*(old nfo)


Courage does not always shout . . . Sometimes it is a very quiet voice at the end of the day saying . . . I will try again tomorrow.

Rev 22:20 "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus!"

Monday, February 22, 2010

Mary Jane to the Rescue

Why didn’t I think of this before I fired my doctor? It would have saved me the hassle of finding a new one and sharing my rather boring medical history with yet one more professional. I guess the biggest problem now would be access. Back in the seventies I was rather proficient at rolling joints, even though I never imbibed that much. “What is 'that much?'” you may ask. Not much.

But, fortunately, my new doc understands pain and has me on a half-baked medication which I take only occasionally. But wouldn’t it be nice to curl up with a good book , a warm blanket, a warm doggy, and a warm joint?

Oh, wait. It’s illegal, smelly, and semi-bad for your health. Guess I could go to a rock concert and enjoy the second hand smoke. It worked for me when I went to Jesus Christ Superstar in Hawaii about a thousand years ago. However, I rather like the pipe idea.

For all you seniors and senior wannabes here's the article from CNS News:

 "More Senior Citizens Using Marijuana

Monday, February 22, 2010

By Matt Sedensky, Associated Press

Miami (AP) - In her 88 years, Florence Siegel has learned how to relax: A glass of red wine. A crisp copy of The New York Times, if she can wrest it from her husband. Some classical music, preferably Bach. And every night like clockwork, she lifts a pipe to her lips and smokes marijuana.

Long a fixture among young people, use of the country's most popular illicit drug is now growing among the AARP set, as the massive generation of baby boomers who came of age in the 1960s and '70s grows older.

The number of people aged 50 and older reporting marijuana use in the prior year went up from 1.9 percent to 2.9 percent from 2002 to 2008, according to surveys from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

The rise was most dramatic among 55- to 59-year-olds, whose reported marijuana use more than tripled from 1.6 percent in 2002 to 5.1 percent.

Observers expect further increases as 78 million boomers born between 1945 and 1964 age. For many boomers, the drug never held the stigma it did for previous generations, and they tried it decades ago.

Some have used it ever since, while others are revisiting the habit in retirement, either for recreation or as a way to cope with the aches and pains of aging.

Siegel walks with a cane and has arthritis in her back and legs. She finds marijuana has helped her sleep better than pills ever did. And she can't figure out why everyone her age isn't sharing a joint, too.

'They're missing a lot of fun and a lot of relief,' she said.

Politically, advocates for legalizing marijuana say the number of older users could represent an important shift in their decades-long push to change the laws.

'For the longest time, our political opponents were older Americans who were not familiar with marijuana and had lived through the 'Reefer Madness' mentality and they considered marijuana a very dangerous drug,' said Keith Stroup, the founder and lawyer of NORML, a marijuana advocacy group.

'Now, whether they resume the habit of smoking or whether they simply understand that it's no big deal and that it shouldn't be a crime, in large numbers they're on our side of the issue.'

Each night, 66-year-old Stroup says he sits down to the evening news, pours himself a glass of wine and rolls a joint. He's used the drug since he was a freshman at Georgetown, but many older adults are revisiting marijuana after years away.

'The kids are grown, they're out of school, you've got time on your hands and frankly it's a time when you can really enjoy marijuana,' Stroup said. 'Food tastes better, music sounds better, sex is more enjoyable.'

The drug is credited with relieving many problems of aging: aches and pains, glaucoma, macular degeneration, and so on. Patients in 14 states enjoy medical marijuana laws, but those elsewhere buy or grow the drug illegally to ease their conditions.

Among them is Perry Parks, 67, of Rockingham, N.C., a retired Army pilot who suffered crippling pain from degenerative disc disease and arthritis. He had tried all sorts of drugs, from Vioxx to epidural steroids, but found little success. About two years ago he turned to marijuana, which he first had tried in college, and was amazed how well it worked for the pain.

'I realized I could get by without the narcotics, 'Parks said, referring to prescription painkillers. 'I am essentially pain free.'

But there's also the risk that health problems already faced by older people can be exacerbated by regular marijuana use.

Older users could be at risk for falls if they become dizzy, smoking it increases the risk of heart disease and it can cause congnitive impairment, said Dr. William Dale, chief of geriatrics and palliative medicine at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

He said he'd caution against using it even if a patient cites benefits.

'There are other better ways to achieve the same effects,' he said.

Pete Delany, director of applied studies at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, said boomers' drug use defied stereotypes, but is important to address.

'When you think about people who are 50 and older you don't generally think of them as using illicit drugs -- the occasional Hunter Thompson or the kind of hippie dippie guy that gets a lot of press maybe," he said. As a nation, it's important to us to say, 'It's not just young people using drugs it's older people using drugs.''

In conversations, older marijuana users often say they smoke in less social settings than when they were younger, frequently preferring to enjoy the drug privately. They say the quality (and price) of the drug has increased substantially since their youth and they aren't as paranoid about using it.

Dennis Day, a 61-year-old attorney in Columbus, Ohio, said when he used to get high, he wore dark glasses to disguise his red eyes, feared talking to people on the street and worried about encountering police. With age, he says, any drawbacks to the drug have disappeared.

'My eyes no longer turn red, I no longer get the munchies,' Day said. 'The primary drawbacks to me now are legal.'

Siegel bucks the trend as someone who was well into her 50s before she tried pot for the first time. She can muster only one frustration with the drug.

'I never learned how to roll a joint," she said. 'It's just a big nuisance. It's much easier to fill a pipe.'"

My only comment is this: At our age, what's it going to hurt? Our ability to reproduce? C'mon, Dr. Dale, give us a break. And if Ms Seigel is reading the New York Times, she's going to need more than that weed in her pipe.



Monday, February 15, 2010

Just Some Ramblings

At first blush this will appear to be about the most politically incorrect post I’ve put up. But, ya know what? I really don’t give a rip. It’s been eating away at me for years and now that I have my own blog I can pretty much say what I want. For now. That may change. And as I've said before, political correctness will blow us all to kingdom come.

When I was a kid we celebrated George Washington’s Birthday. It was a holiday. We got off school because it was a BIG DEAL. And we celebrated Lincoln’s Birthday. It, too, was a holiday. We got off school. It was a BIG DEAL. Now we celebrate Presidents Day. Or is it President’s Day? If so, which president? Or is it Presidents’ Day? That would be sort of an all purpose day celebrating all presidents, some of whom don’t and didn’t even deserve to be called by the name. So who, besides retail merchants, actually celebrates this day? I suppose President Obama can celebrate it because, after all, it puts him in the spotlight (again), and God knows that’s where he needs to be. The truth is, it’s been so long since it was changed to Presidents Day, hardly anyone knows what the heck it signifies—the observance of two of our greatest presidents.

In some states Washington and Lincoln, and all the other presidents have been thrown together like a miscellaneous box of used stuff at an auction sale. But Martin Luther King, Jr., now he gets his own day. Why? Did he put this country together when it could well have fallen apart? Nope. Did he free the slaves? Don’t think so. Now, I know he “did a lot of good.” But so did Ronald Reagan, who was instrumental in making MLK Day a national holiday. You’ll notice Reagan doesn’t have his own holiday. Well, heck, he was only responsible for stopping the cold war. No biggee.

Before you left wing, brain dead, politically correct nut jobs start coming out from under your rocks, let it be known that I would object to any private citizen having his own holiday. However, if there were to be a holiday celebrating a private citizen I would vote for Crispus Attucks Day. Google him for yourself and then attack me.

While you’re ruminating on this watch this video. It might help to clear your mind.



Thursday, February 11, 2010

Just Another Step Toward A Godless America

According to Religious Tolerance.org as of 2008 79.9% of Americans considered themselves Christian. Religious Jews constituted 1.2%. Obama would disagree, and I'm not sure what folks mean when they claim Christianity. However, America was founded on Christian principles and remains a Judeo-Christian nation today, much to the consternation of liberals\progressives\communists (assuming there's a difference.)

So I found this article interesting from the standpoint of a Christian, married, working woman. As a Christian, I'm wondering what it would take for me to divorce my husband just to cater to the whim of the government. Fortunately I won't have that choice to make, because, at our age, Cec and I are more subject to Death Panels than penalties.

It's ba-ack! Health-care plan redoubles 'marriage penalty'

Congressional proposals could penalize couples $10,000 for saying 'I do'

Posted: February 10, 2010
11:03 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh
© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Bills pending in Congress that would nationalize "health care"  by setting up mandatory insurance purchases and fines for not complying could penalize married couples $10,000 annually and are a direct attack on marriage, families and the church because of their discriminatory provisions, according to a congressional candidate.

"This is as awful, I will say evil ... this is as evil as it gets," Allen Quist, who is running to unseat Democrat Tim Walz in Minnesota's 1st congressional district, told WND.

Quist said the fine print of provisions still alive in both the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives deliberately create enormous pressure for couples to live together without marriage – or even get divorced – by charging married couples thousands of dollars more in premiums and fees.

"And it's deliberate," Quist added, "This is clearly not accidental."

"This is the most insidious attack on our country we have ever seen," Quist said earlier this week in an interview with David Barton of WallBuildersLive.com.

"In fact you have government policies tearing apart marriage," he said. "Marriage is the foundation of society. It's the foundation of our government and to a large degree the basic unit in the church. [The policy] undermines the church's teaching and undermines church structure.

"It weakens the family. It weakens the church, and it weakens our country," he said.

Quist is retired adjunct professor of political science at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, Minn., and has written five books, including his most recent, "America's Schools: The Battleground for Freedom." He played a role in legalizing home schools in Minnesota and was one of seven delegates elected from the state to the White House Conference on Families in 1980.

He currently writes and edits curriculum modules that can be used by teachers to supplement school texts. The material focuses on "exciting new information that will not be included in textbooks because the information contradicts politically correct worldviews including Darwinism and global warming."

Marriage penalty

The Democrats' health care legislation essentially would restore the old "marriage penalty," Quist said. Under the U.S. Tax Code for many years, people who were married and had two incomes paid income tax on the second income that started at the highest rate for taxes on the first income.

A husband's first $5,000 in income was taxed at the same – or next higher rate – as the wife's highest $5,000 in income in a year.

However, if the two people were living together without marriage, the incomes were separate, and the second income would be taxed starting at the lowest rate of the tax table.

Members of Congress worked for years to repeal the measure and take away the financial penalty for being married.

Quist said the new health-care provisions restore the penalty and double it. He said all he needed to figure that out was his knowledge of how government works – he's been a state representative for multiple terms – and a calculator. Under the two proposals pending, which are similar, two unmarried people with a combined income of about $59,000 would pay about $1,320 a year in medical insurance.

For a married couple with the same approximate income, the tab would be about $12,000.

It would hit young married couples hard and even would bite back at empty-nesters whose children have moved away from home, he said.

Two WND columnists previously have cited the disparity in the health care programs' recommended costs for couples. Phyllis Schlafly wrote, "Even though all evidence shows that marriage is the best remedy for poverty, lack of health care, domestic violence, child abuse and school dropouts, federal welfare programs continue to discriminate against marriage and instead give taxpayer handouts to those who reject marriage."

She cited tables revealing the House bill cost for an unmarried couple with $50,000 in combined income would be $3,076 a year. Married, they would pay $5,160.

Columnist Craige McMillan went further, noting that the head of a family making $44,000 a year would see periodic take-home pay of $2,854 reduced to $1,604 because of mandatory health insurance costs.

He reported, however, a single woman with the same income would have her income drop only from $2,687 to $2,603 because she could opt to pay a penalty instead of buying insurance.

"If she gets sick the new ban on pre-existing illnesses means she can sign up the month before she needs an expensive operation – and drop coverage a month later. And since emergency rooms will still have to treat the uninsured, no questions asked, why would she carry insurance?"

But Quist went further, charging that it is a deliberate attack on Christians.

"It's persecution of the church, because of the church's involvement with marriage," he said.

"Millions of families [will have the choice] of staying married and not making their house, their mortgage payments or getting divorced and making their payments," he said.

"This thing is designed to destroy marriage in the middle class – just as we've destroyed it on the poverty level," he said, citing aid programs that lend more benefits to a single mother with children than the same family with a father present.

Quist said. "It's going to come in like a freight train."

According to a Heritage Foundation analysis, the provisions in the Senate bill confirm that "saying 'I do' would cost some couples over $10,000 a year."

"At nearly all age and income levels, the bill profoundly discriminates against married couples, providing far less support to a husband and wife than to a cohabiting couple with the same income," the analysis said.

"Under the Senate bill, married couples in general would receive between $1,500 and $10,000 less in government health care support than would cohabiting couples with the same total income."

"For example, a young couple without children, age 20, each making $20,000, would receive $4,317 more in health benefits each year if they cohabit rather than marry. Slipping on the wedding ring would cut the couple's annual disposable income by more than 10 percent. Rather than pay this new wedding tax, the couple is likely to postpone marriage or forego it entirely," the analysis said.

Empty-nesters "would pay an effective tax of $5,000 to $10,000 per year for the right to remain married," the report continued. "For example, a 60-year-old couple, each earning $30,000 per year, would receive $10,425 per year less in benefits if they marry or remain married. Simply by divorcing and then living together, the couple can boost their post-tax, take-home income by nearly one-fourth."

The Heritage report warned, "The bill's wedding tax is perpetual. … Some couples who remained married throughout their adult lives would face cumulative penalties of over $200,000 during the course of their marriage."

Robert Rector, the author of the analysis and a Senior Research Fellow in Domestic Policy Studies at the foundation, concluded, "On the other hand, the bill establishes cohabiters as a privileged special interest, quietly channeling tens of thousands of dollars to them in preferential government bonuses. Offering couples massive financial rewards on the condition they jettison their wedding vows, or decline to make them in the first place, is absurd social policy. But that would be the established policy of the U.S. government if Obamacare becomes law."



Tuesday, February 9, 2010

I think this was Supposed to be Serious

I work nights in a nursing home and many of the residents like to keep their TVs on all night. I caught this in the wee hours of this morning and thought it was hilarious. For those of you who may have missed it here it is again. Try to count how many shovels you may need to get through it. (Hint: You may run out of fingers and toes.) Skip over the commercials.



P.S. John Murtha is still dead.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Governor Jeremiah Nixon

I've simply copied and pasted this from WND for your perusal. I can't add to it without violating my pledge not to use words which would offend my Lord.


Gov. who linked Christians, violence latest Obama pick

Missouri report tied 'domestic terrorists' with opposition to abortion, immigration

Posted: February 07, 2010

9:24 pm Eastern

By Bob Unruh

© 2010 WorldNetDaily

Missouri Gov. Nixon

President Obama has picked to advise him on military actions inside the U.S. the Missouri governor whose state "Information Analysis Center" last year linked conservative organizations to domestic terrorism and said law enforcement officers should watch for suspicious individuals who may have bumper stickers from Ron Paul or Chuck Baldwin.

Missouri Gov. Jeremiah Nixon, a Democrat, is being joined on the Obama's special advisory panel by the governor of Puerto Rico, Luis Fortuno, and Arizona Gov. Janice Brewer, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano's replacement when she moved to Washington.

They are among Obama's nominations for the 10 positions on Obama's new "Council of Governors" that he will use for advice on "military activities in the United States."

WND reported earlier when Obama announced the council to advise on military actions in the U.S. and "to protect our nation against all types of hazards."

A subsequent WND report confirmed when a rebellion developed to the order, and a new push was launched for states to adopt laws limiting the use of their National Guard units unless there is an invasion, insurrection or other limited circumstance.

The original announcement said the new council is to include governors and administration officials to review "such matters as involving the National Guard of the various states; homeland defense, civil support; synchronization and integration of state and federal military activities in the United States; and other matters of mutual interest pertaining to National Guard, homeland defense, and civil support activities."

However, there was no definition of the group's authority. Can the council recommend "military activities" and can the governors, who already are in command of their own state guard units, mandate activities outside of their areas of jurisdiction? The White House did not respond to WND questions on the issue.

A new announcement from the White House lists Nixon as one of the nominees.

"He is responsible for operating Missouri's innovative fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center," the announcement confirmed.

It was in 2009 when the MIAC issued a report that not only linked conservative groups to domestic terrorism and warned law enforcement to watch for vehicles with bumper stickers promoting Paul and Baldwin, it also warned police to watch out for individuals with "radical" ideologies based on Christian views, such as opposing illegal immigration, abortion and federal taxes.

Ultimately, Chief James Keathley of the Missouri State Patrol said the release of the report caused him to review the procedures through which the report was released.

"My review of the procedures used by the MIAC in the three years since its inception indicates that the mechanism in place for oversight of reports needs improvement," he said at the time. "Until two weeks ago, the process for release of reports from the MIAC to law enforcement officers around the state required no review by leaders of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Department of Public Safety."

He said the report warning about those who hold Christian views was "created by a MIAC employee, reviewed by the MIAC director, and sent immediately to law enforcement agencies across Missouri. The militia report was never reviewed by me or by the Director of Public Safety, John Britt, at any point prior to its issuance. Had that report been reviewed by either my office or by leaders of the Department of Public Safety, it would never have been released to law enforcement agencies."

Keathley said the report simply "does not meet" the needed standard for "intelligence." So he ordered its distribution to be halted.

But that warning had prompted Americans for Legal Immigration to issue a "national advisory" against relying on any such reports.

The Missouri document, it said, "attempted to politicize police and cast suspicion on millions of Americans. The 'Missouri Documents,' as they came to be called, listed over 32 characteristics police should watch for as signs or links to domestic terrorists, which could threaten police officers, court officials, and infrastructure targets.

"Police were instructed to look for Americans who were concerned about unemployment, taxes, illegal immigration, gangs, border security, abortion, high costs of living, gun restrictions, FEMA, the IRS, The Federal Reserve, and the North American Union/SPP/North American Community. The 'Missouri Documents' also said potential domestic terrorists might like gun shows, short wave radios, combat movies, movies with white male heroes, Tom Clancey novels, and Presidential Candidates Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin!" ALIPAC wrote.

"When many of us read these Missouri Documents we felt that the false connections, pseudo research, and political attacks found in these documents could have been penned by the SPLC and ADL," said William Gheen of ALIPAC. "We were shocked to see credible law enforcement agencies disseminating the same kind of over the top political propaganda distributed by these groups."

The Missouri situation was just the tip of the iceberg, however. WND reported only weeks later when a Department of Homeland Security report warned against the possibility of violence by unnamed "right-wing extremists" concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power, restrictions on firearms, abortion and the loss of U.S. sovereignty and singled out returning war veterans as particular threats.

The report, titled "Right-wing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," dated April 7, 2009, stated that "threats from white supremacist and violent anti-government groups during 2009 have been largely rhetorical and have not indicated plans to carry out violent acts."

However, the document, first reported by talk-radio host and WND columnist Roger Hedgecock, went on to suggest worsening economic woes, potential new legislative restrictions on firearms and "the return of military veterans facing significant challenges reintegrating into their communities could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks."

The report from DHS' Office of Intelligence and Analysis defined right-wing extremism in the U.S. as "divided into those groups, movements and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups) and those that are mainly anti-government, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."

Most notable was the report's focus on the impact of returning war veterans.

"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are attractive to right-wing extremists," it said. "DHS/I&A is concerned that right-wing extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize veterans in order to boost their violent capacities."

Now Gov. Nixon will advise Obama on those military and National Guard actions inside the U.S.

"I am pleased that these governors of exceptional experience have agreed to join the Council of Governors," Obama said in the newest White House announcement. "This bipartisan team strengthens the partnership between our state governments and the federal government when it comes to ensuring our national preparedness and homeland defense."

"I look forward to working with them in the years ahead," Obama said of the council, which was created Jan. 11 by his executive order.

The nominees are:

• Gov. James H. Douglas of Vermont, a Republican who is chairman of the National Governors Association. He established his state's Homeland Security Advisory Council to review its security policies.

• Gov. Chris Gregoire of Washington, a Democrat who is on the National Governors Association executive committee as well as its special committee on Homeland Security.

• Gov. Janice Brewer of Arizona, a Republican who took office when Napolitano was named Homeland Security secretary. She served on the governor's Military Task Force dealing with base closures.

• Gov. Luis Fortuna of Puerto Rico, a Republican who is on the National Governors Association Economic Development and Commerce Committee.

• Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma, a Democrat on the Education, Early Childhood and Workforce committee for the governors association

• Gov. Robert McDonnell of Virginia, a Republican elected last year. He is on the governors' Health and Human Services committee.

• Gov. Jeremiah Nixon of Missouri, a Democrat on the governors' Health and Human Services Committee who operates his state's fusion center, the Missouri Information Analysis Center.

• Gov. Martin O'Malley of Maryland, a Democrat who serves on the governors' committee on Education, Early Childhood and Workforce as well as its committee on Homeland Security.

• Gov. Beverly Eaves Perdue of North Carolina, a Democrat who is a lead governor for the National Guard. She's on the governors' Economic Development and Commerce committee as well as the committee on Homeland Security and Public Safety.

• Gov. Michael Rounds of South Dakota, a Republican who previously headed the Western Governors Association.

The rebellion to Obama's plans regarding the Council of Governors had come from the Tenth Amendment Center, which is recommending a model legislation that states can use to limit the activities of their own National Guard members.

The model legislation states: "The governor shall withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of the National Guard to federal control in the absence of: a) A military invasion of the United States, or b) An insurrection, or c) A calling forth of the guard by the federal government in a manner provided for by Congress to execute the laws of the union, provided that said laws were made in pursuance of the delegated powers in the Constitution of the United States, or d) A formal declaration of war from Congress."

The organization said the requests to state legislatures already have begun with a letter on the issue dispatched by Walt Garlington, founder of the Louisiana State Sovereignty Committee, to state Rep. Brett F. Geymann.

The model legislation proposed by the Tenth Amendment Center says the law is, "For the purpose of requiring the governor to withhold or withdraw approval of the transfer of this state's National Guard to federal control in the absence of an explicit authorization adopted by the federal government in pursuance of the powers delegated to the federal government in Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the U.S. Constitution."

Los Angeles Times blogger Andrew Malcolm poked fun at the announcement, writing Obama "has determined that, a) there is an insufficient number of advisory bodies among the gazillion already in existence for the federal government in general and said president and his White House specifically."

Obama also, Malcolm said, "chooses to ignore the existence of the National Governors Assn., the Republican Governors Assn., the Democratic Governors Assn. and the secure telephones within arms-reach of virtually everywhere said president chooses to sit and/or recline."

Ultimately, he said, Obama has decided, "One more meaningless advisory body probably couldn't hurt anything, and might actually look good."

At Canada Free Press, commentary writer Judi McLeod said, "Like the 30-plus czars running America with neither the people's nor the Congress's blessings, the Council of Governors is already a done deal."

Blogger Nicholas Contompasis suggested it was the "first step towards martial law in America" because it sets up the "use of federal troops and the combination of state and federal agencies under the Defense Department."

Participants on his forum page said the order appears to be in defiance of posse comitatus, which restricts U.S. military action within the United States. One contributor noted the order talks about "hazards" but then addresses only military hazards.

"The very notion of the executive branch (good intentions or not) issuing executive orders/presidential directives that apply to anything or anyone not specifically within the executive branch is tyrannical," the forum participant said. " (Italics mine)

God help us.



Sunday, February 7, 2010

Native Tongue

I received a comment on my last post “Why is this Guy in the White House?” (just below this) which I believe requires some sort of response. The first section of the post was missed entirely even though that was the thrust of the whole matter. But the comment addressed Obama’s mispronunciation of the work “Corpsman.” It was a “back to Bush” comment and referred to Bush’s mispronunciation of many words during his eight year tenure in the White House.

There are two problems here. The first is obvious: When are the liberals going to get past bringing up Bush when they run out of excuses for the hapless incompetent who now occupies the White House and has for the past thirteen months? I suspect the reason they do this is because they are desperate for something or someone to make their guy look a little less like the fool that he is. And a very dangerous fool at that. I also suspect they will never get over blaming Bush for everything from the earthquake in Haiti to ingrown toenails. Fine. Bush can handle it. He has more class in his little finger than the Community Organizer will ever dream of having.

The real point I was making was that every American school child, from the time he or she can start sounding out words, knows that the word “corps” is not pronounced “corpse.” This word has been around and used since the founding of our country. Name any soldier, sailor or marine who cannot say it correctly. Children—English-speaking children—begin learning the subtle nuances of the language early on. It’s just the way it is.

I will admit there are more people who use a hard “T” in the word “often” than do not. And there are those who cannot wrap their tongue around “nuclear.” I have a personal problem with the word “cellular” so I’m very grateful that I can shorten it to “cell” instead. But that doesn’t mean we don’t speak English natively.

What about Obama? Wouldn’t the Commander-in Chief of the armed forces of the United States of America, who is supposed to be an native-born American citizen, have learned how to say “corpsman” somewhere along the road to Washington? Just what is his native tongue that renders this word such a mystery to him?

You can laugh at Bush all you want, but you have never doubted his citizenship. You can ridicule, blame, reference and remember, but when it’s all said and done we have a man in the White House today who is going to bring our republic to an agonizing end if someone doesn’t step up and say, “Enough is enough. Get out of our house and give us back our Constitution. Then go back where you came from.”



Saturday, February 6, 2010

Why is this Guy in the White House?

Among documentation which has not come forth for Obama:

1. Kindergarten Record
2. Punahou school records
3. Occidental College records
4. Columbia University records
5. Columbia thesis
6. Harvard Law School records
7. Harvard Law Review articles
8. scholarly articles from the University of Chicago
9. passport
10. medical records
11. files from his years as an Illinois state senator
12. his Illinois State Bar Association records
13. any baptism records
14. his adoption records

I took this off World Net Daily and put it in list form so we could better see what it entails. It’s a pretty impressive list. Notice it doesn’t include the birth certificate. I will admit there are items on the list that I couldn’t come up with, but I’m not running for POTUS. I’m not even running for dogcatcher, but I can guarantee if I were to run for anything I would be required to produce at least four of these items. 

Cec got his driver’s license renewal notification the other day. Item number One is the following: NAME, DATE OF BIRTH, PLACE OF BIRTH—U.S. Citizen—One of the following:

U.S. Birth Certificate (certified with an embossed, stamped or raised seal issued by a state or local government)

U.S. Military Identification Card or Discharge Papers accompanied by a copy of U.S. Birth Certificate (issued by state or local government)

U.S. Certificate of Citizenship/Naturalization/Birth Abroad

U.S. Passport (valid or expired)

That’s just for a driver’s license. Think about it.

One comment before I end. Number "8" in the above list: scholarly articles from the University of Chicago—missing. Reason: He’s not a scholar. Any Commander-in-Chief who would pronounce “Corpsman” “Corpseman” should go straight to the back of the class. Or back where he came from. Or maybe straight to hell.



Monday, February 1, 2010

Doctors and Death Panels

I’m trying to fire my doctor of five-plus years. It’s turning out to be a little more difficult than I anticipated. I thought I could just call up a new one and make an appointment. No problem.


First of all, why am I firing my doctor? A few reasons. One: I told him I’m back at work after my back fracture and subsequent surgery but that I’m still having pain. His answer was, “How much longer are you planning on working?” Translation: “You’re an old, damaged hag and you should get out of the work force.”

Two: I told him the Tramadol and Robaxin I’m taking when I’m really, really in pain don’t work all that well. (I threw away my hydrocodone because I didn’t want to end up in drug rehab.) His answer: “How much are you taking daily?” Translation: “You’re probably dependent on them even though they’re non-narcotic.”

Three: He asked me, “How much longer are you planning on working?” Translation: See Number one. I told him a year or two. His answer: “If you continue working with pain the pain may become chronic.” Duh. I think it’s already chronic. See Number one translation. I think he really wanted to ask me how much longer I’m planning on living. The bottom line is he’s cold, unfeeling, plastic, and doesn’t seem to give a hoot about what he’s doing. Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not seeing a lot of compassion. Of course, he’s not seeing a lot of years left where I’m concerned. Or he might have been reading some of Ezekiel Emanuel’s famous quotes.

So a friend of mine recommended her doctor, who she says is very good, takes the time to listen, and happens to be a woman. I called this morning to make an appointment. The receptionist took all my personal information and then said, “So you want to see her because you have pain?” Translation: “You’re drug-seeking?” First of all, I didn’t know you had to apply to become a patient. I kind of thought it was the other way around. Aren’t we paying them?

As far as pain management, what ever happened to physical therapy? It seems to me that there must be something out there that doesn’t come down to quit work and sit home and join the rutabaga family. Maybe these people are gearing up for socialized medicine’s Death Panels. It’s always nice to have a leg up on something new. They’re certainly getting practice asking the end-of-lifequestions.

The irony in this is I work in a nursing home. Someday soon I’ll just climb into one of their beds and ask for a pain pill. I may just get it. Might even get some physical therapy, too.