US Senate:

• Pat Roberts: 65%
• Jerry Moran: 74%

US House:

• Kevin Yoder: 77%
• Lynn Jenkins: 79%
• Mike Pompeo: 85%
• Tim Huelskamp: 92%

Why? Because they deny the facts and insist on using confused logic as their arguments. What are the major arguments defending abortion, let’s see…

1. A baby shouldn’t have to have a crappy parent that doesn’t want them.

2. If we make it illegal, abortion will be more dangerous (not to the fetus – it’s just as dangerous for them either way).

3. It’s a parasite and the woman should have the right to kill it until it’s “viable”.

4. “It’s my body” and you should keep your hands off.

5. And my favorite non-argument “You’re a man, so your opinion is meaningless.”

If you look at those arguments objectively, you’d quickly realize that each one is faulty on its face.

1. Since when do we kill someone so they won’t have a crappy life (Terry Schiavo being an obvious exception). Lots of people have crappy lives, and I’d venture to say that almost all of them are happy they weren’t aborted. And “overpopulation” is another follow-on argument that’s also bunk, because I have driven across the Midwest and I can assure you, there’s lots of room.

2. Um yes. If we make abortion illegal it will be more dangerous. However, all other forms of murder are illegal and illegal abortion isn’t dangerous AT ALL if you DON’T HAVE ONE!

3. It’s a parasite?? First of all, you’re retarded. Second of all, you clearly haven’t ever taken a science class. Third of all, you’re retarded. By the same logic, a two year old child is a parasite… they can’t survive on their own. Here’s why you’re retarded. “Fetus” has its own unique DNA, its own blood type which does not mix with the mother’s, it has its own heartbeat (22 days after conception) and brainwaves, and since its DNA is unique AND human, by definition, it’s a UNIQUE HUMAN BEING. If you cling to the idea that it’s part of your body, you’re simply being selfish and irrational. There’s no other explanation because science and logic completely refute this argument. We’re literally within years of being able to grow a baby completely in a lab… women as an incubator won’t always be necessary. What then, viability nuts?

4. Your body is your body, and the baby’s body is the baby’s body. We’ll keep our laws from messing with your body if you leave your baby alone.

5. So since I’m a man, can I not have an opinion on whether a woman can legally kill someone? This argument is just a deflection because the women who defend abortion can’t allow themselves to ever for once second think it might be a baby. I have opinions about all sorts of crimes that don’t personally affect me. Right is right. Wrong is wrong. It doesn’t matter who’s saying it, the truth is the truth.

The wheels come off for all the arguments against abortion if it is in fact a baby, since society routinely makes it illegal to harm or kill another human being.

The entire pro-abortion crowd is dwindling (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx) with 72% saying it should only be allowed in the direst of circumstances (which doesn’t include “oops, I’m pregnant”), and that makes me happy. Many that still cling to it are either leftover feminists that helped usher in legal abortion, or they are women who actually had an abortion, and to admit that it’s a baby would be devastating to them.

I have nothing but compassion for women that have had an abortion. I’m not one of the raving lunatics that holds graphic signs on the street. But I do completely reject all of the arguments in support of abortion, because in the final analysis, the only thing that matters is a helpless human is being killed in the most painful ways possible, and its own mother is allowing it. I can’t think of anything more awful.

So to sum up. If you’ve had an abortion in your past for whatever reason, you aren’t ridiculous. At best you were naive’, and at worst you were selfish, but all have sinned and no one here on Earth can judge you.

If you’re a Christian and you still think abortion should be legal, you need to seriously examine your belief system. By the same token, if you’re a Christian and you’re pro-war, you might have something wrong with you.

If you’re one of those people that clings to calling the preborn baby a “fetus” (which is latin for ‘little one’) and insists it doesn’t deserve basic human rights, well, you force me to consider that we should start allowing 90th trimester abortions.

I support peoples’ constitutional right to have guns. And I’m not just talking about my biceps.

I also recently wrote that some real reform was needed if we’re going to slow down the tide of school shootings. And of course, the government has decided that instead, they’d like to make some stupid, totally ineffective restrictions instead.

As Clinton did, the focus is on “assault rifles” and “high-capacity magazines.” The only difference between an “assault rifle” and a “hunting rifle” is the decorations. Literally, there’s no other difference. The high capacity magazine argument is pointless, because you can still have as many standard magazines as you want, which hold 9-10 rounds each. I have a Beretta .40 that has 8 magazines with it. That’s 80 rounds I can fire without reloading a magazine one single time. Over 70% of gun murders are done using handguns. We aren’t talking about restricting them AT ALL.

We are going at this bass ackwards. The guns / type of guns / capacity of guns arguments are the completely wrong place to attack this problem. The people are the problem, not the guns. Putting guns into the hands of nutbags is the problem. We clearly don’t screen carefully enough, and we allow person-to-person firearm sales with no paper trail. That’s absolutely crazy.

I saw a thing that sarcastically said “Banning guns will reduce crime? Wow, we should outlaw heroin and meth, too!” The point was, prohibition never actually works. It’s very effective at creating a black market – which incidentally increases crime at the same time. People got all the booze they wanted during prohibition, and the bootleggers got rich. None of it was taxed, and the mob did most of the work at filling the demand. In essence, we took the alcohol sales away from bartenders and restaurants and we gave it to outlaws.

Good thinking.

Let’s outlaw weapons that people want to have so that organized crime can fill that demand by illegally acquiring and distributing them on the streets.

Good people will comply with the law (or rise up against it). Bad people will ignore the law. Guess what, folks. It’s already illegal to shoot dozens of elementary children in a school. The shooter didn’t care that it was illegal. He wouldn’t have cared if having a gun was illegal, either.

Hold gun owners accountable for what happens with their guns. Do better background checks. A simple phone call to ANYONE that knew that guy would have raised all the red flags we needed. People knew he was off his nut.

If we had an outbreak of murders being performed using three-tined forks, and we decided that the forks were the issue, would it really solve the problem to outlaw only the three-tined forks and not four tined-forks? Because it’s exactly the same thing.

A sweeping, complete gun ban would be completely unconstitutional, but it’s the only type of gun ban that would make a difference. The government don’t have the power to make that call, nor should they. Hitler’s first move was a sweeping gun ban. Hitler was elected when the German economy sucked and things looked bleak. People were happy to have someone strong and charismatic to lead them. That ended badly.

I’m just saying.

JOINT PRESS RELEASE

KDHE & the federal Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology

January 7, 2013

KDHE Contact: Miranda Steele

ONC-HIT Contact: Nicole Hudson

Kansas recognized as leader in advancing the use of health information technology

Federal government lauds state’s efforts

TOPEKA, Kan. – Kansas officials and stakeholders have been recognized by the federal government as national leaders for their efforts to enhance the safety and quality of health care by embracing the use of health information technology.

While a number of industries have fully accepted electronic records as their norm for operations, the complexity of information and previous lack of any standards hampered the medical field’s adoption of information exchange.

The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) serves on the Kansas Health Information Exchange Board of Directors and believes it is important to partner with Kansas’ health care providers, hospitals and pharmacies and other stakeholders to adopt and implement technologies that allow them to communicate securely and electronically, information regarding medical consumers in real time. The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is specifically recognizing the efforts in Kansas for:

· Being recognized as one of the top 10 states in the nation to have the largest increases in Directed and Query-Based exchange

· Achieving Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology’s second milestone for Directed and Query-Based exchange

Directed exchange is used by providers to easily and securely send patient information—such as laboratory orders and results, patient referrals, or discharge summaries—directly to another health care professional. This information is sent over the internet in an encrypted, secure, and reliable way amongst health care professionals who already know and trust each other, and is commonly compared to sending a secured email. This form of information exchange enables coordinated care, benefitting both providers and patients.

Query-based exchange is used by providers to search and discover accessible clinical sources on a patient. This type of exchange is often used when delivering unplanned care. For example:

· Emergency room physicians who can utilize query-based exchange to access patient information—such as medications, recent radiology images, and problem lists—might adjust treatment plans to avoid adverse medication reactions or duplicative testing.

· If a pregnant patient goes to the hospital, query-based exchange can assist a provider in obtaining her pregnancy care record, allowing them to make safer decisions about the care of the patient and her unborn baby.

“We’re proud of the work being done to improve care of people throughout the state and are thrilled the effort is receiving national recognition,” said Aaron Dunkel, HIT Coordinator and Deputy Secretary of KDHE. “Good communication among everyone involved in keeping a person healthy is vital to ensure good outcomes. Current technologies make it easy and safe for doctors, nurses, pharmacists and others to communicate with each other on their patients’ behalf. It results in fewer errors and means health care providers and their staff can spend more time actually talking with their patients. That’s what we’re working toward.”

Kansas Health Information Network (KHIN) Executive Director Laura McCrary said that KHIN, one of two Health Information Organizations in Kansas, has been fortunate to have the strong support of Kansas health care providers. “The Kansas Medical Society and the Kansas Hospital Association, as founding members of KHIN, have been instrumental in the successful adoption and implementation of health information exchange in Kansas,” she said.

“Many individuals have worked diligently to create capabilities that will ultimately yield improved medical outcomes and reduced treatment costs for all Kansans. The Kansas Health Information Exchange is pleased that these efforts and accomplishments have been recognized by the Office of the National Coordinator,” said Jackie John, Vice Chair of the Kansas Health Information Exchange Board of Directors.

The Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology—which has led the process of establishing the essential building blocks to support this secure exchange of health information—is recognizing the early achievements of states and territories participating in this effort.

Washington Post:  Who voted against Boehner.

Politico:  Well-organized resistance:

Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) — who was recently removed from key committees and supported Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) for speaker — sat on the House floor during the speaker vote brandishing an iPad. A message was displayed on the screen ticking off members of the House Republican Conference he hoped would oppose the sitting speaker. The title of the document: “You would be fired if this goes out.”

Politico:  “Who are the Boehner resisters?”

Washington Times:

Rep. Walter B. Jones, a North Carolina Republican who was booted from his committee assignments by Mr. Boehner and his party this year, voted for David M. Walker, the former comptroller general of the federal government, who pushes for action to cure the debt.

In addition to Mr. Jones, the Republicans who didn’t vote for Mr. Boehner were Reps. Justin Amash of Michigan, Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma, Paul Broun of George, Louie Gohmert of Texas, Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, Thomas Massie of Kentucky, Steve Pearce of New Mexico and Ted Yoho of Florida.

Full text of John Boehner’s remarks, after re-election.

Kathryn  Jean Lopez at National Review:  “The speech sounded like a man looking at his own cross and pleading with his colleagues to take up theirs as well.”

Human Events:

However, Rep. Tim Huelskamp (R-Kan.) told Human Events after the vote that “arm twisting” on Boehner’s behalf was “very intense” with threats that Republicans would lose plum committee assignments or campaign donations from the National Republican Congressional Committee if they opposed the speaker’s reelection.

The Hill:

 Boehner won a bare majority in a vote that saw nine Republicans vote for other GOP members, and several others who abstained from voting or voted “present.” Two years ago, Boehner won all 241 available GOP votes.

 

Link to graph:

Obama’s political victory: Getting the GOP to break its tax pledge is “One of the most consequential policy achievements of the last couple of decades.”

Breitbart: “a 41:1 ratio of tax increases to spending cuts.”

Tax increase for 77% of Americans.

Senate roll call vote.  89 vote yes, 8 vote no.

CNS News:  “Senators Got 154-Page ‘Fiscal Cliff’ Bill 3 Minutes Before Voting on It” 

All Kansas US House members vote “no.”

Sen. Rand Paul votes no: “The deal will do absolutely nothing to save this country.”

Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet (CO) votes “no” - “because the deal did not have meaningful deficit reduction.”

Video, Charles Krauthammer: The House Has Been “Neutered” By Obama

Corporate subsidies in bill – algae, movie studios - Tim Carney at The W ashington Examiner.

Paul Ryan votes “yes.”  Erick Erickson:  “…he’s not really a leader. He’s more a follower of leaders.”

Many academics I know agree that black-studies programs are often slipshod, academically non-rigorous, and repositories for “grievance” politics. But they won’t say so publicly, for fear of being branded as “racists.” Naomi Riley had the courage to state the obvious. The author of two substantive books on higher education, she has worked with me as an editor on such topics at the Wall Street Journal. She knows her stuff. Certainly in a 500-word blog post she oversimplified, but that’s the nature of the blog that the Chronicle hired her to write for — it consists of quick opinion takes on issues of the day. It is even called “Brainstorm” to make clear it doesn’t publish the definitive word on any issue.

Her lone blog post brought a torrent of criticism, attacks by MSNBC, and finally a petition demanding that the Chronicle “dismiss” her. It was signed by 6,500 professors and graduate students.