Thursday, March 22, 2007

Playing Politics

Democrats are being hypocritical, as usual, by playing politics in the most recent of their never-ending "scandals" they claim the Bush Administration has being perpetrating.

I'm not sure I believe that all 8 of the Federal prosecutors were fired for "just cause" due to performance... but for Democrats (and their liberally biased bretheren, the media) to portray the "Bushies" as being the only ones to have fired prosecutors for "political" reasons.

First off, let's define politics so that we may understand what is, and isn't "political".

pol·i·tics [ póll i tiks ] noun
Definition: activities associated with government: the theory and practice of government, especially the activities associated with governing, with obtaining legislative or executive power, or with forming and running organizations connected with government.

So, by the very definition... ANY reason for firing the prosecutors would qualify as "political".

Now that we have that out of the way...

Some idiots (ie: Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, & the Carpetbagger Report - just to name a few) Want to either "spin" or flat out dent the FACT that Impeached President Bill Clinton did a very similar move when he was in the Oval Office. Slick Willy disguised his move by firing all 93 of the Federal Prosecutors to cover up the fact that he was replacing a Republican with one of his cronies in the very important jurisdiction of Little Rock, Arkansas.

Why was the an "important" jurisdiction & the move so improper?

It's because there was the little matter of the Whitewater scandal that was being investigated by this jurisdiction. By replacing the prosecutor with someone who was not only friendly to Clinton - but his friend - it guaranteed that no charges would ever be put against Bill or Hillary Clinton for their wrongdoing in the Whitewater fraud scam.

That was FAR WORSE than any of the firings that have recently happened!

The Impeached President put a cronie in the exact position that would keep him & his wife from being held accountable for their crimes.

While firing the prosecutor who successfully prosecuted "Duke" Cunningham smells of retribution for doing her job... it isn't as bad as abusing the Office of the President to assure that you don't get held accountable for commiting crimes.

One of the firings seems to be justifiable, from what I have seen of the facts so far.

If a prosecutor is told about potential voter fraud being perpetrated by a candidate (regardless of political party) and that prosecutor chooses NOT to investigate the alleged crimes as soon as he learns of the potential criminal behavior... that prosecutor is willfully avoiding performing the duties he was hired to do - and he should be fired immediately. It's not proper to wait until after the election to investigate (let alone decide whether to prosecute) and anyone who fails to do their duty of the office they hold deserves to be removed from that position.

Democrats are posturing by handing down subpoenas to certain White House staff members. They know that NOTHING criminal happened in the firing of these 8 prosecutors. What these Democrats hope to achieve by getting people under oath & on the record is to "Scooter Libby" Karl Rove. They hope to get him in a position where he is caught lying under oath so that he can be prosecuted for perjury. If they can get this to happen, then it can be a way to finally get Karl Rove removed from his position of influence & power within the Bush Administratation.

Democrats fear Karl Rove because he is far more intelligent than anyone they have on their side. Karl Rove gets results & they want to negate this advantage the Republicans have over them.

That's it, plain & simple.

The bottom line is that the Democrats want Karl Rove gone so that they can have an advantage in the next election cycle.

And THAT is playing politics... but the hypocritical Democrats won't ever admit the ulterior motive behind this cowardly move of the subpoena.


Thursday, March 15, 2007

H.P.V. vaccine does not equal an endorsement for sex!!!

It should be a crime for people to impose their morals upon others... especially if by doing so it could result in someone having to suffer (and possibly die a painful death) from something that could have been avoided in the first place.

I am sickened by the actions of certain people in Texas who are trying to prevent Governor Rick Perry's H.P.V. vaccine mandate from going in effect.

I have heard people spew out "excuses" (not reasons that are valid) like vomit, that are a type of scare tactic that will end up putting thousands of young women in danger if these people succeed.

Their top talking point would make me laugh, if it wasn't such a serious subject.

To say that giving these young ladies the vaccine is an endorsement to have sex is just ridiculous! These two things have nothing in common. By that reasoning, a person could equally say that allowing young girls to wear bikini swimwear is an endorsement for sex - because we all know that when young boys see cute girls half naked... they immediately must have sex!!!

A vaccine MUST be taken before the person would coem into a situation that might allow the disease to happen. You don't get a flu shot after you get the flu, why would you want the young girls to wait until after they are in a position to have already had sex?

The vaccine is safe... it's endorsed by many agencies, both govermental & civilian.

And the reason for the mandate was not to circumvent the authority of the parents... it was so that the medical insurance companies couldn't deny paying for the vaccine by reason of it being "elective" and not necessary. The opponents of this mandate know full well that there is a simple process to "opt out" if a child's parents don't want their daughter to have the vaccine. And it makes no sense that people should be afraid that their name would be collected on some list that would be used as a way to persecute any parent who chooses to opt out of the program. That's a sign of severe paranoia for these people to jump to that conclusion when no evidence supports that claim.

I'm sure that any young girl being vaccinated would be given information about what the vaccine does & does not protect, and that the vaccine is not protection against other S.T.D.s or even pregnancy. To think that a person would only receive a shot and be sent on her way without being told anything is another sign of how unrealistic the thinking of the opposition really is. To do that would be negligent & almost assure that the child would fall victim to other situations that any reasonable person would surely also want the child to avoid.

And if these people opposed to the vaccine mandate think their young girls aren't having to deal with the possibility of having sex so young... then they are like an ostritch with its head buried in the sand. Being in denial of such potential activity is like playing Russian Roulette with 5 bullets in the 6-shooter.

I have a 14 year old son, and I have already spoken to him about the dangers of having sex so young. I'd much rather he have the knowledge of what could happen than to not speak of such things & find out afterward he did something out of ignorance & now much suffer the consequences. I have raised my son a certain way, & I trust him to make the right choices in any situation he may face. If he doesn't do as I would hope he would, then I will be disappointed. BUT... I'd rather be a disappointed parent than one who has to deal with the consequences of what has happened because my child didn't have the information/tools that could have prevented an unfortunate situation.

Never is "better safe than sorry" the most sensible plan of action to follow!!

These are the FACTS:

H.P.V. is the known cause of certain types of cervical cancer.

About 6.2 million people get H.P.V. each year in the U.S.

The American Cancer Society estimates that over 9700 women will be diagnosed with cervical cancer (and about 3700 women will die from it) this year.

The vaccine is safe for 11 & 12 year olds... even as young as 9 year olds.

The vaccine has been proven to be almost 100% effective against the 4 types of cancer it is designed to protect against.

The best & most sensible way to prevent this from happening is to have the vaccine given to girls before they become exposed to the potential of H.P.V.

It is my opinion that anyone who actively prevents this vaccine from being made available to as many girls as possible is responsible for anyone who gets H.P.V. - especially if it could have been prevented if not for the actions of these people opposed to the vaccine being used.

Cervical cancer is a painful way to suffer & die... and unnecessary when you consider we have the ability to prevent it from happening to many of the people who might get it.

How could a person live with the guilt of knowing they did something that caused women to suffer & die a horrible death - just because they wanted to push their morality on others??? I know I couldn't look in the mirror if I helped prevent girls from receiving a vaccine that could have prevented them from getting certain types of cervical cancer.

How about you?

Check out this link to a website with information about H.P.V., cervical cancer, & the vaccine before you let even one more young girl become a victim to this preventable condition.

Labels: , , , , , ,