If my kid can't play, can't nobody's kid play!

 

Look for school districts to begin eliminating some of their sports programs. Our goofball Department of Education has decreed that disabled kids cannot be denied spots on sports teams in schools. If the schools can't change the rules to accommodate the kids, then they have to provide leagues for the disabled kids. So what if only one kid in a wheelchair wants to play football? The school has to provide a team that has "comparable standing as mainstream programs" for him to play on, even if he's the only one. How dumb is that?

 

Of course, disability advocates are jumping on the bandwagon. A GAO study from 2010 showed that students with disabilities participated in athletics at consistently lower rates than those without. Well, duh!!! Wonder how much we paid for that study?

 

Dale, a high school student who is blind, lauded the change. He said the accommodation allowed him to have equal access and opportunity. He participated in his school's wrestling program -- but they made his opponent keep in physical contact with him at all times during matches. I don't know much about wrestling, but from what I have watched, evading holds seems to be an integral part of the sport. Equal access and opportunity? I disagree . . . Dale was given an advantage over his opponent. I happen to be terribly uncoordinated and have very little stamina due to a medical condition. When I was a kid, I desperately wanted to play tennis, but I was eliminated pretty quickly in the tryouts. I guess I should have filed a lawsuit. They could have changed the rules so that my opponent had to hit the ball within two feet of me so I wouldn't have to run so much. And she shouldn't have been allowed to hit it hard, because I didn't have the muscle strength to return a hard-hit ball. And I shouldn't have had to do backhand returns, either!

 

Another example is Casey. He wants to be on the track team. He's confined to a wheelchair. Current rules require him to race on his own (in a racing wheelchair), but he's hoping the new rules will allow him to race against "kids at my level." People on legs racing against wheelchairs? That's not "level" competition unless you make all the non-crippled competitors get racing wheelchairs, too. The next thing you know, Casey will be complaining that he should be allowed to put a motor on his wheelchair.

 

According to Education Secretary Arne Duncan, "Sports can provide invaluable lessons in discipline, selflessness . . ." Obviously, these people need some lessons in selflessness. How selfish is it to drag down a whole team and make them change the rules just for you?

 

"Disabled gain right to sports." The Dallas Morning News; January 25, 2013; p. 1A.

 



Is this what school is about?

 

Obama and his Education Secretary are pushing for more and longer school days. If we were using those extra hours to educate our children, I'd be all for it. But talk to almost any recent high school graduate, and you'll wonder how he got his diploma.

 

I've noticed in our local news that our kids aren't studying reading, writing, arithmetic, science, history, and geography. At least they couldn't be devoting much time to it, because they seem to use an inordinate amount of class time to do eco projects, raise money for this cause or that cause, have field days, listen to motivational speakers, celebrate MLK day, form non-bullying clubs, and other such nonsense. I know a couple of kids who graduated not so long ago. After their state-mandated tests were completed, they spent the last few weeks of school watching movies. And not even educational ones!

 

I suspect that Obama and his liberal buddies really just want more indoctrination time with our little ones. But the quote that really got me started on all this was: "Supporters also say a longer school year would give poor children more access to school provided healthy meals." Is that what school is really about these days? No wonder our kids can barely read, write, or make change!

 

"Shorter summer a hot topic." The Dallas Morning News; January 14, 2013; p. 4A.

How many more chances should Joe get?

 

On January 14, Joe Silva stabbed to death Harold Griesenbeck at the Juliette Fowler Independent Living facility because Harold "put a flower on my door and he had on a red hat."

 

Joe was sentenced to three years in prison in 1976 for burglary. He evidently did not serve the three years, for in 1978, he was sentenced to five years for two counts of aggravated assault. At the same time, he received a life sentence for repeat burglary. He didn't serve much of that sentence, either -- he was out by 1987. So, in Joe's case, life plus eight years amounts to approximately 10 years or less.

 

Instead of worrying about guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens, perhaps our attention should be directed to criminals who are allowed to walk out of prison without serving their sentences. We might stop a whole lot more crime doing that than we will by disarming people who only want to protect themselves against the knife-wielding Joes of this world.

 

"Man: Flower on door led him to kill." The Dallas Morning News; January 16, 2013; p. 4B.

 



A little research would be nice.

 

Lisa Ocker of Carrollton asks how her cousin was able to legally buy a handgun after being involved in a "SWAT team incident" in the late 1980's. Then Lisa goes on to say, "We think (emphasis mine) he was able to legally buy at least another gun, maybe two, after this incident. Why?" If you only think he bought the guns legally, then it's entirely possible he didn't.

 

Shame on you, Lisa, for not doing your homework before you sent a letter to the editor. And shame on you, Dallas Morning News, for printing a letter with no evidence to back up the writer's "facts."

 

"Why could my cousin get a gun?" The Dallas Morning News; January 22, 2013; p. 12a.

 

 

A History Lesson for Tom

 

Tom Shane doesn't believe in the citizen's right to keep and bear arms as protected in the second amendment. He says that a well-regulated militia is an armed force to defend the country from foreign aggression, and he has not found anywhere in the Constitution that says people have the right to bear arms to temper the ambitions of an aggressive government.

 

Let's see, Tom, do you remember your American history? Remember that when the Constitution was hashed out by our founding fathers, they were fresh off the battlefields of the Revolution. Were they fighting a "foreign government" on those fields? No, they were bearing arms to temper the ambitions of an aggressive government.

 

The Second Amendment states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That means we have the right to protect our freedoms from enemies both foreign and domestic. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution, Tom, where it separates the two.

"Militias, not individuals." The Dallas Morning News; January 17, 2013; p. 14A.

Let's throw some money at it!

 

As usual, Obama's gun control proposals aim to cure the problem with money -- lots of it! I hate to tell him, but we are not going to cure mass murder no matter how much money we throw at it. There will always be mental cases and there will always be evil people. And those mental cases and evil people will always find a way to perpetrate the heinous acts they dream up.

 

If I really thought his proposals would prevent another slaughter of innocents, I'd be the first one to jump on his bandwagon and say, "It's worth the money." But, just so you know, here's how much Obama wants to throw away trying to solve a problem that can't be solved:

• $20 million to give states incentives to share background data. (Now just what in the heck does that mean? Can't he just "executive order" the states to share data?)
• $4 billion to keep 15,000 police officers on the street. (If I counted my zeroes right, that's $266,666.67 per officer. I don't think the cops in our city make anywhere near that! And suppose that Newtown had 50 more officers on its force. What could they have done that would have prevented the murders there?)
• $14 million to train 14,000 police officers to respond to shootings. (With a population of roughly 300 million, that's one additional officer to protect every 21,500 people. Think that will make a lot of difference? Anyway, aren't police officers already trained to respond to shootings?)
• $10 million to the CDC for research on the correlation between video games and violence. (Do you think they could do it for $5 million?)
• $20 million to expand the National Violent Death Reporting System. (I thought most police departments already did all sorts of crime statistics reports for the FBI/Department of Justice.)
• $150 million to school districts for school resource officers, school psychologists and social workers. (Isn't that something that should be handled on the local level?)
• $30 million to help school districts develop emergency management plans. (I doubt there is a school district in the nation that doesn't have some sort of plan for emergencies.)
• $50 million for 8000 schools to train teachers and staff to create safer environments. (How do they choose which schools? What could have been more safe than the school at Newtown?)
• $55 million to make sure students get mental health treatment. (A lot of those who perpetrate these crimes are like alcoholics or drug addicts -- they don't think they have a problem. It's hard to treat someone like that.)
• $25 million to help people ages 16-25 with mental health or substance abuse issues. (What if the next killer is 26 years old? Or 14 years old?)
• $25 million to offer students mental health for trauma or anxiety.
• $50 million to train 5000 mental health professionals.

Total cost for these vague ideas: $4.44 billion dollars. But that's OK -- we'll just make the rich pay some more of their fair share.

 

"Obama's gun-control proposals." The Dallas Morning News; January 17, 2013; p. 11A.

 

Why You Can't Trust Polls

 

AP poll question: "As you may know, in the next few months the U.S. government must raise the federal debt limit in order to avoid defaulting on its debt. If the federal debt limit is not raised and the U.S. defaults on its debt, how likely is it that the U.S. would face a major economic crisis?"

 

Next AP poll question: "In general, do you support, oppose or neither support nor oppose raising the federal debt limit in order to avoid defaulting on U.S. goverment debts?"

 

Do you see the problem with those questions? The first is based on a false premise. We don't have to raise the debt ceiling to avoid default -- we can reprioritize spending so that the interest payments on the debt are paid, then do some major rethinking about all the government handouts and waste. The second question follows the same logic as the first -- giving the poll participant a false choice. It's not raise the debt limit or default. It's raise the debt limit, default, OR make some major changes in spending. I'm quite certain that had the very real possibility of reprioritizing and getting a handle on spending been offered as an alternative, many would have chosen it.

 

"Public torn on debt ceiling." The Dallas Morning News; January 18, 2013; p. 11A.

A little respect, please!

 

Maybe we can just chalk it up to ignorance, but there was an appalling lack of respect shown for our national and state flags in the Dallas MLK parade. I was quite put out when I saw this photo:

 

 

The flag is NOT to be carried over one's shoulder like a sack of potatoes! According to the U.S. Flag Code as spelled out in Public Law 94-344, Sec. 4 (c), The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free."

Clark Rogers is the director of educational programs with the National Flag Foundation and says if you're carrying the flag, it should be out in front of you: "The flag is carried essentially straight up and down or at roughly a 30-degree angle going up," Rogers says. "The thing about carrying a flag is it's always carried upright, never dipped under any conditions whatsoever."

But how can we expect any respect for the flag from ordinary citizens when the gum-smacking socialist we just inaugurated to the highest office in the land offers no respect to the Constitution?

 

Which is it, Aubra?

 

Aubra Thomas says there is absolutely no reason for a civilian to own an "assault" rifle. She says only those who want to "play soldier" get them. She says that "it must be a terribly frightened and insecure individual who thinks he needs one for self-defense."

 

I assume that Aubra would also argue that there is little defense against an assault rifle, hence her argument that civilians shouldn't have them. Think about it, Aubra . . . if the evil and criminally insane among us have assault rifles (and it's a sure bet that they don't care whether they're legal or not), isn't our best defense against them to have our own assault rifles? Do you think any of those people are so insane or so evil that they would go to a place where they think their potential victims are just as well-armed as they are?

 

So Aubra, if it's silly to think you need a gun to defend yourself, then it's also silly to think that nutcases with guns are dangerous. If it's not silly to think that nutcases with guns are dangerous, then how would you suggest all us "frightened and insecure" people protect ourselves?

 

"Gun lovers are playing soldier." The Dallas Morning News; January 21, 2013; p. 18A.

SPECIAL INAUGURATION DAY POST

 

Regarding the Hypocrite in Chief

 

Did you see the film clip from Obama's private swearing-in yesterday? After he takes the oath, he hugs his daughters and says, "I did it."

 

No, Mr. Obama, to use your own words, you didn't do that! Somebody else did that! 

Is Gary Huber mentally deficient?

 

Gary Huber says that he has noticed that people argue about violent video games creating killers, but there seems to be a lack of a corresponding argument regarding hunters. He wonders if hunting, "the art of tracking and killing an animal with a gun," also desensitizes people to violence.

 

I wonder if Gary is a little mentally deficient or maybe just a little morally deficient. Does he not see that there is a difference between killing human beings for sport and hunting game to stock freezers and feed people and support wildlife conservation?

 

By the way, of all the mass shootings in recent years, several of the perpetrators were big video game players, but I haven't heard that any of them were hunters. If you know differently, please post and let me know. That being said, I don't believe playing violent video games will make a normal person go out and shoot real people. Their time could probably be spent much more productively, but I don't think the games will make a person do something he was not inclined to do in the first place. Maybe the correlation is not that the video games cause the crimes, but that the people who have the psycho gene or the mean gene or whatever it is to commit the crimes are drawn to the video games. Ah -- now there's a thought -- maybe we should make people go through a universal background check before they are allowed to buy Play Stations and/or violent video games!

 

"Hunting creates killers." The Dallas Morning News; January 13, 2013; p. 3P. 

You have the right -- but not with someone else's money!

 

The Obamacare advocates who claim the opposition is waging a war on women because they find it offensive for an employer to be forced to provide contraception for his employees despite his religious convictions are completely missing the point.

 

Dory Alford of Highland Village says, "If you don't want to use birth control because you think your religion objects to it, then don't -- it is your choice . . . Now respect my choice to take advantage of a drug that will improve the quality of my life."

 

No employer is "disrespecting" Dory's choice or demanding that she not use contraception in order to keep her job. But Dory is dictating to the employer by insisting he pay for something she can very well buy on her own. Dory has elevated her right to use contraceptives to the right to demand someone else pay for them. And that is the point!

 

"Your religion, my health." The Dallas Morning News; January 13, 2013; p. 2P.

 

 

I may get your gun, but Michelle and I will have armed guards!

 

At the same time he's trying to take away our guns, Obama signed on January 10 a piece of legislation that will insure that he and Michelle have Secret Service protection for the rest of their lives. Under the old rules, they would have been protected for 10 years after leaving office. Guess you don't have to worry about protecting yourself when the taxpayers fund an entire detail of body guards for you.

 

"Obama signs law giving presidents life protection." The Dallas Morning News; January 11, 2013, p. 10A.

Hypocrites?

 

I noticed the photograph in the newspaper the other day of Joe Biden and his "let's get their guns" commission. Sitting right there at the big old decision-making table was Eric "Fast and Furious" Holder. Yeah -- let's get the guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens and give them to Mexican drug lords.

 

I can think of only one thing to say (well, actually, I can think of a lot of things to say, but one word will sum it up): HYPOCRITES!

God save us from loving and devoted mothers.

 

In Wales, Sara Ege, 33 years old, beat her 7-year-old son with a stick over a time period of several months -- until he died -- because he didn't memorize his assigned passages from the Quran. She then burned his body to conceal the evidence.

 

Judge Wyn Williams sentenced her to 17 years in prison for this egregious crime. He said she was a "devoted and loving mother." I have to wonder if a mother who beat her little boy to death because he didn't memorize his Bible verses would be described as "devoted and loving."

 

"Son's beating death draws 17 years." The Dallas Morning News; January 8, 2012; p. 12A.

 



Wait just a minute, Mr. Burglar.

 

Michael Collier says it's very simple. People with guns should be required to keep them locked up in safes or locked with trigger locks with only one person having the keys or combinations. Mr. Essie May and I consider that to be a bit stupid. Our guns are kept loaded and in the nightstands -- one on each side of the bed.

 

Suppose we take Michael's suggestion. I wake up in the middle of the night and tell Mr. Essie May that I hear someone in the house. About the time his feet hit the floor, our bedroom door opens. Mr. Essie May says, "Hold it right there! Wait a second -- hold on a minute -- Honey, where's the key to the safe? Be right with you, Mr. Burglar, just as soon as I get this trigger lock off."

 

Then there is the "mandatory" part of Michael's plan. Will we be subject to invasive inspections of our homes? Who will be in charge of insuring we have the safes and/or locks on our guns?

 

Michael says his idea will make people "feel much safer." Yeah, I'm sure the burglars will love it.

 

"Mandate gun locks, safes." The Dallas Morning News; January 4, 2013; p. 16A.

It really doesn't mean anything.

 

Obama recently signed a defense bill that restricts transferring detainees out of military prisons in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Bay. But he attached a signing statement to it. The signing statement says that he can override the limits in the law.

 

So, even though he signed it, it really doesn't mean a thing. He has pretty much said that it doesn't matter if it's the law of the land -- he is not bound by it and can do whatever he wants.

 

When are we going to stand up and defend our Constitution against a president who makes a mockery of it?

 

"Obama signs bill restricting transfer of detainees." The Dallas Morning News; January 4, 2013; p. 10A.

A bug-eyed . . .?

 

Isn't it amusing how the media skews things? In describing James Holmes, the nutcase who killed all those people in Colorado, Jacquielynn Floyd called him "a bug-eyed gun freak." Do we know he was a "gun freak"? So far as we know, he owned no guns at all until just a short time before the shootings. Implications are that the guns were not the cause of the murders, but rather the murders were planned and then the tools to carry them out were procured. I hardly think that qualifies him as a "gun freak."

 

Holmes calls himself an agnostic. Why didn't she call him a "bug-eyed agnostic"? He wrote computer code for the university where he had an internship. Why didn't she call him a "bug-eyed computer nerd"? He was obviously obsessed with the Joker character from Batman. Why wasn't he called a "bug-eyed Joker freak"? He had sought psychiatric counseling at his school. Why didn't she call him a "bug-eyed mental case"? Holmes's apartment was booby-trapped with an intricate network of bombs, one of which was packaged in a white plastic trash bag with a remote control car as the trigger. Why didn't she call him a "bug-eyed Hefty Bag freak"? Or a "bug-eyed remote control car freak"?

 

I'll tell you why -- because those terms wouldn't fit with her political agenda. Her agenda is to control guns -- not movies or mental patients or electronics. Those guns had nothing to do with James Holmes's motivation, but some of those other things may have -- he was unstable emotionally, and he fixated on a fictional character and rigged traps consistent with antics that fictional character might have carried out.

 

William Spengler killed his mother with a hammer -- do you think she would refer to him as a "bug-eyed hammer freak"? I doubt it.

 

"Cinemark should rethink clumsy invite to survivors." The Dallas Morning News; January 4, 2013; p. 1B.

Are you sure about that, Cecil?

 

I'm not sure who he's talking about, but Cecil Rhodes of North Dallas says that, "Had we still had the high-capacity ammo-clip ban that was part of the assault weapons ban that Bush allowed to expire, nine people would still be alive to celebrate Christmas in 2012."

 

Are you sure about that, Cecil? Do you really think that someone bent on killing people will be deterred because the weapon he wants to use is "banned"? I can just imagine the thought processes of Jared Loughner, James Holmes, William Spengler and Adam Lanza. "I am so full of hate I must kill people. But wait, I can't do that -- it's against the law for me to have a gun or a high capacity ammo clip. Oh, well, guess those gun control laws really do work."

 

"Good guys don't need guns." The Dallas Morning News; January 1, 2013; p. 14A.

No, it can't.

 

Fernando Rojas of Mesquite doesn't like the idea of school vouchers. I, personally, think it's a great idea. It's the best way to put an end to all the discrimination and inner city school problems. Everyone will receive a voucher to apply to whatever school he wants to.

 

Fernando's problem is that the voucher can be used in private schools -- specifically church-related ones. He says it would violate separation of church and state. No, it wouldn't. No one says you have to use your voucher to go to a religious school -- you can use it anywhere you choose.

 

Fernando says that legislators should be mindful that "freedom of religion" can also be construed to mean freedom from religion. No, it can't. Freedom of religion is spelled out for us in the 1st Amendment -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

 

Don't see anything at all in there about protecting someone from being exposed to religion. It merely says that Congress cannot establish a religion, and school vouchers certainly don't do that.

 

"Vouchers affront to separation." The Dallas Morning News; January 1, 2013; p. 14a.

Apples and Oranges

 

Charlene Seifert of Arlington has a simple solution to gun control. She says everyone with a gun should be required to carry insurance for that gun. She likens it to automobile insurance. It's not the same, Charlene.

 

In the first place, automobile insurance is not required unless the automobile is driven on public roads. My guns rarely leave my house, and when they do, no one knows it -- I am required to keep my weapon concealed. It will be displayed only in the event my life or someone else's is in imminent danger. And in that case, I don't imagine anyone is going to stop me and ask if I have insurance before they allow me to take care of the bad guy. In the second place, driving an automobile is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution. Being able to keep and bear arms is. In the third place, Charlene, do you really think the ones who are causing all the problems will buy insurance? If they are not averse to breaking the laws against murder, I seriously doubt they will be conscientious enough to make sure their insurance is up to date.

 

By the way, Charlene, the nutcase in New York who killed the firefighters had been paroled for killing his mother with a hammer. Should we also have to carry liability for our hammers? What about steak knives? Baseball bats? Where do you draw the line, Charlene?

 

"Require insurance for guns." The Dallas Morning News; January 3, 2013; p. 10A.

Why am I supporting this child?

 

Four years ago, William Marotta responded to an online ad placed by a couple of lesbians. The lesbians wanted his sperm so one of them could conceive. They did a do-it-yourself artificial insemination, and the child is now three years old.

 

The State of Kansas is suing William on behalf of the child's mother who has been on public assistance. I have questions. Why would anyone go to such lengths to have a child she cannot afford? Why would a man not care what happened to his biological child? And the biggest question of all is, why am I and other taxpayers supporting a child who has three "parents"?

 

"Gay couple's sperm donor fights demand for child support." The Dallas Morning News; January 3, 2013; p. 6A.

Yes, Robert, somewhere deep down, they are all bloodthirsty killers.

 

Robert White of Dallas takes issue with people who don't trust pit bulls (or as we ignorant people, according to Robert, refer to the American pit bull terrier). Robert says we should do a little research before we deem them all as "bloodthirsty killers hellbent on eating babies and grandmothers."

 

Here's a little research for you, Robert.

•  Mable McCallister, 84-years old, was attacked by her grandson's pit bull on December 18, 2011. Police officers said that she was bitten in her face and neck. The injuries caused her hospitalization in Erlanger Hospital's trauma unit for over four days, according to Bradley County Medical Examiner Dr. Jeffery Miller. Mable died on New Year's Eve while in hospice care.
• Jace Valdez, 16-months old, was mauled to death by a pit bull January 14, 2012, while in the care of his grandmother. His grandparents owned the 7-year old male dog.
• Diane Jansen, 59-years old, was bitten March 4, 2012, on both legs by a pit bull while delivering mail on her route in Escondido, California. She suffered an immediate stroke and died 3 and a half days later.
• Kylar Johnson, 4-years old, was discovered dead 14 hours after authorities carried out a search-and-rescue effort on his behalf on March 14, 2012. Preliminary autopsy results confirmed the child was mauled to death by a "single dog," a neighbor's chained pit bull.
• James Hurst, 92-years old, was brutally struck down April 9, 2012, by his neighbor's two pit bulls while working in his front yard. Undersheriff Kenneth Golden said of all the dog attacks he has worked, he has never seen one this bad. "It appears he was chewed and drug around the yard. It wasn't very pretty," Golden said. The victim's best friend, Levi Duncan, witnessed the aftermath of the mauling. "Both feet, his face, his ears. His lips were gone. He didn't even look like the same person," Duncan said.
• Clifford Wright, 74-years old, was discovered mauled to death by one of his pet pit bulls. The victim's son, Gavin Wright, found his body after returning from work. Gavin Wright described the male pit bull, named Achilles, as a playful and loving pet. Authorities described Clifford's injuries as "grisly."
• Jazilyn Mesa, 15-months old, was brutally mauled by her father's pet pit bull in the backyard of her grandparent's home.
• Maryann Hanula, 73-years old, died seven months after suffering a violent attack by her neighbor's two pit bulls in October 2011. The victim was attacked by the dogs in her own yard after the animals escaped their owner's gated property. The dogs almost ate her foot off. She spent most of her last months in the hospital.

These plus 14 others accounted for U.S. fatalities from pit bulls in 2012. Most of the scenes were described as horrendous maulings.  I didn't even look up the statistics on survivors of pit bull attacks, but pit bulls account for 59% of all fatal attacks. That means that pit bulls attack more often than all the other breeds (161 recognized by the AKC) put together. On average, a pit bull kills a U.S. citizen every 21 days. In one study of dog bites over the course of a year, pit bulls were responsible for well over 1000 attacks. Most of these dogs were "family pets." The next highest breed was the Rottweiler with 409 attacks blamed on them.

 

Looking at these statistics, you tell me -- is there something in this breed that makes it a bloodthirsty killer? I think so.

 

"Spouting same old pit bull drivel." The Dallas Morning News; October 23, 2008; p. 14A.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php#mable-mccallister

Can we impeach him for willful dereliction of duty?

 

Article 3 Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution sets out the powers and responsibilities of the President of the United States. Among those responsibilities: ". . .he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."

 

But Barack has decided that he will enforce only those laws he likes. We've already seen that illegal aliens are safe here under his administration. And now the dopers are safe. He says the federal government won't interfere with recreational marijuana use in Washington State and Colorado. He says the federal government has too much to do to worry about the law prohibiting marijuana.

 

Barack is taking to himself way too much power. It appears he doesn't understand the separation of powers and the checks and balances in our Constitution. Barack doesn't have the authority to nullify a law once it has been enacted. Law-making resides with the legislative branch -- it is up to Congress to make or repeal laws. It is up to the President to enforce the laws, no matter how insignificant they are or how much he disagrees with them.

 

Do you think we can get Congress to start impeachment proceedings for willful dereliction of duty? With a Democrat Senate, it obviously wouldn't go anywhere, but at least it would give him a little grief.

"States' pot laws won't be pursued." The Dallas Morning News; December 15, 2012; p. 8A.

Way to stimulate that economy, Barack!

 

Since our economy has flourished so well under Barack, and since jobs are abundant, Barack has decided to implement some stricter EPA regulations that will tamp down all that prosperity a little bit.

 

Last month, the administration reduced by 20% the amount of soot that can be released into the air from smokestacks, diesel trucks, and other sources. That means some companies will have to pull trucks off the road. That means some companies will have to shut down until they bring their equipment into compliance. And that means fewer employed truck drivers and factory workers. And once these places are able to get back online, do you not suppose that the products they provide will cost the consumer more?

 

The EPA says we'll see up to a $9 billion benefit from the stricter regulation. I suspect that's another of those phantom numbers like the ones Barack used to tell us how much Obamacare is going to save us. And we know how well that's going.

 

"EPA tightens soot rule; health, jobs at issue." The Dallas Morning News; December 15, 2012; p. 6A.

See if you comprhend this.

 

A stock photo on the op-ed page of the newspaper caught my eye. It accompanied an article on why students aren't learning. The drawing depicted an open book and an apple on a teacher's desk. The blackboard behind the desk was filled with terms related to educational objectives, tools, and subjects. Here is the list of terms on the blackboard.

• Discover
• Novel
• Teach
• Write
• Fantasy
• Fact
• Enjoyment
• Fiction
• Comprhend
• Information
• Understand
• Book
• Growth
• Expand
• History
• Science
• Education
• Print
• Learning
• Knowledge

 

Did you comprhend that?

Today's Helpful Hint

 

This may seem like a joke, and I will inject some humor into it, but it's a very serious subject.

 

A University of Illinois medical study has shown that thinking of the Bee Gees' song "Stayin' Alive" helps those doing CPR chest compressions to keep the proper rhythm. At 103 bets per minute, it's perfect timing. So if you ever find yourself in the critical situation of trying to keep someone's heart beating, remember and hum "Stayin' Alive."

 

One doctor in the study said he really didn't like "Stayin' Alive." He wanted to use another song that he thinks would also work -- "Another One Bites the Dust." Somehow, though, he didn't think that would be quite appropriate.

 

"A ticker picker-upper." The Dallas Morning News; October 17, 2008; p. 5A.

Matthew 7:13

 

Connie Marshall is a self-described "straight, Democrat, Christian woman who feels blessed to live in a country where my gay brothers and sisters are (slowly but surely) being seen as equals . . ." She's proud to live in a country where God and prayer have been taken out of the public school classroom "where it never should have been in the first place." I suppose that means she objects to those teachers in Newtown having prayed with their students as a madman stalked them.

 

Connie says "You may choose to look at our country through a very narrow 'biblical lens,' but my hope and prayer is that someday our lens will broaden." She says that acceptance is what makes this country so beautiful. That seems to be in opposition to what Jesus taught about a "broad biblical lens." "Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.." I think I'll keep my narrow biblical lens.

"Happy for direction we're going." The Dallas Morning News; July 1, 2012; p. 2P.

P.S. Happy New Year! May 2013 be a heck of a lot better than 2012 was!