With the 2010 mid-term election behind us, we can safely say that another political tsunami swept the nation. This time the GOP ascendancy exceeded that achieved in 1994, when the Republican Party, led by the then Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, picked up 54 seats in that legislative chamber.
In a recent letter to the editor printed in the Macon Telegraph 9/1/10, Joni Woolf, a Georgia author and self-described "activist with strong ties to the Democratic Party," began her letter innocently enough by stating: "I read with interest the story of Glenn Beck's march on Washington and how he and his crowd of loyal supporters want us to return to 'traditional values.' Now I'm wondering just which traditional values he wants to return to?"
The final word from medical moguls and other pundits is coming out in full force on health care and medical journalism: Americans must be prepared, from the top down, to accept drastic medical and health care rationing. Why? Because "the establishment of the rational allocation of finite resources" (translate: the extensive rationing of medical services) will be desperately needed, if universal coverage, socialized ObamaCare medicine is to have a chance to work in this country.
In the summer of 1787, as the Founders, led by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, concluded the drafting of the momentous Constitution of these United States, a Philadelphia lady at the steps of Independence Hall, asked, "Mr [Ben] Franklin, what kind of government have you given us?" He retorted, "a Republic, ma'am if you can keep it."
The one-worlders are a determined and persistent lot. It's a pity they lack vision. Like lemmings, they are rushing full speed to trade God-given, inalienable rights for those granted at the whim of the world's corrupt politicians.
Their latest brainchild is a purported loophole in the United States Constitution. The text reads:
In 1997, House Minority Leader Richard Gephardt, D-Mo., spoke candidly to Time magazine regarding McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation. The Democrat admitted, "What we have is two important values in direct conflict: freedom of speech and our desire for healthy campaigns in a healthy democracy. … You can't have both."
Joni Woolf’s letter decrying Glenn Beck’s rally in Washington and insulting his (and millions of Americans’) call for traditional values is just about the worst series of liberal clichés that one could possibly have selected to denigrate and slander American history and American values. I don’t want to sound ad hominem, but her letter was so venomous, that it could only have been penned by a bleeding-heart, guilt-ridden, elitist-minded liberal requiring a strong response.
Senator-elect Marco Rubio on winning handily in a three-way race in Florida summed up the political future for the Republicans, “We make a great mistake if we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party. What they are is a second chance.”
Absolutely. If the Republicans do not perform, they will be thrown out at the next election! So let the Republicans not make the same mistakes made in 1994.
I wholeheartedly agree and applaud your momentous editorial in November 2006 (I am now in standing ovation), pointing out with pinpoint accuracy the differences and defining characteristics between personal leadership and collective consensus building.
I read with interest the article by Robert J. Coffey, M.D., entitled "International Perspective: Neurological Surgery in Nicaragua." The article was informative in its description of neurological surgery per se, but it was unfortunately saturated with much political propaganda (albeit in a neurological journal), which requires some criticism. First, the practice of medicine (and neurosurgery) would not have been as primitive as it was in Nicaragua in 1989 with the Sandinistas if it wasn't for a misdelegation of priorities.
This slim tome can be read in one or two settings - if one can stand the poignant drama and the horror stories recounted in the pages of this book.
This biographical reference book on "the key figures in the gun control debate today" delivers arguments and counterarguments on the meaning of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Americans' right to keep and bear arms. This book puts human faces on the argumentation. The figures featured in the reference book came from different backgrounds and disciplines, law, medicine, academics, law enforcement and plain mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, etc. who have become, because of their own experience, activists in the great debate.
In this most momentous book, Professor John R. Lott, Jr., studied the FBI's massive yearly crime statistics for all 3,054 U.S. counties over 18 years (1977-1994), the largest national survey on gun ownership and state police documentation in illegal gun use, and comes to some startling conclusions:
Boomerang by Theda Skocpol, a professor of government and sociology at Harvard University is subtitled, "Clinton's Health Security Effort and the Turn Against Government in U.S. Politics." And indeed, this book is about politics, not about the reality of what went on in those crucial years. One comes out with the impression that the book was written to bring the author to the attention of the Clinton administration.
A major engagement in the war over the right to keep and bear arms was fought in the House of Representatives this past July. The House voted to shift $2.6 million away from the National Centers for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC) - a research unit of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) - and earmark the funds for other health research projects. The funding was equivalent to the amount spent by the NCIPC in its campaign to redefine guns as "first and foremost, a public health menace."
On June 23, 1995, a swarm of armed men invaded the Mason, West Virginia medical office of Dr. Danny R. Westmoreland. With their guns drawn, the intruders ordered everyone, including a nine-year-old child, to stand against a wall while the office was ransacked. The marauders were agents of the federal "health police," and they had violated the sanctuary of Dr. Westmoreland's office - which is also his home - and terrorized patients at gunpoint in order to execute a search warrant against the physician.
Despite all the media hullabaloo about a growing medical marketplace and the supposedly conservative changes being brought about by the November 1994 Republican revolution, corporate socialized medicine is making headway and becoming a reality, step-by-step, under the rubric of managed care and a mislabeled "free market."
The fact is we still face an ominous threat from those who seek to destroy the noble profession of medicine, enslave the healers, and dispose of those whose quality of life they deem not worth living.
With Trent Lott ready to have burned Robert E. Lee in effigy to stay in office, it’s refreshing to see Southerners like Dr. Miguel A. Faria, Jr. Dr. Faria is the author of Medical Warrior: Fighting Corporate Socialized Medicine, Vandals at the Gates of Medicine, and most recently Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise.
Miguel A. Faria Jr. is the author of "Medical Warrior" and "Vandals at the Gates of Medicine," and editor in chief of the Medical Sentinel, the journal of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. His most recent book is "Cuba in Revolution: Escape from a Lost Paradise." All of his books are available through www.haciendapub.com. A retired neurosurgeon, Dr. Faria lives in Macon, Ga.
Miguel A. Faria Jr. is the author of Medical Warrior and Vandals at the Gates of Medicine, and former editor in chief of the Medical Sentinel. He is presently Associate editor-in-chief and a World Affairs editor of Surgical neurology International (SNI) His most recent book is Cuba in Revolution: Escape From a Lost Paradise. A retired neurosurgeon, Dr. Faria lives in Macon, Ga.
From Pathology to Politics: Public Health in America. How the Public-Health Establishment Puts Us at Risk, by economists James T. Bennett and Thomas J. DiLorenzo, is a serious, eye-opening indictment of America’s public-health establishment.
I recently read a book that should shock freedom-loving and civil-liberty-loving readers, even the libertarians, Objectivists, and Americans of other political persuasions who (thanks to Dr. Thomas Szasz) have come to be skeptical and even critical of psychiatry, particularly in the courtroom.
The Castro brothers' hatred for the United States became immediately apparent upon gaining power in 1959. Fidel began making his long harangues against the United States, and the Cuban mobs so inspired began collectively composing such anti-American slogans as Cuba Si, Yanquis No! and Fidel seguro a los Yanquis dale duro! ("Fidel, for sure, hit the Yankees hard!").
Raúl Castro, the 70-year-old, younger brother of dictator Fidel Castro, has been publicly anointed successor to the Maximum Leader, and there is no reason to believe that leadership and the spoils of Cuban infamy will pass to anyone else in the Cuban hierarchy, unless Raúl's demise precedes that of his ailing 75-year-old, but still charismatic, brother.
On April 22, 2000, the Miami home of a Cuban-American family was raided by heavily armed INS agents, and the child Elián González was forcibly removed from the loving home and delivered to the hands of his communist father. The child was then taken back to the living hell of communist Cuba, one of the last remaining Stalinist bastions in the world. The forced repatriation was carried out by the Clinton administration in accordance with the wishes of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
Thomas Jefferson and the other American patriots who framed the U.S. Constitution were wary of government power, even of the federal government of these United States that they themselves had created in 1787 at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Therefore, to further protect the personal liberties of the American people from future usurpation by the federal government, they added the Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.
In Part II of this article, we discussed the issue of whether the Cuban people would be better off living in a social(ist) democracy or a constitutional republic after the fall (death) of Fidel Castro. We discussed that, in its essence, a democracy reflects the absolute rule of the majority of the people, while a republic prescribes a government of written laws.
In Part I of this article, we discussed plausible scenarios that could take place in Cuba after the much-awaited death of the tyrant Fidel Castro. After the initial turmoil within the ruling communist ranks and the quiet jubilation inside and outside the island, it is my belief that communism in its autocratic and Stalinist form will utterly collapse and freedom will finally be within reach for my Cuban brethren in the Pearl of the Antilles - if they seize the moment.
A series of incidents in the last several weeks suggest that Cuban Maximum Leader Fidel Castro's physical and mental health may be in rapid decline. On June 23, 2001, Castro nearly fainted while delivering a speech in El Cotorro, near Havana. Cuban security agents had to assist him at the podium and kept him from falling to the ground. The incident was caught on camera and shown live in Cuba, and subsequently the taped incident was viewed in Miami. Last April, the Cuban tyrant lost his train of thought while delivering a speech commemorating the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Cuban dictator Fidel Castro does not want what happened in the Soviet Union and its former satellites in the years 1989-1991 to take place in Stalinist Cuba in the 21st century. Following the lead of what happened in the U.S.S.R., the enslaved people of the Eastern bloc-Warsaw Pact nations threw off the yoke of tyranny and their communist governments toppled one after the other.