Rifqa Bary Meets Hamlet. Result: Alas or Huzzah? (UPDATE)

Kurt Vonnegut was fond of pointing out why Hamlet is considered a masterpiece. At no point in the play, he used to say, do we know whether Hamlet is about to be doomed or about to be saved. "The truth is," he once wrote, "we know so little about life, we don't really know what the good news is and what the bad news is."

That pretty much sums up what I have been able to garner about the chronicle of Rifqa Bary, the teenage convert to Christianity who ran away from her Muslim family and their mosque in Ohio because she feared death by murder, killing being the Islamic remedy for her apostasy in leaving Islam. At every public moment of her present life, that is, at every court hearing, she seems to be either at the point of being doomed or at the point of being saved. I can't tell whether the news she's just heard is good or bad.

Rifqa has had several court hearings in Florida, where each time she seemed on the verge of being sent back to her parents and mosque in Ohio (who might take her back to Sri Lanka where there is no hope of providing her with safety)--as soon as one or another bureaucratic jot or tittle was added to her ever-thickening court file. A meeting had to take place, a report had to be filed, a mediation must be attempted, a conversation between judges in Florida and Ohio had to occur, etc., etc.

At her latest hearing, held yesterday, Florida Judge Dawson ruled that Rifqa be sent back to Ohio , as soon as her Sri Lankan parents, Mohamed and Aysha Bary, present their immigration papers to him.

Aye, there's the rub.

In a scenario reminiscent of "dialog" issuing from the mouths of Iranian officials avoiding inspection of their nuclear facilities, in hearing after hearing, the lawyer representing Rifqa's parents (who want her back) has promised the Court copies of the documentation, not honored that promise, supplied a couple of copies of incomplete documentation, accused others of racism for asking for the documentation, complained about the onerous difficulty of obtaining access to a photocopy machine, promised copies of the documentation, not supplied these, railed against having to produce documentation, etc., etc., etc.

Rifqa's parents seem to live in an curiously unstructured world in which one day they are prosperous business owners, the next day all their assets have mysteriously disappeared and they are paupers whose lawyers must be paid by the state, yet (simultaneously) "money is no problem," provided that this serves their case and that American taxpayers keep paying Mohamed and Aysha's lawyers to spread paperwork (except immigration documentation) all over court systems in two states. A mental projection that has worked well for them, thus far. American taxpayers keep paying for their legal representation, and they haven't even needed to show a green card.

Until now.

So is Rifqa doomed or is she saved?

Or, to put it another way, will Rifqa turn 18 before her parents find their immigration papers?

To learn more (much more) about Rifqa's struggle, read Pamela Geller's research at Atlas Shrugs. To view Rifqa's situation through the eyes of another Muslim apostate woman from Sri Lanka, listen to this moving interview by Pamela Geller: Download apostate.mp3 (5520.9K).
__________

Update 1:

ATLAS EXCLUSIVE BREAKING Mohamed Bary's Missing Immigration Documents: Status ILLEGAL

Update 2:

Recommended reading: Wax Lips pertinently wonders what happened to Hillary Clinton and the rest of the Children's Defense Fund.
__________

Related Posts:

• Judge Keeps Rifqa Bary Temporarily in Florida--Again
• Meditation: 187 Candles Plus 1, Updates on Maryam, Marzieh, and Rifqa
  
• Mediation: Londoners Hold Prayer Vigil for Maryam and Marzieh
  
• Aqsa, Amina, Sarah, Rand
  
• Meditation: Will Florida Protect the Lives and Speech of Christians?
  
• Meditation: Maryam and Marzieh Face Death But Refuse to Renounce Christianity
• Meditation: Pray for the Release of Maryam and Marzieh
• Maryam and Marzieh: Convicted of Being Christian

Govt Health Care: Say No Today

Today, the Baucus Plan that is not a bill, or even a plan, quite, gets voted on by the Senate Finance Committee. Today's post is a quick one from someone who has plenty of practical experience with government health care as it now exists for veterans.

If you are on a private plan, be warned: Government care will not resemble what you know.

Government care is not going to be convenient care. It will be inconvenient care.

When you call your doctor, a friendly assistant will not answer within a few rings. There won't be any "fitting you in" when you need health care in a hurry. That doctor who keeps waits in his waiting room to a minimum? Forget about it. Care will become more and more centralized, meaning: That surgery you expect to have in a clinic or hospital right in your own community will probably be happening in a hospital in another city, maybe hundreds of miles away. No joke. Need an eye exam or a walker? How about a couple-month wait and a 120 mile car trip when you used to be able to get them a mile or two down the road? Been there, done that.

AJStrata over at The Strata-Sphere said it well:

. . . the liberal myth that you can go to a one size fits all approach means everyone gets lousy service. It is naive to think everyone would get the premier care those who work hard in life can afford. It is naive to think there will be any tailoring for individual needs or challenges. Those are the things you lose when you buy into the myth that government rationed health care is better than what we have today.

And it is naive to think the pols telling us these lines will actually be using the one size fits all care they have created for the masses. They, of course, will still have a choice.

If you don't let Congress hear your opposition today, I promise you: There will come a day when you wish you had taken advantage of your chance to say No.

If you would like a little more information or encouragement to call, read AJStrata's post here.

__________

Death by Starvation: It Can't Happen Here (Ask Congress)

Via Gateway Pundit:

From The Sunday Times

October 11, 2009

(Andrew Hasson) Hazel Fenton and her daughter Christine Ball

An 80-year-old grandmother who doctors identified as terminally ill and left to starve to death has recovered after her outraged daughter intervened.

Hazel Fenton, from East Sussex, is alive nine months after medics ruled she had only days to live, withdrew her antibiotics and denied her artificial feeding. The former school matron had been placed on a controversial care plan intended to ease the last days of dying patients.

Doctors say Fenton is an example of patients who have been condemned to death on the Liverpool care pathway plan. They argue that while it is suitable for patients who do have only days to live, it is being used more widely in the NHS, denying treatment to elderly patients who are not dying.

Fenton’s daughter, Christine Ball, who had been looking after her mother before she was admitted to the Conquest hospital in Hastings, East Sussex, on January 11, says she had to fight hospital staff for weeks before her mother was taken off the plan and given artificial feeding.

Ball, 42, from Robertsbridge, East Sussex, said: “My mother was going to be left to starve and dehydrate to death. It really is a subterfuge for legalised euthanasia of the elderly on the NHS. ”

Fenton was admitted to hospital suffering from pneumonia. Although Ball acknowledged that her mother was very ill she was astonished when a junior doctor told her she was going to be placed on the plan to “make her more comfortable” in her last days.

Ball insisted that her mother was not dying but her objections were ignored. A nurse even approached her to say: “What do you want done with your mother’s body?”

On January 19, Fenton’s 80th birthday, Ball says her mother was feeling better and chatting to her family, but it took another four days to persuade doctors to give her artificial feeding.

Fenton is now being looked after in a nursing home five minutes from where her daughter lives.

Peter Hargreaves, a consultant in palliative medicine, is concerned that other patients who could recover are left to die. He said: “As they are spreading out across the country, the training is getting probably more and more diluted.”

The clock is ticking. Time to call Congress and tell them what you think of socialized medicine for Americans. They'll pretend to ignore you of course. But call anyway.
__________

Meditation: A Cross in the Desert

From a press release issued by the Thomas More Law Center:

Admiral Jeremiah Denton was a Vietnam POW for nearly eight years. Suffering severe mistreatment, he became the first U.S. military captive to be subjected to four years of solitary confinement. He first came to the public’s attention in 1966. After being tortured and threatened with more torture and even death if he did not “correctly” answer the questions posed, he was televised in front of Communist dignitaries with the purpose of having him admit to American atrocities. Instead, Admiral Denton replied, “Whatever the position of my government is, I believe it, I support it, and I will support it as long as I live.”

[snip]

Admiral Denton feigning sensitivity to harsh camera lighting, looked into the camera lens and blinked his eyes in Morse Code spelling out the message ‘T-O-R-T-U-R-E.’ Thus, he provided Naval Intelligence the first confirmation that American POWs in Vietnam were being tortured. [See archived original footage of then Commander Denton's heroic statement and his blinking of a Morse code signal.] Further, as spokesperson for the first group of returning POWs in 1973, as he stepped from the plane he was asked to make a statement on behalf of the group. He turned to the microphones and said, “We are honored to have the opportunity to serve our country under difficult circumstances. We are profoundly grateful to our Commander-in-Chief and our nation for this day. God bless America.”

Last Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme court heard oral argument in a brief filed by the Thomas More Law Center in defense of an eight-foot metal cross on Sunrise Rock in California’s Mojave Desert that was erected in 1934 by Veterans of Foreign Wars. The Law Center’s brief was filed on behalf of Rear Admiral Jeremiah Denton and the families of two marine majors killed in action in Iraq, Michael D. Martino and Gerald Bloomfield, III. The sacrifices of these war heroes are preserved by plaques located beneath another memoral cross, also under attack by the ACLU, at the Mt. Soledad Veterans Memorial in San Diego. The Law Center is actively involved in defending the Mt. Soledad cross as well.

The ACLU wants the war memorial crosses removed and has so far succeeded in having the Mojave desert cross hidden from public view by an appallingly disrespectful wooden slab, that, the Law Center says, is an "affront" to Christians. That's putting it mildly.


According to Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel for the Law Center:

The ACLU hates crosses as much as vampires hate crosses or the daylight. Despite their claims to the contrary, this case is part of the ACLU’s national agenda to incrementally remove every cross on public land. Their guiding principle is "out of sight out of mind." The Court’s ruling in this case will impact crosses in thousands of memorials nationwide.

Admiral Denton told of his experiences as a downed Navy pilot imprisoned in North Vietnam in a book, When Hell Was in Session (1976). Singer/songwriter Ray Boltz wrote a tribute to Admiral Denton's courageous words, "An Honor to Serve." Here is a link to a moving video incorporating Boltz's song and footage of Jeremiah Denton returning home (at about 4:30 to 5:10). Lyrics incorporating Admiral Denton's words are here.

If the bravest of the brave desire to be memorialized under crosses, and if those crosses offer solace to the bereaved families of our nation, what possible business is it of the ACLU to "protect" the eyes of passers-by from remembrance of their sacrifices?

Thousands of heroes deserve our support, including the 130,000 brave men and women serving today in Iraq and the 68,000 brave troops serving today in Afghanistan. All our warriors, living and dead, deserve and should have the support of the American people, including our American courts.
________

What We Don't Know Will Hurt Us

For the moment, I'm going to disregard the insanity of Barack Obama's elevation (so-called) to Nobel laureate and hold steady on my opposition to Gov't Care, which comes up for a vote on Tuesday, we're told. If that vote goes like the Democrats are planning, Americans will still be experiencing the various tentacles of Obama's socialist octopus squeezing the life juices out of our freedoms and economy long after the peace prize medal has been placed in a reliquary for display in the Obama presidential museum.

Shudder.

Today's question is: Why won't the proposed health care bill be posted on the Internet for Americans to read?

There is only one reasonable answer, of course.

Congress doesn't want it to be read.

Make your opposition known.
__________

Who Says Obama Doesn't Deserve a Nobel Prize?

Ahem.

1. His dog Bo is cute and had a birthday:



2. Bo pooped on Air Force One:



3. Obama sent Uighur terrorists to live on a beautiful beachfront estate on Bermuda:



4. He might have thought about moving his brother George Obama out of a Nairobi slum:



5. Obama boosted the world economy by buying an oatmeal raisin cookie in Martha's Vineyard:



6. His wife is practically Jacqueline Kennedy:



7. She hands out "free" cell phones to the poor:



9. Obama is the first American president to bow to a foreign dictator:

10. And also the first president to get his chest waxed:


I rest my case.
__________

ObamaCare: A New 40% Tax? No Problem

When it comes to Obama and Congress living and breathing solely to provide "free," pay-for-itself-in-the-long-run, What, Me Worry? healthcare to everyone on the planet who can make it into the United States (except actual taxpayers), you knew there had to be a catch . . . and another catch, and another, and another, on into infinity and way past your tenure on Planet Earth.

Here's a good one: in less than a decade, most Americans will have to pay a 40% tax on their health insurance premiums. Right. Every dollar that you owe on health insurance will magically turn into $1.40.

How you come up with that extra $.40 per dollar is up to you.

From Dick Morris and Eileen McGann:

The Baucus healthcare bill [that doesn't actually exist] provides for a tax on “gold-plated” health insurance policies. But . . . inflation will make most Americans liable to pay the 40 percent tax in a few years.

The tax applies to all individual policies with premiums above $8,750 and families of four whose premiums exceed $23,000. But the Congressional Budget Office estimates that the average health insurance premium for families of four will reach $25,000 by 2018. The average premium should pass the thresholds in Baucus’s bill by 2016.

So, a few years after the bill takes effect in 2013, the health insurance premium tax will become virtually universal. And this tax is to be a 40 percent levy. So, in six years, the average family health insurance policy, now projected to cost $25,000, will, in fact, cost $35,000 due to the Obama-Baucus tax!

[snip]

Far from cutting the cost of health insurance, the bill will send it through the roof!.

That sounds a lot more like something cooked up by the Congress I know.

Oh, yes. And don't forget: "If you like your health care plan, you can keep your health care plan."

Contact a senator today.
__________

Gov't Care in Maine: The Pilot Test That Crashed

Most Americans want to know that a government program on which their lives literally depend actually works, but pilot tests of Gov't Care in Hawaii, Oregon, Massachusetts, Tennessee, and Maine have been miserable failures.

Take Maine's government-run universal health care plan, "the most similar to the plans circulating on Capital Hill," as it is described in Investor's Business Daily by Kerri Houston Toloczko of the Institute for Liberty:

The name of Maine's government-run universal health care plan "Dirigo Health" is derived from the state's motto — "to lead." Fitting, as this failed attempt at government health care has led its people right off a cliff.

Maine's universal coverage plan is most similar to the plans circulating on Capitol Hill. It was proposed in May 2003 by Democrat Gov. John Baldacci and passed a scant four weeks later. Much like the $787 billion federal "stimulus" plan that passed Congress in February of this year, nobody read the Dirigo plan either.

While greasing the pipeline for quick passage of Dirigo Health, the governor assured that all of Maine's 128,000 uninsured would be covered by 2009, the bureaucracy would be streamlined and health costs lowered, and the plan would fund itself based on system savings with no tax increases — a similar claim to what President Obama has said about a new federal plan.

Six years after it was passed, it has insured only 3% — roughly 3,400 — of the 128,000 promised.

By 2007, the system was so broke that it closed to new enrollees. It still has not reopened and has also cut and capped benefits. The "streamlined" bureaucracy has cost the state's taxpayers $17 million in administrative costs to cover 9,600 people, leading one to wonder if there are more bureaucrats in the system than enrollees.

Systemwide insurance costs have increased 74% since Dirigo was passed, and the governor and legislature have tried — unsuccessfully — to raise taxes to fund the system.

Dirigo's more "efficient" bureaucracy started out with an aggregator agency for health records and a cost administration agency, but it now includes numerous councils to study this, that and anything else bureaucrats can conceive.

These agencies also dictate to providers how much they can spend on new technologies and diagnostic machines even though these costs are borne by physicians and hospitals and not the state.

Dirigo has failed because it lacks market forces, ignores the nature of the uninsured and was more interested in bloating its bureaucracy than providing care to patients.

A math genius I am not, but if the Maine program's cost for administration alone is $1770.83 per person, imagine the cost per taxpayer to pay for this program with medical expenses added in. Consider that, for 2009, 47% of taxpayers will pay no income tax at all: about half of America is paying for the other half.

In terms of the Maine Gov't Care bill, your family of four would pay $7,080 in taxes to cover just the administrative fees for Gov't Care for your own family members, and you'd also owe another $7,080 to cover a family of four who pay no income taxes.

Whew! A tax bill of $14,160 per family of four just to cover the administrative costs of Gov't Care in Maine. More or less. That is, if Maine's health care program actually provided health care to Maine's citizens. Which it doesn't.

Of course, what the term "administrative costs" really means is "salaries and benefits for gov't workers" who earn, on average, almost twice that earned by people in the private sector, counting those great pensions and other benefits:

It is fair to say that very few of these people become unemployed during times of financial stress (in fact, unemployment offices and such hire more gov't workers to meet the greater demand), and government workers tend to vote for whoever offers those great pay-backs to unions and to vote against candidates who might reduce their salaries, pensions, and other benefits down to a non-government-job level.

In actual fact, not every single taxpayer would have to pick up the bill for another citizen (or maybe illegal alien) who doesn't pay any income taxes. But some poor sap of a taxpayer picks up that bill, maybe for 2 or 3 or 4 or more other citizens who don't pay taxes.

With Gov't Care track records like this, it is not possible that Congress has the health of Americans in mind as they feverishly push ObamaCare through Congress. What they actually have in mind is obvious to all, including to most of those who support ObamaCare.

Oh, and the identity of the "lone Republican on the Senate Finance Committee that's open to the Democrat-backed bill expected to move to the Senate floor"?

Olympia Snowe, the Senior U.S. Senator from Maine.
__________

And Meanwhile . . .

Maybe it's just me, or maybe it's because a larger than usual number of unflattering photos of Barack Obama are being published (telling in itself), but I'd say the President is no longer looking like the happy camper who just found out they serve ice cream sundaes at every meal at Camp White House and that he can go for rides on Air Force One whenever he wants.

As time goes by, and the intractability of the world's power brokers morphs into a chronic and personally inescapable burden, presidents do tend to look a little older, a little more tired, like Obama of late. But I see something different surfacing in Obama's face than is usually apparent in American presidents when they're out in the public eye: annoyance.

Here is the take of one terrific observer, Bill Whittle at Eject! Eject! Eject!, on Obama's reaction to his Olympic humiliation:

Barack Obama is not accustomed to getting the kind of faceful of egg he was given at Copenhagen. I had hoped that this would be enough to perhaps persuade him to look at the results rather than the desire, and perhaps conclude that there is almost nothing — not even a really good speech — that can persuade people into acting against their own self interest, and that he might perhaps reflect upon the fact that instead of Oprah and the First Lady, Chicago would have better been served in my friend Scott Ott’s words, by sending “traffic flow specialists, civic engineers, architects, economists… all the experts needed to convince the IOC that Chicago was up for the task.”

In other words, lead instead of cheerlead. But this President seems incapable of doing that. I don’t know how many days he has spent actually behind the desk in the Oval Office as — you know — Chief Executive, but given the number of town halls, events, ceremonies and other on-camera activities I would be willing to bet the number is not large.

Anyway, that was my hope: that humiliation on the cheap might persuade The World’s Smartest Politician to show some intelligence and change his mind based upon the evidence, the way his presecessor, The Greatest Moron in the History of The World, did when confronting a failing strategery in Iraq. That hope lasted for all of a few days. Now we see 150 doctors wearing white lab coats assembled to help Barack Obama give another career-saving speech, this time trying to get the 93% of Americans who are fundamanetally happy with their health care to act against their own self interests.

And by having them wear white lab coats, you see, he is making sure we realize they are doctors. But I remain confused. Couldn’t they also be lab technicians? Perhaps they need to wear that reflector thing on their foreheads. Damn it, no — Dentists wear those too, and no one would be persuaded to give up their current insurance just because a hundred and fifty dentists wearing white lab coats and reflectors nod in agreement. What they should have had was stethoscopes around their necks! That would have gotten this bill passed!

And so it goes. Yet another speech, with props appropriate for a fourth grade show and tell, to sell the rubes on something they seem unwilling to want to buy. And another appeal to oratory in place of substance. And meanwhile, out at the edge of the campfire’s glow, lean and cruel wolves circle red-eyed and hungry, watching and learning. [italics mine]

I confess that I want as many people as possible to read that last brilliant line:

And meanwhile, out at the edge of the campfire’s glow, lean and cruel wolves circle red-eyed and hungry, watching and learning.

Case in point: the photo below shows Barack Obama meeting with leaders and analysts of the National Counter Terrorism Center in McLean, Virginia, yesterday, October 6, 2009. Note the facial expressions.

Official White House Photo by Samantha Appleton.

__________

All Together Now: Today is National Call Congress Day!

From Patient's First:

National Call Congress Day

On Tuesday, October 6th, Patients First is sponsoring a National Call Congress Day to send our legislators a simple message: “Hands Off My Health Care!” This is your chance to explain why we cannot afford any bill that puts Washington between you and your doctor. Call Congress and tell them: “Hands Off My Health Care.” Click here to make your voice heard.

The above link takes you to Facebook, where you can enter your zip code, find your Congressman or Congresswoman's phone number, and drop a reminder to your Facebook friends to tell Congress to keep their hands off your friends' health care too.

Or, if you like, you can bypass Facebook and go here.

There's nothing like a good Congressional phone meltdown to get Washington's attention.
__________

Israel, Honduras, Poland, Czech Republic. . . Tibet: Obama Strikes Again

When it comes to earning admiration and respect, some public figures have a whole lot more seniority than others. Compare, for example, two heads of state: the American President, Barack Hussein Obama, and Tibet's 14th Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso.

One is a babe in the woods when it comes to the realities of international politics and, possibly as a consequence, seems never to miss an opportunity to apologize for his people and their culture. The other has the most cruelly delivered knowledge of the consequences of the deadly ferocity of international quests for power and, possibly as a consequence, never misses an opportunity to advocate for his people and their culture.

President Obama first showed up on the public scene when was elected to his state senate in 1996 under dubious circumstances and with the strong support of ACORN. In his time in the Illinois state senate, he was protective of gang members, prisoners, and ex-cons but not of lawful possession of weapons. He pushed for lower taxes for the poor and for higher taxes for the businesses that create jobs. He liked choice when it came to abortion and the use of human embryos for research, but didn't like choice when it came to parents sending their kids to non-government schools. He wrote two books about himself. In these days of soaring national debt and unemployment, the rest is not yet history.

The Dalai Lama, on the other hand, first showed up on the scene in 1937, when a search party of Tibetan monks identified him as the 14th re-incarnation of Avalokiteśvara (pictured), who is venerated by Buddhists as the Bodhisattva of Compassion. (A bodhisattva is an enlightened being who willingly postpones entrance into Nirvana [heaven] to stay behind to help humanity.) Of course, if you are among the many believers who revere the Dalai Lama as the reincarnation of the 13 previous Dalai Lamas, his first birthday as Dalai Lama occurred in the year 1391, giving him more than average accumulated life experience. Since 1959, he has received over 84 awards including the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize. He has written more than 72 books on Tibetan Buddhism, non-violence, inter-religious understanding, universal responsibility, and compassion.

One of these two heads of state will soon be visiting China for the first time. The other has vast amounts of experience with Chinese political posturing and an unsullied history of demonstrated goodwill and generosity of spirit. So you might expect a visit between them to be fruitful.

Unfortunately, as John Pomfret of the Washington Post reported today:

For the first time since 1991, the Tibetan spiritual leader will visit Washington this week and not meet with the president. Since 1991, he has been here 10 times. Most times the meetings have been "drop-in" visits at the White House. The last time he was here, in 2007, however, George W. Bush became the first sitting president to meet with him publicly, at a ceremony at the Capitol in which he awarded the Dalai Lama the Congressional Gold Medal, Congress's highest civilian award.

The U.S. decision to postpone the meeting appears to be part of a strategy to improve ties with China that also includes soft-pedaling criticism of China's human rights and financial policies as well as backing efforts to elevate China's position in international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund. Obama administration officials have termed the new policy "strategic reassurance," which entails the U.S. government taking steps to convince China that it is not out to contain the emerging Asian power.

Before a visit to China in February, for example, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said advocacy for human rights could not "interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate-change crisis and the security crisis" -- a statement that won her much goodwill in Beijing. U.S. Treasury officials have also stopped accusing China of artificially deflating the value of its currency to make its exports more attractive.

Obama's decision points to the consequences of imposing Obamanomics on the U.S. economy at the cost of ballooning debt to China, and it is not good for Tibet. According to an unnamed Asian diplomat quoted in the article, Obama's action "could set a precedent and make China feel even more arrogant than it already is."

Two, it could make it more difficult for the Dalai Lama to meet with the heads of state of other countries. China has launched a worldwide effort to stop heads of state from hosting the Tibetan leader. The Dalai Lama is to travel to New Zealand and Australia later this year and has yet to secure a commitment from their leaders to meet. "A lot of smaller countries will have the best excuse," he said. "They'll say, 'Give us a break. How about the big United States?' "

Finally, Tibetan officials worried about how Chinese authorities would portray the victory in China. "They would obviously tell the people of Tibet that His Holiness was rejected in Washington," the Asian diplomat said.

In abdicating his chance to confer with the Dalai Lama before heading off to China in November, Obama is missing an opportunity to speak with a leader who has been studying China's motives and methods at great personal cost for almost his entire life. Moreover, the Dalai Lama has had the bitterest taste of some of the the potential consequences of socialism and of state destruction of humanity's expression of religious impulses. There is no doubt that a conversation between these two heads of state would be instructive on some level to the president. China's preference that this conversation not take place speaks volumes about such a meeting's potential importance.

I'll be waiting with curiosity to observe the reactions of the Left to Obama's refusal to demonstrate to the beloved leader of the Tibetan people a bit of the support he squanders on despised despots. Here in my little corner of Progressive Paradise, Tibetan prayer flags are displayed at least as readily as Old Glory, and Tibetan monks are a lot easier to spot than conservatives. The Dalai Lama has visited here at least twice (twice more than Obama), forging bonds with thousands of people.

Over at RedState, Moe Lane suggested this possibility:

So much for those ‘Free Tibet’ bumper stickers.

I understand that they can be easily enough removed with a combination of WD-40 and a razor blade. Some people should get cracking with that…[snip] because [Obama's delay of his meeting with the Dalai Lama] is just the first step. Given the passive-aggressive nature of this administration, the next step will be to see whether enough people squawk at this; if they don’t, they’ll start making it ‘difficult’ for the Dalai Lama to visit the United States.

At first, I thought, I don't know about that, Moe. I hold with those who predict "squawking." Progressives are all too willing to throw their grandmothers' health care or the free elections of Honduras under the bus to give Obama "a little more time" to fulfill their dreams of Utopia, but, following the Liberal rule-of-thumb that "It's not a problem until it's a problem for me," when Obama starts messing around with their cherished icons and beliefs, well, then he'll have a problem. It won't be easy for Liberals to speak out at first, but with a little help from some concerned academics "in the field" throwing up some dust and assorted vocal Tibet supporters, room to criticize Obama will open up.

But then, Moe added:

And if [the Dalai Lama] passes away, expect the USA to keep its mouth shut and let the PRC do… whatever the PRC plans to do about the religious leader’s successor. All part of the task of the day - which is to improve the PRC’s IMF standing, apparently. Why it’s up to the USA to do that* is a reason known only to God and the President, and I’ll avoid the obvious sneer this time. It seems unfair to taunt people who now have to go out and do work on their cars because of this…

Ouch.

Making it all the more important for the Dems to hold onto Progressive support by ramming through ObamaCare, so call your Congressman or Congresswoman and tell them to stop and desist! Do it! Support of Obama's policies translate to weakening of people's quests for freedom the world over.

__________

Quashing Those Lingering Doubts About ObamaCare: Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics

As the ObamaCare debate continues, do you ever wonder why countries like Switzerland, Canada, and Japan have lower infant mortality rates than the United States? What do they have that we don't have? Is it better diet, better lifestyle, better medical care, or is it . . . better-looking statistics?

Hmmm.

You know what they say about statistics: "There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

From Ann Coulter:

America has had a comparatively high infant mortality rate since we've been measuring these things, going back to at least the '20s. This was the case long before European countries adopted their cradle-to-grave welfare schemes and all while the U.S. was the wealthiest country on Earth.

[snip]

[T]he international comparisons in "infant mortality" rates aren't comparing the same thing, anyway. We also count every baby who shows any sign of life, irrespective of size or weight at birth. By contrast, in much of Europe, babies born before 26 weeks' gestation are not considered "live births." Switzerland only counts babies who are at least 30 centimeters long (11.8 inches) as being born alive. In Canada, Austria and Germany, only babies weighing at least a pound are considered live births.

[snip]

By excluding the little guys, these countries have simply redefined about one-third of what we call "infant deaths" in America as "miscarriages." Moreover, many industrialized nations, such as France, Hong Kong and Japan -- the infant mortality champion -- don't count infant deaths that occur in the 24 hours after birth. Almost half of infant deaths in the U.S. occur in the first day.

There are many genuine health factors that contribute to infant mortality rates. Read about them here (Coulter's September 30, 2009 post).

Just a reminder: According to yesterday's Rasmussen Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, 63% of American voters would rather have a guarantee that no one is forced to change their health care insurance than a public option. Only 29% would rather have the public option. Does your Congressional Rep know where you stand on ObamaCare? Press here to contact your lawmaker before he or she votes to let government decide what your future health care will be.
__________

Meditation: It's Never Too Late To Honor Sacrifice

I thought I had prepared my Sunday meditation post on the history and meaning of the Battle Hymn of the Republic until I opened Bill Schaaf's post at Gathering of Eagles, "Civil War Soldier, The Untold Story Behind The Mission. There I found an account of an American soldier who had a contemporary understanding of that great Civil War hymn. Schaaf's post definitely is worth reading, and the links to photographs and videos are very revealing.

The soldier, now "known but to God," was an early Union volunteer from the state of New York who gave his last full measure at the Battle of Antietam, at which 23,000 soldiers were killed, wounded, or went missing in twelve hours of combat on September 17, 1862.

His body lay in an shallow grave for more than 146 years until his remains were discovered last October and brought home in September with full military honors, escorted on the journey from the Antietam Battlefield to Saratoga National Cemetery by Mr. Schaaf and his fellow Patriot Guard Riders. An excellent video report is available here.

We owe thanks to Bill Schaaf and to the many patriots who went to great effort to honor the sacrifice of this unknown soldier. They are doing their part to keep firm the bond of resolve that unites the spirits all American patriots, living and dead.
__________

Next Stop . . .

Take a minute and visit Nickie Goomba and his fellow tenors over at the Goomba News Network, where you will be treated to humor and observations about things that Don't Make Sense, not unlike the shadowy world of a former resident of my little corner of Progressive Paradise, whose TV appearances began 50 years ago this weekend:

Click on image to enlarge.


__________

Could the Big Apple Become the Big ACORN?

For many political positions in New York City, whoever wins the Democrat primary wins the general election. Liberal New York moved even farther to the Left when two Working Families Party candidates won Democrat primaries for two of the City's most powerful positions: public advocate and comptroller.

That's because the Working Families Party is an affiliate of ACORN. Lest you think that statement is an exaggeration, here is a copy of a 2000 ACORN document obtained by Founding Bloggers showing the relationship between the two.

In New York State, fusion voting is permitted, meaning that candidates can be listed on the ballot representing more than one party (in this case both the Democrat Party and the Working Families Party). When the votes are counted, votes for the candidate on each of the party lines are fused, that is, added together. In this case, the Working Families Party votes are rolled into the Democrat Party votes. Eric Erickson at Redstate has been working on this story for several years, and an excellent place to start understanding ACORN's political parties (both of them!) is "Obama and the New Party" at HumanEvents.com.

Back to New York City. From the NY Times:

Bill de Blasio, a councilman from Brooklyn running for public advocate, and John C. Liu, a councilman from Queens running for comptroller, easily defeated their opponents in the Democratic runoff election on Tuesday in two citywide races that drew scant interest from voters.

[snip]

The decisive showings by Mr. de Blasio and Mr. Liu were also a victory for the Working Families Party, the labor-backed group that endorsed both candidates and that mobilized its formidable field operation to turn out voters on a day when most polling sites were largely empty.

[snip]

With Democrats dominating New York City’s voter rolls, Mr. Liu and Mr. de Blasio are not likely to face much competition in the November election, and they would fill offices that could quickly make them strong contenders for mayor in 2013. Mr. Liu’s victory keeps him on the path to becoming the first Asian-American elected to citywide office.

[snip]

New York's Mayor Bloomberg, a Republican, will be running against another Working Families Party/Democrat candidate, William C. Thompson Jr.

The Working Families Party has chapters in New York State, Connecticut, South Carolina, and Oregon, and is trying to get established in Massachusetts and California.

In case you think a new little ACORN party can't have a lot of influence, consider the $5.2 billion still directed to it by federal stimulus legislation, signed by Barack Obama.

Barack Obama, the very same candidate supported in Illinois by ACORN's first political party, the New Party. From Thomas Lifson at American Thinker:

The New Party was a radical left organization, established in 1992, to amalgamate far left groups and push the United States into socialism by forcing the Democratic Party to the left. It was an attempt to regroup the forces on the left in a new strategy to take power, burrowing from within. The party only lasted until 1998, when its strategy of "fusion" failed to withstand a Supreme Court ruling. But dissolving the party didn't stop the membership, including Barack Obama, from continuing to move the Democrats leftward with spectacular success.

In this article, "Archives prove Obama was a New Party member (updated)," Lifson quoted a 1995 post in the leftist publication New Ground 42:

The NP's political strategy is to support progressive candidates in elections only if they have a concrete chance to "win". This has resulted in a winning ratio of 77 of 110 elections. Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.

The political entourage included Alderman Michael Chandler, William Delgado, chief of staff for State Rep Miguel del Valle, and spokespersons for State Sen. Alice Palmer, Sonya Sanchez, chief of staff for State Sen. Jesse Garcia, who is running for State Rep in Garcia's District; and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat.

Thus, as Lifson underscored:

Barack Obama entered electoral politics as a member of a radical marxist group aimed at gaining control of the Democratic Party in order to implement a hardline version of socialism in America. He signed a contract promising to maintain a visible relationship.

When the New Party was put out of business by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the concept of fusion is not a protected constitutional right, the New Party rose from its ashes by joining with ACORN and a coalition of labor unions to found the Working Families Party, a mere 11 years ago.
__________

Related Posts:

• Lefties Wrestle Over NYC: It's ACORN vs. Air America
• Notice Any Familiar Names in ACORN's List of Friends?
  
• Poor ACORN: Tax Evasion, Investment Fraud, Racketeering
  
• ACORN Has Its Own Political Party--And It's Winning Elections

What's Wrong With ObamaCare?

And don't forget to mention "Vote NO on the Co-op Plan Too, which is just an alias for Public Option.

Hat tip: Redstate
__________

Nanny State News, Michigan Style

Yesterday I reported on a pair of working mothers in the UK who were turned in to state authorities by a "whistleblower" for breaching the law by babysitting each other's toddlers (for free) without getting state registrations as "childminders." Instead of the two friends helping each other take care of their little ones, they had to put their tykes into "official" daycare.

At the same time, AP was reporting on a similar incident in southwest Michigan, where a call from a Barry County "complainant" resulted in state officials threatening a stay-at-home mom with arrest, fines, and jail for watching her working neighbors' children (for free) as they waited to board the school bus at her driveway every morning.

State Department of Human Services officials told her recently that she was operating an illegal day care. The stay-at-home mom [at left in photo] said officials ordered her to stop watching the kids, obtain a state license or face possible penalties. State law says no one may care for unrelated children in their home for more than four weeks a year unless they're licensed.

According to the Grand Rapids News:

Lisa Snyder, the Middleville woman who looked after friends’ children until the school bus showed up, appeared this morning on NBC’s "Today" show [view segment], and said she was dumbfounded that state officials ruled her kindness constituted a daycare.

She has a bus stop near her home, and watched her friends’ kids for up to an hour each morning.

The Department of Human Services told her the agency responded to a complaint, apparently from a neighbor, that she was effectively operating an unlicensed daycare by looking after children of three friends, she said.

“I told them I thought it was ridiculous.”

When she told a state worker she wanted the kids inside, rather than standing outside in the rain or snow, she said she was told: “‘Tell the parents to buy them an umbrella.’”

State officials told Ms. Snyder that neighbor children could lawfully play with her children in her home only if the neighbor parents were home.

If those parents were running errands, however, she would be performing illegal childcare activities.

Barry County's unemployment rate is over 10%, and Michigan's is over 15%. It's time to lighten Michigan taxpayers' burden by giving pink slips to state lawmakers and law enforcers who don't have higher priority work than putting children of working moms and dads out into the rain and snow.

__________

Related Post: Nanny State News

Praying to Obama

Via Michelle Malkin from Naked Emperor News:.



Read Michelle's commentary and see other video here.
__________

Nanny State News

Just keep taking responsibility from parents and putting it into the hands of the state, and pretty soon you end up with . . .

From UK's Daily Mail:

Mothers are banned from looking after each other's children

By Sarah Harris

Two working mothers have been banned from looking after each other's toddlers because they are not registered childminders.

The close friends' private arrangement had let them both return to part-time jobs at the same company.

However, a whistleblower reported them to the education watchdog Ofsted [Office of Standards in Education] and it found their informal deal broke the law.

This was because little-known rules say friends cannot gain a 'reward' by looking after a child for more than two hours outside the child's home without agreeing to a number of checks including one from the Criminal Records Bureau.

Although the mothers never paid each other, their job-sharing deal was judged to be a 'reward'.

[snip]

The women, who have not been identified, had given birth at similar times. When their daughters passed their first birthday, they decided to return to work part-time at the same firm.

The colleagues agreed to look after each other's children as part of the job share. They are said to be 'very good friends' and the girls were so close they had grown up 'like sisters'.

[snip]

The women have now put their girls into official childcare 'meaning they can't work as they wished due to the elevated costs', friends say.

It's a wonder these mothers were allowed to have their children without a license.

I suppose parenting licenses are coming next. With exemptions for illegal aliens who want anchor babies, of course.

__________

Lefties Wrestle Over NYC: It's ACORN vs. Air America

The Working Families Party is a subsidiary of ACORN; Bertha Lewis is not only chief organizer of ACORN, she is also co-chair of the Working Families Party in New York.

Tomorrow, two Working Family Party candidates will be running against progressive Democrats in a NYC Democrat primary run-off. One of these ACORN candidates is Bill de Blasio, a City Councilman from Brooklyn running for the position of NYC's Public Advocate, next in line to the mayor. De Blasio's opponent is Mark Green, a former NYC public advocate who went on to preside over Air America Radio, the doomed Progressive talk radio network.

ACORN vs. Air America Radio. That's New York City.

Why would ACORN want their candidate to hold the position of Public Advocate? Perhaps to control city legislation, services, programs, pensions ($34 billion in assets), and "facilitate" voter registration and voting, to mention only some of the assorted powers that go with the job. Plus to act as the official lawsuit-bringing fox guarding the city hen house.

Right up ACORN's alley.

The Big Apple's Public Advocate holds plenty of clout, including the power to:

• preside over the City Council (most of the 11 new Council nominees were endorsed by the Working Families Party),

• act as ex-officio member of all Council committees,
  

• introduce legislation,
  

• review and investigate complaints relating to services and programs;
  

• inquire into alleged failures of city officers or agencies,

• serve on the Board of the New York City Employees' Retirement System ,
  

• sit on the appointments committee to select the Director of the Independent Budget Office, and
  

• act as a commissioner of the Voter Assistance Commission to encourage and facilitate voter registration and voting by all eligible United States citizens residing in New York City, etc.

According to the NY Times, which endorsed de Blasio (despite his known "cosiness with unions"):

Dan Cantor, the executive director of the Working Families Party, said Mr. de Blasio had established “a dense and deep network of connections” among community-based organizations and advocacy groups.

“He was not known by the broad voting public in a way that Mark Green is, but he was known by tenant advocates and homeless services providers and by union shop stewards,” Mr. Cantor said. “They know who Bill de Blasio is, and they spread the word.”

A recent debate between de Blasio and Green "was dominated by exchanges over private consulting fees, political contributions and endorsements."

From the beginning, Mr. de Blasio found himself answering questions about the accounting practices of the Working Families Party (which has endorsed him), and the $33,000 that he was paid in 2006 as a consultant to the Progressive America Foundation (Mr. de Blasio said it had been preapproved by the city’s Conflicts of Interest Board).

The NY Daily News had a slightly different take on that $33 grand:

Public advocate candidate Bill de Blasio set a bad precedent when he hired himself out in 2006 as a paid lobbyist while serving on the City Council.

An organization called the Progressive America Foundation paid de Blasio $33,000 to press states to adopt election rules that would enable groups like the Working Families Party to more easily field candidates.

No doubt you've already guessed that the Progressive America Foundation has ties to the Working Families Party. No surprise there.

Charles Lenchner of the Working Families Party put it well: "For the first time, America has a community organizer in the White House. What if we put a whole slate of community organizers in City Hall?"

Get ready, New York. Maybe your new City Hall can do for you what Obama has done for the rest of America.
__________

Related Posts:

Notice Any Familiar Names in ACORN's List of Friends?

Poor ACORN: Tax Evasion, Investment Fraud, Racketeering

ACORN Has Its Own Political Party--And It's Winning Elections