Friday, March 22, 2013

Parents Threatened by Massachusetts Hospitals for Refusing Unnecessary Care Results in Threats and DSS Intervention – The Costs of ObamaCare in Massachusetts

"Obama Care" - is it forcing an unusual alliance between the state and your health care provider? - Image from: - article "What Soviet Medicine Teaches Us".

The situation appeared normal enough; one family, a woman, her fiancé, and their two children, ages 3 and 1 all came down with a bout of the flu. The infant was having difficulty keeping fluids in due to vomiting, in order to be pro-active in their child’s healthcare – brought the child to a Boston area hospital to get treatment (i.e. fluid by IV’s). There are few parents, who have not been in this situation, either with a baby, or older child, who due to a bad bought of the flue, is faced with a child who is dehydrated due to the inability to keep even fluids down, and either go directly to the emergency room, or are sent there by their pediatrician. It happens, the child is treated and taken home, or that is what is supposed to happen.

In the case presented in the preceding paragraph, the parents were told by the hospital staff that the child had an elevated white blood cell count and needed to be transported immediately to Boston Children’s Hospital. The entire family was sick with the flu, yet the mother, understanding that, generally, having a viral infection, such as the flu, may produce an elevated white blood cell count (see New York Times Health Guides Blood Differential Overview.) Additionally, the child appeared quite active, especially after having received the fluids, yet the staff at this hospital was insistent that the child needed additional test at Boston Children’s Hospital. They were so insistent that they told the parents, who were acting responsibly, that the costly and unnecessary and stressful trip by Ambulance to Boston Children’s Hospital, was a mandate by the staff – either let us take your child for further tests – or face the DSS (or Massachusetts Department of Social Services.

The Parents refused, left the hospital and called their personal health care provider who suggested that the Hospital was overreaching. They also contacted a lawyer, as the calls from the Hospital began – the Hospital had called to confirm that the parents had refused treatment (the child was, as checked by the familial pediatrician, quite healthy after having fluid.) They are now anticipating a full blown investigation by the Massachusetts Department of Social Services due to a trip to the emergency room.

What is interesting in this case, is not the fact that the hospital staff obviously was attempting to bully the parents into getting the child off the premises and into the hands of another institution to make a diagnosis (More on this later), but the fact that there has been an increase in these types of instances over the past three months. Boston area attorney, James Ianiri,is said to have seen an increase in such cases over the past few months, and one can read about instances where families, attempting to take care of their children, have been subject to abuse by both the hospital and the state at his blog It is an eye-opener.

The main reason for a hospital, today, in Massachusetts, to get the patient out the door and into another faculty is the new health care law. The cost cutting required under “Obamacare” puts the onus on the provider to insure that one leaves their care with cured – an impossibility in all cases. The truncated version: A hospital, doctor, or clinic, treats a patient, and that facility is reimbursed under the law, by the health insurance carrier, the health exchange under Obama care, or Medicaid/Medicare the first time a patient visits presenting any condition. Should that patient return presenting the same diagnosis before a 30 day time period, the provider must absorb those costs.


As there are very few private hospitals that are not run by giant corporations, or health care clinic, or private physicians available, one is now at the mercy of the ethical corporation/government – where the decision to treat or pocket the cash is presented.

What can this scenario produce? Increase in patients being pushed to other facilities, and an increase in patients being referred to specialists for treatment – treatment for illnesses that might require several more than a follow-up and can be performed in a physician’s office. In the case of the family seeking treatment for a temporary condition for dehydration due to the flu virus – the referral to their own pediatrician could have been sufficient. However, this hospital decided to override the parent’s decision to treat their child in this manner and began a DSS investigation –most likely due to the fact that they feared that family would return before a 30 day period, thus putting them on the hook for the costs.

The alternative theories would run counter to sanity suggesting a state/hospital alliance similar to those of the past, where children were taken from parents and placed into homes for political reasons.

If there are fifty families seeking legal help due to brining their child to an emergency room, and then refusing to have that child treated by shipping them to another facility, or if that family has religious objections to certain types of treatment, there is more than likely 100, or 1000 cases or more in just the Commonwealth – where this whole insanity of pitting doctors and Corporate health care providers against their patients began.

If there are fifty, perhaps the Hospital which appears to have the highest profile in this instance (Boston’s Children), would benefit from a good old fashioned class-action lawsuit. After all, these institutions appear not to be providers of Health Care, rather they appear to be infringing on the rights of parents, and or providing care in a reasonable and expedient manner – causing undo stress and loss of income to these families. One might suggest that Hospitals have fairly deep pockets.

It would be, obviously, different if the families had brought children into an emergency room battered, bruised and mistreated – in that instance a call to the DSS is mandated and appropriate/ However, for refusing to put a one year old in an ambulance, after that child had received adequate care, and was running around, and planning to take that child for a follow-up to the family pediatrician, revealing that to the staff at the hospital – to have that staff institute a DSS probe against the family, causing them to have to hire a lawyer, and face the potential loss of a child to the State, appears unreasonable and Unconstitutional.

See: ”The Limits of Parental Authority to Accept or Refuse Medical Treatment”, Ethical Perspectives, by Dr Geoffrey Miller, Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Pediatrics (in PDF)- This should be mandatory reading for all those ER providers – of course, the piece suggests ethics – which fly in the fact of the almighty dollar.

Thursday, March 21, 2013

President Obama in Israel – To Speak to Students – On the Campaign Trail in Israel

All State visits often have a glitch or two - Obama's Limo Breaks down - Image from the Telegraph - UK

President Obama has finally visited Israel – one would anticipate that there may be a rough patch or two, considering the relationship with the U.S.’s staunchest ally, has been less than congenial at times during the Presidents administration. According to recent newscasts (network affiliates) the President the President arrived to red carpets and peace protestors (CBSLocal – video), and now, today he’s in in the West Bank to speak to the Palestinians about peach talks – of course, while doing so – those peace loving Palestinians were firing rockets into Israel. According to the AP report on the local affiliate site – the President is returning to Israel where he is going to “speak to the young people”.

Unfortunately, the older Israeli’s are skeptical – the editor of the Jerusalem Post appearing on a recent talk show on WMAL, suggested that the Israeli’s have no idea of what he’s (President Obama) doing there, other to meet with students.

Perhaps Israeli Intel understands that he’s campaigning – as he’s speaking to the youth, much as he has done in the U.S. through his presidency and two campaigns. Personal reflections from editors and editorial based on the same, underlies the positive reporting coming from the Post –

What he may learn is that should an American President step on Israeli soil without a suicide bomb strapped to his back, the reception from the Palestinians is going to be less than welcoming. Perhaps by getting on the ground, he’ll understand what the Israeli’s know – they are constantly under attack as the “bad guys”, while the world condemns – nothing like actually stepping off the campaign trail here in the U.S. to put certain concepts into perspective.

As for those students they are going to attend Obama’s speech – “keeping an open mind”.

Wednesday, March 20, 2013

Rand Paul – Right On Immigration – Rage Against the Machine - the Never Ending Power Play that is DC Politics

Ellis Island saw millions "processed", given names that were more "American" in some cases - they are most of our Grandparents, Great-Grandparents, Parents - image

There’s a bit of a hubbub going on regarding Rand Paul and his outreach to the “Hispanic” community – as a Republican, sort-of. The sort-of Republican comes in when he has the audacity to deliver a pro-immigration speech and tell the truth – whereby those who would live in a perfect world, suggest he’s one of those “Libertarians”. For the most part, the coverage on this, from all media types, has focused on the premise that Rand Paul is suggesting amnesty for those who are here in the nation illegally – which, from reading the actual text of the speech is not factual. In addition, Immigration, not unlike abortion or gay marriage, is another one of those political footballs that is a money maker for both Political Parties. Without someone leading on this issue, unlike the other’s mentioned (which are truly social issues), it will not get solved – it will take a leader with millions of like-minded American’s to actually accomplish – anything.

There are many fallacies attached to the debate. One would think, due to the structure and focus on “Hispanics” that only “Mexican’s” cross the border illegally. Think again, there are millions of “illegal aliens” in this nation, those that come here with limited documentation (a work visa, or visitor’s visa) and end up staying long past the expiration date on their documents. These immigrants come from Ireland, Poland, Europe in general, South America, Latin America, Asia, the Middle East, they are here as a matter of survival for their families, for themselves, and they are all here without the benefit of legal documentation. The numbers may vary – in volume, but the concept is the same.

Those that are most pompous about the debate are not necessarily individuals whose families came over on the Mayflower, but those only a generation removed – the immigration system has, in reality, changed over the years. At one point, one got on a boat, and signed in at the “port” or the “gate”, there was the same distrust and name-calling and outright stupidity that was prevalent when the Irish saw waves of Italian’s coming, or names a group.

From a personal perspective, growing up in a neighborhood, with other first generation American’s, there was a lot of name calling, Frogs (French), Guido’s (Italian), and of course, my family – which were Nazi’s and Spics (Austrian-German-Spanish). We overcame, all of us, and some of us forgot where we came from and how we became American.

Therefore, when I read Rand Paul’s Speech (the text), there was an instant identifier – he gets it, the entire process and he makes perfect sense – unless one is worried that Rand Paul is running for office, so, therefore, his thoughts on the subject, “must be political”, or perhaps, just perhaps, he sees a problem, and has a solution to fix the problem. That is anathema to the permanent political class, someone who has the ability to possibly fix a problem. The debate rages as to where Hispanics align, politically – “They are natural Republicans” or “They are leaning Democrat” - They are neither, they are like the millions of other American’s who make decisions on political party choices just like the rest of us – either by being informed, or not as the case may be.

The labeling of “Hispanic” or “Latino” by those who would be kings and queens, is also somewhat insulting, as it is a broad term that applies to individuals from varied backgrounds and cultures – although they share a common language (Spanish) there are so many variation in dialect, culture, religious preferences, education and political points of view, that one might consider individuals from Mexico – Mexicans, or Venezuela, Venezuelans, or Ireland, Irish – no differences really, besides the obvious.

Therefore – Paul makes this speech and it is sound (the transcript via the Wall Street Journal follows) and those on the right and the left go nuts. It is because they see the potential for a loss of either money or votes - should a fence be built, should the employer stop policing, should those here be given work visas, pay taxes and have a means to live as a Citizen at some point - all in an easy to understand process.

The comments under the multiple articles from the right media and the left media are similar in their venom – if one is not attacking “illegal’s” (without examining how they came to be in this nation with some honestly) to those who are attacking Senator Paul for being “only political”, without looking at his voting record, or even reading the text of the speech – where he says – he wants to begin the debate.

What one might take away from reading the text is that the man understand the issues from both sides, and has a solution, one that is worth debate and consideration.

Darn that Libertarian – he’s rocking the boat again.

Full Text of Senator Rand Paul’s Speech, at the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce via the Wall Street Journal

Por favor disculpen mi Espanol. Como creci en Houston -es un poco ‘espanglish y un poco Tex Mex.

I lived, worked, played and grew up alongside Latinos. As a teenager I worked alongside immigrants mowing lawns and putting in landscaping around businesses.

I remember once asking one of the immigrant workers how much he was being paid. “Cuanto le pagan por el trabajo? ”

He responded “tres dolars.” I responded, “Yo tambien. Tres Dolars, por hora . . . ?”

He shook shook his head, “No tres Dolars, por dia!”

At a young age, I came to understand that it makes a difference whether you are a documented immigrant or an undocumented immigrant, that the existence was not easy for the undocumented but that opportunity in America somehow trumped even the poor living conditions and low pay.

I wondered what circumstances must have been like in his country to choose an admittedly tough life in the shadows.

Growing up in Texas I never met a Latino who wasn’t working.

In school, everyone took Spanish. I sometimes wish I had paid more attention in class. As a teenager, I was not always the model citizen that I am today…

In my middle school Spanish class, my exuberance sometimes overcame my restraint and I would be asked to go to the principal’s office. My Spanish teacher would scold me, “En boca cerrada no entran moscas!”

Cuando no lo escuchaba, I would often be sent to the principal’s office.

In those days we had corporal punishment. After a few such trips to the principal’s office, I discovered that my Spanish teacher was married to the assistant principal and they were getting a divorce.

So when I was sent to the principal’s office, I would make the decision to go instead to the assistant principal’s office. He and I would commiserate: Oh man she’s crazy! You’re right kid, just sit here today and go back tomorrow.

As a consequence, I never became as proficient with my Spanish as I would have liked because I spent a great deal of time in detention.

I read Miguel de Unamuno in college. I think he gives Republicans some good advice,

He wrote, “Miremos más que somos padres de nuestro porvenir que no hijos de nuestro pasado”

Republicans need to become parents of a new future with Latino voters or we will need to resign ourselves to permanent minority status.

The Republican Party has insisted for years that we stand for freedom and family values. I am most proud of my party when it stands for both.

The vast majority of Latino voters agree with us on these issues but Republicans have pushed them away with harsh rhetoric over immigration.

Immigration is a contentious issue in American politics. In our zeal for border control, we have sometimes obscured our respect and admiration for immigrants and their contribution to America.

Republicans have been losing both the respect and votes of a group of people who already identify with our belief in family, faith, and conservative values. Hispanics should be a natural and sizable part of the Republican base.

That they have steadily drifted away from the GOP in each election says more about Republicans than it does about Hispanics.

Whether we are discussing hard work, respect for life or the quest for freedom, immigrants bring with them the same values that previous generations of immigrants did.

Defense of the unborn and defense of traditional marriage are Republican issues that should resonate with Latinos but have been obscured by the misperception that Republicans are hostile to immigrants.

Somewhere along the line Republicans have failed to understand and articulate that immigrants are an asset to America, not a liability.

My German great-grandparents didn’t speak much English when they came to America. They didn’t have much, but they also didn’t ask for much-all they wanted was an opportunity.

They began in America peddling vegetables. They finally got that opportunity when they started a dairy business in their garage, scraping together a living, raising a family, and constantly working to give their children a better life than they had.

My great-grandfather came to America in the 1880′s. His father died after only six months in America. At 14, my great-grandfather was alone.

He survived and ultimately thrived in his new country with a new language. In their home and their church they spoke German.

Republicans who criticize the use of two languages make a great mistake.

As the son of immigrants, my grandfather, who only had an 8th grade education, would live to see his own children all go to college. They became ministers, professors, doctors and accountants and one of them became a Congressman.

My family’s story is like that of millions of others who came to this country. Every generation of immigrants wants these opportunities.

Many have faced intolerance and bigotry. It was not always easy to be German American in the face of two world wars started by Germans. Intolerance is not new, and it is not limited to one language or skin color.

But through our rich history, and for many millions of immigrants who came to America, such sacrifice and hardship was worth it. They wanted what all Americans want-better lives for themselves, their children and grandchildren.

For the American Dream to be achievable for all, we have to have an educational system that believes that all students have the capability to succeed.

Unfortunately, the education establishment seems to casually discard Latinos, blacks, and others into crummy schools with no hope.

I argue that the struggle for a good education is the civil rights issue of our day.

I love the story of Jaime Escalante.

In the area of East Los Angeles, in 1982, in an environment that values a quick fix over education and learning, Escalante was a new math teacher at Garfield High School determined to change the system and challenge the students to a higher level of achievement.

Escalante was at first not well liked by students, receiving numerous taunts and threats.

As the year progressed, he was able to win over the attention of the students by implementing innovative teaching techniques.

He transformed even the most troublesome teens into dedicated students. While Escalante was teaching basic arithmetic and algebra, he realized that his students have far more potential.

He decided to teach them calculus. To do so, he held a summer course in pre-calculus.

Despite concerns and skepticism of other teachers, who felt that “you can’t teach logarithms to illiterates,” Escalante nonetheless developed a program in which his students can eventually take AP Calculus by their senior year.

Taking the AP Calculus exam in the spring of their senior year, his students were relieved and overjoyed to find that they have all passed, a feat done by few in the state.

My dream is that we transform the education monopoly into a thriving, competitive environment where Hispanic students get to choose what school they attend and that no student is forgotten or ignored.

America’s strength has always been that we are a melting pot with room for those who dare to dream. I’ve seen firsthand what it is like for new immigrants in Texas.

I’ve never met a new immigrant looking for a free lunch.

The question is: How do we now reflect this in our 21st century immigration policy?

It is absolutely vital for both the success of our immigration policy and for the purposes of national security that we finally secure our borders.

Not to stop most immigrants from coming-we welcome them and in fact should seek to increase legal immigration.

The Republican Party must embrace more legal immigration.

Unfortunately, like many of the major debates in Washington, immigration has become a stalemate-where both sides are imprisoned by their own rhetoric or attachment to sacred cows that prevent the possibility of a balanced solution.

Immigration Reform will not occur until Conservative Republicans, like myself, become part of the solution. I am here today to begin that conversation.

Let’s start that conversation by acknowledging we aren’t going to deport 12 million illegal immigrants.

If you wish to work, if you wish to live and work in America, then we will find a place for you.

In order to bring conservatives to this cause however, those who work for reform must understand that a real solution must ensure that our borders are secure.

But we also must treat those who are already here with understanding and compassion.

The first part of my plan – border security – must be certified by Border Patrol and an Investigator General and then voted on by Congress to ensure it has been accomplished.

This is what I call, Trust but Verify.

With this in place, I believe conservatives will accept what needs to come next, an issue that must be addressed: what becomes of the 12 million undocumented workers in the United States?

My plan is very simple and will include work visas for those who are here, who are willing to come forward and work.

A bipartisan panel would determine number of visas per year. High tech visas would also be expanded and have a priority. Special entrepreneurial visas would also be issued.

Fairness is key in any meaningful immigration reform, but this fairness would cut both ways:

The modernization of our visa system and border security would allow us to accurately track immigration.

It would also enable us to let more people in and allow us to admit we are not going to deport the millions of people who are currently here illegally.

This is where prudence, compassion and thrift all point us toward the same goal: bringing these workers out of the shadows and into being taxpaying members of society.

Imagine 12 million people who are already here coming out of the shadows to become new taxpayers.12 million more people assimilating into society. 12 million more people being productive contributors.

Conservatives, myself included, are wary of amnesty. My plan will not grant amnesty or move anyone to the front of the line.

But what we have now is de facto amnesty.

The solution doesn’t have to be amnesty or deportation-a middle ground might be called probation where those who came illegally become legal through a probationary period.

My plan will not impose a national ID card or mandatory E-Verify, forcing businesses to become policemen.

We should not be unfair to those who came to our country legally. Nor should we force business owners to become immigration inspectors-making them do the job the federal government has failed to do.

After an Inspector General has verified that the border is secure after year one, the report must come back and be approved by Congress.

In year two, we could begin expanding probationary work visas to immigrants who are willing to work. I would have Congress vote each year for five years whether to approve or not approve a report on whether or not we are securing the border.

We should be proud that so many want to come to America, that it is still seen as the land of opportunity.

Let’s make it a land of legal work, not black market jobs. Let’s make it a land of work not welfare. Our land should be one of assimilation, not hiding in the shadows.

On immigration, common sense and decency have been neglected for far too long. Let’s secure our borders, welcome our new neighbors, and practice the values of freedom and family for all to see.

Some say to generalize about any ethnic group is be a racist. There is a hilarious Seinfeld episode where Jerry admits that he loves Asian women but he frets and worries, “Is it racist to like a certain race?”

So it is with trepidation that I express my admiration for the romance of the Latin culture. I am a fan of Gabriel Garcia Marquez.

In Love in the Time of Cholera, Marquez gives some advice that Republicans might consider, “. . . human beings are not born once and for all on the day their mothers give birth to them, . . . life obliges them over and over again to give birth to themselves.”

Likewise, Republicans need to give birth to a new attitude toward immigrants, an attitude that sees immigrants as assets not liabilities.

No one captures the romance of the Latin culture more than Pablo Neruda.

I love how Neruda in “Si tu me Olvidas” issues a passionate threat but ends by saying,


si cada día,

cada hora,

sientes que a mí estás destinada

con dulzura implacable,

si cada día sube

una flor a tus labios a buscarme,

ay amor mío, ay mía,

en mí todo ese fuego se repite,

en mí nada se apaga ni se olvida”

How can we not embrace such passion. How can we not want that culture to merge with and infuse the American spirit. They are not called the romance languages for no reason.

As we move forward on immigration reform, I for one will work to find a solution that both adheres to the rule of law and makes room for compassion.

My hope is that today we begin a dialogue between the GOP and Latinos.

A dialogue that shows that the GOP sees all immigrants as assets and that Latinos can come to see the GOP as the party of opportunity, the party of the American Dream, — El partido del sueňo Americano

If one cannot read/speak Spanish – Google has a translator.

If one has not read, “Love in the Time of Cholera”, by Marquez, do so – it will enrich your life.

Tuesday, March 19, 2013

As the GOP Turns – The Old Guard and New Guard – Nothing More than Evolution

There’s that old adage: “history repeats itself”, that should be taken into account prior to ringing death knells on political brands, or “rebranding” if one prefers to parse words. The fact that, as we age, younger individuals move up the ladder, so to speak, bringing with them a “new” (or old, as the case may be), political point of view – one that fits neither of today’s establishment parties. Therefore, of one individual in that generation tends to lead in the political arena, it is what it is, a changing of the guard and with that a whole can of worms opens. Suffice it to say, that there has always been a right and a left, liberal and conservative thought, which those in power generally use to divide and conquer – some to their own demise (consider the French revolution). The Old Democrat party has been long gone for decades, only no one apparently noticed. The brand is there – the dutiful “D” printed on each ballot – but the formerly fiscally sound, social justice fighters, working class party – is now the party ruled by academic elitist, who have little experience outside of a classroom, and a philosophy that is decidedly socialist. The Democrat brand was co-opted by the rise of one Ronald Reagan, who, at the same time, rebranded the Republican Party – leaning on the tax cuts of John F. Kennedy, and challenging the establishment GOP, he embodied the working man - he drove the party elites and the media crazy. Over the following decades the two parties appeared to meld into the ebb and flow of partisan politics, with rare exceptions, one was either a “Democrat or a Republican” – there was no challenge to the status quo, and the political dynasties emerged – the Bushes, the Clintons, their respective allies in the Senate and the Congress and on K Street (where the lobbyist and political action committees reside.) Reagan was the last reformer, otherwise the Republican Party, like the Democrat Party, has been the dutiful “R” on the ballot.

Suddenly the media and Washington are on high alert, as a group of individuals who are not necessarily Republican, as in “rich old white men” (as opposed to the “rich old white men” that run the Democrat Party.) are suddenly calling themselves “conservatives” running as “Republicans” and winning elections, hearts and minds. There is about to be a shift – one would hope that the scenario of three or four (optimal) parties emerging from the two old behemoths would emerge, yet, the common approach would be to co-opt one or both of the established parties. Enter the “libertarians”.

Libertarians follow a political thought process based on personal liberty, with a strong emphasis on the U.S. Constitution. Those millions of Tea Party Strict Constructionists are also likely to lean “Libertarian” – so are most 18 to 25 year olds, a demographic that rarely votes, but if, as a group, they find someone relatable, they will vote in droves. (An unintended consequence seen under Reagan.)

Although the dutiful academics, installed in the schools across the nation, from kindergarten through one’s Doctorate, have been preaching the message of “progressive” philosophy for the past 40 years, it has become stale in its practice. The economic impact of the progressive Congress under Nancy Pelosi, followed by the election and reelection of President Obama, and the consequences of “bigger, more encroaching, government”, has begun to wear thin. For some it is the lack of opportunities, for others, it is the obvious installation of a “class system” – those who have, those how have not. Those who would promise to make everyone equal, everyone wealthy, and everyone on the same playing field, by virtue of the all important government - apparently cannot deliver on that promise.

Therefore, the sudden emergence and popularity of Rand Paul and Dr. Ben Carson are seen by the media as upheaval in the Republican Party – as dutiful “Democrats”, they report on the demise of the GOP, or the “upheaval” within the GOP – it is nothing more than growing pains, or an evolution – of a more centric, inclusionary political party, one that is based upon a fiscal policy that is morally sound, while holding the 10th amendment sacrosanct.

Therefore, one might suggests, that those that would be king, the McCain’s, the Clinton’s, will have to make way for those Doctors who will stand up for both fiscal sanity and humanity, but most importantly individual liberty and responsibility – the opportunity to become a success (rather than one of the “masses” – yes, Libertarian, and/or Conservative – but appealing to those who are sick and tired of the “old brands” that have run the nation with little differences between the two political parties since Reagan left office.

Monday, March 18, 2013

CPAC – From the Outside Looking In – the Rise of the Libertarians, Tea Party Conservatives – Anti-Beltway – Populist Leaders

C-SPAN- Coverage of CPAC2013 - image C-SPAN - visit CSPAN Video for additional coverage

The coverage of the annual CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) was as expected – with the media calling this event akin "to going to the land before time" – (Matthew Dowd – ABC News). There was a bit of the old Republican’s in chaos – but…those watching from a distance (C-Span) saw the event from a slightly different angle. For one, the Conservatives are not necessarily “Republican”, as in the “brand”, rather they are a mix of Moderates, Conservatives and Libertarians – new faces and old faces – and they are, for the most part – young – between 18 and 25 years of age. They are, in effect, ordinary people who believe strongly in fiscal conservatism – as a combination of a moral and pragmatic objective. What was most interesting was the emphasis by those who were speaking, on what’s wrong in Washington D.C. and the power vacuum that exists between the Capital and the balance of the nation – there is a great disconnect between the elites in Washington and the people who send them. (Although there were plenty of those “Republican’s in the mix.)

This was made apparent by Sarah Palin, who lashed out at the “elite” in D.C. and the Machine that is the GOP establishment – picking winners and losers, and then ultimately losing elections. There was a not so subtle jab at Karl Rove, one time GOP political strategist under George W. Bush, who had a virtual melt-down on Fox News election eve, when they called key states for President Obama. Rove, in his passion as a Republican, could not concede that yet another election was going towards the opposition party. What Rove, and one might suspect, the other lobbyists, strategist etc. in D.C. as well as the media (who plays to both sides of Washington politics as it is basically, one group that is the same, both Democrats and Republicans, by virtue of their control over events. In the last two elections, the choice by the party controllers, of what is considered a moderate – has failed. The reasoning is usually a jab at the “mainstream media”, who is somewhat culpable, however, with a 26% trust (or thereabouts) polling for all news media (Gallup), one has to wonder, is the media being given too much credit? Rather one might suggest that when a candidate it pushed forward, and the “base” which is varied, cannot abide one or the other of these candidates – they stay home, and they don’t vote. There were problems’ with Mitt Romney’s candidacy that is not being discussed – for one, the nonsense that is one if at the top of the ticket, Republicans and Republican leaning voters will simply vote for that individual. Nothing can be further from the truth. Ron Paul’s two million strong army, Rick Santorum’s devout followers, those evangelicals who could not see a path to voting for a man who’s religion was considered a “cult” – would have been, each one alone, enough to change the course of the election. Therefore, it is the changing face of conservatism, the populist, Libertarian and Tea Party rising, that needs the support, rather than the derision of those who would be kingmakers, lest they see themselves on the outside looking in.

Therefore, enter the new (and some older) faces of Conservatism – the brand of Conservatism that appeals to those from both “traditional” parties – in other words, not the hard-line social conservatives, of which there are millions, rather an individual who was not so repellant to their core beliefs – and someone who was not part of the permanent political class, rather a fresh face – and there were many at CPAC.

They are all worth listening to – without the “haze” of opinion – and all segments are available on YouTube: at the ACU CPAC playlist for CPAC 2016 Here

There are the keynote speakers, (Palin, most notably), those who one might not recognize, Dr. Ben Carson, Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, names one might recall hearing as of late, and a host of others that speak to the heart of American rather than the black hole that is Washington.

What one finds most entertaining is the numbers of individuals who are ready to dismiss a speaker (such as Sarah Palin) based upon what they have heard through media, or professors, and when confronted with a written snippet of a speech, find that individual to be somewhat brilliant. Therein lays the crux of the matter – those who would be holding onto their power in Washington, even losing an election does not change their status, may finds themselves, going into the 2016 general, a bit on the outs. The potential candidates, especially Dr. Ben Carson and Rand Paul, deliver messages that cross the great personal political divide – Not surprisingly, Ran Paul won the annual straw poll – although it was suggested that he did not win by a huge percentage due to the exclusion of libertarian groups at the conference. However, when Rand Paul took to the floor of the Senate to filibuster, those following Twitter understood he was attracting individuals both conservative and liberal, who all took a “standwithrand”. Therefore, one might not want to discount this particular win, just because his father had won in years past. They are, of note, different men, wedded to the same ideology of Libertarianism.

Watch, listen, learn – although there may be some differences, and points of order to be called, one might find that there is hope for a return to the principles that guide American forward, with less government focused in D.C., and more power to the individual states. Perhaps that is why a politically connected D.C. journalist (who’s very power is derived by those connections), would rant about a “land before time” – as it threatens, should those very conservatives take back Washington in its original intent, it would be a personal game-changer.

Now, 2016 begins in earnest – the die is cast, and although one might see the return of the Bush Dynasty, as well as a Clinton to oppose, one might be heartened that the people will be drawn to a different type of Leader –or leaders, (Senators, Congressional Representatives), one who is not going to go along to get along, or worse, continue the dogma and rhetoric that keeps those 501C’s in business, and the Senator, Congressional Representative or President for that matter, in power for multiple terms – one rather is going to change minds and hearts, lead all people. At this point, there are several who can fit that bill. That fact alone, gives those who are tired of the constant bickering, and political chicanery in what is D.C. – hope.

Amazon Picks

Massachusetts Conservative Feminist - Degrees of Moderation and Sanity Headline Animator

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Map

Contact Me:

Your Name
Your Email Address