Monday, October 12, 2015

The Infantilization Of California

Yes, the state of California thinks that we are so stupid that they are making pharmacists have a conversation with you whenever you get any new medications.
I found this out the hard way yesterday.
On our way home from church, we took a side trip to our pharmacy to pick up a couple of nose sprays and a anti-biotic. We are going through the drive-thru and Mrs. RVFTLC tells the nice lady that there are 3 prescriptions for yours truly. The nice lady comes back with the medicine and proceeds to tell us that because they are new prescriptions, I have to have the pharmacist give me a consultation. But she was the only one available. Too bad she was at lunch. I was told I could wait a half hour or come back. I chose to come back and I did so today.
So I went to pick up the prescriptions, of which one of the nose sprays was not approved, a tale for another time. I also had additional prescriptions that needed to be filled. The nice gentleman was going to simply give me all my medicine without the consultation that I was told had to be done. So I proceeded to ask for the consultation. The nice pharmacist did what she was supposed to do and told me about each medication.
I wasted her time to make a point.
Whether it is an old medicine or a new medicine, all drug stores provide the reasons one's doctor gave you the medication. The dosage and when to take the medicine. All the possible side effects. In other words, whatever the pharmacist told me, I could easily read on my own.
The reason is not store policy but a California state law that makes an often overworked pharmacist have to take time to do something the consumer should do on their own.
It is why I believe our state government has infantilized us California citizens.
When my doctor prescribed the said medicine, he told me why and how often to take it. His nurse had already asked if I was allergic to medication, to which I said no. The doctor looked over the medicine information that I provided before making the prescription choices. Again, all important information is provided on stickers on the medication bottle and usually two sheets of often scary information. Not unlike the many medicine commercials one sees on television commercials.
Now, the state has added a layer of needless time-wasting when if any patient has a question or questions about new medicine they can always ask.
What is this to help the timid people that can't ask a question? Is this to do a CYA* for pharmacists?
Folks, it is a waste of time for all concerned.
I don't need to be told I can not get my medicine until I have a state-mandated consult with the pharmacist who is taking a needed lunch break. And when I come back the next day another pharmacy tech is just going to hand me all my medication without a consult.
How much more do our over paid, under worked state legislators need to get into our grills? How much more do they need to treat the populace like dweebs and morons.
Sure this is one thing. But as more and more of this bull crap keeps coming from our seers in Sacramento, it adds up.
We need to stop ignoring or saying something like we can't fight these ridiculous pieces of legislation. We need to take our lives back and this is a place to start.
I for one am writing my California state assemblyman and state senator to revisit this bad law and repeal it. And to start treating adults as such and stop even thinking of such crap. If you value being treated like an adult and live in California, you will do the same thing.
We have to stop the continuing infantilization of the California citizenry and here is a place to start.

*CYA-Cover Your A*s

Thursday, October 08, 2015


This morning Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield, CA) abruptly ended his quest to become speaker of the house of representatives in a closed-door meeting with the Republican house caucus.
The linked story talks about the fact that support for Rep. McCarthy crumbled after his remarks regarding the formation of the select committee on the events of Benghazi and now Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's knowledge of events during her tenure as secretary of state.
But buried in the link is what I believe to be the real reason.
No, it is not pressure from grassroots conservatives as much as this letter from Rep. Walter Jones (R-N.C.) wanting to properly vet potential candidates for speaker for skeletons in their closet from the time of being in congress.
How refreshing.
Could it be true? Something that I have reported on here which I have read here. That in fact, Rep. McCarthy is indeed having an affair with a fellow member of the house, Rep Renee Elmers (R-N.C.). Who by coinkidink is from the same state as the devout Roman Catholic, Rep. Jones.
The official line from Rep. McCarthy that it is time for a new face to be in the top leadership position. And he is completely correct.
The troika of current speaker, John A. Boehner (R-Oh.), Rep. McCarthy and Steve Scalise (R-La.) have taken ineptitude to a high level. And have been absolutely terrible at communicating simple messages and or themes. All we have to do is look to Rep. McCarthy and his comments on the Benghazi committee as proof of ineptitude.
Bu the bottom line is the inability to communicate an effective conservative alternative to the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama. He is running roughshod over the majority party in the congress. And even with basically 50/50 support at best and for the most part running underwater in poll after poll, at least the Dear Leader, President Obama, looks like he is doing something.
Sorry but it is not enough that excuses are made that oh, the president will just veto anything that should miraculously come out of congress that he does not like. It puts him on record that he has danced around with rhetorical flourishes. It's called being the opposition party.
I hope that this latest development makes this man, Jim Jordan, think about getting into the race for speaker. I believe that he, not current leadership, can effectively unite all forces in the house and become an effective opposition to the Dear Leader, President Obama, in the waning days of his second and final term.
Now that Rep. McCarthy is out, is the question to ask who else is out of the running or who is in the running?

Tuesday, October 06, 2015

Is This Good Stewardship?!

I will just say that this is a perplexing tale of politics and religion that make me as the headline question.
According to this article, the former Florida governor and GOP presidential candidate, John Ellis Jeb! Bush, charged St. Martin's Episcopal church $50,000 for a speech a year ago September and it was on  . . .stewardship.
This is what a church does to encourage people to give money and or more money?!
Let me write this.
If my church spent that kind of money to encourage people to give more money to pay for the functions of the church and it's outreach ministries, we would probably recall our vestry, the governing board, and ask for our rector and or priest-in-charge to be removed.
You have to understand that St. Martin's Episcopal Church, Houston, is the largest and one of the wealthiest churches in The Episcopal Church. It has some of the cream of the crop of the Houston establishment as members including former President George H. W. Bush and his wife, Barbara. And Mr. Bush's top long-time crony, James A. Baker. That is just the political establishment. You get the picture that this is high-end folks.
There is no doubt in my mind that this church could have found something more worthy than lining the pockets of the then future Republican presidential candidate.
I do agree that it takes money to make money, but giving one's time, talent and or money for one's church is not the same thing.
People will do the above if they believe in what the church has done, is doing and will be doing in the future. Yes, there needs to be encouragement, but to spend $50,000 to encourage people to give more to a church seems strange. And to giving to a son of a particular parish as is Jeb! Bush just has cheese written all over it.
I have been to many a stewardship dinner in my 23+ years at my Episcopal church and the most exciting, if one can say that, was held at a private country club. Probably paid for by the member and used as a tax write off as a charitable contribution. Not a give me $50,000 and I might give some of it back.
The Episcopal Church is not a "tithing" church in the sense that everyone is expected to give a tenth of their income, based on the Holy Bible, but more what they can and when they can not, use one's time and or talent in such a way that can be beneficial to the particular parish. Many a communicant/congregant do give a tenth of their salary to the church. Some more, some less and some can't give money at all.
The best way of encouragement I have found are the personal stories of those that have been touched in a positive way by the church's ministries. It is knowing that which has made us dig deep to pledge more than we might have in the past.
But to be honest, Mrs. RVFTLC and I would really have a hard time with a famous person speaking at a stewardship dinner and making off with a speaking fee as if this was just another notch of speaking fees. Which I think in any other setting is cool. If any group and or organization wants to pay a fixed fee for any famous person to speak, mazeltov.
But the cheese factor in which Jeb! Bush charges a HIGHER speaking fee from a church is, well disgusting.
That, to me, is not good stewardship. Even if the church can afford it.
This is but one more reason I do not find Jeb! Bush an attractive candidate for president.

H/T:  Jeff Bradshaw.

Friday, October 02, 2015

The Politics Of Mass Murders

It is not very often that you will read it on this blog, but for once Donald J. Trump is right about something.
And surprisingly, the Dear Leader, President Obama, is wrong.
Yesterday another mass murder took place and this time it was at a community college in Southwestern Oregon that took the lives of 10 people and injured another seven. It was an act of madness as is seemingly all of these mass killings have been. They always are.
My friend and fellow blogger, Mr. Social Extinction, juxtaposed the reaction of the current GOP front-runner for president, the Donald, and that of the Dear Leader, President Obama.
It appears that, of course, the Donald is cold and almost callous when you just read what is below:

"You're going to have these things happen and it's a horrible thing to behold, horrible. It's not politically correct to say that, but you're going to have that will be for the next million years, there's going to be difficulty and people are going to slip through the cracks. what are you going to do, institutionalize everybody?"

Good question since in almost all cases there is some kind of mental issue involved. And we will not completely know because this gunman, Chris Harper Mercer, was killed by police that arrived on the scene of the carnage. Of course there are many accounts on Mr. Mercer's life, but one thing is clear that there was some kind of issue. Mr. Mercer graduated from the Switzer Learning Center in 2010. It is a high school that specializes in youths with learning disabilities. It is a broad term, learning disabilities. But more will come out, that is certain. And to note, Mr. Mercer had multiple weapons that, at this writing, he passed all the background checks and appeared to purchase legally.
Which leads to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
We know that he is pissed off because the gloves came off in a news conference yesterday.
An aside.
Why do we have to hear from any president on such a situation before everything is known? Whoever the next president is, I sure as hell do not want hear that president go on the air to pontificate without ascertaining all the facts. Period.
Now back to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Why now, instead of just offering prayers and condolences, the Dear Leader, President Obama, said that we should just out and out politicize these events until there is "sensible" gun control laws.
Of course.
And now the Dear Leader, President Obama, claims that there is something "routine" about these reports. No, in fact these are still isolated incidents. That is why it is still big news.
But then the Dear Leader, President Obama, outright lied when he claimed that states and or localities that have strict gun laws have less violent crime. May I remind the president that his hometown of Chicago has some of the strictest gun restrictions and the highest murder, murder, rate at the hands of guns than many states with such laws as open-carry. And let me throw in a few cities like Baltimore, Detroit, and now even Los Angeles that the murder rate at the hands of a gun are up drastically.
So here is what our Dear Leader, President Obama, had to say about this matter:

"Somehow this has become routine. The reporting is routine, my response here at this podium ends up being routine. And what becomes routine is the response those who oppose any sort of gun control legislation."

Let me remind the readers here that the Dear Leader, President Obama, and the Democrats controlled the legislative (congress) and executive branches for the first two years of his presidency. And the senate was a veto-proof one at that. Hell, he could have done what he cited yesterday, the massive gun confiscation done in Australia after a mass shooting in 1996. And it was done under a conservative government there. Of course it would have been ruled unconstitutional under that pesky second amendment to the United States constitution. It reads in it's entirety:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 

I highlight people because it means law abiding citizens that could be called up in the case of war and or insurrection.
The American left hates this and intentionally blurs the plain meaning every chance that it gets. And here it is once again.
While the Donald often makes little if any sense and has a sketchy record on gun control, his statement made perfect sense. All the laws other than outright confiscation of all firearms might have stopped this. But reality is that it probably would not have done a thing.
Thus, mass murders will constantly be a source of great division for many Americans. But it would behoove Americans to have a sane, tempered approach rather than a knee-jerk We can solve the problem if only.

Thursday, October 01, 2015

Is The American Left Intentionally Diminishing Our Role As The Leader Of The Free World?

Of course they are.
Think about this for just a moment.
The Middle East is about to become a vassal state of Russia/Syria/Iran on one side and Sunni/The Islamic State/Israel on another. What is the current administration's standing in all of this? Essentially letting Russia and Vladamir Putin prop up the Bashar al-Assad regime of terror, by extension allowing Iran to join in the fun and their vassal state within a state, Hezbollah (the state within the "borders" of Lebanon) trolling for enemies to their Shia branch of Islam.
And a seemingly unholy alliance of Israel, Egypt, Jordan, and yes, Saudi Arabia and even more perplexing but understandable, the Islamic state, all Sunni's except for Israel, obviously.
The result of this war has been a mass exodus of people from the region to Europe, well pretty much everywhere that will in one way or another take them.
This is just one way America is weakened in the world.
But is this all by design?
The reason I believe that it is the case is simple.
Defense spending, the most important and only constitutionally mandated duty of the federal government, takes a huge bulk of spending that the left would like to see spread out in other ways. The only way to cut defense spending is to curb our role in the world. Once that is done then more of the defense budget can be cut and funnelled into favored left-wing programs.
Do you remember growing up seeing something that went like this:

It will be a great day when the air force has to hold a bake sale to buy a bomber.

That was because of schools having to hold fundraisers for various things. In a perfect world, I could agree with that. But unlike the lefties that still today parade that around, I live in the real world. A world in which there are nations and radical ideologies that would love to destroy our way of life. Radical Islam does not care if we hold a bake sale for a bomber or spend more money on education. They have their own, perverse, ideas about education. Iran looks to us as some Great Satan. We have to be put in our place. And bye-bye to Israel.
But why? Why would we either outsource and or abdicate our role in the world?
Because at the end of the day, to complete the Europeanization of the United States, the defense forces, again the only constitutionally mandated entity called for in the constitution, must be gutted. And that includes the State department and the C. I. A  as well. Once all of that is done, the left will make a case to expand the welfare state beyond the wildest dreams of even 20 years ago.
So yes, the American left, led by the Dear Leader, President Obama himself, is trying desperately to lower our standing and prestige around the world. There is even a segment of the isolationist right that would welcome this, but for different reasons.
Once that is done, then the Great Society can ramp up in earnest.
The fact is that, like it or not, the United States is the only superpower in the world that is a responsible one. The other actors such as Red China and Russia  could go half-cocked over something most would find innocuous. Without a strong United States at home and abroad, can you imagine what would happen if things continue to deteriorate in such places as the Middle East?
It is all the more reason that the Republicans need to nominate someone who has a clue on how a responsible superpower is supposed to act.
Because we all know the Democrats and the left-wing will not allow an actual candidate that believes in what we call American Exceptionalism.
As long as the left continues to diminish our role around the world, it becomes clear that they do not care. And that is a tragedy for the United States.

Tuesday, September 29, 2015

Pat Sajak For California Governor?

With the California governor, Jerry Moonbeam Brown, being term-limited out of office in 2018, no time like now to begin to see a replacement for the four-term left-wing governor.
So why not Pat Sajak?!

Pat Sajak?!
Isn't he the dude that hosts the Wheel Of Fortune game show?
And what, pray tel, makes him worthy of consideration for California governor? Haven't we already had an actor screw up the state once?
Normally I would be in agreement.
But Mr. Sajak is NOT Benedict Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Well, Mr. Sajak is a Republican, right?
Yes, he is.
So he must be a squish, right? Just like Benedict Arnold, right?
In reading this I do not think so in the least.
Mr. Sajak is a solid conservative.
One huge difference is that Mr. Sajak is, to be blunt, a Globaloney Warming/Climate change denier. And while not a certified meteorologist, Mr. Sajak was a weather reporter for KNBC channel 4 in Los Angeles before he made it big in Wheel Of Fortune land. Along the way one has to assume he learned a thing or two about weather. And where it all fits in on the great ecological debate of this era.
Mr. Sajak is not shy about the fact he believes in what we now call American Exceptionalism. Here is from the profile article:

"The Wright Brothers, what was it, 1903, they got about 20 feet in the air and went about 180 feet. Sixty-six years later we put a man on the moon and brought him back. Oh, and in the meantime we fought two world wars and fought a great depression."

A very short, succinct history of the United States in the 20th century. I would add that, under Ronald Reagan, the United States defeated and literally ended expansionist Soviet communism.
Mr. Sajak is a college dropout but serves on the board of Hillsdale College. And a vice-chairman, no less.
Unlike Benedict Arnold, who ran for California governor on a lark, I would expect Mr. Sajak to think about it with seriousness. He is 68 years old and a very young looking one at that. He would be about 70 years old if he were to take the challenge. And he is not annoying about his politics. It rarely, if ever, shows up on Wheel Of Fortune. One of the extreme times it did it was not so political as it was somewhat endearing. Mr. Sajak was talking to a contestant and he said to the contestant "You're engaged - some woman agreed to marry you!" the man told Mr. Sajak, "Some gentleman." to which Mr. Sajak retorted in an innocuous way, "Oh, I'm sorry - wrong again. I had a 50-50 shot." Of course the gay crusaders noticed it during the summer reruns and gave Mr. Sajak a hard time. When Mr. Sajak is not hosting a television gold mine, he is doing some writing over at the Ricochet conservative website.
Mr. Sajak is a lot like Ronald Reagan in that he does not take himself seriously but the ideas matter to him.
But in a clearly moribund California Republican party, he very well could be a shot in the arm in making the party truly competitive statewide.
While he is not thinking about it now, Mr. Sajak has nothing to prove in Wheel Of Fortune land. It is more successful than he ever imagined. Mr. Sajak literally saved the show. He is a wealthy man.
Maybe it will be time for Mr. Sajak to save California from the excesses of the leftist power structure.

Monday, September 28, 2015

Kevin McCarthy In Speaker Race

No surprise as Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-Bakersfield, Ca.) announced that he will run in the election to replace John A. Boehner as speaker of the house.
In Rep. McCarthy's announcement, he sounded the right themes. And he did address the growing chasm between the GOP base voters and the representatives in Washington, D. C. in both the house and the senate:

 "If elected speaker, I promise you that we will have the courage to lead the fight for our conservative principles and make our case to the American people. But we will have the wisdom to listen to our constituents and each other so that we always move forward together. I look forward to fighting for our conservative principles."

Forgive us in the rank and file but part of the problem is that Rep. McCarthy is a part of the GOP house leadership. The same one that has been led by John Boehner. The same leadership that ignored the base. The same leadership that cannot point to a meaningful, conservative accomplishment under this leadership.
It is possible that Rep. McCarthy, watching what happened to Mr. Boehner, gets the message. Rep. McCarthy has the chance to make amends with conservatives in the congress by not punishing opposition to leadership. And pursuing measures that conservatives want to see at least come to a vote. And to use his bully pulpit to pressure the senate GOP leadership to take up some of if not all the measures that go that way.
There will be more than Rep. McCarthy running for sure. It all depends on if conservatives can, once and for all, rally behind one candidate.
Are you ready for another election campaign?!

How Boehner Screwed Up The GOP

Well, it's not all John A. Boehner's fault as much as the wing of the GOP that continues to pretty much ignore the base and pursue a "we're better at running the Welfare State than the Democrats" strategy.
Yesterday, the soon to be former speaker of the house took to the Sunday morning snore-fests to, essentially, diss the conservative base not just of the rank and file but of his own GOP caucus itself.
On Face The Nation, Mr. Boehner hung out the white flag in an obnoxious manner:

"And so, we've got groups here in town, members of the house and senate here in town, who whipped people into a frenzy believing that they know - they know - are never going to happen."

Great, Mr. Boehner. Then why are there two parties in the first place? Talk about feeding into the conspiracy theories. We give you a substantial majority in the house. We give Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) a majority in the senate. And now you tell us it was all on falsehoods? Now you tell us that we need a Republican president; No kidding, Sherlock?! And a supermajority in both the house and senate. For what? To just drip the socialism slowly or to actually do what we, the voters, want?
I get it that there is a Democrat in the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama. If Sen. McConnell had testes, he would force the nuclear option and block filibusters and send some of the legislation to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and let him veto it. That is what the Democrats did to then President Ford after the 1974 mid-term elections when they sent bill after bill that President Ford vetoed. Some were over ridden and became law. Other vetoes were sustained.
Taylor Millard over at Hot Air explains part of the problem and that is people being elected to do one thing, stay in Washington, D. C. way too long and become part of the problem.
John Boehner is but a perfect example of such a problem.
Mr. Boehner was elected in 1990 and joined with the Newt Gingrich forces that eventually ousted long-time house minority leader, Robert Michel. And he was all in on the Contract With America that was the cornerstone of the Republicans taking the house of representatives in 1994 for the first time since the 1950s. And when he saw that Mr. Gingrich was becoming politically toxic, Mr. Boehner was part of the so-called group that  led to the ouster of Mr. Gingrich as speaker.
So, Mr. Boehner for a while knew how to deal with the internal politics of the GOP caucus. And he moved up the ladder in leadership. And of course in 2010, he became the speaker of the house and the game seemed to change for Mr. Boehner, already a house member for 20 years.
Instead of talking about the efforts to fight the so-called health care "reform" and the other multitude of excesses of Team Obama, the is what Mr. Boehner thinks are accomplishments.

The Ryan-Murray budget and or sequestration. 

Extending most of the George W. Bush tax cuts.

Passage of the so-called "Doc-fix" bill. 

Mr. Millard, as I am, is not impressed with this record of accomplishment. I suspect most members of the house are not impressed either. And the rank and file GOP voter, forget it.
The problem is that there is just this obsession about the "institution" and "process" among the GOP leadership. Thus what happens is the conservative message is co-opted for elections and then we get crap. All the "accomplishments" Mr. Boehner cites are beyond inside baseball. Did Mr. Boehner have a tax reform plan? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! How about a plan to at the very least force some reform of Obamacare? HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! Those are but two issues that separate the GOP from the Democrats. And yet, yet nothing! NOTHING!
Now to many voters, the GOP is not a party of reform but of basically greasing the wheels for their clients.
THAT is how Mr. Boehner, and Sen. McConnell are screwing up the GOP.
I pleased that Mr. Boehner is retiring but mad that he did not appreciate the mandate that he was given to be bold and lead. He became the very establishment that he fought against in his early years.
Whoever replaces Mr. Boehner needs to remember that an opposition party can still get what it wants even if the end result is not a absolute victory.