Saturday, December 30, 2006

Healthy state of mind

Continuing with yesterday’s commentary. Something that I feel is important to cover involves educating the general population on proper utilization of healthcare resources. Yes, we have a problem with uninsured in this country, but in many areas there are access problems, especially with lawsuits driving docs out of business or into less “sue-happy” locations. This creates a void in healthcare availability and strains the remaining resources. Not only that, but a large portion of expense comes from Emergency Room visits by people who don’t have primary care physicians or don’t have insurance. So our ERs are seeing simple things like colds and sinus infections, incurring great costs that often go unpaid and leading hospitals to pass the costs on to those who are insured. This is a big problem and part of the solution involves changing our way of thinking. So here we go:

It’s not always abnormal to be sick. Everyone has been sick. It comes with being human. Whether you’re talking about bronchitis, sinusitis, laryngitis, pharyngitis and in many cases otitis (ear infection), these are all things that we all obtain on multiple occasions throughout our lives. So, it’s not necessarily abnormal to be sick. In fact, I would say that it’s more abnormal to never be sick. Rarely, and I do mean rarely, do these things require the care of a physician. The vast majority will resolve on their own via our effective immune systems regardless of what one does to treat them. But that’s not the going opinion in the public. We seemed to have developed the mentality that sickness must not be allowed and must be treated immediately. It doesn’t matter that there is nothing the physician can do for these that can’t be done over the counter. What matters is that we don’t like to be sick and when we get sick we feel that sickness deserves attention. Hence, we go to the doctor. This isn’t necessary, and it’s extremely costly. I think society would do themselves a favor by learning that it’s best to leave the doctor’s office for people who aren’t just sick, but are REALLY sick. In the long run, it would benefit us all.

Pain is not unacceptable. This follows with the first point. We have all experienced pain. It’s also part of being human. Sometimes it’s an achy wrist, or a sore ankle, or a sore toe. Sometimes our hands hurt, our shoulders ache. Sometimes we get headaches. Sometimes we get back aches. This is all, arguably, part of a normal healthy human body. Pain is a defense mechanism, and when something like tendonitis or synovitis pops up, it’s the body’s way of telling us to take it easy on that wrist or that ankle until it heals. And it will heal. So why do we not tolerate pain? Again, there seems to be a mindset that any pain is unacceptable and must be eliminated right away. We no longer tolerate the minor aches that come with normal human activity. Again, this leads to unnecessary, expensive visits so the physician can tell us what our bodies are already trying to tell us…take it easy until it heals. But sometimes, patients are also told to take over the counter medications, which brings me to the next point.

Treat yourself first. We all know what to buy when we have a cold, or a headache, or an achy wrist. And if we don’t know, the local pharmacist will be glad to point us to the right aisle. Generally, an over the counter medicine will do the trick for that achy toe, or the nagging hemorrhoid, or the sore throat, or the occasional cough, and it will save a lot of money. Besides, do we really need a physician to tell us to take Advil or Nyquil?

An emergency is anything that poses an immediate threat to life, limb or eyesight. Unless directed by a physician or nurse, there is no other reason to go to the emergency room.

So we all need to learn how to properly utilize our health resources if we’re going to overcome the many problems that we face in today’s healthcare. The above suggestions may seem small, but if applied by millions the cost savings becomes substantial. On the flip side, until we all practice the proper behaviors, discussion of national health care or socialized medicine should be off the table. Right now, the only thing discouraged healthcare abuse is out of pocket cost for the patient. If we open the gates and provide free care for all…well, it would be fiscal suicide for the government. So let’s all learn the lessons. Tolerate that cold, it will go away within a few weeks. Tolerate that achy wrist, it will heal soon. Be your own doctor. Leave the ER for true emergencies. Maybe, if we cooperate, it will ease the burden on us all.

Thursday, December 28, 2006

Healthcare - the answers to the "crisis"

The Dems are lining up for their respective presidential runs and based on the last election there is a good chance that a Democrat will be in the White House. What does that mean for folks like me in the medical community? Well, I think it means trouble.

There are some serious problems in America’s current health care system. No one can argue that point. However, our politicians seem to have a difficult time acknowledging the real problems we face. For some reason, Washington thinks that our only health care problem is the number of uninsured, and once that’s fixed then everything will be fine. Just get every citizen health insurance and the healthcare problems will vanish. Wrong.

What Washington doesn’t realize is that there are numerous problems facing those of us who have insurance, and those problems should be addressed first before insuring everyone else. Otherwise, you just add to the problem. Why give someone faulty health care. So I have included a few tips, in simple terms for our politicians, on how to fix America’s healthcare. First, the little things:

Ban drug company advertising for prescription drugs. This was a huge mistake by Congress. Why do people need to know about prescription drugs? Isn’t that what doctors go to school for? It may seem like a good idea on the surface, but what it does is create unnecessary visits for things that aren’t necessarily problematic. For example, a recent commercial says "talk to you doctor if you’ve ever had problems sleeping". Well, who hasn’t had problems sleeping? Now, patients are making appointments for things that aren’t pathologic but are rather normal human variations in health. The result: costs go up and access to care goes down. Not to mention the fact that drug companies are better spending this money on other things like research and development.

Impose strict malpractice reform. Trial lawyers must be reigned in. They are out of control and they are ruining our healthcare system. The fear of being sued among physicians is driving us to practice defensive medicine. Labs, tests and scans are being ordered mainly as cover, even when they aren’t exactly necessary. This drives up costs. And since it’s usually the lower socioeconomic class that tends to be sue happy, they obviously can’t afford the extraneous tests, and the cost gets passed to other consumers. Plus, malpractice insurance is becoming too expensive and it’s driving physicians out of practice, thus increasing demand for care and limiting access. We need to impose caps on damages and harsh penalties on plaintiffs attorneys who file frivolous suits, including forcing them to pay ALL court costs (including the defense) for any suit they lose. Do this, and malpractice lawsuits will drop substantially.

Stay away from socialized medicine. This simply doesn’t work in a capitalist environment. It’s way too expensive and will bankrupt the federal government. What would happen if healthcare were free for everyone? Long lines, poor quality, limited access and huge taxes. It’s not the answer.

Keep Health Savings Accounts. Luckily, Congress passed this before disbanding. Basically, this allows people to save money, untaxed, for healthcare reasons while purchasing a high-deductible insurance policy for the big costs. It’s a great idea and I hope the new Congress doesn’t sink it.

Lower taxes on corporations. We have free trade with many countries. The problem is that the taxes here are higher for corporations than they are oversees. The result is the outsourcing of jobs and the loss of health coverage. In order for free trade to work for us, we need to lower corporate taxes to attract more international business and keep domestic business here. That means more jobs are created and more people are insured.

Allow small business to pool their resources and purchase large corporate policies for their employees. Why hasn’t this been done yet? Likely because the insurance lobby is awfully powerful. Small businesses simply don’t have the income to provide quality insurance for their employees, mainly because purchasing plans for a dozen people is too expensive. The larger companies get discounted care because they bring in more customers. It’s not exactly fair, but that’s how private insurance works. Hey, they have to pay their own bills. So, why not let small businesses come together under one plan? Where is the hangup here?

Allow physicians to practice concierge medicine. Dr. Vic Wood of West Virginia offers patients unlimited primary and urgent care for $83 a month. UNLIMITED. This doesn’t cover hospitalizations, medications or specialist care, but at least it’s something. It certainly beats an $800 ER bill for a sinus infection. Doctors can do this and still make a living, and it helps ease the uninsured burden. Similar plans can be found throughout the country. The Family Practitioners have found a way to help people who need help. So what’s the problem? Well, in some eyes, this amounts to operating as an illegal insurer. Who’s complaining? The insurance companies. This method eliminates the middle man thereby taking away from insurer profits. So they have to respond with lower rates themselves. Such is the world of free enterprise and healthy competition. It’s good for the consumer. But the insurers are winning the fight and many docs are not able to provide this service for legal reasons. In fact, insurance companies are pressing state legislatures nationwide to impose regulations on these retainer fees that private docs charge. This must not be allowed. People need the care, so what if it means the private insurers have to work a little harder to compete with the docs. It’s about time we gave doctors the upper hand and more say in American healthcare.

So that’s it. That’s one doctor’s solution to our healthcare needs. It’s simple and relatively easy. But I’m not holding out any hope that Congress will do these things. It’s much easier for them to raise taxes through the roof and provide blanket coverage for everyone. Just remember what the late Gerald Ford said (pp): "What the government provides for us the government can also take away from us." Well said, Mr. President.

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Merry Christmas

This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: His mother Mary was pledged to be married to Joseph, but before they came together, she was found to be with child through the Holy Spirit. Because Joseph her husband was a righteous man and did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly.

But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins."

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: "The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and they will call him Immanuel"--which means, "God with us."

When Joseph woke up, he did what the angel of the Lord had commanded him and took Mary home as his wife. But he had no union with her until she gave birth to a son. And he gave him the name Jesus.

After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod, Magi from the east came to Jerusalem and asked, "Where is the one who has been born king of the Jews? We saw his star in the east and have come to worship him."

When King Herod heard this he was disturbed, and all Jerusalem with him. When he had called together all the people's chief priests and teachers of the law, he asked them where the Christ was to be born. "In Bethlehem in Judea," they replied, "for this is what the prophet has written: "'But you, Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for out of you will come a ruler who will be the shepherd of my people Israel.'" Then Herod called the Magi secretly and found out from them the exact time the star had appeared. He sent them to Bethlehem and said, "Go and make a careful search for the child. As soon as you find him, report to me, so that I too may go and worship him."

After they had heard the king, they went on their way, and the star they had seen in the east went ahead of them until it stopped over the place where the child was. When they saw the star, they were overjoyed.

On coming to the house, they saw the child with his mother Mary, and they bowed down and worshiped him. Then they opened their treasures and presented him with gifts of gold and of incense and of myrrh. And having been warned in a dream not to go back to Herod, they returned to their country by another route.

When they had gone, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream. "Get up," he said, "take the child and his mother and escape to Egypt. Stay there until I tell you, for Herod is going to search for the child to kill him."

So he got up, took the child and his mother during the night and left for Egypt, where he stayed until the death of Herod. And so was fulfilled what the Lord had said through the prophet: "Out of Egypt I called my son."

When Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi. Then what was said through the prophet Jeremiah was fulfilled: "A voice is heard in Ramah, weeping and great mourning, Rachel weeping for her children and refusing to be comforted, because they are no more."

After Herod died, an angel of the Lord appeared in a dream to Joseph in Egypt and said, "Get up, take the child and his mother and go to the land of Israel, for those who were trying to take the child's life are dead."

So he got up, took the child and his mother and went to the land of Israel. But when he heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there. Having been warned in a dream, he withdrew to the district of Galilee, and he went and lived in a town called Nazareth. So was fulfilled what was said through the prophets: "He will be called a Nazarene."
--Matthew 1:18 - 2:23 New International Version

Saturday, December 23, 2006

The decline of society

NYC birth rate declines – 88,000 abortions in 2005

88,000 abortions in one year in one city. Unbelievable. New York is now flirting with a negative birth rate, evidence of a decaying city and a decaying country. Europe is facing a similar situation. What happens to a country, especially a country with Social Security, when more people are dying than are being born?

As wonderful as Democracy and Capitalism are, there is one inherent problem with them…greed. And, by definition, greed is fueled by selfishness. So, the trade-off that comes from living in a free society with free enterprise and the right to pursue happiness is the threat of selfishness and greed. Let’s face it, just about every domestic issue we face today can by boiled down to these two things in one way or another. Rarely does a powerful democracy like our own come under external threat, and when it does that threat is often quickly disposed of because capitalist nations are usually the most wealthy which also means they have the most capable military. Such is the case with America. However, there is the internal threat…greed. And that internal threat can magnify the external threats.

For instance, consider the war on terror. The Islamofascists represent an external threat to our democracy. Many of us want to fight them, many don’t. Those that don’t cite some rather admirable reasons. They oppose war. They feel all disputes can be resolved peacefully. Truly admirable, but unrealistic. Many of these people are highly intelligent and it seems like they should be in touch with reality, but that’s not the case. Or is it? It makes me wonder if maybe these admirable reasons they cite for opposing war are true, or maybe, just maybe, they don’t like war because of the possibility that THEY may be called upon to fight as well? Could their opposition be selfish in nature? It’s a thought, but I digress.

So back to abortion. Regardless of how one rationalizes it, abortion itself is a very selfish act. A mother is putting her needs before those of her child. The same is true for deadbeat dads. 25% of America’s children are born without a father, we are raising a generation of illegitimate kids, and yet we scratch our heads and wonder how drug use, alcoholism, suicide, teenage pregnancy, depression and criminal behavior is on the rise in our kids despite the trillions of dollars we spend on social programs to fight these things. The answer is selfishness and greed. Such is the trend in American society. Zell Miller says this represents a "Deficit of Decency" in our great country, and I couldn’t agree more.

So we face a dilemma. Democracy and Capitalism are conducive to greed and selfishness. It’s hard to have the freedoms we have without that sort of trend. So what do we do? Clearly, Democracy is the best form of government for man. God has endowed us with free will and only democracy allows for such at its maximal potential. Man is meant to be free, no one can argue with that. So another form of government is not an option. So how do we combat the greed that comes with the freedom?

Our Founding Fathers knew the answer. Religion. The only way a free people avoid the greed that comes from freedom is to retain their virtue, and the best way to retain virtue is by maintaining their faith…being a religious society. "Faith requires freedom, freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith." This is the key principle to a successful democracy. These are the three pillars on which a prosperous nation must be built. If one fails, the others soon follow. Which of these are waning in America today? How is our virtue? How is our faith? How long will our freedom last?

I’m not advocating for a national religion. You can’t legislate morality. The change that must occur must occur at the social level. Basically, America needs a spiritual revival. We’ve deviated long enough from our spiritual heritage, the spiritual past that founded this country and made her strong, and now we’re beginning to suffer the consequences. This nation is eroding from within, and the point of no return is on the horizon. We are flirting with a negative birth rate. We refuse to fight back against the external threats. We are betraying our children. We are deferring to international law. We are selfish and greedy. Can America survive this way?
We’d better decide the answer to this question and fast, because if the answer is no then we don’t have a whole lot of time to fix things.

Al Qaeda knows who their allies are

Al Zawahri to Democrats:

"The first is that you aren't the ones who won the midterm elections, nor are the Republicans the ones who lost. Rather, the Mujahideen -- the Muslim Ummah's vanguard in Afghanistan and Iraq -- are the ones who won, and the American forces and their Crusader allies are the ones who lost…And if you don't refrain from the foolish American policy of backing Israel, occupying the lands of Islam and stealing the treasures of the Muslims, then await the same fate."

I can’t possibly add anything to that.

Al Qaeda in Iraq offers truce to allow US troops to pull out. Would anyone like to wager on how many Democrats will call for taking them up on that offer?

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Trump-Rosie disgrace

Trump – O’Donnell exchange words of criticism

I try not to make it a habit to comment on what celebrities do or say. Basically, my view is "who cares?" So this is a slight deviation from my trend, mainly to point out how childish these people behave. Rosie O’Donnell has harshly criticized Trump for not dethroning Miss USA. This is fair criticism. Miss USA is supposed to be a role model and her behavior can potentially influence many young girls. Underage drinking and other questionable behavior on her part has led many people to want her crown taken away. Again, this is understandable. So, in that regard, I agree with Rosie. The problem is how she did it. I know this is Hollywood and ratings mean everything, and since she arrived on The View her controversial remarks have meant higher ratings for the show. But, she got personal in her criticism, pointing out his infidelity and previous failed marriages. That simply wasn’t necessary.

So what does Trump do? Well, he does the same. He resorts to name calling, especially in regards to her weight and physical appearance, and points out her sexual orientation…clearly uncalled-for. Now, he’s even threatening lawsuits. It won’t be long before we hear "liar, liar, pants on fire" or "I’m rubber, you’re glue." Honestly, I’ve seen better behavior among preschoolers. We’re talking about a real-estate mogul and a daytime television celebrity here, each showing they have the emotional maturity of a 4-year old.

But ratings will go up. The View will get more viewers, and Trump has a new show coming as well. People magazine and Entertainment Tonight will be drooling at the war of words, and American culture will erode a tiny bit more. Basically, this is good TV, however embarrassing it may be for people like me who wish there would be more coverage of those who don’t resort to such cheap tactics. I enjoy healthy debate, and Trump’s decision on Miss USA’s behavior should be the source for some of that healthy debate. But, we’ll hear more of the Trump-Rosie controversy and that will likely take away from the whole purpose of the argument: Should Miss USA keep her crown?

I have a theory. Trump is no fool. His "Apprentice" shows haven’t done quite as well lately and perhaps he saw Miss USA’s behavior as an opportunity to put himself back in the spotlight. I’m sure he knew he would take some criticism and planned on firing back with these kinds of remarks. The result: everyone is talking about Trump once again. Well, thanks in part to Rosie O’Donnell, mission accomplished. I, for one, will not be watching The Apprentice or The View. I’ll simply stick to people who are capable of civil discussion without being mean or hurtful.

Tuesday, December 19, 2006

Seeking the truth or suppressing it?

British Lord demands US Senators resign

This is fascinating. Two US Senators, Rockefeller (D-WV) and Snowe (R-Maine) have sent an open letter to the Exxon-Mobile CEO telling him to cease funding of research that may contradict human-induced climate change. In their words, they insisted that he end funding of a "climate change denial campaign."

Here is a quote from the article: "The Senators labeled scientists with whom they disagree as "deniers," a term usually directed at "Holocaust deniers." Some voices on the political left have called for the arrest and prosecution of skeptical scientists. The British Foreign Secretary has said skeptics should be treated like advocates of Islamic terror and must be denied access to the media."

Denied access to the media? Did I read that correctly? And this is the British Foreign Secretary? Think about that for a moment and let it sink in, and if you have thoughts of fascism running through your mind then you’re not alone. What part of freedom of speech does this guy not understand?

If you’ve read this blog before, then you’ve seen credible scientific evidence that contradicts the "going opinion" that humans are changing the climate. Thus, human-induced climate change is not a foregone conclusion. In truth, no one knows the truth, and anyone who claims so is simply ignorant of the facts – what little facts there are. At the very least, what we need is more research to determine if human-induced climate change is real. I think that’s in all of our best interest. So why attempt to suppress that? What are these people afraid of? This behavior does nothing but help confirm my suspicion that human-induced climate change isn’t all it’s cracked up to be, otherwise the Senators would welcome more research that would certainly support what they believe. Regardless, it’s pretty scary to think that two of our elected representatives are basically trying to bully corporations into not supporting more scientific research that could give us all more answers to this very important question. They don’t appear to be acting in the people’s best interest, and I would welcome further investigation into what these guys are up to.

Meanwhile, the British Lord Monckton calls for them to basically put up or shut up: "I challenge you to withdraw or resign because your letter is the latest in what appears to be an internationally-coordinated series of maladroit and malevolent attempts to silence the voices of scientists and others who have sound grounds, rooted firmly in the peer- reviewed scientific literature, to question what you would have us believe is the unanimous agreement of scientists worldwide that global warming will lead to what you excitedly but unjustifiably call disastrous and calamitous consequences."

Ditto that. There is no room for this kind of behavior in American politics. So I will patiently wait for the New York Times and CBS News to join Monckton in this outcry. After all, they seem to be very offended at Bush’s supposed "suppression" of evidence as of late, certainly they will take similar offense at the actions of these two Senators. But I’m not going to hold my breath.

Monday, December 18, 2006

Professional? Act like it

Today’s post takes a look at the world of sports. Anyone who follows professional sports closely is aware of the recent altercation involving the New York Knicks and the Denver Nuggets. For those of you who missed it, basically there was a playground-like shoving match that erupted into a full-scale courtside brawl between the two teams. Fortunately, there was no fan involvement as there was a few years ago when a similar fight spilled into the stands and involved some of the spectators, but the weekend’s fight was no less ridiculous.

Keep in mind these "men" are PROFESSIONALS, even if they rarely act like it. Because of this, at least in part, that means they are experts in their field and act as a teacher, consultant, performer or contestant. Look it up, it’s there in the dictionary word for word, and the word "teacher" is the one that stands out to me. In light of this recent behavior, I can say that I’ve seen better teaching at the local black-top pickup game. Regardless of how deserving or warranted, there are many people (mostly young people) who look up to and admire the "men" that engaged in this brawl. Some athletes may not want the admiration, but it’s there. Along with the paycheck comes role model status and there are few who live up to it.

If a doctor or lawyer were to behave in such a way, I think we all know what would happen. At best that person loses their license, or a part of their professional status, at worst they go to jail. But it’s different for athletes. They are allowed a certain level of social transgression, whether it be fighting or using illegal substances. Part of that tolerance comes from the lack of outcry from those who pay the bills – namely the fans – hence the reason for this post.

A large percentage of tomorrow’s generation is growing up without any paternal parental influence or involvement. This creates a void. Children must have some paternal influence for healthy development, studies have shown that time and again. Without it, or with the wrong type of influence, we run the risk of raising kids prone to deviant behavior. So the table is set in our society for some serious problems. Kids need some paternal influence to model a portion of their behavior after. If they don’t get it at home then many will get it from the athletes they idolize, the very athletes that are duking it out like a bad Saturday evening wrestling match when they should be acting like the professionals we’ve labeled them as. The result: a bunch of kids who think it’s OK to clock someone with your fist when things don’t go as you’d like them to. That’s why I’m speaking out.

This is true in all sports, but seems to be more of a problem in basketball. Maybe it’s because athletes are more likely to skip college, as has been the recent trend (although this isn’t such a problem with baseball players), or maybe because many of these talented players also grew up in broken homes and simply don’t know how to control their emotions and act like men rather than playground bullies. Who knows? But the fact is that the NBA has a serious problem they need to correct and fast. Part of the solution, I think, is to stop the high school-to-NBA transition. These kids need to learn a lot more than the fundamentals of basketball and if they don’t learn it at home, then maybe a college coach can teach them. Next, the NBA needs to punish this behavior…severely. When the players started fighting the fans, there were some season-long suspensions handed out. Obviously, the message wasn’t delivered. So, like in every other profession, I think behavior like this needs to threaten the athletes’ professional status. They need more than one season on the bench without pay, along with heavy fines and tons of community service. It’s not okay to behave like this if you’re a professional athlete. It’s time they started learning the lessons of life.

So, until some changes occur, I will be boycotting the NBA. I will not watch any games on TV, nor purchase any tickets. I will not buy any merchandise. If the NBA logo is on something, it will not be purchased by me. That’s the small little protest I can do and I encourage others who feel like I do to join me. Our kids need some role models…correction, some POSITIVE role models. If you get the paycheck, you get the role model status as well – act like it.

Saturday, December 16, 2006

The Pope doesn't grasp the threat we face

Pope critical of US handling of war on terror

In a recent address, the Pope seemed to aim criticism at the US for its handling of the war on terror, stating that it was important for states to reaffirm humanitarian law. He then followed by saying that it was never right to wage war in God’s name. Thanks for clearing that up.

No disrespect to the Pope, but this is none of his business. I doubt he’d have the same attitude if a few jumbo-jets had been flown into the Vatican rather than the twin towers. We’ve already seen how the Pope deals with Muslim extremists in the way he quickly capitulated to their apology demands earlier this year. So it doesn’t surprise me to hear him criticizing America, much the same way our terrorist enemies and the appeasers that empower them do. That’s right…it’s America’s fault. I’m sure their all agreeing from Fallujah to Darfur.

And who is he talking to when he says don’t wage war in God’s name? Is anyone doing that other than the Muslim extremists? Perhaps if he wasn’t so quick to give in to their demands he could make his message stick. Now, the extremists see him as nothing but a pushover that will likely give in whenever they feel "offended".

And what about that sex scandal? Was anything done about that? It seems to me that there is some tidying to do in the Pope’s house before he can turn and criticize others, but that’s another post. The Pope is just another in a long line of people who seem to be jumping on the "America’s fault" bandwagon. But that’s alright. Criticize away. We can take it.

The Pope should maybe stop and think for a moment that if America dropped its weapons and let the Muslim extremists have their way, then the Vatican would be the first place they plundered. Well, maybe the second, after Tel Aviv. And Kofi Annan needs to do the same. I’m wondering, who else would do anything to stop these people?

America is the ONLY thing standing between a free world and a radical Muslim world, and the world seems to be siding against us. Is it stupidity? Naivety? Envy? Let’s hope, for the world’s sake, that America continues this fight because we’re the only chance the world has. So, what’s it gonna be? Let us fight the extremists, or let’s all grab a rug and bow down towards Mecca.

Thursday, December 14, 2006

Senator Johnson

Senator Johnson suffers a stroke

First, my thoughts and prayers go out to Senator Johnson and his family as he struggles for life on the brink of the holiday season. Now, excuse me while I take some more shots at Washington.

It's disgusting to hear the primary conversation regarding Johnson's stroke involves who will control the Senate. This man has suffered a life-threatening condition. Can we put away the politics for a moment?

Have we, as a nation, become so polarized that we now salivate at power when one of our elected leaders falls seriously ill? Is that what we've sunk to? How about we take a moment and express just a tiny bit of concern for the man's health before we gamble for his robes. Such is the Romanization of American politics.

I'd like to know how the Senator is doing, but it seems that every media report circles around the balance of power shifting in the Senate. The mere thought of it is nauseating. It's not just the Democrats or the Republicans. Both parties are equally guilty. Lack of dignity is not a partisan trait.

It is my sincere prayer that Senator Johnson comes through this okay, and that he will be able to spend Christmas at home with his family. And as for the vultures and hyenas lurking in the American media and in American politics, I sincerely hope that none of you have to endure such a similar hardship. You all should be ashamed.

Wednesday, December 13, 2006

Oh, the glass houses!

Emanual knew about Foley emails

Here is an interesting article that you aren’t likely to see in the New York Times or the Leningrad Times. Rahm Emanual (D-Ill), chairman of democratic congressional committee and incoming chairman of the democratic caucus, apparently DID have knowledge about the Foley-page emails, despite his previous denials. So, it doesn’t look like this was strictly a Republican scandal after all. Nevertheless, Dem operatives "shopped" the story to multiple newspapers right before the midterm election, obviously hoping to spark a scandal and tag the GOP as the corrupt party of Washington.

Does this really surprise anyone? It’s no coincidence that this broke right before the election. It’s certainly happened before. Don’t get me wrong, I’m glad Foley got what he deserved and I hope he undergoes criminal prosecution. But what bugs me about the whole thing is the notion that it’s a Republican scandal, that the GOP is the corrupt party and that Denny Hastert should have resigned because he knew about the emails. I wonder if the same calls for resignation will be hurled towards Rahm Emanual. I’m not holding my breath.

Just last night, I heard Nancy Pelosi once again yapping about "draining the swamp" in Washington. Apparently she wants to clean up that town, which to me means that her first action would be to resign her elected position, along with every other member of Congress. But we all know that won’t happen. So the next best thing would be avoiding the typical hypocrisy that comes along with the job, which also is not likely to happen. Nope, we’ll have another 2 years of the same ol’ garbage and not a whole lot will change, except maybe our tax brackets.
Ben Franklin once said, "No public office should be so profitable as to make it desirable."

Perhaps that should be bronzed and placed at the entrance to both Congressional chambers, because until our elected leaders start living by that standard, nothing in Washington is going to change.

Monday, December 11, 2006

McKinney...the disgrace

McKinney proposes impeachment bill on last day of Congress

Thanks to my friend at Church and State for reminding me not to let her get away without a few words. I'm usually careful to show respect for elected representatives regardless of my disagreement with their policy, but I'm gonna have to bend the rules a little and thunder away at this sorry excuse for a "distinguished madam". Cynthia McKinney has set a standard for a new low in political behavior. On the last day of Congress, she proposes a bill of impeachment of George Bush. Now, what did that accomplish? Was she using her office in a respectable manner? No, it was nothing but cheap politics.

In a city full of imbeciles, Cynthia McKinney has risen above them all as the Queen Moron, and that's saying a lot considering her company. This woman has no more business representing hard-working Americans in Washington than Cindy Sheehan, whose tactics mirror those of McKinney. Which leads me to wonder, who actually voted for this woman? I never thought there were so many clueless voters in Georgia.

Let's review. In order for impeachment to occur, there must be evidence of the President breaking the law. Can anyone provide this evidence? I challenge Ms. McKinney to do so, and if she is unable then she should be held accountable. I'm tired of politicians behaving like children, no offense to all the children, many of whom have a better sense of decency than the cowards that call themselves Congressmen. I've yet to see ANY proof of Bush breaking the law, and believe if it were there we'd see it, yet I do believe that assaulted a Capitol police officer is a crime. Should we hold McKinney to the same standard as Bush? If so, she'd be unemployed.

Cheap politics does NOTHING....absolutely NOTHING for this country and it needs to stop NOW! And for the voters out there, we need to stop electing and re-electing people who behave this way. Good grief! What would our Founding Fathers have to say about the antics of our beloved Congress today? And for McKinney, who claims to champion civil rights, would Dr. King approve of this behavior? Of course not, because he had class, a trait that is becoming scarce in Washington. Shame on you all.

A new Congress takes seat in the new year, let's hope and pray they miraculously decide to take their offices seriously and start representing the people of this country and ditch the petty political nit-picking.

Saturday, December 09, 2006

Fight back or not

Bill Clinton supports dialogue with Iran

Mr Cut-and-Run himself thinks the way out of Iraq is with Iran's help. Of course he thinks that. Does anyone remember how fast he got us out of Mogadishu? The bodies of the dead Rangers weren't even cold when he ran - tail between his legs. Yet, he thinks he knows the way out of Iraq.

I'm sure Iran can be of assistance. I'm sure they'd love to help out. If we leave the area without a stable Iraq, or with a quasi-Iranian puppet regime in power, then Ahmadinejad and his Iranian goons become THE dominant force in the Middle East. Is that what we want? Am I the only one thinking long-term here?

Does it bother anyone else to know that Iraq is THE battle-front, the front line, in the war on terror, and that it is one of the main things keeping the terrorists in the Middle East and NOT in North America? What happens when we lose that battle-front, not to mention lose it prematurely in a defeated manner? My guess is, within one year there will be another major attack here.

But I am a majority rules kind of guy and 71% of the folks want out. Okay. I'll go along. But I WILL say "I told you so" the next time we're hit and those 71% are staring aimlessly wondering what happened. We need to decide something. Either we fight back or we don't. Either we wage war on these people or wait for them to do the same to us.

Clinton has made his decision. Is he right?

Friday, December 08, 2006

I'm back!

I have returned from vacation. Hope you all did not miss me too much. I tried to leave a more thought provoking post so you could have an entire week to chew on it. But I'm back now, please don't applaud too loudly. Today, it's a look around the headlines.

Britney says she went a little too far

First, I don't really care about Britney Spears. I have never had any concern for her of her annoying attempts at making music. So when she flashes her crotch at people, it doesn't really spark any thoughts from me except one: how closely does Britney Spears come to being an accurate example of how today's generation raises their children. I've seen the pictures of the car seat controversy and the film of her nearly dropping her kid after stumbling - mainly because her other hand was occupied by a beverage of some sort. And now this. Today's generation just doesn't know how to raise kids, they're simply too selfish for it. Case in point, Britney loves media attention so much that she obviously doesn't care how flashing her crotch may affect her kids one day. You're a mother, Britney, you need to start acting like it. Indeed, so do many of us.

Dems may block pay raise

Once again, Congress is due for another pay raise. I guess they don't get paid enough for working 3 months a year, sitting on their butts when they're not playing golf or taking money from lobbyists, and generally wasting tax payer money. What they make now is not enough to cover their private jet book writing lifestyle. It's a tough job and I guess they feel they should be paid appropriately. If that were true, then they'd OWE us money, but this is politics in Washington. So, I find it intriguing when the Dems start talking about canning the pay raise for this year. Sounds great, and regardless of their motive I tip my hat to them. But if they want to impress me they should make the pay raise every two years and put it on the ballot. If we are the "boss" then we, the voters, should decide if our Congressmen get a raise.

Senate rivalry beginning to brew

Barak Obama is Hillary's worst nightmare. At one time, she had the '08 Dem nomination wrapped until this guy mentions that he might run and suddenly she is old news. She's worried and she has good reason. Obama is a great candidate. I may not agree with him politically, and there isn't much chance that he would get my vote (unless McCain ran against him), but I have to admit that he has the likability and charisma that could put him in the White House. Not only that, but he'd eat Hillary's lunch in a debate. Watching her squirm would be a lot of fun.

Forecaster sees busy 2007 hurricane season

Hmmm, where have I heard this before???

Friday, December 01, 2006

What will become of our freedom?

America is losing its morality, and its identity as a nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. Just one glance at recent headlines and one will be hard-pressed to formulate an argument against this notion. But if you want more, just read David Limbaugh’s book Persecution, and you’ll discover what is happening to Christianity in America.

In Fairfax County, VA, a Church was denied a noise ordinance waiver to allow its bells to ring as they have for many years. Now, the bells will be silenced because of noise complaints. In New York, a local school board has ruled that displays of the Nativity scene will not be allowed on school grounds, but they will allow the Jewish Minorah and the Muslim Crescent. Several retail stores have openly come out with statements that they will NOT instruct their employees to say Merry Christmas, preferring the "more inclusive" happy holidays greeting. Rep Keith Ellison, America’s first Muslim congressman, has refused to take the oath of office on the Bible. At William & Mary College, a cross has been ordered removed from the main chapel despite being present for over a century. In Turkey (yes, I know its not America, but it follows the trend), the Pope is being hailed for ‘praying toward Mecca’ while visiting a Mosque. These are just from the past few days. Is this a trend for America, and the world? I think so.

First, Rep Ellison. Yes, he has the right to take the oath of office with the Koran and not the Bible. The Constitution guarantees him that and I respect his personal beliefs enough not to condemn him for it. So the question isn’t a matter of could he, but more should he? If he takes the oath on the Koran, how will the radical Muslims view this?

And the Pope? I know that he is hoping to reconcile with the Muslim community. I know that he wants peace between all religions. His intentions are pure, but how will the radical Muslims view his actions?

And what about the every day occurrences in small town America? When a school board bans the nativity, but allows the Muslim Crescent, or when a town silences church bells, or a college removes a century-old cross from its chapel, how does the radical Muslim community – those we are at war with – view these changes?

I think it empowers them. These people are intent on global domination with purpose that mirrors the Nazis, the Italian Fascists and the Soviet Communists, but slightly different. Those dark forces wanted to govern the world with tyranny, the forces of the radical Muslims seek religious dominance. Their intent is for ALL people to worship their god and none other and anyone who refuses will be killed. Just look at what’s happening in Europe, and you can easily see the effects of their bullying. They are strong-willed, much stronger than the waning Christian base in that part of the world and the result is a gradual Muslimization of Europe. In short, Europe is becoming a Muslim continent because their suppression of Christian ideals has left a religious void that is slowly being filled by the more vocal and more vibrant Muslim extremists.

Is America next? We may have a strong Christian base, but society has clearly turned against that base. This can be seen most clearly in the media, the courts and the universities. Anti-Christianity is now the only acceptable form of discrimination in this country. So are we creating a void in America similar to Europe? And, if so, who will fill that void?

The war we are waging is not a religious war, thankfully so because the Christian religion forbids conversion by force. Instead, Christians are commanded to spread the Word of God and provide others with means of free-will conversion. The idea of free-will is critical to the Christian faith, not so in the Muslim world, where they are literally commanded to "convert or kill". This can be found in any number of Koran passages. So Christians are immediately at a disadvantage in any religious war. The only way we can possibly protect our religion is to protect our freedom to practice that religion openly, to protect our right of free-will. It’s this free-will that has become the target of the Muslim extremists.

So is America showing a desire to protect the free-will of Christianity? Some may say that ‘separation of church and state’ does that, but the ones who say that aren’t Christians. While it is vital for America not to recognize an ‘official’ religion, it is also vital that America protect its Judeo-Christian principles on which it was founded. Without those principles, the concept of democracy and free-will become obsolete but Christianity is one of the few religions that holds free-will sacred.

Os Guinness once said, "Faith requires freedom, freedom requires virtue, virtue requires faith, and so on ad infinitum." Where do we stand on virtue? Where do we stand on faith? If these are waning, then what will become of our freedom?

Thursday, November 30, 2006

Thanks Mr. Rangel

“If a young fellow has an option of having a decent career, or joining the Army to fight in Iraq, you can bet your life that he would not be in Iraq,” Mr. Rangel, a Democrat representing Manhattan and Queens, said on “Fox News Sunday.”

“If there’s anyone who believes these youngsters want to fight, as the Pentagon and some generals have said, you can just forget about it. No bright young individual wants to fight just because of a bonus and just because of educational benefits. And most all of them come from communities of very, very high unemployment,” the congressman said.

I am becoming quite fond of Mr. Rangel because he provides me with so much for my blogsite. For some reason, ever since the election Charles Rangel seems to be perpetually shoving his foot into his pie-hole. Thanks Chuckie, you make running this blog so much easier.

Once again, we have evidence that the Left has NO IDEA what it means to serve in the military. And the shocking thing is that both John Kerry and Charles Rangel are war veterans. Have they just forgotten? Or has politics superceded loyalty to the military? Rangel seems to have forgotten that our entire military is strictly volunteer. He has forgotten that re-enlistment is up, and that many people in Iraq RIGHT NOW volunteered for the assignment. He doesn't get it, because he doesn't get the cause. He doesn't understand that a good thing was done in Iraq, and the military is proud to have freed over 30 million oppressed humans. He doesn't understand what honor is, what 'service before self' means, how 'integrity first and excellence in all we do' acts as a foundation for an entire lifestyle and subculture. He doesn't get it. Few politicians do.

That's alright, Charlie. You can spew your insults and offend our service all you want. We'll continue to serve. That's what we do, whether or not you agree with it. You're not the first and certainly won't be the last.

Wednesday, November 29, 2006

Global warming becomes global wipeout

Climatologist predicts global wipeout

Professor James Lovelock, a leading climatologist, recently issued an opinion that within the next century the earth’s climate will change drastically with temperature increases of about 8 degrees Celsius, leading to a major reduction in its ability to sustain life. He predicts that the earth will be unable to sustain the 6.5 billion people that currently inhabit it and human population will decrease to approximately 500 million.

That’s not all. According to him, this event is a foregone conclusion and any effort to prevent it is futile.

So now what?

Can we end the debate on global warming? Since it is unavoidable, should we just continue with the status quo and hope that our offspring are included among the 500 million survivors? Of course not.

I linked to this in an effort to show just how maniacal the "global warming" believers have become. Now, it’s to the point where they are just throwing up their hands and saying ‘it doesn’t matter, we’re all gonna die!’. They have these doomsday attitudes, but no one seems to have a viable solution. On this very sight, I have proposed more nuclear power. Of course, that gets criticized and cast aside, without an alternative plan of course.

Lovelock says that China builds a new coal-based power plant every week. India is nearly on the same pace. In fairness, those are countries wrought with poverty and electricity is one way of getting out of poverty. Shouldn’t these countries be the target of the enviro-nazi criticism? Granted, in the US, coal is still a primary form of energy, yet we have the technology and the money to change that. Why don’t we?

My solution is nuclear power for home and commercial use and grain-based fuels for vehicles. It really is that simple. So why the resistance? What alternative do we have? Is Lovelock right? Is it futile to try a change? Is that why the enviro-nazis oppose more nuclear power?

I think that if we spent less time arguing and more time working on a solution then the whole debate about global warming can be closed, and we can all enjoy the comforts of a modern life without worrying about the environment, yet I still don’t hear any viable solutions from the eco-crazies. So we’ll probably just argue about it until: 1) 6 billion people die, or 2) nothing happens. Then the debate will move on to something else.

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

Convenience or decide

Imams claim discrimination

Regardless of what anyone says, this is proof that security measures in airports work. This story makes me feel safer when I fly. The Imams in question, and their kool-aid drinking supporters, would have us believe that they were quietly praying to themselves, weren’t disturbing anyone and thus posed no threat. Well, actual eye witness reports say otherwise. These people were security threats even under the loosest definition of the term. Now, they want us all to shed a tear for them because their rights were violated, and many on the Left are echoing this message.

I honestly believe that if the airlines had removed the 19 hijackers from the planes on the morning of 9/11, the Left would have cried foul. There is no debating that. I know this because these Imams displayed the same behavior as the 9/11 hijackers and because they were removed, as they should have been, the airlines are being accused of civil rights violations. And the Left has the balls to claim that Bush and Rice were negligent in "ignoring" security threats?

That’s the difference between the Right and the Left when it comes to national security. There is nothing proactive about the Left. They feel that being proactive means violating rights. So, in their eyes, security risks are acceptable, because potentially violating civil rights is a worse crime than potentially allowing terrorists to murder thousands of people. Who’s right? That’s for the individual to decide.

The truth is, anyone who has flown since 9/11 has been inconvenienced in some way, and if anyone has displayed suspicious behavior (like these men) then they’ve been inconvenienced more. The trade off is that you don’t have to worry as much about someone standing up on your flight and slitting the pilot’s throat. To me, it’s a fair deal. Others may disagree. The point is, we live in a new world now. Gone are the days when you can walk on the plane without having to show an ID, or take off your shoes. Get over it.

If the Imams really want to do something constructive in this matter, then maybe they should direct their frustration at their "brothers" who are hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings, and not at America for trying to stop them from hijacking planes and crashing them into buildings. If they don’t want to do this, then they should take their shoes off, walk through to metal detectors, board the plane quietly and in general AVOID acting like a terrorist like the rest of us…and quit whining about discrimination.

Monday, November 27, 2006

More bad news for chicken little

2006 – Calmest hurricane season in a decade

I’ve posted on this before, so I’ll be brief. The hurricane season will officially end this week and it is the calmest season in a decade despite doomsday predictions including some that said one in six Americans would be directly affected by a hurricane this year. Apparently, the global warming hysteria that blamed last year’s killer storms on human induced climate change didn’t pan out. I’m sure Al Gore is very disappointed.

What interests me is this: In the spring, many of the world’s leading climatologists all agreed that 2006 would be a year of disasters, mirroring 2005. It seemed a foregone conclusion that America would endure more killer storms and no one really questioned their expertise. But they were wrong. One wonders what would happen if we held them to the same standard as we have with the WMD issue, but that’s another post.

Many of the same experts are the ones who similarly forecast environmental disasters related to human-induced climate change. So, it makes me wonder, if these people can’t predict the earth’s climate 6 months out, then how can they possibly claim to predict the earth’s climate 10, 20 or 30 years from now?

If someone told you that you’d be struck by lightning tomorrow, and it didn’t happen, then would you listen if they said that you’d be struck by lightning 10 years from now? I wouldn’t.
The fact is, there is much we don’t know about the earth’s climate. There is much we don’t understand about the many factors that affect earth’s climate. It’s dangerous to echo a theory based on questionable data and demand major changes in our commercial endeavors that could adversely affect the economy and thus millions of citizens. It’s especially dangerous to do this when we can’t even accurately predict a hurricane season. Remember, no one predicted that 2005 would be as bad as it was. Do human beings cause global warming? The answer is "we don’t know". And until we do know we need to stay away from things like the Kyoto Treaty that could mean loss of jobs and an economic recession.

Show me definable evidence of human-induced climate change, and I’ll be the first to demand harsh restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions. But if that evidence doesn’t exist, then it doesn’t exist and we all need to work on discovering the truth, uncovering the facts and avoiding the chicken little baseless hysteria. I hope Al Gore gets the message.

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Thankful for godly Founding Fathers

Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

George Washington

Tuesday, November 21, 2006

Aussie's buyback gun control plan

Australia fails in its attempt at gun control

In 1996, after the Port Arthur shooting that claimed 35 lives, the government of Australia began a $500 million gun buyback campaign. In short, the citizens of Australia could "sell" their guns to the government. In return, they get guns off the street and crime rates fall.

Like many liberal-progressive ideas, it sounds great in theory, but the reality is much different. A recent study of crime statistics in Australia over the past decade shows that even though the government is spending lots of money buying guns from its citizens, crime rates have remained unchanged. Apparently, the only people selling their guns are the law-abiding citizens, something I'm sure Australia's criminals are really loving.

I guess the Australian government miscalculated when they thought all the criminals in that country would give up their crime careers and make a few bucks on their guns and then maybe get a job at Wendy's. Now, I like Australia, they've shown a lot of guts in the war on terror, but it's clear they have their own liberal-progressive problem as we do.

Criminals, by definition, don't obey the law, so it doesn't do any good to pass laws that depend on the compliance of criminals for effectiveness. This statement sounds like common sense, but it's amazing how many liberal ideas are lacking in this. Criminals aren't interested in a lawful society, just like terrorists aren't interested in a peaceful planet. We're negotiating with the wrong carrot and the wrong stick.

I doubt these statistics will change any minds. Somehow, I think the Left will still blame guns for crime and we'll probably try something like this in our country.

Thanks to Rob for the tip

Monday, November 20, 2006

Rangel wants a draft...again

Rangel will call for draft

In his second monstrously stupid move since the election, Rep. Charles Rangel will be introducing a bill that will reinstate the draft, saying that current troop levels in Iraq are not high enough. Our military leaders disagree. But that doesn’t matter to Charles Rangel. HE feels the troop levels aren’t high enough and so he wants to draft you, your kid or someone else you love into service to correct that.

For 3 years the Dems have been screaming quagmire every time Iraq is mentioned. Now, the one thing that could actually transform the war into a quagmire will be introduced by one of their congressional leaders (a measure he introduced and voted AGAINST in 2003). I wonder if the American people are rethinking their vote yet?

They rationalize such legislation by saying "this way, the rich kids will be at risk as much as the poor". Legislating should not be done in such a passive-aggressive nitpicky manner. And besides, service is voluntary, which doesn’t put anyone at risk against their will, hence the term voluntary. I’m personally a little sick and tired of these ignorant Democrats looking down at us in the military as though we’re victims in need of pity. My advice to Charles Rangel would be to stay out of the military’s way. Victory will be achieved unless you morons in Washington step in and screw it up.

Yes, the situation in Iraq is difficult, but flooding that area with inexperienced draftees will not help, so says the troops on the ground and the commanders who lead them. Today’s Private becomes tomorrow’s Sergeant, in charge of a group of people there against their will and bitter because of it. When will Charles Rangel and his lot learn to listen to those who know what they’re talking about? But, no, he has votes to think about and an image to protect. He must protect the "little man", and he thinks a draft does this. He wants us out of Iraq now, but he doesn’t have the sack to demand unconditional withdrawal, and he knows that a draft will make an already unpopular war even more unpopular – giving the Dems a chance to step in and "save the day" by getting our troops out some time in future….but certainly not before the ’08 election.

It’s all about politics. Don’t ever forget that. And now, you may be inducted into military service. Why? Think about it.

Saturday, November 18, 2006

Who will stop them?

Israel walks out of UN session

The UN, in an emergency session, passed an order demanding that Israel end its military operations in Gaza. The US and Australia voted against this measure. By the way, my respect for Australia keeps growing. They seem to be the only country, along with us, willing to confront evil. But I digress.

There are a few things about this vote that interest me. First, it was approved in the General Assembly by a vote of 156-7. This is pretty amazing. How often does the UN General Assembly ever get that close to unanimous? To me, it confirms a growing anti-Israel sentiment in the UN and in Europe. The Israelis are clearly viewed as the aggressor in their fight for survival, which is a dangerous view for the world to have. Even though Israel has signed numerous peace agreements with the Palestinians, and even though those peave agreements have been repeatedly violated BY the palestinians, it is still Israel who is to blame in most cases for the ongoing conflict. Just look at their recent invasion of Lebanon, and the Iranian backed Hezbollah terrorists. Was Hezbollah condemned by the UN or by Europe? Even though they were deliberately firing rockets into civillian communities? Nope, it was Israel, whose invasion was looked at as impulsive and just plain mean. The Israelis are slowly losing their right to defend themselves and you can bet the radical Islamists have taken notice.

Ahmadinejad is months from having a nuke. He has clearly stated that he intends on "wiping Israel off the map". This is nothing tongue-in-cheek, he has admitted it and seems proud of it. In fact, he believes it to be his destiny. He thinks god has chosen him to trigger the apocolyptic war that brings on the end times. I'm not making this up. That's what this guy believes. He is not deterred by our threats, because if we take action against him then it would fulfill his mission. So he is close to his nuke, the UN repeatedly condemns Israel and their right to defend themselves, the US general population has made it clear what they think about military action in that part of the country. Put these together, and what do you think will happen the moment Ahmadinejad gets the bomb?

Anyone else shifting in their seat uncomfortably?

Hopefully, the UN will shift gears. There will be a new Secretary General in December and let's hope this person has a new vision and is capable of actually seeing good and evil...and sides with the good, but don't hold your breath. The UN has become a body of enablers and appeasers. They have decided that confronting the radicals is less constructive than submitting to them, which is why they're telling Israel to stop things in Gaza, while Iran has nearly achieved nuclear military capability. The radicals have made it clear that their purpose is to dominate the world, and the world is doing nothing to resist. In fact, those who are resisting are now being demonized as war mongers. So who will stop these radicals? Who will keep them from dominating the world?

Friday, November 17, 2006


Alright, I figure I’ve had enough time to collect the information needed to now comment on the latest OJ controversy. My first question is: When will this guy go away? For those who don’t know, OJ’s latest endeavor is to tell a story in book and movie format about how he "would have" killed his ex-wife Nicole and Ron Goldman, IF he were actually the one who did it. Of course, this is strictly hypothetical and apparently OJ’s criminology expertise has a lot to offer this seemingly "unsolved" mystery.

The publisher has already gone on record with an open-palmed shoulder-shrug statement that she looked at this as a "confession" from OJ and that she didn’t actually pay HIM the $3 million he supposedly received for his expert opinion. Instead, the publisher contests, she thought the money would be going to his 2 children. Take that explanation for what it’s worth. And soon Fox will be airing a television special that details his elaborate hypothetical plot.

Mark Fuhrman stated on Fox News that Simpson is insane. He may not be too far from the truth. But I think shameless and sociopathic may be better terms of description. Suppose he didn’t actually murder those two people. What he is now doing is rehashing the most traumatic experience his two children have ever endured, and profiting from it. He is making a lot of money on the brutal murder of the mother of his children.

Suppose he did murder them. Well, in that case, he is profiting from a murder that he committed while defiantly mocking our justice system. Either way, this is not okay. Remember, even though he was acquitted on criminal charges, a civil court did find that he was responsible for the deaths of these people, and now he stands to make money off of those murders. Are we as a culture, as a society, prepared to allow this?

Hopefully not, but that will ultimately depend on the consumer. Of course, I will not buy this book. To me it’s filth and the only ones who should actually read this garbage are the 12 jurors who acquitted him on those criminal charges. But the TV special is different. I do plan to watch for one reason…to make notes about which corporations and businesses advertise during the show. I will keep a list of those who advertise and will publish that list on this blog site. I will not buy products from any of these companies. You can do with it whatever you want. The idea is to hold people accountable for supporting the kind of garbage that does nothing but erode the moral fiber of our nation. An individual should never be allowed to profit from a murder that he was deemed responsible for…period.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Is human-induced climate change real?

Today's post is a series of links for the Global Warming Kool-Aid drinkers. I would normally have posted this in "comments" for the previous post, but I want it to get the proper attention. Enjoy.

National Review Online

The fact is, this is a political issue and most people will believe what they want typically along political lines. Myself: I'm an evidenced-based guy. I DO have a vested interest in the earth's future and if I saw evidence of human-induced climate change, then I would be first in line demanding action. But, the evidence just isn't there, and I am not going to be bullied through fear.

Wednesday, November 15, 2006

A long two years

Well, I asked just one week ago who will run Congress, the Extreme Left or the Moderates? It's only been a week, and it seems they're already answering. Dennis Kucinich has gone on record saying that Congress MUST cut the military funding to Iraq. There are 141,000 American troops fighting our terrorist enemies, along with millions of Iraqis struggling to establish their fledgling, frail democracy, and Kucinich wants to just cut their money.

Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee pressed General John Abizaid on setting a withdrawal deadline, 4-6 months, to get out of Iraq. Of course, the General objected to this, but the opinion of our military leaders means little to the Dems. I'm wondering why they didn't invite Al Qaeda to the committee meeting. After all, no one has a more vested interest in our withdrawal and they would like nothing more than to be able to mark their calenders for the date we're gone and they're free to wreak havoc on the Iraqi people.

Charles Rangel had a few choice words for Mississippi one day after the election. John Murtha and Steny Hoyer are engaged in a nasty political power grab that I thought was promised not to happen. And the Dems are ALREADY talking about raising taxes. And where are the moderates? One can almost hear the silence and the crickets chirping. Not a word from them. It's becoming apparent that the extreme Left wing of the Democratic party is poised to dominate Washington politics. All this, and the new Congress hasn't even been sworn in yet. It's gonna be a long two years. Here's more:

Abramoff offers testimony on 6-8 Democratic Senators

Lobbyist Jack Abramoff states that he can give testimony on dealings with at least 6-8 "very corrupt" Democrat Senators. That’s funny, I thought the Abramoff scandal was a Republican problem…or maybe that’s just how the New York Times sees it, along with the majority of America’s Kool-aid drinking Left.

Boxer to hold Senate hearings on Global Warming

The new leader of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Barbara Boxer, plans to begin a long series of Senate hearings aimed at global warming.

"I think there ought to be a global-warming bill that looks at all the contributors to carbon-dioxide emissions," she said.

So we may be enacting legislation, potentially costly legislation, aimed at curbing a hoax. Hopefully, the Senate hearings will reveal what most responsible, but intimidated, scientists already know…that there is no evidence supporting the theory that human activity has negatively affected the earth’s climate. But, then again, the theory has made it this far.

Democrat Congress may seek to scrap border fence

My only problem with the recent bill passed by Congress mandating a fence along the US Southern border is that the fence isn’t long enough. It only traverse about a fourth of the border. But, at least, it was progress on an issue that our elected leaders seemed to be hesitant about solving. Now, enter the Democrats. They no doubt had help from the Hispanic voting block in America in the recent elections, and they obviously intend on keeping those votes. So, what will they do? That’s right. They’re likely going to kill the law that mandates a fence. I feel safer already.

It amazes me that some of the Congressman speaking against this fence represent some of the poorest districts in America, ie Bennie Thompson. Thompson is from Mississippi and represents a very impoverished population. His constituents compete for jobs with illegal immigrants who are willing to work for less with fewer demands. In essence, the illegals are driving down wages for American citizens, especially the poorer, least educated American citizens like the ones found in Thompson’s district. Either he doesn’t know that, or he just doesn’t care and his party loyalty is trumping his obligation to those who put him in office. I don’t know which is worse. But I hope that either he or his constituents eventually learn the truth about illegal immigration and how it harms this country in so many ways.

Murtha seeking House majority position

John Murtha has a good shot at being our House Majority leader. That’s right, the anti-war, anti-military Congressman whose words of criticism do nothing but embolden our enemies in their efforts against our troops may be the majority leader of the House of Representatives. This is our new Congress. We elected these people, and the consequences may be more than we bargained for.

Tuesday, November 14, 2006

Infanticide...or "mercy killing"?

Euthanasia for infants being discussed in Britain

The Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynecology has made a statement that the medical community should consider withholding and withdrawing life saving medical care from infants born with severe life-threatening and permanent conditions; and, in some cases, they endorse euthanasia as a possibility as well.

Anyone who has read this blog knows that I have advocated against abortion and against stem cell research for one primary reason – it cheapens human life and places us on the verge of a slippery slope that we don’t want to step out onto. This announcement from the Britain Obstetrics society confirms my contention.

While I don’t have a problem with withdrawing or withholding treatment (I feel that is a medical decision that should be made by the parents from an informed point of view), I do have a serious problem with the notion of euthanasia. This, in my opinion, mirrors the Kevorkian notion of assisted suicide except for the fact that an infant can’t commit suicide. So it’s, in essence, unassisted suicide which, by definition is murder. Yes, I have a problem with that.
Infanticide is a word that we should all get used to, because it is a word that we will soon be hearing more of. There are people, mainly "reproductive rights" groups who advocate infanticide for mothers who do not wish to be mothers. This is abortion rights to the extreme. Some have editorialized that one’s humanity should not be recognized until that person has the capability of self-awareness, and therefore anyone who kills the self-unaware should not be held to the same standard as someone who kills an adult. This is the slippery slope of which I speak and it’s not fictitious.

Look around, people, this is what’s going on in society. We make arguments along moral relativist lines for things like abortion and stem cell research without realizing what the next step is and, believe me, there are people who are making some convincing arguments for infanticide. I’m wondering where we, as a society, draw the line?

Today we argue for "euthanasia" of babies as a means of mercy killing. What will it be tomorrow? If we advocate for mercy killing of someone with spina bifida, well then what about a child born blind? What about a child born with a clubbed foot? The same arguments can be made for killing these infants and then what have we become as a society?

I see the link between these arguments and abortion/stem cell research. To me, they are intricately connected which is why I argue adamantly against both. We can’t have human life cheapened in a culture of moral relativism, because it soon becomes a threat to us all.

Monday, November 13, 2006

Is Bin Laden smiling yet?

Congress to call for troop "redeployment"

This is no surprise. It’s incredible to think what Osama Bin Laden and his band of evil doers has been able to accomplish since 9-11. Al Qaeda has effectively neutralized the UN, shown in that organization’s failure to do anything about anything; toppled the government of Spain; changed the balance of power in Congress, no doubt a result of their terror efforts in Iraq during October; brought down Donald Rumsfeld; and now it looks like he may achieve his goal of having the US pull out of Iraq.

It appears that Congress is going to do what our military fears – leave without completing the job. Military leaders have said that Iraq can be stabilized, that a democratic government can be kept in place, that the resistance can be stopped, but Congress doesn’t care. They think they were elected to get us out of Iraq, and that’s what they want to do. After all, they have to have something to run on in ’08.

A troop withdrawal at this time, with objectives unmet, amounts to nothing more than a Vietnam-esque defeat; and it confirms what our terrorist enemies suspect – that America is a glass-jawed paper tiger that will not take the proper course of action to defeat them. So will this lead to peace? Or more terrorist attacks?

We may get out of Iraq, but it will do nothing but embolden our enemies to move their operations from Baghdad to the US mainland. In short, we will be attacked again, and again, and again – mainly because those who want to attack us don’t think we’ll do anything about it other than seek a "common ground" or a "peaceful solution" with a group of people who don’t want peace or common grounds. No wonder terrorist leaders were celebrating the outcome of America’s midterm election. They know who needs to be in power in America for them to achieve victory.

My guess is, they will lay low for 2 years. They will let America get out of Iraq. Of course, they will take over that country, bring down the democratic government and transform it into an Iranian style theocratic dictatorship; but they will hold off on attacking America until after the ’08 election. After all, they don’t want to give American voters a reason to elect a hawkish President. So it looks good for the Dems in ’08. They will have 2 years to gloat about "getting out of Iraq" and will probably put one of their doves in the White House. And then?
My book When Evil Prospers tells the rest. It’s my prediction about our future, and I hope I’m wrong.

Friday, November 10, 2006

Germany calling US war criminals?

Rumsfeld facing potential criminal charges from Germany

And now, a test of your patriotism. Germany is hinting at bringing criminal charges against Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzales, George Tenet and many other ranking US officials for war crimes. Apparently, it is written in their law that they can do this. Of course, they can't ENFORCE that law. They won't be able to enact any punishment, so this is more international politics than anything else and, in my opinion, Germany's way of testing the new US political waters. In their eyes, they want to know how the new Congress will respond to this. If there are no objections, then it will be important knowledge for future dealings. An internationalist Congress is VERY GOOD for Germany. Obviously, this is bogus and the Pentagon won't give it a second thought, yet I am still intrigued about how we as Americans will respond.

Now for the test. I will say right now that if you support this, then you are Anti-American and I outright question your patriotism. This is not a matter of whether Rumsfled should or should not be investigated or charged. The question is whether he should be charged by a FOREIGN court. If you're OK with this, then you are as much a threat to America as any Taliban or Al Qaeda terrorist that we're killing in the Middle East.

Is this harsh? Of course. But it absolutely violates the Constitution and our sovereignty as a nation to support any foreign government's actions against our military and our executive branch. This internationalist attitude is dangerous and it does nothing but weaken us as a nation. How much worse will it be if a Democrat President signs on to the International Criminal Court, where punishment could actually be ENFORCED against our military leaders and elected representatives? Bush rejected this, Clinton supported it, what will Hillary or Obama do?

My hope is that Congress issues a statement now condemning Germany's actions. And that when the new Congress is sworn in they do the same. This can't be tolerated in any way, shape or form. Send the message NOW!

Why live in Mississippi?

Read this quote from a prominent US Congressman and think about it.

Trent Lott: "California gets more than it's share of tax dollars, and who the hell would want to live in California anyway?"

Wow. Pretty stupid. Obviously he should apologize for something so insensitive and offensive. But what if this were his apology: "I didn't mean anything by it. I just love Mississippi so much I couldn't imagine anyone wanting to live anywhere but here."

Sounds like a lot of crap to me, and I expect the press to pound him on it.

Now for the twist. Trent Lott did not say this or anything like. I switched it up to prove another point about the double standard in today's media. Had Trent Lott said this, everyone would know about it and you wouldn't have to read this blog to learn of it. But what if it were Charles Rangel? He's the one who actually made this idiotic remark:

Rangel, D-N.Y., was quoted in an article today in The New York Times, saying: “Mississippi gets more than their fair share back in federal money, but who the hell wants to live in Mississippi?”

And, yes, his apology was the pathetic line that I used above. I doubt anyone out there has heard of this, probably because it was Rangel and not Lott and he was talking about Mississippi and not California and New York. Does the mainstream media in this country have any credibility with anyone these days?

This is the new chairman of the House and Ways Committee, already pulling a Kerry-esque insult of a great many people. I lived in Mississippi for many years, and it's a great place. The people are second to none and they've learned to live together - different races, social classes, religions - over the past few decades. Unlike New York or Chicago, where they have their fair share of racial problems, Mississippians have found harmony with each other. They endured the brunt of the nation's worst ever natural disaster, yet you didn't really hear them complain a whole lot did you? No, there was work to do and they did it.

It's a beautiful state consisting of large pine forests on one end, and flat delta land on the other, where the dark, black soil produces a big chunk of America's cotton and soybean crop. Mississippi has given us William Faulkner, Eudora Welty, Willie Morris, Oprah Winfrey, Elvis Presley, Walter Payton, Jerry Rice and John Grisham to name a few. It's a beautiful state with beautiful people, and it's also one of the poorest states in the union. But Rangel, this champion for the impoverished, seems to have a problem giving so many federal dollars to Mississippi. He thinks New York, one of the richest states, needs that money instead. This is the "new direction" our Congress promised? It's only been a few days, and the Dems are back to there usual hypocritical pull-the-shade BS. Why give money to Mississippi? It's a red state and we have control of Congress now.

I wonder if Charles Rangel has ever even been to Mississippi?

Well, I invite him to go see for himself before he insults over 2 million Mississippians whom he doesn't even know.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Only time will tell

America has decided. As expected, the Democrats have regained the House and likely the Senate. Obviously, the unpopular war in Iraq was the driving reason for this, especially in states like Rhode Island, Indiana, Virginia and Montana. Many of the candidates who faced each other held similar views on just about every issue except the war, and if you had an "R" next to your name then you were behind the eight ball from the beginning.

It’s good to see that the Democratic party learned a few things from the past elections and this showed in their selection of more moderate candidates. America has rejected the liberal extremists in the past and would have likely done so again. So the new Democrat Congress won’t be much different than what we already had, except they’ll be fresh faces. The question is: Who will run things on Capitol Hill?

My concern is that even though this is a predominantly moderate Congress, the Democrat leadership is still made up of the extreme Liberals. People like Nancy Pelosi, the Representative from San Francisco; Charles Rangel, one of the leading income redistribution advocates; Ted Kennedy, Mr. "quagmire" cut-and-run; Robert Byrd, ex-KKK leader; Dick Durbin, John Kerry and Howard Dean. These are the extremists. These are the ones who pose a threat to America’s way of life. To what extent will they be able to bully the moderate rookies into their bidding? It’s a fair question and one that will soon be answered the moment the new Congress takes power. If they have their way with the fresh faces then America may get more than they bargained for.

We voted for a moderate Congress, but I don’t think we voted to have Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House, or Charles Rangel as Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee. The term "unintended consequences" immediately comes to mind.

The Bush Administration has expressed their willingness to work with the moderates, and Rumsfeld’s decision to step down is a good-faith gesture of that willingness. It’s a peace-offering, an attempt to start on the right foot. I feel the moderates will accept this peace-offering and will be willing to their part as well to meet Bush in the middle. But what will the extremists in the leadership do? I think they’re out for blood. Hopefully, we won’t hear about investigations or subpoenas. Hopefully, we won’t hear more calls for resignations. Hopefully, there won’t be strong-arm tactics meant to push the White House around. These sorts of things aren’t good for solving our problems and, I have a feeling, it’s not what America voted for yesterday. So who will call the shots? The Moderates or the Extremists? America has given the Democratic party another chance. What will they do with it?

Only time will tell.

Tuesday, November 07, 2006


The polls have been open for about 5 hours and already there are problems being reported in multiple states including: Indiana, Colorado, Tennessee and Pennsylvania. Lawyers for the Dems are preparing to file a petition to keep the polls open later in Tennessee, and lawyers on both sides are rallying for post-election lawsuits. Once again, the legal community seems intent on making a mockery out of our Democracy.

For the past 4 elections, no one has been content with the will of the people speaking. Instead, they choose to try and subvert that will through the court system. I am calling on BOTH sides to stand down their legal teams and allow Democracy to work, regardless which party comes on top. On the other side of the world, Iraq is struggling to build their democracy - thousands have given their lives for it - using our own as a model, yet we don't seem to be doing a good job as a role model. Election Tuesday is no longer quite as important as Lawsuit Wednesday, and this patriot is getting a little sick of it all.

Are there problems? Yes. Voting machines may malfunction, lines may be long, and some people may not possess enough cognitive ability to operate their ballot properly. But there has not been any evidence of one party deliberately seeking to disenfranchise any voter, so I think they should BOTH cool it with these circus acts.

Eventually, the people will get tired of it all and we'll kick ALL the politicians out of Washington. They're nothing but a bunch of whiney, spoiled, greedy, egomaniacal do-nothings anyway. It would be nice if I could wake up tomorrow and know who won the election, know who my representative will be. But, somehow, I doubt that's what will happen. With the lawsuits and the dog-and-pony show that BOTH parties seem intent on staging, it will probably be January before we know who will be in control of Congress. Not that it matters, because whichever party wins it will mean nothing but more gridlock for the next 2 years - indeed until a third party, a People's Party, emerges to reclaim our nation and our government from the special interests. Until then, sit back and enjoy the exit polls, court petitions, press conferences and the occasional interview with a "disenfranchised" voter.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Wednesday comments

Poll shows majority feel that government is too big

The majority of Americans feel the government is too big. This is not good news for Democrats, because even the least politically proficient person knows that if the Democrats win back Congress they will make the government bigger.

I think this is an important poll. Most Americans believe in what the Constitution says, and the Constitution does not advocate a large and powerful federal government. The only thing the Constitution demands the government provide for its citizens is military defense. There is no mention of health care, unemployment, welfare, retirement, Medicaid or prescription drugs. Somehow, I think the Founding Fathers would have wanted the individual states to decide whether or not the government should have a roll in the citizens’ social lives. It seems the majority of Americans agree.

So I recommend the Democrats actually read the Constitution. It may help them in the future the next time they start pushing for higher taxes and more government control in our lives.

Hillary calls for "internationalist" foreign policy

I have to include this. Hillary Clinton has set forth her vision for foreign policy. We must involve other nations in diplomacy, but we must also engage in bilateral talks. By her reasoning, we didn’t go through WWII or the Cold War alone, and so we shouldn’t go through the war on terror alone. Okay, sounds reasonable, but then she advocated for talking to Cuba and North Korea…alone. And what she didn’t address is the question of what we should do when other countries aren’t interested in cooperating with us. Should we just drop the issue? Or go it alone?
Despite what she and others think, aside from Vietnam (a war started by Democrats, by the way) I don’t recall of any major military campaign in which America has taken unilateral action. So what she says is nothing new.

But I don’t understand the contradiction. Should we engage in multilateral or bilateral diplomacy? She says both. So does anyone know what Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy will be if she actually wins the White House in ’08?

Just do it, Senator Kerry

This photo is for everyone who still doesn't believe that John Kerry offended our troops

Kerry refuses to apologize

This isn’t difficult. All he has to say is: "I mis-spoke. What I said was stupid. I did not intend to offend anyone serving in the military, but my words did just that and for that I apologize."

Easy. Done. The bomb is defused. So why is he being so stubborn? Let’s take a look:

"As a combat veteran, I know the dedication, integrity, and commitment of American troops. I've lived it. Had George Bush and Dick Cheney been in combat one minute of their comfortable lives they would never have sent American troops to war without body armor or without a plan to win the peace and they wouldn't be exploiting our troops today," Kerry said in a statement after the president spoke.

For the record, Kerry voted for the Iraq War resolution, then voted against added military funds to support that measure.

"There is no reason that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night, terrorizing kids and children, you know, women, breaking sort of the customs of the — historical customs, religious customs, whether you like it or not."

Speaking about American commanders in Iraq: "They brought more troops from Kuwait, they concentrated those troops in Baghdad and they have failed miserably."

So Kerry has a history of saying some not-so-supportive things about the military, which is fine. He has a right to do so. You decide how to interpret this. For me, this is not someone who should be serving in public office, but that’s up to the people in Massachussetts.

It’s just interesting to me how George Allen can mispronounce someone’s name and be labeled a racist, but when Kerry botches a joke he thinks he can get away with just saying it was a botched joke. If a standard exists, then it should be applied. Kerry needs to apologize.