Toastmasters

How To Hit A Golf Ball

Prostate Cancer

The Great Prostate Mistake


EACH year some 30 million American men undergo testing for prostate-specific antigen, an enzyme made by the prostate. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1994, the P.S.A. test is the most commonly used tool for detecting prostate cancer.

The test’s popularity has led to a hugely expensive public health disaster. It’s an issue I am painfully familiar with — I discovered P.S.A. in 1970. As Congress searches for ways to cut costs in our health care system, a significant savings could come from changing the way the antigen is used to screen for prostate cancer.

Americans spend an enormous amount testing for prostate cancer. The annual bill for P.S.A. screening is at least $3 billion, with much of it paid for by Medicare and the Veterans Administration.

Prostate cancer may get a lot of press, but consider the numbers: American men have a 16 percent lifetime chance of receiving a diagnosis of prostate cancer, but only a 3 percent chance of dying from it. That’s because the majority of prostate cancers grow slowly. In other words, men lucky enough to reach old age are much more likely to die with prostate cancer than to die of it.

Even then, the test is hardly more effective than a coin toss. As I’ve been trying to make clear for many years now, P.S.A. testing can’t detect prostate cancer and, more important, it can’t distinguish between the two types of prostate cancer — the one that will kill you and the one that won’t.

Instead, the test simply reveals how much of the prostate antigen a man has in his blood. Infections, over-the-counter drugs like ibuprofen, and benign swelling of the prostate can all elevate a man’s P.S.A. levels, but none of these factors signals cancer. Men with low readings might still harbor dangerous cancers, while those with high readings might be completely healthy.

In approving the procedure, the Food and Drug Administration relied heavily on a study that showed testing could detect 3.8 percent of prostate cancers, which was a better rate than the standard method, a digital rectal exam.

Still, 3.8 percent is a small number. Nevertheless, especially in the early days of screening, men with a reading over four nanograms per milliliter were sent for painful prostate biopsies. If the biopsy showed any signs of cancer, the patient was almost always pushed into surgery, intensive radiation or other damaging treatments.

The medical community is slowly turning against P.S.A. screening. Last year, The New England Journal of Medicine published results from the two largest studies of the screening procedure, one in Europe and one in the United States. The results from the American study show that over a period of 7 to 10 years, screening did not reduce the death rate in men 55 and over.

The European study showed a small decline in death rates, but also found that 48 men would need to be treated to save one life. That’s 47 men who, in all likelihood, can no longer function sexually or stay out of the bathroom for long.

Numerous early screening proponents, including Thomas Stamey, a well-known Stanford University urologist, have come out against routine testing; last month, the American Cancer Society urged more caution in using the test. The American College of Preventive Medicine also concluded that there was insufficient evidence to recommend routine screening.

So why is it still used? Because drug companies continue peddling the tests and advocacy groups push “prostate cancer awareness” by encouraging men to get screened. Shamefully, the American Urological Association still recommends screening, while the National Cancer Institute is vague on the issue, stating that the evidence is unclear.

The federal panel empowered to evaluate cancer screening tests, the Preventive Services Task Force, recently recommended against P.S.A. screening for men aged 75 or older. But the group has still not made a recommendation either way for younger men.

Prostate-specific antigen testing does have a place. After treatment for prostate cancer, for instance, a rapidly rising score indicates a return of the disease. And men with a family history of prostate cancer should probably get tested regularly. If their score starts skyrocketing, it could mean cancer.

But these uses are limited. Testing should absolutely not be deployed to screen the entire population of men over the age of 50, the outcome pushed by those who stand to profit.

I never dreamed that my discovery four decades ago would lead to such a profit-driven public health disaster. The medical community must confront reality and stop the inappropriate use of P.S.A. screening. Doing so would save billions of dollars and rescue millions of men from unnecessary, debilitating treatments.

Richard J. Ablin is a research professor of immunobiology and pathology at the University of Arizona College of Medicine and the president of the Robert Benjamin Ablin Foundation for Cancer Research.

Norma & Kenny

Day at Norma and Kenny's
Pepe & Betty's Birthday

Florida Conservative

The Conscience of a Florida Conservative From Wall Street Journal

By COLLIN LEVY

Miami

"They voted for somebody they'd never heard of in Barack Obama because he ran on the platform of a very devoted centrist."

That's the answer from Marco Rubio when asked about his stunning rise to national prominence as a Republican challenger to a popular Republican officeholder in the key electoral state of Florida. Underlying this strange political season, says Mr. Rubio, is the president's rapid uncloaking in office as anything but the postpartisan that voters thought they had elected.

"Within weeks," says Mr. Rubio, "he began trying to implement what appears to everyone else to be the left-of-center politics of the last 50 years, but in a much more aggressive way, using the excuse of a severe economic downturn as justification for growing and in essence redefining the role of government in America."

The 38-year-old former Florida Speaker of the House is a bundle of energy. He rushes in late from dropping his car off at the shop and is due to pick up his kids from school soon. He talks fast and taps his toe even faster. He's challenging Florida Gov. Charlie Crist in the Republican primary to fill the seat of retiring Sen. Mel Martinez, and his ascent has caught a lot of people by surprise.

Mr. Crist, a popular and successful governor, was considered the heavy favorite. He had been on John McCain's vice presidential short list. He had no trouble collecting Republican establishment endorsements for his Senate bid: the National Republican Senatorial Committee, Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, Sens. Jon Kyl, John Cornyn and Lamar Alexander, to name a few.

Mr. Rubio nods when I mention his former longshot status. "When I got into this race, I understood that all the traditional metrics of politics were against us. Name recognition, money, trappings of office, connections, endorsements, you name it.

"Obviously, things have happened outside of our control since then," he smiles.

With a now-infamous photo of Mr. Crist embracing President Obama during a visit in February 2009, Mr. Crist put himself on the wrong side of the tea party wave that was building. Mr. Obama had come to Florida to sell his stimulus plan, and Mr. Crist's hug was easily portrayed as embracing a new, unwanted era of super big government.

What followed was a wave of revulsion that has propelled Mr. Rubio to the status of a new GOP up-and-comer. Some have suggested if Mr. Rubio beats Charlie Crist—recent polls have him leading by 18 to 32 points—it would lead to civil war in the Republican Party. The winner then would be the Democrat in the race, Rep. Kendrick Meek, who could portray Mr. Rubio as a creature of the far right in a state that's relatively moderate on social issues and strongly concerned with bread and butter right now.

Mr. Rubio says he won't shy away from social issues if asked. He is pro-life and says he would support a Senate filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee under some circumstances. But his campaign is staking out an updated version of the Reagan agenda. "We're focused on jobs and national security," he says, "because those are the great and profound national issues of our moment and that's what 95% of our campaign is based on."

Front and center is the idea that, fiscally, the federal government is running off the rails. That Washington should be "taking borrowed money to fund the general operation of government," he says, "and that somehow the government will build so many roads and bridges that everyone will have a job for the next 30 years is absurd."

Which leads to Job One: To get spending under control in Washington, Mr. Rubio would support a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, something Florida already has in place. "I don't care whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge," he says. "If you allow politicians to spend money, they'll do it."

He also favors freezing discretionary spending. It's a crude device and ducks the hard work of setting priorities, but "some level of discretionary spending freeze" sends "a powerful signal to our economy and the world that America is serious."

***
Entitlement reform is next. "I know . . . people don't like to talk about it," but Mr. Rubio says the country has to look at changing the Social Security system for people who are 10 or more years away from retirement age. "Privatization of the accounts has come and gone," he says. "There are other alternatives, such as [raising] the retirement age, how you adjust payments in the future, 'need' measures, et cetera."

Part and parcel is authoring a new tax code "that creates a competitive environment in America." This means lowering rates on capital gains and reducing the corporate tax rate from 35% to at most 25%, which Mr. Rubio notes is the European average. "Even the president admitted the corporate tax rate is too high," he says.

What Mr. Rubio is talking about is an economic confidence agenda to convince Americans and the world that this country isn't incapable of dealing with its debts except through inflation and job-killing tax hikes. "The bottom line," he says, "is that jobs in America are created by people who . . . decide to start a business or expand an existing business." They will do so only if allowed to keep what they earn and don't have a "big target on their back for the government to come after them for higher taxes."

Mr. Rubio says that for all Mr. Obama and his Democrats talk about "reform," they aren't promoting reform as a way of mastering the government's unaffordable commitments. Their idea of reform is to enlarge those commitments, starting with ObamaCare, a massive new entitlement for the non-needy middle class.

Democrats have effectively decided to save until later the problem of how to pay for it all—though the answer is not a secret. It's a European-style value-added tax that would let the government permanently ratchet up its share of GDP. "I don't know if it's a short term goal but it's one the left has had for a long time," Mr. Rubio says of the VAT.

America's swelling debts, he says, will trigger a demand by global lenders that "America do something, either cut spending, which will be increasingly painful as government becomes a bigger and bigger part of the economy, or find sources of revenue." Then, amid a crisis, Democrats will force voters to accept a VAT or see dramatic cuts to Social Security and Medicare just as the baby boomers are entering retirement.

In Florida, Mr. Crist has accused Mr. Rubio of supporting an increase in the sales tax, a charge that Mr. Rubio calls "absurd" and "intellectually dishonest." The plan was a net tax cut, he says, which "basically eliminated the property tax and replaced it with a revenue-neutral consumption tax, 30% of which was paid by non Floridians entering the state." Mr. Crist supported a similar tax-swap plan from the Florida Taxation and Budget Reform Commission.

Gov. Crist's campaign has also gone after Mr. Rubio for double billing state taxpayers and the Republican Party of Florida for eight flights while he was speaker of the house, a screw-up Mr. Rubio calls an "unfortunate" but honest error.

A few weeks ago, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush finally broke his silence in the Crist-Rubio battle. He called Mr. Crist's support for the Obama stimulus spending bill "unforgivable" and a "mistake," saying the bill was more about advancing a permanent left-wing agenda than meeting an economic emergency.

It's been a long time coming for those who consider Mr. Rubio to be Jeb Bush's ideological heir. At Mr. Rubio's swearing in as Florida house speaker in 2006, Mr. Bush told a story about "Chang the mystical warrior" of conservative causes before presenting Mr. Rubio with a golden "sword of the conservative warrior."

From the popular two-term governor, Mr. Rubio says he learned that policy has to come from principle. "You're going to get criticized. You're not always going to please everybody," he says. But "even people who disagree with you will ultimately respect the fact that they knew where you stood."

In contrast, voters are increasingly bewildered about where Mr. Obama stands. One day they hear that his health-care plan is a mere tweak that would let them "keep what they have." The next, they hear the bill is a 2,000-page monstrosity that would cost trillions of dollars and remake some 15% to 17% of the economy.

Mr. Rubio says the rebellion goes deeper than free-marketers objecting to a massive governmental intervention in the economy. Voters feel like they've been betrayed by their leaders: "You have leaders saying, 'We know you hate this . . . but we're going to force it down your throat because it's good for you.' It's almost an elitist attitude toward the American people . . . that they [Mr. Obama and his policy allies] are smarter than the rest of us."

On national security, he adds, the Obama administration has been a "fiasco." By making unilateral demands on the Israeli government in regard to settlements, he says, the White House took away Israel's leverage and "sent a message that America is not as committed to Israel as it once had been."

Failing to "speak forcefully on behalf of the democratic opposition that tried to rise up in the aftermath of a fraudulent election in Iran" was another error, Mr. Rubio says. "Of course we didn't have any problem interfering with the sovereignty of Honduras a few months later," he notes, referring to Mr. Obama's objection to the removal of President Manuel Zelaya.

Securing the border is critical, Mr. Rubio says, but he also recommends that Republicans keep their nativist impulses in check to avoid hurting the party with Latinos, a good chunk of whom are natural GOP allies on growth and opportunity. The rhetoric of some Republicans on immigration "has created a problem," he says. "I don't think the Republican Party should be the anti-illegal immigration party. We should be the pro legal immigration party, and we need to do a better job of explaining that to people."

Mr. Rubio's fan base is similar to that of Sarah Palin, though Mr. Rubio, whose family immigrated from Cuba, gets more points for policy smarts. He's never met Ms. Palin but admires her political style: "I think she brings a level of real-life everyday sentiment that people identify with. . . . I think she energizes people."

Among both supporters and skeptics in the GOP, there's a sense that the two, along with Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, are among the party's leaders of the future—and also a sense that after the Bush interregnum the fundamental soul of the GOP is Reaganite after all. Money has also begun pouring in to help level the playing field against the well-funded governor.

***
Mr. Rubio says that a Sarah Palin endorsement would be welcome and "a positive" at this point. But you also get a feeling he's one GOPer who doesn't need her blessing to prove he's a very different kind of Republican than those who soiled the party's brand during the Tom DeLay era. "Frankly, I think this party abandoned its roots and what made it successful," he says.

"Most Americans support the notion of limited government. When the Republican Party has been about those things, it's been successful," he says. "When it's been about anything else it's been unsuccessful."


Ms. Levy is a senior editorial writer at the Journal, based in Washington.

Tread Lightly

What kind of foods should we eat? Or put it another way, which foods are best for the body?

It's my belief the bests foods are those that the earth provides. Especially the greens. Collards, kale, spinach. Vegetables, grains, legumes.

The other day the Orange County Register published an article about "cheap eats" in Orange County for lunch. I believe the target price was to be under $25. I was the first commenter on the article. I wrote how I go to Baja Fresh, order a side of rice and beans, and a side of corn tortillas, and my bill is $2.83. With the salsas, this meal is not only my lunch but also my dinner.

Needless to say, and I knew it would happen, the follow up commenters tore me a new asshole. How it's unhealthy, feel sorry for my wife, and throw in a few other nasty comments. Not one was positive. Sad to say, it's what I expected.

But what are we designed to eat? If we truly ate the foods we're designed to eat, I do believe a lot of the health problems in the US would disappear. I believe the human body is designed to be vibrant, free of aches and pains, ever ready to do what needs to be done.

What a beautiful Day

Islam To Conquer America

This is their own words. The purpose of Islam is to take over the world. No doubt about it. The basic core of Islam is domination and submission.

There is no question President Bush got it wrong. Islam is by no means a religion of peace. To believe that is to be seduced by a big lie.

The other day I was having lunch at the Soup Plantation. Two muslim women were wearing their islamic clothing. How sweet. They profess their religion for all to see. Let me wear symbols of Christianity in Saudi Arabia. And profess Jesus as my Lord and Savior. How long does my head stay attached to my body?

But hey, we're multi-cultural in America. We believe in freedom of expression. So you would behead me in your country. In my country you get to burn my flag, mock my traditions, and threaten my life. But you go ahead and keep planning my destruction. You're doing a good job of it, all under the protection of my government.

Geert Wilders-Great Speech

A speech by Geert Wilders at the House of Lords, England

Fresh off his party's success in local elections, Geert Wilders spoke at the House of Lords in London on Friday. He also showed his controversial film "Fitna."

His very appearance was a victory, inasmuch as the British government turned him away when he tried to enter for the same purpose last yer. Here is most of what Wilders said to the House of Lords:

Thank you. It is great to be back in London. And it is great that this time, I got to see more of this wonderful city than just the detention centre at Heathrow Airport.

Today I stand before you, in this extraordinary place. Indeed, this is a sacred place. This is, as Malcolm always says, the mother of all Parliaments, I am deeply humbled to have the opportunity to speak before you.

Thank you Lord Pearson and Lady Cox for your invitation and showing my film 'Fitna'. Thank you my friends for inviting me.

I first have great news. Last Wednesday city council elections were held in the Netherlands. And for the first time my party, the Freedom Party, took part in these local elections. We participated in two cities. In Almere, one of the largest Dutch cities. And in The Hague, the third largest city; home of the government, the parliament and the queen. And, we did great! In one fell swoop my party became the largest party in Almere and the second largest party in The Hague. Great news for the Freedom Party and even better news for the people of these two beautiful cities.

And I have more good news. Two weeks ago the Dutch government collapsed. In June we will have parliamentary elections. And the future for the Freedom Party looks great. According to some polls we will become the largest party in the Netherlands. I want to be modest, but who knows, I might even be Prime Minister in a few months time!

Ladies and gentlemen, not far from here stands a statue of the greatest Prime Minister your country ever had. And I would like to quote him here today: "Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step (...) the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome." These words are from none other than Winston Churchill wrote this in his book 'The River War' from 1899.

Churchill was right.

Ladies and gentlemen, I don't have a problem and my party does not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. The majority of Muslims are law-abiding citizens and want to live a peaceful life as you and I do. I know that. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people, the Muslims, and the ideology, between Islam and Muslims. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The Quran commands Muslims to exercise jihad. The Quran commands Muslims to establish shariah law. The Quran commands Muslims to impose Islam on the entire world.

As former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said: "The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome". End of quote. Libyan dictator Gaddafi said: "There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent". End of quote. Indeed, for once in his life, Gaddafi was telling the truth. Because, remember: mass immigration and demographics is destiny!

Islam is merely not a religion, it is mainly a totalitarian ideology. Islam wants to dominate all aspects of life, from the cradle to the grave. Shariah law is a law that controls every detail of life in a Islamic society. From civic- and family law to criminal law. It determines how one should eat, dress and even use the toilet. Oppression of women is good, drinking alcohol is bad.

I believe that Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to Western values. The equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization. Ladies and gentlemen: Islam and freedom, Islam and democracy are not compatible. They are opposite values.

No wonder that Winston Churchill called Adolf Hitler's 'Mein Kampf' "the new Quran of faith and war, turgid, verbose, shapeless, but pregnant with its message". As you know, Churchill made this comparison, between the Koran and Mein Kampf, in his book 'The Second World War', a master piece, for which, he received the Nobel Prize in Literature. Churchill's comparison of the Quran and 'Mein Kampf' is absolutely spot on. The core of the Quran is the call to jihad. Jihad means a lot of things and is Arabic for battle. Kampf is German for battle. Jihad and kampf mean exactly the same.

Islam means submission, there cannot be any mistake about its goal. That's a given. The question is whether we in Europe and you in Britain, with your glorious past, will submit or stand firm for your heritage.

We see Islam taking off in the West at an incredible pace. Europe is Islamizing rapidly. A lot of European cities have enormous Islamic concentrations. Paris, Amsterdam, Brussels and Berlin are just a few examples. In some parts of these cities, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women's rights are being destroyed. Burqa's, headscarves, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. Women have to go to separate swimming-classes, don't get a handshake. In many European cities there is already apartheid. Jews, in an increasing number, are leaving Europe.

As you undoubtedly all know, better then I do, also in your country the mass immigration and islamization has rapidly increased. This has put an enormous pressure on your British society. Look what is happening in for example Birmingham, Leeds, Bradford and here in London. British politicians who have forgotten about Winston Churchill have now taken the path of least resistance. They have given up. They have given in.

Last year, my party has requested the Dutch government to make a cost-benefit analysis of the mass immigration. But the government refused to give us an answer. Why? Because it is afraid of the truth. The signs are not good. A Dutch weekly magazine - Elsevier - calculated costs to exceed 200 billion Euros. Last year alone, they came with an amount of 13 billion Euros. More calculations have been made in Europe: According to the Danish national bank, every Danish immigrant from an Islamic country is costing the Danish state more than 300 thousand Euros. You see the same in Norway and France. The conclusion that can be drawn from this: Europe is getting more impoverished by the day. More impoverished thanks to mass immigration. More impoverished thanks to demographics. And the leftists are thrilled.

I don't know whether it is true, but in several British newspapers I read that Labour opened the door to mass immigration in a deliberate policy to change the social structures of the UK. Andrew Neather, a former government advisor and speech writer for Tony Blair and Jack Straw, said the aim of Labour's immigration strategy was, and I quote, to "rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date". If this is true, this is symptomatic of the Left.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The left is facilitating islamization. Leftists, liberals, are cheering for every new shariah bank being created, for every new shariah mortgage, for every new islamic school, for every new shariah court. Leftists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn't really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Why I ask myself, why have the Leftists and liberals stopped to fight for them? Once the Leftists stood on the barricades for women's rights. But where are they today? Where are they in 2010? They are looking the other way. Because they are addicted to cultural relativism and dependent on the Muslim vote. They are dependent on mass-immigration.

Thank heavens Jacqui Smith isn't in office anymore. It was a victory for free speech that a UK judge brushed aside her decision to refuse me entry to your country last year. I hope that the judges in my home country are at least as wise and will acquit me of all charges, later this year in the Netherlands.

Unfortunately, so far they have not done so well. For they do not want to hear the truth about Islam, nor are they interested to hear the opinion of top class legal experts in the field of freedom of expression. Last month in a preliminary session the Court refused fifteen of the eighteen expert-witnesses I had requested to be summoned. Only three expert witnesses are allowed to be heard. . . [and] their testimony will be heard behind closed doors. Apparently the truth about Islam must not be told in public, the truth about Islam must remain secret.

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm being prosecuted for my political beliefs. We know political prosecution to exist in countries in the Middle East, like Iran and Saudi-Arabia, but never in Europe, never in the Netherlands.

I'm being prosecuted for comparing the Quran to 'Mein Kampf'. Ridiculous. I wonder if Britain will ever put the beliefs of Winston Churchill on trial... Ladies and gentlemen, the political trial that is held against me has to stop.

But it is not all about me. . . .Free speech is under attack. Let me give you a few other examples. As you perhaps know, one of my heroes, the Italian author Oriana Fallaci had to live in fear of extradition to Switzerland because of her anti-Islam book 'The Rage and the Pride'. The Dutch cartoonist Nekschot was arrested in his home in Amsterdam by 10 police men because of his anti-Islam drawings. Here in Britain, the American author Rachel Ehrenfeld was sued by a Saudi businessman for defamation. In the Netherlands Ayaan Hirsi Ali and in Australia two Christian pastors were sued. I could go on and on. Ladies and gentlemen, all throughout the West freedom loving people are facing this ongoing 'legal jihad'. This is Islamic 'lawfare'. And, ladies and gentlemen, not long ago the Danish cartoonist Westergaard was almost assassinated for his cartoons.

Ladies and gentlemen, we should defend the right to freedom of speech. . . .I believe it is our obligation to preserve the inheritance of the brave young soldiers that stormed the beaches of Normandy. That liberated Europe from tyranny. . . .As George Orwell said: "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear".

Ladies and gentlemen, I believe in another policy, it is time for change. . . .If I may quote one of my favourite American presidents: Ronald Reagan once said: "We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow". That is why I propose the following measures, I only mention a few, in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. In Europe and certainly in the Netherlands, we need something like the American First Amendment.

Second, we will have to end and get rid of cultural relativism. To the cultural relativists, the shariah socialists, I proudly say: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Don't be affraid to say it. You are not a racist when you say that our own culture is better.

Third, we will have to stop mass immigration from Islamic countries. Because more Islam means less freedom.

Fourth, we will have to expel criminal immigrants and, following denaturalisation, we will have to expel criminals with a dual nationality. And there are many of them in my country.

Fifth, we will have to forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe. Especially since Christians in Turkey, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Indonesia are mistreated, there should be a mosque building-stop in the West.

And last but not least, we will have to get rid of all those so-called leaders. I said it before: Fewer Chamberlains, more Churchills. Let's elect real leaders.

Ladies and gentlemen. To the previous generation, that of my parents, the word 'London' is synonymous with hope and freedom. When my country was occupied by the national-socialists the BBC offered a daily glimpse of hope in my country, in the darkness of Nazi tyranny. Millions of my fellow country men listened to it, underground. The words 'This is London' were a symbol for a better world coming soon.

What will be broadcasted forty years from now? Will it still be "This is London"? Or will it be "This is Londonistan"? Will it bring us hope? Or will it signal the values of Mecca and Medina? Will Britain offer submission or perseverance? Freedom or slavery? The choice is yours. And in the Netherlands the choice is ours.

Ladies and gentlemen, we will never apologize for being free. We will and should never give in. And, indeed, as one of your former leaders said: We will never surrender.

Freedom must prevail, and freedom will prevail.

This is so clear and thought provoking. I pray this man leads his country.

President of School Board

I don't know. But I think I smell a big rat.

Here's are two email snippets from the president of the Detroit school board:

Do DPS control the Foundation or outside group? If an outside group control the foundation, then what is DPS Board row with selection of is director? Our we mixing DPS and None DPS row's, and who is the watch dog?

If you saw Sunday's Free Press that shown Robert Bobb the emergency financial manager for Detroit Public Schools, move Mark Twain to Boynton which have three times the number seats then students and was one of the reason's he gave for closing school to many empty seats.

I'm not a teacher. But what would you say? The President of the Detroit School Board has the writing skills of a 3rd or 4th grader?

Afroman-Because I got High

Funny, my little nephew sings it even better.

Sarah Palin

This is from NBC

She's funny.

My 10th Speech, Toastmasters

This is my tenth speech in Toastmasters. In Toastmasters, after the tenth speech, the toastmaster earns the "Competent Communicator" award. For me, I feel Competent Communicator is a bit of an oxymoron. I might communicate, but I certainly don't feel competent.

I have come a long way in my time with Toastmasters. It has helped me grow as a person outside of the Toastmaster experience. What I love about Toastmasters is those who attend, want to make the most out of their lives and become better people. I respect my fellow Toastmasters.

Hoax of the Century

This is from LewRockwell.com, written by Patrick Buchanan titled:

Hoax of the Century


With publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859, the hunt was on for the "missing link." Fame and fortune awaited the scientist who found the link proving Darwin right: that man evolved from a monkey.

In 1912, success! In a gravel pit near Piltdown in East Sussex, there was found the cranium of a man with the jaw of an ape.


"Darwin Theory Proved True," ran the banner headline.

Evolution skeptics were pilloried, and three English scientists were knighted for validating Piltdown Man.

It wasn't until 1953, after generations of biology students had been taught about Piltdown Man, that closer inspection discovered that the cranium belonged to a medieval Englishman, the bones had been dyed to look older and the jaw belonged to an orangutan whose teeth had been filed down to look human.

The scientific discovery of the century became the hoax of the century. But Piltdown Man was not alone. There was Nebraska Man.

In 1922, Henry Fairfield Osborn, president of the American Museum of Natural History, identified a tooth fossil found in Nebraska to be that of an "anthropoid ape." He used his discovery to mock William Jennings Bryan, newly elected to Congress, as "the most distinguished primate which the State of Nebraska has yet produced."

Invited to testify at the Scopes trial, however, Osborn begged off. For, by 1925, Nebraska Man's tooth had been traced to a wild pig, and Creationist Duane Gish, a biochemist, had remarked of Osborn's Nebraska Man, "I believe this is a case in which a scientist made a man out of a pig, and the pig made a monkey out of the scientist."


These stories are wonderfully told in Eugene Windchy's 2009 The End of Darwinism. But if Piltdown Man and his American cousin Nebraska Man were the hoaxes of the 20th century, global warming is the great hoax of the 21st. In a matter of months, what have we learned:

In its 2007 report claiming that the Himalayan glaciers are melting, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relied on a 1999 news story in a popular science journal, based on one interview with a little-known Indian scientist who said this was pure "speculation," not supported by any research. The IPCC also misreported the supposed date of the glaciers' meltdown as 2035. The Indian had suggested 2350.

The IPCC report that global warming is going to kill 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest and cut African crop yields 50 percent has been found to be alarmist propaganda.

The IPCC 2007 report declared 55 percent of Holland to be below sea level, an exaggeration of over 100 percent.

While endless keening is heard over the Arctic ice cap, we hear almost nothing of the 2009 report of the British Antarctica Survey that the sea ice cap of Antarctica has been expanding by 100,000 square kilometers a decade for 30 years. That translates into 3,800 square miles of new Antarctic ice every year.

Though America endured one of the worst winters ever, while the 2009 hurricane season was among the mildest, the warmers say this proves nothing. But when our winters were mild and the 2005 hurricane season brought four major storms to the U.S. coast, Katrina among them, the warmers said this validated their theory.


You can't have it both ways.

The Climate Research Center at East Anglia University, which provides the scientific backup for the IPCC, apparently threw out the basic data on which it based claims of a rise in global temperatures for the century. And a hacker into its e-mail files found CLC "scientists" had squelched the publication of dissenting views.
What we learned in a year's time: Polar bears are not vanishing. Sea levels are not rising at anything like the 20-foot surge this century was to bring. Cities are not sinking. Beaches are not disappearing. Temperatures have not been rising since the late 1990s. And, in historic terms, our global warming is not at all unprecedented.

Dennis Avery of Hudson Institute wrote a decade ago that from A.D. 900 to 1300, the Earth warmed by 4 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit, a period known as the Little Climate Optimum.

How horrible was it?

"The Vikings discovered and settled Greenland around A.D. 950. Greenland was then so warm that thousands of colonists supported themselves by pasturing cattle on what is now frozen tundra. During this great global warming, Europe built the looming castles and soaring cathedrals that even today stun tourists with their size, beauty and engineering excellence. These colossal buildings required the investment of millions of man-hours – which could be spared from farming because of higher crop yields."

Today's global warming hysteria is the hoax of the 21st century. H.L. Mencken had it right: "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed – and hence clamorous to be led to safety – by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."

March 2, 2010

Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail] is co-founder and editor of The American Conservative. He is also the author of seven books, including Where the Right Went Wrong, and A Republic Not An Empire. His latest book is Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. See his website.

Copyright © 2010 Creators Syndicate

One Smart Dog

So I go to the bathroom. As I leave, I walk around the corner, and look what Da Bugsters is doing.

I'm telling you, she totally plays me. And it works every time. So yes, she got her belwy scratched.

She doesn't smile, but when her tail wags, I know she has a smile in her heart.