Teddy Roosevelt on Immigration

We should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us he shall be treated on an exact equality with every one else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed or birth-place or origin.

But this is predicated upon the man's becoming in very fact an American and nothing but an American. If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. . . We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding-house; and we have room for but one soul loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people.

Death Panels...

Driving home yesterday, I was listening to Mark Levin, which is something I do fairly regularly.  The man is brilliant, and not only understands, but can explain the United States Constitution. 

A man called during the second hour and identified himself as a neurosurgeon.  It should be noted that Levin’s folks vetted the guy, and confirmed he was who he said he was.

This doctor went on to explain that he had recently attended a conference in Washington, DC, sponsored, in part, by the Congress of Neurological Surgeons.  During that conference, the doctors were provided information distributed by the Department of Health and Human Services discussing care for “units” (Obama-care speak for patients) over the age of 70 who had neurological issues such as a stroke or aneurism. 

These docs were informed that before a “unit” can be treated for stroke or aneurism, a group of “administrators”—not physicians—would have to make a determination as to whether or not the procedure would be worthwhile for the “unit”.  If a determination was made that intervention would not be beneficial, then the “unit” would be provided palliative care only—making the patient comfortable.  Translation: using narc drugs to relieve pain.  No surgery. 

So Sarah Palin was right—there will be “death panels” making determinations as to who receives treatment and who does not.

To hear the call, go to http://www.marklevinshow.com/sectional.asp?id=32930# and click on show for 11/22/2011, and listen beginning at 44:30

The website for the Congress of Neurological Surgeons is: http://www.cns.org/

They held their 61^st Annual Meeting of the Congress of Neurological Surgeons, from October 1^st to 6^th, 2011, in Washington, DC, just as the caller said.

Look out folks, the socialists are coming at us at full speed!

Mass Murder in Tucson

Unbelievable. In the wake of the contemptible murders in Tucson, there are those who would place the blame for the murders on anyone or anything but the killer himself. It takes me back to my college days, and the Sociology classes that purported to explain deviant human behavior by citing environmental reasons that contributed to such behavior. The professors cited family issues, work environments, and disrupted relationships. Today political discourse is cited as a contributing factor to the killer’s deviant behavior.

Of course, once I began my career, I quickly learned that all of those explanations were nonsense and they were quickly tossed out the window. I quickly learned that people who choose to do what they do make those choices themselves. They, and they alone, are responsible for their actions.

Yet, if one goes to a courthouse, anywhere in this country, and listens to arguments being made, one will walk away with an earful of reasons, excuses, explanations, and motivations for a defendant’s criminal behavior. What will be missing is the truth: the defendant did what he did because he chose to do so.

Our society today is such that people want to identify the trigger that causes others to engage in behavior that is not acceptable. The reason people do that is to make themselves feel better—about themselves and about others around them. They want to feel better about the society in which they live.

Today, members of Congress are talking about enacting laws that would restrict the language one can use in the midst of political discourse. The truth of the matter is that blaming the use of metaphors, and outlawing such language, will not prevent a person from going out and killing people. Such legislation will not stop a person who has purposed to take the lives of others. Such thinking is nonsensical. Think about it. We already have laws prohibiting murder, robbery, rape, and theft. Those laws do not stop those who decide to do what they want to do.

What about the husband who lies to his wife as to his whereabouts the night before? Would it be accurate to blame his wife for his lie, because the husband was worried his wife might yell at him?

In addition to those who want to introduce legislation limiting metaphors in the midst of political discourse, there are others who want to limit what can be said on the radio. Passing legislation in the midst of national hysteria would be grossly irresponsible. Not only that, but one of our most cherished rights, that of free speech, would be set on the proverbial slippery slope to flagrant restrictions on what any of us can say. Setting that ball in motion would be irrational.

The mass murderer in Tucson killed because he wanted to kill. On the last day, the responsibility for what he did will be his and his alone.