The Mind of Tefft » Michael Tefft

The grim statistics behind Arizona immigration law

Michael Tefft — Sat, 22 May 2010 19:36:28 +0000

The following figures are perhaps the most succinct way to quickly understand what has been going on in Arizona for the past fifty years. The recent killing of a prominent Arizona rancher by people he befriended and tried to help–they then fled back across the border–was essentially the last straw for the ranchers trying to make a living near the Arizona southern border. Their trip to the state capitol a few weeks ago brought about the current action–which was only taken by the legislature after five formal requests/pleas for the Federal government simply to do its job and protect the border and the citizens who live close to that border.
We now have people demonstrating against a “new” law that says it is illegal to be illegal–which it always was–it just wasn’t enforced and look where that got us. People should go back and read Justice Ginsburg’s writings on illegal immigrant status. The Supreme Court was very, very clear on this issue–and that was a very liberal court to boot.

The following information is compiled from Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Homeland Security reports:

* 83 percent of warrants for murder in Phoenix are for illegal aliens.

* 86 percent of warrants for murder in Albuquerque are for illegal aliens.

* 75 percent of those on the most wanted list in Los Angeles, Phoenix and Albuquerque are illegal aliens.

* 24.9 percent of all inmates in California detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 40.1 percent of all inmates in Arizona detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 48.2 percent of all inmates in New Mexico detention centers are Mexican nationals

* 29 percent (630,000) of convicted illegal alien felons fill Arizona and federal prisons at a cost of $1.6 billion annually

* 53 percent plus of all investigated burglaries reported in California, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona and Texas are perpetrated by illegal aliens.

* 50 percent plus of all gang members in Los Angeles are illegal aliens

* 71 percent plus of all apprehended cars stolen in 2005 in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada and California were stolen by Illegal aliens or “transport coyotes.”

* 47 percent of cited/stopped drivers in California have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 47 percent, 92 percent are illegal aliens.

* 63 percent of cited/stopped drivers in Arizona have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 63 percent, 97 percent are illegal aliens

* 66 perent of cited/stopped drivers in New Mexico have no license, no insurance and no registration for the vehicle. Of that 66 percent, 98 percent are illegal aliens.

* 380,000 plus “anchor babies” were born in the United States to illegal alien parents in just one year, making 380,000 babies automatically US citizens.

* 97.2 percent of all costs incurred from those births were paid by the American taxpayers

Finding God

Michael Tefft — Wed, 19 May 2010 23:20:17 +0000

Subject: Father John Powell

Father John Powell, a professor at Loyola University in Chicago, writes about a student in his Theology of Faith class named Tommy.

Some twelve years ago, I stood watching my university students file into the classroom for our first session in the Theology of Faith. That was the day I first saw Tommy. My eyes and my mind both blinked. He was combing his long flaxen hair, which hung six inches below his shoulders. It was the first time I had ever seen a boy with hair that long. I guess it was just coming into fashion then. I know in my mind that it isn’t what’s on your head but what’s in it that counts; but on that day I was unprepared and my emotions flipped. I immediately filed Tommy under “S” for strange… very strange.

Tommy turned out to be the “atheist in residence” in my Theology of Faith course. He constantly objected to, smirked at, or whined about the possibility of an unconditionally loving Father/God. We lived with each other in relative peace for one semester, although I admit he was for me at times a serious pain in the back pew. When he came up at the end of the course to turn in his final exam, he asked in a cynical tone, “Do you think I’ll ever find God?”

I decided instantly on a little shock therapy. “No!” I said very emphatically.

“Why not,” he responded, “I thought that was the product you were pushing.” I let him get five steps from the classroom door and then called out, “Tommy! I don’t think you’ll ever find Him, but I am absolutely certain that He will find you!” He shrugged a little and left my class. I felt slightly disappointed at the thought that he had missed my clever line – He will find you! At least I thought it was clever.

Later, I heard that Tommy had graduated, and I was duly grateful. Then a sad report came. I heard that Tommy had terminal cancer. Before I could search him out, he came to see me. When he walked into my office, his body was very badly wasted and the long hair had all fallen out as a result of chemotherapy. But his eyes were bright and his voice was firm, for the first time, I believe.

“Tommy, I’ve thought about you so often; I hear you are sick,” I blurted out. “Oh, yes, very sick. I have cancer in both lungs. It’s a matter of weeks.” Tommy replied.

“Can you talk about it, Tom?” I asked. “Sure, what would you like to know?” he replied.

“What’s it like to be only twenty-four and dying?”

“Well, it could be worse.”

“Like what?”

“Well, like being fifty and having no values or ideals, like being fifty and thinking that booze, seducing women, and making money are the real biggies in life..”

I began to look through my mental file cabinet under “S” where I had filed Tommy as strange. It seems as though everybody I try to reject by classification, God sends back into my life to educate me.

“But what I really came to see you about,” Tommy said, “is something you said to me on the last day of class.” (He remembered!)

He continued, “I asked you if you thought I would ever find God and you said, ‘No!’ which surprised me. Then you said, ‘But He will find you.’ I thought about that a lot, even though my search for God was hardly intense at that time. (My clever line. He thought about that a lot!).

“But when the doctors removed a lump from my groin and told me that it was malignant, that’s when I got serious about locating God. And when the malignancy spread into my vital organs, I really began banging bloody fists against the bronze doors of heaven. But God did not come out. In fact, nothing happened. Did you ever try anything for a long time with great effort and with no success? You get psychologically glutted, fed up with trying. And then you quit….. Well, one day I woke up, and instead of throwing a few more futile appeals over that high brick wall to a God who may be or may not be there, I just quit. I decided that I didn’t really care about God, about an after life, or anything like that. I decided to spend what time I had left doing something more profitable.

I thought about you and your class and I remembered something else you had said: “The essential sadness is to go through life without loving. But it would be almost equally sad to go through life and leave this world without ever telling those you loved that you had loved them.”

So, I began with the hardest one, my Dad. He was reading the newspaper when I approached him. “Dad.” “Yes, what?” he asked without lowering the newspaper. “Dad, I would like to talk with you.”

“Well, talk.” “I mean. It’s really important.” The newspaper came down three slow inches. “What is it?”

“Dad, I love you, I just wanted you to know that.” Tommy smiled at me and said it with obvious satisfaction, as though he felt a warm and secret joy flowing inside of him. “The newspaper fluttered to the floor. Then my father did two things I could never remember him ever doing before. He cried and he hugged me. We talked all night, even though he had to go to work the next morning. It felt so good to be close to my father, to see his tears, to feel his hug, to hear him say that he loved me.”

“It was easier with my mother and little brother. They cried with me, too, and we hugged each other, and started saying real nice things to each other. We shared the things we had been keeping secret for so many years.

I was only sorry about one thing – that I had waited so long. Here I was, just beginning to open up to all the people I had actually been close to.” Then, one day I turned around and God was there. He didn’t come to me when I pleaded with Him. I guess I was like an animal trainer holding out a hoop, “C’mon, jump through. C’mon, I’ll give you three days, three weeks.”

“Apparently God does things in His own way and at His own hour. But the important thing is that He was there. He found me! You were right…..He found me even after I stopped looking for Him.”

“Tommy,” I practically gasped, “I think you are saying something very important and much more universal than you realize. To me, at least, you are saying that the surest way to find God is not to make Him a private possession, a problem solver, or an instant consolation in time of need, but rather by opening to love. You know, the Apostle John said that. He said: “God is love, and anyone who lives in love is living with God and God is living in Him.”

“Tommy, could I ask you a favor? You know, when I had you in class you were a real pain. But (laughingly) you can make it all up to me now. Would you come into my present Theology of Faith course and tell them what you have just told me? If I told them the same thing it wouldn’t be half as effective as if you were to tell it.” “Oooh.. I was ready for you, but I don’t know if I’m ready for your class.” “Tommy, think about it. If and when you are ready, give me a call.”

In a few days Tommy called, said he was ready for the class, that he wanted to do that for God and for me. So we scheduled a date. However, he never made it. He had another appointment, far more important than the one with me and my class. Of course, his life was not really ended by his death, only changed. He made the great step from faith into vision. He found a life far more beautiful than the eye of man has ever seen or the ear of man has ever heard or the mind of man has ever imagined.

Before he died, we talked one last time.

“I’m not going to make it to your class,” he said. “I know, Tommy.” “Will you tell them for me? Will you tell the whole world for me?” “I will, Tommy. I’ll tell them. I’ll do my best.” So, to all of you who have been kind enough to read this simple story about God’s love, thank you for listening. And to you, Tommy, somewhere in the sunlit, verdant hills of heaven – I told them, Tommy, as best I could.

Showing the American flag is never ‘incendiary.’

Michael Tefft — Wed, 12 May 2010 11:50:15 +0000

The recent incident at a California high school in which school administrators sent five students home for refusing to turn their American flag t-shirts inside out has highlighted the increasing insanity of political correctness. Administrators called the showing of the American flag during a school Cinco de Mayo event ‘incendiary.’

Administrators first told the students to remove their American flag bandannas, which they did. The students were then told they had to turn their American flag t-shirts inside out. The students rightfully told the administrators that that was disrespectful and they chose to go home instead. The administrators told the students that they did not want any fights to break out between Mexican-American students celebrating their heritage and those wearing American flags. One student quoted an administrator as saying they were “starting a fight and that they were fuel to the fire.” The students were told that they could wear the American flag any other day but today was sensitive to Mexican-Americans because it is supposed to be their holiday.

A statement released by the school district said that it did not agree with the school’s actions, but this came only after a storm of protest over the incident. More than 100 students were spotted leaving after school wearing the colors of the Mexican flag, including some who had the flag painted on their faces or arms. To their credit, I don’t think most of the Mexican-American students complained about the students wearing the American flag. This seems to be mostly about a bunch of idiotic school administrators who are afraid of their own shadows and cover their bad decisions by citing school rules that really don’t apply to the situation.

Let me try to put into perspective just how stupid the administrators decision was. Every school that I know of flies the American flag while school is in session. Did the administrators haul down the American flag and hoist the Mexican flag that day? If they did I think that is actually a crime. When St. Patrick’s Day is celebrated around the country, are Irish-Americans offended when the American flag is flown during parades celebrating their culture and heritage? Similar questions could be asked about the celebrations for Mardi Gras, Kwanzaa, Hanukkah, Octoberfest, the Chinese New Year, and the many other cultural and religious celebrations that are held every year in the United States.

Unless I am mistaken, all the Mexican-American students that were supposed to be offended by the showing of the American flag are U.S. citizens first and Mexicans second. How can they be offended by the showing of the flag of the country they are citizens of? Celebration of their culture and heritage is not lessened or harmed by the showing of the American flag. In fact, if Mexican-Americans truly want to celebrate Cinco de Mayo, they should show both the American flag and the Mexican flag. They should be equally proud of their Mexican heritage and the country they are citizens of. There shouldn’t be any day when students are prevented from displaying the American flag. This doesn’t seem to me to be too hard a concept to grasp. But apparently it is for some school administrators in California.

Federal Judge Usurps State Rights and Misrepresents First Amendment

Michael Tefft — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 21:09:43 +0000

A federal judge ruled recently that South Carolina can’t issue license plates showing the image of a cross in front of a stained glass window along with the phrase “I Believe.”

U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie ruled that the license plate was unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment ban on establishment of religion by government. Apparently Judge Currie needs to take a remedial course on Constitutional law or else she is deliberately misrepresenting the true meaning of the First Amendment to promote a political agenda.

Let me just quote the First Amendment and then I will endeavor to explain why Judge Currie’s ruling is unconstitutional and misguided.

First Amendment to the Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

That doesn’t seem so hard to understand, yet it seems many Liberals have their own special interpretation of those simple words. As long as Congress doesn’t make a law that tells Americans that a particular religion is the official state religion to which all people must belong or passes a law that prohibits us from worshiping or not worshiping the religion of our choice, the First Amendment has not been violated. It is as simple as that.

So where does the much abused term “separation of church and state” come from? It is certainly not in the Constitution. The phrase actually came from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to a Baptist Association fifteen years after the Constitution was written. The Baptists were afraid that the state of Connecticut had not granted them an inalienable right to worship their religion, rather the state was allowing them to worship as a “favor.” So they wrote to Jefferson seeking guidance and comfort that they could continue to worship as they would.

Jefferson responded with the words of the First Amendment and also mentioned the “establishment clause” created a “wall of separation between church and state.” What Jefferson meant by those words was that religions were protected from the state, not the other way around. There is also no constitutional protection from being offended by a religious display on government property.

So when a spokesperson for Americans United for Separation of Church and State said government must never be allowed to give favorable treatment to one faith above others, that is not what South Carolina is doing and not what the First Amendment protects against. Putting a cross on a license plate is not the equivalent of the state of South Carolina making a law telling South Carolinians that Christianity is the official state religion to which all South Carolinians must belong. Neither is it passing a law preventing Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, or Atheists from practicing their religion. South Carolina is not prohibiting placing religious symbols of those faiths on license plates and only permitting Christian symbols to be used.

So if the agenda of Americans United for Separation of Church and State is to separate church from state, all I can say is good luck because you certainly cannot use the First Amendment as the tool to further your goals. What groups like this really want is to eliminate religion altogether from our country. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are replete with statements that show that the Founding Fathers believed that religion was vital to the continuation of our Republic. To quote President George Washington in his Farewell Address:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports…. And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion…. Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail to the exclusion of religious principle.

So when groups like Americans United for Separation of Church and State attack religion on false grounds, what they are really advocating is the very destruction of our Republic.

The Worst Car Review In History

Michael Tefft — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 03:01:32 +0000

Honda makes a lot of good cars but, according to Jeremy Clarkson of The Times of London, the Honda Insight hybrid is not one of them.

“It’s terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It’s the first car I’ve ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn’t have to drive it anymore…[it] makes a noise worse than someone else’s crying baby on an airliner. It’s worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you’d have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.”

“So you’re sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you’re doing only 23 mph because that’s about the top speed… [it] feels as if it’s been made from steel so thin, you could read through it. And the seats … are designed specifically, it seems, to ruin your skeleton… the idiotic dashboard, which shows leaves growing on a tree when you ease off the throttle … built our of rice paper … poor ride, the woeful performance, the awful noise and the spine-bending seats.”

“Acceleration 0-62 mph: 12.5 seconds. One star (out of five) … Good only for parting the smug from their money.”

- From ‘Arguing with Idiots’, by Glenn Beck

Debunking gun control nuts yet again

Michael Tefft — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:32:39 +0000

Tom Teepen, a columnist for Cox Newspapers, is using the ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ organization as a new weapon to attack the second amendment and gun rights in America. I could write a whole article about ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ but suffice it to say that the organization has nothing to do about illegal guns and everything to do with making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain guns for self-defense and even sport.

In the same breath Teepen disingenuously touts the beauty of the Mayors appeal to the President as not calling for new laws but tougher enforcement of existing laws, saying that this is what gun rights advocates promote, while then going on to say that this is a phony pose. (On the part of the gun rights advocates)

Teepen continues by saying that the gun lobby works steadily to undermine enforcement by limiting the reach of current laws and chipping away at enforcement budgets. I would be interested in hearing Teepen explain how the gun lobby can influence law enforcement budgets.

According to Teepen, the Mayors make 40 recommendations. One is that the ATF require manufacturers to stamp new guns with a hidden serial number in addition to the one that criminals often file off. Since most guns used in crimes are obtained illegally and any hidden serial number would not be traceable to the criminal, this is a useless idea. Criminals seldom leave a gun at a crime scene to assist the police in solving the crime.

The Mayors also suggest more undercover testers to find out if unlawful out-of-state or felon buyers are shopping at gun shows. Since gun show purchases of firearms require the same background checks as those at retail stores, no felon is going to be able to buy a gun at a gun show. This is another useless idea.

The assertion by Teepen that gun shows and private sales remain essentially unregulated is absurd. Purchase of a gun at a gun show requires the purchaser to go through the exact same procedures as are required at a retail store. The fact that gun show sales amount to nearly half of all annual sales is therefore meaningless. There is no gun show loophole. As for private sales, I seriously doubt that someone who legally obtained a firearm is going to sell it to a criminal. Show me the statistics where this is a problem.

Then there is the assertion that there is little push against the 1 percent of licensed dealers who account for nearly 60 percent of the crime guns that law enforcement can trace. Statistics will show that this percentage of crime guns that law enforcement can trace is insignificant compared to the total of crime guns that law enforcement cannot trace. In other words, the vast majority of guns used in crimes were not obtained legally and none of the suggestions put forth by the Mayors will have an effect on reducing this problem.

Teepen then goes on to make the smarmy statement that there was a “pathological reaction” to Obama’s election evidenced by the huge leap in gun sales and ammunition purchases. It is not a “pathological reaction” when you consider that the majority of those serving in Obama’s administration are vehemently anti-gun and would like nothing better than to trash the second amendment and disarm Americans and take away their unalienable right to self-defense.

Teepen finishes up with the absurd statement that no other civilized country puts up with such a reckless level of domestic armament, or suffers the violence that inevitably follows from it. I could counter those ridiculous statements all day, but I will just make a few observations.

Numerous studies done over many years have all reached the same conclusion. Countries with more widespread gun ownership had fewer murders while countries with less gun ownership had, say it with me, more murders. Over the two years following England’s ban on handguns, the use of handguns in crimes rose by 40 percent.

In 2003, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a study investigating whether gun control actually works. Their conclusion was that nothing seems to work very well. In 2004 the National Academy of Sciences published a comprehensive review of 253 journal articles, 90 books, and 43 government publications evaluating 80 gun-control schemes. The total number of gun laws found to reduce violent crime, suicide, or accidents? Zero.

Taking away guns from law-abiding citizens will never reduce the violent crime rate, it will have the opposite effect. And criminals will always find a way to obtain a handgun illegally. Depending on the police to protect you from violent crime is playing Russian roulette with your life as well as the lives of your loved ones.

Millions of Americans who own firearms use them for hunting, sport, or self-defense. Very few of these millions of firearms are used illegally. Reducing the number of guns owned by law-abiding citizens will do nothing to reduce violent crime. Tom Teepen and the ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ bring nothing new to the table, just the same worn-out and discredited arguments and ideas.

Van Jones downfall came from his own words and actions, not smear campaign

Michael Tefft — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:18:57 +0000

The sudden resignation of one of the dozens of Czars that President Obama has appointed since taking office has highlighted the fact that many Americans are no longer going to remain silent and submit to anything that the White House wants to ram down our throats.

Van Jones, the White House green jobs czar, resigned over the Labor Day weekend amid mounting criticism of some of his past words, actions, and political views. Some of his past radical activities and recent controversial stances attracted the attention of many conservatives, including Glenn Beck of Fox News. While Jones is considered a rising star in environmental circles, questions about his fitness for a White House-level office were raised when some of his past speeches and radical affiliations surfaced.

In order to clarify most of the criticisms that were raised I will simply list them below. If you want any further details on any of the items you can easily find more information from numerous sources.

Jones was a self-described communist during the 1990s and previously worked with a group dedicated to Marxist and Leninist philosophies.
Many of his recent and past comments have been racially charged and divisive.
He advocated for the release of convicted cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal.
He injected race into the Columbine school massacre by saying that “You’ve never seen a Columbine done by a black child. Never.”
He has accused white businesses of polluting black neighborhoods.
He signed a petition on the 911Truth.org web site suggesting that the Bush administration had deliberately allowed 9/11 to happen.
He famously called Republicans “assholes” in a videotaped speech this year.
Active in black nationalist movement.

In fact, Van Jones’s whole recent history is one of divisive, incendiary, and counter-productive statements and actions. Many people, both Republican and Democrat, have questioned how anyone like Van Jones could have been vetted for such an important position given his past statements and actions. The answer to that can be found in the fact that his two biggest supporters in Washington are the First Lady and the Vice President. I guess the vetting process results were thrown out the window in light of support like that.

The fact that the First Lady and Vice President supported Van Jones is very troubling. Are Van Jones’s beliefs and values shared by Michelle Obama and Joe Biden? For the sake of our country I hope his views are not shared by them. Another disturbing fact is that the whole controversy was completely ignored by most major newspapers and media outlets. If it wasn’t for Glenn Beck of Fox News and other conservative media, Van Jones would still be serving as the White House green jobs czar.

Van Jones is just one in a long list of White House appointees with a questionable past. I have lost track of how many tax cheats are serving in positions of importance in the Obama administration. Apparently Obama continues to think that the silent majority will continue to remain silent. This view despite evidence to the contrary in the form of a huge grassroots movement that is trying to convey the message to the Obama administration that we will no longer be silent on issues of national defense, health care, out of control spending, a burgeoning government bureaucracy, arrogance, and scorn for those who oppose Obama policies. I hope the upcoming 9/12 rally in DC this weekend will help drive home that message.

Evidence of the arrogance and disdain that many in the Obama administration have for those who oppose many of his policies and political appointments comes from Van Jones himself. In a sharply worded statement, Jones assailed his critics.

On the eve of historic fights for health care and clean energy, opponents of reform have mounted a vicious smear campaign against me. They are using lies and distortions to distract and divide.

I would submit that the only lies and distortions are those that come from Van Jones himself. His past words and actions speak for themselves. You cannot smear someone by using the facts and ones own words and deeds. It is the proponents of reform who have taken up the tactics of lies and distortions to promote their own objectives. Their message is that it is either our way or the highway. The no longer silent majority begs to differ.

Burress lawyer says nightclub incident not intentional criminal act.

Michael Tefft — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 15:58:14 +0000

Former New York Giant Plaxico Burress finally pleaded guilty to a lesser weapons charge after months of negotiation with the Manhattan district attorney’s office. The original indictment on two counts of criminal possession of a weapon and one count of reckless endangerment was reduced to the one lesser charge and Burress will be sentenced to two years in prison.

The charges stem from an incident that happened in a Latin Quarter nightclub in late November of last year when a gun tucked into Burress’ waistband slipped down his leg and fired, shooting him in the right thigh. The bullet narrowly missed a nightclub security guard and lodged in the floor of the nightclub.

The gun was not licensed in New York or New Jersey, where Burress lived, and Burress did not have a valid concealed weapon permit for New York state. Both Burress and his former teammate Antonio Pierce tried to cover up the incident and did not report it to police. Additionally, neither the security guard at the nightclub nor the hospital staff members who treated Burriss reported the incident to police.

Yet despite all this, Burress’ lawyer, Benjamin Brafman, questioned the two year sentence. To quote Brafman: “This was not an intentional criminal act.” “In my judgment, a two-year prison sentence is a very severe punishment.”

Lets review the details of the case. First, Burress knew he did not have a valid concealed weapons permit yet he still carried a concealed weapon into a nightclub that serves alcohol. In most states, even if you have a concealed weapon permit, you cannot carry concealed into a place that serves alcohol. That was an intentional criminal act on the part of Burress.

Second, Burress knew the gun was not legally registered in either New York or New Jersey. That was an intentional criminal act on the part of Burress.

Third, Burress tried to cover up the whole incident, which is another criminal act. Looks to me like Burress committed several intentional criminal acts. In my opinion Burress is lucky he only received a two year sentence for his crimes. Luckily it is not a crime to be stupid or there could have been another charge added to the original indictment.

Owning a gun is a very serious responsibility with very serious consequences if you do not follow the laws or use common sense. Plaxico Burress is just now finding this out. The whole incident could have been much worse, with either Burress or an innocent bystander being killed.

So all I can say to attorney Bejamin Brafman about his statement that this was not an intentional criminal act is “give me a break.”

Proctologists decide to leave health care decision to assholes in Washington.

Michael Tefft — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 14:06:30 +0000

The American Medical Association has weighed in on the new Obama health care proposals.

The Allergists voted to scratch it, but the Dermatologists advised not to make any rash moves. The Gastroenterologists had sort of a gut feeling about it, but the Neurologists thought the Administration had a lot of nerve.

The Obstetricians felt they were all laboring under a misconception. Ophthalmologists considered the idea shortsighted. Pathologists yelled, “Over my dead body!” while the Pediatricians said, “Oh, Grow up!”

The Psychiatrists thought the whole idea was madness, while the Radiologists could see right through it. Surgeons decided to wash their hands of the whole thing. The Internists thought it was a bitter pill to swallow, and the Plastic Surgeons said, “This puts a whole new face on the matter….”

The Podiatrists thought it was a step forward, but the Urologists were pissed off at the whole idea. The Anesthesiologists thought the whole idea was a gas, and the Cardiologists didn’t have the heart to say no.

In the end, the Proctologists won out, leaving the entire decision up to the assholes in Washington.

{from an email my brother sent me.}

Guns, Religion, Freedom of Speech

Michael Tefft — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:03:12 +0000

Three of our unalienable rights that are being destroyed by an ever growing and unaccountable government.

Declaration of IndeDpendence