As you might know, I work on the historic Battleship Missouri located in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. The following was posted on-board lately and I felt it was well worth repeating here.
Harry Truman was a different kind of President. He probably made as many important decisions regarding our nation's history as any of the other Presidents this country has had. However, a measure of his greatness may rest on what he did after he left the White House.
The only asset he had when he died was the house he lived in, which was in Independence, Missouri. His wife had inherited the house from her mother and other than their years at the White House, they lived their entire lives there.
When he retired from office in 1952, his income was a U.S. Army pension reported to have been $13,507.72 a year. Congress, noting that he was paying for his stamps and personally licking them, granted him an "allowance" and later, a retroactive pension of $25,000 per year.
After President Eisenhower was inaugurated, Harry and Bess drove home to Missouri by themselves. There was no Secret Service following them.
When offered corporate positions at large salaries, he declined stating, "You don't want me. You want the office of the President, and that doesn't belong to me. It belongs to the American people and it's not for sale".
Even later, on May 6, 1971, when Congress was preparing to award him the Medal of Honor on his 87th birthday, he refused to accept it, writing, "I don't consider that I have done anything which should be the reason for any award, Congressional or otherwise."
As President, he paid for all of his own travel expenses and food. Modern politicians have found a new level of success in cashing in on the Presidency, resulting in untold wealth. Today, many in Congress also have found a way to become quite wealthy while enjoying the fruits of their offices. Political offices are now for sale.
Good old Harry Truman was correct when he observed, "My choices in life were either to be a piano player in a whore house or a politician. And to tell the truth, there's hardly any difference!"
I say we dig him up and clone him!!!! If only we had politicians and presidents now that had even 1% of the integrity and humility of President Truman, this country would be in a lot better shape! He truly understood that being a politician and/or president made him a public servant to the people of this great country, not the other way around. God bless you Harry Truman!
Sunday, September 6, 2009
No Tears for Van Jones
Let there be a celebration in the streets......the pressure from the citizens of this country has had a positive effect! Today we were greeted with the joyous news that Van Jones, the Green Jobs Czar has decided to step aside and resign his position. That my friends is GREAT news!!! This was a person with ideals that are 180degrees from what we need in this country.
Van Jones is a self-admitted Communist and anti-capitalist, willingly signed a petition seeking an investigation into 9/11 because he believes the government was behind it and called Republicans "A@^$%holes" at a public forum in Berkeley earlier this year. He has recently come out apologizing for these things saying he really didn't believe them and was sorry for his remarks. I for one though don't believe a word he has to say in that respect. He has admitted personally to being a communist and anti-capitalist. As far as the 9/11 conspiracy, we have all had clipboards thrust at us for all kinds of issues to sign......but I am willing to bet that if you are like me, you don't sign unless you believe the same way. Given the education level of Van Jones, I would expect no less from him. To think otherwise is ludicrous! As for his remarks regarding Republicans, he said it because that's what he thinks and he knew he could get away with it at a like-minded forum of kool-aid drinkers in Berkeley. As far as his apologies, it is readily apparent that he was willing to apologize simply because he wanted to "keep his job"! Bottom line here is that he said what he said because that is what he believes! A false and insincere apology doesn't change that.
The aggravating thing about people like Van Jones is that they are radical people with radical ideas that are more than willing to tear down the very same country and system that gave them the opportunity and freedom to get to where they are now (VERY much like the mush-headed liberal actors who just thrive on deriding conservatives....). In addition, these liberal elitists consider themselves to be better and smarter than us, the average American citizen. They fail to realize that the average American is pretty darn smart.....and resourceful too. We aren't as blind and dumb as they think (and hope) we are.
So now, Van Jones is gone and calling the opposition to him a "vicious smear campaign against me." Perhaps he should take a good, hard look at himself and listen to the words of Jeremiah Wright(Obama's religious mentor)when he said...."The chickens are coming home to roost!!!!"
Van Jones is a self-admitted Communist and anti-capitalist, willingly signed a petition seeking an investigation into 9/11 because he believes the government was behind it and called Republicans "A@^$%holes" at a public forum in Berkeley earlier this year. He has recently come out apologizing for these things saying he really didn't believe them and was sorry for his remarks. I for one though don't believe a word he has to say in that respect. He has admitted personally to being a communist and anti-capitalist. As far as the 9/11 conspiracy, we have all had clipboards thrust at us for all kinds of issues to sign......but I am willing to bet that if you are like me, you don't sign unless you believe the same way. Given the education level of Van Jones, I would expect no less from him. To think otherwise is ludicrous! As for his remarks regarding Republicans, he said it because that's what he thinks and he knew he could get away with it at a like-minded forum of kool-aid drinkers in Berkeley. As far as his apologies, it is readily apparent that he was willing to apologize simply because he wanted to "keep his job"! Bottom line here is that he said what he said because that is what he believes! A false and insincere apology doesn't change that.
The aggravating thing about people like Van Jones is that they are radical people with radical ideas that are more than willing to tear down the very same country and system that gave them the opportunity and freedom to get to where they are now (VERY much like the mush-headed liberal actors who just thrive on deriding conservatives....). In addition, these liberal elitists consider themselves to be better and smarter than us, the average American citizen. They fail to realize that the average American is pretty darn smart.....and resourceful too. We aren't as blind and dumb as they think (and hope) we are.
So now, Van Jones is gone and calling the opposition to him a "vicious smear campaign against me." Perhaps he should take a good, hard look at himself and listen to the words of Jeremiah Wright(Obama's religious mentor)when he said...."The chickens are coming home to roost!!!!"
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Hypocrisy in Massachussets
So the "Lion of the Senate", as he was called, is now history! As you all have no doubt heard, Sen. Edward Kennedy died last night, leaving his Senate seat open. And already the Democrats have mobilized to ensure that this seat doesn't go to a (gasp.....dare I even say it...?) Republican! No kidding......! Already, the Associated Press is reporting that Mass. Gov. Deval Patrick would support a change in state law allowing him to appoint a temporary replacement.
Currently, the state of Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that requires an election to fill seats that become vacant as a result of death or several other actions. Now HERE is the interesting part!!!! This law was only changed 5 years ago in 2004 when Mitt Romney (R) was governor!!! Before the change in 2004, the Governor of the state WAS allowed to appoint a replacement. But when Sen. John Kerry (D) ran for President, they changed it so that an election needed to be held. Well, now that the Governor is a Democrat and they have a seat to fill, they want to "go back to the way it was"!
Isn't this the height of hypocrisy??? Let's take a look at how this discussion probably went:
Democrats (2004): "Hey, John Kerry's seat is open! We need to make some changes right now or Mitt Romney may install a Republican in his place. That wouldn't be fair would it? It should be done by election! (We CAN win an election and install a Democrat if we do this, right?)"
At this point, the law is changed and an election is now required, removing the ability from Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican in place of John Kerry.
Fast forward to today.......
Democrats (2009): "Hey, Ted Kennedy's seat is open! We need to make some changes right now or our guy in the Governor's seat won't be able to appoint a Democrat to fill the seat and stop a Republican from getting it if we have an election. That wouldn't be fair would it? It should be a position appointed by the Governor! (We probably wouldn't win the election right now and get a Deomcrat would we? What with the economy the way it is, people being upset with the government health care plan we're trying to ram down their throats that we can't even pay for....they might elect a Republican right???)
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here???? The Democrats want to change the playbook every time it doesn't suit them perfectly. I think the people of Massachusetts should stand up and stop this unevening of the playing field. What do you think?
Currently, the state of Massachusetts is one of a handful of states that requires an election to fill seats that become vacant as a result of death or several other actions. Now HERE is the interesting part!!!! This law was only changed 5 years ago in 2004 when Mitt Romney (R) was governor!!! Before the change in 2004, the Governor of the state WAS allowed to appoint a replacement. But when Sen. John Kerry (D) ran for President, they changed it so that an election needed to be held. Well, now that the Governor is a Democrat and they have a seat to fill, they want to "go back to the way it was"!
Isn't this the height of hypocrisy??? Let's take a look at how this discussion probably went:
Democrats (2004): "Hey, John Kerry's seat is open! We need to make some changes right now or Mitt Romney may install a Republican in his place. That wouldn't be fair would it? It should be done by election! (We CAN win an election and install a Democrat if we do this, right?)"
At this point, the law is changed and an election is now required, removing the ability from Mitt Romney to appoint a Republican in place of John Kerry.
Fast forward to today.......
Democrats (2009): "Hey, Ted Kennedy's seat is open! We need to make some changes right now or our guy in the Governor's seat won't be able to appoint a Democrat to fill the seat and stop a Republican from getting it if we have an election. That wouldn't be fair would it? It should be a position appointed by the Governor! (We probably wouldn't win the election right now and get a Deomcrat would we? What with the economy the way it is, people being upset with the government health care plan we're trying to ram down their throats that we can't even pay for....they might elect a Republican right???)
Does anyone else see the hypocrisy here???? The Democrats want to change the playbook every time it doesn't suit them perfectly. I think the people of Massachusetts should stand up and stop this unevening of the playing field. What do you think?
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Transparency in Terms??
Have you ever watched something implode on itself??? I think right now all you have to do to see this is to watch the writhing of the Obama administration as they try to find a way to force "their health care plan" down our throats. From Obama mincing words about the "public option" to Health and Human Services Katherine Sebelius stating that "single payer health care is not in their plans" to White House Spokesman Robert Gibbs putting his own spin on things, it is apparent there is some splintering going on.
I personally think they are running scared. I don't believe they EVER thought they would have this tough a time getting their health care plan through and the publc outpouring against the "public option" is un-nerving to them. But while they are attempting to keep it together, I also am struck with the feeling that the Obama administration is a very smart "bully" in a way.
Let me explain! When you watch Obama, you can easily tell that he thinks he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he holds himself, his gestures and the way he talks. He is arrogant.....and very clever. He desperately wants to be "the president that finally and successfully brought about health care reform" and he is willing to do whatever he needs to do to capture this title. (This by the way, would be another way for him to "stick it" to his former opponent Hillary Clinton who tried hard to be the one that brought that about.)
When looking at his actions and those of the administration to ram this through, you need to aak yourself if their actions are "transparent" like they say they would be. In reality, the answer is NO. Starting with the "public option", there are problems. Watching Sean Hannity last night, there was a guest who I thought put it perfectly. He said, "The public option is really a 'government option'. By terming as a "public option", it makes the general population feel more comfortable with it. It's amazing what a difference just changing a word can make. So now, the Obama administration has this outpouring of resistance against their plan and it bothers them greatly. They don't like it and with the media's help they try to depict the attendees at the town hall meetings as uninformed, uneducated, thugs, astro-turf, irrelevant etc. While doing this, they float a trial balloon to see if the word "co-op" will have a better effect.
Do you see what's happening here? Look at the fact that there are congressional representatives out there that publicly state they will vote for the health care bill REGARDLESS of what their own constituents want.....people who actually were responsible for putting them in place to represent them to begin with. Couple this with the fact that the Obama administration is bound and determined to get what THEY want and you start to see a bully emerging. Remember, this administration thinks we are stupid and they are not. So, now they think that by changing the term "public option" to "co-op" we will all feel better and will allow them get their way. After all, it's a better sounding term than "public option" right?
What is a co-op??? It's defined as a "jointly owned commercial enterprise that produces and distributes goods and services and is run for the benefits of it's owners". So let's say we have a "co-op". Who are the owners going to be? Not the insurance companies because the idea of the "co-op" is to supposedly provide competition with the insurance companies. Then who are the owners? They are YOU, the American people.....or more specifically, the GOVERNMENT since they will be the ones running it. Remember the definition??? It's run for the benefit of the owners. So in this case, the owners, "the "government", will run it for THEIR benefit which actually makes a co-op a "government sponsored enterprise" better known as a GSE.
Want to know how well a GSE can do??? Just take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.....they are GSE's. They also have gotten BILLIONS of dollars from us, the taxpaying citizens of this country to keep them afloat. Is that how you want your health care to be run as well???? Barney Frank who backs the health care measures being pushed by this administration also was also tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who recieved those billions of dollars noted above. Remember.....he was romantically involved with Herb Moses, a top executive at Fannie Mae. Do you see a connection here? I do and so do millions of other people.
So here's the bottom line. The "co-op" the administration is now floating around out there is the same thing as the "public option" or more accurately the "government option". The name has been changed because they think the American people are too stupid to realize that changing the name WON'T change the program. With this in mind, we need to keep the pressure on at the town hall meetings and with writing to our elected representatives. We need to continue to let them know that we are on to them and that they work for us, not the other way around. We need to continue to show up and vocalize our thoughts and concerns. They may try to paint the town hall meetings as organized by insurance companies and downgrade them, but the fact is that the American people by and large have health insurance, are satisfied with it and are angry, confused and frustrated. Why? Because they don't want Obama or any of his political hacks destroying the best health care system in the world (granted it has it faults as nothing is perfect), so he can claim a political victory and continue to swell his already over-inflated ego about his "accomplishments".
One last thought here......those who like to say that the town halls meetings are organized by insurance companies and the anger and frustration is manufactured, need to take a reality check. So what if they are organized! That' their right and the voices being heard in frustration and anger there are REAL and SINCERE!!! By the way, why doesn't the media point out that almost all of Obama's town hall meetings have BUS LOADS of people that are brought there by the liberal side to cheer him on and make a known presence. (Kool-aid drinkers......every one!) I guess it's permissable for the liberals but not for the conservatives huh??? Transparency??? I don't think so!
I personally think they are running scared. I don't believe they EVER thought they would have this tough a time getting their health care plan through and the publc outpouring against the "public option" is un-nerving to them. But while they are attempting to keep it together, I also am struck with the feeling that the Obama administration is a very smart "bully" in a way.
Let me explain! When you watch Obama, you can easily tell that he thinks he is smarter than everyone else. You can see it in the way he holds himself, his gestures and the way he talks. He is arrogant.....and very clever. He desperately wants to be "the president that finally and successfully brought about health care reform" and he is willing to do whatever he needs to do to capture this title. (This by the way, would be another way for him to "stick it" to his former opponent Hillary Clinton who tried hard to be the one that brought that about.)
When looking at his actions and those of the administration to ram this through, you need to aak yourself if their actions are "transparent" like they say they would be. In reality, the answer is NO. Starting with the "public option", there are problems. Watching Sean Hannity last night, there was a guest who I thought put it perfectly. He said, "The public option is really a 'government option'. By terming as a "public option", it makes the general population feel more comfortable with it. It's amazing what a difference just changing a word can make. So now, the Obama administration has this outpouring of resistance against their plan and it bothers them greatly. They don't like it and with the media's help they try to depict the attendees at the town hall meetings as uninformed, uneducated, thugs, astro-turf, irrelevant etc. While doing this, they float a trial balloon to see if the word "co-op" will have a better effect.
Do you see what's happening here? Look at the fact that there are congressional representatives out there that publicly state they will vote for the health care bill REGARDLESS of what their own constituents want.....people who actually were responsible for putting them in place to represent them to begin with. Couple this with the fact that the Obama administration is bound and determined to get what THEY want and you start to see a bully emerging. Remember, this administration thinks we are stupid and they are not. So, now they think that by changing the term "public option" to "co-op" we will all feel better and will allow them get their way. After all, it's a better sounding term than "public option" right?
What is a co-op??? It's defined as a "jointly owned commercial enterprise that produces and distributes goods and services and is run for the benefits of it's owners". So let's say we have a "co-op". Who are the owners going to be? Not the insurance companies because the idea of the "co-op" is to supposedly provide competition with the insurance companies. Then who are the owners? They are YOU, the American people.....or more specifically, the GOVERNMENT since they will be the ones running it. Remember the definition??? It's run for the benefit of the owners. So in this case, the owners, "the "government", will run it for THEIR benefit which actually makes a co-op a "government sponsored enterprise" better known as a GSE.
Want to know how well a GSE can do??? Just take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.....they are GSE's. They also have gotten BILLIONS of dollars from us, the taxpaying citizens of this country to keep them afloat. Is that how you want your health care to be run as well???? Barney Frank who backs the health care measures being pushed by this administration also was also tied to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who recieved those billions of dollars noted above. Remember.....he was romantically involved with Herb Moses, a top executive at Fannie Mae. Do you see a connection here? I do and so do millions of other people.
So here's the bottom line. The "co-op" the administration is now floating around out there is the same thing as the "public option" or more accurately the "government option". The name has been changed because they think the American people are too stupid to realize that changing the name WON'T change the program. With this in mind, we need to keep the pressure on at the town hall meetings and with writing to our elected representatives. We need to continue to let them know that we are on to them and that they work for us, not the other way around. We need to continue to show up and vocalize our thoughts and concerns. They may try to paint the town hall meetings as organized by insurance companies and downgrade them, but the fact is that the American people by and large have health insurance, are satisfied with it and are angry, confused and frustrated. Why? Because they don't want Obama or any of his political hacks destroying the best health care system in the world (granted it has it faults as nothing is perfect), so he can claim a political victory and continue to swell his already over-inflated ego about his "accomplishments".
One last thought here......those who like to say that the town halls meetings are organized by insurance companies and the anger and frustration is manufactured, need to take a reality check. So what if they are organized! That' their right and the voices being heard in frustration and anger there are REAL and SINCERE!!! By the way, why doesn't the media point out that almost all of Obama's town hall meetings have BUS LOADS of people that are brought there by the liberal side to cheer him on and make a known presence. (Kool-aid drinkers......every one!) I guess it's permissable for the liberals but not for the conservatives huh??? Transparency??? I don't think so!
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Guns and E-Mails.....A New Group?
Don't you mean Guns and Roses you might be saying, referring to the rock group? Nope.....these are a couple of the leading stories today that have been reported by the Associated Press. They also make for some interesting thoughts. Let's start with the e-mails.
These are the unsolicited e-mails from the White House that they vehemently denied sending out. The White House has continually said that no one recieved unsolicited e-mails from them but today White House Online Director Macon Phillips changed course and admitted that this actually had happened. He admitted that such e-mails were in fact sent out, which included a message from top political advisor, David Axelrod, urging support for health care overhaul. But in true political fashion, Phillips also immediately aimed the blame at independent, outside political groups which he didn't name. (Have you ever noticed how hard it is to pin the blame on a particular group or person when you don't have their name or any evidence to back it up?) Phillips stated, "It has come to our attention that some people may have been suscribed to our e-mails lists without their knowledge - likely as a result of efforts of outside groups of all political stripes" (A great way to blame everyone but yourselves huh Mr. Phillips!)
Keep in mind that this comes on the heels of pressure from Darrell Issa,(R-Ca)who is the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee. He also expressed concern about a separate e-mail account that was being used by the White House to track "fishy" claims about the health care overhaul (interpreted..."critics speaking out"). Incidentally, this e-mail account was disabled this afternoon. Now THAT sounds fishy to me! Especially in the light of the admission by White House officials that they had asked the public to share e-mails of critics with them so they could "fight back" and correct the misconceptions.
So what we have here is a classic case of, "We didn't do it......(Uh oh, they know)....Wait a minute, we did it....(quick, get rid of the evidence)..But it was all THEIR fault!" What this tells me as it percolates inside my average American mind is that they, meaning the White House, didn't expect to be caught or called on the carpet for it. Are we really expected to believe that the White House had NO idea this was going on until others started looking into it? I personally don't buy that idea as Washington politicians have their fingers and noses into so many places inside the beltway, that a fly on the wall is probably caught on tape each time it rubs its wings together.
Lastly, this situation represents one more incident in which the lack of integrity or transparency is seen yet again. Rather than have enough intestinal fortitude to admit they did something wrong and apologize for it, it's so much easier and convenient to blame it on someone else.....anyone else!!! What a great set of role models and leaders we have out there at the White House setting an example for our kids. Don't you want your kids to learn these lessons that the politicos are teaching???? I don't.
Now on to the real firepower.....the guns! As you might have seen, about a dozen people that were outside the convention center in Phoenix, AZ while Obama made a speech inside, came with their guns. One of them had a semi-automatic assault rifle. This is the second time this has happened and has sparked some controversy and I want to throw my thoughts in the ring.
For starters, I support the constitution and our right to bear arms. This is one of the fundamental rights given to us by our constitution and is one that is constantly under attack by the anti-gun crowds. As a result of Arizona's adherance to the constitution and what it stands for, that state allows law-abiding citizens to openly carry a weapon in public. For this I applaud the state of Arizona. If Obama has his way, we will eventually lose that right and keep in mind that once you lose a right, it is very difficult if not impossible to get it back. As far as this situation in Phoenix, the gun-toting citizens didn't break any laws, were not disorderly, made no threats and consequently were not arrested. Wow!!! What an unbelievable thought for the liberal crowd out there. Conservatives showed up carrying guns, were well-mannered, obeyed the law and nothing violent happened? How can this be? (Or more likely, "How can we spin this to our benefit?")
When interviewed, the gun owners stated they were simply making a political statement. In a nutshell, they believe we should maintain our right to possess and bear arms, which is completely removed from what Obama wishes to do. I applaud these people for their beliefs and their courage to stand up for what they believe in. If only we all had that kind of conviction and courage.
Now there are those out there that are fully against this and these are the same people that would disarm you, the private citizen, completely if they got the chance. Take for instance a Northern Arizona University political scientist, who called this a "disturbing trend" or Paul Helmke who is president of the Washington, D.C. based Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence. Mr. Helmke is quoted as stating, "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone". I find his comment particularly interesting because in NONE of the news accounts regarding this rally in Phoenix did I find ANYTHING that stated the weapons were loaded. In fact, I would challenge that they were not loaded. So where did he get his information from??? I truly believe that people like these in Phoenix not only feel strongly about their rights, but as law-abiding citizens have probably educated themselves, taken safety classes and are extremely aware of gun safety. I would be willing to bet as well that they never loaded the weapons as a result of this and only brought them, as they said, as a political statement.
Lastly, a few thoughts I would like to share. Remember the saying, "Guns don't kill people....people kill people!"?? Well I happen to agree with that. I also think that we should ALL be allowed to wear firearms if we so desire......IF, we pass a back-gound check, take mandatory safety classes, complete periodic refresher training snd take the right safety precautions about storage of the weapons and ammo. If this were the case, I believe we would have a lot less violent crime because gun-toting criminals would know they could very well be on the losing end of a situation as a result. Also, when is the last time you heard of a school shooting or gun-man going on a wild killing rampage in Arizona??? Coincidence? I don't think so.
These are the unsolicited e-mails from the White House that they vehemently denied sending out. The White House has continually said that no one recieved unsolicited e-mails from them but today White House Online Director Macon Phillips changed course and admitted that this actually had happened. He admitted that such e-mails were in fact sent out, which included a message from top political advisor, David Axelrod, urging support for health care overhaul. But in true political fashion, Phillips also immediately aimed the blame at independent, outside political groups which he didn't name. (Have you ever noticed how hard it is to pin the blame on a particular group or person when you don't have their name or any evidence to back it up?) Phillips stated, "It has come to our attention that some people may have been suscribed to our e-mails lists without their knowledge - likely as a result of efforts of outside groups of all political stripes" (A great way to blame everyone but yourselves huh Mr. Phillips!)
Keep in mind that this comes on the heels of pressure from Darrell Issa,(R-Ca)who is the top Republican on the House Oversight Committee. He also expressed concern about a separate e-mail account that was being used by the White House to track "fishy" claims about the health care overhaul (interpreted..."critics speaking out"). Incidentally, this e-mail account was disabled this afternoon. Now THAT sounds fishy to me! Especially in the light of the admission by White House officials that they had asked the public to share e-mails of critics with them so they could "fight back" and correct the misconceptions.
So what we have here is a classic case of, "We didn't do it......(Uh oh, they know)....Wait a minute, we did it....(quick, get rid of the evidence)..But it was all THEIR fault!" What this tells me as it percolates inside my average American mind is that they, meaning the White House, didn't expect to be caught or called on the carpet for it. Are we really expected to believe that the White House had NO idea this was going on until others started looking into it? I personally don't buy that idea as Washington politicians have their fingers and noses into so many places inside the beltway, that a fly on the wall is probably caught on tape each time it rubs its wings together.
Lastly, this situation represents one more incident in which the lack of integrity or transparency is seen yet again. Rather than have enough intestinal fortitude to admit they did something wrong and apologize for it, it's so much easier and convenient to blame it on someone else.....anyone else!!! What a great set of role models and leaders we have out there at the White House setting an example for our kids. Don't you want your kids to learn these lessons that the politicos are teaching???? I don't.
Now on to the real firepower.....the guns! As you might have seen, about a dozen people that were outside the convention center in Phoenix, AZ while Obama made a speech inside, came with their guns. One of them had a semi-automatic assault rifle. This is the second time this has happened and has sparked some controversy and I want to throw my thoughts in the ring.
For starters, I support the constitution and our right to bear arms. This is one of the fundamental rights given to us by our constitution and is one that is constantly under attack by the anti-gun crowds. As a result of Arizona's adherance to the constitution and what it stands for, that state allows law-abiding citizens to openly carry a weapon in public. For this I applaud the state of Arizona. If Obama has his way, we will eventually lose that right and keep in mind that once you lose a right, it is very difficult if not impossible to get it back. As far as this situation in Phoenix, the gun-toting citizens didn't break any laws, were not disorderly, made no threats and consequently were not arrested. Wow!!! What an unbelievable thought for the liberal crowd out there. Conservatives showed up carrying guns, were well-mannered, obeyed the law and nothing violent happened? How can this be? (Or more likely, "How can we spin this to our benefit?")
When interviewed, the gun owners stated they were simply making a political statement. In a nutshell, they believe we should maintain our right to possess and bear arms, which is completely removed from what Obama wishes to do. I applaud these people for their beliefs and their courage to stand up for what they believe in. If only we all had that kind of conviction and courage.
Now there are those out there that are fully against this and these are the same people that would disarm you, the private citizen, completely if they got the chance. Take for instance a Northern Arizona University political scientist, who called this a "disturbing trend" or Paul Helmke who is president of the Washington, D.C. based Brady Campaign to Prevent Violence. Mr. Helmke is quoted as stating, "When you bring a loaded gun, particularly a loaded assault rifle to any political event, but particularly to one where the president is appearing, you're just making the situation dangerous for everyone". I find his comment particularly interesting because in NONE of the news accounts regarding this rally in Phoenix did I find ANYTHING that stated the weapons were loaded. In fact, I would challenge that they were not loaded. So where did he get his information from??? I truly believe that people like these in Phoenix not only feel strongly about their rights, but as law-abiding citizens have probably educated themselves, taken safety classes and are extremely aware of gun safety. I would be willing to bet as well that they never loaded the weapons as a result of this and only brought them, as they said, as a political statement.
Lastly, a few thoughts I would like to share. Remember the saying, "Guns don't kill people....people kill people!"?? Well I happen to agree with that. I also think that we should ALL be allowed to wear firearms if we so desire......IF, we pass a back-gound check, take mandatory safety classes, complete periodic refresher training snd take the right safety precautions about storage of the weapons and ammo. If this were the case, I believe we would have a lot less violent crime because gun-toting criminals would know they could very well be on the losing end of a situation as a result. Also, when is the last time you heard of a school shooting or gun-man going on a wild killing rampage in Arizona??? Coincidence? I don't think so.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Advance Care Planning Consultations - H.R. 3200
We have all heard the debates raging around the country about the Advance Care Planning Consultations also known as "End of Life" consultations and if you are anything at all like me, you don't really know which side is correct. Well, in my quest to find out the truth regarding this matter, I have skipped ahead in my reading of the current House Bill to the area concerning this particular issue. I want to know what the bill REALLY says, not just what either side is saying.
Now, for those of you who know me, it comes as no surprise that I am NOT a supporter of the current, sitting president. I personally did not vote for him, will not vote for him in the future and don't trust him as far as I can throw him! I also truly believe that he has effectively hidden who he "really is" as far as character and political desires from the American people. I feel he is quickly unraveling the threads that made this country great so he can transform the US into something he and his ultra-liberal hacks have wanted for years which is a socialist country. I also strongly feel that this is the most corrupt administration EVER to hit 1600 Pennsylvania Street! So, with this in mind, you will be shocked to read (perhaps you had better sit down for this one......) that I have read and scrutinized HR 3200 tonight from pages 425-430 and have discovered that this portion of this bill is nowhere near as bad as it has been characterized. (I know.....some of you are currently sitting with your mouths agape thinking, "Is he really going to side with the President on this one????" The answer is yes and no.
Remember, I don't like or trust the current administration! (Did I make that evident enough above???) But I DO like honesty, integrity and courage. So, it is with great chagrin that I report to you this night that the negative reports about this area of the bill are not completely truthful.
I recently recieved a list of 51 negative points regarding this bill. Using these particular points, I will address each one to support or debunk the statement. In this particular blog entry though, I will only address 4 of the 8 that deal specifically with this topic. I will torture you with the remaining 4 again soon! (Cue the wicked, demonic laugh......!) With this in mind, let's start with Page 425, Lines 4-12: Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of Life. (My take: TRUE) This section does in fact specify, "the term 'advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years." With this in mind, a consultation is in fact going to be mandated at a certain point if one has not been conducted within the past five years. My unanswered question though is this: At what point or under what conditions does this particular requirement kick in and who makes that determination? I have not found the answers to these questions yet.
Page 425, Lines 17-19: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!(My take: PARTIALLY TRUE) According to the bill, a consultation shall include "An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses." Notice that it states "practitioner", not government. A practitioner as defined in this bill is a physician or nurse practitioner (page 428, lines 14-19). My concern with this is that we are talking about legal matters here which should be addressed by someone in the legal profession, not the medical profession. Physicians and nurse practitioners are already overworked just trying to keep up with what they went to school for in the first place.......medicine and giving quality medical care to their patients!!!! To saddle them with the additional requirement of explaining legal documents and terms will only exacerbate the problem by taking valuable time away from their providing MEDICAL care to their patients. This is NOT a good or well-thought out idea!
Page 425, Lines 22-25, Page 426, Lines 1-3: Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide). This is just not right!(My take: PARTIALLY TRUE) When they say "This is just not right!", I agree with them. It's not because their point is right but because their "premise" is just not right. The bill states, "The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965). Notice that this is done by the practitioner, not the government. In addition, these are resources that are available to the general public already and have been for quite some time. What these resources actually do is to guide individuals and their families regarding how to set up legal guidance and documentation regarding their desires and wishes for medical care at a time when they may not be able to communicate them to the practitioners. In other words, in my own personal case, I would NOT want to be kept alive as a "vegetable" but would rather be let slip away to go home to my Lord and Savior. By having that stated in a legal document, I can rest assured that if the time comes when I am in that situation, the practitioner has this guidance to show what MY wishes and MY desires are. And guess what? They are REQUIRED to follow them!!! The government has absolutely no say in this matter if I have properly prepared the paperwork (say THAT fast three times....) in advance. This could save my loved ones a great deal of hassle, heartache and expenses by making sure I have taken this step. With this in mind, I would also refer you to Page 426, lines 21 to Page 427, Line 1 in which it states, " the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes. Make sense? It does to me!!!
Page 427, Lines 15-24: Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.(My take: FALSE) I read absolutely NOTHING ANYWHERE that states this. The decision as to whether or not to write up an order for advance care planning is strictly up to the individual. In support of this, I would refer you to Page 429, Line 13 through Page 430. Line 24. In this area, it specifically talks about effectively communicating the INDIVIDUALS preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individuals. NOWHERE does it state or infer in any way that the government mandates the orders or has a say in how your life ends.
So let's wrap up what we've learned today. The bill WILL apparently require an Advance Care Planning Consultation at some point, but that point is not specified. In addition, it appears that once you have a consultation, it will be required at least every five years. (Not sure how I feel about this particular aspect right now.) In this consultation, the individual (patient) and the practitioner (physician or nurse practitioner) will give guidance in the many areas regarding the patient's options for advance care planning to include the legal aspects. (I DON'T think this is a good idea!) If,(notice the "if") the patient desires to draw up an order for advance care planning (there is nothing that states it is mandatory), they can accomplish this with their practitioner. In this order, the patient, not the government expresses their personal wishes and desires regarding their advance care in the event they reach a state where they can't effectively communicate their wishes.
So do I support this bill yet??? NO!!!! There are many problems in just the first 30 pages of the legislation that I noted in an earlier entry. Couple those with the lack of answers noted here, additional non-medical duties heaped on the backs of our already over-worked physicians and nurse-practitioners and I feel it is a recipe for disaster. We also already have the ability to do advance directives and other legal directives such as Durable Power of Attorney's for Healthcare (which not surprisingly since they are LEGAL documents are completed by..........Attorneys!!!) So why do we need another bill that covers this and shifts this responsibility to the health care practitioners? We don't!!!
In my next entry, I will tackle the next 4 concerns and then you can make your own educated decision. But I also urge you not to take my word for it. Check it out yourself. Go to http://waysandmeans.house.gov/ and click on the left side where it says, H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”. You'll be glad you did!
Now, for those of you who know me, it comes as no surprise that I am NOT a supporter of the current, sitting president. I personally did not vote for him, will not vote for him in the future and don't trust him as far as I can throw him! I also truly believe that he has effectively hidden who he "really is" as far as character and political desires from the American people. I feel he is quickly unraveling the threads that made this country great so he can transform the US into something he and his ultra-liberal hacks have wanted for years which is a socialist country. I also strongly feel that this is the most corrupt administration EVER to hit 1600 Pennsylvania Street! So, with this in mind, you will be shocked to read (perhaps you had better sit down for this one......) that I have read and scrutinized HR 3200 tonight from pages 425-430 and have discovered that this portion of this bill is nowhere near as bad as it has been characterized. (I know.....some of you are currently sitting with your mouths agape thinking, "Is he really going to side with the President on this one????" The answer is yes and no.
Remember, I don't like or trust the current administration! (Did I make that evident enough above???) But I DO like honesty, integrity and courage. So, it is with great chagrin that I report to you this night that the negative reports about this area of the bill are not completely truthful.
I recently recieved a list of 51 negative points regarding this bill. Using these particular points, I will address each one to support or debunk the statement. In this particular blog entry though, I will only address 4 of the 8 that deal specifically with this topic. I will torture you with the remaining 4 again soon! (Cue the wicked, demonic laugh......!) With this in mind, let's start with Page 425, Lines 4-12: Government mandates Advance Care Planning Consult. Think Senior Citizens end of Life. (My take: TRUE) This section does in fact specify, "the term 'advance care planning consultation' means a consultation between the individual and a practitioner described in paragraph (2) regarding advance care planning, if, subject to paragraph (3), the individual involved has not had such a consultation within the last 5 years." With this in mind, a consultation is in fact going to be mandated at a certain point if one has not been conducted within the past five years. My unanswered question though is this: At what point or under what conditions does this particular requirement kick in and who makes that determination? I have not found the answers to these questions yet.
Page 425, Lines 17-19: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney. Mandatory!(My take: PARTIALLY TRUE) According to the bill, a consultation shall include "An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses." Notice that it states "practitioner", not government. A practitioner as defined in this bill is a physician or nurse practitioner (page 428, lines 14-19). My concern with this is that we are talking about legal matters here which should be addressed by someone in the legal profession, not the medical profession. Physicians and nurse practitioners are already overworked just trying to keep up with what they went to school for in the first place.......medicine and giving quality medical care to their patients!!!! To saddle them with the additional requirement of explaining legal documents and terms will only exacerbate the problem by taking valuable time away from their providing MEDICAL care to their patients. This is NOT a good or well-thought out idea!
Page 425, Lines 22-25, Page 426, Lines 1-3: Government provides approved list of end of life resources, guiding you in death. (assisted suicide). This is just not right!(My take: PARTIALLY TRUE) When they say "This is just not right!", I agree with them. It's not because their point is right but because their "premise" is just not right. The bill states, "The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and State-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning, including the national toll-free hotline, the advance care planning clearinghouses, and State legal service organizations (including those funded through the Older Americans Act of 1965). Notice that this is done by the practitioner, not the government. In addition, these are resources that are available to the general public already and have been for quite some time. What these resources actually do is to guide individuals and their families regarding how to set up legal guidance and documentation regarding their desires and wishes for medical care at a time when they may not be able to communicate them to the practitioners. In other words, in my own personal case, I would NOT want to be kept alive as a "vegetable" but would rather be let slip away to go home to my Lord and Savior. By having that stated in a legal document, I can rest assured that if the time comes when I am in that situation, the practitioner has this guidance to show what MY wishes and MY desires are. And guess what? They are REQUIRED to follow them!!! The government has absolutely no say in this matter if I have properly prepared the paperwork (say THAT fast three times....) in advance. This could save my loved ones a great deal of hassle, heartache and expenses by making sure I have taken this step. With this in mind, I would also refer you to Page 426, lines 21 to Page 427, Line 1 in which it states, " the identification of resources that an individual may use to determine the requirements of the State in which such individual resides so that the treatment wishes of that individual will be carried out if the individual is unable to communicate those wishes. Make sense? It does to me!!!
Page 427, Lines 15-24: Government mandates program for orders for end of life. The Government has a say in how your life ends.(My take: FALSE) I read absolutely NOTHING ANYWHERE that states this. The decision as to whether or not to write up an order for advance care planning is strictly up to the individual. In support of this, I would refer you to Page 429, Line 13 through Page 430. Line 24. In this area, it specifically talks about effectively communicating the INDIVIDUALS preferences regarding life sustaining treatment, including an indication of the treatment and care desired by the individuals. NOWHERE does it state or infer in any way that the government mandates the orders or has a say in how your life ends.
So let's wrap up what we've learned today. The bill WILL apparently require an Advance Care Planning Consultation at some point, but that point is not specified. In addition, it appears that once you have a consultation, it will be required at least every five years. (Not sure how I feel about this particular aspect right now.) In this consultation, the individual (patient) and the practitioner (physician or nurse practitioner) will give guidance in the many areas regarding the patient's options for advance care planning to include the legal aspects. (I DON'T think this is a good idea!) If,(notice the "if") the patient desires to draw up an order for advance care planning (there is nothing that states it is mandatory), they can accomplish this with their practitioner. In this order, the patient, not the government expresses their personal wishes and desires regarding their advance care in the event they reach a state where they can't effectively communicate their wishes.
So do I support this bill yet??? NO!!!! There are many problems in just the first 30 pages of the legislation that I noted in an earlier entry. Couple those with the lack of answers noted here, additional non-medical duties heaped on the backs of our already over-worked physicians and nurse-practitioners and I feel it is a recipe for disaster. We also already have the ability to do advance directives and other legal directives such as Durable Power of Attorney's for Healthcare (which not surprisingly since they are LEGAL documents are completed by..........Attorneys!!!) So why do we need another bill that covers this and shifts this responsibility to the health care practitioners? We don't!!!
In my next entry, I will tackle the next 4 concerns and then you can make your own educated decision. But I also urge you not to take my word for it. Check it out yourself. Go to http://waysandmeans.house.gov/ and click on the left side where it says, H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act”. You'll be glad you did!
Thursday, August 13, 2009
The New Look of Astro-Turf
Who doesn't like the look of Astro-Turf.........? Always green, looking good, never has to be cut, is always ready when you need it and is incredibly resilient!!! Oh, I forgot one thing ......you WALK all over astro-turf!!!!! I guess this is what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi must have been thinking when she recently refered to outspoken critics at town hall meetings as "Astro-Turf"!!!
I have talked about this a bit before but it is gnawing away at me again like a bad fish taco (and I had a VERY bad experience with one of these in Mexico many years ago). Town hall meetings are happening all over the US and the people of this incredible country are standing up in greater numbers every day. They are using their right to free speech to question, scold and yes, even sometimes yell at members of Congress as they attend the meetings. But guess what? That is their right and it is part of the liberties and freedoms that many people have died to defend in this country. And the liberal members of Congress don't like that at all!
The members of Congress who are determined they are going to pass a health care reform bill whether you like it or not, in spite of not having even read the bill (mostly liberal Democrats but there ARE a few Republicans as well) like to think they know better than the general American citizenry. They truly believe in their hearts that they are better educated, better informed, and much more capable than the average American constituent.....and that SCARES me! It should scare you too. They feel they are "untouchable" and beyond reproach. They believe that we should take what they say at face value, that we shouldn't question them (how DARE we?), put them on the spot and require them to answer to us for their actions. After all....THEY are congressmen and senators while we........well, we're not!
While that may be true, the facts of the matter are this. The American people by and large are smart, hard-working, honest people who want what's best for them, their families and their country. Most are very patriotic (as am I), love what this country stands for and don't want to see it become just another country that fell to a failed economic or social experiment. They are people that have solid views, thoughts, desires and concerns. And above all, they are people that want the opportunity to voice their thoughts, opinions and concerns without being called "un-American, Nazi's, irrelevent or astro-turf"!
By the way........liberals must LOVE Nazis....after all, with few exceptions almost all those who use the term or other related ones to bash others are......hold onto your hats now....LIBERALS! Remember how many times they used such terms of endearment when talking about George "Dub-Yah" Bush?? Remember too.......liberals are the "compassionate, open-minded, progressive ones"......! That's why you can NEVER debate a liberal strictly on the facts without them turning to personal attacks! They ARE compassionate, open-minded and progressive.... as long as you agree with them. If you disagree......watch out! Also, I find it interesting that during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the liberals made a point of saying that their questioning of President Bush's policies and actions were American to the very core. I actually agree with this. However, now that the President is a VERY liberal Democrat, this no longer applies! Anyone who disagrees with, questions or campaigns against the liberal agenda and President Obama's policies is ......yes, that's right......un-American, Nazis, racists, irrelevant.....you get the idea!
I think it is the very height of pomposity, arrogance and ignorance for a politician to degrade and completely disregard the very constituents who voted them into office to represent their best interests. It's even worse when they publicly insult them by calling them names. They have completely forgotten that they are the "employees" and the public at large are the "employers". How would that work for any of us if we did the same in our place of employment? How long would we still be employed if after our employer expresses some concern about something we have been doing or not doing, we blow him or her off, call them degrading names and refer to them as "irrelevent" or "astro-turf"? My guess is that the vast majority of us would be hitting the pavement looking for a new job within the half-hour! So what makes politicians so haughty that they think they can do the same and get away with it? It's time we the American people took back the "power of the people" and the "power of the voting booth" and sent a message to our "employees" that this type of behavior and attitude will NOT be condoned.
Then when the next voting cycle ends for congressional seats, politicians who abuse their constituent base will find themselves being called names.......like "unemployed", "has beens", "political failures" and many others that I'm sure you can all come up with!
I have talked about this a bit before but it is gnawing away at me again like a bad fish taco (and I had a VERY bad experience with one of these in Mexico many years ago). Town hall meetings are happening all over the US and the people of this incredible country are standing up in greater numbers every day. They are using their right to free speech to question, scold and yes, even sometimes yell at members of Congress as they attend the meetings. But guess what? That is their right and it is part of the liberties and freedoms that many people have died to defend in this country. And the liberal members of Congress don't like that at all!
The members of Congress who are determined they are going to pass a health care reform bill whether you like it or not, in spite of not having even read the bill (mostly liberal Democrats but there ARE a few Republicans as well) like to think they know better than the general American citizenry. They truly believe in their hearts that they are better educated, better informed, and much more capable than the average American constituent.....and that SCARES me! It should scare you too. They feel they are "untouchable" and beyond reproach. They believe that we should take what they say at face value, that we shouldn't question them (how DARE we?), put them on the spot and require them to answer to us for their actions. After all....THEY are congressmen and senators while we........well, we're not!
While that may be true, the facts of the matter are this. The American people by and large are smart, hard-working, honest people who want what's best for them, their families and their country. Most are very patriotic (as am I), love what this country stands for and don't want to see it become just another country that fell to a failed economic or social experiment. They are people that have solid views, thoughts, desires and concerns. And above all, they are people that want the opportunity to voice their thoughts, opinions and concerns without being called "un-American, Nazi's, irrelevent or astro-turf"!
By the way........liberals must LOVE Nazis....after all, with few exceptions almost all those who use the term or other related ones to bash others are......hold onto your hats now....LIBERALS! Remember how many times they used such terms of endearment when talking about George "Dub-Yah" Bush?? Remember too.......liberals are the "compassionate, open-minded, progressive ones"......! That's why you can NEVER debate a liberal strictly on the facts without them turning to personal attacks! They ARE compassionate, open-minded and progressive.... as long as you agree with them. If you disagree......watch out! Also, I find it interesting that during the 2008 Presidential campaign, the liberals made a point of saying that their questioning of President Bush's policies and actions were American to the very core. I actually agree with this. However, now that the President is a VERY liberal Democrat, this no longer applies! Anyone who disagrees with, questions or campaigns against the liberal agenda and President Obama's policies is ......yes, that's right......un-American, Nazis, racists, irrelevant.....you get the idea!
I think it is the very height of pomposity, arrogance and ignorance for a politician to degrade and completely disregard the very constituents who voted them into office to represent their best interests. It's even worse when they publicly insult them by calling them names. They have completely forgotten that they are the "employees" and the public at large are the "employers". How would that work for any of us if we did the same in our place of employment? How long would we still be employed if after our employer expresses some concern about something we have been doing or not doing, we blow him or her off, call them degrading names and refer to them as "irrelevent" or "astro-turf"? My guess is that the vast majority of us would be hitting the pavement looking for a new job within the half-hour! So what makes politicians so haughty that they think they can do the same and get away with it? It's time we the American people took back the "power of the people" and the "power of the voting booth" and sent a message to our "employees" that this type of behavior and attitude will NOT be condoned.
Then when the next voting cycle ends for congressional seats, politicians who abuse their constituent base will find themselves being called names.......like "unemployed", "has beens", "political failures" and many others that I'm sure you can all come up with!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
