Hostage situation at Hillary Clinton's campaign headquarters

Preliminary reports are that the suspect involved has been diagnosed with schizophrenia. Family members report that he has been off of his medications, therefore creating a very dangerous situation. With that being said, it is my sincerest hope and prayer that this situation is brought to a peaceful end without harm to any involved, including the suspect.

I have already heard the speculators and I am more than a little nauseated about it. Listening to the radio, I heard someone say that this man was influenced by Sean Hannity. I heard someone say that this was planned by Clinton to garner sympathy and political favor. I heard several people politicize it and I say ENOUGH!!!!

There are people in danger as I type this, can we give the politics a rest for a moment? As much as I dislike Clinton, I refuse to believe that any candidate would do something of such magnitude. And knowing what I know about schizophrenia, I'll say that it is highly unlikely that a radio personality could influence someone in this way. So give it a rest, and let's all pray together that this very dangerous situation comes to a peaceful conclusion.

My heart and prayers go out to the family and the staff at the Clinton campaign. May God see you through this safely.

The retired general who asked about gays and lesbians serving in the military at the CNN/YouTube Republican debate on Wednesday is a co-chairman of Hillary Rodham Clinton's National Military Veterans group.Retired Brig. Gen. Keith H. Kerr was named a co-chairman of the group this month, according to a campaign press release.....FULL STORY

I think this is great. CNN hosts a debate of GOP candidates and a campaign operative for the Democrat front runner is allowed to ask a question. And people STILL think that CNN is not biased? Anderson Cooper basically said 'oops, our bad'. CNN says they didn't know who he was. And if you believe that then I'd like to discuss some ocean front property in Omaha that's just right for you. Type General Keith Kerr on any search engine and you can quickly discover that he works for Clinton. I guess CNN doesn't put forth much effort in screening their questioners. Either that, or this was deliberate.

Regardless, I think Romney and Guiliani both looked rather petty. Huckabee is charming but has no substance. McCain will not gain any ground because of his immigration position. Ron Paul was just as maniacal as ever. And Fred Thompson still can't get traction.

I'm most impressed with Duncan Hunter. He has the best platform and should be considered by any candidate as a solid running mate.

Mr. William Jefferson, ol' BJ himself, is back in the news, and I'm loving it. BJ makes blogging fun. I'm sure most of you have already seen this, but I'm posting it anyway. Today in Iowa Clinton made the announcement that he opposed the Iraq War "from the beginning". It seems the Clintons still live in the political world of 20 years ago when a politician could change their position and distort their record overnight without anyone catching it. But now, the truth and the record is only a few mouse clicks away, so it's not quite as hard to hide from your record.

I won't discuss the fact that BJ's own White House policy, as of 1998, was regime change in Iraq. I won't mention BJ's Oval Office speeches about Hussein's WMD program, or the fact that he also took military action against Hussein. I won't mention that BJ's wife voted to give Bush the authority to go to war. I won't mention the numerous speeches and quotes where BJ states that Hussein poses a threat to peace and possesses WMDs. But I will mention this one, just for fun, from a June 2004 TIME magazine interview:

"So, you're sitting there as president, you're reeling in the aftermath of (Sept. 11), so, yeah, you want to go get (Usama) bin Laden and do Afghanistan and all that. But you also have to say, 'Well, my first responsibility now is to try everything possible to make sure that this terrorist network and other terrorist networks cannot reach chemical and biological weapons or small amounts of fissile material. I've got to do that.' That's why I supported the Iraq thing."

I guess it depends on what your definition of 'thing' is, and whether or not BJ knows a woman named Afghanistan. I assume he was talking about the war. But one of his spokesmen is now saying that his supposed 'support' back then was out of respect to President Bush. BJ felt it would have been inappropriate for a former president to oppose a sitting president's military action and that BJ wasn't actually against the war all along. And, no, apparently the person saying this wasn't laughing at the time. Of course, such a notion of being respectful is correct, but does anyone there actually think BJ has that kind of integrity. Okay, now we're laughing.

But I must admit that I enjoy the poetic justice here. Hillary obviously stayed with BJ because she thought he would help her win the White House. Now, he seems to be more of a hindrance. If BJ is good at anything, it's making a fool out of Hillary. This should make anyone a believer in Karma. For me, I'm just enjoying the circus act that is the Clintons.

Here is an interesting column from Dick Morris, who predicts that Hillary is about to take the gloves off and get muddy in the battle for Iowa. Few people know the Clinton's as well as Morris, so I think this makes for a good read.

If there are any Stephen King fans out there, brace yourself. This is what the horror icon recently said in a Time magazine interview: "So I said something to the Nightline guy about waterboarding, and if the Bush administration didn't think it was torture, they ought to do some personal investigation. Someone in the Bush family should actually be waterboarded so they could report on it to George. I said, I didn't think he would do it, but I suggested Jenna be waterboarded and then she could talk about whether or not she thought it was torture."

King's request went unchallenged by the reporter doing the interview, who promptly asked King about Lindsey Lohan and Britney Spears. No kidding. Read the interview here.

And I'm very interested to see where this one goes. The Mass. state legislature is pondering a law that would make spanking children illegal. The proposed law "would ban corporal punishment, including spanking, in all cases for children under 18 unless it is to save them from danger. Parents would face charges of abuse or neglect..." I would like to hear from people in Massachusetts, a state that is beginning to rival California when it comes to liberal insanity.

The law has been proposed by a Democrat (surprise!) and will be debated tomorrow morning. If this passes, it will without a doubt represent the greatest assault on parental rights since the courts gave children the right to abort a pregnancy without informing the parents. The Liberals in this country aren't going to stop until the traditional American family is crushed and every child in this country is being raised and indoctrinated by the government. No thanks. The government can't replace a parent, but I'm sure they're going to try.

I say: keep it up. The Democrats are intent on self-destruction. Mainstream America does not share the values of California and Massachusetts, and you can't win a national election without middle America. The mainstream will eventually get tired of Dems pushing themselves into our families, and will backfire on that party. So, please, keep it up. And while you're at it, how about passing legislation that would outlaw puppies and apple pie?

From Fox News:

WASHINGTON — Islamic terrorists with the assistance of Mexican drug cartels might have been planning an attack on the U.S. Army base Fort Huachuca in Arizona, forcing the nation's largest intelligence training center to change security measures back in May. FULL STORY

I'm going to have to suspend modesty for a moment, so bear with me. In August 2006, my book WHEN EVIL PROSPERS was published. This book is about a terrorist attack eclipsing that of 9/11 carried out by Islamic radicals with the help of the Mexican drug cartels and new leadership in Cuba. It was supported by a blood thirsty Iranian regime who has become more involved in the affairs of the western hemisphere, using their oil power as leverage. America's response is one of deferment to the UN because our newly elected President does not want to repeat the "mistakes" of a prior administration and wants to repair America's image amongst the international community. This leads to utter chaos and the complete collapse of America as we know it.

Numerous readers have commented to me that the book is frightening in the sense that "this could really happen", which is exactly the point. My position on immigration has always been one of national security. Our southern border is dotted with drug smugglers and coyotes who have become experts at evading capture and sneaking into the country, which is exactly what our enemies need. It's not too far-fetched to think there is potential for an alliance there.

I am also concerned about Cuba as Castro will soon be relinquishing power one way or another. What would happen if his death created a power vacuum in that country?

Iran is becoming the most dangerous nation on earth. And several of the leading presidential contenders are already speaking of defeatism, internationalism and appeasement as their way of "fighting" the war on terror.

I wrote my book with the sense that we could experience the things that happen within those pages, and the true hope that we never will. But as I read the headlines day-to-day, I can't help but wonder if we're ignoring too much. As Congress argues about Rush Limbaugh and what to name the post office in some obscure Indiana town, eight thousand people cross our southern border unaccounted for every day. All it took was 19 on 9/11.

I came upon this story at Muslims Against Sharia blog:

SULAIMANIYAH, Iraq — Judged solely by one of the big, bold words on its cover, the book that Fadel Mahmoud clutched in his hands would be considered blasphemous in many parts of the Muslim world.Most people in Kurdish northern Iraq believe that the Quran, the holy book of Islam, is the final word on religious life. Mahmoud and other teachers, however, are preaching a message of religious tolerance in hopes of preserving the region's relative stability.The book in his hands is an introduction to Judaism written by an Arab.Last month, the Kurdish Regional Government's Ministry of Religious Affairs began requiring its 19 campuses, from grade school to college, to broaden their curricula by including courses on comparative religion that better expose students to other religious thought, including Christianity and in some cases Judaism. CLICK HERE FOR FULL STORY>

THE Archbishop of Canterbury has said that the United States wields its power in a way that is worse than Britain during its imperial heyday.
Rowan Williams claimed that America’s attempt to intervene overseas by “clearing the decks” with a “quick burst of violent action” had led to “the worst of all worlds”.
In a wide-ranging interview with a British Muslim magazine, the Anglican leader linked criticism of the United States to one of his most pessimistic declarations about the state of western civilisation.
He said the crisis was caused not just by America’s actions but also by its misguided sense of its own mission. He poured scorn on the “chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity”. FULL STORY

When asked about the Muslim world, he says that their "political solutions were not the most impressive". Remember, he said these things as part of an interview for a Muslim magazine, so consider them typical for this media. I'll state the obvious first. His assessment of our foreign policy is simply wrong. The US does not seek to expand its borders or its treasury, and so there is nothing imperialistic about it.

But what I especially interesting is how the archbishop gives the Muslim community a pass. The Islamofascists have been at war with the West since the 70s. They have carried out many unprovoked attacks, deliberately targeting civillians, for the purpose of a "convert or kill" manifest. The archbishop calls this "not the most impressive".

He feels the US is the one truly to blame. My advice to him is to hope that the US does not fail in what he calls our "imperialist" mission. If so, he will be forced to convert to a religion that he doesn't believe in.

And here is the latest junk science column from Fox News:

The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) just issued the final installment of its year-long scare-the-pants-off-the public assessment of global warming.
It should come as no surprise that, according to the U.N., 257 years of western development and progress has placed the Earth in imminent danger of utter disaster and that the only way to save the planet is to drink the U.N. Kool-Aid and knuckle under to global government-directed energy rationing and economic planning. FULL STORY

Eco-warrior sterilized to protect the planet.

Tony Vernelli had an abortion and then was sterilized at the age of 27 for the purpose of protecting the planet. "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population."

This woman is a true enviro-nazi, and I posted about her just to show my readers how radical some of these people truly are. I suppose I could argue that this is just bogus, and her way of rationalizing an abortion. But I think she is sincere and I am not sure what's more frightening. I wonder: If we're not supposed to have children, then what's the point of protecting the environment? Are these nut cases hoping that human beings, homo sapiens, become extinct? I'm not sure how else to interpret this action.

Another question would be: Why aren't the enviro-nazis opposed to illegal immigration? Talk about population explosion. The massive influx of illegal immigrants certainly put a strain on America's natural resources, threatening nature and wildlife. Shouldn't they be standing next to the Minute Men? I guess I'm applying too much logic to a group of people consumed in insanity.

New study shows that DEMOCRATS are actually the party of the rich.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations based on Internal Revenue Service income data, Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the Heritage Foundation, found that the majority of the nation's wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

Well, that explains why the Dems so strongly oppose replacing our current tax system with a flat tax or sales tax. The current system allows wealthy, ie their constituents, a variety of loopholes to avoid paying their fair share. A flat tax or sales tax would close these loopholes. The Dems say they oppose the flat tax because they protect the middle class, but I've read Steve Forbes' book and their claims simply have no substance. In fact, I really was never sure why the Democrats hated his flat tax proposal so much. But now, it all makes sense.

President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

Brandishing a little red book listing his desired 69 revisions to Venezuela's charter, Chavez exhorted his backers to redouble their efforts toward a victorious "yes" vote in the Dec. 2 ballot.
"He who says he supports Chavez but votes 'no' is a traitor, a true traitor," the president told an arena packed with red-clad supporters. "He's against me, against the revolution and against the people."

Yes, it was only a matter of time before the Left's favorite dictator (or maybe second favorite since Castro is still alive) started labeling those against him as enemies of the state. I wonder what Danny Glover and Cindy Sheehan have to say about this?

Here is an interesting link to Robert Novak's latest column. If you haven't heard, here is the skinny. Novak recently broke a story that Hillary Clinton's campaign had scandalous information about Barak Obama, but was choosing not to release the information for the purposes of party harmony. I know, please keep the laughter to a minimum. Novak's not identifying his source. He only says that it is a "well-known" Democrat. And the specifics of the apparently scandalous info were not revealed to Novak.

Obama issued a rather harsh response directed at Clinton (so much for party harmony) and Hillary says that this is all dirty Republican tricks. That's right. The good Senator has fallen back on her favorite patsy...the vast right wing conspiracy.

So what do we do with this information? I'm certain that those who love Hillary will parrot her right-wing conspiracy rhetoric, and this opinion will be blurted before the facts actually emerge. Clinton supporters have never been known for their ability at independent thought. Obama will likely keep his defenses up. He is not one who will tolerate bullying from a political opponent. Edwards stand poised to potentially benefit if those two start slugging it out...God help us all.

As for me, I believe every word of Novak's report. Hillary is a politician I've studied quite a bit (it's a Sun Tsu thing). I've read several books by people who were close to her or held relatively high offices in the Clinton administration, and it's left me with a rather sour taste. To put it mildly, the Clintons are all about dirty politics. Hillary is known to hire private investigators to dig up dirt on her rivals, whether it's someone Bill has been intimate with or a political opponent. She has an army of dumpster divers constantly on stand by, and she is ruthless in utilizing them. They use intimidation and bully tactics against their opponents and there is no level too low for them to stoop. And they use others to do the dirty work. No, Bill and Hillary try to keep their sleeves clean. It's the PACs and other allies that do the mud slinging. So, I think Hillary probably DOES have something on Obama, but instead of breaking it herself, she leaks it through friendly channels knowing that it would eventually end up in Novak's lap. And to keep her sleeves clean, she blames the Republicans, and all her followers drink the kool-aid.

I also find it interesting that Obama recently admitted to using drugs as a teenager. Hmmm, was this an attempt to defuse something?

Make no mistake, this is only the beginning. I predict similar things in this campaign. Hillary has only just begun to fight and it will get heated if Obama wins Iowa and starts to threaten her ultimate ambition. And when the general election draws near, look out. She may have the debate skills of a chimp, and she may have a slippery grasp of the issues, but she is a genius at politics and she isn't afraid to sling the mud in her own special way.

And the assault on our Constitution continues. Former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales was invited to give a speech at the University of Florida. During his appearance, several students rushed the stage in "protest", while many others shouted from the audience. Several people had to be removed.

And this is how the far Left defines freedom of speech.

I've posted about the movie "Redacted" in the past, and tonight I have an update. For those who don't know, the movie is directed by Brian DePalma, an ardent anti-military nut, and it depicts US soldiers storming an Iraqi home and raping and murdering a 14 year old girl. DePalma describes his film as "the truth about what's happening in Iraq", even though DePalma has never visited the war-torn nation. This movie also follows a certain trend. He directed the film "Casualties of War" which is about a group of US GIs in Vietnam that (surprise) kidnap and rape a Vietnamese woman.

The difference in these films is that the Vietnam movie was made many years after the war was over. Although it did very little for America's image, at least it didn't put US soldiers in harm's way. "Redacted", however, has been released in the midst of an ongoing struggle. This means that DePalma has just created a propaganda film that will certainly be used by our enemies as a recruiting tool and motivation to attack US soldiers. In short, DePalma officially has the blood of US troops on his hands. The is the difference between free speech and responsible speech. Interesting enough, the loons will fiercely defend DePalma's right of free speech while in the same breath condone the suppression of Alberto Gonzales' same right.

It's also important to note that this film wouldn't have been possible without the contribution of Mark Cuban, the Texas billionaire and owner of the Dallas Mavericks. Cuban financed the film himself, and has not been apologetic about it. It is my sincere hope that this comes back to haunt Cuban. The film is sure to bomb, which won't matter to him, it's a drop in the bucket. But what I hope is that his beloved basketball franchise takes a hit because of this. If there are any Dallas Maverick fans out there, it's time to find a new team. Cheer for the Spurs or the Suns. Go to Houston for a game instead of Dallas. Do whatever you can to ensure your money doesn't end up in Cuban's pocket. Cuban has a right to slander our troops. And we have a right to deny him our business. That's the beauty of America.

And this is from a long-time Mavericks fan. But no more. Go Spurs!

As an aside, this horrendous film only grossed $26,000 in its opening weekend. That's thousand, with three zeros. That's also the beauty of America. Cuban is poised to take a bath on this film, now wouldn't it be nice for him to feel a similar pinch at the ticket office?

Here is another link on the China-Cuba oil issue.

And another story today details the latest meeting between Hugo Chavez and Iran's Ahmadinejad. These stories should be very concerning for ALL Americans. China's presence in the Gulf represents not only an environmental threat, but also takes us that much farther from energy independence. And an Iran-Venezuela partnership is not good on any level. Iran is inching closer to nuclear weapons, and when they do this while buddying up with a dictator in our hemisphere the threat is obvious. Read up on the Cuban Missile Crisis, folks. We may be living it again soon.

Speaker Pelosi moves to kill legislation designed to protect business from lawsuits when they require employees to speak English. Let's skip the outrage for a moment. It's hard for me to imagine a sound argument that supports Pelosi's position other than to say that she is simply out to secure the Latino vote. The Democrats just won't learn.

Hillary Clinton has yet to define her position on illegals getting driver's licenses. A recent Rasmussen poll shows that 77% of Americans oppose giving them licenses, and yet Clinton still can't decide where to stand on this issue. Just recently, in the swing state of Ohio, 55% of people favor a path to citizenship for illegals, BUT only 11% support giving them driver's licenses and 35% favor allowing them to attend public school, 70% oppose allowing them government entitlements like welfare and food stamps. These figures are astounding and they reflect that moderates are not siding with the Dems on these issues.

For some reason, our politicians seem to think that supporting illegal immigrants is the way to lock up the Latino vote, who are fast replacing African Americans as the most sought after minority voting block. The problem is that many Latinos are opposed to illegal immigration. And, as we see in these polls, so is most of America. This means that the immigration issue is a losing issue for the Democrats, and may become the most defining domestic issue of this election. I haven't seen any polls, but I'm willing to bet the vast majority of Americans would support the legislation that Pelosi is trying to kill.

So, keep it up, my friends on the Left. This issue is a losing issue for you. You have defined your position. You support amnesty (as do many shameless Republicans), you support entitlements for illegals, giving them driver's licenses, public education, health care and just about anything else you can give them while not making any effort to secure the border. Keep it up. If the GOP is wise, they will bring up this issue every chance they get.

And, in a somewhat related issue, a recent Florida poll shows Guiliani, Romney and Thompson all beating Hillary head-to-head to carry that state. And this is just a few days after Hillary's campaign predicted a landslide victory for her in the general election. It seems like Hillary is already measuring for drapes in the White House. Perhaps she should put that on hold for a while.

Michael Yon is an independent journalist and former Green Beret who was embedded in Iraq for nine months in 2005. He has returned to Iraq for 2007 to continue reporting on the war. Here is a portion of his latest dispatch exclusively for FOXNews.com. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,311933,00.html

A bishop came to St John’s Church in Baghdad on Thursday, where a crowd of locals welcomed him home. They were joined at the service by soldiers from the 2-12 infantry battalion, many of whom had fought hard to secure these neighborhood streets. Members of the hard-fighting Iraqi Army 3rd Division also were here for this special day.

The Most Rev. Shlemon Warduni, auxiliary bishop of the St. Peter the Apostle Catholic Diocese for Chaldeans and Assyrians in Iraq, officiated standing directly beneath the dome under the Chaldean cross. Speaking in Arabic and English, Warduni thanked those American soldiers sitting in the pews for their sacrifices. Again and again throughout the service he thanked the Americans.

Lt. Col. Stephen Michael told me that when Al Qaeda came to Dora, it began harassing Christians first, charging them "rent." It was the local Muslims, according to Michael, who first came to him for help to protect the Christians in his area. That’s right. Michael told me more than once that the Muslims reached out to him to protect the Christians from Al Qaeda.
Real Muslims here are quick to say that Al Qaeda members are not true Muslims. From charging "rent," Al Qaeda’s harassment escalated to killing Christians and also Muslims.
Untold thousands of Christians and Muslims fled Baghdad in the wake of the darkness of civil war. Most of the Christians are gone now, having fled to Syria, Jordan or Northern Iraq.
The ceremony was long and very Catholic, and since I was not raised Catholic, I would not have understood most of it even if it were all in English. But some of the American soldiers understood what was going on, and they said it was good.

Muslims mostly filled the front pews of St John’s, Muslims who want their Christian friends and neighbors to come home. The Christians who might see these photos likely will recognize their friends here. The Muslims in this neighborhood worry that other people will take the homes of their Christian neighbors and that the Christians never will come back.
And so they came to St John’s in force, and they showed their faces, and they said, "Come back to Iraq. Come home." They wanted the cameras to catch it. They wanted to spread the word: Come home.

Muslims keep telling me to get it on the news. "Tell the Christians to come home to their country Iraq."

To be clear, I am a strong advocate for childhood immunization. I see no reason not to be. Immunizations have been one of the major success stories in medicine over the past century, and have been responsible for nearly eradicating a number of diseases. Polio, chicken pox, smallpox, measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria, tetanus and pertussis are a few examples of diseases that were once common and once ravaged the American pediatric population, but have been nearly eliminated by immunizations. In addition, common bacteria like H. Flu and pneumococcus, which cause serious (even deadly) infections in children, have also been drastically diminished. Influenza is no longer the monster it used to be. And we are successfully reducing serious intestinal infections caused by Rotavirus, and decreasing the rates of Hepatitis. All of this has led to a healthier population. There is simply NO reason NOT to have your children immunized (the one exception being the new HPV vaccine, which I have problems with personally and is not considered a mandatory vaccine by the CDC).

I have run across some parents who have been reluctant to immunize their children, and some who outright refuse. To me, this amounts to neglect and endangerment. I've read the claims that immunizations are linked to autism, and they are flat out bogus. Let me be clear on this. There is NO, repeat NO, sound clinical evidence that childhood immunizations increase the risk of developing autism or any other mental or developmental disorder. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either grossly misinformed or outright dishonest. The studies have been done. These vaccines are safe. They save lives. The benefits far outweigh any risks that come with them. So I strongly disagree with any parent who refuses to immunize their children.

With that being said, today I ran across this article about Prince George County in the DC suburbs. They are having problems with about 2300 students who have failed to be immunized properly and whose parents refuse to do so, and since the children can't speak for themselves the government has decided to step in. As a result, these children are not allowed to attend public school until their records are up to date, and now the County prosecutor is threatening legal action against the parents, including a $50 a day fine and up to 10 days in jail for failing to comply. This leaves me in a dilemma. It is a rare occasion when I can't take a position on a particular issue, and so the reason for my post.

On one side, I strongly advocate immunization and, like I said, failing in this amount to neglect and endangerment. On the other, the conservative in me flinches at the notion of a government or judicial entity forcing parents, against their will, to inject their children with a foreign substance. Yes, it is safe. Yes, the benefit greatly outweighs the risk. But still, there is something inside me that wants to call this action far too authoritarian for America. Is it right for the gov't to force people to do this under the threat of imprisonment? Honestly, I don't know, and a strong case can be made for either side of the issue.

No matter how safe these vaccines are, there is always the risk (as with any foreign substance entering the body) of an allergic reaction. Granted, the risk is minimal, but sometimes these reactions can be serious. Would the gov't be liable if this were to occur? What if (again, very rare) a child actually dies from a severe allergic reaction?

I'm sure the Libertarians out there will be outraged and condemn the gov't for this action. They would say that the parents have the right to make the decision on behalf of their children, and accept the risk that comes along with it. The government should stay out of it. But that would ignore the public health issue here. These children are not protected from certain diseases and too many of these individuals in the community could pose the threat of triggering disease outbreaks. Recent outbreaks of mumps in the Midwest are an example. Is it right for parents to put other people at risk because they fail to properly immunize their children? Should they be held accountable?

Liberals will say, yes, the gov't should take action. After all, we take action on behalf of children who are victimized in the home in cases of abuse and neglect, why should this be different? I agree. But still, this is the government forcing parents to inject their children with a substance that they don't believe in. That's a difficult idea to accept, and it should be for any American.

If I sound like I'm waffling on this issue, that's because I am. I simply haven't decided where to stand on this issue. I was against governmental intervention in the Terry Schiavo case. I'm against legalized abortion. I'm against faith healing, especially when parents deny children needed medical care. Since I strongly favor protecting the innocent, I'm leaning towards siding with the government (gasp!) here with faith that it's in the best interest of the children and society, and hope that this doesn't become a template for forcing people to do other things against their will. I'm interested to see what my readers think.

Westboro "Church" ordered to pay grieving father $11 million

I can't praise this verdict enough. I understand the "church" has a right to free speech, but they broke the law, plain and simple. And, as a result, caused a great deal of mental anguish for a father who lost his son in Iraq. So, they have been ordered to pay 11 million.

The LA Times has already condemned the decision. Interesting, it seems the only "Christian" group the LA Times supports is the one who celebrates the deaths of US soldiers...go figure. And I'm sure this will be appealed and I'm sure at some point it will land in the lap of a liberal judge who will reverse the decision. But, for now, I take some pleasure knowing that justice has been done.

And just because these lunatics call themselves Christians doesn't make it true. They are a fringe group centered around pure hatred and evil. Their very existence disgusts me, as does their misrepresentation of my faith. Their judgement day is coming one way or another.

From CNN - yes, I do occasionally visit the Communist News Network

The college student who was told what question to ask at one of New York Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign events said "voters have the right to know what happened" and she wasn't the only one who was planted. In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Gallo-Chasanoff, whose story was first reported in the campus newspaper, said what happened was simple: She said a senior Clinton staffer asked if she'd like to ask the senator a question after an energy speech the Democratic presidential hopeful gave in Newton, Iowa, on November 6.

"I sort of thought about it, and I said 'Yeah, can I ask how her energy plan compares to the other candidates' energy plans?'" Gallo-Chasanoff said Monday night.

According to Gallo-Chasanoff, the staffer said, " 'I don't think that's a good idea, because I don't know how familiar she is with their plans.'

He then opened a binder to a page that, according to Gallo-Chasanoff, had about eight questions on it.

"The top one was planned specifically for a college student," she added. "It said 'college student' in brackets and then the question." FULL STORY

China eyes drilling in the Gulf of Mexico

Granted, this is an older article, but the threat is no less, and there has been an increase in talk on this issue recently. For the record, I am a legal resident and voter of the state of Florida, so I have some perspective here and feel my coming chastisement is appropriate. I have a problem with the citizens of Florida. Repeatedly, they have strongly resisted any attempt to drill for oil off of their coast. First, they cherish their beachside views and property values, and they don't want either disturbed by offshore drilling. Secondly, they are often environmentally inclined, and don't want to disturb their precious natural resources. Never mind the fact that Florida is one of the most populous states in the union, and therefore consume more than their fair share of natural resources. Never mind that there is A LOT of oil off the coast of Florida that would go a long way in off-setting their consumption. I guess many Floridians aren't interested in contributing as much as they consume.

And this is not a partisan issue. Former Gov Jeb Bush, brother of the President (who is supposedly a friend to big oil), has been very vocal about resisting offshore drilling. The message is clear, Florida's coastline is off limits to oil companies.

For perspective, some figures estimate oil reserves in these areas to be 4.6-9.3 billion barrels. Compare this to the 4-10 billion barrel estimate in ANWR in Alaska. This is part of the pathway to energy independence, but the people of Florida want their pretty beaches, and the environmentalists don't want to disturb their wilderness.

So, here comes China. The Chinese have brokered a deal with Fidel Castro to tap into these oil reserves and start slant drilling. Yes, just 45 miles off the coast of Florida, in the Florida Straits, the Chinese may soon begin harvesting oil that WE should be using to help achieve energy independence, to strengthen US oil companies, to employ US citizens.

The irony is that US oil companies could do this with minimal environmental impact. The Chinese aren't as concerned. They aren't held to any environmental standards, so their drilling will likely come at more of a detriment to the environment than if we allowed US companies to do the same. In short, because environmentalists took such a strong stand against off shore drilling, there is now a higher chance of environmental damage by allowing the Chinese the opportunity to come in and take our oil. What a shame.

Thank you...

World War I officially ended on June 28, 1919, with the signing of the Treaty of Versailles. The actual fighting between the Allies and Germany, however, had ended seven months earlier with the armistice, which went into effect on the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month in 1918. Armistice Day, as November 11 became known, officially became a holiday in the United States in 1926, and a national holiday 12 years later. On June 1, 1954, the name was changed to Veterans Day to honor all U.S. veterans.

In 1968, new legislation changed the national commemoration of Veterans Day to the fourth Monday in October. It soon became apparent, however, that November 11 was a date of historic significance to many Americans. Therefore, in 1978 Congress returned the observance to its traditional date.

Official, national ceremonies for Veterans Day center around the Tomb of the Unknowns.
To honor these men, symbolic of all Americans who gave their lives in all wars, an Army honor guard, the 3d U.S. Infantry (The Old Guard), keeps day and night vigil.

At 11 a.m. on November 11, a combined color guard representing all military services executes "Present Arms" at the tomb. The nation's tribute to its war dead is symbolized by the laying of a presidential wreath and the playing of "Taps." (from infoplease.com)

Mukasey confirmed as Attorney General

I was glad to hear this. I think Mukasey was a solid choice and well qualified for the position. As for the waterboarding issue, I think it's bogus. First, it does not constitute torture. It is an effective interrogation technique that has proven invaluable in our efforts to thwart terrorist attacks. Pelosi wants to use the Army manual to define torture. Well, the military actually subjects its troops engaged in special forces training (namely the Navy SEALS) to water boarding. The purpose is to teach them to endure difficult interrogation. Would the military torture its own troops? I don't think so.

I like to draw this hypothetical. Suppose for a moment that US intelligence discovers that a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb has been deployed somewhere in your city of residence. We don't know where it is exactly, and we don't know when it will be detonated. But we apprehend a terrorist suspect that we think was involved. Would you support water boarding that person in order to gain the information needed to avert disaster? It's a simple question, and it's a hypothetical that's certainly possible.

Ask me, and I say water board him.

Pelosi pushes for Iraq War vote

President Bush has asked Congress for another $200 billion to continue funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nancy Pelosi has put together a counter offer. She intends to push a funding measure that allots $50 billion for the troops, with the caveat that troop withdrawals begin immediately and be completely withdrawn within a year. In addition, her bill would set in law the rules in the Army Field Manual, which do not allow torture, in an attempt to ban waterboarding. The legislation would also incorporate language from bills by Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) and Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) that would grant additional training and rest time for troops between deployments. While discussing the bill and the war, Pelosi stated that there was "no light at the end of the tunnel".

Okay, what Pelosi said is simply dishonest. Just yesterday, the US Commander in Baghdad issued a statement that Al Qaeda has been routed from Baghdad, and that surge troops will be allowed to come home as planned. He also said, "there's just no question" that violence has declined since a spike in June. "Murder victims are down 80 percent from where they were at the peak," and attacks involving improvised bombs are down 70 percent, he said.

Fil attributed the decline to improvements in the Iraqi security forces, a cease-fire ordered by the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, disruption of financing for insurgents and, most significant, Iraqis' rejection of "the rule of the gun."

This is what Pelosi views as no light at the end of the tunnel. Could she be any more dishonest?

Let's get to the heart of the matter. Yes, Pelosi will argue that she is just trying to do what the voters elected her to do. She views 2006 as a mandate to end the war in Iraq. That's what she'll say, but don't believe it for a second.

The truth is, Pelosi is getting desperate. Her Congress is going down in flames. Approval numbers are dismal and now over 50% of Americans feel members of Congress don't deserve to be re-elected. She is in crisis mode, and she views Iraq as the potential final nail in her proverbial coffin. She knows what's going on in Iraq, which is exactly why she and her Dem buddies are taking drastic action to end the war now, before we achieve success. The Defeatocrats have invested much of their political future in US failure in Iraq, and they know that if we don't fail...then they're doomed. Oh, I know I'll catch some flak for this, but no one can put forth a reasonable counter-argument to my opinion. The US Commander in Baghdad is talking about plenty of light at the end of the tunnel, and Pelosi wants to pull the plug immediately. Is there another explanation for this?

Victory in Iraq means defeat of fascism and the rise of a Muslim democracy in a part of the world where it is desperately needed. But, more importantly to those in Washington, it means disaster for the Democrats. Don't feel sorry for Pelosi. She missed her chance. The new Congress took power and demanded a new direction in Iraq on behalf of their constituents. And Bush complied. He fired Rumsfeld and implemented a troop surge. The Dems could have accepted that as the new direction. They could have gone to their voters with the accomplishment of implementing change in Iraq as they were 'elected to do'. And, right now, they could be taking credit for the success that we're seeing over there. But, for some reason, they didn't do it. Call it poor foresight. Call it blind hatred for Bush. Call lack of faith in the military. Who knows? But, the fact is, the Dems blew it.

So as the headlines slowly turn more favorable, Pelosi knows she must end this war now. She must end this war before America wins it - which would be an absolute worst case scenario for her party.

Clinton campaign admits planting question...

SIOUX CITY, Iowa — Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Clinton’s campaign admitted Friday that it planted a global warming question in Newton, Iowa, Tuesday during a town hall meeting to discuss clean energy.
Clinton campaign spokesman Mo Elliethee admitted that the campaign had planted the question and said it would not happen again.
"On this occasion a member of our staff did discuss a possible question about Senator Clinton's energy plan at a forum,” Elliethee said.
“However, Senator Clinton did not know which questioners she was calling on during the event. This is not standard policy and will not be repeated again.” FULL STORY

So, she nails questions on her campaign trail, but completely fumbles them during the debates. Every day that goes by I wonder why so many Democrats support this woman. Obama is an incredible public speaker with great stage presence and the ability to inspire, but yet the Dems continue to swoon over Hillary and her double-talking, multi-accented, "I feel your pain" platform. Are the voters simply misinformed, or obscenely gullible?

John Coleman, founder of the Weather Channel, recently wrote this article. I felt obliged to include it in a When Evil Prospers post.

It is the greatest scam in history. I am amazed, appalled and highly offended by it. Global Warming; It is a SCAM. Some dastardly scientists with environmental and political motives manipulated long term scientific data to create an illusion of rapid global warming. Other scientists of the same environmental whacko type jumped into the circle to support and broaden the “research” to further enhance the totally slanted, bogus global warming claims. Their friends in government steered huge research grants their way to keep the movement going. Soon they claimed to be a consensus.

Environmental extremists, notable politicians among them, then teamed up with movie, media and other liberal, environmentalist journalists to create this wild “scientific” scenario of the civilization threatening environmental consequences from Global Warming unless we adhere to their radical agenda. Now their ridiculous manipulated science has been accepted as fact and become a cornerstone issue for CNN, CBS, NBC, the Democratic Political Party, the Governor of California, school teachers and, in many cases, well informed but very gullible environmentally conscientious citizens. Only one reporter at ABC has been allowed to counter the Global Warming frenzy with one 15 minute documentary segment.

I do not oppose environmentalism. I do not oppose the political positions of either party. However, Global Warming, i.e. Climate Change, is not about environmentalism or politics. It is not a religion. It is not something you “believe in.” It is science; the science of meteorology. This is my field of life-long expertise. And I am telling you Global Warming is a non-event, a manufactured crisis and a total scam. I say this knowing you probably won’t believe a me, a mere TV weatherman, challenging a Nobel Prize, Academy Award and Emmy Award winning former Vice President of United States. So be it.

I have read dozens of scientific papers. I have talked with numerous scientists. I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct. There is no run away climate change. The impact of humans on climate is not catastrophic. Our planet is not in peril. I am incensed by the incredible media glamour, the politically correct silliness and rude dismissal of counter arguments by the high priest of Global Warming.

In time, a decade or two, the outrageous scam will be obvious. As the temperature rises, polar ice cap melting, coastal flooding and super storm pattern all fail to occur as predicted everyone will come to realize we have been duped. The sky is not falling. And, natural cycles and drifts in climate are as much if not more responsible for any climate changes underway. I strongly believe that the next twenty years are equally as likely to see a cooling trend as they are to see a warming trend.

Well said, Mr. Coleman.

To piggyback on yesterday's post, I would like to apply my prior comments to the current presidential race. Many people feel that health care is THE main domestic issue in this campaign, and the candidates have come up with their plans to solve the problem. For the record, none of them are proposing my plan (although they do have bits and pieces of the Washburn plan).

First, the Democrat candidates' positions can be summed up in two words: government takeover. They point to systems in Canada and UK as models for what they want to do. They want government funded care, to one extent or another. Obama wants it primarily for children and the poor. Hillary and Edwards want the "third option", which is basically a government funded plan that citizens can opt into. Most skeptics think that more people than anticipated will opt into their plans, which would amount to full-blown socialized medicine. The cost for the plans are astronomical and grossly understated by the candidates. Obama thinks he can simply roll back Bush's tax cuts to pay for it, while Hillary and Edwards claim they can pull it off by increasing the capitol gains tax. They're all wrong. I've referred to Australia in the past. I have a family member from there and she has complained about their health care system, mainly because it is inefficient and slow. AND, they pay 50% income tax. That's what we would face under a government takeover of our health care.

Make no mistake, our current system is not flawless and needs some revision, but anyone who thinks the government is the answer is sadly misguided and will learn an unfortunate lesson if this becomes reality. Why does the Left trust the government so much in matters of such importance? The Constitution requires the gov't to provide funding for one thing: a standing army. There is no mention of ANY social program in that document. Yet, the Left doesn't trust the gov't in matters of defense nearly as much as they trust it in domestic issues. I don't get it.

I've worked in a private setting, and I've worked in a socialized setting, and I can tell you...there is no comparison. The socialized setting is WAY TOO COSTLY. If we become a nation of socialized medicine, if we open that Pandora's Box, we will lose quality of care along with access to care. Mark my words. Hillary or Edwards or Obama or any Dem who supports this stuff will wreck our health care system. Hopefully, we won't have to live it to learn that lesson.

Now, the GOP. Thompson has been vague. I'm not sure what his plan is. McCain dances on the issue as well, but he seems to be Bush-like in supporting some government growth while also creating a favorable environment to improve access to private care (namely, small business pooling). Romney boasts about his triumphs in Mass. in getting universal coverage for citizens, and feels he can do the same nationally through market reforms (also much of what I proposed). But Guiliani has the most intriguing and simple idea: a tax credit of up to $15000 for EVERYONE for the sole purpose of purchasing health insurance.

Now, I've had my disagreements with Guiliani, but the simplicity of his idea is what makes it great. I support the notion that the government should help people get insurance, but I am absolutely opposed to the notion of the government PROVIDING them that insurance. That promotes dependence on the government which, as we've seen in Katrina, is a recipe for disaster. Plus, it violates our principles of a free society. How can someone be free when they depend on the government for their lifestyle?

And it's becoming more apparent that the middle and lower middle class are the ones who are most affected by the lack of health insurance. The poor are already covered, the upper classes pay for their own. So, how does the government help these people without becoming a provider for them? Guiliani's idea is sound.

Of course, the naysayers will immediately talk about cost. How can the government afford such a massive tax credit? These same people don't discuss this issue when Hillary-care is debated, but that's another post. The answer is also simple: You find a way. The federal budget is already bloated beyond comprehension, and don't even get me started on earmarks and pork. So don't let your politicians for one second tell you that the gov't can't afford Guiliani's plan. They can afford it. The truth is, politicians hate cutting spending about as much as they hate telling people they're raising taxes. But, they have no choice. If Guiliani has his way, this would come very close to solving our problems, provided the gov't doesn't raise taxes elsewhere to do it.

It's not perfect, but it's the best option being offered by any of the candidates. Again, I have my differences with him, but Guiliani has a good idea here. Give the people a tax credit so they can buy their own coverage. It's a tax cut, a decrease in gov't spending, and an improvement in health coverage all rolled into one.

I haven't made my decision on my vote yet, but I have decided the Rudy by far has the best plan for health care.

My answer...once again

This was originally posted on Dec 28, 2006, but is reposted as my answer to our health care problems. It was originally a 2 part post, so I apologize for the lengthiness.

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.

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.

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.

A Massachusetts elementary school teacher recently read a story to her second grade class entitled "King and King". You guessed it, this story is about a young prince who resists his mother's pressure to find a princess and ends up falling in love with another prince. Again, this is a class of second grade students.

At a recent Dem debate, the candidates supported reading this kind of material to second graders, except for Hillary who dodged the question as she usually does any potentially hot topic.

I'm of the opinion that if someone wants to have sex with another person, then fine. As long as that person is a consenting unwed adult, go for it. I think the vast majority of Americans feel the same. What's behind closed doors in this regard is behind closed doors...but it should stay there and it certainly should not infiltrate our elementary classrooms. The problem with the gay and lesbian lobby is that they want to throw their sexual lifestyle in the faces of mainstream America, and we don't appreciate it. Whether it's the young, single coworker or your 70 year old grandparent - regardless of sexual orientation - we don't want to hear about your sex life. Keep it to yourself, thank you.

Yet the gay lobby chooses to invade our privacy and indoctrinate our children into accepting their lifestyle, and it's turned many against their cause. If you're gay, I don't care, but leave my kids out of it and try not to remind me that you're gay at every opportunity. I don't remind people daily that I'm heterosexual. I don't throw my religious beliefs into your face constantly, and I'd like the same respect paid in kind.

What they don't seem to get is that stuff like this isn't about gay or straight, it's about a parent's right to raise their children free from governmental indoctrination. Some parents don't want their second grader to hear stories like this and that should be respected, but it's clearly not. It's odd how the gay lobby asks for Americans to respect their privacy, but then chooses to invade ours by teaching inappropriate material to our children. Sexual discussions need to occur in the home, not the classroom. The public school system is supposed to teach math, science, history and English. Leave the cultural and social teaching to the parents. To do otherwise risks unwelcome imposition into the family environment, which is exactly what happened with these second graders. And yet, the parents seem powerless to stop things like this because its a government funded program free from private sector competition. If our education system was strictly private, things like this wouldn't happen in the mainstream because schools who taught this mess to second graders would have to close their doors in bankruptcy.

Yet, every time this issue comes up someone always wants to make it a gay/straight issue. Save it. Unless you can make an argument that parents don't have the right to reserve these kinds of teachings for the home, then you're arguing the wrong point. Sexual discussions OF ANY KIND are not appropriate for second graders unless the parents feel their children are mature enough to understand what they hear.

Political indoctrination is becoming a big problems in our classrooms and I think it needs to stop. The public school system has clearly crossed a line and infringed upon the private lives of American citizens, and that's a serious matter. Why anyone would be supportive of such action is beyond me, because one day they may be teaching your children something you don't agree with. SO our school system needs to return to the fundamentals of education and leave the politics where it belongs, in the sewers of Washington, beyond the doors of the classroom. If we can't do this, then our public school system is violating America's citizens and it may be time to privatize the whole thing.

And for anyone who still disagrees, here's a question. Suppose your local school began teaching your children about guns. The message is well-intentioned. They want to teach safety and teach the kids that guns are used for many good things, that guns aren't bad and shouldn't be feared. They may even have some guns in the classroom so your kids can handle them and become familiar with them. For many Americans, this is a part of their lifestyle, so why not teach all children about it. Suppose your child came home and told you all about what they did at school in learning all about guns. How would you feel about it?