Friday, November 23, 2012

The Jets vs Obama team--a comparison

Last night, since it was Thanksgiving, and that is supposed to be a family thing, I watched a football game with my wife and eldest son. I rarely watch football, having lost any belief in 
the validity of the officiating about 10 years ago. So, we are watching . In the 2nd quarter, the Jets screw up SO BAD. In later times, clips will be shown with this music behind it:
The Jets handed out scarves before last night’s game with the Patriots. They should have given out paper bags for fans to wear over their heads instead.
This was a Jets loss from the Rich Kotite era — a bumbling, embarrassing, humiliating thrashing from the Patriots that ruined the Thanksgiving of every Jets fan.
What a bunch of turkeys.
Rex Kotite, er Ryan, and Co. got blown out on national television in their own building, turning the ball over five times and losing 49-19 to Bill Belichick’s Patriots in front of an angry holiday crowd at MetLife Stadium.!
At one point Ryan was caught by TV cameras saying “Un-bleeping-believable.” It got so bad “Fireman Ed” left at halftime.
“Obviously that was a nightmare of a game to say the least,” Ryan said.
The game got away from the Jets in a stunning, 52-second, second-quarter sequence when the Patriots scored three touchdowns — one on offense, one on defense and one on special teams. The sequence was the funniest thing NBC has shown on Thursday night since “Seinfeld” went off the air

So, this morning , I go out to feed and clean our horses. My mind wanders as I do this. Usually, I associate one series of events with another which are supposedly NOT related. 
Then, it hit me: The Obama Administration is to Government as the Jets are to football. 
You just read the N Y Post's description of the Jets' comedic loss--accomplished in 52 seconds. 
In the last 4 years,  Obama's team has:
Stolen a car company and gave it to the UAW
Cheated the car companies management out their pensions
Closed auto dealers, putting them out of business, based on how much money they had donated to Republicans in the 2008 election.
Had the ATF violate federal law by forcing gun dealers (under threat of losing their license to sell guns) sell guns to convicted felons, who then turned the guns over to some of the world's worst organized crime . We--Other than Obamaphiles--discovered this when Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was killed by one of those guns. 
Was shipping weapons to the Al Quaida backed "Rebels" fighting in Syria. These same rebels are using those guns to kill Christians. The weapons were trans-shipped through Libya (Where Obama had helped depose and kill the established ruler of Libya by arming the "Rebels" there, and using U S forces (Without bothering to get U S Congressional approval) for air strikes against that ruler. We found out about this when "Rebels" (we know not who hired them. The best guess is Russia, as Russia backs Syria and wants that flow of weapons stopped) killed two diplomats, two CIA agents and fired a top admiral and a general. 

Sunday, October 14, 2012

Some Just don't quit

Marine Special Operator in Afghanistan 2/8

Brought to you by that Vietnam Veteran, Oliver North 

Saturday, October 6, 2012

Obama's Routine communication--If his lips are moving...

Today's Arizona Republic blasts out the Democrat Party Line

Fatal shooting of border agent likely 'friendly fire,' FBI says

I see several things wrong with this story, and the motive for saying it. 

As a former law enforcement officer, from the start of 1971 to the end of 2001, I know that officers in this time have communication with others in their agency at all times.  The third Agent would know where the two first responders were, where they were heading to, and what their position was as they advanced

A State Senator told of why SB 1070 was passed. People living out from established towns came before the Senate and testified to Illegals walking through their property, sometimes in clear daylight, stealing and or vandalizing their property. 
Another account talked of ranchers getting a visit after dark by three SUV's, armed men getting out, and then being told by some man that they would be using one of the rancher's outbuildings to conduct "business" a few nights further, and if any police agency was notified, the family or resident would be killed. 
Knowing this, WHY would an Agent be out there alone (Third Agent Responding)

The Motive:
That notorious statement by J Napolitano that the Border was safer now than it has ever been. This incident clearly demonstrates that anywhere outside of a town , and near the Border can be deadly, and is NOT protected by the Obama Administration. 

Obama and henchman have lied to us about: (A list)
The GM Take over  (Supposedly a bailout, but handing GM to the UAW)
Libya--First, telling us no troops were involved while ordering airstrikes against Khadaffy, and now the lie that a spontaneous demonstration had erupted, while clear indications were that this branch of Al_Quaida had carefully planned this "Hit".

Thursday, July 5, 2012

Congress bungles noise restrictions

This Editorial was in the AZ Republic (AKA-The Repugnant) today.

As with the most of the Lame Stream Media, their bias is on full display. 

The ISSUE here (Not mentioned by the Sierra Club, tree-hugging sympaticos) is JOBS. There is an industry of aircraft (Both fixed wing and helicopters) 
that transport tourists and visitors over the Canyon and Lake Mead. Had the tree-huggers got their way, those flights would have been banned. 
Luckily, I got to hear Dr Gosar (Their Arch-enemy here) speak last Saturday. By defeating these noise restrictions by a bureaucratic arm of the government,
FIVE HUNDRED yearly jobs were saved. 


It's a bipartisan flop that elevates narrow desires above majestic goals.
How majestic? Think Grand Canyon.
Think silence as profound as the scenery. Think legacy to the future. Not just Arizona's. Not just America's
When you're talking about stewardship of one of the world's natural wonders, you're talking on a global scale. Arizona's pride. Nation's treasure. World-class tourism attraction.
Too bad Congress got sucked into thinking on a much smaller scale.
Republican Sen. John McCain and Democratic Sen. Harry Reid made a bipartisan blunder in shortcutting a Park Service process to restore natural quiet to the Grand Canyon. They backed legislation -- inserted into the huge transportation bill -- that supersedes the Park Service's yet-to-be-released noise regulations. The measure was pushed in the House by GOP Rep. Paul Gosar, who referred to congressional interference as an effort to stop the "Obama administration's misguided regulations."
Wrong. In 1987, President Ronald Reagan signed a bill that recognized the value of limiting air tours for the sake of safety and restoring quiet to the Canyon. McCain sponsored the 1987 bill that called for "substantial restoration" of natural quiet.
The Park Service was acting on values first articulated in that law, and new regulations for the air-tour industry were nearly complete.
This was the conclusion of a long process. Nearly 30,000 comments from individuals and groups were reviewed and considered. The plan allowed up to 65,000 air tours a year. It also included incentives for transitioning to quieter air technology.
It was a balance between the desires of the air-tour industry and the nation's interest in restoring natural quiet to the Canyon. The draft released in February allowed no audible aircraft in 67 percent of the park from 75 to 100 percent of each day.
The law backed by McCain and Reid sets a goal of no aircraft noise in 50 percent of the park at least 75 percent of each day. That is the status quo. Under the law, commercial air-tour operators are required to fully convert to quiet technology within 15 years. Incentives to achieve that switchover include permission to run more flights.
Grand Canyon air tours are a $120 million-a-year industry with ties to Arizona and Nevada (some are part of Las Vegas package deals that bring nothing but noise and pollution into our state). Commercial interests deserve fair consideration, and jobs are important. But when it comes to an industry that exists solely because it can offer flights over a premier national park, the best interests of the public resource should trump private profit.
Congress should have let the experts at the Park Service do their job. By putting their bipartisan thumbs on the scale in favor of the air-tour operators, members of Congress showed little respect for the Canyon or the process set up to protect it.


Our goals for achieving natural quiet in the Grand Canyon

The Grand Canyon Trust will continue to work on natural quiet issues to ensure that...
  • The negative impacts to natural quiet from low-level air tours and other aircraft are  minimized by the adoption of new regulations that “substantially restore natural quiet” to Grand Canyon National Park, as required by the Grand Canyon Overflights Act.
  • The NPS selects a preferred alternative that substantially restores natural quiet to the Grand Canyon.
  • The FAA adopts regulations to implement that alternative.
  • The NPS continues to monitor aircraft noise over the Grand Canyon.

We’ve already accomplished much.

The Trust has participated with the National Parks and Conservation AssociationSierra Club, and other “quiet canyon” advocates in reviewing and commenting on proposed plans and new regulations to restore “natural quiet” to the Grand Canyon. Our major accomplishments have included:
  • Helping pass the 1987 National Parks Overflights Act.
  • Initiating a series of legal actions to enforce the law.
  • Blocking attempts by legislators funded by the air-tour-industry to amend the 1987 Act and to remove NPS authority to regulate noise from air tours. 

National Park Overflights (Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association) 


In an attempt to address the controversy surrounding overflight regulations, the Secretaries of Transportation and Interior appointed a National Park Overflights Working Group (NPOWG) comprised of representatives of the aviation industry, air tour industry, environmental groups, and Native Americans. The NPOWG was charged with recommending a compromise park overflights rule. The group included AOPA's Senior Vice President for Government and Technical Affairs as the representative for general aviation.
The NPOWG successfully forged a compromise that formed a solid foundation for the FAA to develop an overflight rule, which addresses the needs of aviators, tour operators, and tourists who enjoy the national parks from the air and the ground. A proposal based on the work of the NPOWG was subsequently incorporated into the FAA's FY 2000 reauthorization legislation, AIR-21. On April 27, 2001, the FAA in collaboration with the National Park Service, released its NPRM on National Parks Air Tour Management[requires Adobe Reader].
The NPRM proposes to codify the National Parks Air Tour Management Act and it mirrors the NPOWG recommendations with one exception. It includes a proposal for a 5,000-foot-agl triggering altitude to complete the definition of a "commercial air tour operation." This proposed triggering altitude conflicts with the 3,000-foot triggering altitude reached in the NPOWG. In the NPOWG AOPA advocated for a 2,000-foot triggering altitude to complete the definition. Our advocacy efforts were done in consideration of current guidelines that call for GA aircraft to overfly environmentally sensitive areas at 2,000 feet or more. After additional discussion within the working group, the Association compromised with an altitude of 3,000 feet. This altitude is in concert with VFR cruising altitudes as established by the Code of Federal Aviation Regulations 91.159, VFR cruising altitude or flight level.

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

The Club for Greed

I think everyone that sees any television here in Arizona -at all- has been bombarded with the ad that states "WILL CARDON IS AN IMPOSTER-he says he is a Conservative, but he advocated raising gas taxes" 

For a long time, there was no identity about WHO made the ad, or what --if any-- source material was used. 

I finally found that the Club for Growth (AKA Club for Greed) was behind it.  These people support the Bush family. They push for " Cheap Labor", that is, Illegal Aliens that can't complain when they get paid less than minimum wage. 

SB1070 Update: Tea Party split on immigration

by David Safier
Tom Tancredo admits, the tea party is split on immigration and SB1070. The more pro-immigration, libertarian wing of the TP-ers want to shut the hell up about immigration, since they know it's a wedge issue in the TP ranks. The Tancredo wing wants to shout their anti-immigrant rhetoric from the rooftops. 
Tancredo is not pleased with Dick Armey.
. . . the national Tea Party Patriots, which is affiliated with Richard Armey's Washington, D.C.-based Freedom Works organization, has been vocal and systematic in excluding immigration-related concerns from its "Contract from America." Touted as a grass-roots poll of tea-party members, the poll from its inception has barred any attempt to add immigration concerns to the poll's menu of issues.
Tancredo is also not fond of the libertarian strain of the right wing, and he names names:
[A] group of tea-party leaders who have fought the inclusion of immigration in the tea-party agenda are open-borders libertarians who support amnesty. They are folks found at Freedom Works, the Club for Growth and the editorial board of the Wall Street Journal.
And he issues a warning.
Local tea-party activists from California to Florida and from Idaho to Massachusetts now see the immigration issue the same way 71 percent of Arizona citizens see it – as a matter of national security, public safety and fiscal necessity. They want their legislators to enact Arizona-style laws in their own states, and they join 88 percent of Americans in saying they want more border security.
Self-proclaimed tea-party leaders in Washington, D.C., who want to deny or obstruct this new tea-party consensus do so at their peril.
I hope Democrats are aware of this split in the right wing ranks over immigration. Tancredo could have included Arizona's own Goldwater Institute in the list of conservative groups whose libertarian tendencies have kept them tight-lipped about somewhat pro-immigration stance, for fear of alienating other right wingers. (In the case of G.I., of course, the greatest fear is alienating their donor base and jeopardizing their cushy 6 figure salaries.)

Hawkins Calls Club For Growth “Special Interest Group”; “Sinister”

APRIL 30, 2010 16:04 PM

    Press Release from Lee Hawkins responding to the Club For Growth ad being discussed here.
    Prepare for Jason Pye’s head to explode in 3…2…1…
    Sen. Lee Hawkins Condemns
    Special Interest Group working with Graves
    Outside groups attempting to falsely influence Georgia voters
    (Gainesville)—A Washington special interest has launched an expensive, false television advertising campaign to assist their endorsed candidate, Tom Graves, and damage State Sen. Lee Hawkins’ bid for Congress.
    The television ad from “Club for Growth” claims Hawkins opposes the repeal of President Obama’s recently passed national healthcare reform package.
    The false advertising fails to mention that Hawkins is campaigning daily on repealing Obamacare, as well as Hawkins airing TV commercials calling for repealing Obamacare.
    Dr. Hawkins is a dentist and former President of the Georgia Dental Association. As a professional health care practitioner, Dr. Hawkins has led effort in Georgia to stop Obamacare.
    Graves has no experience in health care whatsoever.
    “There is something much more sinister here,” said Dr. Hawkins. “This is a Washington special group which supports opening our borders for illegal immigration. Graves Washington buddies oppose immigration reform and want you to elect a weak career politician they can control like Tom Graves.”
    “Georgia voters won’t be fooled by D.C. special interest groups trying to force their candidate onto north Georgia voters.”
    “It’s just a falsehood from a big D.C. establishment special interest group,” said Dr. Hawkins.”
    Full disclosure, I have endorsed and written a check to Tom Graves. I also have acknowledged that I believe this is a two man race between Graves and Hawkins, with Stephens and Tarvin playing spoilers.
    That said, I have to question the “unique” strategy that the Hawkins campaign is running. While they have a distinct geographic advantage in this district, they continue to do things that seem to generate negative media. Calling the JOBS bill authored by Graves a sham when it received overwhelming Republican support in both the house and the Senate was interesting. Calling the uber-conservative Club For Growth a sinister Washington special interest group is another.
    Team Hawkins doesn’t appear to be playing to their strenght here, and also seems to be giving his enemies ammunition and new targets on his back.
    Wed Feb. 16, 2011 

    Jeff Flake's Immigration Problem

    The Arizona Republican has been a leading moderate voice on immigration, drawing fire from his party's right flank. Will he survive a Senate primary?

    Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) hadn't even announced his bid for retiring Sen. Jon Kyl's Senate seat when the first press releases attacking his unusually moderate views on immigration hit the newswires. Just after 1 a.m. on Monday—more than 12 hours before Flake officially launched his campaign—anti-immigration group Numbers USA blasted out a statementdenouncing the congressman as "the Top Republican Amnesty Pusher in U.S. House." Networking hub quickly posted the attack on its site.
    Facing similar slams on immigration, Republicans like Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have flip-flopped and swerved to the right on the issue. But in an interview with Mother Jones Tuesday, Flake held fast to his previous views on immigration and suggested that he'll campaign as a social moderate—regardless of any blowback from the right.

    In 2006 and 2007, Flake co-authored theSTRIVE Act, an immigration reform bill that included a pathway to legalization for undocumented immigrants. When asked on Tuesday by Mother Jones whether he'd still support a pathway to legalization, Flake soft-pedaled his response but defended his previous views on immigration. "I've always felt that, like I said, nearly half of those who are here illegally didn't sneak across the border. They came legally and have overstayed. So border security is the number one item, but you've got to do other things as well," Flake said in an interview just off the House floor.
    When pressed to clarify whether such measures would include a pathway for legalization, Flake agreed that "some mechanism" was necessary. "We've dealt with it before with a provision that required [undocumented immigrants] to go home and register," Flake said, appearing to refer to a provision in the STRIVE Act that would give qualified undocumented workers a six-year work visa—but also required them to "touch back" and return to their home countries before being able to become legal residents. The congressman emphasized, however, that "nothing else is going to move" until Congress does more to strengthen border security.
    Nevertheless, Flake's outspoken views put him at odds with national Republicans, many of whom have swung hard right on the issue since the failure of former president George W. Bush's immigration overhaul. Moreover, Flake's remarks draw a sharp contrast with fellow Arizonan McCain.
    Like Flake, McCain stepped forward during the Bush years to become one of the biggest champions of immigration reform, including a pathway to legalization. But challenged from the right in 2010 by ex-congressman J.D. Hayworth, McCain rapidlyretreated from his previous positions on immigration. He adopted a hard line on that issue—along with a host of others—during his Senate primary.
    Immigration hawks have already picked up on the contrast. "McCain abandoned his amnesty leadership and then distanced himself more from it in order to win re-election to the Senate in 2010," writes Numbers USA president Roy Beck. "But Rep. Flake has not recanted any of his boosterism for amnesties." And like McCain, Flake could face a primary challenge on the right. Hayworth has said he won't run in the race to replace Kyl, but the notorious Maricopa County sheriff, Joe Arpaio, has been making noise about a possible campaign.
    Flake is beloved by some on the right for his fierce fiscal conservatism and opposition to earmarks: He's earned a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union and FreedomWorks, a national tea party ally, has alreadyendorsed him for Senate. But in Arizona, immigration hardliners have long set their sights on the congressman.
    Flake's 2010 primary opponent, Jeff Smith, hammered the congressman for calling Arizona's sweeping state-level immigration crackdown "imprudent." Flake crushed Smith in that primary, 64-35. But a statewide primary could leave him more vulnerable: 88 percent of registered Republican voters supported the state's harsh immigration law in a poll last year. Gov. Jan Brewer has kept the issue on the front burner, recently filing a countersuit against the federal government for its alleged failure to enforce immigration laws. (Flake declined to take a position on Brewer's suit, saying that he "hadn't had time to look at it." He also declined to comment on Arpaio's hard-charging immigration crackdowns.)
    While dodging some contentious questions, Flake seems confident on the whole that his views on immigration and other social issues are in line with Arizona voters. His support for Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal and the Employee Non-Discrimination Act—which would protect LGBT workers—has brought on the wrath of social conservatives like the Concerned Women for America. When asked whether he still stood by such positions—and how he'd respond to such blowback—Flake simply stated: "As you might be able to tell, Arizona voters have a bit of a libertarian streak, an independent streak. I think they appreciate a politician who isn't lockstep in any one way."

    Suzy Khimm was a reporter in the Washington bureau of Mother Jones from March 2010 until June 2011. For more of her stories, click here. Follow her on Twitter here.

    Sunday, June 17, 2012

    RODNEY KING-- The start of a Template

    CHP Officer Klaus Groeger points to a bullet hole in the ambulance that he just escorted on a run during the Rodney King Riots. 

    Today, Rodney King, was found dead in his swimming pool.

    King had long struggled with drugs and alcohol. He called himself a recovering addict but had not stopped drinking, and possessed a doctor's clearance for medical marijuana. King last year appeared on VH1’s "Celebrity Rehab," trying to tackle his fight with alcoholism.
    King was drunk and unarmed when he was pulled over for speeding by Los Angeles Police Department officers and beaten.
    The incident was captured on video by a civilian bystander, and the recording became an instant international sensation. Four of the officers were tried for excessive force. Their acquittal on April 29, 1992, touched off one of the worst urban riots in U.S. history.
    "It felt like I was an inch from death," he said, describing what it was like to be struck by batons and stung by Tasers.
    A jury acquitted the four police officers in the beating of King, unleashing an onslaught of pent-up anger. There were 54 riot-related deaths and nearly $1 billion in property damage as the seams of the city blew apart.

    This was the beginning of the enforcement of Political Correctness by Special Interest Groups, also known as "Minorities". 

    A husband/wife California Highway Patrol unit noticed the car Rodney was driving because it had expired tabs, meaning the registration was not up to date. The team attempted to stop Rodney, intending to write a "Fix-it" ticket. Rodney was intoxicated on PCP. (YEAH, I know. You are going to say" But his tests came back negative". However, as another CHP Officer, I was a Drug Recognition Expert -DRE- certified by the National Highway Transportation Administration. I had also had an experience with several on PCP, one who took 13 Law Enforcers to take him down, basically by Gang Tackling him. ) 

    Rodney knew if he stopped, they would notice that, which was a violation of his Parole 

    King's Trouble with the Law Prior to His Beating
    July 27, 1987:  According to a complaint filed by his wife, King beat her while she was sleeping, then dragged her outside the house and beat her again. King was charged with battery and pleaded "no contest."  He was placed on probation and ordered to obtain counseling.  He never got the counseling.November 3, 1989: King, brandishing a tire iron, ordered a convenience store clerk to empty the cash register.  The clerk grabbed the tire iron, causing King to fall backwards and knock over a pie rack.  King swung the rack at the clerk and fled the store with $200.  King was arrested and charged with assault with a deadly weapon, second-degree robbery, and intent to commit great bodily injury.  In a plea agreement, King pleaded guilty to the robbery charge and the other charges were dropped.  He was sentenced to two years in prison, but was paroled on December 27, 1990.
    The Arrest of Rodney King on March 3, 1991
    March 3, 1991:  After being seen speeding on the 210 freeway by CHP officers, King led them on a chase at speeds estimated at up to 110 to 115 mph.  When finally stopped, King refused requests to get into the prone position and appeared to charge one of the officers.  He was beaten and arrested.  King was charged with felony evading.  Charges were later dropped.
    King's 3/3/91 Arrest Record
    King's Trouble with the Law After March 3, 1991
    May 11, 1991:  King was pulled over for having an excessively tinted windshield.  Although King was driving without a license and his car registration had expired, King was not charged.May 28, 1991:  King picked up a transvestite prostitute in Hollywood who happened to be under surveillance by LAPD officers.  King and the prostitute were observed in an alley engaging in sexual activity.  When the prostitute spotted the officers, King sped away, nearly hitting one of them.  King later explained that he thought the vice officers were robbers trying to kill him.  No charges were filed.
    June 26, 1992:  King's second wife reported to police that King had hit her and she feared for her life.  King was handcuffed and taken to a police station, but his wife then decided against pressing charges.
    July 16, 1992:  King was arrested at 1:40 A.M. for driving while intoxicated.  No charges were filed.
    August 21, 1993: King crashed into a wall near a downtown Los Angeles nightclub.  He had a blood alcohol level of 0.19.  King was charged with violating his parole and sent for sixty day to an alcohol treatment center.  He was also convicted on the DUI charge and ordered to perform twenty days of community service.
    May 21, 1995:  King was arrested for DUI while on a trip to Pennsylvania.  King failed field sobriety tests, but refused to submit to a blood test.  He was tried and acquitted.
    July 14, 1995:  King got into an argument with his wife while he was driving, pulled off the freeway and ordered her out of the car.  When she started to get out, King sped off, leaving her on the highway with a bruised arm.  King was charged with assault with a deadly weapon (his car), reckless driving, spousal abuse, and hit-and-run.  King was tried on all four charges, but found guilty only of hit-and-run driving.
    March 3, 1999:  King allegedly injured the sixteen-year-old girl that he had fathered out of wedlock when he was seventeen, as well as the girl's mother.  King was arrested for injuring the woman, the girl, and for vandalizing property.  King claimed that the incident was simply "a family misunderstanding."
    September 29, 2001:  King was arrested for indecent exposure and use of the hallucinogenic drug PCP.

    At the time, ALL law enforcers were instructed NOT to wrestle subjects appearing to be on PCP. The only approved method to subdue was the PR-24 baton. 

    After the Los Angeles District Attorney was goaded into prosecuting the officers filmed, they were tried. But, at the same time, Rodney King was NOT indicted.

    The Special Interests, not content with a finding of a judge and jury, cornered GHW Bush when he came to town to start his re-election campaign. To pacify them, GHW Bush promised to set the FBI after the Officers, which he did. They were charged with "Violation of Rodney King's CIVIL RIGHTS" which is a catch-all charge, kind of like "Conduct Unbecoming", but this one carries a prison sentence.

    The damage did not stop there. The Husband Wife team were given Written Reprimands for not timely informing their Supervisor--A Sergeant-- of the event. Their Sergeant was given Days Off for "Not initiating an administrative Inquiry" Their Lieutenant was interrogated, had a hear attack and medically retired. Their Captain also got Days Off for "Not initiating an Administrative Inquiry" . New rules came down from CHP HQ. One was that, if you, the CHP Officer saw a member of an allied agency (Another Police Dept) using brutality, you the Officer were to inform that Law Enforcer that he/she was being brutal, then, at the soonest opportunity, inform your immediate superior of what you had observed. (At  which time, you would be also required to document this in a Memo) 

    To me view, this was a step toward electing Barack Obama. 

    You see, in both cases.the general public and the Media both ignored all the sins of King and Obama, and focused only on their race. Race gave them both a pass. 

    Sunday, March 25, 2012

    Big Sur Marathon

    I ran this course 4 times. It will kick your butt. But, next year, you can't wait to go again

    Sunday, February 26, 2012

    A requisite feeling toward your "Other"

    This was one of my favorites, but I never knew about the group or singer until about 2005.

    My Fav song, my Fave singer

    Sunday, January 8, 2012

    You can't fix stupid

    Granted, DNC Chair Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is not the sharpest crayon in the box, in fact she is not the sharpest crayon in the dull crayon box. But her time on today's Fox News Sunday will go into the dumb politician hall of fame. She was lead into a logic trap by host Chris Wallace and can almost see smoke come out of her ears from her overworked underdeveloped brain as she attempted to free herself.

    At issue was her criticism of GOP Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.  According to Ms Schultz, as CEO of Bain Capital, Romney was responsible for layoffs made by companies which received Bain investment dollars. Following that logic Wallace asked Schultz if the CEO of the United States, President Obama was responsible for the layoffs at Solyndra

    You see says Dumb, Dumb Debbie ""The decisions that were made at Solyndra that ultimately led to their bankruptcy were those of people who worked at Solyndra." The CEO of the investment company, the United States of America bears no responsibility.  But the layoffs made at companies Bain invested in, were not because of decisions made by the people who worked at those companies, those were the fault of the CEO of the investment company.

    The video below is almost comical the way Schultz tries to get out from under her own words. 

    A standard phrase of Ron White, one of my favorite comedians is "You can't fix stupid." Sometimes I wonder if he came up with that phrase to warn us about Debbie Wasserman-Schultz.  She may not be the dumbest person in congress, she competes with Barbara Boxer and Sheila Jackson Lee for that title, but may very well be the biggest simpleton ever to hold a leadership position in either major political party.

    Thursday, January 5, 2012

    "FREE" Medical Care

    When you get a chance, put EMTALA in GOOGLE.

    This was a "gift" from Teddy Kennedy and the other Senator from Massachusetts
    It says
    IF you have a hospital that offers Emergency Treatment-- YOU MUST
    accept all comers, and treat them
    extract payment from them
    transfer them to another hospital (ALTHOUGH--This was what Michelle Obama did before he became president)

    Michelle Obama's Patient-Dumping Scheme

    But they keep telling us that illegal aliens don't cost the nation anything...that they actually add to the economy!
    Hundreds of patients have been languishing for months or even years in New York City hospitals, despite being well enough to be sent home or to nursing centers for less-expensive care, because they are illegal immigrantor lack sufficient insurance or appropriate housing. As a result, hospitals are absorbing the bill for millions of dollars in unreimbursed expenses annually while the patients, trapped in bureaucratic limbo, are sometimes deprived of services that could be provided elsewhere at a small fraction of the cost. “Many of those individuals no longer need that care, but because they have no resources and many have no family here, we, unfortunately, are caring for them in a much more expensive setting than necessary based on their clinical need,” said LaRay Brown, a senior vice president for the city’s Health and Hospitals Corporation. Under state law, public hospitals are not allowed to discharge patients to shelters or to the street.Medicaid often pays for emergency care for illegal immigrants, but not for continuing care, and many hospitals in places with large concentrations of illegal immigrants, like Texas, California and Florida, face the quandary of where to send patients well enough to leave. Officials in New York City say they have many such patients who are draining money from the health system as the cost of keeping people in acute-care hospitals continues to escalate

    Hundreds of patients have been languishing for months or even years in New York City hospitals, despite being well enough to be sent home or to nursing centers for less-expensive care, because they are illegal immigrants or lack sufficient insurance or appropriate housing.
    As a result, hospitals are absorbing the bill for millions of dollars in unreimbursed expenses annually while the patients, trapped in bureaucratic limbo, are sometimes deprived of services that could be provided elsewhere at a small fraction of the cost.
    “Many of those individuals no longer need that care, but because they have no resources and many have no family here, we, unfortunately, are caring for them in a much more expensive setting than necessary based on their clinical need,” said LaRay Brown, a senior vice president for the city’s Health and Hospitals Corporation. Under state law, public hospitals are not allowed to discharge patients to shelters or to the street.
    Medicaid often pays for emergency care for illegal immigrants, but not for continuing care, and many hospitals in places with large concentrations of illegal immigrants, like Texas, California and Florida, face the quandary of where to send patients well enough to leave. Officials in New York City say they have many such patients who are draining money from the health system as the cost of keeping people in acute-care hospitals continues to escalate.
    But even if Medicaid pays for some care, taxpayer dollars are ultimately being consumed by patients who could be cared for in nursing homes or other health facilities, and even at home if supportive services were available. Care for a patient languishing in a hospital can cost more than $100,000 a year, while care in a nursing home can cost $20,000 or less.
    Patients fit to be discharged from hospitals but having no place to go typically remain more than five years, Ms. Brown said. She estimated that there were about 300 patients in such a predicament throughout the city, most in public hospitals or higher-priced skilled public nursing homes, though a smattering were in private hospitals.
    One patient, a former hospital technician from Queens, has lived at the city’s Coler-Goldwater Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility on Roosevelt Island for 13 years because the hospital has no place to send him, Ms. Brown said. The patient, who is in his mid-60s, has been there since an arterial disease cost him part of one leg below the knee and left him in a wheelchair. The city’s public health system declined to provide the names of any long-term patients or make them available for interviews, citing confidentiality laws.
    Five years ago, Yu Kang Fu, 58, who lived in Flushing, Queens, and was a cook at a Chinese restaurant in New Jersey, was dropped off by his boss at New York Downtown Hospital, a private institution in Manhattan, complaining of a severe headache. Mr. Yu was admitted to the intensive-care unit with a stroke.
    Within days, he was well enough for hospital personnel to begin planning for his release, but as an illegal immigrant (he had overstayed a work visa a decade ago), he was ineligible for health benefits. And no nursing home or rehabilitation center would take him. Neither would his son in China nor the Chinese government, although the hospital volunteered to fly him there at its expense.
    Mr. Yu’s protracted hospital stay was first chronicled in an article in The New York Times in 2008 about the treatment of uninsured immigrants.
    Mr. Yu remained in the hospital for over four years until he was transferred last spring to the Atlantis Rehabilitation and Residential Health Care Facility, a private center in Fort Greene, Brooklyn, after the federal government certified him as a “permanent resident under color of law,” essentially acknowledging that he could not be returned to China and qualifying him for medical benefits.
    “This gentleman cost us millions of dollars,” said Jeffrey Menkes, the president of New York Downtown. “We try to provide physical, occupational therapy, but this is an acute-care hospital. This patient shouldn’t be here.”
    Mr. Yu said that the hospital had treated him well, but that he had made enormous progress in regaining his ability to walk through his rehabilitation regimen at Atlantis. He hopes to return to China when he is well enough to be discharged.
    “Here, I am very happy,” he said. “This is very nice — No. 1.”
    New York Downtown serves a largely immigrant population, and many patients have no insurance or proof that they are in the United States legally, which is necessary for discharge purposes and eventual reimbursements, said Chui Man Lai, assistant vice president of patient services at the hospital.
    “These patients often arrive in the emergency room acutely ill and unaccompanied, and we have to treat them until they can be discharged safely,” Ms. Lai said. “The hospital is required, by law and its mission, to care for these patients.”
    Health professionals refer to them as “permanent patients,” trussed in red tape and essentially living in hospitals already operating on thin margins. In some cases, health care professionals say, grown children leave ailing parents at the hospitals and go on vacation. Officials call that practice a “pop drop.”
    Though the problem is particularly severe in the municipal hospital system, longtime patients place a financial burden wherever they end up.
    New York Downtown spends about $2 million annually for such patients out of an operating budget of about $200 million. An acute-care patient can cost the hospital more than $1,500 a day.
    Hospitals are reluctant to complain publicly about such patients for fear of being perceived as callously seeking to dump nonpaying patients. Elected officials are generally loath to be seen as encouraging illegal immigrants by changing reimbursement formulas. The issue was never addressed during the debate over national health care legislation.
    Longtime patients, meanwhile, risk getting sicker because they are exposed to diseases that fester in hospitals.
    “At times there is a fine line regarding who meets the criteria to be admitted to a hospital, but if there’s no way to immediately contact a family member and the patient needs nonmedical help or is homeless, you’re obligated to provide shelter,” said Dr. Warren B. Licht, who recently retired as New York Downtown’s chief medical officer after seven years to return to full-time clinical practice in the wellness and prevention center that he founded there. “You can’t kick a patient out of the hospital.”
    New York Downtown, Dr. Licht said, has offered to pay for nursing home care for patents who are uninsured and are illegal immigrants, but care facilities are reluctant to risk taking patients for fear that they would be saddled with unexpected and unreimbursed expenses.
    “If the patient does not have or cannot obtain health insurance to pay for the next level of care, other non-acute-care health facilities won’t routinely accept a patient,” Dr. Licht said.
    New York Downtown has four or five patients out of a total of 180 who have no place to go, he said, adding, “It cost us several million dollars a year in a hospital struggling to keep its head above water.”