The American Gazette

Accidents

2006-09-24T19:49:00.000-04:00

On Aug 30 I was on my way into work, the 6th day in a row out of 8 all together, when I managed to misjudge what was happening up the road in front of me, resulting in the end in my rolling my Jeep, a soft top Wrangler.

I was near a crossroad where an antique car museum is, I watched several old tractors come flying across the road in front of a couple vehicles in front of me, it looked as if the tractors were racing perhaps. I had put my clutch in to slow myself down being at least 70 yards away from the vehicles in front of me. Once the tractors had cleared the road I let out the clutch and accelerated. I had anticipated the vehicles in front of me would begin moving once the tractors were out of the way. I anticipated wrong. All of a sudden I realized the truck in front of me was not moving, but was stationary. I hit the brakes but it was clear I would not be able to stop before I hit the truck in front of me. I opted to go to the right hand side of the road and hopefully pass them by with no ill result except for scaring the hell out of myself. Wrong again.

I went to the right going too fast, I would guess about 40 miles an hour. I remember it felt like I hit something hard, whatever it was it jounced the Jeep hard, it bounced me to the left and I was afraid I was going to hit a red car that was in front of the truck, something that I could identify as a 1960's muscle car. I tried to move instead further to the right, it was a very wrong move. Instead of saving me I hit a dirt road turning right and going too fast, the result was the Jeep rolled to the driver side.

I remember realizing that the Jeep was falling and hitting on my side, I recall watching my front windshield shatter. I remember absolutely nothing after that until I was stopped on my passenger side. It is a very odd sensation to realize this accident is probably the most traumatic event of my life and yet I recall very little of what happened. I have absolutely no recall of rolling on my roof or of even stopping. My recall starts at a point where I was already stopped.

I think the reaction I had has everything to do with the fact that I am an RN. I became very analytical. The first thing I recall was realizing that I was laying on my passenger side, that I was awake and conscious. The next thing I did was take my right hand and run it around my head, my left hand was still on the wheel. I found no obvious head injury, thought ok no numbness or tingling anywhere so likely no spinal cord trauma. I was hanging in place with my seat belt holding me completely against the seat. I then realized that I had blood running down my left arm. I took a quick look and could see a laceration that was totally clean, no rough edges and then realized I could see what I believed was bone. I then put pressure on the area to stop the bleeding. At that point I remember thinking it seemed a long time had passed and no one was coming to see if I was ok. I tried to think how I could get out of my seatbelt, then a man's voice yelling "Are you OK?"

I said yes, I just needed help getting out of my seatbelt, and then there was the sound the Jeep's top being torn. I am still not sure if there was already a hole from going over or if in his panic this man simply tore the top open. He asked me if I was hurt, I told him it was only my elbow. Even though I had seen bone I told him it was bleeding but that I didn't think it was broken, didn't seem to hurt too much. I asked him to get me out of my seatbelt because I couldn't get it. He was initially reluctant to do this, but I told him that I hadn't any other injuries, that I had checked and I was a nurse so to please do this. I recall him reaching up and turning off the engine and me thinking I didn't even realize it was still running. Someone else from outside the Jeep said I don't see or smell any gas but we better get her out of there just in case. The original man and another man got me out by one holding me while the other undid the seat belt. I was then sitting on my passenger side window. A woman came up and told me she used to be an EMT, another woman who obviously was with the first asked if I were ok. I told them I was except for my elbow when I suddenly became very light headed, I stated out loud I thought I was going to pass out, I had become very nausated as well. I recognized that my blood pressure had taken a nose dive, and I seriously feared passing out or vomiting. When I say I feared passing out I really mean I had great fear of losing my grip on what was going on, feeling that it was paramount that I not pass out. The woman who had been an EMT told me to put my head between my knees, which I had started to do but she pushed me forward which put pressure on my elbow as I was still holding it and I told her not to do that because it hurt my arm. After about a minute the feeling that I was going to pass out went away.

Somewhere in all this someone brought me a glass of water, and a towel with ice in it for my elbow. I remember thinking it must be the woman from the house on the corner, they sell fresh vegetables and fresh BBQ. I vaguely recall someone either saying I needed both of those items or someone asking me if I wanted them, I am not sure which.

Once the feeling that I was going to pass out went away I asked one of the ladies to get my cell phone out of my purse, she told me 911 had already been called. I explained I needed to call my husband and my work. I could not make my left arm work so I asked her to dial a number for me, explaining that I was on my way into work as a nurse and that I had to let them know I would not be making it to work. She asked if I wanted to call my husband first, I know it sounds really stupid but I had to call work first because I knew they would have to find a replacement on short notice, and in the nursing world that is a major issue. Patients have to be taken care of no matter what and if there are not enough nurses it means someone has to stay over a shift that is already 12 hours until a replacement can get there. So I called work. Got the charge nurse told her I had rolled my Jeep and that I would not be in. Somehow it made complete sense right at that moment that this was the first phone call I had to make.

Next I had the lady call my husband. First that lady spoke to him, I think she was afraid I would scare him or something, I told her I needed to talk to him and she asked me if I was sure. I said yes and she gave me the phone. I was still having trouble making my left arm move, but in my mind I was sure I had not broke it, it was simply that the impact which was also making my shoulder ache, had made it difficult. I calmly explained to my husband what had happened, that I was essentially ok, and for him to please come.

Shortly thereafter the fire dept came. Some fireman climbed into the back of the Jeep to hold my head to make sure that I kept my spine and head straight just in case I had injured it, a police man asked me what happened, I realized it was a State Trooper and wondered how they got a trooper out here in this rural area so quickly. I told him I had misjudged what was going on in front of me, and briefly outlined the same story of what happened as I have told here. By this time the initial people who helped me had stepped back, I wanted them to still be there though, I was thinking how I needed to get their names so that I could thank them properly, but by now there was the police, the firemen and the EMTs. Someone said to do a walk around the vehicle to make sure gas was not going to ignite and I told them the gentlemen who had initially helped me had already done that. I told everyone who would listen to me that I was a nurse, that I knew I had only injured my elbow and that I wanted to get up now. Finally after trying to figure out how to get me on the back board several times but with me insisting I could get up, the EMS guys allowed me to stand up, at which time they assisted to the cart and into the ambulance I went.

I was asked if I had a preferance as to where I was treated, I told them to take me to my hospital which also was the closest in any case. I remember telling the EMS guys to make sure and get my work bag out of my Jeep because it had my stethoscope in it as well as a couple of rare books I had recently purchased to do research with. While in the ambulance I had the gentleman who was with me get my phone out again so I could call my husband and let him know where I was going. Then I chatted with the EMS guy about little things, I felt completely in control of myself and frankly in the situation. I felt everything was really ok, that I could get the laceration in my elbow sewn up in the ER, it had been wrapped by this point, it stung but the pain did not seem unbearable by any means. I stressed to the EMS guy that I routinely carried a low blood pressure because I did not want him thinking I was going into shock, often my pressure is below a 100 on a good day.

Once in the ER I chatted with the nurse, annoyed the resident who was treating by insisting I was going to use my cell phone there to call my husband again because as I explained, I had to let him know I was now at the hospital and ok. The resident informed me that I could not use my phone as I am talking to my husband, I got off the phone and explained to her the policy of the hospital was I could not use the phone within 6 feet of a medical device and since I was not hooked up to a monitor and was more than 6 feet away from the patient next to me I could use my phone and would if I wanted to. Very unreasonable of me, but at the time completely reasonable. The resident asked me if I needed anything for pain, I told her a vicadin would probably do. I really felt very little pain. In a bit my nurse brought me one vicadin and I took it thinking maybe I didn't even need that but that I probably should take something.

In a bit the nurse came back and told me she was going to give me a tetanus shot unless I had had one recently. Told her not since I started nursing school some 17 or 18 years before. So she was going to give me the shot and I told her no I didn't think I would care to do that. The resident came back and told me that I was going to get an xray of my left arm shortly. So far everything was just the way it was supposed to be, some little gal came in and started asking me about insurance and I was answering her questions when I saw my husband behind her. Me, the nurse who had not cried, who had willed myself not to pass out, who had remained completely calm and analytical then came completely undone. I started to cry, I couldn't stop myself and I tried, I didn't want to cry in front of people that I knew, I found that embarrassing. But I could not help myself. My husband was there and it dawned on me that I could have been dead instead of a simple injury and that he could have been identifying my body instead of coming to be with me.

Shortly thereafter the orthopedic doc on call came in. He started talking about my arm, he told me I had a break. I was a bit surprised, I just had not believed that I had broken it. He explained it was not my arm, but the elbow itself. Next he asked me when was the last time I had eaten, I asked him to repeat himself and he did. I looked at him and said "Are you taking me to surgery?" and he answered yes. I could not believe it, why did I need surgery? The doc, bless his heart, looked at me like I was out of my mind and then spoke slowly and surely. I had an open fracture, it needed to be cleansed and as soon as possible. Did I not tell the resident earlier that I had seen bone when I had looked at it initially? Well yes, but I believed that was because the laceration was very deep. He explained no, it was an open fracture and that I would need to stay a couple days for IV antibiotics.

So I started to cry again, we were supposed to go up to St. Ignace for the Labor Day Weekend and go camping, go do the Bridge Walk, go to the Soo so our youngest could see the locs. I had worked six days in a row, what was to be 8 days in a row so we could do this. I had looked forward to it for six months and now we couldn't go. Somehow the fact that I wasn't dead just injured escaped my thought process. When I said all this to the doc, he asked do you mean camping camping? I said yes, what fun was camping if it was pretend camping? He looked at me and said no camping. No, you cannot go up north. And I wailed, my stupidity had cost my family a trip we were all looking forward to. The doc went out and then came back in and asked if I wanted a narcotic, that apparently I had only asked for a vicadin? He acted like I was out of my mind. I told him I didn't think I needed more. He told me he insisted that I take a narcotic, that I simply was probably having some numbness but in time that would go away.

To make the rest of my story short, I woke up in the recovery room to a nurse I had worked with and liked a great deal. I was very grateful to him. Within an hour of coming around, well enough that they let you leave the recovery room anyway, my elbow was in a great deal of pain. I spent two more days in the hospital, most of which is a blur in my mind, I took a fair amount of pain med.

A little over a week later I had a second surgery to put two screws in my elbow. I was told I had a very unusual break, most have. Some seven physicians looked at the xrays. I may have permanant inability to fully extend and flex my left arm. I am hoping at least it is better than it is right now. I spent 3 weeks in a half cast and ace wraps and initially when it was taken off 5 days ago I had almost no control over that arm at all. Right now I am grateful that I can lift the arm up on it's own without having to take my right and lift the left. I do have better range than I did 5 days ago, but right now I cannot reach my face with my left hand by a good 10 inches, nor can I fully extend my arm. The physician told me I may have some permanent impairment before the second surgery was ever done. Next week I start Occupational therapy and hope that a great difference can be made. I have already compensated to a large extent and can manage to dress myself with no help now, and at least do my hair enough not to look like a wild woman. I am off work until at least the end of November if not more. Hell of a way to get time off.

A good many things have been put in proper perspective. The fact that my college age children seem to think living with their respective significant other is ok is not nearly as distressing as it was. I still don't like it, but don't think it is worth fighting with them about it anymore, it has lost a great deal of importance. What is important is that I still am able to talk with that at all. How horrible it would have been if I had died and the last things I had said to them were harsh things. While I still do not approve, there are better ways to handle it than I have been. I look at my youngest, age 10 now and thank God several times a day for sparing my life. I swear I had an angel riding with me that day. The Jeep was totalled, yet it says something for the construction of the Wrangler when one realizes that I completely rolled my vehicle with a soft top on and the only injury I have is a busted elbow. The roll bars did exactly what they are designed to do. I will buy a Wrangler again.

This is not the true end of the story. My accident occured Aug 30. On Sept 16 in exactly the same place there was a fatal accident. On Sept 19 at the same place there was another car accident fatality. It is an area that used to be a sleepy little rural spot, but with the expansion of the car museum there is much more traffic there, and the cross road that comes up to that intersection has a stop sign that is poorly posted ahead, one comes up on it not expecting to stop. It is my intent to write to MDOT and get the ball rolling to see about changes in that intersection. Hopefully no one else dies first.

I still have a great deal of pain, better than when I was in the hospital and better than it was the first week or so, but still there. The area is still deeply bruised with a fair amount of soft tissue damage so the soft tissue is still swollen. I believe I will have better mobility once that swelling is completely gone. I wonder how much general achiness I will have on cold wet days. In the end though all of that is small in comparison to what could have been.

So hug and kiss your children and remember how precious it is to have them and be alive. I have written little on this blog in the last year as I have been fairly absorbed in researching the cross pollination between liberal protestants and socialism. I had intended initially to write about it all here on this blog, but later I determined the amount of material I had needed to be a written book or a specific website all it's own. It certainly is a story that needs to be told, and given time it is something that I intend to do. For those of us who believe in true freedom it has to be done, and right now I have a couple months worth of time on my hands so it is time to get started at least.

So I close thanking God for the blessing I have, for my children and for my husband. Go to bed at night and think of all the blessing you have, and what others do not. It keeps you humble.

Red

Just who is writing about the cell phone boys in the Detroit Free Press

2006-08-17T10:29:00.000-04:00

I think it is always good to put things into perspective.

The Majority of articles on the cell phone boys have been written by Niraj Warikoo, being the curious sort I wondered who he was and how he writes.

The answer? A bit of fearmongering on his part. I actually find it nearly unbelieveable this ended up in the paper.

Please note this is a google cache, but it is an article from the Detroit Free Press, written by the same individual who is trying to convince us the cell phone boys are really just kids trying to make a buck.

Hey, Niraj not asking for anybody to be rounded up and put in concentration camps just asking for the Muslim community to understand the rules apply to them as much as it does to the rest of the country. Including not buying items in bulk that can be used to blow up multitudes.

RED

Just tourists, really!

2006-08-17T05:42:00.000-04:00

The boys from Texas buying umpteen cell phones are apparently just regular tourists taking pictures of the Mighty Mac, cause it's just so freaking awesome and all.

The Michigan State police did a press conference a couple days ago letting all of us Michiganders know that all was well, that contrary to earlier reports there was no threat to the Mackinac Bridge, yes, they had pictures but then so does everybody that sees the bridge.

As my husband and I watched the press conference on Channel 8 Wood TV out of Grand Rapids I joked around saying since these guys had receipts from stores in Wisconsin must be they came to Michigan through the Upper Penisula, then down across the bridge where they stopped to take tourist pictures to bring back to the family in Texas, and then continued on to a little town near Bad Ax. Just taking a tour of the beauty of Michigan while buying a 1000 or so cell phones that can be used as detonators for bombs.

Next day that is just what showed up in the Detroit Free Press. (near the bottom)

And what the heck, its all just good business.

Apparently the kind of business that is needed to jump start Michigan's economy, and according to the writer of this drivil, to not embrace his thinking means one is a fearmonger or an xenophobic.

What Mr. Dickerson seems to be having trouble understanding himself is this. It is not immigrants per se that are the problem, it is immigrants who cannot leave behind the norms of the culture they came from and assimulate into the culture that is already here. Once upon a time this was an expected thing from immigrants, today to have that expectation is to be labeled a racist, a nativist, xenophobic, a fearmonger and last but not least, a Nazi.

It is not inappropriate to believe that those who come to my country should follow the laws and cultural norms of said country. Just what kind of business thrives by buying stock from retail instead of wholesale, marks it up and sells it through a "distributor" without even the basic items that come with it, such as a charger for the phones or even an intact package. Simply on the face of it this none of this makes sense from a business perspective. It does make complete sense if one realizes that people operating outside of the law can use these phones that are untraceable and untrackable to do whatever illegal deeds they are doing and are likely to pay good money to remain undetected, apparently very good money since it would be far cheaper for anyone who wants one of these phones to buy them at Walmart AND get the charger with intact packaging.

Currently terrorism primarily relates to people who have a particular religion. It is ludicious to pretend otherwise. To state the arrests of those in Caro Michigan and Marietta Ohio is simply motivated by racism is to live in a world where reality does not exist. A world where the Mafia has no connection to those of Italian descent, where the IRA was not a Catholic based terrorist, and where when the American Communist Party was formed in 1921 the majority of its members were English speaking Americans. In the real world where most of us live the Mafia is certainly connected to those who hailed from Italy once upon a time, the IRA is a Catholic terrorist group committed to killing Protestants and the still thriving Communist Party in America was initially made up of nearly all foreigners with only 10% of its members able to speak English. Mr. Dickerson your socialist slip is showing.

The two boys from Dearborn that had been held in Ohio on terrorist charges are home which is very kindly illustrated in this piece from the Detroit Free Press. Just regular kids out to make a buck, what could be more American than that? After all its just common business practice of Arab American businessmen to load up on various things and resell them. Personally I think they would do much better if they bought in bulk from wholesalers, but maybe I didn't learn the same economics as they did.

This activity is also culturally normal for the Muslim community, it is nonetheless still illegal here. There is a reason only three TRAC phones can be purchased at one time, and it is not all terrorist related, but still is illegal activity. I don't believe we should encourage either of them.

It is worth noting there is strong support for Hezbelloh in Dearborn, just as there was once strong support for the IRA in Catholic circles in Ireland as well as in some areas of America. It is worth noting that in 1916 the IRA had what was called the Easter Rising, that the weapons for that were supplied by Germany, than at war with England, and that it was done under the auspices of a leading Human Rights Campaigner, Sir Roger Casement. Those weapons did not make it to the IRA, but not because of the want of trying. 90 years later we have the same situation, different religions. Hezbelloh is supplied by a foreign government that wishes to use proxies against its enemy, the terrorist group is supported by those that deem themselves people just fighting for human rights. During WWII, the pro-German leanings of the IRA are well documented. There is in fact, a great deal of fellow traveling between those who are Nationalist and those who are Socialist, the Nazi's being the most prominent. Yes, Virginia, the Nazi's were socialists, just not socialists who were communists. And the Arab Muslims hatred of Israel and its inhabitants are rooted in Arab Nationalism, with intimate ties to the Nazi's at one time.

The reality is it is not those who want the truth of the terrorist situation recognized who are the Fascists/Nazi's. It is those who seek to cover up the truth who are the Fascists.

To understand this situation it is imperative to understand the history of socialism. The Fascists/Nazi's and the Communists were branches off the same socialist tree. One grew to the left, one grew to the right. But the roots for both were socialism. It is often noted that Hezbelloh runs various social services for the people of Lebanon, well so did the Nazi's for the Germans, in fact the Nazi's deliberatedly removed a great many social services from the Lutheran church and into the Nazi orbit instead. Just take a look at the early structure of the Nazi's previous to their take over of power and the structure of Hezbelloh and Hamas. The Nazi's were a state within a state. In today's language they would be militants operating to give care and sustanance to a German people who were completely downtrodden by the German losses in WWI, and the Jewish bankers. Turn that same thing into the whine heard from throughout the Muslim world. The various terrorist groups are simply militants seeking to redress the wrongs inflicted on a Muslim world by Imperialists, and of course the Jews. Listen to the rants of Hitler and tell me you cannot hear his echo in the speeches of today's Muslim terrorists as they seek to excuse their nationalist behavior because "their people" have been so badly treated.

It is not normal business practices to buy items from a retailer in bulk to resell elsewhere for profit. It is to a wholesaler one would look to if one truly intended on making a decent profit. However if one wished to hide what one was doing, buying multiple items that can be used for various illegal enterprises, it would only make good sense to not buy in bulk where it can be noted easily, but instead to buy just enough under in various small communities around the country and to make a profit from those who are willing to pay well to have said items without an easy trace.

So just regular tourists my ass. Maybe not terrorists, but not all around aw shucks good boys either. And it ain't the Baptists threatening to blow airplanes out of the sky.

RED

Terrorism links in Michigan-annual bridge walk

2006-08-13T09:48:00.000-04:00

3 men of Middle Eastern descent have been arraigned in Caro Michigan on terrorist charges after authorities found them in possession of approximately 1000 cell phones, which may be used to detonate improvised bombs. It is being reported that authorities are concerned the Mackinac Bridge was a target.

What most outside Michigan are not going to know is that over Labor Day weekend Michigan has an annual bridge walk. The bridge is partially closed to motor traffic and those that wish to do so walk the bridge, which spans 5 miles connecting the Upper and Lower Penisula's. If you follow that link note how many people participate. This is something my husbands family has done for a number of years, and something that we planned on doing with them this year.

So far there is no indication as to what makes authorities believe that the Mackinac was targeted, it is simply knowing that the bridge walk is coming up and how many thousands are on that bridge is what made me connect the two. If these three men are not terrorists, not to mention the other two recently arrested in Marietta Ohio that are from the Dearborn area, all I can say is that they are fairly stupid people doing what they are doing.

RED

Mark Steyn says it all

2005-09-06T02:41:00.000-04:00

Go here and start asking questions America.

Red

Mayor New Orleans-Gov. Delayed by 24 hours

2005-09-06T01:59:00.000-04:00

From an interview on CNN.

S. O'BRIEN: There are people who say your evacuation plan, obviously in hindsight, was disastrous.

MAYOR RAY NAGIN, NEW ORLEANS: Which one?

S. O'BRIEN: Your evacuation plan before -- when you put people into the Superdome. It wasn't thought out. You got 20,000 people in there. And that you bear the brunt of the blame for some of this, a large chunk of it.

NAGIN: Look, I'll take whatever responsibility that I have to take. But let me ask you this question: When you have a city of 500,000 people, and you have a category 5 storm bearing down on you, and you have the best you've ever done is evacuate 60 percent of the people out of the city, and you have never issued a mandatory evacuation in the city's history, a city that is a couple of hundred years old, I did that. I elevated the level of distress to the citizens.

And I don't know what else I could do, other than to tell them that it's a mandatory evacuation. And if they stayed, make sure you have a frigging ax in your home, where you can bust out the roof just in case the water starts flowing.

And as a last resort, once this thing is above a category 3, there are no buildings in this city to withstand a category 3, a category 4 or a category 5 storm, other than the Superdome. That's where we sent people as a shelter of last resort. When that filled up, we sent them to the Convention Center. Now, you tell me what else we could have done.

S. O'BRIEN: What has Secretary Chertoff promised you? What has Donald Rumsfeld given you and promised you?

NAGIN: Look, I've gotten promises to -- I can't stand anymore promises. I don't want to hear anymore promises. I want to see stuff done. And that's why I'm so happy that the president came down here, because I think they were feeding him a line of bull also. And they were telling him things weren't as bad as it was.

He came down and saw it, and he put a general on the field. His name is General Honore. And when he hit the field, we started to see action.

And what the state was doing, I don't frigging know. But I tell you, I am pissed. It wasn't adequate.

And then, the president and the governor sat down. We were in Air Force One. I said, 'Mr. President, Madam Governor, you two have to get in sync. If you don't get in sync, more people are going to die.'

S. O'BRIEN: What date was this? When did you say that? When did you say...

NAGIN: Whenever air Force One was here.

S. O'BRIEN: OK.

NAGIN: And this was after I called him on the telephone two days earlier. And I said, 'Mr. President, Madam Governor, you two need to get together on the same page, because of the lack of coordination, people are dying in my city.'

S. O'BRIEN: That's two days ago.

NAGIN: They both shook -- I don't know the exact date. They both shook their head and said yes. I said, 'Great.' I said, 'Everybody in this room is getting ready to leave.' There was senators and his cabinet people, you name it, they were there. Generals. I said, 'Everybody right now, we're leaving. These two people need to sit in a room together and make a doggone decision right now.'

S. O'BRIEN: And was that done?

NAGIN: The president looked at me. I think he was a little surprised. He said, "No, you guys stay here. We're going to another section of the plane, and we're going to make a decision."

He called me in that office after that. And he said, "Mr. Mayor, I offered two options to the governor." I said -- and I don't remember exactly what. There were two options. I was ready to move today. The governor said she needed 24 hours to make a decision.

S. O'BRIEN: You're telling me the president told you the governor said she needed 24 hours to make a decision?

NAGIN: Yes.

S. O'BRIEN: Regarding what? Bringing troops in?

NAGIN: Whatever they had discussed. As far as what the -- I was abdicating a clear chain of command, so that we could get resources flowing in the right places.

S. O'BRIEN: And the governor said no.

NAGIN: She said that she needed 24 hours to make a decision. It would have been great if we could of left Air Force One, walked outside, and told the world that we had this all worked out. It didn't happen, and more people died.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

S. O'BRIEN: The mayor making it clear that much politicking was going on, even as people here were continuing to suffer. The mayor clearly thinking that the governor did way too little, way too late for her part.

We put a call into Governor Blanco's office. They declined to come on our show this morning and talk to us. Her spokesperson did say, though, that it was a -- this was a tragedy now that was being reduced to politics.

Transcript here

Red

What is the real cause of the outcome from Katrina?

2005-09-03T15:13:00.000-04:00

As Katrina was preparing to hit land I watched the news, and as many people in the country did I breathed a sigh of relief when it appeared that the storm would not end up being as bad as it first appeared it would.

The aftermath initially was bad, as bad as some of the other big hurricanes in this country had been, yet it appeared to me and apparently many who stayed in New Orleans that the worst of it had passed. They crept out of their houses and peeked about and thought ok, we escaped the worst of it. A great deal of damage to be sure, one only needed to look at coast of Mississippi to see that, but still it seemed the great catastrophe had not come.

When I don't work I watch the news quite a bit, I troll through various news sites and blogs and generally keep up with what is going on in the world. I suppose one could call me a real news and political junkie. But on the days I work I have little time for much more than eating, sleeping and working. As any nurse who works 12 hour shifts can tell you, that's just the way it works. Because I work nights I prefer to do all my shifts in a row as it makes it easier for my sleeping schedule. So on the nights I work I catch a bit of news here and there, but usually not much more than half an hour or so before I eat dinner and get around for work. So it was quite a shock when I got up Wednesday afternoon to find that 80% of New Orleans was under water. As I watched the news and found out the levees had not held, that the Mayor of New Orleans was saying it was likely that thousands of people would die, I just kept thinking what? On top of the images of devastation that were projected into my living room where also images of people happily looting whatever wasn't nailed down.

One image regarding the looting remains with me. Two black men walking away with clothes, one also carrying along with the clothes what appeared to me to be a DVD player. A burly black policeman pointed a shotgun at the two of them yelling "put it down" the two men did so, pitching what they had into the knee deep water all were wading through, but what really struck me was the attitude of the two looters. They seemed entirely unconcerned that theyhad a shotgun that I presume was loaded, pointed at them. They grinned and goofed as they threw down the items in their arms and wandered away from the police officer, still laughing and grinning as if they were out for a party.

As I watched my little bit of half hour news that day, I ,like most of the world it appears, could not help but notice that the vast majority of people left in New Orleans were black. Too poor one imagines to easily get out of New Orleans. Does it stand to reason than that the looters are simply a black poor underclass that by and large are taking advantage of a time to get what they don't have? Not to my mind.

It is quite true that the majority left in New Orleans are black and poor, it is also quite true that the majority are not looters, nor are the majority those that have shot at rescue helicopters or personnel, nor are a majority those who have attacked police officers or people who did have vehicles but still opted to stay who were now trying to get out and were carjacked.

So just who are these people who are not simply taking the necessities of life? I begrude no one for taking food and water, in the same circumstances I could imagine myself taking food and water from a store in order to ensure my children's survival. However, that is not what was taking place in New Orleans. What instead took place was a criminal class of people who were taking advantage of a situation to mass prey on the same people they have preyed on for years. The black poor underclass. This criminal element is not only stealing whatever is not nailed down, they are killing those who are trying to survive to get whatever they can from them, they are raping little girls, they are shooting at the very people who are trying to help. It is these people who have made a horrid situation into the unbearable and untenable thing it is now.

The political left of the American spectrum are busy blaming the Bush Administration for the hurricane to begin with. They screech that by not signing the Kyoto Agreement and acknowledging that global warming is a fact, the hurricane itself is the fault of the current adminstration in Washington. It is also the Bush Adminstrations fault that the levees did not hold, it is also their fault that National guard troops were not there even before the levees broke, because you know all the National guard are in Iraq. Facts don't seem to get in the way of the American left, since a quick look at hurricanes previous to Katrina would show catagory 4 and 5 hurricanes were more prevalent in the 1930's and 1960's than today. It would also show that the decision regarding the levees predate the Bush Adminstration quite a bit, not to mention that this country functions under Federalism which means the state has responsibility for certain things prior to the Federal Government. Thats a simplification I realize, but nonetheless Louisiana itself had responsiblity for much before the Federal government did. And lastly the fact that 75% of the National Guard remain in the United States certainly doesn't seem to get in the way of the left yelling about Iraq, thereby blaming the Iraq war for the response of the government.

Let's get down to some brass tacks shall we?

To me the reality is this. An act of nature took place. A storm the size of Katrina may be rare but it is not unpreceded, again look at the statistics regarding this. Levees failed, not completely unanticipated given a storm of the size of Katrina. It seems people who deal with this kind of thing, as well as those who lived in New Orleans were well aware it would happen if a storm the size of Katrina made it to New Orleans, however there seems to have been a thought process that the city could make it on a wing and a prayer, in other words, wishful thinking that it would never really happen. A bit like the young man who goes out drunk driving under the belief that bad things only happen to other people, but not to me. So that young man goes out driving drunk and wonders how he managed to kill someone. So what no one seems to have wanted to acknowledge could ever really happen did.

48 hours before the storm a mandatory evacuation order was sent out, but some people did not evacuate. The majority because they had very little means to do so, some because they opted to stay for a variety of reasons. The storm went through, and it appeared the levees held. As the world now knows they didn't. Which takes us to the violence and anarchy that followed.

So here are some things that the political left, as they attempt to use this disaster to their political ends, won't say. And which have more bearing on the outcome of this disaster then not signing the Kyoto agreement or where National Guards troops are ever did or will.

Much previous to Katrina showing up on the shores of Louisina, that state has struggled consistantly with political corruption that is not a new problem for that state. The FBI has a New Orleans Crime Commission. Here are a few remarks made in March 2004 by Lou Reigel, special agent in charge of that Commission.

While terrorism is our top priority and has redefined our mission, the FBI's criminal responsibilities remain an important part of the work we do, and public corruption remains the number one criminal program in the FBI. It is certainly the number one criminal program in the NO office. It is said that money is the root of all evil. While I don't know if that's true, it is at the root of most public corruption – whether legislative, regulatory, judicial or law enforcement.
There is good reason for it being at the top of our list of criminal priorities, and the reason is this: like you, we in the FBI believe that public corruption is among the most serious of criminal violations. It is a betrayal of the public's sacred trust. If allowed to grow, public corruption permeates all aspects of society and affects all other criminal priorities. And if allowed to spread unchecked, public corruption can threaten the very foundation of democracy.
Theodore Roosevelt said, "No man who is corrupt, no man who condones corruption in others, can possibly do his duty by the community." Here Roosevelt identified a truth at the heart of why public corruption is a serious threat to the fabric of our society. Corrupt public officials are inherently compromised, and that corrupt behavior can migrate into every facet of our society. Regardless of their talents and their accomplishments, corrupt officials break down the order, confidence and trust of society. They allow illicit drugs and weapons to flow freely; organized crime to operate with impunity; and open the door for terrorists who threaten our way of life.
To address the PC program in Louisiana, the New Orleans office has two PC squads and my intention is to place a PC squad in the Baton Rouge Resident Agency this summer. The New Orleans office has several ongoing investigations and historically has made significant inroads into the public corruption area. Last year, as the 19th in size of our 56 field offices, the FBI in Louisiana was 10th in public corruption indictments with 24, and number 6 in public corruption convictions. Public corruption in Louisiana has been described to me as epidemic, endemic, and entrenched. No branch of government is exempt. Public corruption investigations are among the most complicated, often requiring years of effort to make a case. That is why working with our partners in law enforcement and civic organizations, like the Metropolitan Crime Commission, is essential for the successful prosecution of significant cases. Joint investigations with federal, state, and local law enforcement counterparts are conducted whenever possible. Investigations involving public officials must be coordinated in order to ensure that we are able to address sophisticated conspiracies using the best investigative techniques.

To stress-Public Corruption allows and in fact, encourages criminal elements in society to thrive, and this is exactly what occurred in New Orleans, to the end of the spectacule that we have witnessed in Katrina's aftermath.

A great many people left in New Orleans then were criminal elements that have thrived in the climate of corruption that premeates the political system of the city as well as a great many poor who rely on the government to take care of them on a good day. Katrina did not turn innocent desperate citizens into criminals, nor did society at large simply neglect those poor who remained in the city.

Unlike the majority of big cities, New Orleans has a murder rate that is going up, despite some progress made in the mid 90's. New Orleans has been called the murder capital of America much previous to Katrina. Failure to put criminals behind bars has led to the wanton looting as well as murder following Katrina's landfall.

Combine this then, with the mindset of socialism that has breed a poor underclass that seems intractable. That mindset, which a large portion of black Americans have taken as gosbel, assisted in the horror we are now witnessing in New Orleans. Blacks are not the only group in America that has fallen for what America's socialists pass out as placebos. They are the group however that perhaps has been affected by it the worst. There is a cultural mileu within the black underclass that escrews education as a way to get ahead in society, that winks and nods at criminal activity as a right of the have nots against those of the haves. The problem with that however, is the criminal element does not most often prey on the middle class, they prey instead of the culture that enables them. To speak outloud the social ills of the black underclass in this country means I run the risk of being labeled a racist, however I believe that speaking out about this is so important I am willing to run that risk.

One cannot get out of poverty by having children with no expectation that the father of that child will be in the childs life. By 1990 64% of black children were born to unmarried mothers. One can argue the causes, however it should be clear that irregardless of what particular cause one may argue, out of wedlock births have become a cultural norm in this particular section of America. The statistics on the jail rate for black America should be just as shocking. By mid year 2004 there were 4,919 black male prison and jail inmates per 100,000 black males in the United States, compared to 1,717 hispanic male inmates per 100,000 hispanic male Americans, and 717 white male inmates per 100,000 white male Americans.

The tempation to simply lay these statistics down to subtle and "institutional" racism on the part of the white America is simply too great for both many in the black community as well as white socialists also known as the American Left. Unwilling and therefore unable, to tackle the cultural mileu that has led to the social problems of the black underclass those ills are blamed on racism, on lack of money because of racism, on subtle race based hiring practices etc... I do not deny that racism exists, because of course it does. I do deny however, that racism is the dominant issue here. The dominant issue here is a cultural mileu that has come to encourage out of wedlock births as well as criminal activity that in the end preys on those that have the most to lose from it. What is lacking here is not a social net, as hole filled as it is. What is lacking is a sense of personal responsibility for ones life. And that is where the failings of socialism comes into play.

It matters not what tools are provided whether it comes from the state or private charity, if those tools are not used to build a life that is tenable. To utilize those tools one must be willing to take some sort of personal responsiblity, but America's left is not too big on personal responsiblity, instead they take it as a given from the very ideology that socialism is built on that the state is itself responsible for it's citizens, with little to no responsiblity being placed with the individual or even within a culture/society as a whole.

So in New Orleans we have witnessed the converging of political corruption that has enabled and encouraged a criminal class to flourish, a black underclass that has been most often preyed on by the criminal class as well as a cultural mileu that allows and encourages behavior that nearly guarantees perpetual poverty.

From a Detroit Free Press article August 22, just days before Hurricane Katrina.
Corruption has also hampered severely New Orleans ability to turn out jobs. Taken from commentary in a Louisiana publication written 8/16/05, again just shortly before Hurricane Katrina.

Only one in four people arrested in the city for murder is eventually convicted, according to a recent study by the New Orleans Police Foundation, a private nonprofit group. According to the study, 42% of serious crime cases reviewed by prosecutors -- about 22,000 -- were turned away between 2002 and 2004 because the cases weren't deemed suitable for court.
District Attorney Eddie Jordan said the lack of eyewitness testimony was one reason for the dropped cases. New Orleans has had such a problem with retaliation against witnesses -- including murder -- that the district attorney's office took the unusual step of starting a local witness protection program.
Witnesses may also be reluctant to talk to police because of allegations of police brutality and corruption.

From commentary in a Louisiana Publication, written 8/16/05 again just before Hurricane Katrina.

Gov. Kathleen Blanco will lead a trade mission next month to the Pacific Rim countries of Japan, China and South Korea. Meanwhile, New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin and Congressman William Jefferson returned over the weekend from a one-week trade trip to Brazil with local business leaders, as well as federal, state and city officials. Louisiana ranks seventh among U.S. states exporting goods to Brazil, says Jefferson, who led a similar mission there in 2002. New trade opportunities cannot come soon enough for jobs-starved Louisiana. "We are continuing to capitalize on New Orleans' natural strengths by expanding into international markets," Nagin said just before leaving for Brazil on Aug. 6.
Unfortunately, Louisiana's notorious "weakness" in the economic development arena -- a decades-old reputation for widespread public corruption -- continues to undercut our efforts in competitive markets. Recent federal corruption investigations only reinforce that image.
Congressman Jefferson, for example, now finds himself at the center of the most sensational federal probe of a Louisiana official since former Gov. Edwin Edwards was convicted of corruption charges in 2000. Days before Jefferson left for Brazil, FBI agents in New Orleans and Washington executed search warrants on his vehicle, residences and offices. The focus of the investigation is not yet clear. Jefferson is entitled to the presumption of innocence and his day in court, if it comes to that.
The Jefferson raids coincide with, but are apparently unrelated to, the recent federal corruption conviction of the congressman's brother-in-law, Judge Alan Green of Jefferson Parish. Green's conviction capped a six-year federal investigation of the parish courthouse that sent others to prison, including former Judge Ronald Bodenheimer.
In New Orleans, ongoing federal investigations of city government have shone a spotlight on family members and associates of former Mayor Marc Morial. Morial's uncle Glenn Haydel, a former manager of the Regional Transit Authority, is accused of diverting $550,000 in RTA funds into his personal accounts. Haydel denies any wrongdoing.
In another federal case, 10 people have been charged in an alleged scheme to skim hundreds of thousands of dollars from an $81 million energy management contract that Morial signed with Johnson Controls of Milwaukee while in office. Among the indicted are Morial associates Stan "Pampy" Barre, a restaurateur, and Kerry DeCay, who served as Morial's property management director.
As of this writing, the feds have taken no action against Morial's brother, Jacques Morial, since crashing through his front door with a battering ram more than a year ago. Jacques Morial, who assumed the chair of the LIFE political organization from his brother late last year, has not been accused of any wrongdoing. The former mayor, now national president of the National Urban League, has declined comment on the ongoing investigations, which also include the Orleans Parish School Board and Traffic Court.
Local U.S. Attorney Jim Letten says the investigations are far from over. And New Orleans is not alone. U.S. Attorney David Dugas of Baton Rouge says a probe of corruption in Livingston Parish has led to the federal prosecution of the parish president and a guilty plea by a parish councilman.
In an apparently unrelated case, both Dugas and Letten are prosecuting media consultant Ray Reggie on bank fraud charges. Reggie reportedly is cooperating with federal investigators in a political corruption probe of top Democratic Party officials.
The FBI says Louisiana last year ranked third in the nation in public corruption cases. Since the FBI sent in extra agents last October, Louisiana is one of only five FBI jurisdictions with two public corruption squads. The feds also hope to establish a presence in North Louisiana in the future. Visit the "inmate locater" link of the federal Bureau of Prisons Web site (www.bop.gov), and you can find former Louisiana officials dating to 1982 -- blacks and whites, Republicans and Democrats, from across the state.
All of these developments -- old as well as recent -- give our state the image of a Third World country where bribes and kickbacks grease the wheels of government for a select few. It's not just an image problem; it is rooted in reality. Louisiana traditionally ranks among the most corrupt states in the nation, according to a 2004 report by the Corporate Crime Reporter for the National Press Club.
Our dubious reputation extends overseas, too. For example, the Japanese relocated much of their business from New Orleans to Houston long ago, citing Louisiana corruption as a factor, according to Benjamin Wren, a professor of Japanese history at Loyola University.
Cleaning up our image starts with cleaning up our act. It's encouraging that the feds are leading the charge on that front. But the truth is Louisiana must pull itself up by its own bootstraps -- and be squeaky clean for at least 10 years -- to change its image. We can start by recognizing that our image of corruption costs us jobs. If we don't change things, we will continue to get what we deserve -- corruption, cronyism and a lousy economy.

So while the socialists of America are busy blaming the human tragedy and crisis in New Orleans on globla warming, federal cuts of funding for the levees, the war in Iraq and whatever other sundry issues dear to their hearts, I think it would behoove classic liberalists to take the offensive and point out what created the criminal class that not only looted stores and robbed fellow citizens, but actively interferred with rescue efforts as well as what has in large part supported the black underclass that got the brunt of it all.

This was a tragedy years in the making. One cannot completely dismiss the thinking that allowed the levees to be overwhelmed, but I do think it is a terrible mistake to believe that the rescue efforts were slow in coming. I say that because a dear friend of mine made a trip to Tampa Florida over the weekend in order to get her son who needed her assistance, totally unrelated to the Hurricane, and reported that both on the way to Florida and on the way back she saw rescue vehicles and crews on the highway at nearly every step of the trip. Rescue efforts were hampered by the failure of the levees as well as the behavior many who were stranded. And it is a mistake to lay it all on the door of the Bush Administration.

Though perhaps I should not expect less from people who seem to be much more focused on their own politics than they are on what is needed in the here and now to assist people who are in a situation that can hardly be properly described by words. If we are to properly analyze what went wrong to hopefully ensure it doesn't again as much as humanly possible, than we must not allow only the American Socialists to set the agenda.

Red

What are the roots of the American Left? And why it matters today.

2005-08-30T16:08:00.000-04:00

It is my intent to focus on the Left side of the political spectrum in America today. But in order to do that we must know where they came from, what is the philosophy that drives them and where did that philosophy came from.

Next we have to look at how that philosophy came to sink such great roots into our culture. It's reasonable to ask why this is important right now, just why should we care about things that happened in the late 18th century or the late 19th century or even through the 20th century. It matters because events from those years past, even that which can reasonably go back to 1789, are still making a tremendous impact on our world today.

I use that year because it was a year of two incredibly important events that continue to reverberate in our world today. In 1789 the US Constitution became the fundamental law of the land in America, it gave us the particular set up of our government as well as the laws it would function under. No one can argue that this event did not make any impact on the world at large, because of course it did and continues to do so. The other event in 1789, starting very close to the same time that the US Constitution would launch a brand new way of government and life, the French Revolution began.

I do not place the French Revolution at the storming of the Bastille. While that is something that plays well to imagery, the real beginning of the French Revolution came with the formation of the National Assembly, which took place about a month of so before the storming of the Bastille.

While on the face of it the American Revolution and the French Revolution are the same, a fight for freedom and liberty, the two events are in fact very different. That of course, is not how it is taught to Americans. What American students get primarily is that the American Revolution was "the shot heard 'round the world" and the history teachers go into the French Revolution, our buddies that helped us in our own revolution. They skim the main events of the French Revolution, and then to how the French send us Lady Liberty. By teaching the history in this way the American and French Revolution is linked in our minds as similar events in which ordinary people where seeking freedom from tyrannical Monarchs. What is taught very, very poorly is the basic philosophy behind each revolution and exactly the role that the great mass of both Americans and French who were not involved in the actual politics played. If you doubt what I am saying ask children that are old enough to have been taught this history who John Locke was and what did he write about.

When I did this myself a few months ago I was actually fairly shocked by what my two older kids said. The oldest is 21 and has a couple years of college under his belt, the other was 17 at the time, now just turned 18. She was in her last year of high school. I asked both of them who was John Locke and they could not tell me. I asked them if they knew who Jean Rousseau was and no they did not. Nor did they know Voltaire or Adam Smith. In short they did not know anything to speak of about those who provided the Enlightenment philosophies, they knew about the Enlightenment in a fairly superficial way but the not the philosophies that drove it. Which is an incredibly sad commentary on the school system today. I graduated in 1981, an eon ago to my kids, yet I was taught the basics of the main Enlightenment figures. My children defended their lack of knowledge to the school not have having enough time to teach history in depth. In fact neither of my children who are old enough to have gotten through high school even got any further in their history classes then the Korean War. What little they know about the Vietnam War and it's era is the asides they got in their history classes and the much more knowledge they have gained by simply talking to me. Yet is not the Vietnam era terribly important to us as Americans now?

The year 1789 gave us two different philosophies about government. One historians label Capitalism and the other Socialism. One primarily English/American, the other primarily French/West European. There is something of a problem however in those easy labels. Capitalism is an economic system, and while Socialism can be called an economic system, it is also a cultural system. Is Capitalism a cultural system? I would argue it is not. Under Capitalism one may function under a particular economic way of life while maintaining various cultural norms under that one system. Socialism on the other hand demands that all live under a specific set of cultural norms. It is this difference that has led to the "culture war" of America today.

To even the casual observer America has become very split, yet when one looks at voting there is a near 50/50 split between parties. I would argue that is because there are only two parties, and each party holds both moderate factions of their particular ideologies. America is trying to find a balance and depending on who seems more balanced there is a shifting, sometimes small sometimes large, between the two parties. Read this from Powerlineblog and it will be easier to understand what I am saying.

What the boys at Powerline are missing is the simmering culture war underneath it all. It is my belief that the culture war is being fueled specifically from the idea that socialism is a very specific culture and not simply an economic way of life. In other words for socialism to win in this country as an economic way of life, the foundation of this country, its very culture must be hacked out in order for socialism to florish as both culture and economic way of life.

To see how this has been taking place and how it matters today is what I am going to be writing about to a large extent. Right now I can so only on the surface because all the materials I need will include original source material as well as multiple other things. Some of that material must come from places like the Library of Congress, the FBI through Freedom of Information as well as collections of private papers held in University Libraries as well as other places. So bear with me as I go about this task that I feel is vitally important.

I will leave you with what I have written as something to consider. I have to get ready for work and can't go further at this time, and since I work 12 hour night shifts for the next four days I will likely not have too much to add for those days. But please come back and see where I am going with all this and the case I will be building for some time. We will be looking at the institutions that drive our culture, the people who have done so etc... and yes please, what happened more than 100 years ago does very much matter. It matters to your own life and lifestyle, it matters to what is happening in our churches, in our government, in the bed of our very culture. Americans are going to have to make some choices in the future and that cannot be done unless we have all the information. Stay tuned.

Red

Watching the building of an Iraqi Constitution

2005-08-30T02:22:00.000-04:00

As we watch the Iraq Constitutional process, I thought I would like to remind Americans of some facts regarding our own.

In 1786 commissioners from 5 states met in the Annapolis Convention to discuss adjustments to the Articles of Conferderation that would improve commerce.

They invited states to send representatives to Philadelphia to discuss improvements to the Federal Government, the result as we are all taught in school, was the US Constitution.

However, how many of us remember that 12 states sent deputies, but Rhode Island declined to participate? In addition, two of the deputies from New York left leaving only Alexander Hamilton, who when he was in attendence did not ever cast a vote, this all from the local politics out of New York. The New Hampshire deputies never arrived until July 1787, so that there was never a vote of more than 11 states.

There were 19 deputies from various states who never showed up the Constitutional Convention, some declined the job, others simply neglected their duties.

There were 56 Deputies who were at the convention. 39 signed, 14 had already returned home and 3 refused to sign at all. The signitures to the document "attest to the unanimous consent of the STATES PRESENT." Emphasis mine.

Two states never ratified the Constitution until after George Washington was inaugerated. They were North Carolina and Rhode Island.

Rhode Island having never sent a deputy was also the last state to ratify the Constitution.

Our process was not unanimous, and it was a hard fought fight to get it through. Why should we expect the Iraqi process to be any different?

Red

Soldiers' Angel's

2005-08-26T00:29:00.000-04:00

It's been a long, long time since I posted here. Life is busy and I guess this blog simply lost it's priority among other more pressing concerns.

However, I think it's time to get a bit more busy here and think the first post in a while should be one that praises an organization that supports our troops in a tangible fashion, and allows others to do the same. Please take the time to go to Soldiers' Angel's and adopt a soldier/sailor. My family has done this because we believe simply saying you support the troops is not enough. Do something more.

Today's war is vastly different from WWII or even Vietnam, it asks for no sacrifice from the country as a whole and by adopting a troop member you not only assist that young man or woman, you assist those who are serving with that person as care packages are shared. Give it consideration, every little bit a single individual can do helps.

Red

Terri Schiavo

2005-03-31T14:42:00.000-05:00

I have not posted in a long time. I had decided that I had to quit smoking and the only way to do that was to stay away from my computer as much as possible for a couple months while I learned to modify my behavior. The good of that is that I have quit smoking, something I would recommend to all who care about their heart. The bad in that is that I have not posted and this post may well be a shout into the wind since many who were coming here have quit.

Nonetheless I am going to press on and state my opinion on the Terri Schiavo case. As a nurse the biggest thing I will state is that the coverage on this from any media, be it MSM or blogs that I often read, have been so horrid that I find it stunning. The discussion of this subject should NEVER have been separated from the medical FACTS. It is those facts along with relevent studies that have been woefully lacking in the coverage, and because of that the polerization of the issue has become incredibly intense by people who are not educated into the medical field but who are most happy to issue out their ignorant opinions.

I am also incredibly disappointed with the politictians. This matter was not any of your business. Not the business of the Gov. of Florida, not the business of his brother President Bush. Lets get down to the brass tacks on this. Regardless of what either of the Bush brothers felt regarding the issue of withdrawal of treatment for Terri Schiavo, it was none of their political business in the least. Every year there are thousands of people who die from lack of hydration and food, just like Terri Schiavo, but there are no political grandstanding on their behalf. You know why? Because they do not have family who will not recognize the reality of their loved one's medical condition.

I have no doubt in my mind that Terri's parents and siblings loved her, I also have no doubt in my mind that what they wanted ultimately became more important than what they were doing to their daughter. As someone who has seen hundreds of people die, those like Terri's parents make me angry as well as sad. They are the family members that no matter what medical people tell them will not believe a word you say. In essence they become the expert and you, the medical person are stupid, lying to them or both. People like Terri's parents become like this because they are emotionally unable to accept what has happened to their loved one.

It is vitally important in this case to realize a couple things that no one in the media or the very misguided politicians or the incredibly clueless protestors want to talk about. Hospice has done studies, which can be accessed through hospise as well as the New England Medical Journal as well as other medical journals, regarding what a person experiences when food and hydration are not given to a patient. These studies are not politically motivated, they are not right to life motivated, they are motivated by anything except to be able to in the end provide what is the most appropriate and pain free care to an end of life patient possible.

And what NO ONE in MSM or bloggers or otherwise have done as far as I can find anywhere is to discuss those studies. Instead they dwell of the sensational-TERRI SCHIAVO IS BEING STARVED TO DEATH. Oh the horror of what they are doing! Yet they did not want to talk about the hospice studies that show the opposite occurs. They do not want to dwell on the fact that as people come to the natural end of their life they refuse hydration and food 95% of the time. That 95% by the way is from my own experience. If it was pain causing etc... to not have food and hydration does anyone seriously believe that as people come to death in a fashion that was the norm for thousands of years before we learned to put feeding tubes into people, if refusing food and hydration caused all the horror described by those who opposed removing Terri's feeding tube that people would naturally SEEK THAT VERY COURSE?

How many dying people have those protestors taken care of, especially the idiot trying to bring a bottle of water to a women who can not swallow, which is why the feeding tube was placed to begin with with Mr. Clueless. How many dying people has Jeb Bush taken care of? How many dying people has President George W. Bush taken care of? How about all those politicians who got into this?

Does it not occur to anyone, including the Priests who have weighed in on this, that 40 years ago this would all be a moot point because the use of feeding tubes was not a common event? That simply because we can do things medically now that in the past we could not, does that mean that we should? When President Bush talks about a "culture of life" does he intend on helping to pass legislation that would free up money to assist families to properly take care of loved ones like Terri Schiavo? While I have supported George Walker Bush on many issues, this one makes me so furious that I can not even adequately express it. Having had a stepdaughter who was in the same condition as Terri Schiavo, except that Samantha was born that way after being deprived on enough oxygen in utereo and having taken care of Sam, including when she was dying and her parents and stepparents opted to not to any further medical intervention because of what she would have to endure, I find all those grandstanding politicans repugnent in the extreme.

Just because someone is breathing does not mean they are living. A person who does not have the cognitive ability to express themselves, to recognize those who love them, still feel pain. Cognition has nothing to do with feeling physicial pain. But those without cognition cannot understand why they are in pain, or what to do with it, or how to ask for relief. It is then up to those who purportedly love that person to give them proper relief, even if that means having to be unselfish enough to let them die. What discussion was there on this from MSM? Did you hear on person reporting on this what Roxanol is or how it works or that it is commonly used by hospice for pain relief of the dying because it requires no invasive shot or the ability to swallow? Roxanol is absorbed through the mucous membranes of the mouth. It can be placed into the mouth of an unconcious patient and absorbed to give pain relief.

Was there any discussion from anyone reporting on this about all the wonderful properties morphine offers besides just pain relief, if morphine was to be used for Terri? Of course not. No discussion that for those who are at the end of life and struggling to breathe as many do, that even a small dose of morphine erases that sensation of drowning for a person who cannot breathe and take in enough oxygen. No discussion at all on what can be done for Terri at end of life and ultimately what can be done for our own loved ones or ourselves at end of life. Only reporting designed to scare the hell out of people or the rouse emotions that are just as base regarding a decision that is not mine, yours or anyones to make but the person who was Terri's legal guardian. And that was not her parents.

I will write more on this later, but for now I have to cook dinner and get ready for work.

In the end make sure you have your wishes in writing, realize that a living will is not considered a legal document in many states, including my own but considered only a guide. However a Durable Power of Attorney is fully legal, required to be offered to all who end up as impatient in a hospital free of charge. Didn't get that from MSM either did you?

Red

Fall On Your Knees And Thank God This Man Was Not Elected

2005-01-30T13:51:00.000-05:00

Transcript from MSNBC of interview of John Kerry on Meet The Press.

Red

Michael Moore-Idiot Extraordinare

2005-01-30T10:43:00.000-05:00

Popped over to Micky Moore's site to see what the ole faker had to say today. Amazingly, exactly what I thought he would!

In his just in section. Iraqi's start voting, attacks in two cities. The other? Violence rages on Eve of Iraq vote; 17 killed.

Instead of being able to praise and rejoice that Iraqi citizens are defying risks to their lives and the lives of their children, Michael Moore collaborator, piously wants the other moonbats with tinfoil hats to know that people are dying. Oh the angst of it all, people are actually wanting to have a say in their lives so much that they are willing to die for it. For people like Moore, the man who threatens "For the last time, we warn that tomorrow will be bloody for the Christians and Jews and their mercenaries and whoever takes part in the (election) game of America and Allawi," is the "Minutemen" not the Iraqi people.

Zarqawi calls the election a "game" and on Moore's site there is a picture of Saddam Hussain and the the words, Out through the door, in through the window. Moore sees the election as a game too. Of course that should not surprise us, he has proven himself to be not only an idiot but a collaborator of the enemy as he dupes gullible people throughout the world that what he believes has an validity at all.

Personally, I hope Moore keeps it up. Just like I hope Ted Kennedy keeps up his demented ravings. That way the American people are able to see what the Democratic party actually has become in ways that previous did not show. I know for a number of years I identified myself as a Democrat, I imagine I never will again. Everything changed after 9/11. Absolutely everything. All bets were off as the liberals went into high gear not only in collaboration with the enemy, but against the beliefs of a majority of Americans.

The Democratic party has proven to me not only are they unwilling and unable to see the threat to this country and the world, but they are also unwilling and unable to believe that there is any kind of common morality or even manners that should exist in society. The party papered over their crackups after the Age of Aquarius, but those cracks and the crackpots came apart in full force after 9/11.

At one point in time I thought that had the Democrats put up what I considered a viable candidate for election I could have voted for that person. But I was deluding myself. The Democrats that are running the party are unable and perhaps unwilling, to bring into their party any candidate that has reason or viability. As they decide who will head the DNC and it appears Howard Dean will be the winner, it is apparent to Americans like me that the party is not simply headed to the abyss, they are already there.

Democrats not racist? Think again. It is not they who have promoted people who are where they are because they are capable and bright with no regard to skin color, that has been the Republicans. The Democrats instead are doling out what is essentially a theme that keeps blacks on the plantation and hispanics unable to assimilate into society.

I have come to fully believe that if the Democrats ever gain real power again in the next ten years or more the damage that will be done to this country will take another 40 years to overcome just like the damage they did to this country in the Age of Aquarius. We are just now coming out of that. We must continue on.

Red

The Shot Still Heard 'Round the World

2005-01-30T10:22:00.000-05:00

God bless the Iraqi people, THEY are the true minutemen. Michael Moore be damned.

Scroll down the page to see photos

Yesterday in Gaza a gunfight broke out between Hamas and Fatah as a political rally turned violent, yet what is that sound from the left regarding this? That would be silence. Even though 3/4 of Iraqi's who could vote did and despite threats of a bloodbath only 33 died the left screams about that. Which proves Robert Fisk and ilk are still idiots.

And the Democrats wonder why people like me left them in the dust.

Red

2005-01-29T07:34:00.000-05:00

Should make you weep
Posted by Hello

Employers exceed Privacy Bounds

2005-01-28T19:54:00.000-05:00

In Michigan two employers have decided they have the right to see what you are doing in your private life.

Weyco Inc. A health benefits administrator based in Okemos Michigan, a town that butts up next to the state Capital Lansing, has fired four employees for refusing to take a test that would determine if they smoke. The company has decided it will have only non smoking employees.
In Kalamazoo Michigan a local community college announces they will not hire anyone who smokes.
The excuse behind these incredibly egregious examples of blasting through the boundaries of an employee's private life is health care costs of smokers. I don't think anyone can dispute that smoking increases health risks and therefore the cost of health care of that person, however it is beyond the pale for an employer to have the right to dictate to an employee what they will do in their own home regarding an activity that is legal.

I find it incredibly amazing that any employer believes they can breach the bounds of privacy, talk about owing your soul to the company store!

If this is allowed to stand what could come next?

An employee required to meet the weight recommendations for their height?

Refusing to hire an obese or even moderately overweight individual?

How about those sun worshippers, including those who use tanners in the wintertime?

Controlling the amount of caffeine intake of an employee? Over consumption of caffeine impacts the heart immensely.

Shall employers opt to see how much alcohol you drink? Will it be ok to just be a social drinker? Or will one alcohol drink a day be ok? Perhaps only two? Three daily will surely be too much.

I have an idea! Companies can set up a new position, Employee Health Care Coordinator and each week every employee will be forced to take a battery of tests in front of the EMCC. That way the employer can test employees for diabetes and hypertension, thereby ensuring not only are these diseases are caught early, they can ensure that the employee is appropriately managing the diseases. Of course they will also need to distribute health questionnaires to check out what their employees are eating daily as well as whether they are practicing safe sex procedures. After all, each of these issues increase health care costs when irresponsible employees opt to engage in behavior that has a high probability of harming their health and therefore the bottom line costs of employers.

ludicrous.

Red

Iraq Arrests Suspected Mastermind of Bombings

2005-01-24T09:15:00.000-05:00

Story here

Good News From Iraq

2005-01-24T09:06:00.000-05:00

Chrenkoff

Opinion Journal

Winds of Change

Get both sides of the story.

Red

The Lawrence Summers Flap

2005-01-23T10:45:00.000-05:00

Last week the President of Harvard University created a flap because of remarks made during a conference on women in science. He explored long work hours as one possiblity, however the remarks that caused a flap are the ones where he explored the idea that perhaps women do not have the same innate ability in science and math as men do. One of the women there that opted to get up and leave the conference said she had to do so because she would have blacked out or thrown up had she stayed.

Why it is that her remarks actually irriate me worse than Mr. Summers? Perhaps it is because she has quite simply by her own words and actions shown her inability and by extension, fair or not, that women can't handle emotions.

Before I go further let me be upfront about something. I hate math and science. One may wonder why in the world I am in nursing then. The field requires both. The science is obvious, the science of how the body works and why. The math is for dosage calculations, though by and large single dose medications has vastly reduced the need to hand figure dosage calculations, as have IV pumps for IV medication administration. However, when I went to nursing school we had to take separate math tests and dosage calculations tests and pass them with an 80% or fail out of nursing school. Having done the minimum amount of math required in high school the math tests required in nursing school gave me hives. Literally. In order to get and keep the calculations in my mind I had to study a great deal and also worked with a friend of my parents who had taught math, a man by the way.

Ultimately however, nursing is not a field of math, and it is considered a field of both art and science. Leaders of nursing have grappled with just how much of each part nursing is since nursing became a distinct profession. There are all sorts of nursing theory out there on this that will not be recounted here as even as a nurse I find it all incredibly boring with most of it being utterly useless to the practical application of nursing.

Let me then tackle the question, are women innately less capable then men in math and science? Can't say I really know but my gut reaction is what an assine questiona anyway. I believe that by and large a woman has the same brain power as a man, the real question to me is not whether a woman has the same capabilities the real question is do women have a much interest in it as men. The amount of undergraduates in similar courses that are men and women would lead one to say that on the surface yes. However, once graduated something happens. Less women pursue academic careers dedicated to these professions. It is not unreasonable to ask why, it is after all the purpose of the conference in which Mr. Summers upset so many.
Which brings me to the idea that women are not willing to put in the hours necessary once they have children. To me this brings us down to the brass tacks. Women have children, men do not. Children require much more than a simple caretaker and no matter how great a day care center may be or a nanny or even your own family who watches your children are, there is no substitute for a mother.

For myself one of my greatest regrets in becoming a nurse is the fact that the job interferes with my family life. And not just a little. The health care system cannot run without nurses. It is us that are there 24/7, a hospital is not like a factory where one can shut everything off and go home if necessary. By and large nurses outside of nursing homes work 12 hour shifts. We work midnight shifts like myself and no I do not work either 12 hour shifts nor the midnight shift because I like it so much. It simply is what it is. We work holidays and weekends, we are always there at the bedside because the patient is always there. We drive through storms with tornado warnings out, we drive through blinding snowstorms to get to work because someone has to be there to take care of the patient and we came to work sick. A nurse coming to work sick you ask, why they could give it to the patient. Yep, we could but trust me when I say calling off unless very ill is deeply frowned upon and can easily lose you a job.

Nurses across the country are FORCED into working mandatory overtime to cover shifts because there are not enough nurses out there. Just a few weeks ago in California the Gov. suspended a law that was passed some two years ago and slated to fully go into effect this January that would mandate patient to staff ratios that have been determined to be best for appropriate patient outcomes. Why? There simply are not enough nurses to fulfill those ratios. The HMO system that largely runs the healthcare system in California say it is impossible to fulfull the law, and to a large extent they are right. The problem is that if the law does not provide some relief to nurses the shortage will only get worse and a vicious cycle will be the result.

Nursing is primarily a female field, everyone knows this. Is it fair to say that men simply do not have the innate caring a woman does then? Or would it be more accurate to say that men and women have different interests based on both nature and nurture and that it would be a mistake to erase all differences between the sexes. My husband is currently taking classes so he can be certified as a mechanic and open his own business. One of the reasons he is doing this is that despite the difficulties in having a business, one has more control of their lives and that gives us the ability to be able to have family time that outside employment does not consider or give a damn about. A caring man but not one who would even consider nursing as a profession.

I would prefer to be able to have a job that allows more time for family but I am surely not going to take classes so I can work with my husband in the planned business, he talks about mechanics or his classes to me and my eyes glaze over and nearly roll back in my head. Well, I do at least attempt to hide those things since I love my husband and want him to believe I share his interest, but really I don't. Ranks right up with math and science.

Mr. Summers oops is not that he questioned the differences between the sexes, it is that he questioned whether women are as capable of brain power as men. I think he was attempting to open a dialogue regarding those differences, but worded it all in a poor fashion. Of course the hysterics of I thought I would throw up or pass out didn't do much either. Get a grip. When this woman holds the brains of a vehicle accident victim in her hands like I have once then she might, and I stress might, have cause to throw up or pass out. But someone who thinks they are going to pass out or throw up because of words and doesn't have enough sense to keep that to herself only perpetuates the idea that women are some fragile emotional creature incapable of dealing with the rough and tumble that life is.

Her hysterical finger pointing of Look! sexual bias really is the reason women lag behind men in some areas make me more angry than the ill conceived words of Mr. Summer. It is my guess, and just a guess, that were the career fields being discussed more friendly to family orientation than there would likely be more women in the profession. I think it is ludicious to attempt to engineer society based on what some wish were human attibutes instead of what they are. Men and women are different, women do cut back on work time or hours after having children and instead of attempting to put a round peg into a square hole, why does it seem impossible to change aspects of society so that women are able to have children and also to have a career that allows them to use the brain power that they have?

Feminsts will explain that is all men's fault too. Patriarical society yada yada yada. What they refuse to recognize is that they have put women into the need to make choices between career and family. By insisting that women be like men they have tied the hands of women throughout the country. News flash! Millions of women do not want to be men. Instead of pressing for institutions that make room for child rearing, feminism has done a grave disservice to not only women but the men who have children as well. They also have done a grave disservice to American families and the fabric of American society. By focusing on the remarks of Lawrence Summers that have to do with whether women have less innate ability than men, instead of his remarks regarding the unwillingness of women to sacrifice children on the altar of career so called feminists again miss the boat. Of course they built a leaky boat from the beginning by insisting that women behave like men in order to be successful.

My husband has taken steps that will allow this family more flexibility to raise our children without interference from a corporate, after he has completed his educational requirements our intention is for me to take steps to do the same. For the vast majority of my nursing career I have taken jobs that allowed me to spend the time I needed with my children. That often meant I was working in Long Term Care or nursing homes in laymans terms, something I did not enjoy that vast majority of the time. Not the patients mind you, but the reality that Long Term Care does not provide enough staff or enough resources to actually take care of those patients appropriately. In time those lack of resources drove me from that aspect of nursing, and I currently work the 12 hour night shifts with one day a week of overtime meaning I work 12 hour nights 4 times a week in order to get my husband and oldest son through college. Like millions of Americans we have been forced to realize that it is the rare corporate that gives a damn about your family life or your children. No matter what wonderful platitudes they offer. If that ever changes it will be much more possible for various institutions and corporate structures to take advantage of the brains and abilities that women offer, until then millions of women will opt out in favor of what is more important to them.

And institutions will lose the brain power that could be vitally important to them. What a shame this all gets missed in some innane conversation about whether women are as bright as men.

Red

Will the Modern Democratic Party go the Way of The Federalists?

2005-01-23T01:21:00.000-05:00

The modern Democratic party is on a collusion course with history. Failing to understand history and the character of the American people, they may very well go the way of the one time powerful Federalist party. The parties name will likely remain the same, but without some true soul searching of what the party can deliver to the American people, their power and influence may very well wane to the point that they are todays Federalists.

It is not that todays Democratics have similiar politics, though there are some. It is primarily that the party is making some of the same missteps of the Federalists.

The Federalists rose as one of the first political parties in the world along with their opposition, the Democratic Republican's in the early days of the Republic. It was the Federalists lead in great part by Alexander Hamilton that pressed for a new Constitution and a strong Federal Government to replace the weak Confederation Government. The Federalists recognized that in order for the United States to be a viable country a strong central government was necessary. Not actually recognized as a party yet, those who were like minded regarding central government worked together to not only get the Constitution ratified, they worked diligently to place power from the states into the Federal government during George Washington's first term. It was during that first term that the beginnings of each new political party can be seen. The Federalists with Hamilton as its head and the Democratic Republicans with Thomas Jefferson as the head of that faction.

We owe much of the function and form of American government to the Federalists of that time. They strengthened the country with the policies that came about allowing a central government to have the necessary authority to shape a new country. By the late 1790's however the party began to emerge under new issues and new conditions.

The party drew it's main strength for ideological and sometimes other reasons, from those who wished to have a very strong central government. Like todays Democratic party it's main backers came from the commercial Northeast. While the party strengthened the central government, something that many on the opposition understood as necessary, the style of the Federalists was often elitist and there was a fear of too much power in the hands of the people. The murderous excesses of the French Revolution served to increase that fear and to harden some into the belief that the Federal Government must not allow too much power to those that were considered uneducated and unschooled.

Though the Federalists did have some strong backing in area's of Virginia and in North Carolina it was not enough to win John Adams a second term. The parties inability to broaden its social appeal and geograpic base is in great part what did the party in.

That inability was based directly on the party being unable to change with the times. It's earlier policies of strong central government brought the young country stability and helped steer us politically through the turmoil generated by the French Revolution. However the very success of their policies also led the leaders of the party to fail to understand the needs and considerations of yeoman farmers not only in the south but also in the rural areas of other states.

After John Adams was elected and the Federalists gained control of both houses of Congress, Adams signed into law the ill advised Alien and Sedition Act. Done while under the threat of war with France and designed to further strengthen the Federal Government, it was also intended to quell political opposition being led by Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic Republicans who favored France and not Britian in the war that France had declared on European countries following their Revolution. Fearing the often popular support of the American people for France, it was thought it was possible for mob violence to break out in America as it had France. Not an unreasonable fear given the times and the fact that Jacobin clubs were being formed in various cities across the United States.

However, the heavy hand of the Federalists in implementing the Alien and Sedition Act drove many Americans who were outside of the political elite into the arms of Jeffersons Democratic Republicans. The last of these acts declared that any treasonous act including the publication of "any false, scandalous and malicious writing," was a high misdemeanor. Punishable by fine and imprisionment. This legislation led to the arrest of twenty five men, most of them editors of Repulican newspapers, and forcing the newspapers out of business.

One of those arrested was the grandson of Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Franklin Bache. Editor of the Aurora, a Democratic Republican paper. Charged with libeling President Adams the arrest resulted in an overwhelming outcry from the American people against all of the Alien and Sedition Acts, and likely led near directly to the election of Thomas Jefferson. A heavy handed Federal Government dictating what one should not only say but think is never going to win popular support, highlighted even at this early date.

Now in a minority the partys strength was primarily in the northeast states of Massachusetts, Connecticut and Delaware. The south was lost. The ill conceived trade embargo of 1807 by Thomas Jefferson revived the party for a short time, but again it's main strength was in the northeast bringing in New York, New Jersey and parts of Maryland during the 1808 Presidental election of 1808, the only southern state that went to the Federalists was North Carolina. Unable to gain enough votes the election went to Madison.

During Madison's Presidency the War of 1812 broke out. Widely unpopular in the Commercial Northeast the Federalist party held a convention in Hartford 1814. The meetings were held in secret. The New England states had refused to surrender their state militias to national service, even when New England was threatened with invasion. Prior to the convention Federalist extremists had contemplated making a separate peace between New England and Great Britian. A proposel to secede from the union was discussed but rejected. The vast majority of Americans saw this activity as treasonous, and the convention as well as the Federalists became the object of ridicule.

The early Federalist party policies though fitting for a young nation in tenurous times, the party inability to accommandate rising popular democratic spirit made the party unpopular with the majority of Americans, coupled with its obstruction and near treasonous activity during the War of 1812 sealed the Federalists fate. Though it lingered on for a few more years by 1820 the party was dead.

The policies of the Federalists during Washingtons and Adams administrations set the foundation for the government of this country. Yet its inability to hear and listen to those outside of its party geographic base made the party irrelevent in continuing American history. The comparison to the Modern Democratic Party should not be missed. Todays Democrats find their base of support primarily in the northeast, are often seen as the party of elites by middle class Americans, and the party has been obstructionist in the ongoing War on Terrorism. Let us not forget the recent yammerings of those who identify themselves as Democrats stating they should secede from the union or perhaps better yet move.

If the Democratic party is unable to tune itself into the "yeoman" of today, it is likely they will find themselves the irrelevent opposition party for many years to come. The rise of the modern Democratic party can be traced back to FDR who put into place necessary policies that were of great import to the country at the time, but if unable to move with the new times and new needs it becomes like the Federalist party of old. The Republican party did the same at one time and banished itself from American life for many years.

Perhaps the greatest lesson of it all is that the American people understand our needs and the needs of the country much quicker and easier than do political parties or their leaders. As a country we should marvel at the genius of the Constitutional Republican government hammered out by the founders. With its complicated checks and balances it keeps the follies of extreme party and extreme leaders from doing harm to the country and its people precisely by giving ultimate power to the people of this country.

Time will tell if the Democrats know their history or not.

Red

Persecuted Under Hate Crime Legislation

2005-01-22T04:17:00.000-05:00

In October Philadelphia hosted a gay parade called Outfest.

Eleven people from a Christian group called Repent America also came to the parade. They didn't stay long however, they were arrested and hauled away.

The crime? Carrying banners with bibical text on them and shouting Christian beliefs through a bullhorn. They were rapidly surrounded by a group of hostile parade goers calling themselves Pink Angels. The Pink Angels attempted to shout down the Christian eleven, using obsence language along with it, blowing whistles in the ears of the eleven and surrounded them with about 500 people. The confrontational approach of the Pink Angels however was stopped by the arrest of the eleven Christians.

Any totalitarian Despot would be so very proud!

The charges were: criminal conspiracy, possession of instruments of crime, reckless endangerment of another person, ethnic intimidation, riot, failure to disperse, disorderly conduct, and obstructing highways.

Ethnic intimidation? Since when did gay become an ethnic group?

The ethnic intimidation charge was apparently made available through Pennsylvania's Ethnic Intimidation and Institutional Vandalism Act-Pennsylvania's hate crime legislation, with the newest victim catagory added of sexual orientation. Shades of Sweden appear.

Instruments of crime? Are banners something you can use in a crime spree? Perhaps it was the bullhorns, I suppose one could smash another person with it.

Ten of the eleven spent 21 hours in jail, the last person spent 13 hours in juvenile detention because she is 17 years old.

None of the Pink Angels were either cited or arrested.

In December a court hearing was held on the charges. Six of the adults had charges dropped. The teenager did not have the charges dropped.

The four men charged are Michael Marcavage, Mark Diener, James Cruse, and Dennis Green. The lone teenage girl charged is Lauren Murch.

By all appearances each of the individuals charged are committed to vocal street ministry. Lauren's father founded an Operation Rescue group, had all of his nine children born at home and schooled at home. Each are more extreme in expressing their beliefs then I am by far. From my personal standpoint I would be uncomfortable with the way they express their personal and religious beliefs. That said, they did not check their citizenship rights at the door because of them.

Fanny Price, an organizer of the event stated "We have a right to a party."

In my world if you choose to have a party on the street then you also have to abide by the same Constitution that allows you to have your "party". And that means you have to put up with people shouting bibical text and calling you to repent what they believe is immoral and unGodly behavior. If you don't wish to do that, then have your party at a private location, paid for with the money of those who intend on attending. As it is a public "party" is paid for by the taxpayer, if nothing else then by paying for the police that have to come out for these types of events.

A right of public gatherings of like minded people does not give you a right to be "protected" against speech you do not wish to hear. I recall a case of many years ago when the ACLU went to court to ensure a group of Nazi's in full regalia were allowed to march in a Jewish neighborhood. But is the ACLU protecting the rights of these Christians to be loud and present at a gay event? NO. Instead the remaining people charged are being represented by the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy.

At this point those charged face up to 47 years in Prison.

Someone claiming to be a member of the ACLU left this message on the Repent America Website, whose president is Michael Marcavage, per WorldNetDaily.

"As a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and a Unitarian-Universalist, I am committed to your suffering the maximum penalty the law will give you. And I will take particular delight knowing your families and loved ones will suffer, too.
"You know my address and my phone if you cowardly bottom-feeders want to come out to where I live and settle this. Bring your god with you. You will need all the help you can get."

So much for the hallowed tolerance the liberal left goes on about. And in that vein, the Prosecutor of the case, Charles Ehrlich, characterized the defendents as hateful during the preliminary hearing in December and the bibical text used as hateful. One can only think the judge in the case agreed since the case has gone forward instead of being thrown out. The words that millions of Americans live by and teach their children by are hateful because they clash morally with what gay individuals believe.

The same sort of people who supposedly extol tolerance are not tolerant to those who hold other viewpoints. One cannot express this enough. I have never been a fan of the far Christian right, and never thought to see myself being a cheerleader for those inside that group. That said, it is important to understand something. This case is not about what views this group of people hold, it is about the law. The Constitution allows for those who term themselves gay to hold a "party" on the street, it does not guarantee they have the right to have everyone agree with them. Those who were preaching do not have the right to have everyone agree with them either. They do however have the same rights as the gay Outfest party goers. And that is the right to freely assemble and express their beliefs.

The defendents in this case were on the sidewalk, no obstruction was taking place until they were surrounded by some 500 people who disagreed with them and their presence. The defendents were not physically attacking anyone, they were not calling for American citizens to murder the participants of the street gathering. They were not calling for new laws that would have homosexuals rounded up and placed into concentration camps.

How is it that protesters can show up at the Presidental "street party" and be loud, crass, carry banners and signs with slogans on them, throw snowballs at the Presidental vehicle and fight with police but all that is supposed to be ok yet eleven not hundreds show up at a gay pride "street party" with a bullhorn used to cite bibical text and banners with the same are not? The liberals should not be given a pass on this. They don't get to have it both ways.

There is a correct belief that my morality or other Christians morality do not belong in other people's bedrooms. I have no qualms with that. It is my belief that other people morals are between them and God, as long as it does not involve harming another individual or break the law and I am not talking about morality laws that involve two consenting adult individuals here. I believe people have a the right to privacy enshirned into law in this country. However, as soon as you take that private behavior into the public sphere you lose the right to not have your behavior commented on or even protested. Keep your pieces parts out of public view and then you don't run the risk of those hateful Christians protesting your display of those pieces parts and what you do with them. Want me to be respectful of your lifestyle? Then be respectful of mine. Once upon a time that was called good manners.

As long as those on the liberal divide of the political spectrum are willing to shove their "lifestyle" in the faces of those who do not wish to have it placed into their faces, then expect the private lifestyle of those who oppose to be on display as well.

Red

How Many Liberals Does It Take To Win A War?

2005-01-22T03:23:00.000-05:00

How many Liberals does it take to win a war?

How many of you Liberals does it take to win a war?
Well how the hell can we tell? You won’t fight one anymore.
You say that you support the troops, but the truth’s plain as your face,
You’d pull us from the battle, march us home in full disgrace.
You’ve no stomach for the fighting, got no mettle, got no pluck;
If you ran this war on terror, we’d be a very well plucked duck.
The wolves of Jihad smell your dread, can smell your craven breath,
And emboldened by the fear they scent, lust for our bloody death.

“But wait,” you protest piously , “We are fighters for the poor.”
Might we suggest you start to fight, before wolves come through the door?
Do you think they’ll still believe in you, your poor, your gays, your blacks,
When the wolves run wild among them, sinking fangs into their backs?
Think then that they’ll be caring, when they’re counting out their dead,
We inflict pain on a captive wolf to learn what’s in his head?
Do you really think, you bleeding hearts, when they bleed in scarlet torrents,
They’ll care we cage the savage wolves, search lairs without signed warrants?

For years we watched your “feel good” courts defang our criminal laws,
Handcuff our police, give felons rights, espouse the criminals’ cause.
Felonious wolves were freed to prey, and we suffered their wild rages
Till “thinking” men took back the courts, put the wolf packs back in cages.
With your same old clueless “feelings” you now decry this war;
And with your same old fuzzy logic, common sense you still ignore.
We must look into “root causes” and we must try to “feel their pain;”
Pardon if our eyes start rolling, at your same old lame refrain.

It’s hard to fathom whence you come, perhaps some flawed eugenics,
That begets utopian pessimists, sires optimistic cynics.
Thanks be the power to rule the land remains beyond your means;
A regime of yours, would be like, no doubt, being ruled by pimpled teens.
Your quixotic quest for a world love nest, denies some truths quite real,
Like the need to have some “thinking” folks to preserve your right to “feel.”
Abhorring blood on your own hands, there’s a hard truth you’ve ignored,
Someone else must take your plowshare, and beat it back into a sword.

So how many of you Liberals does it take to win a war?
Or is there simply nothing you believe worth fighting for?
How is it that you’ve never learned, like most when they grow older,
That appeasing badness is a bad idea, only makes the bad guys bolder.
Has your fear of spilling human blood made you Jihad’s useful fools,
Ignoring that their wolf packs never fight within the rules?
By your demand we stay our hand, you weaken and you bind us;
Forcing us to fight off wolf attacks with that hand tied behind us.

So we bend some rules, in war you fools; so what? Show some respect,
When it’s your fuzzy-headed “feelings” “thinking” men fight to protect.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne DivisionVietnam 65-66

You're Wrong Mr. Jarvis

2004-12-21T02:07:00.000-05:00

Please read the link above before reading my comments.

What Mr. Jarvis seems to be missing is this. There is very much a values war going on, and has been for some time. It did not start with the election of George W. Bush. I prefer to call it a values war instead of a culture war because that is what it is to me. It is a clash of what values this country is going to hold, and not one necessarily based simply on religious association or party affliation. It is not simply the evagelical religious that voted for George Bush.

In the last couple years I have went from what I considered a fairly moderate person who had in the past voted both Republican and Democrat to one that is much, much more conservative. The reasons for that are not because the Republicans have appealed to me so much that I opted to change. It has ever so much more to do with the liberal side pushing me into it.

And how did they manage to do that? By doing assinine things like intimidating schools into having programs that will not even allow an instrumental of "Silent Night" or any other traditional Christmas program. By cheering the ACLU as they seek to remove any tiny cross, any public form of CHRISTIAN worship. By screaming tolerance at me while busily being intolerant of my beliefs.

We may not be setting fire to one another on the streets as has happened in other countries, but make no mistake Mr. Jarvis, the values war is out there and is very hot right now. I don't expect it to get cooler any time soon. Right now the fight is over Christmas, as well it should be. Christmas and Easter are the two most important celebrations of Christians. As you count your blessing to live here, read the words of John Adams.

It is the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping GOD in the manner most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

So while you count your blessing, perhaps it would be suitable for you to read the founding fathers and understand what freedom of speech and freedom of religion actually is? In an effort to be "tolerant" and not to "offend" others sensiblities the ability of Christians to worship publicly is being restrained. Does a school having a traditional Christmas concert disturb the peace? But does it not obstruct the Christians from their religious worship? No one is rounded up and forced to go to a Christmas concert at the local elementary school, if it bothers someone to hear "O Holy Night" than perhaps they should exercise the freedom that many died to provide, and not go?

Mr. Jarvis says "There is no religous war in America. That ended more than two centuries ago. And now we enjoy the benefits of that struggle. We should be grateful for that and stop squandering it with squabbles. "

Mr. Jarvis it is not just squabbles. It is a matter of whether Christians are allowed to have a religious celebration unmolested. Christmas is not simply a retail season. Why may I ask, is it too much to expect a celebration based on the birth of Christ, be celebrated by the adherents of Christianity publicly? I am not expecting the government to declare all must celebrate Christmas anytime soon, so again anyone who opts out is more than welcome to do so.

The base reality is that this is a country in which the vast majority identify themselves as Christians, and though many are bound and determined not to let majority rule, the founders most certainly envisioned this republic to work that way.

"If we are faithful to our country, if we acquiesce, with good will, in the decisions of the majority, and the nation moves in mass in the same direction, although it may not be that which every individual thinks best, we have nothing to fear from any quarter." --Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808. ME 16:321

Public opinion sets bounds to every government, and is the real sovereign in every free one.
James Madison, Public Opinion, December 19, 1791

This is not simply about Christmas either Mr. Jarvis. It is about the values and character of this country. Again in a country that is predominantly Christian but with radical elements that are determined to take this country from the words of it's founders including those that point specificly to God having a hand in establishing this country or in thanking God for his blessings that define this country, than one of the first things that those radical groups must do is to denigrate and sweep to the back room the major celebrations of that which the founders treasured. By and large, Sir, the founders were Christians and the God they spoke of was the Christian God. If we back down and call what is going on a squabble, then those who seek to completely remodel this country based on their own desires will win. And that is not rule of majority by any means. It is a rule put into place by fear and intimidation based on being politically correct and Multiculturalist.

It is this very agenda that has made me into the conservative that I am. I believe deeply in the words and beliefs of the founding fathers, and the more the other side diverges from that the more I will fight them. Those founders believed that rights flowed not from the government, or any man made institition but from the creator himself.

It is not much ado about nothing. The reality is that Christmas is a Christian celebration, and that I and millions of other Christians have a right to be able to publicly express it. If we are going to instruct our children into Ramadon in a very public manner and as happened in California, to force them to participate then why it is too much to ask for a Christmas celebration that no one is even forced to attend? I'll tell you why, because it does not fit the agenda of a radical left determined to force their way of life onto everyone else.

It must stop and it must stop here. There are many like me who have finally had enough and we are willing to do some pushing of our own now.

Red

NUTS! with a Hat tip to Russ Vaughn's new poem

2004-12-16T23:40:00.000-05:00

This the untranslatable word that General McAuliffe told the Germans who were demanding the surrender of the Americans who were surrounded in Bastogne. The Germans who were unable to understand what the General meant, were told by Col. Joseph Harper "In plain English it is the same as 'Go to Hell', and I will tell you something else; if you continue to attack, we will kill every goddamn German that tries to break into this city"

And so on this day in 1944, what American Historians call 'The Battle of the Bulge' began.

Some statistics.

· The coldest, snowiest weather “in memory” in the Ardennes Forest on the German/Belgium border.
· Over a million men, 500,000 Germans, 600,000 Americans (more than fought at Gettysburg) and 55,000 British.
· 3 German armies, 10 corps, the equivalent of 29 divisions.
· 3 American armies, 6 corps, the equivalent of 31 divisions.
· The equivalent of 3 British divisions as well as contingents of Belgian, Canadian and French troops.
· 100,000 German casualties, killed, wounded or captured.
· 81,000 American casualties, including 23,554 captured and 19,000 killed.
· 1,400 British casualties 200 killed.
· 800 tanks lost on each side, 1,000 German aircraft.
· The Malmedy Massacre, where 86 American soldiers were murdered, was the worst atrocity committed against American troops during the course of the war in Europe.
· In it's entirety, the “Battle of the Bulge,” was the worst battles- in terms of losses - to the American Forces in WWII

Just for a moment reflect on the reaction of the anti-war left if the same amount of American casualities resulted today. Not to mention the screeching of the MSM against Gen. Eisenhower and the military for being so damn dumb as to not anticipate what the "freedom fighters" of Germany had up their sleeves.

On a personal note today is the 9th birthday of my youngest son. His middle name is Wayne, named after my Uncle Wayne who fought in the Battle of the Bulge. My son is well aware of the history of the date of his birthday and why his middle name is Wayne. My oldest son's birthday was the 8th of this month, the day America declared war following Pearl Harbor. He too, is very aware of the signifigence of the date.

And now I leave you with the words of Russ Vaughn, who says it so very well.

“Good people sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men
stand ready to do violence on their behalf.” George Orwell

With a nod to the Mudville Gazette for the quote

There’s a character trait that’s decided by fate
Comes “sadly” to many, far too faint, far too late.
They won’t face the aggressor, stand up to his ire
They have not the will to fight his fire with fire.
So they bend over backwards to see all sides as fair,
Till they’re faced with dragon breath fire in their hair.
Like our brethren in France, who’d know better than we,
Yet seem never to learn, seem doomed never to see.

Yes, it seems there are some who’re determined by fate,
To possess not the courage to step up to the plate,
Who shrink from all threat because nothing’s worth war.
But how can they know lest they’ve been there before?
Thank God some have courage, the will, yes, the grace,
To stand for the shirkers, stand strong in their place.
Thank God we have stalwarts who’ll stand for us all,
Who will rise to the challenge at their nation’s call.

The faint-hearted, who fear, whose reaction is flight,
Have no comprehension of those who will fight.
To hide their own trepidation they attempt to demean
The rough men, who defend them, as barbaric, obscene.
Yet these rough men stand ready, hard weapons to hand,
To put placaters behind them, draw a line in the sand,
To preserve for the peaceniks what they won’t defend,
So their own unearned freedom won’t perish, won’t end.

To appeasers, rough men are coarse government tools.
To rough men, appeasers are dumb delusional fools.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne DivisionVietnam 65-66

Taking Christ out of Christmas

2004-12-08T23:31:00.000-05:00

The clue phone is ringing, but too many are not picking up.

I realize it is very difficult for some to grasp in today's world, so I think it bears saying, CHRISTMAS IS A CHRISTIAN HOLIDAY. It is my firm opinion that is one does not like that than one should not celebrate it.

Over the years retailers have been very savvy at selling the gift giving of Christmas, it is after the time of year when many retailers are able to make the profit necessary to be in business in the first place. What seems to have been lost in the rush for profits however, is the rememberance that gift giving at Christmas is in imitation of the Magi bringing gifts to the infant Jesus. Over time then, Christmas has become an orgy of gift giving, secularizing a religious holiday in the name of profits.

Please do not misunderstand me one this point, I have nothing against a retailer making money, that is why they are in business. The businesses that make the items make money, and thus jobs are created and/or kept, all of which is a good thing. What is not a good thing is when retailers hunger for profits to the extent that they insist their people use "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas" so shoppers who are not Christians don't become "offended".

The reality is this, as plain on your nose on your face. Christmas is a holiday created by Christians, over time it has evolved as do all things in society and culture, however the underlying message of Christmas is not secular good times, good food and family. The underlying message is the birth of Jesus Christ, who the majority of Americans profess to believe in, and for a majority of Americans is the Savior. God from God, light from light, true God from true God, Begotten not made.

It is not a pagan holiday, though so many will attempt to persuade you it is, by virtue of the history of the date, and some of the rituals surrounding the celebration of Christmas. It is not a Jewish holiday, it is not a Islamic holiday, it has nothing to do with Buddha, the Hindu's or the Sikhs. There is no connection to Shinto, Tao or Confucius. So may I be so bold as to say, that if any one of these are your religion and you find Christmas or the saying Merry Christmas somehow offensive, then you not participate in the holiday?

Not participating will harm you how? Will someone make fun of you in the office if you don't celebrate Christmas? Will your kids feel left out? Really, what horrid event will take place if you opt to not celebrate an essentially Christian holiday?

The reality of the situation is this. America is primarily a Christian country by virtue of who immigrated here first. That is not a racist statement, it is simply the truth. The founding fathers were primarily of English origin, many were Anglican and by far the majority were practicing Christians. Even those who had doubts about organized Christian religion, were men of faith. So if the reality is that the majority of Americans express that they are of the Christian faith, as demonstrated in a recent Newsweek article, than why is it wrong to celebrate one of the basic holidays of that faith, with the true reason for the holiday in place? If one applies the logic that some use to take Christ out of Christmas, then it is entirely appropriate for those same people to request that countries with primarily Islamic adherents to not publicly celebrate Ramadan, and for Israel to not celebrate Passover or Hanukkah. Perhaps we could ask Tibet to quit making a big deal about the Dali Lama. Doing those things make about as much sense as asking Christian Americans, again the majority, to go ahead and allow human secularists to take Christ out of our holiday for fear it will offend a minority in this country.

Christmas celebrations in America have as much historical context and as much right to continue in the form they have existed for years, as do the major celebrations of any religion in the countries in which other religions dominate. So let me take up the cross, so to speak, about America as a Christian country.

One will find a great deal of back and forth from one side and then the other as to whether America is a Chrisitan country. I would put forth that each side misses a fundamental point.

The Declaration of Independence states " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. " Please note that Thomas Jefferson did not make that statement in terms of a purely Christian God. The term "creator" can be the God, and hence the religion you practice or it can be mine. The fundamental issue here is that rights flow from a creator not a government. Something that many a Protestant reformer would have been very at home with, particularly John Knox, founder of Scots Presbyterianism. Many of his sermons made very pointed references to this. However, this phrase does not make America a Christian country, it makes it a country that at it's inception recognized that it all humanity have basic rights, given to them not by a caprious government, but by a creator.

Let us now go on to the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." This amendment also makes it clear that America was not founded as a Christian country. It does so by making it clear in the very first amendment that the government may not establish any state religion. Had the founders opted otherwise, there can be little doubt that any state established religion would have been Christian, as the founders themselves were of Christian backgrounds, though of different sects. One only has to have the barest of understandings of the religious wars that had racked Europe to understand why the founders believed so deeply that not founding a state religion was so utterly important to the fledging country, that they put it clearly into law.

Now onto the next point of the First Amendment. Not only may the government not establish a state religion, they may also not prevent the free exercise thereof. That small simple phrase. Contrary to what so many believe, this phrase does not mandate a separation of church and state. That phrase can be traced back to a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote in response to a letter to him from the Danbury Baptists of Danbury CT. They were concerned about their minority status and persecution of themselves, the letter Jefferson wrote back was meant to reassure them that the government would not do anything that would harm their free expression and practice of their religion. Read it for yourself and it becomes quite clear. I am as sure as I am sitting here that Jefferson never intended his phrase to be utilitzed by groups such as the ACLU that attempts at every turn to remove religious expression out of the public arena.

Why am I so sure of this? Because despite those groups who are pushing back the ability of Christians in particular, to express their faith publicly, I know my history. History is what it is. Revisionist history for any true student of history is aborrant, therefore attempting to put Jefferson on the side of the ACLU is aborrant. Case in point.

In 1774, while serving in the Virginia Assembly, Jefferson personally introduced a resolution calling for a Day of Fasting and Prayer.

In 1779, as Governor of Virginia, Jefferson decreed a day of “Public and solemn thanksgiving and prayer to Almighty God.”

As President, Jefferson signed bills that appropriated financial support for chaplains in Congress and the armed services.
On March 4, 1805, President Jefferson offered “A National Prayer for Peace,” which petitioned:
“Almighty God, Who has given us this good land for our heritage; We humbly beseech Thee that we may always prove ourselves a people mindful of Thy favor and glad to do Thy will. Bless our land with honorable ministry, sound learning, and pure manners.
Save us from violence, discord, and confusion, from pride and arrogance, and from every evil way. Defend our liberties, and fashion into one united people the multitude brought hither out of many kindreds and tongues.
Endow with Thy spirit of wisdom those to whom in Thy Name we entrust the authority of government, that there may be justice and peace at home, and that through obedience to Thy law, we may show forth Thy praise among the nations of the earth.
In time of prosperity fill our hearts with thankfulness, and in the day of trouble, suffer not our trust in Thee to fail; all of which we ask through Jesus Christ our Lord, Amen.”

And there is this.

“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the Gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
Thomas Jefferson

Some point to the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence that America is not a Christian country. Let me put that in it's complete context.
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
This was a treaty between America and Tripoli in 1797. This particular statement is from George Washington. Read in it's context, it should be clear that Washington was attempting to explain to the pirates who were preying on American ships in the region, that the United States was not a country like the European powers that had state religions that considered themselves at war with Muslim countries. Yet those whose aim is to take any expression of Christian religion in this country out of the public arena refuse to read historical documents in it's context for no other reason than to convince the American public that for over 200 years we have had the meaning of our founders all wrong. As an aside, this treaty was broken by Tripoli, who declared war on America in 1801, the first war against America after Independence. The taking of goods and sailors as slaves would continue until James Madison was President. Just an interesting look at a slice of American history that has some reverbation into today's world, but that is another post.

So, America is not a Christian nation in that there is no state imposed Christian religion. A clear reading of the writing of various founding fathers make that point quite easily. However that said it is also quite clear from various writings of the founders that they were by and large, religious men and they were Christian's, as were and are the majority of Americans. By virtue of the majority of Americans being of the Christian faith, however one can call this country a Christian country. What cannot be said it that the citizens of this country are forced by the state to at least make a hat tip or nod to being nominal Christians. Yet, America is overwhelmingly a Christian country by the fact that the majority of her citizens CHOOSE to practice as Christians.

So if the majority of Americans choose to identify themselves as Christian, those who attend church regularly and those who do not, by what right does the ACLU and other groups who identify themselves as atheists or agnostics have to demand that the majority not be allowed to publicly express their religious convictions? These groups make their demands with language of victimhood for one. They use guilt, they use browbeating tactics, and they wrongly use the idea that we are not a Christian country but a free country to bolster their tactics. By utilizing the language of victimhood, they attempt to make Christian Americans feel that any public expression of their religion will offend the minority. Offend mind you, not threaten their lives, not threaten their livelihoods or even threaten their ability to practice their religion or lack of in their own manner. Does a nativity scene in front of a local county counthouse threaten anyone with physical harm? Will Chrisitans who gaze upon that nativity scene and think of the wonder of Jesus, then go out and murder Americans who are not Christians? Do you even know if your neighbors are Christians or not?

A Nativity scene in front of a county courthouse is not a government imposing a state religion on anyone. It is little more than an expression of the majority view of this country. A school play meant to celebrate Christmas, not a generic holiday, whose children though are not allowed to sing any Christian songs celebrating Christmas does what exactly? Spare the feelings of a minority, and make no mistake they are a minority, in favor of telling the children who are in that play who are from Christian homes that the free expression of their religion is not allowed. If I were a non Christian parent of that school is it truly too much to ask of me that my child simply not participate in a celebration that my family did not believe in? Apparently so. It is obviously simply too much to ask a parent to be a parent and to explain to their children why they believe in what they believe and do not believe in Christianity. It is entirely ok for a school in California to force seventh graders to partake in the celebrations of Ramadan as part of learning about diversity, despite the many students who are not Muslim, but it is not appropriate to expect the same consideration to be given to Christians.

A parade in Denver is not allowed to have any religious floats etc... despite it being a Christmas parade, now made into a holiday parade because it just might offend someone. First of all their would be no "holiday parade" if there was not Christmas to begin with, and secondly if a parade celebrating the birth of the saviour is that offense to you, can I make the big leap and expect that you not go to the parade to begin with? Who is out there demanding that the citizens of Denver go to the parade and get offended to begin with? NO ONE. However, the threat of a lawsuit by the ACLU or any of it's twins is enough to make people run for cover. A lawsuit will threaten the financial stability of whoever is it's target, and it has become an undercover sly way of pushing forth an agenda the MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT WANT. Yet Americans have been more or less silent about these inroads made into our traditional culture.

We have been silent because we want to be tolerant, we do not wish to be bigoted, we wish to remain true to our constitution and our founders. But by our silence we have become complacent in the fabric of our society being torn asunder under the guise of diversity and multiculturalism. If I or others like me dare complain, we are scorned as stupid, ignorant, bigoted, racist, homophobic, sexist, insensitive and intolerant. One only has to listen to the mouthings of these so called progressives to keenly understand they have no compunction in labeling you as a freak, as they rent their clothes and tear their hair and mumble incoherent phrases about Jesusland. You can hear the thought process as they think, fine believe in God and Jesus, but we will make sure that you are allowed no public expression of your religious beliefs because it OFFENDS ME.

This is not a controversy that anyone should expect to end any time soon. It is bound to get worse before it gets better. However, I know that there are many people out there just like me that would consider themselves reformed democrats. Through the nineties I was lulled into believing the democratic party was going back more to the traditions of it's greatest politicitians, however that blind was torn off my eyes shortly after the attacks on 9/11 and I saw the Democratic party for what it really is. A party that jeers at all of my traditional beliefs, not conservatives beliefs, but traditional beliefs. They not only jeer at my beliefs they have members and affliate organizations which are actively attempting to jettison nearly everything I hold dear to my heart, including how I believe my children should be raised.

It's not just Christmas. It's scorn because I found it offensive that Janet Jackson had the audacity to bear her breast in front of millions. How very stupid of me. It is after all, just a boob. Why should I be upset by an ad on Monday night football that has a women dropping a towel in front of a man, after all we could only see her back and how many of us have never seen that? As if the entire message of the ad was not there. Why should I ban hip hop music from my home, it is after all only a legitamite expression of well, something that I can't comprehend since I have real issues with women being sung about as bitches and ho's. Somehow or another I am supposed to accept not allowing religious symbols in a public parade that only the citizens of that town are going to see, but I am supposed to accept some guy grabbing his dick in front of millions. And when I don't want to accept that I am simply an ignorant, intolerant redneck. I'm supposed to accept a man lecturing me about racism and the poverty that creates, when the same man has multiple children out of wedlock when statistics show that a single woman with children are more prone to poverty than nearly any other demographic. I'm supposed to lap up the words of a feminist regarding the evils of men, even when I can see with my own eyes what happens when men are made a margin part of family life. I am supposed to accept gay lifestyles, even when I can read the increasing statistics of HIV infection among gay men, particularly young gay men and KNOW as a nurse, the issue is not one of education. And I am to accept the scorn heaped on President Bush because he is a man of faith and refuses to hide that. One cannot help but wonder what these groups would have said of nearly every President who was in office at a time of National Crisis. Read their words and realize that President Bush is behaving no differently than any of the majority of our Presidents, his public expressions of his faith would not have drawn any issues even 50 years ago. It is only since the naval gazing part of the baby boomers of the 60's and 70's got ahold of this country have things gone so awry.

As an American who believes fervently in tolerance, and in each person living their lives as between themselves and God, I simply wish for the other side to give me the same courtesy. No Christmas parades? Well, then no Gay pride parades. My public expressions of belief offend you? Well gay men dressing up like nuns and publicly simulating sex offends me. A public school singing Christmas carols offend you? Forcing seventh graders to celebrate Ramadan in order to pass offends me. Country music makes you cringe? Hip hop makes me cringe.

As the radicals on "progressive" side keep pushing, they are doing little more than forcing people like me to push back. Even two years ago I would not have felt like I had to dig my heels in like I do now. I cannot help but feel a confrontation is being forced, and I will no longer simply turn the channel, shut off the radio and turn my head to public behaviour I find nausating. By continuing to attempt to force me and those like me to swallow values (that horrid bad word) that are not mine and that which I refuse to teach my children, I have instead been forced to defend everything that I believe in.

And defend it I will.

Red

On Being a Redneck

2004-11-21T02:04:00.000-05:00

Ok, so I'm a little behind times here, I just could not think much about posting while having to consider whether I would leave my church or not. But since that is resolved it is time for me to do a bit of catching up.

So in the interest of that, thought I might explain what rednecks are all about. And no it is not what you think. The term has become one that means ignorant backwards and can it not be more obvious? Racist.

Before I explain the origin of the word redneck and just because I can, the origin of the word hillbilly, let me state that I am a redneck. You might be too, and not even realize it.

Allow me to start at the beginning, this is a somewhat long story, but one that I, at least, find fascinating. I do so because it eventually had far reaching consequences for the history of this country.

The origins of the word come from the Scottish Convenanters, who were largely from the lowlands of Scotland. Let's tell their story.

In the year of our Lord 1559 John Knox returned to Scotland from Switzerland, where he had been listening to and absorbing the theology of John Calvin. At the time Knox visited with Calvin in Geneva Knox was an ordained Roman Catholic Priest, yet Knox having had some personal experience through a friend of the political aims of kings and church (look it up) felt it necessary to think of reformation. Calvin is considered the second great reformer after Martin Luther. The thoughts and reforms that Calvin brought to what became Protestantism infuses modern America as much as it did at it's founding. If interested please take the time to look it up.

By the time Knox returned to Scotland he was determined to reform the church there. At the time Perth had become primarily Protestant already, and storm clouds were brewing with the Queen Regent, Mary of Guise who was Catholic, over it. Mary of Guise was also French, and French troops were brought into Scotland to assist her in the religious battles. In 1560 the Protestants signed a treaty with England that promised English help to rid Scotland of the French troops, and Mary of Guise was then forced into the position of having to sign a the treaty of Edinburgh in which the Queen Regent agreed to remove the French Troops.

Not too long after this occured the Queen Regent died and Mary, Queen of Scots ascended to the throne of Scotland. Mary, along with her husband Francis of France and several Scots nobles did not see the treaty as allowing the Scottish Parliment as being able to establish a national religion, but John Knox and his protestants did. Within a few months of the Queen Regent's death John Knox and his collaborators drew up the Confession of Faith. The Scottish Parliment ratified the Confession of Faith, which effectively made Scotland a reformed nation. A new Protestant faith with the face of Calvin was in place.

However that did not end the battles. When Mary and Francis were informed of the ratification, Francis sent a letter back to the parliment expressing his disappoint with what had occured and in that letter stated that he would sending delegates from France a "true" parliment with the aim of setting the matter straight. This was not good news to the Protestants who knew Francis, a Catholic, was a sworn enemy of the Protestant face. It is necessary to understand that while Mary was called Queen of Scots, she had resided in France and Francis had resided in Scotland. In the late 1560 Francis died and Mary found it necessary to return to Scotland.

In 1561 Mary returned to Scotland, she did not want to go and a good many of the Scottish people did not want her to come there either. There were constant underhanded battles that Mary fought to bring Scotland back into the Catholic religion. Knox had the support of the Burgesses and Lairds (the more common people) while the Lords and Nobles tended to support Mary. Even those Lords and Nobles who supported John Knox out of religious conviction often would not do so against the Queen fearing retaliation.

Numerous times the Queen summoned Knox because of things he said in sermons that angered her, after a sermon that was taken from Isaiah, used to demonstate that political authority was derived from God and warned those who persecuted the church of Christ misused that authority. By the time of this serman Mary had remarried Lord Darnley. They called Knox before them and the Queen forbade him to preach anymore. However the Edinburgh Burgh stepped in and issued a statement in favor of Knox and Mary wish to silence him was frustrated. In the end however, it was Mary's own actions that sealed her fate.

Her husband, Lord Darnley was murdered and Mary ran off with the suspected killer, the Earl of Bothwell. Bothwell was able to escape to the North, but Mary was forced to surrender. She was then imprisioned at Lockleven Castle and forced to abdict the throne in 1567. Her son, James, was then appointed to the crown with a James Stewart, Earl of Moray as regent. Under Moray the Scottish Parliment was called again, and the Reformed Presbyterian Church of Scotland was finally made established by law. However Moray used the Protestant church as a means to continue his political ascendacy and he made enough enemies that he was assassinated in 1570. Mary also managed to escape her prison and even though she was imprisoned in England by Queen Elizabeth, her cousin, she was a constant threat to the Presbyterian Church and the stability of Scotland.

When James was crowned King of Scotland he was but 13 months old. The sermon at his coronation was preached by John Knox. His father dead and his mother imprisoned he never knew either. He was raised by tutors, the most influential of which was George Buchanan, a staunch Calvinist. In this manner James was brought up a Protestant.

At the age of 19 James began to rule Scotland, Mary had been executed two years prior in 1587 by England's Queen Elizabeth for her part in an assassination plot to kill Elizabeth. In 1603 James became King James the first in England as the closest relative of Elizabeth, and remained King James VI of Scotland. This is when Scotland and England became united.

It is also necessary to understand that Scotland itself was nearly two different nations, at least in terms of culture. The highlanders clung to their Jacobite (Catholic) faith despite an ongoing attempt by James to convert them to the Protestant faith. The highlanders also clung to their Gaelic language. The lowlanders were by this time strongly Presbyterians and used the English language. Perhaps it was the battles to have their faith that caused the Prebyterians to be very unyielding in their religion, as Calvin was, they were bible literalists, felt graven images such as the cruxifix were an abomination, were suspicious of Christmas and refused to celebrate Easter. The Prebyterians of today's America have little in common with the Presbyterians of Scotland of 1603.

James often came into conflict with the Scottish Kirks (heads of the Presbyterian church) as he asserted what he considered his divine right of kings which he believed superseded the civil authority of the Kirks. The Kirks believed that to be untrue. In 1581, under Queen Elizabeth Roman Catholicism was outlawed, the church of England established under Elizabeth's father, Henry VIII was not only now the national church, but no one was allowed to practice the Catholic religion in England. This was made complete when Protestantism was adopted by the General Assembly and signed into law by James in 1637. Though James had been the King of Scotland before King of England he did not care for Scotland and only visited there once in the years he was King of both countries between 1603 and 1625. He wished to bring the culture of Scotland as well as the divine rule of Kings into line with that of England. In this he was not successful.

When James died in 1625 his son Charles ascended to the throne. He adopted the policies of his father and much more. Charles disliked Prebyterianism for both it's denial in the Divine Rights of Kings as well as their austure and strict form of Protestantism. He made a very controversial move by proposing that the Scots Church come in line with the Anglican church and attempted to force the issue by demanding the Scots church adopt Episcopacy and the Book of Common Prayer. This outraged the lowland Scots, and when King Charles ordered the new liturgy to be read July 23rd 1637 at St. Giles Church in Edinburgh, many were already spoiling for a fight. The Prebyterians saw the liturgy as more Catholic than Protestant, something the Prebyterians were not going to allow.

Tradition has it that as the liturgy began a woman named Jenny Geddes stood up and threw her stool at the Dean's head, this act then erupting into a general melee. Though some believe it was a spontaneous act, evidence points to it being planned well in advance. The service ended up having to be cancelled.

On Feb. 28th 1638 The National Convenant was produced on behalf of the Church of Scotland. This was essentially an anti-papist declaration and a reaffirmation of the Confession of Faith done by John Knox in 1560. Thousands showed up in Edinburgh to sign it, some in their own blood with many then putting bits or neckerchiefs of red around their necks to signify they were willing to lose their "necks" over their faith. The declaration was placed on public display in Greyfriers Church, Edinburgh. The declaration was also circulated throughout the country with thousands more signing on, it was supported by not only the Kirks but also by the Scottish nobility, putting them and the country of Scotland in direct opposition and conflict with King Charles. Those who wore the red around their necks became known as rednecks. This however is not the end of the story, for these people had yet to come to America.

In 1639 Charles went to war against Scotland. The war was not well supported by the English nobles and Charles ended up with no money to fight his war. This led to the Pacification of Berwick-which granted the Scots parlimentary and ecclesiatical freedoms.

In 1640 what became to be called the Second Bishops war commenced, as Charles once again attacked Scotland. Ill prepared and again underfunded Charles ended up having to flee and the Scots overran the whole of Northumberland and the county Newburn. A very large amount of Northern England, and an area of which some of my own ancestors came from. Charles had to leave the two areas in the Scots hands as a pledge for the payment for the Scots expenses when he agreed to the Peace and signed the Treaty of Ripon in Oct. 1640.

The area of the borders of England and Scotland did not just suffer from the consequences of religous wars either. For years prior to the two wars that Charles provoked the Border Rievers (Robbers) had the area in a constant state of upheaval and raiding. It is a mistake to think of clans just in the Highlands of Scotland. They existed in the lowlands as well. The clans raided into England, sometimes into Scotland and frequently against one another. They raided for cattle and for sheep as well as what other things they could get their hands on. Many of the Border Rievers were not Scottish, but also English, while nominally from either country their loyalites were that of a clan, and the families were on both sides of the borders.

When James became King of both England and Scotland he determined that he was going to put an end to the Rievers. Between 1610 and the 1630's he made a diligent effort, hanging many of the leaders but shipping many more off to Northern Ireland. The premise being that he could take care of his border problems as well as establishing a Protestant bulkhead into Catholic Northern Ireland. The Border areas tended to be poor and hunger was not an uncommon occurance, the raiding was as much as survival tactic as it was a clan activity. Ireland had become part of English Lands under Henry VIII, and the movement of people from the lowlands of Scotland to Northern Ireland became known as the Plantation of Ireland.

The opportunity for James to "plant" Ireland came when the Irish Earls fled Ireland leaving the whole of Tyrone and Donegal and half of Fernanagh liable to seizure. The confiscation of virtually all non-church lands in counties Tyrone, Armagh(where another branch of my family immigrated from) Fermanagh, Donegal, Cavan and Coleroine meant much of the province of Ulster was available to the crown. More information on the particulars of this are available by a search on the plantation of Ireland.

Even though the Plantation idea was not new, a small planting done by Queen Elizabeth prior, James is the one who made it happen in large amounts and it is to James the Plantation of Ireland is given to.

So when King Charles was defeated in 1640 in the Second Bishops war there was already a large amount of Scots Prebyterians who had already been moved into Northern Ireland. The conditions on the borders had driven many into raiding, but with more good farm land in Ireland most became more settled yet the close knit clannish behavior continued as well as a firm belief in not simply Protestantism but in the Scots Prebyterian form.

In 1643 Charles was ousted in a horrid bloody civil war in which he was beheaded. The forces of Oliver Cromwell and the Parlimentarins the winners. Cromwell agreed to Prebyterianism to be the religion of both England and Scotland, anxious to make allies of the Convenanters, against the still dangerous forces of the crown. Essentially a marriage of convenience a treaty of "Solemn League and Convenant" was formed. Though the Church of Scotland became supreme, England was basicly an occupied country under the severe rule of Oliver Cromwell. Cromwell died in 1658 and in 1660, Charles II was fully restored to the throne. Prior to the death of Cromwell he advanced Scottish and English Protestant immigration into Northern Ireland by offering land there to those who had fought in lieu of pay. Many took him up on the offer.

Shortly after Charles II, Charles I son, regained the throne, he passed an act that forced the people to recognize him as the supreme authority of civil and Ecclesiastical matters. The church of Scotland rejected this and entered into a period of severe persecution for twenty eight long years, until 1688.

In 1661 the National Convenant was reputiated. The following year Charles own Bishops and curates were appointed to Scottish Churches. 400 nonconforming ministers were ejected from their parishes. At first it was tolerated by authorities for the ministers to preach in private homes, barns and open area arenas, however it soon became clear that the Scottish people were resolved to do this and refuse to attend Episcopal services. The first attempt to limit attendence of these services came in 1663 and by 1670 attendence was a treasonable act, and preaching at one a capitol offense. At this time it is worth noting that because of the pressures put on the Presbyterian Church at this time, the Kirks began putting a premium on congregation members who could read. It was felt to be of the utmost importance that they could then be able to read the bible so they could attend to their Christian duties even if a minister were not available, and because it was felt the common people did not need a Priest to interpert the words of God to them. Because of this Scots Kirks policy by the late 1600's nearly 70% of the Scottish people were literate, well beyond the literacy of England or any continential European country.

As things progressed even attending a service was a capital offense. The history of these times are laden with wanton bloodshed and horrific killings. I will not dwell on them. Suffice it to say if caught away from home with a bible in your hand was enough for authorities to believe that one was attending the forbidden services, then death came where you stood. Thousands of Catholic Highlander soldiers were brought in by the crown in the attempt to pacify the lowland Prebyterians, again the stories are horrific. Little did the highlanders know that in less than a century the clearances would come to them.

By 1680 Charles II had died. He was succeeded by his brother James II. Raised in France he was a ardent Catholic, as well as an ardent supporter of the Divine Rights of Kings. He was determined to eradicate the Prebyterians. By the time James II ascended the throne more lowland Prebyterians had immigrated to Ireland, a place that meant more safety than their homes in Scotland. Though occasional flareups of violence between Catholic and Protestant occured there, it was nothing in comparison to what was happening in the lowland moors of Scotland.

Under James II the Killing Times occured. I cannot be positive yet, but it is near these times that my own Scots family immigrated from Scotland to county Armagh in Ireland. In time James II Catholicism became a problem for even those in England, as he placed Catholic officials into government and attempted to take England back to Catholicism, in the spring of 1688 he ordered for his Declaration of Indulgence read from every Anglican pulpit, suspending the penal code for Catholics. The birth of an heir fueled fears of a new English Catholic dynasty, those fears confirmed when the heir was baptised into the Catholic faith.

At the end of June 1688, a group of peers made a fateful decision. They invited James II son in law, William Prince of Orange, to "defend the liberties of England" William, married to Mary daughter of James II, was a Dutch born Prince. He was also a Protestant. In November he landed at Torbay, at the head of an army of some 15,000. He cleverly did not make any pronouncements regarding the crown, he simply said he was coming to England to make it save for Protestantism. With massive desertions James II was forced to flee.

In the bid though to keep his crown James II raised an Irish army. They meant at the Battle of the Boyne, perhaps the most famous Irish battle. When James was forced to flee England he took refuge with his old ally, Louis XIV of France, who was also an old enemy of William III, Prince of Orange. Louis saw an opportunity to strike at his enemy through Ireland, and provided James with French officers and arms. James landed at Kinsale in March 1689. With Irish Catholic allies James quickly called a Parliment and repealed the legislation that had allowed Protestant settlers to aquire land in Northern Ireland. It goes nearly without saying that the Scots and English Protestants rallied to William, not only for the sake of their lands, but because in the case of the Scots, so many of either themselves or their families had badly persectued at the hands of James II. As James moved across Ireland only in the North were the Protestants able to hold out. Londonderry suffered a three month long seige before being relieved by help from the sea.

William could not ignore the threat in Ireland and landing in the north he began his campaign. The entire account need not be recounted here, the armies fully engaged at the river Boyne. The battle began July 1, 1690,by mid afternoon the Jacobite army was in retreat, and James himself back in France within a month. On July 6th William entered Dublin and gave thanks at Christ Church. While the terms of the treaty ending this affair were not ungenerous to Catholics, they wer soon to suffer from the penal laws that were designed to ensure Protestant ascendancy in Irish life.

For William the battle in Ireland was a small battle in the larger battle against the French Catholic Louis XIV. However for the Scots and English Protestants it was and still is, the defining battle for their homes and their religion. Those who supported William in Ireland were termed Billy boys or alternately Orangeman. William was supported strongest by the Scots Prebyterians who had immigrated to Northern Ireland.

After William left Ireland it cannot be said that the Catholics were pacified, but because he did not see it as a strategic battle he needed to fight he did not return. The penal laws against the Catholics caused much friction and frequent uprising by the Catholic Irish took place. By the early 1700's the constant battles, some pitched, some not were taking their toll. Many of those Scots Prebyterians opted to leave Northern Ireland and come to America, away from the religious wars.

Between 1715 and 1776, some 250,000 Scots Irish immigrated to America from Ireland. By far the largest group of Scottish colonists that came to America. They tended to settle in the Chesapeake Bay, and from Pennsylvania and on south. Looked down upon by frequently by the British, Dutch and German immigrants as poor and less civilized the terms of derision often employed in England were again used in America. One of those was the old term used when these people had signed the National Covenant in Scotland nearly a century before. Redneck. They were called that as a symbol of their unwillingness to be a "good" citizen of the crown. They tended to congregrate together and be clannish. Often settling in the frontiers where a man had a chance to make something of himself if he worked hard enough they were often used by the more properous as the front line defense against Indian attacks. At one time the Scots Irish of Pennsylvania threatened attack against Philadelphia because of the Quakers refusal to assist them against Indian attack. One can find an account of that incident by Ben Franklin.

Even at that time there were seen by many as ignorant and overly religious. Moving into the hills of Appalachia, the term used for them in Northern Ireland when supporting William in his war with James, Billy boys-became corrupted into Hillbillies.

A people who had fought and died for the ability to keep and practice their own religion, a people who repeatedly fought the authority of the crown who used the theory of the Divine Rights of Kings became a leading people for the war of Independence. As George Washington noted at Valley Forge-"If all else fails, I will retreat up the Valley of Virginia, plant my flag on the Blue Ridge, rally around the Scots Irish of that region, and make my last stand for liberty amongst a people who will never submit to the British tyranny whilst there is a man left to draw a trigger."
A people who had a strong military tradition going back before the religious wars, in the Border Rievers. Many English from Northern England settled among the Scots Irish, closer in culture with them than with the British of Southern England, a unique character imaged that became the frontiesman of this country.

Constantly seeking more and better land they settled Kentucky and Tennessee, crossing the Cumberland with Daniel Boone and fighting at Boonesborough. They left there and headed west for Missouri, Texas and Oklahoma. Along the way they brought their military hertiage, their bibles and their willingness to battle any and all who would attempt to take from them what they believed where their God given rights. Not rights given by a government, but rights given to them by God.

They have been referred to as God's frontiersmen. Read the words of Teddy Roosevelt as he describes these hardy God fearing people. "the kernel of the distinctively and intensely American stock who were the pioneers of our people in their march westward."

It is also interesting to note that the traditional song of the Glasgow Rangers, a Scots football (soccer) team has these words-"Hurray, Hurray, we are the Billy Boys" and shares its tune with the famous Civil War song "Marching through Georgia"

The term Scots Irish is a uniquely American term, used to distingish those of Scots descent that are Protestant and came from Ireland, though are not Irish from those who are Irish Catholics. This group of people brought us the fiddle, bluegrass and country music. After coming to this country their religion became the Baptists, and later other sects one associates with Evangelical Christianity. That is why the current Presbyterian church in America seems so far removed from the people who originally fought so hard for it. Ultimately it was not the church they fought for, but for a particular way of worship. It is the Calvinist form of Protestantism that one still finds in Evangelical churches.

I am proud to be a Redneck. I come from that stock of people. While it is a term universally used to denigrat a person, if the true origins of the meaning were to become widely known it would be a term worn with pride. The American character so many in this country and abroad associate with this country is almost universally the traits that are Scots Irish. Then and now.

Approximately 30 million Americans are descents of those Scots Irish who came to this country. How have we faired when compared to other immigrant groups? Some statistics for you.

This is from an Associated Press newspaper article which appeared in 1980:
"Americans of Scottish descent tend to be better educated and have higher incomes than other European based ethnic groups, according to a new Census Bureau study.
"Based on a survey taken in late 1979, the study said Americans who traced their ancestry to Scotland had median family incomes of $20,018, highest of eight single ancestry groups studied.
"Second in family income were those of German background, at $17,531, while those of Spanish background had the lowest median income at $10,607.
"The Scots were the only group to record no illiteracy in the survey, had the lowest unemployment rate at 2.1%, and the highest rate of high school graduates, 81.2%.
"The study looked at characteristics of Americans of English, French, German, Irish, Italian, Polish, Scottish and Spanish descent.
"Among them, those of Spanish descent, 30.3% were most likely to have been born outside the United States. The Italians were a distant second at 13.1%, while only 2.7% of the Irish were born outside the United States.
"Scots recorded the highest proportion of married men, at 79.6%, followed by 75.5% for those of French extraction. The lowest male marriage rate was 62.8% among the Spanish.
Among women, the French were most likely to be wed, at 68.6%, with Germans second at 64.3%. Polish women were the least likely to be married, at 60.6%. The highest divorce rates were 4.8% among Irish men and 6.6% for Spanish women. At 3.5%, Polish men had the fewest divorces, as did Polish women at 4.3%.
Here are how the various groups fared statistically in some other social characteristics:
"Male high school graduates: Scottish, 81.2%; English, 74.6%; German, 72.4%; Irish, 68.8%; French, 67%; Polish, 64.4%; Italian, 62.7%; Spanish, 42.5%.
"Female high school graduates: Scottish, 78.1%; English, 76.7%; German, 72%; Irish, 70%; French, 65.7%; Italian, 60.4%; Polish, 59.1%; Spanish, 40.5%.
"Unemployment: Scottish, 2.1%; German, 3.1%; English, 3.6%; Italian, 4.7%; Irish, 5%; Polish, 5.4%; French, 5.6%; Spanish, 9%.
"Median family income: Scottish, $20.018 ; German, $17,531; Italian, $16,993; Polish, $16,977; English, $16,891; Irish, $16,092; French, $15,571; Spanish, $10,607"
So, you see, we Scots are the richest, best-educated, hardest-working and make the best lovers of all Americans. "Here's tae us! Wha's like us? Damn few, and their all deid! More's the pity."

So the next time some far left liberal sneers and derides you for being a "redneck" smile and tell them "Yes, yes indeed I am" Take pride in coming from a people who will not be bowed by either Priest or King or in today's world by the leftist elite. We will fight for our freedoms, we will fight for our families and ultimately we will fight for our religion where our morals and values have been derived from.

From a recently published book-Born Fighting, How the Scots Irish Shaped America by James Webb.
In his first work of nonfiction, bestselling novelist James Webb tells the epic story of the Scots-Irish, a people whose lives and worldview were dictated by resistance, conflict, and struggle, and who, in turn, profoundly influenced the social, political, and cultural landscape of America from its beginnings through the present day. More than 27 million Americans today can trace their lineage to the Scots, whose bloodline was stained by centuries of continuous warfare along the border between England and Scotland, and later in the bitter settlements of England’s Ulster Plantation in Northern Ireland. Between 250,000 and 400,000 Scots-Irish migrated to America in the eighteenth century, traveling in groups of families and bringing with them not only long experience as rebels and outcasts but also unparalleled skills as frontiersmen and guerrilla fighters. Their cultural identity reflected acute individualism, dislike of aristocracy and a military tradition, and, over time, the Scots-Irish defined the attitudes and values of the military, of working class America, and even of the peculiarly populist form of American democracy itself. Born Fighting is the first book to chronicle the full journey of this remarkable cultural group, and the profound, but unrecognized, role it has played in the shaping of America. Written with the storytelling verve that has earned his works such acclaim as “captivating . . . unforgettable” (the Wall Street Journal on Lost Soliders), Scots-Irishman James Webb, Vietnam combat veteran and former Naval Secretary, traces the history of his people, beginning nearly two thousand years ago at Hadrian’s Wall, when the nation of Scotland was formed north of the Wall through armed conflict in contrast to England’s formation to the south through commerce and trade. Webb recounts the Scots’ odyssey—their clashes with the English in Scotland and then in Ulster, their retreat from one war-ravaged land to another. Through engrossing chronicles of the challenges the Scots-Irish faced, Webb vividly portrays how they developed the qualities that helped settle the American frontier and define the American character. Born Fighting shows that the Scots-Irish were 40 percent of the Revolutionary War army; they included the pioneers Daniel Boone, Lewis and Clark, Davy Crockett, and Sam Houston; they were the writers Edgar Allan Poe and Mark Twain; and they have given America numerous great military leaders, including Stonewall Jackson, Ulysses S. Grant, Audie Murphy, and George S. Patton, as well as most of the soldiers of the Confederacy (only 5 percent of whom owned slaves, and who fought against what they viewed as an invading army). It illustrates how the Scots-Irish redefined American politics, creating the populist movement and giving the country a dozen presidents, including Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. And it explores how the Scots-Irish culture of isolation, hard luck, stubbornness, and mistrust of the nation’s elite formed and still dominates blue-collar America, the military services, the Bible Belt, and country music. Both a distinguished work of cultural history and a human drama that speaks straight to the heart of contemporary America, Born Fighting reintroduces America to its most powerful, patriotic, and individualistic cultural group—one too often ignored or taken for granted.

Yes Sir, I am a Redneck and very proud of it.

Red

Druidic Priests masquerading as Episcopal Priests

2004-11-20T17:24:00.000-05:00

From www.virtureonline.org This is chapter two to my post Episcopal church, weep for thee. I will continue to post on issues regarding the church as it impacts not only myself and my family but the behavior of the ECUSA leadership is also impacting American society.

PENNSYLVANIA PARISH PRIESTS PRACTICE PAGAN EUCHARISTIC CEREMONY

By David W. Virtue

MALVERN, PA (10/29/2004)--A husband and wife clergy couple in the Diocese of Pennsylvania practice pagan Wiccan worship with the woman priest affirming a rite called "A Women’s Eucharist" - A Celebration of the Divine Feminine, that can be found on the Episcopal Church's official website.The wiccan-worshipping woman priest is Glyn Lorraine Ruppe Melnyk rector at St. Francis Episcopal Church on Sugartown Road who goes by the Wiccan names "Raven" and "Glispa" and her husband Bill Melnyk, rector of St. James in Downingtown, PA goes by the Wiccan names "Bran" and "OakWyse". A source told Virtuosity that he does not wear a cross but a shell around his neck.Melnyk insists that the shell he wears is the ancient Christian symbol of Baptism, and is quite well-known as the Symbol of St. James, for whom our parish is named."However, on the Druid board on February 24, 2004, Melnyk wrote about his shell: "I, personally, do not wear a cross unless it is a solar cross. Often I wear a silver shell, which most Christians I meet think is a symbol of Baptism, but which, for me, also represents Athena!"Melnyk: "I'm 57, live in southeastern Pennsylvania, and have been a member of OBOD since 1998. My spouse and I are both Druid graduates of the training course. We are also both priests in the Episcopal (Anglican) Church. Between us, we lead two groves (some call them "congregations") of Christians learning about Druidry numbering about 1200. My creed? 'There is only one river.'The pagan eucharistic rite reads in part: "The chalice of sweet red wine is raised and a woman says, "Blessed are you, Mother God, for you have given us the fruit of the earth. Red as blood, warm as life itself, sweet and intoxicating as love. We thank you for wine. We bless you for the power of this drink to remind us of our own power. We praise you for the strength and beauty of our bodies, and for the menstrual blood of womanhood. We embrace the mystery of life which you have entrusted to us, and we pray for the day when human blood is no longer shed and when woman’s blood is honored as holy and in your image."The cup is passed hand to hand and all drink from it. Placing both hands on the fabric covering the table, one of the women says,"Blessed are you, Mother God, for the fertility of this world. We thank you for the sight and scent of flowers, for the way their shape evokes in us the unfolding of our own sexuality, and for their power to remind us of the glory and the impermanence of physical beauty. May our days of blossoming and of fading be days spent in your presence.""Thank you, Mother, for the abundance of life. Thank you for the rich, full, pleasing, and life giving milk of our bodies. Thank you for the children who drink from our breasts for they bring sweetness to our lives. We drink this cup as your daughters, fed from your own bosom. May we be proud of our nurturing and sustaining selves. May we honor our breasts as symbols of your abundance. Thank you for the milk and honey of your presence with us."The cup is passed and shared by all.The parish itself is barely five miles from the evangelical/charismatic Church of the Good Samaritan, in Paoli, the largest parish in the diocese, and from which some of the members broke away several years ago to form this revisionist parish. The church is sustained by a few well-heeled members from the hunt run horse set. The church does not use the Prayer Book, a source told Virtuosity.Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison said on hearing the news that he will not engage in a "witch hunt", meaning he is reluctant to declare that Pagan Wicca Druid ceremonies mean that those practicing these witchcraft-like ceremonies have abandoned the Communion of the Church. Yet, it is the same Charles Bennison who proclaimed that Father David Moyer had abandoned the Communion of the Church by being faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ."The Rev. Bill Melnyk wrote to Virtuosity following the publication of this article to say that neither St. Francis nor St. James Church use the Women's Eucharist from the EWM website. "At St. Francis the schedule is Rite 1 at the early service and Rite 2 at the later service. At St. James we use Rite 1 (Prayer1, with Prayer of Humble Access) at 7:45, and Rite 2 at 11:00. At our 9:00 am children-oriented family service we had been using an Evangelical Eucharist from the Iona Community -- a Christian Eucharist. Because of this current flap, however, we have changed that to the Prayer Book Rite 2 service. Nothing other than orthodox Christian rites have ever been used at either church."Two summers ago the two "pagan" rectors lead an inter-faith pilgrimage to Stonehenge in England and conducted a service that included wiccans.Recently however the Rev. Glyn Melnyk started using the pagan eucharist the language of which is lifted almost completely (without attribution) from a rite from Tuatha de Brighid, "a Clan of modern Druids … who believe in the interconnectedness of all faiths."On hearing the news an orthodox priest said, "This is worse than the sin of sodomy, it is taking the Episcopal Church to a new level, that of paganism."The Rev. Greg Brewer, rector of Church of the Good Samaritan in Paoli said, "My concern is for the parishioners at St. Francis, some of whom I know. They would be shocked and horrified to know that their rector was engaged in Druid and Wiccan practices."The Office of Women's Ministries at the national church headquarters in New York City had the pagan liturgy posted at the church's official website, but it was later deep-sixed from the "Women's Eucharist" when a hue and cry went up from thousands of Episcopalians on the Internet.However the liturgy is cached by Google and can be accessed at the following VirtueOnline Web Link.The story was first blogged at Christianity Today's website with a headline that screamed "Episcopal Church Officially Promotes Idol Worship," written by Ted Olsen. The story rocked around the world causing the Rev. Margaret Rose, Director of the office of Women's Ministries at the national church in New York to immediately withdraw the page on the skimpy grounds that the material was copyright protected. But another priest responded saying, "it cannot be a copyright issue. The author of the liturgy in question is the one who posted it on the ECUSA website." At the very end of the "Women's Eucharist" page had the name and address of Glyn Lorraine Ruppe Melnyk, rector of St. Francis in the Fields Episcopal Church in Malvern, Pennsylvania. One might have expected the notation at the end to indicate that she submitted it to the site as well. But the office's credibility is seriously undermined by its claim that it didn't promote the liturgy for actual use. A line from an earlier press release reads: "The Office of Women's Ministries is working towards creating a resource to be used by women, men, parishes, dioceses, small groups, within the context of a Sunday morning service, or any other appropriate setting where the honoring of a woman's life passages and experiences beckons a liturgical response. … Although traditional liturgy acknowledges little of these aspects of women's lives, many women have taken up the task of creating and writing such liturgies for themselves or others. The Women's Liturgy Project has begun collecting worship resources written by women for women in order to create a resource that is accessible to all."This was followed by a link to the page with the "Women's Eucharist" listed as the second of nine resources. The "Women's Worship Resources" (not "Dialogue Resources") page of the Office of Women's Ministries has toned down its description of the rites, but still urges readers to "use them for … gathering communities of worship."Rose said the liturgies listed at the website were intended to spark dialogue, study, conversation and ponderings around women and our liturgical tradition."The current liturgy project – A Call for Resources: The Women's Liturgy Project – and the Women's Worship Resources section on our website is a grassroots, organic, interactive process is an offering to open the awareness of the many voices and needs that exist among people in the church as we all strive to find expressions of our life, love and faith in God."Outraged, the Rev. Canon David H. Roseberry, rector of Christ Church, Plano, the most attended parish in the Episcopal Church was shocked and horrified, wrote to both Rose and the church's Presiding Bishop.In his letter to Griswold he said: "I am alerting you to the unfortunate fact that the web site of the Episcopal Church has been promoting a liturgy and a worship that is patently non-Christian. This afternoon, there was a liturgy celebrating the Divine Feminine posted on the web site of the Episcopal Church. It was outrageous and pagan. I understand that it has been removed as of about 4:30 today. With all due respect, I ask that you clarify the role that the Episcopal Church Office has in promoting non-Christian and pagan practices. I have been in touch with The Rev. Margaret Rose, the director of the Office of Women's Ministries, and she was sorry that the web page had been posted without attribution. (She said it was lifted from a Druid web site.)"In a phone conversation with the director, Roseberry said she did not know that it was "lifted" from a pagan/Druid clan nor did she did mean to convey that the Eucharist was an official instrument or liturgy of the Episcopal Church.Roseberry said Rose was somewhat apologetic, but said the "liturgy" was posted to inspire and promote dialogue. She said that the role of the Office of Women¹s Ministry was to look for ways of spreading the love of Jesus. She said, "It is my personal theology that the clarity of who we are as Episcopalians is often enhanced by our engagement with things that are "Other" and this is clearly "Other".Roseberry blasted her saying that the liturgy was non-Christian, non-biblical and did not represent her hopes for spreading the love of Jesus. "I told her it was right out of The Da Vinci Code. (She hadn't read the book.) I told her that anything that promotes the earth as Mother is Pagan and non-Christian and non-biblical. She also mentioned that the Windsor report encouraged this kind of dialogue and conversation, recognizing that we live in a pluralistic society."Roseberry asked her if she was authorized to open up a dialogue with a pagan religion as a function of the ecumenical office of the Episcopal Church. She said that there were many staff people (herself among them) that represent the Episcopal Church in all kinds of dialogues with the National Council of Churches."I asked her if her office would disavow the liturgy and disassociate themselves from it. She felt that the liturgy itself was a helpful tool in helping us to understand people of other faiths. She might, she said, put up a Muslim liturgy to engender the kind of debate and discussion that we are having about the Druid liturgy."That "other faiths" comment is important, because a key question—if not the key question—is how the Episcopal Church leadership (Rose included) views this liturgy and the church's relationship to it. Is it of a different faith? By promoting it, has the Episcopal Church itself become a non-Christian faith? Rose doesn't seem clear about whether this liturgy is ecumenical (of the church) or of "another faith." Perhaps she's confused because the ceremony directly references the Old Testament. But is offering sacrifices to ancient Canaanite idols antithetical to Christianity or not?Scripture seems awfully clear on this point. "What pagans sacrifice they offer to demons and not to God," Paul told the church at Corinth. "I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons. You cannot partake of the table of the Lord and the table of demons. Shall we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than he?"Wrote another priest, "Imagine for one moment that you're a leader in the Episcopal Church USA. You know that within the next few days, a global commission is going to release a report on how the global Anglican Communion should respond to your church, and is likely to be critical of the ordination of an actively homosexual man as bishop. You know, and have said yourself, that the debate isn't just about sexuality: It's about how one views the Bible. And you know that all eyes will be on your denomination over the next few weeks. What do you do? Well, what the real leaders of the Episcopal Church did was to take an action that makes ordaining a homosexual man as a bishop almost a non-issue. They started promoting the worship of pagan deities!""Many scholars believe they were offerings to the goddess Asherah, the female counterpart to Baal, but in this context it may be more directly tied to Ishtar/Ashtoreth/Astarte, the 'Queen of Heaven'.""Our ancient sisters called you Queen of Heaven," says the Episcopal liturgy. That's a reference to Jeremiah. And not a happy one. In Jeremiah 7, God complains, "The children gather wood, the fathers kindle fire, and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the queen of heaven. And they pour out drink offerings to other gods, to provoke me to anger." The liturgy's reference to defiant women worshipping the Queen of Heaven with cakes comes directly from Jeremiah 44."Wrote Ted Olsen, "and now Episcopal Church leaders want you to do the same. Defy God. Worship pagan deities. There is no other possible reading of this "Eucharistic" text."The website also offered nine offerings, the second of which is the "Women's Eucharist." Another troubling entry is the Liturgy for Divorce, which includes a rite of divorce."This is not a joke, nor an overstatement. In all truth and seriousness, leaders of the Episcopal Church USA are promoting pagan rites to pagan deities. And not just any new pagan deities: The Episcopal Church USA, though its Office of Women's Ministries, is actually promoting the worship of idols specifically condemned in Scripture," wrote Olsen.Both Episcopal priests belong to The Order of Bards, Ovates, and Druids.The Rev. Bill Melnyk, a Druid priest who is also an Episcopal priest, serving in the Diocese of Pennsylvania included information at his website called "A Little Information Written by the Male Druid/Episcopal priest." The Episcopal priest who goes by the name OakWyse when he's a "Druid" or "Wiccan" priest, was so concerned that news about his activities had leaked out that he sent a frantic message appeared on the Druidry.org message board saying; "My Dear Friends—Raven, Glyn Lorraine Ruppe Melnyk, the Episcopal rector and author of the "Women's Eucharist" and I have come under vicious attack from Anglican fundamentalists re our connection to druidry. Hour by hour the attacks are spreading on fundamentalist BLOGs across the country. For our protection, we must end all internet connection as soon as possible. I ask Kernos to leave this one notice up for a day or two, but then to do a universal delete of all references to Druis. Please delete my membership. I cannot stress how serious this is. If you respond, please do not use my name in your response. I will not be posting again." It is signed Druis.Virtuosity also learned that Melnyk had been funding pagan Druid projects out of his Discretionary account which might be illegal.On a posting to a Druid website posted on Mon Aug 23, 2004 Melnyk wrote regarding White Spring, Glastonbury. "Plans are nearing completion for the purchase of the White Spring properties on the side of Glastonbury Tor, across Wellhouse Lane from the Chalice Well Gardens. Please go to http://www.avalonwhitespring.org/ for the initial information. I am now soliciting funds to aid in the purchase and development of the White Spring. A Trust will be available soon. Until then, donations can be sent to me and made payable to "Saint James Church" earmarked for "Rector's Discretionary Fund-White Spring". These donations are tax deductible. We are also looking for folks who would be willing to make larger, interest free loans to aid in the purchase. We are not home yet, but we are now very close to making this a reality!"Peace, DruisLate last night the link was taken off the worldwide web clearly working hard to erase his tracks.This is the organization that trained them according to his own words and it can be found here: http://druidry.org/ The OBOD Message Board Lughnasadh 2004 Eisteddfod Winners. The Druid Craft Tarot by Philip & Stephanie Carr-Gomm and Will Worthington. The following is a piece of another pagan ceremony written by Mr. Melnyk, AKA (OakWyse) for the Celtic fertility festival of Beltaine."Participants draw a warm bath prepared with Lavender bath salts, or scented with a sachet filled with Vervain,, Mint, Basil, Thyme, Fennel, Lavender, Rosemary, Hyssop, and Valerian. The bath should be decorated with white candles, and a musky incense used. Wash each other in the bath, taking time to become relaxed and centered. Then dry each other with soft towels and anoint each other with Lavender or Musk oil on the souls of the feet, behind the knees, just above the pubic area (be careful with essential oils here!), on the breasts, under the chin, and on the forehead. Dress in plain or ceremonial robes, or simple peasant garb that is easily removed. Each take a burning white taper from the bath for the procession to the Nemeton. (If there are more people than will fit in the bath, take turns stepping in and being washed ceremonially.)"As our ancestors once did, so we do today, and so our children will do in the future. We are here to pay homage to the divine as manifest in Boinn, Lady of Fertility, and to Bel, Lord of the Sun; to the Gods, to the Ancestors, and to the Earth Spirits; to the rising light of the year. Now is the time of fertility, when the flowering plants put forth their blossoms, and Mother Earth is fertile once again. Life is now awake, and the bees and butterflies travel from flower to flower. In the meadow come together the sire and the dam. This is the Feast of Beltaine, the Fires of Bell. As the Sun now burns brightly bringing warmth to Mother Earth, so warmth stirs in the loins, and the fires of joining burn again in the sexes. In the embrace of lovers new life is created. So let us join together as one to make our offerings in joy and reverence.Boinn, Cow-Mother and Goddess of the Moon, River of Life, grant us this boon: That power of joining may flow in us soon! AND THEN THIS:River Goddess, naked be!He removes her clothing, and caresses her body.They take some of the small wildflowers strewn about, and weave them into each other’s hair, on the head and in the pubic area.And they eventually end up doing it: The couple join in love-making on the mattress, taking whatever time is needed. (If there are more than one couple, appropriate actions agreed upon as a group beforehand now take place.)The Very Rev. G. Richard Lobs III, Dean of The Cathedral Church of Saint Luke in Orland told Virtuosity, "This is an immensely important story. The primary significance is not that there are two heretical priests, deep into the occult, in the Diocese of Pennsylvania. That is important but secondary. The significance lies in the fact that a culture has been created by the top leadership, within the National Episcopal Church, where the writing of pagan priests is welcome at the Women's Desk for "exploration." It is important to note that this place was not arrived at overnight. Where we are at present is the result of thirty-five years of downward sliding. There really is a slippery slope. This is not simply about two priests. It is about a once great denomination where it is permissible to offend the Almighty and in the most provocative ways to date."Peter Akinola, chairman of the Council of Anglican Provinces of Africa, has been saying that the Episcopal Church USA is "embroiled in a new religion which we cannot associate ourselves with."Responding to the charges Pennsylvania Bishop Charles E. Bennison said, "the accusations against two local priests that they are practicing druids and in violation of their ordination vows are extremely serious and merit further inquiries to establish the Facts. At the same time, it’s imperative to ensure that the Revs. Glyn Ruppe-Melnyk and William Melnyk are treated fairly and not victims of a “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” mentality, he said. “I am extremely concerned by the charges made against the Melnyks, yet I am also concerned about the reputations and pastoral needs of two priests who have contributed very positively to their parishes and this diocese for four years,” Bennison said. “I will not allow this situation to turn into a witch-hunt of any sort.” Bennison indicated that he is looking forward to communication with the lay leaders of St.- Francis-in-the-Fields, Sugartown, where Rev. Ruppe-Melnyk is rector and St. James’, Downingtown, where her husband serves. The Bishop said he thought it crucial during this process to hear the voices of those now served by the Melnyks.“The liturgy at the center of this unfortunate controversy was written years ago for study purposes for a small support group of women in a diocese where the priests previously served. Yet to be determined is the extent to which it represents the priests’ present views,” Bennison said. “The Melnyks assure me that it has never been used in liturgy or in their prayer life.”NOTE: If you are not receiving this from VIRTUOSITY, the Anglican Communion's largest biblically orthodox Episcopal/Anglican Online News Service, then you may subscribe FREE by going to: www.virtuosityonline.org. Virtuosity's website has been accessed by more than one million readers in 45 countries on six continents. This story is copyrighted but may be freely forwarded electronically with reference to VIRTUOSITY and the author. No changes are permitted in the text.

Episcopal Church, I Weep for Thee

2004-11-20T01:16:00.000-05:00

I have not posted much since the election, though delighted that President Bush has won, I immediately had other issues of the personal type on my mind. Personal, yet it also has a mirror in the current conflicts in America.

I am an Episcopal, and the current conflicts happening within my church is causing me great spiritiual pain. My first complete dissonence with the church came about because of the Iraq war. Prior to the war a statement was read in my church from the Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold. For those who do not understand how the Episcopal church works suffice it to say that Bishop Griswold is the top of the hierarchy for Episcopal church, the American branch of Anglicans.

The anti-war tone of the pastoral letter was very keen, and while I do not recall the exact wording of the letter, I recall the Bishop noting that the US should act only in step with the United Nations. I found the tone of the letter offense. The whole thing nearly caused me to get up and walk out of church. I would have found it much more appropriate for a pastoral letter to note the difficulty of Christians in going to war, to note the issues that great theologians have wrestled with regarding war from St. Augustine to Thomas Aquinas to Martin Luther. I would have not been offended had the Bishop requested we pray for the President to find guidence, as Episcopals we pray for our leaders every week as a matter of course, but during times of National stress those prayers take on ever more importance. At least to me. Later Bishop Griswold made other public pronouncements that only served to anger me even more. In an interview with a religious magazine he not only denounced the war, but also found it necessary to apologize for being an American as this country was so "hated and loathed" around the globe. Later, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury he described the war as immoral and illegal. Bishop Griswold complained about those who invoke God's name and assume bleesings on our acts, and noted he was deeply disturbed that some Christians are animated by notions of a God of vengence and retribution, and adopt simplistic views of good and evil.

While I was upset about the pastoral letter and Bishop Griswolds later and ongoing pronouncements, I separated what the National Church was saying or doing from what was going on in my particular parish. Unlike the Catholic church pronouncements from the Bishops can be taken or not in each individual parish and I felt fairly comfortable with my own St. Thomas. So we continued in our own particular parish and took a wait and see attiutude. It had been rare for us to miss a Sunday at church, but as time went on and we were more upset about what was coming out of Bishop Griswold's mouth we missed more and more Sundays.

The next note of discord appeared for me when Gene Robinson was chosen as Bishop to the Diocese of New Hampshire. For anyone not following what has been happening in the Episcopal church, Mr. Robinson is gay. But not simply a gay man. This is a Priest who left his wife to go live openly in a homosexual relationship while still a Priest of the Episcopal church. The relationship Mr. Robinson has with his gay lover continues. His ordination took place in August of 2003. To say I was uncomfortable with this is an understatement. Discussing it has been difficult because to say I was opposed to this automatically meant for some people that I was obviously a homophobic demon.

If the man were not a church leader the issue is one of privacy and not one of my concern. Moral issues have to be between each individual and God, I do not want them legislated and at the same time I do not expect church leaders to blantantly contradict the teachings of the church that rely not just on the bible but on some two thousand years of theology. It is not an issue that has to do with gay rights, ordaining and then consecrating a man who is living in a gay relationship is a church matter and not a privacy or rights issue. Yet, his consecration in November was not simply a church matter, it has become not only an issue of deep contention in the church, it has national implications for the country. The Canadian Anglican church has their liberal end which are blessing same sex unions as do areas of the American Episcopal church.

There are now liberal leaders of the Anglican church of which America is only a very small part of, that believe by ordaining and consecrating a gay man in an ongoing gay relationship and the blessing of same sex relationships as the next step in fighting for various rights for various people. They intend not only to make all this an issue within their church, they intend to make it an issue for all of the societies in which they are active. An active liberal part of the Episcopal church are determined to make gay marriage legal despite the majority of America not considering that as appropriate. How do I know this? How am I so sure of this? Because when a ballot proposel was on my state's election schedule Nov. 2 that would make marriage between one man and one woman, at least 4 Bishops in my state very publically requested Episcopals to vote against it. They were on NPR doing so. I heard that on my way home from work one day.

That was in October. The following Sunday ended up being the last time my family would go to church at St. Thomas. I was disturbed by the Bishops appeal, not only because I consider it wrong, but because I do not want my church to be actively involved in the legislative process like this on what so many believe is a moral issue, not one of rights. We had not been in church for probably 2 months when we attended that Sunday, and part of my intent on attending that day was because I wanted to specifically speak to my priest about this. I needed to hear from that priest exactly what the thought process of St. Thomas was on this issue.

I had worked the night before so I was quite tired but determined that I was going to get some answers from my priest. Instead I heard a sermon that prompted me to lean over and whisper to my husband, "Jesus was NOT a socialist!" and during announcements I found out that the League of Women Voters were going to be in the Parish hall to register people to vote. What? My church has very few young people of an age that they would not have registered to vote for one, next again I simply do not believe that type of activity belongs in church. Yet, determined to have a private word with my priest I headed to the Parish hall after services anyway. At the doorway a young man thrust a paper into my hand, even though it seemed clear to me that I was attempting to walk by him and ignore his offering. I glanced at the paper and thrust it right back at him and said "I do not need a young man who is the age of my son telling me how important it is to vote, I have not missed voting since I registered at age 18, but thanks anyway." I was so irritated by this that I simply turned around and told my husband and children I preferred to leave.

I chewed on this for about a week, trying to decide what exactly I wanted to do and how. Then came the long awaited Windsor report. This is a report from the Lambeth commission that was to make a pronoucement on how the church would proceed concerning the consecration of Gene Robinson and the issue of some churches blessing same sex relationships. The vast majority of the Anglican Communion is against this activity, and it also contradicts the previous General Convention pronouncements. It happened that I was up late that night, not an uncommon occurance because I work nights and have trouble sleeping on a normal schedule. So I started reading the news announcements which basicly stated the American Bishops who had participated in the consecration needed to "apologize" as did those participating in same sex blessings, but it stopped far short of stating it was wrong and would not be tolerated. As I read the news on it I sat in front of my computer and cried. I cried because the report also notes that if those involved in activities that were against the teachings of the church' against the majority of orthodox Anglicans than the choice would likely be "to walk apart". There it was, in black and white, that the church that had survived 500 years was likely to break apart. It also was in black and white that all American Episcopals would also have to choose whether to continue to walk with the direction the church was going, or choose to walk apart as well. Because about half of the leadership of the American Episcopal church is on the liberal side of this divide it meant in effect that various parishes will either stay with the ECUSA or leave for the newly formed American Anglican Council that is orthodox, and by extension each member of the Episcopal parishes would have to choose to stay with their church or not depending on which group their parish would decide to go with. And it would be wrong to believe a parish may simply opt to take their church and leave the ECUSA. I won't get into all the legal specifics of it, suffice it to say that it is not a simple matter.

For me this meant that it was imperative that I speak personally with a Priest from my parish. I sat up that night writing a long, difficult letter to one of my Priests and requested he either call me or email back so we could set up a time to meet and talk things over. A couple days later I heard from him and we set up a time. In the intervening days I came down with a nasty upper respirtory infection and called the church to let him know I could not make the meeting and to get ahold of me to reschedule.

That was a Thursday. My intent had been to get back with him on Monday if I did not hear from him before that. Instead something occured that made me understand in a very visible manner that it would be impossible for me and my family to continue to go to St. Thomas.

That Monday morning my dad (stepdad) stopped by the house. He handed me a brochure and asked "Isn't this your church?" I took a glance at it and noticed it said "The Belles of St. Mary" and told him no, we go to St. Thomas. My dad requested that I really look at what was in my hand, so I looked at it again, and when I actually really looked I could have been knocked over by a feather.

On the front of the brochure was the Belles of St. Mary, in nearly all their glory. When I had simply glanced at the brochure it did not really come into my head that the Belles of St. Mary was the womens' group at St. Thomas, but on closer inspection of the brochure one could not miss it. 14 naked women sat in the back lit pews of St. Thomas, all women I know. Each is situated in the pews of the Sanctuary just so that while they have no shirt on, the nipples of their breasts are behind the pew. It was so shocking and inappropriate that I could not even form words. When I recovered the ability to speak the first thing out of my mouth was "Holy mother of Jesus" to which my dad said "I don't think Holy has anything to do with it."

The brochure is an advertisement for a calendar. I knew that the womens group was putting together a calender to raise money for the steeple that had been hit by lightening in July of this year and had caught on fire and I had even read announcements in the weekly church brochures for the "calendar girls" but chalk it up to lack of attendence that I did not realize they meant real calender girls. The money is also supposed to go to research for breast cancer. The reason to put out a calendar that had naked women from my church, taken in my church, mattered not to me. I can find no good reason for this to occur. When I opened up the brochure there was Ms. September. A woman I know not only from church, but as a medical assistant to one of the physicians I had known and worked with for years. Susan is completely naked, with a couple items in her hands held stategically to cover her nipples and herself turned just so that her "business" is not on full view. However tastefully done, it could have been a picture in Playboy except for the fact that is was a 60 something year old grandmother. While I spit and sputtered and murmered incoherant sentences it occured to me that perhaps the steeple had been hit by lightening for a reason. And it surely wasn't so that grandmothers and greatgrandmothers would take off their cloths and have their pictures taken.

I cannot even put into words how offensive and inappropriate I found this all to be. I then sat down and fired off an email to both Priests of St. Thomas and told them that my family would no longer be attending St. Thomas and exactly why.

Since then, I have alternately raged and wept. I am an orphan now. The church that my children were baptised in, that my oldest confirmed in and in which I expected my other two children to confirm in had rotted to it's core. The church I expected to see my children married in, to see grandchildren baptised in and the church I expected to have my and my husbands funeral in was no longer available to me. Not because of anything I or my family had done, but because of the lack of moral compass that I expect a church to have. I had been let down and pushed out of my church.

The American Anglican Council, the new orthodox branch, is fairly new, and there are only three churches in my state that have affliated with it at this time. None of which are anywhere near me. I do not want to go "church shopping" I know I will never feel comfortable in a "bible" church. My husband was raised a Baptist and for him that is a tradition he could return to easily. Not so myself. I am about as uncomfortable as can be in a church that does not have a traditional altar, that has bands playing on what I consider should be an altar. I don't want comtempary Christian music though I like to listen to it, just not in service. I am not comfortable in a tradition that people swing their arms and yell out Amen! I do not believe churches like that are wrong, but for me they do not give to me the spirituality that I long for. I grew up mainline Protestant and wish to remain mainline Protestant.

The problem though, is that for the most part mainline Protestant churches have become the abode of those who are just like the ones who are leading the Episcopal church. I have a dear friend who recently left the Methodist church for the same reasons as I left my church. Though at least her church didn't have naked women in the pews. One of her issues was that what would be termed preChristian pagan rites seem to have crept into the Methodist church as well as openly gay pastors of both sexes. By that I mean gay people who are openly living in a gay relationship while ministering to a flock. To my chagrin there are two PA Episcopal Priests that were recently caught as Priests in a Druidic cult as well, a married couple. The women also wrote a "eurcharist" for women that is straight out of the Druidic cult they were involved in, which ended up on the official Epicsopal womens site. But that is another post, call it chapter two to this one. I found this out after I had officially left St. Thomas, yet because I still consider myself an Episcopal it pains me deeply.

It seems to not matter which mainline Protestant church one looks it, it seems the insane have taken over. In their wish to makeover society to their own liking they have taken secular social issues into the church and twisted Christian teachings for their own aims. When it is objected to, then those who are steering their churches this way become indignant and accuse me and others like me as hate filled and clearly not a "true" Christian. Because I want my church to remain orthodox and true to the "faith delivered" by the clear tenats of the bible I am somehow awful, hate filled, homophopic, simplisitic and idiotic. Taking that one step further I am also a bad American. Since I will not go along with an agenda that it's proponents believe will lead to the "full rights" of gays and lesbians, as if this issue is also not laden with moralistic overtones that the church has traditionally upheld, I am un-American because I am denying "rights" to a minority.

It is as if by simply wishing the church to stand by 2000 years of bibically based teaching, I am now advocating the rounding up and placing into concentration camps all those who term themselves gay, lesbian and transgendered. Or maybe I am just advocating standing them up against a wall and shooting them. Why can't it simply be an issue that I believe people should be free to live their lives the way they want, between them and God if they believe in God, without the imposition of secular values into my church life? If I cannot seek solace and grace away from secular society in my own church where in God's name can I? Why can I not have just that one corner of a Christian life? Just one little corner where I do not have to turn the channel, turn off the radio and am allowed to practice the Christian religion as it has been practiced for 2000 years.

I have been forced back and forced back on issues that I believe deeply in. I have done all that has been asked of me. I have turned the TV channel. I have turned off offensive programing, I have banned certain movies and music in my home, I have diligently taught my children to respect ALL people regardless of color, religion and sexual orientation. I have taught my children the values of my morality while teaching them to respect others because I don't think there is a perfect path to God. I have taught them that people have a right to believe in no God if that is right for them. I have taught my children the value of education, of hard work, of personal responsiblity. I have taught my children charity and humility. I have taught my children the value of learning about other cultures, as well as the culture of their own family roots. And yet, now I find that I cannot even have what I consider the last fort against the sometimes overwhelming pressure on children to leave the morals taught to them for the fleeting and sometimes dangerous behaviors of the secular world.

I have been forced to the pinnacle and now I say not one more damn step am I willing to go. I am not an idiot as so many on the left side of the political divide call me. I am none of the names they call like kindergartners in a sandbox. I am no longer willing to have my values and morals denigrated. And that is what the left does not understand. It is not simply that I do not want a gay Bishop, it is not simply that I don't believe in gay marriage, though the other side seems to think the gay issue is what put Bush over the top in terms of getting out the vote from his base. The truth is that is not the issue. The issue is that while I have spent nearly 21 years teaching my own children to have respect for others views and beliefs, and to simply turn away from those things that are not the values and morals of ourselves, I find the other side is not willing to do the same for me and mine.

Just one little corner was all I asked for, and I couldn't even have that.

Red

UPDATE: This article has been linked in many places, and I have received a great outpouring of support. To all who wrote to me thank you ever so much.
Many write to tell me what solutions there may be for the dilemma of a church, I would like to let all know that we were able to find a traditional Anglican church not far from our home. A small church of those who have chosen to leave the path the ECUSA is on. I found it by doing an internet search for Episcopal/Anglican churches in my area. The church is an Independent Anglican Church under the United Episcopal Church of North America. The only like church in my state. It was a blessing to be able to find it, and to also find that the Rector is an elementary teacher and floor hockey ref that both of my older children had in school, as well as knowing him through playing floor hockey. We were able to celebrate Christmas Eve there when previously I had dispared of having that important part of our family Christian life this year.
Many members at the church have come from St. Thomas, the Rector and his wife were married at St. Thomas many years ago. Again it is a blessing to be with others who understand. Thank you again all who have offered so much support and prayers.
I also wished to address a couple things that have come up from other blogs through comments sections.
The calendar, marketed as raising funds for breast cancer research, in reality also went to repair the steeple of the church which was hit by lightening in May 2004. 10% of the profits go to breast cancer research. The calendar costs $15 so one dollar and fifty cents from each sale goes to research. The vast majority of the money stays within the church.
Next, when we choose to leave the church I wrote a letter through email to both the Rector and the Assistant Rector, both had basicly the same things that are in this article. Mother Joy the Rector, never bothered to write back or attempt to contact this family at all. Father Chris, the assistant Rector wrote a brief note telling me there were two sides to everything and if I wished to I could contact him.
A couple people who thought I was a bit too unitarian in bringing up my children to be tolerant of other faiths and beliefs suggested that I do a bit of bible study with the Baptists. I had to chuckle at that one because first of all my husband was brought up in the Baptist faith, his grandfather was a Baptist minister, as are a couple uncles. My own great grandfather was a minister and assisted starting the Freewill Baptist church in Hannon Missouri oh so many years ago. As a Registered Nurse I work with and treat a great many people of various faiths. It is imperative in my work that I have a decent working knowledge of other faiths in order to appropriately treat my patients. One of the questions on any admission is to ask a patient if they have any religious or cultural values that we need to be aware of that would affect their treatment, such as faiths that do not accept blood. Understanding and being aware of others faith is simply endemic to the healthcare field. A dear friend of mine who is a physician who happens to be a Hindu from India nonetheless took his family to see "The Passion of the Christ". He believes it to be important for his children to see all sides of religion. We have had many conversations on religion, and while there are points that we do not agree on, we can still care about and respect one another. The ability to do this in America is one of the things that make us so unique, it is a strength of this country, not a weakness.
Thank you all for taking the time to read though this.

The Last Battle of Vietnam

2004-11-14T02:53:00.000-05:00

The Last Battle of Vietnam

It never occurred to me, ever before,
That our Navy would win the Vietnam War.
When they took to their boats in this year of elections,
With the mission of making some major corrections
I shared their belief, John should not be elected,
And their view overdue, truth should be resurrected.
Yet I questioned the course they’d set themselves for,
Knowing how John was loved by the media whore.

Ignored and dismissed by the media queens
Being shrewd, savvy sailors they still found the means
To reach out to the people, to open their eyes
To a phony John Kerry and his war story lies.
With their very first ad, they torpedoed his boat,
A Cambodian Christmas would no longer float.
His heroics unraveled, his stories fell flat,
Especially that one ‘bout his magical hat.

John called on his lawyers and media whores,
And threatened the Swiftees with vile legal wars.
But these warriors kept charging back into the fire,
And made the folks wonder, “Is Kerry a Liar?”
Till the question of whether he’s telling the truth
Was still in their minds in the election day booth.
So the brave Swiftees gave us what we’d not had before,
They gave us our victory in the Vietnam War.

Those brave, stalwart sailors, falsely labeled as liars,
Stood firm and stood tall, kept directing their fires,
Steadfast, unrelenting, they served once again,
And defeated John Kerry, these honorable men.
All Vets can take pride, yes all, not just some,
That we won the last battle of Vietnam.
It took far too long to bring an end to our war
But we did, November Second, Two Thousand Four.

To our Brothers, forever on that long black Wall,
You’ve been vindicated now, one and all.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

As always I would like to thank Russ for his words.

Swift Justice by Russ Vaughn

2004-11-14T02:45:00.000-05:00

SWIFT JUSTICE

Bold John sailed forth in his faux scow,
Till the Swiftees fired across his bow;
And legions of irate attorneys,
Could not defend Cambodian journeys,
Nor stories of his fabled hat,
So voters sensed they smelled a rat.
And while the networks denied them prime,
The Swiftees surely got their time.

While John screamed it was all a smear,
O’Neill came across sincere,
And forced Big John to duck the press,
To run, to hide from his specious mess.
But relentless those old Swiftee guys,
They bit, hung on, exposed his lies.
These brave old warriors once again
Stood for their country, for their kin.

They made us all look one more time
At the traitor who’d charged them with crime,
And gave false witness to their deeds
For nothing more than political needs.
It’s a smear proclaimed the New York Times
Those liars all committed crimes.
Chris Matthews raged, foamed at the mouth,
Still the turncoat’s campaign headed south.

So the Swiftboat Veterans’ charges stuck
And made poor John a sitting duck.
He had no answers, no glib replies,
To cover up his treasonous lies;
That made us think, our minds aware,
The Swiftees had some truth in there;
What if he’d faked his combat valor,
Were all those medals tinged with pallor?

Dan Rather would not pay them heed,
But still the Swiftees made John bleed.
The mainstream pundits called them liars;
But no lefty slant could staunch these fires.
The blazes that these Swiftees set
Were burning John Boy’s ass you bet;
And those Swiftboat fires just burned away
Till they fried John’s ass on election day.

Now all you heroes on that Wall
Take solace seeing Kerry fall.
This scheming pol who stained your name
Has been denied his claim to fame.
The Swiftees stood and did their best,
Denied the traitor his life’s quest.
You can rest in peace our honored kin
Your honor restored by honorable men.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne DivisionVietnam 65-66

Vietnam Vets Veterans Day, by Russ Vaughn

2004-11-06T10:24:00.000-05:00

Before I post this fantastic poem by Mr. Vaughn I wish to first apologize for not getting it up earlier, for some reason I was getting an error reading when I was trying to post the last couple days. Thought it was perhaps due to the amount of traffic blogspot was getting following the election.

Their Veterans’ Day

Some said let you apologize
But that wouldn’t do it in our eyes.
A man astride of each position
Could we believe your true contrition?
And on deaf ears your words would fall
To those whose names are on that Wall
The vindication they now accept
In settling up this long-held debt,
Is that for them we gave our best
And denied you, John, your lifelong quest.
We fought for them, fought for our own,
To make you reap what you had sown.
Listen carefully John to what we say,
November 2d was their Veterans’ Day.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

Full Transcript of bin Laden tape

2004-11-01T16:36:00.000-05:00

Read it and wonder why this has to come from Al Jazeera. Why has MSM in America not managed to get this out to Americans. Think on that hard.

Red

Update: Here is a very good analysis from Winds of Change. It's long but worth the read as it takes into consideration translation from MEMRI, BBC and Al Jazerra. http://windsofchange.net/archives/005824.php

For the First Time in My Adult Life

2004-11-01T14:31:00.000-05:00

I will be voting a straight Republican ticket. I have always been that swing voter the media talks about, but this time around and maybe for a very long time the democrats have lost me.

John Kerry is the epitomy of everything about the democratic party I despise. The navel gazing, old hippy. The inability to put what is necessary for the country above own personal wants. He is the epitomy of the part of the generation that is selfish, that see those who believe in Christianity and those values as little more than deluded idiots. The part of a generation who couldn't simply change what needed to be changed, but felt it necessary to attempt to bring down everything good along with it. The epitomy of the part of America who sincerely believe the foundering fathers really are just dead white guys. The epitomy of those who think displaying the flag is akin to believing in colonalism. The epitomy of the generation who rioted and smashed institutions in their drive to right wrongs, unable to see the complete damage they were doing to the things that were good and right about this country, and those who never came out of those times. He is part of the country who put forward and still believe that everyone is a victim somehow, unless your white and male. And particularly if your white and male and Christian. The generation who brought us the idea that everything can and should be fixed by the Federal Government, and esque the idea of personal responsiblity.

I can't think of a worse candidate for President, and even more so at this particular juncture in our history. He is everything that I despise about the 60's era, and I don't mean just the 60's itself, but that era that encompasses the riots, the "peace in's" and teach in's and feel good bullshit. The era that brought such turbulance to this country that we are still dealing with the aftershocks today. The radical left still lives, and what a shame that is.

I won't belabor my point further, I just know that if this is the best the democratic party can give us, I will not vote for one democrat this year and likely will not for years if ever.

Red

Deconstructing bin Laden Videotape

2004-10-29T22:43:00.000-04:00

Oh American people, my talk to you is about the best way to avoid another Manhattan, about the war, its causes, and results.
bin Laden will now save the left from the trouble of trying to figure out why he hates us.
Security is an important pillar of human life. Free people do not relinquish their security. This is contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.
Yes, security is an important pillar of human life, and a free people will not relinquish their security, that is why we chased you and your minions from Afganistan. The only contrary claim here is that you believe in freedom.
Let him tell us why we did not strike Sweden, for example. It is known that those who hate freedom do not have proud souls, like the souls of the 19 people [killed while perpetrating the 11 September 2001 attacks], may God have mercy on them.
Sweden and America, now that is a good analogy. Those who hate freedom and deliberately mass murder civilians never expecting an attack are not proud souls, and God will not have mercy upon them. They are screaming in hell.
We fought you because we are free and do not accept injustice. We want to restore freedom to our nation. Just as you waste our security, we will waste your security.
What nation would that be? It is clear here that bin Laden is not referring to any individual country, he is referring instead to a "Nation of Islam" Of course that would mean his version of Islam where only the most strict interpetation of Shai'a law is acceptable. And just how did we "waste their security"? By helping the Mujahideen fight the Soviets? By stopping Saddam from making Kuwait part of Iraq and stopping him from threatening Saudi Arabia? By protecting and stopping genocide of Muslims in the Balkans? I am most confused about this.
I am amazed at you. Although almost four years have passed since the [11 September] incidents, Bush is still practising distortion and confusion.
Oh, now we are going to get to the heart of the matter.
He also continues to conceal from you the real reason [for the 11 September attacks]. Thus, the motives still exist for repeating what happened.
Oops I was wrong, he is not going to really tell us anything, the left can continue to tie themselves into knots about the why of it all, and while their at it still blame Bush. It's really a Bush conspiracy.
I will speak to you about the reasons behind these incidents. I will honestly tell you about the minutes in which the decision was made so that you will consider. I say to you that God knows that the idea of striking the towers never occurred to us.
Really? Never thought about striking the WTC until 2001? What about 1993?
Your security is in your own hands
You bet your ass it is.
But, after things had gone too far and we saw the injustice of the US-Israeli alliance against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, I started thinking of that.
Ok, the thought to cause mass murder goes back many, many years. It didn't just start in 2001. I'm shocked, simply shocked! And I am simply shocked that it has something to do with Israel.
The events that influenced me directly trace back to 1982 and subsequent events when the United States gave permission to the Israelis to invade Lebanon, with the aid of the sixth US fleet.
Not a word about what else was going on in 1982, when the US was assisting the Afgan Mujahideen. Apparently the great evil of the US is not in intervening, it is only with intervening on the side of Israel.
At those difficult moments, many meanings that are hard to describe went on in my mind. However, these meanings produced an overwhelming feeling to reject injustice and generated a strong determination to punish the unjust ones.
Again, the feelings of injustice was created by the US supporting Israel at a time when they were being bombed from inside the borders of Lebanon. Let us not forget that it was primarily the PLO that did this, after having been allowed to stay in Lebanon after the Israeli's withdrew in 1978, under pressure from then President Carter. A UN force was then put in place to enforce "peace" and a fat lot of good that did. While the American government condemned both the PLO and Israel for the continuing conflict, the UN in general only condemned Israel. In 1981 the US under President Reagan assisted in negotiating a cease fire, which the PLO repeatedly violated. The final provocation for Israel occured when a terrorist group led by Abu Nidal attempted to assasinate Shlomo Argov, Ambassador to Great Britian. The following two days the IDF attacked ammuniation dumps and PLO bases in Beurit. The PLO then began massive shelling of the civilian population of Galilee. It was this shelling that prompted the full scale invasion of Lebanon. If bin Laden is right at all, it that security of your people should be the most important thing a government does, the Israeli government did what should be expected of them. And just as a post script where was it Abu Nidal was eventually found? That would be Iraq.
While I was looking at those destroyed towers in Lebanon, it occurred to me to punish the unjust one in a similar manner by destroying towers in the United States so that it would feel some of what we felt and to be deterred from killing our children and women...
I'm getting it even better. Only the deaths of Muslim women and children is wrong. It is perfectly acceptable to murder Israeli women and children. And somehow this madman thought that if he attacked US women and children we would be deterred from assisting Israel or in protecting ourselves. I can't help but note that he has a point. Prior to 9/11 this country had repeatedly shied from confronting the type of terrorism that has been the hallmark of Islamic fanatics, even when they bombed sleeping Marines, killed our Marines when we attempted to intervene in a Civil War so people would quit being starved to death, when our citizens were being kidnapped, when citizens of this country were held for 444 days or even when a US official was assasinated. Prior to 9/11 all indications were that if the US was attacked we would roll over and die.
We did not find it difficult to deal with Bush and his administration, because it is similar to regimes in our countries, half of which are governed by the military and the other half of which are governed by the sons of kings and presidents; and we have a long experience with them.
Flash to Michael Moore's movie, in which the Bush family is complicant with the House of Saud. It is not a large leap here to understand what it is that bin Laden is attempting to feed the American people, he is whispering in our ear Michael Moore is right.
In both categories, you find many who are characterised by hubris, arrogance, greed, and unlawful acquisition of money. This similarity transpired since Bush Senior's visit to the region.
Oh God, the Bush's have been infected by the despots of the Middle East! Just ask Michael Moore, as he draws a link between the despotic House of Saud and the Bush family. Their really part of a conspiracy to defraud the American people, and of course the people's of the Middle East, who really just wish to live in peace if only that pesky Israel and it's pesky Jews would go away.
While some of our people were dazzled by the United States and hoped that these visits would affect our countries, he, instead, was affected by these royal and military regimes, envying them for remaining in their posts for scores of years, embezzling public money without being held accountable or monitored.
You mean there are people in the Middle East who thought that the US could positively impact the region with our beliefs. No way! But it just didn't work out that way darn it, instead the Bush's became like the despots of the Middle East. See above.
Accordingly, he transferred dictatorship and the repression of freedoms to his son by introducing the Patriot Act under the pretext of fighting terrorism.
The election was stolen! I hear Democratic talking points here, with a bit of a twist. Bush I stole the election for his son, and somehow introduced the Patriot Act while he wasn't in the government, and this was done to assure his son could be a real dictator. And of course this was done under the pretext of fighting terrorism, which apparently doesn't actually exist. bin Laden is trying to use Democratic talking points but just doesn't quite get the context right.
Bush Senior deemed it appropriate to assign his sons to states. He also did not forget to convey the [election] rigging experience from the leaders of the [Arab] region to Florida to benefit from it at critical times...
The Democrats have it wrong, it was not Bush II who stole the election, it was Bush I who learned how to do these things by absorbing the way the despots of the Middle East do things. And Bush I didn't just manage to steal the Presidental election, he managed to steal the elections of two Govenor races in Texas and Florida so he could make sure and place his two son's into government. When the number one wanted terrorist sounds eerily like the Democratic party something is seriously wrong.
We had agreed with the chief amir [leader - of the 11 September hijackers] Mohammed Atta that he should accomplish all the operations within 20 minutes before Bush and his administration could take notice.
20 minutes? Um, right. Or maybe they figured they could simply kill him or top administration figures first. It's hard to figure out what is happening when your dead.
It never occurred to us that the supreme commander of the US armed forces would leave 50,000 of his citizens in the two towers to face those great horrors alone, at a time when they needed him badly.
Oh goody, more Democratic talking points! And shades of Michael Moore! The US was being attacked and the dumb President gave them even more time! What a moron, how stupid can one man be? Americans turn from Bush, he gave the terrorists more time!
This is because it seemed to him that being preoccupied with the little child's talk about her goat and its butting was more important than being preoccupied with the planes and their ramming into the skyscrapers.
Calling Michael Moore, your propaganda is being used by the worlds most wanted terrorist! You stupid ass.
This gave with three times the period required for carrying out the operations, praise be to God.
Again, it's really all Bush's fault. Those few minutes of finishing a book so he didn't scare the piss out of a bunch of kids gave the terrorists 60 minutes to complete their killings, instead of only 20 minutes. Once again yelling for Michael Moore, come see your good works Micky.
Your security does not lie in the hands of Kerry, Bush, or al-Qaeda. Your security is in your own hands. Each and every state that does not tamper with our security will have automatically assured its own security.
bin Laden now assures us that even though he just lifted pieces from Michael Moore and the Democratic talking points it really doesn't matter who is President, and al Qaeda doesn't really matter either. The American people simply have to abandon Israel and not fight back against terrorism. Give the terrorists what they want and they will leave us alone. Of course that means total surrender but what of it? Sounds like the liberal left loonies, no wonder bin Laden lifted all their talking points.

Red

Russ Vaughn asks us "The Question"

2004-10-29T22:42:00.000-04:00

The Question

The question you must ask yourself
As you head off to your poll,
Is who you trust to lead us now
That survival is our goal.
We tread the path of Jihad’s wrath,
Where misstep could spell doom,
And future times of horrid climes,
In Holocaust’s gray gloom.

What then again I’ll ask of you,
Should be our true agendas,
Privilege and prosperity
Or ways to best defend us?
Affluence won’t concern us much,
Other problems will confound us,
When our cities lie in smoking ruins,
With destruction all around us.

What sort of man I ask you now
Do we really want to lead us?
A nuanced pol, who talks and talks,
While Jihadis grimly bleed us?
Or a fighter, who will walk the walk,
Take the battle to them there,
Force their hand and make them stand,
Destroy them in their lair?

This veteran says let’s fight them there;
Lure all those fanatic fools,
To where they face armed fighting men,
Not children in their schools.
I know how I shall vote this time,
I’ll vote to win this war;
Not to let John Kerry lose it,
As he did mine long before.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

No Mourning for Mainstream

2004-10-29T22:36:00.000-04:00

A new wonderful poem from Russ Vaughn.

No Mourning for Mainstream

Ah, once so grand you owned this land,
With your wisdom you did ply us,
Until old dears this election year,
You at last unmasked your bias.
Yes, once were you our only view,
No challenge did you face.
You had your say and called the play,
‘Til the Blogs got in the race.

We’d like to see fair honesty
But our breath now we’re not holding
Because we know how really low
Are the odds of that unfolding
So what is left when we’re bereft
Of hearing truth from you?
We’ll place our bet on the Bloggers’ net
To let the truth come through.

That pajama’d host really wants to roast
Your assets that’s for certain.
To debunk the myth of your monolith,
On your act to drop the curtain.
Alas old dears, you’re done we fear,
Your dynasties doomed to tatters,
And ‘tween the coasts your opinions toast,
About anything that matters.

Russ Vaughn

The entire Stolen Honor video online

2004-10-23T03:24:00.000-04:00

The video Kerry and his mouthpieces are desperate for you not to see. I am emailing the link to as many as I can that I know still plan on voting for Kerry. I urge everyone to do the same, buy the video or whatever you can do to get this out to as many people as possible.

Red

Organization of Islamic Conference

2004-10-22T22:48:00.000-04:00

9. The Conference commended with pride the resistance of the valiant Palestinian people and their legitimate leadership headed by gallant President Yasser Arafat against Israeli aggression. It called for an immediate end to the siege imposed on the Palestinian people and President Yasser Arafat so that they can move freely in and out of the Palestinian territories. It condemned recent Israeli threats on President Arafat’s life and reaffirmed its continued political, financial and moral support for the Palestinian people so that they can regain their inalienable national rights, including the right of return, self-determination and an independent Palestinian State with Al-Quds Sharif as its capital.

Al-Quds Sharif-And what place is this? It is of course Jerusalum. Some background on why the Muslims call Jerusalem by another name and to highlight that no matter how you cut it Modern current Islam is all about moving backwards several centuries.

In the year 72 of the Hijra(Muslim calender) or 691 CE Abd al-Malik, Umayyad caliph from 685-705, built the Dome of the Rock. The Dome of the Rock, along with the adjoining building Aqsa Mosque was the first great religious building in the history of Islam. Under Caliph Abd-al Malik a process that Arabic historians call organization and adjustment began. At first glance it may seem odd the first great religious building in Islam was done in Jerusalem, but a deeper look into the culture and religion finds a potent religious and political statement.

Jerusalem is the most sacred city on earth to both Judaism and Christianity, and the choice of this city for the first great religious shrine in Islam is significant. Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Qur'an. Even the name Jerusalem is not in early Islamic writings, when it is mentioned it is called Aelia, the name the Romans imposed on the city after destroying the city and the temple in the last Jewish war, in an effort to desacralize the city for Judaism. The site chosen for the Dome of the Rock is over the Temple Mount, the scene of major events in both Judaism and Christianity. The actual spot on the rock, which according to rabbanic tradition, Abraham was prepared to sacrifice his son Isaac. And in later times the Ark of the temple rested.

In essence the building of the Dome of the Rock over these sacred sites of both Judaism and Christianity declares Islam as the final dispensation. This was not a new phenomonom, various religions throughout humanity have done the same, as a very visible means of replacing old Gods with the new. The express purpose of building on this site is reinforced by the Qur'anic and other inscriptions that decorate the inside. One verse occurs over and over again. 'God is one, without partner, without companion. Other inscriptions continue in the same vein.
'Praise be to God, who begets no son, and has no partner in [his] dominion; nor [needs] he any to protect him from humiliation: yes, magnify him for his greatness and glory!.
'He is God, one, eternal. He does not beget, nor is he begotten, and he has no peer.'
'God bears witness that there is no God but he, and so too the angels, those who possess knowledge, and stand firm in justice. There is no God but he, the omnipotent, the omniscient. God's religion is Islam...Let whoever disbelieves in the signs of God beware, for God is swift in his reckoning.'

By building the Dome of the Rock shrine over the most sacred sites in Judiasm and some of the most in Christianity Abd al-Malik asserts the primacy of Islam over both of these religions, as well as the idea that Islam is the descendent of both, but the "corrected" version.

For awhile after the Dome of the Rock was built Jerusalem was called Bayt al-Maqdis, related to the Hebrew Bayt ha-Miqdash the Bibical name of the Temple. In time both this name and the Roman name Aelia were replaced by the name al-Quds, 'the city of holiness'. A Qur'anic verse (17:1) tells how God took the Prophet on a journey by night from the sacred mosque(in Mecca) to the farthest mosque. One early tradition places 'the farthest mosque' in heaven. Another places it in Jerusalem. It is notable that while the later tradition has become the accepted one among Muslims this verse is not in the Dome of the Rock, and other early traditions denied this event took place in Jerusalem. The Al Aqsa (the furthermost) Mosque, neighbor to the Dome, is the site Muslims believe the Prophet ascended into Heaven. It was built after the Dome of the Rock in 715. It is the third most holy site in Islam. For further information on this please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa_Mosque It is telling that in regards to the idea that Jerusalem being holy to Islam prior to the building of the Dome of the Rock and Al Aqua, to realize that in the beginning of Islam the Prophet directed adherents to pray towards Jerusalem, but when the Hebrews did not convert to Islam that directive was changed to praying towards Mecca. To even the most casual it should be apparent that Jerusalem was quite literally turned away from, and only became important when it was politically necessary.

In other ways the time of Abd al-Malik and the building of the Dome of the Rock was a time in which Islam rose to prominence over the old Roman empire and the old Persian empire. The Dome is a visible reminder of that. An assertion of the new power player. So the Dome of the Rock is both a political and a religious statement.

The continued use of the name Al-Quds Sharif instead of Jerusalem continues the belief of Muslims that Islam is the last word of God and that Judiasm and Christianity were errors of belief corrected by the prophet Muhammed. In today's world the use of Jerusalem and the Palastinines is just as political and just as politically religious as it was 1,300 years ago. It is a wedge issue intended to rally the troops of Islam, as well as an overt way to denigrate the religious traditions of the other great monotheist religions.

I can't help but wonder how Muslims would feel if the Chrisitan world took to calling Istanbul by it's prior name under the Byzantine Christians-Constantinople. Then include Christians throuhout the world demanding that the Turks turn the Hague Sophia back into a church. Also known by it's other name St. Sophia, it was one of the great achievements of Eastern (Greek)Christianity. Originally built by Constantine the Great, it was burned twice and rebuilt gloriously in 530 by Emperor Justinian, it was later looted by the Western (Latin) Christians, a shameful episode for Christianity. Later after the Muslim Ottoman Turks conquered Constantinople they added four minarets to it and turned it into a Mosque. Today it is neither a Mosque or a Church, it is a museum. Simply an aside it is interesting to note to me anyway, that Hague Sophia was built atop an older temple. The site was originally a temple to Apollo. I note that simply to highlight again, that throughout history it was quite normal for the victor to build overtop of the loser's religious sites with their own religious building. Always it was done as a political and religious statement, and it is worth understanding that in times past the religious and political were not separated as they are in today's World, well at least in our part of the world anyway.

While Western Christianity has matured and been able to make that separation through first the Reformation and then the Enlightment, not to mention the deaths of millions of people through those struggles, Islam has not been able to achieve that crucial distinction. And thus we come to the crux of the matter and the refusal to call Jerusalem by it's proper name. Right now in terms of terrorism and those speaking for Islam be that verbally or by blowing up whoever is handy, the simple statement of Al Quds Sharif instead of Jerusalem should make us sit up and take notice. It is a complete rejection of compromise in terms of religion and politics.

It is a centuries old belief that Islam is the last true religion and two others it was built upon are relegated to the dustbin of history as far as the adherents of Islam are concerned, and the forces at work today will not stop or rest until they make that a reality. And yet somehow John Kerry thinks he can have a summitt with people who do not want to make a compromise, who are not interested in allowing religions to co-exist except under the old concept of dhimma, in which other religions were allowed to live in peace on the condition of submission to their rulers. It should be noted that while Europe was in the dark and middle ages the religious tolerance of the Muslim world was superior to that of Christian Europe. However with the advent of Whabbism, the strict and severe form of Sunni Islam, that is no longer the case. It is Whabbism that spawned the Taliban as well as Al Queda. When people say that this particular practice of Islam is not what Islam is all about, I say they are correct. But correct only to a point, because the reality is that the Islam they are harking back to is centuries ago, and not today. The radicals of today are not practicing the Islam of the 10th century or even of the 16th century, but then most Christians, Jews or even Hindu's are practicing their religion in the form it was in the 10th or 16th century either. Those battles have been fought and are done. Left to us in the history books to learn about, and perhaps to learn from.

What matters today is that we are fighting a particular practice of Islam that pulls out it's past only that which fits it's current ideology. They use particular rallying points that are useful to it's pursuit now. Al Quds Sharif is one of those harkening back to the past that is useful to today's battles, not any different then Saddam Hussein attempting to paint himself as a modern day Nebachadnezzer.

We must never forget exactly what it is we are fighting. And that is radical Islam. And we must not allow those who would kill you and me simply for the twin sins of being American and not Muslim to make this more or less than that. To effectively fight this evil we must be able to understand the keys these people use in order to turn millions to their cause.

Let me relate a personal story. As a nurse I work with physicians of various nationalities, religions etc... One of those physicians I worked with is a Muslim. This is a man I immediately liked, a good man and a good physician. We spent a fair amount of time chatting during rounds and while we were both sitting and charting. This physician is from Jordon. We both have a keen interest in history with one very significant difference, one I did not recognize at first. One day while we were chatting and charting we settled into talking about history, a very common occurance, however prior to that each of our history conversations had focused on events in the middle east. That particular day he told me he would like to get me some old Roman coins "you can find them all over Jordon" he said. That comment led me to start discussing the Roman empire and then one of my favorite docs said something that I found totally and utterly amazing. His comment? That he didn't care about the history of the Roman Empire, in fact he did not care about the history of Europe at all except for the part when Spain was essentially Muslim. That shocked me a great deal. This doc is well educated and from a wealthy family in Jordon as is his wife. Yet he just completely dismissed huge chunks of relevent history, not only to Europe but to the Middle East as well. And I said so. His response was basically that the light of Islam had far eclipsed the Romans as well as the Persians and that without Islam Europe would not have come out of the dark ages and therefore the only real important history had to do with Islam and it's empires. I was truly speechless. I never was able to see him in the same light again. Don't misunderstand me, I still thought by and large he was a great guy who provided outstanding care to all of his patients regardless of who or what they were, but I also understood that in his world he could do that and still be able to hold to the view that Islam and it's achievements were the only thing that truly counted, all "others" are not even worthy of thinking about.

How many Muslims, particularly those in the Middle East feel the same way? I'm betting more do than don't. And when a culture is so ethnocentric it is very simple for fanatics to gain adherents by harkening back to "glory days". One sees it over and over again in history, with perhaps the most shameful being the rise of Nazism. Like the Nazi's the Islamofascists use symbols and powerful imagery, the difference being they use the symbols of the times of the Caliphs.

As we are days from the Presidental election it is worth remembering the history of Neville Chamberlain and the policies that brought about WWII.

John Kerry is today's Chamberlain.

Red

Debunking the myths of Iraq

2004-10-22T19:44:00.000-04:00

New Site with good content. Please take the time to look over the site, especially the area regarding myths.

Why vote for Bush and not Kerry.

2004-10-18T19:42:00.000-04:00

First a thanks to Mr. Hewitt for the opportunity for so many to support why it is important to elect George Bush.
I offer some quotes from Thomas Jefferson that I believe President Bush understands while John Kerry does not. I believe that is because President Bush adheres closer to the founders vision, while John Kerry does not understand that vision.

Love your neighbor as yourself and your country more than yourself.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Thomas Jefferson Smith, February 21, 1825

The boisterous sea of liberty is never without a wave.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Rush, October 20, 1820

Whatever enables us to go to war, secures our peace.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Monroe, October 24, 1823

T]he flames kindled on the 4 of July 1776, have spread over too much of the globe to be extinguished by the feeble engines of despotism; on the contrary, they will consume these engines and all who work them.
Thomas Jefferson, September 12, 1821

Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.
Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms, July 6, 1775

Red

Is John Kerry Barred from Office per the Constitution?

2004-10-18T01:07:00.000-04:00

This is a very thought provoking article worth the read.

Red

America Coming Together hands out flyers alleging GOP will suppress black vote

2004-10-17T23:49:00.000-04:00

Lets take a look at America Coming Together shall we?

America Coming Together
America Coming Together (ACT) is one of five 527 committees engaged in supporting a Democratic candidate in U.S. presidential election, 2004. ACT "is responsible for get-out-the-vote efforts." [1]
"Democratic groups have created an operation that combines close coordination with a division of labor designed to avoid duplication of effort and maximize resources." The other four allied groups are the Thunder Road Group, which "will concentrate on research and rapid response"; the Media Fund, "the principal vehicle for pro-Democratic television commercials by the coalition"; America Votes, "the umbrella organization that will stitch together the activities of various progressive organizations"; and Joint Victory Campaign 2004, "a combined fundraising committee." [2]
History
In August 2003, hedge fund investor and philanthropist George Soros announced he would donate $10 million to ensure that Bush was not re-elected. [3] The initial newstories indicated that the PAC would be named America Coming Together and would campaign in 17 key states.
An AP article identified the states as Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin. [4]
In a statement announcing the grants, Soros stated "The fate of the world depends on the United States and President Bush is leading us in the wrong direction. ACT is an effective way to mobilize civil society, to convince people to go to the polls and vote for candidates who will reassert the values of the greatest open society in the world."
Feminist Daily News Wire reported that the group would form a coalition comprising women's rights, labor, and environmental groups and aimed to raise $75 million by the November election.[5]
Personnel
Ellen R. Malcolm, President
Steve Rosenthal, Chief Executive Officer
Minyon Moore
Gina Glantz
Carl Pope, Treasurer
Cecile Richards
JoDee Winterhof, ACT Political Director
Donald Redmond, National Field Director
ACT Contributors
Open Secrets: Advocacy Group Spending ("data is based on records released by the Internal Revenue Service on Monday, March 08, 2004"):
The three largest contributors to date are:
Soros Fund Management ($5,000,000.00)
Joint Victory Campaign 2004 ($3,000,000.00); and
Progressive Corp. ($2,995,000.00).
According to the March 10, 2004, Washington Post, "The Democratic 527 organizations have drawn support from some wealthy liberals determined to defeat Bush. They include financier George Soros and his wife, Susan Weber Soros, who gave $5 million to ACT and $1.46 million to MoveOn.org; Peter B. Lewis, chief executive of the Progressive Corp., who gave $3 million to ACT and $500,000 to MoveOn; and Linda Pritzker, of the Hyatt hotel family, and her Sustainable World Corp., who gave $4 million to the joint fundraising committee." [6]

http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=America_Coming_Together

The two that do not have a separate biography link are JoDee Winterhof, though it was not hard to find information. She left Sen. Harkins office to work for Partnership for America's Families which then partnered with America Coming Together. I was unable to find information on Donald Redmond.

In essence what we have is a group that was founded by George Soros, liberal contributor extraordinare, linking with a labor funded organization and run by long time Democratic Political operatives. Making the claim that Republican's will do everything in their power to keep black Americans from voting as if this were 1965. AND they get to do it while claiming they are a nonpartisan issue group. I believe the only real issue they are working for is to defeat George Bush by any unethical, immoral way to do so.

The liberalism that was nurtured in the 60's that grew out of communism of the 30's and fully blossomed in the 70's is attempting to fight to the death. Instead of unskilled student agitators, these people are now the savvy political operatives that is attempting to crush the real Republic given to us by our Founding Father's.

Of course Kerry is repeating this line over and over, a lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get it's shoes on, I don't remember whose quote that is, but it certainly fits here. I also want to know how it is that John Kerry is allowed to campaign in churches. Of course I don't know why I expected anything different when Al Sharpton is embraced by Kerry.

Race baiting is race baiting. I was not brought up to be allowed to behave like John Kerry. My mom in particular, brought me up to understand that all people have the same rights and responsiblities as others. But apparently John Kerry's parents never taught him any type of morality. At least not a morality I recognize.

Red

Head of the Fraternal Order of Police ask Kerry to stop misrepresenting Police Support

2004-10-17T22:44:00.000-04:00

Maybe Chuck Canterbury, President of the FOP, is just missing the nuance of Kerry.
Hattip littlegreenfootballs.

Zarqawi Vows Alleigence to Al-Qaida

2004-10-17T21:42:00.000-04:00

The declaration, which appeared on a Web site often used as a clearinghouse for statements by militant groups, began with a Quranic verse encouraging Muslim unity and said al-Zarqawi considered bin Laden "the best leader for Islam's armies against all infidels and apostates."

A*pos"tate\, n. [L. apostata, Gr. ?, fr. ?. See Apostasy.] 1. One who has forsaken the faith, principles, or party, to which he before adhered; esp., one who has forsaken his religion for another; a pervert; a renegade.2. (R. C. Ch.) One who, after having received sacred orders, renounces his clerical profession.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

It is worth understanding that though Islam has a history of tolerance within their faith, having never established an orthodoxy, those who are Islamic terrorists follow a more strict understanding of Islam Whabbism, believe all others of the faith that are not following that strict interpetation than they are in a state of apostaty-being considered idoltors. It therefore follows that those who are Islamic terrorists have no compunction in murdering other Muslims. Anything to gain power to remake the world in the way they see is right. Regardless of who dies in order to achieve those ends.

By this simple statement Zarqawi is making it clear to other Muslims that those who do not adhere to a specific reading of the Qur'an are Apostate and subject to the same treatment as infidels.

That said I can guarantee that those in power and those in MSM are not going to say anything regarding the religious aspects of this war. It is not politically correct. But it is a religious driven war and to put our heads in the sand over it will not help.

Red

An Interesting look into the left or why Kerry has swung more into an anti-war position

2004-10-17T06:02:00.000-04:00

Berkeley Daily Planet Edition Date: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 Boston’s Low Protest Turnout Reveals Left’s Hunger for ‘Anybody But Bush’ By CHRISTOPHER KROHN Special to the Planet (07-27-04) BOSTON — Was it the Boston Common or the Boston Morgue this past Sunday? Only about 1,500 protesters showed up at what was to be the marquee protest event during this Democratic National Convention (DNC). The absence of many protesters at the march may be the greatest indication yet that the American left, if not embracing John Kerry for President, simply does not want to get into any political food fights this year and possibly end up with another four years of George W. Bush. Sunday’s event was organized by International A.N.S.W.E.R under the banner of “No War in Iraq, End the Occupation Now.” One fact is very clear, in and around the streets surrounding the Fleet Center, hub of convention proceedings which began yesterday: Boston of 2004 is not Chicago of 1968. Thousands of protesters did not come to Boston to protest the Democrats, or their presumptive nominee. Thousands did come to lend their voices, bodies, and money to upending an incumbent president’s bid for a second term. Most of the protesting Sunday was anti-war. Most of the delegates, 95 percent according to the Boston Globe, are anti-war. Yet the “Strong at Home, Respected in the World” Democratic Party platform pays but lip service to the fundamental concern not only of the left, but of the party faithful: the war in Iraq. That platform states: “People of good will disagree about whether America should have gone to war in Iraq, but this much is clear: This administration badly exaggerated its case, particularly with respect to weapons of mass destruction and the connection between Saddam’s government and Al Qaeda.” Later the document says “having gone to war, we cannot afford to fail at the peace.” This latter statement rankles many anti-warriors, since the platform offers no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops from Iraq. But where will so many anti-war Democrats turn? Many see a Bush defeat as the only possibility of bringing the soldiers home, but there are no assurances, no language within the platform document with which to make the future president accountable. The absence of much vocal dissent here in Boston, so prominent in Los Angeles at the 2000 Democratic National Convention, is another indication that Democrats—left, right and center—are not willing to risk anything going wrong as the final leg of the campaign officially begins here in Boston. Some protesters said press accounts this past week have described Boston as a potentially dangerous place for anyone, and that might very well might have kept protester numbers down. Yes, $60 million was spent on convention security. Over 3,000 police, sheriff’s deputies, state highway police, and National Guard troops are a ubiquitous sight, stationed on most downtown street corners in this city of 589,000. Helicopters hover overhead. Dozens of riot-clad police form lines along the sidewalk in front of Faneuil Hall, the Massachusetts Statehouse, and Kerry’s Beacon Hill home. But in interview after interview with people who describe themselves as leftist—Democrat, Green, Anarchist—virtually everyone agreed that Bush must go. And nothing for these civil liberties-minded, peace-and-social-justice-practicing, anti-war activists seems to be getting in the way of saying adios to George W. Bush. Probably no place was this yearning for change in Washington, D.C. more visible, and sincere, than at the national Vietnam Veterans For Peace Convention which ended here Saturday night. This annual four-day convention drew more than 400 veterans and much of the talk was about changing presidents. Pacifica’s Amy Goodman and Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation President Bobby Muller were the keynote speakers at the closing dinner. The overt and covert subtext of their talks was about regime change in Washington. Also participating in the conference were Daniel Ellsberg, of Pentagon Papers fame, who lives in Kensington, and San Francisco Global Exchange Executive Director and Code Pink activist Medea Benjamin. Separate interviews with each of these activist legends (Muller is perhaps less well-known in the Bay Area) revealed a determined and forthright unanimity that George W. Bush has got to go. Ellsberg, the former Marine, former Defense Department analyst turned whistle-blower and current full-time peace activist, was the most forthright in his support for Kerry: “I am urging everyone here not to vote against Bush but to vote for Kerry.” Democracy Now’s Goodman was perhaps most circumspect. “I’m a journalist,” she said, when asked if she supports Kerry. “I think people can determine what politicians will represent them. The question for many,” she added, “is who can be held accountable?” Medea Benjamin and Bobby Muller find themselves somewhere between Goodman and Ellsberg. Benjamin said of the impending protests, “the left is very confused about how to react to the Democratic convention.” Choosing her words carefully, she said, “We walk a fine line in trying to get Bush out of office and yet be critical of Kerry’s support for trade agreements, the Patriot Act, and the war.” For Muller this election is quite personal: “I’ve known Kerry for 33 years and he’s a damn good guy.” Super-dissenter Benjamin said she was “so tired” of protesting against Bush and not getting anywhere. “I’m invigorated by the prospect of protesting against a Kerry Administration and having a possibility of being heard.” Three of the four spoke of the dangers which Bush has created at home and in the world. “When I think of Kerry I don’t think of Veteran benefits, I think of war,” said vets activist Muller. “He (Kerry) can walk us back from this untenable, cataclysmic position we are in within the world community.” Ellsberg called the world situation both “a crisis” and “an emergency.” Benjamin said, “A second Bush administration would harden the left…with Kerry we have more of a chance.” Goodman seemed to think that Bush’s standing in the polls is the result of a press which hasn’t held him accountable. She spoke of the dangers posed by what she calls “sound-bite media.” She said, “We need a media not for pundits, who know so little, but a media for people speaking for themselves.” Goodman cited a study in which the major television programmers—NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS Newshour—had 393 pro-Iraq War interviews and only three anti-war interviews in the month leading up to Bush’s war in Iraq. “The sound bite media is fiercely political,” she said. In the streets of Boston Sunday anti-war passions mixed with tacit support for Kerry. The marchers were critical of the Democrats, but restrained. Only one arrest was recorded that day. For the most part, the issues raised on signs were like those seen at Bay Area rallies over the past couple of years: “No to War, Stop Fascist and Anti-Gay Violence, Say No To Racism and Police Brutality, Free Mumia Abu Jamal, People Not Profits.” Along with the small turnout, the ‘whose-streets-our-streets’ fervor of past demonstrations was significantly muted. “It’s mainly, do what it takes to get Bush out of office,” said International A.N.S.W.E.R. member and day laborer, Adam Luce of Boston. “Kerry is the best option of getting Bush out.” Luce added, “I am left-wing, but realistic.” Jessica Ramer, a math teacher from Pompano Beach, Florida, disdains Bush but is not ready to commit to Kerry. “I’m here to let the Democratic Party know that they can’t have my vote until they change their policy on Iraq.” When pressed by a reporter saying that polls indicate a vote for neither Kerry nor Bush would most likely add up to a vote for Bush, Ramer responded, “I’m still wrestling with the question of who to vote for, especially since I am from the swing state of Florida.” Paula Sutton, an archeologist from Alaska and a Dennis Kucinich supporter, was walking with the protesters. She was concerned about the war, but she is waiting to declare her full support of Kerry because “we are seeing if we can influence the Kerry agenda. We need to take a stand on the war in Iraq.” When pressed about who she would end up voting for, Sutton conceded, “Basically it has come down to, we’ve got to get Bush out of office.” Tom Sager, retired and a Veterans For Peace member from Rolla, Missouri, said he’s not of a mind to vote for either Bush or Kerry right now. “Kerry has said he will send more troops and stay the course. I’m definitely not going to vote for Bush…(Ralph) Nader and (David) Cobb (Green Party nominee) are other choices,” he declared. When asked whether a vote for Nader or Cobb might be a vote for Bush, he replied, “I really have not made up my mind on that, probably won’t know until I walk into the (voting) booth.” Many who might have been in the streets in past protests were not present at this one. The mood here is that the left is feeling an overwhelming sense of duty to help in denying George Bush another four years, so many are getting behind Kerry with great reservations. Global Exchange’s Benjamin puts it this way, “I have the luxury in California of voting with my heart, but if I lived in a swing state I would vote with my head and vote for Kerry.” She then paused to reflect for a moment, “And I can’t remember the last time I voted for a Democrat.” Vietnam veteran Muller says, “If we don’t create political space for Kerry, it is totally unrealistic to think he is going to shift government institutions unless we create a base, a parade of popular support.” Perhaps David Cline, president of the national Veterans For Peace, who served in Vietnam and has three purple hearts to show for it, summed up the citizen-activist ambivalence best. He said, “We want to beat Bush and get our foot up Kerry’s ass.” This Thursday, the day of Kerry’s nomination, there will be another informally organized opportunity for protesters. There will be random acts of civil disobedience, according to a Boston group, The Bl(a)ck Tea Society, which is helping coordinate talks, parties, housing for activists, and direct action trainings.

Bobby Muller at an event organized by A.N.S.W.E.R? Naw, can't be.

Red

Bobby Muller, friend to John Kerry-On Campus

2004-10-17T05:52:00.000-04:00

Students get reality check on draft
By Amanda HooperReporterSeptember 22, 2004
Nobel Prize winner and Vietnam War veteran, Bobby Muller spoke, sometimes shouted from his wheelchair on stage to University students and faculty last night. "What the hell do you know out here?! What do you know about Islam?!"
"I don't fault you for not knowing. I fault us as a society," Muller continued on.
He spoke about American foreign policy, the war on terrorism, and the possibility of a draft in the near future. He stated that education and dialogue are vital to understanding the problems the U.S. faces today.
"The number one reason we suffered the tragedy of the Vietnam war was that we didn't understand the Vietnamese people," Muller said, drawing on his experience to relate to the war today. "The Vietnam war experience was huge. What is ripping me apart is, given the public discourse today, it's like it never even happened."
Bobby Muller was a Marine Lieutenant paralyzed from a bullet wound to his spinal cord in Vietnam. He subsequently became an anti-war activist and in 1997 won a Nobel Peace for his work as co-founder of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines.
Last night's event was sponsored by the Honors Program, the Honors Student Association and the Hendel Fund.
"We decided to sponsor the event since it is so relevant today with the upcoming Presidential election, the draft talk, and America's role in the world right now," said Honors Program Assistant Kevin Fleming.
Muller recently founded the Alliance for Security to encourage citizens to talk about the consequences of war, ask questions and demand answers.
He is traveling on the Tour of Duty to speak to young Americans. Campuses are a key target for the tour because young Americans will be most affected if a selected service draft is reinstated.
According to Mulller, the manpower the U.S. needs to continue the engagement in Iraq and protect the nation around the world are stretching our military thin.
"This ain't just about Iraq," Muller said. " We got a storm coming our way. There is a rising tide of anger among Islam."
He presented numerous scenarios around the globe, where he believes the U.S. is at risk for being drawn into a new military conflict. He cited Presidential assassination attempts in Pakistan, Iran's support of Iraq with tangible war materials and Egypt's Muslim brotherhood that could take over if a general election occurred.
"If any one of these situations occurred, the U.S. military could not sustain enough troop support, Muller said. America is facing a potential crisis."
Muller said he believes that the whole notion of service to country is very different today then in the past because we favor the idea of a professional army, as opposed to a draft. The Alliance for Security conducted a phone survey in August that found that, if the draft were reinstated today, and they were selected, 32 percent of draft-age Americans would not serve.
Muller pointed at the audience and said, "You're right to be anxious. You are at risk."
Sarah Warren, Harvard graduate and former humanitarian aid worker in Kosovo, accompanied Muller and spoke to students about educating themselves about the draft. The entire process, from when the President approaches Congress, to when the Selective Service implements the draft lottery, can occur in as little as three days.
"I think the message tonight is: don't wait. Start educating yourselves now. Start asking questions," Warren said.
Muller and Warren suggested www.Allianceforsecurity.org and the documentary "Fog of War" as good starting points to obtain knowledge about American foreign policy and the war on terror.
"It's not enough just to talk about freedom and democracy. We have to live it," Muller said. "A democracy is only as strong as it's citizens are engaged

Bobby Muller leader of Vietnam Veterans against the War, and John Kerry. Today

2004-10-17T03:06:00.000-04:00

The above link will take you to the official John Kerry Blogspot. I do this to make clear that Bobby Muller is actively campaigning for John Kerry today, and I do this to further point out that the group Muller heads, Allliance for Security, in conjunction with Rock the Vote-sent out 640,000 bogus draft emails designed to do nothing more than to frighten young voters and presumably to push them to Kerry.

Muller is the leading voice of something called Tour of Duty
Is the draft inevitable?
What are the consequences of a foreign policy based on preemption?
What lessons have we learned from Vietnam?

Join AFS founder and Vietnam veteran Bobby Muller in addressing the questions that are critical to the future of our international security. Bobby's Tour of Duty this fall will engage college students and communities across America in a national dialogue. Sign up today!
Linkhttp://www.allianceforsecurity.org/tour

Mr. Muller is also featured in the film "Going Upriver" Described as "KERRY'S APOCALYPSE NOW!

As recently as Oct. 5th Muller confronted John O'Neill author of "Unfit for Duty" at a book signing event. http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/9844218.htm
CHICAGO - (KRT) - The battle over John Kerry's Vietnam War record flared up in Chicago Tuesday, when members of a fledgling group that supports the Democratic presidential nominee confronted the author of an anti-Kerry book at a downtown luncheon.
At one point, the bickering became so intense that organizers called in police. No arrests were made, but the book signing and speech, sponsored by the City Club of Chicago, was punctuated with sharp exchanges between author John O'Neill and members of a group called truthandtrust.com.
Several members of the group accused O'Neill of lying in his best-selling book, "Unfit for Command," in which O'Neill says Kerry exaggerated his service record.
"My book was the truth," O'Neill said after the luncheon. "I'm thrilled that they could bring people in and find not one single thing that was wrong with the book."
Debate over Kerry's service has raged since May, when O'Neill and other members of a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth came forward to challenge key portions of Kerry's record.
This summer the Swift Boat group began running commercials in battleground states - ads that have been credited with damaging Kerry's presidential campaign. When O'Neill's book was released in August, it became a best seller.
Members of truthandtrust.com said they organized to challenge O'Neill's claims that Kerry did not deserve his three Purple Hearts or military awards. Several members of the group, including Rich McCann, served with Kerry in Vietnam.
"It's time for us to bury Vietnam," McCann, of Cleveland, said before the City Club event. "It's time for us to move on to other issues."
But Kerry's Vietnam record was the only issue debated during O'Neill's visit, and tempers flared before the book signing portion at the Chicago Athletic Association on Michigan Avenue was completed.
As O'Neill autographed books for admirers, veteran Bobby Muller approached in his wheelchair, shook the author's hand, then asked repeatedly if O'Neill would debate him on Kerry's record.
After the two bickered for a few moments, O'Neill's wife, Anne, intervened, telling Muller to stop while nudging him away in his wheelchair.
"Tell her about the wreath you laid on Ho Chi Minh's grave," O'Neill said derisively, apparently in reference to a 1981 trip Muller made to Vietnam as a representative of the Vietnam Veterans of America, a group he formed in 1978 with Kerry.
A representative for Muller said the 1981 trip was part of an effort to get information on POWs and MIAs, and that Vietnamese soldiers, not Muller, laid the wreath at the gravesite.
"Come on, open it up, John," Muller told O'Neill. "Stop ducking me. Let's go head to head. Let's debate."
Organizers called in security and threatened to throw Muller out, but he was allowed to stay for the luncheon. Several times during O'Neill's speech, Kerry supporters in the audience jeered or shouted "that's not true" as O'Neill laid out the basis of his book.
Later when former Swift Boat captain and Kerry supporter Skip Barker asked a question, O'Neill dismissed him and others as Democratic Party plants.
Jim Wasser of Kankakee, who served with Kerry, said he joined the new group in part because he felt O'Neill and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were unfairly damaging the reputations of the men who served with Kerry.
"When you're lying, you're lying," Wasser said before the luncheon. "That's why we're drawing a line in the sand today."
---
© 2004, Chicago Tribune.

After going to the site truthandtrust.com I find that these are people who are going after the Swift Boat Vets for Truth. Imagine that, Bobby Muller, longtime friend of John Kerry disrupting and jeering O'Neill at a book signing. And of course attaching O'Neill to Nixon, which obviously makes him a Republican operative. Remember from my previous post regarding Kerry and Muller that Muller was one of a handful of protestors who showed up at the "Kerry Lied" Rally in September held in Washington DC. On July 31 of this year Muller was a speaker at Iraq Veterans against the War, where he stated the media does not tell the truth and urged participants to use the internet. Perhaps by sending phony draft emails?http://www.vaiw.org/vet/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=858

On July 21, 2004 Mr. Muller was a speaker at the National 2004 Veterans for Peace Convention at which he expressed fear that the Bush administration is poised to send US Troops into Saudi Arabia to protect the monarchy. http://www.veteransforpeace.org/National_2004_072604.htm

In March he was speaking at a teach in (if that is not a throw back to the 70's) for veteransforcommonsense. http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/NewsArticle.cfm?ID=572
Scroll to the end and see who the sponsers are. And Yes Vietnam Veterans against the War are still quite active in today's anti-war activity. And Bobby Muller seems to be everywhere when it comes to anti-war activity, and it is very important to understand he is overtly campaigning for John Kerry, one could say so are a number of old Vietnam Vets. But what one of them began their anti-war activity with John Kerry and the Vietnam Veterans Against the War, what one of them co-founded a Vietnam Veterans group with John Kerry, the only group that has a congressional charter, what one of them has people connected to John Kerry for President donating money to his Foundation, what one of them is consistantly using fear of a draft to help push young voters into Kerry's camp, even after the vote to not reimpose the draft?

From a news release from Rock the Vote-Alliance for Security
This is not a hoax. Congress voted tonight on the military draft. The vote was nearly unanimous against the draft. But does that mean that the issue is settled? Not in the least. This is not a partisan issue, clearly. All of Congress voted to oppose the draft. Not because we need a draft today, but because we need a real debate about whether one might be needed soon. A generation that may indeed be called to service deserves more than this. Any Member of Congress who votes against this bill should be able to explain how they would avoid a draft if a full-scale civil war erupts in Iraq or if we must take military action against Iran, North Korea, or another identified threat. See below for a statement released today by Rock the Vote and the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation/Alliance for Security.
http://www.rockthevote.com/rtv-afs-statement.htm

Bobby Muller, mouthpiece for John Kerry.

Red

John Kerry, the Draft and the threads of 1971

2004-10-16T02:04:00.000-04:00

"With George Bush, the plan for Iraq is more of the same and the great potential of a draft. Because if we go it alone, I don't know how you do it with the current overextension" of the military, Kerry said.

In 1971 John Kerry was a member of the Vietnam Veterans against the War, I think the vast majority of those who have taken the time to really look at the presidental candidates know this. Of course much of what caused anger against the war in Vietnam was the draft. One could do a post regarding the various people who were leaders in the VVAW but I would prefer to focus on just one.

Bobby Muller.

In early 1971 Bobby Muller helped found Vietnam Veterans against the War. Mr. Muller enlisted into the Marines while a senior at Hofstra University in 1967, by September of 1968 he was a combat LT. leading a Marine Platoon. Eight months into his tour he was wounded, and he came home paralyzed, forever to live his life from a wheelchair. By late 1971 he was making appearances at rallies. It was through the Vietnam Veterans against the War that he meant John Kerry. Both became leading activists for the VVAW.

In 1972 Bobby Muller along with Ron Kovic (of Born on the 4th of July fame) heckled Richard Nixon from the floor of the Republican National Convention by chanting "Stop the bombing, stop the war" until they were ejected from the hall.

Later Bobby Muller and John Kerry would leave the VVAW, though for what specific reasons I have been unable to find. One imagines that being leaders of a group that had a meeting where it was discussed as appropriate to assassinate pro war politicians may have led them to conclude it was no longer appropriate to continue with that group. Makes you want to shake your head and say "You Think?"

Later Bobby Muller was to go on to co-found Vietnam Veterans of America, the other founder is John Kerry. From John Kerry's own internet campaign site.
When he returned home, he became a spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War (VVAW) and later co-founded Vietnam Veterans of America.
John Kerry remains a life time member of this group.

Later Bobby Muller again formed another offshot group, again I am unable to locate the reasons for this. He is now the President of the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation.There is a slight difference in dates regarding the founding of VVA(1978 or 1979)but both Bobby Muller and John Kerry are cited as founding members of Vietnam Veterans of America. It is the only congressionally chartered Vietnam Veterans organization. And it is the offshot of VVA that Bobby Muller is now President of.

When Vietnam Veterans held a rally in Washington DC in September against John Kerry one of a handful to show up as supporters for Kerry was Bobby Muller. Bobby Muller remains a supporter of John Kerry, why should he not be, they come from the same politics, then and now.
An offspring of Bobby Muller Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation is another group called the Alliance for Security. Recently fake draft emails were sent out to 640,000 thousand people from Rock the Vote and Alliance for Security. This is the text of that email.
YOU HAVE BEEN DRAFTED!
http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476
This is not a real draft, but a real one may happen soon if the current situation doesn't improve.
As it is, our military is stretched almost to the breaking point trying to maintain troop levels in Iraq and around the world. If Pakistan, North Korea or other nations begin to pose new military threats, how would we expect to meet the demand for troops?
Did you know that:
* It would only take two to three days for Congress and the President to authorize a draft and set the Selective Service System's plans in motion?
* Twenty-year-olds would be the first to be inducted?
* Women are very likely to be included in the next draft?
It's up to us to educate ourselves. In the event of a draft, we won't have much time to form an opinion. And with just 34 days left until the election and only a few days left before many state registration deadlines, we need to take a stand now by registering to vote:
http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476
Copy this URL into your web browser to get the facts about a potential draft, and to find out what you can do:
http://action.rockthevote.org/ctt.asp?u=906763&l=4476
Sincerely,Rock The VoteandAlliance For Security

Bobby Muller, cofounder with John Kerry of Vietnam Veterans of America , still good friend of John Kerry was caught sending fake draft emails through his Vietnam Veterans of America front group Alliance for Security. Both groups are intimately linked. http://vvaf.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=2001560

If you go to the Alliance for Security website-http://vvaf.org/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=2001560
then you to can send a fake draft notice to your friends, courtesy of Bobby Muller.

Here is a list of some who contributed to Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation
Bagley, Nicole L3/16/2004 $2,000.00Washington, DC 20016Vietnam Veterans of America Founda/ -[Contribution]JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
Muller, Robert O3/26/2003 $2,000.00Washington, DC 20009Vietnam Veterans of America Founda/ -[Contribution]JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
MULTER, ROBERT6/30/2004 $15,000.00WASHINGTON, DC 20006VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA -[Contribution]DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
Terzano, John F3/26/2003 $1,000.00Alexandria, VA 22308Vietnam Veterans of America Founda/ -[Contribution]JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
Weidman, Richard F12/22/2003 $1,000.00Silver Spring, MD 20910Vietnam Veterans of America/Advocat -[Contribution]JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
Weidman, Richard F12/22/2003 $1,000.00Silver Spring, MD 20910Vietnam Veterans of America/Advocat -[Contribution]JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
Weidman, Richard F12/30/2003 $250.00Silver Spring, MD 20910Vietnam Veterans of America/Advocat -[Contribution]JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
Weidman, Richard F2/25/2004 $250.00Silver Spring, MD 20910Vietnam Veterans of America/Advocat -[Contribution]JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
WEIDMAN, RICHARD F9/30/2003 $250.00SILVER SPRING, MD 20910VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA -[Contribution]MIKULSKI FOR SENATE COMMITTEE
Weidman, Richard Frank9/30/2003 $300.00Silver Spring, MD 20910Vietnam Veterans of America/Advocat -[Contribution]JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
Weidman, Rick1/16/2004 $250.00Silver Spring, MD 20910Vietnam Veterans Of America/Advocat -[Contribution]JOHN KERRY FOR PRESIDENT INC
MULLER, ROBERT11/15/2001 $1,000.00WASHINGTON, DC 20009VIETNAM VETERANS OF AMERICA FO -[Contribution]FRIENDS OF MAX CLELAND FOR THE US SENATE INC

There's more but it becomes very redundent. Complete list here http://irreconcilablemusings.typepad.com/main/2004/09/draft_fearmonge.html

Now the only people who have purposed a draft have been democrats, the bill was voted down in the last week with even the man who wrote it voting against it. One would think this is now a dead issue, but apparently John Kerry, self righteous demagoue screeching about Republican Fear Mongoring, feels it necessary to continue squealing about a draft. And his friend Bobby Muller as well as nonpartisan Rock the Vote were happy to help spread fear to young people who often look no further to ascertain the reality of the situation. It is also notable that some of the rock stars who are participating in Rock the Vote have helped with Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, highlight Bruce Springsteen. There are threads that pull Bobby Muller, the Vietnam Veterans of America Foundation, Alliance for Security, Rock the Vote and John Kerry all together. And they all are using the fear of a draft to attempt to elect a man that spit on his fellow vets as well as the military in general.

It's so good to have friends, especially the one who helped you build your political career on a web of slander and lies against the people you were purporting to help. Apparently that worked out for Kerry so well the same tactics will continue. Let's raise a glass to long term friendship!

For over thirty years these two men have been involved together in activities that are clearly anti-war. Through the Vietnam Veterans against the War they successfully likened their fellow vets as akin to Genghis Khan's army and today they team together to fan the flames of a non existant draft.

John Kerry's Vietnam experience and his later anti-war activities are very relevent today, as are his continuing connection to a man who helped found the group used to defame all Vietnam Vets. It matters because John Kerry makes it continue to matter. He cannot get out of 1971, and knowing that the draft was perhaps the biggest galvanizer against the Vietnam War seeks to recreate those same days using today's children to further his political aims.

Willing to use your children and mine, for reasons no different than his use of Vice Presidents Cheney's daughter. The lust for political power.

Red

Is Mary Cheney "Fair Game" ?

2004-10-15T23:42:00.000-04:00

The obvious answer to that question should be no. However if you are the candidate for the Democratic party that answer is obviously yes, and if you are the campaign manager for that candidate the answer is again obviously yes.

Let me put politics aside for a moment, as I believe this is not simply a political issue. It is an issue of honor, principle and common decent manners. Character if you will.

An honorable man does not utilize the children of one's opponent for political gain, anymore than a honorable man would intentionally slander and smear the millions of members of the armed services that participated in Vietnam. An honorable man would understand the unwritten and unspoken boundaries that disallow the use of someone's child in order to score political points. For over 30 years however, John Kerry's lust for power has led him repeatedly to violate honor, and principle. As a matter of principle one does not stand up on the Senate floor and give a personal story that is "seared, seared" into his memory of a completely bogus event. Most people call that lying.

An honorable party that has honorable differences with the other political party does not have campaign managers equate the going after another human being with the hunting of animals. I suppose however that a candidate who is so clueless as to take his trusty 12 gauge and belly crawl to hunt deer would be completely unable to grasp the difference in hunting deer and hunting humans, and is likely at a complete loss as to why his campaign managers verbal diarrhea is completely inappropriate. As clueless as he was to bring Mary Cheney into the debate to begin with.

Next we come to what should be common decent manners, something that seems in short supply not just now, but since those turbulent times of the 60's. Good manners by itself would dictate that one would not, in a very public manner, speak of someone else's personal life who has not given you permission to do so. It should come as no shock to anyone that Vice President Cheney has a daughter who is a lesbian, her parents have spoken of it at various times. However one imagines that she has spoken to her parents regarding this and was comfortable enough in the fact that they love her and would not deliberately hurt her, particularly in a public manner and would have given her parents permission to speak of her and her life. She did not give John Kerry any such permission. A man who has raged that the Patriot Act allows the government to go into your private life had no compunction in discussing the personal life of a private American citizen in front of millions of American's. Apparently John Kerry has upsurped the right to delve into the private life of anyone he deems politically advantageous to himself, thus the man who wishes to appear as the great defender of private life and personal liberties is unable to control himself enough to actually live the principles he so easily mouths. Shocking I know.

This should not be seen as an impulsive moment. There is nothing impulsive about John Kerry, he coldly calculates stratagems that he can utilize in his quest for political power. Who can think of any other serviceman who took the time to have a camera at hand so they could recreate scenes of combat to later to be used, however many years later, to bolster his self image of a heroic combat vet.

Then of course there is Mrs. Edwards characterizing the upset this has caused as the Cheney's being ashamed of their daughter, apparently it never occurred to her that it is nearly universally instinctual for parents to protect their children instead of using throwing them to the political wolves who smile as they call the child of their political opponent "Fair Game" I suppose to wolves anything is fair game when one is hungry enough.

I leave you with a quote from Samuel Adams, fiery patriot.
A general dissolution of principles and manners will more surely overthrow the liberties of America than the whole force of the common enemy. While the people are virtuous they cannot be subdued; but when once they lose their virtue then will be ready to surrender their liberties to the first external or internal invader.
Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren, February 12, 1779

Red

Patient Rights-Gay and Lesbian Couples

2004-10-15T09:59:00.000-04:00

Let me quote something Edwards said in the Vice Presidental debate concerning homosexuality, this is only a small part of what was said in the exchange that included Edwards bringing up Ms. Cheney. This quote does not focus on that, but on something that I am much more intimately familiar with.

Quoting Edwards-
For example, a gay couple now has a very difficult time, one, visiting the other when they're in the hospital, or, for example, if, heaven forbid, one of them were to pass away, they have trouble even arranging the funeral.

Let me explain something, when someone visits a person in the hospital you do not have a nurse patrol out there making sure a gay or lesbian partner is kept out of the room. In fact the nurse may not keep any visitors out of the room unless it is deemed medically necessary and even then there are times it is very difficult to deal with. We often see gay or lesbian couples in the hospital, the partner is simply termed the significant other just like we do for couples who heterosexual who are not married.

A hospitalized patient has rights, as long as they are awake and alert they make the decision as to who may visit and who may not. The only time this is not in force is when the patient is unable to speak for themselves, in that case the person who has been deemed the Durable Power of Attorney makes that choice. This is how it works regardless of the sexual orientation of the patient. In the case that the patient does not have a DPOA, then the decision making falls to the next of kin. For married couples that is the partner not hospitalized, for children that is their parent and if that child is an adult but not married it is still the parent or parents who make decisions. If it is an adult child who is gay and who did not put a DPOA in place to ensure that their partner is legally able to speak for them and the parent that is now making decisions decides they don't want that partner involved then it is the choice of that parent not to allow that to happen. In some cases this means that a guardian will be sought by the hospital through the social worker, or the partner can go through legal means to have access or anything else they feel their partner wanted. However medical personnal or the medical facility does not get involved unless and only if what is happening is deemed harmful to the patients condition.

This situation is not any different than the patient who did not do a DPOA and has a wife or husband who is now making decisions when the patient is unable to, but there are children who are involved and who feel the person making decisions are felt by other's in the family to be making inappropriate decisions. In that case the children can ask for a guardian to be put in place, they can do this by working with the social worker in order to have someone who can explain the process to them or by hiring an attorney themselves. Generally in this type of situation a hospital social worker becomes involved when a referrel is given by medical staff because the staff feel that what is happening is detrimental to the patient or if the family members specifically request for assistance in dealing with their particular situation. When a situation develops when parties do not someone to visit, REGARDLESS OF THE SEXUAL ORIENTATION OF THE PATIENT, it is actually necessary for the family to get a court order to disallow visitation. I have seen this only three times in my 13 and a half year career as a nurse. In all three cases it involved heterosexual couples who had not married. Not once in my career have I ever seen homosexual couples be disallowed to see their partner.

It is very simple to ensure this situation does not occur for anyone, again regardless of sexual orientation,all it takes is for any person to fill out a DPOA form. All hospitals are legally bond to ask every single patient when they are admitted if they have a DPOA form and if they do not to offer it to them and to also offer a social worker to go over the paperwork with the patient so they can fill it out appropriately. The filled out form must be witnessed by two people, nurses are not allowed to be witnesses, but social workers and/or Pastors are or any other competant persons the patient deems. The DPOA form does not cost a dime, it does not require an attorney. Nursing homes are bond by the same law. I know I do this probably 20 times a week. If you wish to have DPOA papers and are not an admitted patient, you can still go to any hospital and get the appropriate paperwork, a brochure that explains it and any other assistance from the appropriate hospital personnel that you require. This simple form can save a great deal of heartbreak and upset/anger though it is important to point out that if you wish to have someone deal with your finances when you are incapable of doing so something more has to be done, again however it is a simple process that should be done prior to a problem.

I encourage all of my patients to do this and also encourage their family members that are not hospitalized to do this prior to being ill. If this is taken care of than it isvirtually impossible for anyone to take away the right of someone to be the speaker for the person who requested them to do this service without the dissenting party going to court and if they go to court they need to be very prepared to be able to prove why the patients wishes should not be followed. Every single patient who does not already have a DPOA recieves the appropriate paperwork to do so, again this is fully required by law. I am required to fully explain it, offer a social worker or pastor to speak to the patient and then I am required to chart the whole thing. This is not simply something that a medical facility does as a nice service, it is something that has grown out of patient rights issues and the fear of many people of having medical procedures such as being placed on a ventilator at end of life when they do not want this.

Any couple or any person for that matter, who wants to ensure that they have their wishes adhered to should ensure their future as well as the future of those they care for doing a DPOA and they should do it as soon as they have someone who is willing to be a DPOA no matter how young they are or how healthy they are because one never knows when an accident will happen.

I am not allowed nor is any other nurse in this country allowed to not give this information to someone simply because they are gay or lesbian. However, all medical personnal are fully bond by the privacy act of HIPPA which limits what information we are allowed to give without the express permission of the patient, that covers all patients regardless of sexual orientation, regardless of whatever situation the patient or their family members are in.

If there are homosexual couples who have not been able to visit their partner then it is because the patient is not able to speak for themselves and they have not taken the extremely easy step of making a DPOA and therefore someone else is calling the shots that, for whatever reason, have decided that the significant other cannot visit. It is not the hospital who does that, it is not the nurses who make that choice. We simply follow the legal guidelines that are in place. With DPOA the person holding that piece of paper has the right to make any and all decisions, it is that person who has the legal right to speak for the patient. The only time the hospital gets involved is if in the judgement of the physicians or nurses the DPOA is making poor choices and that discomfort is taken to the social worker or the ethics committee, then the hospital gets involved, but only because the medical personnal feel it is in the best interest of the patient, not because someone is gay and gasp! Visiting the sick patient.

DPOA is designed to protect patient rights by allowing any person who is of legal age to have someone they trust to make decisions the patient is no longer able to make for themselves. Again it is important to realize that all one has to do is to take personal responsiblity for their live and what they want. It is not necessary to involve the government in the decision making process, all it takes is a simple form and two witnesses.

Yet if you are not familiar with these simple guidelines than it is easy to believe the bunk that Edwards mouthed.

Red

Laugh of the day

2004-10-15T09:46:00.000-04:00

Driving to work yesterday and the truck in front of me at a stoplight had what I thought was a Kerry/Edwards bumper sticker on it. Looked just like one until I looked at it just a bit more and realized that it mimiced one. Looked almost exactly the same-except for the fine print.

Kerry/Edwards(with US Flag in between)
The only ticket so full of shit that it needs two johns.

Laughed the rest of the way into work.

Red

Society and Sheepdogs

2004-10-15T09:22:00.000-04:00

Read the article, it is very thought provoking.

Russ Vaughn sends us a poem inspired by this article.

The Sheepdogs

Most humans truly are like sheep
Wanting nothing more than peace to keep
To graze, grow fat and raise their young,
Sweet taste of clover on the tongue.
Their lives serene upon Life’s farm,
They sense no threat nor fear no harm.
On verdant meadows, they forage free
With naught to fear, with naught to flee.
They pay their sheepdogs little heed
For there is no threat; there is no need.

To the flock, sheepdog’s are mysteries,
Roaming watchful round the peripheries.
These fang-toothed creatures bark, they roar
With the fetid reek of the carnivore,
Too like the wolf of legends told,
To be amongst our docile fold.
Who needs sheepdogs? What good are they?
They have no use, not in this day.
Lock them away, out of our sight
We have no need of their fierce might.

But sudden in their midst a beast
Has come to kill, has come to feast
The wolves attack; they give no warning
Upon that calm September morning
They slash and kill with frenzied glee
Their passive helpless enemy
Who had no clue the wolves were there
Far roaming from their Eastern lair.
Then from the carnage, from the rout,
Comes the cry, “Turn the sheepdogs out!”

Thus is our nature but too our plight
To keep our dogs on leashes tight
And live a life of illusive bliss
Hearing not the beast, his growl, his hiss.
Until he has us by the throat,
We pay no heed; we take no note.
Not until he strikes us at our core
Will we unleash the Dogs of War
Only having felt the wolf pack’s wrath
Do we loose the sheepdogs on its path.

And the wolves will learn what we’ve shown before;
We love our sheep, we Dogs of War.

Russ Vaughn
2d Bn, 327th Parachute Infantry Regiment
101st Airborne Division
Vietnam 65-66

To get the full flavor you really must read the linked article above.

Red

FCC will not block airing of Stolen Honor

2004-10-15T09:20:00.000-04:00

You mean 18 Democrats don't realize that this is covered by the First Amendment? Imagine that.

Red

Makes Your Head Whip Around

2004-10-12T13:45:00.000-04:00

Yesterday CBS reported that major offensives in Iraq would be put on hold until after the election. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/12/iraq/main648718.shtml

But then again maybe not. http://www.turkishpress.com/turkishpress/news.asp?ID=30513

Democrats plan to file complaint with FCC against Sinclair Broadcasting

2004-10-12T10:02:00.000-04:00

They didn't mind when CBS used false documents in the attempt to highlight what Bush did or did not do 30 years ago, but now that there will be a smaller broadcast of John Kerry's undisputed anti-war activity and how it affected those who fought in Vietnam and those who were held as POW's NOW a broadcaster is biased.

To many of us Kerry's anti-war activity is highly relevent to today's world and today's campaign. It happened at a pivotal time in our history and given the pivotal times of today it is legitimate to broadcast the content of Stolen Honor.

Nobody but conservatives was pointing out the ties Rather had to the Democrats or his daugther's ties, but now the Post is making sure that everyone knows that Sinclair Broadcasting has donated money to the Republican's. Fair play is fair play. Report all of it, not just what you want.

I agreed with Sinclair refusing to air the reading of the names of dead soldiers in Iraq, primarily because it was a pure political ploy. The didn't bother to include the names of those who had been killed in Afganistan, it was not simply intended to honor war dead.

Personally I hope the showing of Stolen Honor causes John Kerry great emotional pain, as great as his activities caused others.

Red

A Note on Blogging and Time

2004-10-11T22:25:00.000-04:00

Any one who has read this blog previously will note that I am a nurse, for the last year and a half I have consistantly worked overtime and or homecare and in some cases both.

Last July I started doing sub contracting for wound care through agencies. The first case I picked up was with a patient that had a non healing wound that had been present for nearly three years with multiple hospital admissions and several surgeries. At that time I worked M-F as a wound care specialist at a long term acute care hospital or LTAC for short. It is a speciality hospital in which long term vent weaning, long term wound care and very difficult infections are dealt with. I always explained to people the type of hospital it is was doing what hospitals used to do before the advent of DRG's, only we did it better and more effectively by being able to focus the exact needed resources for those difficult to heal patients. I was scheduled to work 8 hour shifts but like so many nurses the end of the shift is rarely when it was supposed to be.

When I picked up the first home care case it meant that I would drive from the hospital 35 miles one way to the patients home after I had worked a full day, do the necessary wound care and documentation and then drive another 35 miles home. I did this every single day. I was there for every holiday, bringing my patient a plate of goodies and a good meal, something he did not always have. I tell this not because I am some wonderful nurse angel, I really am not. I have a keen interest in being able to heal wounds that have been unresponsive, because too often those wounds are unresponsive because the doc has absolutely no clue what to do with various types of wounds. That is a sad commentary but ever so true. I drove through driving rain during thunder storms and I drove through driving snow storms, just put the ole Jeep Wrangler in 4 wheel drive and off I went. I had made a commitment and would see it through. In December I picked up another patient, I tell about him in a post from Sunday.

At first I did not see the second patient Claude, every day. By this time I was picking up Saturday's to work on the floor at the hospital, in other words I was not doing my regular job I was working as a floor nurse. Of course no matter what I still ended up doing much of my regular job as well. The Saturday time was 12 hour shifts, most floor nurse today work that. From December to Febuary I juggled this all, and did it fairly successfully. Part of it was because I was earning extra money to ensure I could pay college tutuiton for my oldest child and part of it was an attempt to build a consulting business for wound care.

At the end of Feb. I had a terrific argument with the new nursing director for my facility. I had been pulled to do floor work on a day that I was to do wound care and then it happened the next day, but not only was I expected to take a patient load I was also being expected to do the wound care patients that needed to be seen as well. That effectively gave me 14 patients and I flat refused to do it. My license is far to precious to me to do dangerous work for one, and I refuse to do poor patient care. What the director did not know was that I had already gotten another job and intended on giving notice the following Monday, though I had intended to give a 45 day notice as there was no one in my facility trained to do wound care and it was my intent to train someone in at least the basics, though effective wound care takes at least a year to learn appropriately. I loved what I did, watching a wound heal that has been non healing is extremely gratifying for both me and the patient. But I knew it was time to leave as I was clashing often with the new director over what I felt constituted appropriate care.

So I left after this argument. I would not under any circumstances do care that I felt was either unsafe or poor. So I had a week off and started my new job. I now work 12 hour shifts at night, I took the night job because it worked out better with my agency wound care obligations. When I first started I was not working nights, I did many classes in cardiology because it was an area I was not familiar with and would stop by the one patients home in the morning and the other patient's home in the evening. By the end of April the first patient was essentially healed, at least to the point that a wound nurse was no longer warranted, and a regular nurse could handle it. I fully expected the wound to close within a couple weeks, checking in by phone with the patient confirmed that in three weeks he was completely healed.

I had started doing more visits with my other patient as his wound was not doing well and more aggressive treatment was required. I was also working 4 twelve hour shifts a week at the hospital so I had one day of overtime each week. Claude ended up in the hospital, two admissions together for about a 10 week period, it was the least amount that I worked for a year. I was still working 48 hours a week but it was ok. I would put my days close together so I could then have several days off together. The hospital I work at now allows self scheduling and as long as all needs are covered the days you choose to work are not changed. It was a nice way of being able to do things over the summer and then I could spend several days in a row off while my kids were out of school.

When Claude came home from the hospital it was the end of July and I started seeing him twice a day every day, as well as my 4 twelve hour night shifts at the hospital. It worked out well because I would see him on my way home and then on my way to work. I won't lie it was tiring but I was doing what I wanted and it worked well for my family life. I had gotten quite close to Claude and healing him became a huge priority for me. 7 or 8 weeks ago I started picking up weekend 11-7 shifts with him at his home and dropped my hospital overtime. Initially I did it to help cover for someones vacation and we had just gone to 8 hour shifts there instead of the 12 that the agency was doing. Claude liked having me there so much he wanted that to continue and it meant that the regular 11-7 gal could have every weekend off. This was available to me because my unit at the hospital is an outpatient unit and we had started to close on the weekend instead of staying open for only 2-3 patients who could be taken care of on another floor saving the hospital some $30,000 per weekend.

Life was busy for me but it was a good busy. With the 11-7 shifts I could sleep but still get up and have time to spend with my kids and the other days I was sleeping while they were in school. My hubby tolerated it because he supports me in my endeavors and knowing that we had one child in college and he is also taking classes and the next child off to college next year, as well as finishing the remodeling of an old farmhouse it was good to have the money coming in. I loved what I was doing in both jobs and the agency had plans to expand as far as wound care so there was much to look forward to.

Every day I saw Claude and we would joke and laugh and enjoy the relationship that we had. Each morning I would come in and his wife would have a cup of coffee ready for me, and after I did my wound care we would chat along with the other nurse that was there. I became good friends with the other nurses, we shared books and movies and things that we thought the other may be interested in.

On Sunday morning Claude died, and I lost a good friend, not just a patient. For a year and a half I have spent every nearly every single day except when my first patient healed and Claude ended up in the hospital driving out to someone's home. And even then I was working overtime anyway. Yesterday I had no where to go. Today I had no where to go. No patient that needed to be taken care of, no overtime to go to. It is an incredibly odd sensation. So many times yesterday and today I had that anxious feeling of having forgotten something to simply realize that I just didn't have anywhere that I needed to go. My heart hurts and every time I have that feeling of I was supposed to be somewhere I remember why I don't need to be, which only makes me feel worse.

So I have blogged to fill my time. The kids were at school today, hubby doing his thing and I simply had nothing to do. Such an odd sensation. I'm reading a book on Ghengis Khan that is really very good but could not get into it, after I read the same paragraph for half a dozen times I just gave up.

There have been few days in the last year and a half that I did not feel very blessed in my life. And part of that blessing was the unexpected chance to know Claude. It was a job I did not go looking for, it was a job that found me.

I think maybe I have posted too much today, but it helps me keep other things off my mind, so excuse my excess today. My life was touched by a wonderful guy and I shall miss him very much.

Red

Link to Duelfer Report

2004-10-11T16:01:00.000-04:00

This is a very long report and as noted on the site because of bandwidth not everyone will be able to view all of it, though they are working to have it so all who wish will be able to. If you read nothing else, read the key finding. There are 19 pages worth, and much more there than the national news bothered to report.

Red

Iraqi Intel Documents from CNS new available online

2004-10-11T13:14:00.000-04:00

Again while I feel they need to be more independently varified, this is a start in getting them out and perhaps eventually someone in the government will show enough interest that the originals can be looked and either verified or simply tossed out as useless.

Red

New York Times Magazine interview with John Kerry

2004-10-11T13:03:00.000-04:00

Please read the whole thing. I realize that not everyone will take from it what I do, but here is my opinion nonetheless.

Kerry seems to equate the war on Terror to something like the war on drugs or the war on poverty. Not a real war, but something that we can handle by going back to a time when terrorism was simply a nuisance. Of course that "nuisance" managed to kill many, many people prior to 9/11. The author of this article seems to suggest that if we did not have so much fear following 9/11 than the idea's of John Kerry would be a slam dunk, and Bush's way of doing things would never gain ground.

So let me go from those two things. First of all I would very much like to return to the "old" days too, though probably not to the old days that John Kerry refers to. I would like to return to days where kids jumped rope on the playground, instead of doing drugs. When songs did not get air play that called women bitches and ho's. When a line was drawn between right and wrong fairly clearly, instead of having a discourse as to rather a cartoon book put out by Planned Parenthood has pictures with explicit sexual acts depicted given to children as part of sex ed is proper or not. A time when I didn't have to scan even the cartoons my child is watching because of the adult and inappropriate content. A time when my child would learn that the founders of this country were not stupid dead white men, when personal responsibility meant something and when those who had to take charity had a least a bit of shame behind it, instead of being some God given right to have 3 children by 3 different men and never to be married. At time when men still were important to the family structure and to their children's lives, instead of an incidental means to have a child. Those things are gone, and for many of us that is infuriating.

The "rights" era did much to call this nation to fulfill the promise of the Constitution, it also brought out some deep radical elements that believe in moral relativity, mass victims, a clear hatred of the founding principles of this country and historical revision. What exactly does this have to do with how I view John Kerry and his interview? Because I look at John Kerry as one of those who helped in the building of those radical elements that have interjected deeply into how I and my family live our lives. His call to go back to Sept. 10 2001 is nothing more to me than a refusal to see clearly what his brand of politics has brought to this country.

I believe deeply in toleration. Had I mouthed words that were clearly racist or anything that could have been construed as humilating or harming another person my mother would have slapped those words right out of my mouth. I grew up in a family that put a premium on morals, and racism/sexism was immoral. So this is not about whether I am a tolerant person or not. This is about other people who do not wish to have my morals forced on them, and the fact that I would appreciate the same courtesy. I do not see abortion as a government issue, that is an issue between the woman and God, and them alone. I don't care what color or creed someone is as long as they abide by the laws of this country, one of which is religious law may not supersede civil law. I don't think being critical of certain cultural norms within various groups should be construed as racist, to believe that way allows for things that are truly heinous no matter who is practicing them. I also do not believe in treating people who sole goal is to kill others as insurgents, freedom fighters, militants or gunmen, and I surely do not believe that the problem can be solved with a primarily diplomatic approach involving the UN, the same UN that put Sudan as head of the Human Rights Commission of the UN this year. While a law enforcement approach is a component of this fight, it is not the only answer. Again John Kerry seems to be searching for nirvana and as far as I know that does not exist. To equate Jihadists to mobsters or prostitutes is to me incredibly pathetic. It also shows a clear lack of understanding where those jihadists come from, and the religious element that is so very clearly there no matter who says it really is not.

Next let us go to the fear that 9/11 generated. While I certainly cannot speak for millions of American's who feel differently, I have little fear. I do have much anger. The fear of losing the precious freedoms that we have is much larger than the fear I have of another attack. I do not see Americans as some quivery bowl of Jello, or living in perpetual fear. I know the part of the country that so many journalists dismiss as fly over country.

I also found it ironic that one of the first things in this article is John Kerry's citing his reaction to 9/11. He wonders to himself, where is my gun? Is this the same guy who pandered to the anti gun lobby?

In the end, perhaps more than anything it is John Kerry as a young man whose views do not seem to have substancially changed that causes me concern. War is bad, no matter the cause, no matter the reason. I also cannot under any stretch of the imagination vote for a man for Commander in Chief who denigrated American soldiers as he so clearly did, or who meant with the enemy, clearly in violation of US law.

Had the Democratic party put up a candidate who was not so clearly very left of center, and one who did not have the baggage of the past that Kerry has, I may have voted for the Democrat, I am not a dyed in the wool Republican by any means. But there seems to be a fight within the Democrats for the soul of the party and at this time the Democrats may have lost my vote forever. I am not and never have been keen on the far right wing either, both sides should understand that neither should use the government on issues of personal responsibility, or personal life. I will always prefer the candidate who believes in what the US Constitution allows, and what the Federalist papers are all about. Not the one who uses nuance to interpret those things attempting to discern meaning where none exist.

Red

Nursing Shortage Helps Drive the Increase in Health Care Costs

2004-10-11T09:23:00.000-04:00

In parts of the country the nursing shortage is quite critical. Most of Joe Public will not realize it until they need care, and even then they may not because of industry use of high patient to staff ratio's and the use of mandatory overtime. Some facilities that are able to financially bring in agency staff to cover the holes. However all of this costs money, and it also drives nurses from the profession. It becomes a vicious cycle.

Nearly every person in this country at some point comes into contact with the health care system, which means you will utilize the skills of nurses. We must have nurses in order to have a health care system, and we must have nurses who are not so overworked that they are making life threatening errors. And if we are to help decrease the cost of health care we must also increase the number of nurses we have.

Red

Physicians in Hawaii demanding up to $1200 a day to be on call

2004-10-11T09:00:00.000-04:00

Please take the time to read this article. It is practices like this that are pushing the cost of healthcare higher and higher. The practices of physicians immensely impact the cost of health care, and most facilities go to the very end to keep the docs happy, as in the lexicon of health care it is the docs who are seen as the ones who bring in the cash to a facility. Nurses on the other hand are simply seen as a cost because of the labor costs associated with nurses. Yet without nurses there is no health care.

Hawaii, like any other state, has both medicare and medicaid coverage for it's people. It is your tax dollars that pay for the program. Are you impressed with your money ultimately going to pay for a doc to be on call for $1200 a day?

Red

Massachusetts State Senator Blasts Mass. Nurses attempt to institute minimum staffing guidelines

2004-10-11T08:39:00.000-04:00

State Senator Richard Moore(D) disputes something that nurses have been saying is needed for years, that we need specific guidelines that give a patient to staff ratio. Without specific guidelines any hospital in the country can make a nurse take an unsafe patient load. The idea of specific patient to staff ratio's are based on patient safety. Believe it or not there are facilities throughout the country that have nurses taking care of three or four patients in an ICU. Having been a neuro ICU nurse I can unequivically tell any politician from either side of the aisle that is highly inappropriate. Depending on the acuity of the patient more than one may be inappropriate. Many are the nights I remember sitting in a patients room for my entire 12 hour shift because their condition was simply too unstable for me to be able to leave. And yes that meant no bathroom breaks and no dinner. In facilities throughout the country med-surg nurses are taking 8 and more patients. When my own dad was in Baptist Memorial Hospital in Memphis Tennessee in 2000 his nurse had 14 patients, on a surgical oncology floor, a patient to staff ratio that is so highly unsafe that it boggled my mind. The care my dad received was horrid. While his floor was staffed the way it was, the hospital was busy building a "state of the art cardiac center" designed to make Baptist Memorial THE place to go for cardiac care. The new area of the hospital would bring the bed count to over a 1000 beds. However what I could not and still do not understand was if the hospital was having difficulty staffing other floors appropriately then who was going to staff this wonderful state of the art cardiac care area? Or could it be that the hospital was deliberately scimping on staff in order to put money into this cardiac area? My money was on the latter.
Some hospitals have instituted internal patient to staff ratios, something my own facility has done to a degree, however it is not on all floors, and covers primarily only those areas that are considered ICU or in my case pre and post cardiac cath related to high risk of bleeding.
A study concerning patient to staff ratio's was done about a year and a half ago. It shows that for every patient on a med-surg floor that a nurse takes beyond 4 that the risk of patient mortality and morbidity increases by 7%.
Politicians need to listen to those who do the care. We know what we need in order to achieve the best patient outcomes. Running literally from room to room without opportunity for breaks or dinner does not enhance patient care, it also drives nurses out of the profession exacerabating an already severe problem. Next time your in the hospital either yourself or as a visitor ask the nurse how many patients she has, ask if she gets time to go to the bathroom, ask if she managed a lunch or a dinner. If you have a nurse who is not scared to speak out the answers you get may surprise you.

Red

John Kerry and "the state of Islam"

2004-10-10T17:41:00.000-04:00

From an interview with the New York Times Magazine

''We need to engage more directly and more respectfully with Islam, with the state of Islam, with religious leaders, mullahs, imams, clerics, in a way that proves this is not a clash with the British and the Americans and the old forces they remember from the colonial days,'' Kerry told me during a rare break from campaigning, in Seattle at the end of August. ''And that's all about your diplomacy.''

First let me ask-Is there a state of Islam? Yes and no.

Perhaps it is important to understand that in Islam there has never been a religious hierarchy that mimacs the religious hierarchy of Christianity, at least not until recent times. It is only in Iran that one finds a religious hierarchy that has mimaced what has been the norm in Christianity for hundreds of years. So then why does John Kerry think he can appeal to religious leaders, mullahs and Imams etc... and somehow convince them they are not clashing with British and Americans and the old forces they remember from the colonial days. Actually this entire paragraph that quotes John Kerry shows his complete lack of thought process.

There is no specific state of Islam to negogiate with. Believe it or not there are differences inside Islam and how they practice just like there are differences inside Christianity. Those differences are not as visible as they are in Christianity but they are nonetheless there. It is not as if there is some Islamic "Pope" one can go to and have a meeting with the expectation that single voice will be able to communicate certain thoughts to the followers of Islam. That kind of person simply does not exist. Islam has no Sacraments and no ordained Priesthood. An Imam has no Priestly duties, he is the leader of prayer.

A frequently quoted verse of the Qur'an bids Muslims to "obey God, obey his prophet and obey those in authority over you" This verse was interpreted as conferring authority equal to the Qur'an on the traditions of the Hadith. A collection concerning the actions and utterances of the Prophet who was divinely inspired by not only revelation but also in all that he said and did. This was an oral tradition that was handed down for generations and later put to writing. Together the Qur'an and the Hadith form the basis of Holy Law, Shari'a. Over generations of jurists and theologians this has been elaborated on throughout time.

As Islam spread the way Shari'a was elaborated on was fairly consistent. Without getting too much into detail Islam had various Empires that while held sway over a multitude of various ethnic peoples with various backgrounds the common theme of Islam and Shari'a law was consistent coming from one powerful source, the ruler of the Empire. The last of the great Islamic Empires was of course the ottomans. The purpose of the law ws to define a define a system of rules, the observance of which would enable believers to live a righteous life in this world and to prepare for the next. The principal function of the Islamic state and society was to maintain and enforce those rules.

Under the Seljuks and even more later the ottomans, the ulema became ever more important. The ulema is a Muslim scholar trained in Islam and Islamic law. From the 11th century onward the ulema, especially those concerned with law, became much more involved with the state, in fact becoming basically part of the apparatus of the state. Even so, they never became a "church".

Islam has never produced an orthodoxy in the Christian sense of the word. There are no synods, no councils in Islamic history meant to define the truth or denounce error. The ulema, the theologians and jurists of Islam may as individuals or in schools or as noted in later times under the Ottomans as public office holders, formulate dogma and interpret scripture, but they form no ecclesiastical authority to lay down a single orthodox dogma.

In the history of Islam there were different schools of shari'a law, each with it's own principals and textbooks. Each with it's own judiciary, yet living in mutual toleration. There needed to be limits but characteristically theologians disagreed where to draw the line. Muslim theologians were ready to denounce charges of excess or deviation against other doctrines but were usually reluctant to pursue those charges to any type of conclusion. Accusations of apostate were not uncommon in early Islamic history, however few theologians were willing and able to invoke the penalties for apostasy against those whose belief differed from their own. The accused were for the most part left unmolested and some even held high office.

The absence of a single, imposed dogma in Islam is not an omission but a rejection of something that was felt by Sunni Muslims to be alien to the genius of their faith and dangerous to the community at large. Tolerance was to be extended to those who reached the required minimum of belief, that is those who profess what Islam recognized as the last revealed religion. Tolerance however may in no circumstances be extended to the apostate Muslim, the one who denies that Islam is the proper religion. The penalty for that is death. The profession of Islam is that God is one and Muhammad is his Prophet, the rest is in the details, and as we have seen there may be differences in those details but as long as one stuck to the basic premise that God is one and Muhammad is his Prophet there was much tolerance within the religion of Islam. Seen as best for the community. If there is anything even close to orthodoxy in Islam it is simply the five pillars of the faith.

As long as there was one central government authority in Islam this seemed to work well within their society. However it also placed no emphasis on individuals or their abilities or lack thereof. With the principal of the state to maintain and enforce shari'a there was no separation of religion and state. The idea of individual freedom or liberty was an alien concept. A tribal religion that never was able to go beyond a tribal thought process of what was good for the group's survival was therefore good for the individual. After the Reformation in Western Europe the differences between East and West became more and more profound. Even though Western Europe was consistently racked with internal religious wars, the ottomans were unable to conquer that part of Europe.

After the ottomans were turned back from the gates of Vienna in 1683 for a second time, and from there the long decline of the Ottoman empire began. In time the ottomans attempted to mimic certain Western innovations in war but little else. It was a matter of distress that while they had the instruments of war that Western Europe and Russia had the ottomans were still unsuccessful on the battlefield except for the occasional battle win. Perhaps the biggest downfall for the Ottomans' was the rise of Nationalism. The divergent groups of people under their control began to agitate for their own nation, their own state. The fight for independence of these people from the Turkish Ottomans delighted liberals, but many also saw much trouble ahead as the institutions being developed in those new nation states were but a caricature of the institutions in the West. With no Reformation, with no Enlightenment those states leapt into liberty from the ottomans unprepared to impart true liberty and freedom to their people's.

By the late 1800's the ottomans were charaterized by the Russian Czar as "The sick man of Europe." The conflicts between Russia, the agitation of those looking for independence and the fear of the Western European powers of a stronger Russia culminated in WWI. By 1920 the Ottoman Empire no longer existed, it's provinences spun out into newly independent states and into a mandate for the British and French in the Middle East.

The British and the French, having lived and breathed nationalism for hundreds of years at this point formed nation states out of their mandate, yet maintained control. Those colonialist times so often cited now as the true problem in the Middle East, yet it bears understanding that those colonial times lasted for less than 30 years in some areas, a mere blick of time when compared to the reign of the Ottomans. For John Kerry to adhere to the line that the colonial past is a basic problem in the middle east is for him to have such a poor understanding of history that it is quite astounding to me. This is a man who has had what is purported to be the best educational advantages, one can only assume that his line regarding colonialism is litte more than pandering to the far left who blames all the world's ills on Western Colonialism, as well as pandering to an Islamic mind set that all the ills of the Muslim world are the doing of someone outside their culture.

It is important to realize that without one central authority that could impose some sort of power to keep the different schools of shari'a from competing for followers, such as when the Ottomans' dissolved the Bektashi order of dervishes, various schools of thought were allowed much more political latitude than had been previously given. While Muslims had allowed tolerance within their ranks, rulers kept a strong hand on things felt to threaten the internal whole. The colonial powers drew nation/state lines with no regard of the dominating religious sentiment in the area nor of it's ethnic makeup. Following WWII and the breakup of the British and French mandate those nations became nations in fact, and not nations under colonial rule. Without going through the whole historical process suffice it to say that each nation also then had it's own Islamic jurist, ulema's and theologians. The concept of Jihad as a armed struggle is not a new concept in Islam, the ottomans Turks used it for hundreds of years, and by the end of the 19th century Muslim leaders in West Africa proclaimed and fought a jihad against pagans, against back sliding Muslim and invading imperialist Westerners. It was familiar to the different schools of the Shi'a, for whom the Sunni rulers were upsurpers and tyrants. It gained support from Sunni's who lived under the rule of heathen Mongols or of what were considered nominally Muslim Mongols whose religious commitment was always suspect, it acquired a new meaning in modern times as a way to oppose modernizing rulers who were seen as having betrayed Islam from within, as when the Shah of Iran was overthrown. It gained more speed with the creation of the state of Israel.

We now have a situation in which Iran is a Shi'a theocracy, while Saudi Arabia is a Wahhabi theocracy, and no they are not the same. They are competing views of Islam, and while they share many of the same tenets they also have significant differences. The Wahhabists of Saudi Arabia are a fundamentalist form of the Sunni sect of Islam. While the Shi'a form is a minority of Islamists in the Middle East, they are a majority in Iran. Under one central authority that characterized Islam for centuries co-existence under the toleration shown to other Muslims was possible, at this time it increasingly seems that is not the case. In Iraq of course there is a Sunni majority with a Shi'a minority, and then throw in the Kurds. Muslims yes, but of a different ethnic makeup and for reasons too extensive to go into here, the bottom of the rung in nearly every Muslim country I can think of. It is important to realize that what is happening in the Middle East right now is not simply jihad against the foreign Christian "invaders" but a jihad that is meant to bring all back to the "true faith of Islam" as called for by Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabist sect.

So tell me what common authority will John Kerry appeal to? The Saudi's who have Mecca and Medina within their borders, and who are the keepers of Islam? The Iranians who are not Sunni's be that the fundamentalist or not, who are busy enriching uranium? Will he speak to the divergent groups in Iraq for common ground and understanding while they are busy blowing up those who are available, killing far more Islamic Iraqis than the American's have. Or perhaps he can appeal to the kidnappers, not just those who have kidnapped foreigners but those who have kidnapped their own. I know he can start with Pakistan where the Shi'a are under assault by other Muslims.

The time honored history of toleration within the various Muslim faiths have lead to an inability to condemn horrendous acts of barbarism. It is a closing of ranks against outsiders who are not of the faith. Who do not understand. The rise of nation/states within the old Ottoman empire has lead to competing forms of Islam though, and a struggle within that has also boiled over onto the rest of the world as the "fundamentalists" attempt to take power. I put fundamentalists in quotes because it is something of a misnormer to call them that, in much the same way that the Calvinist brand of Christianity can be termed a return to fundamentalist Christianity, when in fact that form of Christianity never existed. It would perhaps be better to term either of them a literalist view.

Despite all the words expended in an effort to make what is going on in todays world not be about religion it is explicitly about religion. Usama bin Laden has made that perfectly clear by his own words, it is not only war of religion against the infidel American's it is a war against the Muslim who would work with the infidels, even though they maintain their own Islamic religion. Those who are willing to come into the modern world and allow shades of alien western culture into their world are as awful as the infidel westerners. Tolerance in Muslim history occured when the center of learning and culture existed in the Muslim world while Europe was in the dark ages. For the last 200 years the Muslim world has been under both physical and psychological assault from the west and that toleration has become less and less, perhaps culminating in the Taliban of Afghanistan and Usama bin Laden.

The Muslim world has never suffered through the religious wars that Europe did, and the lessons learned from that nearly three centuries of warfare were never learned. What President Bush has done by going to war in Iraq is to attempt to accelerate what would perhaps have been the same process by which Europe came to conquer the religious wars. With freedom to worship as one see's fit, with personal liberty not dictated by a government. When one looks to history it should be clear to anyone that this is not going to be an easy process, nor one that can be accomplished without death and destruction and great sacrifice from those who believe that for the good of the world it must be accomplished.

Perhaps because I have steeped myself in history since I have been a teenager, 20 plus years now, I tend to see much through the lenses of history and while it is not the most precise way to view the world, it can offer much in terms of lessons. Because I see things that way I cannot for the life of me understand how John Kerry can in today's world speak of the state of Islam, when one clearly does not exist. Nor how he expects to appeal to clerics who have no tradition of orthodox history, as if he could somehow get everyone on the same page. Throw in the divergent tribes and tribal custom and one can only shake their heads at the absurd idea that one can negogiate ourselves out of having Islamic fanatics kill us.

The American discontent that lead to the American Revolution is generally placed in 1765 with the enactment of the Stamp Act. It took 11 more years for American's to declare Independence from England, then 6 years of War. The first government was the established under the Articles of Confederation, and then finally in 1787 the US Constitution was ratified. In all 22 years before the US government was independent and took the form of government we have such pride in now. Understand that the result of this came from a couple hundred years of being physically separated from the English Monarchy, after the Enlightenment and by men well versed in not only the philosophy of the Enlightenment but also of ancient Greece Republicism and other ancient philosophies. Understanding that should make people understand the grave difficulties we have been forced to undertake in the Middle East, which has no such traditions, which has no Magna Carta, which has no tradition however small, of individual liberty or separation of religion from state.

This is going to be a long, long battle. It is going to take fortitude and a clear understanding of all the obstacles, as well as ardent building on the educational foundation that does exist in the area. It should also include the clear understanding that we were not first attacked on Sept 11, 2001 but that we have been repeatedly attacked since the 1970's.

I can think of very few politicians I feel are less able to do what is necessary to protect American lives and the American way of life than John Kerry. His very history of his life, the real one not the fake one he touts, should give all pause who believe that we are at another junction of time not unlike the times of WWII. History offers lessons to all who wish to find them, John Kerry does not, he attempts to live in nirvana, if he finds that he may find the State of Islam, but until then I'm betting neither exist.

Red

A Great Article by Reader Patrick Acer-The Ultimate Free Rider

2004-10-10T17:37:00.000-04:00

The Ultimate Free Rider
Patrick Acer

For many years, unions struggled to organize, and workers signed cards and organized meetings and advocated at their peril. Many were beaten, intimidated, and lost their jobs.

When the unions won representation and actually signed a contract, there was great jubilation for the hard-earned gains in pay, benefits, and work-rules.

All workers got the benefits of the new contract. However, some had chosen not to sign up, and had not joined the union, and didn't pay dues to support the union.

These workers were (and are to this day) derisively known as "free-riders".

They are perfectly happy to accept the fruits of the struggles and courageous actions of others (who certainly are their betters), while never paying any price and often even criticizing the union at every turn, all the while benefiting from a larger paycheck than they would ever have received were their approach taken by all.

John Kerry is the ultimate "free rider".

He says the world is better off without Saddam, but that taking him out was the "wrong war, in the wrong place at the wrong time".

He says that we should have given the inspectors more time, while our troops were quartered in the sands of Kuwait and even so were forced to do combat in the sweltering spring and summer instead of the fall and inter.

He says that we should have been smart and kept Saddam contained with sanctions, knowing full well that in 2002 and 2003, France and Russia were trying new tactics to try and get the sanctions removed entirely.

He says that George Bush "misled" the country about WMD, even though he was privy to the very same intelligence.

George Bush and his cabinet had to make their decisions in the heat of the moment and in the new security environment that 9/11 forced us to deal with.

He didn't have the benefit of hindsight, nor did they have any intelligence that anyone could guarantee was 100% perfect and accurate.

He didn't have the benefit of a thousand weapons inspectors having free rein throughout Iraq for three extra years.

He didn't have the benefit of a CIA with actual eyes-on human operatives, as the Clinton administration had cut the budget and prevented hiring any assets that were not upstanding church elders or had any blotches on their records.

What he did have was a clear vision and a conviction that America could not and would not tolerate a very apparent threat from becoming another actual attack on us if he could take action that would prevent another
9/11.

So today while the world benefits from the removal of Saddam, John Kerry gets to snipe from the sidelines, constantly raising questions about George Bush's integrity, without having to suffer any of the disastrous consequences that his policies and votes would have brought about. (I am frequently reminded of the international hand-wringers after Israel took out Saddam's reactor in about 1981 - they were all privately
relieved, but criticized the strike nonetheless).
Under the Kerry program, by now the weapons inspectors would have finished, finding "nothing" (which is NOT what the ISG report found - we actually documented hundreds of violations - missiles, etc). The sanctions would have been removed by dint of these results. The US military forces, degraded by a humiliating waiting game in the desert, would have been forced to pack up and go home. Saddam would have proclaimed victory, and indeed would be on his way to becoming the new Saladin of the Arabic world.

And - of course - Saddam would have immediately reconstituted his weapons programs and would have become an even bigger threat than he was in 1991. (The ISG report today verified Saddam’s intentions.)

(Oh - by the way - under the Kerry program - Saddam would still be in possession of Kuwait and would be well on his way to dominion or control of Saudi Arabia - thus giving him about 50% of the world's oil supply.)

George Bush was willing to evaluate the situation and make a decision with imperfect information, without all the facts, because waiting for 100% perfection before making a decision results in "paralysis by analysis".
The risks of not taking out Saddam - as seen from September 2002 and NOT September 2004, were unacceptable. The risks to his political future were enormous, but he put that aside and went forward putting the best interests of the country first. He accepted the risks, did the heavy lifting, took the courageous actions, and will ultimately be successful in Iraq, despite the difficult times that still lie ahead.

John Kerry and his family, and all the rest of us, will have the benefits that will accrue from the stand George Bush took, and from his principled actions, but John Kerry will get those benefits without ever having paid any dues.

John Kerry is the ultimate "free rider"

-------------------------------
written October 7, 2004
@ Pittsford, NY

Jihadist caught in Nashville, Tennessee

2004-10-10T16:56:00.000-04:00

So glad we have people in this country willing to call the FBI when necessary.

My Friend Claude

2004-10-10T10:28:00.000-04:00

I need to take a bit of a time out this morning and tell you about my friend Claude. Claude didn't start out as my friend, he was simply a patient.

10 months ago I got a call from a local agency wondering if I would be interested in providing wound care to a home care patient. One of the nurses who worked with the patient was married to someone I worked with. At the time I was working strictly as a wound care nurse. The patient had developed some nasty wounds and the gal I worked with suggested to the agency that I was the right person to handle the situation. I went in and spoke at length with the agency director, gave them my references etc... and the next day the clinical director took me out to the home. She was a little concerned because the patient she said could be a bit grumpy and was very picky about his nurses.

I went into his home, took off my shoes and introduced myself and what I was there for. I called him Mr.---- and answered his questions with yes sir and no sir. He started to laugh and told me that Mr.---- was his father's name, not his and that I didn't need to call him sir. I explained that I always called my patients by their last name unless they gave me permisson to do otherwise and calling people sir or ma'am was the way I was brought up but if he was ok with me calling him Claude I would be happy to do so. He said we might as well get familiar since I was going to be looking at his butt.

Without giving too much detail, Claude had been in an auto accident 8 years prior, he was paralyzed from the waist down and had only gross motor movement in his upper extremities. He was trached but able to be off the vent during the day, with the vent on at night while he slept. That way he could talk by having a talking cap on his trach. He ate, though poorly. He didn't like to turn to his left because his left shoulder would hurt from the injury he had received to it from the accident. His poor nutrition coupled with no wanting to turn had led to a couple nasty bed sores.

In the beginning I went out only a couple times a week. My job was to measure the wounds, assess what they were doing and to recommend treatment to the physician and then to reassess if treatment was working appropriately. The first little while we were not getting anywhere with the wounds, so I began to go out every day in an effort to be more aggresive with them. As I became a more familiar face at his home I got to know his wife very well, his children and his grandchildren.

I always liked Claude and in time he got to like me. We joked and we laughed. He loved to tell a dirty joke and it delighted him that I didn't get flustered or act like a prude. He wanted to know all about my life and my family, asking to see pictures of my children. He wanted to know what my husband did for a living, you name it he asked it. Once when I was running late to the time I was to be there and had my youngest in the Jeep with me I called ahead to his home and asked if it was ok if I just kept my son with me instead of taking him home so I could be there on time. I told his wife that my son would sit in the Jeep and wait for me. She said that would be no problem. After I got there and went into the home Claudes wife went out to my Jeep, had Ryan get out of the Jeep and come up on the porch with her grandchildren for some lemonade and to play with the dogs. Ryan asked to go with me to Claude's frequently after that but feeling it was not professional I discouraged it. I told Claude that Ryan had really enjoyed being out there and wanted to come again, his response was "by all means!" I did bring Ryan a couple times after that and he would stay outside and play with the dogs while I did the dressing change. Claude enjoyed watching Ryan play.

On Mother's day I went to his home in the late afternoon. I usually went a little earlier but since it was Mother's day and they were having a big dinner with all the kids out there I had waited so I didn't interfere with family time. After dinner at my own house I had worked most of the day in my flower beds. When I got to Claudes the first thing I noticed was that he was working too hard to breathe. His color was bad and he was not very alert. I immediately called an ambulance and the physician. At that time he was on the vent but still not venilating well. The physician, an old time doc, got there before the ambulance did. Understand we live in a rural area and where Claude lived was no different. He lived between two small towns out in the country, one town has an all volunteer fire/rescue squad and the other had paid ambulance attendents, but only two ambulances. It took some 30 minutes to get an ambulance to the house.

By the time the ambulance got there I was bagging Claude as the ventilator was not oxygenating him enough. The ambulance attendent asked me to ride with them so someone could continue to bag leaving another person with free hands in case it was necessary. So I went to the hospital in the ambulance. Claude was scared, but I assured him all would be well. In the ambulance I joked with him, talked to him about anything and everything I could think of. That admission he was in the hospital for 4 weeks.

He was insistant about coming home so he was reluctantly released from the hospital, despite the lung doc not feeling he was ready. He came home late in the evening and had his wife call me and ask that I not come right out that night, but to wait until the morning, he was tired. So I did. The following day we had no electicity, there had been a terrific storm in the night and electicity was out all over several counties. With no electicity we had no water, so I couldn't wash my hair. I put a fair amount of stuff in my hair to style it and so it looked really bad. My solution was to put a dew rag on. I use these when I garden and had several. On my way to the house I called the shift nurse to let him know I was on my way, I got a paniced nurse on the other end. Claudes oxygen sats had dropped into the 40's, the ambulance had been called but hadn't gotten there. I began racing to Claudes home, doing literally 90 on the back country roads, paved or I wouldn't have been able to do that. I was screaming at the other nurse bag him, bag him! I got to the home just as the ambulance did. I used to be an ICU nurse and that training simply takes over in an emergency, I was giving orders to this person and that person while doing an assessment of Claude who was starting to come around as his oxygen level was coming up. The ambulance people were looking at me like I was from outer space when it occured to me that they did not know who I was and here I was dressed in a pair of jeans, a tank top and a damn dew rag on my head. I then explained who I was, and in the midst of all this Claude winked at me. At that point I knew he was going to be ok.

He ended up in the hospital for 6 weeks that time. Going to the facility I used to work at when I first started working with him. It is a long term acute care facility or to make that understandable, it does what hospitals used to do before patients got kicked out of the hospital 2 days after being admitted. He was sent there to wean back off the vent. After 6 weeks he had not weaned but he was insistant he was going home. He may not have been able to talk but he could use an alaphabet board and he made it clear he was going home. Through the two admissions he had gotten a colostomy because of a bowel obstruction, and it would also help allow the wounds on his backside to heal without worrying about stool getting into them, and he also got a G-tube to feed him through since he had not weaned off the vent and could not eat.

The day he came home and I went to see him he looked awful. He had lost at least 30 lbs. His color was poor and he just seemed exhausted. The treatments to his wounds needed to be done twice a day so I would be seeing him every day twice a day. I was glad because I wanted to be out there more frequently as I felt strongly that for him to succeed at home he would need a great deal. The first couple weeks home were hard, he could not tolerate being off the vent at all and not being able to talk frustrated him. As time went on though we were able to deal with everything thanks to outstanding nurses who were in the home, a wife who was willing to do everything in her power to make life good for him and a patient who had a strong will. The first question that first day that Claude asked me using his alphabet board was "how is Ryan?" I chatted to him about Ryan, about my oldest who had come back home from Texas and how he was doing, and about my daughter and the newest boyfriend. Over the next couple months even though we had to communicate through the board we had wonderful conversations and he still told jokes.

3 weeks ago we started weaning Claude off the vent at home. He wanted that so very badly. It is unusual to do this at home but he was unwilling to go back to the hospital and after much consultation between the physician, the nurses, the agency and the family we decided to go for it. I had started not only doing wound care out there I was now working the 11-7 shift on Sat. and Sun out there. I had done it to cover someone's vacation first but Claude liked me out there for a shift so much that I kept doing it and gave up my overtime at the hospital. The first day of weaning went great, he was off the vent for two hours the first day and maintained his O2 without any problems. It was absolutely delightful to hear his voice again after so many months. The first thing he said was a joke. "Why do women like animals so much? Because they like a mink in the closet, a tiger in bed, a jag in the driveway and an ass to pay for it all!"

Each day he was off the vent more and his O2 sat never dropped below 97%. He was jubilent, us nurses were jubilent and his wife and family were jubilent. We had passed a major milestone. On Sept. 29 a couple days before my birthday, I got there and Claude told me he had something for me. Told me to go look in the box by the wall. I gingerly opened the box, since he was such a jokster I had no idea what might be in it. Inside was a beautiful little calico kitten. One of their cats had had kittens. It was just old enough to be weaned. He then said "Happy Birthday!" Of course I couldn't say no so I took the little thing home with me. A couple days later on my birthday I went out to the house after our school's homecoming football game. I had my oldest son with me as we came straight from the game to his house. I left Ray out in the Jeep but Claude asked for him to come in, he wanted to meet him. This child who he had heard all about, his college time, his girlfriend, his time in Texas. So I got Ray and he went in and Claude and he talked for a bit. Then Claude's wife and Ray went into the kitchen where Linda got him a cup of coffee while I did the dressing change. Claude told me what a great kid he was and that he could tell he was a bright boy. Ray and I took another kitten that night, the last one. Claude knew that Ray had one of his kittens die of distemper two months before and I had told Claude that the last kitten left looked like the one that Ray had lost. Ray picked up that little kitten and got teary eyed and said he couldn't have it in his apartment, so I said I would take it to my house and Ray could visit it at home. Ray thanked Claude profusely, and Claude just winked at him.

On Tuesday last week I finally got some specialized equipment I needed to accelerate the wound healing. The wound vac. It is a wonderful wound healing instrument. It works just like a vaccum and brings blood and nutriuents into the wound to build tissue quickly. It uses a specialized sponge and an occulsive dressing over it, when the vac is turned on the sponge pulls down so it looks like a raisin. That is one of the ways you know it is sealed right. Earlier that day I had gone to the hot tub with my hubby, we took some time with no kids and just enjoyed ourselves. I told Claude how nice that had been. Once I got the wound vac on and going and he was turned to his back I ran my hand under his bottom to make sure the seal had remained and he asked me what I was doing. I told him I was feeling his butt what did he think I was doing? We laughed and he told me turn about was fair play, and we laughed some more. That night when I went out for my second visit he told me he had something for me. Told me to look on the table and what do I find? Flavored condoms! It was the first time he actually made my face turn red, not only my face but from my chest up. I blushed so hard that it brought tears to my eyes. He told me he thought that would liven up the next hot tub adventure. And he laughed and laughed some more.

Yesterday I did not work out at Claudes for the 11-7 shift like I would have normally. Originally I had taken the night off because the agency had a trip to Chicago. They had a bus trip where we were have an educational session for CEU's (continuing education credit's) and then once in Chicago a shopping trip. I had intended on going but my daughter was going to her boyfriends homecoming dance and she really wanted me to stay home and do her hair and such, so I opted to do that. I did my twice daily dressing changes though. I was at Claudes at 9p last night, we talked about Kristen and her boyfriend and that I really liked this boy. Claude said she was the only one of my kids he hadn't meant yet and he wanted to know when I was going to bring her in so he could say hello. He had seen her picture and had commented she was very pretty, and he told me he wanted to see her in person so he could tell her so. I told him I would bring her either Sunday morning or Monday evening. He said that would be great. He also told me that he wanted to eat, and asked that I get in touch with the lung doc and talk to him about it. I used to work closely with this doc and Claude believed that I would be able to convince him to allow us to start to try it since the weaning had gone so well. I promised him I would get with the physician on Monday. When I left I waved at him from the door and told him I would see him in the morning. "See ya Bud, I'll be here about 11."

At 9:50 this morning just before I would be heading out for his house, the day shift nurse called me to tell me that Claude had passed away. At first I was just stunned, I asked what happened, he was doing so well! The day nurse told me the doc said his heart had given out. I hung up and cried. A little while later when I had better control of myself I called back to talk to Linda his wife. She told me that at 4a he had woke up and asked the nurse who had filled in for me to let the dogs out and to wait by the door because they would be right back, the nurse is new to the case and this was his first night, he wouldn't have known the routine. Claude was on the vent so they communicated with the alaphabet board. The nurse let the dogs out and then let them back in, turned Claude and got him resettled and Claude went back to sleep. About 6 the nurse noticed that Claude's color didn't look good so he started an assessment. Despite the vent still working and ventilating him he had passed away. Poor George, I can imagine how he felt. Linda was woke up, the doc called and so on. As I spoke to Linda she told me not to cry, that Claude looked more peaceful then he had in years, she told me she loved me and that she wanted me to know that Claude loved me dearly, which of course only made me cry harder, as I do now.

It's been years since I allowed myself to get close to a patient. After working with very sick people and tragic events in Neuro ICU and the long term acute care facility I used to work in I learned that in order to do my job effectively I had to learn to protect my emotions. So many of my patients over the years have died. In Neuro it was often young people who had been out doing stupid things that led to horrid tragic events. In the other facility it was mostly older people, but occasionally young people who had nasty diseases. Claude gave me a wonderful gift, the gift of remembering a patient is not just the sum of all that they need to have done, that taking care of patients is not just the technical aspects. This spilled over in my ability to laugh and joke with my patients in the hospital and remember to see them as people and not just what was wrong with them. I currently work in Cardiovascular Lab Recovery. In other words I take care of people before and after a cardiac cath. Many of them are highly anxious not only about the procedure but what will be found. Many are there straight from the ER after suffering chest pain and some with a positive heart attack event. They need a nurse who can calm them and treat them as more than whatever issue brought them into the hospital. Claude helped me to remember that.

So Rest In Peace my dear friend Claude. You gave me more than I gave you.

Red

I'm No Constitutional Scholar but....

2004-10-06T16:07:00.000-04:00

On the Vice Presidental debates last night Sen. Edwards said that no state is forced to recognize another states marriage. This was in reference to gay marriage. At the time I wondered how it was that each state does recognize marriages from other states. It was something that simply struck me as odd. So I did a bit of research today and I think I may have found how that happens.

Article IV of the US Constitution, known as the Full Faith and Credit Clause, compels states to recognize the judicial proceedings of every other state. I could be wrong here but marriage is not only a religious act, it is a legal act or in other words a judicial act and thus a marriage performed in one state is required to be recognized in another state under this particular article.

Something to think about.
Red