What’s interesting in the news today?
1. First up today, some good news. And the people who profit from this industry blame the Tea Party. 🙂
From TheWashingtonExaminer “Some 22 states enacted 70 new provisions to target abortion last year, the second most ever, prompting an outcry from Planned Parenthood, which accused “out-of-touch Tea Party politicians” with using “every underhanded trick in the book to get these laws passed.”
““The historic rise of these attacks on women’s health can be traced back to 2010, when out-of-touch Tea Party politicians picked up key seats in legislatures across the country, promising to create jobs and boost our economy — but immediately focused on ending access to safe and legal abortion and limiting women’s health care options,” said Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund.”
Thank you Tea Party. 🙂
________________________________________
2. Al-Qaeda on the run? Hardly.
From TheWaPo “A rejuvenated al-Qaeda-affiliated force asserted control over the western Iraqi city of Fallujah on Friday, raising its flag over government buildings and declaring an Islamic state in one of the most crucial areas that U.S. troops fought to pacify before withdrawing from Iraq two years ago.
The capture of Fallujah came amid an explosion of violence across the western desert province of Anbar in which local tribes, Iraqi security forces and al-Qaeda-affiliated militants have been fighting one another for days in a confusingly chaotic three-way war.”
“In Fallujah, where Marines fought the bloodiest battle of the Iraq war in 2004, the militants appeared to have the upper hand, underscoring the extent to which the Iraqi security forces have struggled to sustain the gains made by U.S. troops before they withdrew in December 2011.”
________________________________________
3. This better be nothing more than a rumor. Even he can’t be this stupid. You’ll just give them another target in the area besides Israel.
From YahooNews “Unconfirmed news reports out of Israel signal that an offer of US troops to secure the borders of a new Palestinian state is in the mix in Israeli-Palestinian peace talks. US defense analysts urge caution.
Secretary of State John Kerry is proposing to offer up US troops to help secure the borders of the new state of Palestine, according to some unconfirmed news reports coming out of Israel.”
“The US troops would be tasked with helping to prevent anti-Israel forces from coming out of Jordan and reaching Israel, according to Debkafile, an Israeli intelligence and security news service.”
“Samantha Power, then a Harvard professor and now the US ambassador to the United Nations, seemed to indicate in a 2008 interview with Harry Kreisler of the University of California at Berkeley’s Institute of International Studies that crisis in the region could possibly be ameliorated by the introduction of US troops to provide security needs.”
Samantha Power, the best friend of the UN and oppressive regimes everywhere. 🙄
________________________________________
4. Another ObamaCare success story.
Or not. 🙄
From WashingtonCBSLocal “The new year brought relief to some Illinois patients newly insured under the nation’s health care law. Others still weren’t sure whether they were covered, despite their best efforts to navigate the often-balky new system.
The major benefits of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul took effect Wednesday, the first day of 2014. By Thursday, the first business day of the new insurance system, it became clear that snags in the rollout of the Affordable Care Act still remained.”
“Paperwork problems almost delayed suburban Chicago resident Sheri Zajcew’s scheduled surgery Thursday, but Dr. John Venetos decided to operate without a routine go-ahead from the insurance company. That was after Venetos’ office manager spent two hours on hold with the insurer Thursday, trying to get an answer about whether the patient needed prior authorization for the surgery. The office manager finally gave up.
“I’m not a happy camper,” said Nate Zajcew, the patient’s husband. The couple signed up for a Blue Cross Blue Shield bronze plan through the federal HealthCare.gov site on Dec. 16. “I understand it’s just a matter of paperwork and yesterday was a holiday. I can be an SOB, too, at times, but since they’re going on with the procedure, it’s OK.”
________________________________________
5. ObamaCare faces a new test in the coming days.
From TheHill ” The number of people seeking to use their new ObamaCare coverage for the first time is expected to spike next week.”
“They’re expected to turn out in force at the nation’s clinics and hospitals as early as next Monday.
“Two worries are paramount. The first is that a sizable number of consumers who show up at the doctor’s office will discover that they don’t have the insurance they thought they purchased.
A second is that people have enrolled in ObamaCare, but have to make a payment. Some will discover they don’t have the insurance they thought they purchased as a result .”
If the previous story is any indication, office managers at doctors offices everywhere are gonna be on hold for a loooong time.
________________________________________
6. The Obama admin has released executive orders to further restrict access to guns. While I think we all agree that guns should be kept from the mentally ill, and I agree with the general idea, I just don’t trust them to not abuse the rules and be overly restrictive.
I also dislike the new reporting guidelines which doctors will be forced to comply with. Asking doctors to snitch on private conversations and personal health info will greatly restrict what patients may be willing to share with their doctor. Nobody likes a snitch.
From FoxNews “The Obama administration on Friday proposed two new executive actions to make it easier for states to provide mental health information to the national background check system, wading back into the gun control debate after a months-long hiatus.
Vice President Biden’s office announced the proposals Friday afternoon. Both pertain to the ability of states to provide information about the mentally ill and those seeking mental health treatment to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System.
One proposal would formally give permission to states to submit “the limited information necessary to help keep guns out of potentially dangerous hands,” without having to worry about the privacy provisions in a law known as HIPAA.”
“The other proposal would clarify that those who are involuntarily committed to a mental institution — both inpatient and outpatient — count under the law as “committed to a mental institution.” According to the administration, this change will help clarify for states what information to provide to the background check system, as well as who is barred from having guns. “
That last proposal I don’t really have a problem with. But I don’t like all these lists and registries nonsense. Sounds too much like a national registry in bits and pieces. And how long would someone stay on the list if they did have something like this in their past? Is it a lifetime ban once your name hits the criminal background check system? And they’re not criminals, but you just added them to the criminal database as if it qualifies as a criminal background. Too many questions.
________________________________________
Wandering Views 
#2 There can’t be a real democracy in Islam. The religion doesn’t permit it. Every leader who keeps peace in an islamic country is a dictator. We don’t like dictators, so the other choice is chaos. Look back at the history. The only time a country had peace was when a strong man was in power. I favored taking out Sadaam, but turns out, it was a bad thing. Same for Kadaffi. Though I began to suspect, by that time, that it wasn’t wise. Every time we took out a “bad man” we created chaos and bitter persecution for the church in that country.
LikeLike
#6 A country run by executive orders is a dictatorship. A national directory provides a tool for a dictator.
A step up (or down) for the IRS to meddle in individual lives.
LikeLike
From Newsmax
A U.S. senator wants the National Security Agency to reveal if it has ever spied on members
“I am writing to you today to ask you one simple question. Has the NSA spied, or is the NSA currently spying, on members of Congress or other American elected officials?” Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) wrote in a letter sent to NSA Director General Keith Alexander on Friday.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/congress-nsa-surveillance-controversy/2014/01/03/id/545128#ixzz2pRDDaGDo
That was Bernie Sanders, asking the question. The one from Vermont who thinks government should control everything. That is, until it affects him.
Of course they have!
Of course they will deny it.
Who’s ever heard of such a thing?
LikeLike
2. The counter example to Chas’ statement is Turkey. Macedonia and Bosnia are also two somewhat democratic states in which the Muslim-Christian population is roughly 50-50. Most Islamic countries are similar in governance as most ex-colonies. Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Morocco and UAE, in fact, rate better than most authoritarian regimes as the monarchs have slowly move towards a form of constitutional monarch. Whether Islamic or not, most non-European origin countries are not democratic
4. It seems to me that this was a problem originating from the private insurance company. An other reason to dismiss the inefficiencies of third party private insurance.
6. Not much different than a no-fly list. And since gun violence is far more common than aircraft originating terrorism, a far more sensible intrusion.
LikeLike
The interesting thing about the American left is its tendency to libertarian or anarchist ideology. The American left much like the American right is extremely suspicious of the government’s monopoly on the use of force. Sanders maybe a social democrat (and probably the only true leftist in Congress) but he echoes his constituents suspicion of the police. For him and his supporters, the gov’t is both a means to achieve social and economic ends and an institution whose policing and military powers must be restrained. Given the FBI and other agencies’ history of surveillance of leftist groups this makes sense.
LikeLike
I’d be remiss not to mention that when the West doesn’t like the results of democracy — ie Hamas, we disregard it.
LikeLike
hwesseli,
My wife used to have a little plaque in the kitchen;
Rules of the House
1. Mom is always right.
2. If Mom is wrong, see rule 1.
(Our daughter asked and took it when she moved back in with her husband!)
re Hezbollah and Democracy
1. You can vote for whoever you want.
2. We will kill you if you vote for anyone other than the Hezbollah candidate. See rule 1.
(Be sure to get Jimmy Carter to watch the polls for you!)
LikeLike
Bob, and be sure you get it right. You don’t get a second chance.
LikeLike
Interesting blogpost about responsibility. This Matt Walsh is blazing through the blogosphere these days (his previous post is non-political and hysterically funny)
http://themattwalshblog.com/2014/01/04/why-do-progressives-always-want-the-government-to-intrude-in-their-bedrooms/
LikeLike
Bob/Chas — I might agree with you if it only was Jimmy Carter but if the EU and other international bodies monitoring it were satisfied, the US and Israel should have accepted the results. By recognizing Hamas, they would’ve placed them in a position of responsibility. As it stands now Hamas can do the same thing Castro does blame the US (or Israel).
As for Hezbollah which controls south Lebanon their power comes from the gun, Iranian money and faction loyalties, Lebanon though is ruled through sectarian coalitions. Currently Hezbollah is part of the gov’t; a coalition including Maronite Christian, other Christians, and the Amal movement which is supposed to be Shia. Once Hezbollah was incorporated into the gov’t they had to answer to constituents and provide results; their popularity has suffered because of it.
3. I just noticed this and its a horrible idea, Obviously an Israeli proposal since they wouldn’t trust UN troops or any other arrangement. The US should not be responsible for an other country’s security unless its part of a mutual alliance like NATO.
LikeLike
😯 HRW and I agree on something. We should not put US troops anywhere in Palestine or Israel.
Terrible idea.
LikeLike
Me too! Our troops would be like grain in a grist mill. Between a rock and a hard place; they would just get ground up!
LikeLike
Read Michelle’s link;
1) Mandating that the pill be included in coverage similar to any other prescription drug does not send the state into your bedroom. The pill has different uses and how and why its used is still private.
2) Nowhere in his article do I see him arguing against Uncle Sam provide prescription drugs which make sex possible. Viagra is covered and there is nary a word about the intrusion of the state in this particular case. The author is not consistent.
3) His arbitrary division between natural and artificial rights is not supported. He states natural rights are in the Bill of Rights and are from God — the bill of rights are biblical??? 100 years prior to the American Revolution, the French monarchy would claim absolutism was the natural order and God ordained. Neither claim can be sustained. The separation of rights as natural or artificial is entirely arbitrary.
4) The IRS already decides what is a religious institution and what’s not. This is a not a new executive power. If he wants a consistent separation of church and state, he should advocate the state not recognize religion at all and not assign them tax free status.
LikeLike
From Breakpoint on the issues of religious freedom being played out in court decisions stemming from obamacare:
http://www.breakpoint.org/bpcommentaries/entry/13/24155
“While most commentators have treated the news as part of the larger story about the legal challenges to the Affordable Care Act, the far more important story is the battle for religious freedom.
“(2014) is shaping up to be a momentous, perhaps even defining, year when it comes to religious freedom in the United States. What’s at stake in these cases goes far beyond healthcare—it’s about what we mean when we say ‘freedom of religion’ …
“Folks, nearly all of us grew up in a society where there was little, if any, conflict between the requirements of faith and the requirements of citizenship.
“We didn’t need television networks and activists of various stripes to teach us about tolerance. We fully knew that people disagreed with us on some, if not most, issues and yet we—and they—could treat each other with respect.
“This kind of tolerance has been replaced by a relentless scrubbing of an ever-growing public square of any dissent from the reigning secularist orthodoxy. ‘Secularist,’ in this case doesn’t mean “non-sectarian,” as it does, for example, in India. It means hostility to religion itself, especially when it escapes the confines of worship services. … “
LikeLike
I have a certain amount of sympathy for the Catholic church and their attempt to limit certain benefits to their employees.I don`t for private enterprise — when one accepts a position with the Catholic church one does accept a certain set of principles (similar to when one attends a Christian college) — the same is not true when one delivers pizza for Dominos. If an employer cannot accepts this, he`s making an other argument for single payer.
In addition, the employer doesn’t know the rationale behind a prescription and nor should he. Does a Catholic have the right to ensure his/her employee’s health care is approved by the Catholic church? Does a Muslim employer have the same right? Does a Christian Sceintist have the right to exempt the use of doctors in his/her plan? Or a Jehovah’s Witness and blood transfusions? Again if we are going to have a list of exemptions for every religious employer, we have an argument for single payer.
The writer in the link believes the demand for tolerance is a one way street However, the position of religious institutions and their preferential treatment before the law is an indication that tolerance does extend both ways.
Finally, lets put a little perspective into this. When the left was in arms about Robertson, they needed to reminded that gay men and women were still being put to death elsewhere. In the same way, the writer needs to remember being forced to contribute to a person’s health care without approval is not analogous to the Christian men and women who suffer bodily persecution elsewhere.
LikeLike
Oh good grief, he’s not comparing this with what Christians are suffering in other countries. Where do you get that? But chipping away at religious liberties, I’d argue, is a legitimate cause for concern when it comes to the U.S.
LikeLike
He’s a bit melodramatic
Two thousand and fourteen is shaping up to be a momentous, perhaps even defining, year when it comes to religious freedom in the United States. What’s at stake in these cases goes far beyond healthcare—it’s about what we mean when we say “freedom of religion.”
Once they cross the threshold of the church or their home, however, the ability to put their beliefs into action is increasingly circumscribed.
This is nothing new — all rights and freedoms are circumscribed by external factors.You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. Our rights and freedoms are limited according to our impact on others and on other rights,privileges, and responsibilities
LikeLike
hwesseli: The idea that a private employer be compelled to provide all or any type of insurance the government dictates–and to do so in opposition to the private owners’ desires or consciences–is certainly dramatic. I don’t think anyone is making a *direct* comparison to martyrdom, as if to *equate* them, but your inability to have even the slightest regard for a private business owner’s conscience does underscore the extremity of the situation.
LikeLike
This is nothing new — all rights and freedoms are circumscribed by external factors.You can’t yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. Our rights and freedoms are limited according to our impact on others and on other rights,privileges, and responsibilities
This is entirely an argument *against* imposing insurance requirements onto private businesses. Should businesses be required to provide vision care? Why or why not? Who dictates all this stuff? Why should it be the government?
LikeLike
2) Nowhere in his article do I see him arguing against Uncle Sam provide prescription drugs which make sex possible. Viagra is covered and there is nary a word about the intrusion of the state in this particular case. The author is not consistent.
Not your call to dictate what this person or that objects to. Not your call, not the government’s. How strange anyone feel justified in trying to make that call for another.
LikeLike