As Painful As Pulling Teeth

Ah, the wonders of Socialized Health Care, they just never stop coming:

"[In the U.K,] large numbers of people are going without dental treatment and some even report extracting their own teeth because they cannot find an NHS dentist in their area"

Gosh that sounds like fun, having to pull my own teeth out because I can't find a dentist - hey wait a minute, I guess this means you really do get free health care under socialized medicine!! I mean, you're certainly not going to pay yourself for doing your own Dental Work.

But hey, at least this dental shortage has spawned some of that good ol' creativity:

"Some of the respondents show considerable ingenuity. 'Filled own teeth - clove oil and Polyfilla,' said one in Essex. Another fixed a crown with Superglue and a third used a screwdriver to scrape off plaque."

There's some crafty ol' chaps still left in Britain, yes sir; and good thing too, because I can't say I really expect their MPs to do anything about it - anything that will work, at least.

Indeed, one Liberal Democrat spokesman, quoted in the article, noted that "this survey shows the system is at breaking point." Really?!? Maybe it's just me, but if you have a system that's been around for 8 years (as this one has) that's supposed to provide Universal Dental Care, and people are still having to pull their own teeth, the system ain't at a 'breaking point' - it's already busted.

Moreover, the solution of the London politicians, whether Liberal Democrat, Labour, or even Tory, will be to 'reform' the program - you know, make some changes so that the NHS will 'work better' and 'be more responsive to peoples' needs,' and all those other tried and true slogans politicians use. But none of the reforms they can propose will work.

Why? Because, ultimately, the problem isn't a kink in the system - it's the system itself.

Say What Now?

Reason number 234,125,906,866 that Hillary Clinton shouldn't be President, via a FOX article about candidate screw-ups on the campaign trail:

...and in South Carolina, where the H is silent in Horry Country, the names matter. Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who mastered most of the names during her husband's campaigns, goofed by calling the state's coastal area "the lowlands" rather than the preferred "Lowcountry."

Bitch. Seriously, the lowlands?? What, does she think I live in Holland or something? Please, it's the South Carolina Lowcountry, plain an' simple.

'Course, Hillary ain't the only one that's screwed up on the S.C campaign trail. Fred Thompson thought the man in the Governors Mansion was Mark Sandford, as opposed to the real guy who's there - Mark Sanford.

And John McCain left one crowd quite puzzled when he told them that, despite his conversion from the Episcopalian Church to the Baptist Church, he "didn't find it necessary" to be Baptized into his new Church - and this to a crowd composed entirely of not just Baptists, but Southern Baptists. I'm guessing he didn't win any converts with that one.

In addition to amusing anecdotes about candidate screw-ups, FOX also offers some sage advice to candidates for future trials along the campaign trail:

...don't assume food comes ready to eat, as candidates in South Carolina have done. In that state, political barbecue means roasted pig and hands-on messiness. "You peel shrimp and shuck oysters," said Romney political consultant Warren Tompkins. More than 20 years later, some remember when Walter Mondale didn't peel and got more than a mouthful.

Yes indeed, all visitors to S.C would do well to realize that, sometimes, the seafood ain't exactly 'cooked to order.' Although we do understand that eating the shrimp's shell is acceptable in some parts of the world - but imitating the French probably ain't a winning campaign strategy in the Lowcountry.

"We Are In A War"

Earlier today, with limited pomp, circumstance, and media attention, Marine General Peter Pace left his post as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Before riding off into the sunset, however, General Pace had some parting words for his and, by extension, the War's critics.

"I just want everyone to understand that this dialogue is not about 'Can we vote our way out of a war.' We have an enemy who has declared war on us. We are in a war. They want to stop us from living the way we want to live our lives. So the dialogue is not about 'Are we in a war' but how and where and when to best fight that war to preserve our freedom and to preserve our way of life and to do so with the least damage to our own society and the least damage to those who we're fighting against so we can put the pieces back together on the end of this. We will prevail. There's no doubt about that."

The emphasis was added to highlight the most important point, one which many on the anti-war side continually fail to grasp, and that is this: no one has ever defeated an Islamic Jihad by running away. Politicians in the United States, including the President, are fond of downplaying the influence of religion on Iraq, Afghanistan, and the larger, so-called, War on Terror - but they do so at their own peril. The label of 'Terror' is a misnomer, as we are not out to eliminate the threat of terrorism; indeed, to do so would be an impossibility. Given this, I have long thought that this war should be called either the 'War on Islamic Fascism,' or, in more 'PC' terms, the 'War on Islamic Fundamentalism.'

Indeed, like it or not, we are in a Religious War. And it is a Religious War because they have defined it as such - and to ignore them would be a disaster. Indeed, as Carl von Clausewitz wrote in the famous, On War:

"The supreme, most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish, by that test, the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into something that is alien to its nature."

Or, in the simpler words of Sun-Tzu's The Art of War; "know thy enemy." I sense a similar warning from General Pace to those in Washington, and throughout the U.S, who wish us to believe that this War is something we can end simply by leaving Iraq.

Now, this war is not a Religious War in the Medieval sense of term, where one religion battled another; but a more modern one, as we find the battle lines drawn not between two religions, but between one religion, Islam, and the Secularists, who oppose its agenda. Of course, Islam fighting a Religious War is nothing new - Islam has been at war with the infidels since Muhammad and his first Muslim converts began attacking Arabic caravans traveling across the Arabian Desert in the 620's. It then continued with a frenzy until, finally, in 732, Charles Martel sent the Islamic warriors into retreat at the Battle of Tours. But Islamic jihad did not vanish - it only rested and regrouped. In 1453, the hordes of Muhammad finally overcame the walls of Constantinople, and with them the Byzantine Empire, thus beginning, yet again, a march of Islamic warriors towards the heart of Europe. As before, they were turned back by Europeans, this time while trying to siege the city of Vienna in 1683. Despite being forced into retreat yet again, the Muslims held on as long as was possible, until the crumbling ruins of the Ottoman Empire were finally destroyed in the First World War.

Then, sometime during the middle of the 20th Century, around the time many Europeans were reeling from their own disastrous experiments with the likes of Fascism and Imperialism, and others about to reel thanks to their experiments with Communism - Islam began to rumble again. Influenced by everything from Nazi ideology to the polarity of the Cold War world, Islam became re-acquainted with its warrior jihad of old; and slowly began to channel this spirit through organizations like Al-Qaeda, ultimately culminating in what should have been an obvious sign to all in the West that a new onslaught of jihad was back, and taking aim at them: the 9/11 attacks.

With that loose framework of the three major 'waves' of Islamic jihad, I now come back to General Pace, and, specifically, the last part of his remarks which I quoted above. Here, in discussing the eventual "end" of this War, he hints at what we are doing differently in this phase of the fight against jihad. In the past, the solution to Islamic jihad has been simply to kill as many Muslims as was feasible, and, eventually, through military strength, beat the jihad back into Arabia and out of your 'world.' As you can see though, setting aside, even, the fact that Arabia is no longer 'out of our world,' this strategy has proven vastly ineffective at preventing future assaults of jihadists. This time, we are attempting to address this problem - and doing so by attempting to reform the Islamic world from within. Just as the Renaissance and the Enlightenment were able to temper and eventually eliminate 'Crusaders' and able to moderate Christianity, we are planning to use similar ideological tools to temper jihadists.

It is, in all respects, a phenomenal and over-whelming task. We are hoping that by instituting Democracy we can not only beat back, this, the third wave of jihad, but also pre-empt a potential fourth wave; although given history, it seems unlikely that the latter might be possible. Yet, one thing is clear; Democracy would be, in most all respects, a death blow for the third wave of jihad. It would not end it, but it would certainly be its Tours. That is the significance of the battle of Iraq in this greater War on Islamic Fascism; and, whether he meant to or not, it is what General Pace hinted at today when he talked about putting the pieces of, not just our society, but their society back together when this War is over. He's hoping that pieces of the Iraq we put back together will be new ones. 'Enlightened' ones, if you will. He's asking people to not give up on this vision, and he's not asking because he feels it's the better choice between continuing the fight in Iraq and ending the War. He's asking because he knows that, if we want to win, in the end, we have no choice.

After all, we are in a War - whether we like it or not.

The Bitch Is Back

Drum roll, please, Ladies and Gentlemen! For today is a momentous day in American history!

Yep, get ready folks, HillaryCare is back!

Because, prior public response be damned, The Socialist Revolution must go on!!

All that remains is for her to pull off this magic act of convincing voters that she is, in fact, sufficiently 'moderate' enough to be representative of more than just the people of San Francisco; thus enabling her to bring the re-birth of this great catastrophe to its full and inevitable conclusion.

God save the USA.

HillaryCare, naturally, had to come back with a bang, and so it did. Right out of the gate, she dove headfirst into the classic Hillary/Socialist position of outlandish ridiculousness. Don't believe me? Check out what she said about her proposed plan for 'Universal Health Care:'

"This is not Government-run."

No really, she actually said that. Honestly, the sheer laughability and idiocy of that remark could, by itself, stand alone as a testament to the idiocy of her program - but I just-so-happen to be in the Hillary-bashing mood, so I'll continue. This non-government-run program is going to cost the Federal government a cool $110 Billion (money which they obviously won't control - because it's not government-run. Really, I swear). I mean seriously, she thinks the Federal Government is going to magically drop $110 Billion smackaroos on something and not retain at least some degree of control over how that money is used?!?!? The implications of Government bankrolling, to any degree, a certain system are not difficult to determine. Just look at similar initiatives in our own country. In the 1960's, many Doctors signed on to the Medicare and Medicaid programs proposed by LBJ; they, at the time, believed it would not seriously infringe on their control of the manner in which they treated their patients.

They were naive.

Soon after the programs began, the Government used Medicare and Medicaid, specifically, and pay attention here Mrs. Clinton, the money they spent on those programs, to demand (and get) ever-increasing control over the Health Care system. In other words, even if the beginnings of Mrs. Clinton's program are in some way benign, they won't stay that way - that's not how Governments operate; particularly when money is involved. The fact is, Governments, unchecked, naturally grow and increase in size; and it's because they're trying to. Our job, as citizens is to try our best to stop feeding the beast, not serve it a five-course buffet.

But let's get back to that $110 Billion for a second, because, you know, that kind of money doesn't just materialize in thin air - somebody has to pay for it. Naturally, this means a tax hike; and not just any tax hike, mind you, but a tax hike on the rich. Indeed, she actually said, in no uncertain terms, that those better able to pay for health insurance should be forced to help those who aren't so able.

Steal from the rich and give to the poor - the classic Robin Hood mentality.

Of course, at the end of the day, Robin Hood was never anything more than a petty thief; albeit one who tried to absolve himself of his crimes by doing the Medieval equivalent of giving the booty to charity. Moreover, while Robin Hood may have felt like he had some higher moral imperative, thus causing him to give the money away, it is highly unlikely that a Government would feel a similar sense of moral purpose. Indeed, to the best of my knowledge, there has yet to be a historical recording of a government that showed a more lasting interest in helping people than in helping itself.

The very term 'Moral Government' strikes me more as an excellent example of oxymoron rather than as a genuine historical entity. But hey, with $110 Billion a year on the line, why not let Hillary have a shot at reversing all of human history. It's not like its all that much money anyways....right?

Wasteful spending, increased taxation, and this, brand-new, benevolent government are all essential for any good 'Universal Health Care' proposal, but, to make sure you know she's serious, Hillary throws in some other goodies too. Like the part where she wants the Government to mandate that all Americans get Health insurance. Because, you know, whether you want to or not is irrelevant - when Hillary's Government decides what's best for you, you will comply.

Furthermore, since it's always fun to impose additional regulations on private business, Hillary is going to require (a.k.a mandate) all employers to offer some form of comprehensive Health Coverage to their employees. Sheesh, they're called benefits, and not necessities, for a reason! If you think health insurance is important, look for a job that offers it; but health coverage is in no way a mandatory part of an office business plan. It's simply one of the many tools a business owner may use in his quest to hire the best workers. The decision making should be left to employers and their potential employees - not the whims and beliefs of some self-anointed Queen.

In the end, one has to wonder how a program with all these 'mandates' can be passed off as "not government-run." Perhaps it's another one of those quirky Hillary things, but, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one organization in the country which can collect extra taxes from people and also force them to comply with the aforementioned policy mandates. No bonus points if you guess what the organization is.

The lesson, I think, to borrow from Shakespeare, is that 'that which we call a colon, by any other word, would still be as full of shit.'

The Right Man

These past few days, I've been trying as to watch as much of the testimony of General Petraeus as has been possible. During the snippets that I have caught, a few things have struck me. The first, and one which was, perhaps, not unexpected, was the degree to which many of the Senators and Representatives opposed to the war refused to listen to the General; preferring, instead, to do something akin to plugging their fingers in their ears and going 'la, la, la, I can't hear you!' like a bunch of third graders. In any case, it certainly is not the mark of a mature adult to hire someone to do a job for you, ask him to come back and file a report about that job, and then proceed to tell him that, while you think he's the best in the world at the job, you're not actually going to either believe or listen to any of the information that he reports back with.

Seriously, if you don't care what the guy has to say, don't make him come to D.C and give you a report. I mean, I know the only clock that politicians care about is the one counting down the time until their next re-election campaign - but I'd say the leader of multi-National forces in Iraq has a hell of a lot better things to do with his time than spend it blathering to a bunch of idiots with the maturity level of kindergarteners who won't give a damn what he says in the end anyways.

General Petreaus shouldn't have to waste his time on petty politics, he has something a bit more important on his hands - it's called a War.

Furthermore, I couldn't get over the gaggle of politicians who kept telling the General that they respected his integrity and thought the world of him - and then turned around and told him that the statistics he was presenting to them were incorrect, or that the information he was giving them was false. Now, maybe I'm just an ol'-fashioned Southern boy; but if you call someone a liar and accuse them of committing perjury - I think it's safe to say you've called their integrity into question.

On a different note, I must say, I'm damn glad that General Petraeus is the man leading our military in Iraq right now, these past few days, despite all the BS that has been laid at his feet by these politicians, he's handled himself with dignity and honor and proved himself not only to be an ingenious commander but an upstanding man as well. He had answers for all the crappy, politically-motivated questions that were tossed his way, and he refrained from stooping down to the level of the anti-war, vote-groveling politicians when he could have easily done so (and smacked them around a bit). Moreover, when he was asked about the inexcusable, newspaper attacks on his character by some elements of the anti-war movement, he responded simply by noting that generations of soldiers had fought to give those people the Right to say what they wanted - even if they are a bunch of stupid jerks.

Class and the ability to lead with one's actions instead of one's words are rare traits on Capitol Hill - and while the General may not have dazzled Congress with his example of supreme character, he may very well have made an impression were I'm guessing he would most like to, in the homes of ordinary Americans. Indeed, history tells us that Americans, as a whole, are typically much more impressed by silent leaders, like Washington, than they are by politicians up on their high horses, pontificating about what we should or shouldn't do. Let's hope the same is true this time around too.

I suppose we'll find out soon enough anyways.

Euros Discover How To 'Live' Even Longer - Pretend!

It's pretty clear, to someone like me, that incentives work - it's why I'm a Capitalist. But, as me or any other capitalist could tell you, part of the trick is not just incentivizing people, but incentivizing the right things. Take this story, for example. It seems likely that the woman had an excellent incentive: making some easy money. Usually, of course, one would expect the money to be earned through traditional, benign means (such as hard work) - and not by keeping one's dead Aunt mummified in the house in hopes of keeping her annual Government pension coming in.

Alas, such is the reality of Modern-day Europe and its socialist States: welfare programs are so huge and lucrative that they spawn instances like the one mentioned in the article. The sad thing about this poor Austrian woman is that she got caught after only one year - the Frenchmen who pull similar stunts usually squeeze out at least a few more years worth of dough.

Sadly, most Europeans (and by extension, their governments) don't understand the, rather simple, fundamental issue at stake. Government-payout programs incentivize laziness rather than productive labor; and as a result, actually make it useful to keep dead people around.

It's kindda creepy if you ask me.

Saving The Planet: One Tax At A Time

With Great Britain's continual build-up of inefficient social welfare programs, sickening political correctness over radical Islam, and recent retreat from the Military arena in Iraq, many American Conservatives might be wondering if the British people are beginning to slowly lose the political common sense for which they are known. Then, however, we read stories like this, which give us a slight bit more faith in our Allies across the Pond.

It seems that Britons have begun to accrue some doubt concerning their government's motives when it comes to tax increases aimed at offsetting carbon-emissions. You see, the British Government believes that part of its job is to help the British people atone for their 'sins' - and of course by 'sins' what I mean is 'sins committed against the almighty global warming gods.' So in an effort to pay for what amounts to a National CO2 offset, the British Government has decided to force its citizens to pay for carbon-offsets via taxation - because, hey, what better way for the government to solve a problem than to raise a tax, right?

Well, actually, its really taxes. But hey - details, schmetails.

Nevertheless, a new poll suggests that some 2/3 of Britons feel that their Government is using environmental issues as a front, and that behind this front they are simply raking in extra tax dollars. And, as it turns out, those 2/3 of Britons are right. It seems that the U.K Parliament is taking in far more in environmental taxes than it might need in order to pay for the Nation's carbon offsets.

The estimated cost of this off-set scheme? 11.7 billion Pounds. The amount of money the Government raked in in eco-taxes? 21.9 billion Pounds. A full 10.2 billions Pounds more than they actually needed.

(For us Americans, that would probably be, like, somewhere in the neighborhood of $100 billion, given the exchange rate and all.....)

I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you!

Needless to say, this system the British Government came up with to try and reduce Britons' CO2 emissions hasn't really done anything other than, well, swell the coffers of the British Parliament; and, hell, that's assuming that this whole carbon offsets-purchasing program isn't a big crock of bullshit to begin with. (Which it is.)

So, Americans, beware of the Global Warming doomsayers who warn of catastrophe if we don't increase our taxes on gasoline use; because the only thing that the government does to any great degree by increasing these taxes is increase its available funds - evidence the extra 10 billion Pounds sitting around Westminster Palace.

Finally, there's no question that we need to reduce our consumption of oil - much of that foreign oil serves as a financial lifeline for Islamists - however, the way to do that is most certainly not through increased taxation.

Besides, the idea that we (or our government) could buy 'indulgences' to atone for our sins so went out of style after the Protestant Reformation.

Private Health Care Still Working

Well, that is, if you assume that, when a patient gets something like cancer, the best Health Care system will be the one that keeps the most patients alive. Which, if I may say so, seems a pretty fair assumption to make.

Here's the link.

The important info is in the table on the right side, which shows the survival rates of all cancer patients in European Countries by gender. For good measure, they threw in the United States' rates and, unsurprisingly, they were the highest rates for both males and females. The margin was much smaller for females than it was for males, but I'm guessing the Americans who make up that slightly-more-than 1% edge in female survival rates would caution you against calling that percentage insignificant.

Moreover, if you were to go by the numbers, you might say that there are some things that those in Universal Health Care paradises could learn from us - things such as, you know, how to better cure their patients - but, fortunately for Europeans, a good socialist doesn't have to let facts and figures get in his way.

One other thing to note is that this study, done by The Lancet, calculates the survival rate based on how many of a Nation's cancer patients have survived their cancer 5 years after their diagnosis (with the research being done between 2000-2002). When one expands the research beyond that 5-year period, and looks at the ultimate mortality rates from cancer diagnoses, the United States puts a great deal more distance between itself and many of its, more Socialistic, competitors. At least, that is insofar as some of the most common types of cancer are concerned.

(Indeed, the article I linked to above doesn't quite do the United States' advantage in some areas of the 5-year study justice, for a better look at the numbers click here)

At the end of the day, of course, irrespective of the margin or time frame, the lesson to be learned remains the same: American Health Care does a better job of curing cancer than its European counterpart - despite being less socialized in its nature.

This is not a coincidence.

Natural Selection - It Really Works!

This video brings to mind something that Darwin once said.....



....you know, the part about how less evolved members of a species tend to die off and not reproduce.

When Do-Gooders Attack

Here's a simple question for you: To whom does the ultimate responsibility for your own health fall? Stupid question, right? In a reasonable world, your own health would be your own responsibility. Indeed, unless you are a young child, you have the freedom to choose what it is you eat, how much you exercise, and whether or not you smoke cigarettes. On top of being able to choose what exactly it is you do to your body, you, theoretically, can also choose when and where you do these things. In Surfside Beach, South Carolina, however, that's about to change.

Earlier this week, in the name of everyone's health and well-being, 4 of the 7 members of the Surfside Beach Town Council voted to outlaw smoking in public buildings. Barring a miracle, this bill will soon become law when, assuming all Council Members vote the same way, the second vote on it (which Town Council rules require) comes on July 24. Those supporting the bill have cited both concerns over second-hand smoke exposure and concerns over violations of, to quote the Ordinance's sponsor Judy Tuttle, people's "right to clean air."

Whatever the Hell that is.

Indeed, ever since the world discovered that, much to our surprise, smoking something filled with an addictive drug was, in fact, bad for one's health; cigarettes and the companies that make them have become some of the easiest targets for the word 'evil' since Adolf Hitler. Of course, as so often happens in America, anyone and everyone's righteous anger over cigarettes is somewhat misplaced. No doubt, it's easy to pick on a company like RJ Reynolds because, hey, they make cigarettes, and cigarettes are bad for you, and cause health problems, and these evil people not only make them but have the gall to market them, as well; yet, at the end of the day, making a product and marketing it is what all companies do, even ones like Anheuser-Busch, whose products can be equally as bad for your health.

Furthermore, and more to the point, it's much easier for all these people to decry an evil company rather dealing with their Aunt, Father, or friend who consciously decided to pick up a smoking habit back when they were 18. Consciously was the key word in that last sentence. Everyone in this country who smokes, does so of their own free will and at their own risk. If anyone is to blame for the ill-effects of second-hand smoke, it's partially those who actually smoke the cigarettes. Yet, to make them the sole culprits would be both irrational and irresponsible.

As non-smokers, we choose with whom we associate ourselves and which public places we frequent. Consequently, if I as a person am deeply concerned about the effect which second-hand smoke might have on my health, then I should probably avoid dating someone who smokes or frequenting Sports Bars. The government should not be the one looking out for my health - if I'm not sensible enough to take that responsibility upon myself then I better be prepared to pay the price when I age. Nevertheless, by proposing this smoking ban, that is exactly what the Surfside Town Council is doing: making the government, and not the citizens themselves, partially responsible for people's health.

Egregious as it might be, however, the Surfside Town Council's willingness to create a Nanny-state and relieve ordinary folks of the responsibility of their own health is not even the biggest flaw in this particular piece of legislation. Indeed, the biggest concern, for those of us worried about individual liberty, arises from the ease with which the Town Council feels it can regulate people's right to do what they please.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not in any way trying to support or condone smoking, but the fact of the matter is that smoking a cigarette is not illegal, thus leaving people free to do so. It may be bad for your health, but that simply does not give the government a right to regulate it. We have, in essence, a right or, if you will, a freedom to screw up our lives which is every bit as valid as the freedom we have to succeed and make something positive of our lives. We have the freedom to choose and must live with the results, it's simply not the government's job to try and hold us by the hand if we make the wrong choice. In a similar vein, since when can a government, at any level, step in and tell a private business, such as a restaurant, what they may or may not allow within the confines of their property? If a restaurant owner wants to have smoke-free premises, that's his choice, but it's simply not something that the government can mandate.

As American citizens we have been given a truly unique and awe-inspiring brand of freedom, but with that freedom comes responsibility and with responsibility comes consequences. These three things are inter-related and will be forever connected; thus, when any part of the American government, be it the U.S Congress or a simple Town Council, as in Surfside, tries to eliminate or alter one of the three they will do so to all three. The Surfside Town Council believes that it is a Government's place to step in and try to alleviate us of the responsibility to manage our own health and to try and eliminate the unfortunate consequences of others' poor ability to do so; what they have failed to realize, however, is that in doing so they are also compromising and eliminating some of these same people's freedoms - and that is most certainly not their job.

Those Crazy Brits

Q: What happens when big government gets between an Englishman and his cigarettes?

A: He uses his (classically British) sense of determination to get around it in any way possible; which, in this case, happens to mean turning his Pub into an Embassy for some remote Caribbean Island. (story)

20 bucks says that, by the end of this week, a cannabis joint near you will check into whether or not the Dutch already have an Embassy here in the U.S.

If He Finds Himself In A Dogfight....

...I hope to God that whoever it is that's battling him (in the '08 GOP Primary or the General Election) will destroy Senator Graham with an attack add like this:



Of course, the problem that we opponents of Senator Graham have always had, remains - that being: who do we run against him? The conventional wisdom, for the last few years, was that Thomas Ravenel would be the man who was both willing and able to do it; however, given his recent..... um.... situation...... well, let's just say that getting charged with intent to distribute cocaine is no way to start one's attempt to unseat an incumbent U.S Senator.

The search goes on, I suppose, but if someone in the South Carolina GOP wants to present a serious challenge to Lindsey in the '08 primary, they're going to need to get in on the action soon.
Oh well, for now, at least, I remain optimistic.

Because It Couldn't Possibly Be Their Own Fault

I guess that once one becomes a fervent believer in the religion of global warming, blaming that religion's 'apostates,' if you will, for the world's problems is a logical next step. Well, at the very least, it is for the UN Secretary General, who, in Sunday's edition of the Washington Post, blamed the genocide in Darfur on, you guessed it, global warming.

No, seriously, he did.

But hey, some religious nutbags believe that 9/11 was God's punishment to us for tolerance of gays, others, that genocide in Darfur is God's punishment for not taking global warming seriously enough.

Or, at least, I suppose that's how the logic would go.

Philosophically speaking.

Thing is, religious extremism, no matter whether your religion is Christianity, Islam, or Global Warming, is unbecoming, stupid, and, well, a serious problem for those of us with brains enough to have remembered that age-old wisdom about taking things in moderation.

However, there is another, more important, and perhaps predictable, feature of Secretary Ban Ki Moon's editorial of which one should take note. That, of course, is the startling lack of responsibility he gives the very organization which he heads.

You know, the one dedicated to the principles of Human Rights, World Peace, and whatnot.....

Never mind that millions of people died in a genocide while his United Nations stood by and did practically nothing - just blame the whole shin-dig on global warming. Because, you know, when it comes down to it, that's a hell of a lot easier than looking into why your organization failed so miserably in attempting to stop or lessen the violence in Darfur.

With those kind of passing-the-buck skills, Mr. Moon will fit in quite nicely as the new head of the UN.

Moreover, Secretary-General Moon and his fellow global warming faithful will never be in short supply of that one thing which religious nuts of all kinds share in common: stupidity.

And So It Begins....

In the aftermath of his strong stance on behalf of Ted Kennedy and illegal aliens everywhere, it appears that some of my fellow South Carolinians have reached their limit with our good Senator Lindsey Graham. In the past few days, a couple of new blogs have popped up which concern themselves exclusively with evicting Lindsey Graham from the U.S Senate when he stands for re-election in 2008.

Here's the links for you:
- Dump Lindsey Graham
- Boot Lindsey Graham
And for good measure, similar sentiments from one of our fellow Carolinians of the Northern variety:
- Lindsey Graham Countdown Clock

Senator Graham has developed a rather mean liberal streak during his time in the Senate, and he has certainly ceased to represent the majority of South Carolinians - who are true Conservatives. Consequently, I must say, it's nice to see my fellow South Carolinians take issue with this man, and begin the arduous process of a grassroots campaign against him. Of course, while for many in South Carolina (and around the country) it seems to have taken the recent Immigration bill to make them fully realize the extent to which Lindsey Graham is a pathetic excuse for a Senator, some of us had this figured out quite some time ago.

You see, before he got into politics, Lindsey Graham made his fortune as a Trial Lawyer, and not just any kind of Trial Lawyer, but the kind who makes the big bucks suing Doctors through Medical Malpractice lawsuits. Indeed, Graham once secured a $5 million dollar payout in one of his Malpractice cases. The fact that he made some serious money in such a fashion would, naturally, make him somewhat hesitant to support, oh, say, tort reform. And indeed, back in 2003, Graham's very 1st year in the Senate, he was one of only 2 Republican Senators to oppose President Bush's proposed tort reform bill. Furthermore, aside from voting against the bill, he actively campaigned against it, and made clear that he would actively campaign against any such future legislation.

After discovering those few nuggets of information, those of you who've been reading this blog for any period of time will understand why I vowed long ago to never vote for this man - ever.

Given all this, the game now becomes one in which the move falls to South Carolinians, as they must find a solid Conservative who will be both willing and able to beat Graham in the Republican primary. Of course, given the State we're talking about, I highly doubt there'll be a shortage of such folks!

So here's to the 111th Session of the United States Congress (set to begin in 2009); a Congress which will feature Jim DeMint as the Senior Senator from South Carolina.

Bush Makes Good on Promise

Way back when he was campaigning for President the 1st time around, back in 2000, then-Governor George W. Bush made a promise to the American people. He assured them that, once in office, he would be a "uniter, not a divider." Many people, particularly on the left, have been sarcastically/mockingly referring to this remark for the 6+ years of his Presidency. Sadly, their fun is now at an end. Now, finally, President Bush has made good on this promise to unite us all. With the coupling of his proposed immigration "reform" bill and the War in Iraq, both Republicans and Democrats have now, at long last, become united - united in their strong dislike for President Bush's policies.

I'm guessing that wasn't the kind of unity he was planning on - but hey, a politician coming through on a campaign promise happens so infrequently, we might as well try to focus on the positive, right?

Yes indeed, since he has become adamant about giving amnesty to Illegals and not bringing our border security up to par, the very grassroots Conservatives who campaigned for him, stuck up for him, and took heat for supporting him, have now been officially bitch-slapped by him.

Oh, and those grassroots Conservatives? They're hitting the President's Party where it hurts - the wallet, as RNC small-donor contributions are down by an estimated 40%!

I guess not contributing to the RNC is another thing on which Republicans and Democrats can now agree.

So congratulations Mr. President for making good on your promise; I just hope this wasn't what you really wanted.