The Supreme Court is not about diversity

I read with interest an opinion column by Cynthia Tucker, the editorial page editor of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. She uses the same liberal talking points concerning Judge Sotomayor's 'American success story' that we have heard from the beginning. Tucker speaks of Sotomayor's hard work, determination, sacrifice, poverty, personal tragedy, and ancestry. Apparently, Tucker is not familiar with Justice Clarence Thomas and his upbringing (if you have not read the book, My Grandfather's Son, I encourage you to read it). His story is just as (if not more) compelling. But that does nothing to qualify one to sit on the Supreme Court.

She then goes on to criticize Republicans who oppose Sotomayor's nomination because "she represents the activist-judge liberal-elite", according to Tucker. All you need to do is review the now infamous firefighter's case that the Supreme Court just overturned to see that she is an activist, liberal judge. In the past, she has also stated that law is made at the Federal Court level. I think she fits the definition of an activist judge.

Tucker states that many Republicans will oppose any judge that a Democrat President will nominate. This happened throughout the Bush Presidency with Democrats in the Senate - they opposed just about everyone, including Miguel Estrada. President Bush nominated Estrada to sit on the bench, but the Democrats filibustered his nomination any chance that they had. In fact, there were memos revealed that stated the Democrats were against him simply because he was Hispanic and nominated by Bush, and they thought a Democrat President should be the first person to nominate an Hispanic person to such a position. Racism? Yes, it is, but the Democrats actually had some Republican staffers fired for leaking the memos instead of answering for what the memos said.

Tucker then plays the race card, which is her expertise. She states that "there is a less articulated but equally intense reaction to Sotomayor on the right that has nothing to do with issues and everything to do with ethnicity." What? Is this woman serious? I have not seen anyone mention her ethnicity except for the liberal elites, whether in Congress or in the press. The Republicans have opposed this woman on ideological grounds. To them, it has been about her decisions and her judicial temperament. It has been about her legal beliefs and what her view of the role of the judiciary happens to be. It was Sotomayor who said that wise Latina women will make better decisions than men. No one made that up. She said it. It is the liberals that want race to become the issue.

Tucker then spouts off about Pat Buchanan and a column that he wrote. Buchanan, in my opinion, has some good things to say, but he is off his rocker in many things he says these days. Anyway, he compares Sotomayor and the positive treatment she gets vs. Sarah Palin, and the treatment that she has been prone to receive. This is definitely a legitimate comparison, as Sotomayor has been praised beyond belief, while Palin has been scorned and derided at every opportunity to do so. Tucker proves this point, and she did not even try to.

Tucker then closes her column with this:

"There's just one problem: That vision of America - a country run by and for God-fearing white people of smalltown heritage - is losing its appeal in a country that grows more diverse and more urban every day.

As long as the Republican Party is held hostage by a group of voters who refuse to let go of that image of America, it cannot hope to be a national party. Sonia Sotomayor, not Sarah Palin, represents the future."

This is nothing but race-bating on Tucker's part. Yes, we are more diverse, and I know no one on the conservative side of the aisle that has a problem with that. What we want is people to hold important positions who are qualified to be there. Race does not enter into the equation. One's ability to do the job correctly is what matters. It is the liberal establishment that is concerned about race and diversity, not the conservatives.

Where were the liberals when President Bush had the most diverse Cabinet in history? They were too busy saying that minorities sold out to conservatives. Where were they in supporting the Voting Rights Act and during the Civil Rights movement? They were trying to filibuster the legislation. Where were they in support of Lynn Swann? Or Ken Blackwell? Or Michael Steele? Oh, that's right, they were supporting the white guys that were running against them.

And I believe Sarah Palin has a lot of support. In the latest polls, she is only a few points behind the President in a theoretical 2012 head-to-head Presidential race. Palin is popular, and she also has a very compelling life story.

So, in summation, conservatives care about qualifications of those being appointed, not their race, not their life story. It is the liberals who are interested in diversity at the expense of qualifications and ability to do the job. Being a justice on the Supreme Court carries a lot of power and responsibility. It should only be those who have the qualifications who should serve on this most prestigious bench. All other characteristics should be cast aside.

Economics 101: Why Communism does not work

I would like to share with you an e-mail that I received today regarding a very simple approach to economics and prosperity.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little. The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It really doesn't get much simpler than this.

What has happened to our values? - Part 2

A couple of weeks ago, on June 25, 2009, my wife had a birthday. We then went to the Harrisburg Hospital to see my younger brother's newest child. On the way, we heard about the passing of Michael Jackson, the so-called "King of Pop." We can also note that Farrah Fawcett died that day, but that was no longer news after the report of Michael Jackson hit the airwaves.

As I saw news coverage that night, I saw throngs of people headed to the hospital where Michael Jackson died. People flocked to the Neverland Ranch to pay their last respects. People camped out around his star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame. We were flooded with images of people crying over his death. We were shown interviews with people who spoke of how much MJ had touched them with his music and his life, even though there was no personal contact between them. Congress is rushing to pass a resolution honoring the life of Jackson, but yet cannot pass any bill that would help out the average American.

But why are we treating him like this? His music had not been relevant to the pop music genre for at least 15 years. He had money troubles over the last few years (he was spending much more money than he had on hand). He definitely was in legal trouble. Why is their such a fuss about him?

I found it odd that 2 different ministers came out and spoke on his family's behalf: The Rev. Jesse Jackson and Rev. Al Sharpton. If these men were really men of God, then they would know that we should not idolize another fallible human being. Yet these two men did just that. Here they were, holding up a fallible man as if he had done no wrong throughout the course of his life, praising his accomplishments here on this earth.

Let us not forget that MJ was in all kinds of legal trouble for being a pervert, as he liked to have sleepovers with boys, even allowing them to sleep in his bed (in case you forgot, watch his interview with Martin Bashir from a few years ago). He was in trouble for molestation. Yes, he was acquitted, but who among us really believes that he is innocent of this? A lot of money changed hands in order for him to come away from these charges as not guilty.

The Staples Center held a lottery to see who would get tickets to his memorial service. From printed reports, approximately 1.4 million people registered online for 17000 available tickets. People are flying in from all over the country, from around the world, to be in L.A. for this service. Why? Do we really think that much of a singer what made a lot of money from singing songs, yet had not impact on us as people?

And then the media covers this spectacle as if nothing else is going on around us? We have war in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have a federal government that cannot control spending. We have a government that wants to push socialism on us. There are international issues with Korea and Honduras. The Democrats will have a filibuster-proof majority. Yet, the media is diverting our attention to the MJ service and away from these other much more important issues. Because the media knows that Americans have a short attention span and can pretty much be led around and told what to think.

As many people mourn the death of Michael Jackson today, I know of one person who is more than happy that this has happened: Gov. Mark Sanford. It got his name off of the front page. But what does this say about us? What have we become, that the death of an entertainer is the most important event on the earth?

What has happened to our values? - Part 1

Several weeks ago, America waited with baited breath as Jon and Kate Gosselin had an important announcement to make concerning their marriage on their "hit" reality show. We all knew what was coming. You did not need to be a MENSA member to see that they were going to separate. That information was all over the tabloids for many weeks prior to the official announcement.

I had not watched the show prior to this big announcement, but yet I found myself being drawn into this show in order to see what this big announcement was all about. During the show, the interviews with both Jon and Kate (they were interviewed separately) told the sad story of a couple that had grown apart. The rigorous existence that they lived as "reality stars" was finally getting to them.

The part that saddened me the most, though, was the fact that they would rather separate from each other and share custody of the children, rather than stop the show and work out the problems in their marriage. I guess Kate summed it up best when, answering a question regarding the continuation of the show, she said "The show must go on."

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that these people would call themselves Christians after putting on this kind of selfish display. Forget the fact that Jon was cavorting with young women at bars. Forget the rumors that Kate was having an affair with one of her bodyguards. These two people are putting fame and fortune above family. They are putting their own fame and fortune in front of their children's well-being. They are sacrificing the permanent on the altar of the immediate. They are allowing the American public to become voyeurs into their own little world.

I would hope that any group claiming to be a Christian group has dropped either one of these people from any speaking engagement that they may have previously been booked for. As Christians, we have had to put up with many people in the past who have claimed to have spoken for Christianity, but instead have brought upon us a bad name. Christians, it is time to stand up for what is right and Biblical, not what is popular and worldly/un-Biblical.

Three different, high profile murders.....but with similar motives

Within the past couple of weeks, our nation has had its attention turned to 3 different high profile murders, each of which has been committed by a different person, each of which had seemingly differing motives. However, all 3 of them have one thing in common: a built-up hatred for a certain group of people that drove them to commit the act of murder.

The first murder was that of Dr. George Tiller (aka Tiller the Killer). He was gunned down in a church by Scott Roeder. He was an abortion provider, specializing in late-term abortions, one of the few people in the country to offer this ‘service’. Tiller had aborted tens of thousands of innocent lives over his time in the abortion business. However, what Scott Roeder did was not right. It was not his position to take the life of another man. Though we may not like it, George Tiller was not breaking the law. Abortion is a legal activity, albeit a heinous act. Therefore, he could not have charges brought against him. To take justice into one’s own hand (i.e. vigilante justice) is just as bad as the sins that Tiller was committing. Tiller will be condemned to hell one day for the acts he committed. It is not up to other men to get him there sooner than his appointed time.

The second murder was that of Pvt. William Long, an Army recruiter. He was shot by Abdul Hakim Mujahid Muhammad (aka Carlos Bledsoe), a Muslim convert who had issues against the U.S. Military. He was mad at how the U.S. had treated Muslims in the past, though not specifying exactly what it was the U.S. did to mistreat Muslims. He then took his own self-defined idea of justice into his own hands and shot at 2 men outside the recruiting center, killing one of them (Pvt. Quinton Ezeagwula was also wounded). He later went on to say that he would have shot more recruiters had there been more of them there to shoot.

The last murder happened at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. It was there that James VonBrunn shot Mr. Stephen Johns, a security guard at the museum. Mr. VonBrunn was a white supremacist who, by all accounts, was growing more bitter and distressed daily. He did not like Jews or blacks. He often railed against the government. He had been jailed many years ago for 6½ for attempting to kidnap members of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors. Once again, we see that someone took his own idea of justice into his own hands and took the life of another person.

Now, what do these men have in common? On the surface, nothing. When you look deeper, you have 3 murders, committed by 3 different people who obviously had anger management issues. They were all consumed by a hatred for another group in society. They all decided that they were going to act as judge, jury, and executioner in order to make things right (in their own eyes).

The press has been quick to denounce the killing of Tiller and the killing of Johns, painting the killers as ‘right-wing extremists.’ Why do they do this? All of the right-to-life groups have come out and condemned Scott Roeder, as that is not how these groups operate. They are out to change the hearts and minds of people. They do not participate in murder, the same act that the abortionists commit daily. So why do they need to try to put a label on Roeder, especially one that does not really apply?

VonBrunn was a white supremacist, who hated Jews and blacks. He hated President Bush and the so-called neo-cons. He was a 9/11 conspiracy loon. These are many of the same ideas that a lot of the left-wing groups hold dear. So why is he being called a right-wing extremist?

The only one not really condemned by the media (or the President, for that matter) was the killing of Pvt. Long by a Muslim. I guess we do not want to make them mad. However, his pattern of thinking is similar to those who committed the atrocities of 9/11. This is a pervasive ideology and must be stopped. But we cannot do so by committing the same types of vigilante justice that this man committed.

Also, all three of these crimes were committed with guns. And because of the high-profile nature of these crimes, many politicians and gun-control groups are jumping on the soap box and pushing for tighter gun controls. So their answer is to take the guns away from people that obey the law so that the law-abiders can be free game for those who are not interested in adhering to the law.

Through all of this, we can see that the Administration and the media want to paint conservatives as some sort of extremist group (even though conservatives have repudiated all of these acts). The conservatives, in their minds, need to be controlled and suppressed. That is the administration’s goal. They do not like political competition, so this is their way of stomping it out. It is time we start using these despicable acts as political propaganda and call them what they are: acts of murder. Simply put, these are all men who took away the life of another man. Why? Because they were consumed with enough hatred to kill another person.

The administration and the media need to realize that very few things that happen around us take place through the prism of politics. Murder is murder. Hate is hate. We do not need more gun control measures or hate crime legislation. All crimes are committed out of hate, whether it is hate for the government, hate for another person, hate for another race of people. The administration wanted to bring people together. They are doing so by eliminating the competition, only leaving those who agree with them.

I am tired of Republican pansies

We live in an age where the Democrat Party runs roughshod over anyone in their way and will destroy anyone and everything in its path. They have no qualms about accusing people of racism and ruining the character of people in order to further their own political agenda.

And now the Republicans want to play nice when it comes to Sonia Sotomayor and the Supreme Court. I am not saying that they should treat her as the Democrats did to Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito or John Roberts or Robert Bork. But they should not be afraid to come out against her and question her actions and her words. This is a legitimate time to do so. And it is part of their role in the nomination process.

However, the Republicans are afraid of offending the Hispanics in this country. They are afraid of offending women. They do not want a harsh tone. They want to be nice, as can be seen in this article on foxnews.com. However, they have short memories. Do they forget how the Democrats treated any Republican nominee to the courts, especially Miguel Estrada? The Democrats would not allow a vote on him because he was Hispanic. I guess the Hispanic community has a short memory.

The beltway Republicans are mad at Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich for speaking out against this nominee. These 2 men have backed up what they have said about her with facts. They are not making things up. They are passionate about their beliefs and what they think is right for this country. Yet, Republicans in Washington are pusillanimous, feckless, and useless. They would rather pick a fight with non-elected public figures than do battle over the direction of the high court.

The Republican establishment just wants to get along. They think that by being more like Democrats, they can regain power. Even one-time conservative stalwarts like Orrin Hatch and John Cornyn are being sucked up into this shameless approach to politics. I guess they have not figured out that Democrats do not want Republicans in office (no matter what their ideology might happen to be), and true conservative, core, grass-roots Republicans do not want Democrat Lite in office with a republican nameplate.

We want people who stand up for the values that we believe in. Let us not forget that we ran a candidate for President who tried to be a Democrat. And we lost big-time. This approach does not work. Just look at Arlen Specter. He had to change parties in order to have a chance to get elected, because the Republicans in Pennsylvania were tired of him selling us out.

According to Peggy Noonan, who was a speech writer for President Reagan and someone who fancies herself a conservative, conservatives like Limbaugh and Republicans like Gingrich should act like grownups. She called the Sotomayor pick 'a "brilliant political pick" because the GOP has struggled to attract and retain Hispanics and women, and because Sotomayor's rags-to-riches story is so moving.' (I note here that these issues have nothing to do with the makings of a Supreme Court Justice). What about Clarence Thomas's story? That did not impress the Democrats. That did not cause them to treat him better. Where was Peggy Noonan then?

She then goes on to say that '"Politically she's [Sotomayor] like a beautiful doll containing a canister of poison gas: Break her and you die," Noonan wrote.' Is Noonan for real? Did she forget what Reagan did and stood for in our once-great party?

She then sums it up like this: '"Excite the base? How about excite a moderate, or interest an independent?" she wrote. "How about gain the attention of people who aren't already on your side?"' Noonan makes me sick. She should be excommunicated from our party and should not be considered as a conservative by anyone (except, of course, by the New York Times, and MSNBC, who happen to love these stand-up-for-nothing Republicans).

This is just ludicrous. Without the base, the Republican Party will not win. Basically, she is saying to the base of the party, 'Hey, you don't matter any more. Go find your own party. We would rather be like Democrats and ruin this country and never win another election." As far as I am concerned, this woman is an embarrassment. I am sure Reagan is doing somersaults in his grave right now.

Compromise does not win elections. Standing firm on what you believe will win elections. Conservatism wins when it is on the ballot. All we need to do is go back to Reagan, the Contract with America, and, to a certain degree, George W. Bush. We should not run from the conservative mantle. Rather, we should embrace it and be proud of it. Not like these pansies now who claim to represent us.

More Supreme Court thoughts....

Well, it has been a few days since Sonia Sotomayor was nominated to be the next Supreme Court Justice. What have we learned since then?

Well, we learned that the President and his administration think that no one should oppose her. I guess this is due to the fact that we are to do exactly as the President tells us to do. He knows all and see all; and, therefore, we should just fall in line.

We cannot oppose her. If we do, then we are anti-Hispanic, anti-woman, anti-minority, anti-diabetes, anti-Obama. Basically, we are just a bunch of redneck bigots.

They like to tell us that she has a compelling life story, as if this was the first time this ever happened. This is not the case. I would like to urge you to read Clarence Thomas's book My Grandfather's Son. He had a very compelling life story, and look how he was treated, especially by the current V.P.

When the Democrats opposed Republican nominees, they never did so on grounds of character or judicial ability. They did so based on personal attacks and the fact that they were nominated by a Republican President. If the Democrats were so bent on minorities in judicial positions, then they would not have filibustered Miguel Estrada. They should have supported him simply because of his lineage. Now, they try to portray those against Sotomayor as racists? Is there a pot calling a kettle black somewhere? I am not quite sure what hypocrisy smells like, but I think this might be it.

I would like to see the best person be nominated to the Supreme Court. I do not want to see tokens on the court. If she is the best person for the job, then she should be there. If not, then she should not be there. It's that simple. However, I know it will not happen like this.

The Democrats do not need any Republicans to pass this nomination through, even though they will most likely pick up a few along the way. I would like to see Republicans, though, stand up for American and stand for what is right. They need to ask the serious kinds of questions that need to be asked of a nominee to the Supreme Court. Then we, as Americans, can judge whether or not this nominee is qualified.

Were Chrysler dealer closings politically motivated?

There is much speculation of impropriety about the way in which Chrysler and the government chose which dealers would be closed and which would remain open. What did they use as a basis for their decision?

For me, the obvious way to close down dealerships would be to get rid of the dealers that were not performing well and not making money. Then, I would look to consolidate dealerships in the same market. If more dealerships needed to be closed, then maybe you would decide by sales volume. there are many business-savvy ways to do this.

However, many bloggers are looking a little deeper into this to see if there was any political payback involved. Were dealers that made contributions to Democrats rewarded? Were dealers that made contributions to Republicans punished?

We should withhold judgment until the facts are out. However, given this administration's penchant for political bullying, I must say I would not be surprised if there was politics involved. This could possibly be a case study in Chicago-style, thug politics. We will have to wait and see how this transpires. But please, do not expect the mainstream media (which is the spokesgroup for the Administration) to do any vigorous research into this. They want it to pass quietly.

But let us remember what happened after President Bush fired a few of the U.S. Attorneys a couple years back. Everyone was outraged that this was a politically motivated act. In fact, there are still hearings going on about this (Karl Rove had a meeting concerning this issue last week). Why was this issue of firing U.S. Attorneys such a big deal, but the possibility of the Administration closing hundreds of dealerships based on politics OK?

The U.S. Attorneys serve serve at the pleasure of the President. It is his prerogative to keep them or let them go. There was nothing illegal, immoral, or unethical about what happened to this small group of attorneys.

However, if the Administration is using politics as their basis for closing dealerships, then there is a tremendous problem. What it says is that you need to support us or we will put you out of business. In other words, "You need to pay in order to play" (just like the Illinois Senate seat that Rolland Burris sits in right now). These dealerships are not open for the pleasure of the President. These dealerships are open to serve the public. When the government starts to get involved and decide which businesses stay in business based on politics, then we have reached an awfully slippery slope. Where does it end?

What would have happened if President Bush tried something like this with any given industry? He would have been crucified for it, and rightfully so. Why, then, do we have a double standard when it comes to President Obama?

Now, there are going to be several hundreds of dealerships going out of business. many may stay open and continue selling used cars or remain in the auto repair business. But this is still going to lead to unemployment, affecting potentially thousands of people and families. This is sure to help the economy get better.

But don't worry. The President nominated someone to the Supreme Court who will have empathy for you..

Thoughts on the Supreme Court

So, the President has made his nomination for the soon-to-be-vacant Supreme Court seat. His nominee is Sonia Sotomayor, an Hispanic-American woman from working class parents. She is a woman who came from an unremarkable background and worked hard to get where she is today.

It is not my intention here to debate the merits of her nomination and whether or not she is qualified. That information will become apparent in the weeks and months to come, and we can make up our minds on that issue as this process plays out in public.

I do find a few things to be quite interesting in this whole Supreme Court issue, though. First, we need to look at the type of person that the President wants on the Supreme Court. He never said that he wanted someone with a firm grasp of the Constitution and the fact that the Judicial Branch of government is to be impartial. He never said that he wanted someone who would base decisions on the law of the United States, not on laws that he/she wanted to see, or foreign law that has no application to us.

Rather, he wanted someone that could empathize with the less fortunate. I am not sure when this became the role of the judiciary. The empathizing role is played out by Congress. They are elected to represent us, and therefore, empathize with those who elected them. Judges, though, are to be impartial, not basing decisions on what is fair or unfair, but rather on what is legal or illegal. They are to rule on the law, not make new law because they view someone to be less fortunate than others.

The founders of our country were smart enough to know that these roles should be separate. However, as each generation goes by, and as slight changes are made and accepted with each generation, soon we forget what the original intent of the founders was. And sadly, many do not care. And these ‘leaders’ are smart enough to know that drastic changes at any given time or usually not welcome. However, they know that slight changes, over time, will have the same effect and that people are more willing to accept this kind of change.

Another thing I find quite interesting is the reaction of the mainstream media. NBC has come out and asked the question that can be summed up like this: Are Republicans dumb enough to object to an Hispanic woman being nominated to the court? Granted, I changed the wording of the question, but this is the point that they are trying to get across.

I do not know about you, but I view the job of Supreme Court Justice as being quite a prestigious position. Only 9 people can hold that position at any one time. It is a lifetime appointment. We should be interested in nominating the best person to that position. Political correctness has no business in the selection process.

I am not quite sure how being an Hispanic or being a woman has anything to do with being a Supreme Court Justice. It seems to me that if you are rendering opinions on legal cases based on existing laws, then gender and nationality should not need to play a part in the whole process. It should be knowledge of the law, as well as its application in the cases that are in front of you, that should be the guiding factor in who is worthy of a seat on the Supreme Court.

This is really where Presidential elections matter. Presidents are not able to sign their own bills into law without Congressional approval. Presidents are the beneficiaries of good economic times and the punching bags during bad economic times. However, the people that they appoint to the Supreme Court (and who are approved by the Senate) are there for a long time, much longer than the President that appointed them. They have the opportunity to rule on law or make new law.

The President has all the votes he needs to push this nomination through. My question is this: Will there be Democrats (and Republicans) who have the courage to stand up and ask the right questions to see if this candidate is truly worthy of being s Supreme Court justice? Will Democrats dare vote against the President? Will Republicans finally have the courage to stand up and do the right thing?

I am not saying that they should treat the nominee in the same manner the Judge Bork was treated, or in the same manner that Justices Thomas, Alito, and Roberts were treated. They can be fair, courteous, and still ask the hard questions. I encourage all Senators to do this.

Indian dad avoids washing for 35 years because......

I came across this article yesterday concerning a man from India who had not washed in 35 years in an attempt to assure that his next child would be male. He already has seven daughters.

Some humorous excerpts from the article............

1. Kailash "Kalau" Singh replaces bathing and brushing his teeth with a "fire bath" every evening when he stands on one leg beside a bonfire, smokes marijuana and says prayers to Lord Shiva. My thoughts: Yet another reason not to legalize marijuana.
2. "It's just like using water to take a bath," Kalau was reported as saying. "A fire bath helps kill germs and infection in the body." My thoughts: He better hope he does not catch on fire from the stench surrounding him.
3. He refused to take the ritual plunge into the Ganges River, even after the death of his brother. My thoughts: You must really be filthy if dipping in the Ganges River will actually help clean you up.
4. Kalau's hygiene regime has taken its toll on his professional life. The grocery store that he used to own closed when customers stopped shopping there due to his "unhealthy personality."

First of all, the man is 63 years old, so why is he looking to have more children now? I hope his wife is not the same age. Second, what woman would want to have a child with a man who has not washed in 35 years? I am not sure that this would be healthy for her. Third, i just turned 36 a couple days ago. This man has not washed since I was 1 yr. old. That is truly disgusting.