Happy Memorial Day

May we never forget and always honor our soldiers; past, present, and future. May they be blessed for all they have done and continue to do to keep us free.

Abuses of Handicapped Parking – Is This YOUR Car?

This is another installment in my series of abuses of handicapped facilities by non-handicapped persons.

On a trip to our local Wal-Mart, we encountered this vehicle, an SUV pulling a trailer, parked in the handicapped parking area in the marked off section between the actual handicapped parking spaces.

This made it impossible for a person using a wheelchair to disembark from a vehicle in the space next to the SUV (my original choice for a space). In fact, this action by the driver of the SUV effectively disabled four handicapped spaces from being of much use to a severely disabled person like my husband.

I don’t know what this driver was thinking. I saw no handicapped placard nor did the vehicle have a handicapped tag.

As I was snapping these photos with my cell phone a passer-by asked me what I was doing and I told her I was going to write about this and put the pictures on my blog. I didn’t turn the driver in to the authorities, but I did want to use this as an example of what not to do.

The yellow marked off areas between handicapped spaces are for people like my husband who need room to maneuver in a wheelchair.

Please be thoughtful and don’t make life any more difficult on the handicapped and their caregivers than it has to be.

On Top Of Everything Else…

Granny has had two weeks of computer hell. Now, for a person completely addicted to computers and to one certain computer for blogging, this was not good. It was said blogging computer that decided to bid me farewell.

In the period of making the decision to purchase a new blogging computer and getting it ordered and delivered, the oil spill turned from disaster into mega disaster, Arizona managed to do the right thing and piss off the Obama regime and Mexico (you go Arizona), the apology tour continued with China (of all countries) being told how sorry we are that our bad-boy state, Arizona, decided to pass a law that over 60% of American’s approve of, and the list goes on.

It’s probably just as well that I couldn’t chime in. I would have probably said things that would have caused an influx of black SUV’s into my neighborhood.

My new blogging computer arrived yesterday. I’m in the process of figuring it out. It’s a laptop, so I can blog while in front of the television watching Fox News with my hubby.

Hubby sometimes has some very insightful comments on what’s taking place in our nation. I assure you I will steal them and put them in these pages (without permission or giving him credit) whenever possible.

Final NC District 11 Primary Results

The votes are all counted and in the end, Dr. Dan lost to Jeff Miller. We just didn't get enough people to the polls.

Miller seems to be a good man. I can't fault him on his decency. I'm just not sure about his ability to stand up to the Washington machine.

It boils down to this: here in the NC 11th District we can choose between Shuler and Miller. Pelosi's lap dog or a nice guy who won the primary because he was well known locally and was chosen by the good-ole-boy network.

Yeah, right.

Thoughts on the NC District 11 Primary

As my readers know, I supported (and still do) Dr. Dan Eichenbaum in the NC District 11 Primary. The election was close. So close, in fact, that the final results will depend on the provisional ballots and a recount. Those results are expected on May 11.

There are reports of voter irregularities. I am registered "unaffiliated". I had no problems voting in the primary; although there are reports that some unaffiliated voters were turned away at some locations. This remains to be verified. ACORN tactics in rural North Carolina! Disgusting if true.

Voter turnout in this weeks election was low. The vote is very close to a run-off between Dr. Eichenbaum and the tentative winner, Jeff Miller. Within the next week we will learn whether or not there will be a run-off election next month.

I did what I could to get friends, co-workers, and neighbors to learn about Dr. Dan and his principled approach to leadership. By having guiding principles in place, Dan has a firm foundation to base decisions on in Washington. What an idea. Principles. . .in Washington.

Dr. Eichenbaum ran a totally grass roots campaign. Miller was hand picked and backed by the NCGOP. Dr. Eichenbaum would go to Washington owing no favors to anyone other than the voters in this district. There is no way of knowing what strings are attached to Miller. Just because he belongs to the minority party does not mean he will be a good representative for We the People of Western North Carolina. Hand picked and groomed, Miller will be a puppet of those in charge and will do their bidding. The people be damned. Nothing will change.

Those who worked to elect Dr. Dan Eichenbaum did their best. I feel I did very little, there are those who worked from daylight to dusk, day after day for the cause. Those people have my gratitude; they took up my slack.

Now, these Patriots in Western North Carolina are depressed and tired. We all feel a sense of fear at what will happen now. But we will dust ourselves off and get back in the fight to save our nation and restore Her to what the Founding Father's envisioned Her to be.

We've may have had a set-back. Maybe not. Only the God's know at this point. However, one set-back will not lessen our determination to take our country back from the Progressives and anyone else desiring to fundamentally change America into something She is not meant to be. And we have God and the Spirit's of our Founding Father's on our side. We will prevail.

Is It Still OUR Country?

Or are we a Mexican Territory? Please read Michelle Malkin's post on happenings yesterday.

Where Were You?

My question is to the voters of North Carolina District 11....Where the hell were you on Tuesday?

Were you "too tired" as a good friend told me as she left work at 3:30 and I reminded her to stop and vote? Were you busy with everyday activities that could have waited a half hour? Believe me it wouldn't have taken long. There were NO lines.

Where was the anger you have expressed to me over the last 16 months about how the "leaders" are leading our country off a cliff and into the abyss? Was it all talk? Are you too lazy to move anything but your lips in opposition? Why, on something this important, did you not get your rear in gear and go vote?

My husband and I voted. He has lost a leg and is confined to a wheelchair. I loaded him and chair in the car, drove over to our polling place; unloaded, and we went in and voted.

Where the hell were you? You weren't in line. We went straight up and voted. You had not been there. It was midday and we were voters 59 and 60. You apparently didn't think it important. We did. We always do. We care.

So, please, tell me: Where were you? Why didn't you exercise your right and duty to vote?

And I'll tell you: If you didn't vote; don't complain to me. You got what you asked for.

Check Out Al Gore's New Home

Well, well, the climate change business pays off big for some.... wish I could afford an estate like this. It's their eighth I hear. Al Gore's new home.

North Carolina Primary Today

I and my hubby will soon be off to cast our votes in the North Carolina Primary. If you are a North Carolina Resident, I hope you will be doing the same at some point today.

This is our opportunity to make our voices heard in a way that our leaders will understand. In the state primaries, we have an opportunity to get candidates we can support in the fall elections. Send the best men and women out to challenge the incumbents in Washington and on state and local levels.

We vote in North Carolina's 11th Congressional District. We are voting for Dr. Dan Eichenbaum in the congressional race.

Where ever you are, vote in your state primaries. Choose candidates who hold your values. Lets have a revolution at the ballot box this year. If we elect the right people maybe we can avoid the next logical step in regaining our freedom: a revolution in the streets.

Dr. Eichenbaum Answer’s the Questions We All Have

1. Taxes: 
Will you vote in favor of eliminating the current federal income tax code in favor of a simplified tax program, several of which have been proposed, that are clear and understandable for all citizens to understand and comply with?

As your representative, I intend to be a sponsor of and vote in favor of HR 25 – the Fair Tax. The first section of this bill prevents the federal government from assessing a tax on income once the Fair Tax is implemented to prevent double taxation. The Fair Tax bill includes a "sunset" provision, namely, that the Fair Tax would lapse in seven years if the 16th Amendment is not repealed. I would support and vote for repeal of the 16th Amendment.

The current income tax was proposed by the Taft administration and passed by congress in 1909. North Carolina ratified the amendment in 1911, resulting in the amendment becoming part of the constitution in 1913, when the 36th state ratified it. Initially the income tax assessed individuals and couples 1% of their income and 2% of corporate profits, resulting in only 1% of the population paying any taxes. But as with all taxes, over the past 100 years, the maximum federal corporate and individual income tax has increased to 39% and 35%. Clearly, this will continue if the people do not call for a change.

But perhaps the greatest threat to freedom relative to the federal income tax is the enhancement of government control. Under the US current income tax code, government agents (President, Congressman, bureaucrats, etc.) have the power to reward corporations, groups and individuals, and penalize others, believing they are promoting the general Welfare of the people. Enacting the Fair Tax removes this unconstitutional power, while stimulating the economy and motivating the people.

Passing the Fair Tax bill and repealing the 16th Amendment addresses only one half of the challenge. The size and cost of the federal government must be drastically reduced. The quickest way to achieve this is by privatization of government departments and programs wherever possible to achieve reduced cost to the taxpayer through the increased efficiency available through free market forces.

2. National security (2 parts): 
Will you vote to quickly secure our nation's borders, for our national security and to maintain the U.S. as a sovereign nation?

Ronald Reagan reminded us that "A nation without borders is not a nation." Yes, I would vote to immediately secure the US borders by dramatically increasing recruitment, training, and hiring of border patrol agents, construction of physical and electronic barriers, and using the National Guard as a stop gap measure. It is noteworthy that the entire region within a nuclear power plant fence is considered federal land and strongly guarded by federal deputized agents. If the US can successfully guard 103 nuclear power plants within the states, surely we can protect the borders of our country.

What is your opinion about whether the 9/11 suspects should be tried in a civilian court in the U.S. or by a military tribunal? And, what is your opinion about Mirandizing terrorists?

It is my opinion that terrorists, by the very nature of their actions, are unlawful combatants. The do not wear distinctive uniforms, insignias or symbols, which distinguish themselves from civilians. They are not organized into military units with identifiable chains of command.

Given that no terrorist group has ever signed much less ratified the Geneva Conventions and given that they have violated every tenet of international law regarding treatment of prisoners and civilians, terrorist groups forfeit any entitlement to protection under the conventions. Terrorists are, therefore, not even entitled to POW classification. U.S. forces would be within their legal rights to treat captured terrorist members as they did Nazi saboteurs during World War II — trial by military commission and execution by firing squad.

The Third Geneva Convention demands that a "competent tribunal" determine the status of captives where there is doubt as to their proper status, but does not describe details of the process. Given that captured terrorists are illegal combatants, are not eligible to be classified as POWs, nor entitled to the protection and privileges of the convention, I don't see how they should be eligible to the same rights of US citizens under the constitution. I believe they should be retained and tried by U.S. military commissions, which does not extend the right to keep silent under the Miranda statute.

Please note that the decisions regarding terrorists are the responsibility of the Department of Justice (Executive Branch), not congress.

3. Bills (3 parts): 
Would you vote for a law that requires final legislation to be available for public review at least seven days prior to the vote? If not, why not? 

Yes, I would support such a law. The technology of today allows every citizen to review proposed bills online. The seven day interval opens the process, permitting the citizen to inform his Representative of his view. This does not absolve the Representative of his obligation to judge the constitutionality and usefulness of the bill. 

Would you vote in favor of a bill that required Representatives to personally "read the bill"? 
It is indeed a sad state that this question would need be asked or discussed. Yes, I would support a bill that requires each Representative to attest that he has read the bill prior to voting. I would write the bill such that if the Representative could not attest to reading the bill, it would automatically result in his "No" or "Against" the bill. 

Would you agree to vote for a law that states:  'Any legislation which creates a new bureaucracy will be regularly reviewed and renewed by Congress or end through an automatic Sunset Law.' 
Yes, I support timely expiration dates for all bureaucracies. Given that requirements, needs, and technology is always changing, an expiration date would force succeeding congresses to reevaluate before renewing authorization. 

4. Illegal immigration (3 parts):

If elected and asked to vote for amnesty for illegal aliens currently in the United States, would you vote yes or no? Why? 
In 1986, the Congress and President Reagan signed the first amnesty bill. Reagan believed increased border security and enforcement of immigration laws would minimize illegal immigration going forward.

Unfortunately, this "one time"  amnesty bill did not solve the illegal immigration issue. There was extensive document fraud by aliens and the numbers of illegal aliens applying for amnesty far exceed estimates (2.8 million). And not surprisingly, there was little political will to enforce new employer labor laws. Subsequent amnesty bills were passed in 1994, 1997, 1998, and 2000.

Experience confirms that amnesty does not prevent illegal immigration, it promotes it. Additionally to "winking"  at these law breakers, it bypasses the screening process which blocks potential criminals and terrorists from entering the US. It is also unfair to those who have lawfully stood in line, awaiting the opportunity to experience American freedom.

As a member of the House, I would not vote to extend amnesty to those who broke our laws by illegally entering our country.

Would you vote against granting citizenship to a child born in this country whose mother is not a U.S. citizen, not married to a U.S. citizen or not in the country legally? If not, why not? 
Yes, I would vote against granting citizenship to children of illegal residents.

Currently children born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are considered citizens, which results in drawing in the illegal alien mother and many other relatives to the US. I would argue that this policy is counter to the intent of the 14th Amendment. I am in agreement with Senator Jacob Howard who clearly stated the intent during deliberation before ratification of the Amendment.

"Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country."

Would you vote against allowing people who entered the country illegally to receive Social Security or other Government benefits? If not, why not? 
I would vote against any measure that grants any benefits to illegal aliens. Given that the person under consideration is classified as an illegal alien, how can anyone advocate rewarding them Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc.

5. Second Amendment: 
Would you vote for supporting the right of non-felon citizens to bear arms in any circumstance? If not, why not?

The words "any circumstance" is problematic. While I fully support the right of non-felon citizens to purchase, keep, and bear arms without restriction, I believe there are times and locations where arms are inappropriate. For instance, I would reserve the right to restrict persons bearing arms from entering my home, business, church or voting place. 

6. Healthcare (2 parts): 
Will you oppose attempts by the Federal Government to further regulate the purchase and administration of health care for citizens in the U.S and cease further attempts to regulate the purchase and administration of health care in the U.S.? 

Where do you stand on enacting tort reform to end the ruinous lawsuits against doctors and medical providers? Will you vote for or against tort reform? 

As a practicing physician for the past 34 years, I understand that there are problems with our healthcare system that need to be addressed. The current legislation will not fix any of these issues. Instead, the social/progressive Senate and House Healthcare bills are nothing more than a massive bureaucracy that will lead to the premature death of everyone except the wealthy and the government elite. In spite of their vehement denials, bureaucratic committees and affiliated semi-professional panels are designed to specify treatment protocols for various diseases based on cost-benefit criteria that will limit and restrict treatment for many Americans. The inevitable result will be decreased quality of care and, beyond a doubt, rationing and limited availability of care for almost everyone. In addition, both bills contain massive tax increases that will affect everyone's ability to afford insurance and, ultimately, medical care itself.

We all know that the most efficient way to improve our medical care system is to allow the free market to function normally. Health insurance should not be tied to employment or employers. Each health insurance policy should be privately owned by the person insured, and all government restrictions (federal and state) must be eliminated except those necessary to ensure availability of insurance to everyone. Premium costs would decrease because health insurance companies could compete on a national scale, and individuals could design their own policies based on specific personal needs. Tort reform, an essential part of healthcare reform, must include provisions for limiting punitive damages to malicious intent, requiring a "loser pays" requirement for frivolous suits, pre-screening suits by medico-legal panels, and a legal recognition that a poor result is not grounds for suit. An expansion of tax-free health savings accounts and a national insurance pool for high risk individuals would further allow for most citizens to have access to insurance and to health care.

As a physician, I understand that some of our citizens may still not be able to afford health insurance. In the past, I was able to treat patients for free or for minimal fees by my own choice. In other words, a patient without insurance was able to ask me for a fee reduction in the same manner that a buyer could negotiate with a vendor at the flea market. Current government regulations, however, prevent physicians from giving medical care at discounted rates, thereby preventing the free market from operating as it should. Government has no business preventing a patient and a physician from dealing directly with each other on all matters relating to the patient's care. 

On a philosophical and Constitutional level, people must recognize that healthcare is a commodity, not a right. As Jefferson believed, the right to own property is an essential part of individual freedom, and that "property" includes the work of one's hands. When Group A is given "property" that is taken by government force from Group B and that "property" is termed Group A's "right", the members of Group B are inherently considered inferior in status to Group A. The members of Group B are thereby enslaved to Group A by being forced to work for a "fee" set by a third party (the government). With years spent in college, medical school, internship, residency, and fellowship, I didn't have a "real job" until I was 33 years old. Few will make that enormous sacrifice to become a government employee who can only treat patients as prescribed by government bureaucrats with less education and experience.

The fact that this administration and Heath Shuler will not consider any of these alternatives belies their desire to replace our current medical care system, the best in the world, with a socialized system that reduces the quality and availability of care to most of us. It is just not necessary to destroy and rebuild the entire house to repair a leaking roof. 

7. Unsustainable budgets (two parts): 
Where do you stand on fiscal restraint, and will you vote in favor of establishing a balanced budget (with exceptions only for periods of declared war, a declining GDP, or in the event of a major natural disaster)? If not, why not? 

I believe it is obvious to everyone that spending is out of control, and the numbers attest to the fact. The current US GDP is $14.2 trillion, and the current US debt is $12.4 trillion, a ratio of 87%. The 2010 US budget deficit is $1.4 trillion and growing. When one adds the unfunded liabilities of social security, medicare, medicaid, and government pensions, the national debt exceeds $107 trillion. Clearly, this financial course is unsustainable.

Unfortunately, the majority of current leadership shows no signs of an appreciation of this financial crisis. The lack of appreciation was illustrated in the recent House vote on increasing the debt ceiling and PAYGO legislation. While most Democrat Representatives, including Mr. Schuler, affirmed both bills, only 24 did not vote to raise the debt ceiling.

As your District 11 Representative, I will support and endorse a balanced budget each fiscal year, with the exceptions listed in the question.

Will you oppose "earmarks" that are inserted to bills by Representatives that allow them to provide for funding their pet projects which are intended to buy votes of their constituents but not for the good of the nation? 

Yes, I am opposed to "earmarks".  Spending bills should address only one issue, and each expenditure should be openly debated and voted on separately. 

8. Energy (two parts):

Would you vote for reducing our dependence on foreign oil by at least 5% year over year each year you are in office? If not, why not? 
9. Would you create or vote for a bill to "drill here, drill now"? 

Answer to #8 and #9: 
Dependence on foreign oil for our nation's energy needs and pending climate change legislation ("Cap and Trade") pose severe threats to our nations security and economic recovery. On the first Earth Day forty years ago, a small group of scientists predicted that by the year 2000 earth's temperature would have decreased by 11 degrees and that 70 – 80% of the species on earth would become extinct. Today, when meteorologists cannot even accurately predict the weather 2 – 3 days in advance, another small group of scientists claim they can tell us what the temperature will be two to three decades from now. Meanwhile, although thousands of reputable scientists dispute the entire concept of carbon-based global warming, no scientific debate on this issue has been allowed to occur.

  
Cap and Trade legislation is not about climate change. It is all about taxation, regulation, and increasing the power and size of the federal government. This bill allows unprecedented government intrusion into our personal lives. The federal government could monitor your home electricity use and decide to tax you if you use what some bureaucrat thinks is too much. Other provisions would let the government meter private wells, control your thermostat settings, and would raise the cost of all energy used for transportation, food production, and manufacturing. It would be a national job-killer and especially costly for rural areas like ours.

  
Protecting our planet's ecosystem is an important goal for all humanity and should be a long term project for our country in conjunction all other nations. In the short term, however, we cannot sacrifice our nation's economic growth and the financial welfare of our citizens to appease other nations, especially those who refuse to cooperate with conservation efforts. We must empower private industry to develop energy sources that are more environmentally friendly. At the same time, the government must not prevent the exploration, extraction, and production of the energy from traditional sources here. We have sufficient energy in our own country to be energy independent now and in the near future. We must eliminate government restrictions and regulations currently in place and allow free market forces to achieve this goal.

As your congressman, I will introduce legislation that specifically allows a "drill here, drill now" program for oil exploration, promotes the construction of nuclear electricity power plants, and enables the use of natural gas for transportation and industry. I would have voted AGAINST Cap and Trade legislation and further introduced legislation to remove authority from any government bureaucratic agency to regulate, tax, or restrict energy use, exploration, manufacturing, carbon, carbon dioxide, or any other regulation that would impede free market development and/or use of energy. 

10. The United Nations (two parts): 
Would you vote for or against the United States withdrawing from the UN? If not, why not? 
Would you vote against United Nations recommendations or dictates given to the United States? If not, why not?

Our membership in the United Nations has lasted long past its usefulness. While it is good to have a forum for the international community in which nations can air grievances and attempt to solve disputes, the UN has become stage for anti-American rhetoric by a variety of despots whose primary goal is the preservation of their own wealth and power. In addition, the UN is a money pit that cannot exist without our generous support. We must prioritize our financial obligations, and the UN should be one of the first budget items to be reduced or eliminated whether its offices remain in the US or not. As a world power, however, we must remain a member ("keep your friends close and your enemies closer").

The push toward globalism sponsored by the current administration and the United Nations is a direct threat to our personal liberties and the rule of law as defined by our Constitution, and, as such, must be fought with all vigor and persistence. When our Constitution was written, treaties consisted of agreements one nation to another nation. For this reason, provisions were made so that no state could opt out of an international treaty agreed to by senate ratification. These provisions are extremely dangerous now that UN "human rights" treaties deal with citizens rights inside a nation. Senate ratification of UN treaties such as those concerning Rights of Children, Climate Change, Weapons, Judicial/Legal rights, etc., would allow international law to supersede state law to the detriment of our citizens. This possibility is unacceptable to me. Until it is possible to fix this constitutional loophole, we must actively prevent ratification of any international treaty that would contradict or restrict any rights and provision guaranteed by our constitution. 

11. Marriage: 
Would you vote against defining marriage as the union between ANY two people (of legal age)? If not, why not?

While I believe this is a state, not a federal, issue, my personal belief is that the definition of marriage is the union of one man and one woman. 

12. Congress (4 issues): 
Would you vote for term limits of four years (two terms) maximum in the U.S. House of Representatives? If not, why not? 

Term limits requires a constitutional amendment, a process that would require years to accomplish and is not likely to happen given that our congressmen prefer the "career politician"  job description. I have chosen to execute a "Bonded Term Limit Pledge"  in which I have signed a $500,000 bond, payable by me personally to a named registered charity, if I seek a fourth term in Congress. As citizens, in return for our support and vote, we should demand of every candidate that they also execute a term limit bond. 

Will you vote for the principles of limited government as the center of U.S. policy for economic and personal freedom as stated in our Constitution?

Yes, I would vote to limit the size and involvement of the federal government in accordance with the opening of the Constitution –  "establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity." 

Would you vote for decreasing Congressional salaries ($5,000/year) until Congress finds a real solution to creating jobs (e.g. cutting taxes, reinstating the Bush tax, finding solutions for small businesses to remain solvent, etc.), and the unemployment rate is brought well under what it was before 2009?

It is not the Federal Government's responsibility to create jobs. I believe in the principles of the free market. Government must get out of the way by reducing corporate taxes to less than 10%, eliminating capital gains taxes, eliminating the death tax, and drastically reducing the onerous burden of regulation that drives business out of our country. While I am in favor of reducing the salaries of all government workers to levels comparable to the private sector, such a measure will not necessarily have an effect on unemployment or business growth. 

Would you vote in favor of (or against) the proposed 28th Amendment to the Constitution that states: "Congress shall make no law that applies to the citizens of the United States that does not apply equally to the Senators and/or Representatives; and Congress shall make no law that applies to the Senators and/or Representatives that does not apply equally to the citizens of the United States."? 

Yes, I could endorse and vote in favor of such an Amendment.