UW in court over viewpoint discrimination…again

This is the sixth time the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) has filed a federal lawsuit against the University of Wisconsin Madison alleging viewpoint discrimination.

Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow-Madison v. Pruitt claims UW-Madison denied the student group, Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow-Madison (CFACT), access to students fees because of the group’s conservative viewpoint.

Every UW student pays a “segregated university fee” which can be used by student organizations if approved by a student committee, the UW-Madison Chancellor and the UW System Board of Regents.

Apparently, CFACT applied for the segregated funds last year, which it has applied for and received the past six years, but was denied eligibility for the 2009-10 year.  However, the university granted eligibility to a similar student group, the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG).

CFACT’s mission is to educate college students on environmental and development issues.  So far, WISPIRG and CFACT are virtually similar.   CFACT, however, is well known for supporting free-market, science/technology-driven solutions to environmental and development issues as opposed to government regulation.  WISPIRG, on the other hand, advocates from a politically liberal position.

The difference between how UW treated CFACT and WISPIRG is not a good thing for the school considering that UW-Madison is an extension of state government and therefore liable under the 1st and 14th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantee free speech to everyone–including student groups on a state school campus.

ADF’s press release
Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow-Madison v. Pruitt

Fix Health Care Policy

The Heritage Foundations posted four videos on their health care website, fixhealthcarepolicy.com, to fact check some of the Obama Administration’s claims regarding the health care overhaul.

In the videos, Heritage experts explain four frightening facts regarding the health care bills before Congress:

  1. 88 million will see their coverage disappear
  2. Medicaid has a long history of rationing
  3. Medicare won’t be safe if history is a guide
  4. Obama’s plan will hurt small businesses

Here’s video #1

To see the rest of the informative videos, click here.

Health Insurance: A Benefit Not a Right

This week’s radio commentary:

Health insurance is not a right. If that statement jars you, then, quite frankly, you, like millions of other American citizens, need a reality check.

In the midst of the firestorm of public and private talk about health care right now, it’s possible, indeed likely, that we’ve lost our perspective. From church aisles to grocery aisles, from tea parties to backyard parties, I’m hearing health insurance talked about as if we as Americans are somehow entitled to it—simply because we are Americans. Somewhere along the line benefits and rights have become badly confused.

Read/listen to the rest of this week’s radio commentary here.

To defend DOMA or not to defend DOMA

This morning the Department of Justice finds itself in a rather embarrassing dilemma.  One month ago, the DOJ filed a brief in federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA–the federal statute protecting the definition of marriage on the federal level) against a legal challenge from a homosexual couple demanding federal benefits.  Click here for more on that lawsuit (2nd story down).

After receiving a considerable amount of heat from enraged homosexual activists for defending the constitutionality of DOMA in court (it is the DOJ’s job to defend federal law), the White House capitulated today by filing court papers claiming that DOMA is, in fact, discriminatory and should be repealed.

During his campaign, Obama promised to support a complete repeal of DOMA, so this move comes as no real surprise.  For the moment, Obama hopes to placate homosexual activists with his legal challenge to DOMA, but that’s not the only challenge DOMA faces right now. We know the Human Rights Campaign is currently lobbying Feingold to take the lead on the legislative front to overturn DOMA.

As it stands right now, however, the Obama Administration is on record as claiming DOMA is both constitutional and discriminatory.  So which one is it? As Tevya sagaciously pointed out in Fiddler on the Roof, they (or in this case–two sides of the same DOJ) “cannot both be right.”

Wisconsin Medical Society’s Council on Health Care Ethics rejects PAS/euthanasia resolution

Yesterday, Friday, Aug. 14, the Wisconsin Medical Society’s (WMS) Council  on Health Care Ethics rejected Resolution 14.  The resolution, had it been adopted by the WMS Council on Health Care and ultimately adopted by the entire body,  would have changed the WMS’s current policy regarding physician assisted suicide.   Currently, WMS has clear policies rejecting physician assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Read  Wisconsin Right To Life press release… 

Wisconsin Family Council joins other pro-life organizations around the state commending the action of the WMS Council on Health Care Ethics.  By rejecting Resolution 14 they affirmed the healing tradition of the medical profession and showed appropriate regard for safeguarding human life.

Reject more government involvement in health care

We should resoundingly reject any more government involvement in health care.  We should reject it for no other reason than the inability of government to successfully run ANY significant program for a significant length of time.  I would measure success as quality of service, fiscal efficiency, and most importantly–righteousness before God.

The President and others have claimed that the government has run a program successfully and the customers are happy.  The program they point to is Medicare, which they claim most people are satisfied with.  Unfortunately, it is not a fiscally sustainable program.  It alone will surpass all other federal spending within as few as 6 years from now!  On its current pace it will bankrupt the country.  You can’t claim success in a service when you give your product away for free.

Additionally, study what happened after the Clintons failed to force national health care on us.  You will find that what they did was force the health care industry to hold costs to the levels of 1995 for all government covered patients.  Then since they held the power, they made it law that Medicare patients must receive care.  In essence they decided how much they were going to pay and then bullied the health care folks to accept it.

Now that’s history.  Right?  And President Obama is a man of hope and change.  He says the government will be able to run a program successfully.  Well let’s take a look at how he is already doing in just one area, real estate.

In April, Jim Saccacio, chairman and CEO at RealtyTrac.com said,  “With $75 billion set aside to help individual homeowners, the Obama Administration’s Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan is designed to slow or even reverse the foreclosure tide by helping three to four million borrowers who are now in danger of losing their homes.”

In article posted today on 24/7 Wall Street, Mr. Saccacio says,  “July marks the third time in the last five months where we’ve seen a new record set for foreclosure activity.”  Mr. Saccacio goes onto say, “It is still hard to pinpoint the exact cause of the problem.  One is certainly that rising unemployment makes fewer and fewer people able to stay in their homes. Another is that the federal government’s programs to lower monthly payments to allow people to keep their houses is an ongoing failure which is hardly putting a dent in the foreclosure trend.”

Wait a minute, “an ongoing failure”?  This is only a $75 billion program.  Now President Obama wants us to agree that he can run a multi-trillion dollar program.  Remember the government has in the last year gone through several trillion dollars of our money.  How did they do with that money?

Luke 16:10 (NKJV): “He who is faithful in what is least is faithful also in much; and he who is unjust in what is least is unjust also in much.”