Update on Dori's Journey 'Home'...
By: Diane Sori
As I knew would happen, the 'end of life' agency pulled out its aides
They did leave the equipment and said they'd check back
from time to time (once a week or so) to see if there's a change for the
worse to warrant reinstating said services. Their timetable for someone
with stage 4 glioblastoma...brain cancer...is a joke as Dori's
condition changes by the hour...some
hours are semi-OK and some hours are hell and then go back to semi-OK
So now her husband has to pay for aides and nurses out of his
own pocket and this type of service is anything but cheap.
the new insurance rules and ObamaCare guidelines for the terminally ill
and those on the verge of dying....they're as vile and inhumane as the
man whose name ObamaCare bares.
Tuesday, March 25, 2014
The New York Times reported Monday night that the Obama administration is ready to unveil proposed legislation that would keep data on Americans' phone calling habits with their phone companies.
And the companies wouldn't have to store the information for any longer than they normally would, The Times reported.
The proposed changes from the White House comes as a bipartisan measure from Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers (R., Mich.) and his Democratic counterpart, Maryland Democratic Rep. C.A. "Dutch" Ruppersberger also is ready for introduction, The Wall Street Journal reported.
The House Intelligence measure would ban the bulk hauling of phone, email and Internet records by the government; instead, it would outsource the database queries to phone firms, The Journal reported.
"The public feels very strongly that the NSA was infringing on their civil liberties. That was not the case," Ruppersberger told The Journal.
The proposed bill, he said, is aimed at restoring public trust, and would add "checks and balances" to the phone-data program.
The Journal reported the bill's approach would be more "comprehensive" than the current spy agency program, covering both landline and cellphone records. The NSA program covers calling data — but not conversations — on about 20 percent of U.S. phone calls, The Journal reported.
The bill would require the secret national security court known as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to approve the new program and re-authorize its structure annually. The court's order would require phone companies to comply.
Under this measure, a phone company would search its databases for a phone number under an individual "directive" from the government.
Then it would send the spy agency a list of numbers called from that phone number — and, possibly, lists of numbers those phones had called.
The NSA would send a copy of each directive to the surveillance court for review, and companies could object to a specific directive, The Journal reported.
The Obama administration proposal, by contrast, would retain a judicial role in determining whether there was enough suspicion on a particular number before the NSA could get related records, The Times reported.
The administration’s proposal would also include a provision clarifying whether Section 215 of the Patriot Act, due to expire next year unless Congress reauthorizes it, may in the future be legitimately interpreted as allowing bulk data collection of telephone data, The Times reported.
The Washington Post reported the Intelligence Committee measure will be introduced Tuesday.
“We believe this can be the solution for those of us who want to preserve important national security capabilities while heeding the legitimate concerns of many that the collection of bulk telephone metadata has a potential for abuse,” Rogers told The Post.
Rogers and Ruppersberger said their bill took months of work, and included talks with the administration and phone companies in the "hope ... this legislation can be the compromise vehicle that arrives at the president’s desk.”
“The most important thing is getting the public’s confidence that their government is out there protecting them against terrorist attacks” while respecting privacy and increasing transparency," Ruppersberger told The Post.
President Obama announced in January he wanted big changes in the phone data collection without hamstringing the NSA from keeping tabs on terrorists.
He'd also set a deadline — which ends Friday — for the Department of Justice and intelligence officials to come up with a plan. Friday is when a current court order authorizing the phone data collection expires, The Times noted.
Specifically, the administration wants phone companies to keep the bulk records of their customers for 18 months, as they do now, and seeks to preserve its ability to see certain records in specific circumstances approved by a judge, The Times reported. But no longer would the NSA systematically collect the phone data and hold it for five years.
The administration plans to renew the bulk phone-records program as it now exists for at least three more months, the Times said.
Phone companies had objected strenuously to any mandate that they hold on to bulk records longer than they already do.
“We have many questions about the details, but we agree with the administration that the NSA's bulk collection of call records should end," Jameel Jaffer of the American Civil Liberties Union told the newspaper.
“As we’ve argued since the program was disclosed, the government can track suspected terrorists without placing millions of people under permanent surveillance.”
A competing bipartisan bill has been drafted by House Judiciary Committee member James Sensenbrenner (R., Wis.), The Journal noted.
That proposal would ban all bulk-records collection, and require both a judicial order for any request for phone or other records and proof it was part of an ongoing international terrorism probe, The Journal reported.
Sensenbrenner slammed the Intelligence Committee measure as "a convoluted bill that accepts the administration's deliberate misinterpretation of the law."
He also criticized it for limiting, but not ending, bulk collection.
Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, told The Times the administration's proposal would provide a “sensible outcome, given the 215 program likely exceeded current legal authority and has not proved to be effective.”
Robert Spencer / Jihad Watch
In any case, this is yet another indication of how Islamic supremacists (like their Leftist allies) are not interested in discussion or debate, but only in shutting down all critics and opponents, so that theirs is the only voice that can possibly be heard. Thuggish anti-free speech organizations such as the Hamas-linked Council on American-Islamic Relations and Reza Aslan’s Aslan Media carry on the same work here by attempting to smear, defame, marginalize and silence all foes of jihad terror.
“Pakistan erases NYT lead story on Islamabad-bin Laden ties,” from Bloomberg, March 23 (thanks to Lookmann):
A New York Times story saying Pakistan’s government protected Taliban forces was censored by the publisher’s printing partner in that country, resulting in a blank hole on the front page of its international edition.
The article, a 4,800-word excerpt from a forthcoming book by Times reporter Carlotta Gall to be published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt next month, appeared in New York Times magazine in the US and was intended as a front-page article of International New York Times. While the story appears on most copies of the international edition, it doesn’t show up in papers distributed in Pakistan, about 9,000 copies, according to the publisher.
Gall’s reporting looks at the ties between Pakistan’s main intelligence service, ISI, and the Taliban. Her article points to Pervez Musharraf, former Pakistani president, as one of the Taliban’s protectors who knew about Osama Bin Laden’s whereabouts in Afghanistan. (In a counterpoint, CNN’s national security analyst, Peter Bergen, writes he is “convinced that there is no evidence that anyone in the Pakistani government, military or intelligence agencies knowingly sheltered bin Laden.”)
The missing story played out on Twitter as Gall herself made light of the censorship by posting a photo of the errant edition on her account with the note: “Breakfast in Islamabad”.
The missing story played out on Twitter as Gall herself made light of the censorship by posting a photo of the errant edition on her account with the note: “Breakfast in Islamabad”. Times’s Pakistan printer, part of Express Tribune newspaper in that country, removed the article without its knowledge, according to Times spokeswoman Eileen Murphy.
“We would never self-censor and this decision was made without our knowledge or agreement,” she said in an email. “While we understand that our publishing partners are sometimes faced with local pressures, we regret any censorship of our journalism.”
It is unclear if Times will continue its partnership with Express Tribune.
People in Pakistan generally see the media in a favorable light with 68% considering its influence as “good,” behind the military at 77% and ahead of religious leaders at 66%, according to a study from Pew Research Center.
New York Times rebranded International Herald Tribune as International New York Times in October. The publisher, which has been steadily losing advertising revenue, has looked to establish a broader audience by appealing to readers outside the US.
Recent polls compiled by Real Clear Politics show her winning 67 percent of the vote in Democratic primaries, with no other candidate above 11 percent. General election polling shows Clinton with an average lead over various possible Republican nominees of 51 to 39 percent.
But an election isn't over until it is over, and this one hasn't started. For one thing, no one is sure whether Clinton will actually run.
She turns 69 in 2016 (the same age as Ronald Reagan when he was first elected in 1980) and she may consider that her achievements in eight years as first lady and U.S. senator, and four years as secretary of state are enough for one lifetime.
Her achievements in that last office may look less impressive than they did in the first Obama term when majorities expressed approval of the president's foreign policy. Clinton's proudly proclaimed "reset" with Russia suddenly looks less like a triumph than a misfire.
She's also had health scares: a blood clot behind her right knee in 1998 and another in her skull in December 2012.
The 2016 election will be only the fourth in the last 40 years in which the incumbent president wasn't running. In the previous three -- 1988, 2000, 2008 -- the candidate of the president's party ran roughly in line with the incumbent's job approval.
That produced a 53 percent to 46 percent victory for George H. W. Bush, a popular vote plurality for Al Gore and a 53-46 defeat for John McCain.
The odd thing about 2016 polling is that Hillary Clinton runs far above Barack Obama's current job approval -- currently 43 percent -- while in the few polls pitting Vice President Joe Biden and others against Republicans, those Democrats run far behind.
That's odd, because we're in a period of straight-ticket voting, and in recent Senate and House elections, Democratic candidates have won percentages highly correlated with Obama's job approval.
One reason Clinton may be running ahead of the president's approval is the high retrospective approval of Bill Clinton's presidency. The 1990s are remembered, largely but not entirely accurately, as a time of booming job growth, technological progress, peace and American primacy abroad.
The last six years of Clinton's presidency, when Republicans had majorities in both houses of Congress, are seen as times of bipartisan cooperation and reform. Back in 2008, Obama said he wanted to be a transformative president like Ronald Reagan, rather than an accommodating president like Bill Clinton.
Obama has operated that way, declining Clinton-style triangulating between his party's liberals and the other party's conservatives. Today's low Obama approval rating and Clinton's higher percentages suggest that many independent voters prefer the Clinton model.
But if Bill Clinton is a political asset for his wife's candidacy, he could also prove to be a liability. He has continued to be more politically active -- though not taking a harsh partisan approach -- than just about any other former president except Andrew Jackson and Theodore Roosevelt.
Two other family members of presidents have been elected president while those former presidents were alive, but both forebears were politically inactive. George H. W. Bush withdrew from politics after he lost in 1992, and John Adams was 89 years old when John Quincy Adams took the oath in 1825.
A case can be made that many voters would be pleased to see an experienced, somewhat mellowed and undoubtedly brainy Bill Clinton as an adviser always on call to a second President Clinton.
But personal feelings toward Bill Clinton were decidedly negative after the Monica Lewinsky scandal broke, and a case can be made that many voters have little appetite for having such shenanigans touch the White House again.
President Clinton's aides were always on guard against "bimbo eruptions," and his possible "first gentleman" role seems to be triggering a revival of interest in his extracurricular adventures.
In the last month alone, he posed, presumably inadvertently, with two Nevada prostitutes, and more recently the widely read Daily Mail ran a story on his travels a decade ago on the private plane of a man later convicted of having sex with a minor.
On balance I suspect that Bill Clinton would be more of an asset than a liability to a Hillary Clinton candidacy. But I'm not sure whether voters have sorted out their conflicting feelings about the 42nd president.
And I'm not sure whether Hillary Clinton's poll numbers represent anything more than a preference for a familiar and widely respected figure over passels of little-known Democrats (and a much-derided vice president) and Republicans. We'll see -- if she runs.
Too many Republicans seem to think that the way to "reach out" is to offer blacks and other minorities what the Democrats are offering them. Some have even suggested that the channels to use are organizations like the NAACP and black "leaders" like Jesse Jackson -- that is, people tied irrevocably to the Democrats.
Voters who want what the Democrats offer can get it from the Democrats. Why should they vote for Republicans who act like make-believe Democrats?
Yet there are issues where Republicans have a big advantage over Democrats -- if they will use that advantage. But an advantage that you don't use might as well not exist.
The issue on which Democrats are most vulnerable, and have the least room to maneuver, is school choice. Democrats are heavily in hock to the teachers' unions, who see public schools as places to guarantee jobs for teachers, regardless of what that means for the education of students.
There are some charter schools and private schools that have low-income minority youngsters equaling or exceeding national norms, despite the many ghetto public schools where most students are nowhere close to meeting those norms. Because teachers' unions oppose charter schools, most Democrats oppose them, including black Democrats up to and including President Barack Obama.
New York Mayor Bill de Blasio's recent cutback on funding for charter schools, and creating other obstacles for them, showed a calloused disregard for black youngsters, for whom a decent education is their one shot at a better life.
But did you hear any Republican say anything about it?
Minimum wage laws are another government-created disaster for minority young people.
Many people today would be surprised to learn that there were once years when the unemployment rate for black 16-year-olds and 17-year-olds was under 10 percent. But their unemployment rates have not been under 20 percent in more than half a century. In some years, their unemployment rate has been over 40 percent.
Why such great differences between earlier and later times? In the late 1940s, inflation had rendered meaningless the minimum wage set in 1938. Without that encumbrance, black teenagers found it a lot easier to get jobs than after the series of minimum wage escalations that began in the 1950s.
Young people need job experience, at least as much as they need a paycheck. And no neighborhood needs hordes of idle young men hanging around, getting into mischief, if not into crime.
Republicans have failed to explain why the minimum wage laws that Democrats support are counterproductive for blacks. Worse yet, during the 2012 election campaign Mitt Romney advocated indexing the minimum wage for inflation, which would not only guarantee its bad effects, but would put an end to discussing those bad effects.
Are issues like these going to switch the black vote as a whole over into the Republican column at the next election? Of course not. Nor will embracing the Democrats' racial agenda.
But, if Republicans can reduce the 90 percent of the black vote that goes to Democrats to 80 percent, that can be enough to swing a couple of close Congressional elections -- as a start.
Even to achieve that, however, will require targeting those particular segments of the black population that are not irrevocably committed to the Democrats. Parents who want their children to get a decent education are one obvious example. But if Republicans aim a one-size-fits-all message at all blacks they will fail to connect with the particular people they have some chance of reaching.
First of all, Republicans will need to know what they are talking about. There are books like "Race and Economics" by Walter Williams, which show that many well-meaning government programs have been counterproductive for minorities. And there are people like Shelby Steele and the Thernstroms with valuable insights.
But first Republicans have got to want to learn, and to be willing to do some thinking, in order to get their message across.
“Americans always do the right thing after they’ve tried everything else.” —Winston Churchill
Bare Naked Islam
#1 “The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam”
#2 “The sweetest sound I know is the Muslim call to prayer”
#3 “We will convey our deep appreciation for the Islamic faith, which has done so much over the centuries to shape the world — including in my own country.”
#4 “As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam.”
#5 “Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance.”
#6 “Islam has always been part of America”
#7 “We will encourage more Americans to study in Muslim communities”
#8 “These rituals remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”
#9 “America and Islam are not exclusive and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles of justice and progress, tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”
#10 “I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam.”
#11 “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.”
#12 “So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed”
#13 “In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education.”
#14 “throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.”
#15 “Ramadan is a celebration of a faith known for great diversity and racial equality”
#16 “The Holy Koran tells us, ‘O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.’”
#17 “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
#18 “We’ve seen those results in generations of Muslim immigrants – farmers and factory workers, helping to lay the railroads and build our cities, the Muslim innovators who helped build some of our highest skyscrapers and who helped unlock the secrets of our universe.”
#19 “That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as president of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.”
#20 “I also know that Islam has always been a part of America’s story.”
Make plans to join Craig Andresen and Diane Sori
this Wednesday, March 26th at 2pm EST on
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS as they welcome two very special guests.
Their first guest will be
Pastor James David Manning from the ATLAH Worldwide Church
in the heart of Harlem.
Pastor Manning is the organizer of
"THE GETTYSBURG HEALING AND RECONCILIATION
OF THE RACES RALLY"
set for July 3rd, 4th and 5th on the battlefield at Gettysburg PA to show the world
that Patriotism and the TEA Party hold NO color boundaries!!!
Their second guest will be Bob Fox from Conservativescores.org to let us know
how to find out who IS or IS NOT really conservative!!!
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS with Craig Andresen and Diane Sori …
RIGHT SIDE PATRIOTS with Craig Andresen and Diane Sori …
Wednesday from 2-4pm EST at