Be warned! They're gunning for our guns!

Our Second Amendment rights are in danger. The latest ruse to take away our guns has come in the form of a health warning.

Some so-called public health experts say that a gun is like a virus or tobacco or alcohol. Gun violence is a social disease, they say, and it should be treated with a public health approach.

These so-called public health experts say that we shouldn't be focusing on the people doing the shooting. We need a "science-based, pragmatic approach based on the reality that we live in a society saturated with guns and need better ways of preventing harm from them." Well, pardon me for mentioning it, but if someone is breaking into my house, I don't want to prevent my gun from doing harm! They trot out the statistic that more than 73,000 emergency room visits in 2010 were for firearm-related injuries. I'm sure that includes burglars and rapists and would-be murderers who got more than they bargained for because their victims were armed. And I have to wonder how many of those 73,000 were victims who might have been spared had they or someone around them been armed.

Now let's look at that statistic. In 2010, there were 123.8 million emergency room visits. If I have my zeroes in the right place, that means that only .0058 percent were from gun injuries. In other words, 99.99% of the visits were NOT from gun injuries. But, in fairness, let's eliminate heart attacks, strokes, and other illnesses and concentrate just on emergency room visits for injuries. Of that 123.8 million total visits, 42.4 million were injuries. That means that of the emergency room visits for injuries, 82.8% were caused by something other than a gun. I really don't think that qualifies as a "health crisis." Perhaps we should be concentrating on what's causing 99.99% of emergency room visits instead of obsessing over what's causing 1/100th of a percent of them.

According to Dr. Stephen Hargarten, the problem is "personal access to firearms." Guess he hasn't read the Second Amendment. Personal access to firearms is not a problem -- it's a constitutional right. So what they cannot do legislatively, they're trying to do through fiat. In accordance with Obamacare, the Secretary of Health and Human Services can pretty much do anything she wants. So she can deem guns a health hazard and outlaw them just by speaking the word. I'm hiding my little self-defense arsenal!

"Is gun violence a disease to treat?" The Dallas Morning News; August 12, 2012; p. 5A.

So did I , Sue. So did I!

Our country now has a lesbian Army brigadier general. Aren't we proud?

The newspaper gushes over the lesbian's first appearance at a military memorial affair (before her promotion) with her "wife": "The announcer presented Smith's father. Then came an introduction: 'Col. Smith's partner, Miss Tracey Hepner."

Sue Fulton, a friend of the couple and a veteran, said, "This part is a little fuzzy for me, because I have to confess, I got choked up."

I have to confess, Sue. So did I! What a disgrace that this country's proud military tradition has come to this!

"Officer becomes 1st openly gay general." The Dallas Morning News; August 12, 2012; p. 2A.

Why ICE Should Enforce the Law

The Obama administration has decreed that illegals are pretty much free to stay here. There are numerous outs he gives them, and all the law breakers must do is say they qualify for one of the outs. Law enforcement officials have to take their word for it. 

That is plainly a bad idea to begin with -- the law was made to be enforced, not played with to advance a political agenda. But here are some statistics that demonstrate why not enforcing the law is stupid.

Immigrants who were identified as possibly being here illegally but who were not detained by ICE when arrested by local or state police authorities went on to be arrested again on more than 1,800 serious offenses. The 1,105 charges for violent or major crimes, included at least 19 murders, three attempted murders, and 142 sex crimes. Also included were 682 burglaries/thefts, 48 firearms charges, and 1,420 drug violations.

John Morton, director of ICE calls the statistics "a misleading picture of the facts and a disservice to our actual efforts." Either the charges are there, are they aren't. How can they be misleading?

By the way, I don't like the headline on this story. These people are illegals. It does an injustice to legal immigrants to lump them in with the scum who break our laws.

"Report analyzes rearrests of immigrants." The Dallas Morning News; August 1, 2012; p. 2A.

What am I missing, Jacquielynn?

Jacquielynn Floyd wrote a column about James Holmes, the nutcase who shot all those people in Colorado, carefully avoiding mentioning his name in the whole column. That was the point of the column -- we don't want to give this guy any more publicity.

Like it or not, whether we mention his name or not, the man made news. It is unrealistic to say that we will not mention his name. We can do so without glorifying what he did or making him a celebrity. 

But I digress. My point is this -- Jacquielynn successfully avoided his name, but her column is accompanied by a color photo of the nut, red hair and all, on the front page of the section. Less publicity by printing his name or printing his picture?

Dallas Morning News funny for the day: The News praises the Mesquite Pee Wee Football Association for not "waving" the 135-pound weight limit so that a 6-foot-plus, 300 pound 12-year-old could play. Looks to me like the News has "waived" bye-bye to its proofreaders.

"Don't give thrill of naming gunman." The Dallas Morning News; July 24, 2012; p. 1B.

God has been reduced to a particle - maybe.

I guess you've heard by now that scientists are all in a dither because the God particle has been discovered -- maybe. I couldn't help but laugh at the reports earlier this month.

Billions of dollars have been spent on this quest. The results are astonishing! The new particle "looks like" the Higgs boson, the key to understanding why there is diversity and life in the universe. Hey, I have that answer, and it didn't cost me a thing. I got it out of my free Gideon Bible. Why is there diversity and life in the universe? "In the beginning God created. . ." 

But back to the scientists' decades long search for the God particle. "I think we have it," said Rolf-Dieter Heuer, the director general of the multinational research center making the "discovery." Heuer went on to say is was a historic milestone, but it was "too soon to know for sure." 

The particle is "predicted" to imbue elementary particles with mass, but it may be "an imposter." A University of California physicist said, "It's something that may, in the end, be one of the biggest observations . . . in the last 30 or 40 years." 

Scientists everywhere celebrated the announcement with champagne . . ."everywhere that members of a curious species have dedicated their lives and fortunes to the search for their origins in a dark universe." If only they'd called me earlier! I could have told them . . . " . . .and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light . . . and God created man in His own image. . ."

How much did this discovery cost? According to Forbes, the total cost of finding the Higgs boson ran about $13.25 billion -- some of it yours as the U.S. government and U.S. universities kicked in funds. 

The question was asked, "Were there any practical results from the search?" The answer: Not directly. But they do say the search resulted in the invention of the internet. But wait -- didn't Al Gore invent that?

"New particle opens window into universe." The Dallas Morning News; July 5, 2012; p. 1A.

It's all in the name.

There was an interesting article recently about Texas having the lowest percentage of special ed students. Many special ed parents say the only reason that is so is because Texas just doesn't deal with them. Texas lists 8.8% of students as special ed, down from 12% in 2000. 

One parent said, "The school district is not giving them what they need. They're just sitting there in class." 

Well, wait a minute. Do you suppose that the reason the numbers have dropped is because parents insisted on mainstreaming? Do you suppose they would be getting what they need if they were still in special ed classes? 

It's my guess that parents are discovering that mainstreaming a child incapable of keeping up with his peers is not in the child's best interest, but they don't want to take any of the blame for that little experiment. Instead, it's all the school's fault. Parents need to decide -- do I want to do what's best for my child, or do I want to force him into a situation he's not equipped to handle just so he won't be labelled "special ed"?

"Texas has lowest percentage of special ed students." The Dallas Morning News; July 6, 2012; p. 3A.

That really sticks in my craw!

When my sainted grandmother was really put out with a situation, she would often say, "That really sticks in my craw!" 

Here's something that sticks in my craw. I know several parents who are working their rears off in order to get necessary dental work and medical care for their children. Braces are out of the question. They should just quit and let Medicaid do it. That's what Shannon Ash does. Her three sons all have braces -- courtesy of the taxpayer. From 2008 to 2010, Texas Medicaid spent $424 million of our money to put braces on kids' teeth. So those parents I first mentioned are paying to put braces on Shannon's kids' teeth while their own children do without. 

But they are deemed greedy if they complain about this gross injustice. I ask you, who is really the greedy one?

Paris News funny from yesterday's front page: over a headline on school consolidation, we're told that this article falls under the category of "educaiton."

"Orthodontic clinics closed." The Dallas Morning News; July 27, 2012; p. 1A.

Being a felon will look good on your job application.

David Richardson says that "being a felon is not necessary (sic) a negative." He says that if he has the choice of hiring a former drug-dealer or someone with no drug abuse history to be a youth mentor in a drug-infested neighborhood, he'll hire the drug-dealer. He says "his past gives him important credibility."

I guess his help-wanted ads read, "Only felons need apply." Is it just me, or has common sense completely left the planet? I guess we all need to go out and commit some felonies so we'll have "important credibility" when we apply for that next job.

"Mentor a felon? So what?" The Dallas Morning News; July 22, 2012; p. 3P.

She got just what she wanted.

Sherry Wood of Lake Highlands is upset with The Dallas Morning News for describing the way the lesbian mother who presented her 300,000 signatures to the Boy Scouts was dressed. She says the color of her toenails was irrelevant.

Well, Sherry, a middle-aged woman who wears a butch haircut and a Boy Scout uniform and has her toenails painted in rainbow colors must be trying to draw attention to herself. And she succeeded. She got just what she wanted. 

By the way, would you also argue that James Holmes's orange hair is irrelevant?

"Rainbow toenails irrelevant." The Dallas Morning News; July 22, 2012; p. 2P.

JWYTYHIA!

I'm going to start using a new acronym for my headings -- JWYTYHIA. It stands for "just when you think you've heard it all." It will join my standard WIST.

For my first JWYTHIA post I choose to comment on an editorial by James Barnhart. He says he noticed that his Mexican friends drive very carefully. They obey the speed laws, are very watchful, stay well to the right of the center stripe, and are good defensive drivers. Then James had a revelation -- they obey the law because they don't want to be stopped. And that, James contends, is discriminatory. 

Imagine that! The police will actually stop a Mexican if he's speeding or driving on the wrong side of the road. What is wrong with our law enforcement????? Yes, James, JWYTYHIA!

"Giving slowpokes a break." The Dallas Morning News; July 21, 2012; p. 17A.

How backward can we be?

I'm sure everyone is aware of Obama's Roanoke Doctrine -- if you own a small business, you didn't make it happen; someone else did. Anyone who owns a small business or works closely with someone who does knows what a bunch of bologna that is. People who make small businesses work put in countless hours, risk most of their cash, and pour their hearts and souls into it. "Someone else" does NOT build the business.

Then we have the Toledo Doctrine. A little 4-year-old child survived cancer, and she was granted a gift from the Make-a-Wish Foundation. She chose (or her mother did) to go to Disneyland. The mother has never been married to the child's father. At any rate, Make-a-Wish requires the signatures of both parents on the paperwork. The father has refused to sign. His stated reason is that some child who is terminally ill should be the beneficiary of the trip. I find that story quite fishy -- I suspect his real reason may be that he doesn't want the mother to go on the trip. 

At any rate, the mother and the grandmother decided to collect donations so they could go to Disneyland anyway. You notice, they did not decide to work some extra jobs or to save the money. Yet they say they are collecting the donations so they can "pay for the trip on their own." And I suspect Obama would pat them on the back and congratulate them for it. But they aren't paying for the trip -- someone else is! How backward our thinking has become!

"Dad denies 4-year-old cancer survivor trip to Disney." The Dallas Morning News; July 20, 2012; p. 9A.

Who is the cruel, self-righteous one?

Would that we all were as enlightened as Dallas Morning News columnist Jacquielynn Floyd. She says the bigoted and homophobic Boy Scouts of America is getting everything it deserves in the way of negative publicity. What I don't understand is why their stand offends Ms. Floyd so much. If she likes homosexuals, more power to her. If the Boy Scouts, a private organization, doesn't wish to associate with perverts, that's their business and none of hers. 

She says she feels a "pitying bemusement" at their dumb wrongheadedness.  How condescendingly arrogant can one person be?? She feels sorry for the kids, because it's valuable to have an organization where "a kid can learn to tie a square knot or toast a hot dog on a stick." I don't understand how keeping out homosexual leaders keeps these little boys from learning how to tie a square knot or roast a hot dog on a stick. Is Jacquielynn saying that only homosexuals know how to do those things? Have you thought about, Jacquielynn, that if the homosexual parents of boys will put their children's welfare above their own political agendas, their children can participate in the Scouts just like any other children? The Scouts have never ousted a single child because the child had a gay parent.

I am thinking particularly of that goofball Jennifer Tyrrell, the gay mother who brought her 300,000 signatures to the Boy Scouts because they won't let her in a position of influence over those young minds. What does Jennifer think her actions are doing to her 7-year-old son? Does she not think he will suffer taunts over what she is doing in parading her perversion around like a badge of honor? If she really wants her son involved in scouting, she'll keep her mouth shut and abide by their rules. If she doesn't like their rules, she needs to start her own scouting organization. 

Ms. Floyd says the Scout's policy is cruel and outdated. She says when "grownups parade their moral bigotry and intolerant self-righteousness, it's kids who pay." I say Ms. Floyd is the self-righteous one -- she thinks she knows more than God. I say Jennifer Tyrrell is the cruel, self-righteous one. She is parading her moral perversion, portraying herself as a martyr, and using her son when he's too young to even understand what homosexuality is; and he is the one paying the price.

"Gay ban may set Boy Schots on a trail to obsolescence." The Dallas Morning News; July 20, 2012; p. 1B.

Suppose the roles were reversed?

John Wiley Price didn't like it when County Judge Clay Jenkins pounded his gavel to restore order in a Commissioners Court meeting. So he grabbed the gavel from Jenkins's hand. 

Suppose it had been the other way around? Do you think we'd be hearing what a racist Jenkins is?

Anyway - If I were John Wiley Price, with the FBI breathing down my neck, I think I'd be keeping a low profile these days.

It's not my fault I had sex with that guy!

Philippe Padieu was a charming European who frequented the bar scene in Addison and Collin County. He often used that charm to get women to have sex with him. Charming Philippe had a secret, though. He is HIV positive. He was sentenced to 45 years in prison for aggravated assault for having unprotected sex with his "victims."

I put victims in quotes, because these women were not raped. They made the willingly chose to have sex with a man they hardly knew, if they knew him at all. Should Philippe be in jail? You bet he should. But this is one case where the victim bears equal responsibility. Columnist Jacqueline Floyd disagrees with me. She can't believe there are people out here who take the view that the "victims are somehow 'responsible' for their involuntary exposure to terminal illness and premature death." Well, Jacqueline, it's kind of like smoking cigarettes, isn't it? If you smoke two packs a day for 30 years, and you get emphysema, it's because you voluntarily exposed yourself to terminal illness and premature death. These women should have learned about STD's in junior high school. They were the ones who voluntarily took the risk of contracting one. 

Jacqueline says that assigning blame to these women is similar to an elderly person being swindled or a college girl being raped. No, it's not! Those people do not knowingly place themselves in danger. These women did. She says the reason these women are not to blame is that Philippe knew what they risked in having sex with him, and the women didn't. Well, where have they been living? Under a rock somewhere? They should have known. 

We are so afraid of being called prudes or un-pc, that we have lost all capacity for reasonable thought. If these women had done the right thing -- not fallen into bed with a pretty boy for an illicit fling -- they wouldn't have a thing to worry about. Jacqueline says it was assault. I say they just got caught.

"Don't blame the victims in this sexual con game." The Dallas Morning News; May 30, 2009; p. 1B.

Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

A 14-year-old boy in Wylie, Texas, shot and killed one of his classmates who was visiting him at his home. He dumped the body out of his upstairs bedroom window, then hid it in a culvert. Indications are that the boy has shown no remorse whatsoever. A motive for the crime is not known. 

At some point prior to the killing, at least one counselor had told the boy's mother he "would be a future serial killer." After the murder, the court appointed a psychologist to assess the boy's mental state. The mental health professional, and I use the term loosely, described the boy's demeanor during their time together as "flat, emotionless." The psychologist said that if he didn't take the murder into consideration, the boy's risk of dangerousness assessment was low. Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?

"Defendant's unsettled life described." The Dallas Morning News; July 17, 2012; p. 3B.

That's right, Barney!

I never, and I do mean never, agree with Barney Frank, the disgraceful homosexual Representative. Sadly, that has changed.

Barney recently "married" his partner in perversion. He said, "Mostly, the Republicans have ignored it. There have been no negative comments, and I think a few years ago there would have been."

You are so right on this one, Barney! It's another sad commentary on how many people have become more afraid of being called bigots than they are of God's wrath. 

"Talking Points." The Dallas Morning News; July 15, 2012; p. 1P.

How about a cruise on the Titanic?

"Medicaid is a failed program. To expand this program is not unlike adding 1,000 people to the Titanic." Governor Rick Perry.

WWJD?

Using the old "Jesus supports homosexuality" subterfuge, Jeffery Weber says that Jesus did not support discrimination.

Let's see what Jesus, himself, said: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity." Gosh, I think he's discriminating against those who work iniquity. You know, kind of like those who commit what God calls abomination and then use His Holy name in justification.

What else does the Bible say about Jesus? "And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: . . .Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." Wow -- sounds like some discrimination between sheep and goats going on here. Wonder what Jesus Jeffery is talking about? Obviously not the one in the Bible.

"Civil vows not Biblical." The Dallas Morning News; June 1, 2009; p. 12A.

You can apologize anytime now.

In 2009, Barry Applewhite of Plano took William McKenzie to task for his assertion that Obamacare would explode the national debt. Barry said that he had listened to Obama's entire speech to the AMA, and he had pledged that his plan would add nothing to the debt over a 10-year period. It would be revenue-neutral, and Obama had already come up with more than $900 billion.

Well, here we are 3 years later, and it appears McKenzie was right. The 10-year debt for Obamacare now stands at $2.7 trillion, and I imagine there will be more to come. Applewhite accused McKenzie of being a fear-monger. I don't think that accusation can stick when the warning is warranted.

You may apologize to Mr. McKenzie any time now, Barry.

"Facts omitted on health care plan." The Dallas Morning News; June 18, 2009; p. 18A.

You may be in violation of the CPSI Act.

Did you know that the federal government is regulating what you clean out of your closets and attics to sell in a garage sale? Under the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act passed in 2008, you can be fined if they catch you selling any item that has ever been recalled by the manufacturer. That covers toys, cribs, venetian blinds, toasters, strollers, bean bag chairs, even pajamas and hooded parkas . . . you name it, and it's covered. You can't even legally sell composition notebooks -- because they have a metal spiral binding.

Adele Meyer, executive director of the National Association of Resale and Thrift Shops, said, "It's just the way it was written, it's almost impossible to abide by this law." 

What are the chances of being caught? I'd guess slim to none, but even little kids' lemonade stands are being shut down. So who knows? It's another case of the nanny state government sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.

"Garage sales are covered under new product-safety laws." The Dallas Morning News; June 20, 2009; p. 6E.

Pet Peeve

I've repeatedly noticed a very common mistake in word usage, and it's driving me crazy. The example I'll use comes from the pen of Sherry McLain. She wrote a poem for entry in the Dallas Bridge poetry contest. She lives in a homeless shelter, herself, so I wonder where she got the $25 entry fee. At any rate, she won an honorable mention for her efforts.

The title of her poem is "Who would of thought." Correct usage would dictate the title of her poem be "Who would've thought." "Of" is a preposition -- not an auxiliary verb. Unfortunately, few people these days seem to understand the parts of speech. Maybe the schools should go back to some old-fashioned blackboards and teach the kids how to diagram sentences. I'd like to see where they would put "would of thought."

"Poetry contest expresses pain of homelessness." The Dallas Morning News; June 20, 2009; p. 9B.

Why We Should Use the Death Penalty and Use It Often

I was arguing with a person who doesn't believe in the death penalty. Her contention was that life without the possibility of parole was the right way to go. I told her that, practically speaking, there is no such thing as life without the possibility of parole. She said, "Of course there is." I told her that federal rulings from appeals courts and/or the justice department, a pardon by a liberal governor, overcrowded prisons, or any number of other factors could mean that a person who was never meant to get out of prison could one day be a free man. She didn't believe me. 

In 1981, Wayne Edward East slashed the throat of 77-year-old Mary Eula Sears. He stuffed her body into a closet and ransacked her home. He was convicted of capital murder the following year and sentenced to death. Obviously, the only way the jury expected him to leave prison was in a box. 

A federal appeals court reduced the sentence to life in prison in 1999. He was released on parole late last year. Not exactly what the jury anticipated.

The Parole Board wanted to send him to Abilene upon his release, but Abilene said he couldn't come there. That's where he murdered Ms. Sears. Instead, he was sent to Glenn Heights. That's where he was arrested last month for child molesting.

If we had just carried out the death penalty to begin with, this child wouldn't have been traumatized. The appeals court and the parole board bear the guilt right along with East. And I restate my case -- there is no such thing as life without the possibility of parole.

"Murderer accused of molesting girl." The Dallas Morning News; July 13, 2012; p. 2B.

Will she be at the next family reunion? And if she is, just who is she?

In the vast majority of families, there are aunts and uncles and nieces and nephews and cousins and sisters and brothers and mothers and fathers and wives and husbands and grandparents -- your basic family relationships. 

In recent years, we've added the "baby mama" and the "baby daddy." Now we've added another. I was watching Judge Joe Brown the other day, and the defendant mentioned Taniqua. Judge Joe Brown asked her who Taniqua was. "Dat's my baby daddy other mother," she explained. We've come a long way, baby!

You can get a cluck-cluck in bawk-bawk these days.

I swear, you're allowed to call yourself "Doctor" with just about any kind of cock-amamie thing these days. I'd cry, "Fowl," but it probably wouldn't do any good. At least I'm not too chicken to post about it.

Ebenezer Otu-Nyarko is coop-ed up as a doctoral candidate at the University of Connecticut. His research project is understanding chicken talk. He's hung microphones in a poultry barn to record all the chicken gossip. He wants to understand how "cluck-cluck" is different from "bawk-bawk." 

Now just eggs-actly how does he hope to feather his nest with this information? Well, if he can determine when the chicken is stressed, he can have it trigger an alarm that will get the farmer out of bed to check on it. Just brood about that great invention for a few minutes.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think chicken farmers are already pretty adept at figuring out when the chickens are upset. My family has raised some chickens, and we could tell when their squawks were out of the ordinary. I'm sure Ebenezer is not a birdbrain, but I have to wonder about the professors who approved this research. I also wonder how much taxpayer money is going into this project. It could be that the yolk's on us.

"Learning chickens' language." The Dallas Morning News; June 20, 2009; p. 7A.

The Truth, the Whole Truth, and Nothing but the Truth

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius warns of dire consequences should Obamacare be repealed. Unfortunately, she neglects to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

She says they if Obamacare is repealed, people will have their insurance cancelled if they get sick. That's not true. There was already a law in place that prevented an insurance company from doing that. The law does allow insurers to retroactively cancel health coverage, but only if the consumer has committed some sort of fraud, such as willfully making a "material misrepresentation" (lying or omitting key facts) on the application form. Cancellation of health coverage is rare - less than one half of one percent of all policies are cancelled each year.

She says that tens of millions will pay more for preventive care. That will be instead of you and me paying for their preventive care to the tune of $2.7 trillion over the next 10 years when Obama promised it would cost only $900 billion.

She says that hundreds of dollars in savings each year would disappear for people who now get free preventive care. Hate to tell you this, Kathleen, but nothing is free. Someone is paying for that "free" care.

She says we will face a shortage of doctors and nurse. I think just the opposite is true -- if we don't repeal Obamacare, a survey by a non-partisan medical group called the Doctor Patient Medical Association revealed that 83% of doctors have said they will consider abandoning their practices under Obamacare.

She says repeal will take us back to days when insurance companies were accountable to no one. Kathleen, Kathleen -- every state has an insurance regulation board.

Kathleen says repealing health reform will stop efforts to crack down on Medicare fraud that helped them recover $4 billion last year. Guess her boss just added to that when he gave $8 billion in  bonuses to mediocre private Medicare plans - a program that auditors had already urged the administration to cancel.

Kathleen says repeal means millions of Americans will lose their insurance. I doubt that. And there's no way she can back up her assertion.

"How repealing the health care act hurts you." The Dallas Morning News; July 12, 2012; p. 15A.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/gao_busts_8_billion_obama_medicare_fraud.html#ixzz20Xc3ngrx 

I agree with Obama  -- our tax system is unfair!

"Republicans believe that prosperity comes from the top down, so that if we spend trillions more on tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, that that will somehow unleash jobs and economic growth." Barack Obama.

http://news.investors.com/article/617653/201207101819/obamas-rhetoric-demonizes-success-and-wealth.htm

"Those at the very top grew wealthier from their incomes and their investments – wealthier than ever before. But everybody else struggled with costs that were growing and paycheques that weren't – and too many families found themselves racking up more and more debt just to keep up." Barack Obama.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/dec/07/full-text-barack-obama-speech?newsfeed=true

Those nasty, greedy, venture capitalists who make their money on the backs of the little folk. Nasty, greedy folks like Michael Moritz and his wife, Harriet Heyman. They just donated $115 million to help students whose families make less than $25,000 attend the University of Oxford. Wonder if Obama will be vilifying him?

"$115M gift to aid low-income students." The Dallas Morning News; July 12, 2012; p. 11A.

Incidentally, I'd just like to clear up a couple of points for Obama. 

Prosperity has to come from the top down. Think about it -- how can it come from the bottom up? (Obama has changed that recently to "from the middle out"). Poor people don't hire other people or open new businesses. Poor people don't pour money into the economy. Poor people don't pay taxes. People with enough initiative to work hard and invest their money properly and make wise purchases are the ones who open businesses and hire other people. That, in turn, allows those who were hired by those nasty business owners (who, according to Obama, didn't build their businesses) to begin to save and spend and pay taxes and work toward fulfilling their financial goals.

The government does not spend money for tax cuts. Taxes are revenue, not expenditures. The federal government doesn't have a revenue problem -- it has a spending problem. 

It is a proven fact that every time tax cuts have been enacted, the federal revenue has increased. It happened under Kennedy and it happened under Reagan and it happened under Bush. Obama, himself, conceded that point the last time he was a presidential candidate, and that great Democrat John Kennedy said that the way to help a struggling economy was to cut taxes, not raise them. But with Obama, it's not about raising revenue -- it's about promoting class envy so that he can retain power.

So what if the wealthy got wealthier? The top 1% of taxpayers pay about 38% of total federal income taxes while earning only 16% of income. The top 5% pay 59% but earn only 31%. Meanwhile, the bottom 50% earn 13% of income, but pay only 2% of taxes. No, I don't think the wealthy are getting wealthy off the little guy! I'll agree that the system isn't fair, but it's the big guy who's drawn the short straw!

Incidentally, the government could take every penny of income from the top 1% and it wouldn't go far in solving the revenue problem -- it would fund the government for approximately 8 days.

Yes, I agree with Obama - our tax system is unfair, but it's not the wealthy who are favored.

Where's that insinuation?

The Rev. Peter Johnson, a Dallas voting rights activist, says Texas's voter ID law "confounds and offends" him. He says that it seems to make it more difficult for blacks to vote. No, it doesn't. It imposes no more on blacks than it does on any other voter. 

Johnson said it insinuates that blacks and other minorities regularly commit voter fraud. I guess I missed that part of it. And if I'm not mistaken, it was the Justice Department and people like Johnson who injected race into the equation when they insinuated that blacks and other minorities aren't smart enough to get a photo ID.

Yes, there is racism out there, but it's not on the part of those who want to insure legitimate elections.

"Expert: Voter ID law won't affect turnout." The Dallas Morning News; July 12, 2012; p. 5A.

I miss the innocence of pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey.

When I was a child, I had the best birthday parties. My mother would decorate the backyard with balloons, all the neighborhood kids and my cousins would come, we'd have cake and ice cream and all kinds of party favors (whistles, jacks, bubble gum, suckers, etc.), and we'd play games like pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey and the farmer in the dell, and have relay races and other contests. And then there were presents to open. What fun, even though none of them probably cost more than two or three dollars. We usually got things like coloring books or story books, puzzles, those big boxes of Lifesavers that looked like books, bubble bath or play jewelry for the girls and toy cars or cap pistols for the boys.

It was a time of innocence. Parents now seem to think a party is not a success unless they've outdone all the other parents. Take Avery Seals at her 6th birthday. She and her friends were picked up in a pink stretch limousine. They were driven to a "pampering headquarters" where they spent two hours with stylists who applied makeup, painted their nails, did their hair in up-dos, and showed them how to strut down a runway. 

Then there's the story of the mother who maxed out her credit card for her son's first birthday. He slept through it. The little party favors from my era have given way to goodie bags filled with expensive toys. Vicki Messler of McKinney says "You feel like you have to invite everyone their age and go all out." Her oldest child is 5 years old. 

Tameka Jasper says she doesn't care if she can't afford it -- she wants her 3-year-old's party to be special. "I want my child to have the fond memories and experiences I didn't have." If Tameka's daughter is average, she won't even remember her 3rd birthday! 

Yes, I miss balloons and suckers and pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey and most of all, common sense.

"The big business of birthdays." The Dallas Morning News; June 21, 2009; p. 1B.

Gag at a gnat . . .

Several years ago, the Fluvanna Correctional Center for Women in Virginia began segregating some women in one wing of the facility in order to break up illegal sexual activity. The women say they were moved simply because they looked gay. They admit that there was no difference in the way they were treated, and the living conditions were no better or worse than the wings they were moved from.

Numerous inmates said in letters and interviews that the moves made them feel humiliated and stigmatized. Now, let's see . . . being in prison in the first place is not humiliating and stigmatizing? There is a solution. The humiliated inmates could quit trying to look like men. The inmates are truly running the asylum when we take away the prison's right to house inmates in the safest manner possible based on whatever criteria prison officials deem relevant.

"Inmates allege punishment for 'looking gay.'" The Dallas Morning News; June 11, 2009; p. 5A.

I have a solution.

Thomas Frazier has 14 children by 13 different women. He doesn't pay child support. He's in arrears by more than $500,000. So guess who pays for his 14 children?

Frazier says that expecting him to pay $3000 a month is unrealistic. That's only $214 per child. Could you support a child on $214 a month? I think that's unrealistic. 

At any rate, I have a solution for Thomas so that he doesn't father any more children he can't support, but I don't think Thomas will like it.

"Officials: Man owes child support for 13." The Dallas Morning News; April 12, 2009; p. 8A.

Unclear on the Concept

I've thought about going to New Braunfels before to float down the river, but I understand it's a pretty rowdy crowd down there. It's been described as "an alcohol-fueled floating frat party with public nudity, sex, fights and loud music." So I've opted not to go even though floating the river sounds like a fun thing to do. The City of New Braunfels has had problems for years picking up the cans and other trash tossed by floaters. In May of last year, the city crews picked up 12,000 pounds of litter.

But since then, the city has passed a can ban. You can still drink beer on the river, but you can't have disposable containers. And it works. This May, they picked up only 1,800 pounds of litter. But the floating frat partiers aren't happy. Shane Wolf runs a tube rental company. He says people are calling and saying, "You can't drink in New Braunfels, so why am I coming?" I may be a little unclear on the concept, but if all you want to do is drink, can't you do that on your own back porch or anywhere else? Why ruin the river for families and the rest of us who would just like to float down the river and enjoy the view?

By the way -- if you partiers weren't such pigs, there probably would have been no can ban. You abuse a privilege, you lose the privilege.

"'Can ban' sets river tourism adrift." The Dallas Morning News; July 5, 2012; p. 3A.