SGI Resolution on Birth Control

February 11, 2012

Narrative for The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA)

Whereas: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) is national in scope, and under consideration of the historic and legal precedent of specific portions of the same act being administered by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the recent decision to force purchase and distribution of birth control measures and procedures upon churches, hospitals and other non-profit organizations otherwise opposed through theological construct, personal conviction, or statement of purpose is a dangerous form and pattern, against Constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion.

Resolved: That the (    )* House of Representatives now declares that The President of the United States Barack Obama, together with HHS director Kathleen Sebelius now rescind these same onerous requirements and direct impingements on all medical, church, and other non-profit health organizations who are non-aligned with mandatory birth control, forced sterilization, or abortion on demand.

Jeff Ziegler


President: The Continental Group and Statesman Global Initiatives

* Note: ( ) to be filled by the name of each state’s respective body.


September 26, 2011

Doctors United for Free Markets and Patient-Physician Driven Solutions for American Healthcare 2011-2012

Help us today to overturn “Obamacare”, to free healthcare initiative, and provide concrete answers to American health.

OPERATION WHITECOAT will have boots on the ground in Washington DC meeting with Senators, Congressmen, and professional staff from major programs like Medicare, Tri-Care, and The VA.


AUGUST 2010 SOUND OFF – Q&A with Jeff Ziegler

August 10, 2010

Q: What is the stand of SGI concerning the proposed Mosque at Ground Zero?

A: The entire debate is quite exacerbating in that most people are ignorant of Islamic goals and doctrines. This is not a debate between liberals and conservatives. Nor is it a ground of contest between Democrats and Republicans. It has nothing to do with Constitutionalism, Libertarianism, or freedom of religion issues. The pivot argument revolves around Islamic thought on why it is paramount to put a memorial mosque at ground zero. For Islam, making memorials on the ground of militant victories is in their view “a divine mission.”

Dome of the Rock, Jerusalem

Notice the gold crowned “Dome of The Rock” sits on top of the old “Temple Mount” in Jerusalem. This actually means something to Islam – a sign of dominance. So too, the whole 911 New York/ Washington DC attack is seen as an Islamic victory over The United States. It is not an internal Islamic debate between so-called Islamic moderates vs. extremists. It represents in Islamic victory to be memorialized on behalf of Islamic goals. Based on this proper military evaluation of Islamic martial goals, no permission for the mosque construction should be considered. It is yet another “act of war” by Islam and its supporting states, and not some rag-tag group of terrorists.

Q: You can’t be serious about the previously expressed idea of invading Mexico to stop illegal immigration are you?

A: I am very serious about this. Herein are some brief illustrations. Remember, illegal immigration is not a race issue! Nor are issues about “anchor babies”, Arizona law, or Obama machinations at the forefront. The fact that successive Mexican presidents have endorsed waves of illegal immigrants since the late 70’s coupled to underground Mexican revolutionary cells existent within the US and again supported by Mexico, constitute multiple acts of war by Mexico against the United States and warrant a full retaliatory response by the US against Mexico.

US M-1 tank on the move

An invasion of Mexico would end illegal immigration in reality. Breaking up said territory into states and covering the same with the US Constitution would finally free Mexicans from generations of corruption and despotic rule. Energy reward would also be ample. Again the Mexican government is fundamentally and essentially at war with the United States! Ideas and actions have consequences. It is time they (Mexico) paid!

Q: Are there real differences on the healthcare debate between Democrats and Republicans?

A: Of course there are vast and nuanced differences! So much of that has been aired in other forums that I feel no need to recapitulate here. However; on major policy advances the two parties are uncomfortably the same. As an example: Dr. Mark McClellan former director of CMS under President Bush essentially wrote vast portions of what is today called Obamacare. McClellan a “Republican” is today associated with the liberal and statist Brookings Institute. For more on this see Dr. Bob Moffit at Heritage Foundation or Grace-Marie Turner at Galen Institute.

The “Wholesome Medicine” of Barack Obama Part III – THINK it Through!

September 11, 2009

ED2By Dr. Edwin A. Hissa M.D.

Well … I think people are finally starting to get it. Certainly we have been preaching it since the mid-1990s, but no one was listening. We lobbied in Washington for over 11 years and people there (our elected officials) mostly went the other way, avoiding hearing us. (Not all of them.)

One other thing. When you have teachers, you will get a lesson; with engineers, a solution with diagrams; and when you give politicians something, they play politics with it. With politicians, you don’t get a solution, you get the next step toward their re-election. (They promise to solve it then.)

All you really have is your health. Would you like to wonder what might happen next term if you are ill? Give it to a politician. Since most people are healthy, little collective thought, in our country, is given to sickness; as long as it is someone else.

We are of the opinion that health is not to be politicized. We want as little government intrusion as possible.

Here is a problem … The average breadwinner with a family of four pays more than $475,000 in premiums from age 18 to 65. Think of that … for a couple of trips to the ER and 2.1 children, maybe a vasectomy. Then that person goes on Medicare, and has used up his earned benefits in 3 years. Then, 3 current workers support that person. This is not sustainable. Consider that the most likely disease this breadwinner will suffer is usually injury. That will be picked up by Workman’s Compensation or auto insurance.

What about this…

– Make health insurance portable, available across state lines, eliminate “pre-existence.”

– Change insurance companies to a mutual type company with the premium payers the owners, not a stock type company. Let the healthy make a profit by staying healthy when they are young and have a cost defrayal mechanism when they are old. This account travels with the worker and is accessible at a certain time and for certain illness. That also increases liquidity in markets. That would happen quickly, too.

-Expand HSA’s

-Tort reform is healthcare reform

Realize … Medicare is not health insurance, it is sickness payment. Do you really think “wellness” spending on a prodigious scale will decrease costs in the last 10 or so years of life? It won’t.

We continue to recommend the same strategy for Medicare as a stopgap which will really become the norm. Use market tools to determine the value of services in an antiquated system designed on information over 20 years old, and slowly turn the train back on to the track of sustainability.

Want to know more?

In the “healthcare” debate…The silence is deafening, isn’t it? About the answer No, I mean the other answer.. The one involving the free market.

We have absolutely the best healthcare in the world. It isn’t broke. Go ahead … have your heart attack or a car accident. Have insurance or not, you will be inserted into a system that will give you a more thorough going over and treatment, and have you back at home with the remote watching the Ohio State game; faster than, and more connected to more post-op resources, than any place on earth. Give me broke every time!.

But the one thing we don’t have is the customer responsible for the bill. If you buy your salt and fat laden fast food burger and have your neighbor pay for it, do you care about the price? Maybe, if he is going to give you a hard time. Its called a third party payment system. We have major medical paying for everything. That is a mistake. We should pay for the regular things.

More on that later.

When I started in medicine, we had over 3000 insurance companies. Now apparently 1300 are left. Fewer companies, less competition, higher prices. And by the way, the government has set the reimbursement schedule (the price actually paid for the services you receive, not what your charges were) that your insurance company uses to pay out, no matter what insurance you have.

So how is that pricing scheme working for you? Incidentally, if someone can do something better and cheaper, it doesn’t mean your insurance or the government will embrace it. Weird, huh?

Think if it like this. An inventor makes a better car part, and when the auto manufacturer finds out, it wants to buy the invention and shelve it or block the invention. Innovation can actually be stifled.

Which part is broken?

Medicare and Medicaid are “broke.” That is what always happens when the government gets involved. Wasn’t it originally meant to cover a few thousand destitute Americans and cost a billion dollars? Get the government out of the options. When you get politicians involved, you get politics; (but not always a solution).

Futilely Grasping for Control

August 23, 2009

By Josh Taylor

None of us can control the future. Most of us wish we had that ability, but we don’t.

There are just too many variable out there to even keep track of. Of course most of us attempt to plan and prepare for the future as a means of reaching our goals, but we know that this planning is merely the illusion of control. Eventually we hit a road block and fail, and we continually do so over and over. But, don’t let this discourage you, because failure is one of our best teachers. The only real failure is when we do not learn something from our mistakes, and when we react to adverse situations by trying to assert more and more control even if it is something small, and relatively insignificant.

If you have seen any fat loss or fitness ads, you know health marketers understand this very well.

Think of all the tiny details that have been spread on how you can lose weight:

· You must have breakfast everyday, and if you don’t, your metabolism will slow down.

· Drinking coffee will speed up your metabolism.

· 12 cups of “cold” water every day will help you burn fat.

· Eat Protein at every meal.

· Drink Green Tea throughout the day.

· Don’t forget your fish oil pills.

But in reality no a single one of these myths will help you lose significant amounts of weight, and it certainly wont be long lasting. Every one of them is either a misuse of science (confusing correlation with causation), and extreme exaggeration (like fat burning tea & coffee), or just a well spread myth (protein for lunch). I am not going as far to say that these health marketers don’t mean well (even though their main criteria is boosting profits), focusing on these minuet actions will only keep you from achieving your health goals.

Most people feel that losing weight is one of their most difficult tasks. But, it really can be solved quite easily. Eat less, and stick to eating whole natural foods. If it comes in a bag or a box, it probably doesn’t qualify as “food.” That is it. But when you spend too much time focusing on insignificant details, you can lose sight of the big picture.

In short, when we think we can manage our health by focusing on the minutia in our lives, we end up sacrificing enjoyment in our lives, for some distant goal. In future articles I will outline positive alternatives to current fads.


See more from Josh at

Dr. George Tiller and “Defensive Action”

June 1, 2009

By Jay Rogers

If you are concerned with the abortion issue at all, you already know about Dr. George Tiller’s death. Tiller was the late term abortionist who operated a clinic in Wichita, Kansas. He was shot to death while serving as an usher in his church on Sunday, May 31st, 2009.

In 1993, I moved into a house directly across the street from one of America’s most notorious abortion clinics, Aware Woman Center for Choice in Melbourne, Florida. I had been involved in pro-life activism at abortion clinics since 1989 and was especially concerned that, after the shooting deaths of two abortionists in 1993, the movement was in serious trouble. Rather than duck and cover like so many other Christian media outlets had done, I felt it was the right time to confront the issue head on with a viable solution. I later bought the house and it became a staging area for peaceful protest. I became obnoxious to both the abortionists, who attempted unsuccessfully to sue me, and even to some pro-lifers who refused to act without a proper respect for the guidance of seasoned pro-life pastors and leaders. I even banned several people from use of my property who refused to follow the protocol I demanded as the owner. Eventually, the clinic was forced to close in 1999 and the owners chose to retire rather than relocate.

But in 1993, the prospect of furthering peaceful resistance looked bleak. With the election of Bill Clinton, restrictive federal laws were created concerning free speech and assembly. The right to protest in front of abortion clinic in Melbourne, Florida was made illegal for a time. Such laws, which were applied only to pro-lifers, would have been unthinkable had they been applied to any other social activist group. Civil rights protesters who trespassed in “whites only” restaurants, PETA protesters who spray paint fur, and environmental activists who chain themselves to redwoods to save the trees from logging companies are not only tolerated under the first amendment, but even celebrated within their own community of advocates. But with the election of Clinton, pro-life speech suddenly became illegal. The reason given, of course, was to curb the “terrorism” of the defensive action crowd within the pro-life movement.

The crisis of principles was inevitable. Pro-life advocates believe abortion is murder. Many of us were drawn into pro-life activism because we were challenged by a radical idea.

If you believe that abortion is murder, then act like it is murder!

Taken to a logical extreme comes the philosophy of defensive action — that it is permissible to use violent force in resistance to a more egregious violent force. I wrote a response to defensive action in 1993, called Justifiable Homicide that was published in the Christian Reconstructionist magazine, The Chalcedon Report. The article has been referenced by both pro-life and pro-abortion activists. I won’t paste my argument in its entirety into this blog entry, but it is available at our website:

Defensive action is the idea that violent force in the defense of life is permissible since a human life is being taken in an abortion. Since the civil magistrates’ duty is to protect life is being neglected, it is logical to a certain type of mind that individual violent resistance becomes permissible in these cases. Defensive action advocates claim that this is not vigilantism, but the necessary use of violent force in defense of life.

In 1993, Rachelle Shannon used this rationale to shot Dr. Tiller in both arms with a .32 caliber pistol — a gun that is able to kill, but usually does not incapacitate people. Her intent has to merely prevent his ability to commit abortion that day, but not to kill. I remember at the time wondering why in heaven’s name, if she used this argument to justify her defensive action, she simply didn’t finish the job once and for all. As one activist remarked, “This woman is a disgrace both to our pro-life ethic and our marksmanship!”

I’ve spent many hours debating with the defensive action crowd. I will be the first to say that their argument, although wrong, deserves careful scrutiny. I actually agree with defensive action in certain cases. Think of the following situation. Let’s say a serial child molester was released from prison. It defies all justice that the man was released, but let’s suppose that an extreme circumstance was responsible for this travesty. Suppose also that this sociopath has moved into your neighborhood. Soon after that you discover that your six-year-old daughter has wandered on to his property. After a frantic search, you find your child pinned to the ground by the man in the very act of rape. You hold a baseball bat in your hand.

Is it permissible in this case to use deadly force in defense of life?

Let’s say a group of pastors in Nazi Germany begin to participate in a strategy of espionage that results in several assassination attempts on Adolf Hitler. We applaud the resistance of brave Lutheran pastors and erstwhile pacifists such as Dietrich Bonhoeffer and Martin Niemoeller, precisely because their defensive action in taking one life would have prevented the killing of tens of millions.

What makes killing abortion doctors any different?

The reason is that the defensive action scenarios and their actual implementation have never taken place within the confines of God’s law. That is not to say that they cannot in any circumstance be justified. For instance, if a family member, let’s say a 16-year-old daughter, was about to kill her unborn child and was inside the abortion clinic with a police presence that prevented you from interceding for the life of the baby. I believe it would be permissible to use violent force to prevent the abortionist from murdering your grandchild. In this example, I would agree with violent defensive action.

However, under God’s moral law, we cannot act outside the authority of the civil magistrate to prevent all murder in all cases through the use of deadly force. The only exceptions to this would be the case of a war action, defending a family member, which I’ve mentioned, or a case in which all other options of non-violent resistance would be ineffective to defend a helpless victim. None of the four deadly shootings of abortion doctors that have occurred since 1993 fit these parameters.

It is also good to keep this in perspective. Four cases have occurred in 16 years in which abortion doctors have been shot to death in the United States. Yet since Roe v. Wade was decided, about 45 million unborn baby boys and girls have been slaughtered.

“Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord GOD, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live?” – Ezekiel 18:23

Except for the sorrow expressed by God himself when an unrepentant sinner perishes, I don’t mourn the death of those who deserve death. I expect that the general public’s attitude toward Tiller’s assassination is going to be a lot less austere than it was in 1993. We have a president who refused to vote to protect babies even in the ninth month of pregnancy. It’s no coincidence that abortion clinic related violence decreases when a pro-life president is in office, but increases when extreme pro-abortion legislation is enacted that is out of the mainstream of American public opinion.

Barack Obama is responsible for creating the atmosphere of violence among the defensive action folks in the pro-life movement, just as Bill Clinton and Janet Reno through their jackbooted federal thuggery were responsible for creating the frustrated backlash that erupted from among a fringe element who were previously quelled by opportunities for social and political activism within the larger peaceful movement.

As John F. Kennedy said about the civil rights movement, “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The “Wholesome Medicine” of Barak Obama PART II – Taking on CMS

March 16, 2009

Jeffrey A. Ziegler President: SGI


Once again President Barak Obama has filled the nation’s airwaves with whining pontifications on the so-called healthcare crises. From his 2008 campaign to the present “healthcare summit” the same libertine dribble of state-run solutions to non-existent problems have belched from the belly of Obama’s leftist radicals. That the cost of healthcare continues to rise has little to do with any crises of market influences, but instead stems from the Fed’s original suppression of free enterprise in the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, and its resultant cost-shifting Ponzi schemes, derailed innovations, and the combined financial choke-hold these programs have had on American medicine. As former President Bush often stated, “ … Instead of bureaucrats, trial lawyers, and HMOs, we must put doctors, and nurses, and patients back in charge of American medicine.” We certainly agree! Unfortunately the current Obama-era regime at CMS (Center for Medicare Services) not only falls far short of these lofty ideals but is working to increase the size of CMS while stripping medical choice from rank and file consumers. The reach of CMS is surpassed only by the combined elements of the Pentagon!

The Economic “Big Picture”

Medicare is the greatest engine driving up the cost of healthcare! The problem with Medicare (CMS) is its sheer size and insulation from market forces. Alone, Medicare (CMS) comprises 49% of the entire US healthcare industry. (Under Obama CMS will grow to encompass all US healthcare!) CMS is among the least efficient of government agencies. It is often joked that the agency is the last refuge for former East German bureaucrats. Now if this were a privately owned concern, competition would eventually curb such inefficient behavior. But Medicare is big government! Their bad conduct, procedures, and policies are among the chief reasons for the escalating health care costs facing the nation! When you consider that the first wave of baby-boomers are now entering the system (2008) government dominance of healthcare will be out of control! (With or without Obamaism)

Remember that Medicare is an agency built on artificial pricing schemes and cost shifting and lags woefully behind in payment to doctors and providers. Additionally, when Medicare actually does get around to paying the providers, it has been doing so at ever decreasing rates (4-5% per year). Results? More and more providers are simply opting out of treating Medicare cases or real cost is passed on to non-Medicare business silos. For patients this means less access to healthcare and more cost. But now Obama wishes to bloat CMS into an ever increasing draconian master by coercively forcing all Americans into an already cancerous Leviathan. The results? As one surgeon remarked Medicare is not about healthcare but instead killing off the actuarially non-viable. In other words rationed care, less physician access, and no patient choice! The future for the elderly ill? “Hey, you’re going to die anyway . . . NO TREATMENT!”

Operation WHITECOAT Objectives:

Since 2005 we have worked with many patriotic and caring physicians to bring real market solutions to the nation. Dubbed OPERATION WHITECOAT our physicians are working to repulse the fascist solutions of state run healthcare!

We are working to gain an affirmative commitment and assent from CMS for non-risk Physician-Patient-Technology demonstrations that are driven by the true cost of the market and lay the ground-work for the outsourcing of the entire claim management system of Medicare. Second, we are advocating the development of a fast-pay system for the provider community coupled to real-time claims processing, fraud detection and predictive risk management. Third, we advocate for a consumer-choice benefit plan that shifts Medicare authority away from Federal control to regional, private entities. Fourth, our Provider Team WHITECOAT forms the nucleus for other providers to join with us in an ongoing effort. Finally, work toward a market driven, privatized CMS model. In other words OPERATION WHITECOAT and SGI are on a collision course with healthcare FASCISM!

What Operation WHITECOAT Doctors Represent

1. Deployment of a Fast Pay System
2. Reduction in CMS Administrative Costs and Development of Privatized Models
3. National Political Clout
4. Platform for Tort Reform
5. National Media Voice
6. Access to The White House and leading Senate and House members
7. Involvement in the Process to change CMS policy and Reduce Government Percentage of Health Economy
8. Creation of an Activistic Physician Movement with Cogent Leading Edge Ideas
9. Positive Pro-life, Pro-family Solutions

What Operation WHITECOAT Doctors Achieve Long Term

1. Developing regional CMS models and Eventual Market-Driven Models
2. Disengaging the Leviathan of Government from Healthcare
3. Lowering Costs and Increasing Reimbursements
4. Breaking the CMS Market Monopoly
5. Incentivizing the Best and Brightest to return to Healthcare
6. Greater Physician Political Prowess! (There’s a big difference between a protester and a policy maker!)
7. Greater Healthcare Choices
8. More Healthcare Dollars spent on Treatment
9. Rebuffing Cynical Defeatist Ideals through Concrete Measurable Successes
10. Ushering in a new “Golden Era” of Ethical Strapping American Healthcare

With doctors in the lead, once again SGI stands as the vanguard to repulse the national power grab of the Obama minions. Below you will find that Rep. Ron Paul kicked us off for our inaugural efforts. With men like Ron Paul we guarantee a fight all the way to the White House!


The “Wholesome Medicine” of Barak Obama

March 9, 2009

By Jeffrey A. Ziegler
President SGI

Once again President Barak Obama has filled the nation’s airwaves with whining pontifications on the so-called healthcare crises. From his 2008 campaign to the present “healthcare summit” the same libertine dribble of state-run solutions to non-existent problems have belched from the belly of Obama’s leftist radicals. That the cost of healthcare continues to rise has little to do with any crises of market influences, but instead stems from the Fed’s original suppression of free enterprise in the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, and its resultant cost-shifting Ponzi schemes, derailed innovations, and the combined financial choke-hold these programs have had on American medicine. I’ll pen more on that foundational mess in a future article.

For this missive, my concern focuses on Obama decrying the so-called “religious right” for attacking “traditional, wholesome and constructive institutions” such as Planned Parenthood. This “attack” was in response to pro-life groups throughout the nation voicing concern that Planned Parenthood along with other pro-abortion groups were invited to the “Healthcare Summit” while not a single pro-life organization was invited to the same. That this unfortunate decision was made by Obama comes as no surprise. Yet Obama, in defense of his decision has had the temerity to deem Planned Parenthood as a “traditional, wholesome, and constructive” organization. This declaration is at the same time both strange and perverse.

For indeed Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an unabashed racist and urged the forced sterilization of “Jews, Blacks, and Europeans of Eastern and Mediterranean ancestry.” Additionally, Sanger advocated the complete overthrow of traditional families and “the enslaving institution of marriage.” In the political realm, Sanger’s views ran to anarchy and her depraved admiration for Adolph Hitler is well documented. Today, Planned Parenthood follows the legacy of Sanger as the foremost champion of abortion worldwide. Witness the organizations shameless fawning over Red China’s tyrannical, forced sterilization policies, and the promotion of partial-birth abortion in America.

Ergo, following the convoluted logic of President Obama, social-Darwinistic racism, despotic forced sterilization, killing unborn babies, political tyranny, and other eugenic-based policies are now “traditional and wholesome.” Obama’s values, without moral, constitutional, or historic validity, must in his view, have a vigorous defense from the advance of orthodox Christianity through the creation of straw-man arguments and a redefinition of reality according to his deviant paradigm.

The President clumsily attempts to legitimize and mainstream his statist and liberal views under the aegis of traditional American values. He knows that eugenics, the extermination of his own race (over 60% of abortions are African-Americans) and coercive-rationed healthcare are not marketable ideas. Hence, Obama resorts to subtlety and subterfuge to posture himself as a benign centrist. This less than honest approach has outraged, angered, and brought many who voted for him to near revolutionary fervor and rightfully so. However, in the Democratic left: Obama is not unique! Leftist handlers “preach just enough Americanism to keep the middle-class happy” and use their unsuspecting blue-collar base as a platform for political radicalism. Meanwhile the same ideologues ready the “hammer and sickle” for every health care delivery system throughout the United States.

So while outrage at Obamas’ anti-orthodox, anti-family, and anti-American views is legitimate, one must turn such frustration into long-term, cogent, and articulate activism in order to challenge and repulse his skewed world-view. Political, social, and philosophical apostates like Obamanation always crash and burn in time and history. Witness: Stalin, Mao, Hitler etc.

The President’s latest health summit proves once again his contempt for “all things pertaining to life and Godliness.” In fact, Obama’s worldview is a true rival of our Constitutional Republic and could be viewed as a new religion of tyranny. Judged by his rhetoric, Obamaism places the state as god, holds humanistic utilitarianism as its doctrine, places institutional health care as its sanctuary, and venerates abortion as the new sacrament. Such religions have fallen many an empire and left unchecked will mean the death of America.


%d bloggers like this: