Caffeinated Thoughts

Dick Cheney’s Organ Donor Was Still Alive When His Heart Was Cut Out!
Ben Lange Endorsed by Rick Santorum in Iowa 1st Congressional District Race
Iowa’s No Child Left Behind Waiver Request Denied
King Campaign Calls on Vilsack to Take a Stand on the Issue: ObamaCare

Dick Cheney’s Organ Donor Was Still Alive When His Heart Was Cut Out!

Posted: 22 Jun 2012 03:18 AM PDT

Some people won't donate organs because they are afraid organ transplant doctors might accidently take their organs while they are still alive. That’s just silly. They do take the organs while you are still alive alright, but it is no accident. It is done on purpose. The only way vital organs can be used for transplants is to take them from people whose hearts are still beating.

A May, 2012 article in Discover Magazine called "The Beating Heart Donors," (by Dick Teresi) states that "They urinate. They have heart attacks and bedsores. They have babies. They may even feel pain. Meet the organ donors who are 'pretty dead.'" It may be one of the most carefully disguised facts in all of modern medicine. If you have signed an organ donor card and are chosen for vital organ transplantation, you will be alive when the organs are taken (but not for long.)

Perhaps you are comforted by the fact you will be declared dead. Don't be. Perhaps you think there is some universal and rational standard for defining "brain death." There isn't.

A little research finds it simply isn't true, as I wrote earlier:

Definitions of brain death are deliberately skewed to lean towards a finding of brain death. For example, as described in a Critical Care Nurse Journal, medical personnel are given a checklist to determine whether a person is dead. It is implied that the patient must fail all of the tests or alas, they must be treated as still alive. But, when one moves to the bottom of the checklist, you find this statement under "Other confirmatory tests" (for example, the EEG, cerebral angiography or brain scans) which are "Useful in situations where clinical exam is equivocal or a full examination cannot be performed" In other words, if some of the other tests indicate someone is alive, you keep trying until you get some that confirm your preconceived notion that they are dead.

It is important to note that, for example, "Texas law does not mandate any particular test for the diagnosis of brain death." Consequently, “although fairly consistent criteria are used to diagnose brain death, variability exists across states and practice settings as a result of local legislation and institutional policy. Individual hospital practice may also vary, depending on available resources and physicians' experience.” (Emphasis mine!)

In other words, death is whatever "the experts" want it to be (and they don't have to be all that "experty"). As the Discover article pointed out, it was when doctors became dissatisfied defining death by "a heart that could not be restarted, or lungs that could not breathe" (A Biblical definition, I might add) that they sought a new definition of death based on personhood. The medical community has known all along it was putting forth a fraud. This new definition was arbitrary and capricious from the very beginning.

For the Christian, these tests are irrelevant other than to show how duplicitous some professionals and experts (godless scientists and doctors) can be when we grant them a favored place in determining right and wrong. It isn't theirs. It is God's.

Ben Lange Endorsed by Rick Santorum in Iowa 1st Congressional District Race

Posted: 21 Jun 2012 09:30 PM PDT

Verona, PA – Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum (R-PA) announced today that he has endorsed Ben Lange (R-IA) for Congress.

Rick Santorum said: “I am excited to endorse Ben Lange for Congress. I was honored to receive Ben’s endorsement and support during my presidential campaign, and had the great pleasure to get to know Ben and his entire family along the trail. Ben is a tireless campaigner for the conservative principles of faith, family, and freedom that make our nation great. He will be a tremendous representative for the people of Iowa in the halls of Congress, and I look forward to working with Ben’s campaign to help elect him as the next congressman for northeast Iowa.”

Learn more at www.patriotvoices.com.

Iowa’s No Child Left Behind Waiver Request Denied

Posted: 21 Jun 2012 08:15 PM PDT

The U.S. Department of Education denied the Iowa Department of Education's No Child Left Behind waiver request. The catching point was over how teacher evaluations were going to be conducted. In a letter sent by the Department to Jason Glass, the director of the Iowa Department of Education, they stated:

According to the information in your request, the Iowa Department of Education does not currently have authority to ensure implementation of teacher and principal evaluation and support systems consistent with this principle of ESEA flexibility. Because of these constraints, the Department is not able to approve Iowa's request for flexibility at this time.

Iowa Governor Terry Branstad in a statement released this afternoon blamed the Iowa Legislature for inaction instead of criticizing Education Secretary Arne Duncan and President Barack Obama for making the waiver conditional in the first place:

Responsibility for the denial of this request lies squarely at the feet of the Iowa Legislature, which did too little to improve our schools despite repeated warnings. The education reform plan Lt. Governor Reynolds and I proposed would have ensured a waiver from the onerous federal No Child Left Behind law. Lawmakers, instead, chose to delay updating the educator evaluation system by requiring a task force study the issue and make recommendations for consideration by the 2013 Legislature. The U.S. Department of Education, however, left the door open to approving Iowa's request for flexibility if lawmakers come back to the table and pass meaningful reform that gives the Iowa Department of Education the authority it needs to update evaluations now.

Iowa has slipped to the middle of the pack in education in part because we did not adopt the same rigorous policies as other states receiving the waiver. This reflects poorly on Iowa, and our students deserve better.

So basically the U.S. Department of Education said Iowa is not getting the waiver because they lack the authority to mandate to local school districts how they do their evaluations. And the problem with this is what exactly? Here is a reminder of what Governor Branstad wanted if he could get his way. In HSB 517 which was the original education reform package that the Branstad administration submitted not only were public schools mandates, but accredited non-public schools were mandated to use the state's evaluation system for teachers (teachers and administrators are to be evaluated every year). It provided an exception, but only for public schools (page 6, line 13). Based on what was required for an evaluation doing those on a annual basis would have proven to be onerous for smaller school districts especially. Also it wasn't just that teachers and administrators were evaluated, but the state wanted school districts to do it exactly their way.

So we didn't get the waiver because the Legislature chose to honor local control and to not place a mandate on non-public schools which receive minimal if any public funds. That bill was a travesty. To top it off the waiver was submitted with full knowledge that federal strings were attached which blindly ignores the 10th Amendment. Basically they were exchanging one federal mandate for another. On top of that the waivers are unconstitutional since Congress never repealed No Child Left Behind, what authority does the Department of Education have to ignore the law even if it is a bad one? None. I agree that it is a bad law, but if they had to offer waivers they should have offered them without condition.

Governor Branstad however has bought into the idea that there is a federal role in education and that education must be centralized at the state level. If that were not the case he wouldn't have offered the reform package he did which no person who is serious about local control could ever accept.

King Campaign Calls on Vilsack to Take a Stand on the Issue: ObamaCare

Posted: 21 Jun 2012 11:00 AM PDT

(AMES) – As Christie Vilsack holds another out of state fundraiser with old friends from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign, the King for Congress campaign is calling on Vilsack to take a stand on the issue of ObamaCare and the individual mandate – issues she supported as Hillary Clinton's Iowa Co-Chair in 2007.

"After over a year of running for office, it's time for Christie Vilsack's political pandering to come to an end," said King for Congress Campaign Manager Jake Ketzner. "She supported government-run healthcare in 2007. The simple truth is Christie Vilsack continues to duck questions on ObamaCare because she knows 4^th District Iowans won't support a candidate who stands behind a government takeover of healthcare."

A new Associated Press-GfK poll shows only a third of Americans favor ObamaCare. Congressman King's language to repeal ObamaCare passed the House last year. Vilsack repeatedly ducked questions on ObamaCare during a recent taping of Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press."

Background:

Vilsack Campaign Manager says the race is "about the issues." Vilsack won't take a stance on the issues.

In a story in the Des Moines Register, Vilsack's Campaign Manager Jessica Vanden Berg said this campaign was “about the issues” – issues her candidate ducks question on.

"Look, we acknowledge this is not a Democratic district, but this election isn't necessarily about partisanship, it's about the issues," Vanden Berg said.

Christie Vilsack supported government-run healthcare and a mandate in 2007

The Iowa City Press Citizen reported on September 21, 2007 that "Clinton's 'American Health Choices Plan' for universal health care coverage includes an 'individual mandate,' which requires everyone to have health insurance." Christie Vilsack was stumping for Hillary's plan and the mandate on that day in Iowa City. (Lee Hermiston, "Making the rounds," Iowa City Press-Citizen, Sept. 21, 2007)

Now that Christie Vilsack is a candidate she ducks questions on ObamaCare

From Iowa Public Television's "Iowa Press"

The Des Moines Register's Kathie Obradovich: "If the Supreme Court does happen to uphold the law, do you think that is the end of the story? Or are there things that you would seek to change in that health care law?"

Christie Vilsack: "Well, I think it’s always better to have a bill than no bill and we have a bill and we don’t know what’s going to happen in the next few weeks. But there are a lot of great things in that bill and there are things we need to change, obviously."

Obradovich: "Like what?"

Vilsack: "But the good things — I think we need to focus on what we would want to keep regardless of what happens…"

Obradovich: "I’ll ask you one more time — is there anything in particular that you would change? Anything you have in mind that you would want to change no matter what happens with the Supreme Court?"

Vilsack: "Well, I think there are probably a lot of small things."

Obradovich: "But no one big –"

Radio Iowa's O. Kay Henderson: So you support the mandate?

Vilsack: "No, I think there are a lot of — I think there are a lot of different ways that we can go about this creatively…"

Obradovich: "Are you saying you don’t support the mandate then?"

Vilsack: "I think that we’re going to see a lot of different ways that we can make sure that everybody has access. So, it might be the mandate, it might not be the mandate."

Henderson: "We’re journalists, though, we like black and white. Are you for the mandate or are you against it?"

Vilsack: "I don’t — I’m not for it or against it."

Horoscop

vineri, 22 iunie 2012

Caffeinated Thoughts

Caffeinated Thoughts

Un comentariu: