Archive for November 14th, 2008

Second Hand Smoke

November 14, 2008

The nico Nazi’s are at it again I see.

Physician, Freedom Lover, says Second-Hand Smoke Science is Junk

I can say with confidence that second hand smoke may irritate some, but it does not kill. Those claiming thousands of deaths from second hand smoke to the Dallas City Council and the public are deceitful for a political goal.

I have been a Texan for 22 years, and a physician specializing in emergency medicine for 36 years. I am familiar with the public health science on second hand smoke.

Public health studies cited by the American Cancer Society and the Surgeon General claim thousands of deaths result from second-hand smoke. These are weak, cherry-picked studies. Their supporters compound the deceit by ignoring studies by the World Health Organization (Buffetta 1998 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute), Stranges, 2006 in Archives of Internal Medicine, and Enstrom 2003 in The British Medical Journalall of which show no effect from second-hand smoke.

In science, one study that disproves a scientific theory is more important than a pile of studies that are slightly positive. Anti-smoking advocates and fanatics ignore that basic rule and ignore any study they don’t like.

They are propagandists, not scientists.

The crusaders are willing to do and say anything about second hand smoke, including making public statements about thousands of deaths from second hand smoke. Those claims are diverse and duplicitous—they are lies. Second hand smoking, even for the spouse of a smoker is one cigarette or less per day—which has no effect. The second hand smoke scare is a phantom menace conjured up by the High Holy Church of Smoke Haters to support the anti-smoking crusade.

Smoking Bans violate the Texas tradition of minding your own business. If the City Council thinks it has a role in telling people how to live, they should get a Divinity Degree and find a congregation.  Folks in Dallas can easily avoid second hand smoke, and employment in a bar or restaurant is voluntary. Smoking is legal. Avoiding smoke is easy.

John Dale Dunn MD JD

Policy Advisor American Council on Science and Health, NYC, and the Heartland Institute, Chicago


Gold Rush! Cash in while you can!

November 14, 2008

The continuing debate over the current financial crisis aside the dash for the latest government gold rush appears to be in full swing. Government policy started the crisis, not the so-called free market. Now, the government seeks to make matters worse while appearing to make life better. At least for those that have the ability to contribute the millions that it takes to stay in elected office.

When governments attempt to “fix” economies by meddling with the free markets that power them, these would-be market-driven economies become political footballs. Economic decisions that would have been fairly and justly arbitrated by unbiased, natural laws of economics become decided on purely political grounds. Markets lose stability in direct proportion to the extent of such meddling. This is certainly the case with the government “fix” known as TARP, or Troubled Asset Relief Program. The bailout package was originally crafted to relieve banks so that they would remain solvent, preventing further meltdown of the U.S. economy. But with $700 billion up for grabs, TARP’s original purpose was thrown under the bus in the gold rush that ensued. Now everyone wants in on the government’s largess, and markets have reacted accordingly. And why not? Why shouldn’t we all line up to “get ours” if the government is giving away “free” money? Sadly, this seems to be the new American corporate mindset.

Insurance giant AIG, for instance, is now slated to receive more than $150 billion in the largest single bailout allotment from TARP thus far. The government effectively nationalized AIG in the process, establishing a $40 billion stake in the world’s largest insurer. Eager to get in on the TARP lottery, American Express — that’s right, the credit card company — is apparently also now a “bank,” having been so blessed by the Federal Reserve. Evidently unaware of AMEX’s subtle approach, one draping the hat-in-hand recipient in “bank-like” trappings, U.S. automakers are pursuing more blunt-instrument strategies. Their game plan? Simply demand funds from Washington on the basis that, well, they need the cash, and everyone else seems to be getting an awful lot of it lately. Perfect.

The government has committed $290 billion so far without any oversight because Congress has yet to fill the positions it created. Somewhere in all of this thrash for cash is a lesson about the proper role of government in a free market economy. We just hope that this lesson hits home before The Great Depression, Part II does.

source: Patriot Post

Eco-Fascist’s lose

November 14, 2008

The Black Crows got another one correct this past week when the Navy won a case that directly involved American national security. Largely based upon speculation whale activist’s had sued to stop the Navy from doing their job. That being the defense of the United States.

The United States Navy scored a victory this week in the U.S. Supreme Court in a battle against environmentalists and their accomplices in the Ninth Circuit Court. The question was whether the Navy could test sonar systems off the California coast in spite of alleged harm to whales and dolphins. The sonar is essential in detecting new “quiet” submarines deployed by China and North Korea. A district court in California had ruled that the Navy must cease such exercises in order to save the whales, and the Ninth Circuit Court agreed. The Bush administration had countered by exempting the Navy from the federal laws cited in the case, saying that national security trumped the whales. This week, the Supreme Court agreed. “We do not discount the importance of plaintiffs’ ecological, scientific and recreational interests in marine mammals. Those interests, however, are plainly outweighed by the Navy’s need to conduct realistic training exercises,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “We see no basis for jeopardizing national security.”

Unfortunately, the decision could be rendered moot by the incoming Obama administration, which would likely stop the exercises.


There has to be a reason that Greenpeace stays the hell out of the way of the U.S. Navy…


Profiles of valor: U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ashley Henderson Huff

November 14, 2008

In October, the Interior Ministry of the Kurdistan Regional Government honored a fallen American soldier with a statue at the opening of a police college in Erbil. U.S. Army 1st Lt. Ashley Henderson Huff of the 385th MP Battalion, based out of Fort Stewart, Georgia, was honored for her work toward establishing the new academy, which will accommodate up to 650 people. Huff had worked on behalf of Coalition Forces with the Interior Ministry to build the police academy, but she was killed by a suicide car bomber in Mosul in 2006. Interior Minister Sinjari said, “First Lieutenant Ashley Henderson Huff was a woman of courage and determination. We are honored to have worked with her. Her family and colleagues should be proud of what she did for her country and for the people of Iraq in the liberation of our country. Her statue will act not only as a remembrance of her but will also inspire our police cadets to live up to her standards of commitment and professionalism.”

Apply for a position with Obama

November 14, 2008

“Have you ever had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used — even unfairly — to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for government service?” –page 7, question 61 of the questionnaire required of prospective Obama administration cabinet members

One among 63 intrusive questions that will serve only to drive qualified people away, this question stood out for two reasons: Obama himself has many troubling associations (though that didn’t seem to matter to 66 million voters), and prospective cabinet members would have to answer, “Yes, I’m associated with Barack Obama.”

Political analyst Rich Galen also observed, “If this were an incoming Republican Administration, I guarantee you the name ‘McCarthy’ would be on every front page in the nation in describing [this questionnaire].”

And speaking of guns, question 59 reads, “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”

Memo to Obama: Other than in the twisted world of Washington, DC, guns are not registered, nor should they be.

SOURCE: Patriot Post, of course

A Mandate? With approval ratings like they are?

November 14, 2008

At the bottom of this piece from the Patriot Post is the gist of what really matters in this well written work. Americans are not happy with foggy bottom, not at all. Read on…

News from the Swamp: Committee assignments take shape on Capitol Hill

House and Senate Democrats are currently picking the committee leaders for the 111th Congress — leaders who will wreak havoc on capitalism, liberty and common sense. Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) will remain as head of the Senate Banking Committee to maintain continuity during the financial crisis. After all, it only makes sense to keep Dodd there since he was such a large beneficiary of Fannie Mae’s political contributions.

Russ Feingold (D-WI), the only senator to vote against the Patriot Act and an original opponent of the liberation of Iraq, is in line to become the head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; the current chairman, Joe Biden, is heading to the White House. If Feingold does get the position, he could force Barack Obama’s hand on withdrawing American troops from Iraq. He is also likely to spill a number of secret programs out into the open via attention-grabbing investigations into our nation’s rendition and surveillance efforts.

In the House, it appears there will be a coup attempt by California Democrat Henry Waxman, who seeks to wrest control of the Energy and Commerce Committee from John Dingell (D-MI). Dingell, who was first elected to Congress in 1955, will become in February the longest-serving member in that body’s history. He is a moderate on climate change, however, and some of his fellow liberals have accused him of being too cozy with Detroit when he should be putting the squeeze on the industry for the sake of the tree huggers. But Dingell’s supporters believe they have the votes to hold off Waxman, an environmental extremist. Many see Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s fingerprints on the effort to oust Dingell. She is close to Waxman, and she is a vocal proponent of all so-called “green” legislation.

It looks as though Joe Lieberman (I-CT) will remain chairman of the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee for the time being. He created enemies among his former fellow Democrats with his public support of John McCain. He met privately with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) this week, and both men would say only that they would talk further and weigh options before making final decisions. The Democrats must win all three remaining contested Senate seats to reach a supermajority of 60 votes. Regardless of the outcome, however, they will need Lieberman, whose apostasy can apparently be overlooked if it helps the Democrats tighten their grip on power.

Republicans stand to lose some committee seats as well, thanks to the gains Democrats made last week. Reid is likely to follow the model for committee apportionment used during the 103rd Congress when the Democrats similarly held 57 seats in the Senate. The GOP is likely to incur its biggest losses in Appropriations, Budget, and Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Meanwhile, any hopes Hillary Clinton had to lead the renewed effort for health care reform were effectively dashed by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Kennedy considers himself a champion of health care, and he has no intention of ceding the issue to Clinton. She currently ranks eighth in seniority on the committee, and others on the committee are not keen on the idea of her leapfrogging senior colleagues to lead some special subcommittee or task force. Beyond all that, Obama is likely to run any health care reform drive from the White House, meaning that Clinton may be involved in the crafting of legislation, but she will not have the chance to lead, and likely fumble, a plan as she did in 1993. Hillary might take comfort, though, in the current Beltway buzz that Obama is considering her for the secretary of state post.

However Congress shapes up in the coming weeks, the denizens of the Swamp will have a long way to go before earning the respect of the American public. In a Rasmussen Reports survey taken after Election Day, 55 percent of those polled rated the job performance of Congress as poor. Only 11 percent said Congress was doing a good or excellent job. Republicans were more unsatisfied than Democrats — 74 percent to 37 percent. A separate survey indicated an unfavorable rating of 42 for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and another 27 percent didn’t even know who he is. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) earned a 53 percent unfavorable rating.

Ratings like those are well deserved. Those in power, and coming into power should note that there is no mandate. The continuation of failed ideology, by both the President AND Congress … only point out just how disgusted the people that are laird over in fact really are.

Our sacred honor … to support and defend

November 14, 2008

Some things that we come across in life never change. At least for those with a sense of duty and honor. Indeed, when these things come up for discussion most people think in terms of the military. Either very supportive or quite the contrary. I submit that Firefighters, EMS personnel, and Police Officers fall into that group as well.

So then, what started this sense of dedication? Not the historical sense, but, here in these United States of America? Why do Firefighters run into burning buildings instead of away from the flames? Why does the Paramedic get into a closed space and care for people that carry diseases as deadly as any bullet? Why does a Police officer risk all that he or she has facing down a madman with a gun? I submit that it is a sense of duty and honor that is learned as one develops into an American adult. So then just what started all of this mentality?

Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post scores again writing about the formation of the American psyce, and the price paid so that so many of us can enjoy the freedoms that we have as an American birthright.


14 Novem

By Mark Alexander

In 1776, an extraordinary group of men signed a document that affirmed their God-given right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” By attaching their signatures to our great Declaration of Independence, they, in effect, were signing their potential death warrants.

Indeed, the last line of our Declaration reads, “For the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.”

Many of these men, and many of their countrymen, the first generation of American Patriots, would die fighting for American liberty.

A decade later, their liberty having been won at great cost, our Founders further codified their independence and interdependence by instituting yet another historic document, our Constitution.

The Constitution specifies in Article VI, clause 3:

“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution…”

Bound by Oath to support…

The Constitution also prescribes the following oath to be taken by the president-elect: “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

Preserve, protect and defend…

Commissioned and enlisted military personnel are also required by statute to “solemnly swear, that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same…”, though the officer’s oath doesn’t include any provision that they obey orders.

Against all enemies, foreign and domestic…

Notably, all these oaths mandate the preservation, protection, support and defense of our Constitution as ratified, not the so-called “living constitution” as amended by judicial activists populating what Thomas Jefferson predicted would become “the despotic branch.”

While uniformed Americans serving our nation defend our Constitution with their lives, most elected officials debase it with all manner of extra-constitutional empowerment of the central government, not the least of which is the forced redistribution of income to benefit their constituency groups which, in turn, dutifully re-elect them.

Military service personnel who violate the Constitution are remanded for courts-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, while politicians who violate the Constitution are remanded for — re-election.

On that note, the latest crop of Leftists on their way to Washington under the supervision of President-elect Barack Obama are destined to make a greater mockery of our Constitution than any administration in history. Clearly, Obama and his ilk have no history of honoring, or intention to honor, their oaths and, in fact, have no context for such honor.

A small cadre of liberals who believe themselves to be “patriots” have asked, “Can’t I be a bona fide Patriot and support Barack Obama?”

In a word … NO, unless in a state of solemn repentance.

In the spirit of charity, perhaps Obama supporters, who self-identify as patriots, are just grossly misinformed about our Constitution, our history and their own civic duty. Of course, they would likewise be grossly deluded about their identity, but perhaps the delusion is temporary.

I would suggest that Obama “patriots” are nothing more than “sunshine patriots,” as Thomas Paine wrote, who “will in crisis, shrink from the service of his country.”

At its core, the word “patriot” has direct lineage to those who fought for American independence and established our constitutional republic. That lineage has descended most directly through our history with those who have been entrusted “to support and defend” our Constitution — more specifically, those who have been faithful to, and have abided by, that oath. As previously noted, by “our Constitution,” I am referring to the United States Constitution, not the adulterated vestigial remains that liberals call “the living constitution.”

I have taken oaths five times in the service of our country. But I did not have to take any oath to understand my obligations as a citizen “to support and defend” our Constitution.

So, does the title of “Patriot” apply to an individual who votes for a man who has not honored his public oaths of office previously, and has given no indication he intends to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same” as president — a man who subscribes to the errant notion of a “living constitution” which, in his own words, “breaks free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution”?

No authentic Patriot would support those who violate their sacred oaths.

Unfortunately, in this most recent election, we saw even a handful of flag-rank military officers who have no more reverence for their oaths than Obama. However, they are the exception, not the rule.

Obama’s mantra, “change,” is a euphemism for constitutional abrogation — an incremental encroachment on liberty until, at last, liberty is lost.

Our nation’s second president, John Adams, warned, “A Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty, once lost, is lost forever.”

As for Obama’s deception about his own patriotic pedigree, I commend the words of our nation’s first president, George Washington: “Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. …[W]here is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation deserts the oaths…?”

Regarding the Presidential Oath of Office, Justice Joseph Story wrote: “[T]he duty imposed upon him to take care, that the laws be faithfully executed, follows out the strong injunctions of his oath of office, that he will ‘preserve, protect, and defend the constitution.’ The great object of the executive department is to accomplish this purpose.” He wrote further that if the president does not honor his oath, his office “will be utterly worthless for … the protection of rights; for the happiness, or good order, or safety of the people.”

Of course, Barack Obama proposes to further constrain the rights of the people by advancing centralized government control of the economy by way of regulation and forced income redistribution, all in the name of “happiness, good order, and safety of the people,” but in direct violation of his oath.

“To protect and defend, against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

ber 2008 – Vol. 08 No. 46