An Ol' Broad's Ramblings
Archive for 4 September 2009
Date Night? :)
This evening, the Mr and I attended a fund raiser for our state rep, Vance Dennis.
Honestly, I thought I might know at least a couple of people from prior association with the local Republican Party. Nope. Didn’t know anyone but Rep. Dennis, and his lovely bride, Ashley.
Well, not totally true. We did know the band. Heh. The Mr has done a bit of pickin’ and grinnin’ with Wayne Jerrolds and crew.
So, of course, he had to give it a shot tonight. Since he didn’t know there was going to be pickin’ going on, he, naturally, didn’t bring any instruments. The guy playing the bass was nice enough to share.
Just a few of the folks and some nice scenery.
I actually know who this guy is. Voted for him in the primary for state senate. Unfortunately, he didn’t win. I think he’s a some kind of city official type now, along with being a pharmacist. 
His last name is Shutt, but for the life of me, I can’t remember his first name. 
And, of course, what would a fund raiser be without a bit of a speech.
There are a LOT of good reasons to like this guy as a state representative, but I’m sure we can all agree, a politician that is NOT long winded is a MAJOR plus! 
Having some seriously tasty BBQ didn’t hurt either.
This was a really cool place, although, as the Mr told Ashley, we were starting to think we were going to end up in a different time zone. Oddly enough, we never even left the county. It was WAY out there though.
Tomorrow, the weekend event continues….with a dove hunt. I have NO idea what is involved with such a thing, but I have my very first hunting license, my very first shotgun, and my very first camo t-shirt. Hmmm…. We shall see.
What Am I?
A cat magnate? We’ve had a couple of cats hanging around….can’t imagine why….COULDN’T be cuz maybe I feed ‘em? Anyway, I know one of them actually belongs to someone because he’s got a flea collar and a regular collar with a silly bell. The other one is seriously feral….seriously bad attitude! But she sure doesn’t mind sitting in the living room window, looking in, waiting to munch. She’s a very small cat, so I didn’t think she was more than a few months old.
Much to my surprise, and dismay, this morning there was a THIRD critter.
Sigh…. While momma was busy stuffing her face, with I assume the “father”, I made the acquaintance of the itty bitty kitty. Not exactly friendly, but I did manage to get him/her/it to calm down enough so I could pick him/her/it up. No, I didn’t look. The little critter was doing some seriously vibrating for a while, so I thought it best not to do any peeking.
You Can’t Have Them!
Obama Regulation Czar Advocated Removing People’s Organs Without Explicit Consent
Cass Sunstein, President Barack Obama’s nominee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), has advocated a policy under which the government would “presume” someone has consented to having his or her organs removed for transplantation into someone else when they die unless that person has explicitly indicated that his or her organs should not be taken.
Under such a policy, hospitals would harvest organs from people who never gave permission for this to be done.
Outlined in the 2008 book “Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness,” Sunstein and co-author Richard H. Thaler argued that the main reason that more people do not donate their organs is because they are required to choose donation.
Actually, the reason some people CHOOSE not to donate their organs are varied. At one point, I chose to donate my organs…..anything that was usable was to be used. As I got older, fewer parts are usable, so I CHOOSE not to donate. Well, actually, they don’t want them because they are broken. Other people CHOOSE not to donate because of religious reasons. For this guy, or anyone, to assume that people are not donating organs because they have to actually mark off a box, or put a dot on their driver’s license, is extremely reminiscent of what we hear coming out of COMMUNIST China and the prisoner’s organs being taken.
Sunstein and Thaler pointed out that doctors often must ask the deceased’s family members whether or not their dead relative would have wanted to donate his organs. These family members usually err on the side of caution and refuse to donate their loved one’s organs.
“The major obstacle to increasing [organ] donations is the need to get the consent of surviving family members,” said Sunstein and Thaler.
This problem could be remedied if governments changed the laws for organ donation, they said. Currently, unless a patient has explicitly chosen to be an organ donor, either on his driver’s license or with a donor card, the doctors assume that the person did not want to donate and therefore do not harvest his organs. Thaler and Sunstein called this “explicit consent.”
I realize, once you are on the slab, you no longer need your parts, but isn’t this going a bit far? This is a choice that each individual should make for themselves, not by some left wing lunatic. To be honest, I’m iffy on donating. Yes, I realize that many lives could be saved. On the other hand, if God has decided I’m going to kick off from a particular ailment, who am I to say otherwise? We could debate whether or not it’s the right or wrong thing to do, but that’s not the issue here. What is important is some Obama nominee considers YOUR body to be government property, to do with as they please. Excuse me, but isn’t it the left who keeps shouting “MY BODY! MY CHOICE!”? This is MY body, and if I want to donate, I will CHOOSE to do so.
They argued that this could be remedied if government turned the law around and assumed that, unless people explicitly choose not to, then they want to donate their organs – a doctrine they call “presumed consent.”
“Presumed consent preserves freedom of choice, but it is different from explicit consent because it shifts the default rule. Under this policy, all citizens would be presumed to be consenting donors, but they would have the opportunity to register their unwillingness to donate,” they explained.
Don’t you find it really interesting the ‘friends’ of Barack Hussein Obama “presume” a great deal? Does it never occur to the left that perhaps people don’t register to donate because THEY DON’T WANT TO? Looks to me that those 52% of the voters sold their souls into slavery to the government. Unfortunately, those of us in the 48% who did NOT vote for this bunch are being dragged with them. And we don’t much like it! As a matter of fact, expect a LOT more “kicking and screaming” as time goes on.
Those Pesky Facts
Take a peek! And here too!
Who creates jobs? Employers with profitable businesses, investing and creating wealth. The stimulus bill was a grab bag of traditional liberal priorities that did nothing to encourage private sector employers to invest or create jobs. If anything the stimulus discourages investment and job creation. The enormous increase in federal spending that President Obama has undertaken raise the prospects of vastly higher taxes or rapidly rising inflation.
A Refresher Course
Yes, you’ve seen it before, but it bares repeating…..OFTEN!
1. “Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.” ~Thomas Jefferson
2. Those who trade liberty for security have neither. ~John Adams
3. Free men do not ask permission to bear arms.
4. An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
5. Only a government that is afraid of its citizens tries to control them.
6. Gun control is not about guns; it’s about control.
7. You only have the rights you are willing to fight for.
8. Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety.
9. You don’t shoot to kill; you shoot to stay alive.
10. Assault is a behavior, not a device.
11. 64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.
12. The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights Reserved.
13. The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
14. What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do you NOT understand?
15. Guns have only two enemies; rust and politicians.
16. When you remove the people’s right to bear arms, you create slaves.
17. The American Revolution would never have happened with gun control.
Shared by Ken, the COP!
POTUS Pandering
Obama panders to Islam (again)
By The Washington Times
Muslims are what make America great, if President Obama is to be believed. At a White House interfaith dinner honoring Ramadan on Tuesday, he said that “the contribution of Muslims to the United States are too long to catalog because Muslims are so interwoven into the fabric of our communities and our country.” We would be intrigued to see that long list and to learn more about how Muslims have been part of the woof and warp of America.
And here I thought America is great because of the blood sweat and tears of it’s founders, and those who fought and died to keep her free. Great because farmers toil night and day to feed us. Great because millions upon millions get up each morning to work their hind ends off to produce. If I’m not mistaken, we’ve pretty much been at war with Islam since our founding, but hey, don’t let facts get in your way!
It is no slight to acknowledge that most Muslims are relative newcomers to the United States and they lack the numbers and longevity to have yet made as significant a contribution to the country as other groups. Instead of saying “the best is yet to come” — which would be a reasonable enough statement — the president chose to engage in the worst sort of identity-politics pandering, inventing a history and tradition where none exists.
Obama pandering to Muslims? Gasp! What a shocker! Pfft! He’s been doing that since he took office, seeming to apologize for us defending ourselves against Islamonazi brutality. In case you are wondering….he’s not speaking for me! I apologize for nothing!
Mr. Obama mentioned the best-known American Muslim, Muhammad Ali, the former boxing champion and draft dodger who declared that he would not “take part in Christian wars or wars of any unbelievers.” He also recognized Kareem Khan, a soldier from New Jersey who, unlike Mr. Ali, chose to serve his country and was killed in Iraq. Mr. Obama noted that “a crescent is carved into his grave, just as others bear the Christian cross or the Jewish star.” We assume he meant carved into the headstone; and lest we begin to hear about America being a “Judeo-Christian-Muslim” country, we hasten to note that other stones at Arlington National Cemetery bear Buddhist, Baha’i, Sikh, Hindu, humanist, atheist and even Wiccan symbols. There are many threads in the national tapestry, some stronger than others.
I have no problem with conscientious objectors, IF they are really such. I had my doubts about Ali back then, and I still have my doubts. Men and women of many religions, and no religion at all, have spilled their blood for this country. Pointing out a draft dodger, in the same breath as heroes, diminishes them. Sure, Ali was a great boxer, and has worked with charities, but please, don’t compare him with someone who actually stood up, and did what he was called on by his country to do.
The president noted that American women wear the hijab but managed to demean the country in the process. He recognized Nashala Hearn, who was present at the dinner, whose school forbade her from wearing the hijab under a dress code that banned bandanas. The policy was altered later, but the president omitted the salient details and made it sound as though the school were actively practicing religious discrimination. This was typical of liberal victimology that seeks to create a Rosa Parks for every minority group. The foreign dignitaries present at the dinner might have benefited more from hearing that thousands of women freely wear the hijab in this country without a problem and, more important, that Muslim women in America also are free not to cover their heads if they choose. Instead, the message was that America discriminates.
Once again, Obama plays the victim card. Muslims, like everyone else in this country, are free to worship the god of their choice, to work hard and excel in any endeavor they choose. Instead, it seems many want to change this into whatever oppressive place they left. AND play the victim card at the same time.
Mr. Obama is engaged in what the White House calls an “on-going dialogue with Muslim communities,” but the outreach may not be working. According to data released in July by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland, when asked if they had confidence in Mr. Obama to do the right thing regarding world affairs, 57 percent of Iraqis said no, as did 60 percent of Egyptians, 62 percent of Pakistanis and 67 percent of Palestinians. Mr. Obama got better marks in more secularized countries with Muslim majorities, such as Turkey, where 46 percent said they lacked confidence, and Indonesia, where just 31 percent responded negatively. But that is nothing like the 88 percent positive response Mr. Obama got in France or his 95 percent nod in Kenya.
Well, it’s just peachy he wants to have a dialogue with those Muslim communities, but he’s forgetting about the other 293,000,000 (assuming the Muslim population is roughly 7 million) citizens in THIS country. You know, the one where he’s supposedly POTUS?
A lack of religious toleration is not the problem in America. Instead of diverting attention on this nonissue, the president should engage some of the tough questions, such as the general lack of religious freedom in many countries with majority Muslim populations and the persecution of religious minorities in Islamic nations, where believers face capital punishment for converting away from Islam. He could address the continued use of Islam to justify the oppression of women, which we would think would be a bigger priority for his feminist constituency here at home.
The only religious intolerance I’ve seen is towards Christians and Jews, the ones who actually FOUNDED this nation, and added that little tidbit in the Constitution. You know the one…. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….”. Unlike many Muslim nations, we don’t “legally” discriminate against those of different faiths.
Instead of tackling substance, Mr. Obama gives us a studied vagueness. Perhaps he is trying to be diplomatic. Perhaps he has nothing substantive to say. We understand that the Ramadan dinner was a diplomatic event as well as a holiday observance and that it would have been impolite to raise uncomfortable topics. But we would like to see the president talk about the real issues surrounding Islam sometime, if he has the guts or interest to do it.
And isn’t that this current POTUS in a nutshell? “Vague”? If I’m not mistaken, Clinton held the first Ramadan dinner at the White House, and Bush continued the tradition. I have no problem with this. The difference? Clinton and Bush also participated in the National Day of Prayer, Obama couldn’t be bothered. THIS is what I find highly offensive. He claims to be a Christian, but shows no indication of being such. Instead, he kowtows to a religion that has produced some of the most evil people known in decades, those same folks who partnered up with Hitler during WWII. Am I the only one who is having a problem with this? Perhaps I’m reading more into this than need be, but it also seems to me that since these dinners have been held in the White House, Americans have on the receiving end of more attacks from Islamonazis. Hmm….
I’m Angry!!!
I posted this comment yesterday on Facebook and Twitter:
“If I’m EVER gonna blog again, I gotta start getting angry!! My life must be much too content these days, which is a good thing for me, but a bad thing for blogging!!”
Well guess what? I’m angry!!
The Mexican family of an illegal immigrant shot after threatening a U.S. Border Patrol agent is suing the federal officer who pulled the trigger as well as the U.S. government.
The incident occurred in 2007 about 150 yards north of the Mexico-Arizona border between Bisbee and Douglas. Border Patrol Agent Nicholas Corbett apprehended a group of Mexican illegal aliens when one of them, Francisco Dominguez, became aggressive and attacked him with rocks. Fearing for his life, the federal officer shot Dominguez and killed him.
After meddling by the Mexican government, Corbett was charged with murder and the prosecution’s key witnesses were the illegal alien relatives—two brothers and a sister-in-law—that made the desert journey with the shot man. A Cochise County jury hung and prosecutors retried Corbett, but charges were dropped after the second jury hung.
This week Dominguez’s family in Mexico filed a wrongful death lawsuit in Tucson federal court claiming the border agent violated the illegal immigrant’s constitutional rights by using unlawful deadly force in the course of his duties as a U.S. government employee. Under the Federal Tort Claims Act, the lawsuit points out, the U.S. government is liable for a negligent or wrongful act of its employees.
The complaint further says that Corbett was very vocal about his “hatred of Mexicans” and that the U.S. Border Patrol should have known about the agent’s history of “ethnic hatred” before allowing him in the field. The agency’s negligent hiring practices essentially led to the illegal immigrant’s death, according to the complaint.
Violence along the border has escalated in the last few years as federal agents encounter heavily armed Mexican drug traffickers and human smugglers that attack them with weapons ranging from firearms to big rocks and Molotov cocktails—makeshift bombs made of a breakable container filled with flammable liquid. Prosecuting the federal officers who confront the danger in the course of guarding the nation’s borders seems rather bizarre.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.
The U.S. Government Employee violated an ILLEGAL immigrant’s constitutional rights?? WHAT CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?!?!? When in the HELL will people, the courts included, realize that if you are in the country illegally, you should not HAVE any contitutional rights? Not only that, this POS started getting aggressive toward the patrol agent and the agent, in fear for his life and DOING HIS JOB, fired at him. And then, to add insult to injury, the patrol agent is prosecuted??
We’ve been seeing far too much of this lately. What kind of back-asswards country are we becoming when someone sworn to uphold the law is prosecuted for doing his job by trying to keep these scumbags out of our country? And then the scumbags and/or their families are afforded the same rights as those of a U.S. citizen??
Who in their right mind would want to become a border patrol agent with these scenarios hanging over them? Or is that the plan of the left? Hmmmmm…
