students had never seen in the classroom

• Among the many oddities reported by North Carolina students who took Common Core exams was the addition of short answer questions on MATH exams!   

• Implementation of Common Core is estimated over the next seven years to cost North Carolina 525 MILLION DOLLARS or an average of 75 MILLION DOLLARS per year (source –  Civitas Institute & AccountabilityWorks)

• No federal money will be given to states to implement Common Core

• Common Core leads to collection of student data (a national student data system) – not only academic data but health history, disciplinary, family income, and even religious affiliation!

 
 
 Courtesy of FreedomWorks

•  

Brief History Of Common Core

A Brief History of Common Core

● Two Washington, D.C. (not state) based organizations- the NGA (National Governor’s
Association) and CCSSO (Council of Chief State School Officers) were paid by special
interest groups to develop and implement a political strategy to create national curriculum
standards.
○ Neither organization has been granted any authority from states.
○ In 2007, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Eli Broad Foundation
pledged $60 million to create uniform American standards.
○ In 2008, the Gates Foundation awarded a $2.2 million grant to “governors and
stakeholders” to promote the adoption of national standards.
● In 2008, the NGA, CCSSO, and Achieve, Inc. (DC based firm) wrote Benchmarking for
Success, the vision for common core, funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
● This plan outlined five steps, none of which allows for local or even state control of the
education process:
○ “Upgrade” state standards by adopting a common core of internationally
benchmarked standards in math and language arts.
○ Leverage states’ collective influence to ensure that textbooks, digital media,
curricula, and assessments are aligned.
○ Revised state policies for recruiting, preparing, developing, and supporting
teachers and school leaders.
○ Hold schools and systems accountable through monitoring, interventions, and
support.
○ Measure state level
education performance globally.
● States accepted the standards in 2009 through the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act (ARRA) in which Congress stated that $4.35 billion was earmarked to
states that improve state standards and enhance academic success.
○ The week after ARRA was announced, the Race to the Top process was
unveiled, earmarking the funds directly to states who agree to specific uniform
standards.
○ Gates Foundation executives were hired to serve as Secretary of Education Arne
Duncan’s chief of staff and as head of the Office of Innovation and Improvement.
● It is currently estimated that the Gates Foundation has spent more than $163 million to
develop and advance Common Core standards.
● On June 1, 2009 Common Core is officially announced with revised objectives mimicking
those in the original Benchmarking for Success document, to include:
○ adopting internationally benchmarked standards and assessments
○ building data systems that measure student success
○ increasing teacher and principal effectiveness and achieve equity in their
distribution
○ turning around lowest achieving schools.
● According to the Federal Government, Common Core OFFICIALLY began in 2009 with
Race to the Top grants. As you can see, however, it was a long term plan concocted by
special interest groups withOUT buy in from individual states. They were NOT even
drafted yet. States accepted standards they had not reviewed, that had not been
internationally benchmarked, and had not been field tested.
● The Federal Government knew states were in economic disarray and would fall to
pressures in order to receive the funding associated with Race to the Top. To increase
the pressure, in March 2010, the Department of Educations Blueprint for Reform stated
that in 2015, states will not receive formula funds (for other programs funded by the
federal government like Title I funding) if they had not fully adopted and implemented
Common Core.
● As standards were drafted, curriculum experts like Dr. Sandra Strotsky and Dr. Mark
Bauerlein, refused to sign off on them, for a number of reasons.
○ English Language Arts
■ Required and suggested texts emphasize technical and informational
texts and literary nonfiction
rather than traditional fictional literature.
■ Foundational American documents are only suggested, not required.
■ Suggested texts include government manuals (i.e. EPA documents)
● States must implement the standards word for word; they cannot alter or deviate from
the curriculum, thus eliminating the ability of a teacher to be creative and innovative for
his or her particular students.
● Standards are actually owned and managed by the NGA and CCSSO, leaving absolutely
no state control over what is mandated.

Found in Freedomworks flyer NC

Big Brother is Watching You

Rand Paul had a great OpEd in the WSJ yesterday. You can read it here.

4th Amendment to the United States Constitution: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Our founding fathers went to war over warrantless searches without probable cause-- they were CLEAR that searches of individuals and their property must be very specific.

Obama can no longer blame it on Bush. We've heard the campaign recordings where he said he would end it all....instead he expanded it beyond our wildest imaginations. OBAMA is a LIAR. Wake up, people! Obviously, these violations didn't stop the Boston Bombers. Those of you liberals going after Bush should be even more enraged with Obama! Hundreds of Millions of Americans are known to have had their privacy violated. I don't give a free flying flip what reason the government gives. Without probable cause and a warrant, NSA can suck it! I am a free American - I don't live in a communist country! Stand up people! Your government is revolting!

 Join Rand Paul's Class Action Lawsuit here.  Below is the text from his editorial found at the link above:

 

Rand Paul: Big Brother Really Is Watching Us

Monitoring hundreds of millions of phone records is an extraordinary invasion of privacy.

By RAND PAUL

When Americans expressed outrage last week over the seizure and surveillance of Verizon's client data by the National Security Agency, President Obama responded: "In the abstract, you can complain about Big Brother . . . but when you actually look at the details, I think we've struck the right balance."
How many records did the NSA seize from Verizon? Hundreds of millions. We are now learning about more potential mass data collections by the government from other communications and online companies. These are the "details," and few Americans consider this approach "balanced," though many rightly consider it Orwellian.
These activities violate the Fourth Amendment, which says warrants must be specific—"particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." And what is the government doing with these records? The president assures us that the government is simply monitoring the origin and length of phone calls, not eavesdropping on their contents. Is this administration seriously asking us to trust the same government that admittedly targets political dissidents through the Internal Revenue Service and journalists through the Justice Department?

No one objects to balancing security against liberty. No one objects to seeking warrants for targeted monitoring based on probable cause. We've always done this.
What is objectionable is a system in which government has unlimited and privileged access to the details of our private affairs, and citizens are simply supposed to trust that there won't be any abuse of power. This is an absurd expectation. Americans should trust the National Security Agency as much as they do the IRS and Justice Department.
Monitoring the records of as many as a billion phone calls, as some news reports have suggested, is no modest invasion of privacy. It is an extraordinary invasion of privacy. We fought a revolution over issues like generalized warrants, where soldiers would go from house to house, searching anything they liked. Our lives are now so digitized that the government going from computer to computer or phone to phone is the modern equivalent of the same type of tyranny that our Founders rebelled against.
I also believe that trolling through millions of phone records hampers the legitimate protection of our security. The government sifts through mountains of data yet still didn't notice, or did not notice enough, that one of the Boston Marathon bombing suspects was traveling to Chechnya. Perhaps instead of treating every American as a potential terror suspect the government should concentrate on more targeted analysis.
To protect against the invasion of Americans' privacy, I have introduced the Fourth Amendment Restoration Act. I introduced similar Fourth Amendment protections in December and again just last month. Both measures would have prevented the data-mining we're now seeing, but both bills were rejected by the Senate. We will see if this time my colleagues will vote to support the Constitution that they all took an oath to uphold.
I am also looking into a class-action lawsuit to overturn the decisions of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court that allowed for this to happen. I will take the fight all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary. My office has already heard much enthusiasm for this action.
The administration has responded to the public uproar by simply claiming that it is allowed to have unlimited access to all Americans' private information. This response is a clear indication that the president views our Constitutional "right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects" as null and void.
If this is the new normal in America, then Big Brother certainly is watching and it's not hyperbolic or extreme to say so. Nor is it unreasonable to fear which parts of the Constitution this government will next consider negotiable or negligible.
Mr. Paul, a Republican, is a senator from Kentucky.

Common Core in NC-What Our General Assembly Must Do

NC friends: there are two statutes referencing common core which the General Assembly must modify before the State Board of Eduction can do away with common core and race to the top grant:

§ 115C‑174.11. Components of the testing program.
(a) Assessment Instruments for Kindergarten, First, Second, and Third Grades. – The State Board of Education shall develop, adopt, and provide to the local school administrative units developmentally appropriate individualized assessment instruments consistent with the Basic Education Program and Part 1A of Article 8 of this Chapter for the kindergarten, first, second, and third grades. Local school administrative units shall use these assessment instruments provided to them by the State Board for kindergarten, first, second, and third grade students to assess progress, diagnose difficulties, and inform instruction and remediation needs. Local school administrative units shall not use standardized tests for summative assessment of kindergarten, first, and second grade students except as required as a condition of receiving federal grants.
(b) Repealed by Session Laws 2009‑451, s. 7.20(c), effective July 1, 2009.
(c) Annual Testing Program. –
(1) The State Board of Education shall adopt the tests for grades three through 12 that are required by federal law or as a condition of a federal grant. These tests shall be designed to measure progress toward reading, communication skills, and mathematics for grades three through eight, and toward competencies for grades nine through 12. Students who do not pass the tests adopted for eighth grade shall be provided remedial instruction in the ninth grade.
(2) If the State Board of Education finds that additional testing in grades three through 12 is desirable to allow comparisons with national indicators of student achievement, that testing shall be conducted with the smallest size sample of students necessary to assure valid comparisons with other states.
(3) The State Board of Education shall continue to participate in the development of the Common Core State Standards in conjunction with the consortium of other states, review all national assessments developed by both multistate consortia, and implement the assessments that the State Board deems most appropriate to assess student achievement on the Common Core State Standards.
(4) To the extent funds are made available, the State Board shall plan for and require the administration of the ACT test for all students in the eleventh grade unless the student has already taken a comparable test and scored at or above a level set by the State Board.
(d) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the State Board of Education shall not require the public schools to administer any standardized tests except for those required by federal law or as a condition of a federal grant.
The State Board of Education shall adopt and provide to local school administrative units all tests required by federal law or as a condition of a federal grant. (1977, c. 522, s. 1; c. 541, s. 1; 1981, c. 423, s. 1; 1983, c. 627, s. 1; 1985, c. 409, ss. 1, 2; 1985 (Reg. Sess., 1986), c. 1014, s. 74(a); 1987, c. 738, s. 180(a); 1987 (Reg. Sess., 1988), c. 1086, s. 77(a); 1989, c. 778, ss. 4, 5; 1995, c. 524, s. 3; 1996, 2nd Ex. Sess., c. 18, s. 18.14; 1998‑212, s. 9.15(b); 1998‑220, ss. 6, 11; 2000‑140, s. 21(a), (b); 2003‑275, s. 1; 2004‑124, ss. 7.11, 7.27; 2005‑458, s. 3; 2009‑451, s. 7.20(c); 2010‑31, s. 7.30; 2011‑8, s. 1; 2011‑145, s. 7.30(a); 2011‑280, ss. 1, 2.1; 2012‑142, s. 7A.1(e).)

Nixon's Articles of Impeachment

Read this from Article 2 of Nixon's Articles of Impeachment-does it sound like something happening in our present day?

(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.

(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.


The articles in their entirety: 

Articles of Impeachment:
RESOLVED, That Richard M. Nixon, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment to be exhibited to the Senate:
ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT EXHIBITED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN THE NAME OF ITSELF AND OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AGAINST RICHARD M. NIXON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, IN MAINTENANCE AND SUPPORT OF ITS IMPEACHMENT AGAINST HIM FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANOURS.

Article 1: Obstruction of Justice.

In his conduct of the office of the President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice, in that: On June 17, 1972, and prior thereto, agents of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President committed unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in Washington, District of Columbia, for the purpose of securing political intelligence. Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede and obstruct investigations of such unlawful entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities. The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan have included one or more of the following:
(1) Making or causing to be made false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(2) Withholding relevant and material evidence or information from lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States.
(3) Approving, condoning, acquiescing in, and counseling witnesses with respect to the giving of false or misleading statements to lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States and false or misleading testimony in duly instituted judicial and congressional proceedings.
(4) Interfering or endeavoring to interfere with the conduct of investigations by the Department of Justice of the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force and congressional committees.
(5) Approving, condoning, and acquiescing in, the surreptitious payments of substantial sums of money for the purpose of obtaining the silence or influencing the testimony of witnesses, potential witnesses or individuals who participated in such unlawful entry and other illegal activities.
(6) Endeavoring to misuse the Central Intelligence Agency, an agency of the United States.
(7) Disseminating information received from officers of the Department of Justice of the United States to subjects of investigations conducted by lawfully authorized investigative officers and employes of the United States for the purpose of aiding and assisting such subjects in their attempts to avoid criminal liability.
(8) Making false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation has been conducted with respect to allegation of misconduct on the part of personnel of the Executive Branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-Election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct; or
(9) Endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favored treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved by a vote of 27-11 by the House Judiciary Committee on Saturday, July 27, 1974.)
Article 2: Abuse of Power.
Using the powers of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in disregard of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has repeatedly engaged in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, imparting the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purposes of these agencies.
This conduct has included one or more of the following:
(1) He has, acting personally and through his subordinated and agents, endeavored to obtain from the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, confidential information contained in income tax returns for purposes not authorized by law, and to cause, in violation of the constitutional rights of citizens, income tax audits or other income tax investigation to be initiated or conducted in a discriminatory manner.
(2) He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; he did direct, authorize, or permit the use of information obtained thereby for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office; and he did direct the concealment of certain records made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation of electronic surveillance.
(3) He has, acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions to him, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial.
(4) He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavored to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive; judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as attorney general of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the office of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.
(5) In disregard of the rule of law: he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch: including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Criminal Division and the Office of Watergate Special Prosecution Force of the Department of Justice, in violation of his duty to take care that the laws by faithfully executed.
In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.
(Approved 28-10 by the House Judiciary Committee on Monday, July 29, 1974.)
Article 3: Contempt of Congress.
In his conduct of the office of President of the United States, Richard M. Nixon, contrary to his oath faithfully to execute the office of the President of the United States, and to the best of his ability preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, had failed without lawful cause or excuse, to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives, on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas. The subpoenaed papers and things were deemed necessary by the Committee in order to resolve by direct evidence fundamental, factual questions relating to Presidential direction, knowledge or approval of actions demonstrated by other evidence to be substantial grounds for impeachment of the President. In refusing to produce these papers and things, Richard M. Nixon, substituting his judgement as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by Constitution in the House of Representatives.
In all this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, Richard M. Nixon, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office.
(Approved 21-17 by the House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, July 30, 1974.)

NCGOP Convention in Charlotte

It was great to be at the NCGOP convention this weekend and to meet so many hard working conservatives! It was a great reminder that North Carolina was the only state that went for Obama in 2008 that did NOT go for him in 2012. We've got a lot of work to do in 2014 - especially since our great victories statewide mean the Democratic machine will be pouring money into our state at a level never before seen. I'm ready to get to work with old friends and new. Let's roll!

We had 47 delegates from our county! Joyce Krawiec is the newly elected NCGOP Vice Chair and we are just so proud that she is from our county!  

We had the legalize marijuana people picketing outside along with a man I call "Jesus man".  Obviously, the marijuana folks are libertarians. I think every delegate I saw walk past them just laughed. I told Jesus man that I already knew Jesus and another person told him he was at the wrong convention, that he needed to be at the Democratic Convention. I added that our party fights to make sure people can pray to Jesus wherever they are! 

They also had a Heroes convention on the bottom floor- it was crazy to see ol, fat men dressed up as Spiderman. I didn't get a picture of that Spidey-- I did get a few others. . 

The Cost of a Medication

Because I pledged to share it all in 2013, once again, I'll be sharing screen shots from the insurance page.  I often get folks messaging me about the cost of Js med and/or trying to get "retail" price, I had someone today write that something MUST be wrong because 180 tablets of Ditropan XL goes for $800 retail in the US. My insurance company actually gets it under retail, and we are paying less than $800.Our insurance has a contracted rate of $752.Last time I checked, $752 is less than $800 ~smile~.

Restating, our insurance has a contracted price of $752, which has stayed the same for as long as I can remember. We used to pay $131 of that and insurance the rest. Since Obamacare passed in 2010 and started being implemented that year, our copay/portion went up starting 2011. It is now $532. You can see the invoices and the increases of our portion here, here and here. The picture shows a current screen shot from our insurance that shows the contracted price the insurance has for the medication, how much our plan pays and how much we pay. I've shared similar shots in the past, so you can see the contracted rate has not changed:

The problem is a simple math problem. If government forces insurance companies to give people something at no cost to the person receiving the product or service, insurance pays the full contracted amount. They have to get the money somewhere. So they raise what people have to pay for medications not regulated to be *free* by government. They increase premiums. If one million women get the cheap $9 birth control at no cost, insurance pays 9 million a month, 108 million a year for those BC drugs to be given *free*.  And we know not all women will get the cheap BC. *free* abortion drugs and sterilization procedures, too. If insurances picks up the surgical copay for 1 million women, they are going to get the money from somewhere, folks. Increased premiums, copays, deductibles, out of pockets. Nothing is *FREE*. We like our insurance. They've paid $166,000 just for medications this year. Even with our increased premiums, copays, oops.....we are thankful. No government would pay that much for their meds. What's wrong in the equation is government intervention! What's wrong is Obamacare. I believe our copay would still be under $200 without that piece of crap law. And now you know the rest of the story.

GoodRx lists cash retail prices that are much higher than the contracted rate our insurance company receives.  Check out the retail costs here. Remember that if we did not have insurance or my husband made less money, the drug company would give us this medication at no cost to us. I say no cost to us because someone always pays- nothing is ever *free*. 

If my posts piss you off, then you are obviously a liberal. I had a liberal post on my FB page today that I do not represent Catholicism. Well, thanks for that, Captain Obvious. For the liberal trolls following my page and my blog: I don't purport to represent Catholicism. I am a Catholic in good standing, but I do not speak for the Catholic Church. DUH On a side note- the woman who wrote the comment referring to my post on the $532 copay is a heartless wench. Who could be angry when a mother is stating the facts about her kid's life-saving medication increasing from $131 to $532? Only a cold hearted liberal could do that. I make no apologies. I call things as I see them. Liberals are pissed because my family blows all of their Obamacare assertions out of the water. So, instead of trying to help my CHILD, they throw insults my way. Typical liberal compassion for the children of conservatives.

Complete Lives System in Obamacare

Ezekiel Emanuel, Rham Emanuel's brother, both advisers to Barack Hussein Obama, wrote a paper on the Complete Lives System which is the foundation of Obamacare.  You can read his paper that outlines the principles now known as the Complete Lives System in his published paper titled Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions for yourself.  In 2009, The Wall Street Journal ran an OpEd titled Obama's Health Rationer-in-Chief

In his paper, Dr. Emanuel outlines how to ration care via life-years. If you are young and disabled, you are low priority. If you are old, you are a low priority. Since teenagers have more life years and have already had education resources invested in them to be future workers, it benefits the collective that they should receive the most care. It's communist. You receive care based on how beneficial you are to society- also Plato's view of medicine. If you are no longer of value to society/the collective, then you can have assisted suicide instead of treatment. This is the opposite of Hippocratic medicine that treats the individual and refuses to administer a poison to take the life of anyone.

Remember the Obama official caught on tape last year saying the words *death panels* do not appear in the law, but they are there...they just could never call them what they are. When we on the right point it out, we are called conspiracy theorist and whack jobs. Can the left read medical papers? These are the people who advised Obama and IPAB is clearly spelled out in the law. Furthermore, Hillarycare was the same way- remember Tom Daschel's book where he wrote that old people have pain as part of aging and thus should not receive pain meds? These are sick communists! They prefer Platonic medicine vs Hippocratic medicine.

Here is Betsy's OpEd. Read it an weep. It's coming to a hospital near you. 

OBAMA'S HEALTH RATIONER-IN-CHIEF

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.
The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House's health initiative.

"Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions" The Lancet, January 31, 2009

The Reaper Curve: Ezekiel Emanuel used the above chart in a Lancet article to illustrate the ages on which health spending should be focused.

Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): "Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely 'lipstick' cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change."
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors' ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the "overuse" of medical care: "Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness," he writes. "This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath's admonition to 'use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment' as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others."
In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient's needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: "Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs." (JAMA, May 16, 2007).
Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained "to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care." One sign of progress he sees: "the progression in end-of-life care mentality from 'do everything' to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible." (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
"In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations," he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.
"You can't avoid these questions," Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. "We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a 'God committee' to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions."
Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: "Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia." (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)
In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a "complete lives system" for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. "One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
"However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear." In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: "When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel's chart nearby).
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: "Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not."
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: "Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, 'It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,' this argument is supported by empirical surveys." (thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).
To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the "major contributor" to rapid increases in health spending is "the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . ." He writes that one drug "used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy." (JAMA, June 13, 2007).
Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom's rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.
Dr. Emanuel's assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: "The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name."

Enlarge Image

Associated Press

This is untrue, though sadly it's parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it's an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel's views.
Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. "The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind," he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. "Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda," he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. "If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration's health-reform effort."
Is this what Americans want?
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.

A Parent's Worst Nightmare

I'm not typically given to getting down about the diseases my two boys have. We've worked hard to raise them and to give them a *normal* life in spite of the challenges they face with Shwachman-Diamond Syndrome and Mitochondrial Disease. This past Monday, my middle son had the first of the four surgeries we know we have this year for the two boys. In 16 days, they both have their bone marrow biopsies and the following week we will find out if the growth plate has closed so the 4th procedure of the year can proceed. The 4th one is rather important because each day that goes by without surgery, he is damaging the bones more and more. He's been complaining of more and more pain, and we're to bring him in when that happens, so we will.....

But, I digress, that isn't the point of this entry. We still have $5,612.99 to meet our out of pocket max for the year and another $650 to meet our deductible. That means we will owe the hospital at least $4,000 after their bone marrow biopsies-- add that to the almost 11K we've already been billed this year..... and we're screwed. The really high copay of $532 doesn't go toward any deductible or OOP..... and we can't even deduct it from our taxes. To add insult to injury, the government continues to rape us and takes more and more of our money -- making it impossible for us to pay for our kids' medical bills.

We're pretty much out of credit.... and that's a parent's worst nightmare. We're a working middle class family whose government has taken away our ability to pay for our own children's medical needs. They've increased the cost of our insurance, increased the cost of these procedures and medications our children need. They were not content with only doing that, they raised our taxes, too.

All but one credit card is maxed out- hubby was able to pay some of one off with his bonus-- oh, and he sent the IRS an extra $900 for 2012 taxes. We have out two loans. Our cars are all paid for, but all have *issues* that need to be fixed. My washing machine leaks water. My wood floor is semi-together after the dishwasher flooded the kitchen last year. Our A/C only works sometimes. We've made the choice to keep working and refuse to allow the government to defeat us.

Tonight, my mind is wandering to my worst nightmare.... the one where we have a job, insurance and no more credit. We're just one step away...and even with no credit...having a job and insurance means we cannot get any assistance. Nope, instead, we continue to be over taxed to pay for OTHER PEOPLE'S children to receive *FREE* healthcare. Hey- I don't mind helping those who CANNOT work-- but I'm pretty darn pissed that we are being forced to help those who REFUSE to work while our family suffers and drowns in debt. I hear you liberals reading this saying, "You're evil."  Tell me this, liberal, WHY is it evil or selfish to want to keep MY OWN MONEY to pay for MY OWN CHILDREN'S medical? Why is the reverse not true for you liberals? WHY is it NOT evil for other people to take away our ability to pay for our children's medical care? Why should my children suffer? Are they not worthy of having parents who can take care of their medical needs? We ARE NOT asking you, the government or anyone else to provide for them. We simply want the government to GET OUT of our lives and our healthcare. We want the government to stop raping us and keeping us from being able to pay our kids' medical bills.

I will keep fighting. I pray that we can change things before it is too late. I pray that I never have to tell my child that we cannot afford the medication that protects his kidneys from damage. I ask you liberals, how can you NOT stand up for MY precious child? Do you want him to develop kidney damage, kidney failure and die? Why is he not as important as any other child in America? My pleas have fallen on deaf ears. Senator Kay Hagan ignores me. Her staff members roll their eyes at me.... then have the audacity to say they CARE about my children. Where are the lefties coming out to fight for my children?

All you lefties can offer is, "I'm sorry Obamacare is hurting your family," as you pretend Obamacare really is helping others. My children are just statistics to you- "Oops...we're sorry, but somebody has to get screwed, so sorry it's you.".

Look at your children, count your blessings and pray that you are never faced with not being able to afford a life-saving medication. It truly is a parent's worst nightmare.


**Sorry if my thoughts are scattered tonight--but you get my point. It sucks. Obama sucks. Obamacare sucks.