Sunday, April 23, 2017

Don’t Hate Me Because I’m Right

As a conservative, I don’t want to take anything away from you with the exception, perhaps, of your recreational drugs, and that’s only because of their potential to ultimately impact me in some way.  Even in that respect, though, I am willing to let the people in the states decide that issue democratically and I’ll keep my objections to myself if I’m in the minority. 

As a conservative I am willing to take responsibility for myself and I took responsibility for my children when they were minors.  All I ask is that you do the same.  I will gladly chip in to help build roads, bridges and other necessary infrastructure that all of us benefit from and for niceties that I support in my local community, but I do not want to pay for your preferred niceties in your community or for the pet projects that feed the egos of politicians or help them get re-elected.  That’s fair, right?  I believe there is a small fraction of our population that truly needs assistance to help take care of themselves and will gladly chip in for that as well so long as it is done by private means.  I object to big-government-run welfare because history, both past and present, invariably proves it to be an invitation for political corruption and abuse of society’s generosity. 

As a conservative I believe in many so-called “traditional values,” and I believe in my right as a citizen to do what is within my power to preserve those values by supporting certain policies and candidates.  I respect your right to disagree, to debate and to support those policies and candidates who represent your own preferences so long as in doing so you never step on my basic, constitutional rights. 

As a conservative I honor the Constitution and will gladly respect your rights that are protected therein if you will do the same for me.  I understand that basic human nature doesn’t change and, the right to self-protection being inviolable, I believe in a strong national security system that keeps America’s enemies at bay.  I also believe in every nation’s sovereign right to decide its own immigration policy and who can and cannot enter their country.  No other nation has the right to challenge our immigration policy and no one person or group has the right to decide our immigration policy on his/their own.

Because the law of the jungle favors only the strongest and the most corrupt, I believe The People have the right to establish laws for the equal protection of everyone as well as the right to enforce those laws.  I believe my local and federal police forces are there to serve my interests – and the interests of everyone else – for law and order, and if you are interfering with a police officer who is rightfully doing his duty that is an assault upon my rights. 

As a conservative I believe in balancing environmental considerations against the right of The People to pursue economic happiness and security as well to exercise their personal property rights. 

Lastly, as a conservative I believe the policies that strengthen my nation’s standing in the world benefit me as a citizen, therefore I am a patriot and, pursuant to my right of self-interest, I support a government that is a strong and faithful advocate for the United States of America. 

And so my question to those on the Left is this: 

What is so hate-worthy about that? 

Every day now I see news reports of hate-inspired riots erupting on college campuses when conservative speakers attempt to speak upon invitation to those campuses.  The blogosphere is flush with “hate Trump” websites and blog posts (and poor old Trump isn’t even a conservative!).  Hollywood’s liberals can’t contain their raw hatred for Trump and other conservatives.  Before there was “Trump Derangement Syndrome” there was “Bush Derangement Syndrome” to describe the Left’s obsessive hatred of George W. Bush.  The comments I see on leftwing websites like The Huffington Post are seething with pure, unadulterated hatred for conservatives, and my only question is:  Why? 

I could understand if I was trying to infringe upon your liberty by supporting onerous government regulations that drove up the costs of your everyday necessities like food, housing, gasoline and electricity so that the great American dream was always just beyond your reach.  Then it might make sense. I could understand if I were continually reaching into your wallet to take money you worked for so that I could force you to subsidize those who’ve made poor choices in life.  That too would make sense.  I could understand if I put my bizarre need to feel liked by strangers around the globe ahead of your right, as my fellow citizen, to feel secure in your own country.  I could understand if I put the interests of non-citizens who come here illegally ahead of the interests of my fellow citizens.  I could understand if I protested on behalf of the comfort and “civil rights” of vicious criminals while I ignored the suffering and losses of their innocent victims.  Or it might make sense if I were the one helping to transfer massive power into the hands of elitist politicians under the ruse of saving the planet from “climate change,” or if I were electing powerful politicians to trample on the Constitution that’s there to protect our basic rights.  Then your hatred would be understandable. 

Completely understandable.


To leave a comment please visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments at Blogger.

Friday, April 21, 2017

Today’s Lesson from the Huffington Post and Politico

Apparently it comes as shocking news to the Left to be told that they don’t have the right to “protest” (defined by the Left as loudly interrupting someone else’s right to free speech) at private rallies organized for the purpose of allowing a speaker to express his opinions for those who wish to hear it.  Interfering with the rights of others to express or hear certain views is something the bullies on the Left believe is just one of their many, many entitlements.  The headline, originated at Politico and then covered on today’s front page at Huffpo, was as follows:

“Trump lawyer: ‘No right’ to protest at rallies”

If you know anything about leftwing journalism you might have guessed that this headline is just a bit off the mark.  The true essence of what Trump’s lawyers are arguing, if we’re to sum it up in one line, is that there’s no constitutionally protected right to disrupt a privately sponsored event.  But the truth never serves to advance the Left’s agenda and the sheep, after all, must be kept with the herd, so……   

Here’s the story.  Trump is being sued by a group of protesters who disrupted his private rally in Louisville, Kentucky during his presidential campaign.  They claim they were roughed up when they were forcibly removed from the venue by Trump supporters following Trump’s call to ““get 'em out of here!”  Thus their boo-boos are Trump’s fault, according to the suit, even though Trump immediately followed his instruction by saying, “Don’t hurt ‘em.”  Trump’s lawyers have responded by asserting that Trump has the First Amendment right to speak at his own rally and has no obligation to allow dissenters to have a voice in the assembly.  Furthermore, they contend, Trump was within his rights to call for the removal of the protestors and his simple instruction was not an inducement to violence, particularly since he expressly requested that they not be hurt. (and need I point out that if the disrupters had left voluntarily there would have been no need for violence?).

Makes sense to me!  The leftists want the sheep to see this as evidence that Trump and his supporters suppress free speech (fascists!), but a rational person looking at the facts would see that in reality it’s the other way around.  No one is preventing people from peacefully protesting in a public place or even in a private forum where they have permission to be.  The Trump campaign presumably paid for the use of the venue to hold their rally, which means they’re entitled to call the shots.  Nothing prevents the protestors from securing their own venue if they sincerely want to engage in freedom of expression; but of course sincerity is not a quality valued by the Left.  What they really want is to prevent Donald Trump from being heard and to force their own expressions upon Trump’s audience.  That’s how “free speech” works in the leftist world, because the true free exchange of information is the Left’s worst enemy.  And they call us the fascists.  Take a quick look at the comments at the conclusion of Huffpo’s article if you doubt my characterization of the mentality we’re dealing with. 

By the way, here is exactly what it says in Trump’s motion:

“Of course, protestors have their own First Amendment right to express dissenting views,
but they have no right to do so as part of the campaign rally of the political candidates they oppose.
Indeed, forcing the “private organizers” of a political rally to accept everyone “who wish[es] to
join in with some expressive demonstration of their own” would “violate[] the fundamental rule
of protection under the First Amendment, that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content
of his own message.”

Oh the horror and indignation!  Next thing you know they’ll be telling the leftists they can’t burn cars or destroy other people’s property.  It’s fascism!  It’s blasphemy!  Can it be that the rest of the country still doesn’t understand that only leftists have rights, and the rules don’t apply to them?  Oh the frustration!

I don’t suppose there’s any point to mentioning the hecklers who were ejected from Hillary Clinton’s speech, or from Bill Clinton’s speech in 2008, or from Barack Obama’s speech in 2015 (all leftwingers, by the way), or asking Huffpo commenters if Obama and the Clintons are “fascists” for having the disrupters removed?  Nah, there’s no point.

The Left’s guerilla war is being waged in our courts, where they hope to be aided and abetted by officials who, ironically, are paid by the very people they are encouraged to betray.  Irony is never in short supply these days.  Quite honestly I couldn’t care less if the “protestors” were injured while being evicted from the rally they were trying to disrupt.  When you’re hurt or your rights are violated while you’re attempting to violate the rights of someone else, you’re not entitled to sympathy or recompense in my book.  Justice has already been served. 

That’s what I learned at the Huffington Post (and Politico) today, where it’s always an enlightening place to visit. 


To leave a comment please visit this post at The Pesky Truth.   I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Thursday, April 20, 2017

Trump and the Tax Return Demand

So Democrats want to see Donald Trump’s tax returns?  Here’s my question for Democrats:

How does it feel to want?

Because I suspect you’re about to find out.

I would like to make a formal motion that henceforth Republicans learn to flat out reject the demands of the insincere and untrustworthy (i.e. Democrats).  There is never anything to gain from trying to appease these people and there is always something to lose, which is precisely the reason for their demands.  I only wish that instead of resorting to his usual strategy – i.e. lying and obfuscating – Trump would live up to his non-PC reputation and simply declare that his tax returns are private and will remain so.  Next question?

For any liberals out there who want to feign moral indignation over Trump’s refusal to share his tax returns, my response to you is:   LOL.

LOL because you didn’t care about the thousands of emails deleted by Hillary Clinton when she was ostensibly working for us as Secretary of State.

LOL because you shrugged and said “Whatever!” when we learned that Bill Clinton had a clandestine audience with Loretta Lynch while his wife was the subject of a high profile investigation by the Justice Department.

LOL because you chuckled when the genius Barack Obama ridiculed Mitt Romney for his concerns over Russia, then kept your big mouths shut when it turned out Romney was right (as did Obama, not surprisingly).

LOL because you said nothing when Obama was caught surreptitiously whispering to Dmitry Medvedev to tell Vladimir Putin he would have “more flexibility” after his election, and now you want us to believe that you are sincerely concerned about Russian influence.

LOL because you forced a radical, leftwing, lawless president on us and the rise of Donald Trump is the consequence of that.

 You want his tax returns?  Tough luck.  How does it feel to want?


To leave a comment please visit this post at The Pesky Truth.  I cannot respond to comments on Blogger.

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

Don’t Call Them “Undocumented”

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.”

― George Orwell, 1984

I’ve lost count of the times, throughout my life, when I’ve turned on the news or opened a newspaper and discovered that a common word or name has been surreptitiously replaced with a new word or name seemingly overnight.  It always reminds me of the infamous scene in Orwell’s Animal Farm where the pigs clandestinely altered the Seven Commandments in the middle of the night.  The new word or name unvaryingly advances some facet of the leftwing agenda, and while it’s no surprise that those who relate ideologically with communism would use tools of propaganda to alter the status quo to better suit their goals, I am always left shaking my head when others go along with the scheme and start parroting the new terms as well.  Take a listen to this Fox News report in which reporter Steve Harrigan refers to illegals as “undocumented migrants:”

So now “undocumented migrants” is how we refer to illegal aliens in the news? 

Would someone please tell me what’s wrong with the term “illegal alien,” other than that it suggests certain truths that are inconvenient to the Left’s agenda?  “It’s a pejorative,” the Left informs us.  Hmmm.  That’s like saying we shouldn’t use the word “rapist” to describe a rapist because it’s a pejorative.  News flash to leftists:  It is the underlying behavior, not the word, that makes it a pejorative, so rather than we all start using different words for this behavior my solution for those who take offense at the term “illegal alien” is to stop engaging in such behavior.   Wouldn’t that be a much simpler way of resolving this whole “pejorative” problem? 

Understand this, folks:  people don’t just wake up one day and start renaming common terms for no reason.  Everything we do has a purpose, and there is a very pointed political calculation behind every single language alteration schemed on us by the Left.  Calling those who are here illegally the more innocuous sounding “undocumented” is for the calculated purpose of softening us to people’s crimes and diminishing our instincts to protect ourselves.  It’s propaganda, and it serves somebody but that somebody isn’t us.  Leftists are never looking out for you.  It is always about acquiring more power for themselves.

Before I settled on the George Orwell quote to introduce this essay I considered a couple of other options, including the following:

"For me, words are a form of action, capable of influencing change"

This is a quote from the book, “Combat in the Erogenous Zone,” which was written by Ingrid Bengis.  Bengis is a writer best known for the aforementioned book, but what struck me in her bio, and what makes her quote worth mentioning, is that it just so happens to have been borrowed by none other than our former dear leader, Barack Obama, who quoted Bengis in one of his 2008 campaign speeches. I could not have asked for better evidence that the Left’s elites are keenly aware of the power of language and how to use it as a weapon in their war against America as we know it.  Thanks to the Left’s takeover of the education system in this nation, we know how to read but we don’t know how to read between the lines.   That’s what makes propaganda so effective.  We need to continually fight for our language and resist the Left’s efforts to obscure truth. 

They’re illegal, not undocumented.


Want to share your thoughts?  To leave a comment on this post please visit The Pesky Truth.  For some reason I am unable to respond to comments on Blogger.

Thursday, March 30, 2017

The Real Donald Trump on Freedom Caucus: 'We must fight them'

That’s the headline at Fox News today based upon a tweet this morning by @realDonaldTrump which says:

 "The Freedom Caucus will hurt the entire Republican agenda if they don't get on the team, & fast. We must fight them, & Dems, in 2018!”

I want to thank president Trump for clarifying who the “real” Donald Trump is for those who might not have been paying attention.  The Real Donald Trump has embraced the socialist-lite policies of establishment Republicans in the House and Party leadership, and The Real Donald Trump sees the Freedom Caucus as the enemy.   He’s pretty much threatened to use the power of his office to drive out The Freedom Caucus if they won’t get on board the Trump train. 

Needless to say I hope conservatives, whether initially Trump fans or not, are hearing alarms go off with the rhetoric that’s coming from Trump and his surrogates.  The word “loyalty” keeps popping up, as if House members with an “R” after their names are somehow now beholding to Donald Trump rather than to their constituents or to the Constitution.  I hate to invoke the Hitler analogy since it’s been so gratuitously and absurdly misused by the Left against Republicans, but personal loyalty to one man was no small part of Germany's problem.  How was the U.S., or the Democrat Party for that matter, served by personal loyalty to Barack Obama?  Let history teach us the proverbial lesson conservatives are always fondly preaching about by focusing loyalty where it rightly belongs:  to the people and the Constitution. 

I have a message for The Real Donald Trump.  I hopped aboard your train rather than face a head-on collision, but don’t think I’m going to sit quietly in my seat while you steer the train down the wrong track just because it’s the track of least resistance.  I don’t care about your legacy.  I care about the future of this nation and about preserving our Constitution for the welfare and freedom of my children and fellow citizens. 

Long live the Freedom Caucus.


If you'd like to leave a comment on this post please go to The Pesky Truth, as I am unable to respond to comments at this site.  Thanks!

Saturday, March 25, 2017

Rights vs. Policy and the Blame Game on the Failure of Trump-Care

There are certain friends with whom I keep political discussion to a minimum.  While I think it’s safe to say that none are flaming liberals, most don’t follow politics as closely as I do or take it as seriously.  If you want to have people to hang out with outside the blogosphere, sometimes it’s best not to share every thought when it comes to politics.  But when the election of 2016 took place I happen to be on a cruise with friends, so naturally it was with this group that I shared my first thoughts on the surprise victory of Donald Trump.  To varying degrees, all of us were relieved that Hillary Clinton lost.  In my case ecstatic jubilation would best describe it, and this helped to soften the disappointment of realizing that Donald Trump was now actually our president.  One friend, however, was a bit down in the dumps, and so to cheer him up I said, “Well, at least we’ll get rid of Obamacare,” to which he responded, “Obamacare is good in some ways.” 


I knew my friend wasn’t as conservative as I am but his fondness for Obamacare, albeit lukewarm, took me by surprise.  “Obamacare is socialized medicine,” I said, not bothering to disguise my annoyance very much (he was, after all, putting a damper on my ecstatic jubilation).  Now, I know that Obamacare is not socialized healthcare in the strictest sense, but certain aspects of it equate to socialism and its goal is to put us on that path so….  His response to me was:  “Yes, but there are some good things about socialized medicine.” 

“Such as what?” I asked, jubilation fading fast.  He then went on to describe how his elderly parents had to sell off their assets under the rules of Medicare, leaving them essentially destitute and causing him to need to help them financially.  People shouldn’t have to lose everything they own in order to afford healthcare, he said, so if socialized medicine makes it possible for them to get the care they need then that’s okay with him. 

At times like these, when conversations arise on subjects that I feel strongly about but neither the time nor place adequately lends itself to that sort of discussion (we were standing on a street corner in Jamaica, waiting for our tour group to assemble), I am frustrated to say the least.  How do I explain, in 30 seconds or less, what’s wrong with socialism?  I suggested to him that the socialization of the so-called healthcare “system” and government interference under the guise of helping us out were only serving to drive up costs to the point where no amount of spreading the costs around to everyone (i.e. socialization) could ever catch up to the problem, and in fact would only exacerbate it.  You cannot have sanity in a market where the consumer has neither the incentive nor the ability to act like a normal consumer (i.e. balance quality, quantity and cost).  Only the free market can do this, I stressed with perhaps a bit more passion than he was prepared for.

All he knows, he told me, is that the free market isn’t working so he thinks a socialized healthcare system is a better way. 

“Socialism is theft, pure and simple,” I told him, a bit of anger rising in my voice.

“Then I’m a thief,” he said cheerfully, but a bit uncomfortably.

We left it at that, as he saw us off on our tour before he went sightseeing elsewhere.  I didn’t see him again for several hours, giving me time to wrestle with my thoughts.  I found our discussion to be profoundly disturbing, not just because we disagreed but because I could sense, as is almost always the case when an unplanned discussion on politics pops up with friends or acquaintances, that he couldn’t comprehend my passion/annoyance/anger.  It occurred to me then that it comes down to this: 

He sees the Obamacare debate as a matter of policy.  I see it as a matter of rights.

What right does the federal government have micromanaging what should be a free market healthcare system, thereby making it impossible for consumers to keep up with the game?  What right does the federal government have taxing Peter to subsidize Paul, with Peter having no say in how or on whom his hard-earned money is spent?   What gives one party in congress the right to establish a right/entitlement outside of the process prescribed in our Constitution?  That’s how I see this debate.

I bring this up all these months later because, in the wake of the Ryan/Trump repeal-replace-not really fiasco, the finger pointing has gone wild.  A whole lot of self-labeled “conservatives” are angry with the Republicans in the Freedom Caucus for refusing to “get on board” and go along with what is being falsely hailed as “the best plan we could get.”  (See: Liz Peek: Time for the Freedom Caucus to climb aboard the Trump train.  Read a few comments to get a good taste for the craziness).  Republicans who would rather debate about policy rather than about rights, hereinafter referred to as “the new socialists,” thought they could bully the real conservatives into going along with Obamacare-lite.  They were wrong.  I’d like to think that’s because at least some of the Freedom Caucus understands that this is a fight about rights, not about policy details.  I pray that I’m right.

In the past Republicans have caved in and gone along with liberal policies under the guise of at least putting their stamp on things that public momentum made impossible to stop.  With Trumpcare garnering the approval of just 17%, what is their excuse now?  Why capitulate, even in part, to the Left’s scheme of involving the federal government in the business of healthcare?  If only 17% of the people are going to be happy, you may as well go for broke and do the right thing.  That’s what a conservative deal maker would say, and – yes – I do mean that as a dig to Donald Trump.

The new socialists are strangely anguished over the great missed opportunity to transition from Obamacare to Obamacare-lite.  I’m sure they would argue over that characterization of their plan, but if it fails to fully repeal Obamacare (as so often promised) and keeps significant elements of Obamacare, which it does, then they have no argument to stand on.  It is Obamacare-lite, and why any self-described conservative would lose sleep trying to salvage it is a mystery to me.  Conservatives, on the other hand, are anguished over a much greater missed opportunity:  the opportunity to restore the boundaries of the federal government with respect to healthcare as well as the essential notion of personal responsibility, without which the Constitution cannot work.  You be the judge of whose mission is more worthy of the dramatic rhetoric we’re hearing.

When I saw my friend at the end of that day, I was a bit worried that our exchange from the morning would be hanging over us still, as so often happens.  He is a very nice guy and good friend, and even if he’s misguided about socialized medicine it would sadden me if our friendship was chilled as a consequence of our exchange, but as it turns out I need not have worried.  We didn’t speak of it again, but I know that if I wanted to discuss it, he’d listen with an open mind.  And I would do the same for him (even though he’s wrong, hee hee hee).  I’m good with that. 


Due to some weird glitch in Blogspot I can no longer comment on my own blog, but this post and others can also be found at The Pesky Truth so if you have something to say, please follow the link.  Thanks!

Wednesday, March 22, 2017

My Brief Conversation with a European Socialist

The other day I was outside watering flowers when a door-to-door salesman approached wanting to talk to me about solar energy products.  Ordinarily I would say, with a smile, “I wouldn’t want to waste your time,” but since he opened by asking if I wanted to help the environment I decided to play along and see where the conservation took us.  To the best of my recollection, the conversation went something like this:

Him:  “Hello!  Can I ask if you’ve ever thought about saving money and helping the environment with a solar energy system?  You know you could be saving money, right?”

Me:  “I’m not sure.  How much does it cost to install a solar energy system?”

Him:  “It doesn’t cost you anything.  It’s free!”

Me:  “Free?  How is that possible?”  As if I didn’t know….

Him, with a big smile:  “The government will pay you to put in a solar energy system.”

Me:  “Why would the government do that?”

Him: “To encourage people to switch to solar energy.”

Me:  “Why do people need the government to encourage them to switch?  Why don’t they want to do that on their own?”

Him (still smiling, but the eyes show that he’s wondering what he’s wondered into):  “Don’t you think that solar energy is a good thing?”

Me:  “Maybe, but if it’s a good thing why does the government have to pay me to do it?”

Him:  “Technological improvement is a good thing.”  He pulls out his smart phone as an example.  “Don’t you agree?”

Me:  “Did anyone have to pay you to get a smart phone?”

Him (the smile now seems forced):  “Well, no.  Don’t you agree that solar energy is better for the environment?”

Me:  “Not necessarily.”

Him (disbelieving):  “What?”

Me:  “What does it cost in terms of energy to produce, install and maintain solar panels? What is the relative energy efficiency of solar compared to other energy sources?  I don’t think it’s all that simple.”

Him:  “You sound like you’ve thought about these things.  Are you an educator?”

Me:  “No.”  Ha!  As if!

Him:  “You Americans have different ideas about energy and the environment and things.  I’m from Europe and it’s different.”

Me:  “I don’t want my tax dollars subsidizing my neighbor’s solar energy, that’s all.  If they want solar, let them pay for it themselves.”

Him:  “But it’s your own taxes that pay for your solar.”

Me:  “Not if I don’t get solar.  If my neighbor does and I don’t, I’m subsidizing him – according to you.”

Him:  “Well, the government is merciful.  At the end of the year, they send me a check.”

Me (disbelieving):  “That’s not merciful government.  If you get a refund that’s your own money, not the government’s.”  Because we’ve never gotten a “refund” for money we didn’t pay in it didn’t occur to me in that moment to think that he may have gotten a wealth transfer payment.  Lucky for him.

Him (clearly seeing he wasn’t going to make a sale but disapproving of my unenlightened American values), as he looks up and down the street:  “So am I safe here?”

Me:  “What do you mean?”  I live in what I would call a relatively upscale neighborhood. 

Him:  “You Americans like your guns.  People in Europe rarely own guns.  My wife would divorce me if I came home with a gun.”  Meaning:  as a black man, he might not be safe in this predominantly white neighborhood full of redneck racists.

Me:  I looked at him for a moment, contemplating the irony of his feigned fear.  I live on the outskirts of Houston, and compared to every other place I’ve lived the crime here is high, but the incidents I read about typically don’t involve the white population.  I thought of answering his obvious dig by saying, “Just stay away from the gang areas and you’ll be alright.”  But it was clear to me that this man was so brainwashed by the liberal, European stereotype ideas about Americans that he would take any honest answer to his question as proof of the racism he expected.  “To each his own,” I responded.

Him:  “God protects people,” he lectured me.  “They don’t need guns.”

Me (keeping in mind that I read about victims of violence every day):  “Sometimes he does and sometimes he doesn’t.  Some people don’t want to take that chance.  That’s their choice.”
Him, astonished:  “What??” 

I regret not thinking to ask him, “If you’re confident God will protect you, why are you asking me if you’re safe here?”  Alas, I didn’t think of it at the time.

The exchange petered out from there.  We shook hands and wished each other a nice day.   I would have loved to have invited him to come and sit down and talk about the narrow-minded stereotypes that seem to characterize a population which ironically prides itself on being open-minded, but I can’t undo 35 years of European socialist brain-washing in a 10-minute exchange standing on the front lawn, and he wanted to get on with the business of selling his solar energy products to my less hostile neighbors. 

Still, if the opening of a mind starts by challenging a person’s precious prejudices, maybe the door was opened just a bit.  Sometimes that’s the best we can do.


To leave a comment, check out this post at The Pesky Truth.  I am unable to respond to comments at Blogspot.