It’s safe to say that Dave ‘Mudcat’ Saunders isn’t part of Barack Obama’s target audience. That’s why Sen. Obama does poorly with blue collar workers. This article highlights why Sen. Obama will have a challenge in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan and parts of Virginia.

“Sometimes they remind me of another bunch from Chicago, the Blues Brothers: they seem to think they’re on a mission from God.”

He is scathing about the reliance on registering new voters. “If that’s how he runs his campaign, he is going to lose. I’d rather bet on those who voted before. When he stands up and says that I’m gonna get 30 per cent more black voters, I’m gonna get 30 per cent more of my people to turn out for me, what is Joe Six-Pack thinking?”

Mudcat suggests that John McCain could win Michigan while holding Ohio and Florida. And, unless Mr Obama changes course, “he ain’t gonna win Virgina either”.

While the media swooned during Sen. Obama’s trip, I kept saying that European types weren’t who he needed to win over. I kept saying that Sen. Obama needed to start making a connection with blue collar workers. Frankly, I don’t think he’s capable of making that connection. (continue reading post »)

Last June, I posted this report about US hospitals and how many rely on fraud, preventable injuries and infections to patients to compensate for losses due to our government’s insistence that private hospitals treat and care for uninsured and underinsured citizens, indigents, and illegal aliens.

I learned how hospitals destroy good physicians and how predatory hospital chains like Tenet, Kaiser Permanente, and Adventist pressure local physicians already in successful private practice to join their groups. Those who refuse are targeted for sham peer review by corporate administrators and MDs who accuse non-compliant physicians as dangerous, incompetent, or disruptive. While a few tenacious victims expend their life savings to preserve their clinical privileges, others aren’t so lucky. Faced with the malicious and devastating loss of their medical careers, many take their own lives; which is what the health care corporations prefer anyway. To them, it’s only business – nothing personal.

I was never impressed by concerns about “the evils of big pharma.” I assumed that drugs are expensive because of the R & D that goes into finding cures for disease. Until now, I never imagined that some of those same drug companies would support junk science to fund researchers who would then produce expensive drugs that cause illness and disease around the world; or support junk legislation that would force healthy mothers and their children to take drugs that kill (under the threatened loss of child custody), and then use their subsequent sickness and mortality as evidence that a non-existent disease actually exists.

Such a scheme would have made Machiavelli weep with joy.

A New Investigation

I was not concerned about “big pharma” until my visit to Washington DC last May. I was there to meet with members of Semmelweis Society International (SSI). This is an impressive group of medical professionals – physicians, nurses, surgeons, medical and law school professors, and former CEOs of health care corporations. Because of my own experience with retaliation and my ongoing interest in US healthcare and sham peer review, I was interested to hear their stories directly from them.

I accompanied Gil Mileikowsky, MD, the OB/GYN who first explained sham peer to me in 2006. I spent five days with the members – all dedicated men and women who care deeply about the political corruption of healthcare and who risked their own careers to report fraud or abuse within the healthcare system. I recorded and edited their testimony, and posted this video after members testified before the US Congress and Senate. I was also honored to testify regarding my experience as an LAPD whistleblower.

Two recipients of the Semmelweis “Clean Hands Award” were reporter Celia Farber and molecular biologist Peter Duesberg, PhD. I had not heard of them before and knew nothing of their relationship to a little known controversy about HIV and AIDS.

After 28 years as an investigator, I consider myself pretty skeptical about things until I see proof. Most of my work today is pro bono, so I can pick and choose who I assist. Witnesses are expected to lie, but if I discover that a client has misrepresented facts or lied to me, I will usually drop the case. I’m fortunate to have the time, energy, and resources to help good people get out of undeservedly bad predicaments. Not all lawyers are like Mike Nifong or David Sotelo, and not all private investigators work like Anthony Pellicano. Without unbiased credibility, investigators are nothing more than a liability to their clients.

As various members interacted with Farber and Duesberg, I learned that the HIV/AIDS issue had not been entirely resolved. Like Dr. Mileikowsky’s story about sham peer review, this sounded equally unbelievable.

When I returned to Los Angeles, several former members began to question the wisdom of presenting the awards to Farber and Duesberg. In response, SSI President (and neurosurgeon) Roland Chalifoux issued this press release to explain the rationale of the awards. But when two dissenters persisted, Dr. Chalifoux asked me to conduct an independent investigation of Ms. Farber and Prof. Duesberg, citing my investigative experience, independence, and almost complete lack of knowledge about HIV and AIDS.

I accepted the case.

Although I didn’t expect it at first, I was warned that I should expect attacks from the “other side.” I wasn’t sure what they meant but kept it in the back of my mind. It didn’t take me long to find out for myself. (continue reading post »)

According to this transcript of this morning’s Glenn Beck Show, a Harvard vice president is speaking out against taxing the rich. Who would’ve thought you’d ever see that? The good news is that Glenn attempts to point out ‘the error’ in the VP’s thinking. Here’s the relevant portion of the transcript:

Well, now in Massachusetts they are looking to tax college endowments, university endowments that have more than a billion dollars in it. They say that by doing this, they can put more than a billion dollars a year into the state revenue. Legislators have asked state finance officials to study a plan that would impose a 2.5% annual assessment on colleges with endowments over a billion dollars. Now, the universities are very upset and here’s quite possibly, I want to frame this. I want to frame this. I want this on my wall of my office. When a nonprofit, when a nonprofit is making money, it’s mind-boggling. Why tax them?

Now, one guy who is head of the ways and means committee in Massachusetts says it’s mind-boggling that an entity wouldn’t be paying taxes that has $34 billion. How can you justify that when people can’t afford to live, how could you justify not taxing them? Ready? Here it is. This is what I want framed. Kevin Casey, Harvard’s associate vice president for government, community and public affairs said, “You can’t do that. You’d be taxing success.” No, it gets better. “And over time this would put us at a competitive disadvantage. It would hurt the state.” No, you’re kidding me. It’s like you’re taxing success by taxing people who are making money and who happen to be richer than others? You’re taxing success? Boy, Kevin, I never looked at it that way. You might be onto something there. “Over time this would put us at a real competitive disadvantage.” No, it would put Harvard at a disadvantage against those who didn’t get taxed? No. Who might pay a lower tax? It might put that company at a disadvantage? No, no, Kevin, you’re looking at it wrong. We’re just trying to help out Greater New Haven State Technical College. That’s what we’re trying to do. We’re only trying, it’s affirmative action for Greater New Haven State Technical College. We’re trying to help them. We’re trying to level the playing field. It’s only out of fairness, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. It might put them at a — no.

You can’t write stuff this bizarre. A Harvard vice president looking out for the…rich? That’s just too rich. I loved the line about “Kevin” not seeing this tax scheme as “affirmative action for Greater New Haven State Technical College.” When I read that line to King, he couldn’t stop laughing. The truth be told, I was laughing just as much.

There’s a couple of bigger points worth making in this, though. First, I don’t think it’s wise to tax endowment funds. Secondly, I think it’s worth keeping that quote handy when we want to make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Mr. Casey obviously thinks that it isn’t right to tax success when it involves his university. Conservatives should ask Mr. Casey if he thinks it’s unfair to tax success when it comes time for the university and fair to tax success if it’s an oil company.

Above all else, I’ll remember this moment because it isn’t likely to happen again in my lifetime.

Technorati Tags: Harvard, Endowments, Tax The Rich, Massachusetts, Affirmative Action

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

Earlier this morning, I posted something on the VFF event that was cancelled. This morning, Mark Podzimek, a Iraq war veteran, left a comment to that post. It’s a comment that’s worth its own post. It’s that stirring, forceful and appropriate. Here’s Mr. Podzimek’s comment:

I am glad to see that someone was covering this. Appearently the local news felt it was not important enough. I am a retired veteran, who has been to Iraq three seperate times for a total of twenty months.

The cancellation of the VFF event by the FLHS was one more in a string of Anti-War censorship activities. This is a painful example of where they would like this country to be heading.

I would like to take a group of these anti-war punks and pansies to Iraq, and show them what our military has done. We could leave out the IED’s and sniper fire we have to deal with. The trip would only be a week or so at the most, not the whole year away from the families we love so much. Just to show them the smiles on the faces of the free Iraqi’s, the schools and hospitals that we have reconstructed, stocked and opened.

Maybe one of these pansies would like to stand up and fight for their right to free speach they so dearly love.

I can only assume by not allowing the VFF into the FLHS, that all Anti-War propaganda, democratic bumper stickers and any other sign of free speach has been removed from the school.

Identify these punks and bring them out from under the rock where they live.

Thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion in a free and democratic forum!

Comment by Mark Podzimek • 26Mar2008

First, let’s join in thanking Mr. Podzimek and his family for the sacrifices that they’ve surely made. Secondly, let’s thank him for tirelessly working to make Iraq habitable again. That certainly is a man-sized job. We’re fortunate to have a military built of the Mark Podzimeks of the world. In fact, we couldn’t be more fortunate.

Before we get too far afield, let’s also commend him for calling out the weenies who threw a wrench into the VFF event but didn’t have the cajones to identify themselves. As I said earlier, they’re nothing but a bunch of cowards.

It’s time to rally around our troops. They’ve made the world a far better place in which to live. Finally, I hope that these pansy-ass protesters realize that their right to free speech didn’t happen because someone started a peaceful protest but rather that it was won at gunpoint.

Technorati Tags: Vets For Freedom, Military, Anti-war Activists, Iraq, First Amendment, Military Veterans

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

The message that the anti-war protesters sent in getting the Vets for Freedom event canceled at Forest Lake High School was that an event with military vets isn’t to be tolerated. They aren’t the only people that deserve criticism. I’d say that FLHS principal Steve Massey also deserves criticism heaped on him for caving to political pressure from a fringe liberal blog.

Despite the planned event getting canceled, Vets for Freedom did hold an event, stopping at the American Legion Post 225 in Forest Lake. Here’s a brief recap from the Forest Lake Times:

After threats of an anti-war protest on Monday forced Forest Lake High School to cancel a visit by the Vets for Freedom national heroes tour, the group successfully made the visit to Forest Lake. On Tuesday, the Vets for Freedom bus rolled into the parking lot at American Legion Post 225 which was selected as alternate site for the tour.

Pete Hegseth is the executive director of the organization and a 1999 Forest Lake High School graduate who served with the Army in Iraq. Hegseth said on Tuesday he was disappointed with the school decision to cancel the event as it was an opportunity for students to hear stories from military personnel who have served their country. Hegseth said the high school program would not have taken a position on the Iraq War but would have conveyed a message to students about the importance of patriotism and military service to country.

I’ve talked briefly with Mr. Hegseth before Gen. Petraeus’ testimony last fall. He honorably served his nation in Iraq, fighting to give Iraqis the same basic freedoms we take for granted here. Instead of allowing VFF to give a legitimate presentation about military life, Principal Massey instead chose censorship over enlightenment. (continue reading post »)

Once upon a time, a politician congratulating another on winning the Nobel Peace Prize would’ve been seen as an automatic gesture. In this instance, Harry Reid’s congratulating Al Gore is a source of ridicule:

“I congratulate my former Senate colleague Al Gore on receiving the world’s greatest honor, the Nobel Peace Prize, for his work on the planet’s greatest environmental issue. We have all benefited from his vision and unique ability to focus the world’s attention on the causes and consequences of global warming, and we are proud that he now has earned this well-deserved worldwide recognition. Al Gore’s tireless advocacy continues to inspire me and many other Democrats to work toward curbing our reliance on foreign oil, increasing our energy independence and reduce global warming emissions.”

The Carpetbagger Report laments conservatives’ reaction to Gore’s winning this laughable award:

I saw the first few minutes of Fox News Sunday yesterday, and was struck by how angry the conservative Republicans were about Al Gore winning the Nobel Peace Prize. These guys don’t just ignore the scientific evidence, they lash out wildly at Gore, the Nobel committee, the scientists, everyone who dares to think differently than they do.

Bill Kristol disparaged Gore and the Nobel prize itself, saying “it’s a prize given by bloviators to a bloviator.” Charles Krauthammer insisted the award goes to “people whose politics are either anti-American or anti-Bush, and that’s why [Gore] won it.”

These pundits were obviously bitter and incensed, much the same way National Review’s Iain Murray was late last week, when he suggested Gore share his award with Osama bin Laden, “who implicitly endorsed Gore’s stance” in a September video harangue. (Apparently, to accept global warming is to embrace a terrorist philosophy.)

It’s led Paul Krugman to ask a good question: “What is it about Mr. Gore that drives right-wingers insane?”

Partly it’s a reaction to what happened in 2000, when the American people chose Mr. Gore but his opponent somehow ended up in the White House. Both the personality cult the right tried to build around President Bush and the often hysterical denigration of Mr. Gore were, I believe, largely motivated by the desire to expunge the stain of illegitimacy from the Bush administration. (continue reading post »)

Early this morning, a friend forwarded an email to me. The contents of the forwarded email are repulsive at minimum. Disgusting and disturbing would both be accurate, though they’d both be understatement. Frankly, the man who wrote this email needs a timeout to settle down. Here’s the content of the forwarded email:

Absolutely unbelievable. Jim Lehrer introduced the heroes of the Iraqi war: those men and women who were killed in Bush’s evil war. It is indeed the war of this evil man and not the war of the people of our country or those in the national guard units who were forced to give up their jobs to do the bidding of the “devil” and psychopath GW. Such nonsense on the part of Lehrer to try to create something positive about our sons and daughters and loved ones being killed in this conflagration orchestrated by the “idiot” in the White House. We absolutely must impeach this most base human person and an international tribunal should be assembled to try him for high crimes and misdemeanors and for using torture (ignoring the Geneva Accords) on the captured victims of the war. Is this America???? No, this is Nazi Germany circa 1941. GW can be crowned as the neo-spirit of Adolph Hitler.

Before I disclose the person’s name that wrote this email, let me first say that this is the type of blind hatred that should scare every thinking individual in America, regardless of political party.

I can’t say that the collection of irrational and unsubstantiated statements is unusual for the most extreme elements of the far left. I wish I could. That isn’t what’s most disturbing, though.

First, the man’s name is Iver Bogen. As is my habit, I didn’t just leave it at that. I googled Iver’s name. Here’s what I found:

Iver Bogen is a professor emeritus in the Psychology Department at the University of Minnesota-Duluth. Here’s one of Dictionary.com’s definitions for psychology:

the science of the mind or of mental states and processes.

It’s bad enough, though not particularly unusual, to find out that he’s a college professor. It’s appalling to think that he’s supposed to teach students how to think things through and to analyze thought patterns. This man seems incapable of rational thought. In fact, I defy anyone to pick out a rational sentence in Prof. Bogen’s email.

Frankly, if not for the seriousness of his allegations, I couldn’t take this person seriously. Calling President Bush the modern incarnation of Hitler is irrational at best. What’s worse is that he doesn’t even offer any verifiable facts to substantiate his beliefs.

At least we don’t have to worry if he could define Bush Derangement Syndrome. Instead, he’s the embodiment of BDS.

Technorati Tags: Iver Bogen, UMD, Professor, Psychology, Bush Derangement Syndrome, President Bush, Hitler

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

In what’s shaping up to be smackdown matchup, Fred Thompson has ridiculed Dennis Kucinich in this NRO op-ed. Suffice it to say that people will instantly recognize Mr. Thompson as the heavyweight and Rep. Kucinich as the fly about to be swatted across the political universe.

I had planned on talking a bit today about Venezuela. The president there doesn’t like the way his media is covering him, so he’s doing away with the free press. He’s established rules on what he thinks is fair, and he’s denying licenses to television and radio stations that don’t play by government rules.

I can’t criticize him now, though. After all, how would it seem for me to complain about another country, when our own congressional leadership is trying to put the same sort of rules in place here? To do so, they’re pulling the Fairness Doctrine out of the dustbin of history.

The Fairness Doctrine is an artifact from the days when there were only a handful of television channels and radio stations on our dials. Then, there might have been something to the fear that somebody might get control of all the media outlets in an area, so equal time rules were put in place.

Dennis Kucinich is leading the fight for the ‘new and improved’ Fairness Doctrine. Last year, Tom Harkin led the ‘fight’ for it. Suffice it to say that it’s always been a bad idea but that it’s utterly useless now.

Notice, though, the way in which Sen. Thompson constructs his arguments. Frankly, it’s a thing of beauty. If you haven’t noticed, Sen. Thompson is approaching this in a very Reaganesque way. He’s laying out his positions on a wide variety of issues; he’s mixing in Constitutional concerns from time to time, a not-so-subtle reminder of how important putting strict constructionist judges is. Most importantly, his appeal is logical & measured. Put differently, it’s pitch perfect. (continue reading post »)

The death toll at Virginia Tech stands at 32 blameless souls. The gunman, Seung-Hui Cho, has a lot of innocent blood on his hands. But his are not the only bloody hands.

Already, the pundits are talking about America’s gun culture and calling for tighter control on firearms. The call will only increase as politicians and the media join in the call.

There is irony here.

The irony is that the very people who claim to want to prevent such a future tragedy are in no small part responsible for it. These are the people who equate helplessness with security. These are the people who believe that self-defense on your part somehow endangers them.

These are the people responsible for having Virginia Tech declared a “gun-free zone.”

Well, they got their way and 32 people who might be alive today are dead because of their irrational beliefs.

In 2005, campus police disarmed a student who had a concealed carry permit. Virginia Tech Spokesman Larry Hincker cheered the college’s policy of banning all firearms, including those who had valid concealed carry permits.

“I think it’s fair to say that we believe guns don’t belong in the classroom.” Hincker pontificated. “In an academic environment, we believe you should be free from fear.”

I doubt the dead thank him.

Earlier this year, an attempt was made to correct this injustice. Lawmaker Todd Gilbert introduced HB 1572 into the state legislature. The bill was specifically designed to give college students and employees the right to carry handguns on campus. Liberal forces would not even let it get out of subcommittee, much less on the floor for open debate and a vote. (continue reading post »)

BLACKSBURG, VA – Seventy-five guns sit in a weapons storage facility at the Virginia Tech police station. The guns are secured inside storage compartments in a locked room slightly larger than a walk-in closet. University policy requires students and employees, other than police, to check their guns there. If they want to take them off campus, they have to sign them out, and a university police officer must retrieve them. Regardless of whatever permits they may have, those students and employees are not allowed to possess guns on campus.

In what already is the nation’s worst campus shooting, a man identified as a young American male killed at least 32 people and wounded 15 at Virginia Tech today.

Jan 26, 2006

The issue of guns on campus received attention at Virginia Tech in 2005 when a student was disciplined for bringing a handgun to class, despite having a concealed handgun permit.

The intent of Virginia HB 1572 was to allow students with concealed weapons permits to be able to carry their gun with them on campus just like they can anywhere else in the state. But officials at colleges throughout the state argued that school isn’t just another place, and guns are anathema to a learning environment that should be free of fear or intimidation.

“We do believe (HB 1572) has grave implications,” he said. “Why would the General Assembly wish to legislate to make campuses unsafe (with guns)?”

April 16, 2007

Junior David Jenkins told Fox News he heard screaming in his dorm inside West Ambler Johnston residence hall Monday morning, but didn’t know what it was.

“From what I heard, he chained up some of the doors so people couldn’t get in and he basically was just going to every classroom trying to get in, and just started shooting inside classrooms,” Jenkins said.

Virginia Tech President Charles Steger said, “Today the university was struck with a tragedy that we consider of monumental proportions. The university is shocked and horrified that this would befall our campus. I cannot begin to convey my own personal sense of loss over this senseless of such an incomprehensible and heinous act.”

It wasn’t clear whether President Steger was referring to the senseless, incomprehensible, or heinous acts of the gunman who slaughtered and maimed dozens of students or those, including himself, who provided the environment for gunman to do so. Had armed students been in those classrooms, the gunman would have been taken down much earlier and America would be hailing the heroes who stopped him.

It isn’t the gangs, criminals, or deranged gunmen we must fear, but rather the Democrats who accommodate such individuals. And I’m not sure what the big deal is anyway: Gun control policies result in inner-city mayhem hundreds of times each day, so why should we cry about students who attend universities that invite this terror?

Students should get extra credit for surviving this lesson on our Second Amendment, and the forces that eroded it.

Today, a lone gunman killed more than 30 young men and women. The wrath of millions of Americans should be directed upon the political party, legislature, and university administrators that made it possible. Hundreds more will die tomorrow at the hands of armed gunmen who prey on disarmed Americans.