Kansas Law Would Prevent Discrimination Against Living Donors

The Kansas legislature is currently considering a bill that would ban any type of insurance industry discrimination against living donors. Simply put, it would prevent insurance companies from charging living donors higher premiums on life, health, disability, or long-term care policies.

The legislation would also prevent insurance companies from denying living donors coverage or canceling their policy just for being a living donor. Studies have shown that approximately 1/4 of living donors endure such discrimination, and, in my opinion, it's just as wrong as discrimination based upon race, national origin, etc. 

When someone decides to give of themselves in order to save the life of another, they should be encouraged for doing so instead of receiving a form of punishment by way of financial hardship from the insurance industry. I doubt that Kansas is the only state where this law is needed. 

Therefore, I'm calling on Congress and President Trump to put an end to such discrimination once and for all by passing a federal law banning discrimination against the heroes in this country who have chosen to give the gift of life through living donation. Washington is in the news all the time with Trump and Congress arguing and bickering over things that aren't a matter of life and death while this discrimination and the needless dying of Americans on the waiting list for life-saving organ transplants continues.

In fact, Sue Herndon, who in 2009 donated a kidney to a friend, stated it best when she testified that, "Everything we do to help encourage living donation saves lives." She is 100% correct. 

Read More: cjonline.com article titled "Kidney Donor Asks Kansas Legislators to Block Insurance Discrimination"

Wrong for the Job

I thought long and hard about whether or not to write this post. I've been hesitant to do so, because, like most of us, I'm sick of the political garbage. However, as an advocate for organ and tissue donation, my great state is in danger of electing a U.S. Senator who is totally the wrong person for the job, particularly for Tennesseans who are transplant recipients or donor family members.

Courtesy : Wikipedia

The mere thought of Phil Bredesen as U.S Senator from Tennessee makes me ill. I don't care for him at all. I endured 8 years of him as Nashville, TN mayor plus 8 years of him as Tennessee Governor. In fact, his time as mayor is one of the reasons we moved out of Davidson County in 2005, because I got tired of my property taxes going up. I could list many more reasons as to why I don't like Bredesen, but there is one that trumps them all, and it has nothing to do with politics.

While he was governor, the Tennessee Governor's Highway Safety Office (GHSO), ran a series of anti-drunk driving PSAs. Sounds great, right? No one wants intoxicated drivers on the roads. Honestly, the PSAs were good, until one titled "Harvest" aired.

It starts off talking about an emergency surgery. Then, Bredesen points to an open operating room and explains that a "harvest" (organs being recovered for transplant) is taking place in there due to a young girl being killed by a drunk driver. First of all, he should have used the proper terminology. We use the term "recovery" now. However, that mistake was the least of the problems with the PSA.

When I saw the PSA for the first time, I was initially in shock that a governor would be so insensitive. Next, I got angry. Why? Because to me the underlying theme of the ad is not that drunk driving is bad and people shouldn't do it - it's that drunk driving causes people to become organ donors and that organ donation is the penalty for drunk driving. He connected a life-saving positive with a senseless, tragic, no-regard-for-human life negative. Organ donation and drunk driving should NEVER be connected to each other in such a way and doing so was cold and heartless.

United HealthCare, God, and a Life-Saving Liver Transplant

In The Sheepdog's opinion, it appears United HealthCare (UHC) thinks it's no longer in the health insurance business. Instead, it's received a promotion into the business of being God. However, don't take my word for it, just ask 38-year-old mother of one, Erika Zak. UHC has put her through as much hell as cancer did.

Location of human liver - credit Wikipedia

Diagnosed with colorectal cancer, Erika endured more than 70 rounds of chemo and various other treatments which resulted in serious side effects, including damage to her liver and subsequent liver failure.

Over 100 doctors from the country's top medical centers concur that Erika's only hope for survival at this point is a life-saving liver transplant. Yet, UHC denied coverage saying, "unproven health services is not a covered benefit". Really? Despite the fact that transplants have saved thousands of lives in the U.S. for decades, UHC refers to transplant as "unproven". Science, medical technology, and thousands of transplant recipients across the country, including The Sheepdog, prove otherwise.

The Sheepdog has seen a lot in his time, but the way UHC treated this woman and played GOD with her life, stringing her along for months, may be the most cold hearted thing I've heard of an insurance company doing. I suspect others have experienced similar agony, though.

The Last Growl

I started this blog over 8 years ago. Frequent readers may have noticed the number of posts has decreased during the last few years. I’ve been pondering the blog’s future for awhile, and after 719 posts, including this one, and over 240,000 page views, I’ve decided it’s time to close up shop, sign off one last time, and retire from the blogosphere.

It’s not because this heart transplant recipient’s health is failing. On the contrary - I’m approaching the 11^th anniversary of my transplant and am still doing great. God continues to bless me tremendously.

The decision boils down to one thing – The Sheepdog is weary, and he’s weary for a number of reasons.

First, Google’s Blogger platform has become unreliable. More and more frequently, something doesn’t work correctly, some font has changed, a sidebar tool has been discontinued, a plug-in has failed, or some other aggravating issue has arisen whenever I log in to write. For example. when I wrote this post, the Zemanta plug-in I've used for years had stopped working .... again. I guess I really shouldn’t be surprised, because Blogger is free. Therefore, Google has no incentive to keep it functioning at a high level. It’s the ol’ “you get what you pay for”.

Second, I’m not feeling the motivation to write the blog anymore, which is fueled somewhat by the Blogger issues mentioned above. I could switch to another platform, such as Wordpress, but I’m just not willing to build the site again, nor pay for the service. Sometimes over the last few years, I actually had to force myself to write just to keep the blog active. I’ve had enough of that, too. I’ve read a few articles and studies which have shown that blog readership is declining. Some of that is due to the popularity of Facebook, Twitter, and other social media platforms. People just aren’t as interested in reading blogs anymore. Based upon my pageviews declining and no comments on posts, it appears these studies are correct.

Delaware Outlaws Discrimination In Organ Transplantation

Recently, Delaware Governor John Carney signed into law a bill banning discrimination in organ transplantation based upon a person's disability. Thanks to Gov. Carney and the Delaware legislature, the state is now the 6th in the U.S. to outlaw such practices.

English: A collection of pictograms. Three of them used by the United States National Park Service. A package containing those three and all NPS symbols is available at the Open Icon Library (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I know from experience that there are a number of criteria by which a patient is evaluated in order to determine if a person is a suitable organ transplant candidate. This bill specifically prohibits a person's disability from being the reason they are denied transplant services and / or considered for transplant.

Rep. Debra Heffernan, the legislation's sponsor, said, "With this bill in place, families will have peace of mind and know that their loved one with a disability has the right to be treated fairly when they are undergoing the extremely taxing process of pursuing a life-saving transplant."

Governor Carney added, "A true measure of the commitment of government to the people is how well it addresses the needs of those who are living with disabilities. By signing this legislation into law, we are taking action to ensure individuals with disabilities have access to organ transplant procedures."

I agree with both of them wholeheartedly, and I implore Congress and President Trump to keep this non-discrimination theme in mind as they continue to work on the repeal and replace of ObamaCare.  The pre-existing conditions protection MUST be kept in place in whatever piece of legislation they ultimately agree on. Any discrimination to healthcare access is immoral and must be banned, because it ultimately leads to lives being needlessly lost.

I have 1 question in regards to Delaware's new legislation. Why do ONLY 6 states have such a law in place? Shame on the other 44 of you. Every state should have such a law on the books. I call upon the governors and legislators in the 44 states who have no such law to get to work and get it done.

Read More: DelawarePublic.org article - "Gov. Carney Signs Bill Banning Organ Transplant Discrimination" 

An Ode to Hillary on Music Monday

Finally. It's over. The Clinton Regime is done. We Conservatives endured 8 years of the liberal, military gutting, law enforcement hating, gun control loving, couldn't keep it in his pants, Clinton presidency. Then, we endured Hillary's progressive tenure in the U.S. Senate. Next, we endured her embarrassing, leftist foreign policy initiatives as Secretary of State. Lastly, we endured her stint as the Democratic nominee for president. Now, thank God, all of that is over.

Through all of it and unlike when things don't go The Lunatic Left's way, we conservatives didn't break and burn things, nor did we riot. Heck, we didn't even threaten to leave the country like a bunch of babies. We endured it and made the best of it.

Now, we only ask for one, simple thing - Hillary, please "Don't Go Away Mad, Just Go Away." So, on this post-2016 election edition of Music Monday, this one's dedicated to Hillary Clinton. It's Motley Crue with "Don't Go Away Mad (Just Go Away)" from their 1989 #1 record, Dr. Feelgood (click here).

Proceed With Caution

Today, the ones of us who voted for Trump are at a minimum relieved while some are thrilled and celebrating. If you supported Clinton, then you're probably a little down, maybe even pissed, but the one thing all of us can agree on is that we're glad it's over. For the first time in a long time, I won't have to empty my "BS" filter before going to bed tonight.

English: Seal of the President of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

If you supported Trump, I want to encourage you to not get too excited just yet. He is just one man and try as he might, he cannot fix all that ails the country overnight. It will take time, and he will have to have help. Plus, there are other things to consider, too. For instance:

1. Exactly what are we getting with Trump? Are we getting the Trump who years ago was a liberal? You know, the one who was "pro-choice", supported some gun control, and contributed money to liberal politicians. Or, are we getting the Trump who campaigned for the presidency on much more conservative values? The answer is - we don't know. Only time will tell.
2. Trump smacked the establishment around unmercifully, both Republicans and Democrats. Heck, some of the upper echelon Republicans didn't even support him as the party's presidential nominee. I even heard today where former President George W. Bush didn't even bother to vote for president. So, I'm wondering if the establishment in Congress will even work with Trump in fixing what ails us, which they caused, or if they will just make his life difficult.
3. The Republicans now control the House, the Senate, and the White House. They have absolute power over us, which we have given them, and "Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Will they limit themselves to the powers granted them by The Constitution, or will it be "anything goes"? Will they keep Trump in check, or will they set on their asses like they did with Obama and let him do whatever he wants? House Speaker Paul Ryan said today that Trump had been given a "mandate". When I heard that, shivers went up my spine. It's eerily similar to Lamar Alexander, the U.S. Senator from Tennessee, saying, "Elections have consequences" after Obama won the presidency in 2008. One party with this much power could prove to be very dangerous, folks. Contrary to what some may think, just because it's the Republicans, it doesn't mean they're saints. Some Republicans are just as low-down evil as some Democrats. I know from first-hand experience.

So, I want to encourage all of my fellow Americans, and especially the Trump supporters, to proceed with caution in regards to their post-election celebrations. Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled that Hillary Clinton was defeated, but the fact is we don't know where a Trump presidency will actually take us as a country. We are in uncharted waters. However, I know one place it better take us to, or we're doomed to failure, and that's the instruction of 2 Chronicles 7:14, which says:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; THEN (emphasis added) will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. (KJV).

Pure Evil

Up until now, The Sheepdog's been pretty silent regarding the 2016 presidential race, and there's two reasons for that:

1. I'm sick of politics. It just keeps getting uglier and uglier. The Republicans and the Democrats are basically the same - they're in it for themselves, not to serve, and are more interested in what's good for their party instead of what's good for the country. It's why I left the GOP back in 2010. The current GOP disgusts me as much as the Democrats.
2. Plus, all the candidates, from the more than a dozen so-called Republicans that started the race, to the few Democrats, to the current third party candidates, totally suck. As my friend, The Colonel used to say, "There ain't a statesman in the bunch". Not one. You disagree? Then, let's review some of them.

The so-called "Republicans":

• Bush III - really? Another one? I can already hear the Democrats if he had won the GOP nomination, "It'll be 4 more years of the same failed policies of the past."
• The anchor baby (Rubio).
• The birther (Cruz) - I still don't understand how the GOP supported this guy after raising so much cain about Obama's birth certificate. Cruz was born in Canada. Total hypocrites.
• The Billionaire, Brattish Bully (Trump)
• George Soro's boy (Kasich).
• Chris Christie - pro-homosexual marriage and governor of one of the most anti-gun states in the country.
• Lindsey Graham - not the sharpest tack in the box and the 2016 version of John McCain.

The Democrats:

• The Progressive Extremist, and
• the Socialist.

Really? Is this the best we can do as a country?

English: Khusruwiyah Mosque in Aleppo, Syria Français : Mosquée Khosrowiyé à Alep en Syrie (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

And then, of course, there's the third party candidates led by Gary Johnson. You remember him, right? He wants to be Commander in Chief and institute his foreign policies, but he doesn't know where Aleppo, Syria is, the center of the Syrian refugee crisis caused by that country's civil war. Additionally, Johnson is supposedly conservative, but yet he is "pro-choice" for abortion and wants to legalize marijuana. Neither of those stances equate to conservative principles and values. He should actually be a Democrat.

Since all the candidates suck like a Hoover vacuum, who should Americans vote for? Since a third party candidate has as much chance at winning the election as a Volkswagen Beetle does at winning the Daytona 500, and both major party nominees have more baggage than a Boeing 747 headed for Europe, it's a tough choice. That is until you are aware of the information I am sharing below. It's shocking and no one is talking about it.

In fact, what I will share the remainder of this post, regarding this presidential election, is far more important than the economy, foreign policy, gun control, jobs, and even abortion. I doubt you will see this information anywhere else, but in my opinion, it's the #1 issue to consider before casting your vote for the presidency.

Back in 2009, Hillary Clinton proudly went on record as someone who "enormously" admires Margaret Sanger (click here for video). Now, who the heck is Margaret Sanger? She was a well-known proponent of eugenics after World War I. In simple terms, eugenics is the idea that some people's lives are more valuable than others. It teaches that people with "undesirable" traits should not be allowed to reproduce and pass their "undesirable" traits to their offspring. Eugenicists desire to reduce or totally eliminate such traits from the human gene pool and are not opposed to eliminating living humans possessing these "undesirable" traits. These traits include:

1. physical disabilities,
2. mental disabilities, 
3. chronic health issues a.k.a. pre-existing conditions,
4. being poor, 
5. being an immigrant, and
6. being a members of a racial or ethnic minority.

Eugenicists consider "undesirables" as "unfit", as in unfit to live, and a waste of oxygen and / or other resources. On the other hand, eugenicists believe people with "good stock", not having one or more of the traits listed above, should be encouraged to have many children. In other words they want to build "a master race." Anyone see a problem here besides me? Eugenics is a dangerous philosophy and has it's pitfalls, such as:

A major criticism of eugenics policies is that, regardless of whether "negative" or "positive" policies are used, they are vulnerable to abuse because the criteria of selection are determined by whichever group is in political power. Furthermore, negative eugenics in particular is considered by many to be a violation of basic human rights, which include the right to reproduction. Another criticism is that eugenic policies eventually lead to a loss of genetic diversity, resulting in inbreeding depression instead due to a low genetic variation. - Wikipedia

Does any of this sound familiar? Think back to the 1930s and '40s and Adolf Hitler, the Nazis, and the Jews. The Nazis were huge proponents of eugenics which led to millions of Jews being slaughtered during World War II. The Jews were considered "undesirable", so Hitler wanted them annihilated in order to establish a master race. He might have accomplished his goal, too, if he had not been greedy, arrogant, and power hungry in deciding to go to war with the Russians, while at the same time fighting The Allies. Heck, I even read somewhere that Hitler himself admired Margaret Sanger.

English: Margaret Sanger Square is the leafy intersection of Mott St. and Bleecker St. in New York City's Greenwich Village. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Take a few minutes and Google Sanger's name. You will find that she is also the founder of Planned Parenthood. You will also find some of the things she said and  / or wrote revealing her racist ideologies and attitudes regarding African-Americans and others. She even conspired with pastors in black communities in order to get them to encourage their members to use more birth control. Her motivation was to reduce the numbers of African-Americans. She was also one of the early promoters of abortion and even spoke at women's chapters of the Ku Klux Klan (read here). So, considering all this, could it be that the original intention of abortion was not about women's freedom to choose to end unwanted pregnancies, nor the freedom to do what they want with their bodies, but it was instead rooted in bigotry and racism as a means of reducing the African-American population and others considered to be "undesirable"?

Eugenics is PURE EVIL. The Nazis proved that. It amounts to humans, sinful, fallen humans, playing God. I could provide link after link in this post showing the connection between eugenics, Margaret Sanger, racism, and other evil, but the post would run on forever. So, I encourage you to take the time and educate yourself. Get on the web, Google Sanger, eugenics, eugenicists, and do your own research. You will be shocked. You probably never knew that such evil thought processes existed in this world except in movies and TV dramas.

Typically, when someone admires another person, it is because they have something in common with them. Many times it's a shared value, principle, ideology, or goal. Since Hillary Clinton is on record as saying she admires a racist woman whose life work was in eugenics, doesn't it also stand to reason that Hillary Clinton very well may hold the same, evil views as Sanger? To me, that's the scary part of thinking about her being president.

So, what might things be like in the U.S. if a Hillary Clinton presidency were to be influenced by the values of her "hero", Sanger? In addition to the traits previously listed as "undesirable", and thinking about the above quote containing the potential problems with eugenics, consider the following:

• We already know she hates guns. In fact, some Democrats have wanted them all banned for a long time. The so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" and the Brady Bill, which became law during Bill's presidency, are direct evidence of that. Would gun owners become "undesirables"?
• She's previously expressed her contempt for Christians and their beliefs. Would Christians, and perhaps Jews, and other people of faith, also become "undesirables"?
• She's has contempt for the so-called "vast right wing conspiracy" and conservatives, because she thinks they're out to get her and Bill. Would they, or the Clintons' other political enemies, or people who disagree, with them become "undesirables"?
• Remember the section in The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. ObamaCare, regarding "end of life care"? Remember how Sarah Palin and others raised concerns about that? That section of the law is so broad that it could be interpreted to mean many things. What if that section was determined to mean that people who are elderly, have chronic health conditions, or some type of disability, whose care is too expensive, should not be given medical treatment but instead just be left alone to die because they're "undesirables"? That would be a eugenicist's utopia, and ObamaCare was basically HillaryCare once upon a time. Could it get any more barbaric than that? God help us.

Now, I'm sure someone reading this post is gonna object to this line of reasoning. They'll say something like just because Hillary admires a woman who was big into eugenics doesn't mean she shares those same ideas, or, that The Sheepdog's nuts and none of this will ever happen. Well, then consider this - do you remember the adjective Hillary used to describe Donald Trump's supporters? She referred to them as "deplorable". Sounds pretty similar to "undesirables" to me, but there's more to consider in making my point than that. Please, read on.

Hillary Clinton in Hampton, NH (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I've read reports telling of an incident, involving Hillary, which took place at the Arkansas governor's mansion during Bill's gubernatorialship. An Easter egg hunt for special needs children was held. She became frustrated and upset with the youngsters, because they were finding the eggs at a much slower pace than she would have liked. So, she popped off saying, "When are they going to get these f---ing ree-tards out of here?!? You can read more about the incident here. Additionally, within the same article, she is quoted as referring to Jews as "kikes" and one Jewish man in particular as a "f***ing Jew bastard". Plus, her temper and fits of rage over the years, culminating in furniture and other items being broken in the Arkansas governor's mansion, and the White House, have been reported in various media. So, in my opinion, if you mix her temper tantrums, with her racist remarks, and her love for a eugenicist, we have a major problem. These are not the qualities we need in the White House. It's a recipe for a disaster.

Hillary made her admiration for Margaret Sanger known about 7 years ago at a Planned Parenthood awards ceremony. Others have been influenced by evil people before and later recanted their admiration for their mentor as a mistake. Hillary has had plenty of time to do the same, but yet she never has. Therefore, it only stands to reason that she still admires Sanger and her ideals. At a time when race relations are tense in this country and people are held accountable and even ostracized for bigoted behavior and words, why has Hillary Clinton not been held accountable for her allegiance to Sanger?

Another thing to consider before voting is that if Hillary Clinton is elected president, she will likely have the opportunity to nominate more than one justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. Does it not stand to reason that anyone she nominates for the highest court in the land will likely hold the same influences, values, principles, or lack thereof (depending on how you look at it), that she does? Do you remember what United States Senator Lamar Alexander from Tennessee said when he was criticized for his vote confirming Sonia Sotomayor as one of Obama's Supreme Court nominees? He said, "Elections have consequences" (read here). In other words, he took the viewpoint that since Obama won the presidency, he could appoint whomever he wanted and get a free pass in doing so. What if a majority of Congress takes that same attitude during a Hillary Clinton presidency? Consider for a moment the ramifications? We cannot as freedom-loving, decent people allow her that opportunity and give her the power that comes with the presidency. We CANNOT do it.

The answer to the question of which presidential candidate to vote for is a hard one to swallow, especially for a conservative like me. Even with all his baggage, such as insulting people, being rude and crude, arrogant, and a bully, we must elect Donald Trump as president. There is no other way to stop Hillary Clinton from having absolute power and potentially setting up her own "Evil Empire". "But Sheepdog, Congress and the Supreme Court will limit her power through our system of constitutional checks and balances?" Really? Where have you been the last 8 years and the last few years of W's administration? Congress and the Supreme Court have set on their "assets" and allowed Obama to run wild. Heck, the Supreme Court even ruled that ObamaCare is constitutional!! Yet the power to regulate healthcare is mentioned NOWHERE in the constitution. NOWHERE. So, what makes you think those lazy bums will do anything to limit a President Hillary's power?

Now, look back over this post and review who a eugenicist, like "Hillary's Hero", would consider "unfit" or "undesirable" or a "weed". Now, is that you, or one of your loved ones? Is that your spouse, your child, your boyfriend / girlfriend, your parent, your best friend, or someone you care about? If it is, then you have ONLY one choice in this election - Donald Trump. If you stay home and don't vote, or vote for a third party candidate instead of Donald Trump, then you will be helping Hillary Clinton, an evil woman, gain absolute authority over you and the country. It's the equivalent of a chicken voting for a fox AND leaving the door to the chicken coop unlocked and standing open.

If Trump were running against anyone else, it's likely that myself and many others would not vote for him. So, here's what it boils down to for me. Donald Trump has said and done a lot of unacceptable stuff. However, I'm not aware of him even once expressing his admiration for someone like the evil, racist, eugenicist Margaret Sanger who was also admired by Adolf Hitler. Hillary has, and she's proud of it.

Now, this article should not be interpreted as my prediction that the potential scenario I've painted will definitely happen with Hillary as president. If I could predict the future that accurately, I would have already won the PowerBall multiple times. All I'm saying is that when you put all this information together, including Hillary's fits of anger, her bigoted comments, and her admiration for a racist eugenicist, it adds up to it being too risky to give her the power of the presidency.  I'm not willing to take that risk. Are you?

So, with early voting already starting around the country, The Sheepdog is endorsing, and will be voting for, Donald Trump. I do it for one reason and one reason only - to defeat Hillary Clinton and prevent her rise to power. I want to encourage everyone to do the same. Please do not stay home and not vote. Please do not vote for a third party candidate. If you do either of these things, you will be helping The Mother of All Wolves rise to power and risking her finishing Obama's "fundamental transformation" of this country.

The Sheepdog don't like wolves, and Hillary Clinton is the epitome of a wolf. Grrrrr.....

P.S. I'm sure this post has pissed off many people. However, that was not my intention. In fact, I hope in goes viral, so please share it. I am simply a patriot and am concerned that a Hillary Clinton presidency will be a disaster. America will NOT survive it. Therefore, she must be defeated at the ballot box. Therefore, I wrote this out of love for my country and am not concerned with losing, keeping, or making friends as a result of it. It had to be said, and no one else is saying it. Too much is at stake. I'm sure some will want to leave comments, which I welcome. If you do, you MUST follow my blog policy for comments (click here to read). I had the balls to put my name on what will be considered a controversial post. So, if you don't have the "cojones" to put your name on a comment, or you fill it with profanity, it will NOT be posted.

P.P.S. If I disappear from the blogosphere after this post, it's safe to assume that either "they" got me or Google and Blogger shut the blog down. Just know I fought the good fight and did what I could to save my country from a potentially Evil Empire. 

Review and Reaction to "Lone Survivor"

Like many Americans, I saw Lone Survivor during its opening weekend. When my wife and I met some friends at the theater, we were amazed at the size of the crowd. Earlier showings during the day were sold out, and based upon the number of people in the theater for the show we attended, it was either sold out or very close to it. While I'm not much of a fan of crowds, I thought it was great that so many wanted to see the film. In my opinion, it was another way to support our military.

Navy SEAL Trident (Photo credit: kPluto)

As I write this review and share my thoughts and reaction to the film, I am going to do my best not to give too much away. I do not want to ruin it for those who have not had a chance to see it yet. I encourage all adults to see it, because I think it will have an impact on you leading to an even greater appreciation of our veterans and what they do for us. However, if you're not a fan of crowds, like me, it wouldn't hurt to wait a week or so to let the crowds die down. Also, everyone should know that Lone Survivor is rated "R" for a reason - the language and battle scenes are pretty intense.

I am a typical guy - I like movies with action, shooting, and blowing stuff up. I also enjoy military films, documentaries, etc. I've always had a great deal of respect for our soldiers and the sacrifices they make in order to serve our country and protect us. I began to really understand what they do when I was in college, but it seems each time I watch a film like this, I understand a little more.

I've been through a lot in my life. I'd like to think I'm pretty tough, but the movie affected me in powerful ways I did not expect. At one point, I thought I might have to leave, because the film was so intense and vivid. If the intent of the producers / directors / actors was to make the film so realistic that you feel like you're in it, then they accomplished their goal.

I never served in the military because of my various health issues, so I can't speak from experience, but I think this movie has got to be the most realistic portrayal of combat I've ever seen. You literally feel what these brave SEALS experienced making it like nothing I've ever seen. (If you've experienced combat and can speak to the film's realism, please leave a comment on this post as to how realistic the film is. I would love to hear from you.)

Lone Survivor impacted me in a couple of ways. First, as I mentioned, it increased my understanding of what the U.S. military does, of how hard they fight, and the sacrifices our veterans make. I also found myself continuously thinking about how those SEALS had fought and bled for me - for me and my loved ones to keep us safe from the thugs in other countries who want to kill Americans. Thinking about that brought me to tears and humbled me during the film and as I left the theater.

I also got to thinking about why veterans do what they do. It's not because they get paid well or have great benefits. In fact, I'm of the opinion that our country must do more for them. They fight, sacrifice time with their families, bleed, and die for one reason - they love their country. I like to think I'm patriotic, but I realized during Lone Survivor that my patriotism amounts to a single drop of water in the ocean when compared to the patriotism of these SEALS.

The second way Lone Survivor affected me is that I got angry at one point during the film. The SEALS are under heavy fire and call for air support. "Command" responds that no air support is available, because all the Apache gunships are already committed to troops elsewhere. In other words, there's not enough equipment to go around. These guys are fighting their tails off to survive, and their request for help is denied because "we're out." Really?

Now, please don't take what I just said as me blaming "command" for the lack of air support, because I'm not. You could tell they desperately wanted to help, but they just didn't have any equipment to send them. Their hands were tied. I'm sure the ones who tied them reside in D.C., too. I'm also sure it had to do with budget constraints, since we're broke as a country. Time and time again we've heard politicians in D.C. say, "the country can't afford it," but then they always find millions to spend on their special pet pork projects or to send to some third world country's dictator in hopes of bribing him into liking us. It's all bull malarkey. Our priorities are screwed up as a country, plain and simple.

You know what? We should all be ashamed. We, yes we, the citizens who vote, watch, and allow the president and Congress to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on pork projects and other crap every year should be ashamed. The fact that our military doesn't always have the equipment to get in, do the job safely, get out, and get our guys and gals home in one piece is our, the voters and taxpayers, fault. Why? Because we keep re-electing and sending the same yahoos back to D.C. every election year who make the decisions that sometimes leave these brave men and women hanging out to dry. It's on us and us alone.

John Kerry (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Y'all know I'm right, too. I could give multiple examples of it, but I'll stick to just two :

1. Right after John Kerry, a Democrat, replaced Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, he announced that the U.S. would be sending millions of dollars in additional foreign aid to Egypt. During the scene I spoke of above, I thought about that waste of money and my blood pressure went up. When Egypt wants more aid, the response is, "Sure. We'll send it over ASAP," but when Navy SEALS need air support, the response is, "We would love to, but sorry, we're out." It's enough to make even a man like Billy Graham cuss.
2. The Republicans aren't immune to this BS, either. During the last "budget battle" in D.C., legislation was proposed, which was sponsored by Paul Ryan, a Republican, and eventually passed into law which contained a reduction in veterans benefits. The reduction even applied to veterans who were disabled due to injuries they received while in combat serving US. You may also remember the so-called "conservative" Paul Ryan as Mitt Romney's running mate in 2012. With Republicans like him, we don't need the Democrats to screw our military and the country, the Republicans are doing a great job all by themselves.

Lone Survivor is a must see. I think it will have an impact on you. It may even leave you with similar feelings as mine. However, as I mentioned, it is graphic and realistic, and now that I've had a few days to digest it and think about what I saw, I know it has changed me.

Lone Survivor has forever changed me when it comes to election day. Previously, I had two criteria I used in evaluating a candidate - their views on guns and abortion. I now have a third one - I'll call it "veteran friendliness," and it includes evaluating a candidate as to whether they are 100% committed to :

• ensuring our military has all the equipment necessary in order to get the job done quickly and safely, and
• ensuring veterans and their families have great benefits and are helped transition back into civilian life when they return home.

Any candidate who does not meet both criteria will not get my vote. Likewise, any incumbent, Republican or Democrat, who has one, just one, vote supporting a decrease in military spending or veterans benefits will be voted out by me. I don't care if they've voted "veteran friendly" thousands of times before. In my opinion, they're either all in, or they're out. I hope many of you will join me in holding politicians accountable this way. My one vote will not have an affect, but thousands of us doing what I just proposed in the voting booth will. It will catch the politicians' attention faster than a female White House intern catches Bill Clinton's.

I think it's important that we look out for our veterans this way, because they have looked out for us. Our military fights the wolves overseas for us with bullets and bombs in order to keep us safe at home. We should fight the wolves here at home for them, in D.C. and the state houses nationwide, with our votes, phone calls, and e-mails in order to make sure them and their families are taken care of while they're overseas and after they return home. Our veterans will likely never ask us to do any of this, but they shouldn't have to. We must do it because it's right. Any wolf politician who doesn't agree needs to be voted out and sent home - period.

As I wrap this up, I want to say thank you to the producers, directors, writers, and others involved in making Lone Survivor. I think you have served your country and the SEALS the film is based on very well by telling their story very vividly. Americans need to know what our military men and women actually do and the conditions they do it under. I think the realism in this film is amazing, and I suspect many Americans, besides me, will be affected in a positive way by it.

I must also say thank you to all those who served on the mission the film is based upon, both the ones who gave their lives and the "Lone Survivor." You have not been forgotten. The country will be forever in your debt.

Related articles

• Lone Survivor (louisproyect.org)
• Lone Survivor: We Owe These Heroes a Debt (realclearpolitics.com)
• How Mark Wahlberg's 'Lone Survivor' Red-White-and-Blew Away the Box Office (Video) (thewrap.com)
• "The Lone Survivor" A-List Interviews: Mark Wahlberg & Marcus Luttrell (wgnradio.com)
• Movie Review - 'Lone Survivor' (worthplaying.com)
• Watch the CNN interview with the "Lone Survivor" Navy SEAL that has everyone talking (rare.us)
• 'Lone Survivor' star reveals most important review of all (nydailynews.com)
• LA film critic trashes Marcus Luttrell and fellow Seals in movie Lone Survivor. Glenn Beck offers to fly her first class to his Dallas studio to read her critical review to Marcus in person.... (powderedwigsociety.com)
• Film review: Fierce 'Lone Survivor' captures realities of war (stripes.com)
• Why Lone Survivor may be troubling the left. (thechristianfightclubreport.com)

Absolutely Baffling

As I mentioned in Tuesday's post, I've been off the net for a while. However, I've kept up with some of the goings-on. I've noticed that the wolves have been busy and that some truly baffling things are going on. One such baffling thing was the election of Mark Sanford to the U.S. House of Representatives by the people of South Carolina.

Mark Sanford, Governor of South Carolina, seen here as a U.S. Congressman. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It all started when Jim Demint resigned his seat in the U.S. Senate in order to go to work for the Heritage Foundation. South Carolina's Republican Governor Nikki Haley then appointed South Carolina Rep. Tim Scott to Demint's vacant U.S. Senate seat. The appointment left the U.S. House seat held by Scott vacant which led to a special election for a replacement to complete the remainder of Scott's House term.

Sanford entered the race for the vacant U.S. House seat and won the GOP primary. Next, he defeated his Democratic opponent in the general election to win a trip back to the U.S. House where he had served from 1995-2001 before becoming South Carolina governor.

Sanford is a perfect fit for Congress. He's as untruthful and untrustworthy as they come. Apparently South Carolinians have forgotten that :

• In 2009, he went missing for 6 days. He told staff he was going on a long hike on the Appalachian Trail. It turned out that the scoundrel was in Argentina with his mistress.
• Father's Day was one of the 6 days he was missing. So, it stands to reason that Sanford preferred being with his mistress and cheating on his wife over celebrating Father's Day with his children. What a dad. What an example.
• He eventually confessed to inappropriate relationships with other women, too.
• Ethics charges were filed against him alleging that taxpayer funds were spent conducting his adulteress fling.

Now, here's what I don't get - if South Carolina taxpayers can't trust him to act ethically and spend their money appropriately while in the governor's office, why did they elect him to Congress ?

Better yet, if his now ex-wife can't trust him to keep his committment to be faithful to her, how can he be trusted to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution ?

Oh, that's right - the other members of Congress don't either, so .... it's all good.

Perhaps Sanford's Congressional campaign slogan should have been something like, "My wife can't trust me, but the voters can." No wonder the dang country's screwed up, and it's our fault. We keep voting these immoral, unethical people into office. Geez.

Absolutely baffling.

Oh, ..... one other thing - did I mention that Sanford's a Republican ? And people wonder what's wrong with the Republican Party.

Related articles

• Mark Sanford reclaims House seat in comeback (thestate.com)
• Once disgraced, Sanford victorious in SC special election (firstread.nbcnews.com)
• Sanford returns to Congress, says he’ll focus on finances (thestate.com)
• Mark Sanford to take oath in return to Congress (charlotte.news14.com)
• Comedian rips Mark Sanford: South Carolina has bottomless supply of duplicitous teabags (rawstory.com)
• Sanford beats Colbert Busch in U.S. House election (marketwatch.com)
• South Carolina joke worth crying about: Sanford wins (examiner.com)
• Lester & Charlie: Sanford & Scum (huffingtonpost.com)
• Sanford wins: South Carolina voters reject family values, honesty, integrity and responsibility (dailykos.com)
• Sanford's South American Walkabout Through the Busch (progressivepress.net)

What Is An "Assault Rifle" ?

There has been a lot of discussion lately about so-called assault rifles and assault weapons. The discussion has generally been centered around whether or not to ban them and / or high capacity magazines. There has also been a lot of misinformation disseminated during these discussions. Therefore, I felt it was necessary to ask the question - "What is an assault rifle ?"

I think the video embedded below, which can also be watched by clicking here, answers that question in a very clear, concise way and sets the record straight. In fact, it makes understanding what an assault rifle is so easy that even a Congressman or Congresswoman can do it. Enjoy.

2012 Deer Season - Part 4, A Personal Best with AR Deer #2

Deer season in Tennessee ended for me at dark on January 6, 2013. I spent that afternoon afield hunting until the last legal minute. 2012 was a deer season I will never forget as the Lord really blessed me. There were the :

• double does on opening day of muzzleoader season,
• the election day buck just three days later, and 
• the AR deer on thanksgiving weekend. 

Each of those deer were special and unique. In fact, they allowed me to tie my previous personal best deer seasons of 2007 and 2008 in which I got four deer. They also put a little stress on me as I went into the last afternoon of the season wanting to get number five and break what amounted to a personal record. I also wanted to shoot a second deer with the AR15, because I wasn't thrilled about the way everything had worked out with the first one.

Deer (Photo credit: marttj)

Normally, deer hunting is just flat-out fun for me. The 2012 season had been just that - fun. However, since shooting the AR deer on November 24th, I had not seen a single deer. It was beginning to seem as if my shot at a record fifth deer and the completion of the AR deer hunting test was slipping away from me. It led to some pressure and stress - pressure and stress that I inadvertently was putting on myself, and I didn't like it.

On the afternoon of January 6th, my hunting buddy, Dennis, and I headed out to one of our usual spots. We decided to do our usual routine - try to push the deer out of the thicket, and then set up and hunt until dark. For those of you not familiar with the term "push" in regards to deer hunting, it's nothing more than when one hunter, the pusher, walks through the woods or a thicket trying to flush the deer. The trick is to get the deer to run in the direction of another hunter, called a stander, who then shoots the deer. Dennis did the pushing, as usual, and I was the stander, as usual. Dennis' push proved unsuccessful.

Normally, when we have pushed this location without success, it is a sign that the deer are not in the area. When you couple that with the 20+ MPH wind that was blowing, we figured we were just outta luck that day. We were tempted to load up and head home. However, we had driven about 20 miles, and we only had about 90 minutes of daylight and season left. We decided to stick it out.

Dennis went to the woods at the end of this large field to setup, and I went off to the right into a little woodlot. I thought it might be the place to be, because it was full of oak trees and there were plenty of acorns on the ground. So, good deer food was plentiful. I set my stool up against a big oak tree at 3 PM sharp. I started settling in, and then begin re-thinking my set-up. I wasn't happy with the visibility and shooting lanes I had. At most, I could see and shoot only about 25-30 yards in any direction. I was thinking about moving further over into the woods.

As I mentioned, the wind was blowing pretty hard. I couldn't hear anything. I couldn't differentiate between the sound of the wind blowing the leaves around vs. the sounds of squirrels playing. So, there was no way I could count on my ears to alert me to the sound of deer hooves in the leaves. I was going to have to count on my eyes. I didn't like it, as I prefer to use my ears first and my eyes second.

I decided to stay put. I was afraid that it was more risky to move, because a deer might see me than it was just to make the most of the spot I had. The biggest concern was that I had thin to thick brush all around me that I would have to shoot through, if a deer appeared. I had some real concerns about the ability of the AR's .223 bullet to go through the brush without being re-directed off target. I was afraid it could lead to me missing a deer. If I had been hunting with a larger caliber weapon, such as my muzzleloader, I wouldn't have given the brush a second thought.

The worst area of brush was to my right and in between me and a little, narrow strip of field which still had some green grass in it, even though it was January. I thought to myself, "With my luck, if a deer shows, it will come through there, and I'll have to shoot through that crap." However, since time was running out, I made the decision then, that even with the brush all around, I was gonna try to get a shot through it if an opportunity presented itself. If I didn't, I likely would not get another chance before the season closed.

I had not been sitting there 15 minutes when I see movement to my right at 2 o'clock. Sure enough it was deer. One, two, three, four, five of them. All does. They were moving fast right through that little strip of field where I had hoped they wouldn't go. I didn't worry about the brush. I knew I had to get on them quickly or they and my last chance of getting a deer before the season ended would be gone. I swung the AR around on the shooting stick, picked out the biggest deer, flipped off the safety, and went "baaahhhh, baaahhhh." They stopped in their tracks, and I squeezed the trigger. The AR barked. The deer took 3 or 4 steps forward and stopped. The one I shot at did not act like it had been hit. I shot again. This time they all took off running.

AR15 Deer #2 - January 6, 2013

I only had 45 minutes until dark, so I immediately got up to go pick up the blood trail. I remembered how scarce the blood trail had been on the first AR deer, so with daylight fading, I wanted to find this deer fast. I got to the edge of the woods and about 10 yards in front of me, on the other side of the narrow strip of field, laid one of the deer. She hadn't gone 10 yards. I had done it - deer #5, and a new personal record for deer shot in one season. To say I was happy would be an understatement. I realized very quickly that if I had moved further up in the woods like I considered, the shot would have been much tougher, if I would have had a shot at all. Just goes to show that you should always go with your first instinct, especially in hunting, and don't second guess yourself.

Since I had shot twice, though, I needed to check for blood and figure out if I had hit two deer. I looked and looked, but there was no blood anywhere. I went over to the downed deer to try to find a blood trail to her - nothing. I was now glad she had dropped quickly, because with no blood trail, it would have been extremely hard to find her. I spent the next 30 minutes looking the field and the bordering woods over to make sure no other deer had been hit. I found no other deer down. I went back to my stool and tried to re-visualize how everything went down. As I sat there and played it back in my head, I came to the conclusion that since the deer appeared unscathed after the first shot, the bullet must have hit the brush and been deflected off course. The second shot I took was one that I had to squeeze through a narrow opening between two trees. That was the one that connected since all the deer took off running immediately. I was now confident that I had only hit one deer.

My deer season was now over, and I had accomplished what I set out to do that day. I felt like I had just scored the winning touchdown with less than a minute to go in the game, and I hadn't cracked under the pressure I had put on myself. However, the more I thought about it, I realized that once again things had gone down so fast that I didn't have time to crack. I only had time to react based upon the things my dad had taught me years ago and my own experience gained through nearly 30 years of deer hunting. Better yet, when Dennis and I got the doe to Lebanon Locker for processing, I learned that she field dressed at 87 pounds making her the 3rd largest doe I had ever shot. She was a great one to not only end the season with but to set my record with, too.

After getting the election day buck, I had decided to turn the remainder of the season into a test session for the AR15. I had shot two deer with it. The first one with a 69-grain Remington, and the second with a 75-grain Hornady. Based upon my own research of ballistics data, these two rounds fall in the top five .223 cartridges made in terms of the amount of downrange energy put on the target. The first deer ran 100-150 yards leaving a minimal blood trail before dying. The second deer only made it 10 yards before dying but left no blood trail at all. Both rounds left me with concerns about their effectiveness even though both deer died and were recovered. I almost lost the one shot with the 69-grain bullet. The one shot with the 75 had died quickly, but what if it hadn't ? If it had run the distance the first one did, it's likely I never would have found it due to the lack of a blood trail. Then again, perhaps every deer shot with the Hornady would die that quickly, but I felt like that assumption was equivalent to assuming you would win the PowerBall every time you bought a ticket. Such an assumption was not only too much of a gamble, it was unrealistic.

So, what's an AR .223 deer hunter to do ? Well, if Mr. Obama and Congress let me keep mine, here's what I'm gonna do, and I suggest you do the same if you hunt with an AR in .223 or some other rifle chambered in .223. Even though I read several articles and ammunition reviews which praised the .223's deer worthiness before deciding to deer hunt with it, my 2012 experiences did not bear that research out. I shot both AR deer this year right through the vitals which should have provided good blood trails and been lethal very quickly. However, that did not happen.

Therefore, in future deer seasons, I will only shoot deer through the neck with the AR15. I would encourage anyone else who wants to hunt with a .223 to do the same. Do your homework and figure out which round your gun is most accurate with, whether it's the standard 55-grain or the heavyweight 75. My gun is most accurate with the 69-grain Remington providing baseball sized groups at 200 yards out of its 16-inch barrel. I figure that's pretty good and will consistently make neck shots easy and effective. So, that's what I will shoot going forward. Besides, with neck shots, accuracy is what's important, not the weight or knockdown power. Any deer shot in the neck is going down instantly with a broken neck and severed jugular vein because the .223 will start tumbling on impact. Therefore, no tracking will be necessary. It's probably the most humane way to harvest them.

Also, if you are worried about shooting a trophy buck in the neck and messing up the mount - don't be. In both deer I shot with the .223 this year, the entry wound was so small it was basically non-existent. The exit wound was about half the size of a dime. Any taxidermist worth his or her salt can patch those little, bitty holes up.

That wraps up The Sheepdog's 2012 deer season. It was fun, and I learned a lot. I learned things that I will use in 2013 and, Lord willing, beyond. Now, I'll take a little hunting break for a few months and then get after the turkeys. Hopefully, my luck will still be good come springtime. Gobble, gobble.  

Related articles

• 2012 Deer Season - Part 3, The AR Deer (thesecondchancesheepdog.blogspot.com)
• Deer Forest (charleymckelvy.wordpress.com)