Selfishness Personified... In Medical Staff?

Remember when Thomas Duncan left Africa, knowing full well he had been directly exposed to the Ebola virus, and came to the United States, presumably to get treatment if he became sick? Mr. Duncan's actions caused at least two more people to become ill with the virus. And while Mr. Duncan succumbed to the disease eventually, his selfish act of traveling to the United States for treatment is at least understandable. He was hoping to save his own life.

Enter the new faces of selfishness. Doctor Nancy Snykerman, Doctor Craig Spencer and Nurse Kaci Hickox.

These three health care workers all have been to Africa and were possibly exposed to the Ebola virus. Dr. Spencer definitely was since he currently has the virus and is hospitalized.

Unfortunately, Dr. Spencer decided not to quarantine himself when he returned from Africa. He passed the CDC mandated screening (which is basically useless) and had no symptoms for several days. During those days he was out and about in New York, riding trains, hitting restaurants and he even went bowling. Five days after clearing the CDC screening Dr. Spencer was in the hospital with Ebola. After he was admitted he lied to police about what he'd done during those five days. How many people did he expose in his selfishness? And he's a doctor.

Dr. Snykerman, the physician turned NBC medical correspondent, returned from an assignment in West Africa several weeks ago where she had been in close contact with the cameraman who had contracted Ebola. As such, Snykerman and her crew were placed in a voluntary quarantine for 21 days. During that quarantine Snykerman and her crew decided to go to a restaurant to get some take out food. Snykerman didn't get out of the car - one of her crew members actually went in and picked up the food, but he/they were recognized by people in the restaurant and the authorities were notified. Snykerman and her crew were then forced into quarantine by the court and they stayed put. Again - how many people did they expose during their little outing?

Finally, let's take a look at the most vocal, belligerent and most selfish of the quarantine breakers - Kaci Hickox. Ms. Hickox returned from Sierra Leon last week and was found to have a low grade fever when she went through the CDC screening at Newark International airport. She was taken to a local hospital and placed in quarantine, where she immediately began her rants.

“I believe that the forehead scanner used to take that temperature was completely inaccurate,” Hickox said. “I didn’t take any anti-fever medicines while at the airport and when I arrived in the isolation facility they took my temperature by an oral thermometer and it was completely normal."

“You don’t get rid of a fever without taking something within a couple of hours, so I think we need to discuss also the instrumentation that officials are using,” she said.

So because Ms. Hickox decided the scanner was inaccurate, she gets to make her own rules and change the procedures at the airport screening stations? How arrogant is that?

With the help of her attorney, who just happened to be a guest of the President at a state dinner a couple of weeks ago, Ms. Hickox was released from quarantine after "testing negative for Ebola for 24 hours." Yup - a 21 day quarantine is really effective if you institute it for a whole 24 hours.

Basically, Governor Christie caved in to White House pressure and allowed Ms. Hickox to leave. She then went to Maine where the state immediately told her she needed to remain in quarantine inside her home for the rest of the 21 days. Ms. Hickox began screaming once again about her rights being violated because, she declared, she isn't sick and does not have Ebola!

So there it is. Kaci Hickox has declared herself Ebola free and non-contagious so that's the end of it. While the state of Maine works to get her confined with a court order, Ms. Hickox leaves her home to take care of an essential need - riding her bike around the neighborhood with her fiance'. She has flat out stated she will not abide by a quarantine and has vowed to sue anyone who tries to impose it on her. 

Ms. Hickox stated matter-of-factly that you one cannot catch Ebola from a patient who is not symptomatic. I guess she did the research on that while she was in Sierra Leon because the CDC has flat out stated they have not done any studies to make that determination. We apparently should be listening to Kaci Hickox rather than the CDC when it comes to Ebola. She's the expert. Just ask her.

Mary Mayhew of Maine Center for Disease Control would prefer Ms. Hickox simply adhere to a voluntary quarantine but said they will take action as necessary to cause her cooperation.

"We do not want to have to legally enforce an in-home quarantine. We are confident that the selfless health workers, who were brave enough to care for Ebola patients in a foreign country, will be willing to take reasonable steps to protect the residents of their own country. However, we are willing to pursue legal authority if necessary to ensure risk is minimized for Mainers," Mayhew said.

So the state will force Hickox to abide by the quarantine or what?  

Wait.... 'Mainers"?

Kaci Hickox is a nurse. Nurses are generally known to be compassionate, caring and selfless. Ms. Hickox must have skipped those classes in school. I wonder if her fiance' is watching closely? Does he really want to marry someone so selfish that she will do whatever necessary to get her own way - even if it's reckless and self centered? Hmmmm...

Will Illegal Aliens Help Democrats Win Next Week?

The mid-term election is on Tuesday. According to nearly all of the polls Republicans are poised to take control of the Senate and maintain control of the House. Already there is evidence that Democrats will do anything to maintain Senate control.

Advertisements in some states are being aired that basically say if Republicans win the election and control two of the three Houses of Congress black people will lose all of their rights. Others say women will lose access to all birth control. Still others say some Republicans voted to allow Ebola into the country because they didn't support an initial bill for pandemic and emergency preparedness in 2013. (The bill was restructured and was later passed with bipartisan support.)

In the last week there have been reports from two states that touch screen voting machines have been tampered with so they change Republican votes to Democrat votes. Election officials say these are "calibration issues" but it's interesting that none of the machines have been reported to vote the other way around. One expert said the machines had definitely been "rigged" to vote Democrat. Imagine if only a few hundred machines in areas densely populated with Republicans were rigged to vote Democrat.,,,?

Most recently, the Washington Post, under the guise of "keeping the public informed of their own voting requirements" posted a chart that tells which states require ID to vote, which states request ID but don't require it, and which states don't require any form of ID to vote. 

Said the Post: “Voter ID laws are at-issue across the country, with newly Republican-controlled legislatures having passed them in numerous states after the 2010 election. Most states still request some form of ID, but don’t require it. Another 20 states don’t require identification. In case you’re wondering where your state is at in all of this, a helpful graphic from the Post’s graphics team.”

So what's the problem with that? Well - within hours La Raza, the radical Hispanic activist group that promotes illegal immigration and amnesty, had broadcast that information nationwide. Now any and all illegals who want to vote know exactly in which states they can do it.

There have been several articles published recently about how easy it would be for non-citizens to influence the election. Voting without ID is one of the best ways for them to do it. Non-citizens who take advantage of government handouts vote Democrat. It is estimated that there are 12 million to 15 million illegal aliens in this country today. It is also estimated that up to 14% of illegals have actually voted in past elections. If you average their total at 14 million here in the country, that would be nearly 2 million votes cast by illegals. The popular vote of the 2012 election was won by only 5 million votes.

So between illegal alien votes and rigged voting machines how hard will it be for Democrats to control elections? The major reason Democrats oppose voter ID laws is because it could eliminate up to 2 million of their votes. They deny it, of course, but it's not difficult to figure out.

Voter fraud is real. ID don't prevent all of it, obviously, but if it can be cut down by voter IDs why would anyone be opposed to it? Oh wait - I think I answered that question.

The Ten Commandments, Good Judgement And Common Sense

I read something posted on Facebook yesterday about a grandfather talking to his grandson. The boy had asked his grandfather what he thought about school shootings, the computer age and things in general.

The man went through a long list of things that were not around (or not available for every day use) when he was born in 1952. (Scary that those of us born in the 50s are now old enough to be grandparents, huh?) Many are things we take for granted today including television, penicillin, polio shots, frozen foods, Xerox, contact lenses, Frisbees, the pill, credit cards, laser beams, ball-point pens, pantyhose, air conditioners, dishwashers, etc.

Then he began explaining more about the way things were back then. You could by a new car for $600 (if you had $600.) Gas was 11 cents a gallon. Ten Cents stores (or five and dime) really sold things that cost 5 and 10 cents. Families included both parents. We called our elders, and anyone with position or authority, Sir or Ma'am.

He went on with some other things but the ones that struck a chord in me the most were the following three statements:

"Our lives were governed by the Ten Commandments, good judgment, and common sense."

"We were taught to know the difference between right and wrong and to stand up and take responsibility for our actions."

"Serving your country was a privilege; living in this country was a bigger privilege."

I was born five years later, in 1957. While many of those things had been invented by then still few were available to the average American. But those three statements were true when I was growing up as well.

Our parents taught us to love and respect God, to follow the Ten Commandments, and to use our brain more than our mouths in every day life. They taught us respect for others, for our country, and our President.

I remember once as a high school kid calling Richard Nixon "Tricky Dick." My father immediately corrected me saying "That's the President of the United States you're talking about. Be respectful." How that has changed, huh? Beginning as far back as Jimmy Carter, the attitude and comments of the American people toward the President has gotten worse and worse. In my father's generation, regardless of personal feelings about the President, he was shown respect.

People criticized Presidents but not so vocally, not so wide publicly, and not in the disgusting ways that we've seen in the last 15 years or so. I believe George W. Bush was the first to be so brutally attacked by those who opposed his policies. And it seems to be that Obama is getting even worse treatment today from many on the right. 

We were definitely taught to take responsibility for our actions, to always try to do the right thing and to apologize to those we offended. We were taught to earn our own way and there was never a thought of not working and living off of the government unless we were physically unable to work. We were taught the joys that come with giving to others instead of greed and selfishness.

In today's society it seems more and more people believe they are entitled to a living rather than feeling the responsibility to earn it. Forty-seven percent of Americans are now on some sort of government assistance. It seems most of those have no plans to change their situation as long as the government keeps putting money in their pockets. Some people say "Most people on welfare don't want to be there but have no other choice." At one point I would have agreed with that. But I truly believe the numbers of those who use welfare as a career are growing.

Since the beginning of the experiment that was the United States of America, we have been one of the greatest, most powerful, most generous nations in the world. We have done so much for other countries. Yet there are those living here who hate the United States and/or believe she is evil and needs to change to fit their views of the world. These people don't seem to realize that the reason they are allowed to voice those opinions is because we are such a great nation that enjoys freedoms that many other nations on Earth do not. The freedom to say what you want is often taken for granted.

The point to all of this is simple - if we could return to living by the title of this piece (whether you believe in God or not) we'd be better off as individuals and as a nation. The 10 Commandments are great rules to live by. Numbers 5 through 10 would even work for atheists. Good judgement and common sense certainly would make life easier. Imagine, if everyone lived by these rules, what a peaceful nation the United States would be.

A special shout out goes to my brother, Mark Atterson, who provided me with the idea for this post. Thanks buddy. Keep 'em coming!

Worried About America - Be Careful What You Wish For

I'm very much concerned about the ever-growing number of Americans (mostly white) who verbally and publicly wish President Obama dead. Not that they are physically threatening him but their comments about hoping someone will shoot him, wishing the family had been home when the man jumped the fence so he could have killed them all, wishing the armed security guard had shot him in the elevator, and hoping in general that someone assassinates him, are frightening. Some of these people profess to be Christians yet they're hoping for the death of a sitting U.S. President!

Granted it's not the majority of Americans expressing such wishes. As bad as Obama's approval numbers are today and as badly as many want him out of office, I don't think the majority of people want him dead. And for those who express that wish - I wonder if you realize what could happen if your wish comes true?

Lest anyone get the wrong idea - I am no fan of Obama. I knew from the onset of his campaign that he was going to be destructive to the United States and divisive of her people. He campaigned on "fundamentally transforming" the greatest nation on Earth! How anyone trusted him is beyond my comprehension. And the fact that he was re-elected is simply unbelievable. There is no defining "liberal logic."

Obama has lived up to his campaign promise - at least as much as he has been able to. He has eroded our freedoms away. It's funny - liberals all across the nation complained that George W. Bush took away our freedoms with the Patriot Act. Not only did President Obama renew the Patriot Act but he gave himself some new powers to limit your freedoms even more, such as killing Americans overseas who he declares enemy combatants without due process or indefinite detention, also without due process, of Americans right here at home. Even the Affordable Care Act took away some of your freedom. Everyone must now purchase health care insurance as mandated by the federal government. If you don't you will be fined... taxed. Yet you don't hear Obama fans screaming about their loss of liberties - even though they're being taken away by their hero-in-chief.

Obama has increased entitlement programs in this country, has presided over one of the greatest unemployment periods (with millions dropping out of the workforce completely) and has increased the number of people on food stamps by 100%. Basically, Obama has been the worst president since Jimmy Carter and will likely surpass him as the worst ever by the end of his presidency.

But that doesn't mean he needs to be dead. Aside from the personal loss his two daughters would face, (and I'm not interested in the whole "those aren't his kids" theory. Save that for someone else.) the country as a whole would be damaged by the assassination of the President. Despite what the President likes to say, this nation was founded and continues to be guided by Judeo-Christian principles. They are built into our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Assassinating a sitting President because he happens to be doing a poor job, whether it is intentional or due to ineptitude, is not in the character of our nation.

Problem #1 - Joe Biden. Who in their right mind would want Biden to be the President of the United States? Some say he's a buffoon who could be easily controlled but who is going to do the controlling? Many believe President Obama is controlled by outside sources, such as George Soros or the Monsanto corporation. Do people believe Joe Biden will suddenly and miraculously be controlled by Republicans or conservatives?

Problem #2 - if something happened to the President and the act was not committed by a black liberal, the black community would erupt into violence like we've never seen. And understandably so. Some will say "Let 'em," but do we really want an all-out race war in the United States? Do we not have enough to worry about with the influx of Muslim terrorists and illegal aliens without begging for a war between American citizens based on race?

I know some who hate Obama and wish him ill will disagree with me and that's OK. I'm good with standing by my opinion against those who wish him ill. If you're one of them - I would ask you to look deeply into your personal morals and beliefs and ask yourself if that's really something you want to happen. Is it something you want to teach your children - that if  they don't like or agree with an American President it's OK to want him dead? Really?

Americans needs to be working together to save the nation we love, not destroy her based on hatred. Obama is a man, that's all. He may be a destructive President but that will end in two more years. If the Republicans take control of the Senate and maintain control of the House Obama could likely be impeached within those two years. (If we can replace the spineless wonder that is our current Speaker of the House.)

No - I don't want President Obama to meet with an ill fate. My Christian beliefs won't allow it and my personal integrity won't either. Killing an American President takes reality to a whole new level. It's not something we need as a civilized nation and as civilized people. Period.

But Voter Fraud Is A Myth....!

In Cook County, Illinois, last week early voters complained that when they cast their vote on touch screen voting machines, their Republican vote changed to the Democrat candidate. This happened over and over, according to voters who talked to reporters.

This week the same complaint came from voters in Maryland. Again they said that when they chose the Republican candidate their vote automatically went to the Democrat.

“When I first selected my candidate on the electronic machine, it would not put the ‘x’ on the candidate I chose — a Republican — but it would put the ‘x’ on the Democrat candidate above it,” one voter said. “This happened multiple times with multiple selections. Every time my choice flipped from Republican to Democrat. Sometimes it required four or five tries to get the ‘x’ to stay on my real selection.”

Even Queen Anne County Sheriff, Gary Hofmann, said he encountered the problem, personally.

“This is happening here as well. It occurred on two candidates on my machine. I am glad I checked. Many voters have reported this here as well,” Hoffmann said.

Many states are passing election laws that require all voters to have valid identification. The laws are being challenged by Democrats nationwide who say that voter ID laws "disenfranchise poor and minority voters." Of course, these people don't seem to have a problem producing identification to receive government "entitlements" and subsidies. The argument is simply a way to make it easier for non-citizens to vote. And they vote Democrat.

It seems they've found a way to go around voter ID laws by rigging the machines to change votes to the Democrat candidates. They blame it on "calibration errors" but experts say it has to be written into the software. The thing is - why does it only register Democrat votes (in two different states) and how many votes would they have to change to ensure a Democrat victory? What if one in five votes that were cast on a straight Republican ticket automatically went to the Democrats instead?

Yep - voter fraud is a myth. Just ask any Democrat.

In other news, a recent poll in the United States shows that at least 68% of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction. That's no real surprise given the mis-handlings of so many different things by the Obama administration and the numerous lies told by the President himself. No, the real surprise is the next bit of information. That same poll concludes that 39% of Americans believe the Democrats are the right ones to fix the problems and only 37% think the Republicans are the answer!

So lets see...  President Obama is in his fifth year as President. The economy still sucks (as the poll also indicates), he has been caught in lie after lie ("You can keep your doctor and your insurance plan,"), his handling of world affairs has been amateurish at best, and now it seems his State Department is readying a plan to bring non-citizens with the Ebola virus into the United States for treatment. And he has nearly doubled the national debt, even after condemning Bush for raising it by $4 trillion. Is the man capable of doing anything right?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is one of the most useless, partisan majority leaders in history. If he doesn't like a particular bill sent over from the Republican led House he simply ignores it. The House has passed over 350 bills that have gone to the Senate - where Reid quietly lets them die without bringing them to the floor. And he calls Republicans "obstructionists"...???

Reid's frequent rants on the Senate floor about the "evil Koch brothers" lead one to believe that he's getting a bit senile...  or smoking something illegal.

On the other side of the Capitol is the House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi. The woman is so odd and says so many ridiculous things it's unfathomable to me that anyone wants her back in the Speaker's position. But some do.

I can't understand why anyone believes the Democrats are still the answer. Perhaps it's because while Republicans/conservatives are great at pointing out where the Democrats are going wrong, they're not too good at articulating their own views, what they would do differently and how they would fix things. Sadly, their lack of of a true conservative spokesperson is hurting them. Americans may vote Republican next week to send a message to the Democrats. But if you remember 2010 and the aftermath, the Republican surge didn't carry through to the 2012 election. And if history repeats itself between now and 2016 our great nation is lost.

News For A Monday....

It has been reported that family members of Michael Brown, the 18 year old who was shot by Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, in August, got into a little family scuffle last Saturday evening over the right to sell "t-shirts and other Michael Brown items."

According to police sources, a grandmother and a cousin of Michael Brown had a stand set up in a parking lot and were selling Michael Brown t-shirts and other unnamed items. A car pulled up and (allegedly) Brown's mother, Lesley McSpadden, got out of the vehicle with a man whose identity has not been made public. Mrs. McSpadden allegedly said "You can't sell that s*#!," to the grandmother and cousin.

One of the relatives who was part of selling the shirts demanded to see proof that McSpadden had a patent on the items. That's when the man with McSpadden allegedly assaulted the cousin with a metal pipe and grabbed merchandise and the cash box, which supposedly contained up to $1400. They fled the scene and the cousin was taken by ambulance to the Emergency Room with facial injuries. There have been no arrests to date.

This story tends to make one wonder about the character of the Brown family. Family members selling "t-shirts and other Michael Brown items" for profit seems bad enough (inappropriate comes to mind) but to have other family members assault them on the street and take the shirts and the money, well... I'll let you draw your own conclusions.

In Utah last week a teacher at a Junior High School sent home an assignment that has parents and even school board members a bit upset. The assignment was "...take an INVENTORY of your medicine cabinet and help you and your parents determine if there is anything in your cabinet that you should strongly consider disposing of so you can keep you and your family safer and avoid the risk of drug abuse. Remember, when it comes to health we want to aim at PREVENTION."

Without mentioning the obvious grammatical errors, there is a lot wrong with the assignment.

The assignment form has spaces on it for the student to actually write down what medications were found in the cabinet, whether or not it is a prescription and what it is used for.

Many believe the assignment is part of a Common Core curriculum that seems to be getting more and more invasive of students' family privacy. Some assignments noted to date have been about extramarital affairs, "Who's your baby-daddy" DNA testing, sexual activity, pornographic literature, and an assortment of other questionable subjects. So is this just one more example of inappropriate homework?

One student's mother wrote a letter to the school and then posted it on a local Facebook page. "Although it may be a good idea for parents to do an inventory of their medicine cabinet, I believe it is inappropriate for students to counsel their parents, or report to the school what that inventory is. It is a complete invasion of privacy," the letter said.

I must agree. A teacher has absolutely no business inquiring what is in the family medicine cabinets of her students nor should junior high students be told by a teacher that they should advise their parents about medications in said cabinet.

School officials say they were blindsided by the assignment when it was brought to their attention, that it was not part of school curriculum and that the teacher created the assignment and the form on her own.

"Sometimes we're blindsided, we don't know if a teacher is giving something out that they shouldn't be doing," a spokesperson said. "And so we absolutely want parents to come forward, let us know…. I wouldn't be comfortable having my own children go through my medicine cabinet."

Aren't teachers supposed to submit lesson plans to school administrators for review - particularly if they come up with something that's not in the curriculum....?

In the Middle East - thw Obama administration said the other day that the "moderate Syrian rebels" we will be arming and training will not be trained to take back any ground that has already been conquered by ISIS but instead will focus on maintaining what ISIS has not yet taken. So with the encouragement and blessing of the Obama administration, ISIS has established their caliphate and will be a permanent item in the region. 

President Obama's statement weeks ago that we will "degrade and ultimately destroy ISIL" (his label for ISIS, which I have discussed in the past) seems to be a hollow promise. How "destroyed" can one be if no one is taking back what you've stolen? Allowing ISIS to keep what they have gained and simply preventing them from advancing is not "degrading and destroying" them. They've already won. In reality it's about trying to improve his pathetic poll numbers by taking action that in actuality is inaction. But what can we expect from a man who, within three short years, allowed all of our hard won victories in Iraq to be reversed and armed the brutal terrorists who have moved in?

Finally - here is a question that has run through my mind since I first heard about President Obama sending troops to West Africa to help fight Ebola. Why are we sending ground troops to Africa to fight a disease (Ebola) that has killed just over 4000 people but we aren't sending ground troops to Iraq to fight a disease (ISIS) that has killed over 10000 people?

Both diseases are deadly. ISIS has been more deadly that Ebola so far, yet the President will only commit troops to fight Ebola - something they have not been properly trained to do. He won't allow them to fight ISIS, for which they have had extensive training. It makes no sense to me. Putting troops in harm's way is the same either way. But at least the enemy that is ISIS can be seen.

2016 cannot arrive quickly enough. It's time America had a real leader again rather than a man who leads from behind, governs through poll numbers and supports other countries (and Islam) over the United States. It's time to take our country back from the tyranny that is the Obama administration.

8 Year Old Makes Huge Play - Coach Suspended And Fined

It's the last quarter of the big game. Eight year old Elijah Burrell is playing defense. It's his first year playing Pee Wee football and he's not sure what all the rules are - he's just playing to the best of his ability.

The ball is snapped. Elijah watches the play unfold. The opposing quarterback steps back and throws the ball to his receiver who is close to Elijah. In a move that surprises even him Elijah runs and intercepts the ball. He tucks it under his arm and heads for his own end zone. He makes it virtually untouched and makes his first-ever touchdown! The crowd goes wild....!!

But the wild crowd isn't so much cheering Elijah's superb play. The parents of the opposing team are loudly complaining. That's because the score of the game had already been 32-0 and Elijah's interception and consequent touchdown took his team over the 33 point "mercy rule" that is designed to keep other teams from being humiliated too badly if they don't play well.

Elijah didn't know - or if he did know he wasn't thinking of that rule when he intercepted the pass. He did what any other 8 year old would do. He ran for the end zone.

For their 38-0 victory, thanks to Elijah's interception, Elijah's team was fined $500 by the Pee Wee football league and his coach was suspended from participation for a week. Ridiculous, you say? Not so ridiculous in a day and time where kids who participate in sports are taught that there are no winners, no losers, and everybody gets the same trophy for "participation."

Imagine a world where the achievements of winning are degraded and vilified and the important lesson of losing is nullified because "Everyone is a winner!" Now imagine the world when these kids become adults who have never had to learn what it means or feels like to lose. Real life doesn't have all winners. Nor does it give out participation trophies to everyone. In real life you either succeed or you don't. And these kids who have been taught that failure doesn't happen or that it's unfair that one team almost always wins and one team almost always loses don't stand a chance of surviving if they don't get everything they want and expect.

Collectivism, emphasis on collective rather than individual action or identity, is a version of Marxism. In fact, Karl Marx was one of its greatest proponents. Denying teams the opportunity to win, denying children the opportunity to be recognized as better at some particular thing than others, teaches kids the false premise that everyone is equal in everything - which is simply untrue.

When I was a kid we were taught that it didn't matter if you won or lost, it was how you played the game. There was always a winner - the championship team that everyone wanted to be on. And there were always the other teams, some of whom came close and others who simply didn't have what it took for a winning season. We were taught to congratulate the other team, whether we they beat us or not. And we knew that unless we were at the top at the end of the season we weren't getting a trophy that year. But we were also told we'd try again next year.

Liberalism in the United States is "collectively" raising a generation of pansies - kids who won't be able to deal with the pain and ultimate failures they will face as adults. Everyone has to deal with loss or failure at some point in their lives. They can learn how to do that as children and grow up healthy or they can learn how to do it from their therapists when they become adults.

One thing is certain. If I was 20 years old and know what I I know now I would have a different career. I would become a psychologist, knowing full well that there are going to be millions of maladjusted adults out there who will fill my bank account because they weren't taught as children how to deal with real life. you know what they say about hindsight...

Too Many American Flags...?

In Denton, Texas, a small city on I-35 about 40 miles South of the Oklahoma line, local business man Andre "Frenchy" Rhealt has received several citations from the city to appear in court. His crime? Frenchy has too many American flags displayed on his business property, a lawn and tree service.

In Denton it is illegal to display more than one American flag on any property within the city limits. A city ordinance says you can display one American flag, one Texas state flag, and one miscellaneous flag at any time. You cannot display more than that without a special permit, available from the city at a cost of $90, that is good for 30 days. You can get that special permit only three times in a one year period.

Frenchy Rhealt is a Vietnam veteran and proud of his country. He currently displays 20-40 American flags on the property, along with a large flag mural on his building. Each of his trucks and vans bears a US flag as well. He has been doing this for 20 years.

"I'm patriotic all the time,” Rheault says. "They say I have too many flags? There is no such thing as having too many flags."

Since when in America did it become a criminal act or a moral outrage to display an American flag? In Webster, Texas, a city of about 10,000 residents Southeast of Houston, a man says he was ordered by his apartment manager to remove his American flag from his balcony. Duy Tran told Houston news affiliates "What really shocked me was that they said the flag was a threat to Muslims. I'm not a threat to anybody."

A spokesperson for the apartment complex said that while she admires Tran's patriotism, the flag must be removed as per complex guidelines. She read a statement from the management.

“Such guidelines maintain the aesthetics of our apartment community and provide for the safety of all residents,” the statement said. “The apartment community already proudly displays our country's flag in a safe and appropriate manner at the entrances to our community.”

In 2009, Medal of Honor winner Van T. Barfoot was told by his townhouse HOA that he could not erect a flagpole in front of his home and fly an American flag because "it would violate the neighborhood's aesthetic guidelines. Barfoot, a veteran of three wars, took that as a challenge. 

"There's never been a day in my life or a place I've lived in my life that you couldn't fly the American flag," Barfoot told the local news media.

He pointed out that the Homeowners' agreement did not prohibit the erection of a flagpole on his property. 

His case made national news and he soon got the attention and support of many Americans and several US Representatives. The HOA eventually gave in and allowed Barfoot to fly his flag proudly.

But why is it necessary to get permission to fly the symbol of our great nation? How is the display of an American flag aesthetically displeasing? Certainly if you're in this country and you want to change it to be more like the country you left you might not like it. It might even offend you. But guess what? I don't care about your feelings. If you want to be in a place that's like your home country go back there. Do not pass Go and do not collect $200. It really is that simple.

Homeowners' associations should set standards for the display of an American flag rather than ban them. Americans one and all should be proud of the flag and be happy to see it displayed. It's time to change the absurd rules that prevent such patriotic gestures.

Van T. Barfield won his fight but has since passed away. Frenchy Rheault and Duy Tran have vowed to fight the orders to remove their flags. As they should. It's time that patriotism became popular again rather than being disavowed as threatening, radical or politically incorrect. I remember a day, not that long ago, when not showing patriotism was seen as those three things. Shameful.

What Are Obama's Real Religious Beliefs?

Liberals will pull their hair out and probably scream "RACIST!!!" for this post but you know what? I'm ready. They can say what they will. Let them prove me wrong.

President Obama claims to be a Christian. He attended the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, under the leadership of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, a scholar of black liberation theology. President Obama has expressed his belief in "collective salvation," a belief not supported by the Bible. But he also has supported and defended Islam - even to the point of anger.

In his book "Audacity of Hope" Obama made the statement “I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.” Of course, his handlers and followers play this down but over the last five years he has proved his statement to be true. He went on an apology tour, soon after his inauguration, and apologized to the Muslim world for America's attitude toward Islam and its terrorists.

When Nadal Hasan killed 13 people and wounded 30 others at Fort Hood, Texas, while screaming "Allahu Ackbar", the Obama administration called it "workplace violence," even though Hasan himself said he carried out his actions in support of Islam. Hasan has since written letters asking to be a member if ISIS.

President Obama didn't have much to say about the Boston bombings by Muslim terrorists but when a Muslim cut off a woman's head in Moore, Oklahoma, it was deemed by the government to be a simple act of murder rather than terrorism, despite the man's extreme radical Islamic rants on Facebook and his Islamic proselytizing just prior to the killing.

Yesterday in New York a Muslim man attacked police officers with a hatchet, hitting one officer in the arm and a second in the head. The second is in critical condition at this time. Authorities in New York want to call the incident "Islamic terrorism" but it remains to be seen if that will happen officially. Once the feds weigh in it will probably be called a simple case of felonious assault by a man who had mental health issues.

The Obama administration has removed all references to Islam and/or Islamic extremism, Islamic terrorism, etc., from federal law enforcement training manuals. How does that make any sense unless you don't want federal agents to understand what's really going on with Islamic terrorism?

President Obama will not allow any acts of Islamic terrorism to occur on his watch. In fact, President Obama says that the acts of Islamic terrorism, regardless of what the perpetrators say, are "not Islamic." He still claims, regardless of all the credible evidence, that the terrorists are not Islamic and that Islam is a religion of peace. He claims that ISIS, who uses the Quran to justify all of their actions, is not Islamic. Anyone who has read the Quran knows that is not true. Obama has read the Quran. He lies. Period. Representative Joe Wilson (R-SC) may not have made his statement at the right time but what he said was not wrong.

Islam has become one of the greatest threats to the world in the 21st Century. President Obama can deny it all he wants but we all know...  most of us know it's the truth. Islam wants to dominate the world and they will do anything to make it happen. Sadly, President Obama's denial of this makes us vulnerable to Islamic terrorism. But since he denies it doesn't exist - how can we be protected from it??

It's a shame that truth has become second place to political agendas, both in the administration and the main stream media. It's also a shame that President Obama has made the praise of Islam one of his top priorities. What kind of Christian does that?

After cancelling the space shuttle program, President Obama charged the director of NASA, Charles Bolden, to "find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering,"

This is his official mission. Why? Why are my tax dollars going to the task of making Muslims feel better about themselves? Who cares if Muslims feel good about their historic contribution to science? That doesn't promote science or space research. It promotes Islam. Last I checked there is nothing in the job description of the President of the United States about making Muslims feel better about themselves. And unless it's been changed in the last couple of years - I doubt that duty is included in the job description of the NASA director. So what are President Obama's real religious beliefs?

There are many who believe Barack Obama is a Muslim who pretends to be Christian in accordance with the teachings of the Quran. Al-Taqiyya is the practice set forth in the Quran that allows "deception; concealing or disguising one’s beliefs, convictions, ideas, feelings, opinions, and/or strategies" to further the cause of Islam.

Could that be the explanation for Obama's continued support and praise of Islam? In 2006, Saudi Arabian leaders said they would "have a Muslim in the White House by 2008." Is it possible they made good on their statement and that Barack Obama is the product of it?

I can't say for certain. But I can say that Obama's activities, his statements, his continued support of the Muslim Brotherhood and other Muslim groups (including Hamas), and his appointment of numerous Muslims to key positions in his administration make it very easy to believe. The next two years are going to be interesting. Any major move Obama wants to make will have to be made before the 2016 election. Let's see what he does. In the meantime, he bears watching closely.

The Ebola Virus Spreads Liberal Lunacy

Protecting the American people from the Ebola virus by preventing it from coming into the country is racist! Wait... what?

The Ebola virus, running rampant through at least three West African countries, including Liberia, has killed over 4000 people in those nations so far. It was initially believed that Ebola is spread only through direct contact with blood or bodily fluids of an infected and symptomatic victim. However, that seems to not be the case as it is getting more and more obvious that even casual contact with an Ebola victim can spread the disease. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) cleared it up nicely the other day when they said "you can infect others with Ebola on a bus but you cannot contract Ebola on a bus."

Got that?

It's difficult to imagine how protecting the United States from a deadly virus could turn into a political disagreement but that's exactly what has happened. Republicans, conservatives and Libertarians are mostly in favor of a travel ban on anyone from West Africa until the Ebola virus threat has been eliminated. Liberals, Democrats and progressives are saying not only would that not prevent the disease from getting to the USA but it would cause it to spread more widely in Africa. I'm still scratching my head trying to figure that one out.

Those who oppose a travel ban say that medical supplies and/or medical personnel would not be able to get to the affected countries if the ban was in place. They apparently don't understand the word "exception" and don't realize that medical supplies and personnel could be flown in via special charter flights, just as American citizens with the virus have been flown out. They just don't seem to understand the concept.

The most absurd thing being said by the left is that "even proposing a travel ban is racist." Really? So preventing unrestricted travel to and from a country that is in the middle of a serious viral epidemic is racist? How is that. Is it because Ebola only sickens black people? Is it because America has a large white population who doesn't want to get the virus (along with blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Arabs, Native Americans....?) Maybe that's it. White people in America who don't want to get the virus are racist because, after all, it's only fair if they get it too.

Some liberals have suggested that travel bans would be racist because Liberia became a nation that was settled by many slaves that left the United States after the Civil War. Therefore, because their ancestors were slaves in the United States, they should not be banned from traveling here. None of it makes any sense. We're talking about a deadly virus, not the skin color of the people who are currently the worst effected by it. At least some of us are. Liberals can turn anything into a racial issue.

Democrat political campaigns are flip-flopping on the issue based on their poll numbers. Most notably, Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) praised President Obama and the CDC for what she said was a wonderful response and guidance in the Ebola crisis. "Travel bans just wouldn't solve the problem," she said.

Soon after she began hearing from her constituents about the issue. Her GOP opposition slammed her for being "a Stepford Wife to the Ebola Denialism of the Progressive leaders of the American Left." They hit her pretty hard:

"Yesterday, in Charlotte, (Kay Hagan) praised the Centers for Disease Control for offering ‘great guidance’ on Ebola, despite the fact that the CDC-recommended protocols failed to protect two Texas nurses, and the CDC allowed one of the nurses to fly on a commercial airline. Senator Hagan also reiterated her opposition to a ban on travel to the United States from the ‘Hot Zone’ in western Africa. Republican Senate candidate Thom Tillis supports such a ban – as do two-thirds of the American people, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll released yesterday."

Overnight Senator Hagan changed her tune and began calling on President Obama to issue a "temporary travel ban of non-U.S. citizens from the effected countries." Imagine that. Oh, those pesky polls that can instantly change a politician's stance on an issue and turn him/her into a racist.

Several African nations including Nigeria, Ivory Coast, Guinea-Bissau, and Senegal, have closed their borders and instated a travel ban from Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leon, the three most Ebola effected countries. Forty-two days following the ban Nigeria, whose population is 99.9% black, has been declared Ebola free. They have not had another new case. So by American liberal standards Nigeria is a racist country. But they're an Ebola-free racist country.

I'm thinking some of these "liberal white guilt" sufferers should volunteer to head over to one of the Ebola effected countries and help out. Since they have no problem at all allowing possibly infected people into the United States because it's "unfair and racist" not to do so - they should have no problem exposing themselves to the virus over there. If they refuse to do that, applying their own standards, they must all be racists.

"Republicans Are Racist!" Really?

It's that time of year again. It's election year and we're in the last couple of weeks of campaigning before voting day. Now is when all the gloves come off, all stops are pulled and the campaigns get even worse than usual.

This year the Democrats are in grave danger of losing control of the Senate. President Obama's growing unpopularity, combined with Harry Reid's crazy rants and huge lack of action on bills that have come from the House, is causing voters to consider a change from Democrat leadership in the Senate.

Things on the Democrat campaign trail are interesting this year, to say the least. President Obama has been largely uninvited to campaign for individual candidates. Democrats don't want to be associated with him or his policies - particularly the policies that are not doing well. Obamacare is suddenly not popular among Democrats. Obama's refusal to initiate a travel ban from Ebola infected countries hasn't gone over well either. Democrats are denouncing both or, at least, playing them down so as not to be associated with either.

But that's not the worst thing going on. The worst thing is the blatant use of the race card by Democrat campaigns - while they're calling Republicans racists.

In North Carolina last week some people came out of a church service and found this on their windshields:

If you can't see it - the background picture is of the lynching of a black man by a large group of whites. The flyer indicates that if Democrat Kay Hagan doesn't win in November then President Obama will be lynched impeached. I don't know if Kay Hagan approved her message but if not she needs to reign in some of her PAC staff.

In Georgia, the Democrat Party is sending the following flyer out to black voters, trying to get a larger turnout, playing on racial fear and tension.

So... if black voters turn out and vote in Georgia it's going to change the ethnic makeup of Ferguson, Missouri? Does the Georgia Democrat Party believe the black voters in Georgia are stupid enough to believe that or are they simply trying to stir things up? Hmmmm

Not to be outdone - "Reverend" Al Sharpton has begun his own campaign to get out the black vote. It is also based on the Michael Brown incident (which reports are now indicating happened the way Officer Wilson it did). Sharpton's National Action Network has launched the "Hands Up Vote" which is a call back to the Ferguson case in which "Hands Up - Don't Shoot" has become the mantra of the protesters.

The left is using blatant racism to get black people to vote Democrat. It's quite shameful but certainly not surprising. They did the same thing in 2012. During a campaign speech in Danville, Virginia, whose ethnic make up is 49% black, in August of 2012, Vice President Joe Biden said "They're going to put y'all back in chains!"

Biden's aides and White House spokespeople downplayed it saying he was referring to Wall Street however, the racist overtone did not go unnoticed. It's what Democrats do to get elected.

When Barack Obama was running for President, and even after he was elected a second time, anyone who opposed his policies was immediately branded a racist, regardless of the stated reason(s) for that opposition. Even the President himself has made statements about people who disagree with him doing so only because of his skin color.

I always find it laughable how the Democrat Party, the founders of the Ku Klux Klan, now goes around calling Republicans racist. Democrats are responsible for the massive numbers of minorities being on government assistance. Democrats are responsible for the high unemployment numbers in the black community. Democrats are responsible for the complete failure that is Detroit. And the Republicans are the racists?

Don't worry though. That could all change in 2016. If Hillary Clinton becomes the Democrat nominee for President, on the very day it is announced, all of us racist Republicans will instantly become sexists.

It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World....

OK, so I borrowed the title from the movie. But in today's society of political correctness being taken to the extreme it's very fitting. People with radical political beliefs, on either side, are called right-wing and/or left-wing extremists. I'm creating a new category: Political correctness extremists (PC extremists). Let's take a look at what some of them are doing these days.

In San Antonio, in the name of political correctness, the city council decided that all public bathrooms will now be coed, or gender neutral. If a man who "identifies as a woman" wants to use a women's restroom he would be allowed. And vice-versa. This decision was meant to help those who have gender identity issues feel better about themselves in public. Public opposition to the change caused the openly homosexual mayor to subpoena the sermons of area pastors to see if they are preaching against homosexuality or any other behavior they (the pastors) deem inappropriate.

In California some school systems have done the same thing with the school bathrooms. They are allowing girls to use the boys room and boys to use the girls room in the name of gender identity political correctness. And these are elementary school kids.

A couple of years ago the Army manual was changed to include a list of “taboo conversation topics” that soldiers should avoid, including “making derogatory comments about the Taliban,” “advocating women’s rights,” “any criticism of pedophilia,” “directing any criticism towards Afghans,” “mentioning homosexuality and homosexual conduct” or “anything related to Islam.”

The Obama administration has removed all references to Islam from counter-terrorism training manuals and documents. He has decided that regardless of what terrorists claim they "are not Islamic."

The Equal Opportunity Employment Commission says it is illegal for employers to discriminate against criminals (in other words - illegal not to hire them) because it "has a disproportionate impact on minorities." Really?

Eight states have passed laws that allow people in the country illegally (illegal immigrants for those who don't much care about PC) to obtain legal driver's licenses even though they're not supposed to be here. In California, one particular case made the news. A 35 year old illegal immigrant applied for a driver's license and was initially refused. He had recently graduated law school and passed the bar exam. The State Bar of California sent a letter to the state Supreme Court explaining why the man should receive a driver's license even though he was in the country illegally.

"Sergio Garcia, 35, of Chico, Calif., has met the rules for admission, including passing the bar exam and the moral character review, and his lack of legal status in the United States should not automatically disqualify him," the letter stated. I guess the part about being here illegally screams of moral character.

Nearly 75% of black babies in the United States are born to unwed mothers but it is not politically correct to point out that fact and infer that there is something wrong with that truth.

At one high school in California it has been deemed inappropriate for students to wear United States flag t-shirts on Cinco de Mayo. The state Supreme Court upheld the school's ruling.

According to the PC extremists it is now politically incorrect for white people to use words like "Chicago", "food stamps", "inner city", "states' rights", "golf", "welfare", "tax cuts", "Sharia law", and "illegal alien." These words are said to be "sneaky racist white code words" by the PC crowd.

Small business owners throughout the country are being forced to not only recognize same sex couples but to embrace and accommodate them and their wishes regardless of the personal religious beliefs of the business owners. There have been several cases where Christian business owners have been found guilty of discrimination for refusing to provide a product or service for same sex marriages based on their Christian beliefs. Some of these lower court decisions were made after the Supreme Court decision concerning the Affordable Care Act and religious beliefs. The business owners, however, cannot afford to take their cases to the Supreme Court and one has since closed its doors because of the ruling.

A Washington college said their non-discrimination policy prevents them from stopping a transgender man from exposing himself to young girls inside a women’s locker room, according to a group of concerned parents.
The inspiration for today's post was an article I read about a couple of school systems in Australia that are changing the words to the children's song "Baa Baa Black Sheep" because of "concerns over the racial connotations of 'black,' and to reflect a multicultural community." Seriously?

It gets worse. Teachers in Melbourne, Australia, are considering changing the words "one for the little boy who lives down the lane" because "it could be deemed sexist."

I realize that the changes in Australia don't affect us but how long will it be before someone here gets the same idea?

The world has gone mad. The PC extremists are so concerned with making everything and everyone equal that they're trying to do away with personal morals, personal responsibility, religious (Biblical Christian) beliefs, and common decency in the name of tolerance and equality, much to the detriment of society. They're working hard to create a Godless society in what was founded as a nation of freedoms, both personal and religious. And it seems they're succeeding.

Federal School Lunch Program + Kids = Failure

A few days ago a student from Chickasha, Oklahoma, shared a picture of her Michelle Obama approved school lunch with local reporters.

This is an acceptable school lunch by the standards set forth by Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama, an attorney by trade with no education in nutrition of which anyone is aware, decided that stopping childhood obesity was her calling. She worked with someone (Who knows who?) to determine what she believed is and is not acceptable for school lunches. 

Chickasha school superintendent David Cash was sympathetic when he was shown the picture. “You’ve got, in some cases, little kids that their only two meals are breakfast and lunch at school and they’re getting, you know, a grand total of 1100 calories," Cash said. "That’s not enough."

Childhood obesity is a problem. Some kids eat too much and some eat all the wrong things. Most kids these days get very little exercise. Obesity is caused by a combination of things, not school lunches. Many kids throw most of their school lunches away because it consists of things they don't want to eat. So how good is a federally mandated school lunch program when the kids won't eat it?

I guess Michelle Obama can look at it favorably if she says "If they're not eating the food they're not getting fat." But that's a ridiculous way of looking at things. Kids need fuel. Their metabolism is higher than the average adult. Kids' brains need sustenance to maintain concentration on school work. They need fuel for playing sports. They need more calories every day than the average adult. But are they getting it?

According to medical statistics, the average male, age 14 to 18, who has an active lifestyle (sports, etc.) needs 2800 to 3200 calories to maintain good health. The school lunch program set up by Michelle Obama serves less than half of that number of calories in two meals. How good could it be?

Michelle Obama needs to take her school lunch program back and allow the school systems to make those decisions. Isn't it better if our kids eat something rather than throwing their food in the trash? Schools can find lower fat, lower calorie meals without having it mandated by the federal government. And even Michelle Obama can't control what kids eat when they're not in school. Much to her disdain, I'm sure.

I think the woman actually means well. I think her desire to end or lessen childhood obesity is genuine. But like many other liberals with causes, she has gone overboard in her zeal to make changes. Her changes are having the opposite effect and she simply won't allow herself to admit she made a mistake. She's like her husband in that respect. I think narcissism runs in the family.

Michelle Obama needs to revise her school lunch program, working with school officials, doctors and nutritionists, to include foods that kids actually will eat. You can serve kids healthy, low calorie stuff all day long but if they don't eat it have you really done them any good?

A Third Case of Ebola... On A Cruise Ship? Really?

So right now there is a cruise ship off the coast of Belize on which was a woman who began showing signs and symptoms of the Ebola virus. The woman is a nurse in Dallas. Texas. but it has not been confirmed whether or not she worked at Texas Health Presbyterian or whether she had any contact with Thomas Duncan.

And there she sits.

But let's look at it hypothetically for a minute. IF this woman is indeed a nurse at THP and did have contact with Thomas Duncan she will be the second one who traveled after having that contact. If she has Ebola she has exposed how many people to the virus now?

The director of the Center for Disease Control, Dr. Thomas Frieden, said yesterday that the second nurse with the disease, Amber Vinson, is a health care worker and "should have known not to travel for 21 days after having such contact." But if we're not going to prohibit travel from countries that are being ravaged by the virus, why should a health care worker, who wore the best protective gear available when she was caring for Mr. Duncan, be worried about traveling? President Obama said you can't get the virus from casual contact. (The CDC said you could.)

So no travel ban from the countries with thousands of Ebola victims but self-imposed travel bans for Americans who may have been exposed? Yeah, that makes great sense.

The nurse from the cruise ship, who has now been confined with a second passenger to a smaller vessel used to transport passengers to and from the mainland. She will not be allowed back on board the cruise ship nor will the government of Belize allow her to come ashore to be transported via ambulance flight back to the States.

There are over 4600 people on board the cruise ship. If the nurse has Ebola, who knows how many people came into close enough contact to catch the virus and be infected? For that reason the cruise ship is sitting still, quarantined for three weeks, to determine if anyone has the virus. At least they're doing that instead of returning to the United States. But here's the problem. Anyone else on that ship who develops Ebola has now exposed even more passengers to the virus. With over 4500 people on the ship how long do you quarantine it if others develop Ebola?

This is why we need to stop travel (temporarily) from the three effected West African countries, stop entry of anyone with passports from those countries and pay closer attention to the origin of travel, in case someone tries to get here from another country, as did Thomas Duncan. This virus doesn't follow political rules. It does what it wants. Just a week after the Obama administration said the chances of an Ebola outbreak in the US are low, we've already got a third case and a possible fourth - that just happened to be on a ship full of people.

The President is still fighting the travel ban but he's now saying he'd be open to it if it is supported by his expert advisers. I wonder how many people will have to develop the illness before his "experts"will change his mind. After all - he just appointed an "Ebola czar," a liberal, insider, Democrat lawyer with no medical training and no experience dealing with contagious illnesses.

I know when I want medical advice I go to an attorney and when I want legal advice I go to a doctor. Don't you?

We Don't Have A Race Problem...

A wise man wrote recently "We do not have a race, gun, drug, theft, or (insert one) problem in the United States. Our problem is one of character."

That was written by David Oliver, Chief of Police in Brimfield, Ohio. He's absolutely correct.

We don't have a race problem. A person's skin color has never hurt or endangered anyone - except maybe themselves if they have a skin pigmentation problem. I've never seen skin hurt anyone. I've only the person living inside that skin hurt someone. I've never seen a color hurt anyone either; nor any other physical feature. But I've see words and actions hurt people. Hating or vilifying another person for their skin color or ethnicity is wrong no matter what color you, or they, are.

The people I associate with don't have problems with people because of their skin color. They don't dislike someone because of their ethnic background, where they're from or where they live. They don't condemn them for the language they speak. The only real problems they have stem from the character of each. Behavior, attitude, even the way people speak to others is about character. If your character flaws dominate who you are you will have problems with others - even if they have done nothing to you. That's just a simple fact. If you judge a person by the color of their skin, where they're from or what their native language is rather than the individual, it's you who has the character flaw.

Martin Luther King said it best when he said "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

What a day that would be.

We don't have a gun problem in the United States. Guns aren't problems. Guns don't hurt people. I've owned guns on and off for 40 years and have never had one shoot anyone. I've never had one load itself and I've never had one fire that wasn't being handled by someone. People are killed in many ways - firearms, knives, hammers, baseball bats, automobiles. Know what the common denominator is in all of them? People.

We don't have a drug problem. We have a problem with people using drugs because of character flaws. People know drugs are addicting before they begin using them. They do it anyway because one of their character flaws tells them they are different: they can use and not get addicted. Guess what? The percentage of people who use on a regular basis and don't get addicted is minuscule.

Some use because they enjoy it and don't care about the addiction. That's a character flaw as well. If you are using drugs and don't care about yourself or your loved ones it's a problem.

Certainly once one is addicted the reasons for using change. It becomes a physical need. However, getting clean is possible if you are willing to do what it takes. But that's not easy. It takes work and it takes courage. It takes character.

Included in the 12 steps of addiction treatment are taking a fearless moral inventory of oneself, admitting the exact nature of one's wrongs and asking God to remove all defects of character.

There's that word "character" again.

Are you watching the protests being done in the name of "justice" in Ferguson and Saint Louis, Missouri? The people in Missouri have every right to voice their concerns, whether they are real or perceived. But voicing concerns through violence and threats of violence is not in good character. Threatening to kill people to get a point across if you don't get the results you want from the justice system means you have character issues. The mob mentality doesn't solve anything. It nearly always serves only to make things worse. Threatening violence isn't a call for justice. It's a call for revenge whether or not it's due.

Chief Oliver is on to something here. I've never met the man but I read his words of wisdom since the day I stumbled across the Brimfield Police Department Facebook page. And I do get back to Ohio now and then. Hopefully one day I'll be able to pass through Brimfield and shake hands with the Chief. In the meantime I'll read his posts and gain as much wisdom as I can. Thanks, Chief.

Political Correctness Will Be The Death Of The USA... Literally

Last night as I was watching the TV coverage of the Ebola crisis that soon may be headed to a city near me, something occurred to me that I hadn't really put together in my head before. It was so obvious, however, that I don't know why I didn't think of it before.

Republicans/conservatives in the United States want to prevent the Ebola virus from coming into the country any way we can. We are mostly in favor of travel restrictions - disallowing people with West African passports and/or people who are traveling from West Africa from entering the country while this Ebola crisis is ongoing. The virus is killing more and more people every day. The death rate is growing - it's up to 70% in West Africa now. People who contract the disease can carry it around for up to 21 days while being completely asymptomatic and still infect others unknowingly.

Contrary to what has been said by the Obama administration, you can catch it from sitting next to someone on a bus if that person coughs or sneezes. The CDC has verified that, much to Obama's embarrassment. Even though they like to pretend you can't catch it from the air, sneezing, coughing can release droplets that can infect someone if they get into the body.

Here's what occurred to me last night. Democrats, progressives and liberals in general have for years been screaming for a government sponsored health care system wherein everyone has access to affordable health care regardless of their circumstances. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was passed and signed into law in 2010 - supposedly to do just that. (It doesn't. The number of people without health care coverage didn't change much. And many people actually lost their coverage because of it.)

Anyway - the Democrats want everyone to have the best possible health care - even if the government (the taxpayers) has to pay for it. Yet they are opposed to the government securing our borders and putting travel restrictions in place that could prevent a deadly virus from entering the country and infecting/killing Americans.

Is it just me? The irony here is astounding. Of course, they say the reason we can't have travel restrictions is because travel restrictions would be racist. Last I checked - deadly viruses aren't a race. Deadly viruses are deadly viruses. They don't discriminate nor do they care.

Believe it or not, one of the reasons people don't want Liberians to be banned from travel is because some of their ancestors were once slaves in the United States. In the late 1800s, Liberia became a popular country for slaves that decided to return to Africa. So now, anything we do, any restrictions we put on Liberians, despite the reason, is viewed as racist by the left.

Liberals want everyone to be healthy and happy - unless, of course, it involves anything they can possibly perceive as politically incorrect. I wonder how many Americans have to die before they realize the error in their thinking? That probably won't happen. Many liberals likely believe we deserve to have Americans die because we are such an evil nation. And if they ever do decide that preventing the virus from entering the United States is a good idea - by then it will be too late anyway.

In a related issue - last night Bill O'Reilly read an e-mail that was sent to his show. (O'Reilly advocates travel restriction and border security) The e-mail said "O'Reilly - you've proved how stupid you are when it comes to Ebola. Remember the Bubonic plague? Sure, people died but it worked itself out."

Now there's the typical liberal attitude I was talking about. I wonder how that same person would feel if the Ebola virus got into her home....?

"The Most Transparent Administration In History...."

Those were not only President Obama's words during his campaign he said them again last year, on Valentine's Day.

“This is the most transparent administration in history,” Obama said during a "Fireside Hangout" on Google Plus.

“I can document that this is the case,” he continued. “Every visitor that comes into the White House is now part of the public record. Every law we pass and every rule we implement we put online for everyone to see.”

Apparently he believes that as long as White House visitors are recorded (something that is still very questionable today) and that new legislation is eventually put on the internet (but not necessarily five days before he sings it, as promised) that guarantees he has a transparent administration.

It's not the first time President Obama has promised transparency. On January 21, 2009, the day after his inauguration, President Obama wrote one of his first memos to federal agencies. “We will work together to ensure the public trust and establish a system of transparency, public participation, and collaboration,” he wrote. “Openness will strengthen our democracy and promote efficiency and effectiveness in Government.”

I wonder if the State Department, the Justice Department, the IRS, the NSA, and others got the memo? There are so many examples that say otherwise...  Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the IRS scandal, NSA data collection... but today I'm going to talk about a new one.

In a rare case of actual reporting by a member of the main stream media, CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller criticized the Obama administration for refusing to reveal how much his fund raising trips actually cost the tax payers.

“Repeated requests are turned down for a breakdown of the costs and an explanation and specific examples of how the White House calculates how much is paid by taxpayers and how much must be reimbursed to the government by the Democratic National Committee or others,” Knoller wrote. “There’s absolutely nothing in the information related to national security. It wouldn’t do ISIS a bit of good if it got hold of the information.”

Knoller's contention is that the White House “doesn’t want to disclose the material because it might be embarrassing and would draw lots of criticism, which Mr. Obama can do without.”

“The brick wall erected around that information by Mr. Obama’s White House flies in the face of his oft-stated commitment to transparency and open government,” Knoller concluded.

Before anyone else says it  let me...  "Bush didn't disclose how much he spent on fundraising!" 

I don't know if that's true or not but frankly it has nothing to do with the topic at hand. That topic is President Obama's promise, from his own lips, to be transparent about everything. It's a promise he has broken over and over. The President has told so many lies in the last six years and this may have been the first one. Even his golf games aren't transparent.

I know, I know...  "The President deserves to play golf in private and relax...!" He might deserve that if he had not made that statement about transparency. He caused his own problem. And he can't blame this one on Bush because the words came from his mouth, twice. 

Oh, wait... he can blame anything on Bush. I forgot. Silly me.

Susan Rice Does Her Typical, Goofy, Sunday Morning Thing...

Doesn't she ever get tired of her boss making her look like a fool? It seems not since she went out on the Sunday morning news circuit to talk about how great the air campaign against ISIS is going. Please - no one believes it. Not even she believes what she's saying.

Rice told NBC's "Meet The Press" Sunday that the Obama administration was not going to re-evaluate their strategy to "degrade and destroy" ISIS despite its recent territorial gains.

“This is very early days of the strategy. The strategy is very clear. We’ll do what we can from the air. We will support the Iraqi security forces, the Kurds, and ultimately over time, the moderate opposition in Syria to be able to control territory and take the fight to ISIL,” Rice said.

I guess watching the imminent fall of Komani and the soon to fall Baghdad just doesn't seem to be a problem for the Obama administration. Has he thought, I wonder, to get all of the Americans out of Baghdad before that happens? Can you say Saigon redux?

Ms. Rice, conveniently or cleverly, apparently doesn't watch the news. 

“There has been no recommendation from the American military commanders, either on the ground or here in Washington, that the United States put any ground combat forces into Iraq. That has not come up the chain to anyone at the White House and I don’t anticipate that it will,” Rice said. “The president has been very plain that this is not a campaign that requires, or even would benefit from, American ground troops in combat again.”

Really? Perhaps she should have been watching another channel, where the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Major General Martin Dempsey, was saying just the opposite.

Asked by ABC's Martha Raddatz “Would we be more effective against ISIS if we had U.S. troops on the ground spotting targets," General Dempsey replied “Yeah. There will be circumstances when the answer to that question will likely be yes, but I haven’t encountered one right now.”

“Mosul will likely be the decisive battle in the ground campaign at some point in the future," Dempsey continued. "When the Iraqi Security Forces are ready to go back on the offensive. My instinct at this point is that that will require a different kind of advising and assisting because of the complexity of that fight."

Apparently oblivious to what General Dempsey was saying on the other channel, Susan Rice doubled down on her position. “Our efforts have various, different lines of effort, as we call them. On the one hand, we’re trying to build up the capacity of the Iraqis, which means the Iraqi army, the Kurds – the Peshmerga inside of Iraq… we’re building up that capacity and we have seen some success in that regard. On the Syrian side, we also have a longer-term challenge of supporting the moderate opposition, and giving them, while they have great will, greater capacity to fight Assad and to fight ISIL.” So, this is going to take time,” Rice continued. “Our air campaign is off to a strong start… it can’t be judged by merely what happens in one particular town or in one particular region.”

So far the air campaign has saved one dam and one group of people on a mountain top. I'm pretty sure the Kurds aren't impressed by the support they've received. Kobani is nearly gone. Baghdad airport is in grave danger right now, with the city not far behind. If President Obama's stated goal of air strikes is "not designed to prevent ISIS from gaining more territory," what is it's purpose? If ISIS is allowed to conquer city after city and mile after mile of Iraq and Syria - how is it that we're "degrading and destroying" them? They don't seem to be getting the message.

Every day I'm more astounded that there are people in this country who still believe President Obama is doing a good job. When you ask them why they think that what you normally get are liberal talking points - mostly blaming the Republicans and/or George W. Bush. Sadly, some people actually believe those talking points regardless of the mountain of evidence to the contrary.

"The people spoke in 2012 and elected President Obama to a second term." I've heard that more than once. Yet they don't have much else to say and Obama's poll numbers tell the truth. He has some of the lowest poll numbers in history for a second term President halfway through.

I look forward to the November elections. Americans have said they are going to send a message to the President and give the House and Senate to the Republicans. And while that will be a good thing let's not forget what happened in 2010 and 2012. Republicans, inspired by the Tea Party, took control of the House. Then, in 2012, Republican voters stayed home because they did not like the Republican candidate and Obama won again. Great message there. "We'll vote against you - unless we don't like our own candidate."

If Republicans stay home in 2016 because the Republican candidate is not their choice, and the Democrat wins, then they - the ones who didn't vote - deserve what they get. The rest of us don't deserve it but we'll have to live with it. You'd think they'd have learned in 2012...

And The Lunacy Just Keeps On Coming....

Berkeley, California, is pretty well known for liberalism and an "anything goes" kind of culture. UC Berkeley was the scene of numerous student protests in the late 60s and early 70s. It seems that liberal lunacy lives on in the university.

Liberal author Greil Marcus, who is said to be a professor at the New School of Public Engagement in New York, said recently that the shooting deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown were, in reality, proxy shootings of President Obama.

"I’m not a psychiatrist," Marcus said. "I haven’t sat down and interviewed George Zimmerman or the cop who shot Michael Brown. I don’t know what their motives are. I don’t know what kind of people they are; what kind of childhood traumas they have experienced. But I don’t think it’s nuts that in a certain way, when that cop killed Michael Brown, and when George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, they were killing Barack Obama."

Really, Professor? And you base that opinion on what, other than the fact that the shooting victims were black? Is being black now synonymous with being President Obama? Is any case of a black person befalling harm at the hands of a white person, regardless of the circumstances, now going to be covertly directed at the President by proxy? Really?

In so many ways the professor's statement is far worse than Barack Obama's statement "I don't have all the facts but the police acted stupidly." Right or wrong, at least President Obama was defending his friend. This guy is pulling things out of the air based on his own liberal beliefs. Marcus is declaring that two people he doesn't know, has never talked to and in all certainly never will, in reality were killing President Obama when they were defending their lives on the streets. What is it about liberals that give them the courage to make and pronounce their assumptions, as ridiculous as they often are, with no concern for the truth?

Not unexpectedly, Marcus, who is white, then began a rant about Fox News and the Tea Party, saying that "racism has become ordinary discourse" and that President Obama "has been treated as if he’s an impostor, an interloper and as scum" by Republicans. I don't know about the scum part but maybe if he was more open about his past he wouldn't be treated as an impostor or an interloper. Just because Republicans don't accept Obama at face value doesn't make them wrong.

"I mean, the things that have been said about Michelle Obama, the way she’s talked about on Fox News, you know, forget about Twitter or comments on news stories or anything like that where all the morons live, but the way she’s been talked about, can you imagine Laura Bush ever being talked about that way?" he asked. "Laura Bush actually killed somebody. But that was never mentioned, that was never talked about, because it was impolite to bring it up."

While I agree with him that some people do go overboard with their ugly comments about Michelle Obama (something I am often ashamed of personally) I disagree that Fox News bad mouths her. And as for Laura Bush's accident that left someone dead - the professor conveniently forgets that it was brought up by the liberal media and leftists all over the country. Laura Bush was vilified for it. The Professor also conveniently forgets all the mean and ugly things that were said about George W. Bush during his Presidency - that continue to this day.

Professor Marcus might not be able to help it. He was born in San Francisco, graduated from UC Berkeley, and has written for The Rolling Stone, The Village Voice and more recently the liberal web page Salon.com. He was born, raised and trained in Liberalville, USA. Those conditions can easily combine to make him not responsible for making stupid, assumptive, sweepingly generalized statements that have no connection to facts. It's one of the things liberals do best.

Comparing ISIS To Christians - Another Liberal Lunacy

In the last week liberal pundits have ignorantly been comparing ISIS to Christians in various ways. They bring up everything from the Crusades and the Spanish inquisition, both of which ended centuries ago, to right-wing extremists, such as abortion clinic bombers, etc., who claim to be doing God's work and try to make it sound like these people are "just like ISIS."

I'm appalled but not shocked that liberals would make such crazy comparisons. They often will say whatever they can to demean Christianity - even going as far as saying someone like Eric Rudolph, the abortion clinic bomber, proves Christianity is just like ISIS. I'm not sure what these people know about Christianity or the Bible but nowhere in the Bible does it say that if someone does not believe in God or accept Jesus as their Savior he/she should be killed. Nor does it say if someone does something such as perform abortions he/she should be killed. The Quran, however, does give those instructions for infidels, homosexuals, etc.

I could be wrong but I haven't seen any Christians, in modern times anyway, going around cutting people's heads off. I haven't seen them endorse marrying prepubescent girls.  I haven't seen them commit mass murder while crying out "God is greater (Allahu Ackbar.)" I haven't seen them blowing up churches and historical religious buildings and shrines. I haven't seen them as a group threaten to take over a country or kill mass numbers of people who believe differently than they. I haven't seen Christian pastors preach the Christian version of jihad to their congregations. And I haven't seen true Christians call for the destruction of Israel.

Come to think of it - I've never seen a Christian strap on a bomb vest and commit suicide in God's name by blowing himself up, along with a group of people that really didn't want to join him. Some would argue that Christians just aren't that brave I suppose, (it really does take some courage to do that) but I would argue that Christians first, aren't that desperate to force their beliefs on someone and second, aren't that stupid. Come on - the whole 72 virgins thing is ridiculous.

I have seen pastors like the Westboro church's late Fred Phelps condemn homosexuals and say that our military members were being killed in retribution for their sins. But that's not quite the same as telling your congregation to go out and kill them.

Even with the execution of tens of thousands of Christians going on at the hands of ISIS members in Iraq and Syria, and Coptic Christians being executed at the hands of Muslims in Egypt, I haven't seen Christian churches tell their congregations to begin a holy war on ISIS or Muslims in general. And we won't see it - because Christians aren't anything even close to ISIS or any Muslim extremist. But sadly, there are liberals out there who spew this garbage and even more who are ready to soak it up.

In other typically goofy liberal news - there is a new liberal movie out called "Camp X-ray." It stars Kristen Stewart as a "not very smart and really socially inadequate" army enlistee who gets sent to Guantanamo Bay as part of the security force. While there she "bears witness to the apparent cruelty in which the captured jihadists live and befriends a suspected terrorist. She then questions her role in the U.S. military."

Without going into too much detail, having worked in federal prisons for 22 years I can tell you that when you "make friends" with an inmate or detainee your integrity is compromised and you are not only no longer effective in your job, you're a danger to the other staff. That's one little tidbit of information they will likely not mention in the movie.

Yet another Hollywood celebrity who has no clue about real life, Ms. Stewart apparently believes that terrorists are either misunderstood or justified in what they do just as the rest of us are justified in what we do. "These two people couldn't be from more different worlds and perspectives, and probably disagree fundamentally on most things, but there’s a through-line for all of us—and that’s what people forget, and that’s what makes people capable of doing terrible things to each other," Stewart said in an interview. "What makes you different from any other person that walks the earth?"

I can answer her questions with one simple line. "I don't kill people who disagree with my beliefs."

I can say with all certainty that I won't be seeing this movie. It's simply one more anti-American, liberal film that will try to paint Muslim terrorists as nice guys who are just a little misguided but otherwise good dudes. Whether liberals like it or not - the guys being held in Guantanamo are there for a reason. They were fighting or planning/executing attacks on the United States and against our military. Kristen Stewart and her ilk can pretend that's not true if they wish, or pretend that it's justified, but they will be wrong. 

But you know the best part about it? Our military will continue to fight for their right to be ignorant. God bless our troops.