WebCYLA – The “Click Your Life Away” Web Blog

I keep hearing Ron Paul supporters say that the media is conspiring against him because they aren’t covering his events in which he draws huge crowds at his speeches. Seriously? That is the defining criteria? I guess they must be conspiring against Sarah Palin too. Here she is drawing over 10,000 people to one of her speeches.

I suspect it is more likely because the media does not care to spend large amounts of money covering a candidate who they truly do not believe is going to win. I bet they would prefer to concentrate their efforts covering a person who has a good chance of being the next president of the United States. Like any other business concern, they don’t want to throw their money down a drain for no good reason.

I think they understand, as I do, that the number of people who go to a rally to hear someone speak doesn’t have anything to do with the number of people who will vote for that candidate once they get into the privacy of the polling booth.

The main reason for that is that the people who are most likely to go to the polls and vote are the people who are least likely to go stand out in the hot sun at some political rally; the elderly, the gainfully employed, and other sober and thoughtful people who have better things to do with their time than to stand around all day waiting for someone to come out and speak for a few minutes.

Statistics show that the people who are least likely to show up and vote on election day are the young, the unemployed, the uneducated, those who struggle with substance abuse and those with mental/emotional disorder issues. These are the very people, however, who will show up in large numbers at such events as rock concerts, anti-war protests, Occupy Wall Street rallies, and Ron Paul campaign events.

In other words, most of the people in those large crowd photos won’t show up to vote. The election will be decided by the “silent majority” who stay at work or stay at home when the rallies come to town, but who show up at the polling booths when election day rolls around.

Any questions?

Steve General Discussion

Ron Paul decided to skip Florida – a huge primary state with 50 delegates to send to the Republican convention – and campaigned instead in the caucus states of Maine, Colorado and Nevada.

By focusing on the caucus states over the primary states, Ron Paul is following the same strategy that worked so well for Barack Obama in the 2008 campaign season. You see, Obama knew that he didn’t stand a chance against fellow Democrat Hillary Clinton in straight up head-to-head elections.

The New Black Panthers notwithstanding, it’s usually difficult to intimidate, bully, or “wow” individual voters who are casting secret ballots an an election polling place. That is why candidates who can’t win a straight-up election focus instead on the caucus states where the voters don’t get to determine, in the privacy of a polling booth, who they want to represent their party as the presidential nominee.

In Nevada in 2008, for example, then-Senator Obama employed the powerful Service Employees International Union (SEIU) to intimidate the caucus-goers and ensure his victory there. That wouldn’t have been possible in a primary state with secret ballots.

It is ironic that the Democrat, Obama, had to resort to an un-democratic process to win the Democratic party’s nomination. It worked, however. Obama won the nomination even though the polls showed that the majority of Democrats favored Clinton.

And that is what Ron Paul is trying to do now. He knows that the majority of Republican voters do not support him but he is hoping to get around that inconvenient little factoid by avoiding the primary elections and working the caucuses instead.

I don’t think it will work for him the way it worked for Obama, but we’ll see.

Steve General Discussion

It’s been a while but I think it’s time to post something here again. So here goes…

In 1972 there was a candidate running for president who believed that America had overstepped her bounds and that we needed to pull our troops from around the world and bring them back home and stop trying to be the world’s policeman.

His name was George McGovern and he believed that if we would just talk to our counterparts in other countries and treat them like equals then everyone would just get along and there would be no more wars.

There were many similarities between then and now. McGovern was trying to defeat an incumbent president who was finally bringing the troops home after a long and largely unpopular war. There were massive protests and occupation movements around the nation, similar to the “occupy wall street” movements of today. McGovern, like Ron Paul, advocated the legalization of marijuana and was wildly popular with the young, college-aged crowd, as well as with others who were disappointed and disillusioned with the “establishment candidates”.

McGovern’s supporters were vocal and passionate, and couldn’t understand why anyone wouldn’t want to vote for him in the primaries. They loudly proclaimed his virtues and denounced his detractors, and convinced enough people to vote for him in the primaries and caucuses that he ended up winning the Democrat party’s nomination. His supporters were proud of themselves for a job well done.

But in the general election they got a rude awakening. McGovern’s opponent, Richard Nixon, won 49 of the 50 states. McGovern only took one state – Massachusetts. And he won that one only because his running mate, Sargent Shriver, was a close associate (and brother-in-law) of the Kennedys. America, by an overwhelming landslide, rejected McGovern’s radical and isolationist views.

It was truly ironic that the Democrats, who almost universally hated Nixon, were the ones who ensured Nixon’s victory by nominating a candidate that had no hope of defeating him.

Ron Paul is this generation’s McGovern. His supporters are loud and passionate and that’s very impressive, but a primary vote for Paul in January or March is equivalent to a general election vote for Obama in November and I, for one, do not want Obama to be reelected.

If Ron Paul were to win the Republican nomination I would support him over Obama even though I believe it would be a losing cause, but I hope it doesn’t come to that. I sincerely hope the nomination will be won by someone who can actually defeat Obama in November. And Ron Paul isn’t that person!

Steve General Discussion

If you’re reading this, you’ve probably noticed that my blog seems to be loading really slow for some reason. I’ll figure out how to fix it eventually, but it’s driving me nuts right now.

I believe it started when I installed a couple of plugins so I could create a couple of pages that made use of javascript. Then I created the pages and actually got the scripts to work. I was so proud of myself. But of course pride goeth before the fall. It didn’t take long at all to realize that my blog was suddenly taking an excruciatingly long time to load.

Naturally I assumed that something I installed, or did, must be what is causing it. So I deleted the pages containing the scripts, but it still loads slow. Then I deactivated and uninstalled the plugins, one by one, and it still loads slow. I’ve gone through every line of code on every page I’ve messed with and it is all back to the way it was before, but it still loads slow.
I’ll just take this as a lesson that I always used to tell my troops: If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. I should have left well enough alone.

Steve General Discussion

California congresswoman and former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told reporter Chad Pergram today, in reference to the vote on raising the debt ceiling, that “What we’re trying to do is save the world from the Republican budget. We’re trying to save life on this planet as we know it today.”

Is that right? Ummmm, Ms. Pelosi, perhaps you’ve been out of the country or, I don’t know, asleep for the last couple of years?

You may not have noticed but “life on this planet as we know it today” isn’t so great. Unemployment is rampant. Businesses are so unsure of the future that they’re either circling the wagons or getting the hell out of Dodge. That, of course, causes even more unemployment. The thing that concerns the businesses and prevents them from expanding and hiring is the looming specter of serious tax increases. But the Democrats in Washington, including Nancy Pelosi, do not want to pass a bill that would increase the debt ceiling unless it contains tax increases.

Apparently Ms. Pelosi likes the status quo of jobs disappearing like money through Barack Obama’s administration, and that’s why she says she wants to save “life on this planet as we know it today.”

Republicans, on the other hand, are not satisfied with the status quo and want to make changes that would encourage investments and expanding of businesses here in the United States which would, in spite of Nancy Pelosi’s objections, provide more jobs for American workers.

If Ms. Pelosi would give up her seat in Congress and try to get a real job in the real world, she might begin to understand just exactly what I’m talking about.

I think she should do that. And come election day we the people should help her, and every politician that thinks like her, do just that. We’d all be better off.

Steve General Discussion

I get a kick out of how some people think congress should include “revenue increases” as part of any debt-ceiling legislation, when what they really mean is “tax increases” – especially since the two terms are usually mutually exclusive.

For one thing, if the goal is to stick it to the insanely wealthy, it doesn’t work. They’ll either just raise their prices or deal with the costs by streamlining, downsizing or outsourcing (all code words for laying off workers). Either way, the filthy rich won’t even notice the impact of higher taxes but the middle and lower income people will be financially squeezed even harder than we already are. That means a so-called “tax hike on the rich” really does nothing but hammer normal people.

And for another, when you raise taxes on the people who provide jobs you end up with fewer people working and paying money into the government, and more people taking money away from the government in terms of unemployment and welfare. As a result, raising taxes lowers revenue, while lowering taxes increases revenue.

It has worked out that way every! single! time! in our history, so why do some people think things would somehow magically be different this time?

In 1944 a (then) famous author named Rita Mae Brown wrote that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. I bet we all know people to whom this applies.

I know I do!

Steve General Discussion

Congress raised the debt ceiling last year to 14.294 TRILLION DOLLARS. Then Congress and the Obama administration blew through that money like a kid in a Gamestop store. Now they’re back, with hat in hand, begging for another debt ceiling increase so they can BORROW EVEN MORE money.

I, for one, would want to know that they’ll spend it responsibly before I’d go along with their demands. To that end, some in Congress have proposed the Cut, Cap and Balance legislation. President Obama didn’t like that but he refused to propose any alternative legislation.

They all need to grow up, get it together and show us proof that they’ll spend the money wisely so they won’t need to keep borrowing more more more, or else they need to STOP BORROWING IN THE FIRST PLACE!

That’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

Steve General Discussion

Dear Blog-O-Mine,

I am sorry that I have been neglecting you. I will post updates more frequently from now on.

Sincerely,

Your Humble Author

Steve General Discussion

Today I saw where someone wrote “I love the 80’s” on her Facebook profile. I got to thinking, and I remember the 80’s as being a very peaceful and quiet decade, possibly because I just don’t recall much of it at all. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my memory, I just think there wasn’t much to recall.

Anyway, I sat down and tried to jot down a few things I remember from the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s and here it is, an hour later, and this is what I have:

1960’s MEMORIES:
John F. Kennedy, Motown, Berlin Wall, Klan Bombings, Bobby Kennedy, Beatles, Northern Ireland, Martin Luther King Jr, Selma, Montgomery, Birmingham, Bay Of Pigs, Gulf of Tonkin, My Lai, Marty Robbins, Jane Fonda, Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, Cuban Missiles, Chinese Nukes, Grateful Dead, LBJ, George Wallace, Green Bay Packers, Rolling Thunder, Woodstock, Helter Skelter, Women’s Lib, Cuyahoga River, Jimi Hendrix, Hurricane Camille, Nehru Jackets, Birth Control Pills, Neil Armstrong, Timothy Leary, Haight-Ashbury, just to name a few.

1970’s MEMORIES:
Paris Peace Accords, Arab Oil Embargo, Stagflation, Yom Kippur War, Kent State, Soviets in Afghanistan, Red Brigade In Italy, Baader Meinhof in Germany, Famine in Bangladesh, Rocky Horror Picture Show, Egyptian–Israeli Peace Treaty, Led Zeppelin, Watergate, Rise Of Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin, Bell Bottoms, Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, Khmer Rouge, Iranian Revolution, Misery Index, Elton John, Josip Tito, Munich Massacre, Nixon Resigns, Gas Rationing, Franco Dies, Star Wars, Margaret Thatcher Elected, Hand-Held Calculators, Canary Islands Plane Crash, Apollo 13, VCR’s, Roe v. Wade, Atari, Animal House, Jonestown, Etc.

1980’s MEMORIES:
Ummmmmmmm, uh, Well there’s…, okay how about…, uh, but then again…,
Alright, I got nothing.

Steve General Discussion

The FCC ruled, in a 3-2 vote down party lines (3 Democrats to 2 Republicans), that phone and cable companies are prohibited from favoring or discriminating against internet content and services and must provide the same bandwidth and access to all types of internet content.

I watched Sheppard Smith and two supposed “experts” debate the merits of the ruling on Fox News today and I realized that they had no clue as to what the ruling is really all about. Then I realized that most Americans probably don’t understand it either.

The example used in the Fox News program was that a mom and pop cookie shop should not be denied the chance to advertise their business on the internet because their competition, Mrs. Fields (a giant cookie cooporation) is hogging all the bandwidth. While that sounds good and makes you go “Aww”, it has nothing to do with reality.

In reality this new ruling protects the rights of Mrs Fields to hog all the bandwidth, and dictates that there’s nothing their internet service provider or anyone else can do about it. Previously the ISP could do something to limit Mrs. Fields bandwidth usage if they got outrageously out of hand, but now they can’t. (That doesn’t mean Mrs. Fields does anything wrong – this was just the example Sheppard Smith used to illustrate his point and he probably picked the Mrs. Fields name out of the air at random.)

But it has been my experience that most people who are in favor of the new Net Neutrality ruling, like Sheppard Smith, do not even know what Usenet is, nor Bit-Torrent, nor why they hog so much of the bandwidth, nor why ISP’s wish to slow down those connections.

You see, before today’s ruling, power-downloaders (those using Usenet or file-sharing methods such as Bit-Torrent to – often illegally – download music, movies, software, and other content) would use many times as much bandwidth as a normal internet user, even though they pay the same amount. This left less bandwidth for everyone else and, as a result, the average user’s internet would be slower. What some ISP’s would do would be to put “speed limits” on certain types of internet usage, such as Usenet, while not limiting normal internet traffic, such as web surfing, in order to prevent a few greedy bandwidth hogs from screwing things up for everyone.

People who download from and upload to Usenet typically set a computer to start downloading or uploading and then leave it on, continuously transferring data, 24 hours a day. (I know – I was once one of them.) These folks might transfer hundreds of gigabytes of data each and every day, while the average internet user might not use that much bandwidth in months. If your neighbor is one of those high-volume Usenet users, you probably have experienced excruciatingly slow internet speeds as a result, unless your ISP took action to slow your neighbor down. But under the new rules, the ISP’s hands are tied and you just have to suffer.

I believe that the FCC created a heavy-handed regulation on an industry that they really don’t understand and the end result will not be good. One thing you can always count on in this world is that, given the chance, the government will come in and make a bad situation worse.

Steve General Discussion

I may not be Hillary Clinton’s biggest fan (okay, so that’s an understatement) but – like it or not – she is my country’s Secretary of State. As an American I can criticize her job performance all I want because my tax dollars pay her salary, but what gives Julian Assange the right to call for her resignation?

Julian Assange is the Australian activist who is the founder, spokesperson and editor-in-chief of the website WikiLeaks which has dumped hundreds of thousands of sensitive and – in some cases – highly classified documents onto the internet for all to see. His current location is unknown (at least to the general public). He is currently wanted in Sweden on suspicion of rape and sexual harassment, and INTERPOL has issued an arrest warrant for him.

The U.S. Justice Department and the Pentagon are both conducting criminal investigations centering on his group’s leaking of classified documents. Among other things they are examining possible charges under the Espionage Act of 1917.

There are some who hail Assange as a hero for bringing to light the secret, inner workings of government. They say the information he disseminated doesn’t endanger anyone’s life nor does it harm national security, but rather merely embarrasses some government officials.

Then there are others (including myself) who feel he has done grave damage to our national security by making it harder – if not impossible in some cases – for our diplomats and other government officials to work with foreign governments due to fears of having their secrets exposed. The documents were classified for a reason and the long term damage caused by their leaking should not be underestimated. There are some who feel Assange deserves the death penalty for disclosing national secrets.

At the very minimum I feel he should be prosecuted for grand-scale theft and conspiracy. These documents were not his property and he had no right to even possess them, let alone share them with others. If he had been sharing copyrighted rap-music on his website he would have been in court so fast it would make his head spin. So why should he get a pass on this?

And, as I stated before, what gives him the right to badmouth the United States Secretary of State? Until he starts paying U.S. income taxes then he ought to keep such opinions to himself!

Steve General Discussion

I am constantly reminded that it is a good thing to be mindful of what you say because you never know when it could come back to haunt you.

A prime example is all the things President Barack Obama has had to say to and about Republicans, especially Congressman John Boehner (R-OH).

Back on Jan 23, 2009, shortly after being inaugurated, Obama had a meeting with some House and Senate Republicans, including (at the time) House Minority Leader John Boehner. The meeting was billed as a working discussion over the size and shape of Obama’s economic stimulus plan.

Although one of the goals was supposedly to “promote bipartisanship”, when Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ) expressed concern over the balance between the stimulus plan’s spending and tax cuts and noting the traditional Republican notion that a tax credit for people who do not earn enough to pay income taxes is not a tax cut but a government welfare check, Obama swiftly put him in his place by noting “I won.” Barack Obama made it clear that, now that he had won the election, things were going to be done his way and Republicans had no choice but to shut up and follow suit. That was his idea of bipartisanship.

A few months later, During the White House Correspondents Association Dinner on May 9, 2009 President Obama teased that Congressman Boehner’s tan complexion made him look like “a person of color” and a color “not found in the natural world.”

Then, on Sept 6, 2010, while discussing tax loopholes during a speech in Milwaukee, WI, Obama derisively referred to Congressman Boehner as “the man who thinks he’s going to be Speaker”.

But on Nov 2, 2010, American voters turned over more than 60 Democratic House seats to the Republicans, giving them the majority in Congress and assuring that John Boehner will, in fact, be the next Speaker of the House.

These are just a few of the verbal slings and arrows that the president has thrown Boehner’s way and I predect that Obama’s obnoxious comments, especially his “I Won” snub, are going to come back to haunt him in a big way.

Steve General Discussion

On the ballot in California next month will be Proposition 19, officially called the “Regulate, Control and Tax Cannabis Act.” Recent polls in California show that Prop 19 is likely to pass.

According to The Wall Street Journal Proposition 19 “would block state police officers from seizing marijuana that complies with state law. That would be a ’significant impediment’ for federal agents,” according to Attorney General Eric Holder, because “the federal government typically works with local law enforcement when carrying out marijuana and other drug busts.”

Now hold on just a dadgum minute! Isn’t that the same Attorney General Eric Holder that is suing the state of Arizona over a law because Arizona cops would be doing the job of the feds? In Arizona, he says that it is unconstitutional to have state law enforcement officials helping to enforce federal laws. But in California, he complains that state law enforcement won’t be helping to enforce federal laws.

The Obama administration seriously needs to sit down and figure out where it stands on issues before jumping into them willy-nilly. If they’re against having local and state cops helping to enforce federal laws, then that’s their privilege. And if they’re in favor of it, that’s their prerogative as well. But so far, like pretty much everything else to come out of the Obama administration so far, there seems to be no method to their madness.

This administration reminds me of little children playing house… none of them know what they’re doing but they sure do make a big mess!

Steve General Discussion

If you are a journalist, and wish to remain one, you simply don’t say anything that might be construed as negative about President Obama or the Democrats. Otherwise you could end up like Doug McKelway.

McKelway, a veteran anchorman for WJLA-TV in Washington DC, was fired after having filed a report where he stated that “…the one man who has more campaign contributions from BP than anybody else in history is now sitting in the Oval Office, President Barack Obama, who accepted $77,051 in campaign contributions from BP.”

McKelway also stated that the Senate was unlikely to pass cap-and-trade legislation this year because “…the Democrats are looking at the potential for huge losses in Congress come the midterm elections. And the last thing they want to do is propose a huge escalation in your electric bill, your utility bill, before then.”

After the segment aired McKelway was called onto the carpet by his boss, ABC7’s news director and general manager, Bill Lord, and read the riot act about how he should never say anything negative about the democrats or the president. McKelway essentially told him to stick it – he was just stating facts and the people deserve to know the truth. Lord responded by placing McKelway on indefinite suspension. Then, just this week, McKelway received a letter from the station claiming that he was guilty of misconduct and insubordination and that the station was terminating his contract immediately.

Now, everything that McKelway said was true but that doesn’t matter to the liberal, Obama-worshipping mainstream media. The truth is only acceptable when it is something negative about Republicans or something positive about Democrats. And woe unto anyone who dares to take the president’s name in vain!

McKelway says that he is currently working on a book about his family’s history in journalism in Washington. It sounds very boring but I’ll buy the book anyway when it comes out because I want to support this man. I believe he deserves major kudos for having the guts to stand up there and tell the truth, even when the truth will get him fired.

Steve General Discussion

U.S. District Court Judge Susan Bolton struck down most of Arizona’s SB 1070, the controversial law regarding illegal immigrants in Arizona just hours before the law was to take effect. In her 36-page decision Judge Bolton says, among other things, the laws provisions were “preempted” by the federal government’s immigration authority. She wrote “it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws.”

So, apparently, Judge Bolton agrees with the Obama administration’s position that Arizona cannot have immigration laws of its own because the federal government already has immigration laws, and the state has no business meddling in federal matters.

Hmmmm… that brings up all kinds of complications. I can envision a flood of appeals of criminal convictions based on the precedent Judge Bolton has just set. Here’s just one example.

Federal law makes it illegal to carry a gun in a school zone. Specifically, Public Law 104.208, Sec 101(b), Section 657 – Gun-Free School Zone, makes it a federal crime to knowingly have a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. It also makes it a federal crime to discharge a firearm in a school zone.

Using Judge Bolton’s (and the Obama administration’s) logic, if local law enforcement officials (city cops, school district police, sheriff’s deputies, etc.) notice a man standing in the doorway of an elementary school and calmly putting bullets into the magazine of a 9mm handgun, they cannot intervene because, if they did, they would be preempting the federal government’s authority since there are federal laws governing that.

So the cops have to look the other way and ignore the federal crime they see taking place. Then, when the gunman is finished loading his gun and starts shooting little kids, the local cops have to just walk away and let him because Barack Obama and Judge Bolton believe that to do anything else would be a preemption of federal authority.

And now, with Judge Bolton’s ruling, anybody who was ever convicted of having a gun in school can, if they were busted by anyone besides the FBI, appeal their conviction on the grounds that the local law enforcement officials had no right to arrest them in the first place because they were preempting federal authority.

That is Judge Bolton’s logic. That is Eric Holder’s logic. That is Barack Obama’s logic. At least that’s what they claim but its just a bunch of baloney anyway. The Obama administration isn’t basing their position on logic of any kind other than “what will help me lock up the hispanic vote.”

Now we’ll all have to live with the fallout.

Steve General Discussion

I’m getting soooooo tired of hearing everybody call everybody else a racist.

I just watched today’s Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in which former Vermont governor Howard Dean said Fox News was racist. Referring to a clip of Shirley Sherrod, the woman who was forced to resign her position within the Agriculture Department after a heavily modified clip was posted on the internet of her appearing to make racist comments when in fact the opposite was true, Dean said “Fox News did something that was absolutely racist.”

Chris Wallace tried to point out that Fox News did not air the Sherrod footage, nor ever even mentioned her name until after the Obama administration had fired her based on the clip, but Dean blew him off and continued to rant about Fox news and to insinuate there was somehow this big racist conspiracy at Fox News.

I don’t know about anyone else but I’m absolutely fed up with those kinds of tactics by the left. The simple fact is that the “news” that Fox reported was that Sherrod was forced to resign over the clip, supposedly (according to her) at the urging of the White House, and that her speech was denounced by the NAACP. Airing the clip at that point was reasonable to show what had caused the Agriculture Department (and possibly the White House) to demand her resignation and had led the NAACP to denounce her. That was simply thoroughness in journalism on the part of Fox News – something you don’t usually find on left-wing media (such as pretty much all the other networks and cable news outlets).

Get this straight: Fox News didn’t fire Sherrod. Fox News didn’t air the clip or even mention her name before the Obama administration fired her. To go after Fox as if they somehow had something to do with creating the story or firing Sherrod is rediculous. And to claim they are racist because of something they didn’t even do is just plain stupidity. Howard Dean is an idiot!!!

Steve General Discussion

Today I watched an interview on TV as Janet Napolitano, the Secretary of Homeland Security, pushed the idea of comprehensive immigration reform and said she doesn’t know what the term “secure the border” means.

Maybe there are other people out there who don’t know what is meant by “secure the border”. Okay, I can accept that. So if that’s you, pay attention and I’ll explain it in a way you may be able to understand.

Suppose we were talking about, say, the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. There would probably be several things you might think would be important on the government’s agenda. We’d want to stop the leak, right? And we’d want clean up the oil that’s already leaked. Then, I’m sure we’d want to investigate and brainstorm and come up with some kind of regulatory policies and safety controls to try to ensure it never happens again. We might even want the congress to come up with an overarching national energy policy that will reduce our dependence on oil so we won’t need to drill off our shores at all (or anywhere else for that matter).

Okay, lots of things we can do going forward. But, if you were going to prioritize them, which of those things I mentioned do you think should be done first? I think the answer is obvious. As President Obama said, our most urgent need is to “plug the damn hole”! After that’s done, then we can sit back and start working on a “comprehensive energy reform” plan.

So now lets apply that to the illegal immigrant situation. There are lots of things the government can do if they’re given enough time and money but what is our most urgent need there? You guessed it: PLUG THE DAMN HOLES!

And that, Ms. Napolitano, is what “secure the border” means.

Any questions?

Steve General Discussion

Germany sweltered under record high temperatures this weekend – up to 104 degrees Farenheit in some parts. Some would try to make the case that this proves the theory of man-made global warming. At the same time, however, highs in Australia were hitting record lows – hovering around 50 degrees Farenheit.

And, while it is true that the east coast of the United States experienced record highs this past week, the west coast was experiencing record lows. Los Angeles, California, for example, only reached 67 degrees yesterday. For the past week daytime and nighttime temperatures in LA have averaged less than 70 degrees, when they usually average close to 80 this time of year.

In the end, some places get warmer than usual for a little while while other places get cooler than usual, but that’s the thing about weather; If you don’t like it just stick around. It will change.

Steve General Discussion

URGENT – WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE RIVERTON WY
222 AM MDT SUN JUN 13 2010

A VERY STRONG LATE SEASON STORM WILL MOVE ACROSS SOUTHERN WYOMING
TODAY. MOISTURE CIRCULATING AROUND LOW PRESSURE TO THE SOUTH WILL
PRODUCE LIGHT TO MODERATE SNOW IN THE EAST SLOPES OF THE WIND RIVER
MOUNTAINS…THE GREEN AND RATTLESNAKE MOUNTAINS AND CASPER MOUNTAIN
THROUGH AROUND NOON TODAY.

Global warming? I say B-r-r-r-r.

Steve General Discussion

White House correspondent Helen Thomas has stirred a firestorm of controversy with her statement that Jews should leave Israel and go back to Germany and Poland.

A Hearst newspaper columnist, Ms. Thomas is 89 years old and has apparently gotten so senile that she no longer knows when to keep her private bigotry to herself. She made her anti-semitic comments during an interview with RabbiLive.com’s Rabbi David Nesenoff. To make matters worse, she said it at the White House’s Jewish Heritage Celebration last week, and it was caught on video, which of course immediately went viral on youtube.

Thomas says that Jews should “get the hell out of Palestine.” She says that the Palestinians “are occupied and it’s their land,” and that “It’s not German and it’s not Polish.” Thomas says that Jews should “go home”. When asked where that is, she said: “Poland. Germany. And America and everywhere else.”

A daughter of Lebanese immigrants, this isn’t the first nor the only time Thomas has shown her hatred of Israel and Jews. Just last week she pressed White House spokesman Robert Gibbs on the administration’s non-judgmental stance on the Israeli military’s decision to intercept a flotilla trying to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza and board a ship where 9 members of the ship were killed.

Although numerous videos of the event show that the Israeli commandos were surrounded and being beaten and bludgeoned, some to their deaths, Ms. Thomas, along with most of the liberal press, seems to think the Israelis were evil for opening fire in order to save their own lives.

“The initial reaction to the flotilla massacre, deliberate massacre, an international crime, was pitiful,” barked Thomas, who is a self-described liberal. “What do you mean you regret something that should be so strongly condemned, and if any other nation in the world had done it, we would have been up in arms? What is this ironclad relationship where a country that deliberately kills people.”

Helen Thomas makes it clear that her sympathies are with the terrorists and that she despises the jews. I don’t realistically expect the Hearst Corp. to fire her (darn it) but at the very least she needs to have her White House press credentials revoked.

The question is, will the president have the guts to order such a step? We’ll just have to wait and see.

Steve Current Events, Politics, Religious & Moral Values

I posted, back on March 26th, this post about a South Korean warship, the 1,200-ton Cheonan, which sank on March 26 under suspicious conditions in the Yellow Sea near the disputed western sea border with North Korea. A total of 46 sailors from the 104-man crew died.

At the time, amid speculation that a North Korean torpedo brought down the ship, statements by South Korean officials indicated that it was most likely a coincidence and not the result of hostile action by a nearby North Korean ship.

When asked just recently by reporters if North Korea sank the Cheonan, however, South Korea’s Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan replied, “I think it’s obvious.” He went on to say that there is sufficient evidence to take the issue to the United Nations,

After the sinking the South Korean government launched a joint military-civilian probe with help from foreign countries including the United States. It has determined that a “strong underwater explosion generated by the detonation of a torpedo” caused the ship to split apart and sink, Yu said in a speech to Seoul-based European business executives.

The report’s release is likely to further increase tensions on the divided Korean peninsula, where the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce, rather than a peace treaty. The land border is the world’s most heavily armed and the western sea border has been the site of several deadly naval clashes since 1999.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak has vowed stern action against those responsible for the disaster while Yu, the foreign minister, called for “firm” action and pushed for support from the international community during his speech.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be in Seoul next week for talks as part of an Asian tour. It will be interesting to see how this situation is handled by the State Department and the Obama administration.

Steve General Discussion

According to a recent article in The Detroit News, landscaping companies in Michigan (the state with the highest unemployment in the nation) are finding some job applicants are rejecting work offers so they can continue collecting unemployment benefits.

According to Amy Frankmann, executive director of the Michigan Nursery and Landscape Association, landscaping companies are receiving a lot of applications but when they actually talk to the applicants, it turns out that they’re on unemployment and not looking for work

Chris Pompeo, vice president of operations for Landscape America in Warren, said he has had about a dozen offers declined. One applicant, who had eight weeks to go until his state unemployment benefits ran out, asked for a deferred start date.

Richard Angell, director of B&L Landscaping, finds the labor pool is noticeably weaker and less motivated. “We’re just getting people coming in, filling out paperwork, hoping they won’t get hired,” he said.

And Gayle Younglove, vice president at Outdoor Experts Inc., says some job applicants are asking to be paid in cash so they can collect unemployment illegally.

The average landscape worker earns about $12 per hour, according to the Michigan Department of Labor and Economic Growth. At that rate, a full-time landscaping employee would make $480 a week. That is nearly twice the $225 an unemployed landscaper receives in a weekly unemployment check.

Michigan state unemployment benefits last for up to 26 weeks and then the unemployed can apply for extended federal benefits that increase the total time on unemployment up to a maximum of 99 weeks.

According to David Littmann, senior economist at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the extra unemployment protection reduces the incentive to find work.

Well, DUH!!! Here you have people in the state with the highest unemployment rate in the nation being offered jobs that pay twice the unemployment rate, but they turn them down because they prefer to get paid for not working. So a lot of people are just basically lazy. Okay, I can accept that (as if I have a choice in the matter).

What I can’t accept or understand, however, is how our government could be so IDIOTIC as to make such a situation possible in the first place.

Stop the insanity! First, reduce the amount of time someone can goof off on the taxpayer’s dime. Second, if someone is offered work and doesn’t take it, terminate their unemployment benefits IMMEDIATELY! The taxpayers should NOT be subsidizing laziness! And if our elected officials won’t put a stop to this madness then we should terminate THEIR employment by voting them out of office at the very first opportunity!

Steve General Discussion

I wonder if the pro-immigration protesters will ever get the hang of this protesting business.

I remember, some years back, when students all over the country skipped school and marched in protest of an immigration bill that was under consideration at the time in the U.S. House of Representatives. My daughter was planning on joining the students from her school in San Antonio, Texas that were going to be marching. I told her at the time that, while I support her enthusiasm and willingness and right to express herself, she should do it on her own time and not skip school for it.

Later that afternoon I turned on the TV and the news was showing students streaming out of my daughter’s high school to go march. And who was right up front leading the pack? If you guessed my daughter you’d be right. That was bad enough but what really shocked me was that, in videos of many thousands of protesters in cities all around the U.S. that day, there were plenty of flags of Mexico being carried and prominently displayed by the marchers, but there was not a single U.S. flag to be seen.

Later, during the inevitable discussion, I asked my daughter if she even knew what was in the House Bill that they were supposedly protesting. She wasn’t totally sure but “knew” that it must be a bad bill if so many people were against it.

I told her that I didn’t know what was in the bill, either, but I did know one thing for a fact: All of the congressmen and women who would be voting on the bill were citizens of the United States – the government of Mexico had no say in the matter one way or the other. And, perhaps even more to the point, all of the voters who would be voting for (and against) those congressmen and women are also U.S. citizens.

Being the bright girl she is, my daughter immediately made the connection – the protesters should have been carrying U.S. flags instead of Mexican flags if they wanted the sympathy of the American public and the support of U.S. lawmakers. Of course, after polls showed that public opinion in the U.S. turned against the protesters, the organizers of those protests must have realized the same thing because, in the big protest rallies and marches a few days later, U.S. flags were all over the place.

But now, only a few short years later, someone seems to have forgotten that lesson.

The other day 5 boys at Live Oak school in Morgan Hill, California were told that they couldn’t wear shirts that displayed the U.S. flag on the 5th of May because they were “incendiary” and disrespectful to students of Mexican heritage. The boys were told that they would be suspended if they didn’t either turn their t-shirts inside out or go home and change. The matter erupted into a firestorm of controversy, sparking protest marches all around. Many Hispanic protesters and students who were subsequently interviewed stated the boys should be punished for daring to wear the U.S. flag on Cinco de Mayo.

Say what? Sure, Cinco de Mayo is a holiday in Mexico to celebrate the Mexican victory over the French in the Battle of Puebla in 1862, and many in Mexico view it as their Independence Day. But what does that have to do with an American school in the United States?

Do schools in Mexico City order Mexican students to remove t-shirts displaying the Mexican flag on the Fourth of July? Of course not, why should they? Nor would any sane person expect them to. Mexicans, in Mexico, should be able to display the Mexican flag at all times, and proudly so.

By the same token United States citizens, in the United States, should be able to proudly display the United States flag whenever and where ever they choose.

If these protesters really want to win concessions from the U.S. government, they’re going to have to stop reminding everyone that their primary allegiance is to another country. Otherwise, all they’re succeeding in doing is to anger the U.S. citizens who put in place the lawmakers who pass the immigration laws.

In other words, stop biting the hand that feeds you!

Steve General Discussion

…here’s one he said that isn’t funny. President Obama made a joke at that same White House Correspondents Association dinner referring to the new Arizona law that addresses illegal immigration in that state. In the process he trivializes a problem within our nation that is very serious, mocks a law that, according to polls, 70% of Americans support, and ignores the fact that he, as president, has done nothing to try and fix the problem he is laughing at.

The Arizona governor’s response was this Youtube video. Click on it and check it out.

Steve General Discussion

At the White House Correspondents Association dinner President Obama joked about using predator drones to protect his daughters’ virtues, as it were. Specifically, he said this:

“Jonas Brothers are here, they’re out there somewhere. Sasha and Malia are huge fans, but boys, don’t get any ideas. Two words for you: predator drones. You will never see it coming. You think I’m joking?”

Some in the media claim it was an insensitive thing to say and are making a big deal about it.

Let me point out that I see this as different from the joke about the Taliban and Jews that the National Security Advisor, James Jones, said at a meeting about middle east peace. In that case it was a very serious meeting – deadly serious – and Jones’ joke was way out of place. The White House Correspondents Association dinners, however, are lighthearted black-tie affairs where the speakers are supposed to poke fun at themselves and others. It’s tradition and it’s expected.

I disagree with most of Obama’s political positions and I will criticize him whenever I think he is doing something that is not in the best interest of the United States. But criticizing him for this is just silly.

C’mon folks. If this is the worst thing you can find about Obama to complain about then you must be very happy with life. Get a grip. It was just a joke. In fact, it was a pretty darn funny joke. I think Obama should consider a career in comedy – he really is good at it.

In fact, he could quit his day job and start now. I would be okay with that!

Steve General Discussion

According to James Jones, President Obama’s National Security Advisor:

A Taliban militia member was parched and went to a Jewish vendor begging for water. But the vendor offered to sell him a tie instead.   Then the vendor told the militia member he would forgive him for a tirade of slurs set off by the remark and directed him to a nearby restaurant where he could buy water.   A while later, the Taliban member came back fuming, telling the vendor “your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.”

This was the joke that Jones used to kick off a deadly serious keynote speech on Middle East peace at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Of course, I totally paraphrased it to shorten it because, as he told it, it was a verrrry long joke. But anyway…

Just imagine if Condoleeza Rice had recited a joke like that when she was George Bush’s National Security Advisor? Of course Dr. Rice had way too much class and never would have stooped to that level but, if she had, the left would still be wetting themselves with indignation. They don’t seem to care, however, when it comes from one of their own.

Typical liberal hypocrisy.

Steve Current Events, Politics

According to Mail Online, an online news outlet that is part of the UK’s Daily Mail, the ash cloud from the Icelandic volcano that is erupting is made up of trillions of minute glass particles that were carried south and east over Europe by the prevailing winds. This cloud of particles floats at about 20,000 feet in the stratosphere and, if ingested into a jet engine, could erode and jam intake and turbine blades as well as block cooling vents. In other words, it could cause the plane to crash.

The ash cloud is now covering pretty much all of the United Kingdom, Belgium, Holland, Scandinavia, Finland, the Baltics, as well as northern France, Germany, Poland, The Czech Republic, Belarus, and Russia.

Millions of travelers across Europe are stranded. More than a half million passengers a day fly in and out of the UK alone, but, with all flights grounded, nobody is flying today. To put it into perspective, this event makes the impact of the grounding of all flights in the U.S. following the 9/11 attacks look small by comparison.

Without knowing how long the volcano will keep erupting, experts cannot say how long air travel will be grounded. Estimates range anywhere from a week to six months or more.

With the world in a deep recession, this is the last thing anyone needs. But it does have its bright side – President Obama will get to blame it on the failed Bush policies of the past and Al Gore will get to blame it on man-made global warming. What a deal!

Steve Current Events

If you rush a product from concept to market without taking the time to proper engineer it, you get a crappy product. Similarly, if you rush a bill through congress without taking the time to proper read and edit it, you get a crappy bill.

Under the Obamacare plan, “the only health plans that the Federal Government may make available to Members of Congress and congressional staff” are plans created under Obamacare or offered in its exchanges. This was supposedly designed to make sure that members of Congress don’t get any special treatment but rather must make do with the same healthcare coverage they are mandating for the rest of us. That sounds good, but the fact is that those exchanges referred to won’t even exist for several more years. That means that your congressman might not have health care coverage.

On the other hand, in another part of the bill there is a provision that says that no one can be forced to give up coverage they already have. So maybe a Congressman can get the courts to side with allowing them to keep their existing healthcare insurance plan.

You’re probably thinking “so what?” and “Who cares about whether those congress critters that created that bill have to suffer the unintended consequences of it.”

But maybe it was intentional. Think about it. Existing congressmen might be able to keep their existing plans because of that one clause, but the new congressmen who will surely arrive (after the drumming the Democrats will get in the November elections) won’t be able to get health insurance. Maybe that was the plan all along.

Pretty devious and sneaky, those congress critters are.

Steve General Discussion

Arizona lawmakers yesterday passed one of the toughest pieces of immigration-enforcement legislation in the country, which would make it a violation of state law to be in the U.S. without proper documentation. It would also grant police the power to stop and verify the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being illegal, and it would require foreign nationals to carry proof of legal residency.

Rep. John Kavanagh (R-Fountain Hills), a supporter of the bill, said: “This updated version gives our local police officers the tools they need to combat illegal immigration, while protecting the civil rights of citizens and legal residents.

Under a federal program known as 287g, some local law enforcement agencies, under the supervision of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers, were trained to enforce federal immigration laws by checking suspects’ immigration status. Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had been one of the most aggressive enforcers of 287g. In recent months, however, the Obama administration has sought to scale back that program, and had reduced the resources it made available to Mr. Arpaio’s office and others.

But according to Chris Newman, general counsel for the Los Angeles-based National Day Laborer Organizing Network, an immigrant rights group, “The bill constitutes a complete disregard for the rights of nonwhites in Arizona. It effectively mandates racial profiling.”

Say what? Let me get this straight. Mr. Newman is suggesting that illegal immigrants in Arizona are nonwhites? It sounds to me like he’s the one doing the racial profiling.

Steve General Discussion

This is an open letter of thanks to President Obama, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and all of the Senate and House Democrats who voted for the health care bill. You actually did it. You passed a health-care reform bill that is making health care insurance even more expensive then it was.

You told us that we needed this reform to prevent big, greedy insurance companies from jacking up rates like Anthem Blue Cross did. And there were people who belived you. So you passed the reform bill, and guess what – almost every healthcare insurer in the nation is now planning to jack up rates.

I bet if you were to tell us we need to slice open our wrists in order to make sure we don’t bleed too much, there’ll be people who’ll believe that, too.

The fact is that there was not a single thing in that healthcare bill of goods you forced upon us that prevents insurers from raising their rates. Of course, in your defense, you couldn’t have known that because you NEVER READ THE BILL BEFORE YOU PASSED IT!!!

So from all of us who will now be paying more for the same coverage, thank you. For the job you’ve done, you deserve a vacation. A permanent one. Please start it now.

Steve General Discussion

According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, based on current graduation and training rates there will be a shortage of up to 150,000 doctors by the year 2025.

Due to the increased demand of millions of newly insured patients under the new federal health-care law and the fact that the number of med-school students entering family medicine fell by 25 percent between 2002 and 2007, the association predicts a shortage of 45,000 primary care doctors by 2020.

They warn that there is also a shortage of medical resident positions. The residency is the minimum three-year period when medical-school graduates train in hospitals and clinics. Teaching hospitals rely heavily on Medicare funding to pay for these residency slots but, in 1997, Congress imposed a cap on funding for medical residencies, which hospitals say has increasingly hurt their ability to expand the number of positions. An early version of the health care bill would increase the number of funded residency slots, but that provisin didn’t make it into the final bill.

Even importing foreign doctors from other countries wouldn’t alleviate the problem because they must still compete for a residency slot. Completion of a U.S. residency is required in order to get a license to practice medicine independently in the U.S.

One problem with primary care is that it doesn’t pay as much as specialized medicine. For students struggling under a heavy debt burden (and that means most medical school students) family and primary care medicine is simply not the answer.

Anyone struggling to figure out a solution would have to understand the following basic facts:

• Doctors get paid more in the U.S. than in any other country.
• Doctors in the U.S. pay more for their education and training than anywhere else.
• You get what you pay for – the medical care provided by doctors in the U.S. is the best in the world.

Mark my words, over the next 10 years, in order to make sure we have enough doctors to support Obama-care, Congress will have to:

1. Lower the professional standards for doctors (no more 3-year minimum residency, for starters)
2. Address the high cost of education and training (medical schools and teaching hospitals will have to eat the costs)
3. Either increase the pay of primary care physicians or decrease the pay of specialists (to make primary care medicine more attractive to medical students)
4. Enact tort reform legislation (an absolute necessity to get the costs down enough to make Obama-care work)
5. Eventually dictate what field of medicine that med-school students will enter (Obama and the Socialists in Congress would do it in a heartbeat and would even get away with it once the public sees that nothing else is working)

We will get the “change” that then-candidate Obama made us “hope” for, but we won’t like it.

Steve Current Events, Politics

Texas Stadium in Irving, Texas is no more. For 38 years it played host to the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders, monster truck and motocross races, wrestling matches, Billy Graham Crusades, Garth Brooks concerts, and an untold plethora of other events.

But its main claim to fame, of course, was as the home field of America’s Team – the Dallas Cowboys. Football fans will recall its giant hole in the roof which was placed there, as the legend goes, so that God could watch his team play. It was the home to Hall Of Fame football greats such as Roger Staubach and Troy Aikman. And, while based there, the Cowboys won no less than five Superbowl victories.

Since the Cowboys moved to a new home (the $1.2 billion Cowboys Stadium in nearby Arlington, Texas) beginning with the 2009 season, a decision had to be made as to what to do with their old homestead. With numerous other stadiums in the area, including the Cotton Bowl, it was decided that freeing up the land was more important and the old stadium had to go.

So today, after fireworks and tailgate parties, and in front of 20,000 witnesses, the stadium was brought down in seconds in a controlled demolition set off by 11 year old Casey Rogers who, through an essay-writing contest, had earned the right to push the button.

As a Dallas Cowboys fan I felt a lump in my throat when I read the news that the stadium was finally gone. I’ve sat in that stadium numerous times to watch my beloved Cowboys play. I never thought I would ever be sentimental about an old building (or whatever you want to call it.) But I suspect that even fans of the Cowboys’ biggest rivals will experience a twinge of sadness at its passing, since Texas Stadium was such a huge part of football lore. Although the facility itself is gone, the part it played in the history and the legend of American football will never be erased.

But time, like the Cowboys, moves on. Hopefully America’s Team will bring honor and fame to the new stadium like they did to the old.

Steve General Discussion

I remember, during the ‘08 presidential campaign, how the liberals and the media were always attacking Sarah Palin for her “inexperience”. They claimed she wouldn’t be able to be an effective president because she was ignorant as to the things she would have to be involved in if she were elected vice president and something were to happen to the president, leaving her in charge of the country.

Nobody, of course, seemed to recognize the irony of objecting to a vice presidential candidate due to a lack of experience while, at the same time, supporting a presidential candidate with even less experience.

Yes, I said it. LESS EXPERIENCE. Don’t believe me? In the Apr 12, 2010 issue of Newsweek magazine there’s an article entitled “The Doomsday Dilemma” which says, in part, that Obama didn’t learn about SIOP until months after he’d taken office.

If you don’t know what SIOP is, don’t worry – neither did candidate Obama. What SIOP stands for is the Single Integrated Operations Plan and it is the plan for how US nuclear missiles are targeted. It allows the president to select quickly, from a menu of targeting options, which locations should be nuked in case of a nuclear war. That way, if there’s an imminent threat (say, Russian nukes are on their way to Washington D.C.) the Commander-In-Chief won’t have to waste time making numerous decisions.

Whether or not the plan is still necessary in this post-cold war world, or whether it ever was necessary for that matter, is a debate for another time. The main point of this article is that Obama didn’t even know it existed until several months after he took office.

I knew about it from my military experience. Many people I’ve worked with in the military knew. Many civilian contractors I’ve dealt with knew. Hell, pretty much anybody that’s ever read a Tom Clancy novel probably knew. And I’m willing to bet Sarah Palin knew about it. It would have been impossible for her not to have known, considering she was the governor of a state that would have been THE front lines of any war between the United States and the former Soviet Union.

But Obama didn’t know. And his supporters have the unmitigated gall to call Sarah Palin inexperienced?

In addition to the huge military bases in Anchorage and Fairbanks, there are numerous ballistic missile and aircraft early warning, tracking, and targeting sites all across Alaska. One such site is on the island of Shemya, at the end of the Aleutian chain, which houses the radar systems that monitor the Russian nuclear and missile testing ranges on the Kamachatka Peninsula. Then there’s the tanker aircraft at the air force bases that are there to enable U.S. nuclear bombers to reach the Russian heartland. Due to Alaska’s proximity with Russia, the Alaska National Guard, which works for the Alaska governor, is fully aware of their critically important role should hostilities ever break out with the country that still – to this day – has tens of thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at the United States. The governor of a state like Alaska would have no choice but to be up to speed on all that.

So, when Palin commented on how close Alaska was to Russia she wasn’t trying to make a joke – she was making a reference to the fact that Alaska has always been on a semi-war footing as the primary trip-wire the Russians (or Soviets before them) would have to cross in order to attack or invade the United States.

I wouldn’t expect a community organizer to know about any of that but, when he mocks Sarah Palin by scoffing at her inexperience, Obama is dissing himself tenfold.

Steve General Discussion

At a town meeting in Maine, when skeptical reporters questioned the impact of the health-care reform bill, President Obama had this to say:

“Can you imagine if some of these reporters were working on a farm and you planted some seeds and they came out next day and they looked—Nothing’s happened! There’s no crop! We’re gonna starve! Oh, no! It’s a disaster! It’s been a week, folks. So before we find out if people like health-care reform, we should wait to see what happens when we actually put it into place. Just a thought.”

But then again he also said this:

“Leaders of the Republican Party have actually been calling the passage of this bill ‘Armageddon.’ They say it’s the end of freedom as we know it,” Obama said. “So after I signed the bill, I looked up to see if there were any asteroids headed our way. I checked to see if any cracks had opened up in the ground. But you know what? It turned out to be a pretty nice day.”

Well, make up your mind, Mister I-can-argue-both-sides-of-an-issue! If there are going to be results will they take time or will they happen overnight?

You really can’t have it both ways.

Steve General Discussion

President Obama announced a new policy that will allow some oil drilling and exploration off the US coast.

Some say that he is committing political suicide with his own radical left wing supporters. Others claim that he is allowing a tiny bit of drilling to try and convince independent voters (whom the Democrats desperately need to woo by November but who aren’t too thrilled with them lately) that he is moving to the center as President Clinton did in the 1990’s. The white house claims that he is acting to try and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, reduce the price of gas at the pumps, and create new jobs. As for me, I’m totally not sure what he is trying to accomplish, because his actions make no sense.

He approved exploration (which is basically checking to see if oil exists) in areas up and down the Atlantic seaboard, in the Gulf of Mexico, and north of Alaska. But whether actual drilling will ever be allowed in those areas, even if oil is found there, is anybody’s guess.

The only actual drilling he approved is in an area of the Atlantic off the coast of Virginia and in the Cook Inlet of Alaska.

What he didn’t open up for drilling or even exploration is anything on the Pacific coast, the west coast of Alaska, or the oil rich areas of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).

In other words, he isn’t allowing drilling in the areas where the seriously large quantities of oil exist. The trickle that he is allowing won’t do much to meet any of his stated objectives, convince any independents that he’s serious about energy independence for America, nor placate any “drill-baby-drill” conservatives. But it will totally infuriate the environmentalists and, by extension, his liberal base.

And there is, so far, no evidence that his newly stated policy is part of any larger political dealmaking.

So what could he possibly be trying to accomplish? I’m sure its something big – he won’t give up that much political capital within his own party without a good reason. I just can’t fathom what it is.

Steve General Discussion

The liberal media likes to claim that Tea Party activists, conservatives, Republicans, and anyone else who doesn’t like the new health care bill are rabid, crazed activists whipped into a frothing-at-the-mouth frenzy and trying to incite violence against Democrats.

That, of course, flies in the face of the facts, which are that conservative and Tea Party rallies are some of the most peaceful protests ever held. Try getting 10,000 liberals together for a protest without any riots, arrests, injuries, or destruction of property – it simply would never happen. But peaceful protests are the norm for conservatives.

And for those that say leading Democrats in Congress are fearful for their lives, I’d like to point out that the only Congressman whose life has actually been in danger so far is House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA). A bullet was fired into his office last week. And on Saturday a Philadelphia man was arrested for posting Youtube videos which said of Congressman Cantor, among other things, “…You’re an abomination, you receive my bullets in your office, remember they will be placed in your heads. You and your children are Lucifer’s abomination.”

Norman Leboon is being charged with two federal counts: threatening to kill a member of Congress and interfering with his federal duties, and posting video online containing such threats.

Leboon has boasted to the FBI that he has posted online over 2,000 threatening videos. He also told the FBI that Congressman Cantor is “pure evil” and will be dead.

It further turns out that police already had a warrant to arrest Leboon on previous charges of terroristic threats with intent to terrorize another, simple assault and recklessly endangering another person.

While Nancy Pelosi, the Democrats in Washington, and the mainstream media all try to pretend that it is the right wingers who are the danger to society, the fact of the matter is that this was not some fired up Tea Party activist – Norman Leboon has made two separate donations to Barack Obama’s campaign.

It is typical that left wing loons will try to paint dissenters with their own brush. They do it every time. They don’t like anyone to disagree with them and, when anyone does disagree, the left demonizes them and calls them racists, bigots, violent, and anything else they can think of.

But the basic difference between the conservative way of thinking and the liberal way of thinking – the root cause of our dissimilarity – dictates that it is the liberals who would be more likely to be intolerant. That is because conservatives arrive at their beliefs and ideologies as a result of careful consideration of long-term consequences while liberals usually let their philosophies be dictated by their emotions.

Anyone who sits back and observes both liberal and conservative protests can see that difference as plain as day, but liberals will never admit it in a million years. Honesty is not their strong suit – especially when it comes to their own motivations.

For example, liberals will see an individual migrant farm worker with medical problems and, without thinking about it any further, say we should provide free health care for all illegal immigrants. A conservative, on the other hand, would say hold on – let’s look at the big picture. What would that mean for the future of health care, immigration, or the U.S. economy? In another example, liberals say they would like to see the wealthy (those making over $250,000 per year) pay more in taxes. It only seems fair that they should spread the wealth around. Conservatives, on the other hand, note that those “wealthy” folks are the very people who employ most Americans and taxing them more would mean they would employ fewer people, so the unemployment rate would go up. As unemployment goes up, tax revenue goes down. So does the economy. And when the economy goes down it is the poor and the lower middle class that get hurt the most. So the kneejerk call for more taxes on the wealthy ends up hurting the very people that the liberals want to help.

Liberals won’t debate those facts or even listen to them, though – they’d just claim you’re a racist bigot homophobe violent hater if you point them out.

But that’s okay. We know the truth.

Steve Current Events, Economics, Politics

North Korea’s military warned South Korea and the United States on Friday of “unprecedented nuclear strikes” today. According to an AP report, North Korea was expressing anger over a report that the U.S. and S. Korea are planning to prepare for possible instability in the communist country.

“Those who seek to bring down the system in the (North), whether they play a main role or a passive role, will fall victim to the unprecedented nuclear strikes of the invincible army,” North Korea’s military said in comments carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

The North Korean leader, Kim Jung Il, has made threats and rattled sabers like this before, usually as a prelude to asking for more aid from South Korea and the United States.

He’ll probably get the aid this time, since he has a soul mate in Barack Obama, the “Supreme Leader” of the Democratic People’s Republic of America, formerly known as the United States of America.

In addition to being known as the Supreme Leader of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Kim Jung Il is also the Chairman of North Korea’s National Defense Commission, the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army, and the General Secretary of the Workers’ Party of Korea.

In addition to being known as the President of The United States of America, Barack Obama is also the Commander In Chief of the U.S. Military, the Messiah of the Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now (ACORN), the Benefactor General of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU), and the Chairman of GM (Government Motors).

We should totally merge our two countries into one!

Steve General Discussion

Ok let me get this straight.

• A South Korean navy ship, near the disputed maritime border with North Korea, fired at something.
   
• Somehow, right after that, a hole opened up in the side of said S. Korean ship and it sank, killing nearly half the crew.
   
• Shortly afterwards, South Korean officials were quoted as saying it appeared the North had torpedoed the ship.
   
• The location, near the disputed Yellow Sea border, was the scene of two deadly naval fights between the rival Koreas in the past decade.
   
• This past November, the navies of the two rival Koreas exchanged gunfire for the first time in seven years in the Yellow Sea waters, damaging vessels on both sides.
   
• The won weakened almost half a percent against the dollar amid reports of a possible naval clash, and those reports were cited by analysts as one reason for a dip in U.S. stocks as well.
   

Now, however, the spin has begun in a desperate attempt to avoid an escalation of conflict between South and North Korea, and to stave off the economic downturn typically engendered by clashes such as this.

• S. Korean official are saying there was no sign of the North Korean military in the area at the time of the sinking, according to satellite pictures.
   
• “It is premature to discuss the cause of this sinking,” said presidential spokeswoman Kim Eun-hye.
   
• The object the ship had fired at is now suspected to have been a flock of birds, according to officials.
   

All I can say is, if it sunk a navy ship, that was one helluva flock of birds!

Steve Current Events, General Discussion, Military Matters

In a CBS News poll released today, 62 percent of Americans prefer that Republicans in Congress continue to challenge the health care reform bill. Only 33 percent voted that they did not want that.

Of the Republicans polled, 89% voted yes (continue challenging), along with 66% of Independents and even 41% of Democrats.

Obama, Pelosi, and the rest of the Democrat leaders in Washington can keep repeating the line over and over again about how this is what America wanted, but poll after poll has shown, increasingly, that America does NOT want the health care bill. And now that the bill is passed, polls are showing that Americans are looking to Republicans to undo the damage.

This is the strongest indicator yet that the November elections will go very badly for Democrats.

Steve General Discussion

Our enemies have always understood that it would be impossible to overcome the armed citizenry of the United States. They know they would first have to disarm American citizens.

Our founding fathers understood this as well. That is why the very second amendment they wrote in the Bill of Rights, right after the right to freedom of religion and expression, was the right to keep and bear arms. Specifically, the Second Amendment to the Constitution says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

What happens when citizens don’t have the right to keep and bear arms? Well, lets look at other countries where that right was taken away:

• The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929.
  From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
   
• Turkey established gun control in 1911.
  From 1915 to 1917, over 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
   
• Germany established gun control in 1938.
  From 1939 to 1945, a total of over 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
   
• China established gun control in 1935.
  From 1948 to 1952, over 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
   
• Guatemala established gun control in 1964.
  From 1964 to 1981, about 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
   
• Uganda established gun control in 1970.
  From 1971 to 1979, over 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
   
• Cambodia established gun control in 1956.
  From 1975 to 1977, over a million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

That adds up to about 56 million defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control.

And if you think removing guns will lower the crime rate, think again.

In Australia, gun owners were forced by a new law to surrender personal firearms. Over 640 thousand firearms were turned in and destroyed. This program cost Australian taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

• Assaults are up 8.6 percent.
• Homicides are up 3.2 percent.
• Armed robberies are up 44 percent.
• Homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent.

The law-abiding citizens turned in their guns and the criminals did not – the criminals still possess their guns!

Statistics over the previous 25 years had showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms in Australia. But this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.

Australian politicians are embarrassed at the dramatic manner in which public safety has decreased after such monumental effort and expense was expended to rid Australian society of guns, but the answer is simple. Now that law-abiding citizens have turned in their guns, criminals can operate with impunity, knowing that their prey will be unarmed.

Considering all the above, it is clear that any intelligent person who claims that we need gun control in America must have a secret agenda that they aren’t telling us about. And the rest of us should be afraid – very afraid!

Steve General Discussion, Tech Stuff

I’m surprised at the number of people who seem surprised that the House passed the health care reform bill. Apparently there were lots of people who honestly believed there were Democrats with integrity who would help the Republicans block the bill. All I can say is… “LOL”

Let’s get something straight right off the bat. No matter what Bart Stupak, et al, say they’re going to do, the fact is they are Democrats first and foremost. While they claimed to oppose the bill on the grounds that it doesn’t do anything to prevent federal funding of abortion, that was clearly just an act to make themselves look good (or less bad) to their constituents back home. The real truth is that they were holding out for a face-saving measure that would allow them to vote yes on the health care bill while still pretending to care about preventing federally funded abortions.

There was never any doubt in my mind that Stupak would vote with Pelosi and the House Dems when push came to shove. At the last minute, however, just to give Stupak and his fellow “pro-life Democrats” at least a veneer of credibility, Pres. Obama signed an Executive Order that says, in a vague and totally nonbinding way, that the government will, somehow, take into consideration the possibility of coming up with a way to stop federal funding of abortions. That way Stupak can claim his objections were satisfied and he was finally able to vote for the bill.

But he was going to vote for it all along. Don’t believe me? While facing his constituents in a town hall meeting last fall in Cheboygan, Michigan, Stupak had this to say:

“[Let's say] I offered an amendment that says no public funding for abortion — that’s been the law of the land for many, many decades — and [let's say] we lose that vote: would I vote against healthcare?” Stupak asked rhetorically. “If I had a chance to vote my conscience on it, I probably would not. I probably would still vote for the healthcare bill at the end of the day.”

So he told us last year what he was going to do and, yesterday, he did it.

Furthermore, on Saturday, the day before the House vote, House Democrat leaders were saying that the “Deem and Pass” trick that they’d been considering was off the table. They weren’t going to stoop to that. But why would Nancy Pelosi give up that option? It is completely out of character for her to sheath a weapon she might need to make things go her way. The only way she would have stated that is if she already knew for a certainty that she had enough votes to pass the healthcare bill without resorting to Deem and Pass. And the only way she could have been certain of that is if she already had assurances from Stupak and his cohorts that they’d vote for the bill in the end.

So, all of their (Stupak and crew’s) posturing was as meaningless as the useless piece of paper the President signed. And make no mistake, that executive order was both meaningless and useless. For one thing, nothing in an executive order can override established law. And, thanks in no small part to Benedict Arnold Stupak, the healthcare bill that Congress passed yesterday is now law – including the part that says federal funds can be used for abortions. Secondly, what the president giveth, the president can taketh away. He can rescind his executive order any minute. Given that he is the most pro-abortion president in US history, that possibility seems extremely likely.

Bottom line is that Bart Stupak and the other supposedly “pro-life” democrats sold their constituents down the river and no amount of presidential smoke-and-mirror shenanigans is going to change that fact. I hope, for their sakes, that Bart Stupak and his merry band of hypocrites are polishing up their resumes because November is coming up fast and unemployment is going to really suck after having been in the US Congress.

Steve General Discussion

In an exclusive 1-on-1 interview with Fox News’ Bret Baier, President Obama stated that the $300 million allotted in the health care bill for increasing medicare/medicaid subsidies to the state of Louisiana, also sometimes called the Louisiana Purchase because it was intended to purchase a vote in favor of the bill from Senator Mary Landrieu (D-LA) , would help Hawaii, which had just undergone an earthquake.

I couldn’t believe my ears. Hawaii hasn’t experienced a major earthquake in years but, even if it had, President Obama’s statement still wouldn’t make any sense. Medicaid subsidies in Louisiana wouldn’t do a thing for Hawaii.

I suspect the pressure of the White House is really getting to him bad and he’s losing what little grip he’s ever had on reality. Or maybe its just due to the fact that he didn’t have a teleprompter with him during the interview. After all, he never has been able to string together a coherent sentence without one.

Steve Current Events, Politics

At a recent speech in a Cleveland suburb, President Obama described how rates would be lowered for individuals and small businesses who buy coverage in the new health insurance marketplace that would be implemented under his healthcare plan.

“You’ll be able to buy in, or a small business will be able to buy into this pool,” President Obama said. “And that will lower rates, it’s estimated, by up to 14 to 20 percent over what you’re currently getting. That’s money out of pocket.”

That sounds good, if it were true. It isn’t true of course, but the reason is complex and hard to explain so he will probably get away with that falsehood. But then he goes on to say, “Your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise.”

Premiums reduced by 3,000 percent? How does that happen? If you cut the premiums down to absolutely nothing that still would be a reduction of only 100 percent.

So how can Obama claim that premiums would be reduced by 3,000 percent? Because he simply reads the rhetoric on the teleprompter. It is just words. If he actually thought about what he was saying he never would have said something so obviously and patently false.

But then again, maybe he would. His speeches have always relied on words that sound good and make his followers feel good and it has never mattered whether those words had any meaning in the real world, or whether they were true or not.

So hey, why not tell the American people that their employers’ premiums would be reduced by 3,000 percent? If they’re stupid enough to fall for it, that’s their problem. At least, that’s the way Obama sees it.

Steve General Discussion

Tomorrow is Saint Patrick’s day. Big cities and small towns alike celebrate St. Patrick’s Day with parades, “wearing of the green,” music and songs, Irish food and drink, and activities for kids such as crafts, coloring and games. Some communities even go so far as to dye rivers or streams green!

To those who celebrate its intended meaning, however, St. Patrick’s Day is a traditional day for spiritual renewal and offering prayers for missionaries worldwide. You see, Saint Patrick was the patron saint and national apostle of Ireland and is credited with bringing Christianity to that country.

It is said that he used a shamrock (three-leafed clover) to explain the Holy Trinity to the pagans. This is why the shamrock is the national symbol of Ireland.

St. Patrick is believed to have been born in the late fourth century and, while there are several accounts of his death, one of the most persistent is that he died at Saul, Downpatrick, Ireland, on March 17, 460 A.D. That is why, to this day, St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated each year on that day.
 
St. Patrick is probably best known for driving the snakes from Ireland. It is true that there are no snakes in Ireland but that legend seems unlikely because there probably never were any snakes there to begin with. The Emerald Isle, as Ireland is known, was separated from the rest of the European continent at the end of the Ice Age. As in many old pagan religions, serpent symbols were common and often worshiped, however, so the story of St. Patrick driving the snakes from Ireland was probably intended to symbolize him putting an end to that pagan practice.
 
St. Patrick was not the first to bring Christianity to Ireland but he is said to have encountered the Druids at Tara and abolished their pagan rites. The story holds that he converted the warrior chiefs and princes, baptizing them and thousands of their subjects in the “Holy Wells” that still bear this name.
 
Many Catholic places of worship all around the world are named after St. Patrick, including cathedrals in New York and Dublin city.
 
So Happy St. Patrick’s Day to all, and…

Steve General Discussion

I recently ran across some statistics that left me speechless and I would like to present this comparison:

First, lets consider a U.S. city:

• San Antonio, Texas has a population of 1.3 million.
• According to an FBI report released last year, San Antonio has the highest crime rate in the entire United States.
• Last year there were 96 murders in the city of San Antonio.

Now let’s consider a similar-sized city in Mexico:

• Ciudad Juarez, Mexico also has a population of 1.3 million.
• Last year there were 2,600 murders in the city of Juarez.
• In the first two months of this year alone there were 410 murders in Juarez.

I frequently hear people say that illegal immigrants from Mexico are just honest, hard-working folks looking for a job to support themselves and their families. The above statistics, however, seem to indicate that there’s something we’re not being told. Do we want to become like Mexico? If not, then shouldn’t we get serious about controlling our border?

Steve General Discussion

I recall, more years ago than I care to mention, a case in Wichita Falls, Texas, where a friend of mine was locked up for, essentially, being a drunk passenger.

A little background: Wichita Falls is the home of Sheppard Air Force Base, a training base where thousands of young airman go for “tech school” right after basic training. Very much a cowboy town, the locals in Wichita Falls did not like the military very much back in the ’70’s. Then again, that was true of most every town back in the 70’s. At any rate, back to the story…

This friend of mine went barhopping with some friends of his down on the strip, but he was smart and took along a friend who didn’t drink to drive him back to the base afterwards. The young man was trying to do the responsible thing, especially considering that this happened before the idea of a designated driver had caught on around the nation.

At any rate, with his friend driving, they left the parking lot of a bar and headed back toward the base. A cop followed them out of the parking lot and promptly pulled them over, thinking he was going to enjoy the thrill of arresting an airman for DWI. He was sorely disappointed when he found out the driver was a teetotaler who never drank. The driver explained that he was the designated driver and he was driving because his friend was too intoxicated to drive.

Most people would applaud the noble intentions of the duo. Not the WFPD officer, though. He proceeded to walk around to the passenger side, opened the door, and ordered the intoxicated passenger to step out of the car. As soon as my friend did, the cop spun him around, pushed him up against the car, and proceeded to handcuff him.

Apparently, as soon as my friend stepped out of the vehicle the cop had the legal right to arrest him for public intoxication. On the other hand, if he hadn’t stepped out, he would have been arrested for disobeying a police officer.

So the moral appears to be that, once you become intoxicated, you’re fair game for any cop that doesn’t like you, your race, your religion, your branch of the military, or what kind of toothpaste you use. Its damned-if-you-do-and-damned-if-you-don’t time. The best thing to do is just not to drink in the first place, or the Gestapo will get you!

Steve General Discussion

I keep running across inaccuracies in the media that make me wonder if anything they print or show is real. I know, of course, that they’ll skew political stories one way or the other depending on their ideology (usually left-wing) but I am continually seeing skewed and inaccurate reporting in other stories as well. Here’s an example:

According to this article from Omaha’s KETV.com, a Nebraska man showed up at the courthouse too drunk to attend his sentencing hearing for a drunk driving offense from September of last year. The man’s father drove him to the courthouse for the sentencing hearing but he was apparently to drunk to stand and walk to the courtroom. Because he couldn’t make it to the sentencing hearing the judge issued an arrest warrant and the police arrested him in the parking lot and took him to the jail and gave him a breath test. The article goes on to quote Sarpy County Sheriff’s Deputy Tina Anderson. “The test showed he was at a 0.43,” she said.

So far so good, but then the reporter adds that a BAC of 0.43 “….is more than five times the legal limit.”

Say what? A blood-alcohol content (BAC) of 0.43 might be five times the legal limit if the man were driving a vehicle, but the article clearly states that the man was merely a passenger – his father was the driver. Neither Nebraska nor any other state has imposed a legal BAC limit for passengers. The whole idea of having a legal limit is to prevent drunks from driving themselves. Hopefully, when someone gets drunk, they’ll get someone else to drive them. If it is just as illegal to be a passenger with a BAC above .08 as it is to be the driver, then the whole concept of appointing a designated driver (or of calling a cab for that matter) goes right out the window.

I’m not sure if the reporter simply made a mistake (there is no legal limit for passengers) or if he knew better but deliberately worded it the way he did to make it look worse for the drunk. I agree the drunk referred to in the article probably needs to be locked up, but he was arrested for missing his sentencing hearing, not for RAAPWI (something I just made up that stands for riding-as-a-passenger-while-intoxicated). The so-called journalist should just report the facts and not try to mislead the public.

Steve General Discussion

I support Congresswoman Michele Bachmann from Minnesota and I strongly urge all conservatives across the nation to show their support for her and, if possible, donate to her reelection campaign.

Who is Michele Bachmann and why is it important for conservatives to support her in any way we can?

First I’ll answer the who part:

• Elected in 2006, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is the first Republican woman to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Minnesota.
• Prior to that she had served in the Minnesota State Senate since 2000.
• And before that Bachmann spent five years as a federal tax litigation attorney, working on hundreds of civil and criminal cases.

Now the why:

• Congresswoman Bachmann is a strong supporter of the need to reign in government spending and fix mandatory entitlement programs to get our country back on the right financial track.
• She is a leading advocate for bipartisan earmark reform and tax relief and is a staunch opponent of wasteful government spending.
• She is among the leaders in the U.S. House pushing for increased energy exploration in the U.S. to provide much needed relief at the pump for hard-working Americans and put our nation on the path to energy independence.
• Congresswoman Bachmann currently sits on the Financial Services Committee.
• Due to Congresswoman Bachmann’s strong fiscal conservative views, Nancy Pelosi and the Congressional Democrat machine have singled her out and targeted her for political and personal destruction. With all the money and power of the entire Democrat party, they are pulling out all the stops to see that she is defeated in the next election of the 6th District of Minnesota.

Bachmann is a true conservative in a time when conservatives are greatly outnumbered in the U.S. Congress by the progressives that would see this nation be destroyed rather than relinquish the stranglehold they want the government to have over its citizens (like you and me.) Without the support of conservatives across the nation, Ms Bachmann can’t hope to defeat the Pelosi-led national political machine.

Check out her website. Become a Facebook fan. Donate. Get involved. Don’t wait until its too late.

Steve General Discussion

Interstate highway I-70, a major east-west artery and the easiest way to get from one side of the Rockies to the other, is closed at the Glenwood Canyon between Glenwood Springs and Dotsero due to a major rockslide. The Colorado Department of Transportation says that about 20 boulders, the largest estimated at about 66 tons, fell onto the interstate last night, punching 2 big holes into elevated parts of the roadway.

Nobody was hurt as a result, but the closure is forcing motorists to make major detours as far as Steamboat Springs to the north and Gunnison to the south. This will cause a major traffic nightmare on those smaller roads, increase the chances of major accidents, and place a financial hardship on truckers and the businesses that depend on them. There is, as of yet, no estimate of when the damage will be repaired so the highway can be reopened.

Of course, Al Gore will probably say the rockslide was caused by man-made global warming while President Obama will blame it on the failed policies of the Bush administration.

With all the unpredictability in the world, its nice to know that some things will never change.

Steve General Discussion

According to this article in the UK’s Daily Mail, a young man was neglected for three days and died of thirst in St George’s Hospital in Tooting, South London. St George’s is one of Britain’s leading teaching hospitals.

Kane Gorny, 22, who was suffering from a brain tumor, had just had a hip replacement operation at the hospital and was immobile and unable to get out of bed. His mother says that doctors had told him that if he didn’t receive his hormone-regulating drugs three times a day he would die.

At one point Kane Gorny, 22, was so desperate that he called the police to ask for a drink of water but, when they arrived, the doctors sent them away saying everything was under control.

The next day Gorny’s mother found him delirious and he was laying there with his mouth open. She desperately told three different nurses and at least one doctor that there was something wrong with her son but nobody seemed to care. Within hours after that he was dead. The death certificate said Mr Gorny had died because of a ‘water deficit’ and ‘hypernatraemia’ – a medical term for dehydration.

The coroner turned the case over to the police who are investigating the possibility of a corporate manslaughter charge against the hospital.

One would probably not be surprised to find this level of negligence in a fly-by-night nursing home, but this was one of Britain’s leading hospitals. In other words, this is the best of care in the U.K.

For Americans, get used to it. If nationalized healthcare legislation is passed here in the USA, this will be the kind of care we can expect from our best hospitals. (So just imagine how bad it will be in the less fancy hospitals, clinics, and nursing homes.)

Steve General Discussion