According to the (London) Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5854702.ece, British doctors could be 'struck off' the medical register for refusing to follow their patient's wishes as far whether they should live or die.

And so the slippery slope gets steeper (and slippier).

Imagine having a young, healthy vibrant patient. Someone who is deeply loved by parents, friends and, even perhaps, children. The patient is having a rough time and has expressed a wish to die. Say they get some relatively innocous illness - but one that is emminetly curable and needs treatment. What do you do? Lose your right to practice medicine or explain to a young child why you allowed their adored mom or dad to die?

These are dangerous times, particularly if you are unborn, old or disabled.

According to the (London) Times, http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article5854702.ece, doctors could be 'struck off' the medical register for refusing to follow their patient's wishes as far whether they should live or die.

And so the slippery slope gets steeper (and slippier).

Imagine having a young, healthy vibrant patient. Someone who is deeply loved by parents, friends and, even perhaps, children. The patient is having a rough time and has expressed a wish to die. Say they get some relatively innocous illness - but one that is emminetly curable and needs treatment. What do you do? Lose your right to practice medicine or explain to a young child why you allowed their adored mom or dad to die?

These are dangerous times, particularly if you are unborn, old or disabled.

Its been several weeks since I last posted a chart of the Dow Jones Industrial index. By now, surely, our great leaders in Washington will have been able to come up with something that excites the market? Sadly, it appears that the answer is a decisive NO.
Every time they talk about spending more money the markets plummet further.

 

Pacific Research Institute has a great article on this

According to THOMAS H.R.1424, AKA Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 or the Financial industry bailout package,a bill to provide authority for the Federal Government to purchase and insure certain types of troubled assets blah, blah, blah became law on 10/3/2008.

I seem to remember large amounts of our money being spent, with lots of learned and rich people saying that it was a great idea.

Let's look at the picture so far:

The chart shows the Dow Jones Industrial index. Maybe I am reading it upside down, or perhaps

• The US financial markets are too big to manipulate - even by the Government
• Politicians are economically illiterate
• If the people advocating and making these 'bailout' decisions own stock, they have undeclared vested interest in using government money to further their own ends
• The market punishes incompetence. This allows others to come in and do the job better.
  

Let's hope that the same mistake is not made with the US auto industry. To paraphrase Mitt Romney, an auto industry bailout would be its death sentence.

In Michelle Malkin's The eHarmony Shakedown she describes the shameful way in which the online dating site eHarmony has been treated by New Jersey's Attorney General as homosexual activists sought to force the company to provide same-sex dating services. But what is most depressing in this sad and sordid tale is eHarmony's capitulation.

We know that the homosexual activists have an agenda and will do anything to further that agenda. We know that many public figures are limp-wristed, 'reed blown in the wind' liberals, so their actions shouldn't surprise us. What I am really surprised and upset about is eHarmony's willingness to surrender, lay down and have its corporate tummy tickled. If they had a shred of principal they would have closed down. If they had any sense they would have opened up in another country where freedoms haven't been removed like they have in the United Soviet States of America (USSA).

I noticed that eHarmony advertisements were playing on various conservative talk shows today, including Dennis Prager. Another talk show host seemed to take the view that it wasn't eHarmony's fault and therefore why should people lose their livelihoods? I presume that the talk shows also welcome the advertising revenue. But this attitude is wrong. Conservative radio is now running ads for a homosexual dating site whose executives have found a way of excusing evil so they can make a buck. Where will it end?

I hope that heterosexuals will boycott the service. Not only should they find it distasteful to be dealing with a service like this but, all it would take is a computer glitch and Peter might be meeting Paul rather than Paula.

11/21/08 The eHarmony shakedown

11/14/08 - 69 year old Phyllis Burgess surrounded,roughed up, spat on and thecross she carried stampled upon. Covered by  ABC affiliate KESQ-TV.

While the governor of California and many state representatives are seeking to find sneaky ways to overturn the will of the people on prop 8, spitting with anger and vitriole, loud and enraged 'No on 8' thugs attack an elderly woman and trample on the cross she is carrying, while carrying signs talking about 'love.'

Its hard to believe that the USA has sunk so low.

Do we really want a country where people like these are accommodated?

Today's LA Times online includes an article entitled Proposition 8 supporters vent frustration over continued protests that describes the frustration that many of us feel at how bad the losers are behaving regarding Prop 8. This includes weasel-like legal action aimed at undermining the constitutional amendment.

Perhaps the protesters feel like Laury Creyaufmiller who is quoted in the article as saying: "..... the margin of victory by 4.6 percentage points statewide did not send a clear message that Californians were against gay marriage."

Perhaps I do not understand American politics, but does this mean that because Obama only got 52% of the popular vote that it is not clear as to who the American people want as their president?

A week or so before the election I happened to be on a bus traveling through Hyde Park, Chicago - Obama-country.

There was an African American fellow on the bus who was obviously the worse for drink making rather a lot of noise about the great Obama. He ranted on for a while until he was challenged by another rather beefy looking African American sitting a few rows behind.

I can't remember the exact conversation, but it went something like: "Obama is the greatest, he will save us from the mother ******* likes of Bush, he's the man, we don't want no McLain.."  Yes he said McLain....repeatedly.

The fellow, a few rows behind corrected him in his assertions and then offered to continue the conversation in the cold night air off the bus. The Obama promoter declined, looked rather sheepish and sat down.

It made me think that Republican strategists have many challenges but building its base in the black, Hispanic, and the 18 - 30 demographics must be among its greatest and most important.

The African-American I mentioned gave me hope that there are some brave independent thinkers who are prepared to break away from the bleating and think for themselves.

We know that Hispanic voters are naturally conservative, but for some unknown reason (maybe immigration) have been steered away from the Republican party.

As far as the 18 - 30 voters, maybe some sort of national health service that provided free lobotomies would do the trick.

Here is my suggestion. Why not create a Republican Academy for self identifying conservatives in the 25 - 40 age group who do not have a college degree, but who are interested in becoming involved in the political process? The academy would provide a course that would last about 3 - 6 months and would include a modest stipend to pay for travel and living expenses. Scholarships could be made available for those with family commitments that would otherwise make attending the course too onerous.

The course would include classes on the local politics, the Constitution, the political process, NAFTA, economics, the courts - and most importantly, on how to find and mobilize like minded individuals in their communities.

By doing this would start to purposefully build a base in areas where we are weak. It would find undiscovered talent and hopefully turn the party from a bunch of well meaning white fuddy-duddies into a powerful, multi-ethnic force to be reckoned with.

I worked in the cable TV industry for a while. When I attended one of the big Cable TV conferences in Chicago a few years ago, I had my photo taken with Evander Holyfield (the boxer who's ear Mike Tyson bit).

Evander seemed rather haughty and arrogant, not acknowledging me in any way. But the photo was the real surprise.

I later showed it to my brother in law, who, assuming that I was standing next to an Evander waxworks model, said it I was I who looked like a manikin and Evander Holyfield who looked real. The reason was that my white palid skin made me look corpse-like compared to the rich brown skin of the boxer.

If you anything about photography you will realize is that the camera man had, not unreasonably, set up his equipment to make sure that Holyfied looked great and the white guy looked pale and sickly.

Could it be that the reason that throughout the presidential debates John McCain looked so pale, pallid and old was that the media had set things up to make Obama look wonderful and further detract voters from McCain - even if at a subconscious level?

Many of us conservatives have become big admirers of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin in the last couple of months. Apart from her poise and beauty, she also espouses the moral and conservative views that we hold dear. She was, in many ways, the high point of the Republican campaign.

During the campaign she was subjected to continual petty criticism by the main stream media, including many 'gotcha' questions that were specifically designed to embarrass and humiliate her. Naturally we should expect this treatment from a press corps that doesn't even pretend to be even handed anymore and which give Barack Obama a completely free pass.

What is really galling though, is that now, supposedly the McCain campaign is leveling criticism at her.

How dare they! These are the same people who just lost the election. Who made so many really dumb decisions (like not going after the Jeremiah Wright issue). So my advice to them is:

• leave Governor Palin alone,
  
• think about all the mistakes that you made in this election
  

 

Proposition 8 was very important for me, other Christians who believe in the authority of the Bible and apparently, judging on the success of Prop 8, many hundreds of thousands of others in California.

For those who chose to listen the arguments against same sex marriage are very persuasive:

• Marriage had been defined as between one man and one woman for millennia
• The objective of marriage is first and foremost procreation and the raising of children. Of course, for same sex couples, procreation is completely out of the question without artificial means. There is much evidence that children need the love and nurture of both a father and mother.
• Same sex marriage would force many people in the service industry (i.e. hotel owners, wedding photographers, local government employees etc) to either go against their consciences and heartfelt religious beliefs or be subject to law suits.
• Religious organizations providing adoption services would be forced to close (as already happened to a Catholic adoption agency in Massachusetts).
• Schools will be forced to teach young children that same-sex marriage is no different from traditional marriage - and parents will have no choice in the matter (this has also happened in Massachusetts). In fact the No on 8 campaign shot itself well and truly in the foot when it had the superintendent of California schools saying that schools are not required to teach about same sex marriage while at the same time the news broke that a group of kindergärtners had been taken on a school trip to a lesbian wedding in San Francisco.
• Churches will be forced to conduct same-sex marriage ceremonies or be found guilty of discrimination.
• If same-sex marriage were made legal, then on what moral grounds could anyone say that a father and his adult daughter could not marry? Or what about two brothers? Or perhaps a group of men and a woman? After all the 'no on 8' crowd keeps saying that people should be allowed to marry anyone they love.
• The 'no on 8' campaign unsuccessfully tried to present the idea that unless we have same-sex marriage, some people have been discriminated against. This is simply untrue. Under the California Family Code, “domestic partners shall have all the rights, protections and benefits” of married spouses.

Despite the fact that we won (and so did similar measures in Florida and Arizona) there are several things in the aftermath of the Prop 8 vote that disturb me.

I live in a fairly conservative city, but there were a few 'no on 8' signs dotted around the city. Many of them mentioned 'hate.' In other words, in the very small minds of the opposition, if you were pro 8 you are a hateful bigot. I predict that the next move for homosexual strategists will be bring in so-called “hate speech’ laws. These effectively silence any dissenting voice against unfettered sexual anarchy. Of course, this has already happened in Canada, the UK and Sweden. Canadian Stephen Boisson of Alberta, faced jail time for writing a letter to a local newspaper critical of tax dollars used to fund homosexual activism. And Swedish pastor Ake Green, who was given a 30-day prison sentence for preaching a sermon on the book of Romans. Or British doctor, Dr Muhammad Siddiq, who was suspended for a year for linking gay people with many sexually-transmitted diseases .

From the small sampling of teenagers that I know, it appears that they have swallowed the gay propaganda that they have been subjected to all their lives. Most of them seem to have bought into the idea that same sex marriage is some sort of civil rights issue.

Yes on 8 signs have been regularly stolen or destroyed and an elderly couple in Carlsbad were viciously attacked and beaten by their neighbor for having a 'yes on 8' sign in their yard.

What really ticks me off, though, is that if the "no on 8" proponents really believed that same sex marriage is such a sacred right and a terrible injustice has been done of the last 4,000 years, why on earth have they not mentioned it until now?