BEIJING (Reuters) - At least two people have died in fresh protests in a Tibetan part of western China, reports said on Tuesday, as authorities made arrests in Tibet's capital Lhasa in an effort to reassert control over the restive region. State media said one police officer was killed and the exiled Tibetan Centre for Human Rights and Democracy reported one Tibetan protester shot dead and another critically hurt after unrest in Sichuan's Ganzi (Garze) Tibetan Prefecture. "The police were forced to fire warning shots, and dispersed the lawless mobsters," the brief Xinhua news agency report said, without mentioning any deaths of protesters, who it said attacked with rocks and knives. FULL STORY

The "lawless mobsters" attacked the mightly Chinese military with rocks and knives. State media says this lawless mob killed one police officer. State media does not mention how many of the lawless mobsters were killed in the Chinese military response to their assault with rocks and knives. And since China has banned international media from the area, we may never know just how bad this has gotten. Are we looking at another Tiananmen Square on a grander scale? Who knows?

French President Sarkozy has not ruled out an Olympic boycott. President Bush maintains his intention to have America at the Beijing games. As for me, I think the discussion needs to begin.

It has always been a firm inherent belief of mine that ALL men are entitled to liberty. This is an American principle and it is a Christian principle. No one should be forced to be part of a nation they don't want to be part of. No one should be enslaved to another. No one should be forced to serve another against his will. People have the right to govern themselves as they see fit. As Jefferson once wrote, I believe liberty is a God-given human right. The people of Tibet are protesting for independence. They are protesting for liberty. Therefore, they have my full support and should have America's full support since the liberty of men is as fundamentally American as it gets.

China has responded as predicted, with military might. They have built up their forces in western China and if these protests continue you can be certain that China's response will be swift and brutal. Capitalism has taken hold in China and with that comes a gradual loss of power among the communist elites. Communism and capitalism simply can not coexist for long. China's communist days are numbered and their party leaders surely see that, and they won't go down without a fight. Not that the Tibetan protests have anything to do with capitalism, those people simply want independence. My point is that Chinese communist leaders are surely getting trigger happy and won't have much tolerance for any unrest in their country. I am deeply concerned for the Tibetan people and I fear they are facing something terrible. Some people may think that China won't take such bold action this close to their spotlight Olympic games. I disagree. Desperation is a fierce motivator.

I feel that President Bush should sit down with Congressional leaders and start talking about options. Granted, we must tread lightly given China's economic might, but we can't allow that to keep us from advocating for liberty. I don't think threatening a boycott is appropriate. That would simply put the Chinese leaders on the defensive. They won't respond well to threats. But our political leaders must be prepared to boycott the games if China reverts to military brutality in Tibet. This discussion must happen now so that if and when China takes action, we can respond the very next day. I simply don't see how we can possibly send an Olympic team to China so soon after a bad outcome in Tibet. It would violate everything America stands for.

My sincere hope is that China's communist leaders read the tea leaves and see that inappropriate action in Tibet will threaten their beloved games. My hope is that they allow the protests and allow the international media access to the area. It will go a long way in improving China's image just as they prepare to host the world in Beijing.

He is Risen!

When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to aniont Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance to the tomb?"But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away.

As they entered the tomb, they saw a young man dressed in a white robe sitting on the right side, and they were alarmed.

"Don't be alarmed," he said. "You are looking for Jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified. He has risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. But go, tell his disciples and Peter, 'He is going ahead of you into Galilee. There you will see Him, just as He told you.'"

Mark 16:1-8

"typical white person"

"Typical white person" - This is the phrase Barack Obama used to describe his grandmother when asked to explain comments he made in his speech. Basically, Obama was saying that sometimes white people, especially older generation white people, fear blacks. When he used the phrase 'typical white person' there was a bit of a gasp in some news organizations. It's a good thing he didn't call grandma a 'silly cracker'.

As a white person, I can proudly say that Obama's 'typical white person' words did not offend me at all. Give me a break. The political correctness in this country has eclipsed the point of ridiculous. We are in territory not yet defined, and things have gotten out of hand. Senator Obama was making a simple point. I don't think he was bashing white folks or suggesting anything racist. There's no need to get bent out of shape about it.

However, I am a bit intrigued by the irony at play. First, the double standard is obvious. While there were a few ripples of offense from Obama's remark, it isn't nearly as bad as the thunderous condemnation that would have echoed had a Republican said something similar about blacks. Let's be honest, is it possible to utter the words "typical black person" in any context without being immediately branded a racist, bigot, etc? And if it were John McCain uttering those words? Well, his campaign for president would be over. But the double standard will always be the rule.

I also found it ironic that the day before this Obama gave a speech about racism, part of which blasted conservative pundits for being dishonest in claiming that reverse discrimination occurs here and there. And the next day Obama utters a phrase that is basically stereotyping white people. It's almost too good to be true and I'm sure the Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world appreciated it.

Again, stereotyping isn't always a bad thing and I don't think we should beat Obama up about it. I am guilty of doing it from time to time. For example, I may say that Democrats tend to believe in Marxism, moral relativism, income redistribution and full government control of just about everything in society. That hardly makes me a bad person or narrow-minded.

So let's be realistic. Barack Obama may be many things, but I don't think he has a problem with white people. However, I did appreciate the irony in his comment.

Barack Obama gave a hair-raising speech about race relations in America yesterday. As expected, the Left and his supporters continue to swoon and sing his praises while the Right says it wasn’t enough and continues to ask many tough questions. I found it typical for him, a great speaker but an empty suit. Obama consistently displays a talent for pointing out America's flaws and describing the utopian society that comes after those flaws are corrected. Yet, he consistently falls short of explaining his plan for correcting things, and how he plans to take us to that utopia. What he says sounds wonderful, until you ask how he plans to do it. Meanwhile, in the wake of the recent controversy regarding Jeremiah Wright, non-partisans and moderates are left asking just one simple question…What does race have to do with it?

Don’t get me wrong, I agree with what Obama said in his speech. Yes, race continues to be a heated political issue. Yes, it is divisive. Yes, we need to maintain healthy dialogue and unite to heal our racial divisions. That’s all great and I’m all for it. But what does that have to do with the issue at hand? Unless I’m mistaken, the discussion has been Obama’s ties with a controversial anti-American preacher. Perhaps that preacher has made some racially charged statements, but race is not the driving issue here. The driving issue is how we perceive our country. Is it good or is it bad? Are we right or wrong and where have we sided historically in that great conflict between good and evil? This is a fundamental question that, in many ways, is more divisive than race. Some Americans believe this country is inherently bad and is in need of drastic reform (ie, socialism and Marxism) while MOST Americans feel we are inherently good and have been throughout history. That’s what the issue is. Yet, for some reason, Barack Obama continues to make race a major issue in this campaign and I don’t understand why.

Someone needs to explain to the Senator that the majority of Americans don’t have a problem with the fact that he is black. If he wants to heal our racial divisions, I think it starts with that simple admission. Most Americans would vote for a black candidate if he were qualified. Most Americans would not vote against a qualified candidate simply because of his/her race (or gender for that matter). For someone who insists that his candidacy is not about race, he sure is making a big deal about his own ethnicity.

Once again, as is often the case, a Democrat politician has completely missed the point. Obama is losing favor among moderates and independents because of his affiliation with Rev Jeremiah Wright. That is a fact. And he isn’t losing favor because Wright is black, or because Wright makes racially charged comments. He’s losing favor because Wright is making anti-American comments. That’s the fundamental problem here, and Obama has completely ignored it.

The fact is, most Americans think favorably of their country. Most Americans believe America is a nation that has made mistakes, but is overall a nation of good. Yes, there are many in this country who think America is bad or evil or whatever, but they tend to be radical Leftists and are clearly the minority. Rev Wright is one of these people, and his comments reflect it. THAT’s what makes people mad and that’s what has turned moderates and independents away from Obama. We don’t care that Wright is black. We don’t care that Obama is black. We do care that a sitting Senator and presidential candidate affiliates himself with someone who sees the US and Al Qaeda on equal ground and says there is no moral difference between Hiroshima and 9/11. That kind of statement may find favor and agreement among the radical Left, but it is highly offensive to most Americans. Race has nothing to do with it. If Obama’s pastor were white and still saying these things, Obama would still be facing the same problem.

But, Obama’s speech yesterday focused on race and not the anti-American sentiment voiced by Wright. It is a major oversight and will prove to be costly to Obama. It shows that, as with most Democrats, he just doesn’t get it. The Democrat party has time-and-again sided with the anti-American crowd, dating back to the Vietnam and Cold War days. If there is a cry against America, it is usually coming from our Leftist population and, frankly, that is the major reason why people vote against (or sometimes for) Democrats. That party has slowly become synonymous with anti-Americanism and it has hurt them in the past two presidential elections and will likely hurt them in this one. Anti-American rhetoric is rejected by the vast majority of citizens and this is no different. That’s why I say the Wright issue won’t hurt Obama in the primary season but will certainly hurt him in the general election. We are already seeing it happen.

Senator Barack Obama is a black man and he needs to get over it. Instead of pointing this out repeatedly, he needs to explain why he is qualified to lead the most powerful nation on the planet as Commander in Chief, and he needs to explain why he lends his stature to a man who holds vile contempt towards his country. So far, Obama has failed to do this and if he continues to make his race a primary issue in this election, while ignoring the true issues at hand, he will certainly lose.

We don’t care that you’re black, Senator. Please explain why you associate with and support a man who sees no moral difference between Hiroshima and 9/11.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright. If the name doesn't sound familiar, then do an internet search and pay close attention to what you find. The name will certainly become more familiar in the media, especially if Barack Obama wins the Democrat nomination and we get closer to the general election.



Rev. Wright is Barack Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor. He presided over Obama's wedding. He baptized Obama's children. Obama has been a member of his church for nearly 20 years. And he has a history of saying some vile things about America. Some of these things include statements that America is no better than Al Qaeda, that the US government has facilitated the spread of AIDS to kill minorities, that America has "raped" every corner of the globe, and one of his sermons includes the phrase "God damn America" multiple times. Supporters will defend the remarks and say they are taken out of context. I personally find it hard to take a claim that the US is deliberately killing blacks with AIDS out of context. But that's what they say.



In Obama's defense, he states that he was only recently made aware of Wright's remarks and that he adamantly disagrees with them. He stands by Wright as a friend and spiritual mentor, but he denounces the man's anti-US rhetoric. Fair enough.



Pundits say this is going to hurt him badly. Tonight, O'Reilly cited a recent poll showing a 5% drop in Obama's favorability rating since the story broke. And now for my observations:



First, Hillary Clinton is noticeably silent on the issue. She hasn't responded and she doesn't have to. The story speaks for itself. The less she says the better for her. John McCain has made a statement that everyone has friends with whom they don't always agree. He has decided not to get muddy. The GOP in general has also remained silent. Rest assured, that won't last as we get closer to the general election.



I don't think this will hurt Obama in the remainder of the primary race. Granted, many Latinos will reject Wright's rhetoric, and many Jews will not be comfortable with the man's close association with Louis Farrakhan, but Obama's support among those groups wasn't very high to begin with. The fact is, many on the Left and in the Democrat party actually agree with Wright's remarks. There is strong anti-US sentiment on the Left, so I don't see Obama losing that much support among the Left. However, if this story resurfaces during the general election, it WILL hurt Obama. Mainstream Americans will reject this mess and rightfully so.



There is something that bugs me about this. Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years and yet claims he knew nothing about Wright's opinions. I find that impossible to believe. If even my most casual of acquaintances held Wright's beliefs I would pick up on it. And this man has been Obama's pastor and spiritual mentor for the past 20 years who has repeatedly spewed his hatred from the pulpit. These aren't isolated comments. There is no way Obama wasn't aware of Wright's beliefs and rhetoric. For the first time in this campaign, I believe Obama is lying. And I've been more than fair towards him despite my disagreement with his politics, so my sentiments shouldn't be discarded as partisan. At the very least his judgment is in question if he is willing to closely associate, as a US Senator and presidential candidate, with someone who has such vile hatred of America. Is this the judgment of a US President?



But there's more. There was the story of Obama not wearing the US flag on his lapel. Then the story of him not properly covering his heart during the national anthem. Then the story of his wife's comments about being proud of her country. Independently these things may not be a big deal and I would generally dismiss them as isolated and anecdotal. But with the Wright issue, I'm beginning to wonder if there is a pattern here. Obama is adored by socialists and neo-Marxists, and the mainstream media (the center of American Marxism) has buried the Wright story. Is this a pattern? I can't help but wonder how Obama truly feels about America, despite having read one of his books. It certainly warrants discussion.



Obama is in a tough spot. The more he distances himself from Wright, the more he looks afraid of his pastor and friend for 20 years. There really isn't anything he can do to help the situation and is left basically hoping it goes away. I still think he wins the nomination without a problem, which may be a problem for Democrats because they know the GOP won't let this story die. Even if McCain won't do it, you better believe the GOP party will be airing Wright's comments all over the place. The Democrats are having a tough time shaking their reputation as being "anti-American" and this doesn't help. I'm sure there are many in the party wondering if they bet on the wrong horse. Putting this guy up against a bona fide war hero and former POW is going to be an electoral disaster for Democrats. That's fine with me. Minimizing socialism in American government is always a good thing. As for Obama, I'd like to know how he truly feels about America, because now I'm wondering just how truthful the man has been during his campaign.

Character attack x 2

The recent political races have gotten ugly and at the center of the ugliness are a few character attacks that I can't let go without comment.

First, Geraldine Ferraro. She makes a statement that some people disagreed with. I won't detail it but she basically says that Barack Obama would not be where is if he weren't black. I hear this and immediately agree with it. He is a first term junior Senator with zero national defense experience. His record is virtually nonexistant and he relies on incredible oratory talent rather than ideas and solutions to charm his supporters. His rise to the top of the ticket has been fueled by solidarity among blacks, something rarely seen these days. Because of this, he has dominated the southern states, a primary reason for his current lead. Take away the victories in Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina and his lead vanishes. These are states with proportionately higher black populations. I strongly feel that a white junior Senator with the same talent and lack of experience would not have such solid support among blacks. Certainly not enough to overcome Hillary in these states. And a similar white candidate would have most definitely felt more scrutiny from the mainstream media for his lack of substance. Ferraro's comments were spot on and hardly abrasive or insulting.

However, the Obama campaign seized upon the moment to paint Ferraro as a racist. Of course, they didn't use those words exactly, but the implications were clear. Obama himself demanded Ferraro be removed from the Hillary campaign, all while maintaining his "high ground" position. This left a nasty taste in my mouth. I'm slowly losing my respect for the man. Geraldine Ferraro may be many things, but a racist isn't one of them. Yet she has been forced to defend her name and character for her insightful comment. This is most definitely a taste of things to come. My gut tells me that if Obama wins the nomination (which he likely will), the race card will be dealt many, many times...often from the bottom of the deck. This, of course, from a campaign who maintains that race is a non-issue in this election. Take it to the bank, ANY republican who criticizes Obama's record, lack of experience, or policy will feel the wrath of the racist witch hunters. Ferraro is just the first victim. Al Sharpton is quickly gathering his army of Betty Parrises and Abigail Williamses to launch their tirades against Obama's opponents. Bet on it.

The other victim of political spin is John McCain. Again, I have my differences with him but I do feel he is an honest man with a solid career and a solid record. I believe my tax dollars are safe with McCain, something I rarely say about any politician. The Air Force decided it was time to upgrade their fleet and, of course, Boeing was there ready to sign the contract. Boeing is an American company. McCain was bothered by the fact that Boeing was about to get a no-bid government contract. He felt that was unfair to American tax payers. So he takes action to get the Air Force to open the contract to bids. After all, competition lowers prices and the tax payers win. The Air Force listens and they open the bids, and European Airbus beats Boeing in the bid. And so the big stink begins. McCain is painted as crooked, as anti-American-business. He is criticized for "cheating" a US company out of a huge contract. His critics cry about the loss of US jobs, etc.

Well, McCain was right. When the government has a big contract they should open it to bids. The idea is to save tax payer dollars. McCain knew he was opening himself to criticism but he did the right thing despite the risk, and I stand by him for it. There won't be any loss of jobs. The planes will be built in Alabama by American workers. The problem is these workers won't be union, and that's likely why the Democrats are crying foul. This, along with the NY Times slander and Obama's recent behavior, has now put me firmly in McCain's corner in the upcoming election.

I'd also like to point out that the same people criticizing McCain for demanding bids on government contracts also attack Bush-Cheney for granting a no-bid contract to Halliburton (a US company) to do a job that only a handful of companies worldwide were capable of doing. They attack Bush for one thing, and attack McCain for the exact opposite. Where exactly DO the Democrats stand on government contracts?

These attacks absolutely sicken me. The Democrats have proven time and again that politics is a nasty game and there are NO limits to the depth they will stoop to gain political favor. They will eat their own if the need arises, Geraldine Ferraro and Hillary Clinton can now attest to that. The Democrat party has devolved into a party of pimps, hustlers and snake-oil salesmen in fancy suits. There is nothing these people won't say or do to win an election and the day America rejects them as a legitimate political party is the day America becomes a better country.

WASHINGTON — President Bush, dispatching Vice President Dick Cheney to the Middle East, said the goal is to get Israelis and Palestinians to hold firm to the promises they've made toward peace. FULL STORY

If this gives you a sense of deja vu, you're not alone. It seems to me that every time I look at the news, a politician or dignitary is visiting the Middle East in the latest attempt to broker peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Am I crazy, or didn't Condi Rice just return from there not too long ago? Now, apparently, it's Dick Cheney's turn. I guess it's time to try something closer to a strong-arm tactic. Who knows.

I admire President Bush and I understand what he's trying to do. I've heard the skeptics scoff and say that he's desperately searching for a legacy. I disagree. Bush has always wanted to see peace in Israel and ever since his campaign in 2000 he has advocated for an independent Palestinian state. This is nothing new and it has nothing to do with a legacy. I feel his intentions are true and I respect and admire him for it. That's not to say that I agree with it. While pushing for peace in Israel and surrounding areas is admirable, I feel (like many leftist dreams) it is idealistic and far beyond America's responsibility. Basically, it's none of our business and we're better served by staying out of it. If peace happens, it's going to have to happen between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Our interference won't help the process.

Ever since Israel became a nation, American leaders have worked hard to bring peace to the area, more so since the Carter years, and so far our efforts have been futile. There is no reason to think that Bush's efforts would be different. While I would love to see peace come to that area, I simply don't think it's going to happen in our lifetime. Further proof of this was apparent the day after a gunman entered a Jewish religious institution and opened fire on several unarmed ministry students. The killings were random, the victims innocent civilians. The next day, the streets were full of Palestinians celebrating this horrendous act. That tells me that at least ONE of the involved parties is not interested in peace but would rather see their neighbors eliminated. Until that changes, until we see some evidence that the Palestinians are willing to coexist with Israel as a neighbor, then I don't think we have any business trying to negotiate peace between the two. Israel is busy fighting random acts of violence against its citizens, who are we to ask them to negotiate with those carrying out those acts?

Our areas of intervention should be limited to places that pose a risk of harm to us directly. The Palestinians pose no such risk. They want the extermination of the Israelis. Perhaps one day they will focus on us, but it isn't now. Therefore, we need to stay out of it. Let Israel take care of its own business while we deal with the Husseins, Bin Ladens and Ahmadinejads of the world. We can still be allies and strongly support Israel while taking as less active role in that nation's affairs.

The latest assault on individual liberty and parental rights has occurred in the People's Republic of Californistan. There a three-judge panel has ruled that parents must have a teaching credential to home-school their children, or face potential criminal prosecution. Although they don't say so specifically, this ruling effectively bans home schooling in an obligatory bow to the cornerstone of the Left...the teacher's unions. And they say politics stops at the courthouse doors.

We live in a time when people call for the President's resignation over wiretapping terrorists. Yet, here we have 3 judges mandating that our children can only be educated by government-approved teachers. If that doesn't disturb you, then you either have a problem with naivety or are due to renew your Stalin fan club membership. There are many parents who don't want their children in public or private schools and they have the right to make that decision without facing prison time. Once again, activists judges have chosen to invade and infringe upon the rights and privacy of the people. There is no need for this ruling and I doubt it will stand up on appeal (at least that's my hope). These judges have created law and thus overstepped their bounds, and the people of Californistan should not tolerate it. The precedent is clear, and very dangerous.

The location doesn't surprise me. California is one Bolshevik away from establishing the "people's party". But still, I am a bit shocked at the audacity of the judges, and the lack of outcry. If Bush does something like this in the war on terror he is compared to Hitler and butchered in the press. Yet these unelected judges blatantly assault our individual rights without so much as a whimper from the people and the mainstream media. How foolish we've become. A wise man once said that every time Congress meets, we all lose a little liberty. I think the same can now be said of our courts.

Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966. The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average." China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them. There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses...

...And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past. The ice is back. Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year....

...According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong....Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats." FULL STORY

So now we're seeing new evidence of climate change, but that change involves global COOLING. And the cause? A decrease in solar sunspot activity, the same thing that caused the little ice age in the 1300s. I think this story is well-timed given that all three leading Presidential candidates believe in man-made climate change and taking measures to curb this so-called crisis. I wonder how those beliefs will hold against this emerging evidence. If the global warming alarmists had their way, we would be bound to the Kyoto treaty and our economy would be in shambles as a result. Now what?

If these people still believe that human activity causes global warming, then would they support INCREASING our fossil fuel use in order to offset the looming cool spell that we face? Only if it means America signing a treaty that puts us at a disadvantage in the world market.

I've always said that the climate is a very complex and intricate thing and there is much we don't know. Human-induced climate change is more about international politics than science, and the evidence has always been lacking. Now we see that perhaps there are other factors at play. Thank goodness reasonable minds prevailed when it came time to decide on Kyoto.

Al Gore has not commented on this latest scientific data.

Looking more and more like a dying campaign, Hillary's army of nasties have apparently distributed a photo of Barack Obama dressed in what looks like traditional Muslim attire. It was during a trip to Africa, and Obama was obliging the local authorities as visiting dignitaries often do. However, his campaign objected to the photo, calling it fear-mongering and an attempt to build on the concerns of some that Obama is secretly Muslim.

Of course, Hillary denies any involvement and I'm still looking for someone who believes her. She now personifies desperation. I doubt this will harm Obama, but you never know. If anyone can revive a dying campaign with cheap tactics, it's Hillary. Of course, these tactics come as no surprise to me and other conservatives. The Clintons have won many elections like this. I find it interesting how those on the Left are so offended by her behavior now, but found no problem with it in the 90s when Bill was on the ticket. Typical.

Speaking of cheap tactics, the New York Times is up to their usual tabloid rag reporting with their latest deliberate slime of John McCain. Quoting anonymous "associates" from his 2000 campaign, they claim that McCain had an inappropriate romantic relationship with a lobbyist and used his influence to assist her clients. They offered no proof. No evidence. Only the word of these unnamed anonymous sources that no one knows. The New York Times is standing by their story. Does anyone still take this Leftist rag seriously?

The Times has had this story since December. There is no explanation why they've been sitting on it this long, and there is no explanation why they endorsed McCain despite having this information at the time. Credibility is not something valued too highly at the Times.

But, this whole thing has improved McCain's favorability in my eyes. If the New York Times hates you, then you must be doing something right. I'm not the only conservative who feels this way, so McCain will probably be writing the Times a thank you note sometime soon. He needed a boost among conservatives, and this may be just that.

In election 2008, don’t forget Angry White Man

by Gary Hubbell, Aspen Times Weekly

There is a great amount of interest in this year’s presidential elections, as everybody seems to recognize that our next president has to be a lot better than George Bush. The Democrats are riding high with two groundbreaking candidates — a woman and an African-American — while the conservative Republicans are in a quandary about their party’s nod to a quasi-liberal maverick, John McCain. Each candidate is carefully pandering to a smorgasbord of special-interest groups, ranging from gay, lesbian and transgender people to children of illegal immigrants to working mothers to evangelical Christians. There is one group no one has recognized, and it is the group that will decide the election: the Angry White Man.

The Angry White Man comes from all economic backgrounds, from dirt-poor to filthy rich. He represents all geographic areas in America, from urban sophisticate to rural redneck, deep South to mountain West, left Coast to Eastern Seaboard.His common traits are that he isn’t looking for anything from anyone — just the promise to be able to make his own way on a level playing field. In many cases, he is an independent businessman and employs several people. He pays more than his share of taxes and works hard.The victimhood syndrome buzzwords — “disenfranchised,” “marginalized” and “voiceless” — don’t resonate with him. “Press ‘one’ for English” is a curse-word to him. He’s used to picking up the tab, whether it’s the company Christmas party, three sets of braces, three college educations or a beautiful wedding.He believes the Constitution is to be interpreted literally, not as a “living document” open to the whims and vagaries of a panel of judges who have never worked an honest day in their lives

The Angry White Man owns firearms, and he’s willing to pick up a gun to defend his home and his country. He is willing to lay down his life to defend the freedom and safety of others, and the thought of killing someone who needs killing really doesn’t bother him.The Angry White Man is not a metrosexual, a homosexual or a victim. Nobody like him drowned in Hurricane Katrina — he got his people together and got the hell out, then went back in to rescue those too helpless and stupid to help themselves, often as a police officer, a National Guard soldier or a volunteer firefighter. His last name and religion don’t matter.

His background might be Italian, English, Polish, German, Slavic, Irish, or Russian, and he might have Cherokee, Mexican, or Puerto Rican mixed in, but he considers himself a white American. He’s a man’s man, the kind of guy who likes to play poker, watch football, hunt white-tailed deer, call turkeys, play golf, spend a few bucks at a strip club once in a blue moon, change his own oil and build things. He coaches baseball, soccer and football teams and doesn’t ask for a penny. He’s the kind of guy who can put an addition on his house with a couple of friends, drill an oil well, weld a new bumper for his truck, design a factory and publish books. He can fill a train with 100,000 tons of coal and get it to the power plant on time so that you keep the lights on and never know what it took to flip that light switch.Women either love him or hate him, but they know he’s a man, not a dishrag. If they’re looking for someone to walk all over, they’ve got the wrong guy. He stands up straight, opens doors for women and says “Yes, sir” and “No, ma’am.”

He might be a Republican and he might be a Democrat; he might be a Libertarian or a Green. He knows that his wife is more emotional than rational, and he guides the family in a rational manner. He’s not a racist, but he is annoyed and disappointed when people of certain backgrounds exhibit behavior that typifies the worst stereotypes of their race. He’s willing to give everybody a fair chance if they work hard, play by the rules and learn English.Most important, the Angry White Man is pissed off. When his job site becomes flooded with illegal workers who don’t pay taxes and his wages drop like a stone, he gets righteously angry. When his job gets shipped overseas, and he has to speak to some incomprehensible idiot in India for tech support, he simmers. When Al Sharpton comes on TV, leading some rally for reparations for slavery or some such nonsense, he bites his tongue and he remembers. When a child gets charged with carrying a concealed weapon for mistakenly bringing a penknife to school, he takes note of who the local idiots are in education and law enforcement.

He also votes, and the Angry White Man loathes Hillary Clinton. Her voice reminds him of a shovel scraping a rock. He recoils at the mere sight of her on television. Her very image disgusts him, and he cannot fathom why anyone would want her as their leader. It’s not that she is a woman. It’s that she is who she is. It’s the liberal victim groups she panders to, the “poor me” attitude that she represents, her inability to give a straight answer to an honest question, his tax dollars that she wants to give to people who refuse to do anything for themselves.There are many millions of Angry White Men. Four million Angry White Men are members of the National Rifle Association, and all of them will vote against Hillary Clinton, just as the great majority of them voted for George Bush.He hopes that she will be the Democratic nominee for president in 2008, and he will make sure that she gets beaten like a drum.

Gary Hubbell is a regular columnist with the Aspen Times Weekly.

(thanks to my friend Robert for sending this my way)

"For the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country. Not just because Barack is doing well, but I think people are hungry for change."

When I first heard that Ms. Obama said this, I wasn't too upset about it. Yes, it looks pretty ridiculous on the surface, but I realize that sometimes people misspeak, try to say one thing while the words come out sounding completely different. Surely Michelle Obama has been proud of her country before now. Again, the quote itself is ghastly, but I was willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. Until today, when she attempted to clarify her comment.

"What I was clearly talking about was that I'm proud in how Americans are engaging in the political process. For the first time in my lifetime, I'm seeing people rolling up their sleeves in a way that I haven't seen and really trying to figure this out — and that's the source of pride that I was talking about."

Well, forgive me for being a stickler but that didn't exactly make things better, did it? What she basically says is that the source of her pride is the people engaging in the political process. Is that it? Is there nothing else about America that makes her proud? Well, she didn't say. She finally admitted that she was proud of her country as a whole, but only after being asked specifically.

I have been a bit disappointed in the Obamas lately. First the plagiarism thing. Now this. It's not the actual occurrence that disappoints me as much as the response. Barack brushed off the plagiarism thing as a non-issue as though it is silly to even bring it up. Well, in fact, it is a big issue. Obama is known for his speeches and if he is ripping off from someone else I think that's significant, and so do a lot of other folks. An apology and some remorse would be nice to see. Yet, Obama doesn't seem to think it's a problem. The same can be said about Michelle's comment. They basically brushed it aside as a non-issue when she should have apologized and then mentioned any number of things about America that make her proud. It seems lately that the Obamas are beginning to come across a bit arrogant and elitist. Not good for his image.

Ms Obama mishandled the entire situation and it's going to haunt her husband's campaign. John McCain won't let this one go. Conservatives and Moderates don't appreciate the blame-America-first mentality of the far Left, and her comment falls in line with just that kind of mentality. First Ted Kennedy endorses him, now this. Not good for someone who's trying to court the middle and a few disgruntled Republicans.

Presidents Day

My President's Day post is a day late, my apologies. This holiday honors George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Despite my respect and admiration for our first President, today's post will focus and Lincoln. Many consider Lincoln our nation's greatest President. While I don't agree with that, I will say as I've said before that Lincoln had to endure history's most difficult presidency. I will also say as I've said before that our current President has endured history's second most difficult presidency. And that begins some interesting parallels between Bush and Lincoln.

My problem with Lincoln is that he overstepped his Constitutional authority. He basically forced the citizens of 13 states to be part of America under the sword. I have a problem with that. I am not a confederate nor do I condone secession, but I think secession is legal. I think that anyone has the right to surrender their citizenship in this country without fear of military reprisal. Lincoln disagreed and because of this our nation suffered a great deal, and in many ways still suffers today.

However, despite my disagreement with Lincoln I am still forced to acknowledge that what he did was in the end best for America. Had the Union remain divided, history would have been dramatically different. One shudders to think of tyrants like Hitler and Stalin and how they would have fared while facing a divided America. This country rose to greatness as one nation, north and south, that neither would have achieved without the other. Not only this, but Lincoln DID end slavery in America, albeit his methods may have been questionable, he still ended this abomination nonetheless.

Yes, Lincoln stood in violation of the Constitution. Yes he overstepped his powers. But in the end it was best for America. Which brings me to George Bush. How many out there feel that Bush has over stepped his authority? And if you do, how do you feel about Abraham Lincoln? Hmmm.

Lincoln no doubt endured his share of hate on both sides of the mason-dixon line. He wasn't exactly the most popular of Presidents during his time. Much of Europe disagreed with his pseudo-tyranny against his own people. Northerners were tired of war and wanted it ended quickly. But history vindicated Lincoln.

Today, President Bush wages a war despite the disapproval of Europe, the disagreement of many of his citizens, and rampant claims that he is violating the Constitution. What will history teach us of him?

Here are some truly troubling statistics from USA Today:

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis. That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184....The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits, up from $601 billion in 2000. It's the biggest function of the federal government....Benefits per senior are soaring at a time when the senior population is not. The portion of the U.S. population ages 65 and older has been constant at 12% since 2000. The senior boom, however, starts big time in 2011, when the first baby boomers 79 million people born between 1946 and 1964 turn 65 and qualify for Medicare health insurance....The cost of senior benefits is equal to $10,673 for every non-senior household.

The biggest function of the federal government? Costs non-senior households over 10K a year? This should make anyone pause for a moment. My last post dealt with universal healthcare and the astronomical cost that would be impossible for the best of economists to forecast. This story just supports my claim. We provide care for our elderly population and that, in part, is why it is the biggest function of the federal government. 900+ billion a year for senior benefits. Extend this to the general population and just try to imagine the cost. I estimated 50% income tax, and that's looking like a gross underestimate. 900 billion a year and that doesn't even include the baby boomers. Folks, we may not get a shot at universal healthcare because it looks like Medicare alone threatens our budget. Not that Congress ever cared about a budget.

Meanwhile, our beloved Washington politicians busy themselves with Roger Clemens and his potential steroid use, and the New England Patriots and whether or not they videotaped the Rams walk-through practice before the Super Bowl. These are the pressing issues that Congress has put before Social Security and the looming crisis that it poses.

At some point, if we continue down this path of ever-increasing entitlements, the well will run dry. Eventually we'll reach a saturation point. You can only tax the people so much. What happens then? We spend 27K a year for every senior citizen in this country, and soon there will be 79 million more seniors signing up for their share. Do the math. And remember, we still haven't fixed social security. Do we STILL think we can afford universal health care for all? Who cares, as long as we know for sure if Roger Clemens took steroids?

Every day the idea seems more and more preposterous.

The problem with Hillarycare

Yesterday I was watching Hillary Clinton give a speech in Maine and the focus was her health care plan. Hillary wants universal health care for all Americans and she wants to pay for it with tax dollars. Under Hillary care, all Americans would have health insurance whether they wanted it or not. Those who opted not to have private insurance would be covered by the government. She thinks this can be done by simply "rolling back" the Bush tax cuts, and if anyone actually believes that they need a heavy dose of reality. The cost of such a system would be astronomical. Look at Australia, which has a similar system, and their citizens pay 50% income tax. So either Hillary is lying or is totally clueless about the facts.

She also said her plan would reduce health care costs by cutting back on ER visits. Again, this is way off the mark. I speak from experience on this issue because I have worked in a government funded socialized medicine system. I can tell you, implementing such a system nationwide would be a disaster for US healthcare. Here's why:

Today, if you get a few cold symptoms like runny nose or sore throat, what do you do? If you're like me you go to the drugstore, pick up the over-the-counter cold medicine of choice and wait it out. Most colds go away in a week or two, and a doctor's visit can be costly. Frankly, it's not worth spending the money to see a doctor about my cold.

The same is said about muscle aches and common pains. We all get the occasional headache from a bad day at work. We all get the occasional achy knee or wrist. It's part of being human. We buy some tylenol and let it get better. Again, no doctor's visit is necessary.

But what if that doctor's visit was free? What if the government picked up the bill? Well, naturally, the number of visits to primary care physicians would increase substantially. Take away the disincentive of paying a bill, and people are much more likely to go see the doctor. This is not opinion, this is fact. Where I worked we did a simple number crunch and found that our patient population averaged just over 6 doctor's visits A YEAR. SIX! And this was a relatively young, healthy, and responsible population. Compare this to the general population and you'll see an astounding difference (I think this number is more like one or two a year). Now, bring in the 47 million uninsured into this system, along with those currently insured but opt to have government coverage instead and what do you think would happen? Naturally, you can imagine the cost involved and the strain on our treasury. Rolling back the Bush tax cuts would cover this for a few days, but that's about it.

In addition, access to primary care would vanish. Even today, you will probably find it difficult to get an appointment with your family doctor within the next few days. But then flood the system with all of these unnecessary government-funded visits, and be ready to wait one or two MONTHS for an appointment. As for those who are sick and need to be seen right now, well they will go to the ER (since there are no appointments available) and ER visits go up, along with costs. This is not alarmism, it's common sense. Folks, when has the government EVER made something more efficient and cost-effective? I can't think of anything. Bureaucracy is expensive. There are a lot of pockets to pad and palms to grease. If you think the pharmaceutical and private insurance industry is corrupt, then look again. They look like seminary students compared to Washington bureaucrats. Yet, Hillary feels the bureaucrats can be trusted more than the private sector.

Just look at Medicare. This is the government's original attempt to dabble in the health care business and it has been a miserable failure. Medicare has become a tremendous financial burden for taxpayers and it gets worse every year, and will continue to get worse as the Boomers ease into that age group. As costs go up, so do restrictions. Bureaucrats implement payment restrictions constantly. How many on Medicare have had trouble getting Medicare to cover a test or a procedure? It's a daily thing. This test is only covered under this circumstance, etc. It's a hassle, and a costly one at that. In addition, payments to physicians get cut. This comes up almost every year. It seems to be the last thing the bureaucrats have left to cut. Do this enough and soon it will be hard to find a doctor willing to accept Medicare. Even today, many physicians LOSE MONEY when they see Medicare patients. And still, the tax burden remains heavy. We've had Medicare for 4+ decades and haven't been able to fix it. We are having trouble providing healthcare to our senior citizens because of bureaucracy, and yet we think we can extend this to every American citizen? The lack of logic and reason is astounding.

So when we have this wonderful universal coverage, and the politicans realize it costs way too much, what will happen? Well, look at Medicare. Restrictions get imposed. Limits on care are implemented. Doctor's payments get cut. And soon, you won't be able to find a doctor to accept this wonderful coverage, all while paying 50+% income tax. Sounds great doesn't it? And when that happens what will the solution be? Well, bureaucrats will do what they have always done, implement more bureaucracy. Universal care would mean full government control, which would mean putting physicians on the payroll as government employees with fixed salaries, no more pay-per-visit. When that happens, access becomes nonexistant. Why would a doctor risk making a mistake seeing thirty patients a day when ten a day is safer and earns him the same paycheck? Ever think you'd see long lines waiting to get in to a doctor? That would likely be a reality.

Call me alarmist, but this is simple truth. When the government subsidizes something it becomes more expensive and less accessible. It's a fact. Our current system isn't perfect, but it's still the best in the world. When people in universal healthcare countries get sick, they want to come to America to be treated. That should tell us something. Folks, once we do this there is no going back. We can't just abolish such a massive government program and have a do-over. Look what happened to Bush when he tried to bring just a little privatization to Medicare. He was slaughtered over it. Once we hang that albatross on our necks, there's no taking it off. Think about it long and hard when you cast your vote this November. We can fix our health care system without government subsidies. Doing otherwise would be a monumental blunder that we will never be able to repair.

I'm leaving this up for a while because I want as many eyes to read this as possible. Spread it around. I am a physician with experience in socialized medicine. It's not the answer.

Back in the saddle

My son is doing much better and I want to say how much my family and I appreciate the thoughts and prayers from all of you. It really meant a lot to us.

During my hiatus much has happened, so let's get started. John Edwards quit the campaign. I've left no doubts about my feelings toward him. America is a better country when he is NOT seeking political office. Did anyone ever buy that poverty thing? Come on, John. We've seen your house. Not exactly the residence of someone who cares deeply for the poor.

That leaves Hillary and Obama. No big surprise. I am enjoying watching Hillary squirm. The contempt and fury in her eyes is quite remarkable. This was her year, her election, her nomination. How dare this junior senator from Illinois come out and ruin it for her. It's entertaining to say the least.

Obama still has a shot, and I'm scratching my head a bit. I've heard him speak and he is good at it. He has literally given me goosebumps with his inspirational talk. But his speeches are very empty on substance. He doesn't offer ideas or solutions, he just describes the American utopia with incredible charisma and points out our most pressing problems. But what about solutions? I would venture a guess that most Obama supporters have no idea what his plan is for saving social security. I know because I read his book. But something tells me his followers don't know. They just like what he has to say, which is probably why he is so popular. You don't start angering people until you start offering real solutions and taking tough positions on tough issues. We'll see.

Ted Kennedy endorsed him and I think that hurts more than anything. Obama already has the radical Left locked. He's trying to court the moderates and a few disgruntled republicans. You can't do that with Ted Kennedy endorsing you. SOmething tells me Obama cringed when Teddy put on his little media hoopla event announcing his endorsement. But still, Obama would probably be more difficult to beat in the general election than Hillary simply because she is so easy to hate and so easy to vote against. Therefore, I'm hoping Hillary pulls out the nomination.

McCain has locked up the GOP nomination and this is quite a shocker. Last summer I said McCain's campaign was dead and his support for Bush's amnesty plan was what killed it. After that, I didn't think he had a chance at the nomination. But something happened since then. For one, Fred Thompson waffled on getting in and then spun his wheels once he did enter the race. He had a strong message but it was too little too late. The same is true for Tancredo and Duncan Hunter. These three were the only true conservatives in the race and none of them mounted any sort of formidable campaign. This left conservatives basically without a candidate, and no one to get behind. The base was fractured, looking for a home and completely unable to unite behind a single candidate. Second, Rudy Guiliani fumbled the nomination. Let's face it, this was Rudy's nomination to lose, and he lost it. And suddenly the GOP lost the candidate who presented the biggest challenge to Hillary.

So I think panic set in. Every Republican voter with any sense knows that Huckabee and Romney stood no chance in the general election. We're talking serious landslide loss here. So I think GOP voters went for the candidate who stood the best chance at beating the Dems, and thus John McCain gets the nomination. This is politics' version of the miracle on ice. An incredible underdog story. Along the way, many Repubs have compromised their own conservative principles by supporting McCain, but I guess to them it's better to have a Republican with some liberal tendencies than a Democrat who's one step away from being a full-blown Soviet.

McCain has some fences to mend, none bigger than the fence he needs to build along the southern border. No doubt his choice for running mate will be huge. Will he go for someone who appeals to moderates in hopes of solidifying his chance against Hillary? Someone like Arlen Specter or maybe even Joe Leiberman? Or does he go for someone who appeals to conservatives in an attempt to unite the base? ie Duncan Hunter or Newt Gingrich? I think that depends on his opponent. If Hillary wins, he won't need to unite the base because her mere presence on the ballot will be more than enough motivation to get people out to vote. But if Obama wins, then McCain will have a tough choice. My pick for VP would be Duncan Hunter, hands down. His platform is amazing and his big issue is immigration, McCain's downfall. Plus, Hunter may even bring California into play. We'll see.

As for me, my candidate is out of the race, so I'm left wondering who to vote for. Make no mistake, even though I like Obama as a person I still disagree with him on EVERY issue. He is a socialist to the core and would be a disaster for America. And Hillary? Well, let's just say that there is no candidate on this planet who is so bad that it would compel me to vote for Hillary. I dare say if Lucifer ran against her, I still wouldn't punch the chad beside her name (that's satire for those who don't know). That's how much I dislike this woman.

And yet, it's going to be hard to vote for McCain. He is a fine and decent man, and a genuine hero who would certainly be strong on defense, but conservative? I don't know. Maybe it's not too late for Gingrich to get in as an independent. Otherwise, it may be a third party vote for me.

A hero and a miracle

Rarely will I air personal matters on this site, but I feel I must make an exception because the past week and a half have been quite remarkable for me and my family. I never really felt that I had witnessed a true miracle until now. And so I feel I owe it to others to share what we experienced.


Last Monday I awoke and found my son running a fever of 103.7. He'd been around other kids with runny noses and typical cold symptoms, and children are notorious for running fever with the simplest of infections so I though nothing of it. We basically treated him with Motrin and Tylenol to control the fever and he seemed to do okay with it. But 48 hours later he spiked a temperature of 104. Kids shouldn't run fever that high for more than a few days, so we decided to take him in. The ER doc suspected a urinary infection and gave him an antibiotic and told us to follow up with his pediatrician that same day. My wife called me about 30 minutes before his appointment and told me that his fever was now 104.9, and that's when I knew something was terribly wrong. A few hours later I found myself in the ER holding my son, who had become incredibly pale, lethargic and barely responsive. My boy was like a rag doll. He was very sick and I knew that he was on the verge of coding at any moment. I remember holding him in my arms, waiting for the ER staff to set up IVs and medications. I remembered how he used to smile and laugh. How he liked to wrestle with stuffed animals. Now there he was, his eyes nearly rolled back in his head. My boy had drifted off somewhere and I wasn't sure if he was going to come back. So I did the only thing I knew to do...I prayed. I couldn't bare the thought of losing my boy and I begged God not to allow it to happen. I whispered in my son's ear, telling him that he was supposed to bury me, not vice versa. When the ER doc told me that the lumbar puncture confirmed the diagnosis of bacterial meningitis, my fears grew deeper. Even today, 20-30% of children suffering from this will die, and more than 50% emerge with significant neurologic impairment. This is a catastrophic disease. The odds were stacked against my boy.

And as I was waiting for them to give IV medicines, my son woke up. I've never seen anything like it in all my years of medicine. One moment my son was lethargic and floppy, the very next he was alert, looking around the room. He focused on me and despite his weakened body was able to force the subtlest of smiles as if to say "I'm back, daddy". It was the most beautiful smile I have ever seen. The ER nurse beside me could only shake his head. What's even more amazing is that this occured before any treatment had been given. All that had been done to this point is the lumbar puncture. Some research has shown that LP leads to clinical improvement, but this has only been shown in certain cases of viral meningitis, not bacterial. Some will say that his fever finally came down, but he hadn't been given anything for fever in over four hours and, in fact, was due to be given something when this happened. His last and only dose of antibiotics was over 8 hours before. There simply isn't a medical or scientific explanation for the sudden and dramatic change in my son's condition.

We were subsequently transferred to the nearest urban children's hospital where he continued to slowly improve. Then one night I noticed that he was favoring his right hip. He was holding it close to his body and refused to move it, and would cry if I so much as touched it. I knew what this meant. A common complication of meningitis is infection elsewhere, including the joints. This is called septic arthritis and can devastate a joint. He was taken to surgery the following morning for surgical aspiration of the joint. Prior research data shows that my son likely had a septic joint, the only question was how bad was the damage going to be. Once again, the odds were stacked against him. While sitting in the surgery waiting area I had visions of one day explaining to my son why his brother is able to run and play football while he couldn't. I had visions of him struggling with chronic pain and a limp. Then the surgeon came in and said the sample was essentially normal. There was no evidence of septic arthritis and that his pain was likely a transient inflammatory process that would resolve spontaneously. Again, we were overwhelmed with relief. But that would only be a temporary feeling.


While in post-op recovery, I noticed his foot was twitching. My stomach flipped a bit, but I thought perhaps this was a muscle spasm from the anesthesia wearing off. But within minutes, his entire leg and then the entire left side of his body was doing the same. My son was having a seizure, another common complication from meningitis. I stood by and watched as the treatment team tried this medicine, then that, without results. Soon the medication had him snowed under, and yet the seizure continued. Things became very serious. I watched as the medication failed and I knew that they were running out of options. Soon it had been an hour, an eternity when it comes to seizures, and they were finally able to abort the process and end the seizure. Now we were left with another question...what else was going on? Again, the data was infavorable. Research shows that seizures that occur after 72 hours of treatment, and are prolonged and difficult to control usually imply a catastrophic vascular incident like a stroke, a clot or bleeding in the brain. The seizure was over, and my son was in a deep drug-induced sleep, leaving us wondering how different he would be when he woke. Was our son ever going to be the same?

They did a CT and an EEG and discovered normal findings. There was no evidence of any major cerebral damage and no evidence of seizure activity. Once again, our boy had beaten the odds. Since then, he has gradually returned to his old self, rowdy and flirty. He has the nurses gah-gah over him and as I type this he snores peacefully after a few hours of playing with his teddy bear and his balloons. He'll be in the hospital for about another week as they make sure no further problems develop. He is still at risk for long-term complications like deafness, mental disability and behavioral problems. He is hardly out of the woods, but the daylight is certainly visible. Looking back, I realize that the past week has brought some of the worst and some of the best moments of my life. I am blessed in more ways than I can imagine and I can't stop thanking God for those blessings. In this hospital, I am surrounded by parents who are experiencing similar moments, some worse and some better. My heart and my prayers go out to all of them. I have never been in a place of such sadness and despair.

I am a man of science, which means that I am awed by the things that science can't explain. Despite all we know, there is still so much that we can't decipher. I truly believe that my family experienced one or more of those moments this week. Some will call it karma. Some will call it luck. Some will call it modern medicine. Not me. I call it a true miracle from God. There were dozens and dozens of people praying for our boy, some we hadn't spoken to in years. I thank you all for your prayers. I believe they were answered. They were certainly felt by us.


Over the next few weeks we will attempt to slowly return to normality. But the impact has been profound. I saw God working in our lives these few days and I felt His comfort. I've achieved a new level of respect and empathy for parents who must cope with sick children. And I've discovered a new hero in my life.

And to think, just a week before I was stressed and worried about selling our house and preparing for our upcoming move to Texas. How ridiculously trivial! How shameful. The perspective I now have is a wonderful feeling, knowing that no matter what happens in our lives as long as I can hug my wife and kids, and see those wonderful smiles, there is nothing else that matters. I can't hug and kiss my kids enough. God has blessed me beyond description and that's what this crazy world is all about.

This weekend America celebrates the life of one of our all-time greatest citizens. Martin Luther King Jr was a man whose actions and influence were immeasurable and invaluable. He was a man of courage. A man of God. A man of the Constitution. His convictions were solid, and he made the ultimate sacrifice for his cause. Amen.

It’s hard to think of Dr. King without a deep sense of warmth overcoming you. He made America a better country. He made us all better people. He gave us hope and vision. If I had the opportunity to meet anyone in history, Dr King would no doubt be in my top 5 and probably more like top 3. Rarely does such a man come along and I look forward to someday shaking his hand in the afterlife.

As a conservative, my deep admiration of Dr King sometimes surprises people. Usually those people are liberals who hold the belief that conservatives are generally racists. I’m not sure exactly why they think that but I have my theories, and I think much of it has to do with comments like the ones I will make today. We’ll see. At any rate, when my mind turns to Dr King I often reflect on what he did, what he died for, and if his dream has truly been realized. That is today’s post.

What is not disputed about Dr King is what he fought and died for. Dr King believed in equality. He often quoted the Declaration of Independence along with many of the scriptures as he forwarded his cause that all men are created equal and all human life has value. In short, Dr King was a man who believed in liberty, and he died fighting for liberty. He joined the hundreds of thousands of Americans throughout history who made the ultimate sacrifice for the one thing that we have demonstrated amazing courage in defending…liberty. He may not have died in uniform, but that doesn’t make his sacrifice any less significant. Martin Luther King gave his life so that others can be free. There is nothing more American than that.

However, as I look back over the past few decades I wonder how much his sacrifice helped, and how much it has been exploited. For one, black leadership has been severely lacking. I’ve posted on this before so I’ll just hit the highpoints. Since Dr King’s death, we’ve seen men like Malcolm X, Louis Farrakhan, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton step forward as leaders of the black community. The problem is they all failed to carry on Dr King’s cause and message. Instead, they fostered divisiveness, contempt and resentment. Their message was one of entitlement. Their message was one of class warfare. Dr King preached that we are all in this together, while these men preached more of an “us against them” message, and I think the black community has suffered because of it. No doubt these men achieved a lot of personal gain both financially and politically because of their message, but they have overall done very little to further King’s cause and to benefit America’s black population and America as a whole.

Our national political leaders haven’t done much better, and I think Dr King would be incredibly disappointed in both political parties if he were alive today. The Democrats have carried the same tired message since the 60s, a message of governmental intervention. “We’re the government, and we’re here to help.” It sounds good on the surface, but history has taught that it’s not the answer to our problems. They feel the government has a responsibility to take care of the problems of the poor (often considered the same problems in the black community) and they teach that the private sector can’t be trusted to address these problems. They carry out their plan with a tax-and-spend agenda that seeks to redistribute income from the haves to the have nots, while along the way spewing a lot of rhetoric that often propagates resentment and class warfare amongst the people. This fosters a sense of entitlement in the black and impoverished community that the Democrats are all too eager to reinforce. They feel it’s the government’s job to provide for its citizens. In the process, they campaign on promises of giving. They are the party of the government entitlement. They are the party of the government handout. Someone on this site recently asked me why blacks and minorities favor the Democrats so overwhelmingly, and I think that the above explanation is responsible for a lot of that. Minorities (many of whom live in poverty) hear the message of handouts and, naturally, support the party providing those handouts. But there’s a big problem with that.

My last comment will no doubt bring charges of racism from skeptics. So be it. I’ve been called many names, most of them don’t stick. I am not a racist in that I believe in equal rights for all law-abiding human beings, and I don’t believe one’s race should change that or that any one race is superior to the other. But I do believe that the black community has been misled by the Democrat party in the sense that they’ve been convinced that the government must provide for them rather than the individual providing for themselves. This breeds complete dependence on the government amongst a large segment of the population, and since only one party champions this agenda it essentially leads to dependence on that one party, assuring that they have the votes to gain and stay in power. But what good does it do for the individual. Dr King died for liberty. I ask: What liberty does one have when they depend on the government for housing, education, healthcare, employment, and sometimes food and living expenses? Is this the liberty that King gave his life for? Of course not.

A wise man once said that this democracy will fail the moment the people realize they have the power to vote themselves rewards from the treasury. When that happens, the people give up their liberty to gain those rewards. I dare say that we are seeing much of that today, and the latest campaign verifies that thought every day. How many people base their vote on what the candidate promises to give them from the treasury? Again, this is not the liberty that King died for. In a way, I’m accusing many in the black community of selling out Dr King and his dream of liberty and equality so they can have their piece of the government pie.

We have to look no further than Hurricane Katrina to see the implications of what I’m talking about. Despite the claims of many, especially among the black and democrat leadership, that disaster was not about race. The charges that Bush ignored things, or doesn’t care about black people are beyond ludicrous. Many people of all races suffered terribly from that storm. Many people, of all socioeconomic background and status, lost their homes. But who was left stranded in the city, neck deep in the putrid water? It was the poorest citizens. Why? Because the poorest of citizens depend on the government for security. They have no means to care for themselves, so when times are bad they rely on the bureaucracy to care for them, which will ultimately leave you wading through neck deep filth fighting for your life. Meanwhile, those who are self-dependent were able to escape the storm’s path. They lost property, but saved themselves. Katrina was a tragic metaphor for how we have failed in helping the poor amongst us. More government is not the answer. Yet, the promises continue and the Democrat leaders keep with their game of class warfare and race baiting. They’ve made Katrina a race issue, and many in the black population have bought off on it without realizing that depending on the government is ultimately self-destructive.

This is not to say that all liberals have ill intentions. I think many have genuine desires to help the needy and truly feel the government is the best way to do so. It’s the political leadership that I criticize because they exploit those feelings for political and partisan gain.

The Republicans hold some blame as well. The black community simply doesn’t vote for Republicans. I’ve offered a partial explanation for that above, but I also think there is more to it. It’s a common misconception that conservatives don’t care about blacks or the poor. This is, of course, absolutely asinine. Conservatives are very generous people. We give lots of money to lots of charity programs to help those in need. Look at the statistics and you’ll see how generous conservatives truly are. If we didn’t care, we simply wouldn’t give. The difference is that we don’t think the government is fit to handle such a task, whereas our charity of choice specializes in doing these things. We see money in the hands of the bureaucrats as money that is wasted or inappropriately spent. Here’s a simple analogy: If I pull up to a stoplight and see a homeless person holding a “will work for food” sign, I won’t give that person money because, chances are, he will spend it on booze or drugs. However, I will most certainly give money to a homeless shelter or soup kitchen without reservation. Why? Because then I know my money is used properly, to actually help people who need help. Therein lies the difference. I equate giving money to the government as giving money to the homeless guy on the street. Chances are it will not be used properly. There is simply too much bureaucracy for the government to be able to effectively provide so much to so many without screwing it up like we saw during Katrina. Many conservatives feel the same way and are considered cold and heartless because of it. Over the years, this has been manipulated to paint conservatives as people who don’t care. Since we oppose government entitlements and handouts, we are made to look as though we oppose helping the poor. It’s a blatant misrepresentation of our core principles.

The problem is that conservatives have done very little to defend themselves. We should be echoing the above paragraph at every opportunity. Instead, we allow others to paint us as cold-hearted and anti-black without answering the charge. As a result, blacks and the poor have become anti-conservative and anti-Republican. This is where the GOP has failed. And now, many of the GOP politicians have migrated to the Left on government spending and advocate big government in a lame attempt to help their image and gain votes. It really is quite nauseating to see Republican leaders sell out their conservative principles to pander to the poor. This is not the way to attract the minority vote because it looks phony. The right way is to echo the message that conservatives DO care, that we very much want all people to prosper and be wealthy and the way to do this is with less goverment.

So, in many ways, Dr King's dream has been realized, but we still have a long way to go and it starts with putting an end to the politics and class warfare. I will keep up the fight because I believe we CAN achieve his vision. We owe it to him, to our country, and to ourselves.

FLINT, Mich. (AP) — A judge says a man charged with raping women he's accused of abducting from Flint-area shopping malls must undergo testing for sexually transmitted diseases.
But the American Civil Liberties Union is complaining there hasn't been a finding of probable cause that Kevin L. Thomas of Iron Mountain committed the assaults.
Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton says his office asked for the tests so that the women wouldn't have to wait months for results.
But defense lawyer Anthony Pappadakis says Leyton's motion is premature.
The 32-year-old Thomas faces 18 charges stemming from the three incidents in October. The charges include first-degree criminal sexual conduct, kidnapping, carjacking, assault and armed robbery.

The ACLU is at it again, fighting for the "rights" of criminals while trampling the rights of law-abiding citizens in the process. No probable cause? He's been charged with rape. That's not reason enough to perform STD testing on the man?

Does the victim have any rights here? In my opinion, a woman victimized by rape has the right to know if she may have been infected with HIV or hepatitis. Is the ACLU not concerned about that right? She's suffering enough as it is without the added stress of waiting for months to know what her attacker may or may not have transmitted to her. Plus, it's well documented that treating HIV and hepatitis early can have an impact on the severity of the disease. Hospitals require any worker who suffers a high-risk needle stick to start antiviral medication at once, and they require this for a reason. The treatment works. And diseases like Chlamydia and Gonorrhea, if left untreated, can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease which can cause chronic pain, scarring and even infertility. But that's not important to the ACLU.

What's important to them is standing up for the rapists of the world to ensure their rights aren't violated by their victims.

I have to hand it to Dick Morris. Once again, he proved that he knows the Clintons all too well. Last week, Morris predicted that Hillary would insert race into the campaign. The reason: To get people talking about Obama's race and not the issues. We all know what husband BJ said. We all know what Hillary said about Dr King, LBJ and the civil rights movement. And now, what is everyone talking about?

Personally, I think both comments were harmless. This may be the first time you ever hear me defend the Clintons. Bill's "fairy tale" remark was referring to Obama's position on the war. Hillary was making the point that effective change requires effective political leadership. I don't think Hillary was taking a shot at Dr King or trying to diminish his role in history. But some members of the media picked it up and ran. Soon, Bill was bowing down at the altar of Al Sharpton and Hillary was back tracking as well. But her back tracking also included a few shots at Obama in the realm of "they are misrepresenting what I said".

Now, Obama never commented on Hillary's comments before that, so I think she was trying to bait him and it worked. Before too long, Obama was down in the mud with her. And now everyone is talking about race, which is exactly what the Clintons wanted.

Some may say that I'm giving Billary too much credit. I don't think so. Bill is a master politician and his wife isn't too far behind. Manipulation is their specialty and I think this was all deliberate. The Clintons wanted race on the forefront and now they have it. Obama's mistake was answering their petty charges and getting in the mud with her. Big mistake. Suddenly, the Democrat party seems to be divided along racial lines.

It's always been my contention that Democrats are the party of racism. In my mind, there is nothing more racist than government handouts and affirmative action, both of which are centerpoints of Democrat domestic policy. But I never thought I'd see two Dem candidates divide the party like this. It's not accidental, folks. This was manufactured by the Clintons. After all, you don't hear much discussion about gender, do you?

Obama may end up benefiting. I know many African-Americans who looked at him as uppity and "not black enough". That may change for him. But there's no doubt that Hillary will benefit. If you get people talking about race - something they weren't talking about before now - then eventually people will ask if a black man can beat the republican in the general election. That kind of doubt is exactly what Hillary wants.