Jerri’s Call
August 31st, 2010 by russ-greenvilleHere’s the call everyone’s talking about this week…… she is an African-American and she explained why she went to the Glenn Beck restoring honor rally…. listen and spread the WORD.
Unemployment is high…..its jobs, jobs, jobs that we need… right?
August 24th, 2010 by russ-greenvilleCheck this out my fellow mobsters and mongrels… http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/08/23/hire-fluent-ebonics-speakers-dea-jobs/?test=latestnews …. Why would they be having a problem with this at the DEA in ATLANTA? Where is Obama? ( oh thats right… he”s on vacation and they don’t speak ebonics at Martha’s Vineyard do they?)…. Maybe we need expand this search… does anyone know where we could find a Redneck Linguist?
Here we go again…..
August 19th, 2010 by russ-greenvilleThe story of Shaquan Duley and her lying and then quick confession of the murder of her two children http://www.thestate.com/2010/08/19/14241… immediately brings back the horrible memories of Susan Smith. I can remember vividly our discussions on the show…. the same questions and raw emotions that we all were feeling then have come back to haunt us again. I can tell you honestly that of all the issues and topics that have come up since 1994 this ranks as the most difficult one for me personally. I had nightmares back then about little Michael and Alex Smith strapped in their car seats, rolling down that ramp at John D. Long Lake, terrified at what their mother was doing to them. What was going through their little minds? How could mom do this this to me? Did I do something to make you mad at me mommy? Are you angry with me mommy? As that cold water rushed in..as they started to choke and drown…as they screamed for someone to help them… for their mommmy to jump in and save them…I can only hope that Jesus came to them, comforted them, and gave them peace and calm.. In my own life there have many times when my family and I have prayed for that comfort and peace that surpasses all understanding and I’ll tell you Jesus has always been there. It is his promise to all who believe in him.. I pray for Ja’van and Devean Duley and the Duley family as they try to deal with this evil that has happened to them….. but I also celebrate the undenialable truth that there is a place for us all where we won’t have to worry about the terrible nightmares anymore…. Lord Jesus come quickly
Has Obama reached the point of no return?
August 19th, 2010 by russ-greenvillehello all you mongrels ( don’t get mad at me obama called us all mongrels on “The View”) …read this piece by J.R. Dunn and tell me if you agree…. or if the Hamosgue is not his waterloo (give sen. demint credit for this term) then what is obama’s point of no return for you? http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/obamas_point_of_no_return.html
Subversives
February 9th, 2010 by russ-greenvilleWell folks…. leave to the “good ole boys” to make us proud once again… ATTENTION ALL OF YOU SUBVERSIVES OUT THERE.. YOU BETTER GET REGISTERED WITH THE S.C. SECRETARY OF STATE OR ELSE… i guess that before the terrorists open up a recruiting store down at the mall… they better make sure all the paperwork is filled out…
First read the article (thanks Rose!):
http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t23c029.htm
And here’s where you can download your Subversive Agent form:
Haitian Voodoo!
February 2nd, 2010 by russ-greenvilleHeres the link to the haitian voodoo supreme master attack on christians and the offical russ voodoo doll
Supporting Lindsey
January 29th, 2010 by russ-greenvilleFor those of you who didn’t hear why I announced that after much soul searching I am now supporting Lindsey Graham…. I am supporting the current Miss New Hampshire whose name is Lindsey Graham and she will be the Miss America pageant this weekend..
Because of your support of Lindsey Graham (and the brief shock you provided us this morning), I created this image just for you:
this is the real agenda… not copenhagen…
December 11th, 2009 by russ-greenvilleHome
The real inconvenient truth
The whole world needs to adopt China’s one-child policy
Diane Francis, Financial Post
Published: Tuesday, December 08, 2009
Liu Jin/AFP/Getty Images Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
The “inconvenient truth” overhanging the UN’s Copenhagen conference is not that the climate is warming or cooling, but that humans are overpopulating the world.
A planetary law, such as China’s one-child policy, is the only way to reverse the disastrous global birthrate currently, which is one million births every four days.
The world’s other species, vegetation, resources, oceans, arable land, water supplies and atmosphere are being destroyed and pushed out of existence as a result of humanity’s soaring reproduction rate.
Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation, thanks to its one-child-only edict.
The intelligence behind this is the following:
-If only one child per female was born as of now, the world’s population would drop from its current 6.5 billion to 5.5 billion by 2050, according to a study done for scientific academy Vienna Institute of Demography.
-By 2075, there would be 3.43 billion humans on the planet. This would have immediate positive effects on the world’s forests, other species, the oceans, atmospheric quality and living standards.
-Doing nothing, by contrast, will result in an unsustainable population of nine billion by 2050.
Humans are the only rational animals but have yet to prove it. Medical and other scientific advances have benefited by delivering lower infant mortality rates as well as longevity. Both are welcome, but humankind has not yet recalibrated its behavior to account for the fact that the world can only accommodate so many people, especially if billions get indoor plumbing and cars.
The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.
None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.
China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.
For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.
The point is that Copenhagen’s talking points are beside the point.
The only fix is if all countries drastically reduce their populations, clean up their messes and impose mandatory conservation measures.
Read more: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438#ixzz0ZOXN4ZLD
The Financial Post is now on Facebook. Join our fan community today.
has anyone heard anything about this……we’ll be talking about it on monday 12/14/09
December 11th, 2009 by russ-greenville
Atheist barred from office in North Carolina?posted at 9:30 am on December 10, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly A strange story surrounding a North Carolina city council election has suddenly become national news. Cecil Bothwell won his election fairly, a fact no one disputes. However, the former head of the Asheville NAACP has attempted to block Bothwell’s seating by pointing out an obscure clause in North Carolina’s state constitution that bars atheists from holding public office. The dispute will likely have to be settled in federal court:
“I’m not saying that Cecil Bothwell is not a good man, but if he’s an atheist, he’s not eligible to serve in public office, according to the state constitution,” said H.K. Edgerton, a former Asheville NAACP president.
Article 6, section 8 of the state constitution says: “The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.”
Rights enshrined in the U.S. Constitution trump the restriction in the state constitution, said Bob Orr, executive director of the N.C. Institute for Constitutional Law.
“I think there’s any number of federal cases that would view this as an imposition of a religious qualification and violate separation of church and state,” said Orr, a former state Supreme Court justice.
Some confusion over Bothwell’s actual status has arisen since then. Bothwell doesn’t like the term “atheist,” preferring “post-theist” instead. He lists himself as an atheist on his Myspace page. Bothwell also denied the specific charge of “deny[ing] the being of Almighty God,” saying that the question is irrelevant for his public office.
But it’s not as if this was something voters didn’t know before the election. Bothwell’s opponents attacked him for a book that he had written called The Prince of War that attacked Billy Graham for pursuing a “theocratic agenda.” Bothwell apparently isn’t bright enough to understand the difference between public policy in a democracy and a real theocracy (like Iran), but voters had the opportunity to take that under consideration as well. They chose Bothwell, “post-theism” and all.
The state constitution does bar publicly-avowed atheists from holding office, but Article 6, Section 8 won’t withstand court scrutiny. The Supreme Court has already overturned Maryland’s constitutional bar for public office on religious affiliation in 1961, and North Carolina will lose this one, too. The federal constitution bars religious tests for office, which will trump North Carolina’s Section 8, probably on a unanimous vote. For those who may be tempted to argue federalism, the incorporation doctrine that would appear to dictate that outcome in this case is also the same line of thought that the court used to dismiss gun bans as a violation of the Second Amendment.
This is a foolish and wrong-headed objection to the outcome of a fair election. Unlike some other laws the courts have tossed for merely being stupid, this one is also unconstitutional and should be eliminated. The people of North Carolina would be well advised to repeal it themselves and to let Bothwell take his place on the city council.
I’m still mystified as to why a former head of the NAACP would bother to inject himself into this situation at all.
Update: Plenty of schadenfreude for atheists in this thread, but commenter Good Lt reminds them of what’s at stake:
Let’s flip it around for the people claiming “haha serves atheists right!” here.
If a deist or a believer (of any faith) was barred from serving in office in a state Constitution, would you support the restriction? If a clan of Dawkins worshipers managed to get a state constitution changed to put this restriction in, would you shrug and just say, “eh, whatever?”
Now its Kennedycare…. read this and weep
August 27th, 2009 by russ-greenvilleObama’s Health Rationer-in-Chief
White House health-care adviser Ezekiel Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the ‘overuse’ of medical care.
By BETSY MCCAUGHEY
Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, health adviser to President Barack Obama, is under scrutiny. As a bioethicist, he has written extensively about who should get medical care, who should decide, and whose life is worth saving. Dr. Emanuel is part of a school of thought that redefines a physician’s duty, insisting that it includes working for the greater good of society instead of focusing only on a patient’s needs. Many physicians find that view dangerous, and most Americans are likely to agree.
The health bills being pushed through Congress put important decisions in the hands of presidential appointees like Dr. Emanuel. They will decide what insurance plans cover, how much leeway your doctor will have, and what seniors get under Medicare. Dr. Emanuel, brother of White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, has already been appointed to two key positions: health-policy adviser at the Office of Management and Budget and a member of the Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research. He clearly will play a role guiding the White House’s health initiative.
[mccaughey] “Principles for Allocation of Scarce Medical Interventions” The Lancet, January 31, 2009
Dr. Emanuel says that health reform will not be pain free, and that the usual recommendations for cutting medical spending (often urged by the president) are mere window dressing. As he wrote in the Feb. 27, 2008, issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA): “Vague promises of savings from cutting waste, enhancing prevention and wellness, installing electronic medical records and improving quality of care are merely ‘lipstick’ cost control, more for show and public relations than for true change.”
True reform, he argues, must include redefining doctors’ ethical obligations. In the June 18, 2008, issue of JAMA, Dr. Emanuel blames the Hippocratic Oath for the “overuse” of medical care: “Medical school education and post graduate education emphasize thoroughness,” he writes. “This culture is further reinforced by a unique understanding of professional obligations, specifically the Hippocratic Oath’s admonition to ‘use my power to help the sick to the best of my ability and judgment’ as an imperative to do everything for the patient regardless of cost or effect on others.”
In numerous writings, Dr. Emanuel chastises physicians for thinking only about their own patient’s needs. He describes it as an intractable problem: “Patients were to receive whatever services they needed, regardless of its cost. Reasoning based on cost has been strenuously resisted; it violated the Hippocratic Oath, was associated with rationing, and derided as putting a price on life. . . . Indeed, many physicians were willing to lie to get patients what they needed from insurance companies that were trying to hold down costs.” (JAMA, May 16, 2007).
Of course, patients hope their doctors will have that single-minded devotion. But Dr. Emanuel believes doctors should serve two masters, the patient and society, and that medical students should be trained “to provide socially sustainable, cost-effective care.” One sign of progress he sees: “the progression in end-of-life care mentality from ‘do everything’ to more palliative care shows that change in physician norms and practices is possible.” (JAMA, June 18, 2008).
“In the next decade every country will face very hard choices about how to allocate scarce medical resources. There is no consensus about what substantive principles should be used to establish priorities for allocations,” he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine, Sept. 19, 2002. Yet Dr. Emanuel writes at length about who should set the rules, who should get care, and who should be at the back of the line.
“You can’t avoid these questions,” Dr. Emanuel said in an Aug. 16 Washington Post interview. “We had a big controversy in the United States when there was a limited number of dialysis machines. In Seattle, they appointed what they called a ‘God committee’ to choose who should get it, and that committee was eventually abandoned. Society ended up paying the whole bill for dialysis instead of having people make those decisions.”
Dr. Emanuel argues that to make such decisions, the focus cannot be only on the worth of the individual. He proposes adding the communitarian perspective to ensure that medical resources will be allocated in a way that keeps society going: “Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity—those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations—are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Covering services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic, and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia.” (Hastings Center Report, November-December, 1996)
In the Lancet, Jan. 31, 2009, Dr. Emanuel and co-authors presented a “complete lives system” for the allocation of very scarce resources, such as kidneys, vaccines, dialysis machines, intensive care beds, and others. “One maximizing strategy involves saving the most individual lives, and it has motivated policies on allocation of influenza vaccines and responses to bioterrorism. . . . Other things being equal, we should always save five lives rather than one.
“However, other things are rarely equal—whether to save one 20-year-old, who might live another 60 years, if saved, or three 70-year-olds, who could only live for another 10 years each—is unclear.” In fact, Dr. Emanuel makes a clear choice: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get changes that are attenuated (see Dr. Emanuel’s chart nearby).
Dr. Emanuel concedes that his plan appears to discriminate against older people, but he explains: “Unlike allocation by sex or race, allocation by age is not invidious discrimination. . . . Treating 65 year olds differently because of stereotypes or falsehoods would be ageist; treating them differently because they have already had more life-years is not.”
The youngest are also put at the back of the line: “Adolescents have received substantial education and parental care, investments that will be wasted without a complete life. Infants, by contrast, have not yet received these investments. . . . As the legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin argues, ‘It is terrible when an infant dies, but worse, most people think, when a three-year-old dies and worse still when an adolescent does,’ this argument is supported by empirical surveys.” thelancet.com, Jan. 31, 2009).
To reduce health-insurance costs, Dr. Emanuel argues that insurance companies should pay for new treatments only when the evidence demonstrates that the drug will work for most patients. He says the “major contributor” to rapid increases in health spending is “the constant introduction of new medical technologies, including new drugs, devices, and procedures. . . . With very few exceptions, both public and private insurers in the United States cover and pay for any beneficial new technology without considering its cost. . . .” He writes that one drug “used to treat metastatic colon cancer, extends medial survival for an additional two to five months, at a cost of approximately $50,000 for an average course of therapy.” (JAMA, June 13, 2007).
Medians, of course, obscure the individual cases where the drug significantly extended or saved a life. Dr. Emanuel says the United States should erect a decision-making body similar to the United Kingdom’s rationing body—the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)—to slow the adoption of new medications and set limits on how much will be paid to lengthen a life.
Dr. Emanuel’s assessment of American medical care is summed up in a Nov. 23, 2008, Washington Post op-ed he co-authored: “The United States is No. 1 in only one sense: the amount we shell out for health care. We have the most expensive system in the world per capita, but we lag behind many developed nations on virtually every health statistic you can name.”
This is untrue, though sadly it’s parroted at town-hall meetings across the country. Moreover, it’s an odd factual error coming from an oncologist. According to an August 2009 report from the National Bureau of Economic Research, patients diagnosed with cancer in the U.S. have a better chance of surviving the disease than anywhere else. The World Health Organization also rates the U.S. No. 1 out of 191 countries for responsiveness to the needs and choices of the individual patient. That attention to the individual is imperiled by Dr. Emanuel’s views.
Dr. Emanuel has fought for a government takeover of health care for over a decade. In 1993, he urged that President Bill Clinton impose a wage and price freeze on health care to force parties to the table. “The desire to be rid of the freeze will do much to concentrate the mind,” he wrote with another author in a Feb. 8, 1993, Washington Post op-ed. Now he recommends arm-twisting Chicago style. “Every favor to a constituency should be linked to support for the health-care reform agenda,” he wrote last Nov. 16 in the Health Care Watch Blog. “If the automakers want a bailout, then they and their suppliers have to agree to support and lobby for the administration’s health-reform effort.”
Is this what Americans want?
Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former lieutenant governor of New York state.