The Beginning of Rationed Care?

The U.S. Preventative Services Task Force is suggesting that women in their 40s not get mammograms for early detection of breast cancer. It found that mammograms for women in their 40s do save lives - just not enough for the practice to be considered "routine." (Note: the task force is made up of 16 "health care experts," none of whom are oncologists.)

This new recommendation has people worried that insurance companies will drop mammogram coverage, thus discouraging women to not have the test done.

I can hear it now: "The evil insurance companies wouldn't cover mammograms. Then women found out they had breast cancer and ended up with thousands in medical debt with an insurance company unwilling to help..."

All I could think when I was watching a segment on the news about this was, "Is this what nationalized health care looks like?" A government panel with unqualified (for this topic, at least) members is preaching from its high horse that women should think before getting mammograms. If we have nationalized health care, the preaching will turn into mandating.

Feds Want Control Of Transportation

Under the guise of "safety" reasons, the Obama administration is going to push for legislation that would give the federal government control of the nation's transit systems.

The Department of Transportation already enforces safety regulations for Amtrak and the airlines - and look what a mess those are - but lacks the authority to enforce those for subways and light rail systems. “Safety is our No. 1 priority when it comes to planes, trains and automobiles,” Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement on Sunday. “It only makes sense that we should be looking out for passengers who ride subways, too.”

The 6th Condition for Transition to Communism from Karl Marx's The Communist Manifesto:

"Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State."

Banks, car companies, soon transportation. Wake up, people.

NYTimes Paints Khalid Shaikh Mohammed As A Victim; What a Surprise.

"Portrait of 9/11 'Jackal' Emerges as He Waits Trial" by Mark Mazzetti is a sympathetic piece from the very first sentence:

"Not long after he was rousted from bed and seized in a predawn raid in Pakistan in March 2003, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed gave his captors two demands: He wanted a lawyer, and he wanted to be taken to New York."

Poor Mr. Mohammed was stolen from his cozy mat in the middle of the night; how tragic for him. The military ought to consider sending warnings to future terrorist targets before they seize them.


Apparently, Mohammed has been overly boastful of his role in the al Qaeda network. He was never really the brains behind any operations (though he did have several ideas which were rejected as impractical by bin Laden); however, he was the one willing to "actually [get] the job done." In fact, he:

"is still considered somewhat of an outcast inside the terrorist network, rarely if ever mentioned in public pronouncements by Mr. bin Laden or his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri."

Mohammed is a self-proclaimed terrorist. He brags about the role he played in assassination conspiracies against Pope John Paul II and former President Bill Clinton. In 1996 he had an idea to hijack 10 planes and hit civilian targets in the U.S.

"But demonstrating his tendency toward grandiosity, he overstated his role in many of the attacks, most terrorism experts believe, although they do not dispute his central role in planning the Sept. 11 attacks."

I'm getting a "he really only had a role in planning 9-11, plus he was waterboarded 183 times, and he's not really that big of an al Qaeda target, so maybe we should go easy on him because he wasn't taken seriously by his employer even though all he ever wanted to do was make a name for himself" vibe.


Is the guy who wrote this serious? Why is there ANY sympathy for a guy who wants nothing but to destroy American lives? Thank you, liberals, for once again forgetting about the real victims.

Fort Hood Shooter vs. Tiller's Shooter

Instead of mourning the deaths of the thirteen innocent people killed at Fort Hood, the left-wing media is lamenting the fact that the gunman is a Muslim (a slight change from ignoring the fact which they did at first).

NPR's Nina Totenberg said, "It really is tragic that he was a Muslim."

Newsweek's Evan Thomas said, "I cringe that he's a Muslim. I mean, because it inflames all the fears. I think he's probably just a nut case. But with that label attached to him, it will get the right wing going and it just -- I mean these things are tragic, but that makes it much worse."
(NewsBusters)

So basically what they're telling us is that we can't let one bad apple influence the way we view all members of a culture; but only so long as that culture isn't affiliated with conservatism or the right-wing.

Now, we all remember when Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed by an extremist "pro-life" activist (pro-life is in quotes because obviously someone who goes around shooting people isn't exactly pro-life). The left-wing media constantly affiliated the shooter to the rest of the pro-lifers, assuming that we're all crazy and need to be watched out for.

"Jill Filipovic, of the 'Guardian.co.Uk.' also tried to link Dr. Tiller's death to terrorism. 'Not surprisingly, his killer is strongly suspected to be affiliated with the 'pro-life' movement. If that's the case, it makes Tiller the 10th person in the United States to be murdered by anti-choice terrorists.'" (NewsBusters)

How about this, Jill: Not surprisingly, Major Hasan is affiliated with the Muslim faith. Since that's the case, it makes him the 2oth person in the United States to murder Americans (and 20 is just including the 9-11 hijackers...not to mention the 1993 bombing and every other instance where it was Muslims killing "infidels" for the sake of Allah).

Now I'm not saying that Hasan's reasons for going on a killing spree were the same as the 9-11 hijackers'. But if the media can relate all pro-lifers to the crazy ones, then I can relate all Muslims to the crazy ones.