ObamaCare architect’s video trail of deceit grows longer
ObamaCare architect’s video trail of deceit grows longer
Full Article, Video & Source:
Michelle Nunn blows off Fox News
Maybe snubbing a news station — that has followers that vote — is not a good idea?
Do assisted suicide supporters really expect doctors and nurses to be able to assist the suicide of one patient, then go on to care for a similar patient who wants to live, without this having an effect on their ethics or their empathy? Do they realize that this reduces the second patient’s will to live to a mere personal whim—one that society may ultimately see as selfish and too costly?
Right now, twenty-nine-year-old Brittany Maynard is standing on a virtual window ledge, while the crowd below shouts its support for her “right” to jump. She says November 1 will probably be the day she kills herself.
Brittany is a beautiful young newlywed. Tragically, Brittany has a brain tumor that is expected to end her life in the near future. She and her family have moved to Oregon so she can legally take a doctor-prescribed lethal overdose, to avoid the suffering she expects as she approaches death.
Maynard has also joined with “Compassion and Choices” to promote their campaign to legalize physician-assisted suicide throughout the United States. In the last few weeks, C&C’s video telling her story has gone viral and been picked up by news organizations all over the world, including People magazine.
Groups supporting physician-assisted suicide now call the promotion of Ms. Maynard’s story “a tipping point” in their decades-long push to gain public support for changing laws.
I am a registered nurse with forty-five years of experience caring for many suicidal people, both personally and professionally. I also lost a beautiful, physically healthy thirty-year-old daughter five years ago to suicide. After a sixteen-year battle with substance abuse, my daughter committed suicide after visiting suicide websites and reading Final Exit by Derek Humphry, the founder of the Hemlock Society (the former name of Compassion and Choices). The medical examiner called my daughter’s suicide “textbook Final Exit.” It was not an easy death for her, or for those of us who loved her.
While I am sure Ms. Maynard is sincere and well-meaning, campaigns like hers can have a devastating impact on vulnerable people like my daughter, and be misused to promote a one-sided debate on legalizing assisted suicide.
Unlike most suicides, assisted suicide involves two parties. It’s worth looking at the impact of this agenda on both of them.
Groups promoting assisted suicide routinely dismiss suicide victims like my daughter as collateral damage, while some even provide how-to instructions that can be accessed by any depressed person. The central focus of the legal agenda is the frail elderly. Consistently, the median age of people taking their lives under Oregon’s assisted suicide law has been seventy-one. Less than 1 percent are under thirty-five years old. And there is a generation gap on this issue. As the Newark Star-Ledger has reported: “A recent poll showed that people over 65 oppose assisted suicide by a 12-point margin while those under 35 support it by 18 points.”
Brittany Maynard’s position is consistent with that of others in her age group. Yet the elderly—the people overwhelmingly affected by these laws—say “No.” They know how hard it can be to convince younger generations that they still have lives worth living and worth respecting. Others who strongly disagree with C&C are the people with disabilities who belong to groups such as Not Dead Yet. Those with disabilities face a great deal of bias from able-bodied people who seem to think people with their conditions are “better off dead.”
Ironies abound in this debate. For example, when a convicted murderer tries to discourage efforts by lawyers to stop his or her execution, this is often considered as a sign of stress or mental disorder, while a sick person’s wish to die is considered an understandable and even courageous decision. How do we reconcile the two views that a lethal overdose is the ultimate punishment for a convicted murderer and, at the same time, the ultimate blessing for an innocent terminally ill or disabled person?
Then there are the medical professionals being called on to “assist.” Few people would seriously consider legalizing friend- or family-assisted suicide. The inherent dangers of this type of private killing are much too obvious. So the goal is to lend this act professional respectability by promoting physician-assisted suicide—or, more accurately, medically assisted suicide, since nurses also are necessarily involved when the assisted suicide occurs in a health facility or home-health situation. Many people are not aware that groups such as C&C oppose conscience rights for medical professionals like me, as well as for hospitals that believe that helping to terminate a life is unethical.
Medical groups such as the American Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, and the American Nurses Association oppose legalization of physician-assisted suicide. The AMA has said that allowing physicians to participate “would cause more harm than good,” observing that “physician-assisted suicide is fundamentally incompatible with the physician’s role as healer, would be difficult or impossible to control, and would pose serious societal risks.”
When I worked as a hospice nurse years ago, our guiding principle was that we neither prolong nor hasten dying. I felt great satisfaction helping my patients and their families live as fully and meaningfully as possible until natural death. We nurses not only made sure that our patients were physically comfortable—we also helped with spiritual, emotional, and practical concerns.
Unfortunately, with the help of the media, assisted-suicide groups have had some success trying to convince both medical personnel and the public that natural death is agony and that medically assisted suicide should be a civil right. Yet this drive for totally controlling death profoundly changes the medical system, even for people who may recover or who may live with disabilities—and for patients who would never consider suicide.
Society has long insisted that healthcare professionals adhere to the highest standards of ethics, as a protection for society. Without that clear moral compass, it has been said, the physician is the most dangerous man in society. The vulnerability of a sick person, and the inability of society to monitor every healthcare decision or action, are powerful motivators to enforce such standards. For thousands of years doctors (and nurses) have embraced the Hippocratic standard that “I will give no deadly medicine to any one, nor suggest any such counsel.” Erasing the bright line doctors and nurses have drawn for themselves—which separates killing from caring—is a decision fraught with peril, especially for those who are most vulnerable.
As a nurse, I am willing to do anything for my patients—but I will not kill them nor help them kill themselves. In my work with the terminally ill, I have been struck by how rarely such people say anything like, “I want to end my life.” I have seen the few who do express such thoughts become visibly relieved when their concerns and fears are addressed, instead of finding support for the suicide option. I have yet to see such a patient go on to commit suicide.
This should not be surprising. Many of us have had at least fleeting thoughts of suicide in a time of crisis. Imagine how we would feel if we confided this to a close friend or a relative, who replied, “You’re right. I can’t see any other way out either.” Would we consider this reply as compassionate, or desperately discouraging? The terminally ill or disabled person is no less vulnerable than the rest of us in this respect. And to think that an entire society, through its laws, can give such a response—to you, and to anyone with a similar health condition—may be the ultimate form of suffering.
Do assisted suicide supporters really expect us doctors and nurses to be able to assist the suicide of one patient, then go on to care for a similar patient who wants to live, without this having an effect on our ethics or our empathy? Do they realize that this reduces the second patient’s will-to-live request to a mere personal whim—perhaps, ultimately, one that society will see as selfish and too costly? How does this serve optimal health care, let alone the integrity of doctors and nurses who have to face the fact that we helped other human beings kill themselves?
Stories like Brittany Maynard’s can feed into a society that is fascinated by tragic love stories, but does not understand how such stories are used as propaganda to promote a dangerous political agenda that can affect us all—and our loved ones.
Personally, I will continue to care for people contemplating suicide or who have made an attempt regardless of their age, condition, or socio-economic status. I reject discrimination when it comes to suicide prevention and care. I hope our nation will do so as well.
Nancy Valko, RN, ALNC, is a longtime writer and speaker on medical ethics issues who recently retired from critical care nursing to devote more time to consulting and volunteer work. She is also a spokesperson for the National Association of Pro Life Nurses.
Reprinted with permission of the author.
Earlier this week, Missouri state Senator Jamilah Nasheed, a Democrat who has sponsored several anti-gun bills, was arrested while protesting in front of the Ferguson Police Department, The Blaze reported Tuesday. What made the arrest interesting is that Nasheed was carrying a 9mm handgun with extra ammunition.
Authorities also said Nasheed “smelled strongly of intoxicants.” But Nasheed refused to take a breathalyzer test and maintains she was not intoxicated.
“Sen. Nasheed, along with another male, entered the street, were told numerous times by not only by the St. Louis County commander, but other officers on scene, that they needed to leave the street or they were subject to arrest,” said St. Louis County Police Sgt. Brian Schellman. “They failed to comply, and they were taken into custody.”
The arrest was conducted without incident, CBS St. Louis said. Nasheed, however, chanted as she was taken away. On Tuesday, Nasheed said hers was a “symbolic arrest” to send a “message to the protesters that we can protest peacefully and that we must protest peacefully and that we want justice for Michael Brown.”
But her arrest and news that she was in possession of a firearm brought charges of hypocrisy. According to attorney Eric Vickers, Nasheed needs the gun for her own protection and Nasheed says she holds a concealed carry permit. But if Nasheed had her way, other Missourians would not have the same right.
Full Article & Source:
Anti-gun Missouri Dem. arrested with 9mm pistol, refuses breathalyzer test
Justice for Michael Brown?
Tell us, Senator Jamilah Nasheed, just what kind of justice are you “calling for”?
What has the officer been found guilty of?
That is, after all, all that has been established as fact thus far!
DEVILS LAKE, ND (WDAY/CNN) – Every once in a while in sports the results don’t matter.
Hundreds of cross country runners were in Minnesota for a race, but the winner from the event was someone who didn’t even place, but instead showed compassion for a fellow runner.
Devils Lake senior Melanie Bailey carried an injured and distraught Danielle Lenoue, who runs for Fargo South, across the finish line at the EDC cross country meet at Ponderosa Golf Course near Glyndon.
“I was past the 2-mile mark, I was right around the corner from the finish line,” Lenoue said. “It happened instantly, like I was just running along and felt like a little pop in my knee and down I went. It was that fast.”
Lenoue’s left knee buckled during the race and she injured her patellar tendon.
“Just sobbing and everything, so I just started walking and I stopped cause I couldn’t go any farther and all of a sudden this girl comes up and she grabs my arm and she said ‘here, come on.’” Lenoue said. “And we just started walking and couldn’t walk at all. And she was just like ‘this isn’t working’ and so she said ‘here hop on my back.’ And she bent down, picked me up. She’s like half my size.”
All you people claiming to advocate for the elderly and disabled, just who do you think you are to challenge judicial decisions, facilities, attorneys, conservators, guardians and fiduciaries? They are, after all, proven, by their positions, to be above reproach. How dare you challenge their intent, actions and/or character!
Judges, attorneys, CEO’s and others in charge have proven by the stations they have risen to, to be of perfection… the elite of the world… the all-knowing… and the all honest. Never do they take advantage of their positions for personal financial gain nor to have a personal agenda in play. Never do they do anything beneath their position. To suggest otherwise is to be singled out to be disgraced and to possibly be labelled a threat or even mentally unbalanced.
I’m not sure what has happened to common sense and healthy thought process, but some kind of virus has been on the attack, it would seem. Facts seem to be subjective or totally irrelevant. It’s almost as though we are living in the “mad house” out here in the everyday world. Too many things, arguments and decisions are outright crazy.
We have various Courts that worry about individuals taking advantage of the elderly or disabled, while signing off on outrageous fees for attorneys, appointed guardians and so forth. What is the difference between the latter and the former? Oh, is it because the latter is condoned by the courts and protected by some carelessly written law or skillful misinterpretation? That somehow makes one right and the other wrong?
Worse than the money drain by the courts and appointed anointed-ones is the power to isolate the victims. (Yes, victims. What else would you call the people, who suddenly are imprisoned and forced to be and have done unto them what they would not, and do not, want done unto them and theirs?)
How can someone that robs another of companionship, enjoyment, freedom, money, property and simply an existence called living, be considered humane? Animals are treated better than many of the elderly and disabled thrown into the system, because they could be thrown into the system — even if by a wrongful technicality in the law or by a court that is complicit due to bias or simply doesn’t look beyond the surface or listen to the bothersome advocates or nobodies that dare speak against the supposed “perfect” attorneys, professional guardians and such? They never lie or steal or do unethical things, now do they?
In recent news, we have heard…
“WASHINGTON — Three central Ohio nursing homes were among 33 in 11 states cited for improper care and billing practices yesterday as part of a $38 million settlement among a major nursing-home company, the U.S. Department of Justice and the state of Ohio.
“The announcement in Washington and Columbus resolved an investigation by the federal government, Ohio and seven other states into charges that Extendicare of Canada provided services at those 33 homes that were “materially substandard” or “worthless” because the company did not provide care to residents that meets federal standards, according to the settlement agreement.” (Federal investigation finds three local nursing homes lacking )
Now wait a minute. I thought “all” facilities provided only the best of care and that complainers were just making things up or exaggerating. They weren’t?
More recent news…
“The Ohio Supreme Court has suspended Akron attorney Rami M. Awadallah from practicing law after ruling that he fraudulently and deceptively represented several of his clients — including some in Lorain County — during court proceedings.” (Ohio Supreme Court suspends area attorney)
What’s that? An attorney “fraudulently and deceptively represented several of his clients”? But… but… but… I thought that was impossible? I thought “all” attorneys “always” spoke nothing but the truth and “always” acted in the best interest of the client or ward. He didn’t? What’s up with this?
More in the news…
“Paul S. Kormanik, a Columbus attorney considered up until two months ago to be legal guardian to more incompetent people than anyone else in the nation, was indicted today on theft charges by a Franklin County grand jury.
Prosecutor Ron O’Brien and Attorney General Mike DeWine will announce the charges this afternoon after the grand jury determined there was sufficient evidence that Kormanik stole about $41,000 from two of his wards.” (Lawyer indicted for theft from those he was supposed to protect)
An attorney — a legal guardian — was indicted for what? Stealing? Stealing from people he was the guardian for? Oh my! Bubble buster!
While we are talking about a system lacking perfection and often tilted towards the powerful, though not necessarily the righteous or side with the cleanest of hands, let’s return, for a moment, to discussion involving isolation of the wards. What judge or guardian or facility could possibly think isolation of a non-violent, non-contagious person is a good thing?
Decades ago, researchers found there is such a thing as “failure to thrive”. It actually exists. There is no question. Why then, would anyone place another person in isolation and risk that person dying due to “failure to thrive”? Why? How can it be justified? It can’t! Therefore, I believe, anyone involved in isolating a non-violent, non-contagious person, should have to answer why they should not be charged with kidnapping and abuse or even murder, should the person die as a result.
I can think of numerous cases where people have been thrown into isolation and the ironies surrounding it all is out there in a suburb of the Twilight Zone. Yes, so amazing is it all that I’m surprised a “duh” isn’t permanently imprinted upon both the perps and the out-of-touch — can’t get it — zombie followers that go around drooling false talking points, as though it is gospel, while alleging the truth-tellers are the liars.
When a ward is put into isolation, who is the threat? The one that ordered the isolation or the one challenging it?
When a petition is presented to starve & dehydrate a ward, who is the threat? The person who did the petitioning or the one that fights for life, visitation, rehabilitation and stimulation?
The answers should be quite easy to figure out, but instead, it looks as though too much power and trust has been placed where not deserved. It would seem, according to recent news, that we can’t always assume the courts and appointed anointed-ones are of perfection and holier than thou after all. Maybe sometimes they are up to no good and their word isn’t worth what comes out of a donkey’s rump. And, maybe sometimes people are wrong, but without any ill-intent. Maybe they just lost sight and are blinded by self-preservation and inability to admit error. But how do we know? How do we know, if we don’t inquire and investigate behind the curtain, especially a curtain pulled tightly, as if to keep any from peeking in?
Advocates are necessary in a world that seems to have lost its way. A world with too many who have come to believe good is evil and evil is good. People that see the lie as truth and the truth as lie. People who often admire the wrong-doer and find fault with the victim and the victim’s advocates. People who aren’t even aware any longer that they might be wrong, because they are somehow “entitled”. Aren’t they supposed to get more and be treated better than those they treat so poorly?
No? Who says? Who dares to challenge the new rule of they who control the lives and assets of vulnerable ones ordered to be incompetent, even though they — the vulnerable — might not be as incompetent or alone as decreed by a court?
Who dares to give challenge?
The advocates, whether they be professional advocates or family or friends or even concerned citizens made aware of someone’s plight — that’s who dares give challenge!
Yes, true advocates are necessary as long as the madness and wrongness reigns. May the war be quickly won and the vulnerable-victims placed in the hands of those who dare to truly and unselfishly care!
It’s time to challenge! It’s time to win! It’s time to give lives back to those who have been violated by a system gone wrong!
Full Article & Source:
Harry Reid’s bodyguard attacks “Crapitalism” author
by Linda Kincaid
The latest grand jury report was spurred by a complaint that the office mishandled a case in which a client died before being conserved by the county.
The 2013 Civil Grand Jury report noted that written procedures at the Public Guardian’s office were not current. In some cases, procedures were years out of date.
The 2014 Civil Grand Jury report noted that written procedures at the Public Guardian’s office had current dates, but content was not current. Procedure 804.0 (slideshow above) concerning “Client Visitors, Phone Calls, Personal Mail” is of special interest given Moody’s history of unlawful imprisonment and isolation of conservatees.
In 2012, the Public Guardian was isolating conservatees from family and friends. No visitors. No phone calls. No mail. The 2013 Civil Grand Jury investigation was initiated in response to a complaint filed by this Examiner.
Conservatee Gisela Riordan was unlawfully imprisoned and isolated at San Jose assisted living facility Villa Fontana for over two years. Conservatee Lillie Scalia was isolated for a year. Both women had families who wished to visit them and to care for them. Moody used his victims’ own funds to pay to the unlawful imprisonment and isolation.
ABC7 I-Team investigated numerous abuses by Moody’s office. See video above.
Media coverage and citizen advocacy led to passage of Assembly Bill 937 (2013), which clarified that conservatees have the right to receive visitors, phone calls, and personal mail. Governor Brown signed the bill on August 19, 2013. The bill amended Probate Code 2351(a) as of January 1, 2014.
2351. (a) Subject to subdivision (b), the guardian or conservator, but not a limited conservator, has the care, custody, and control of, and has charge of the education of, the ward or conservatee. This control shall not extend to personal rights retained by the conservatee, including, but not limited to, the right to receive visitors, telephone calls, and personal mail, unless specifically limited by court order.
Procedure 804.0 fails to comply with the legislative intent or the plain language of AB 937. Conservatees have an immediate right to have visitors. The Probate Code does not modify the right such that elderly or disabled individuals can only receive visitors after a week’s delay or if the Public Guardian decides to cooperate with the visit.
The plain language of the Code is clear. Conservatee’s have the right to receive visitors, unless specifically limited by court order. The 2015 Civil Grand Jury might find Procedure 804.0 to be of interest.
Full Article & Source:
Elder abuse by Santa Clara County Public Guardian: PG escorted from building
With good Samaritans among us, there is still hope for this world!
Full Article & Source: 6 Takeaways From the Benghazi Panel’s First Hearing on Security Failures
Brent Terry, a professor at Eastern Connecticut State University was caught on audio telling his Introduction to Creative Writing class that Republicans will close colleges if they prevail in 2014 and that they are “racist, misogynist, money-grubbing people” who want to suppress the liberal vote.
Full Article & Source:
Professor: Republicans are ‘Racist, Misogynist, Money-Grubbing People’
INDEPENDENCE, Mo. – Neighbors at one Independence apartment complex are calling 50-year-old Michael Thomas a “hero.” FOX 4′s Robert Townsend talked to Thomas about how he rescued two toddlers just in the nick of time!
Full Article & Source:
Neighbor hailed a hero after rescuing toddlers from burning apartment
In a viral blog post, a Colorado public school teacher resigned from her position as a high school English teacher in protest to Common Core standards. Pauline Hawkins wrote in part:
“I can no longer be a part of a system that continues to do the exact opposite of what I am supposed to do as a teacher – I am supposed to help them think for themselves, help them find solutions to problems, help them become productive members of society. Instead, the emphasis on Common Core Standards and high-stakes testing is creating a teach-to-the-test mentality for our teachers and stress and anxiety for our students. Students have increasingly become hesitant to think for themselves because they have been programmed to believe that there is one right answer that they may or may not have been given yet. That is what school has become: A place where teachers must give students “right” answers, so students can prove (on tests riddled with problems, by the way) that teachers have taught students what the standards have deemed are a proper education.”
Full Article & Source:
HS English Teacher Slams Common Core Standards in Resignation Letter
Full Article, Video & Source:
Park Hill H.S. athlete forfeits his spot in national contest, gives it to student with only weeks to live
This will be remembered, even if not by Reid himself!
In my opinion: Complicated, when unnecessary, is about as stupid as driving clear across town & back to a store a few blocks away because the directions on the internet are from a starting point on the other side of town.
Speak out!!! Speak out!!! Speak out!!!
Fight back against the bullies that would destroy!!!
Angels among us — the heroes of the day!
INDIANAPOLIS – Indiana has become the first of 45 states to opt out of the national education standard known as Common Core, and critics of the controversial K-12 program say the move could “open the floodgates” for others to follow.
Growing criticism over costs imposed by the program, as well as fears that by setting a national education standard, the program has already begun dictating curriculum, has made Common Core an increasingly polarizing issue. Although the program has both Republican and Democrat supporters, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence predicted his state will be the first of many to rethink participation.
“I believe when we reach the end of this process there are going to be many other states around the country that will take a hard look at the way Indiana has taken a step back, designed our own standards and done it in a way where we drew on educators, we drew on citizens, we drew on parents and developed standards that meet the needs of our people,” Pence said.
The Common Core State Standards Initiative, originally drafted by state education superintendents working with the National Governors Association, and since embraced by the Obama administration, seeks to impose a national standard for achievement among K-12 students. Some states began implementation this year, with the majority slated to begin in the fall.
But several states are seeing a backlash against participation, which was typically approved as long as five years ago. Jim Stergios, executive director of the nonpartisan, Boston-based think tank Pioneer Institute, said the Hoosier State’s move could “open the floodgates.”
“Indiana, under [Republican Gov.] Mitch Daniels, was one of the early proponents of Common Core, even the poster child,” Stergios told FoxNews.com. “By pulling out, it sends a strong signal to other states, particularly red states, that, ‘Hey, if they can do this, then why can’t we?'”
Full Article & Source:
Open the floodgates? Indiana becomes first state to scrap Common Core