1)     The notion of helping people to die is contrary to the core of medicine.

In Oregon, only a handful of physicians have written lethal prescriptions over the past 10 years, and only about 1 death in a thousand happens this way. The overwhelming majority of physicians and terminally ill patients essentially vote against PAS.

2)     We should not take the step of making medical care merely another commodity for which there is a supply and a demand -- i.e., whatever (legal thing) the patient wants, the patient gets.

Think about patient "rights" to receive antibiotics any time they wish; pain killers dispensed on demand; teen boys able to demand steroid hormones for body building. Someone might question why the doctor gets to impose his or her views on these people if they’re willing to take the risks, but physicians need to be able to operate within a code of ethics and without the expectation that "what a patient wants, the patient gets." This will lead to the Kevorkian ethical standard becoming the norm.

3)     The Oregon law has seen a lot of abuse, despite what the newspapers editorialize.

None of the Oregon assisted suicide patients last year were referred for evaluation for depression: it would be nearly a statistical impossibility for none of the terminally ill patients to have been depressed. In fact a recent study at OHSU suggests that 20-25% were clinically depressed. But no one is looking over the shoulders of the assisted-suicide activists as they arrange for lethal prescriptions. The Oregon Public Health Division has zero resources for it.

4)     Accepting this will start us down the road to worse abuses.

This isn't speculation -- it's already happened. In Oregon, at least one patient was injected with lethal medication despite the fact that the law prohibits it. Another elderly woman, somewhat demented, was pressured by her daughter to get a lethal prescription -- doctors' notes say that the woman herself didn't really seem to want it. In Europe, euthanasia is already becoming commonplace. A Princeton professor has written about a "duty to die" for people whom society finds no longer useful.

 

Dr. Twyla Barnes, Chairwoman                         

SWMC Board of Directors                                                               

Educational Service District #112                                       

2500 NE 65^th Ave.                                                

Vancouver, WA 98661-6812                                            

 

Mr. Lee Kearney, Vice Chair

SWMC Board of Directors

7611 Evergreen Highway

Vancouver, WA 98664     

 

Mr. Ron Prill, Treasurer

SWMC Board of Directors

5807 NW El Rey Drive

Camas, WA 98607     

 

Ms. Judi Brenes, Secretary

SWMC Board of Directors

2519 NW 91^st St

Vancouver, WA 98665

 

Mr. Dick Boyd

SWMC Board of Directors

Boyd Coffee Co.

19730 NE Sandy Blvd.

Portland, OR 97230

 

Mr. Brett Bryant

SWMC Board of Directors

2506 SE 125^th Ave.

Vancouver, WA 98683

 

Mr. Thomas G. Burkholder

SWMC Board of Directors

4705 Cady Court  

Vancouver, WA 98663     

 

Nicholas Carulli, M.D.

SWMC Board of Directors

304 North Lieser Rd.

Vancouver, WA 98664     

 

Mr. David Nierenberg

SWMC Board of Directors

19605 NE 8th Street

Camas, WA 98607

 

Rev. Robert Rhodes

SWMC Board of Directors

300 W. 8^th St.

Vancouver, WA 98660

 

George B. Shanno, M.D.

SWMC Board of Directors

200 NE Mother Joseph Place, Ste. 110

Vancouver, WA 98664

 

Donald M. Thompson, M.D.

SWMC Board of Directors

505 NE 87^th Ave., St. 120

Vancouver, WA 98664

 

Mr. John White

SWMC Board of Directors

BERGER/ABAM Engineers

1111 Main St #300       

Vancouver 98660-2914

 

Mr. Joseph M. Kortum, President/CEO

Southwest Washington Medical Center

P. O. Box 1600

Vancouver, WA 98668

 

               

As a (physician, nurse, pharmacist, health care professional) working at _________ (hospital, clinic, long-term care facility or medical center), I believe that the duty of health care professionals is to protect the lives of those entrusted to our treatment and care. Medically vulnerable patients place their trust in me each day—they trust that I will care for them to the best of my ability, that I will comfort them when I can no longer heal them, and that I will always treat them with dignity and with respect.  They trust _____________ (hospital or facility)  to do the same—patients and their families trust that when they enter our doors, we will provide the best of care in an environment that is safe and conducive to healing.

 

It is in this context of trust that I want to express my deep concern over the recent passage of Initiative 1000, which legalizes physician-assisted suicide in Washington state. The American Medical Association and 49 of its state chapters have declared that they do not support the practice of physician-assisted suicide. The Washington State Medical Association announced in July of this year that physician-assisted suicide is “fundamentally incompatible with the role of physicians as healers.” I believe, along with the WSMA and many of my fellow health care professionals, that physician-assisted suicide endangers vulnerable patients and is incompatible with good medicine.

 

In Oregon, many institutions have adopted policies that do not allow employed physicians to write lethal prescriptions, hospital pharmacies to dispense lethal prescriptions, or lethal prescriptions to be administered on hospital premises. The conscience clause of I-1000 makes clear that health care providers may opt out of participating in assisted suicide.  In addition, health care facilities may prohibit health care providers from participating on their premises by following the law’s simple procedures.  (See Section 19 of I-1000.) I urge ____________  (hospital or medical center) to refuse to allow assisted suicide and to continue to offer excellent treatment, care, and comfort to our terminally ill and dying patients. 

 

__________ needs to continue to be a safe harbor for patients and families. I believe that many members of the community will steer clear of any facility which supports and practices physician-assisted suicide and instead seek health care in an institution they can trust with their lives. Obviously, the provision of lethal drug overdoses is the antithesis of safe care. Additionally, since the practice  is controversial, it is likely to divide staff, cause conflict between patients and their families, and encourage legal complaints.

 

I have always appreciated the excellent standard of care we offer at _____________ . For me, it is an honor and a privilege to be a member of our health care team and to work alongside other professionals who share my passion for truly compassionate care. It is because I honor the ‘do no harm’ philosophy at the heart of medicine and because I care deeply for the well-being of my patients that I urge (hospital, clinic, facility) to reject all participation in assisted suicide.  

  Sincerely,

Dear _____________ :

 

I am writing to thank you for Southwest Washington Medical Center’s tradition of excellent care for the sick and suffering in our community. It is a tradition I hope you will continue to honor and support in the years to come, as the people who live here have placed their trust in your corporate role as caregiver.

 

It is in regard to this trust in Southwest’s continued excellent care that I am writing. The passage of Initiative 1000, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in Washington state, undermines this trust.  It leaves people frightened and doubtful about whether or not they will continue to receive good care in a medical environment that allows the intentional ending of life.

 

I recently read that the American Medical Association, as well as 49 of its state chapters, has declared that it does not support the practice of physician-assisted suicide. The Washington State Medical Association announced in July of this year that physician-assisted suicide is “fundamentally incompatible with the role of physicians as healers.” I believe, along with the WSMA, that physician-assisted suicide contradicts the very mission of healthcare, and it endangers vulnerable patients who deserve care and comfort throughout their illness.

 

In Oregon, many institutions have adopted policies that do not allow employed physicians to write lethal prescriptions, pharmacies to dispense lethal prescriptions, or lethal prescriptions to be administered on institutional premises. The conscience clause of I-1000 makes clear that health care providers may opt out of participating in assisted suicide.  In addition, health care facilities may prohibit health care providers from participating on their premises by following the law’s simple procedures.  (See Section 19 of I-1000.) I urge Southwest Washington Medical Center to refuse to allow assisted suicide and to continue to offer excellent treatment, care, and comfort to people who are terminally ill and dying.  

 

If Southwest continues its life-affirming and comfort-enhancing mission by not participating in assisted suicide, I will surely continue to support and patronize your facility and encourage family and friends to do likewise.  I know that my family, friends, and many members of our community will join me in supporting health care providers we can trust with our lives.

 

 I look forward to hearing that Southwest Washington Medical Center will not allow the practice of physician-assisted suicide on its premises or by its employees. Please contact me to notify me of your decision.  My contact information is as follows: _______________________.  Thank you for your consideration in this all-important matter. 

 

Sincerely,

 

If by chance, you visit actually desiring to read my words, I have moved to an easier format.

 

My wit and wisdom can now be found at http://rightinaleftworld.blogspot.com/

Appeasement and negotiations with terrorists is a pipe dream of the left. Only armchair generals with little or no knowledge of what they talk about would even propose such a thing.

This war is not a video game where you click a mouse and kill your enemy. This is a battle unlike any other we have had to face. It is a serious delusion to think the terrorists will simply leave us alone if we leave them alone or that they can be bought off.

It has been said that the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" of the West is the best weapon against Terrorists. They already have the money to buy all the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" they may desire. Modernization is appealing to us in the West, but not to them. There is no tolerance in Islamofascists other than for their delusion of World Dominance and Allah is giving them the entire planet. Whether you realize it or not, it is those "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" that they hate the most! It is a complete delusion of the left to think that offering them the very things they despise is the way to win in the War on Terror.

Recently two High School students in Dearborn Michigan were arrested for planning terrorist activities as well as 24 more were arrested in London for plotting a massive plan of suicide bombing of aircraft bound from the UK to the US. They had all the "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment" they could want at their disposal and yet, were willing to sacrifice it all for a deluded ideology of power and glory.

Polls matter little in this "comforts, freedoms and enlightenment," battle. As can be witnessed in the drive-by leftstream media and several left-winged blogs, many are deluded as to what and who we are fighting. What with the politicization of the War on Terror from a losing party trying to regain power, most haven't a clue. Truth finds little regard when it comes to the anti-war left.

Iraq is not a diversion from the War on Terror, but a very necessary part of the overall War given that virtually the entire world said there were WMDs still there prior to our invasion. However, in the six month long rush to war, they were obviously spirited away, as stated by many who were there before we went in. Would you like to have it on your conscience that you did nothing to stop them from possibly falling into the hands of terrorists?

The claims from the left have been that they were never there. Yet, when over 500 canisters were revealed to have been found, the left comes back with "we knew all about them." “They weren't the ones sought after.”

Which way is it? Where did the rest go? How could the entire world say and believe they were there, yet they are gone once we got there, six months later? Doesn't take a rock scientist to figure that out. Still, WMDs were but one reason to invade Iraq.

It is still claimed that we aren’t gaining on the War on Terror because we have lost sight of the goal of capturing Osama Bin Laden and have diverted resources from Afghanistan to Iraq. There are still troops in Afghanistan, always have been since we went there. All the troops in the world chasing Osama won't catch him in the mountainous region he chose to hide out in provided he is still alive. As seen with Zarqawi, catching Osama would not stop terrorism anyways. He is a mere figurehead and even if dead, others step in. This is not a battle against one man; it's a battle against a misled and brutal ideology.

These misled Muslims have been attacking and killing each other and the Jews for centuries, it's not new. As they have spread their terror outside the Middle East over the last decades, it's long past due for the west to stand against them.

If you think "cut and run," excuse me, "redeployment" is the answer, you are dead wrong. If you think negotiation is the answer, you are dead wrong. These terrorists desire nothing from us, except our death, both liberal and conservative, Democrat and Republican. It's death or subjugation under their control, as far as they are concerned.

This War on Terror isn't against a single person, it's against an ideology that needs destroyed as much as humanly possible. Neville Chamberlain found out the hard way, at the cost of many of his countrymen’s lives that you cannot negotiate with evil nor can you appease it. You can only fight it and destroy it.

As Winston Churchill once said, "an appeaser is one who keeps feeding a crocodile, hoping it eats him last." That is as an accurate a description of the anti-war left that I have ever seen.

Being realistic about who and what were fighting is not propaganda, it's an honest assessment of the dangers were now face. Sadly, even if we were to lose a couple large cities due to terrorist attacks, some on the left will still believe all we need do is join hands and sing Kumbaya.

Sorry, but the song doesn't translate into the language of terrorists.

Lew

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many times does it take for this aging Representative from Pennsylvania to realize his leftist rhetoric is actually being recorded and that he has far too many skeletons in his closet to be finger-pointing and accusing?

 

We first heard of his anti-war rhetoric as he idly accused a squad of combat decorated Marines of murdering Iraqis “in cold blood.” Of course, the investigation into the incident in Haditha wasn’t finished or released, but that didn’t stop John Murtha from standing before Congress and condemning US Marines without any due process, something he also demands be given our enemies bent of actually murdering all of us.

 

Just last week, he was caught giving a speech in Miami, Florida wherein he was accused of saying; "American presence in Iraq is more dangerous to world peace than nuclear threats from North Korea or Iran." After a couple days, he and supporters of his complained that he did not actually say that. According to Murtha, as he excused his gaffe, "I was recently misquoted following a speech I gave at a Veterans forum at the Florida International University Biscayne Campus on June 24, 2006. During the speech, I made a point that our international credibility was suffering, particularly due to our continued military presence in Iraq and that we were perceived as an occupying force. For illustrative purposes, I provided the example of a recent Pew Poll which indicates a greater percentage of people in 10 of 14 foreign countries consider the U.S. in Iraq a danger to world peace than consider Iran or North Korea a danger to world peace.”

 

You see, he said it, but he didn’t say it, he was, as are all liberals when caught, “misquoted,” “taken out of context,” or “misinterpreted.”

 

According to a July 8, 2006 Washington Times editorial, where apparently a video was seen of the speech, Murtha’s actual words were, "Every one of our allies think that the United States being in Iraq is more dangerous to world stability and world peace, every one of our allies; Great Britain, every single country... They think it's more, uh, we're more dangerous to world peace than North Korea or Iran.”

 

Wouldn’t it be refreshing to see the Jack Murtha’s of the world actually stand behind their words, for a change?

 

Now, in an interview quoted in the Johnstown Tribune-Democrat, Murtha has attacked his opponent, Diana Irey. According to the article, “Murtha said he is concerned about Irey’s motivation for running against him, considering her husband, Robert, is CEO of a Canonsburg-based firm that secured a $300 million contract with the Iraqi government two years ago.

“I worry about that,” he said. “If they’re benefiting from this war, and if this is the reason she’s in this, it really bothers me. I don’t like that.”

 

So, now he is raising accusations of his opponent “profiting off of the War on Terror.”

 

Ms. Irey responded on her web site, “For the record: My husband, Robert Irey, is a partner in a firm that once had a subcontract with the Iraqi Government, jointly administered by the U.S. Department of Defense, to help the new democratic Government of Iraq take over the burden of defending itself by refurbishing equipment and material destroyed or damaged by the war. Had that contract been fulfilled, it would have allowed the Iraqi Government to take over more of the burden of defending itself sooner – which would have had the result of making possible a withdrawal of U.S. troops sooner than they would otherwise have been able to come home.”

“But that contract was terminated more than a year and a half ago, when one of Bob’s partners and one of their employees were murdered in Iraq - a fact reported at the time by both the Los Angeles Times and The Associated Press, and, therefore, presumably known to Jack Murtha.”

She goes on to say that other than one $10,000 down payment, her husband’s firm has not received a dime of the $1.6 million owed.

Doing a bit of digging I discovered just who really might be profiting off of this war. Jack Murtha, that’s who! In an article from the publication, “The Hill,” Jack Murtha is identified as “the No. 1 beneficiary of defense campaign donations in the House … and has not fallen below No. 3 for Congress as a whole” for the past 3 years!

Ms. Irey’s husbands firm has received a paltry $10,000 one time down payment while Murtha has received campaign contributions over $188,000 from Defense Contractors.

How long will it take this time for the Representative from Pennsylvania to cry once again, “I was misquoted and taken out of context?”

John Murtha is a disgrace and an embarrassment to the US Marine Corps he once served in and to the State of Pennsylvania. His 35 year tenure in Congress has made him either complacent or he is so warped with hatred of President Bush and Republicans in general that he forgets his own skeletons before opening his mouth and inserting his foot.

Add these quotes together and his role as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the ABSCAM scandal of the 1980s and it is plain to see he needs to be sent to the unemployment line.

Citizens of Pennsylvania and America deserve better than this.

 

Lew

It is no secret that Mayor Villagiarosa, of Los Angeles, is pro-Illegal Immigration. In his 1999 bid for Mayor he declared that enforcement of immigration laws was a federal responsibility, not that of the local police, should he be elected.

 

Well, he was elected and obviously has kept true to his desires. L.A. Police may not arrest illegal immigrants within the city unless they see them commit a felony, beyond that of being illegally in the country.

 

Said Mr. Villagiarosa during his campaign, “[T]hey (Police) need to focus on violent crime, on the crime that violates the rule that thou shalt not hurt me.”

 

Maybe with this in her memory, I’m sure that 82 year-old Mavis Coyle was completely taken aback when, on February 15, she was given a ticket for “jaywalking” and “obstructing traffic” because the elderly lady, walking with a cane in one hand and a bag of groceries in the other, was taking too long to cross an intersection. By too long, I mean she couldn’t get across the four-lane intersection in the short allotted time the Pedestrian light stays green.

 

The ticketing officer, a motorcycle officer, said she entered the intersection after the “do not walk light” started flashing. Mavis disputes this and said the light had just changed. A reporter, in April, tested this very light and found it would not change to green unless the button was pushed for it to change. Then, according to him and others who have used this intersection, the light gave someone between 20 to 27 seconds to cross the busy intersection. At one point, a group of High School students couldn’t cross in the allotted time and ended up running, something I would not expect of an 82 year-old lady.

 

Once was the time, way back when there was actually some common sense in the world, that the motorcyle cop would either have gotten off his motorcycle and helped Mavis across the street. Or, he would have maneuvered his bike to block traffic until she crossed. Ticketing an elderly person crossing in the approved crosswalk too slowly would never enter the mind.

 

Whatever happened to Pedestrians have the right away? Are we so busy that we have forgotten our elderly and would run them over to get to our next stop a few seconds earlier? Have we become so callous as to demand the elderly stay off the streets so we don’t have to slow down just a little? Just be glad she wasn’t driving, as some have tried to keep doing beyond when they should.

 

I remember as a young Boy Scout, we prided ourselves on helping the elderly across the street, even if we had to make cars wait a few seconds. Back then, few seemed to mind the wait and were looking forward to a time they could leisurely cross a street without worrying about running or being run over.

 

L.A. Police have said they are cracking down on people improperly crossing streets due to an increased pedestrian accident rate. I don’t see this elderly lady using the crosswalk as “improper crossing,” due to her being slow.

 

Is this the “violent crimes” candidate, and now Mayor Villagiarosa was thinking of during the 1999 interview? Are the elderly in Los Angeles being targeted while police turn a blind eye to illegal immigrants?

 

In an obvious face saving effort, a court commissioner sent her a notice that she was found guilty of “jaywalking,” but the $114 fine was being waved.

 

Makes me wonder if she were an elderly illegal immigrant if Police would have ticketed her at all. If so, would Mayor Villagiarosa himself have waived the fine or buried the ticket?

Listening to Foxnews this afternoon, I was struck by a story about a Democrat Representative in the State of Maine and his desire to have the state sell license plates with “SUPPORT OUR TROOPS” on them. Money raised from their sale would be used to help families of Maine’s National Guard and Reserve Troops now serving in the War on Terror overseas.

 

A very nice gesture and I’m sure the families would welcome the help. As we all know our troops are grossly underpaid for what they do. Money’s raised should also help offset tax dollars being used to help families in need while their primary breadwinners are off at war for us.

 

Donald Pilon, the State Representative behind this, says he is opposed to the war itself. While I disagree with his opposition, I must applaud his effort at helping our troops and their families.

 

The rub comes from those opposed to his efforts, the anti-war left in Maine and the Maine Civil Liberties Union. Rep. Pilon even admits that some may see the message as supporting the war, which he admits he does not.

 

“The state should not do anything that might be construed as supporting the war,” said Doug Rawlings, the president of one of two Maine chapters of Veterans for Peace. “[A] plate proclaiming support for the troops would be viewed by many as a pro-war statement. Issuing such a license plate "just clouds the issue way too much," Rawlings says.

 

Shenna Bellows, of the Maine Civil Liberties Union says, “I think, generally, the state should stay out of the business of making political statements on license plates." In true ACLU misguided and anti-American fashion, she said the issue would become "problematic" for the MCLU if the Legislature endorsed a troops plate but rejected one bearing an anti-war message, because that would be discriminatory.

 

Have we allowed ourselves to be duped to the point that we would sit back and allow our troops in harms way to not be told our State Governments support them? And, “the state should stay out of the business of making political statements?” Even if on license plates, isn’t that what states do?

 

What I find frightening in this is that the move to remove God from every aspect of our lives was brought about pretty much the same way, a small group opposed and worried their sensibilities would be offended by references to God. Do we have to ensure, while at war, our enemies receive equal time in our media? Truth be known, I’d prefer our troops successes receive equal time with reports of our enemies successes in our drive-by leftstream media. If we don’t grant enemies of the state equal time, will the MCLU start a movement, as most movements end up doing, spreading across the land requiring each state to no longer show support for our troops, even while in harms way? Will Schools, State Houses, Courts and such be barred from ever having anything remotely showing support for our troops, as was done with the Christian Cross, Ten Commandments and anything indicating a belief in God?

 

Remembering the denial of our brave efforts in Viet Nam and the treatment we returning troops received then, seeing a group as the MCLU stand up and oppose the State of Maine showing support for the troops, especially while we are war, not only frightens me, it angers me. What ever happened to the canard, “I support the troops, but not the war?” How far will the MCLU and its parent, the ACLU, take not showing any support for our troops? If the examples of Separation of Church and State are indicative, our troops may end up standing all-alone, fighting a war with no support.

 

My mind is boggled thinking of how far this simple gesture of help to the families of our troops may be taken by the minions of those that hate our country.

 

While not a resident of the state of Maine, I readily admit I have no dog in their in state fights. But, as all too often happens, things like this spill over and spread like wildfire, especially when we have strong opposition to our freedoms and liberties in our courts and amongst our citizens. Will we eventually be faced with laws barring any public display of support for our troops unless we show equal support for our enemies?

 

The Silent Majority needs to wake up and see what they are allowing to happen to our nation. It’s always little baby-steps used to remove our national pride and liberties from us. Even more importantly, how can any government send their troops off to fight for and protect our freedoms and not show them any support?

 

We cannot allow this to happen!!

 

Lew

 

Source article: http://kennebecjournal.mainetoday.com/news/local/2879853.shtml

 

 

In his latest “Cut and Run” scheme to help lose the war on terror, John Kerry has now labeled his “Cut and Run” strategy as “over the horizon.” On June 22, 2006, before the Senate, speaking in support of his ill-fated and failed amendment 4442, Kerry said, “We maintain an over-the-horizon force to protect our security interests in the region.”

 

Catchy phrases aside, this one just reminds me too much of Judy Garland singing “Somewhere Over The Rainbow” in the classic movie, “The Wizard of Oz.”

 

John Kerry, the new “Cowardly Lion,” talks brave and bold, acting as if he hadn’t lost the 2004 Presidential election to George W. Bush. For reasons known only to him, Kerry feels he must ‘take charge’ and just as he recommended towards the end of the Viet Nam war (you do realize he served in Viet Nam), it becomes necessary to abandon a new and fledgling ally just when they may need us the most.

 

From the same speech above, Kerry seems to feel we must “hold the Iraqis feet to the fire” in order to force them to stand up and fight for their nation. To accomplish this Kerry ‘suggests,’ “Redeploying U.S. troops is necessary for success in Iraq, and it is necessary to be able to fight a more effective war on terror.” A little over a week earlier, this same Senator proposed another amendment calling for “the withdrawal of American Combat Troops by the end of 2006.” Of course, this went down in flames, as it deserved to.

 

To win, we must “withdraw,” according to Kerry at first. Now, since that measure failed, he sees “redeployment” as the answer and path to victory. Or is it the path to his relevance, in his mind? I guess the thought of just supporting our troops and ensuring they have the tools and materials needed for this long fight ahead doesn’t occur to him.

 

“Redeployment” coming from Kerry is a relatively new stand as historically he urges for “withdrawal” when it is apparent our troops are winning the battles. In 1971, during his infamous “testimony” before the anti-war Fulbright Commission, in urging an ‘immediate withdrawal’ from Viet Nam, Senator Kerry said, “we cannot fight communism all over the world.”

 

In the struggle against Communism in the mid-eighties, Kerry took the side of the Communist leader in Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega. During his failed bid for the Presidency in 2004, he stated, "I'm proud that I stood against Ronald Reagan, not with him, when his intelligence agencies were abusing the Constitution of the United States and when he was running an illegal war in Central America."

 

In 1993, after the “Black Hawk Down” incident, then President Clinton proposed a six-month “draw down” of US forces in Somalia. In a speech on the Senate floor, Kerry is quoted as, “There is no doubt in my mind that the U.N. strategy for establishing security in Mogadishu has been a failure. But that is not a sufficient reason for the United States to withdraw at this moment, to cut and run.” Yet, in the same speech, he also said, “I think the President's [Clinton] plan, as currently outlined, will allow us to step aside responsibly.” As I see it, retreat is retreat, whether immediate or gradual.

Since our departure from Somalia, one only need read the daily news of late to see what chaos that country became and recently how terrorists have fully conquered the country and are now imposing another repressive totalitarian regime.

Of the first Gulf War, Kerry’s position was in opposition of liberating Kuwait from the invasion of Saddam Hussein. During his speech to that effect, he said, “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years--even while we armed him and refused to hold him accountable for using some of them. It will be because we set an artificial deadline. As we know, those who have been in war, there is no artificial wound, no artificial consequence of war.” Apparently, he now feels an “artificial deadline” is appropriate for withdrawal, excuse me, “redeployment” of our troops from the second go around with Saddam Hussein.

 

Oddly enough, once a Democrat President was in the White House and Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was still being a pain in the world’s neck, Mr. Kerry went before the Senate in November of 1997 and in a speech titled “We must be firm with Saddam Hussein,” he said, “Even after the overwhelming defeat that the coalition forces visited upon Iraq in and near Kuwait in the Desert Storm conflict, Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein's truculence has continued unabated. In the final days of that conflict, a fateful decision was made not to utterly vanquish the Iraqi Government and armed forces….”

 

In the same speech, encouraging a United Nations strike against Saddam, Kerry stated, “This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value. But how long this military action might continue and how it may escalate should Saddam remain intransigent and how extensive would be its reach are for the Security Council and our allies to know and for Saddam Hussein ultimately to find out.” “Should the resolve of our allies wane to pursue this matter until an acceptable inspection process has been reinstituted--which I hope will not occur and which I am pleased to say at this moment does not seem to have even begun--the United States must not lose its resolve to take action.” What a difference the party in the White House seems to make on Kerry.

 

John Kerry’s infamous “I actually voted for the $87 billion before I voted against it,” gaffe, in regards to President Bush’s handing of Iraq after September 11, 2001, is legendary now among misstatements made by any politician.

 

Before that, in 2002, he made another speech to the Senate addressing the upcoming War in Iraq and said, “But none of the underlying realities of the threat, none of the underlying realities of the choices we face are altered because they are, in fact, the same as they were in 1991 when we discovered those weapons when the teams went in, and in 1998 when the teams were kicked out.” He also said, “He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.”

 

After some rhetoric leaning away from going to war in Iraq, Kerry, in the same speech said, “In the wake of September 11, who among us can say, with any certainty, to anybody, that those weapons might not be used against our troops or against allies in the region? …. And while the administration has failed to provide any direct link between Iraq and the events of September 11, can we afford to ignore the possibility that Saddam Hussein might accidentally, as well as purposely, allow those weapons to slide off to one group or other in a region where weapons are the currency of trade?”

 

Yet again, in his effort to gain support for his first withdrawal plan, Kerry now says, “"We were misled, we were given evidence that was not true," Kerry said. "It was wrong, and I was wrong to vote [for it]."

 

Just this week, in garnering support for his failed amendment 4442, He said, “I believe it is a more effective way to put America in a position of strength, in a position to fight the war on terror in Somalia, in Afghanistan, and in the other places of the world where al-Qaida is growing.” (Congressional Record, June 22, 2006 pages S6328 and S6329)

 

In what I can only call a true Emerald City moment, he now calls for “fighting the war on terror in Somalia?” After supporting Clinton’s withdrawal, even though it was a ‘gradual’ withdrawal, or, a step aside responsibly, if you prefer, and once claiming “we cannot fight Communism all over the world,” our Cowardly Lion seems to be humming ‘Somewhere over the Rainbow’ as he wishes to redeploy our troops out of Iraq, just as we are building the Iraqis up and winning again and set them back towards Somalia.

 

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, Dorothy. His only consistency is in his inconsistency. Scarier yet is that this man came within a hairsbreadth of the Presidency of the United States. If only we could click the heels of our Ruby Slippers and whisk Kerry out of the Senate and relegate him to the scrap pile of irrelevancy.

  

Lew

 

As mentioned in the earlier post, “Dog Crazies,” an Oregon family was suing a neighbor over the death of their beloved 14-year-old Labrador pet for 1.6 million dollars! The case went to court and before a jury. Just what the looney left animal rights morons wanted.

 

However, they did not get to reclassify dogs as people, or whatever they think they are, besides a damned dog. Clackamas County Circuit Judge Eve L. Miller excluded a loss-of-companionship claim but allowed the family to proceed with other claims they were making.

 

Comments made by animal rights loons over this ruling were predictable;

 

“Once we can manage to have the terminology of "property" removed from animal-law....it will begin to give them more value than an inanimate tv or chair.:(“

 

“How long will it be before our legal system changes ? An[y] judge who views pets as mere property is inhumane and needs to be removed from office!”

 

http://www.network.bestfriends.org/legalanimal/news/4274.html

 

The response from these two would make one think it was the death and molestation of children that being ruled on in the court. Sorry to say, but some people seem to think dogs are better than even human children. Makes me wonder just what sort of ‘humanity’ they assign to animals in the wild and why they aren’t pressing for laws on wild animals eating each other!

 

To be fair, the neighbor who ran over the dog and injured it enough that it had to be euthanized still claims he did not do it on purpose, but that it was an accident. A previous jury did not believe him and he was convicted of animal abuse and sentenced to 90 days in jail. I wasn’t there, so have no first hand knowledge, but reading some claims from the family makes me wonder.

 

From the original article I posted about;

 

“Weaver was convicted last year of first-degree animal abuse and sentenced to 90 days in the Clackamas County Jail. Weaver's attorney, Larry Dawson, said the incident was an accident. But Greenup and his family said Weaver drove over the dog several times outside their Estacada home and did not stop when they called out to him or when they tried to drag the dog from under the truck.”

 

The claims towards the end disturb me if it was intentional. “Drove over the dog several times.” “did not stop when they called out to him or when they tried to drag the dog from under the truck.” It disturbs me due to why would anyone, a child especially, get so close to a truck, somewhat in a ditch, driving back and forth over a dog? Regardless, a jury found him guilty and sentenced him.

 

The family’s attorney, Geordie Duckler, is a Portland, Oregon animal law attorney who has tried for years now to get a ‘loss of companionship claim’ before a jury. Do I smell a big ‘animal rights’ attorney trying to set a precedent? This claim of loss of companionship has been historically reserved for spouses, not pets. The ramifications of allowing a pet to be claimed a “companion” and suing at their loss staggers the imagination. But that is what animal rights activists wish, to legally stop us from “abusing” animals by eating them or wearing their skins in leather or furs.

 

Letting citizens vote for such a thing would be an utter failure and they realize that. So, they use our courts and hope for a willing activist judge that will basically write laws from the bench, instead of interpreting law, as they are entrusted to do. Fortunately, once again, the effort failed.

 

In the end, the ‘award’ was lessened from the requested $1.6 million and the family was awarded $50,000 for “punitive damages,” $6,000 for “emotional distress,” and $400 for “economic loss,” or, the “value of the family pet, a 14 year old dog!

 

Since this was awarded, we now have a big push being announced for “Bring Your Dog to Work Day!” My God, where will it stop? We stop people from smoking in businesses and even deny private business owners the choice of allowing smoking within their establishments; yet, we are going to encourage people to bring their dogs to work?

 

It has been said this will increase work output. A hollow claim, I feel. How do you get more work when someone must walk the dog throughout the day? It must be fed, watered and if a close family pet, it will want a lot of attention. If an ‘accident’ occurs, or two dogs get into a tussle, where is that beneficial for the workplace?

 

Businesses are seen already turning a blind eye to customers carrying their mutts into stores, even grocery stores, claiming they are “service animals.” Traditionally, service animals were Seeing Eye dogs, a highly trained animal that does benefit its owner. I have no problem with a Seeing Eye dog, due to their necessity and training. Some dogs have even been trained to help people with epilepsy, or other handicaps. However, I see extremely obese people, in motorized wheel chairs carrying a small dog, claiming it too is a ‘service animal.’

 

Merchants may not inquire if they are disabled or if the dog is properly trained, by the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), but must accept the customers answer if they claim it is a ‘service animal.’ Some dog loving merchants have been seen walking up to dog owners forcing their dogs on us in stores and outright asking, “that is a service animal, right?”

 

Health codes prohibit animals in stores that stock and sell food. Misuse of the ADA trumps health codes, apparently and so, our food is subject to whatever may be on the dog.

 

These animals are placed in carts where children will be setting. Their saliva and fur may be left behind with either disease, since not all owners keep their animals properly vaccinated or cleaned. Even with constant bathing, dogs must use the outdoors, unlike a cat, which has a litter box in the house, usually. Once outside, fleas and ticks may get on the animal and they may be left behind at the store, in the very cart your child may sit in next.

 

There is also the prospect of a child being bitten by a small animal, the child running up to the animal and scaring it. I’m sorry doesn’t cover that, the child could be severely injured; all because you cannot leave your dog at home for an hour while you shop.

 

Now that someone has won an award of $56,000 over the death of an aged dog, I’m afraid there is a precedent set for making animals even more acceptable in shops and the workplace. That people can turn such a blind eye to the possible harms in this staggers my mind.

 

People, IT IS A DOG, NOT A CHILD!!!! It won’t hurt to leave it home when you shop. An aged dog isn’t worth $56,000, even if intentionally killed. It was a family pet and sorry, but pets die. They don’t live forever and no matter how much you love your dog, IT IS STILL A DOG!!!!

 

Lew

 

 

 

 

Recently, I was asked whether or not I really supported the troops by a lefty, of all people. Apparently, the current version from the left of “Support the Troops” is to bring them home and abandon the war. Those of us who support the war effort and President Bush are now accused of not supporting the troops, since the death toll has exceeded 2500 and we are not joining in demanding they be brought home.

 

This new notion of theirs is nothing more than the latest anti-war effort, others failing to garner much support.

 

As one who has been the recipient of the Left’s “We Support The Troops” for over 35 years now, most I have met haven’t a clue what Support the Troops really means. This isn’t something open to interpretation. It isn’t a gray area, either. Either you Support our men and women fighting the War on Terror, including in Iraq, or you don’t.

 

We have a Military Force for one reason and one reason, only. To fight our wars, as decided by the civilian government. They are not a social club to experiment the latest social whim upon. They are not a replacement for welfare or a means to gain just a free education. By law, they may not be used a Police Force, unless Martial Law is declared by the Government. Everything associated with our Military Branches is centered about fighting war. During peacetime, they train to fight our wars. During wartime, they actually fight them and unfortunately, some give their lives.

 

Today’s American Military is comprised of men and women, every last one a volunteer. No one is conscripted or forced to serve against their will. There is no draft currently and our Military themselves don’t wish a return to the days of the draft and forcing people to serve.

 

In the Military, regardless of your rank or job training, when the enemy is coming at you, everyone is an infantryman, if need be. When I served, everyone received some infantry training. That standards were lowered and this training deleted for “non-combat” jobs, is a travesty, as witnessed by the capture of Jessica Lynch a couple years ago.

 

To me, Supporting our Troops entails supporting their job, or mission, if you prefer. Their mission currently is fighting the War on Terror, including in Iraq. This is their job, their training, and their mission. We are not in a ‘humanitarian’ effort or a ‘police action,’ we are in a war with an evil enemy misusing a religion to force their twisted view of God on the rest of the world. Make no mistake about it; the terrorists we are currently engaged with are bent on world domination. To question or oppose them is to be killed, often in a horrendous manner. This is what our Military are trained for and what they are fighting against.

 

If you find you cannot support their mission, the war, you are opposed to them fighting these despots who would behead each of us, whether we are left or right. They don’t care what we believe or who we do or do not support, we are Westerners and as such, must die so their version of ancient writings may prevail.

 

In summary, to me, “we support the troops, but not the war’ is tantamount to, “We Support The Police, but not when they arrest rapists, murderers, bank robbers and such.”

 

If you really wish to see a speedy end to this war, give our Military the means, material and full support to make it short a fight as possible. If we don’t stop them now, it will be our children having to do it later on.

 

Lew

 

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/6/13/134926.shtml?s=et

 

Kerry can regret anything he wishes, no matter to me.

 

However, he misled the nation before on his cut and run policy and it cost possibly millions of South Vietnamese, Laotians, Thais and Cambodians their lives. His estimate was maybe 3,000.

 

It seems that after Korea, the US adopted a policy of abandoning their allies struggling for freedom. Even in Korea we did not win, just kept troops there to keep the Communists at bay.

 

We saw it when the Cubans that tried to overthrow Castro were decimated in the Bay of Pigs invasion, believing the US had their backs.

 

We saw it as we sat by and watched the Soviets rearm and resupply North Viet Nam after we pulled out there and when they invaded the South, instead of resupporting them, as promised, we turned our backs and watched as they too were overthrown and their numbers decimated.

 

After the first Gulf War, we encouraged Iraqis to rise up against Saddam. When they did, we turned a blind eye and again watched as they too were decimated.

 

And now, we finally have a chance to redeem our reputation and are making significant headway in building up the Iraqis to have their first ever taste of freedom and liberty in their lives and what happens? Along come 'ol cut and run Kerry demanding we once again abandon another ally and sit back and watch as they too will be cut to shreds by organized terrorists.

 

America gained its freedom over 200 years ago with help from many others, mostly the French. We could not have done it ourselves. No nation has ever won freedom or kept it by themselves. It takes the help of freedom loving people the world over to do the job. Due to our strength and heritage, America is the nation that is strong enough and wealthy enough to help others that truly seek freedom.

 

The Kerry's, Kennedy's, Murtha's, Pelosi's and such need to be ignored and sent packing. Freedom lovers the world over cannot afford to listen to them any longer.

 

Lew

 

UPDATE:  This measure went down in defeat before the Senate by a vote of 93 to 6. Voting for the measure were Senators Boxer, Byrd, Feingold, Harkin, Kerry and Kennedy.

Yup, she has released her latest book, “Godless” the Church of Liberalism and the left found one short sentence they hate, not that it takes much for the left to hate. In this sentence, she is accused of dissing the 9-11 widows.

 

Truth be known, comments about 4 widows of the 9-11 attacks, who chose to place themselves in the public spectrum by using their widow status as celebrity accurately tells how the left uses people like this to parade out, support their causes and condemn the right. Of course, you cannot challenge them, as they are “widows.”

 

Much like they did with Cindy Sheehan, parading her around since her grown son dies in a heroic mission in Iraq, the left embraces the 4 widows as they disparage President Bush and the Battles in Iraq.

 

Misleading is that Ann attacks the widows. Instead, she uses them, much as the left already does, to prove a point and yes, the left falls for it, proving her assertions correct. The attacks against Ann have non-ending since this went public late last week. One magazine even went as far as asking her to kill herself (Advertising Age, June 12, 2006).

 

This and other comments made against Ann are just more of the same old rhetoric the left is famed for. Of course, they have no problem slandering and attacking groups like the Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth for their outspokenness against John Kerry in his failed 2004 bid for the White House. They claim it is not right to attack a “decorated Viet Nam War Hero” like Kerry and commence attacking them individually and as a group, calling them liars, Republican Front Group, costing them their jobs, suing them after the election in ridiculous lawsuits for no real reason other than vengeance.

 

But, since they claim it just isn’t right to attack a “decorated Viet Nam War Hero,” why do they commence endless attacks on well over 250 “decorated Viet Nam War heroes” that comprise the Swiftboat Veterans and POWs for Truth?

 

They don’t address any of the allegations, just commence personal attacks.

 

Then, they have the unmitigated gall to attack Ann Coulter as a hatemonger?

 

As always, the left is as big a hypocrite as ever. Ann simply mirrored their actions and exposed them and the more they bray about one small sentence out of thousands in her book, they are proving her right…again.

 

Way to go Ann. You go girl!

 

Lew

 

 

In what I can only see as a step in the right direction, it appears one of Britian MPs now sees his best protection from criminals is himself.

Burgled MP wants home stun guns
An MP whose house was burgled while his family and visitors slept has called for homeowners to be allowed to arm themselves with Taser stun guns.

Thieves broke into the home of Conservative Monmouth MP David Davies, stealing passports and £300 in cash.

He said he felt violated by the crime and wanted householders to be allowed to use police electronic stun guns.
Victim Support said while people should be able to use reasonable force, they should call 999.

Mr Davies's Fiat Punto was used as a getaway car by the thieves who broke in through a downstairs window at his house in his constituency early on Sunday.

He was asleep upstairs along with his wife Aliz 27, and children Sophie, two, and Dominic, three months.

The burglar alarm was turned off because the MP's sister-in-law and her boyfriend, who were visiting, were sleeping downstairs.

The thieves got away without disturbing the family but Mr Davies said he believed they armed themselves with a knife they found in the kitchen.

"It's probably lucky that I didn't wake up," Mr Davies told BBC Radio Wales.

It's lucky they didn't come upstairs. They took what they wanted and went.

Mr Davies said constraints on people trying to defend their homes were "crazy".

"What am I meant to do? I'm a fit, healthy 30-year-old. I probably wouldn't have got the better of them.

"If I had I would have probably been in trouble with the law myself."

Tasers, which are used by police forces in the UK, work by temporarily disabling whoever they are fired at with an electric shock delivered by two barbed darts trailing wires.

Mr Davies added: "Shouldn't I, at the very least, be able to stand at the top of my stairs with a Taser - which isn't going to kill somebody - and use that as a means of self defence?"

The politician said training people to use the Taser guns would prevent cases such as that of Norfolk farmer Tony Martin, who shot and killed a 16-year-old intruder.

"I know exactly how he felt. You can see why people would not want to take any chances," he said.

Although voicing support for Mr Davies, Victim Support Wales advised against home owners being armed with the electronic stun guns.

John Trew, Victim Support's national officer for Wales, said; "I don't think there is a problem with people using reasonable force to defend themselves."

But he said if there were burgling your house, people should "ring the police, don't try to take them on."

In a statement, Gwent Police said it did not support householders arming themselves with Tasers "or any other type of weapon in order to protect their property".

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_ne...051104.stm

As is often said on this side of the ocean, yes, if we have time to grab a gun we also have the time to call Police. But, what are we supposed to do in the 10 to 30 minutes it takes for them to arrive?

While a stun gun isn't the same as regular gun, I see it as a step in the right direction for the British to protect their homes and family. Properly trained and disciplined citizens with guns are a deterrent to crime, not criminals.

 

Lew