If this story about the VA and Homeland Security denying veterans concealed handgun permits is true, it is very disturbing.

Last month, at my VA med visit ,they asked me exactly the same questions [posed to a friend] and I asked them why they never asked them before and their answer was that it is a new policy that they must ask all vets!

From a Vietnam Vet and retired Police Officer:
I had a Doctor’s appointment at the local VA clinic yesterday and found out something very interesting that I would like to pass along. While going through triage before seeing the doctor, I was asked at the end of the exam, three questions:
1. Did I feel stressed?
2. Did I feel threatened?
3. Did I feel like doing harm to someone?

The nurse then informed me, that if I had answered ‘yes’ to any of the questions, I would have lost my concealed carry permit as it would have gone into my medical records and the VA would have reported it to Homeland Security.

The first two questions seem like absurd reasons for losing a permit. Even the third seems problematic. There is a big difference between feeling like harming someone and actually thinking about doing it.

Now it appears as if local media around the country are reporting on examples of other reasons that veterans are having their guns taken away.

Sgt. Wayne Irelan re-enlisted in the Army National Guard after September 11th.

He was severely injured in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart. But now his second amendment rights have been taken away.

“I really feel betrayed,” Sgt. Irelan told 5NEWS.

A year ago the Irelan’s began receiving a small stipend from Veterans Affairs because Lana had to take over the family’s finances.

“How many husbands do you know in America that pay the bills? There’s not very many,” Lana Irelan told 5NEWS.

The V.A. declared Wayne Irelan incompetent and now his right to own a gun is gone.

“It’s wrong. Laws need to be changed. They need to look at individuals and not stereotype them as some sort of mad man,” Sgt. Irelan said.

Irelan has post traumatic stress disorder from the Iraq war, but his wife says he has never been violent. Lana Irelan told 5NEWS his diagnosis is not a legitimate reason for his gun rights to be taken away.

“I was there when they gave him his purple heart for fighting for that right to bear arms, and they are stripping it away,” Lana said, her eyes tearing up.

The couple didn’t know Wayne’s gun rights had been terminated until they went to get a gun out of pawn. Days later Wayne got a letter from the Arkansas State Police saying his concealed carry permit had been revoked. The ATF has told the Irelans that they could go to jail if a firearm is found in their home. . . .

Incoming search terms:

• americans should get their guns taken away
• getting the 10 amendments taken away
• homeland security to take guns away from vets
• Sgt Wayne Irelan of
• obama taking away vets guns
• sergeant wayne irelan

If the nation was not contending with a horrible economy, taking a deep breath of relief after the capping of the BP oil well, and not distracted by other stories in the news, I am sure it would have been riveted by the trial of former Illinois Governor, Rod Blagojevich.

If ever a trial called out to become a Hollywood movie, this one does. At the very least, a book or two should result from it.

Writing this the evening of Monday, August 9th, the jury has been deliberating since the closing arguments on July 27. When the verdict does come in, it will ignite a brief media frenzy, but a hung jury would as well.

The six-woman, six-man jury must grapple with 24 counts of racketeering, wire fraud, extortion, bribery, conspiracy, and false statements leveled against Blago. His brother, Robert, who administered the campaign fund in the last months of 2008, is charged with four counts of wire fraud and extortion.

In essence, however, Blago is charged with trying to “sell” the appointment to the vacated Senate seat of Barack Hussein Obama, elected president in 2008

In closing arguments on July 27, Blago’s defense attorney, Sam Adams Jr., described him as “insecure”, “silly” and “not the sharpest knife in the drawer.” His defense strategy was that Blago was too stupid to be guilty of the charges against him.

The jury, however, was made aware that Blago had been an attorney before being elected governor, so one might assume he had some knowledge of the law. Whether he had knowledge of ethics, morals, or other virtues we hope to find in our elected representatives is anyone’s guess.

Listening to some of the wiretapped tapes the government played seem to confirm his attorney’s low opinion of his client’s IQ. He portrayed Blago as someone with “absolutely horrible judgment in people”, a variation of the “he’s too stupid to be guilty” defense.

This is probably an advantage when it comes to Chicago politics where some contend the whole system is corrupt from top to bottom. Better, perhaps, to just think well of one’s fellow politicians than contemplate their sins.

There’s something of a tradition in Illinois for this. Three former governors have gone to prison in the past 35 years. Two Democrats, Otto Kerner and Dan Walker, and one Republican, George Ryan, convicted in 2006 by a federal jury. Ryan had been governor from 1999 to 2003. A total of 79 state workers and lobbyists were charged along with Ryan and 75 were convicted.

The attorney for the federal government, Reid Schar, had a different impression of Blago. He told the jury that he was a “practiced communicator” and reminded them that he had twice been elected governor of the nation’s fifth-largest state.

Lawyer Adam contended that the phone calls in which various choices for the Senate vacancy appointment were discussed along with the strategies to fatten Blago’s campaign fund were just so much jabbering, a bit of gossip between the two brothers and others.

At one point Blago even tossed out Oprah Winfrey’s name for the job. The prizes he sought in return for the appointment were a wish list that included a position in Obama’s cabinet, a possible ambassadorial appointment, and other notions too idiotic to mention. Manifestly unfit for any—-just ask his lawyer—-Blago seemed dazzled by the opportunity.

In the end, a Chicago attorney, Roland Burris, was given the appointment and he too felt some heat thereafter for a lapse of memory.

I won’t venture to guess the outcome of the jury’s deliberations, but given Illinois’ track record of crooked governors, it does not look good for Blago The “too stupid to be crooked” defense does have some merit if for no other reason than its entertainment value.

I have ceased to be amazed at the low caliber of people elected to high office. We seem to be in an era of truly awful politicians at all levels and we take heart from the few who seem to stand for something other than their own self-interest and enrichment.

© Alan Caruba, 2010

Since the Civil War ended in the 1860s,  the United States has been subjected to innumerable charges of racism, probably without exception from black non-whites such as Orientals, Hispanics, Indian, etc.

The United States of America, by and large, was founded, settled and grew government based on the very close to one hundred percent population of white émigrés mostly from west and central Europe going back to the early 17th century.  In those days the Indian population could not be counted as citizens due to their isolationist ways.

Still, even now into the early part of the 21st century, white people in the U. S. are probably at least seventy percent of the total population; even including the masses of illegal aliens who pour across our borders due to our federal government’s refusal to maintain enforcement of our laws.  The occupants of our current government are blatantly against our own laws and have chosen to support the corrupt and illegal ways of the Mexican government against their own people.

Which brings me to my point of this writing: Racism in reverse.

Since 2008 when we elected a president who is half white but who claims to be black, the leadership of our country has become, if not black in the color of skin, but in their minds and hearts.  Our half white president has chosen to surround himself with as many black culturally minded people he can find.  One of the most damaging to the United States as we have known it for centuries was the appointment of Eric Holder as our Attorney General.

Eric Holder is probably the most outwardly racist appointment of this very un-American administration.  The online dictionary based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2010, defines racism as “a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others” which may have been the case in the early days after the Civil War.

But surely in recent decades this definition of racism has dwindled to a point where even the most flagrant areas of our country no longer practice racist tactics as a common rule.  I suppose that as long as there are people who have thoughts, some of those thoughts may very well be racist.  But white racism as defined in the dictionary above, no longer dwells in the hearts and minds of white Americans.

That same thing, however, can not be said for the black cultured current government of our country.  From the president on down the line, black racism against whites is growing more prevalent as their terms in office continue.

Our half white president totally supports his black Attorney General in his actions against the entire state of Arizona for passing a law designed to provide some degree of control and protection against that state by the robbing, pillaging and trespassing of illegal aliens due to the total lack of protection that is Constitutionally mandated to be provided by the federal government.

Not only has this un-American Attorney General and his equally un-American President brought charges against the state of Arizona and its loyal residents, but they both have sought the aid and assistance of a foreign government in the person of Felipe Calderone, El Presidente of the corrupt Mexican government, who also wishes to file charges of racism against the Mexican nationals who wish to cross over Arizona’s borders without resistance for their criminal actions against that state.

Furthering the Obama governance of racism this same Attorney General has dismissed any and all charges against at least two Black Panthers who displayed illegal and potentially life threatening actions against white people trying to exercise their Constitutional right to vote peaceably in Philadelphia in 2008.

Only a very highly prejudiced person could have made a decision allowing these black bullies who were caught on video for all posterity to see their menacing and harmful actions and verbal harassment of white voters.

And I must not forget to mention a white Treasury Secretary who is weak on paying his own income taxes while at the same time he seems to favor free mortgages for blacks paid for by the white people of this country.

So yes, racism in America in 2010 has changed its color from white to black, undoubtedly due to the change in command of our government when a half white man was elected president.  In their minds they may have adopted the notion that because their leader is only half white, they have the dictionary definition idea that their race is superior and along with the right to rule others.

I would like to remind all of those of that mind concept, that white people, though no longer imbued with the ancient notions of early American racism, are still in far greater numbers of citizens who can remove those who abuse the Constitutional rights of liberty and freedom from office, and will be in that mode during the coming elections.

Despite the DeMarxists headlong rush to oblivion in November, we cannot count on our Republican leadership not to blow it. They need to show something that has been sadly missing thus far, in my opinion… leadership.

To date, they’ve failed in the first big test of whether they have the intestinal fortitude to be the majority in 2011. Elena Kagan should have been stonewalled out the gate. She has zero qualification for the Supreme Court. She’s an Obama creation. A political hack. A statist mouthpiece.

Did the Republican leadership stand as one and say ‘hell no’? Of course not. They went immediately into accommodation mode, giving Kagan all the wiggle room she needed to play cutesy games and not give one substantive answer to any of the really weak-kneed, almost pandering, questions by the committee. They’ve displayed themselves as indecisive and fragmented, when they should show the American Patriots, whose favor they curry, that they can stand for what we believe in.

Conservative opinion was unmistakeably against Elena Kagan’s appointment. We told the leadership from the outset that we wanted her appointment filibustered. There were comments such as ‘Obama deserves his appointments’. Flashback to Lindsey (I’ll go which ever way the wind blows) Gramnesty… and the Sotomayor hearings. As I recall, the nomination proceedings were scarcely under way and Graham was telling her, in front of the open hearing, that she ‘is going to be confirmed’. That’s enough to make a skunk gag. Sotomayor is far to left of anyone on the Court, and Kagan is to the left of her.

Somehow, the Republicans have gotten the idea that if we don’t make nice with the DeMarxist nominees, we can’t get our own through when the time comes. In the Marine Corps we’d call it ‘cowardice in the face of the enemy’. In the case of the so-called Republican leadership, it’s ‘folding before the enemy is engaged’.

I see that John McCain has come to the party late… a little like his new-found religion on illegal amnesty and border security. The point is that if the Republicans can’t show leadership on this, can we trust them to lead? We still remember, all too well, the pathetic Republican performance of the Bush years. It’s one of the reasons incumbents have been dropping like flies. There will be more!

You cannot expect us to get behind an incoherent and fragmented message. We’ve been there and done that. There’s too much at risk this time. We have to stop and derail this DeMarxist rush to tyranny at any cost, and we have to do it now! Here is a golden opportunity for the Republicans to articulate a clear, simple message. We have to return to the Reagan model. The conservative message resonates every time that it’s clearly defined… and every time it’s followed, it’s a success.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Here we go again. I’ve long reported on the danger of illegal alien sanctuary city policies embraced by woefully misguided (at best) and criminally reckless public officials seeking to appease the open borders lobby. One of the countless casualties of this deadly pandering was Houston PD officer Rodney Johnson, who shot and killed during a traffic stop in 2006 by an previously deported illegal alien protected by Houston’s sanctuary law. His widow, Josyln, continues to speak out against continued non-enforcement policies — and she is livid that the Houston police chief will now be joining the Obama administration:

The widow of a Houston police officer killed by an illegal immigrant said Sunday that the policies left in place in her city by a top immigration official in the Obama administration continue to put officers in danger.

That official, former Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt, is taking a job to oversee partnerships between federal and local officials with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, during his tenure in Houston he resisted enforcing immigration law and criticized ICE’s key program that draws on local law enforcement’s support. Hurtt is now facing a lawsuit over those policies filed by Joslyn Johnson, whose husband, Rodney, was killed in 2006 by a once-deported illegal immigrant who had been arrested three times.

Joslyn Johnson, herself a sergeant in the Houston force, told Fox News that the policies that kept local officers from checking the immigration status of suspects remain in place and pose a risk to her and her colleagues.

“It has remained the same. It has not changed,” Johnson said.

Johnson is suing to seek a change in policy so that federal immigration databases are widely available to local departments. Johnson’s original court petition — naming Hurtt as well as the city and the police department — claimed that the department’s failure to discover the gunman’s immigration status and report him to federal authorities enabled him to stay “at large” in the country.

These open-borders sympathizers endanger us all — and it will only prompt more of an Arizona-style backlash in other states and cities across the country.

“Illegal alien sanctuary” or rule of law community: It’s your choice.

The Obama administration is under fire for reportedly offering another Senate candidate job for a political favor (AP)

One of the jobs floated by a top White House official to Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff, in an attempt to get him out of a primary challenge to an incumbent Democrat, would have paid him $165,300.

The director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency is paid an annual salary at the Executive Level III, according to the Plum Book, the government publication that lists roughly 9,000 appointment positions every four years after a presidential election.

The Office of Personnel Management lists Executive Level III positions as receiving a salary in 2010 of $165,300. A spokesman for the USTDA confirmed this number as the director’s salary.

The USTDA’s director position is a post requiring Senate confirmation.

USTDA has an annual budget of $55 million and 78 employees. The director’s post was one of three government positions that were dangled in front of Romanoff by deputy White House chief of staff Jim Messina, according to both Romanoff and the White House.

The other two positions were Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and Caribbean at USAID and Director, Office of Democracy and Governance at USAID. Neither of those jobs appeared to be as high-paying as the USTDA position, based on searches of OPM’s website.

The White House has insisted that no job was technically offered to Romanoff, but that Messina followed up with Romanoff after the former state legislator had applied online for government jobs following President Obama’s election in November 2008.

But even the mention of a potential job with such high compensation, in exchange for political activity such as leaving a Senate race, is certain to raise new questions about whether the White House has broken the law.

The incident also casts new doubt on the administration’s contention that all it offered to Rep. Joe Sestak, Pennsylvania Democrat, to move him out of a Senate primary challenge was an unpaid position on a presidential advisory board.

Actually, I phrased the title question wrong.

Question: Who the hell is Michael Posner, and why the hell is he apologizing to China?!

Answer: Michael Posner is the former head agitator at the transnationalist Human Rights First, who represents the textbook State Department mindset of pandering to the worst America-bashers without hesitation or shame. Foggy Bottom isn’t just stuck on stupid. It’s stuck on American self-sabotage.

Longtime readers of this blog will recall that Posner had a significant role in the attempted George Soros-ization of Ground Zero in 2005.

Moreover, Discover The Networks reports:

Michael Posner has been the executive director of Human Rights First since its founding in 1978. HRF describes itself as a group that “works in the United States and abroad to create a secure and humane world by advancing justice, human dignity and respect for the rule of law.” In practice, HRF is an open borders group that opposes all government efforts to control illegal immigration and strengthen American national security. Posner received his B.A. in history from the University of Michigan and his J.D. from UC Berkeley; before coming to HRF, he worked for the law firm of Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal. He has taught at Yale Law School and is a visiting Lecturer at Columbia Law School.

In September 2009, Posner became a key deputy of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s:

Michael H. Posner
Assistant Secretary
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
Term of Appointment: 09/23/2009 to present

Michael H. Posner was sworn in as Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor on September 23, 2009.

Prior to joining State Department, Mr. Posner was the Executive Director and then President of Human Rights First. As its Executive Director he helped the organization earn a reputation for leadership in the areas of refugee protection, advancing a rights-based approach to national security, challenging crimes against humanity, and combating discrimination. He has been a frequent public commentator on these and other issues, and has testified dozens of times before the U.S. Congress. In January 2006, Mr. Posner stepped down as Executive Director to become the President of Human Rights First, a position he held until his appointment as Assistant Secretary.

With all that background in mind, open-borders radical Posner’s trashing of Arizona’s immigration law at a meeting in China should come as no surprise. No surprise at all. The “Human Rights First” is to Blame America First. Posner has not disappointed his far Left colleagues in his new governmental position of authority.

The transcript via Lexis-Nexis:

Q Was there any areas in which China sort of turned the tables and raised its own complaints or concerns about U.S. practices around the globe or at home? Can you give some examples there –

MR. POSNER: Sure. You know, I think, again, this goes back to Ambassador Huntsman’s comment. Part of a mature relationship is, do you have an open discussion where you not only raise the other guy’s problems but you raise your own and you have a discussion about it? We did plenty of that.

We had experts from the U.S. side, for example, yesterday talking about treatment of Muslim Americans in an immigration context. We had discussion of racial discrimination. We had a back-and-forth about how each of our societies are dealing with those sorts of questions.

…Q (Off mike.)

MR. POSNER: I’m not going to get into the details.

We’ve expressed in the past, you know, our concern about the nature of the detention. And we certainly continue to be concerned about the fact that he’s in prison.

Q Did the recently passed Arizona immigration law come up? And if so, did they bring it up? Or did you bring it up?

MR. POSNER: We brought it up early and often. It was mentioned in the first session and as a troubling trend in our society, and an indication that we have to deal with issues of discrimination or potential discrimination. And these are issues very much being debated in our own society.

Q Did they — did they discuss anything about their concerns about Chinese visiting in Arizona? Any concerns raised?

MR. POSNER: No, that was not raised.

So: American diplomat Michael Posner, on a taxpayer-subsidized trip to Red China supposedly representing the best interests of Americans, proactively brought up the Arizona law “early and often” as an issue of “discrimination or potential discrimination” to smear his own countrymen in front of one of the world’s leading repressive regimes — so repressive, in fact, that Posner’s own boss, Hillary Clinton, once demanded that former President Bush boycott the Chicoms over their miserable human rights record.

Jay Nordlinger is rightly aghast: “Did we, the United States, talking to a government that maintains a gulag, that denies people their basic rights, that in all probability harvests organs, apologize for the newimmigration law in Arizona? Really, really?”

Yes, really.

Oh, and like Mexico (see “How Mexico Treats Illegal Aliens”), China has no qualms cracking down on illegal aliens:

For years, African traders seeking cheap goods direct from the source have flocked to Guangdong, the manufacturing province known as the “world’s factory.” For the most part, the African community in Guangzhou, Guangdong’s capital, has thrived. Markets are devoted to African buyers and whole neighborhoods cater to them. What was a community of a few hundred traders a decade ago now includes as many as 20,000.

But Guangzhou’s African community, China’s largest, is at a breaking point.

The country’s faltering economy is putting the squeeze on “Little Africa,” or “Chocolate City,” as locals call it. Numbers are down and business is suffering. All-important visas are being denied or granted only for the short term. Africans who allow their visas to expire — and many do — are often imprisoned and forced to pay a hefty fine.

In January, the Chinese government announced a crackdown on foreigners living illegally in Guangzhou, and, according to interviews with more than two dozen Africans working in the city, the community is facing increased persecution at the hands of police.

At the markets, talk of the crackdown is common.

“The knock on the door came very early in the morning and I knew straight away it was the police,” recalled Hugo, a 29-year-old trader from Aba City, Nigeria, who leans on a cane as he describes his most recent run-in with police.

“They’d been raiding homes and taking people away since August, so I knew they’d found me. I jammed the door shut and jumped out of the apartment window,” he said.

So when will the Soros-funded/Human Rights First mob be taking to the streets of Guangzhou with their “Stop the raids! Stop the deportations!” signs and condemning China’s immigration police in the middle of Tiananmen Square and hounding Chinese President Hu Juntao at his next public appearance as the new Hitler?

Oh, wait. They can’t do that, can they, Mr. Posner?

President O-bow-ma?

Anyone?

Like the Tea Party sign says:

A real case of government healthcare…

One of my daughters became pregnant and found to everyone’s surprise she was going to have identical twins.  The news came with mixed emotions as well as difficult decisions.  This was not her first child and she, like many in the family, believes in natural childbirth without medication.  Only her first child was born in a hospital while all the others were born at home with a midwife.

She initially started seeing her midwife for prenatal visits, but when they discovered she was expecting twins the reality of government interference took hold.  The state of Arizona does not allow midwives to knowingly delivery twins, so they had to find a doctor.  They are on the state insurance, which poses it’s own challenges.  However, trying to find a doctor that not only would accept the state insurance but would also deliver twins and accept a patient at 10 weeks became almost an impossible task.  It took her a month to even obtain the booklet of doctors she requested from the state to start her search.  She went through the book and was more often turned down because the doctors no longer accepted the state insurance.  With the help of her midwife and fortunately a state employee willing to help, she was able to obtain the services of a high-risk OB team.

Through the ultrasounds they discovered the babies were identical twins, had separate bags of water but shared one placenta.  This put her in a higher risk category.  At one point during the pregnancy they determined she was experiencing twin-to-twin transfer and was then referred to a specialist.  Because of this the doctors wanted to see her 3 times a week and she underwent regular ultrasounds and non-stress tests.  During her third trimester an ultrasound indicated she actually had two placentas; that there was a division in the placenta that had not previously been noticed; the twins may not be identical.  At that time it was also revealed that she had not actual experienced twin-to-twin transfer, it was only borderline.  With only 4 weeks remaining until her due date the doctor told her she needed to find another doctor because she was now no longer considered high risk!

She took childbirth classes at the hospital she was to deliver at.  She is also a childbirth instructor so these classes were quite unnecessary from a childbirth aspect, but with this unusual pregnancy she wanted to be informed about the hospital, their procedures, as well as the special considerations in delivering twins.

During her regular doctor visits they discussed the expectations of delivery.  This resulted in a difference of opinion from the doctors and expectant parents.  The doctors believed in a medicated birth with a likely outcome of an induced labor as well as a cesarean delivery.  The parents believed in an unmedicated birth, as natural as possible, and only in an emergency to save the mother and/or babies did they want a cesarean.  They created their birth plan and the doctors made their modifications.  They were able to “negotiate” delaying an induction until 38 weeks.

She went in to labor naturally and the first baby came quickly.  They never made it to the hospital.  Labor never stopped and what seemed like a very short time later the second baby was delivered; he was a breech delivery.  Both babies were well and of good size, especially for twins (7 lbs. 14 oz. and 6 lbs. 9 oz.) with the mother and father cooperating during delivery; no one else was present.  This was a Sunday and at this point they did not want to go to the hospital because there was no need.  So they contacted one of their midwifes who came over to make sure mother and babies were okay – everyone was fine.  It also turns out the twins are identical, sharing only one placenta – the latest ultrasounds were wrong!

On Monday morning they contacted the OB doctors and told them the babies were delivered.  The parents asked if they should come in to be seen by the doctors and were told by the doctor’s office that they should come in 2 weeks.  The parents questioned this and the doctors decided they should make an appointment for that Thursday.  Everything seemed fine.

However, the parents received a call from the referring midwife indicating the doctor had issued a 911 call and told her to see the mother and babies immediately.  This second midwife came over Monday and checked everyone out – everyone was fine.

They kept their appointment on Thursday with the doctors, and again everyone was fine – or so they thought.  They expected to return to the doctor for her 6-week visit.

However, about a week later they were contacted by CPS (Child Protective Services) who was going to come out to the house on an investigation.  They had received a complaint because the twins were delivered at home.  They complied and the investigator came out for her visit.

During this visit they learned the doctors had filed the complaint with CPS sighting negligence.  Their complaint also included an objection to a delivery without heavy medication.  It further stated that my daughter cannot read a clock.  She happens to be dyslexic and CAN read a clock, but needs to have things read to her verbally – especially legal or medical documents – to be sure she fully understands them before giving informed consent.  Apparently a learning disability makes you unable to deliver a baby without heavy medication, at least according to the doctors.  Fortunately the CPS investigator was knowledgeable and unbiased, learned from both sides of the complaint, and found the complaint was invalid and determined the doctors should not have filed the complaint.

This is only a start in what we all might expect in a government controlled health care system like the ones being considered in both the House and Senate.  Government control leads to limited or no choice by the patient, with total doctor and government control.  If you do not comply, CPS or possibly legal action could be a real consequence.  Your rights mean nothing to a system like this – they are in control and they will tell you what you can and cannot do, what medical treatment you will obtain, must obtain and will not obtain.

If you are one with views from a more natural approach to medicine, you could quickly find yourself in a battle between the health care you desire and believe you should have the right to choose, and one with the government telling you that it is not acceptable care and demand you receive government approved treatment.  Parents concerned about the number and types of vaccinations required for their children could face another government battle, with the government dictating even more vaccinations and tests of newborns and children, regardless of parental preferences.  Everyone could face mandatory flu vaccinations.

Since when it is “illegal” to deliver a baby at home?  Why should it be a “requirement” to be heavily medicated during childbirth?  What happened to parent’s rights?  I thought these issues had been addressed back in the 1970’s when I delivered my first child and had similar battles.  Childbirth is a natural process done by women throughout the ages without access to modern medicine.  Granted, in some circumstances modern medicine has decreased infant and mother mortality rates, but that interference is not required in most cases.  How does one “trust” their doctors when they turn around and report patients to CPS (or what other government agencies)?

CPS investigators aren’t always unbiased as the one my daughter had, often instilling their own morals and values upon the parents in question.  With the healthcare bill including home health services for post-partum mothers and infants one can only imagine what government interference a new parent may face.

Government health care does not have your best interests in mind.  It is an attempt by the government to take control of your life.  It is all about control – control by the government.  What my daughter faced is only the start of what we can all expect if the government takes over.