If you are lost please read the original blog post here
We have to be very careful how we go about it from here. We have members of Congress discussing a return of the "Fairness Doctrine". You can be sure that something Congress calls a "fairness Doctrine" will be anything but. Basically the idea is that if a point of view is presented, then the station airing the points of view must allow for equal amounts of time for rebuttal from the opposing point of view.
2 problems:
1) this is an infringement on free speech in that the government is, in effect, dictating what can and cannot be said on the public airwaves.
2) The airwaves, while being very useful for knowledge dissemination are still an economic proposition, and therefore must be treated as such. The people running talk radio, and for that matter TV, have invested their money on the airwaves and they rightfully expect a return on their investment. The way they do that is by selling ad time. (I'm sure this is nothing new but follow me here). The more people listen to a particular channel, or a particular show, the more the station can charge for the commercial time slot. (Again people are willing to pay more for a slot where more people will hear their commercial). How to they attract listeners? By putting programming on that those listeners want to hear (or in the case of TV what they want to see). If equal programming time must be given to all opposing points of view, then 2 things are happening, 1) the government is dictating what can and cannot be said or played on the radio or TV. (HELLO CHAVEZ?!!?) and 2) the station is being forced to air programming that is not in it's self interest and it's ad sales will drop.
Now if we follow this to it's logical economic conclusion, the station can do 1 of 2 things. It can air the programming it wants, giving equal time to opposing points of view costing them much more money, in terms of commercial airtime sales, lawyers to fight the time battles, etc. eventually going out of business. Or it can just air programming that is offensive to no one. I don't know if anyone listened to AM radio when the fairness doctrine was in effect before, but it was boring as heck. As a result....do you know anyone who listened to talk radio during the late 70's early 80's?
Now take a look at Congress; who is in favour of the "Fairness Doctrine"? The answer is, the people who have been negatively effected by Conservative talk radio. Liberal Democrats. (This is not a rant, it's just me stating my view of the facts) Now, why would the very same people who will carry the "1st Amendment" Banner to the front lines for a student who holds a sign saying "Bong Hits for Jesus" be in favour of the government dictating what can and cannot be said on the airwaves? Because it's politically expedient. Because the Television Media is slanted to the left (No one is arguing this), so if they can get Conservative views off the radio, what's left? Their agenda on CNN. (And boring oldies on AM radio).
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Mathematical Proof that Women are Evil
GIVEN: Women = Time x Money
GIVEN: Time IS Money
GIVEN: Money is the root of all evil.
IF W= women
T= time
M= money
E= evil
THEN: W = T x M OR W=T(M)
since IF a=b then b=a AND Time IS Money
THEN: W=M2 (Squared)
Since Money is the root of all evil OR M=sqrt(E)
THEN W=(sqrt(E))2 (squareroot of E squared)
OR W=E
THEREFORE Women = Evil.....
INCONTROVERTIBLE MATHEMATICAL PROOF!!!!!!!
Thank You
GIVEN: Time IS Money
GIVEN: Money is the root of all evil.
IF W= women
T= time
M= money
E= evil
THEN: W = T x M OR W=T(M)
since IF a=b then b=a AND Time IS Money
THEN: W=M2 (Squared)
Since Money is the root of all evil OR M=sqrt(E)
THEN W=(sqrt(E))2 (squareroot of E squared)
OR W=E
THEREFORE Women = Evil.....
INCONTROVERTIBLE MATHEMATICAL PROOF!!!!!!!
Thank You
Monday, June 25, 2007
Here's to a real Hero
Original Story
Charles W Lindbergh died today at the age of 86. Most people probably don't know who he is. During the Battle for Iwo Jima in WWII, there was a poignant moment, when the first American flag was raised on Japanese soil. Charles Lindbergh was one of the ones who raised it. Most people don't know this man's name because another flag was raised a few hours later (the 2nd one was bigger) the photo of which has been seen by most Americans, and the men who raised it became celebrities...well the three that survived the battle anyway.
Lindbergh then went back down the mountain and continued to fight. He was shot in the arm, earning him a purple heart to go with his silver star, and sent home. While there was much fanfare about the 6 men who raised the second flag (Including the book and movie "Flags of Our Fathers") Charles Lindbergh went home and nobody knew his name, or the names of the other four Marines, who really fought up the hill and valiantly planted the American flag for the first time on enemy soil. Heroes like this ensure that people like me and you have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (and free government handouts). Semper Fi Mr. Lindbergh, Godspeed.
Charles W Lindbergh died today at the age of 86. Most people probably don't know who he is. During the Battle for Iwo Jima in WWII, there was a poignant moment, when the first American flag was raised on Japanese soil. Charles Lindbergh was one of the ones who raised it. Most people don't know this man's name because another flag was raised a few hours later (the 2nd one was bigger) the photo of which has been seen by most Americans, and the men who raised it became celebrities...well the three that survived the battle anyway.
Lindbergh then went back down the mountain and continued to fight. He was shot in the arm, earning him a purple heart to go with his silver star, and sent home. While there was much fanfare about the 6 men who raised the second flag (Including the book and movie "Flags of Our Fathers") Charles Lindbergh went home and nobody knew his name, or the names of the other four Marines, who really fought up the hill and valiantly planted the American flag for the first time on enemy soil. Heroes like this ensure that people like me and you have the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness (and free government handouts). Semper Fi Mr. Lindbergh, Godspeed.
The Finer Points of Murder
Original Story
Breaking news in Cuyahoga County Ohio. The body of Jessie Davis has been found, and her boyfriend Bobby Cutts has been charged with 2 counts of murder....wait a minute 2 counts? Yes, 2. It seems that Ms. Davis was pregnant with Mr. Cutts' child. My heart goes out to Jessie's family, especially her young son, who according to some accounts seems to have witnessed the murder. I cannot even contemplate the depravity of that situation.
What interests me about this is that Bobby Cutts has been charged with murder for not only Jessie, but her unborn fetus as well. That seems to me to be a remarkable double standard in a country where abortion is legal. Basically the law says that if Jessie had wanted to kill her unborn fetus then that's all well and good. But if anyone else kills it, it's murder. Fair is fair, either it's ok to kill a fetus or it's not, you can't have it both ways. If abortion is ok, then Bobby Cutts should be charged with one murder. If abortion is not ok, then he should be charged with two. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with it, but currently in America, abortion is legal, so according to the law, Mr. Cutts should be charged with only one murder.
Breaking news in Cuyahoga County Ohio. The body of Jessie Davis has been found, and her boyfriend Bobby Cutts has been charged with 2 counts of murder....wait a minute 2 counts? Yes, 2. It seems that Ms. Davis was pregnant with Mr. Cutts' child. My heart goes out to Jessie's family, especially her young son, who according to some accounts seems to have witnessed the murder. I cannot even contemplate the depravity of that situation.
What interests me about this is that Bobby Cutts has been charged with murder for not only Jessie, but her unborn fetus as well. That seems to me to be a remarkable double standard in a country where abortion is legal. Basically the law says that if Jessie had wanted to kill her unborn fetus then that's all well and good. But if anyone else kills it, it's murder. Fair is fair, either it's ok to kill a fetus or it's not, you can't have it both ways. If abortion is ok, then Bobby Cutts should be charged with one murder. If abortion is not ok, then he should be charged with two. I'm not saying whether I agree or disagree with it, but currently in America, abortion is legal, so according to the law, Mr. Cutts should be charged with only one murder.
Friday, June 22, 2007
Media Bias
Story on MSNBC
List of Media Political Donors
Well here it is, proof of what we all already knew. Media is biased. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, after all the media is run by humans and humans are biased. What is notable about this report is that of the 144 donors on the list 7 did not give to the Democratic party. that means that 95.1% of media donors gave to the democratic party or their affiliates (moveon.org etc). Maybe the conservative talk radio hosts have a point...the major media outlets are biased to a liberal point of view. Which is why it's not a shock to find that Hillary Clinton and Barbera Boxer want a "Legislative Fix" to the "talk radio problem".
One of the most important reforms Hilter put in place in his rise to the leadership of the National Socialist party was control of the media. The reasons are fairly obvious; control of the media is control of information and the addage is true "knowledge is power". Always beware of those who seek to destroy all opposing ideas; their own ideas won't hold water.
List of Media Political Donors
Well here it is, proof of what we all already knew. Media is biased. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, after all the media is run by humans and humans are biased. What is notable about this report is that of the 144 donors on the list 7 did not give to the Democratic party. that means that 95.1% of media donors gave to the democratic party or their affiliates (moveon.org etc). Maybe the conservative talk radio hosts have a point...the major media outlets are biased to a liberal point of view. Which is why it's not a shock to find that Hillary Clinton and Barbera Boxer want a "Legislative Fix" to the "talk radio problem".
One of the most important reforms Hilter put in place in his rise to the leadership of the National Socialist party was control of the media. The reasons are fairly obvious; control of the media is control of information and the addage is true "knowledge is power". Always beware of those who seek to destroy all opposing ideas; their own ideas won't hold water.
Thursday, June 21, 2007
New Abstinence Story
You can't make this stuff up!!!
Link to the article
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Police on Wednesday were investigating how a naked couple fell 50 feet from the roof of a downtown office building to their deaths
The bodies were found on the road by a passing cabdriver around 5 a.m. Wednesday.
Clothing was discovered on the roof, leading authorities to suspect the man and woman, in their early 20s, may have been having sex. Their identities were not released.
"It's too early to rule out anything," Columbia police Sgt. Florence McCants said, but McCants said a preliminary investigation didn't show any sign of foul play.
Link to the article
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Police on Wednesday were investigating how a naked couple fell 50 feet from the roof of a downtown office building to their deaths
The bodies were found on the road by a passing cabdriver around 5 a.m. Wednesday.
Clothing was discovered on the roof, leading authorities to suspect the man and woman, in their early 20s, may have been having sex. Their identities were not released.
"It's too early to rule out anything," Columbia police Sgt. Florence McCants said, but McCants said a preliminary investigation didn't show any sign of foul play.
Some Good News
I gallup poll released today found that "Just 14% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in Congress". The good news is that of the same people polled: "69% of Americans have a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the military, which tops the list."
Apparently I was right. Americans are not stupid, nor are they led by the nose to believe all the crap the media has been serving up about the war in Iraq. While the American people do not believe a word their politicians are saying, they do believe in the military. As a current member of the military, this is a breath of fresh air, after all those morons in Washington have been saying for the past few years that we are at best stupid. (See John Kerry's failed "joke"), and at worst baby-murdering, innocent civilian raping, homophobic, torture-fiends. (Thank you John Murtha, you useless piece of crap).
Thoughts on The Stem Cell Debate
Bush to Veto Stem Cell Bill on Wednesday
This is a very sticky subject but I hope to put a different light on it than has been discussed. I am not adverse to stem cell research...(anti abortion people hold your breath). I am against abortion as a rule, however the embryos that are being used for stem cell research are already dead so to speak.
First an explanation of where these stem cells are coming from. When a couple that cannot naturally have children want to do so anyway, they go to a lab. Depending on whether it is the man's problem or the woman's problem, they can have their sperm or eggs harvested. If one or both of them do not have the necessary equipment, they can buy sperm or eggs from a "bank". Anyone who has watched "Friends" religiously knows that they implant up to five or six fertilized eggs at a time, because there is only a 20% or so chance that one will attach to the uterine lining. What all this means for research is that there are thousands of fertilized eggs that are discarded every day. What the embryonic stem cell research program does is use these discarded embryos for their stem cells to do research that may or may not give results.
My issue with this is not a moral one. It is one of Economics. Drug companies pay for research into various fields because if they can develop a usable drug to cure something, they can then sell that drug to make money. This falls in line with supply and demand. Let's say for example that there are 50 million people who have the flu. The drug companies sink 50 million dollars into researching and creating a drug that will cure the flu. They then sell the drug they created for $1.25. The result for the drug company is $62,500,000. Subtract the 50mil that they spent in development and production and they have a profit of $12.5 million. (For the amateur economists out there, this is a very stripped down example, obviously there are other market forces in play).
My point here is that if these stem cells from these embryos are showing any kind of promise in being able to cure sicknesses, there will be investors lining up down the block to sink money into the venture looking for a return. This is basic economics.
This is a very important distinction in this issue. This bill in Congress has nothing to do with the legality of stem cell research. It is a bill to provide federal funding for stem cell research. The governments involvement in this is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous because it sets a precedent for government involvement in private market research. What will happen is that the drug companies will be using the governments money (your money) to develop a drug that they will then sell to you at a massive profit and they will not have to give one dime back to the government. Stay with me here. THEY WILL TAKE YOUR MONEY, DEVELOP A PRODUCT AND THEN SELL IT TO YOU FOR MORE OF YOUR MONEY. Do you see the problem I have?
For those of you who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds I have this to say: I understand why and I cannot fault you for thinking the way you do; however fear not, if this embryonic stem cell research showed any promise at all there would be private investors waiting in line with cash in hand to invest, if not there will be no investors and the program will die. The free market economy will do for you what the government refuses to do.
This is a very sticky subject but I hope to put a different light on it than has been discussed. I am not adverse to stem cell research...(anti abortion people hold your breath). I am against abortion as a rule, however the embryos that are being used for stem cell research are already dead so to speak.
First an explanation of where these stem cells are coming from. When a couple that cannot naturally have children want to do so anyway, they go to a lab. Depending on whether it is the man's problem or the woman's problem, they can have their sperm or eggs harvested. If one or both of them do not have the necessary equipment, they can buy sperm or eggs from a "bank". Anyone who has watched "Friends" religiously knows that they implant up to five or six fertilized eggs at a time, because there is only a 20% or so chance that one will attach to the uterine lining. What all this means for research is that there are thousands of fertilized eggs that are discarded every day. What the embryonic stem cell research program does is use these discarded embryos for their stem cells to do research that may or may not give results.
My issue with this is not a moral one. It is one of Economics. Drug companies pay for research into various fields because if they can develop a usable drug to cure something, they can then sell that drug to make money. This falls in line with supply and demand. Let's say for example that there are 50 million people who have the flu. The drug companies sink 50 million dollars into researching and creating a drug that will cure the flu. They then sell the drug they created for $1.25. The result for the drug company is $62,500,000. Subtract the 50mil that they spent in development and production and they have a profit of $12.5 million. (For the amateur economists out there, this is a very stripped down example, obviously there are other market forces in play).
My point here is that if these stem cells from these embryos are showing any kind of promise in being able to cure sicknesses, there will be investors lining up down the block to sink money into the venture looking for a return. This is basic economics.
This is a very important distinction in this issue. This bill in Congress has nothing to do with the legality of stem cell research. It is a bill to provide federal funding for stem cell research. The governments involvement in this is not only unnecessary, it is dangerous because it sets a precedent for government involvement in private market research. What will happen is that the drug companies will be using the governments money (your money) to develop a drug that they will then sell to you at a massive profit and they will not have to give one dime back to the government. Stay with me here. THEY WILL TAKE YOUR MONEY, DEVELOP A PRODUCT AND THEN SELL IT TO YOU FOR MORE OF YOUR MONEY. Do you see the problem I have?
For those of you who are opposed to embryonic stem cell research on moral grounds I have this to say: I understand why and I cannot fault you for thinking the way you do; however fear not, if this embryonic stem cell research showed any promise at all there would be private investors waiting in line with cash in hand to invest, if not there will be no investors and the program will die. The free market economy will do for you what the government refuses to do.
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
My Global Warming Tirade
What is the deal with the whole global warming thing anyway? Everybody is worried that carbon dioxide is causing the earth to warm up. So we are all going to cut down on creating it. So on the count of three....everybody hold your breath for three minutes (30 seconds for all you smokers). I seem to remember from elementary school that trees breathe carbon dioxide...remember? We breath in oxygen and out carbon dioxide, trees and other plants breath in carbon dioxide and out oxygen. (This is the stripped down version, obviously trees and plants don't literally breathe in the way that we do). So the big question is....if we are so worried about the plant like on the planet....why would we want to cut down on the amount of air they have to breathe? I don't rememeber anyone ever saying that too much oxygem would be a bad thing, but if we were running out there would be quite the hue and cry!
Maybe the planet is getting hotter, hell, according to scientists the earth was frozen a few thousand years ago...maybe it just hasn't reached it's temperature peak before it heads back down. I think it's arrogant folly to presume that man's power to control the earth is even close to being able to accidentally cook it. Of course there are other equally reputable scientists who seem to think we're heading in the opposite direction. Click Here for Story.
I think the main point here is that we don't really know for sure what the planet's temperature should be, we don't know why it's rising, in fact we aren't even sure that it's rising. So creating international laws to prohibit the economy from making everyone's lives better, so that we can somehow, maybe, possibly do something to maybe help the earth from either getting too hot, or maybe, possibly getting to cold...we're not sure. REALIZE THAT IT'S ALL POLITICS, WE NEED DO NOTHING!
Maybe the planet is getting hotter, hell, according to scientists the earth was frozen a few thousand years ago...maybe it just hasn't reached it's temperature peak before it heads back down. I think it's arrogant folly to presume that man's power to control the earth is even close to being able to accidentally cook it. Of course there are other equally reputable scientists who seem to think we're heading in the opposite direction. Click Here for Story.
I think the main point here is that we don't really know for sure what the planet's temperature should be, we don't know why it's rising, in fact we aren't even sure that it's rising. So creating international laws to prohibit the economy from making everyone's lives better, so that we can somehow, maybe, possibly do something to maybe help the earth from either getting too hot, or maybe, possibly getting to cold...we're not sure. REALIZE THAT IT'S ALL POLITICS, WE NEED DO NOTHING!
Monday, June 18, 2007
We The People Part IV
Establish Justice.
Essentially Freedom is the right of all human beings, no matter how socially insignificant, have equal access to Justice. Look around you, this is a radical notion. Do you personally feel as though you would receive Justice if you were wronged in any way? Government is in essence a referee; a referee between each individual citizen, and a referee between the brotherhood of American citizens and the rest of the world. I envision a day when someone mentions the government as “big brother” and it’s a good thing. Let me explain that statement before someone has an aneurism. I see The United states of America as a family. “We the People” are brothers and Sisters by right of our citizenship in this great experiment called America; Republican, Democrat…Other, whatever other title you may give to yourself, the title of American binds us together with a fraternal tie that is greater than the rest. To that end, when I see American officials making disparaging remarks about the Commander in Chief to foreign nations I am sickened to the core. Jimmy Carter is a disgrace, not because every one of his policies was a disastrous failure, but because this spineless jellyfish doesn't have the cajones to air his differences with the sitting president face to face. No this useless twit just makes speeches to foreign nations about how horrible America is. We may quarrel among ourselves (that’s the beauty of being a family) but by god we keep it in the family! We do not air our dirty laundry on the neighbor’s porch! American citizenship is the most precious thing we have here, because it means you’re in the club. To put it in the vernacular, if you’re an American the rest of us “got your back”. It’s kind of like saying I can pick on my little brother, but don’t you say anything bad about him ‘cuz I’ll bust your nose! I will not get into the illegal alien question because given my previous arguments you can pretty well guess where I stand on that one.
Essentially Freedom is the right of all human beings, no matter how socially insignificant, have equal access to Justice. Look around you, this is a radical notion. Do you personally feel as though you would receive Justice if you were wronged in any way? Government is in essence a referee; a referee between each individual citizen, and a referee between the brotherhood of American citizens and the rest of the world. I envision a day when someone mentions the government as “big brother” and it’s a good thing. Let me explain that statement before someone has an aneurism. I see The United states of America as a family. “We the People” are brothers and Sisters by right of our citizenship in this great experiment called America; Republican, Democrat…Other, whatever other title you may give to yourself, the title of American binds us together with a fraternal tie that is greater than the rest. To that end, when I see American officials making disparaging remarks about the Commander in Chief to foreign nations I am sickened to the core. Jimmy Carter is a disgrace, not because every one of his policies was a disastrous failure, but because this spineless jellyfish doesn't have the cajones to air his differences with the sitting president face to face. No this useless twit just makes speeches to foreign nations about how horrible America is. We may quarrel among ourselves (that’s the beauty of being a family) but by god we keep it in the family! We do not air our dirty laundry on the neighbor’s porch! American citizenship is the most precious thing we have here, because it means you’re in the club. To put it in the vernacular, if you’re an American the rest of us “got your back”. It’s kind of like saying I can pick on my little brother, but don’t you say anything bad about him ‘cuz I’ll bust your nose! I will not get into the illegal alien question because given my previous arguments you can pretty well guess where I stand on that one.
Muslim terrorists
Woman in Burqa
Terrorist piece of excrement
Terrorist piece of excrement
Does anybody else see the humour in the fact that as long as a muslim male is not committing terrorist acts he may look like a man, with a good strong beard, but as soon as he decides to become a terrorist, he becomes a spineless piece of shit and starts dressing like a woman?
Sunday, June 17, 2007
I have discovered the truth!
April 13, 2007
Wishful Theorists
So they're going to dig up Harry Houdini. They want to see if he was poisoned by a powerful league of spiritualists for exposing their phony seances. The doctor who'll examine the remains also exhumed Jesse James's coffin a few years ago -- to see if the outlaw outwitted authorities by having another man buried in his place.
People love a good conspiracy theory, which may be one of the reasons that actor Charlie Sheen is going to narrate a documentary about how the World Trade Towers were brought down by the U.S. government. About the same time, Rosie O'Donnell added her credibility to the project.
It was an interesting coincidence that their announcements hit the news just as the military released Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession regarding his role in planning the 9/11 attacks -- and a lot more. Of course, we didn't really need his confession, because his career has been so well documented.
But sure enough, the terrorist's admissions instantly drew sneers, and not just from the tin-foil hat crowd. Well-placed people acted like Mohammed's smug confessions meant nothing.
A lot of people have at least a little in common with Sheen and O'Donnell. They just don't like to think about how much our enemies actually hate us. It's easier to escape down a rabbit hole to a land where our own government is tricking us into thinking the world is a dangerous place.
This would be the same government that can't even keep our most secret surveillance programs out of the newspapers.
And by the way, in Jesse James's coffin -- Jesse James.
::Back::
posted by Fred Dalton Thompson on 4/13/2007 2:30:49 PM
Wishful Theorists
So they're going to dig up Harry Houdini. They want to see if he was poisoned by a powerful league of spiritualists for exposing their phony seances. The doctor who'll examine the remains also exhumed Jesse James's coffin a few years ago -- to see if the outlaw outwitted authorities by having another man buried in his place.
People love a good conspiracy theory, which may be one of the reasons that actor Charlie Sheen is going to narrate a documentary about how the World Trade Towers were brought down by the U.S. government. About the same time, Rosie O'Donnell added her credibility to the project.
It was an interesting coincidence that their announcements hit the news just as the military released Khalid Sheikh Mohammed's confession regarding his role in planning the 9/11 attacks -- and a lot more. Of course, we didn't really need his confession, because his career has been so well documented.
But sure enough, the terrorist's admissions instantly drew sneers, and not just from the tin-foil hat crowd. Well-placed people acted like Mohammed's smug confessions meant nothing.
A lot of people have at least a little in common with Sheen and O'Donnell. They just don't like to think about how much our enemies actually hate us. It's easier to escape down a rabbit hole to a land where our own government is tricking us into thinking the world is a dangerous place.
This would be the same government that can't even keep our most secret surveillance programs out of the newspapers.
And by the way, in Jesse James's coffin -- Jesse James.
::Back::
posted by Fred Dalton Thompson on 4/13/2007 2:30:49 PM
I have uncovered the truth and it will shock you.....9/11 was actually planned and carried out by militant muslims, bent on destroying "the great satan" and allied with Al Qaeda. It was planned and carried out under the guidance of Osama Bin Laden, and completely without the Bush White House having any knowledge of it before hand. I know! I know! it sounds crazy, but it's true!! But wait there's more. Saudi Arabia offered Bin Laden to president Clinton on a silver platter back in the nineties, but he refused because he wasn't a threat(?!). But it doesn't stop there! no! In spite of the US Economy taking a direct hit from 4 fully loaded Boeing 747's, the reckless "Bush Tax Cuts" have created the strongest, most stable economy in US History. (An economy that Clinton nearly ruined, by the way). I know this all seems crazy, but if you look closely, the facts will bear it out.
Do you really think this woman has a clue how to run anything? I'm not a big fan of overmedicating, but somebody needs to get her something for the chemical imbalance!We The People Part III
In order to Form a More Perfect Union
More perfect than what we should start by asking? In simple terms, more perfect than the one that was already in place; The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, signed and ratified by the thirteen original colonies on November 15, 1777[1]. So then we must ask ourselves: why is this new Constitution more perfect than the Articles which preceded it? The single biggest reason is taxation; the articles did not give that government the power to levy them. Taxation is a necessary evil for any government. The government cannot run without money, and that money must come from the very people who allow that government to exist. “Taxation without representation” is a well-known phrase that was touted by those who wished to secede from the British government to form this country and the very same people held that adage dear when they created this system. In order for people to be taxed by government they must have a say in what that government does with the proceeds of that tax. Somewhere along the lines this concept has been lost. Yes those who are taxed do still have “representation” in government, but do those representatives still “represent” the American Taxpayer? There were ideas and concepts that were kept from the Articles to the Constitution, most glaringly is that the central government’s main role was to regulate foreign affairs. “The United states in Congress assembled” were given the sole right of declaring war and building the army necessary for such a declaration. This is still true; however, under the Constitution a more perfect way was devised that allowed for the President to be the “Commander in Chief” of those forces. The Articles did not provide for any Executive head, for fear of consolidation of power; merely a sort of president who could not serve for longer than one year in any given three. Therefore, in essence (and this is important) the “More Perfect Union” was a body that existed in perpetuity as a meeting of the heads of each state so that all the unite States could have a say in foreign policy and representation and work together towards that end. It was not to be a “governing body” for the individual people. The Governing bodies for the various states were to perform that duty. I envision a day when each individual State has the right to enact its own laws that cannot be trampled on by the Federal; where the federal government is merely in place to convene the ideas of the various States. Washington DC would be a place where The United States would be “in Congress assembled” where “in congress” would be an adverb, not a noun.
[1] As evidenced in the document itself. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
More perfect than what we should start by asking? In simple terms, more perfect than the one that was already in place; The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, signed and ratified by the thirteen original colonies on November 15, 1777[1]. So then we must ask ourselves: why is this new Constitution more perfect than the Articles which preceded it? The single biggest reason is taxation; the articles did not give that government the power to levy them. Taxation is a necessary evil for any government. The government cannot run without money, and that money must come from the very people who allow that government to exist. “Taxation without representation” is a well-known phrase that was touted by those who wished to secede from the British government to form this country and the very same people held that adage dear when they created this system. In order for people to be taxed by government they must have a say in what that government does with the proceeds of that tax. Somewhere along the lines this concept has been lost. Yes those who are taxed do still have “representation” in government, but do those representatives still “represent” the American Taxpayer? There were ideas and concepts that were kept from the Articles to the Constitution, most glaringly is that the central government’s main role was to regulate foreign affairs. “The United states in Congress assembled” were given the sole right of declaring war and building the army necessary for such a declaration. This is still true; however, under the Constitution a more perfect way was devised that allowed for the President to be the “Commander in Chief” of those forces. The Articles did not provide for any Executive head, for fear of consolidation of power; merely a sort of president who could not serve for longer than one year in any given three. Therefore, in essence (and this is important) the “More Perfect Union” was a body that existed in perpetuity as a meeting of the heads of each state so that all the unite States could have a say in foreign policy and representation and work together towards that end. It was not to be a “governing body” for the individual people. The Governing bodies for the various states were to perform that duty. I envision a day when each individual State has the right to enact its own laws that cannot be trampled on by the Federal; where the federal government is merely in place to convene the ideas of the various States. Washington DC would be a place where The United States would be “in Congress assembled” where “in congress” would be an adverb, not a noun.
[1] As evidenced in the document itself. The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union.
Thoughts on World Hunger
Matthew 4:1-4
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’.
I was reading this passage just after reading a post by “Abandon Image” http://tialynnlecorchick.blogspot.com/ on the aWAKE project (Tony Campolo and Bono) and I thought to myself that it seems that Jesus could have created enough food to feed everybody on earth if he had wanted to. So why didn’t he? The quick and easy answer is that that was not why he came, nor what he came to do. But that would not completely solve the riddle. It is interesting that Jesus did not answer by saying “I do not live by bread alone”, he said “Man does not live by bread alone”. I will attend to Africa in a minute but first let me set the stage.
This existence that we see as the world is only a dress rehearsal for the main event and it is on that premise that the Christian must view the world. What are we commanded by Christ to do as his followers? The answer is found in Mark’s gospel chapter 16: verse 15. “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” The most important thing to do is preach the gospel to everyone on earth. By and large, Christians have accomplished this mission fairly well; however, there are millions who still have not heard. Did Jesus attend to hunger while he was on earth? Everyone knows the answer to this is “yes”. There are few stories that are found in all four gospels, one of them is the “Feeding of the five thousand” (Matthew 14, Mark6, Luke 9 and John 6 respectively). So let’s take a look at how he did it. Obviously it was a miracle how he actually created the food which we are incapable, as humans, of reproducing. However, the circumstances we can follow. The circumstances are that he was preaching, and the people he fed were the ones gathered to hear him preach. In other words the circumstances were that he was attending to their spiritual well-being, and as a product of that, he attended to their physical needs as well.
With all of that said, we also have a situation from scripture where Jesus was asked to feed the poor without attending to their spiritual well-being. If we look at Mark 14: 3-7. “And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she broke the box, and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, why was this waste of the ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.” Jesus’ point here is that selling the spikenard and giving the money to the poor which is, in and of itself a good deed, would do the poor that were receiving the money no permanent good. We as Christians need to have in the forefront of our minds the spiritual well-being of the human race first, before all else. Those who are hungry here and who have not heard the gospel are destined to be hungry here for a few years and lost for eternity. If their spiritual needs are met, they will enjoy heaven for eternity, then all we need as Christians need to attend to at that point is their immediate need for food, clothing, or whatever else they need.
I think at by this point it should be fairly obvious where I am going with this, so I will sum up. The situation in places like Darfur, Mogadishu etc. is dire. These people need food, clothing, medical supplies and other resources and we as Christians are indeed called upon to do what we can to provide these things, Jeremiah 22:16 “He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.” But we must never forget that the most important need is to hear the gospel and to have the opportunity to respond. Nothing would be sadder than for these same people to die of old age, well dressed and with their bellies full and to then be lost for all eternity. Would not these same people curse their benefactors from the grave? It gives new meaning to “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags”.
Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil. After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. The tempter came to him and said, "If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread." Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God’.
I was reading this passage just after reading a post by “Abandon Image” http://tialynnlecorchick.blogspot.com/ on the aWAKE project (Tony Campolo and Bono) and I thought to myself that it seems that Jesus could have created enough food to feed everybody on earth if he had wanted to. So why didn’t he? The quick and easy answer is that that was not why he came, nor what he came to do. But that would not completely solve the riddle. It is interesting that Jesus did not answer by saying “I do not live by bread alone”, he said “Man does not live by bread alone”. I will attend to Africa in a minute but first let me set the stage.
This existence that we see as the world is only a dress rehearsal for the main event and it is on that premise that the Christian must view the world. What are we commanded by Christ to do as his followers? The answer is found in Mark’s gospel chapter 16: verse 15. “And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.” The most important thing to do is preach the gospel to everyone on earth. By and large, Christians have accomplished this mission fairly well; however, there are millions who still have not heard. Did Jesus attend to hunger while he was on earth? Everyone knows the answer to this is “yes”. There are few stories that are found in all four gospels, one of them is the “Feeding of the five thousand” (Matthew 14, Mark6, Luke 9 and John 6 respectively). So let’s take a look at how he did it. Obviously it was a miracle how he actually created the food which we are incapable, as humans, of reproducing. However, the circumstances we can follow. The circumstances are that he was preaching, and the people he fed were the ones gathered to hear him preach. In other words the circumstances were that he was attending to their spiritual well-being, and as a product of that, he attended to their physical needs as well.
With all of that said, we also have a situation from scripture where Jesus was asked to feed the poor without attending to their spiritual well-being. If we look at Mark 14: 3-7. “And being in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he sat at meat, there came a woman having an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she broke the box, and poured it on his head. And there were some that had indignation within themselves, and said, why was this waste of the ointment made? For it might have been sold for more than three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. And they murmured against her. And Jesus said, Let her alone; why trouble ye her? she hath wrought a good work on me. For ye have the poor with you always, and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always.” Jesus’ point here is that selling the spikenard and giving the money to the poor which is, in and of itself a good deed, would do the poor that were receiving the money no permanent good. We as Christians need to have in the forefront of our minds the spiritual well-being of the human race first, before all else. Those who are hungry here and who have not heard the gospel are destined to be hungry here for a few years and lost for eternity. If their spiritual needs are met, they will enjoy heaven for eternity, then all we need as Christians need to attend to at that point is their immediate need for food, clothing, or whatever else they need.
I think at by this point it should be fairly obvious where I am going with this, so I will sum up. The situation in places like Darfur, Mogadishu etc. is dire. These people need food, clothing, medical supplies and other resources and we as Christians are indeed called upon to do what we can to provide these things, Jeremiah 22:16 “He defended the cause of the poor and needy, and so all went well. Is that not what it means to know me?" declares the LORD.” But we must never forget that the most important need is to hear the gospel and to have the opportunity to respond. Nothing would be sadder than for these same people to die of old age, well dressed and with their bellies full and to then be lost for all eternity. Would not these same people curse their benefactors from the grave? It gives new meaning to “all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags”.
Saturday, June 16, 2007
We The People Part II
Of the United States Not of the Federal Government; but of the United States. The principle government of this great country is the States in which we live. (As of the time of this writing there are 50 states, which are united to form this great country.) Indeed the Founding Fathers of this great country specifically alluded to this fact when debating the Bill of Rights. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”[1] The worst fears of those who framed our very way of life in this venerable document have, as of late, been realized. The central government has become too big. One of the things that worried the original delegates was that the power of the Centralized Government of the “United States” would overshadow the power of the individual States. Therefore they enumerated in the Constitution itself exactly what the powers of the central government were and explicitly stated that all other powers were reserved for the States. After all, this is the united STATES of America. I cannot stress it enough that we live in a country of States that are united, not a centralized government that has broken it’s constituency down into manageable bites called states. “We the People” cannot allow the central government to eclipse the power of our States.
[1] Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
[1] Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
Friday, June 15, 2007
We the People Part I
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, 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, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
We the People.
This is who we are as Americans, as of this writing “We the People” total over 300 million souls. It is not “I the Person” who drafted this declaration; there is no person in America that is more important than another, from the 3.5 million people who are currently homeless[1] to the President of the United States. It is a well known adage that the “Golden Rule” is no longer “Do unto others…” but is now “He who has the Gold makes the Rules”, well “We the People” indicated a total income of over $26,535,673,694 for the year 2004[2] . I’d say that entitles “We the People” to make the rules. The other side of this is that it does not say “We the Government”. Here in America we have a unique way of approaching government, which had its birth in the very document I am quoting. “We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people.”[3] We live in a land where the rule of law begins and ends with “We the People”. The American People are not stupid, are not sheep, to be led; and we are most certainly not “the masses”, that nomenclature is reserved for those suffering under communism. We live under the curious predisposition that the citizens are in charge of the government, and that that government exists only because we allow it. Where else can one find such a place? I firmly believe that because of the Liberty “endowed upon us by our creator”, there is nothing in this world that can stand against the might of “We the People”.
[1] Based on figures recorded on http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/2295 as of 2-10-2007.
[2] http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html as of 2-10-2007
[3] Ronald Reagan First Inaugural Address. Tuesday, January 20th, 1981.
We the People.
This is who we are as Americans, as of this writing “We the People” total over 300 million souls. It is not “I the Person” who drafted this declaration; there is no person in America that is more important than another, from the 3.5 million people who are currently homeless[1] to the President of the United States. It is a well known adage that the “Golden Rule” is no longer “Do unto others…” but is now “He who has the Gold makes the Rules”, well “We the People” indicated a total income of over $26,535,673,694 for the year 2004[2] . I’d say that entitles “We the People” to make the rules. The other side of this is that it does not say “We the Government”. Here in America we have a unique way of approaching government, which had its birth in the very document I am quoting. “We are a nation that has a government--not the other way around. And this makes us special among the nations of the Earth. Our Government has no power except that granted it by the people.”[3] We live in a land where the rule of law begins and ends with “We the People”. The American People are not stupid, are not sheep, to be led; and we are most certainly not “the masses”, that nomenclature is reserved for those suffering under communism. We live under the curious predisposition that the citizens are in charge of the government, and that that government exists only because we allow it. Where else can one find such a place? I firmly believe that because of the Liberty “endowed upon us by our creator”, there is nothing in this world that can stand against the might of “We the People”.
[1] Based on figures recorded on http://www.washprofile.org/en/node/2295 as of 2-10-2007.
[2] http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=133521,00.html as of 2-10-2007
[3] Ronald Reagan First Inaugural Address. Tuesday, January 20th, 1981.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
The result of socialized medicine.
Sometimes we as Americans have to accept the reality of life. Medicine, as with all other aspects of life, is subject to the laws of supply and demand. When government interferes, that balance is thrown off, and what we are left with is a healthcare system that, while free, is lacking in almost every aspect. Realize this, IF SOMETHING IS FREE, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, YOU WILL GET WHAT YOU PAID FOR.
The following is from a news article located at the link below. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=459909&in_page_id=1774
"'Doctors said all I needed was rest - in fact cancer was slowly killing me' ,says Delta Goodremby. Only those closest to Delta Goodrem knew of the toll the debilitating treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma took on the singerA year after spotting the first symptoms of the cancer which left herfighting for her life, chart-topping singer and Neighbours actress DeltaGoodrem, then 18, stole hearts with an emotional appearance at Australia'sequivalent of the Brits.Her glowing appearance belied her failing health as she collected arecord-breaking seven awards at the ceremony in October 2003, showing off aglamorous off-the-shoulder pink dress and short, choppy hairstyle.It was no secret that she was battling Hodgkin's lymphoma, a blood cancerprevalent in the 15 to 34 age group.Elton John and the Australian Prime Minister John Howard were among thepeople who rang to offer their good wishes.But only those closest to her knew of the toll the debilitating treatment,which began in July 2003 and lasted a year - including nearly eight monthsof chemotherapy and two of radiotherapy."I lost my innocence to cancer," says Delta, now 22."The world became darker. The awards gave me something to look forward to,and I spent ages planning my dress."But after several months of chemotherapy, I only had little tufts of hairleft which were going grey. So I wore a wig and had my nurse backstage."Delta lives in London with boyfriend Brian McFadden.Delta glittered for the TV cameras that night, but, as her treatmentcontinued, she was shocked by what she saw in the mirror. "First I became skeletal and then, when I was put on steroids, became puffy and bulked out. "My skin became sallow, I had no eyelashes or eyebrows, and my teeth started moving so I had to wear a brace. "I felt very unattractive and wrote my 2004 album, Mistaken Identity, about that whole time. And yet I felt wise, as though I knew something other people didn't." Delta, who now lives in London with her boyfriend, former Westlife singer Brian McFadden, has an elegant beauty and quiet maturity. She hopes she has finally put cancer behind her, and is now raising awareness of Hodgkin's, which is diagnosed in 100,000 people a year in the UK, half of them under 50. She has worked tirelessly to help raise money to research the disease, and has become the face of a new fundraiser for Leukaemia Research - the Alternative Hair Show - a hairdressing and showbiz extravaganza to be staged in October at the Royal Albert Hall. Hodgkin's is a cancer of the lymphatic system that carries white blood cells throughout the body to fight infection. It usually affects groups of lymph nodes. The lymph nodes in the neck are the most common site of cancerous tumours in Hodgkin's, but they can also be found in the armpit, chest, groin and abdomen. The cancer can spread through the body via the lymphatic system and affect the bones and organs such as the liver, lungs and spleen. Delta had the tell-tale signs of the disease for nine months before she was diagnosed. These included a lump in her neck, which grew to the size of a large plum, night sweats, exhaustion and unexplained weight loss. Two GPs told her she merely needed to rest - she was filming Neighbours, as well as pursuing a pop career the rest of the time, often flying to London and back for TV appearances. In October 2002, she developed a rash on her face. "It looked like chicken pox and spread over my body," she recalls. A dermatologist prescribed cortisone, which failed to help. "It was the first sign that my immune system was breaking down," she says. Then, out of the blue, Delta began having night sweats. "I woke up drenched," she says. "I've always been tall and lean and I love my food, but although I was eating the same amount, the weight started to drop off. "I was also really tired, but I was used to being busy and the adrenaline kept me going. But at the gym one day, while doing a sit-up, I felt something pop just under my neck by my collarbone. "When I touched it, it was the size of a grape. I knew this wasn't right so I saw a doctor. "He said I was run down, that I'd had a cold and that was why the lymph gland was swollen. I don..'t drink, smoke or take drugs, so I just thought I probably wasn't getting enough sleep. "The lump got bigger, and two months later I went back to the doctor, who again said it was my lifestyle. He said there was only a one in ten chance I could have a serious disease, so I shouldn't worry. "But as I sat there, an alarm went off inside me and I thought: 'That one in ten is me. "Yet still I did nothing. Now I know you should listen to what your body is telling you. "I was No 1 in the charts that year. But I had this underlying fear something was going to happen. I was so tired that sometimes I could hardly stand up." One night, early in July 2003, Delta struggled home to her Melbourne apartment, swaying as she walked. She awoke from a nightmare after two hours sleep. "I was drenched in perspiration and couldn't move for fear. I thought I'd seen a dark figure trying to hand me a note. Now, it's obvious my subconscious was warning me to get help." The following night, after filming had finished-Delta left for Sydney to attend a hospital appointment her mother had made for her. "I knew I wouldn't be back," she recalls. Cells from the lump were tested and Delta underwent blood tests and an MRI. The following day, she was at the recording studio when her mother, Lea, and brother, Trent, arrived unexpectedly. Delta says: "Their faces looked serious. Mum said: ..'They think it's cancer. "I had to go straight to the hospital, where I was told they would operate the next day. "The doctors told me it was Hodgkin's lymphoma and that they were concerned the cancer had spread. I started shaking uncontrollably. I was so scared." The next day the tumour was removed. Then there were more tests. Hodgkin's can affect the whole body, so she was scanned from head to toe. It confirmed that the cancer had spread. The following week Delta began chemotherapy, having six drugs injected into her arm in a session which lasted for six hours, this was repeated every fortnight. "I would feel delirious as the drugs took effect. After the first cycle, I felt I'd been hit by a bus. I was just feeling well again when I had to begin the next cycle." Two months of radiotherapy, to blast away any remaining cells, followed. "I could smell burning and afterwards I was lethargic and slept a lot," she remembers. After 12 months of treatment, and with the cancer in remission, Delta returned to her music career and filmed scenes for Neighbours to explain her character's departure. Meanwhile, she set up her own cancer charity and publicised the symptoms of Hodgkin's. The long-term effects of her treatment and her depressed immune system have stayed with her. "My appendix has been painful and I've had several kidney infections requiring hospital treatment. If I get a cold, it lasts for a month. "Brian is very caring and makes sure I get myself checked regularly. I don..'t know if we will be able to have children because the treatment can make you infertile. At 18, I felt I was too young to think about having my eggs frozen." Right now, Delta is simply celebrating being alive and being free of cancer. "I feel healthy, alive and energetic," she says. "I used to get stressed out, but my cancer has put everything into perspective."
In this present crisis, Government is not the answer to our problems...Government is the problem" --Ronald Reagan.
The following is from a news article located at the link below. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=459909&in_page_id=1774
"'Doctors said all I needed was rest - in fact cancer was slowly killing me' ,says Delta Goodremby. Only those closest to Delta Goodrem knew of the toll the debilitating treatment for Hodgkin's lymphoma took on the singerA year after spotting the first symptoms of the cancer which left herfighting for her life, chart-topping singer and Neighbours actress DeltaGoodrem, then 18, stole hearts with an emotional appearance at Australia'sequivalent of the Brits.Her glowing appearance belied her failing health as she collected arecord-breaking seven awards at the ceremony in October 2003, showing off aglamorous off-the-shoulder pink dress and short, choppy hairstyle.It was no secret that she was battling Hodgkin's lymphoma, a blood cancerprevalent in the 15 to 34 age group.Elton John and the Australian Prime Minister John Howard were among thepeople who rang to offer their good wishes.But only those closest to her knew of the toll the debilitating treatment,which began in July 2003 and lasted a year - including nearly eight monthsof chemotherapy and two of radiotherapy."I lost my innocence to cancer," says Delta, now 22."The world became darker. The awards gave me something to look forward to,and I spent ages planning my dress."But after several months of chemotherapy, I only had little tufts of hairleft which were going grey. So I wore a wig and had my nurse backstage."Delta lives in London with boyfriend Brian McFadden.Delta glittered for the TV cameras that night, but, as her treatmentcontinued, she was shocked by what she saw in the mirror. "First I became skeletal and then, when I was put on steroids, became puffy and bulked out. "My skin became sallow, I had no eyelashes or eyebrows, and my teeth started moving so I had to wear a brace. "I felt very unattractive and wrote my 2004 album, Mistaken Identity, about that whole time. And yet I felt wise, as though I knew something other people didn't." Delta, who now lives in London with her boyfriend, former Westlife singer Brian McFadden, has an elegant beauty and quiet maturity. She hopes she has finally put cancer behind her, and is now raising awareness of Hodgkin's, which is diagnosed in 100,000 people a year in the UK, half of them under 50. She has worked tirelessly to help raise money to research the disease, and has become the face of a new fundraiser for Leukaemia Research - the Alternative Hair Show - a hairdressing and showbiz extravaganza to be staged in October at the Royal Albert Hall. Hodgkin's is a cancer of the lymphatic system that carries white blood cells throughout the body to fight infection. It usually affects groups of lymph nodes. The lymph nodes in the neck are the most common site of cancerous tumours in Hodgkin's, but they can also be found in the armpit, chest, groin and abdomen. The cancer can spread through the body via the lymphatic system and affect the bones and organs such as the liver, lungs and spleen. Delta had the tell-tale signs of the disease for nine months before she was diagnosed. These included a lump in her neck, which grew to the size of a large plum, night sweats, exhaustion and unexplained weight loss. Two GPs told her she merely needed to rest - she was filming Neighbours, as well as pursuing a pop career the rest of the time, often flying to London and back for TV appearances. In October 2002, she developed a rash on her face. "It looked like chicken pox and spread over my body," she recalls. A dermatologist prescribed cortisone, which failed to help. "It was the first sign that my immune system was breaking down," she says. Then, out of the blue, Delta began having night sweats. "I woke up drenched," she says. "I've always been tall and lean and I love my food, but although I was eating the same amount, the weight started to drop off. "I was also really tired, but I was used to being busy and the adrenaline kept me going. But at the gym one day, while doing a sit-up, I felt something pop just under my neck by my collarbone. "When I touched it, it was the size of a grape. I knew this wasn't right so I saw a doctor. "He said I was run down, that I'd had a cold and that was why the lymph gland was swollen. I don..'t drink, smoke or take drugs, so I just thought I probably wasn't getting enough sleep. "The lump got bigger, and two months later I went back to the doctor, who again said it was my lifestyle. He said there was only a one in ten chance I could have a serious disease, so I shouldn't worry. "But as I sat there, an alarm went off inside me and I thought: 'That one in ten is me. "Yet still I did nothing. Now I know you should listen to what your body is telling you. "I was No 1 in the charts that year. But I had this underlying fear something was going to happen. I was so tired that sometimes I could hardly stand up." One night, early in July 2003, Delta struggled home to her Melbourne apartment, swaying as she walked. She awoke from a nightmare after two hours sleep. "I was drenched in perspiration and couldn't move for fear. I thought I'd seen a dark figure trying to hand me a note. Now, it's obvious my subconscious was warning me to get help." The following night, after filming had finished-Delta left for Sydney to attend a hospital appointment her mother had made for her. "I knew I wouldn't be back," she recalls. Cells from the lump were tested and Delta underwent blood tests and an MRI. The following day, she was at the recording studio when her mother, Lea, and brother, Trent, arrived unexpectedly. Delta says: "Their faces looked serious. Mum said: ..'They think it's cancer. "I had to go straight to the hospital, where I was told they would operate the next day. "The doctors told me it was Hodgkin's lymphoma and that they were concerned the cancer had spread. I started shaking uncontrollably. I was so scared." The next day the tumour was removed. Then there were more tests. Hodgkin's can affect the whole body, so she was scanned from head to toe. It confirmed that the cancer had spread. The following week Delta began chemotherapy, having six drugs injected into her arm in a session which lasted for six hours, this was repeated every fortnight. "I would feel delirious as the drugs took effect. After the first cycle, I felt I'd been hit by a bus. I was just feeling well again when I had to begin the next cycle." Two months of radiotherapy, to blast away any remaining cells, followed. "I could smell burning and afterwards I was lethargic and slept a lot," she remembers. After 12 months of treatment, and with the cancer in remission, Delta returned to her music career and filmed scenes for Neighbours to explain her character's departure. Meanwhile, she set up her own cancer charity and publicised the symptoms of Hodgkin's. The long-term effects of her treatment and her depressed immune system have stayed with her. "My appendix has been painful and I've had several kidney infections requiring hospital treatment. If I get a cold, it lasts for a month. "Brian is very caring and makes sure I get myself checked regularly. I don..'t know if we will be able to have children because the treatment can make you infertile. At 18, I felt I was too young to think about having my eggs frozen." Right now, Delta is simply celebrating being alive and being free of cancer. "I feel healthy, alive and energetic," she says. "I used to get stressed out, but my cancer has put everything into perspective."
In this present crisis, Government is not the answer to our problems...Government is the problem" --Ronald Reagan.
Copy of a Speech I gave for Memorial Day
We are here today to honor members of the US Armed Services. The irony of this day is that the ones we are here to honor are the ones who cannot be here. This day has been set aside to remember those who have not returned. On November 19, 1863 in Gettysburg Pennsylvania, Abraham Lincoln gave a well known speech at the dedication of the battlefield about what it means to memorialize. "But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate; we can not consecrate; we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract… It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain."
What cause is it that they have died for? In a word "freedom"! The LORD has blessed this great country beyond what we have the capacity to realize, and when our freedom is threatened these are the men we turn to. Why do they do it? What is their reward? Let me tell you something, if I was doing this for the money…I wouldn't be doing this. I can tell you this, though; a "thank you" from a stranger means more than all the money in the world. Next time you see one of the boys in uniform, realize that they have taken an oath to die if necessary to protect your right to show up on Sunday and remember the LORD, without having to worry about government harassment…and a thank you, will make their day.
Do not fool yourself into thing that the current war we are engaged in is a political one. The people we are fighting are the agents of Satan, who is alive and well in the middle-east. What you are seeing now is The Bible coming alive before your very eyes on Fox News. What they are doing to the captured troops over in the sandbox is right out of the pages of "Fox's Book of Martyrs". The enemy we fight right now is determined to eradicate all followers of Jesus Christ from the world (does that sound like something Satan would want? J). This fight will never be over while the world still stands, but we can take heart in knowing that our side wins. But we must be on our guard, because they have friends within our own borders—is it any surprise that those who wish to remove all vestiges of Christianity from our public life are sympathetic to those who wish to eradicate our way of life? This country is a great bastion of freedom in the world and the reason for that is that the only true freedom can be found in THE LORD. We are a Christian nation and the Radical Muslim Fundamentalists know this, which is why they attack us. Take a look at the imprint of freedom that America has had on the rest of the world and think to yourself…"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Matthew 5:13.
Right now at this very moment there are those, one of whom is running for president, who seek to change the meaning of this day to one of anti-war protests. As disgusted as I am, personally, with these people, I have only one thing to say to them. "Thank you, thank you for exercising your right to say what you choose to say and believe what you choose to believe. I and the rest of my brothers and sisters in the armed services believe in these rights so much that we have pledged to die in their defense if necessary, and by exercising them you honor our sacrifice, whether you mean to or not. BUT I would add…regardless of your political affiliation or your personal beliefs, remember this! YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THESE RIGHTS IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE ARMED SERVICES. "Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten, as a people, the cost of free and undivided republic." -- General John Logan, General Order No. 11, 5 May 1868. Remember to honor the 1,210,737 troops, so far, who didn't come home, and thank the ones who do, they ask for nothing more, and they deserve nothing less.
What cause is it that they have died for? In a word "freedom"! The LORD has blessed this great country beyond what we have the capacity to realize, and when our freedom is threatened these are the men we turn to. Why do they do it? What is their reward? Let me tell you something, if I was doing this for the money…I wouldn't be doing this. I can tell you this, though; a "thank you" from a stranger means more than all the money in the world. Next time you see one of the boys in uniform, realize that they have taken an oath to die if necessary to protect your right to show up on Sunday and remember the LORD, without having to worry about government harassment…and a thank you, will make their day.
Do not fool yourself into thing that the current war we are engaged in is a political one. The people we are fighting are the agents of Satan, who is alive and well in the middle-east. What you are seeing now is The Bible coming alive before your very eyes on Fox News. What they are doing to the captured troops over in the sandbox is right out of the pages of "Fox's Book of Martyrs". The enemy we fight right now is determined to eradicate all followers of Jesus Christ from the world (does that sound like something Satan would want? J). This fight will never be over while the world still stands, but we can take heart in knowing that our side wins. But we must be on our guard, because they have friends within our own borders—is it any surprise that those who wish to remove all vestiges of Christianity from our public life are sympathetic to those who wish to eradicate our way of life? This country is a great bastion of freedom in the world and the reason for that is that the only true freedom can be found in THE LORD. We are a Christian nation and the Radical Muslim Fundamentalists know this, which is why they attack us. Take a look at the imprint of freedom that America has had on the rest of the world and think to yourself…"Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Matthew 5:13.
Right now at this very moment there are those, one of whom is running for president, who seek to change the meaning of this day to one of anti-war protests. As disgusted as I am, personally, with these people, I have only one thing to say to them. "Thank you, thank you for exercising your right to say what you choose to say and believe what you choose to believe. I and the rest of my brothers and sisters in the armed services believe in these rights so much that we have pledged to die in their defense if necessary, and by exercising them you honor our sacrifice, whether you mean to or not. BUT I would add…regardless of your political affiliation or your personal beliefs, remember this! YOU WOULD NOT HAVE THESE RIGHTS IF IT WERE NOT FOR THE ARMED SERVICES. "Let no vandalism of avarice or neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten, as a people, the cost of free and undivided republic." -- General John Logan, General Order No. 11, 5 May 1868. Remember to honor the 1,210,737 troops, so far, who didn't come home, and thank the ones who do, they ask for nothing more, and they deserve nothing less.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)