Ari's Review
The Secret saved my life!
Please allow me to share with you how "The Secret" changed my life and in a very real and substantive way allowed me to overcome a severe crisis in my personal life. It is well known that the premise of "The Secret" is the science of attracting the things in life that you desire and need and in removing from your life those things that you don't want. Before finding this book, I knew nothing of these principles, the process of positive visualization, and had actually engaged in reckless behaviors to the point of endangering my own life and wellbeing.
At age 36, I found myself in a medium security prison serving 3-5 years for destruction of government property and public intoxication. This was stiff punishment for drunkenly defecating in a mailbox but as the judge pointed out, this was my third conviction for the exact same crime. I obviously had an alcohol problem and a deep and intense disrespect for the postal system, but even more importantly I was ignoring the very fabric of our metaphysical reality and inviting destructive influences into my life.
My fourth day in prison was the first day that I was allowed in general population and while in the recreation yard I was approached by a prisoner named Marcus who calmly informed me that as a new prisoner I had been purchased by him for three packs of Winston cigarettes and 8 ounces of Pruno (prison wine). Marcus elaborated further that I could expect to be raped by him on a daily basis and that I had pretty eyes.
Needless to say, I was deeply shocked that my life had sunk to this level. Although I've never been homophobic I was discovering that I was very rape phobic and dismayed by my overall personal street value of roughly $15. I returned to my cell and sat very quietly, searching myself for answers on how I could improve my life and distance myself from harmful outside influences. At that point, in what I consider to be a miraculous moment, my cell mate Jim Norton informed me that he knew about the Marcus situation and that he had something that could solve my problems. He handed me a copy of "The Secret". Normally I wouldn't have turned to a self help book to resolve such a severe and immediate threat but I literally didn't have any other available alternatives. I immediately opened the book and began to read.
The first few chapters deal with the essence of something called the "Law of Attraction" in which a primal universal force is available to us and can be harnessed for the betterment of our lives. The theoretical nature of the first few chapters wasn't exactly putting me at peace. In fact, I had never meditated and had great difficulty with closing out the chaotic noises of the prison and visualizing the positive changes that I so dearly needed. It was when I reached Chapter 6 "The Secret to Relationships" that I realized how this book could help me distance myself from Marcus and his negative intentions. Starting with chapter six there was a cavity carved into the book and in that cavity was a prison shiv. This particular shiv was a toothbrush with a handle that had been repeatedly melted and ground into a razor sharp point.
The next day in the exercise yard I carried "The Secret" with me and when Marcus approached me I opened the book and stabbed him in the neck. The next eight weeks in solitary confinement provided ample time to practice positive visualization and the 16 hours per day of absolute darkness made visualization about the only thing that I actually could do. I'm not sure that everybody's life will be changed in such a dramatic way by this book but I'm very thankful to have found it and will continue to recommend it heartily.
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Lou Pritchett
This is a letter written to President Obama by a recently retired chief officer of Proctor and Gamble. He sent it to the New York Times to be printed and they refused. In fact, they never acknowledged it.
Lou Pritchett's site.
Dear President Obama:
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
Lou Pritchett
Lou Pritchett's site.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
C'mon, Mia, Don't stop now....
It's not that I don't get that celebs, with all their money and power, should help folks - it's just that overall, this woman is a completely useless flak.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Perez Hilton is a Bigot - and so are the people that allow this to happen on national TV
Perez Hilton: The Foul Face of ‘Gay’ ActivismFriday, April 24, 2009
By J. Matt Barber, Commentator
Warning: This article contains graphic but accurate material that may be offensive to some readers.
You may have heard. During Sunday’s Miss USA pageant openly “gay” activist and pageant judge Perez Hilton – the self-styled “Queen of Media” – ambushed Carrie Prejean – the openly Christian Miss California – with a politically loaded question on so-called “same-sex marriage.” Prejean’s candid answer – as both Hilton and Miss USA organizer Donald Trump later admitted – likely cost her the crown. From the moment she opened her mouth, Prejean has given liberals a clinic in class. Hilton, on the other hand (a.k.a. Mario Armando Lavandeira), has provided the world a sneak peek into the soul of homosexual activism.
This is one for the up-is-down-black-is-white hall of fame. The media’s fabricated flap over Prejean’s answer – a public defense of legitimate marriage – has a reasonable America scratching its collective noggin in stunned disbelief. Not because of the answer she gave Perez – which was both well received by the pageant audience and overwhelmingly shared by about 70 percent of Americans – but, rather, because of Hilton’s hate-filled, misogynistic response to her answer and the disgraceful, knee-jerk defense of that response by liberals in Hollywood, the media and organized homosexuality. After Hilton asked the lovely and talented Miss California whether “every state” should legalize “same-sex marriage,” Prejean responded: “In my country, in my family … I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.” Oh the humanity!
Evidently this was not the rooty-tooty-fresh-n’-fruity answer Hilton – the creepy valley girl wannabe with a five o’clock shadow – had hoped for. He promptly marked Prejean’s score card with a zero, plopped down in front of the television cameras and began blubbering away like a fussy little snot with a dirty diaper. Having already publicly called Prejean a “dumb b----,” he then yammered to a sympathetic Norah O’Donnell on MSNBC that, not only was he refusing to apologize, he was actually “thinking the C-word.” This, of course, one of the vilest things anyone can call a woman. Yet, rather than taking Hilton to task for the boy lover’s girl-hating poison, O’Donnell joined in on the bash-fest, criticizing Prejean for her traditional view.
But Hilton wasn’t done yet. Ramping up his vicious attack on the Christian California bombshell, our lispy-wispy lil’ cupcake dove headlong into the annals of dirt-baggery lore. He defaced a photo of Prejean on his weblog scribbling, below her chin, a crude depiction of a male phallus ejaculating in her mouth. How did Prejean react? While talking to Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show she said, “I knew at that moment after I answered the question, I knew, I was not going to win because of my answer, because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God. … I wouldn't have answered it differently. The way I answered may have been offensive. With that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct. For me it was being biblically correct.”
On the Fox News Channel’s Hannity program, Prejean shared, “You know, I forgive him. I know that he's angry for whatever reason. I know there must be a bigger issue going on in his life.” Like I said – Class. Still, Perez Hilton – Hollywood’s frothy-potty-mouthed little drama queen – isn’t alone in his hatred for Prejean or the three-fourths of Americans who share her opposition to the novel and incongruous concept of “gay marriage.”
For example, Wayne Besen, a prominent leader in the homosexual activist community, unbelievably went on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor to defend Hilton. He picked up Hilton’s anti-Christian torch, incredibly charging that it was Prejean, not Hilton, whose millennia old recognition of biblical marriage “was divisive.” Besen then added insult to injury and revealed his true rainbow colors by tagging the 70 percent of Americans who oppose “gay marriage” as “bigots.”
This whole hateful affair provides the perfect metaphor for the current divide between defenders of traditional sexual morality and the extremist “queer” activist movement. As Congress debates the constructive repeal of both the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection under the law” and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion through passage of discriminatory and wholly unnecessary “hate crimes” legislation, this little episode once again reminds us that the self-described champions of “tolerance” and “diversity” are the most intolerant and hateful among us.
How soon we forget. Just hearken back a few months to the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of natural marriage to the Golden State. There we all played witness to “gay” activist calls for church burnings, Mormon Temple vandalism, death threats against Prop 8 supporters and quasi-riotous assaults against peaceful Christian marriage supporters. So, insofar as liberals continue to dig their own hole by defending Hilton and piling on Prejean, I submit they’re doing the other 70 percent of us a favor. In their biting anger, they’ve cast aside the sublime mask of “tolerance,” revealing an ugly, desperate and most intolerant countenance below.
For that, I say thank you. For your treatment of Carrie Prejean, I say shame on you.
By J. Matt Barber, Commentator
Warning: This article contains graphic but accurate material that may be offensive to some readers.
You may have heard. During Sunday’s Miss USA pageant openly “gay” activist and pageant judge Perez Hilton – the self-styled “Queen of Media” – ambushed Carrie Prejean – the openly Christian Miss California – with a politically loaded question on so-called “same-sex marriage.” Prejean’s candid answer – as both Hilton and Miss USA organizer Donald Trump later admitted – likely cost her the crown. From the moment she opened her mouth, Prejean has given liberals a clinic in class. Hilton, on the other hand (a.k.a. Mario Armando Lavandeira), has provided the world a sneak peek into the soul of homosexual activism.
This is one for the up-is-down-black-is-white hall of fame. The media’s fabricated flap over Prejean’s answer – a public defense of legitimate marriage – has a reasonable America scratching its collective noggin in stunned disbelief. Not because of the answer she gave Perez – which was both well received by the pageant audience and overwhelmingly shared by about 70 percent of Americans – but, rather, because of Hilton’s hate-filled, misogynistic response to her answer and the disgraceful, knee-jerk defense of that response by liberals in Hollywood, the media and organized homosexuality. After Hilton asked the lovely and talented Miss California whether “every state” should legalize “same-sex marriage,” Prejean responded: “In my country, in my family … I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised and that's how I think it should be – between a man and a woman.” Oh the humanity!
Evidently this was not the rooty-tooty-fresh-n’-fruity answer Hilton – the creepy valley girl wannabe with a five o’clock shadow – had hoped for. He promptly marked Prejean’s score card with a zero, plopped down in front of the television cameras and began blubbering away like a fussy little snot with a dirty diaper. Having already publicly called Prejean a “dumb b----,” he then yammered to a sympathetic Norah O’Donnell on MSNBC that, not only was he refusing to apologize, he was actually “thinking the C-word.” This, of course, one of the vilest things anyone can call a woman. Yet, rather than taking Hilton to task for the boy lover’s girl-hating poison, O’Donnell joined in on the bash-fest, criticizing Prejean for her traditional view.
But Hilton wasn’t done yet. Ramping up his vicious attack on the Christian California bombshell, our lispy-wispy lil’ cupcake dove headlong into the annals of dirt-baggery lore. He defaced a photo of Prejean on his weblog scribbling, below her chin, a crude depiction of a male phallus ejaculating in her mouth. How did Prejean react? While talking to Matt Lauer on NBC’s Today Show she said, “I knew at that moment after I answered the question, I knew, I was not going to win because of my answer, because I had spoken from my heart, from my beliefs and for my God. … I wouldn't have answered it differently. The way I answered may have been offensive. With that question specifically, it's not about being politically correct. For me it was being biblically correct.”
On the Fox News Channel’s Hannity program, Prejean shared, “You know, I forgive him. I know that he's angry for whatever reason. I know there must be a bigger issue going on in his life.” Like I said – Class. Still, Perez Hilton – Hollywood’s frothy-potty-mouthed little drama queen – isn’t alone in his hatred for Prejean or the three-fourths of Americans who share her opposition to the novel and incongruous concept of “gay marriage.”
For example, Wayne Besen, a prominent leader in the homosexual activist community, unbelievably went on Fox News’ O’Reilly Factor to defend Hilton. He picked up Hilton’s anti-Christian torch, incredibly charging that it was Prejean, not Hilton, whose millennia old recognition of biblical marriage “was divisive.” Besen then added insult to injury and revealed his true rainbow colors by tagging the 70 percent of Americans who oppose “gay marriage” as “bigots.”
This whole hateful affair provides the perfect metaphor for the current divide between defenders of traditional sexual morality and the extremist “queer” activist movement. As Congress debates the constructive repeal of both the Fourteenth Amendment guarantee of “equal protection under the law” and the First Amendment guarantees of free speech and freedom of religion through passage of discriminatory and wholly unnecessary “hate crimes” legislation, this little episode once again reminds us that the self-described champions of “tolerance” and “diversity” are the most intolerant and hateful among us.
How soon we forget. Just hearken back a few months to the passage of California’s Proposition 8, which restored the definition of natural marriage to the Golden State. There we all played witness to “gay” activist calls for church burnings, Mormon Temple vandalism, death threats against Prop 8 supporters and quasi-riotous assaults against peaceful Christian marriage supporters. So, insofar as liberals continue to dig their own hole by defending Hilton and piling on Prejean, I submit they’re doing the other 70 percent of us a favor. In their biting anger, they’ve cast aside the sublime mask of “tolerance,” revealing an ugly, desperate and most intolerant countenance below.
For that, I say thank you. For your treatment of Carrie Prejean, I say shame on you.
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Mexican Envoy Defends Claim That Most Guns in Mexico Come From U.S.
Mexican Envoy Auturo Sarukhan defended his claim Sunday that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S.
FOXNews.com
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, repeated and defended his claim that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S.
During an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Sarukhan said on the Arizona and Texas borders with Mexico alone, roughly 7,000 licenses for federal firearms had been granted.
"And a lot of the weapons that are being bought by the drug syndicates, either directly or through proxy purchases, are coming from those gun shops," he said.
Sarukhan isn't the only one to cite this myth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, California Sen. Diane Feinstein and Willliam Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have all said that 90 percent of weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the U.S.
But in fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
An ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com earlier this month in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director "that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News earlier this month.
Sarukhan has claimed that Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States, or 730,000 a year. But the official statistic from the Mexico attorney general's office says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.
On "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer asked Sarukhan for evidence to support his claim that most of the weapons seized are coming from the United States.
"The data we have is the one that we've been sharing with our counterparts in the U.S. government, ATF and the Justice Department, and other agencies that have been working with us to determine where those guns are coming from," Sarukhan replied.
For example, Sarukhan cited the Mexican border town of Reynosa where he said more than 250 assault weapons and half a million rounds of ammo were seized in November.
"These had just crossed over the border from the United States in Mexico," he said. "By tracing these weapons, by looking at the types of weapons, we're determining that most of these weapons are coming from the United States."
Mexican Envoy Auturo Sarukhan defended his claim Sunday that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S.
FOXNews.com
Sunday, April 12, 2009
Auturo Sarukhan, the Mexican ambassador to the United States, repeated and defended his claim that 90 percent of the weapons intercepted in Mexico come from the U.S.
During an appearance on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday, Sarukhan said on the Arizona and Texas borders with Mexico alone, roughly 7,000 licenses for federal firearms had been granted.
"And a lot of the weapons that are being bought by the drug syndicates, either directly or through proxy purchases, are coming from those gun shops," he said.
Sarukhan isn't the only one to cite this myth. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, California Sen. Diane Feinstein and Willliam Hoover, assistant director for field operations at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have all said that 90 percent of weapons used to commit crimes in Mexico come from the U.S.
But in fact, only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
An ATF spokeswoman told FOXNews.com earlier this month in a clarification of the statistic used by her own agency's assistant director "that over 90 percent of the traced firearms originate from the U.S."
But a large percentage of the guns recovered in Mexico do not get sent back to the U.S. for tracing because it is obvious from their markings that they do not come from the U.S.
"Not every weapon seized in Mexico has a serial number on it that would make it traceable, and the U.S. effort to trace weapons really only extends to weapons that have been in the U.S. market," Matt Allen, special agent of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), told FOX News earlier this month.
Sarukhan has claimed that Mexico seizes 2,000 guns a day from the United States, or 730,000 a year. But the official statistic from the Mexico attorney general's office says Mexico seized 29,000 weapons in all of 2007 and 2008.
On "Face the Nation," host Bob Schieffer asked Sarukhan for evidence to support his claim that most of the weapons seized are coming from the United States.
"The data we have is the one that we've been sharing with our counterparts in the U.S. government, ATF and the Justice Department, and other agencies that have been working with us to determine where those guns are coming from," Sarukhan replied.
For example, Sarukhan cited the Mexican border town of Reynosa where he said more than 250 assault weapons and half a million rounds of ammo were seized in November.
"These had just crossed over the border from the United States in Mexico," he said. "By tracing these weapons, by looking at the types of weapons, we're determining that most of these weapons are coming from the United States."
Sick as a dog...
I honestly do not know many dogs who have gotten this sick, but I do know I am sick of being sick.
Sunday, April 05, 2009
From the President who thinks an iPod is an appropriate gift for the Queen of England...
... and bowed to a foreign King.
Amusing, embarrassing, amusing, embarrassing... I try to keep my sense of humor.
Amusing, embarrassing, amusing, embarrassing... I try to keep my sense of humor.
Barack Obama, the World's Greatest Orator (™all news organisations), didn't exactly cover himself in glory when the BBC's political editor Nick Robinson asked him a question about who was to blame for the financial crisis. Normally word perfect, Obama ummed, ahed and waffled for the best part of two and a half minutes. Here, John Crace decodes what he was really thinking ...
Nick Robinson: "A question for you both, if I may. The prime minister has repeatedly blamed the United States of America for causing this crisis. France and Germany both blame Britain and America for causing this crisis. Who is right? And isn't the debate about that at the heart of the debate about what to do now?" Brown immediately swivels to leave Obama in pole position. There is a four-second delay before Obama starts speaking [THANKS FOR NOTHING, GORDY BABY. REMIND ME TO HANG YOU OUT TO DRY ONE DAY.] Barack Obama: "I, I, would say that, er ... pause [I HAVEN'T A CLUE] ... if you look at ... pause [WHO IS THIS NICK ROBINSON JERK?] ... the, the sources of this crisis ... pause [JUST KEEP GOING, BUDDY] ... the United States certainly has some accounting to do with respect to . . . pause [I'M IN WAY TOO DEEP HERE] ... a regulatory system that was inadequate to the massive changes that have taken place in the global financial system ... pause, close eyes [THIS IS GOING TO GO DOWN LIKE A CROCK OF SHIT BACK HOME. HELP]. I think what is also true is that ... pause [I WANT NICK ROBINSON TO DISAPPEAR] ... here in Great Britain ... pause [SHIT, GORDY'S THE HOST, DON'T LAND HIM IN IT] ... here in continental Europe ... pause [DAMN IT, BLAME EVERYONE.] ... around the world. We were seeing the same mismatch between the regulatory regimes that were in place and er ... pause [I'VE LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AGAIN] ... the highly integrated, er, global capital markets that have emerged ... pause [I'M REALLY WINGING IT NOW]. So at this point, I'm less interested in ... pause [YOU] ... identifying blame than fixing the problem. I think we've taken some very aggressive steps in the United States to do so, not just responding to the immediate crisis, ensuring banks are adequately capitalised, er, dealing with the enormous, er ... pause [WHY DIDN'T I QUIT WHILE I WAS AHEAD?] ... drop-off in demand and contraction that has taken place. More importantly, for the long term, making sure that we've got a set of, er, er, regulations that are up to the task, er, and that includes, er, a number that will be discussed at this summit. I think there's a lot of convergence between all the parties involved about the need, for example, to focus not on the legal form that a particular financial product takes or the institution it emerges from, but rather what's the risk involved, what's the function of this product and how do we regulate that adequately, much more effective coordination, er, between countries so we can, er, anticipate the risks that are involved there. Dealing with the, er, problem of derivatives markets, making sure we have set up systems, er, that can reduce some of the risks there. So, I actually think ... pause [FANTASTIC. I'VE LOST EVERYONE, INCLUDING MYSELF] ... there's enormous consensus that has emerged in terms of what we need to do now and, er ... pause [I'M OUTTA HERE. TIME FOR THE USUAL CLOSING BOLLOCKS] ... I'm a great believer in looking forwards than looking backwards.
Monday, March 30, 2009
Angie Harmon
She's a whole lot younger and prettier than I, but we do rather agree here.
Angie Harmon is not afraid to come out and say she doesn’t like how President Obama is handling the job — but she’s sick of having to defend herself from being deemed a racist.
"Here's my problem with this, I'm just going to come out and say it. If I have anything to say against Obama it's not because I'm a racist, it's because I don't like what he's doing as President and anybody should be able to feel that way, but what I find now is that if you say anything against him you're called a racist," Harmon told Tarts at Thursday’s Los Angeles launch of the new eyelash-growing formula, Latisse. "But it has nothing to do with it, I don’t care what color he is. I’m just not crazy about what he's doing and I heard all about this, and he’s gonna do that and change and change, so okay … I'm still dressing for a recession over here buddy and we've got unemployment at an all-time high and that was his number one thing and that's the thing I really don't appreciate. If I'm going to disagree with my President, that doesn't make me a racist. If I was to disagree with W, that doesn't make me racist. It has nothing to do with it, it is ridiculous."
Speaking of dislikes, the starlet has also had enough of the double-standards in the media.
"I do think McCain would have done a better job, only because I think he has more experience. I also think if W or John McCain or Reagan would have gone and done a talk show, the backlash would have been so huge and in his face, and ‘What is our president doing? How unclassy!’ But Obama does it and no one says anything," Harmon said.
And in spite of the scornful opinions most of her Tinseltown counterparts have shared on Gov. Sarah Palin, Harmon remains a true fan.
"I admire any kind of woman like her. My whole motto is to know what I stand for and know what I don't stand for and have the courage to live my life accordingly and she does exactly that. The fact that this woman has made the decisions she's made and literally lived her life according to that and takes heat for it is absolutely disgusting to me," she added. "People cannot look at this woman. I really think they're afraid of her and her morals, ethics and values and the fact that she hangs on them. Is she the most experienced person in the world? But she was running to be the Vice President, so we then put the most inexperienced person as the President. That didn't make any sense to me."
However Harmon is definitely in the Hollywood minority when it comes to her criticism of Obama as other lasses at the Latisse party were quick to advocate their unequivocal support.
Sunday, March 29, 2009
That's not funny, that's sick....
Idiot.
DETROIT, March 28 (UPI) -- A lawyer notified a Michigan judge this week that former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick can pay only $6 monthly restitution, not $6,000.
The lawyer, Michael Alan Schwartz, who just joined the ex-mayor's legal team, told the Detroit Free Press he may also try to have Judge David Groner taken off the case. He said Groner has a conflict because his brother-in-law is chief assistant to Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.
Kilpatrick was allowed to move to Texas after his release from jail and is working there as a salesman for a subsidiary of a Michigan company, Compuware.
In his court filing, Schwartz said Compuware pays Kilpatrick $10,000 a month. He detailed monthly expenses of $9,994, including $2,700 in rent and $900 for lease of a Cadillac Escalade.
"I don't think he was ordered to live a more modest lifestyle," Schwartz said. "Is it better Mr. Kilpatrick drives a beat-up Yugo?"
When he pleaded guilty to perjury, Kilpatrick agreed to pay the city $1 million in restitution. He admitted lying in a deposition about his romantic relationship with his chief of staff and their role in the firing of top police officers.
DETROIT, March 28 (UPI) -- A lawyer notified a Michigan judge this week that former Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick can pay only $6 monthly restitution, not $6,000.
The lawyer, Michael Alan Schwartz, who just joined the ex-mayor's legal team, told the Detroit Free Press he may also try to have Judge David Groner taken off the case. He said Groner has a conflict because his brother-in-law is chief assistant to Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy.
Kilpatrick was allowed to move to Texas after his release from jail and is working there as a salesman for a subsidiary of a Michigan company, Compuware.
In his court filing, Schwartz said Compuware pays Kilpatrick $10,000 a month. He detailed monthly expenses of $9,994, including $2,700 in rent and $900 for lease of a Cadillac Escalade.
"I don't think he was ordered to live a more modest lifestyle," Schwartz said. "Is it better Mr. Kilpatrick drives a beat-up Yugo?"
When he pleaded guilty to perjury, Kilpatrick agreed to pay the city $1 million in restitution. He admitted lying in a deposition about his romantic relationship with his chief of staff and their role in the firing of top police officers.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Friday, March 06, 2009
Asshattery
Barney Frank has gotten very full of himself. So full, in fact, that his memory isn’t working as well as it probably should. From the WSJ today (with some paraphrasing):
House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.) is pressing state and federal authorities to seek criminal and civil penalties on financial actors that helped cause the current crisis.
”Rules don’t work if people have no fear of them,” Frank said at a press conference Thursday.
He announced a hearing March 20 with Attorney General Eric Holder, bank regulators and the Securities and Exchange Commission as witnesses to discover what their plans are to prosecute irresponsible and in some cases criminal behaviors.
How about we start with this jackass:
A September report from the Business & Media Institute suggests one possible target for investigation: a senior member of the House Banking Committee. This congressman is a recipient of more than $40,000 in campaign donations from Fannie since 1989” and “was once romantically involved with a Fannie Mae executive.” The same congressman “was and remains a stalwart defender of Fannie Mae.”
In case you’ve missed it, that "senior member"; mentioned is House Financial Services Chairman Barney Frank (D-Mass.).
Asshat.
I'm passing it along...
Via Neal Boortz:
We've stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what's right. So let's just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.
So here's a model separation agreement.
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That's going to be the difficult part, but I'm sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can have those. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. And since you hate guns and you hate war, we'll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.
We'll keep the capitalism, the greedy corporations, the pharmaceutical companies; we will keep Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have the homeless, the homeboys, the hippies and illegal aliens. We will keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, the greedy CEOS and all of the rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and we'll let you have NBC and Hollywood.
You can be nice to Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer anybody that threatens us. You can have the peaceniks and the war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with security. You won't have to worry about it. We will keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley Maclaine. You can also have the UN, but we will no longer pay the bill.
We will keep the SUVs, the pickup trucks and the oversize luxury cars. You can have the compacts, the subcompacts and every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everybody healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. We will keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and the national anthem, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place "Imagine." I'd like to teach the world to sing "Kumbaya" or "We are the world." We will practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle-up poverty your best shot. And since it so offends you, we will keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots. And if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the friendly spirit of parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in about 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J Wall
Law student and an American
P.S. You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda
LETTER FROM A LAW STUDENT
Dear American liberals, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Obama supporters,We've stuck together since the late 1950s, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know that we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly this relationship has run its course. Our two ideological sides of America cannot and just will not ever agree on what's right. So let's just end it right now while we can do it on friendly terms. We can smile, shake hands, chalk it up to irreconcilable differences and each go our own way.
So here's a model separation agreement.
Our two groups can equitably divide up the country by land mass, each taking a portion. That's going to be the difficult part, but I'm sure our two sides can come to a friendly agreement. After that, it should be relatively easy. Our respective representatives can effortlessly divide other assets since both sides have such distinct and disparate taste. We don't like redistributive taxes so you can have those. You are welcome to the liberal judges and the ACLU. And since you hate guns and you hate war, we'll take the firearms, the cops, the NRA and the military. You can keep Oprah, Michael Moore and Rosie O'Donnell. But you are going to be responsible for finding a biodiesel vehicle big enough to haul them around.
We'll keep the capitalism, the greedy corporations, the pharmaceutical companies; we will keep Wal-Mart and Wall Street. You can have the homeless, the homeboys, the hippies and illegal aliens. We will keep the hot Alaskan hockey moms, the greedy CEOS and all of the rednecks. We'll keep the Bibles and we'll let you have NBC and Hollywood.
You can be nice to Iran and Palestine and we'll retain the right to invade and hammer anybody that threatens us. You can have the peaceniks and the war protesters. When our allies or our way of life are under assault, we will provide them with security. You won't have to worry about it. We will keep our Judeo-Christian values. You are welcome to Islam, Scientology, Humanism and Shirley Maclaine. You can also have the UN, but we will no longer pay the bill.
We will keep the SUVs, the pickup trucks and the oversize luxury cars. You can have the compacts, the subcompacts and every Subaru station wagon you can find. You can give everybody healthcare, if you can find any practicing doctors. We will continue to believe that healthcare is a privilege and not a right. We will keep "The Battle Hymn of the Republic" and the national anthem, and I am sure you will be happy to substitute in their place "Imagine." I'd like to teach the world to sing "Kumbaya" or "We are the world." We will practice trickle-down economics and you can give trickle-up poverty your best shot. And since it so offends you, we will keep our history, our name and our flag.
Would you agree to this? If so, please pass it along other like-minded liberal and conservative patriots. And if you do not agree, just hit delete. In the friendly spirit of parting, I'll bet you ANWAR which one of us will need whose help in about 15 years.
Sincerely,
John J Wall
Law student and an American
P.S. You can also have Barbara Streisand and Jane Fonda
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Norman Mattoon Thomas
Norman Mattoon Thomas (1884-1968), leader of the Socialist movement in the United States for more than 4 decades, was six times the Socialist candidate for president, as well as an author and lecturer. He was one of the most respected critics of American capitalist society.
Needless to say, I am not his supporter. However, he said a very true thing.
And it was:
Needless to say, I am not his supporter. However, he said a very true thing.
And it was:
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform."
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Val Kilmer - Boring and ignorant.
I just read an old article that fully explains to me why Val Kilmer is a non-entity in the real world.
Kilmer, and those who think like him - pfffft.
Anyone who still believes the old canard that the only men who served in Vietnam were poor, disadvantaged, and stupid should read Stolen Valor by B.G. Burkett and Glenna Whitley.Interviewer: You mean you think you literally had the same experience as Doc Holliday?
Kilmer: Oh, sure. It's not like I believed that I shot somebody, but I absolutely know what it feels like to pull the trigger and take someone's life.
Interviewer: You understand how it feels to shoot someone as much as a person who has actually committed a murder?
Kilmer: I understand it more. It's an actor's job. A guy who's lived through the horror of Vietnam has not spent his life preparing his mind for it. He's some punk. Most guys were borderline criminal or poor, and that's why they got sent to Vietnam. It was all the poor, wretched kids who got beat up by their dads, guys who didn't get on the football team, couldn't finagle a scholarship. They didn't have the emotional equipment to handle that experience. But this is what an actor trains to do. I can more effectively represent that kid in Vietnam than a guy who was there.
Kilmer, and those who think like him - pfffft.
Monday, February 02, 2009
What Rush Limbaugh Really Said....
Here’s what Limbaugh actually said on his Jan. 16 radio program:
The Main Stream Media is, collectively and singularly, idiotic.If I wanted Obama to succeed, I'd be happy the Republicans have laid down. And I would be encouraging Republicans to lay down and support him. Look, what he's talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the U.S. government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. I do not want the government in charge of all of these things. I don't want this to work. So I'm thinking of replying to the guy, "Okay, I'll send you a response, but I don't need 400 words, I need four: I hope he fails.
Moment later, Limbaugh on that same Jan. 16 radio program, Limbaugh told his listeners that Obama’s “ideas and policies are what count for me, not his skin color, not his past, not whatever ties he doesn't have to being down with the struggle, all of that's irrelevant to me.”
Sunday, February 01, 2009
Buca diBeppo's gets Bought Out and Sells Out.
My husband and I went to Buca's in Birmingham, MI tonight for my birthday and I have never been so disappointed in my life.
My husband and I have been going to this same Buca's for nearly a decade - through a beginning friendship, then courtship, to every birthday, anniversary, any celebration including our wedding reception where we hosted 25 people to share in our joy six years ago. We've gone there for every Valentine's Day, many of my children's and grandchildren's birthdays. I was never disappointed in the food or the service.
Tonight, all of that changed.
First, we were seated in the bar, which I did not ask for and really would not have preferred, but apparently our waiter didn't want to miss the Super Bowl.
Next, in the midst of eating our apple gorgonzola salad, I found a nice curly, black hair in my plate. The waiter, when I could get his attention, came and took the salad away. Yes, he took it off our bill, but amazingly enough, he didn't offer replacement appetizer of any kind or clean silver. I had to go, myself, to another table to get fresh utensils.
Next, I ran out of diet Pepsi - and when I tried to get the waiter's attention, it was virtually impossible because he was so entranced in watching the Super Bowl on the bar's tv. I finally just hollered across the room. Nice. Classy.
We tried to order, but as we went through the dishes we would have liked to have, our waiter told us, for instance, that the brushcetta sauce wasn't really any good any more. It used to be nice and thick, he told us, but now it's just like some chopped up tomatoes. Then we asked about various other dishes and were told that Buca's no longer used much garlic in anything, that fresh garlic was no longer used, that the sauces were all different than we were used to, but that, thank heaven, the chicken Marsala had the same sauce. He informed us that everything had changed since Buca's has been bought out by Planet Hollywood and I can see that this is true.
So we did intend to order a variety appetizer, but we settled for a small garlic bread, and we also intended to have frutti di mare (we usually get the large and take some home) but we settled for a side of fettucini alfredo and spaghetti with marinara sauce (which was downright mushy) and then ordered a large dish of chicken Marsala. We got the sides but we ended up receiving a small order of the chicken and when we asked him to correct that, he seemed quite confused.
At no time did he come and refresh our drinks without being asked or offer dessert. I had to flat out ask for it to be brought to us.
When I asked for the manager part-way through our meal, I had to go explain myself and still, he never sent the manager to our table! The manager did happen to come by - he was visiting all of the tables - but I truly do not think I need to explain myself to a waiter before I can speak to a manager.
In any case, the manager basically listened to me as I explained the various problems, but still never spoke to the waiter so we could get service instead of watching him watch the Super Bowl as he leaned on the bar. He did take my garlic bread off the bill, but as I explained, I didn't want money off, we wanted decent food and decent service, neither of which we got.
As we left our table and walked to the elevator, someone started screaming, literally screaming, "Hey!, Hey!" We tried to get on the elevator and go upstairs to leave, but the screams continued and finally, despite being in the elevator, I stopped it and hit the open door button. The waitress came running up to our door, still screaming, and then stopped as she saw that we were apparently not the person she was looking for. She told me that she thought we were her manager, a tallish black man. I am short, chubby white woman and my husband is an equally short Chinese man. Hard to mistake. What on earth she thought she was doing screaming like some kind of lunatic as she ran down this hallway behind us, I will never know.
The waiter's explanation of Buca's being bought out, of course, appears to explain everything and is the reason why I know we will, sadly enough, not be going back. We were used to excellent service, exemplary food, and good surroundings.
Instead, with the new owners, we got plunked down in the bar, got service I wouldn't accept at the local bar and grill, and food that was totally unsatisfactory and in fact, unsanitary.
We had intended to take my two lovely granddaughters with us, but they had a bit of car trouble and didn't end up joining us. I'm not thankful for the car trouble, but I am certainly glad they didn't have to sit through that mess.
I'll miss Buca's - as I said, we courted there, had our wedding reception there, have celebrated many good times there over the last decade, but I'm not interested in paying close to $100.00 for dinner for two and be as disappointed as we were this evening.
My husband and I have been going to this same Buca's for nearly a decade - through a beginning friendship, then courtship, to every birthday, anniversary, any celebration including our wedding reception where we hosted 25 people to share in our joy six years ago. We've gone there for every Valentine's Day, many of my children's and grandchildren's birthdays. I was never disappointed in the food or the service.
Tonight, all of that changed.
First, we were seated in the bar, which I did not ask for and really would not have preferred, but apparently our waiter didn't want to miss the Super Bowl.
Next, in the midst of eating our apple gorgonzola salad, I found a nice curly, black hair in my plate. The waiter, when I could get his attention, came and took the salad away. Yes, he took it off our bill, but amazingly enough, he didn't offer replacement appetizer of any kind or clean silver. I had to go, myself, to another table to get fresh utensils.
Next, I ran out of diet Pepsi - and when I tried to get the waiter's attention, it was virtually impossible because he was so entranced in watching the Super Bowl on the bar's tv. I finally just hollered across the room. Nice. Classy.
We tried to order, but as we went through the dishes we would have liked to have, our waiter told us, for instance, that the brushcetta sauce wasn't really any good any more. It used to be nice and thick, he told us, but now it's just like some chopped up tomatoes. Then we asked about various other dishes and were told that Buca's no longer used much garlic in anything, that fresh garlic was no longer used, that the sauces were all different than we were used to, but that, thank heaven, the chicken Marsala had the same sauce. He informed us that everything had changed since Buca's has been bought out by Planet Hollywood and I can see that this is true.
So we did intend to order a variety appetizer, but we settled for a small garlic bread, and we also intended to have frutti di mare (we usually get the large and take some home) but we settled for a side of fettucini alfredo and spaghetti with marinara sauce (which was downright mushy) and then ordered a large dish of chicken Marsala. We got the sides but we ended up receiving a small order of the chicken and when we asked him to correct that, he seemed quite confused.
At no time did he come and refresh our drinks without being asked or offer dessert. I had to flat out ask for it to be brought to us.
When I asked for the manager part-way through our meal, I had to go explain myself and still, he never sent the manager to our table! The manager did happen to come by - he was visiting all of the tables - but I truly do not think I need to explain myself to a waiter before I can speak to a manager.
In any case, the manager basically listened to me as I explained the various problems, but still never spoke to the waiter so we could get service instead of watching him watch the Super Bowl as he leaned on the bar. He did take my garlic bread off the bill, but as I explained, I didn't want money off, we wanted decent food and decent service, neither of which we got.
As we left our table and walked to the elevator, someone started screaming, literally screaming, "Hey!, Hey!" We tried to get on the elevator and go upstairs to leave, but the screams continued and finally, despite being in the elevator, I stopped it and hit the open door button. The waitress came running up to our door, still screaming, and then stopped as she saw that we were apparently not the person she was looking for. She told me that she thought we were her manager, a tallish black man. I am short, chubby white woman and my husband is an equally short Chinese man. Hard to mistake. What on earth she thought she was doing screaming like some kind of lunatic as she ran down this hallway behind us, I will never know.
The waiter's explanation of Buca's being bought out, of course, appears to explain everything and is the reason why I know we will, sadly enough, not be going back. We were used to excellent service, exemplary food, and good surroundings.
Instead, with the new owners, we got plunked down in the bar, got service I wouldn't accept at the local bar and grill, and food that was totally unsatisfactory and in fact, unsanitary.
We had intended to take my two lovely granddaughters with us, but they had a bit of car trouble and didn't end up joining us. I'm not thankful for the car trouble, but I am certainly glad they didn't have to sit through that mess.
I'll miss Buca's - as I said, we courted there, had our wedding reception there, have celebrated many good times there over the last decade, but I'm not interested in paying close to $100.00 for dinner for two and be as disappointed as we were this evening.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Well, that was quick - thankfully.
Blagojevich is out.
Blagojevich kicked out as governor, banned from holding any public Illinois office
By CHRISTOPHER WILLS
Associated PressSPRINGFIELD, Ill. — Gov. Rod Blagojevich was unanimously convicted at his impeachment trial and thrown out of office today, ending a nearly two-month crisis that erupted with his arrest on charges he tried to sell Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat.
Blagojevich becomes the first U.S. governor in more than 20 years to be removed by impeachment.
After a four-day trial, the Illinois Senate voted 59-0 to convict him of abuse of power, automatically removing the second-term Democrat. Democratic Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn, one of his critics, immediately became governor.
In a second 59-0 vote, the Senate further barred Blagojevich from ever holding public office in Illinois again.
“We have this thing called impeachment and it’s bleeping golden and we’ve used it the right way,” Democratic state Sen. James Meeks of Chicago said during the debate, mocking Blagojevich’s expletive-laden words as captured by the FBI on a wiretap.
Blagojevich’s ordeal is far from over. Federal prosecutors are expected to bring a corruption indictment against him by April, after which a trial date will be set.
Blagojevich, 52, had boycotted the first three days of the impeachment trial, calling the proceedings a kangaroo court. But today, he went before the Senate to beg for his job, delivering a 47-minute plea that was, by turns, defiant, humble and sentimental.
He argued, again, that he did nothing wrong, and warned that his impeachment would set a “dangerous and chilling precedent.”
“You haven’t proved a crime, and you can’t because it didn’t happen,” Blagojevich (pronounced blah-GOY-uh-vich) told the lawmakers. “How can you throw a governor out of office with insufficient and incomplete evidence?”
The verdict brought to an end what one lawmaker branded “the freak show” in Illinois. Over the past few weeks, Blagojevich found himself isolated, with almost the entire political establishment lined up against him. The furor paralyzed state government and made Blagojevich and his helmet of lush, dark hair a punchline from coast to coast.
One lawmaker after another rose somberly on the Senate floor to accuse Blagojevich of abusing his office and embarrassing the state. They denounced him as a hypocrite, saying he cynically tried to enrich himself and then posed as the brave protector of the poor and “wrapped himself in the constitution” by decrying the impeachment process as unfair.
They sprinkled in historical references, from Pearl Harbor’s “day of infamy” to “the whole world is watching” chant from the riots that broke out during the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago. They cited Abraham Lincoln, the Martin Luther King Jr. and Jesus as they called for the governor’s removal.
Not a single legislator rose in Blagojevich’s defense.
Blagojevich did not stick around to hear the vote. He took a state plane back to Chicago. Returning to his North Side home, he told reporters he planned to go jogging. But he had not left the house when the vote came down.
The verdict capped a head-spinning string of developments that began less than two months ago. It was widely known that federal prosecutors had been investigating Blagojevich’s administration for years — some of his closest cronies have already been convicted — but his Dec. 9 arrest by the FBI caught nearly everyone off guard.
U.S. Attorney Patrict Fitzgerald said prosecutors had no choice but to step in and stop a political corruption “crime spree” — one that was gaining speed before a tough new campaign finance law took effect Jan. 1.
The most spectacular allegation was that Blagojevich had been caught on wiretaps scheming to sell an appointment to Obama’s Senate seat for campaign cash or a plum job for himself or his wife.
“I’ve got this thing and it’s (expletive) golden, and I’m just not giving it up for (expletive) nothing. I’m not gonna do it,” he was quoted as saying on a government wiretap.
Prosecutors also said he illegally pressured people to make campaign contributions and tried to get editorial writers fired from the Chicago Tribune for badmouthing him in print.
Obama himself, fresh from his historic election victory, was forced to look into the matter and issued a report concluding that no one in his inner circle had done anything wrong.
In the brash and often theatrical style that has infuriated fellow politicians for years, Blagojevich repeatedly refused to resign, reciting the poetry of Kipling and Tennyson and declaring at one point last month: “I will fight. I will fight. I will fight until I take my last breath. I have done nothing wrong.”
Even as lawmakers were deciding whether to launch an impeachment, Blagojevich defied the political establishment and stunned everyone by appointing a former Illinois attorney general, Roland Burris, to the very Senate seat he had been accused of trying to sell. Top Democrats on Capitol Hill eventually backed down and seated Burris.
As his trial got under way, Blagojevich launched a media blitz, rushing from one TV studio to another in New York to proclaim his innocence. He likened himself to the hero of a Frank Capra movie and to a cowboy in the hands of a Wild West lynch mob.
The impeachment case included not only the criminal charges against Blagojevich, but allegations he broke the law when it came to hiring state workers, expanded a health care program without legislative approval and spent $2.6 million on flu vaccine that went to waste. The 118-member House twice voted to impeach him, both times with only one “no” vote.
By making a speech in the Senate chamber instead of testifying, Blagojevich did not have to take an oath or answer any questions.
In his plea, Blagojevich portrayed himself as a victim of retaliation from the Legislature for his efforts to help the poor.
He acknowledged the truth about his conduct is “maybe not flattering in some cases,” referring to the secretly recorded conversations. But he said the tapes captured something that “all of us in politics do in order to run campaigns and win elections.”
Seven other U.S. governors have been removed by impeachment, the most recent being Arizona’s Evan Mecham, who was driven from office in 1988 for trying to thwart an investigation into a death threat allegedly made by an aide. Illinois never before impeached a governor, despite its long and rich history of graft.
Blagojevich grew up in a working-class Chicago neighborhood, the son of a Serbian immigrant steelworker. He graduated from Northwestern University and earned a law degree from Pepperdine University in California.
Schooled in the bare-knuckle, backroom politics of the infamous Chicago Machine, he got elected to the Illinois House in 1992 and Congress in 1996.
In 2002, he was elected governor on a promise to clean up state government after former GOP Gov. George Ryan, who is serving six years in prison for graft. But he soon wound up in open battles with lawmakers from his own party, leading to gridlock. And scandal followed as well.
Antoin “Tony” Rezko, a former top fundraiser for Blagojevich, was convicted of shaking down businesses seeking state contracts for campaign contributions. Witnesses testified that Blagojevich was aware of some of the strong-arm tactics. Rezko is said to be cooperating with prosecutors.
Quinn, the new governor, is a 60-year-old former state treasurer who has a reputation as a political gadfly and once led a successful effort to cut the size of the Illinois House.
•Dec. 9, 2008: Federal agents arrest Blagojevich on corruption charges that include an alleged effort to sell or trade President Barack Obama’s vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder.
•Dec. 17, 2008: Illinois Supreme Court rejects state attorney general’s effort to remove Blagojevich from office. She had argued the governor’s legal and political troubles amounted to a disability.
•Dec. 19, 2008: Blagojevich proclaims his innocence, says he will not resign.
•Dec. 30, 2008: Blagojevich names former Illinois Attorney General Roland Burris to replace Obama in the Senate. Senators at first suggest they will block him, but he is later sworn in.
•Jan. 9, 2009: Illinois House votes 114-1 to impeach Blagojevich, first Illinois governor in history to be impeached.
•Jan. 26, 2009: Illinois Senate opens impeachment trial. Blagojevich, claiming trial is unfair, goes on media blitz in New York to proclaim his innocence.
•Jan. 29, 2009: Illinois Senate votes unanimously to remove Blagojevich from office and bar him from holding office in the future. Lt. Gov. Patrick Quinn sworn in as governor.
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Sarah Palin
Sarah Palin's Official PAC
Dedicated to building America's future, supporting fresh ideas and candidates who share our vision for reform and innovation.
SarahPAC believes America's best days are ahead. Our country, founded on conservative principles and the fight for freedom, must confront the challenges of the 21st century with integrity, innovation, and determination.SarahPAC believes energy independence is a cornerstone of the economic security and progress that every American family wants and deserves.
SarahPAC believes the Republican Party is at the threshold of an historic renaissance that will build a better future for all. Health care, education, and reform of government are among our key goals. Join us today!
Go, Sarah!
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Liar, liar, pants on fire...
"They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House..."
That'd be funny if it weren't such unmitigated BS.
I'm delighted that the members of the Main Stream Media that forced the part-time Senator from Illinois down everyone's throat are so quickly shown how foolish they have been. I'm sure it won't be the last time he makes it clear that he doesn't give a damn about ethics.
Poor little Campbell Brown - she's been betrayed by her President.
CNN reports:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama, who campaigned on lessening lobbyist influence in government, has chosen a defense expert who is currently a vice president and lobbyist for one of the country's biggest defense contractors to be his deputy secretary of defense.Remember - the part-time Senator from Illinois claimed that "no political appointees in an Obama-Biden administration will be permitted to work on regulations or contracts directly and substantially related to their prior employer for two years."
But then the nominee for Deputy Secretary of Defense, William Lynn, has been a lobbyist for the defense contractor Raytheon, and his nominee for Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services, William V. Corr, lobbied for stricter tobacco regulations as an official with the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids.
Further information:
Wonder how long this reporter will last.
Lynn "won't be forced to step back from decisions related to his former employer."
Lynn is Raytheon's senior vice president for government operations and strategy.
According to the Associated Press, in the first three months of 2008, Lynn and his lobbying team spent $1.15 million [on behalf of Raytheon] in an effort to influence buying decisions on missiles, sensors, radars and other technology and intelligence programs.
The White House said Friday its tough new ethics rules won't apply to its nominee for deputy defense secretary, William Lynn.
Well, of course they won't - not in any case where the part-time Senator from Illinois wants what he wants when he wants it.
Don't get me wrong - I believe Lynn would make a good choice for the job, but that doesn't change for one minute that the POTUS is a big, fat Fibber.
And childish, to boot. For those of you who have not read about this bit of foolishness, in a meeting supposedly designed to promote bipartisanship in the economic stimulus plan, and in response to being challenged by one Republican senator over the contents of the package, the part-time Senator from Illinois replied: “I won.”
One thing you can count on with Democrats - the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Oh, and BTW....
President Bush saved ten million lives...
And that's even without the countless lives saved in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in the world where we have brought freedom and democracy.
And that's even without the countless lives saved in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places in the world where we have brought freedom and democracy.
Thank you, Dr. Frist, for so eloquently saying what needed to be said.By Bill Frist
Special to CNNEditor's note: Bill Frist, a physician, is former Republican majority leader of the U.S. Senate and a professor of medicine and business at Vanderbilt University.
(CNN) -- A legacy of President George W. Bush will be that he saved 10 million lives around the world.
His critics ignore it, but name another president about whom one can say that with such certainty. It is what historians will say a decade from now looking back. Not bad for a president who leaves office with the lowest approval rating in recent memory.
The bottom line is: George Bush is a healer.
First, a surprise proclamation came on January 29, 2003.
I was in the first row in the House chamber when three quarters through his State of the Union address, the president boldly said: "I ask the Congress to commit $15 billion over the next five years ... to turn the tide against AIDS in the most afflicted nations of Africa and the Caribbean" and "lead the world in sparing innocent people from a plague of nature."
And lead the world we did. No president in history had made such a commitment against a single disease. Those words and the action that followed meant that instead of another 30 million people dying from HIV infections, maybe just another 20 million will.
Later that night in an interview for CNN in my Capitol office, I predicted that five years later, this commitment to fight HIV would be the single most significant thing the president said that night. It was.
But even I -- who as physician in Africa had witnessed how this virus was hollowing out societies -- did not predict the huge global impact this Bush commitment would have on generations to come.
In my annual medical mission trips to Africa during the Bush administration, I saw the cost of treatment for HIV with life-saving antiretrovirals (ARVs) drop from $4,000 a year to $125. The number of Africans on ARVs jumped from 50,000 to 2.1 million.
And the multiplier effect of Bush making this a presidential global priority was reflected thereafter in every meeting I had as Senate majority leader with the world leaders, including those from Russia, China and India. If you were dealing with the United States, you'd better have made HIV a national priority, because we had.
And it was more than HIV. Six months ago, Tom Daschle, Mike Huckabee, John Podesta, Cindy McCain and I (yes, we five of different persuasions do work together!) went to Rwanda on a fact-finding trip.
Our visits with villagers all over the country opened our eyes to how Bush's five-year, $1.2 billion effort to combat malaria has provided 4 million insecticide-treated bed nets and 7 million life-saving drug therapies to vulnerable people. Yes, George Bush the healer.
Future historians will also note what today's pundits ignore: total US government development aid to Africa quadrupled from $1.3 billion in 2001 to more than $5 billion in 2008. What's more, the Bush administration doubled foreign aid worldwide over the past eight years. You have to go back to the Truman years to match that.
And the president revolutionized the way we give aid with the creation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation, now active in 35 countries. This $6.7 billion public-private partnership for the first time ties aid to accountability based on a country's governing well, fighting corruption and commitment to economic freedoms.
Secondly, Bush healed abroad, but he also healed right here at home.
Before Bush acted, the nation's 43 million seniors did not have affordable access to prescription drugs (the most powerful tool a doctor has to prevent and treat disease) through the Medicare program. Today, because of George Bush, they do.
Initially, conservatives howled because the prescription drug initiative "cost too much." Liberals hated it because it involved the markets and competition. But today, 23 million seniors live healthier lives, Medicare drug spending has been 20 percent to 30 percent less than predicted for each of the past two years and seniors overwhelmingly give the program enthusiastic reviews.
And, in addition, the program is highly redistributive -- giving advantages the poorest, introducing preventive care to Medicare, encouraging electronic prescribing and introducing chronic disease management. Who says Republicans can't lead on heath reform?
Thirdly, a lot of people forget that the health of a nation's people is more dependent on behavior and education than on health services -- the doctors, hospitals and insurance companies. Infant mortality is three times higher for a woman who did not graduate from high school when compared with one who has a college degree.
And the president focused laser-like on improving K-12 education by demanding transparency and accountability, and raising expectations.
The U.S. ranks a miserable 21st in the world in science and 25th in math among 15 year-olds. President Bush made the education of our children a moral issue.
To maintain our now slipping global competitiveness, we have no choice but to radically transform the K-12 education system over the next decade. And historians will say it all began with the groundbreaking No Child Left Behind legislation of President Bush.
I've had the privilege of knowing George W. Bush personally and as president. I have seen his passions. Naturally, he will be judged in the short term for his role in waging the war on terror, keeping America safe since 9/11 and acting on his belief in promoting liberty aboard.
Over time, however, it is the foundations he laid for healing. for the most part ignored by mainstream media, that I am confident will be his enduring legacy.
Really - I wonder when the next attack will come...
I expect it to be quite soon, actually - and I also believe the previous death toll of 9/11 will be nothing compared to the destruction that will be brought down upon us by a weak and foolish Commander in Chief.
In any case, at this rate, by the time the Part-Time Senator from Illinois has taken his oath of office, there won't be one single promise left to fulfill. Perhaps that's what was planned all along - get the denials over with now so he won't face them when he's in office. It would be almost funny to watch the painful wretchings some of his supporters are going through now what with the Anointed One flip-flopping on nearly every issue that he was elected in support of, but it's far too painful watching what I believe will be massive destruction of our Country, its economy, its way of life and its national pride.
Obama says WE WILL KILL OSAMA!In any case, at this rate, by the time the Part-Time Senator from Illinois has taken his oath of office, there won't be one single promise left to fulfill. Perhaps that's what was planned all along - get the denials over with now so he won't face them when he's in office. It would be almost funny to watch the painful wretchings some of his supporters are going through now what with the Anointed One flip-flopping on nearly every issue that he was elected in support of, but it's far too painful watching what I believe will be massive destruction of our Country, its economy, its way of life and its national pride.
President-elect Barack Obama wants to renew the U.S. commitment to finding al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, according to his national security advisers.
The Obama team believes the Bush administration has downplayed the importance of catching the FBI's most-wanted terrorist because it has not been able to find him.
"We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority," Obama said during the presidential debate on October 7.
Obama says IT'S OK, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE TO KILL HIM
Barack Obama suggested last night that removing Osama bin Laden from the battlefield was no longer essential and that America's security goals could be achieved merely by keeping al-Qaeda "on the run".
"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."
His comments, in a CBS interview, represent a significant watering down of the "dead or alive" policy pursued by President Bush since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. They also appear to contradict Mr Obama's own statements made in the election campaign.
As recently as October 7, in a presidential debate, Mr Obama said: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
"My preference obviously would be to capture or kill him," he said. "But if we have so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives then we will meet our goal of protecting America."
His comments, in a CBS interview, represent a significant watering down of the "dead or alive" policy pursued by President Bush since the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. They also appear to contradict Mr Obama's own statements made in the election campaign.
As recently as October 7, in a presidential debate, Mr Obama said: "We will kill bin Laden. We will crush al-Qaeda. That has to be our biggest national security priority."
Yesterday, the President-elect adopted far less aggressive language, saying his "No 1 priority" was to protect America from further attack.
Osama says WE WILL KILL ALL OF YOU, OBAMA INCLUDED
It was the threats to Barack Obama however — who has in the past vowed to kill bin Laden — that will remind the US and its allies that bin Laden has eluded them ever since the September 11 attacks. He promised the President-elect that the terror network would open new fronts against the US. “If he withdraws from the war, it is a military defeat. If he continues, he drowns in economic crisis,” bin Laden said of Mr Obama, whom he did not mention by name.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
One of the finest speeches ever....
Below is the full text of President Bush's departure speech - a fine speech from a fine man.
"Fellow citizens: For eight years, it has been my honor to serve as your President. The first decade of this new century has been a period of consequence – a time set apart. Tonight, with a thankful heart, I have asked for a final opportunity to share some thoughts on the journey we have traveled together and the future of our Nation.
Five days from now, the world will witness the vitality of American democracy. In a tradition dating back to our founding, the presidency will pass to a successor chosen by you, the American people. Standing on the steps of the Capitol will be a man whose story reflects the enduring promise of our land. This is a moment of hope and pride for our whole Nation. And I join all Americans in offering best wishes to President-elect Obama, his wife Michelle, and their two beautiful girls.
Tonight I am filled with gratitude – to Vice President Cheney and members of the Administration; to Laura, who brought joy to this house and love to my life; to our wonderful daughters, Barbara and Jenna; to my parents, whose examples have provided strength for a lifetime. And above all, I thank the American people for the trust you have given me. I thank you for ....
...the prayers that have lifted my spirits. And I thank you for the countless acts of courage, generosity, and grace that I have witnessed these past eight years.
This evening, my thoughts return to the first night I addressed you from this house – September 11, 2001. That morning, terrorists took nearly 3,000 lives in the worst attack on America since Pearl Harbor. I remember standing in the rubble of the World Trade Center three days later, surrounded by rescuers who had been working around the clock.
I remember talking to brave souls who charged through smoke-filled corridors at the Pentagon and to husbands and wives whose loved ones became heroes aboard Flight 93. I remember Arlene Howard, who gave me her fallen son’s police shield as a reminder of all that was lost. And I still carry his badge.
As the years passed, most Americans were able to return to life much as it had been before Nine-Eleven. But I never did. Every morning, I received a briefing on the threats to our Nation. And I vowed to do everything in my power to keep us safe.
Over the past seven years, a new Department of Homeland Security has been created. The military, the intelligence community, and the FBI have been transformed. Our Nation is equipped with new tools to monitor the terrorists’ movements, freeze their finances, and break up their plots. And with strong allies at our side, we have taken the fight to the terrorists and those who support them.
Afghanistan has gone from a nation where the Taliban harbored al Qaeda and stoned women in the streets to a young democracy that is fighting terror and encouraging girls to go to school. Iraq has gone from a brutal dictatorship and a sworn enemy of America to an Arab democracy at the heart of the Middle East and a friend of the United States.
There is legitimate debate about many of these decisions. But there can be little debate about the results. America has gone more than seven years without another terrorist attack on our soil. This is a tribute to those who toil day and night to keep us safe – law enforcement officers, intelligence analysts, homeland security and diplomatic personnel, and the men and women of the United States Armed Forces.
Our Nation is blessed to have citizens who volunteer to defend us in this time of danger. I have cherished meeting these selfless patriots and their families. America owes you a debt of gratitude. And to all our men and women in uniform listening tonight: There has been no higher honor than serving as your Commander in Chief.
The battles waged by our troops are part of a broader struggle between two dramatically different systems. Under one, a small band of fanatics demands total obedience to an oppressive ideology, condemns women to subservience, and marks unbelievers for murder. The other system is based on the conviction that freedom is the universal gift of Almighty God and that liberty and justice light the path to peace.
This is the belief that gave birth to our Nation. And in the long run, advancing this belief is the only practical way to protect our citizens. When people live in freedom, they do not willingly choose leaders who pursue campaigns of terror. When people have hope in the future, they will not cede their lives to violence and extremism.
So around the world, America is promoting human liberty, human rights, and human dignity. We are standing with dissidents and young democracies, providing AIDS medicine to bring dying patients back to life, and sparing mothers and babies from malaria. And this great republic born alone in liberty is leading the world toward a new age when freedom belongs to all nations.
For eight years, we have also strived to expand opportunity and hope here at home. Across our country, students are rising to meet higher standards in public schools. A new Medicare prescription drug benefit is bringing peace of mind to seniors and the disabled. Every taxpayer pays lower income taxes.
The addicted and suffering are finding new hope through faith-based programs. Vulnerable human life is better protected. Funding for our veterans has nearly doubled. America’s air, water, and lands are measurably cleaner. And the Federal bench includes wise new members like Justice Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts.
When challenges to our prosperity emerged, we rose to meet them. Facing the prospect of a financial collapse, we took decisive measures to safeguard our economy. These are very tough times for hardworking families, but the toll would be far worse if we had not acted. All Americans are in this together. And together, with determination and hard work, we will restore our economy to the path of growth. We will show the world once again the resilience of America’s free enterprise system.
Like all who have held this office before me, I have experienced setbacks. There are things I would do differently if given the chance. Yet I have always acted with the best interests of our country in mind. I have followed my conscience and done what I thought was right. You may not agree with some tough decisions I have made. But I hope you can agree that I was willing to make the tough decisions.
The decades ahead will bring more hard choices for our country, and there are some guiding principles that should shape our course.
While our Nation is safer than it was seven years ago, the gravest threat to our people remains another terrorist attack. Our enemies are patient and determined to strike again. America did nothing to seek or deserve this conflict. But we have been given solemn responsibilities, and we must meet them. We must resist complacency. We must keep our resolve. And we must never let down our guard.
At the same time, we must continue to engage the world with confidence and clear purpose. In the face of threats from abroad, it can be tempting to seek comfort by turning inward. But we must reject isolationism and its companion, protectionism. Retreating behind our borders would only invite danger. In the 21st century, security and prosperity at home depend on the expansion of liberty abroad. If America does not lead the cause of freedom, that cause will not be led.
As we address these challenges – and others we cannot foresee tonight – America must maintain our moral clarity. I have often spoken to you about good and evil. This has made some uncomfortable. But good and evil are present in this world, and between the two there can be no compromise. Murdering the innocent to advance an ideology is wrong every time, everywhere.
Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This Nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense and to advance the cause of peace.
President Thomas Jefferson once wrote, “I like the dreams of the future better than the history of the past.” As I leave the house he occupied two centuries ago, I share that optimism. America is a young country, full of vitality, constantly growing and renewing itself. And even in the toughest times, we lift our eyes to the broad horizon ahead.
I have confidence in the promise of America because I know the character of our people. This is a Nation that inspires immigrants to risk everything for the dream of freedom. This is a Nation where citizens show calm in times of danger and compassion in the face of suffering. We see examples of America’s character all around us. And Laura and I have invited some of them to join us in the White House this evening.
We see America’s character in Dr. Tony Recasner, a principal who opened a new charter school from the ruins of Hurricane Katrina. We see it in Julio Medina, a former inmate who leads a faith-based program to help prisoners returning to society. We see it in Staff Sergeant Aubrey McDade, who charged into an ambush in Iraq and rescued three of his fellow Marines.
We see America’s character in Bill Krissoff, a surgeon from California. His son Nathan, a Marine, gave his life in Iraq. When I met Dr. Krissoff and his family, he delivered some surprising news: He told me he wanted to join the Navy Medical Corps in honor of his son. This good man was 60 years old – 18 years above the age limit.
But his petition for a waiver was granted, and for the past year he has trained in battlefield medicine. Lieutenant Commander Krissoff could not be here tonight, because he will soon deploy to Iraq, where he will help save America’s wounded warriors and uphold the legacy of his fallen son.
In citizens like these, we see the best of our country – resilient and hopeful, caring and strong. These virtues give me an unshakable faith in America. We have faced danger and trial, and there is more ahead. But with the courage of our people and confidence in our ideals, this great Nation will never tire … never falter … and never fail.
It has been the privilege of a lifetime to serve as your President. There have been good days and tough days. But every day I have been inspired by the greatness of our country and uplifted by the goodness of our people. I have been blessed to represent this Nation we love. And I will always be honored to carry a title that means more to me than any other: citizen of the United States of America.
And so, my fellow Americans, for the final time: Good night. May God bless this house and our next President. And may God bless you and our wonderful country."
1.37 MILLION abortions per year in the US
First, let me share some information:
The Main Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)
So, maybe 6% have a health reason behind them - the rest are simply an inconvenience - take a pill, use an IUD, have something slipped under your skin, but stop ending life because it's inconvenient - please. When statistics - from the CDC, not some group that might make pro-abortion fans crazy - tell us that 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion - what does that say? That these slobs are using the death of a child as a birth control method - and that's just plain sick.
You won't find me quoting a full article very often but this one counts. A lot. For well over one million infant lives per year.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30258
The Freedom of Choice Act is a sweeping bill that would abolish all pro-life regulations across the nation, from parental notification laws to bans on federal funding of abortions. The Office of the General Counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops identified 13 categories of pro-life laws that would be stampeded and nullified by FOCA. As far-reaching as the decision of Roe v. Wade is into the states' jurisdictions and our lives, even it, for example, showed certain respect for state laws and limits on infringing regulations in the medical field. FOCA shows no such restraints; it nails shut the coffin on pro-life choices and safeguards.
And why has Obama pledged his allegiance to pass FOCA? Not only because he has the most passionately liberal pro-choice record of nearly any politician but also because, as he told a meeting of Planned Parenthood during his campaign, "it is time to turn the page" to a new day, when pro-life views and laws and debate on abortion are passé. And if he and the Democratic majority have their way, America will have that new day, one in which hundreds of thousands more abortions will be performed annually. (I still think it is utterly hypocritical that a president and a political party who pride themselves on providing and protecting minorities don't include the unborn among those minorities.)
The fight to pass FOCA is being waged despite a new nationwide survey revealing that about 4 in 5 U.S. adults would limit abortion's legality. About 1 in 3 would limit abortion to rape, incest or saving a mother's life. One-third also would limit abortion to either the first three months of pregnancy or the first six months. Only 9 percent said abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy. These statistics are in stark contrast to the goals and objectives of FOCA, which would close the culture debate on abortion in an unprecedented way for any piece of legislation.
America doesn't need to "turn the page" on culture battles, such as abortion; it needs to reopen the pages of its history to our Founders' heightened views about the rights of all human beings in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. And we need to revive and re-instill that value of humanity back into society, our children and our children's children.
Under our Constitution, the federal government should protect that right to life. But besides affirming that foundational human right, the details and debates of the laws governing abortion should be left to the states. Despite the Supreme Court's unconstitutional striking down of abortion laws nationwide in 1973 and instituting a completely unconstitutional federal right to abortion, there is still much we can do at the state level to protect human life by promoting pro-life legislation and education. That is, unless FOCA is enacted into law.
After 35 years of ceaseless controversy since the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, some people think that abortion is an "old" issue better dropped. But as my friend and prolific author Randy Alcorn wrote in his small book "Why Pro-Life? Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers": "Abortion has set us on a dangerous course. We may come to our senses and back away from the slippery slope. Or we may follow it to its inescapable conclusion -- a society in which the powerful, for their self-interest, determine which human beings will live and which will die."
Abortion is not about a woman's "right to choose"; it is about a more fundamental "right to life," which is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution, through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government's primary purpose: to protect innocent life.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." He was not, of course, writing about the America of today, with state-sanctioned and even subsidized abortion and a movement to promote the killing of the elderly through euthanasia. But he could have been. And his belief in what should be "the first and only legitimate object of government" still should stand, and that includes for the president of the United States of America. But if he and his administration won't protect the rights of the living (even in the womb), then who will? Pelosi? Reid? A left-leaning Congress?
All of our elected officials should uphold that pre-eminent objective of government and strive to get us back to the view of humanity that emphasizes the immortal worth of every human being. Without that, we never can believe that all people (including those in the womb) are created equal, that they have inherent, unalienable rights and that the protection of those rights is "the first and only legitimate object of good government."
And if our politicians won't protect unborn human life, then we must. With Sanctity of Life Sunday on Jan. 18, Obama's inauguration Jan. 20, the annual March for Life pro-life rally in Washington, D.C., Jan. 22 (the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision), and FOCA looming on the legislative precipice of Congress and the White House, now is the time to march and take action again to defend the unborn. (That's why I devoted an entire chapter to "Reclaim the value of human life" in my new cultural manifesto, "Black Belt Patriotism," and why my wife, Gena, passionately entreated for the unborn in our most recent interview, which you can watch online on GodTube.)
Please, before FOCA flies onto the congressional floor in the upcoming days, sign the online petition to fight FOCA (www.fightfoca.com), and then contact your representatives and senators to tell them how you expect them to vote on the bill. You can write to them online by simply going to http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=9668701.
My note - capwiz doesn't appear to have the Bill up on it today, although I am sure that will be corrected, but go to Fight FOCA and sign the petition - don't give up on this important issue.
The Main Reasons Women Choose Abortion (U.S.)
- Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
- Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
- Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
- Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
- Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
- Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
- Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
- Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
- Other: 2.1%
So, maybe 6% have a health reason behind them - the rest are simply an inconvenience - take a pill, use an IUD, have something slipped under your skin, but stop ending life because it's inconvenient - please. When statistics - from the CDC, not some group that might make pro-abortion fans crazy - tell us that 47% of all abortions are performed on women who have had at least one previous abortion - what does that say? That these slobs are using the death of a child as a birth control method - and that's just plain sick.
You won't find me quoting a full article very often but this one counts. A lot. For well over one million infant lives per year.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=30258
Obama's First Act as President
01/13/2009
Barack Obama emphatically promised more than a year ago, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act." Will he keep his word?The Freedom of Choice Act is a sweeping bill that would abolish all pro-life regulations across the nation, from parental notification laws to bans on federal funding of abortions. The Office of the General Counsel for the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops identified 13 categories of pro-life laws that would be stampeded and nullified by FOCA. As far-reaching as the decision of Roe v. Wade is into the states' jurisdictions and our lives, even it, for example, showed certain respect for state laws and limits on infringing regulations in the medical field. FOCA shows no such restraints; it nails shut the coffin on pro-life choices and safeguards.
And why has Obama pledged his allegiance to pass FOCA? Not only because he has the most passionately liberal pro-choice record of nearly any politician but also because, as he told a meeting of Planned Parenthood during his campaign, "it is time to turn the page" to a new day, when pro-life views and laws and debate on abortion are passé. And if he and the Democratic majority have their way, America will have that new day, one in which hundreds of thousands more abortions will be performed annually. (I still think it is utterly hypocritical that a president and a political party who pride themselves on providing and protecting minorities don't include the unborn among those minorities.)
The fight to pass FOCA is being waged despite a new nationwide survey revealing that about 4 in 5 U.S. adults would limit abortion's legality. About 1 in 3 would limit abortion to rape, incest or saving a mother's life. One-third also would limit abortion to either the first three months of pregnancy or the first six months. Only 9 percent said abortion should be legal for any reason at any time during pregnancy. These statistics are in stark contrast to the goals and objectives of FOCA, which would close the culture debate on abortion in an unprecedented way for any piece of legislation.
America doesn't need to "turn the page" on culture battles, such as abortion; it needs to reopen the pages of its history to our Founders' heightened views about the rights of all human beings in the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. And we need to revive and re-instill that value of humanity back into society, our children and our children's children.
Under our Constitution, the federal government should protect that right to life. But besides affirming that foundational human right, the details and debates of the laws governing abortion should be left to the states. Despite the Supreme Court's unconstitutional striking down of abortion laws nationwide in 1973 and instituting a completely unconstitutional federal right to abortion, there is still much we can do at the state level to protect human life by promoting pro-life legislation and education. That is, unless FOCA is enacted into law.
After 35 years of ceaseless controversy since the Supreme Court's ruling in Roe v. Wade, some people think that abortion is an "old" issue better dropped. But as my friend and prolific author Randy Alcorn wrote in his small book "Why Pro-Life? Caring for the Unborn and Their Mothers": "Abortion has set us on a dangerous course. We may come to our senses and back away from the slippery slope. Or we may follow it to its inescapable conclusion -- a society in which the powerful, for their self-interest, determine which human beings will live and which will die."
Abortion is not about a woman's "right to choose"; it is about a more fundamental "right to life," which is one of three specifically identified unalienable rights in the Declaration of Independence (and the Constitution, through Article VII and the Bill of Rights). And it is a violation of government's primary purpose: to protect innocent life.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in 1809, "The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object of good government." He was not, of course, writing about the America of today, with state-sanctioned and even subsidized abortion and a movement to promote the killing of the elderly through euthanasia. But he could have been. And his belief in what should be "the first and only legitimate object of government" still should stand, and that includes for the president of the United States of America. But if he and his administration won't protect the rights of the living (even in the womb), then who will? Pelosi? Reid? A left-leaning Congress?
All of our elected officials should uphold that pre-eminent objective of government and strive to get us back to the view of humanity that emphasizes the immortal worth of every human being. Without that, we never can believe that all people (including those in the womb) are created equal, that they have inherent, unalienable rights and that the protection of those rights is "the first and only legitimate object of good government."
And if our politicians won't protect unborn human life, then we must. With Sanctity of Life Sunday on Jan. 18, Obama's inauguration Jan. 20, the annual March for Life pro-life rally in Washington, D.C., Jan. 22 (the anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision), and FOCA looming on the legislative precipice of Congress and the White House, now is the time to march and take action again to defend the unborn. (That's why I devoted an entire chapter to "Reclaim the value of human life" in my new cultural manifesto, "Black Belt Patriotism," and why my wife, Gena, passionately entreated for the unborn in our most recent interview, which you can watch online on GodTube.)
Please, before FOCA flies onto the congressional floor in the upcoming days, sign the online petition to fight FOCA (www.fightfoca.com), and then contact your representatives and senators to tell them how you expect them to vote on the bill. You can write to them online by simply going to http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/issues/bills/?bill=9668701.
My note - capwiz doesn't appear to have the Bill up on it today, although I am sure that will be corrected, but go to Fight FOCA and sign the petition - don't give up on this important issue.
Saturday, January 03, 2009
A Great Cause....
From Benefit4Kids:
We are once again busy planning our next fundraiser coming up January 31st 2009. This will be the 5th year for this event and they only keep getting better and better, and I promise this year will be no different! If you have been to one of our banquets before you won't want to miss this one. Tickets are still just $20.00 for adults and $10.00 for Kids (15 and under) and this includes your drinks.
This years event is once again being held at Perch Point Conservation Club in South East MI. Doors open at 4:00pm.
One of the new things at this years event will be Randy's Hunting Center www.randyshuntingcenter.com out of Bad Axe Michigan providing all the guns. If you have ever been to a banquet where Randy's was at.....you know he puts on a great display of new guns for everyone to have a chance at winning!
MANY GREAT items are already coming in also such as
An Ontario Bear Hunt
Numerous Pheasant Hunts
Couple Salmon Fishing Trips
Guided Turkey Hunt
South Dakota Goose Hunt
Plus much more to be added soon - updates can be found often here.
Contact us today to get your tickets as this event will once again sell out this year at only $20.00 a ticket! There will be NO ticket sales at the door, so get your spot today.
http://www.b4k.org/2009%20Flyer.pdf
Another great way to help us out is to sponsor a "Wish Kid Table" for only $50.00 (this does not include dinner ticket). Each table is named after a kid we have worked with in the past or are currently working with and for only $50.00 each, these tables can be sponsored to show your support to Benefit4Kids! Tables can be sponsored by:
Individuals and/or groups of friends
Groups, clubs, organizations
Businesses and corporations
Consider this option and click here to learn more: http://www.b4k.org/2009pigroasttablesponsor.htm
All the details can be found on our website at www.b4k.org.
We are once again busy planning our next fundraiser coming up January 31st 2009. This will be the 5th year for this event and they only keep getting better and better, and I promise this year will be no different! If you have been to one of our banquets before you won't want to miss this one. Tickets are still just $20.00 for adults and $10.00 for Kids (15 and under) and this includes your drinks.
This years event is once again being held at Perch Point Conservation Club in South East MI. Doors open at 4:00pm.
One of the new things at this years event will be Randy's Hunting Center www.randyshuntingcenter.com out of Bad Axe Michigan providing all the guns. If you have ever been to a banquet where Randy's was at.....you know he puts on a great display of new guns for everyone to have a chance at winning!
MANY GREAT items are already coming in also such as
An Ontario Bear Hunt
Numerous Pheasant Hunts
Couple Salmon Fishing Trips
Guided Turkey Hunt
South Dakota Goose Hunt
Plus much more to be added soon - updates can be found often here.
Contact us today to get your tickets as this event will once again sell out this year at only $20.00 a ticket! There will be NO ticket sales at the door, so get your spot today.
http://www.b4k.org/2009%20Flyer.pdf
Another great way to help us out is to sponsor a "Wish Kid Table" for only $50.00 (this does not include dinner ticket). Each table is named after a kid we have worked with in the past or are currently working with and for only $50.00 each, these tables can be sponsored to show your support to Benefit4Kids! Tables can be sponsored by:
Individuals and/or groups of friends
Groups, clubs, organizations
Businesses and corporations
Consider this option and click here to learn more: http://www.b4k.org/2009pigroasttablesponsor.htm
All the details can be found on our website at www.b4k.org.
Thursday, January 01, 2009
What the heck?
David Knowles is an idiot - no doubt about it.
In so many ways.
Let me review just the ways he demonstrated to us on December 30th with the article posted at the link above.
First, he posts it under "Republicans" - which is ok, really, because that clarifies, right up front, what his little rant is about: his dislike of all things Republican - and anything he can possibly hope to portray as negative and label Republican. Dolt.
Next, he writes:
Levi Johnson, aged 18, did as many young people in the United States today might considering doing - without retribution from the Left unless they are somehow remotely related to a Republican political figure - he enrolled in an apprenticeship program that promises a good career that will allow him to support his family without relying on a social welfare system. He is apparently also enrolled in correspondence course for high school completion, a common enough practice in Alaska, especially among those who are engaged in working to assist in supporting their families.
Two fine examples of such programs offered are through the University of Oklahoma and the University of Missouri.
Bristol Palin is no doubt taking a few weeks off - as any mother would following a birth - but she is reportedly enrolled in a regular high school and has taken some correspondence courses. What the Leftists rarely add to any news on the correspondence courses issue is that this is very common in Alaska - and that distance learning via computers - something that Michigan students are required by law to do at least once in their high school careers - is a "correspondence course."
And allow me to ask - so what? How's it any of your business, Mr. Knowles? Why do these two young people have to put up with your continued, pointless and vindictive scrutiny?
The parents of young Tripp are both 18 years of age - able to make a contract, earn money and keep it, care for their child as they see best, and can do so without input from either the governor's office - even if one considers the governor is Tripp's grandmother - and even more so, without input from bitter little Left-wingers like David Knowles.
In so many ways.
Let me review just the ways he demonstrated to us on December 30th with the article posted at the link above.
First, he posts it under "Republicans" - which is ok, really, because that clarifies, right up front, what his little rant is about: his dislike of all things Republican - and anything he can possibly hope to portray as negative and label Republican. Dolt.
Next, he writes:
"Cha-ching! People magazine is said to be paying the unwed high school drop-out duo Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston a cool $300,000 for pics of their new baby boy, Tripp."Which is also ok, because it shows us that he's an idiot or a liar or both, since neither one of the two young parents is a high school dropout.
Levi Johnson, aged 18, did as many young people in the United States today might considering doing - without retribution from the Left unless they are somehow remotely related to a Republican political figure - he enrolled in an apprenticeship program that promises a good career that will allow him to support his family without relying on a social welfare system. He is apparently also enrolled in correspondence course for high school completion, a common enough practice in Alaska, especially among those who are engaged in working to assist in supporting their families.
Two fine examples of such programs offered are through the University of Oklahoma and the University of Missouri.
Bristol Palin is no doubt taking a few weeks off - as any mother would following a birth - but she is reportedly enrolled in a regular high school and has taken some correspondence courses. What the Leftists rarely add to any news on the correspondence courses issue is that this is very common in Alaska - and that distance learning via computers - something that Michigan students are required by law to do at least once in their high school careers - is a "correspondence course."
And allow me to ask - so what? How's it any of your business, Mr. Knowles? Why do these two young people have to put up with your continued, pointless and vindictive scrutiny?
"Congratulations to the proud parents."You don't mean that, you mean-spirited little hypocrite - and everyone knows it. Your fans applaud it - they welcome your attempts to hurt a pair of young people who made a mistake but are stepping up to the plate and acting responsibly. You're not kidding anyone, though, just so we're clear. We all know there isn't a congratulatory bone in your body for these young parents or their innocent son.
"Though, like Andrew Sullivan, I have to wonder about the mixed message of selling baby pictures to a supermarket mag while keeping quiet to the likes of the AP:"
Now that's just plain funny, to be honest - these young parents, who could obviously use the financial boost to finish their educations and begin their young lives together with their newborn son don't have anything to do with the governor's office and the governor's office was absolutely justified in refusing to answer questions about private family business."The governor's office said it would not release information because it considers the baby's birth a private, family matter."
The parents of young Tripp are both 18 years of age - able to make a contract, earn money and keep it, care for their child as they see best, and can do so without input from either the governor's office - even if one considers the governor is Tripp's grandmother - and even more so, without input from bitter little Left-wingers like David Knowles.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
