August 31, 2005
Free Living Wills
I am providing some generic information regarding advance directive health care forms along with links to forms used in various states. You will notice the type of forms vary from state to state. A Living Will is different from a Health Care Power of Attorney in that the Living Will does not appoint another person to speak for you. It speaks for you in writing. While a Health Care Power of Attorney can include written instructions for your patient advocate to follow, the choices do not have to be included for the Health Care Power of Attorney to be used. If a Living Will also includes your choice as patient advocate, it automatically becomes a Health Care Power of Attorney and must follow the state law requirements for witnesses, required language, etc. This information will be updated from time-to-time with more forms and other information.
The following disclosure is from The People's Lawyer webpage entitled Death and Dying by Professor Richard M. Alderman of the University of Houston Law Center:
- Medical Power Of Attorney For Health Care
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT LEGAL DOCUMENT. BEFORE SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT, YOU SHOULD KNOW THESE IMPORTANT FACTS:
Except to the extent you state otherwise, this document gives the person you name as your agent the authority to make any and all health care decisions for you in accordance with your wishes, including your religious and moral beliefs, when you are no longer capable of making them yourself. Because "health care" means any treatment, service, or procedure to maintain, diagnose, or treat your physical or mental condition, your agent has the power to make a broad range of health care decisions for you. Your agent may consent, refuse to consent, or withdraw consent to medical treatment and may make decisions about withdrawing or withholding life-sustaining treatment. Your agent may not consent to voluntary inpatient mental health services, convulsive treatment, psychosurgery, or abortion. A physician must comply with your agent's instructions or allow you to be transferred to another physician.
Your agent's authority begins when your doctor certifies that you lack the competence to make health care decisions.
Your agent is obligated to follow your instructions when making decisions on your behalf. Unless you state otherwise, your agent has the same authority to make decisions about your health care as you would have had.
It is important that you discuss this document with your physician or other health care provider before you sign it to make sure that you understand the nature and range of decisions that may be made on your behalf. If you do not have a physician, you should talk with someone else who is knowledgeable about these issues and can answer your questions. You do not need a lawyer's assistance to complete this document, but if there is anything in this document that you do not understand, you should ask a lawyer to explain it to you.
The person you appoint as agent should be someone you know and trust. The person must be 18 years of age or older or a person under 18 years of age who has had the disabilities of minority removed. If you appoint your health or residential care provider (e.g., your physician or an employee of a home health agency, hospital, nursing home, or residential care home, other than a relative), that person has to choose between acting as your agent or as your health or residential care provider; the law does not permit a person to do both at the same time.
You should inform the person you appoint that you want the person to be your health care agent. You should discuss this document with your agent and your physician and give each a signed copy. You should indicate on the document itself the people and institutions who have signed copies. Your agent is not liable for health care decisions made in good faith on your behalf.
Even after you have signed this document, you have the right to make health care decisions for yourself as long as you are able to do so and treatment cannot be given to you or stopped over your objection. You have the right to revoke the authority granted to your agent by informing your agent or your health or residential care provider orally or in writing or by your execution of a subsequent medical power of attorney. Unless you state otherwise, your appointment of a spouse dissolves on divorce.
This document may not be changed or modified. If you want to make changes in the document, you must make an entirely new one. You may wish to designate an alternate agent in the event that your agent is unwilling, unable, or ineligible to act as your agent. Any alternate agent you designate has the same authority to make health care decisions for you.
THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY IS NOT VALID UNLESS IT IS SIGNED IN THE
PRESENCE OF TWO COMPETENT ADULT WITNESSES. THE
FOLLOWING PERSONS MAY NOT ACT AS ONE OF THE WITNESSES:
(1) the person you have designated as your agent;
(2) a person related to you by blood or marriage;
(3) a person entitled to any part of your estate after your death under a will or codicil executed by you or by operation of law;
(4) your attending physician;
(5) an employee of your attending physician;
(6) an employee of a health care facility in which you are a patient if the employee is providing direct patient care to you or is an officer, director, partner, or business office employee of the health care facility or of any parent organization of the health care facility; or
(7) a person who, at the time this power of attorney is executed, has a claim against any part of your estate after your death.
The information contained herein is not guaranteed to be accurate. We are not attorneys, and although these forms may have been prepared by an attorney or a state legislature, you should consult your own attorney before executing any of these documents.
Arkansas Living Will & Health Care Proxy
Arizona Living Will Sample
Arizona Health Care Power Of Attorney Sample
Arizona Mental Health Care Power Of Attorney Sample
California Advance Health Care Directive
Colorado Living Will
Connecticut Living Will
Delaware Advance Health Care Directive
District Of Columbia Advance Directive
Florida Living Will
Georgia Living Will
Hawaii Advance Directive
Illinois Health Care Surrogate Act
Illinois Living Will Act
Illinois Health Care Power Of Attorney General Information
Indiana Living Will
Kansas Advance Directive
Kentucky Living Will
Maine Advance Directive
Maryland Advance Health Care Directive
Massachusetts Advance Directive - The State of Massachusetts does not specifically have a Living Will or Advance Medical Directive statute. A valid Massachusetts Health Care Proxy or valid equivalent advance directive from another state shall be honored in accordance with Massachusetts and federal law. Other types of documents, such as living wills, may be used to assist with determination of the patient’s wishes, but are not legally binding on caregivers under Massachusetts’s law.
Mississippi Advance Health-Care Directive
Montana Living Will
Nebraska Living Will
Nevada Living Will
New Jersey Advance Directives for Health Care
New Mexico Advance Health Care Directive
New York - Living Will
North Dakota Health Care Directive
Oklahoma Advance Directive For Health Care
Oregon Advance Directive
South Carolina Health Care Power Of Attorney and Living Will
South Dakota Living Will
Virginia Advance Directive
West Virginia Medical Power Of Attorney and Living Will
Wyoming Advance Directive
Louisiana Attorney General OK's Looting
Louisiana's attorney general Charles C. Foti, Jr., seems to be more concerned with the few businessmen charging a few extra dollars for items in short supply in the aftermath of huricane Katrina than he is in stopping the widespread looting by lowlifes stealing everything that isn't nailed down. On Hannity & Colmes last night Mr. Foti said:
"there is always the opportunity for looting when you think about that. You have no electricity, no food, you have limited water and the grocery stores are closed - that might not be looting; that might be self preservation. That food would go bad anyway."
Of course, the same thing could be said about every bank robber, mugger, purse snatcher, and for that matter every drug dealer. They are all doing what is necessary to survive.
There is no excuse for the looting. None! Mr. Foti should order looters to be shot on sight or he should resign immediately.
August 30, 2005
Unconscionable Looting In Katrina's Wake
I remember the criticism our troops received after we entered Baghdad in 2003. Why didn't we stop the thieves who were stealing everything that wasn't nailed down in the aftermath of Saddam's ouster?
Now the pathetic sight of looting in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina has me asking why don't we stop the looting in our own streets. There is no good reason why we don't shoot looters on sight after natural disasters such as this. They won't be missed.
August 25, 2005
More Perspective On Cindy Sheehan
Cindy Sheehan has captured the imagination of the anti-war activists, the anti-Bush activists, and the pro-terrorist activists. Ms. Sheehan claims to have absolute moral authority to speak for all the parents who have lost children because she is the mother of Army Specialist Casey Austin Sheehan who was killed in action in Iraq. Ms. Sheehan claims to be protesting the war because President Bush lied about why we went to war in Iraq, namely weapons of mass destruction, or lack thereof, and links between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, or lack thereof.
These activists conveniently forget that we were already in Iraq patrolling the no-fly zones and trying to monitor the cease-fire agreement agreed upon after the first gulf war. Our planes were in constant danger and the weapons inspectors were thwarted at almost every turn. The cease-fire had turned into a joke, and we were the butt of it. In sheer frustration, President Clinton pulled the weapons inspectors out in 1998, and bombed Iraqi military installations for 3 days beginning December 16, 1998. President Clinton in his announcement to the American people said:
Earlier today, I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces. Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors.
Their purpose is to protect the national interest of the United States, and indeed the interests of people throughout the Middle East and around the world.
Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.
I want to explain why I have decided, with the unanimous recommendation of my national security team, to use force in Iraq; why we have acted now; and what we aim to accomplish.
Six weeks ago, Saddam Hussein announced that he would no longer cooperate with the United Nations weapons inspectors called UNSCOM. They are highly professional experts from dozens of countries. Their job is to oversee the elimination of Iraq's capability to retain, create and use weapons of mass destruction, and to verify that Iraq does not attempt to rebuild that capability.
The inspectors undertook this mission first 7.5 years ago at the end of the Gulf War when Iraq agreed to declare and destroy its arsenal as a condition of the ceasefire.
The international community had good reason to set this requirement. Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.
The international community had little doubt then, and I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again.
The United States has patiently worked to preserve UNSCOM as Iraq has sought to avoid its obligation to cooperate with the inspectors. On occasion, we've had to threaten military force, and Saddam has backed down.
Faced with Saddam's latest act of defiance in late October, we built intensive diplomatic pressure on Iraq backed by overwhelming military force in the region. The UN Security Council voted 15 to zero to condemn Saddam's actions and to demand that he immediately come into compliance.
Eight Arab nations -- Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Oman -- warned that Iraq alone would bear responsibility for the consequences of defying the UN.
When Saddam still failed to comply, we prepared to act militarily. It was only then at the last possible moment that Iraq backed down. It pledged to the UN that it had made, and I quote, a clear and unconditional decision to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors.
I decided then to call off the attack with our airplanes already in the air because Saddam had given in to our demands. I concluded then that the right thing to do was to use restraint and give Saddam one last chance to prove his willingness to cooperate.
I made it very clear at that time what unconditional cooperation meant, based on existing UN resolutions and Iraq's own commitments. And along with Prime Minister Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully, we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning.
Now over the past three weeks, the UN weapons inspectors have carried out their plan for testing Iraq's cooperation. The testing period ended this weekend, and last night, UNSCOM's chairman, Richard Butler, reported the results to UN Secretary-General Annan.
The conclusions are stark, sobering and profoundly disturbing.
In four out of the five categories set forth, Iraq has failed to cooperate. Indeed, it actually has placed new restrictions on the inspectors. Here are some of the particulars.
Iraq repeatedly blocked UNSCOM from inspecting suspect sites. For example, it shut off access to the headquarters of its ruling party and said it will deny access to the party's other offices, even though UN resolutions make no exception for them and UNSCOM has inspected them in the past.
Iraq repeatedly restricted UNSCOM's ability to obtain necessary evidence. For example, Iraq obstructed UNSCOM's effort to photograph bombs related to its chemical weapons program.
It tried to stop an UNSCOM biological weapons team from videotaping a site and photocopying documents and prevented Iraqi personnel from answering UNSCOM's questions.
Prior to the inspection of another site, Iraq actually emptied out the building, removing not just documents but even the furniture and the equipment.
Iraq has failed to turn over virtually all the documents requested by the inspectors. Indeed, we know that Iraq ordered the destruction of weapons-related documents in anticipation of an UNSCOM inspection.
So Iraq has abused its final chance.
As the UNSCOM reports concludes, and again I quote, "Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in the fields of disarmament.
"In light of this experience, and in the absence of full cooperation by Iraq, it must regrettably be recorded again that the commission is not able to conduct the work mandated to it by the Security Council with respect to Iraq's prohibited weapons program."
In short, the inspectors are saying that even if they could stay in Iraq, their work would be a sham.
Saddam's deception has defeated their effectiveness. Instead of the inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors.
This situation presents a clear and present danger to the stability of the Persian Gulf and the safety of people everywhere. The international community gave Saddam one last chance to resume cooperation with the weapons inspectors. Saddam has failed to seize the chance.
And so we had to act and act now.
Let me explain why.
First, without a strong inspection system, Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years.
Second, if Saddam can crippled the weapons inspection system and get away with it, he would conclude that the international community -- led by the United States -- has simply lost its will. He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.
Third, in halting our air strikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance, not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed. We will not only have allowed Saddam to shatter the inspection system that controls his weapons of mass destruction program; we also will have fatally undercut the fear of force that stops Saddam from acting to gain domination in the region.
That is why, on the unanimous recommendation of my national security team -- including the vice president, the secretary of defense, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, the secretary of state and the national security adviser -- I have ordered a strong, sustained series of air strikes against Iraq.
They are designed to degrade Saddam's capacity to develop and deliver weapons of mass destruction, and to degrade his ability to threaten his neighbors.
At the same time, we are delivering a powerful message to Saddam. If you act recklessly, you will pay a heavy price. We acted today because, in the judgment of my military advisers, a swift response would provide the most surprise and the least opportunity for Saddam to prepare.
If we had delayed for even a matter of days from Chairman Butler's report, we would have given Saddam more time to disperse his forces and protect his weapons.
Also, the Muslim holy month of Ramadan begins this weekend. For us to initiate military action during Ramadan would be profoundly offensive to the Muslim world and, therefore, would damage our relations with Arab countries and the progress we have made in the Middle East.
That is something we wanted very much to avoid without giving Iraq's a month's head start to prepare for potential action against it.
Finally, our allies, including Prime Minister Tony Blair of Great Britain, concurred that now is the time to strike. I hope Saddam will come into cooperation with the inspection system now and comply with the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. But we have to be prepared that he will not, and we must deal with the very real danger he poses.
So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people.
First, we must be prepared to use force again if Saddam takes threatening actions, such as trying to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction or their delivery systems, threatening his neighbors, challenging allied aircraft over Iraq or moving against his own Kurdish citizens.
The credible threat to use force, and when necessary, the actual use of force, is the surest way to contain Saddam's weapons of mass destruction program, curtail his aggression and prevent another Gulf War.
Second, so long as Iraq remains out of compliance, we will work with the international community to maintain and enforce economic sanctions. Sanctions have cost Saddam more than $120 billion -- resources that would have been used to rebuild his military. The sanctions system allows Iraq to sell oil for food, for medicine, for other humanitarian supplies for the Iraqi people.
We have no quarrel with them. But without the sanctions, we would see the oil-for-food program become oil-for-tanks, resulting in a greater threat to Iraq's neighbors and less food for its people.
The hard fact is that so long as Saddam remains in power, he threatens the well-being of his people, the peace of his region, the security of the world.
The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently.
The decision to use force is never cost-free. Whenever American forces are placed in harm's way, we risk the loss of life. And while our strikes are focused on Iraq's military capabilities, there will be unintended Iraqi casualties.
Indeed, in the past, Saddam has intentionally placed Iraqi civilians in harm's way in a cynical bid to sway international opinion.
We must be prepared for these realities. At the same time, Saddam should have absolutely no doubt if he lashes out at his neighbors, we will respond forcefully.
Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.
And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them.
Because we're acting today, it is less likely that we will face these dangers in the future.
Let me close by addressing one other issue. Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down.
But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so.
In the century we're leaving, America has often made the difference between chaos and community, fear and hope. Now, in the new century, we'll have a remarkable opportunity to shape a future more peaceful than the past, but only if we stand strong against the enemies of peace.
Tonight, the United States is doing just that. May God bless and protect the brave men and women who are carrying out this vital mission and their families. And may God bless America.
President Clinton's speech lasted almost as long as the bombing but it certainly is interesting reading in light of the occurrences of the past seven years.
Eventually the weapons inspectors went back in, but nothing changed. The time had come to put an end to the game Saddam was playing. There would be no more cat and mouse with the dictator. Saddam could leave or we would forcibly evict him. He chose the latter.
It's now three years later, Saddam is gone and progress is being made toward establishing a government in Iraq with elections and everything. Unfortunately, we have lost over 1,800 brave souls fighting to bring about this momentous change, and the fighting isn't over.
Americans live in a world where everything can be delivered almost instantaneously. Pizza can be delivered in 30 minutes or less. Packages can be sent one day and delivered across country by 10:30 the next morning. Medical care is delivered with lightning speed. Our wars are expected to be won with little fanfare and few casualties. Americans have no patience and very short attention spans. We do not live in the same reality as the rest of the world. Unfortunately, we are fighting a war where we must be patient. The people we are fighting wear no uniforms, have no headquarters, have no consciences. They hide among the civilian population and behind a twisted religion. When we leave Iraq, unless we have exterminated the cockroaches, they will be swarming all over Europe and the North American continent in no time.
Ms. Sheehan would blame President Bush for her son’s death. Maureen Dowd, back from her book writing sabbatical, in an op-ed August 10, 2005, attempts to pile on the President along with all the other activists claiming some sort of absolute moral authority for Ms. Sheehan. Ms. Dowd’s op-ed is reprinted in the Common Dreams News Center.
But his humanitarianism will remain inhumane as long as he fails to understand that the moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute.
It should be noted that Casey Sheehan was not drafted, but enlisted voluntarily and reenlisted when his first commitment was up. Some people are doctors, others lawyers. Casey Sheehan was a warrior and served his country valiantly.
Mark Steyn writing on August 21, 2005, in the Chicago Sun-Times noted about the brave men and women in our armed services:
They're not children in Iraq; they're grown-ups who made their own decision to join the military. That seems to be difficult for the left to grasp. Ever since America's all-adult, all-volunteer army went into Iraq, the anti-war crowd have made a sustained effort to characterize them as "children." If a 13-year-old wants to have an abortion, that's her decision and her parents shouldn't get a look-in. If a 21-year-old wants to drop to the broadloom in Bill Clinton's Oval Office, she's a grown woman and free to do what she wants. But, if a 22- or 25- or 37-year-old is serving his country overseas, he's a wee "child" who isn't really old enough to know what he's doing.
Of course, all of the activists would love for the United States to cut and run. They cut their teeth on the anti-war protests during the Vietnam war, and have just enough PoliGrip left for one more anti-war rally. Fortunately, Americans who remember 9/11 and all the other terrorist attacks during the past 20 or so years are not going to let the protests sway public opinion as easily as they did thirty years ago. This time we have a stake in the outcome and and we are not going to take our marbles and go home until the battle has been won.
Henry Kissinger writing on August 12, 2005, in the Washington Post:
American strategy, including a withdrawal process, will stand or fall not on whether it maintains the existing security situation but on whether the capacity to improve it is enhanced. Victory over the insurgency is the only meaningful exit strategy.
We are lucky to have had Ms. Sheehan’s son as an American soldier and patriot. On the other hand, Ms. Sheehan has my permission to go live in whatever country she believes is worth fighting, even dying, for. We really don’t need her kind of American living here. Bye bye Cindy, don't let the door....
God Bless America!
August 16, 2005
"This country is not worth dying for." - Cindy Sheehan
the terrorist lawyer, who billed herself as a “Civil Rights Lawyer and Political Prisoner,” was recently convicted of conspiracy and for passing along fatwas (Islamic religious edicts) from Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman to his terrorist followers in Egypt’s Islamic Group. Rahman is the blind sheikh responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 that left six Americans dead and more than 1,000 people injured.
In the same article, Ms. Sheehan's appearance was recounted as follows:
Cindy Sheehan followed this act. Wearing a sweatshirt advertising the website for United for Peace and Justice, Sheehan was interviewed outside just before the meeting by an ABC-TV news reporter. Sheehan said then that military recruiters should not be allowed on college campuses, maintaining they trick naïve 18-year-olds with offers of money and scholarships. Tragically, Cindy Sheehan lost her son Casey who was in the Army and was killed two weeks after arriving in Iraq. She claimed he was promised a job as a chaplain’s assistant although once in the service was placed in a combat role and killed, certainly a moving story – one she exploits to promote venomous anti-Americanism. “George Bush and his neo-conservatives killed my son,” she said tearing up a bit. “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for.”
Sheehan said she considered Lynne Stewart her Atticus Finch, the lawyer who defended an innocent Black man accused of rape in the book and film “To Kill A Mockingbird.”
“They’re not waging a War on Terror but a War of Terror,” she said. “The biggest terrorist is George W. Bush.” She claimed “it costs $66,000 to recruit one soldier, not including training, and $49,000 a year to house a prisoner, yet only $6,000 per year is spent to educate a child in California. (Recruiting costs are actually $15,000 per soldier, the cost of housing a prisoner in California for one year is $26,000.)
Sheehan continued, “9/11 was Pearl Harbor for the neo-conservatives’ agenda” and declared the U.S. government a “morally repugnant system.” Then she raged:
We have no Constitution. We’re the only country with no checks and balances. We want our country back if we have to impeach George Bush down to the person who picks up the dog sh-t in Washington! Let George Bush send his two little party animals to die in Iraq. It’s OK for Israel to have nuclear weapons but we are waging nuclear war in Iraq, we have contaminated the entire country. It’s not OK for Syria to be in Lebanon. Hypocrites! But Israel can occupy Palestine? Stop the slaughter!
While one might dismiss some of Sheehan’s hyperbole due to grief over her son’s death, a little research about Casey Sheehan revealed that contrary to being tricked by military recruiters, Casey Sheehan had reenlisted in the U.S. Army voluntarily when he was 24-years-old, after serving his first hitch successfully. Casey Sheehan was in fact a hero who received a Bronze Star. He was attached as a mechanic to the artillery division of the 1st U.S. Cavalry in Iraq. When a convoy of soldiers from Casey’s unit was attacked in Sadr City by insurgents, Casey volunteered to join a rapid rescue force to get them out. His commanding sergeant told him he did not have to go into combat, because he was a mechanic and not an infantryman. Casey was quoted telling his officer, “I go where my chief goes.” He was tragically killed during the rescue attempt. The source for this story? Cindy Sheehan herself.
I also visited an army recruiting office on my way home and asked about Casey being promised a job as a chaplain’s assistant only to be thrust into harm’s way. The recruiter explained to me that on reenlistment, the Army’s B.E.A.R. program (Bonus Extension and Retaining) guarantees everything in writing. If Casey was a mechanic during his first hitch, that was the only thing he would have been guaranteed per his reenlistment contract. Further research showed that a chaplain’s assistant is a combat infantry position, whereas Casey was deployed in a non-combat job as a mechanic. Casey Sheehan sought combat duty for his country and should be honored for it, not used as a symbol of how evil the United States is.
I wonder what Ms. Sheehan thinks is worth fighting and dying for...
Apparently now that Ms. Sheehan has crawled into bed with anti-American left wing radicals like Michael Moore and Lynne Stewart, her husband of over 28 years, Patrick Sheehan, finds the bed a little too crowded and has filed for divorce. You can review the divorce petition here.
August 12, 2005
Stalking The President - A Misguided Mother
Cindy Sheehan lost her son, Casey, in Iraq, but rather than honor his decision to join the armed forces and his service, she has decided to make the absurd allegation that the President killed her son. Sadly, she has also begun writing in Michael Moore's blog.
She has decided to stalk the President by holding court outside the President's home in Crawford, Texas, at what she calls Camp Casey all the while sputtering the same old tired liberal propaganda about stolen elections and misleading the American people. She dishonors her son Casey's service and his memory by making allegations fueled by her hatred of conservative values, embodied by the President.
The left doesn't care about her. Ms. Sheehan is the sound bite of the day for them. When she was the proud mother of a brave soldier, she was the scum of the earth. They will do and say anything, use anyone, to further their liberal agenda. Her son had the courage and the willingness to fight for our country. She dishonors that service by aligning herself with the Michael Moore's and Jimmy Carter's of this world.
She should be ashamed of herself.....
Army Specialist Casey Austin Sheehan would be ashamed of her.....
August 10, 2005
We Really Need To Get A Grip On Iraq
James Glanz is reporting in the New York Times that the mayor of Baghdad, Alaa al-Tamimi, was ousted in an apparently bloodless coup d'état Monday, and replaced by a member of Iraq's most powerful Shiite militia.
The man the group installed, Hussein al-Tahaan, is a member of the Badr Organization, the armed militia of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, known as Sciri.
The deposed mayor went into hiding and was not expected to return.
If we don't start using a bigger stick, it won't matter how many carrots we hand out. The coalition forces and the newly trained Iraqi military must not allow this to continue or no one will be willing to serve in the newly democratic country. Our military is capable of cleaning the clock of any foe in a conventional war, but it is becoming apparent that a new tact will be necessary to win the unconventional war being waged against us in Iraq. If we don't get a grip on things soon, Iraq will be Vietnam redux.
August 5, 2005
I Am Back!
I had a little maintenance done on my site and was unable to post for a couple days, but it appears after the last little post that I am finally able to contribute to the vast right-wing conspiracy once again.
How Low Can They Go?
If the news reports that the New York Times was trying to unseal the adoption records of Supreme Court nominee Roberts two children are true, politics have sunk to a new low in America.
August 3, 2005
Nothing Is Safe
I worked Saturday until about 4:30 P.M. and went home to spend a quiet evening with my lovely wife and two
worthless priceless dogs.
Unfortunately, while I was enjoying my evening, some deadbeat used his size 12 boot to kick in the dead-bolted back door at my office and, with two accomplices, proceeded to help himself to a computer, a copier and a television set along with a few other relatively inexpensive items.
Needless to say, I have not been in a good mood since I discovered the burglary on Monday, and I have been very busy in the aftermath. I had the door repaired and reinforced. Police reports were filed, and fingerprints were taken. I even got some of my regular work done.
But wait! How, you ask, did I know that there were not one; not two; but three losers who perpetrated the crime? Well, a year and a half ago my lovely wife surprised me with a surveillance system just after we finished the remodeling of my offices and these three nitwits unknowingly posed for pictures while they ripped me off.
The police are now in possession of the pictures, and hopefully someone will recognize one or all of the thieves. I would love to see these three behind bars for awhile.