Category: Guest Authors

Chief Justice Roberts Meet ObamaCare

Chief Justice Roberts Meet ObamaCare

“Our doctors have told us to be prepared for the worst because right now we can hardly find a doctor.”

Liberals on the Supreme Court and in Congress refused to heed this
warning as they brazenly imposed President Barack Obama’s Affordable
Care Act on the American people. Under a cloud of controversy, Obamacare
has now entered its third year.

In its 2012 decision on Obamacare, the U.S. Supreme Court based its ruling on a convoluted interpretation of law. In a 5-4 decision, Chief Justice John Roberts voted alongside liberal justices to clear the way for the implementation of Obamacare. Roberts’ overriding concern was if the individual mandate to force Americans to buy medical insurance should be labeled a tax or a fine. Human loss and suffering were inconsequential. The human toll could not be factored in based on legal constricts placed on the court.
Decisions are to be based on law and not emotion. Regardless and
predictably, the leftist jurists’ ideology of applying social justice, a
primary tenet of socialism, infused their decisions. Conservatives on
the bench voted against the individual mandate, which would force
Americans to purchase medical insurance under coercion whether by a tax
or fine, as unconstitutional.

Soon after its passage, Obamacare began claiming casualties.
Front-line victims became early warnings of the pain and suffering — the
desperation — to come. Few in seats of power took heed. Obama and
Congress had, after all, exempted themselves from the medical nightmare
they created along with a swath of their political cronies and
supporters. Supreme Court justices remain exempt as well. Question: Why
exempt themselves? What is it that they are afraid of?

Mid-2010, Americans were beginning to experience the creeping effects
of socialized medicine. During a radio interview, a caller who
identified himself as a life-long Democrat told me of the particular
form of hell that he and his young paraplegic wife were going through
due to Obamacare. The caller wanted to warn fellow Americans. His wife
was already being abandoned by her doctors who feared cuts in
reimbursements. Doctors pointed to mandated cuts in Medicare monies
being shifted to fund Obamacare. What follows is a limited transcript of
my on-air interview with the caller about his wife’s ordeal.

Husband/Caller: “Our doctors have told us
to be prepared for the worst because right now we can hardly find a
doctor. We’re not in a small town, and when we go to find a new doctor
for a new problem, a podiatrist or specialty doctor of any kind, we go
through many, many, many, many names before one finally decides to take
us. They tell us upfront that you are going to probably end-up being
billed the 20% because we [the doctors] know that we don’t get
reimbursed for that and they’ve changed their paperwork. You used to be
able to pick up the phone and call any doctor and they say come on in,
we take Medicare, we take QMB – now I spend two and three days trying to
find one doctor with other doctors helping me to find a doctor that
would accept the program. Through the Bush time, we thought GW was the
worst thing that had ever happened to America. But, we were able to keep
everything we had. Nothing was affected, our health plan was not
affected, the doctors were not affected, nothing happened to us badly.
Well, now since Obama has taken over we can no longer . . .” (Voice
cracks.)

The caller explained further, that in desperation, he took his wife
to a clinic. Clinic doctors informed him that they were not qualified to
treat his wife, nor could they admit patients to a hospital. Frantic,
he recruited the help of others in his continued search to find a
qualified doctor who would accept their Medicare/Qualified Medicare
Beneficiary program. Eventually, he said, a 74-year-old doctor, in
semi-retirement, finally agreed to treat his wife.

As a result of that call, I have investigated first-hand accounts and
concerns of those who provide medical care to our mentally and
physically disabled and to our seniors. Medical care providers expect
the human toll, from warehousing patients to loss of life, to be
extensive. Obamacare results in fewer doctors available to middle and
lower income patients. Corruption is embedded in Obama’s Affordable Care
Act as it fosters breeding grounds for less skilled and less ethical
doctors and clinics to run Obamacare mills based on quantity of patients
and not quality of care.

A recent interview I did with an emergency room doctor disclosed
traumatizing choices that doctors are already being forced to make. An
experienced emergency room doctor found himself trapped
between admitting two critically ill patients or adhering to newly
applied government regulations. His hospital’s funding was under new
government-imposed financial guidelines. Costs were to be lowered by
turning away short-term, repeat Medicare patients. The doctor explains
that he is now caught in a regulatory vice:

“As more and more are added to the
Obamacare rolls, there will be less and less access. People will get
sicker and yes, people will die because of it. I had a sick and sinking
feeling in the pit of my stomach today after both of these incidents.”

Facing the prospects of turning away dying patients or facing a
hospital reprimand for admitting them, this doctor chose patient care
over job security. The doctor expects to retire in a few years.

Former top aide to Obama, Jeffrey Crowley, helped design how
Obamacare is being implemented. Crowley openly admits that there are
serious flaws, saying, “We know it’s going to be messy.” “Messy?”  Is
that what President Obama, liberal Democrats and socialists on the
Supreme Court call the heartache, suffering and sorrow that is already
being faced by Americans and their families? Chief Justice Roberts and
his liberal jurists on the high court have torpedoed the American
economy along with the American health care system making the pain not
just medical, but financial. Workers nationwide complain that their
paychecks have been hit with the first-round of Obamacare taxes
resulting in less take-home pay. It is just the beginning.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey reveals that a 54 percent
majority of Americans expect the U.S. healthcare system to get worse
over the next four years. Benjamin Domenech of Health Care News reports
that the latest Kaiser/Harvard survey found, “Obamacare’s Unpopularity
Grows in New Poll.” The survey reports that the disapproval of Obamacare
“was mostly driven by an increase in opposition from the politically
significant independent voters — the survey found 57% of independents
opposed the law, up from 41 percent last month.” The
House of Representatives currently has the authority to defund the
administrative arm of the Affordable Care Act and effectively nullify
Obamacare. Having been given that authority by the American people, the
latest polls indicate that they should use it — and then expand sales of
personal medical insurance into the free-market to be sold at
competitive rates across state lines.

Sharon Sebastian’s work can be found at  AmericanDailyHerald.Com

Chief Justice Roberts Meet ObamaCare

Will New Pope Face “Age Old” Problem?

Who says the Catholic Church can’t change? By electing Jorge Bergoglio of Argentina, the conclave of Cardinals just made history.  The list of “firsts” is impressive:

-First Pope from the Americas;
-First non-European in 1,200 years;
-First Latin American pontiff;
-First to take the name Francis.

Most amazing, he’s the first non-Catholic pope.

He’s a Jesuit.

*****

Jokes aside, the selection of Bergoglio is an interesting choice. His accomplishments are significant, from modernizing the Argentinian Church to having the guts to clash with President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner on important issues.  Infinitely more attractive to the world’s 1.2 billion Catholics, though, is how he conducts his daily life.

He is a genuinely humble man who serves God with the utmost seriousness — truly a testament to the Saint whose name he chose, Francis of Assisi, who renounced a life of privilege to serve the Lord.

Criticism of the Church is at an all-time high, and millions have left because of what they view is an inconsistent, and often hypocritical, message, especially regarding the sex scandals and cover-ups. So the selection of a leader who embodies a “practice what you preach” ethic could not have come at a better moment.

And anyone who believes that ethic is for show, think again. In his wildest dreams (prior to the resignation of Benedict), Bergoglio could never have imagined himself becoming pontiff. Popes rarely step down (only four in 2,000 years), and had Benedict served just another few years, Bergoglio would have been 80 — out of contention for the next papacy.

Which makes his humility all the more real, as his lifestyle clearly wasn’t a ploy to ingratiate himself with the College of Cardinals.  It was, and is, what he believes is right.

Until his election as pontiff, he cooked his own meals. He lived in a one-room apartment. More often than not, he walked or took public transportation. (Though, on this last point, we can give many American Cardinals a pass.  Could you imagine Your Eminence in Philadelphia taking the El or Broad Street Subway, or walking to his next meeting on Girard Avenue? It’s great to have God on your side, but honestly, a Glock .45 “on his side” would serve him better.)

Upon becoming Pope, Bergoglio clearly showed the world, at risk of alienating ultra-traditionalists, that the courage of his convictions still reigned supreme.

He didn’t don the typical red papal mozzetta vestments, but a plain white robe. He wasn’t laden with gold and jewels, but adorned a simple wooden Cross. He asked the throngs in St. Peter’s Square to pray for him. Rather than preaching in liturgical platitudes, he actually spoke to the flock. He eschewed the special chair on a raised platform, choosing to greet each Cardinal on the same level, showing he was still one of them.  Forsaking the Pope Car, he rode to the hotel on the bus with all the Cardinals, later invoking laughter as he toasted them: “May God forgive you!”

And upon checkout, he paid the hotel bill himself and carried his own luggage.

Not a bad start.

*****

While praying one day, St. Francis heard Christ speak to him: “Francis, repair my Church.”

In that regard, Pope Francis has his work cut out for him.  As one of “God’s Marines,” as the Jesuits are known, he will have to fight every day to repair a fractured Church. Modernize without compromise, apologize and sanitize, and organize and proselytize.

A herculean task, and one compounded by his age. He is 76. Put another way, he is 24 years short of the century mark.

Is such a consideration discriminatory? Age-ist?  Unfair?

Absolutely.  But also true. Like it or not, age, and appearance, matter.

Maybe 76 is the new 56. Maybe Pope Francis will be photographed fist-bumping a 10-year old. Maybe his charisma knows no bounds, allowing him to resonate with all generations, reinvigorating the faithful and inspiring the departed to return.

But it will take an extraordinary amount of energy and strength, attributes which clearly had left Pope Benedict. Will Pope Francis have the necessary stamina, and if so, for how long? Time will tell.

And let’s be clear about something. For this pope to be effective, he must be a globetrotter, racking up huge miles. And yes, that means regularly visiting that not-so-obscure country accounting for not just millions of Catholics and billions for Church coffers, but one that also happens to be the leader of the world. It’s called the United States, and papal visits every decade don’t, and won’t, cut it.  Benedict’s first — and last — visit was in 2008, three years after becoming Pope. Because of his frailty, more numerous trips didn’t occur, and that perfectly illustrates why age matters.

Both flock and clergy need to see their leader on a more frequent basis, but such a schedule takes a toll. And let’s not forget that the Pope is not just the leader of a religion, but a Head-of-State, as the Vatican is its own sovereign country.

Those who criticize the questioning of age are not dealing with reality. Age was a major issue with numerous presidential candidates, not just from a health standpoint, but also relatability. John McCain and Bob Dole both lost to younger, more charismatic opponents. And an old-looking, frail FDR could never have been elected in the age of television because he was wheelchair-bound, weakened by polio.

However, if anyone proved that age could be overcome, it was Ronald Reagan. Despite being on death’s door after the assassination attempt, the nation’s oldest-elected president nonetheless traveled the world, rebuilt a battered economy, and defeated communism, in the process freeing more people than any other person in history.

But Francis begins his papacy only one year younger than when Reagan left office. Age will become a factor, and we may be choosing another pope within a decade. Is this the new precedent? Is it a calculated move to ensure that massive media coverage of the Church continues? Is choosing a new leader every few years necessary to adapt with the times, hoping a fresh perspective will keep Catholics interested? Or will such a practice lead to a “been there, done that” tedium? Too soon to tell.

One thing is certain. Pope Francis can either be a great communicator by preaching worldwide, or he can stay in the Vatican and clean house, cutting its massive bureaucracy and reforming the Church from within. But he can’t do both.

Here’s hoping he appoints some kick-ass, take-no-prisoners lieutenants to do the latter, and resurrects the global force for good the Church was, prior to the scandals. And since he is 76, there’s no better time than the present.

*****

I am lucky enough to have stayed in Assisi, Italy. In between imbibing Umbrian wine with the locals, I traced the footsteps of Francis: where he performed his deeds, where he lived and often went hungry in the caves above town, and where he lies buried under the Basilica. It was impossible not to become immersed in his almost-too-amazing-to-be-true life.

Given that Jorge Bergoglio chose to emulate such a model human, the Cardinals may have, in fact, chosen wisely.

And since the rain that had been pouring on St. Peter’s Square just happened to stop the moment before Pope Francis was announced to the world, it seems The Big Guy agrees.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates FreindlyFireZone.com . He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

 

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

If the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) could compete for an Emmy, it would definitely be a winner.  Its “Security Theatre” has become a cutting-edge soap opera, replete with comedy, drama and ultimately, tragedy.
And the latest episode is making the biggest headlines yet.
The TSA has sliced and diced a prior position, and is now permitting passengers to carry knives onto planes.
Yes. Knives. Those sharp, pointy things that can puncture a pilot’s jugular in a heartbeat, make flight attendants talk like Stephen Hawking, and create total pandemonium at 35,000 feet.
If so many people’s lives, not to mention the entire economy, were not jeopardized by this warped decision, it would be funny.  But this is definitely no joke.
However, you can take solace.  The TSA has shown great sensitivity to the 9/11 attacks by keeping box-cutters banned, despite the steely fact that their blades are but a fraction of those on the permissible knives. Another oxymoron we call “TSA Consistency.”
Even more comical is the TSA’s criteria for the knives. If the blade is no more than 2.36” long and a half-inch wide, it will fly the (un)friendly skies. The blade must also be one that folds away, which is, presumably, because the TSA thinks a 2.36” folded blade (which is locked when opened) can’t kill someone. More reassuring, the knife cannot have a molded handle, which should be a huge relief to everyone — except those who actually fly.
Why the monumental shift in TSA policy? In addition to wanting to be more in-line with Europe (honest to God, that’s no joke), it says security lines are congested because TSA screeners are confiscating thousands of such knives, and these items don’t pose a 9/11-type threat anyway.
Oh. So because druggies and shoplifters create logjams in our courts, we should just give in and make their actions legal?
And how exactly will lines be shortened with TSA screeners now using tape measures to ensure that 2.37” knives don’t slip by? Although, truth be told, they could all just emulate the Philadelphia Airport, where everything seems to get through.
The TSA is convinced that a 9/11 hijacking can never occur again because so much has changed: steel cockpit doors, a vigilant flying public, air marshals and better intelligence.  And there you have it: TSA’s  “risk-based” security plan. Which is really great, except the parts about the steel cockpit doors, a vigilant flying public, air marshals and better intelligence.
Let’s review:
1. Yes, cockpit doors are strengthened, but since there aren’t self-contained bathrooms in the cockpit, pilots are absolutely vulnerable every time nature calls.
2. Is the TSA expecting passengers to work “fight-the-knife-freak” duty? And how many people are the TSA willing to sacrifice? It’s not just the doped up or drunk passenger who stabs the flight attendant because he hated the in-flight movie. It’s a handful of Mohammed Attas coordinating a vicious attack, each wielding several legal weapons. Sound familiar? It should, since box-cutters were legal on 9/11.  Once the attack commences, then what? Maybe they gain entrance to the cockpit, and maybe not. But when you’re dealing with fanatics who can’t wait to meet Allah and all those supposed virgins, it’s going to be a bloodbath. And since sophisticated terrorists always utilize surprise, they will gain the upper hand immediately.
Can’t wait for the TSA press conference after an aircraft lands with 300 dead passengers and crew. “Yeah, they all got stabbed to death. But hey! We didn’t lose the plane!”
And guess what? The economy would collapse anyway.
3. Air marshals? Sorry, they’ve been sequestrationed, and only fly on a small percentage of flights anyway. For the record, they vehemently oppose the TSA knife policy. Next.
4. Better intelligence. Really? Where? Like in New York in 2010, when the Muslim fundamentalist Times Square bomber was caught by Lady Luck? You may remember him. After fleeing Manhattan, he went to the airport, bought a one-way ticket to the Middle East — in cash —, boarded the plane, and almost almost took off. And best of all, he was on the No-Fly List!
Or the 2009 Christmas Day underwear bomber who, only through sheer ineptness, didn’t bring down a jumbo jet over the U.S. He was also on our watch lists, and his own father repeatedly warned our intelligence communities of his son’s intentions, yet he too almost succeeded.
Out of curiosity, does that “better intelligence” include the countless alphabet-soup agencies that still wage turf wars with each other and don’t share information? Just wondering.
*****
Of course, there is a much better solution. It’s called profiling, and it works really, really well.  Just ask the Israelis, who know a thing or two about terrorists. (El Al has only been hijacked once).
But out of deference to possible hurt feelings, we refuse. In fact, because of our affinity for political correctness, we do the opposite. The TSA actually announces who doesn’t have to take off their shoes (all children under 12), and who won’t be subject to pat-downs (children, the wheelchair-bound, and pretty much anyone who complains). Which is all well and good except that the Brotherhood of Mohammed Atta has no problem sacrificing their kids, so guess on whom they will hide their explosives?
*****
In 2007, the then-TSA chief lifted the ban on lighters and matches, admitting that policy was “security theatre.” Nothing has changed, as the TSA continues with policies that not only aren’t keeping the skies safe, but actually make them more dangerous.
Unfortunately, Security Theatre has become an all-too-true reality show, playing out every day at thousands of airports. And it’s only a matter of time before it crashes and burns.

But in the meantime, in the hope that Security Theatre can jump to the big screen, the least we could do is suggest some appropriate movie titles. Not sure if the copyrights have expired on these, but here’s taking a stab at it:
Jagged Edge, Blade Runner, Con Air, Fight Club, Skyfall, Airport ’13, and, in honor of when TSA officials fly, Snakes On A Plane.

Chris Freind is an independent commentator who operates his own news bureau, www.FreindlyFireZone.com  His self-syndicated model has earned him the largest cumulative media voice in Pennsylvania. He can be reached at CF@FreindlyFireZone.com

Slash TSA Knife Policy Would Be Cutting Edge

Pope Resigning Is Miracle For Church

Thank God for small miracles. Or, in this case, huge ones.
The decision of Pope Benedict XVI to step down — the first resignation in 600 years and only the fourth in history — has given the Catholic Church an unprecedented opportunity to save itself. And since the eleventh hour is upon the Church, the Pope’s action could not have come at a better time.
Whether the conclave of Cardinals takes advantage of this blessing or blows it all to hell remains to be seen.
As one of the Catholic faithful, I desperately want to believe it will choose the right path.
I want to believe the Church, without hesitation, will do whatever is necessary to rebuild the greatest, most benevolent institution the world has ever known.
I want to believe the Church will admit and address, head-on, that its hard times — the scandal, corruption and genuflecting at the wrong altar (that of political correctness) — are sins of its own making.
I want to believe the Church has finally learned to practice what it preaches, that humbleness will replace arrogance, and that it fully appreciates the value of not just forgiveness, but asking to be forgiven.
I want to believe that the new Pope will inherently understand that, in order for the Church to survive, it must adapt — not in ways that undermine the pillars of its divine theology, but by approaching its critical “earthly” issues with an honest, fresh perspective.
I want to believe that the Church will strive to better understand the value of perhaps the most powerful tool in the 21st century: public relations.
And I want to believe that the Catholic Church, once and for all, will cease being a paper tiger, resurrecting its once mighty political power.
But at the risk of sounding like Thomas, I have my doubts.
Given its recent history, the Church does not exactly inspire confidence that it has learned from its mistakes and gained the wisdom (and will) to embark on the path to growth. A gambling man would wager on the next Pope being Business-As-Usual, radiating the status quo and reluctant to make waves.
That would be a good bet, but it would be a losing hand for the Church, relegating it to a house of cards.
*****
So what should the Cardinals do to ensure the survivability of the Church?
1.  For starters, choose the right-looking leader. Honorable as he may be, Pope Benedict makes John McCain look downright boyish, so picking another frail, gray-haired/white-haired/no-haired Pontiff is a surefire way to completely lose the middle-aged-and-younger generations. Like it or not, appearance matters. And that is infallible.
Proof? FDR could have never won in the television age because America would not elect a man in a wheelchair. JFK’s youth and good looks gave him a substantial advantage over Nixon in the debates. Bob Dole versus Bill Clinton? Not even divine intervention could have helped Dole in that matchup. And since the death of European Christianity has largely occurred under older pontiffs, maybe it’s time to go younger.
However, choosing a pope on ethnic appearance would be a huge mistake. Sure, a black pope helps bolster Africa (the new battleground in the vicious Christian-Muslim wars), as a Latino does for Central and South America.  But that vision is short-sighted, as it wouldn’t actually address, let alone solve, the Church’s problems.
2. Select an articulate, charismatic pontiff who, in both perception and reality, can effectively communicate that he is in touch with the true heart and soul of the Church — the rank-and-file. The new pope cannot afford to be aloof or insulated, since these are the very qualities that contributed so mightily to the Church’s decline. How bad has it become? One in ten Americans is an ex-Catholic, and the 30 million who have left the Church, if counted as their own religious group, would be the third-largest denomination in the country. Vocations are a fraction of what they once were, and the obvious stigma associated with entering the seminary keeps even more away. And the stark reality is that, within a decade, Catholic education will be largely gone, leaving churches that much emptier.
3. Ensure the new pope apologizes in an unprecedented upfront, straightforward manner, not just for the scandals but the cover-ups. And that apology should extend down to every parish. Countless Catholics are still waiting for a genuine apology, and many parents feel that they are being put through the ringer because of priests’ sins. Praying in mass for the pedophile clergy, and those who covered up their salacious activities, is one thing. But the many priests who still view the scandals as overblown makes the sin mortal, as the continuing Catholic exodus and dwindling coffers attest.
4. Start talking about the positive aspects of the Church, restoring the credibility that has been shattered by years of sex scandals, shredded documents and cover-ups. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest provider of social services in the entire world (second in America behind only the U.S. government) and administers the world’s largest nonpublic school system, yet most people are unaware of those phenomenal achievements — a massive failure in public relations. It’s time to tell that magnificent story and educate the world — again — on what it really means to be Catholic. Unequivocally, pride in Catholic identity leads to fuller schools.
5. Flex political muscle. From keeping its schools open (which saves billions in taxpayer money) to fighting government healthcare insurance mandates for abortion and birth control, success in the public arena only occurs when muscle is flexed It’s time for Catholics to take their rightful place at the political table, as all other religions do (despite having far fewer members). But that means playing hardball, unabashedly making its issues front and center in primary and general elections. The power of a newly awakened tiger — one that has shed its paper skin — would be an unmatched political force. But that power will only exist if people once again believe in their Church.
6. Allow priests to marry.  And yes, consider allowing women to enter the priesthood.  This would ease the resentment felt by many women towards a Church that treats them like second-class citizens. Even more important, women and married priests are the only measures that can ensure the Church’s survival. We can play with the numbers, pretending that seminary vocations are up, but the stark reality is that if nothing changes, there soon won’t be a Catholic Church in the traditional sense. The cock has been crowing a lot more than three times — more like 30 years — and yet the denials from Church leaders continue. The clock is ticking.
An all-male, celibate clergy has its origins in human, not divine, history. Forget Dan Brown theories as to whether Jesus was actually married. Priests were married (and possibly even a Pope or two), and were for centuries, with some historians placing that practice at over 1,000 years. While it was abolished for “religious” reasons, the real impetus was rooted in property rights. But since God invented annuities and life insurance in the 20th century, that problem has been solved. Married clergy certainly seems to be working in the other religions (who don’t have nearly the old age and pedophile problems), so the Church needs to get with the times.
*****
Keep the faith but fight the corruption.  That should be the ultimate factor in choosing the next pope.  It doesn’t get any simpler, or more poignant, than that.
If such a leader can preach a positive message, modernize without compromise, and wield a political sledgehammer, then prayers for a reinvigorated flock will be answered, keeping Christ’s Church alive far into the future.

Chris Freind’s work can be found at FreindlyFire.Com

 

Pope Resigning Is Miracle For Church

Military Heroes Oppressed By Tyrant-in-Chief

Military Heroes Oppressed By Tyrant-in-Chief
By Pat Carfagno


Just days ago, Gateway Pundit published a story which infuriated this SHREW. Being away from the studio, I passed the info along to my colleagues at tFreedom Radio and THE SHREW Tim Sumner and Anna Bee. The following is an excerpt from that article:

“A determination of incompetency will prohibit you (veteran) from purchasing, possessing, receiving or transporting a firearm or ammunition. If you knowingly violate any of these prohibitions you may be fined, imprisoned, or both pursuant to the Brady Habndgun Violence Prevention Act, Pub.L. No. 103-159, as implemented at 18 United States Code 924 (a)(2)”


Tim Sumner, co-founder of 911 Families for a Safe and Strong America did a little digging. The following audio is an excerpt from a discussion on our very own THE SHREW:

 

Military Heroes Oppressed By Tyrant-in-Chief

Let’s Close The Cafeteria

The unexpected resignation of Pope Benedict XVI has brought forth the expected plethora of pundits expounding on exactly who should be named to replace the pontiff. This of course is not surprising. It’s analogous to what went on when Andy Reid was fired as the Eagles’ coach after a 14-year run.

Sports talk show hosts were inundated with names of once and future coaches that the fan base put forth, ad nauseam, on a daily basis. Underlying all the speculation was the certainty that the team’s ownership would name whomever it thought was the best available choice, fan approval notwithstanding.

No educated fan would dare to believe that an owner would actually poll his season ticket holders to see exactly who he should hire. Football fans—despite the widely-held rowdy stereotype—have enough sense to realize this. Not so, apparently, with many Roman Catholics, if any of the man-on-the-street interviews published in the Philadelphia Inquirer are an indication.

                Some of the remarks:
                “I think it’s time to name a pope from Latin America…they should name one of ours. They’ve only named Europeans until now.

                “If I had my way, an African should be the next pope. …we have a black president. So let’s just feel the impact of a black pope.”
                “I hope the next pope will be a little more liberal and consider allowing …women to become priests. …part of the reason the Church is losing its members (is because) they’re not listening to the people.”
Really? They’re not listening to the people? Real Catholics—those of us who have been thoroughly schooled in the faith—know from countless classes in religion, catechism, Bible history, and theology, that the pope is the vicar of Christ on Earth. He stands in the “shoes of the fisherman,” i.e. Simon-Peter, upon whom Christ established his Church.  {Matthew 16:18}.
Christ charged the Apostles with spreading his good news. He didn’t send them forth to gather opinions like a dozen survey-takers marching through a large mall, each with a clipboard in order to “listen to the people.”
Quite the opposite, if Scripture can be utilized as a guide:
                “Going therefore, teach ye all nations…teach them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. {Matthew 28:19-20}
                “If you love me, keep my commandments. {John 14:15}
Jesus of Nazareth laid down the rules very clearly. The pope, as his spiritual descendant should not—cannot—veer from those directions now, checking the latest fad in acceptable popular behavior, so he can deviate from Christ’s original intention for the sake of making the Church more “suitable” to today’s culture.
Jesus called them commandments, folks; not suggestions. And his Church has endured for 2,000 years, despite the immorality, criminality, and deviancy of some of its members. He did, after all, leave his Church in the hands of imperfect beings.
And that Church has had a line of successors to Simon-Peter that stretches through the centuries, past Constantine, Muhammad, Charlemagne, Marco Polo, Gutenberg, Columbus, Michelangelo, Luther, Calvin, Copernicus, Galileo, Bach, Jefferson, Lincoln, Marx, Einstein…

That line will continue with Benedict XVI’s successor. I hope and pray it’s a man who continues the policies of Jesus, and not someone who takes a popular referendum from his flock to see where they want him to take “their” church. I rather it be someone who steers Christ’s Church—the one he founded two millennia ago.

(Excerpted from Good Writer’s Block)

Sue NFL For Concussions? Get Your Head Examined

Now that the Super Bowl is over, the really big game begins. And it’s going to be a head-knocker.

On one side we have the raiders. No, not Oakland, but the Trial Lawyers, who delight in raiding everything good and decent in America. They are representing former NFL players in their fight against the evil empire, a.k.a. the National Football League. At stake? Upwards of ten billion dollars, and possibly, the existence of the NFL itself.

And what is the nerve center of this federal lawsuit, filed in Philadelphia, that have the plaintiffs so mad they’re seeing double? What went so wrong that these former players, given a life of royalty by the NFL, now want to ring the League’s bell?

They suffered concussions playing football.  No lie.  That’s actually the basis of the lawsuit.

The sheer stupidity of such a suit makes you wonder if they really did get hit too many times, because no one of sound mind could dream up something like this.

It would seem, therefore, that their motive is rooted in something else. In the preferred legalistic nomenclature, they’re looking for a handout.

Maybe they’re bitter because they didn’t play in the era of massive contracts. Maybe it’s because they can’t function as “regular” guys after being worshipped for so long, which, for many, started in grade school. Others may feel lost, with football the only thing they know. But their commonality is thinking they are entitled to something.

****

The outcome of this lawsuit should be a no-brainer. But given the insanity in America’s civil legal system, a jackpot jury award is definitely possible.  (NFL Properties and helmet maker Riddell are defendants, too.)

The players claim the NFL hid information linking football-related head trauma to permanent brain injuries (such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease). In addition to monetary damages, they want the NFL to assume responsibility for the medical care involved for those players suffering from those health problems.

Let’s look at the case objectively:

1. This sense of entitlement is not just misguided but inappropriate. No one held a gun to players’ heads to sign lucrative contracts and become celebrities to play football.  They’re big boys, and chose their profession — with its risks — of their own free will.

2. And yes, there are risks. Plenty of them. Football is not a contact sport; it’s a collision sport. It is an intensely physical, violent profession. That’s why God made pads and helmets, but any third grader can tell you that those things only help to minimize injuries, and can never totally prevent them. The NFL is not a flag-football league, but one with punishing hits. That’s the game. Players can take it or leave it.  Not surprisingly, they take it.  Always.

3. The pass-the-buck, take-no-personal-responsibility attitude so prevalent in America is once again on full display. Players knew the risks, reaped immense rewards, and now, after the fact, want to blame the NFL for their issues. And are we really supposed to believe that the NFL willfully engaged in a grand conspiracy to keep players in the dark about the effects of hard tackling? To swallow that, we must assume that the League had every doctor in the country on the take, preventing them from speaking to any player who had questions about concussions. And that it somehow inhibited medical professionals from conducting research into concussions and brain injuries.

4. Did the NFL, the medical community and our society know as much about concussions several decades ago? No.  Is there a concerted effort now to better understand brain trauma, and to make all sports — including NFL football — safer? Absolutely.  That’s not malfeasance. It’s progress.

5. Is the NFL culture one that glorifies big hits, highlights them on NFL films, and encourages playing through injuries? Yes, but so what? Fans love when players get leveled, and players love delivering big-time jolts, which often help their team. Gutting it out has always been a source of pride for players, who do it not to secure the next big contract but because they love the game.  An admirable choice, but a choice nonetheless.

6. Where does it end? Should a firefighter who gets burned sue the fire department? Is a baker responsible because an obese donut-eater develops heart disease? And should office workers who develop carpal tunnel syndrome have legal standing to sue their company?

Some jobs have higher risks, and playing NFL football is one of them. But given the lavish rewards, it’s an acceptable risk to players — past and present.  And regarding former players who state that, if they had today’s knowledge back then, they would have opted out — give us a break.  Not a chance in the world.

7. The NFL (and the Players Association) has spent more than a billion dollars on pensions, medical and disability benefits for retired players.
The NFL also operates numerous health programs for current and former players, and offers medical benefits to former players, such as joint replacement, neurological evaluations and spine treatment programs, assisted living partnerships, long-term care insurance, prescription benefits, life insurance programs, and a Medicare supplement program, according to the League. Equipment has improved, and safety has increased, including outlawing certain types of hits.

****

Is it sad that some former players have trouble walking, concentrating and living a “normal” life? Sure.  Is it a tragedy when a few commit suicide? Absolutely.   But it’s time that these players stop blaming others for their situations and look in the mirror. They made their choices, and for most, lived a fairy tale.

If they now choose to feel sorry for themselves, or regret their choices, fine.  But it’s a personal foul to ruin the game not just for current and future players, but for the ones who allow the League — and its former players —to be so successful: the fans.

And you don’t need your head examined to see that.

Chris Freind can be found at FreindlyFireZone.Com

 

Sue NFL For Concussions? Get Your Head Examined

Corbett’s Penn State Folly: Suing NCAA Will Not Save Him

July of 2012 was notable for several reasons: the hottest month on record, both parties gearing up for the presidential campaign, and the voluntarily acceptance of harsh NCAA sanctions by the Penn State Board of Trustees, which includes Governor Tom Corbett.
A half -year later, all have evolved predictably: it’s cold, the President won, and Corbett has flip-flopped in an ill-fated attempt to bolster his image in the PSU/Jerry Sandusky scandal. The Tom and Jerry Show — a tragic comedy — just keeps getting better.
*****
In a nakedly obvious political calculation, Corbett has reversed himself on the penalties, and is now suing the NCAA for “overreaching and unlawful sanctions.”
Wow. What a change of heart, since it was only last July when he stated, “part of the corrective process is to accept the serious penalties imposed by the NCAA on Penn State University and its football program.”
The $64,000 question is “Why?” Why the 180-degree change, and why now, instead of when the sanctions were announced? For those answers, let’s play Corbett’s version of Let’s Make A Deal:
Corbett answer behind Door Number One: “I wanted to thoroughly research the issue to make sure we were on solid legal footing.”  Uh, sorry, but no prize.  For months leading up to the announcement, even the most remote Eskimos knew severe sanctions were a certainty. The NCAA bylaws aren’t all that complicated, so Corbett (himself a former U.S. Attorney and twice the state’s Attorney General), his General Counsel, his attorney Chief of Staff, and an army of other Administration lawyers could have easily determined — way ahead of time — if A. the NCAA could legally impose sanctions; B. if so, what sanctions should be off the table; and C. if the Administration had legal footing to sue the NCAA should it impose them anyway.  And as a Trustee, Corbett clearly would have been party to discussions with the NCAA about the forthcoming sanctions.
Corbett’s Door Number Two: He waited so that the football team could avoid another distraction.  Wrong again! Football season doesn’t start in July, and the football team was already dealing with Sandusky fallout.  Ironically, a Corbett lawsuit in July would have had the opposite effect— becoming a rallying cry for the team that someone was standing up for them.
Door Three: “I didn’t want to make the same mistake the NCAA made by carelessly rushing in.” Well, that one fits, since Corbett, as the Attorney General investigating Sandusky, made absolutely no rush to get a serial predator off the street, taking a staggering three years to make an arrest, conveniently after his gubernatorial election. True “carelessness” was Corbett assigning two narcotics agents to investigate Sandusky, while scores of agents (including child predator units) pursued a headline-generating political corruption case in which no children were at risk.
Door Four:  “After months of research and deliberation, as well as discussions with alumni, students, faculty, business owners and elected officials, (Corbett) concluded that the NCAA’s sanctions were overreaching and unlawful.” So is the suit because the NCAA is violating its bylaws, or because souvenir shops aren’t selling as many Nittany Lion magnets? And, despite the vast legal knowledge of those constituencies, since when do they factor into whether a lawsuit should be filed?
Taxpayers should understand that the substantial cost of this lawsuit will be footed by them, since neither Administration lawyers nor the Attorney General will handle it. Instead, that prize goes to top-of-the-line law firm Cozen O’Connor.  Cozen (and its attorneys and family members) contributed almost $100,000 to the Governor’s campaigns, and is the former firm of Corbett’s new General Counsel.
*****
Now let’s get serious and look at the real reasons behind Corbett’s newfound love of Penn State. While he is now busy acting like its savior, let us not forget his grandstanding, doing his best impression of a Roman Emperor wanting to raze Penn State and sow its fields with salt, just like Carthage.
Has Corbett finally realized he is about to become the first governor to lose a second term? He is already one of the nation’s least popular governors, and, with the exception of demagoguing on Penn State (when convenient), is spotted in public less than Bigfoot. Now, he is at the point in politics where they separate the men from the boys, and he is frantically reaching for something with wide appeal.
Suing the NCAA won’t help Corbett, even if his lawsuit is successful, as Pennsylvanians see right through his ploy.  Many view him as part of the process which went overboard in destroying Penn State’s reputation and giving Joe Paterno a premature death. And even more think he deliberately understaffed the Sandusky investigation — leaving children to potentially suffer at Sandusky’s hands — so that he wouldn’t alienate Penn State alumni while running for governor. Corbett’s blatant pandering has only furthered the resolve of so many to end his tenure with a resounding sack.
And maybe Corbett is trying to distract incoming Attorney General Kathleen Kane, the first Democrat ever to hold that office, who not coincidentally wasn’t consulted about the Governor’s lawsuit.  Kane, it is worth noting, just won more votes than anyone in Pennsylvania history (including the President), a feat directly attributable to one issue: cleaning up Harrisburg, starting with an investigation into how Corbett handled the Sandusky investigation.
Put another way, would Tom Corbett have filed this lawsuit had his hand-picked candidate for Attorney General beaten Kane?
But we do have the lawsuit, and with it, two more major Corbett inconsistencies: 1. “conservatives” like the governor always rail against activist judges — until, like now, they need one.  And 2. Corbett stated that, if successful, he will urge the Board to use the $60 million to help groups working against abuse. While a nice thought, is that not completely undermining his argument that the fines are creating an unacceptable burden on so many in the PSU community? Is there anyone in the Governor’s office who has really thought this lawsuit through?
Truth is, this woefully miscalculated effort will accomplish only one thing: a major backfire.
*****
For the record, this author stated his opposition to the sanctions when they were first imposed. A courageous Board of Trustees would have fought the NCAA as former UNLV basketball coach Jerry Tarkanian did — who eventually won a multimillion settlement. But they, including Corbett, chose not to pursue action, voluntarily accepting the punishment from an organization to which Penn State voluntarily belongs.  One can debate the prudence of the Board’s decision, but the University’s message is clear: it wants to put the Sandusky matter behind it as quickly as possible, which is why it is not party to the lawsuit.
Corbett had his chance, but for whatever the reason — indecisiveness, incompetence, political motivations — he failed to act, and that ship has long sailed.
But the Tom and Jerry Show is far from over. The Governor is on a collision course with voters (especially his own Republicans) who demand answers about Sandusky — answers that Corbett refuses to give. These are questions that go to the very core of Tom Corbett’s true character. And they are questions that may well lead him to the dustbin of political history — or, depending on what Kane finds, worse.
How will this show end? Attorney General-elect Kane, the floor is yours.

 

Journalist Criticizes Journalist

In November, child actor Angus Jones—one of the stars of the hit sitcom Two and a Half men—publicly criticized the show that has made him a multi-millionaire. In effect, he condemned the vulgar tone of the program.

Anyone who has seen this program knows that the kid is only confirming what they already have seen and heard themselves. The plots are about sex, the characters are sex-driven, and the dialogue is not so much sexual innuendo as it is crude and openly sexual remarks that one could hear in any junior high school yard. Yes, 13-year-olds laugh like hell at this stuff.

But the success of this long-running sitcom is testament to the depths to which our culture now stoops when looking for 22 minutes-worth of mindless entertainment. I confess that I watched this program the first two years of its existence, but soon grew tired of the ever-increasing focus on the bedroom and the bathroom—the two rooms about which Two and a Half Men seems to be concerned.

In a December 1, 2012 column in the Philadelphia Inquirer, their television columnist found fault with Angus Jones, saying that he sabotaged his career by this “bizarre” rambling of his. Of course the columnist also noted that the 19-year old is “newly evangelized.”

Well, well…I think we’re finally getting to the meat of the criticism. How critical would the television critic have been if Jones say, spoke out against the Second Amendment’s guarantee of the right to bear arms, or passed negative judgment on the pro-life movement, or defended atheism as sober way of life? Personally, I think Jones would have been painted as a hero for speaking his young mind.

But the moment you announce that Christianity is the impetus behind your stand, you’ve committed one of the news media’s seven deadly sins: Thou shalt not try to profess your belief in God—at least not if you make your living in the entertainment industry. Morals be damned.

The columnist even went so far as to say that if the young actor was truly appalled at the bawdy nature of the show, shouldn’t he give away his hefty salary to the more needy, since this would be the truly Christian thing to do?

Just as the columnist gives his salary to the needy, I suppose.

(Read more at Good Writers Block)

Journalist Criticizes Journalist

 Journalist Criticizes Journalist

Norquest Pledge Video About Treason Gone Viral

Norquest Pledge Video — Robert Thurman, Professor of Buddhist Studies at Columbia University, released a video that questions the patriotism of several of the Republican Senators and Representatives who signed the Norquist Pledge to not raise taxes no matter what the condition of the United States.

According to Thurman, and common sense, when a person is elected to office they pledge to place the well being of the nation and the people above all other
entanglements.

In this case, since many who have signed a pledge with a person who has openly said that his plan is to “starve the beast” referring to the U.S. democratically elected government, so he can “drown it in the bathtub,” Thurman sees this as a conflict of interest and understands the desire to destroy the U.S. Government in order to carry out a pledge to a leader in corporate American as treason.

Why did Thurman make this video?

Thurman felt that this was something obvious, but something that no one was willing to say openly. When we look at the facts, as presented by Thurman and the news outlets, concerning the signing of this pledge not to raise taxes, and the actions that allowed the U.S. to be forced to pay billions of dollars more on debts because of purposeful coercion by the signators to not raise the debt ceiling until the tax breaks for the top 2 percent of the people continued, and the driving toward the fiscal cliff by the signatures now to force cuts in medicare and social security to maintain the tax breaks for the top 2 percent again, we must ask why it is so important to be more faithful to this pledge than one’s sworn government responsibilities, and what they are getting for being faithful to the pledge. Perhaps following the money trail can help us understand a bit more. Is it treason, or just being more faithful to someone other than the U.S. Citizenry?

Thurman’s video is at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fl0L