No more responses to the State of the Union Addresses, please!

Every time the President of the United States gives his State of the Union Address, a representative of the other dominant political party gives a response to it that is broadcast immediatly afterwards. If the President is a Democrat, the one responding will be a Republican, and vice versa.

I beleive this tradition must be brought to an end. While the President is required by the federal Constitution to give such an address, there is NO requirement that any member of an opposing party give any rebuttal that is given equal standing before the media or the American people. For this reason, this practice should be abolished. It perpetrates the two-party system that I consider to be the root of America’s excessive conservatism. Also, it encourages disrespect for the office of the Presidency.

Seriously, if the Democrats get to respond to a Republican President, and vice versa, why not allow responses from the Libertarians or the Greens as well? Why should only one opposing party have such an unfair advantage?

Thank you, Ed Darrel!

Ever since “Climategate” happened, the global warming denialists have had a field day crowing about how the man-made global warming hypothesis has been disproven due to the manipulation of data by a few scientists of one insititution regarding one field of study. Well, it wasn’t, because if that was the case, the denialists themselves would have to clean up their own damned house too, lest they be condemned for being no better!

We need to make the data regarding climate change more accurate and reject those concepts which are unsupported by the facts. And that’s a hell of a lot more important than winning some political or economic battle!

Slandering skeptics in general

Take a look at this nonsense that was published on I’m going to copy the libelous  words of the writer in red and then my direct responses in blue:

What ‘skeptics’ really believe about vaccines, medicine, consciousness and the universe

Sunday, January 24, 2010
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
Editor of

NaturalNews) In the world of medicine, “skeptics” claim to be the sole protectors of intellectual truth. Everyone who disagrees with them is just a quack, they insist. Briefly stated, “skeptics” are in favor of vaccines, mammograms, pharmaceuticals and chemotherapy. They are opponents of nutritional supplements, herbal medicine, chiropractic care, massage therapy, energy medicine, homeopathy, prayer and therapeutic touch.
But there’s much more that you need to know about “skeptics.” As you’ll see below, they themselves admit they have no consciousness and that there is no such thing as a soul, a spirit or a higher power. There is no life after death. In fact, there’s not much life in life when you’re a skeptic. Continue reading

The U S Supreme Court has murdered democracy in America!

By James Vicini  Thu Jan 21, 2:42 pm ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday, a landmark decision denounced by President Barack Obama for giving special interests more power.

“The Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics,” Obama said after the 5-4 ruling that divided the nation’s high court along conservative and liberal lines.

Continue reading

Humanitarian work by the U S Military

There are reports that the United States military is heavily involved in the relief efforts in Haiti. They are indeed true.

The U.S. Military in Haiti: A Compassionate Invasion

First U.S. military aid reaches quake-stricken Haiti

Since the United States is sending over 10,000 Military troops,0,4508316.story

The US Navy hospital ship the USS Comfort –

The US Air Force and the US Marines who are operating the airports –

US Troops providing security to Haiti –

And right-wingers boast about how important this is and thus how we must support the troops, no matter what. But they overlook three important issues that the leftists should remind them of:

  1. The only reason the American troops would be there at all is because they were ORDERED to go by the Obama Administration, the very people right-wingers have been bashing for a year!
  2. The soldiers and sailors taking part have no choice in the matter, just as they have no choice in going to Afghanistan, Iraq, or anywhere else to wage war. And charity that is the result of coercion is nothing to boast about. If I were forced by the city of Arlington, Texas under threat of going to jail to pick up litter off the city streets for several weeks, should I be praised for it?   Of course not! That’s why groups like the American Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders should get far more credit for what they do than the U S military.
  3. The military, regardless of what party rules the USA, is far more likely to take away our freedoms than to defend them. That’s because the military is itself an authoritarian system, not even remotely democratic. How can you fight for freedom if you are yourself not free, even if you “volunteer” for service, and thus get virtually enslaved over the next several years?  It’s a false claim and I won’t let it slide anymore. It is the PEOPLE themselves who defend our freedoms, by voting, running for office, going to court, and staying informed about the issues. We need to WATCH the military, not blindly support everything it does.

Will Venomfangx keep his word THIS time?

First, see this earlier entry:

That was then. This is now:

This was uploaded by dprjones today. See it and read the lengthy commentary he gave on it.

Shawn, I’ll be watching. This should be the VERY LAST TIME I expect to see you on YouTube! Goodbye!

Why some people commit suicide

There are many cases I’ve heard of in which a young person, raised in a good family, suddenly commits suicide. Usually, the parents and friends of the victim do not forsee the event and cannot explain it afterwards. But I think I have an explanation.

The person may still be a teenager raised in an extremely religious family who decides not to follow his or her parents’ faith. Once he decides to leave it, he realizes that he may lose his parents’ love and that is a burden no child should have to endure. This is especially bad if the child is raised in a close knit community where the religious extremism is strongly enforced by nearly everyone in it. The attempts to keep the child’s deconversion a secret while going through the motions of religious life must be a constant source of stress on the child.

Issues like homosexuality, racism, and other forms of prejudice may also be factors, but I naturally think religious bigotry is the most serious one of all.