Like the majority of my fellow Americans, I have been waiting for those esteemed, elite ones in Washington, D.C. – the ones we voted in office to carry out the wishes of "We, the People" – to see the promised fence on our southern border. I have been waiting for our borders to be protected. I have been waiting. And waiting. And waiting.

Months ago, it was thought that just any day now, the fence would be going up. After all, Congress had passed a law saying that it would be. Who wouldn't trust Congress?

Watching Fox News one morning recently, I caught sight of Secretary of Homeland Security Chertoff (and, oh, thank God for such an effective, dedicated worker ant) saying, as quoted in

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/TonyBlankley/2008/03/05/border_insecurity:

I said to the TV set, "Yeah, right." I had actually become disillusioned.

My disillusionment became quite universal, apparently, at least on the pages of Townhall.com. Around mid-summer it had become common to see, at the end of many blog posts, "WHERE IS THE FENCE?" The answer, my friend, to coin a phrase, was blowin' in the wind.

It was a question taken up with my own elected ones in D.C. frequently. As of this moment their responses are forgettable. They were nothing more than empty platitudes to soothe ruffled feathers. Those D.C. people are good at that. They should be: they have so much experience at it.

Sometime in the not-too-distant past it became known there were tunnels, some football-field sized, beneath the borders between the U.S. and Mexico. It was said that these tunnels were too expensive to destroy. I told my esteemed ones then that I had not priced a stick of dynamite lately, but that it was thought that a few sticks of it, strategically placed, would blast those tunnels to smithereens.

Later I learned that at least one of the tunnels had been cemented in with several feet of cement.

Having traveled by car on Interstates through Kentucky and Tennessee, and parts of southern Illinois and southern Indiana, it was noted that great hillsides had been blasted away (presumably by dynamite) to make it possible for the Interstates' existence.

Therefore one could hardly blame me for believing that it would take somewhat more than a few feet of cement to plug up the holes of those tunnels. Besides, some energetic and imaginative would-be illegal alien would be able easily to take a few sticks of dynamite and blow that cement to smithereens. A few feet of cement will not deter an illegal alien attempting to cross into the promised land. You know, that place where there's free practically anything. You know, that place where a job can be had for a few dollars a day, most of which goes straight into the Mexican economy – an economy, incidentally, which is comprised of one-fourth of such "remittances."

Your esteemed ones, as well as my own esteemed ones in D.C., apparently believe their constituencies are, well, stupid. Born yesterday. Born last night.

The veil has been lifted from my eyes. I can recognize fluff and kerfluffle when I see it, when I hear it. The sounds of fluff and kerfluffle have become quite noisy of late.

Thus, the "Yeah, right" response to the TV set when Shirt-off, earnest in his assurances about that 28-mile virtual fence, came off as the Emperor in his newest finery. He was, indeed, a sartorial splendor to behold.

Now we find – surprise! – that there will be no fence. Could it be that big business has anything to do with this? Could it be that politics has anything to do with this?

Where is the fence?

Well, can't you see it? It's like Shirt-off, along with his empty suit, and it's all of the other Washington, D.C. naked-as-jaybird worker ants, and, pardon the expression, the queen, flapping in the breezes created by their own windy lies.

One of our Presidential hopefuls has allowed -- even advertised and promoted -- the audacity to hope for a bright tomorrow for ourselves and for our grandchildren.

Is he simply to be called "audacious" when, because of his enthusiasm, we step from the shadows and hope -- perhaps for the first time in our lives?  Hope for life?  Hope for Liberty?  Hope for the Pursuit of Happiness?

Why would anyone -- those mostly on the far right -- be so harsh as to predict that the hopeful and audacious might just be disappointed? 

Simply saying that because a leader is young and inexperienced, he must not have the qualifications to bring this audacious hope to fruition is so, well, realistic. 

Do you remember the Topps company (right here in the U.S.)?  It made hamburgers sold all over the place which were found to have been tainted.

Topps is no longer in business.  The fact that they allowed a situation to exist that caused their hamburgers to be tainted was a very good reason for them not now to be in business.  I have no idea if they were sued out of business or if they simply folded by reason of the fact that they could no longer sell their products. 

The advantages of relocating to a "free zone" are certainly tangible; the non-necessity of the "trifles" like Social Security taxes and cheap labor are likely quite enticing.  As you said, if if were not so, no corporation would go anywhere else to set up shop.  Safety concerns should be paramount to them, however. 

With respect to your "corporate write-off," with all due respect I believe we're comparing apples and watermelons. 

While not having actual facts in front of me -- I admit it -- I doubt seriously that a corporation having nothing to do with prescription drugs or the healthcare industry can get away with advertising write-offs and R&D write-offs and manufacturing write-offs -- even when the drug manufacturer is manufacturing offshore and his R&D is helped along very nicely by the taxpayer. 

I also agree with you that the FDA has a huge burden.  It's a burden they cannot meet.  If you don't believe it, please read the 1/29/08 GAO testimony by Marcia Crosse, Director, Health Care, before the Subcommittee on Oversight and Inestigations, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives.  It's GAO-08-428T. 

There it began.  That caused your "hoops that the FDA creates in order to get a drug to market."

Tort reform, as far as I'm concerned, is a problem only if drugs are unsafe or ineffective.  That is in the province of the drugmakers and the FDA, and the FDA is too shorthanded to carry the day.  And lawyers come in pretty handy if there's a legitimate claim.  As an aside, I worked for lawyers for umpteen years -- not the ambulance-chasing kind -- and I do not completely agree with Shakespeare about lawyers.  But I digress.

I have no problem with drugmakers wanting to make money.  They're not in the charity business.  But neither am I.  Profit, yes.  Profiteering, no. 

Sgt Relic, going offshore will not cause a cessation in the "legal nightmare"; that nightmare was inherent in the drugs and drugmakers -- and the FDA -- to start with.  It is an inverse problem. 

As far as an unfriendly tax structure is concerned, I believe you can think again.  Look into manufacturing writeoffs (while manufacturing is done outside the U.S.); look into advertising, which everybody knows is paid for by the American consumer, as well as paying for its so-called humongous outlay in drug research. Also, everybody knows there have not been many real breakthrough drugs in years; rather, drug companies are simply adding something to a drug so that it's longer-acting, or some such other change, and calling it "new."  Then umpteen years of patents can be tacked on as well.  Nice work if you can get it.   

Remember that much research is being done for these blood-suckers by the taxpayers through NIH and government-sponsored university facilities. 

So I would hardly call the drugmakers' tax structure "unfriendly."  I am "unfriendly" to the morass that is called the FDA, whose expenses are growing by leaps and bounds. 

This time, however, there is also news about a lawsuit over pet food. It was gratifying to know that someone is going to attempt to do something to let pet food manufacturers know that most people care very much about their pets and would not do anything purposely to harm them. The fact that some people unknowingly gave their pets food that apparently caused their deaths is simply unthinkable.

Possibly a lawsuit is the only act that will carry a strong enough message to any pet food manufacturers who may even think about manufacturing lethal pet meals.

http://www.fda.gov/oc/opacom/hottopics/petfood.html

http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/NEWS/2008/NEW01792.html

This blog was inspired by Phyllis Schlafly's column of two days ago, with a title beginning, "The China Trade...."  It is a matter about which I have many concerns, as noted in a number of my previous blog entries.  This blog entry continues a litany of those comments and concerns. 

This blog entry was inspired by Lorie Byrd's 2/1/97 column "Why are so many Republicans freaking out about John McCain's primary success"?

The link to that column is as follows:  
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/LorieByrd/2008/02/01/why_are_so_many_republicans_freaking_out_about_john_mccain%e2%80%99s_primary_success?page=full&comments=true

In my opinion the words in the title of this blog entry fairly well characterize John McCain's attitude to anyone who is not John McCain. 

And I like John McCain.  I would love to vote for him, except.........

I cannot vote (even holding my nose) for someone who, with respect to securing our borders, said something to the effect that "if they want the fence, then I'll build the goddamned fence."

McCain said that he has "gotten the message." 

McCain has no more gotten the message than the man in the moon.

McCain has absolutely no idea of the depth of anger, pure anger, that most Americans can barely contain when faced with non-action concerning the state of illegal immigration or the presence of illegal aliens in our midst -- including illegal aliens comprising more than one-quarter of our prison population, with many more likely simply running unfettered, free to rape and pillage and murder at will. 

McCain appears to be oblivious to and certainly impervious to the opinion of the majority of American people that we want a stop to the invasion of our country, and that we want a true solution, not amnesty, to the problem of aliens who have already invaded.  He may have an inkling; however, he appears not to give a tinker's dam. 

McCain is seemingly completely obtuse concerning the numbers of people who will hold their noses and vote for someone -- anyone -- who is not John McCain. 

McCain will be surprised that there are people who do not worship him enough to hold their noses and vote for him. 

He will lose the election -- if nominated. 

Why will McCain lose the election?  Because he is supercilious, arrogant, bumptious (one of my father's favorite words), condescending, pompous, snooty and sneering. 

Contrary to his apparent thoughts on the subject, the American people "get it." 

I pity us all. 

I have made numerous comments to the link below which represents the 1/11/08 column by Timothy Lee, "McCain to pharmaceutical innovators:  drop dead." 

My last comment was too lengthy and would not fit in the "comments" space; however, I felt it important enough to turn the comment into a blog.  It follows the link. 

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/TimothyLee/2008/01/11/
mccain_to_pharmaceutical_innovators_drop_dead?page=
full&comments=true

The beginning paragraph responds directly to "hob"; however, the entire comment/blog is addressed to both the author and to "hob" -- and, of course, to anyone else interested in the drug industry. 

Not only do I want to see a pedigree: I want to see the country of origin of everything that goes into medication I take, and I don't care if the box or bottle has to be cannister size in order to bear all the printing. 

I want to know if a drug manufactured in England has an ingredient whose origin is China. I want to know if a drug manufactured in Germany has an ingredient whose origin is China. I want to know if a drug -- any drug -- has any ingredient whose origin differs from the country of "manufacture."

I want to see on a bottle or box not only the U.S. distributor (which is nice to know, of course), but I want to see all the countries of origin of every ingredient made anywhere in the world going into that drug.

Then, and only then, can American consumers be informed as to the real origins of the drugs they consume by the billions daily. And they can take it on their own advisement as to whether to consume the stuff.

Lord knows we're paying enough for them.

And I want to know just why it is that the FDA has to have a "Partnership with China." Granted, China is a buzzword of some import these days -- and well earned.

However, my contention is that American people (through HHS or FDA or any other American Commission or Department) should not, repeat, should not, bear the costs for these checks and re-checks and re-re-checks to make sure that these Chinese ingredients or, indeed, the entire Chinese makeup of a drug, are safe for consumption by Americans. However, guess what?  Guess who's going to pick up the tab for that "Partnership."  Need three guesses?

Some time in the past I ordered a particularly expensive drug from Canada, manufactured in Canada, and when I began purchasing it here, at even greater cost, there was absolutely no difference in outcome. In Canada, incidentally, it was a generic.  I am completely aware that generics from Canada usually are more expensive than generics here; however, the good old U.S.A. did not allow it to be made as a generic. Patents last forever and a day here. Result:  a less expensive drug from Canada.

I trust Canada; I do not trust China. Can you tell?  I do believe I have reason.

And I am still of the opinion that Mr. Timothy Lee has a great deal to learn about this industry. It has many tentacles, reaching way, way into our government and, coincidentally, into our almost-empty pockets.   

As mentioned in an earlier comment, this is not a plug for McCain; rather it is a slug at the pharmaceutical industry doing business in the U.S.A. And by the way, how many of those companies doing business here actually are American companies?  Anybody know?  Is it one of those unknowables?

A couple of lines of the 12/25/07 Paul Edwards column "Social Conservatives are Mad as Hell" stood out.  Link is as follows:  

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/PaulEdwards/2007/12/25/social_conservatives_are_%e2%80%9cmad_as_hell%e2%80%9d

Edwards points out to us that Huckabee, while believing in securing the border, reminds us of the lady standing in New York harbor with a torch raised high beckoning "your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free."

It would be wise to remind all with similar opinions that there is a last line to that beautiful poem by Emma Lazarus. That line is as follows:

    "I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

This line should remind everyone that there is a door through which the tired, poor, huddled masses must enter. Entering without permission is just that: a break-in. And break-ins are illegal.

People who sneak through the "golden door" uninvited are illegal aliens.

Any person who wants to be President of the United States should keep that last line of Lazarus' poem firmly in mind.

There appears to be no doubt that the majority of American citizens know the difference between those who sneak in and those who knock, waiting for an invitation to enter.

Not only does the majority know the difference, it advised Congress of that fact in no uncertain terms this past summer when we let them know what we thought about their "amnesty" by any word they chose to call it, and when we let them know what we thought about their "DREAM" Act. 

A "sticky wicket" was always believed by me to be a dilemma to which one searched for an answer.  Roe v. Wade is still a sticky wicket for me, and I know that writing this will bring down the whole of Townhall on my head. 

Nevertheless, I have been reminded of late of the 1985 novel "The Cider House Rules," by John Irving. 

I do not believe the "Cider House" was typical of such establishments in those days and times; however, such places did exist.  It was believed to be well known that the reason one went there was to terminate a pregnancy.  There were times, however, when different decisions were made.

The days and times were different then, and when I was growing up, no matter how much anyone wants to disagree.  I have lived, I believe, many a year more than most of the readers here at Townhall. 

A young girl was disowned by her family and thrown to the wolves if she became "in the family way" while not in the married state. 

There were (and still are) gang-rapes of young girls (perhaps 12 years of age) who as a consequence become pregnant.  I can only imagine the terror following her all the rest of her days, and the dilemma in which she and her family find themselves. 

There were (and still are) rapes of young daughters (again, perhaps 12-year-olds) by their fathers, resulting in a pregnancy.  Again, I can only imagine the guilt to be carried all the rest of her days, no matter what decisions are made by her family.  (I feel no ambivalence concerning a father who rapes his daughter:  he should be put under the prison for all the remaining days of his life, to be fed bread and water every other day, shared by a hungry gorilla -- or two.)

The dilemmas described above were never ones I needed to face, thank God above. 

The word "abortion" was not a word ever heard when I was growing up.  And, like Oprah, I remember learning of coat-hanger abortions and potions given by midwives to terminate pregnancies.  The word "pregnant" was a word spoken in whispers.  I was raised in the dark ages. 

Please pardon me if my opinion is different from the majority here.  I am, and have been for many years, ambivalent.  Unlike many of you, I cannot stand and shout "Down with Roe!" with conviction. 

Please do not scream obscenities at me.  I simply wanted to say that there are other opinions out there.  Most of those opinion-holders are too afraid to spell out those opinions here because of the opprobrium that would be felt if the opinions were made known.

Just for the record, I feel no ambivalence about late-term abortions.  They are simply beyond the realm of humanity.

If the FDA can't grab its back end with both hands tied behind its back, I believe the same can be said for McCain as the subject relates to drug reimportation and drug safety and drug costs.  This is based upon comments attributed to him in a news column in today's Townhall.com regarding the subject.  The link to that column follows: 

http://www.townhall.com/news/politics-elections/2007/11/17/mccain_calls_for_drug_reimportation

Perhaps not enough credit is not being given to Mr. McCain.  Certainly, based upon the column to which this blog entry relates, it would appear that Mr. McCain is almost completely uninformed. 

It is unknown to me whether McCain voted for the MMA (the Medicare Modernization Act) which had tagging along with it the Medicare Prescription Drug Plan (PDP).  My memory is that he did not vote for it, which is to his credit.  The MMA and the PDPs are giant steps toward the type of health care systems typified in Canada. 

The drug companies and the drug insurance companies nearly wet themselves with joy at that signing.  They were in my opinion happier than hogs in mud. 

It is not supposed that anyone remembers that day in December when Bush signed the MMA into law.  I remember it, and it nearly sickens me every time I think of it.  Gathered around Bush were nice old gray-haired ladies and gentlemen who were seemingly pleased as punch itself to see that bill get signed.  My understanding is that those gray-haired, simpering bunch were, if not in cahoots, then joined at the hip or mind or some appendage or other with none other than AARP, which itself it connected at the hip or some kind of an appendage with companies providing insurance for -- guess what! -- prescription drugs.  Who would have thunk it? 

As stated in a fast comment to the column mentioned above, made with steam coming out my ears, drugs are manufactured all over the world, end up here in the U.S.A., and people like me are taking them every day.  The drugs that are actually manufactured here in the U.S. are few and far between. 

Recently the FDA had a public meeting dedicated to the discussion of the safety of imported drugs.  My surprise first was that they are only now getting around to it.  Perhaps it never occurred to them until people began getting riled up when their pets were dying as a result of ingesting pet food manufactured in China. 

The last time I did a little rummaging around on a few Internet Web sites, there were about 75 Chinese companies that were just dying (my description, of course) to get into the business of manufacturing our drugs.  In my own estimation, if China cannot manage to produce pet food without killing off somebody's pets, why in the name of common sense would anyone want to trust their prescription drugs manufactured there?

The FDA "invited" comments from the public either through the Internet or by mail, and I took them up on it.  I'm sure they read every word.  As set out in an earlier blog entry, I would like a law whereby every container of any prescription drug sold by American pharmacies or mail order companies would be required to list the country of manufacture of the drug, along with the country or countries of origin of every ingredient in that drug.  I would like to be informed if I am about to ingest some drug made in China, or whether any portion thereof has an origin in China. 

Knowledge is power.  If I were offered a drug from my local drugstore, and the container for that drug listed China as place of origin, I could make a decision to say, No, thank you.  Or not. 
It is a travesty for American citizens to be kept in the dark regarding the origins of their prescription drugs. 

Mr. McCain needs to plunge head-first into the subject of "reimportation of drugs" before he talks very much about it. 

The cost of drugs borne by United States citizens benefits more entities and countries than imaginable (remembering that politicians are "entities").  Americans' taxes fund the National Institutes of Health.  Drug companies benefit from the research performed at the NIH.  Drug companies sell their products to other countries at rock-bottom prices.  In other words, we are subsidizing the drugs for other countries. 

Drug companies are entitled to profits, of course, but they are not entitled, in my opinion, and as expressed by someone else in the past, to profiteering. 

Drug companies spend a lot of money on advertising.  Someone has to pay for it.  Want to guess who?  American taxpayers; American purchasers. 

Drug companies spend a lot of money on research and development.  Someone has to pay for it.  Want to guess who?  American taxpayers; American purchasers. 

Drug companies spend a lot of money on drug samples and pens and writing tablets and doctors' examining table covers and facial tissue and who even knows what all.  Who pays for those samples?  Just guess. 

Drug companies are provided tax write-offs that would, in the words of Glenn Beck, make blood start shooting out of your eyes.  Who benefits from those write-offs?  Americans?  When pigs fly. 

As said above, drug companies are entitled to profits, just as any other American company is.  We do have a free enterprise system; we have a (sort of) competitive system.  When it comes to the purchase of prescription drugs, however, Americans are left swaying in the wind. 

As far as the Prescription Drug Plans are concerned, they are designed to obfuscate and confuse.  Their success at this is blinding.

This is a subject not capable of being covered in a blog entry.  However, before all the steam escaped from my ears, and before all the blood shot out of my eyes, some of it needed to be covered.

Anyone interested in an informative book on some of these subjects can read Dr. Marcia Angell's book "The Truth About The Drug Companies - How They Deceive You and What To Do About It."  Talk about steam coming out your ears. 

Back to McCain:  I like him; I would like to vote for him.  However, his views on illegal aliens and now, apparently, drug prices and drug reimportation, completely turn me off.