Monk Parakeet - Wanted: Dead

Care for me, my pretty one;/ they want us dead before the sun/shall rise and birth another day/come, my love: let's fly away.

British Woman Mary Bale Dumps Cat in Garbage Can and Thought it was Funny (Video)

CT Patriot via Huffington Post reports that the British woman who sparked an Internet frenzy for throwing a cat into the trash now says her actions were “completely out of character” and meant as a “joke.”

Mary Bale, 45, was caught on CCTV petting four-year-old tabby cat Lola before picking her up, tossing her into a trash can and closing the lid.

When Lola’s owners posted the clip online, it sparked a terse reaction from animal lovers and advocates which allegedly culminated in a series of death threats against Bale, an unmarried banker and resident of Coventry, England.

“I want to take this opportunity to apologize profusely for the upset and distress that my actions have caused,” she told the Daily Mail.

“I certainly did not intend to cause any distress to Lola or her owners.”

Still, Bale felt the outcry had been blown out of proportion.

“I don’t know what the fuss is about. It’s just a cat,” the Mail reported her as saying. “I did it as a joke because I thought it would be funny. I never thought it would be trapped. I expected it to wriggle out.”

She later retracted those comments, as seen in the video below.
Watch reporters try to confront Bale about her actions:





Cross ref The Huffington Post

Don't Leave Without Clicking Other Great Stories in The Last Tradition. Tell two friends about this blog

Across the Pond in England Homosexual Couples Could Be Allowed to “Marry” in Traditional Religious Ceremonies

With all due respect to my Queer brothers and sisters, stop making a mockery of religious faith.

The battles that are being waged in Great Britain will soon be coming to our shores.

Pastors of the Church of the Nazarene would rather be put in jail than to be forced to perform religious ceremonies for homosexual couples.

From The UK Telegraph:

Lynne Featherstone, the equalities minister, said the Coalition was considering allowing same-sex couples to include key religious elements in civil partnership ceremonies.

In a parliamentary answer, she disclosed that homosexual couples could be permitted to use “religious readings, music and symbols”.
This would make civil partnerships practically indistinguishable from traditional weddings as Parliament recently removed the bar on same-sex unions in churches and other places of worship through an amendment to Labour’s Equality Act.

The proposals will delight equality campaigners who believe civil partnership is a “second-class” status, but they prompted fierce opposition from mainstream Christian leaders who believe marriage can only take place between a man and a woman.

Church of England sources warned that the Government could not make such dramatic changes merely by issuing regulations or guidance, as the current Civil Partnership Act prohibits the use of religious services during the registrations.

A spokesman made it clear that senior  figures in the established faith would resist any moves effectively to legalise homosexual marriage.
The Rt Rev Michael Langrish, the Bishop of Exeter, added in a personal statement: “As some of us warned at the time, the amendment to the Equality Bill has opened an area of unhelpful doubt and confusion. The Church of England will not be allowing use of any of its buildings for civil partnership registrations.”

Lord Tebbit, a former Tory party chairman who spoke out against same-sex unions in churches in the Lords, said: “I wouldn’t want anything done to add to the pretence that a civil partnership is a marriage. That’s the key thing, and anything which changes the law would have to come back to the Lords.”

In 2005, same-sex couples in Britain were allowed for the first time to take part in ceremonies that made them “civil partners”.

This gave them similar legal rights to married spouses, but the law required the events to take place in register offices or approved venues such as hotels and stately homes.

The ceremony has had to be secular, with no hymns or Bible readings, in order to preserve the definition of religious marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

When the Equality Bill was being debated earlier this year, an amendment was added by Lord Alli that permitted civil partnership ceremonies to take place in places of worship if the relevant religious group permitted it.

Quakers, Unitarians and the Liberal Judaism movement will ask to be allowed to host the ceremonies but the Church of England will resist it, despite the wishes of some liberal clerics, as will the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

Registrars provided by local councils would still have to conduct civil partnership ceremonies.
Full story

Via UK Telegraph

Click to Read The Last Tradition

Obama Names Rationing Czar to Run Medicare

Here’s more cold water in your face Mr. and Mrs America.

President Obama lied through his teeth about the benefits of ObamaCare. He knew all along of the reality of his health care plan always involved rationing care the same way its done in Canada and Great Britain.

If you have a sickness but don’t fall into arbitrary treatment protocols a government administrator sets, then you won’t receive treatment under ObamaCare.

Welcome again to Bamazuela.


From CNS News:

Dr. Donald Berwick of the Harvard Medical School does not like free enterprise, but he does like rationing. Two years ago, in England, he delivered a talk celebrating the 60th birthday of Great Britain’s National Health Service, the bureaucracy that runs that nation’s socialized

medical system. He apparently entertained some fear that day that the Brits might turn back to free enterprise. So, in his address (as reprinted in the July 26, 2008, edition of the British Medical Journal), and as reported this week by Matt Cover of CNSNews.com, he offered British socialists some words of advice.

“Please,” he told them, “don’t put your faith in market forces—it’s a popular idea: that Adam Smith’s invisible hand would do a better job of designing care than leaders with plans can. I find little evidence that market forces relying on consumers choosing among an array of products, with competitors fighting it out, leads to the health care system you want and need.

In the U.S., competition is a major reason for our duplicative, supply driven, fragmented care system.” To Berwick, America’s health care system is not the model for the world. Great Britain’s is. In his view, it is vital for the Brits to hold high the flame of socialized medicine so the world can follow its lead.

“I hope you will never, ever give up what you have begun,” said Berwick. “I hope you realize and affirm how badly you need—how badly the world needs—an example at scale of a health system that is universal, accessible, excellent and free at the point of care—a health system that, at its core is like the world we wish we had: generous, hopeful, confident, joyous and just. “Happy birthday,” the ebullient doctor told the British health care socialists. If you have not noticed already, this man has a crush on collectivism.

“Cynics beware,” he said. “I am romantic about the National Health Service; I love it.” This love extends to approbation for rationing health care and using the health care system to redistribute wealth.

“You cap your health care budget, and you make the political and economic choices you need to make to keep affordability within reach,” Berwick told the Brits.

“You plan the supply; you aim a bit low; you prefer slightly too little of a technology or a service to too much; then you search for care bottlenecks and try to relieve them.” And they get to play Robin Hood in lab coats. “You could have protected the wealthy and the well,” he said, “instead of recognizing that sick people tend to be poorer and that poor people tend to be sicker, and that any health care funding plan that is just must redistribute wealth.”

Last June, after President Barack Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus law that included funding for a Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research, thus pre-positioning the federal infrastructure that would be needed to guide federal health care rationing decisions under a new national health care system, Berwick gave an interview to Biotechnology Healthcare that was brought to light this week in a report by Fred Lucas of CNSNews.com.

Berwick explained that there are three steps to “comparative effectiveness research.” The first is to determine whether a therapy works or not. The second is to determine how well the therapy works compared to other therapies. The third is to do a cost-benefit analysis.
“If a new drug or procedure is effective, and has some advantage over existing alternatives,” Berwick said, “then does the incremental benefit justify the likely additional cost?”

Now, in a free country where people freely chose to pay for their own health care with their own money, this is a good question for any prudent consumer. It is exactly that “free market force” that Berwick implored the British socialists not to put their faith in.

But in a country where the government has taken regulatory and fiscal control of the health care system—where the state is subsidizing most people’s care—and where government bureaucrats make the decisions about who gets what treatment, this question is not the animating moving force behind the invisible hand of the market, it is the dark materialistic spirit behind the iron hand of a life-and-death tyranny.
Full story

Via CNS News


The Last Tradition