I just saw this today and found it interesting. One of many European countries in turmoil, Greece has been told that if it wants bailout money that it must consider ditching its state-run health care program (among others) due to the enormous cost.  Follow the link at the bottom to read the whole story at New Patriot Journal.

Policy Failure: Greece was told that if it wanted a bailout, it needed to consider privatizing its government health care system. So tell us again why the U.S. is following Europe's welfare state model.

The requirement, part of a deal arranged by the IMF, the European Union and the European Central bank, is a tacit admission that national health care programs are unsustainable. Along with transportation and energy, the bailout group, according to the New York Times, wants the Greek government to remove "the state from the marketplace in crucial sectors."

This is not some cranky or politically motivated demand. It is a condition based on the ugly reality of government medicine. The Times reports that economists — not right-wingers opposed to health care who want to blow up Times Square — say liberalizing "the health care industry would help bring down prices in these areas, which are among the highest in Europe."

Of course most of the media have been largely silent about the health care privatization measure for Greece, as it conflicts with their universal, single-payer health care narrative.

Read the whole story

I really like the part of the document that says "The interest claimed by plaintiffs could be framed more narrowly as a right to 'provide themselves and their families with the foods of their own choice,'" the government document states. But the attorneys say that right doesn't exist.  I just get warm and fuzzy all over reading things like that, don't you?

Attorneys for the federal government have argued in a lawsuit pending in federal court in Iowa that individuals have no "fundamental right" to obtain what food they choose.

The brief was filed April 26 in support of a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund over the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's ban on the interstate sale of raw milk.

"There is no 'deeply rooted' historical tradition of unfettered access to foods of all kinds," states the document signed by U.S. Attorney Stephanie Rose, assistant Martha Fagg and Roger Gural, trial attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice.

"Plaintiffs' assertion of a 'fundamental right to their own bodily and physical health, which includes what foods they do and do not choose to consume for themselves and their families' is similarly unavailing because plaintiffs do not have a fundamental right to obtain any food they wish," the government has argued.

Read the whole story

Originally seen at Evil Conservative Radio's Facebook page.  This would be funnier if it weren't so true.

More on the candidate for SCOTUS, Elena Kagan, this time from washingtonexaminer.com.  Sounds like big-government, "living" Constitution, liberal lawyer speak to me. Remember folks, appointments to the Supreme Court are for a lifetime...

Freedom of speech, religion and other First Amendment issues are likely to be among the most visible during the coming Senate confirmation hearings on President Obama's nomination of Solicitor General Elena Kagan for the U.S. Supreme Court.

As an illustration why, consider this quote dug up by the First Amendment Center's David L. Hudson, who found it in a government brief signed by Kagan in United States v Stevens: “Whether a given category of speech enjoys First Amendment protection depends upon a categorical balancing of the value of the speech against its societal costs.”

The case concerned a statute that made it criiminally unlawful to depict animal cruelty. The Court rejected Kagan's reasoning, but had the justices accepted her assertion, it would have effectively repealed the First Amendment's protection of speech and replaced it by granting government the authority to decide what speech should be permitted.

You can read the entirety of Kagan's brief here, and additional analysis by Hudson of Kagan's record on First Amendment issues here.

Another article posted at RWN.  Here's a summary, follow the link below to read the whole thing.

Many of the pilgrims who fled to America in the first place did so because of religious persecution. With that in mind, the Founding Fathers protected our religious liberties with the First Amendment. It reads:

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.

Yet, because of liberals who are hostile to Christianity, we've turned the plain meaning of the Constitution on its head. Instead of protecting religious liberties, the First Amendment has been used to oppress the freedom of religion.  Here's a great example of how that works from Georgia:

Preston Blackwelder proudly showed off a painting of his grandmother that had hung next to the front door of his Port Wentworth home.

She was the woman who led him to God, Blackwelder said Friday.

And with that firm religious footing, Blackwelder said it would be preposterous to stop praying before meals at Port Wentworth's Ed Young Senior Citizens Center near Savannah because of a federal guideline.

"She would say pray anyway," Blackwelder said of his grandmother. "She'd say don't listen."

But Senior Citizens Inc. officials said Friday the meals they are contracted by the city to provide to Ed Young visitors are mostly covered with federal money, which ushers in the burden of separating church and state.

Read the whole story

ETA 5/11/2010: Petition drive to stop Kagan confirmation

"Kagan is a radical anti-military and pro-abortion zealot," said Farah. "This selection by Barack Obama reveals once again his extremist agenda of leaving America undefended, elevating alternative lifestyles to sainthood and exterminating the most innocent human life with reckless abandon and persecuting anyone who tried to stand in the way. In a nutshell, that's who Elena Kagan is."

Sounds like trouble.  Judicial Watch has issued their statement:

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton issued the following statement in response to today’s announcement of the nomination of Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court of the United States:

“President Obama's nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court is irresponsible. Ms. Kagan is a liberal activist and political operative with no experience as judge. A Supreme Court nominee ought to have significant practical experience as a lawyer or a judge — especially a nominee for the nation's highest court. Her decision to throw military recruiters off the campus of Harvard Law School during a time of war shows she is far to the left of mainstream America. The fact that she continued to work in the Clinton White House after it became clear that President Clinton lied under oath raises questions about her ethical judgment. And her record, as spotty as it is, shows that Ms. Kagan is a committed liberal judicial activist.

Tea Party activists ought to be paying close attention to this nomination. With looming constitutional battles ranging from Obamacare to illegal immigration, the United States Senate should ensure that only a justice who will strictly interpret the U.S. Constitution is approved. There’s no reason to believe that Ms. Kagan meets this standard. Given the stakes, every U.S. Senator should know that the upcoming vote on Ms. Kagan will be as closely watched as their votes on Obamacare.”

Read the whole story

And quite a bit more about the nominee from Right Wing News:

Like most politically interested Americans, I'm gobbling up all I can find about Elena Kagan. And the portrait that's emerging looks very familiar. In fact, Elena Kagan looks a lot like the man nominating her for the Supreme Court: She is young, smart, brash, inexperienced, possibly socialist, calculating, and affable.

The choice says more about President Obama than it does Elena Kagan. He likes himself and wants the qualities he possesses on the Supreme Court.

Read the whole story

I received this in an email and felt it was a very well written, well thought out response to everything that has been going on lately regarding immigration laws and reform.  If you turn back the clock, immigrants back in the day were quite a bit different in attitude and expectations.

Rosemary La Bonte, wrote a wonderful letter to the editor of the OC Register which, of course, was not printed. So, I, David La Bonte, decided to "print" it myself by sending it out on the Internet. Pass it along if you feel so inclined. Written in response to a series of letters to the editor in the Orange County Register:

Dear Editor:
So many letter writers have based their arguments on how this land is made up of immigrants. Ernie Lujan for one, suggests we should tear down the Statue of Liberty because the people now in question aren't being treated the same as those who passed through Ellis Island and other ports of entry.

Maybe we should turn to our history books and point out to people like Mr. Lujan why today's American is not willing to accept this new kind of immigrant any longer. Back in 1900 when there was a rush from all areas of Europe to come to the United States, people had to get off a ship and stand in a long line in New York and be documented. Some would even get down on their hands and knees and kiss the ground. They made a pledge to uphold the laws and support their new country in good and bad times. They made learning English a primary rule in their new American households and some even changed their names to blend in with their new home.