I'm Going To Say It Again....

     I am writing this blog post, knowing that I will receive both private and public criticism for my theory, as I have in the past.  But this issue is too important to stay silent, when more and more information is forthcoming and doctors are beginning to give it credence.
     What am I talking about?  Chemtrails!  I can already hear a particular friend who is an ex commercial pilot coming unglued again.  He keeps trying to tell me that pilots would never agree to releasing chemicals into the air.  But I can't seem to make him understand that it is not commercial planes or pilots that are responsible.  In fact, I would hazard a guess that drones are being used.

     I find it hard to believe that people don't question the sudden appearance of criss-crossed trails in a sky, that just 15 minutes before had been completely clear blue, with not a cloud in sight.  These are not random wisps of clouds, or the contrails from passenger jets.  They are in a definite pattern, and I have seen a clear sky suddenly inhabited with these mysterious "trails", and within 30 minutes they have dispersed into wide paths of unusual, wispy formations that blanket the once-clear sky.  That does not happen when a passenger jet flies overhead!
     And now a website called Before It's News, has published a feature article concerning chemtrails.   The article cites a retired Bio-environmental engineer from the Air Force, who blew the whistle on the amounts of hazard materials (aluminum oxide, barium and strontium) that were appearing on base from a contractor that was not on an authorized list.  Kristen Meghan started asking questions, because while aluminum naturally occurs in our soil, radioactive barium and strontium do not.  After testing soil samples in her area, she realized, according to her own words, "those tin-foil hat wearing conspiracy theorists might not be wrong, after all."
     And her conclusions are becoming adopted by an increasing number of neurologists; and here's why.  As a neurosurgeon, Dr. Russell Blaylock (who the naysayers will label a "self-promoting hack") is becoming concerned over the tons of nanosized aluminum compounds being sprayed on us via chemtrails.  His findings?  “. . . an infinitely more reactive and induced, intense inflammation in a number of tissues. Of special concern is the effect of these nanoparticles on the brain and spinal cord, as a growing list of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer’s dementia, Parkinson’s disease, and Lou Gehrig’s disease (ALS) are strongly related to exposure to environmental aluminum.”
     But what caught my attention are the conclusions of Dr. Edward Group, who is also speaking out against chemtrails.  He explains how chemicals sprayed from chemtrails can “turn on” certain issues such as shingles within your body (under certain circumstances).  You see, PLW, who is otherwise very healthy and suffers only from seasonal allergies, recently endured what our doctor said was "the worst case of Shingles" he had ever seen.  That might not be cause for alarm, or seem so unusual, except that we noticed an almost epidemic outbreak of shingles among our small community, within a very short time span.  It was almost like there was an outbreak caused by external elements.  And shingles, which is usually thought of as an "old person's disease", was attacking young, healthy individuals.  The pharmacist reported to me that he knew of a man in his 40s who had been suffering from a continual case of the shingles for 3 years!  No doctor had been able to determine why or help alleviate his suffering.  I can tell you that PLW was sicker than I have ever seen him, and he still bears the scars from the attack, nearly six months later.  Was this outbreak a result of the increased incidences of chemtrails that I and my neighbors have noticed?  We can't prove it, and no one will admit it.

Does this look like it is common contrails
from a passenger jet?

     But as the article reports, Dr. Blaylock has suspicions that Aluminum exposure from chemtrails is helping to lead to aluminum-induced cognitive disorders among the population. Aluminum can even affect unborn babies, not just the elderly, since it crosses into the placenta via the blood.
     Another toxin being found in chemtrails is Strontium-90. It isn’t any better. Neither is Barium.  The impact of these compounds upon human health is unmistakable. So why is this happening?
     Again, the article states that there are all kinds of theories.  But more experts are pointing to the following possibilities: the overt actions of Monsanto-monopolies; an utter disregard for nature by multiple corporate entities; the ever-present war-mongering that leaves us with tragedies like Fukushima; and get, ready, you will really need your tin foil hat for this one .... the general disregard for human life that the Bill Gates of the world embrace (i.e, there are too many people on the planet).
     The truth is, we cannot definitively prove what those "strange" criss-cross patterns in the sky are, or why, within days of their appearance, I and my neighbors begin noticing upper respiratory issues.  That is, we can't prove it .... yet.  But more and more credible people are beginning to toss aside the "conspiracy" label and look further into the matter.  That is the good news.  But just because we can't pinpoint the reason why this is happening, it doesn't dispel my thoughts that two things are for certain: chemtrails are real, and chemtrails are dangerous.

3 John 1:2     "Beloved, I pray that all may go well with you and that you may be in good health, as it goes well with your soul."

Medicare Patients, Cancer Treatment, and The Sequester

     An article by Sarah Kliff of The Washington Post made my heart sink.  And according to doctors, we can blame it on the Sequester.  Here's how it all plays out:  It was supposedly the Legislators intent to partially shield Medicare from the automatic budget cuts triggered by the Sequester, limiting the program to a 2 percent reduction — a fraction of the cuts seen by other federal programs.
     But oncologists say the cut is unexpectedly damaging for cancer patients because of the way those treatments are covered.  Medications for seniors are usually covered under the optional Medicare Part D, which includes private insurance. But because cancer drugs must be administered by a physician, they are among a handful of pharmaceuticals paid for by Part B, which covers doctor visits and is subject to the sequester cut.
     The federal government typically pays community oncologists for the average sales price of a chemotherapy drug, plus 6 percent to cover the cost of storing and administering the medication.  Since oncologists cannot change the drug prices, they argue that the entire 2 percent cut will have to come out of that 6 percent overhead, resulting in a cost of 1/3 of their profit!
      One Director of an Oncology clinic said, "“If you get cut on the service side, you can either absorb it or make do with fewer nurses.  This is a drug that we’re purchasing. The costs don’t change and you can’t do without it. There isn’t any wiggle room."  Another said, "If we treated the patients receiving the most expensive drugs, we’d be out of business in six months to a year."

     That's why many Cancer Clinics across the country are making the heart-breaking decision to turn away their Medicare patients that need life-saving chemotherapy.  That means that patients at these clinics would need to seek treatment elsewhere, such as at hospitals that might not have the capacity to accommodate them.
     Jeff Vacirca, chief executive of North Shore Hematology Oncology Associates in New York made this chilling statement:  “The drugs we’re going to lose money on we’re not going to administer right now.”  After an emergency meeting Tuesday, Vacirca’s clinics decided that they would no longer see one-third of their 16,000 Medicare patients.  That's over 5,000 Seniors that will be told they will no longer be seen by their physicians who have cared for them through one of the most frightening experiences of their lives!  They are not faceless statistics that the Federal Government can ignore .... they are real people, and they are hurting!
     And even if they are able to find an alternative medical center to administer the life-saving chemo drugs, experts predict the cost of the care will be considerably higher.  In fact, a study from actuarial firm Milliman found that chemotherapy delivered in a hospital setting costs the federal government an average of $6,500 more annually than care delivered in a community clinic.  And guess who those extra costs will be passed on to?  Milliman found that the portion Medicare patients are responsible for adds up to an additional $650 out-of-pocket expense each time they are seen in a hospital setting.  Who can afford that?
     Not surprisingly, non-profit hospitals that treat low-income or uninsured patients receive a double-digit discount from pharmaceutical companies under a federal program known as 340B.  Not really that surprised, are you?
     The medical profession is lobbying the Feds, hoping they will see the light and keep this travesty from happening.  Because the numbers just don't lie.  Clinics report that between 50 and 70 percent of the drugs they administer would become money losers.  And when Oncology clinics estimate that 55 percent of their patients are elderly and covered by Medicare, the handwriting is on the wall.  The numbers simply don't add up, and no one can stay in business if they can't cover their costs.
     That leaves the elderly to pay the price, both monetarily and physically.  The sad thing is, I'm not too sure this isn't just another manifestation of the "death panel" policy.  Call me cynical!

Leviticus 19:32     "Stand up in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the Lord."

Sudden Outbreak of Shingles?

     OK, it's Saturday morning, and maybe my mind has wandered a bit outside my normal range of topics.  But I can no longer ignore what I'm about to talk to you about.  There will be some who will see me as donning my conspiracy theory hat, but I ask you to hear me out.
     About three weeks ago, PLW began complaining of a persistent earache, and then a burning sensation on his neck.  Within a day or two blistery-type lesions appeared on the back of his neck.  Within another two days or so, he had a full-blown case of the shingles .... "the worst" the doctor had ever seen.  We had a couple of scary days, as the lesions progressed to his face, and we worried about his eyes--- shingles can cause blindness.  Now, you need to understand that shingles are usually a by-product of stress, although a trauma or injury to the body can also be the culprit.  But since, if you know PLW, he rarely gives into stress, we credited a weekend project that involved him lifting sixty 80-pound bags of concrete as the source of the outbreak.

     I have to tell you, that I have never seen him so sick or in so much pain.  He also ran a 102-degree fever, which the doctor could not explain.  A late administration of an anti-viral drug stopped any further outbreak, and a neuro-gel prescribed by another doctor helped deaden the nerve endings and bring him some relief.  I  have never him in so much pain.  He said it felt like the stings of a hundred scorpions and he could now understand why those inflicted in the Book of Revelation by the stinging locusts would want to take their own lives.   I would have chalked it up to just an unusual event in our lives except for what happened in the coming days.
     First of all, the rare cases of shingles that have come into my sphere of family and friends, have always been among what our culture would term "the older population."  In fact, shingles usually happens to people over 60 and closer to 70 years of age.  Yet PLW is 10-20 years younger than those age groups.  Then the fact that two weeks later, his sister is diagnosed with shingles.  And just this week another friend of ours has come down with a severe strain of shingles that causes a palsy in the facial muscles.  His concern is that sometimes that muscle tone does not return.  The curious thing is that all these people are far younger than the average age of shingles patients.
     As you can imagine, I started wondering about this "coincidence."  And I began to hear about more and more cases of people popping up with the shingles.  Even ten years ago, you only heard of the occasional case of shingles, and then usually among the elderly.  Now, I was hearing about multiple cases, and all of them in the recent past.
     Then just yesterday morning, a very good friend forwarded me an email with a most interesting link.  it was of a Youtube video that talked about the rising number of shingles cases and questioning whether it could be in conjunction with the increasing number of sighted chemtrails.  The doctor in the video, Dr. Edward Group, is a natural healing proponent and comes with a pretty good case of credentials.

alleged "chemtrails"

     And just in case, you're not familiar with what chemtrails are, Wikipedia defines the term "chemtrails" as coming from the words "chemical trails" in the same fashion that the term "contrail" comes from the words "condensation trail." It is a term coined to suggest that airplane contrails are formed by something other than a natural process of engine exhaust hitting the cold air in the atmosphere.  Long labeled a "conspiracy theory" by so-called "scientists", there are those who sincerely believe that the criss-crossing of condensation trails in the sky are actual aerial sprayings containing chemicals such as barium and aluminum salts, polymer fibers, thorium, or silicon carbide.
     Whether you believe this as fact or call it a hoax, you cannot deny the countless reports from concerned citizens who have witnessed these strange, wispy cloud formations in the sky.  Just Google "chemtrail" and see that this subject is not treated lightly.  Read the myriad of articles and look at the images, then decide for yourself.  The fact that reports come from all over the globe, and that "official" responses to the allegations have been somewhat vague, only serve to lend more credibility to the witnesses of actual events.  For instance, in Britain, when the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was asked "what research her Department has undertaken into the polluting effects of chemtrails from aircraft", the response was that "the Department is not researching into chemtrails from aircraft as they are not scientifically recognised phenomena...".  Not that they don't exist; they just don't recognize them and therefore aren't studying them.

accepted contrails

     And in a response to a petition by concerned Canadian citizens that "chemicals used in aerial sprayings are adversely affecting the health of Canadians," the Government House Leader responded by stating, "There is no substantiated evidence, scientific or otherwise, to support the allegation that there is high altitude spraying conducted in Canadian airspace. The term 'chemtrails' is a popularized expression, and there is no scientific evidence to support their existence."
     Hmmm, "no substantiated evidence" and "no scientific evidence" are terms I would be willing to apply to Global warming, as well.  So, excuse me, if these denunciations aren't exactly convincing.  And we've seen how the "scientific evidence" for Global Warming has been increasingly challenged.
     Then in 2001, United States Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced legislation that would have permanently prohibited the basing of weapons in space, and he listed chemtrails as one of a number of exotic weapons that would be banned.  So why enter them into the Congressional record if they don't exist?
     I will assert that I am highly unqualified to prove the validity of chemtrails, but I will tell you that I have seen them.  These supposed "condensation trails" have appeared in the sky, been highly visible and lasted far longer than the trails from commercial airliners.  I cannot say that they are the definitive cause of the recent and unprecedented outbreak of shingles among a population that is normally not susceptible to them.  But I will tell you that I witnessed such "trails across the sky" a few weeks before PLW became so frighteningly ill.  Coincidence?  Perhaps.  But if I continue to hear of more cases among younger members of our community, then I just might have to start wearing a tin-foil hat.

Psalm 41:3     "The Lord sustains them on their sickbed and restores them from their bed of illness."

"I Will Keep Them From Harm and Injustice"

     The title of today's post is a small part of the Hippocratic Oath, taken by many doctors as they embark upon a career to practice medicine, both ethically and honestly. It is part of the covenant between them and their patients, and doctors take it seriously.  I want to thank CZ; a faithful reader and friend, as well as a physician herself, for referring me to a timely article by Paul Hsieh, MD, who is a physician and co-founder of Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine (FIRM).
     Dr. Hsieh wrote the article for Forbes Magazine's website, and I have to tell you that it gives me great hope that physicians across the land will follow his example.  Dr. Hsieh gives an indepth account of why he will not follow the mandate issued through the White House Executive Orders that purportedly clarifies that “the Affordable Care Act [ObamaCare] does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes."  Before this "clarification", it was understood that ObamaCare banned the federal government from using patient medical records to compile a list of gun owners.  But with the rising hysteria resulting from the CT shootings and the all-out assault by anti-gun lobbyists and politicians, that stance has been modified.

     Dr. Hsieh, boldly and courageously, calls out the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) for their biased position in promoting and encouraging physicians to follow the latest dictate and ask patients about gun ownership --- all in the name of protecting "the children".  He disavows this recommendation, pointing out that they use the false and misleading scare tactic of “A gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill someone known to the family than to kill someone in self-defense.”  (These statistics do not disclose suicides among the numbers).
     Furthermore, if you are serious about protecting the children, he asks why would you not report swimming pools to the federal government, which contribute to drowning, a leading cause of death among young children.  In fact, Dr. Hsieh further bolsters this argument by quoting University of Chicago economics professor Steven Levitt and his co-author Stephen Dubner.  In their best seller Freakonomics, they noted that a child is 100 times more likely to die in a swimming accident than a gun accident.   So following this logic, physicians should definitely be gathering information on swimming pool ownership.  Or what about stairs (death by falls); household products (death by poisoning); cooking with hot grease (burn injuries and fires); all the small toys or objects that can obstruct a child's airway (death by suffocation or strangulation) .... all of these were mentioned by a U.S. News & World Report article as leading cause of accidental death in the home.  Not guns!
     What is ironic is that the AAP recognizes the value of a swimming pool in a family's life, and even promotes teaching children how to swim .... even though it is a leading cause of death among those same children.  Why can they not give the same credibility to gun ownership?  A gun in a household, with proper training and safety precautions, could be a valuable asset in the home .... especially in the event of an unwanted intruder.  It could actually SAVE lives!  Now that's a novel concept!
     Dr. Hsieh mentions that doctors already have a professional and legal responsibility to notify the authorities if they believe patients pose an imminent threat to others or themselves.  And I believe that doctors take that responsibility seriously.   Mandating that they MUST ask their patients any question about gun ownership is not only violating the patients' constitutional rights and endangering doctor/patient confidentiality, it will erode all trust and confidence in that sacred relationship.
     The good doctor recommends that his fellow colleagues follow the doctrine of a fellow friend and physician, Dr. Matthew Bowdish, who declared, “I will not undermine the Second or Fourth Amendment rights of any of my patients who are lawful gun owners. Nor will I record my patients’ gun ownership status in any medical records that could be accessed by government officials unless relevant to a specific medical issue.”
     Physicians all across the country are having to decide where they stand on this issue.  I pray that the majority of them will follow the dictates of these ethical and brave doctors.  And might I suggest something from the patient side of the aisle?  It would give me great confidence to see a statement similar to Dr. Bowdish's prominently displayed in my doctor's office.  There would be no need for comment or discussion.  All patients would know where their doctor stood and could be confident that their rights were being secured.  I believe that this issue is important enough, (to both doctor and patient), that such a statement would clear the air and set the boundaries of this very important relationship.  We may not have control over Executive Orders coming out of the White House, but we sure as shootin' (pardon the pun) can take charge of the dialogue with our healthcare partner.  Further regulations and legislation are on the way, so know where your doctor stands.  We need to support each other and our Constitutional rights.

Isaiah 8:10     "Devise your strategy, but it will be thwarted; propose your plan, but it will not stand, for God is with us."

A Word of Caution: Check Your Medical Records!

     This is going to be a short post, but I believe it will be long on valuable advice.  This past week, PLW and I were helping his parents get unpacked from their recent move to a small ranching community near us.  To say that we are relieved to have them out of a large, left-leaning, progressive state capital cannot be understated.  But that is another story.
     They were commenting on the process of getting their medical records changed from Big City doctors to their new Rural community doctors.  My father-in-law suffered a heart attack several years ago and has diminished lung capacity and problems with arthritis.  Their old doctor had mailed them a copy of his medical records to be transported to the new physician.  He mentioned, obviously concerned, that there were things on those records that he had never experienced.

     "Like what?" we asked.  So my mother-in-law searched through the files on her office desk and began reading the list .... hepatitis-like syndrome, elevated sugar levels, hypo-functioning kidneys, undetermined chest pain .... etc.  My father-in-law was adamant that he had never been diagnosed with any of these!  In fact his doctor had always gone over any blood work with him, and told him all of his levels were "within the acceptable range".
     Of course, we told him that he needed to call the doctor's office and ask for an explanation, and if they could not substantiate the record with actual test results, then he needed to get them removed from his permanent records.
     You know where I'm going with this, right?  And if you have visited a doctor's office within the last few years, you very likely sat through an inquisition of your health habits, and watched all that information being fed into a computer, and straight to the federal government.  As for myself, I distrust any office that follows the letter of the law to that extent.   And just how is this information construed?  Do they enter a patient's symptoms into a database, which then determines, based on meeting 5 out of 10 of the characteristics of a medical condition, such as hepatitis, that you are indeed suffering from that disease?  Are there criteria being met to establish a definitive diagnosis, even if that diagnosis cannot be legitimately made?
     In the past, I'm sure you've experienced your doctor telling you he/she is just not sure what is going on.  So now, is that no longer acceptable by some health care committee in DC?  Are we letting computer programs determine what our diagnosis is, rather than qualified doctors?  And what's wrong with having a question mark next to an office visit?  Perhaps more time is needed, or tests, to be able to give a conclusive opinion.  I will admit, that my suppositions are not based on any known facts; but what is the explanation for these false diagnoses?
     Maybe I'm over-reacting, but my father-in-law was so upset that all this here-to-fore unknown "conditions" are part of his permanent medical records.  So I'm letting you know that it might be a good idea to ask to see a copy of your medical records, just in case you need to dispute something.  To be honest with you, I'm not sure you can get misinformation removed if you wanted to, but we all have the right to know what our records say.  And I have a feeling those records are going to play into the quality of individual health care being designed for us in the near future.   In this case, forewarned will allow you to prepare a defense in advance of the coming health care debacle.

Psalm 69:29      "But as for me, afflicted and in pain— may your salvation, God, protect me."

My Two Cents Worth ...

     There are any number of blogs and websites you can read that will chew on, and ponder over, just what is the true significance of the 23 Executive Orders issued by the White House on Wednesday.  They will give their expert and legal opinions on how they will affect legal gun owners and ignore the Constitution.... and they will all have merit.  I am neither an expert nor Constitutional lawyer, but I am reasonably intelligent, and I think I can see past some of the "guv-ment speak" in these ordinances.  So, for what it's worth, here's my simple and straightforward take on them:

1.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.  As I understand it, National Instant Background Check System (NICS), launched by the FBI, currently only lists that Mr. or Mrs. American bought a gun.  This EO would now require the system to include such "relevant data" as what gun, what accessories (mags), etc.  Looks, to me, like they are compiling a list to know who owns what.

2.  Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.  This would eliminate Mr. or Mrs. American's privacy through the doctor/patient privilege.  This EO would now allow doctor's to provide NICS with info on all your activities, including any use of weapons in hunting, target practice, etc.

3.  Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.  Ties federal funding to willingness to share information on citizens.

4.  Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.  Allows the government to decide who gets to keep what guns.  They will decide the classifications of "acceptable" gun owners, and which classification you fall into, based on information gathered from EOs 1, 2, and 3.  From the information entered into NICS, the government will decide if you are mentally stable enough, or responsible enough to have the firearms you own.  And can anyone imagine that these classifications will get tighter as time goes on?

5.  Propose rule making to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.  I think we can agree that "propose rule making" can be translated as "make mandatory".  And based on the new categories established in EO 4, you may not qualify to get that legally-owned gun (that was illegally stolen from you) returned.  Another way to limit guns in the hands of legal firearms owners.

6.  Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7.  Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8.  Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).  These are all methods of making gun dealers, gun owners, and gun manufacturers register with the government in order to continue their association with guns.  "Mr. American, we see by the NIC System, that you own X gun.  Have you taken the National Gun Safety course, sir?  No?  Well, then you may not legally keep that gun in your home."  "Mr. Gun Dealer, in order to keep your license, we are going to have to see the background checks you've done on all private sales."  And by the way, all those private sales are now public and in the government files.  And there's no telling what ridiculous mandatory regulations they will come up with for gun locks and safes!

9.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.  They already do that.  This just allows them to enforce EO #5.  Don't count on recovering your stolen weapon.

10.  Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.  Just another way of compiling their lists on gun owners.  What's to analyze?  It was lost or stolen!  Could it be that if they determine you were negligent in the handling of your gun, that you will fall into one of those classifications or categories in EO #4, and therefore be denied gun ownership?

11.  Nominate an ATF director.  Just the thought of who that might be makes my skin crawl.

12.  Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.  I thought after Columbine, this was already established.  Obviously, it hasn't worked.  Perhaps if school officials were properly armed and trained, there would be no active shooter situations.  

13.  Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.  Isn't this really saying, enforce the laws that are already on the books?  Why not try that first?  Adding more laws or Executive Orders is not the answer.  

14.  Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.  I almost laughed out loud at this one!  The CDC can't even get the flu vaccine right!  And now you want them to research what causes gun violence and how to prevent it?  Once again, the blame is pointed at the inanimate object.  Why not have them research the decaying moral values in this country, or the breakdown of the family?  This is a joke!  Watch out for "mental health" issues to become a byword.

15.  Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.  Can anyone see that "new gun safety technologies" will include GPS, codes on gun parts and ammo, and so-called "smart guns" that only shoot in the hands of authorized users?  And that "challenging" the private sector once again means meeting these regulations in order to sell their products.  

16.  Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17.  Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.  These two EOs actually mean that doctors will be forced to ask their patients about guns, and it will be mandatory for them to report patient information.  Once again, the doctor/patient privilege will no longer exist, according to the government.  If they want to keep their licenses, they must comply.  Doctors have some tough decisions to make, and they are on the front lines of this un-Constitutional campaign.

18.  Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.  Looks like another government job; what does "resource" officer mean?  Security officer?  Will they be able to carry guns?  And will they be part of a government union?  More tax-payer dollars down the drain to inflate government bureaucracy.

19.  Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.  Doesn't this already fall under a SWAT team's responsibility?  It seems to me they already have a response plan; they just have a bad arrival time.  Which is why Mr. or Mrs. America, as a trained CHL holder in that school, church, or college can do a better job of stopping an active shooter.

20.  Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.  Looks like a veiled threat to me.  "You must gather information on gun ownership from Medicaid patients, so we can plug it into our database and set up our classifications --- or you lose your funding."  It's that simple.

21.  Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA (Affordable Care Act - ObamaCare) exchanges.   If you have a gun, you may not be able to get health insurance.  They will decide if you are mentally healthy enough to own a gun -- based on the above mentioned classifications -- which they will determine.  Let's not forget the "parity" clause.  We must make things "equal", don't you know?  Does that mean by race, or income level, or gun ownership?  Oh, what a web they weave!

22.  Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.  See!  How do you make regulations "equal" in regards to mental health?  Does this mean subsidies for the poor and disadvantaged? This one is truly puzzling, but I guarantee you it will cost the taxpayer.

23.  Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.  Look for the definition of "mental health" to broaden to include characteristics of gun owners.  There's a method to their madness!

     I began this post by declaring my lack of credentials in de-mystifying these latest Executive Orders.  In fact, I may be wrong in my analysis, and will surely be labeled as paranoid.  I must admit, that I expected more blatant and obvious missives thrown at the Constitution.  The language seems especially innocuous; but perhaps that was deliberate.  Come across as less threatening; even somewhat logical, and the "sheeple" will agree and fall in line.  But with these seemingly "reasonable" (haven't we heard that word a lot lately?) and mildly-worded Orders from the White House, it seems to me that they are building a big net of information (See EO 1, 9, and 10) with which to enforce their limitations of gun ownership (through EOs 4, 16, 17 and 21).   Until we see what's really behind the curtain, I think we should err on the side of caution and be highly skeptical anytime we see individual privacy, ownership and liberty come under the microscope.  What are your thoughts?

Psalm 71:10-11     "For my enemies talk against me; those who watch for my life consult together, Saying, God has forsaken him; pursue and persecute and take him, for there is none to deliver him."

The Health Insurance Blues

      As I picked up the mail one day this week at the Post Office, I recoiled at the sight of the dreaded Blue Cross Blue Shield emblem on a large envelope.  I thought, "This is never good news!"  Sure enough, they were notifying me that they "continually strive to provide me with the health care coverage I need and expect at a reasonable cost."  Furthermore, they wanted me to know that in order to do so, they "regularly evaluate our rates in relation to the costs of providing benefits for our members."  I could feel my blood pressure rising.  "Here it comes," I said to myself.  And sure enough .... "Therefore, we must make adjustments accordingly.  Your premium is being adjusted 12.2%".
     Short and sweet.  My health insurance provider is making sure they get out ahead of the additional premium rate increases that will most certainly accompany the unveiling of ObamaCare.  Was I just one of the lucky ones?  I asked around among my other self-employed friends and found that, nope, everyone seemed to have experienced a rate hike; they ranged from 5% to nearly 20%.  What's more, I discovered that small businesses and those self-employed with individual policies were first in line to see the increases.

     I called my insurance broker, a woman who knows more about health insurance than I ever hope or want to know, and, God Bless her, she spent over 20 minutes on the phone with me.  She patiently explained that just as Nancy Pelosi proudly proclaimed, "We are going to have to wait for the launch of ObamaCare to find out what is in it."  She said that all health insurance companies are anticipating the costs of this new legislation, and quite simply, are hedging their bets by getting out in front of it and charging those of us who are already paying for health care.
     So let me get this straight!  It's not really about evaluating Blue Cross's rates in relation to the cost of providing benefits for ME, the MEMBER .... but it's about offsetting their costs of the millions they are going to be forced to carry as members.
     ObamaCare will mandate that everyone must have health insurance.  But in their great concern for those who haven't been able to afford insurance to date, the Government will somehow offer "subsidies" to help these poor unfortunates get coverage.  HOWEVER, these subsidies won't cover the full cost of insurance, so somehow the balance will have to be absorbed by the insurance companies.  Yeah, right!  My 12.2% increase is not really going to cover the increased cost of my health care, but to help Blue Cross decrease their losses incurred by the masses who aren't sufficiently covered, and can't afford their own insurance.  So, now I not only have to be able to afford the increases to my personal coverage that are inevitable under ObamaCare, but I'm going to be the fall guy that helps the insurance industry stay afloat and diminishes their deficit.  WHAT ABOUT MY BOTTOM LINE?!?!
     My insurance broker told me I got the picture loud and clear.  But she said, "It gets even crazier than that!" How could it?  She went on to explain that the Insurance Exchanges that will be put into place to  accommodate all these newly insured Americans are supposed to be up and running by January, 2014.  She said, unequivocally, "No way!"  She said they don't even know what is in the legislation and therefore don't know how they are to be set up. She then lowered her voice to a near whisper .... "I shouldn't talk conspiracy or politics with you; but I'm going to.  This is all a plot to institute a single-payer program through the Federal Government."
     Well, now, are any of us surprised?  When you bankrupt the individuals, the small businesses, and ultimately, Big Insurance; who else is left to become the provider of health insurance?  But how the heck is the Federal Government going to be able to afford to care for the millions of Americans waiting for their turn at the health care turnstile?  Oh, wait!  That's right!  We know about the "panels" that will be in place to determine the level of care due all sickly newborns and the frail and weak seniors who have long outlived their usefulness.  Neither of them can be taxed more, so let's just encourage them to "give up the ghost", so to speak.
     In the end, my insurance broker and I determined that, for the time being, there is nothing else to do but continue to absorb the cost for as long as I can, or at least until we know what we're dealing with when ObamaCare comes on the scene.  When it comes to budgeting for my health insurance premiums,  I'm just faced with a big, fat question mark.  But one thing I'm pretty sure of ... at some point, it is going to become unaffordable and I, like millions of others, will not be happy with any of the options that are laid out before us.  We will long for the days of personalized and individualized care, only to be given a number and a place in line.  Pardon me, if I don't buy into the state propaganda that this Affordable Care Act will "improve healthcare outcomes and streamline the delivery of health care."  If my letter from Blue Cross is any indication, I have a feeling that the "most significant regulatory overhaul of the U.S. healthcare system" is going to cost me more than it's worth.

Isaiah 10:1-2    "Woe to those who enact evil statutes and to those who constantly record unjust decisions, So as to deprive the needy of justice and rob the poor of My people of their rights..."
   

2012 in Review: Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare

     I didn't see it coming.  It felt like we got sucker-punched in the gut by a favorite uncle we trusted.  Somehow, the supposedly wisest men and women in our judicial system found a way to define a federal law that would provide health insurance for every individual as "a tax".  I confess that it was hard for me to follow Justice John Roberts' logic.

     It seemed to me that he was trying to walk that fine line of asserting the Supreme Court's authority, yet laying the working out of all the details back at the feet of Congress.  At the heart of the debate was the law’s most controversial component, known as the “individual mandate,” which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance or pay a “shared responsibility payment” to the government.

     Twenty-six or so states had sued the Federal Government, claiming that the law was a violation of the Constitution’s Commerce Clause, which gives the federal government the power to regulate commerce between the states.

     In its ruling, the Court held that the law could not be upheld under the Commerce Clause, which was the government’s primary argument in its support. “The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance,” Roberts wrote for the majority.  Whew!  We dodged a bullet on that one!

     But wait!  Here's where we got blindsided.  The Federal Government also argued that the law could be considered a tax, and this is the argument the Court bought.  Specifically, the court held that the individual mandate is not a “penalty,” as the health-care law identified it, but a tax, and therefore a constitutional application of Congress’s taxation power.

     Since when does the Supreme Court change a law's own definition of itself in order to make something that is blatantly unconstitutional, constitutionally acceptable?  I mean, did I understand these shenanigans correctly?

     Bottom line:  It's one more nail in the coffin of our economic calamity as well as our individual freedoms.  And it's all being done by design.  Will 2013 yield a way to forestall the implementation of this behemoth in 2014?  If we were counting on the Supreme Court to protect our constitutional rights, then the answer to that question is woefully negative.  It will just be another compulsory contribution levied on the overburdened populace.  And we ain't seen nothin' yet!

Proverbs 8:1      "Does not wisdom call out? Does not understanding raise her voice?"

What Must God Be Thinking?

     As I perused the headlines of the day, I have to admit it looked bleak and I fought back a sense of approaching doom.  It's Christmastime and I'll be darned if the celebration of the birth of my Lord and the Savior of the World will be disparaged by the profound immorality and wickedness of mankind!
     At this most holy time of year, what must God be thinking?  Do we seem to be getting closer to reconciling with Him, or further away?  Is my narrow/current perception of the state of mankind accurate, or are we just repeating the sins of historic man?  In today's world, does the birth of the Messiah still have meaning?
     During these last weeks and months, it's as if the total depravity of man has amped up the playing field, sensing that it is on a winning streak and going for broke.  Just consider the headlines: Belgium Considers Euthansia for Minors & Alzheimer's Sufferers; and France Opens the Door to Medically-Assisted Suicide.  And you know that many of our legislators and elitists think that what's good for Europe is good for us.  I suppose, in all their "we-know-what's-best-for-society" brilliance, they think they are qualified to make these life and death decisions.  Let me get this straight .... God has created each and every one of us in His image, and He knows every hair on our heads.  I happen to believe that He knew me at my conception and knows how my life will play out; that includes the state of my health and the exact way I will pass from this world.  For any doctor or governmental agency or "system" to presume that they can overrule God's determination of any person's life is pure arrogance and rebellion against God's authority.  He must be grieving at our ever-evolving readiness to devalue life.

     There is also the ongoing debate over gun control in this country.  Just as the Federal Government seems to think they can legislate a collective solution to our healthcare system and our poor economy by redistributing wealth, they will now attempt to legislate a collective solution to the insanity of individuals who use a firearm to vent their anger.  It is my belief that "stopping the violence" is just a code phrase to appease the masses.  The real intention behind their moves are to control a free society.  Being largely Godless themselves, they cannot conceive that America was a Divine experiment; whereby God, for a short time in His plan of world history, gave His creation more liberty and freedom than man has ever known.  It was theirs as long as they could defend it against the inevitable hunger for power and dominance that man's sinful nature craves.  He gave this exemplary nation and its citizens the desire for independence and self-determination, along with the ability to defend themselves against tyranny.
     And now, not desiring to let "any crisis go to waste", the actions of one sick individual will be exploited to take away the one right of individuals that can guarantee their freedom.  Those of us who believe in the Second Amendment and our right to bear arms, are being demonized as out-of-step and an aberration to the culture.  Indeed, we have been designated as the bloodthirsty "gun culture".  We have been depicted as backwoods rednecks, "clinging to our guns and religion", responsible for the recent rash of gun violence against innocent, law-abiding citizens.
     I would refer you to a blogpost by Daniel Greenfield, in which he disputes this generalization:  Your average school shooter is unhappy and angry, irreligious, incapable of fitting into a community and filled with rage that he exercises through violent fantasies. His culture isn’t gun culture. It’s loner culture. Video games do not cause him to kill, but they are how he entertains himself until he can get a taste of the real thing.
     Adam Lanza, Dylan Kleibold, Eric Harris, Seung-Hui Cho, James Holmes, One L. Goh and Jared Loughner had as much in common with what the Michael Moore Fan Club thinks of as "gun culture" as Michael Moore does with the working class. Whatever gun culture they had was not the American Scots-Irish culture of the hunter, the rancher and the militia member, but the urban posse of emasculated men of no worth that brandishes weapons as a way to get respect.
     So what must God be thinking when He has shown us throughout history what has happened to societies who gave up the right to defend themselves?  Haven't we learned anything from Nazi Germany?  A weapon-less society is no longer able to protect themselves from the "bad guys", whether they be those who are intent on mass murder and obtain their guns unlawfully, or a despotic leader who wants unlimited authority.  I confess to being disappointed in the so-called "pro-gun" politicians, as well as the retail and online stores who have buckled to this knee-jerk reaction and obvious pressure to appear "humane."  This I know: more laws on the books won't stop the crimes.  The laws we have now didn't stop them.  Evil will always find a way.
     Just as it found its way over 2,000 years ago, when another "Massacre of the Innocents" was conducted by a tyrannical ruler who feared the influence of a baby born in a manger.  He, too, slaughtered the young of a village to assuage his depraved soul.  And he didn't need a gun to do it.
     In conclusion, I think you will agree with me that if you read the headlines, or listen to the news reports, the world seems to be degenerating into a spiral of decay and destruction.  But I venture that it is no more dark than it was when God, Himself, entered His creation.  The reason He came then is the same reason we have hope today.  As Max Lucado prayed so powerfully after last week's shooting, ""Oh, Lord Jesus, you entered the dark world of your day. Won't you enter ours? We are weary of bloodshed. We, like the wise men, are looking for a star. We, like the shepherds, are kneeling at a manger. This Christmas, we ask you, heal us, help us, be born anew in us." Amen.

Jeremiah 9:23-24     "Let not the wise man boast of his wisdom or the strong man boast of his strength or the rich man boast of his riches, but let him who boasts boast about this: that he understands and knows me, that I am the Lord, who exercises kindness, justice and righteousness on earth, for in these I delight."

My Prescription Saga Continues

     Remember about a week ago when I told you about my troubles with getting a prescription filled at Walmart?  Well there's a new twist to this seemingly unremarkable story.  I visited with the small, independently-owned pharmacy in the little town about 20 miles from my home.  The owner/pharmacist was only too happy to accept my business and assured me that there should be no change in my Blue Cross coverage.  We were mutually satisfied with our new relationship, and I made plans to pick up my prescription the next day.
     When I went to pick up the medication the next day, I was given the wrong one.  My doctor specifically requests that my medication be name-brand, not a generic substitute.  No problem, they would correct it and I could pick it up later that afternoon.

     When I returned, I was surprised to find that the medication was $10 more than it was at Walmart.  I just assumed that Walmart was able to get a huge discount, due to their volume, but just wanted to make sure there wasn't another mixup.  By this time, the friendly neighborhood pharmacist recognized me, and was always courteous and patient.  His understanding was that there shouldn't be any difference in price, since it was regulated by Blue Cross.
     He looked into the cost breakdown, noting his actual cost for the medication, what Blue Cross was willing to allow him, and then what my part of the cost would be.  The deep frown and puzzled look gave me a clue that something wasn't kosher.  He asked, "How much were you paying for this medication at Walmart?"  I told him, "$7.57."  He said, "Something's not right .... the medication costs me $24.75; for it to cost you $7.57, they would pay me $17.18 ---- but they're only paying me $7.25, which is why your price is $17.50 ($10 higher than at Walmart).  Let me give them a call and see why there's such a discrepancy."
     Of course, it took awhile to get through to the Blue Cross customer service representative, and this kind gentleman patiently explained his questions, and then I saw his jaw clench and sparks begin to shoot from his eyes.  I listened to his end of the conversation .... "So you're telling me that regardless of the U.S. government and FDA regulations, you are going to consider this drug as a generic, and refuse to pay me the name-brand price?"  I could tell by his reaction, that he didn't get the answer he wanted.
     He hung up the phone and shook his head in disbelief.  "They admitted that your medication is a brand-specific thyroid medicine, but they have arbitrarily decided that they will treat it as a generic, and only pay me that amount.  If I charge you the Walmart price, then I am losing $10."
     I could see that we had a dilemma before us.  One of us was going to be out $10.  I told him I would check with my doctor and see if he would allow me to switch to the generic version.  I already knew the answer .... generic brands are allowed to have a greater variance in the dosage.  With a thyroid condition, my doctor wants me to have a consistent dosage which guarantees a uniform level for my thyroid.  After much thought, I returned to the pharmacy and told the owner that I had decided to absorb the cost myself.  It was worth it to me to support a small business owner and receive exemplary service.  I was through with the Walmart "attitude" and besides .... if I insisted on forcing him to lose money, then he would soon go out of business and Walmart would be my only choice.  No thank you!
     He maintained that it wasn't fair, but I held my ground and said I was comfortable with my decision.  After all, PLW and I are small business owners, and we need to support each other, because heaven knows, when the full impact and knowledge of Obamacare comes crashing down around our heads, we are all going to have to make adjustments.
     So I guess my point to this whole story is that Big Insurance is pretty much making up their own rules at this stage of the game; what will it be like for us consumers when we are pitted against them AND the Federal Government?  Better get your ducks in a row, folks.  Talk to your physicians and make a plan.  Be prepared for changes like we've never seen before.  It's gonna be a bumpy ride!

Romans 15:2     "Each of us should please our neighbors for their good, to build them up." 

U.S. Spared Another UN Treaty --- For Now

     I must admit that I was surprised (and elated) to hear that the U.S. Senate blocked the ratification of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities.  And you probably guessed it, since Republican Senators were the ones instrumental in stopping the passage of yet another attempt by the U.N. to supersede the U.S. Constitution, they were labeled uncaring, insenstive, and anti-every group except old, rich, white men.
     If the Progressive bleeding-hearts who supported this treaty would just take a step back and look at this thing logically, they might realize that going along with this piece of legislation was quite unnecessary, besides being completely unconstitutional.  After all, the treaty was modeled after the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA). The ADA is a wide-ranging civil rights law which prohibits discrimination based on disability. ADA is considered the "Civil Rights Act of 1964 for people with disabilities," and the blueprint for effective protection of rights around the world.  The U.S. has the most robust laws protecting the disabled in the world, so why do we need to join forces with the UN?

     Just reading some of the items of the Preamble to this treaty, gave me the creeps.  For example, item E reads .... Recognizing that disability is an evolving concept and that disability results from the interaction between persons with impairments and attitudinal and environmental barriers that hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others (emphasis is mine) .... tells me that the UN is deliberately refusing to define "disability"; perhaps to incorporate a much broader interpretation in order to control more aspects of social programs and national policies.  The use of "attitude" and "environmental" as possible barriers should give you an idea where they are headed.  My fear is that their goal is to eventually include economic, social and cultural considerations under the banner of "disabled."
     But the most chilling concept of this treaty was buried a little over a third into it, namely Article 18, Item 2:  Children with disabilities shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and, as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by their parents.  You read that correctly.  If you, an American citizen, give birth to a disabled child (and remember, "disabled" is an evolving condition), then you would be required to register your child with the UN.  What if, in 5 or 10 years, the UN decides that "disabled" includes a child with learning disabilities, or a child that suffers from chronic hay fever due to those darned "environmental barriers that hinder her from full and effective participation" in outdoor play.  After all, if the child can't read "on an equal basis with others", or run and play "on an equal basis with others", then what's to keep that child from being labeled "disabled"?  Read it --- it's there in Item E (above).
     And do you really want your child on some register that the government and the UN can monitor?  And then determine that you are not able to adequately "know or care" for your child? In effect, under this treaty, your rights and authority as a parent can be taken over by a global entity.  But the bleeding hearts don't tell you that aspect of the treaty, do they?
     What's more, according to Article 9, Item 1a, measures, which shall include the identification and elimination of obstacles and barriers to accessibility, shall apply to: Buildings, roads, transportation and other indoor and outdoor facilities, including schools, housing, medical facilities and workplaces.  That means every homeowner would have to make their house accessible for citizens with disabilities.
     As frightening and Orwellian as this treaty sounds, I am most dismayed at the thought that our legislators would even consider giving up U.S. sovereignty and self-government for UN compliance.  Since this is an international and global treaty, the U.S. (make that the U.S. taxpayer) would have to fund disability programs around the world.  And after wading through the treaty (see link above), I'm still unclear if it would become the law of our land.  I guess the fact that it is unclear makes it potentially possible.  In fact, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney tried to spin this pact as a "positive rights" treaty, saying, "Ratification would require no changes to U.S. law, as the United States already leads the world in promoting and protecting the rights of persons with disabilities."  First of all, I believe he made my point that we already have adequate laws.  But he's disingenuous in the fact that it might not change U.S. law, but could give the UN authority and power over U.S. law.  That's not a chance I'm willing to take.
     But the fact that this was presented to our governing body, the Senate, as a treaty makes no sense to me.  Protection of the rights of the disabled is important; that's a given.  But it is a matter of domestic U.S. law.  It is not a foreign relations matter and therefore should never have been introduced as a "treaty", which needs ratification by two-thirds of the Senate.  And speaking of "treaties", I'm going to leave you with this final thought ....  as stipulated in the Declaration of Independence, treaties may not be consummated with other than sovereign nations.  The 1945 ratification of the UN Charter as a treaty is effectively un-Constitutional, because the last time I looked, the UN is not a sovereign nation.
     We've been lulled into complacency regarding our Constitutional rights.  Heck, we don't even know our Constitutional rights!  We have recklessly trusted those who represent us to safeguard those rights for us, and we've slept while thieves robbed us blind.  We got lucky this time --- we dodged a bullet with this particular "treaty", but don't think the UN (or their New World Order minions) will give up that easily.  Senators Reid, Kerry, Lugar and McCain have voiced their hope that "the Senate will reconsider this treaty soon in the next Congress."  Let's stay on our toes, Americans.  They are coming for our sovereignty and our individual rights!

Proverbs 26:23-25    "Like a coating of silver dross on earthenware are fervent lips with an evil heart. Enemies disguise themselves with their lips, but in their hearts they harbor deceit. Though their speech is charming, do not believe them .... "

The "Pathway" To Hell

     This post was very hard for me to write.  What I'm about to share has seen limited exposure on Fox News, while some of the more conservative talk radio hosts have probed deeper into the subject.  But I want to try to explore this abomination through the annals of history and show you where we're headed.

     I'm sure you have heard the report by a "whistleblower" physician in the UK about the accepted practice of "death pathways" among sick children, including newborn disabled babies.  Apparently, the much-lauded National Health Service (NHS) not only facilitates, but advocates, end-of-life treatment for the elderly, the terminally ill, and now the very young.   You remember the NHS, right?  They were featured and applauded at this year's Olympics as the future of nationalized healthcare; with Mary Poppins-like caregivers dropping from the sky to tuck the sick little children into their hospital beds.  This notorious healthcare system is primarily funded through general taxation rather than requiring insurance payments.  Sound familiar?
     A protocol for dying elderly patients has been in force for a decade.  Now one is being developed for children.   Parents have to agree to their child going on the death "pathway", often being told by doctors it is in the child’s ‘best interests’ because their survival is ‘futile’.  But just what are the doctors' objectives?  Many say to free up hospital beds and reduce the costs of the public program.
     But let me tell you just how inhumane and abhorrent this healthcare system has become.  According to the physician who exposed this evil, the "pathway to death" is anything but peaceful and compassionate.  In the acclaimed British Medical Journal, the doctor describes this "pathway" as a 10-day process, during which the baby becomes “smaller and shrunken.”  He admitted to starving and dehydrating ten babies to death in the neonatal unit of one hospital.  This doctor wrote of the pain of watching the slow, forced deaths of newborn babies. One baby’s parents decided to put their infant on the “pathway” because of a “lengthy list of unexpected congenital anomalies,” according to the doctor. Parents, for God knows what reasons, are willing to sacrifice their children, rather than attempt to give them life.
     As I contemplated this unimaginable scenario, I realized that in the history of man, this is nothing new.  You must remember that I see things from a Biblical worldview, not a secular worldview.  I see history as a continuous playing out of God's attempt to reconcile Himself with His creation, versus seeing historical events and time periods as separate and unrelated occurrences.
     China is a modern example of a nation's willingness to sacrifice its children, and the diabolical results of such practices.  Their one-child policy has resulted in a shortage of female children (since males are preferred, and females are "discarded" in a variety of ways).  This infanticide has led to a shortage of brides and an increase in sex trafficking.  America's embrace of abortion is reprehensible, and has likewise resulted in a declining population among certain demographics

     One need only go back 70 years or so to discover the secret edict issued by Hitler in WWII Germany.  His infanticide policy required midwives and doctors to report every child born with disabilities, in order to keep track of all for potential killing, regardless of how mild the impairment.  German doctors killed tens of thousands of disabled babies.  In his book, Culture of Death, author Wesley J. Smith offers this account:  The first known German government-approved infanticide, the killing of Baby Knauer, occurred in early 1939.  The baby was blind and had a leg and an arm missing.  Baby Knauer’s father was distraught at having a disabled child.  So, he wrote to Chancellor Hitler requesting permission to have the infant “put to sleep.”  Hitler had been receiving many such requests from German parents of disabled babies over several years and had been waiting for just the right opportunity to launch his euthanasia plans.  The Knauer case seemed the perfect test case.  He sent one of his personal physicians, Karl Rudolph Brandt, to investigate.  Brandt’s instructions were to verify the facts, and if the child was disabled as described in the father’s letter, he was to assure the infant’s doctors that they could kill the child without legal consequence.  With the Fuhrer’s assurance, Baby Knauer’s doctors willingly murdered their patient at the request of his father.  Brandt witnessed the baby’s killing and reported back to Hitler who was pleased all went as planned.  Based on this case of requested infanticide, Hitler signed the order permitting doctors to kill disabled infants.

     Unfortunately, infanticide is not something that belongs only to the 20th or 21st centuries.  Infanticide, was common throughout the Roman Empire and other parts of the ancient world, according to a new study in the Journal of Archeological Science.  And researchers working an excavation at Ashkelon, Israel found the skeletal remains of 100 infants, all about the same full-term age. They were not buried, but instead were cast into a sewer that ran beneath a brothel. Researchers suspect that most such victims were suffocated to death.
     These reports and findings mirror Old Testament scriptures, where we find warnings against sacrificing children to the pagan gods.  Leviticus, 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles, Isaiah and Ezekiel tell us of the practice that is an abomination in God's eyes.  The false gods in Biblical times had names like Molek, Adrammelek and Anammelek.  Today, we sacrifice our children to false idols and doctrines known as population control, women's rights, quality of life, and convenience.
     All these reasons are being tied up in a nice little package called the Affordable Care Act.  Just take a look at the NHS and you see our future.  They are going broke and cannot be sustained.  This results in radically reduced services. When human life is regarded as disposable -- whether it be babies or the elderly -- and cost control replaces treatment as the main objective, then anything that enables government to reduce costs is possible.  It then is only a matter of conditioning the public to accept lower-quality care and rationing, otherwise known as the "pathway."
     Sacrificing children is nothing new in the history of man, but that doesn't make it any less detestable to the God of Creation.  He warned ancient Israel about His coming judgment, so what makes us think we will go unjudged?  Listen to His words:

Ezekiel 20:31-33     "When you offer your gifts—the sacrifice of your children in the fire—you continue to defile yourselves with all your idols to this day .... You say, “We want to be like the nations, like the peoples of the world, who serve wood and stone.” But what you have in mind will never happen.  As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign Lord, I will reign over you with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm and with outpoured wrath."