Can You Belive It?

After the computer hacker / downloaded fishing program fiasco, we discovered that our old desk top, that came with pre-loaded programs, was too old and not compatible for any recent programs.  So, OG's telephone mistake has cost me quite a bit of stress, valuable time - its also cost us the expense of a new computer and printer, as our 2 yr. old printer's technology is obsolete and not compatible with the new computer.  In my world this communication era & its technology is nothing but a  HUGE money pit.  One can not imagine how often I wish for the days of  land line telephones and snail mail - it certainly was cheaper.
Can you believe that as I sat down at my computer, my telephone rang and it was another one of those computer hacking/fishing calls?  The same kind OG received!  He said he was from Microsoft and they'd been receiving numerous error messages from my computer.  I thought, "Oh really?"  Upon the moment that I hung up on the caller, I was really, really wishing for the old fashioned land-line telephone - only so I could SLAM the receiver down on this crooks ear.

There are many things I'd like to post and share (if OG's ever finds her camera charger, I'll post some photos too), but alas it is planting season.  It seems to be taking us forever to get all our planting in.  Hopefully, we'll be done soon and I'll be back to share it all with you.

Blessings,
Mrs.B

"The Most Terrifying Words ...

... in the English language are:  I'm from government and I'm here to help." -Ronald Reagan

Early this morning, whilst I was the only one creeping about in our home, I made the mistake of turning on the news.  I wasn't shocked by what I heard, but I wonder how many Americans will be.  The story left me more discouraged for our nation, more discouraged by not understanding why so many people in our nation seem to lack the ability or desire to sincerely think about consequences.

The specific story that enhanced my discouragement was about the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare.  Back in 2007 & 2008, I ran around beating my "anti Obama drum".  It was most often met with "eye rolling".  After the Affordable Care Act was passed through a back door appropriations bill as "not a tax", then upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court as a "legal tax", I again beat my anti Obama drum, this time warning of astronomical healthcare cost increases resulting in serious, or catastrophic  lifestyle changes for many middle class Americans, & I was, again, often met with "eye rolling".

When the healthcare debate began I patiently listened to person after person say, "Well, I don't mind paying a little more to help those who can't afford it."  I would respond with, "Then you should give your extra money directly to struggling person or family.  If the federal government is allocating it, I guarantee it will be a whole lot more than a little bit."

This morning's news story stated that the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has revealed that the healthcare insurance cost "caps" contained in the Affordable Care Act applies only to individual coverage.  These caps DO NOT apply to spouses and/or children as in family coverage.  The CBO estimates any family that does not qualify for government healthcare subsidies will pay as much as $15,700.00 per year for family health insurance coverage.  They also said that young healthy individuals will see their health care insurance increase by as much as 190% ($2,500 annually would increase to $7,250).  The news story did not reveal the income levels / requirement to qualify for government subsidies.  From my point of view, government subsidy is the same as well fare assistance.

Some folks may say they don't worry about that expense or having to qualify for "well fare" because they are employed by a large corporation that provides health insurance benefits for them and their family.  However, the CBO also estimates that in 2014, more than 7 million employees will loose employer provided health insurance benefits due eliminated employer benefits.  IF you happen to work for a company that continues to provide employee health insurance, Do the math - $15,700 to insure your family (if you aren't paying it, then someone else or your company is)  means that most will not see a pay raise for many years / many will see salary reductions; you and some of your co-workers could / will be laid off due to "downsizing"; if you are fortunate enough to keep your job, your hours and work load will significantly increase; AND the Affordable Care Act also requires, beginning 2014, you to pay income tax on that $15,700 benefit (currently employees do not pay income tax on employer provided benefits.).

Obama said, "If you choose, you can keep your current health care, you can keep your doctor".  Obama told us the Affordable Care Act would make health insurance affordable for EVERY family and individual in America.  The government was extending a helping hand to all.

I have said and continue to say, "Yeah, you can keep anything you want as long as you have the money to pay for it".

Will you get to keep your current healthcare?  Will you get to keep your current doctor?  Will you be able to maintain your current lifestyle?

Ronald Reagan - "The most terrifying words in the English language are:  I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."

I Took a Quick Break From My Blogging Break Because ...

... It's here!  And, I live with procrastinators.  Yup! our first snow of autumn.  We had a long list of "must do's" to complete before the first snow, but we are yet quite a way off from finishing.  I become so frustrated because I work and work hard long hours but live with procrastinators who ... well, procrastinate. They say, things like, "don't worry, we'll get around to it" or "it will get done".  I asked, "What can I do to help you get to a point where this can be finished?"  I was told, I worked & I finished my portion of the tasks.

Regardless of the amount of work I completed, they didn't get "around to it" or "get it done" before the first snow, as promised.

Thankfully, the snow will not stay and we will see a few more warm days before the cold sets in for a long winter.  I am hoping this first snow will "jump start" my procrastinators and a few remaining projects will finally be finished up before the ground freezes - BUT I'm not going to hold my breath.  I predict several things will sit and wait until next spring or summer or maybe indefinitely, just as I'm still waiting on cabinetry projects that were promised last winter (we have a work area in the basement) and have yet to be started.

The Local Food Bank

OG and EJ are participating in our county's 4-H club this year.  As part of their community service, the club has decided to volunteer at our county's local food bank.  Most folks would consider this a worthwhile cause, right?  I mean, helping to ensure that the poor have food to eat is the least that a community can do, right?

Anyone who knows me personally knows that feeding others is what I do.  For decades I have donated food and personal hygiene supplies to my church food pantries, I have delivered bags of food and necessities to others in need, cooked and delivered meals to the ill, fed everyone who enters my home, including laborers whom I'm paying to do a job.

20+ years ago when our family lived at the poverty level, we never visited or accepted food from a local food bank.  Individuals have left bags of groceries for us on our door steps and various churches have also blessed us with bags of groceries at Thanksgiving or Christmas, however, we never asked for or expected it.  We were simply blessed by others whom God moved upon their hearts to help or assist us, even though we, ourselves, were not serving the Lord at that time.  So, our recent volunteer experience at our county food bank has been my first experience with a local food bank and how that system works.

I couldn't believe how discriminating this system was toward senior citizens and  the working poor.  When I use the term working poor, I am referring to those individuals and families who work to earn a living but make just a few dollars over the maximum guidelines to qualify for government assistance, such as food stamps, WIC, etc. OR those who do qualify but choose not to accept government assistance based on personal morals, religious conviction, etc.

While volunteering I asked Mrs. S, our county food bank coordinator, what the procedure was for folks in our community who had a need for these donations.  Mrs. S explained that since our county food bank accepts food donations from the U.S. Department of  Agriculture (USDA), the administrative department of the federal government that operates our nation's food stamp benefit programs, she MUST follow very strict rules set by the USDA regarding whom the food is given to, veering from these rules is a crime and punishable by closing the food bank, fines and imprisonment.

Our local food bank pantry is a 25ft. x 25ft. gated and locked room located in the back of our senior citizen community building and consists of 2 sections.  Section 1, 90% of the pantry's floor space including a refrigerator and two freezers, is reserved for the weekly food delivery from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.  Section 2, literally two 6ft. shelving units placed in a corner, are reserved for private donations from the community.  The food bank is operated and staffed by local volunteers.

Mrs. S informed me that only those who receive government food stamp benefits will be given food from section 1, which is boxed and bagged, labeled with the recipient's name and placed on a table for pickup or delivery.  These boxes and bags contain enough food to feed my family of 4 for a week.  If recipients need or would like donations from section 2, the private donation section, to supplement their food box they may choose a few items.  However, senior citizens who qualify and receive food stamps are eligible to receive only specific products from section 1 and are barred from products in section 2.  These items make up less than 50% of the selections of what their socioeconomic peers will receive and it is only enough food or 2-3 small meals.

Section 2 is reserved for those in need who do not qualify for or accept government food stamp benefits.  These folks are not allowed, regardless of hardship, to receive any food or products from section 1.  Also, non-food stamp citizens are not allowed to receive any food from section 2 until all the food stamp recipients have been served.  If there is anything left in section 2 after this, non-food stamp residents will be given a maximum of one bag of any left over groceries from section 2.  If there is not enough groceries left in section 2 after the food stamp recipients have made their selections, then non-food stamp recipients must locate other resources for help.

After being given this information, I visited the United States Department of Agriculture Food and Nutrition Service web-site to inquire what the qualifications were for food stamp benefits and how much a family of 4 would qualify for.  It must not be very much if our local food bank gives a week's worth of groceries out to food stamp recipients each week, right?  I was very surprised by what I found.

According to the USDA Food and Nutrition Service web-site a family of 4 can qualify for a maximum of $668.00 per month in food stamp benefits.  Of course this amount would be reserved for families who are completely on well fare and do not work to earn a living.  Please note, that is $218.00 per month more than our family's personal grocery budget of $450.00 per month, $25.00 of which is reserved for food and necessities for our church's food pantry.  But if a family does have an income from working how much in food stamp benefits, if any, would they qualify for?  A family of four's gross income can not exceed $2,050.00 per month.  At the maximum income allowance a family of four qualifies for $321.00 per month in food stamp benefits.  (please note:  senior citizens are segregated into a very different qualification procedure and must have a much lower income and qualify for less than 1/2 of what  their younger socioeconomic peers qualify for.)

$321.00 - $668.00 per month for a family of four, plus boxes of food each week from the local food bank, plus free breakfast and lunch for students during the school year at the public school?   Contrary to what the public service ads on T.V. and the federal government tell us, if the well fare and food stamp benefit poor in this nation are being honest and refraining from well fare fraud, how can they possibly be hungry?  They have far more food resources than we (and most other hard working families I personally know) have budgeted per month for groceries.  This information helps me understand how well fare recipients can commit well fare fraud by selling their food stamp benefits for 50 cents on the dollar in exchange for cash. (Throughout the years I've encountered several food stamp recipients who've tried to sell me food stamp benefits for cash. I've never agreed to this as it is a federal offense and punishable by prison.  NEVER enter into this type of agreement, no matter how desperate the offending party may appear to be.  It is well fare fraud and you will get caught, you will go to prison and you will loose everything that's important to you).

The Lord has always impressed upon my heart to give to our church's private food pantry and specific individuals rather than government assisted food banks and organizations.  When I give to my local church and private organizations that do not accept government assistance, senior citizens and those in need who do not qualify for government benefits can have their needs met and they do not have to wait in line hoping for the leftovers of those who receive government benefits.  No, I will not give to government assisted programs.  Yes, I will continue to give to churches and private organizations as the Lord leads me.

If you, or someone you know, are in need and do not receive government benefits or are a senior citizen, I encourage you to visit your local church's food / clothing pantry.  We are there because you have a need and we want to help you.

I'm Confused ...

In my effort to shape-up a little before gardening season, I began a routine of walking on Mr.B's treadmill almost two weeks ago.  (insert standing ovation here)  Since I find this activity excruciatingly boring, I often find myself reading the all the information on the panel such as, heart rate, calories burned, weight loss vs. performance info., etc.  When I began my routine the calorie counter indicated that my little "work out" was burning 197 calories.  This is where I've become confused; on Monday I increased my 5 minute warm-up and 5 minute cool down speed from 1.5 mph to 2.0mph, I've also increased my 20 minute walk speed from 2.7mph, 6% incline to 3.0mph, 6% incline.  With these increases why has the burned calorie count reduced from 197 to 163?  If I'm walking faster and at the same incline shouldn't I burn MORE calories?  I'm now going to eat my Reese's peanut butter cup ...

The Treadmill

For me an hours walk outdoors on a nice day seems like only moments.  Put me in a canoe or row boat on a pond or lake and I'll happily row for hours.  A bicycle ride with the children, serendipity.  BUT put me indoors on treadmills, stationary bicycles, rowing machines or any other mechanical exercise equipment and in my world it's akin to torture.
Mr.B wants to loose some weight and since it's been dark for hours by the time he gets home (dark arrives between 4:30 & 5:00 up here during the winter months), he bought himself a treadmill.  He's been gently encouraging me to also use it.

This morning I decided that since I've began my garden planning, I should increase my physical activity otherwise, when gardening season arrives my mussels will be screaming at me.  While in my pj's ... 5 minutes @ 1.5mph, no incline; 20 minutes @ 2.7 mph, 6% grade incline; 5 minutes @ 1.5 mph, no incline.  Average heart rate - 100 beats per minute; 197 calories burned; 30 of the most BORING minutes of my life.

Really?  Only 197 calories burned?  I suffered through a 1/2 hour of complete & total YAWN for only 197 calories?  I'd better get in the shower before I raid my secret stash of chocolate.

This is Important to Me ...

I've spent the last couple hours on the internet researching the non-profit organizations we donate to.  Unfortunately, the organizations' web-sites did not satisfy my curiosity to "REALLY Know Where the Money Goes" (see previous post for clarification).  Thus I've drafted the following letter to send via e-mail or U.S. mail.  For me, this issue is a serious matter of conscience.  If it is as important to you as it is to me, I encourage to you investigate also.



Date
Organization / Foundation Name
Address
City, State, Zip

RE: allocation of revenue

Dear Sirs,

Via various news broadcasts, it has recently come to our attention that many non-profit organizations often allocate, donate and/or “funnel” revenue into other non-profit organizations. For example, news headlines have brought to our attention that the non-profit Susan G. Komen Foundation donates funds to Planned Parenthood and many other non-profit organizations.

We have been a faithful supporter of Organization's / Foundation's Name for several years. It is our desire to continue supporting non-profit organizations we personally believe are responsible and worthy. However, in light of recent revelations regarding many non-profit organizations re-directing funds into other non-profits, we find we must investigate the organizations and foundations we currently support. In good moral conscience we can not allow our surplus resources to be used to support any entity that violates our faith and/or personal morals.

Pointedly, does Organization / Foundation Name donate revenue to other non-profit organizations or entities? If so, would you please provide us with a list of the organizations and/or entities you support? In an effort to be responsible to our faith and our moral conscience we have decided to temporarily suspend all charitable giving until we have a response from each organization we currently bless with our surplus resources.

Eagerly awaiting a response to our inquiry,

Signature

Do You REALLY Know Where the Money's Going?

WoW!  Do I feel really stupid or what?  I had NO idea that the non-profit Susan G. Komen Foundation for Breast Cancer Prevention and Cure(s) donated revenue to Planned Parenthood and other non-profit organizations each and every year.  (see article here: http://news.yahoo.com/susan-g-komen-apologizes-cutting-off-planned-parenthood-163217680--abc-news.html ).

Although we've never personally donated to the Susan G. Komen Foundation, this is an eye opener and a fine example as to why we need to be VERY cautious as to where we donate our surplus resources.  An immediate investigation into the organizations we do humbly try to bless is a priority.  We never want to find that our generosity is, or could possibly be, funneled into another organization or industry that violates our faith, morals and/or our conscience.

Do you know where your donated resources are going?

Dear Mr. Business Owner,

photo courtesy of photobucket.com

The fall of 2008 marked my husband's and my first visit to your town.  Our mission:  deciding if we wanted to move our family to the area.  Although my husband had been offered a promotion that would require a relocation to the area, employment / job security was NOT a deciding factor for us.  The promotion was an offer, not a requirement to retain employment.

Our primary decision to relocate was based upon a very long held desire to move to a small, rural community.  We viewed the employment promotion and relocation as an opportunity to achieve this goal.  We relocated to this area with plans to raise our family and retire in the area.

We understand and realize that since our 1st visit to the area almost 3 years ago, this town's population has doubled.  The rapid population influx due to job availability has afforded you and the local townspeople experiencing several areas of "growing pains" such as rapid increases in traffic, business transactions, housing availability issues, over crowding in the schools, etc. 

For many years, my family has gone out of our way to patronize locally owned small businesses.  We believe in an entrepreneur spirit and fully support it when possible.  We diligently avoid the "Wal-Mart's" of our society.  However, the high work ethic and personal service we've become accustom to experiencing with small, locally owned businesses does not exist with you.  Although, I have done my best to exercise patience while you, Mr. Business Owner, adjust to the rapid population growth of this community, I am exasperated.  Your employees are rude, have VERY poor work ethics and have made it very clear that you are not interested in increased profits that my family's hard earned income will bring you. 

Where I come from, small, local entrepreneurs welcome increased profits.  Where I come from, business owners have a driving desire to grow their businesses.  At the very least I am shocked that you and your employees have welcomed us with a message of, "We don't want you here, AND we will do everything we can to make sure you leave as soon as possible."  Essentially, through your employees and business practices you have sent a very clear message that you personally have a poor work ethic and are not interested in increased profit margins. 

I have never been in a satiation where I have felt as if I am almost begging a business to accept my money.   Well, I want you to know that, I am not the sort of person who will beg you to take my money.  You need to remember your town's history.  This population growth is temporary and will depart, just as it did 25 years ago causing a high number of business closures.  You may rest assured that you will not have an opportunity to re-earn my business if or when that exodus occurs. 

When that exodus does occur, I will continue to drive to neighboring towns and cities  and shop via the internet where my business is desired and appreciated.  I will also continue to politely and causally inform the other residents of this area of my non-local resources and encourage them to utilize those resources.  I have found that even with shipping / freight charges, my internet purchases are often a higher quality and less expensive than your offerings.  But please note, that even when it costs more, I still refuse to do business with you.  Best of all, when traveling to distant cities and towns or shopping via the internet, I am not forced to politely accept poor service from you or your employees.

Thank you for your time.

Mrs.B

Please Note:  This letter is not being sent to every business in our new area.  However, it will be sent to several select businesses that have consistently provided poor and or rude service.  Such as the town's only dry cleaning business whose employee told another employee, in  a hushed tone thinking I wouldn't overhear, not to assist me to my vehicle with large bulky items because, "she's not from here". 

Waiting For Superman

photo courtesy of photobucket.com

This afternoon I watched a documentary entitled, "Waiting For Superman" by Davis Guggenheim, Director / Co-Writer, and Billy Kimball, Co-Writer.

This documentary is a review of our nation's pubic education systems. The realities brought to light in this film left me stunned. The realization that most parents genuinely believe this dysfunctional and broken system is the only option they have for their children's education brought tears to my eyes.

Portions of this film follow 5 families and their quests for improved education options. It was painfully obvious that not a single one of these families had ever considered the option of homeschooling. As a matter of fact, from the perspective of the film it appears these families are not even aware that home education may be an option. If they are aware of the option, it is not one they have considered.

The U.S. education system is completely broken. Parents of school aged children MUST take IMMEDIATE action to change this. There are several avenues available for change. Will one and only one avenue work? No, not in my opinion. Every student is unique in his or her own way. Each has individual strengths, weaknesses and goals. However, I sincerely believe the freedom for a parent to choose the educational avenues they personally think are best for their children is not only where America should start but is ultimately the tool that will bring forth the most improvement in educating our nation's youth.

More than 100 years ago we, U.S. citizens, turned control of our children's education over to local, state and federal government bureaucracies. Today, public education is the largest monopoly in America. The NEA and AFT unions have used campaign contributions to bribe our government representatives to implement policy, regulations and laws that benefit the unions and it's members - not our children. The documentary, "Waiting For Superman" shows exactly what the teacher's unions and our government agencies have produced, and quite frankly folks, we ain't gettin' squat for our money.

The"Waiting For Superman" web-site seems to promote "fixing" our educational woes through improved teachers, public schools and charter schools. The standard rule of tracking the progress through these venues is by administering standardized testing - which I am personally opposed to. I oppose standardized testing specifically because it promotes a "teaching the test" mentality - a disturbing reality in my own public school district. Real education and real learning does not come through memorizing particular facts that allows one to score well on a standardized exam. It comes from genuinely learning a given area of study which then produces a student who is equipped with the knowledge, thinking, and analytical skills necessary to score well on an exam. I strongly believe in individual accountability, competition and individual choice. I think the accountability, choices and decisions should rest entirely upon the shoulders of parents and the educational venues the parents choose, not teacher's unions and government representatives.

There are several grass-root movements seeking to improve the quality of education in America today. Two of my personal favorites are Parental Rights. Org and Alliance for the Separation of School and State. Both seek to promote and protect parental freedom and choice in educational decisions for children. "Waiting on Superman" is also a grass-roots movement seeking change and more parental choice in education. I encourage all to watch the documentary "Waiting on Superman", I think it will drive home the severity of the crisis that is commonly known as education in America. I hope this documentary will encourage you to become involved in seeking avenues of improved change in educating our nation's youth.

Talking Points...

This afternoon, OG decided to write President Obama a brief letter outlining a few suggestions on how to stimulate job growth within the U.S. economy.

After writing the letter she decided to send carbon copies to Vice President Joe Biden and her U.S. Representative, U.S. Senators, State Representative, State Senators and State Governor.

As she was addressing the envelopes we had a very short conversation that went something like this:

ME: "What would you do if someone from one of these offices contacted you regarding an interview?"

OG: "I'd say YES!"

ME: "How would you prepare for the interview? Would you write up some talking point notes, etc.?"

OG: (Looking up at me with an are you kidding me expression) "What would I WEAR !!"

End of conversation ...

So Angry I Could Eat Nails ...

My day began very well. Everything that I had control over was right in my world, until .... I read the following article, "Obama Responds to Ire Over 2nd Anti-Vegas Remark", ( http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_obama_las_vegas ).

Personally, my "issues" do not lie with President Obama's remarks regarding Las Vegas, my "issues" are that he'd have the audacity give financial advise to ANYONE!

- "I was making the simple point that families use vacation dollars, not college tuition money, to have fun," Obama said.
- "When times are tough, you tighten your belts," Obama said, according to a White House transcript of his appearance Tuesday at a high school in North Nashua, N.H.
- "You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage," Obama said. "You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college. You prioritize. You make tough choices."

When I look at the economic train wreck our nation is experiencing, I ask, "When is President Obama and his administration going to practice what he's preaching?"

Now, anyone who knows me personally, knows that I am always a supporter of financial responsibility. The difference between myself and Washington is that I do not BORROW money so I can spend more than I will be able to bring in. I preach a debt free lifestyle AND I practice what I preach.

My response to President Obama's remarks on personal financial responsibility, "Don't tell me, or anyone else, how to spend our hard earned incomes until you put into practice on Capital Hill what you preach."

Now that I've vented, I feel better.

Who Was Barbara Wagner?

I did not personally know Ms. Wagner, but she was first brought to my attention through an AARP magazine article approximately 1 year ago, and earlier this week, I heard through Fox News that she had passed away.

Barbara Wagner (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5517492&page=1) was a retired school bus driver in the State of Oregon. She was a cancer survivor and a participant in the state of Oregon's universal health care program. Sadly, after a few years of remission, Ms. Wagner's cancer returned.

As of today, our Federal Government, the States of Oregon and Massachusetts, and many others in our society would say, "Thank God for universal health care ... as a poorly paid school bus driver, Ms. Wagner probably wouldn't be able to afford treatment without it."

Ms. Wagner recently lost her battle with cancer. My heart grieves for her family and friends who will miss her for many years to come. What breaks my heart even more is that had Oregon's universal health care program had it's way, Ms. Wagner would have died a year ago. As far as I know, Oregon is the only state in our nation who recognizes "assisted suicide", euthanasia, as a form of medical treatment. Under this "medical treatment" definition, Oregon's universal health care program not only has the right but also a responsibility to tax payers to administer assisted suicide to those whom they believe are terminally ill or will not be of an asset to Oregon's future economic base.

When Ms. Wagner's cancer returned, this 60+ year old lady was told by Oregon's universal health care program that she did not "qualify" for this type of cancer's treatment(s). However, she did qualify for "assisted suicide" drugs. A cost difference of approximately $50.00 for one dose of assisted suicide drugs / $4,000 per dose of cancer drugs. When Ms. Wagner told the state of Oregon she was not interested in the "assisted suicide" treatment option. The state of Oregon told her assisted suicide was the ONLY option they would pay for.

Ms. Wagner, declined Oregon's offer to pay for assisted suicide. Her situation did not go unnoticed. The pharmaceutical firm that produces the medications specific to Ms. Wagner's type of cancer stepped up and paid for her treatment which gave Ms. Wagner an additional year of life. Ms. Wagner had another year to spend with those she loves and cares for most. She had an extra year to finalize her finances and business commitments. She had an additional year to unite her soul with the Lord, if needed. But without thanks to the State of Oregon.

There is a lesson in this true news story for ALL American citizens to learn. Although, as of today, our Federal Government does not recognize euthanasia as a medical treatment option, we do not know what the future holds. There are a growing number in our nation who are tirelessly working to spread pro - euthanasia legislation. I recently heard that the State of Washington was considering it (again, that was something I've heard, but not confirmed at the time of this writing). Through Oregon's universal health insurance program, the citizens of Oregon have given the state of Oregon the power to decided when a person's life should end.

We all know that the cost of a federal universal health care system for our nation will carry a price tag of more than one trillion dollars, an amount of money that most of us can not comprehend. How will our already indebted nation pay for it? From the view out my window, we can't. We simply do not have the money. EVERY sector of our nation, government, businesses, banks, health care, individuals, are literally drowning in debt. Under a federally managed universal health care program it will be absolutely imperative to cut and trim any and all costs not beneficial (immediately and long term) to tax payers. Our government says rationing will not occur under their system. According to the math, rationing is the ONLY way their system will work. If you don't think rationing occurs in our federal government's current health care plans, Medicare and Medicaid, you need to talk with those currently being treated under these plans. Under Medicare we have scores of Senior Citizens carrying Medicare Insurance Supplement policies because Medicare "doesn't cover that treatment, or this procedure". Under Medicaid, we have women with a mild case of fibroid tumors being told to get hysterectomies because in the long run, it's cheaper than on going treatment plans or another baby. I've then met women who told me that afterwards Medicaid will not pay for hormonal therapy. I won't even go into the cost of fraud and waste under these programs that is high enough to pay off our national debt.

How much money is your health and life worth? What is the value of your loved one's health and life? According to the state of Oregon $50.00. I think Oregon is a good example of what a federally funded universal health care program holds for our nation. How much does our federal government think a human life is worth?

Does our nation need changes to health care? Absolutely. However, six months to rushing through a hurried plan to fix something that took decades to break? Mind blowingly ludicrous. We should be looking at the areas that are broken and focus on those one at time. As it is, we are, as my late grandmother would say, "throwing the baby out with the bath water".

I send my gratitude to the friends and family of Ms. Wagner. Because they supported her decision to decline Oregon's treatment option of her cancer. All of America SHOULD be able to "see the writing on the wall" regarding the future of a national universal health care system.

Mrs. B

P.S. For those of you who may disagree with me, you have that right. However, it won't be necessary to infringe upon my Constitutional First Amendment Rights by forwarding my blog address to the White House regarding "fishy" internet communications about H.R. 3200. They already have my real name, address, telephone number, personal e-mail address, etc. They know what my opinions are and what I think because I e-mail, write, and call my Congressman, Senators and Mr. Obama quite regularly.

O.K., I've Had It ...

Last evening I, and approximately 9,000 other local residents, received a "town hall meeting" phone call from my congressman. Since it was April 15th, America's dreaded tax day, he was inquiring as to what his constituents thought about the new INCREASED taxes that Americans will begin paying next year on their 2009 tax filings. I appreciate and value my congressman's efforts in keeping in touch with the opinions and ideas of those he represents.

Today, my frustration does not lie with my congressman's representation of my district. It lies with the entitlement and the "Robin Hood" attitude many in our society have developed. I'll explain ... last evening a lady responded to our congressman's inquiries by stating that she is in full support of requiring "rich" ($250K annually) people to pay higher taxes, etc. This person said she believes it is the wealthy's RESPONSIBILITY to support ALL the individuals who do not earn, or even have a desire to work, an income.

My parent's divorce and other family problems placed me in the situation of growing up in poverty. As a young adult, my own poor choices caused me to live a life of extreme poverty for nearly 10 years. Even by living, so far, 2/3 of my life in poverty, never, for even a single day, have I thought or felt that it was a "rich" ($250K) person's responsibility to pay for my or my children's housing, utilities, food, transportation, clothing, health care, education, etc.

You see, I have more common sense than that. I have enough common sense to recognize that the poor and impoverished of our society do not, can not, ever provide another person with a paying JOB. When I lived in poverty, my resources allowed me to eat only one meal every other day. This enabled my children to eat two meals daily and kept me at the very slim and trim weight of 97 lbs. It was absolutely IMPOSSIBLE for me to ever consider sharing our food, or housing, much less provide an income for someone else.

Nearly 80% of American workers are employed by small businesses. Our large, "too big to fail" corporations employ only about 20% of America's workforce. It is the "wealthy" ($250K) small business entrepreneurs of our society who open, operate and manage the businesses that employ most of America. When we take away more and more of their money and resources, they, in turn, have less and less money to effectively operate and manage the businesses that provide jobs for the rest of society. As a society and as employees, we then see reduced salaries, eliminated positions and increased work loads. We, the poor and middle class, end up working harder and longer hours for less and less money.

When I lived in poverty, I worked. I worked very hard. As a matter of fact, I've previously mentioned on this blog that for nearly 17 years I worked 2-3 jobs, at the same time, outside my home to support my family. During my time in the workforce, I worked for a major worldwide corporation for only 5 years. During the other 12 years of my employment I worked for small privately owned companies. Do you want to know the sad part of that story? Never in 12 years of employment by private companies was I taken advantage of with regard to my workload or salary. The private, small business owners are the ones who paid me a fair wage and gave me a reasonable work load. It was the 5 years of employment with that major worldwide corporation that I was overworked, and GROSSLY underpaid. While working at that major corporation my pay was so low I had to work two additional part-time jobs just to get by.

The new taxes coming down the road for this year's (2009) incomes will dramatically effect 80% of America's business owners. You see, the major "too big to fail" worldwide corporations have so many legal financial shelters (aka, places to lie about and hide profits) they won't be severely effected by the new tax structure (but I assure you they will use it as an excuse to lower wages, increase workloads and eliminate positions, thus equalling even higher profits and bonuses). However, the small business owner, who provides nearly 80% of America's jobs, doesn't have the revenue or resources to take advantage of those financial shelters. Requiring the "rich" ($250K ) to pay more taxes will only trickle down to the working class. We are the ones who will pay with heavier work loads, lower wages and fewer job opportunities.

Last night's "town hall meeting" caller mentioned that during President Obama's campaign the new taxes would effect only those earning more than $250K per year. Yes, where I and last night's caller live, $250K is a substantial income. However, in a state like California, New York, New Jersey, etc. $250K is only a middle class income. In my area of the country my current home would most likely sell for, at most, $50K. However, in California my same home, in the same condition would sell for more than $600K, in New Jersey, $400 -$500K. A $250K income is relative. It is only a substantial income if you happen to live where I do. By the way, if last night's caller ever happens upon my blog, by the end of the election campaign trail Vice President, Joe Biden, had reduced that "Robin Hood" $250K income to $150K.

$150K - $250K is NOT ultra-rich (Oprah Winfrey, Bill Gates, the Kennedy's, Hollywood's elite, etc.). The ultra-rich have BILLIONS and make up around only 1% of America's incomes. No, President Obama and his buddies are not going after the big guys (they might loose some election endorsements - that's not fair ... they can't go after them, their money is hidden and protected by financial shelters). They are going after the largest segment of American workers - small business owners and the middle class.

My eldest child served 4 years in the U.S. military during war time to earn the G.I. bill that has enabled him to pursue a college degree while working full-time. Why? He did not want to repeat the poverty of his youth. So far, our other adult children are following their older brother's example of sacrifice and hard work so they too will not repeat the poverty of their youths.

Have the majority of our nation lost all common sense? Our government representatives are telling us, "Sacrifice, work hard (join the military, go college, get a 2nd job, etc.) - we will then "reward" you by garnishing your hard earned income through increased taxes." This makes no sense to me! Why do American citizens think this makes sense? I am so proud of my children's work ethic and sacrifices - they should be financially rewarded for the accomplishments they will achieve- not taxed back into poverty. Yes, I know there are those who think that statement is an exaggeration, however, my congressman revealed in his "town hall meeting" telephone call the following - In order for our nation to only break even (does not include paying the interest that will have to be paid back) on President's Obama's new budget EVERY tax collected in America today will have to be doubled for a minimum of 3 GENERATIONS. Will you be able to maintain your current lifestyle when you begin to pay double the taxes you currently pay WITHOUT a pay increase or maybe even a salary reduction?

Correction & Apology

In my recent post entitled "President Obama's Plans", (http://herpeculiarlife.blogspot.com/2009/02/president-obamas-plans.html ), I provided some inaccurate information regarding partial birth abortion as outlined in The Freedom of Choice Act. Despite my personal opinions, beliefs or feelings with regard to abortion, I do not want to intentionally pass misleading or incorrect information to my readers. Thus, I apologize for my lack of oversight and I pray you all will forgive me.

In an attempt to correct my mistake, the partial birth abortion provision of the Freedom of Choice Act states: ... "every woman has the fundamental right to choose to: (1) bear a child; (2) terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability; (3) terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect her [the woman's] life or her [the woman's] health." (note: italicized words are mine).

Now, this will over ride the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act implemented by former President Bush to the extent of allowing partial birth abortions ONLY when the woman's life/health is at risk. Unless challenged and interpreted otherwise by the U.S. Supreme Court, the Freedom of Choice Act will NOT allow a "free-for-all" of partial birth abortions in the abortion business. However, The Freedom of Choice Act does make an allowance for the life/health (including a mother's psychological health) of the mother.

Again, I apologize for the inaccurate information implied or passed on in my previous post. However, I continue, my dear readers, to implore you to contact your representative and ask him/her to steadfastly OPPOSE all legislation related to The Freedom of Choice Act.

President Obama's Plans

This site is geared towards Titus 2 teaching and thus, I generally do not post political themes. However, there are three specific items facing American citizens that I have a great burden for. I do not expect all of my readers to agree with me but, I do expect my readers to respectfully consider my point of view.

It is no secret that President Obama is considered to be one of the most liberal presidents ever elected to office. That is very worrisome for many (most) ultra-conservatives. However, I suggest that there are those who are much more worrisome than President Obama - CONGRESS. As of late, it seems that most Americans have forgotten the lessons learned in their high school government/civics class. (Why would they remember? If their school district was anything like mine, they only had one semester of it and I believe this sends an unspoken message that government/civics is unimportant. Math, on the other hand, is VERY important, it was taught BOTH semesters for 12 years!) Our presidents do have a tremendous amount of responsibility and they are generally viewed as the most powerful men in the world. But the average American citizen seems to have forgotten that our president DOES NOT make laws - has limited powers to sign executive orders? Yes. Make laws? No! Congress drafts, negotiates and presents legislation for internal voting. If the majority agrees, the legislation then goes before the president for an approval signature or veto. If the president decides to veto, the legislation will either go back through additional negotiations that congress hopes the president will approve or it will die. This is why so much legislature that goes across a president's desk will contain hundreds of pages of items that have ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the "core" piece of legislature contained in a bill. Congress has been trained by former presidents and constituents that by padding the legislation with "pet projects", it is more likely to get passed.

This is why I urge you to consider contacting YOUR representative on a regular basis. He/she is in Washington to represent YOU. It is his/her job to vote according to the majority opinion for his/her district. (Matt Chancey has some good tips for doing this on his blog, click here: http://www.mattchancey.com/blog/?p=284). We MUST keep in mind that going to the voting booth in November was only the beginning of our political responsibilities. Remember, through their votes Congress has the power to STOP a president's agenda. Our representatives vote according to what they hear from their constituents, if they don't, they don't get re-elected. Through the same channels, we have the power to PASS a president's agenda.

Keeping this in mind, I'd like us all to consider President Obama's economic stimulus plan. When one reviews history, we see that his ideas are similar, too similar, to Presidents Hoover (republican), Roosevelt (democrat), Ford (democrat) and Bush - 43 (republican). His ideas have been tried in the past and in the past these same ideas FAILED. I recently viewed a short video from The Center for Freedom and Prosperity. It does a good job of explaining why, in layman's terms, President Obama's economic stimulus plan is NOT a good idea now or for the future - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2mKE16Exh9k. It is imperative that we contact our representatives TODAY and let them know our opinion regarding this legislature.

Being a conservative Christian, I can not, in good conscience, fail to mention the Freedom of Choice Act. The Freedom of Choice Act will remove ALL legislature prohibiting any abortion.

~ Teen aged girls will no longer be required to obtain permission OR notify parents of their decision to proceed with an abortion. However, if medical complications arise from said abortion or attempted abortion, parents will be held fully responsible, legally and financially.

~ The national ban on partial birth abortion will be lifted. This means that fully viable, born alive infants will be terminated prior to complete extraction from the birth canal. These are infants whose heads have exited the birth canal and are then euthanized prior to the deliverance of the rest of their body. The birth of these children are NOT a threat to a woman's health as these women have already carried the infants to full-term AND withstood labor AND partial delivery.

~ The Born Alive Act will be nullified. This law states that when an infant is born alive during an abortion attempt, the medical staff MUST obtain emergency medical treatment for these infants. If personnel refuses to obtain medical treatment for infants who have survived an attempted abortion, the personnel can be held responsible for the murder of the infant. (On a personal note, I find it hard to accept that our legal system will prosecute a woman for dumping an infant in a dumpster, resulting in that infant's death OR medical complications while at the same time legalizing the medical murder of living, breathing human beings. I find it hard to accept that our legal system will prosecute a drunk driver, burglar, rapist, etc. for murder if the crime is committed against a pregnant woman and the infant dies while in the uterus as a result of said crime. If a mother paid a person of ill repute to kill her 3 month old infant, she would be prosecuted for murder. Why is it legally acceptable to pay a medical physician to do the same?) The Freedom of Choice Act does not reinstate a legal right to obtain an abortion. Medically supervised abortions have been legal in the United States since 1973 and continue to be legal today. The Freedom of Choice Act does not protect teen aged girl's health. It removes the right of a parent to make medical decisions regarding their daughter's health. The Freedom of Choice Act legalizes that which would in any other situation, be considered murder. I urge you to contact your representative today and ask him/her to vote NO on the Freedom of Choice Act.

The third concern I'd like to discuss today is The United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child, also known as CRC. As Americans we must realize the foundation of the CRC is rooted in protecting children who grow up in nations whose corrupt government, economy and living conditions are worse than any American can imagine, unless they've seen them first hand. These conditions often bring out the most de-base of human character and consequently the children of these nations are the victims of the societies they live in. These children are forced to fight in wars, live without clothing, nutrition, an education or medical care. The CRC was designed to bring human rights to children of these de-base societies. The CRC was designed to manipulate these corrupt governments into extending a helping hand to the parents of these children. These parents can not give clothing, nutrition, education or medical care if they do not have any means of obtaining it.

Over the years, stable industrialized governments have "jumped on the bandwagon" in adopting the CRC which was originally designed to help parents and children in unstable countries. Consequently, good parents who've always demonstrated that they had the best interest of their child in mind, have lost their parental rights. They've lost the right to decide where and what sort of education their child receives. They've lost the right to train up their children in the faith they choose. They've lost the right to discipline and guide their child when said child acts out, becomes involved in dangerous activities, or exhibits rebellion. Parents around the world have discovered that when their nation adopted the CRC treaty, an international governing power became the governing authority of their children. We must realize that one shoe does not fill all. A governing authority cannot possibly decide the BEST welfare for every child in a nation or the world.

With regard to the educational aspect of the CRC, what if Johnny has attention deficit disorder? What if Johnny's parents quickly figure out that Johnny learns much quicker when he is given one on one instruction away from distractions? Thus, Johnny's parents decide to home school him because the evidence shows that, in Johnny's situation, the one on one instruction and limited distractions available through homeschooling will benefit him much more than any public or private classroom filled with 20-30 other students (distractions) and a setting that completely prohibits one on one instruction (it is absolutely not possible for a teacher to sit with each and every student for each and every subject each and every day). However, under the CRC parents may not have the right to educate Johnny at home where he can receive what he needs to be educated. The CRC can force Johnny's parents to send him to public school even if Johnny never learns to read while there.

How about the family whose child doesn't have the educational needs Johnny has but they are gravely concerned about social and environmental influences and her safety? Let's say that Sally's family lives in a poverty stricken area where crime and drug use is rampant. Sally's single parent can't afford private school nor can Sally be home schooled because her single parent works two full-time jobs just to pay the rent and buy groceries. However, other students have harassed and threatened Sally at knife point. At her current school, drugs and drug use is rampant on her campus, and just last year Sally's best friend was raped by another student in a janitorial closet. At the urging of local law enforcement, Sally's single parent decides to work out a transportation plan with another family so Sally can attend another school on the other side of the district. A school that doesn't have the excessive drug and violence problems the one in her neighborhood has - a school where the police say Sally will be safer. However, under the CRC Sally's mother may be prevented from taking local law enforcement's advice about moving Sally to safer school. Remember, CRC over-rides all local, state and federal governing powers. Under CRC, Sally's mother also faces the possibility of being prosecuted for failure to protect her daughter while left in this dangerous school environment.

Many American parents today do not see anything wrong with allowing a child to decide his/her own religion. However, nearly every religion in the world directs parents to train up their children in said religion. The Bible instructs parents to train their children in Christianity, the Koran instructs parents to train their children in Islam, Buddhist teaching instructs parents to educate their children in the philosophy of Buddha, etc. According to the CRC, the CHILD has the legal power to dictate to his/her parent what religion, if any, he or she is to be trained in. This places parents of deep faith in a very sticky situation. These parents are in essence forced to break the law because their religion teaches eternal consequences for failing to train their children in said religion. Many atheist or agnostics may not see anything wrong with this and some may even think, "good those religious zealots will get what they deserve". However, the CRC is expected to be enforced through local programs, such as child protective services, and what is promoted or restricted to a "religious group" is also promoted or restricted to everyone else. Let's say that Jane and Bobby's parents are atheists. Now, Jane and Bobby are two very active 7 & 9 year olds. Their mom left them out in the back yard while she went inside to make lunch and while mom was inside, Jane decided to climb the pecan tree. She gets up there and then gets scared and is too frightened to try and climb down. Well, Bobby knows they will get in trouble for climbing the tree if mom finds out, so he decides to "help" his sister. Long story short, Bobby falls out of the tree and breaks his arm. Mom and Jane rush to the emergency room. While there, a child protective representative is phoned - the doctor suspects neglect/abuse because this is the 2nd broken bone Bobby has had in 18 months. During the course of his investigation, the child protective representative discovers that Bobby and Jane's parents are atheists. This does not set well with the child protective representative when Jane mentions that her parents refuse to let her attend church services with little Rhonda, the girl next door. Jane's parents refuse her request because they have a strong conviction that religion is not an emotional or mentally healthy choice for their children. However, under the CRC, the refusal to allow Jane access to any religion of her choice is illegal. Under the CRC, the parents can be court ordered to not only allow their daughter to attend these church services but they also may be forced to attend themselves. How else are they going to be able to instruct Jane in the religion of her choice if they don't have any knowledge of it? What is a parent of 3 or 4 going to do if each child decides to practice a different faith - are we supposed to attend Catholic Mass, Buddhist meetings, Islamic ceremonies and Jewish festivals weekly, monthly, etc.? This is a ludicrous and unreasonable aspect of the CRC.

When it comes to the discipline of our children, whether one agrees or disagrees with spanking on a child's bottom 2-3 swats is irrelevant because under the CRC it will be illegal. But we also need to remember that removing a child's bedroom door, grounding him/her from television, restricting Internet content and access, setting a curfew that is earlier than local law enforcement, etc. will also be illegal. You see, under the CRC children are legally granted rights similar to adults, thus, removing his/her door as a form of discipline could be seen as infringing upon your child's legal rights because you are removing his/her right to privacy. Also, if your daughter decides that she no longer wants to share a bedroom with her sister, you may be forced to sell your existing home and move to a larger home where you can provide your daughter with her own bedroom. If you can't afford a larger home, then you and your spouse may need to consider a sleeper sofa for the living room so your daughter can move into your bedroom thus protecting her legal right to privacy. Failure to provide her with her desired privacy could be considered illegal.

Grounding your child from television. I know many parents who use this form of discipline regularly. Again, under the CRC by restricting television and Internet access or content, parents are removing a child's right to public information. When he is grounded from television, he can not view the local or national news, the History Channel, Discovery Channel, etc. Restricting access to or content of the Internet can also be viewed as restricting a child's right to public information. Pornography is very easily accessible via the Internet, once something is on the Internet it becomes public information (not to be confused with copyright laws/regulations). Where will the governing powers draw the line with what is "a right to public information" for a child?

Yes, the wording of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child sound good on the surface. I also realize that the above senerios may sound extreme to most folks, however, there are parents all over the world today who have had or are trying to navigate through either similar or just as ridiculous situations. When we begin to comprehend the legal ramifications resulting from the implementation of the CRC, it becomes a source of great concern for responsible, loving parents. Therefore, I also urge you to contact your representative (numerous times, if necessary) and ask him/her to steadfastly OPPOSE any and all legislation that arises from the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child. When compared to the whole, there are only a small number of parents who neglect and abuse their children. Here in America, we already have laws in place to not only protect children from abuse/neglect but also to protect parents from government intrusion into their family life. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child will bring a non-American governing entity right into our everyday lives. We don't need the CRC, we need to effectively enforce the laws we already have. (for more information regarding the CRC and what you can do visit www.parentalrights.org).

Thank you for bearing with me, thank you for considering my position with regard to these matters. Most importantly, please don't let your November vote be the last thing you did for our nation. Please contact your representative today, and let your voice be heard. (note: I apologize for the formatting issues in this post - for some reason blogger is not cooperating today.)