Saturday, June 28, 2008

Tax means fewer travellers at main Dutch airport: report

Some 50,000 fewer passengers are expected to use Amsterdam Schiphol airport, one of Europe's busiest, this summer on account of a Dutch environmental tax on flights, it was reported Saturday.
"We're expected zero growth in 2008, and in fact a decrease (in passenger numbers) in July and August," an airport spokesman was quoted as saying by the domestic ANP news agency.

The Netherlands is the only country that levies an environmental tax on flights departing the country -- 11.25 euros per passenger (17.75 dollars) for European destinations and 45 euros for intercontential points.

Our Future Is Here

Animal rights group turns its fire on celebrity meat-eaters

After helping to make fur coats taboo, campaigners at Peta are using hardline tactics on A-list carnivores

By Rachel Shields
Sunday, 29 June 2008

Animal rights protesters have launched a series of angry campaigns against A-list carnivores. They are shifting their focus from celebrities who wear fur to others who encourage the "exploitation" of animals by eating them. In its latest campaign, Peta – People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which became infamous for dousing fur-wearers in red paint – has launched an attack on the singer Jessica Simpson.

Ms Simpson was singled out for ridicule after she was spotted wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan "Real Girls Eat Meat", believed to be a light-hearted dig at her boyfriend Tony Romo's vegetarian ex-girlfriend, Carrie Underwood.

Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: "Jessica Simpson might have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to eat what she wants – eating meat is about suffering and death. Some people feel like they are standing up against a tide of political correctness when they make a statement like this – what she is really doing is standing up for the status quo."

The animal rights group doctored a photo of Ms Simpson to read "Only Stupid Girls Eat Meat", and listed "five reasons only stupid girls eat meat".

In May the group condemned the British actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers for admitting that he had tried dog meat while in China.

The Peta attacks are seen as a sign of the radicalisation of some vegetarian groups. They claim eating meat causes environmental destruction, damages human health and contributes to global hunger, as well as inflicting suffering on billions of animals.

Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!) claims that there are currently between five and six million vegetarians in the UK but estimates that as many as a third of population have significantly reduced their meat intake.

"Vegetarians are still in a minority – most people eat meat. You're sticking your neck out as a vegetarian, and so most are passionate about it," said Annette Pinner, the chief executive of the Vegetarian Society.

A recent pronouncement from the head of the UN climate change agency that the best thing people can do to halt global warming is to turn vegetarian has taken the debate a step further.

Paul McCartney, a veteran vegetarian campaigner, recently launched "Meat Free Mondays" to encourage meat-eaters to eat vegetarian food once a week, citing the UN's statement as a good reason to forgo meat.

The Rest of This Bullshit Here

Spanish parliament to extend rights to apes

Wed Jun 25, 2008 4:27pm EDT
By Martin Roberts

MADRID (Reuters) - Spain's parliament voiced its support on Wednesday for the rights of great apes to life and freedom in what will apparently be the first time any national legislature has called for such rights for non-humans.

Parliament's environmental committee approved resolutions urging Spain to comply with the Great Apes Project, devised by scientists and philosophers who say our closest genetic relatives deserve rights hitherto limited to humans.

"This is a historic day in the struggle for animal rights and in defense of our evolutionary comrades, which will doubtless go down in the history of humanity," said Pedro Pozas, Spanish director of the Great Apes Project.

Spain may be better known abroad for bull-fighting than animal rights but the new measures are the latest move turning once-conservative Spain into a liberal trailblazer.

Spain did not legalize divorce until the 1980s, but Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's Socialist government has legalized gay marriage, reduced the influence of the Catholic Church in education and set up an Equality Ministry.

The new resolutions have cross-party or majority support and are expected to become law and the government is now committed to update the statute book within a year to outlaw harmful experiments on apes in Spain.

"We have no knowledge of great apes being used in experiments in Spain, but there is currently no law preventing that from happening," Pozas said.

Keeping apes for circuses, television commercials or filming will also be forbidden and breaking the new laws will become an offence under Spain's penal code.

Keeping an estimated 315 apes in Spanish zoos will not be illegal, but supporters of the bill say conditions will need to improve drastically in 70 percent of establishments to comply with the new law.

The Rest Here, LOL

As I've always known, the next logical step after allowing gay marriage, is allowing Taylor to marry Zira.

Democracy Hijacked

In the good ole days, when liberals were actually “liberal,” focused upon individual liberty above all else, and Democrats were actually “democratic” instead of dictatorial elitists focused more on not counting votes than on letting every voice be heard, the words “democratic change” had a very different meaning.

The concept of democracy has since been hijacked. In the 2008 race for the White House, the Democrat candidate with the most popular support is Hillary Clinton. But somehow, the DNC nominee is Barack Hussein Obama. Not so long ago, this could not have been defined as democracy in action. It would have been rightfully referred to as the “hijacking” of a party nomination.

Democracy used to suggest a limited government representing the common interests of the people, who were otherwise free to pursue individual interests without government interference.

Today, democracy has been perverted to meet with definitions by Thomas Jefferson, “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” – and Karl Marx, “Democracy is the road to Socialism.”

In the 2000 election, it was Democrats who worked around the clock to make certain that the overseas military vote was NOT counted, using any technicality available in election law to disenfranchise as many military votes as possible. That’s because military votes always lean 8-1 Republican.

The endless recounts in Florida were the result of voter confusion over a butterfly styled ballot, which was designed by Florida FEC democrats, and had been used by democrats in many districts for years, with the sole intent of confusing voters. This time, it backfired and cost Democrats the White House. It confused Democrat voters instead of Republican voters this time.

Democrat ballot boxes have been stuffed with duplicate voters, illegal alien and felon voters and even dead voters for years now. But it is Democrats who scream election fraud anytime they lose an election, often asserting fraud before an election is even held, just to set the stage for legal challenges in case they happen to lose.

Meanwhile, it is Democrats who refused to count Florida or Michigan Democrat votes that would have given Hillary Clinton the party nomination in 2008. Barack Obama is the chosen one, not the elected one. Dirty Democrat tricks, used against Republican opponents for years, have now been turned on Democrat voters and many of those voters know it.

There Is Nothing Democratic about Today’s Democrats or Their Version of Democracy

Instead, the New Democrats and the Democratic Socialists of America are in a fight to the finish for future control of the DNC. Old JFK Democrats are left out in the cold, represented by neither faction, and many of them will be voting for Republican John McCain this fall as a result.

The New Democrats are represented by Hillary Clinton and they portray themselves as the pro-American centrist faction of today’s Democrat Party. To half of Americans, they can only be defined as “centrists” on the basis of their desire for “central socialist power.” But they are a kinder-gentler, more patient version of Democratic Socialism.

The Democratic Socialists of America are represented by Barack Hussein Obama and they are the grassroots “Movement for Democratic Change,” the new buzz word title used to disguise the modern international march towards “socialism” via democratic processes, which is currently waging political warfare against societies from America to South Africa and Europe. These folks have a take-no-prisoners approach to advancing the socialist agenda.

Left Out of the Equation Entirely Are Old Jefferson/JFK Democrats

Old Democrats, who still believe in American sovereignty and security as JFK did, who still believe in individual liberty instead of ultimate central power in Washington DC, as Thomas Jefferson did, who still believe in real individual equal opportunity as Martin Luther King did, not the new racism present in the constant grab for free stuff that the MLK movement has since been perverted into, find themselves politically homeless today.

Of course, as timing would have it, old Republicans who still believe in all of the foundational American principles and values, find themselves in a similar position today. 70% voted against John McCain in the RNC primaries and still, McCain is their less than desirable nominee for the general election.

Bottom line, old Americans, both Republican and Democrat, find themselves outcasts in their own parties today and none of them are quite sure what to do about it.

As one of two men will be the next president of the United States, the likelihood falls in favor of the one who is at least qualified to be president, John McCain. Old Americans will likely default to the least dangerous option come November, regardless of past party loyalties.

But make no mistake, real Americans on both sides of the aisle are fed up with having undesirable candidates forced down their throats by party dictators and having to choose the lesser evil in every election. Something must change, and soon.

An Election about Communism, Socialism & Socialism Light

America has been moving towards a state of socialism for more than sixty years now. Some would say almost a hundred years.

Conservatives are bright enough to recognize the reality that McCain represents only a Republican form of socialism light. But how many Clinton supporters recognize that they are supporting outright socialism under the Clinton banner, and how many Obama supporters understand that they are cheering on a man who has been a life long believer in absolute communist principles?

The 2008 election is a choice between socialism light with McCain and outright communism with a racist flare, with Obama. In that field, Hillary Clinton really is the “centrist” to the degree that she is indeed well left of McCain, but well right of Obama. It’s the only way she can be called a “centrist.”

The “NObama Ever” Movement

The Rest Here

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

How do ya like these headlines??

Economy on brink of recession, Greenspan says


Millionaires club gets bigger, members richer...

The United States still reigns supreme when it comes to fat wallets, though: One in every three millionaires in the world lives in America. Combined, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America account for just one in 10.

So umm...which is it? Is our economy completely collapsing, are we on the brink of doom and gloom, as the main stream media would like us to believe...OR are we growing in wealth and becoming a more prosperous nation???

Shame on Republicans...AGAIN...

This is why we can't continue to have "moderates" in our party! This is an outrage now government is going to be responsible for providing you a job, an education and a HOME! Sigh...if you are a individual who can't figure out your own budget and whether or not you can afford your home, you have NO RIGHT to actually purchase one!

This just irritates me to no many people who find themselves in trouble with their home mortgage can blame it on the fact that they thought the equity accrued could be used as a savings account!! So many chose to refinance, taking their equity out only to spend it on "upgrading" their lifestyles...purchasing new SUV's...upgrading their "home entertainment" rooms...upgrading or remodeling their kitchens, bathrooms, backyards, etc. I have seen it time and time again in my neighborhood.

Here's the home too, has fallen in worth...but my mortgage hasn't changed and neither has my job...although, I now owe more on my home than it is valued at, I still have to make the payments. The payments on the balance that I AGREED TO when I initially purchased my home! Why isn't this expected of everyone else?

Oh yea...I forgot, government (with both parties being guilty) is all about telling us that "we the people" are just too dang STUPID to figure life out for they must "save" us...from our own doom...sigh...

Course never mind that the Community Reinvestment Act encouraged, almost pushed, lenders to provide loans to those in the community who clearly couldn't afford them...never mind that just to bail out CountryWide it will cost tax payers over $25 billion dollars...oh no...Republicans BOUGHT into this FURTHER expansion of government! They don't fight for our core principles...they don't stand for what we believe...they just give in time and time again...sigh...

Hopefully, President Bush will have the cajones to VETO this ridiculous bill, as he has stated he will!

Housing aid bill clears key Senate hurdle

WASHINGTON (AP) - A massive foreclosure rescue bill overwhelmingly cleared a key Senate test Tuesday, drawing broad support from Democrats and Republicans alike.

The Senate voted 83-9 to speed up work on the $300 billion mortgage aid plan, putting it on track for a final vote as early as the end of the day.

The resounding vote reflected a keen interest in both parties in claiming election-year credit for helping homeowners amid tough economic times.
Still, the measure faces a veto threat from President Bush and disputes among Democrats about key details. Those challenges will probably delay any final deal until mid-July.

Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., the Banking Committee chairman, said the legislation "would allow us to begin to put a tourniquet on the hemorrhaging of foreclosures in this country."

"What better gift on independence could we give the American people than a sense that this, their Congress of the United States, can come together, despite political differences, and craft legislation to make a difference for our country," Dodd said.

Senate passage would set the stage for high-stakes negotiations to resolve Democrats' differences. Conservative Democrats known as "Blue Dogs" are concerned about how to pay for the measure, while members of the Congressional Black Caucus - most of them liberal - call it "unacceptable," arguing it doesn't do enough to address the needs of African Americans.

Leaders also are divided on how high to place loan limits that apply to government mortgage insurance and financing.

The centerpiece of the package is a foreclosure rescue program in which the Federal Housing Administration would provide $300 billion in new, cheaper mortgages for distressed homeowners who otherwise would be considered too financially risky to qualify for government-insured, fixed-rate loans.

Borrowers would be eligible for the housing rescue if their mortgage holders were willing to take a substantial loss and allow them to refinance, and would ultimately have to share with the government a portion of any profits they made from selling or refinancing their properties.

The measure was advancing as a widely watched housing index said U.S. home prices fell in April at their steepest rate since the index began in 2000. The Standard & Poor's/Case-Shiller home price index of 20 cities fell by 15.3 percent in April versus a year ago, according to Tuesdays report.

Read further here

Friday, June 20, 2008

Confidence in Congress at record low

David Paul Kuhn
Fri Jun 20, 12:49 PM ET

Only 12 percent of Americans now have confidence in Congress, the lowest percentage in the 35 years that the Gallup Poll has tracked the number.

Americans now view Congress less favorably any of the 14 other American institutions tracked by Gallup, including big business, newspapers and health maintenance organizations.

Even as President Bush’s approval rating languishes at a record low, more than twice as many Americans have confidence in the presidency — 26 percent — than have confidence in Congress.

The Democrats have controlled both houses of the Congress since January 2007. It remains to be seen whether the Democratic Party brand will find itself chained to the poor public view of the legislative branch. A recent analysis of ABC News-Washington Post polls found that in April the Democrats held a 24-point lead over President Bush as "the stronger leadership force in Washington." Today, it's a tie.

While Americans have long viewed their local representative more favorably than Congress as a whole, the public's current view of Congress is exceptionally poor. Today's 19 percent approval rating (a different measure than “confidence”) ties the record low of August 2007 and March 1992.

Friday's survey showed an across-the-board disapproval of Washington, with only 32 percent of Americans expressing confidence in the Supreme Court.

Confidence in Congress at record low

LOL Do I smell a revolution coming? (fingers crossed)
What is up with 32% confidence in the SCOTUS? I wonder if it was the recent Gitmo ruling? I KNOW IT HAS ME PISSED OFF!

EU to lift sanctions on Cuba

BRUSSELS (AP) — The European Union on Thursday agreed to lift its diplomatic sanctions against Cuba, but imposed tough conditions on the communist island to maintain sanction-free relations, officials said.
The U.S., which has maintained a decades-long trade embargo against Cuba, criticized the move, saying there were no significant signs the communist island was easing a dictatorship.

EU External Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner said the bloc felt it had to encourage changes in Cuba after Raul Castro took over as the head of the country's government from his ailing brother Fidel.

"There will be very clear language also on what the Cubans still have to do ... releasing prisoners, really working on human rights questions," she told reporters at an EU summit. "There will be a sort of review to see whether indeed something will have happened."

The largely symbolic decision takes effect Monday. The diplomatic sanctions, which banned high-level visits to EU nations by Cuban officials, have not been in force since 2005. They were imposed in 2003 following the arrests of dozens of dissidents but suspended two years later.

As part of its action, the EU approved a set of conditions on Cuba in return for sanction-free relations. They include the release of all political prisoners; access for Cubans to the Internet; and a double-track approach for all EU delegations arriving in Cuba, allowing them to meet both opposition figures and members of the Cuban government.

Officials said the bloc will evaluate Cuba's progress in a year's time and could take new measures if human rights do not improve.

The U.S. expressed its opposition before the EU's final decision.

State Department Deputy spokesman Tom Casey said the United States would "like to see a real transition occur in Cuba, one that would allow for the release of political prisoners, for democratic opening, and ultimately for free and fair elections in which the Cuban people could choose their own leadership."

Casey said the U.S. has recently seen "some very minor cosmetic changes" in Cuba. "We certainly don't see any kind of fundamental break with the Castro dictatorship that would give us reason to believe that now would be the time to lift sanctions or otherwise fundamentally alter our policies," he said.

The Rest Here

Those damn Europeans! You have Cuba make changes, and THEN you open your doors to them! What is to stop Raul from doing what he pleases, only now he will have a European market?!? Give us an election and give your people internet, and THEN we will open our market to you. That is how it is supposed to work. We do not reward scumbag dictators!

Pastors Challenge Law, Endorse Candidates From Pulpit

Ministers Pit 'Freedom of Expression' vs. 'Separation of Church and State'
June 20, 2008—

Few Americans would invite an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service, but that's exactly what Minnesota pastor Gus Booth wanted when he stood behind his pulpit and told his congregation God wanted them to vote Republican.

In an election where candidates openly discuss their faith and are regularly seen in churches, and a time when pastors' sermons lead the politics sections of newspapers, one might be excused for not knowing that it is illegal for a church to endorse or oppose a candidate for president.

But when Booth addressed the members of his Warroad Community Church one Sunday in May and told them, "If you are a Christian, you cannot support a candidate like Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton for president," he very much knew he was violating the law. He even wrote a letter to the IRS explaining what he had said and challenging the tax collection agency to do something about it.

Churches and other non-profit groups like charities and universities do not have to pay taxes. That exemption, however, comes with a price. Churches, and by extension the pastors who serve them in an official capacity, are not allowed to endorse or oppose political candidates.

Booth, 34, is one of several religious leaders who this year hope to challenge federal law by flouting the regulations about endorsing candidates from the pulpit  a move that could potentially cost them their tax-exempt status, creating financial ruin for many congregations.

The separation of church and state may be one of our democracy's most vaunted values, but its enforcement falls to one of our government's most derided institutions  the IRS.

First Amendment Protection?
Booth and other religious leaders who want to challenge the government believe their rights to freedom of speech and religion, enshrined in the First Amendment, permit them to say whatever they want, wherever they want. Those rights, they say, should trump a 54-year-old tax code.

"The government is trying to censor me and other religious leaders," Booth told ABC News. "I may be taking on the IRS, but the IRS has taken on the Constitution unchallenged since 1954. I feel like the only law that should dictate what I am allowed to say is the First Amendment."

"The gist of my speech was you can't support Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama because they support abortion and homosexual marriage, and the scripture vehemently opposes both. I didn't say vote for McCain, but I'm planning to," he said.

In addition to being a pastor, Booth is also a delegate to the Republican National Convention. But it was his Lord and Savior, he says, not his party bosses, who told him to literally make a federal case out of preaching a sermon.

"A month before I made the sermon I talked to the church leadership. I told them, 'If we do this we could lose our tax exempt status. Are you prepared for that?' We spent a week in prayer, and I felt God was telling me to make that speech."

Booth said despite alerting the IRS to his sermon, he has yet to hear from the agency. The IRS would not comment to ABC News on any specific investigation.

Watchdog Group Weighs In
Last week, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, a watchdog group sent a letter to the IRS also asking them to investigate Booth.

Both the IRS and Americans United say the agency in recent years has increased the number of investigations it conducts on organization suspected of abusing their tax-exempt status and the speed with which it recommends action.

The Rest Here

Good for them! It is about time the Churches stood up for what is right instead of money! Keep it up guys! As a matter of fact, do more! Way to go! To hell with Barry Lynn

Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Pro-Choice is Pro-Murder

Pro-choicers make a distinction between supporting abortion and supporting life. They actually take the issues out of the controversy. Many, in fact most, of them say: "I am against abortion and I would never have one, but I would never get in the way of someone who wants one." So essentially we have a third party; we have the pro-lifers, pro-abortionists, (pro-murderers) and the pro-choicers. As mentioned above, the pro-choicers generally support life 50% and 50% support murder, if a woman so chooses. In other words, they believe in and support a woman's "right" to kill her offspring if she so chooses. Being "pro-choice" is politically correct and sounds much better than saying "pro-abortion"...but its totally misleading and absolutely false!

Note, pro-choicers also make this entire issue only about the woman. They are so concerned with a woman's "right" to live as they please, they don't believe in women having to face or deal with any consequences for their own actions. Their position is that the quality of life is much more important then life itself. The whole premise that they support "choice" for women is absurd...because in fact, they actually support the murder of the innocent, but they hide behind the "choice" in order to be perceived as "compassionate" to women. Essentially, most of them are simply pro-abortion supporters who happen to have no real courage to admit their true thoughts and position on the matter.

Why is that? Because they know that if they actually came out and said that they believe that killing the most vulnerable among us is absolutely acceptable, they would be viewed as heartless, cruel and evil. So again, they hide behind the "choice" argument.Now let's assume for a minute, that their position is truthful. Basically they are picking both sides of the controversy; trying to play in the middle of the road without getting run over!

We have heard them say things such as: "I hate abortion; I would never have one...if I could make it so the baby was not killed, I would do so. But I will not interfere with a woman who wants to have an abortion." So they openly admit that abortion is killing, yet they support it as long as it is not them. Well, isn't that supporting abortion then? And isn't it much like saying, "I hate rapists and I would never rape anyone, but I won't interfere with someone who wants to rape another"?They attempt to justify their position by stating such things as: "We can't legislate morality!"

What they really mean is that we cannot ban or restrict the killing of a live fetus; That we cannot force men and women to accept personal responsibility and accountability. But we can legislate morality through the institution of laws against rape, murder, incest, drug use, affirmative action, social welfare, and wealth redistribution, "living wage" laws, hate crime laws, political correctness, and the treatment of enemy combatants. When ever the topic of legislating morality comes up, the above never gets mentioned. This is because, for the most part, they agree with those laws and support preventing others from "breaking" them. They consider that having laws against issues, such as those mentioned above, is the "right" thing to do.

However, when it comes to abortion, it is convenient for them to say things like we are trying to "legislate morality". Ultimately their position is intellectually hypocritical, absolutely false and should be fought against adamantly, consistently and aggressively!

Saturday, June 14, 2008

The Pro Life Movement is Dead

I was born 35 years ago today. Roe v. Wade and I are the same age. Fortunately, the year abortion became legal; my mother chose to give birth to me, though it was her "right" to have me ripped to pieces. I thank her for not doing so. Since the year of my birth, 40 million lives have been extinguished. When I was one year old, 700,000 babies were destroyed. By the time I was eating whole foods, over 2 million lives were ended. Now as I am writing this, legalized abortion has taken the same number of lives as the number civilians that were killed in World War II.

35 years have passed and the politicians, who "supported" us, and the pro-life movement, have gained an inch in ten miles. In 35 years, we have the Partial Birth Abortion Ban of 2003. What a massive accomplishment. At this rate, perhaps by Roe's 100th anniversary, we may be able to ban the atrocity of abortion completely!

The Freedom of Choice Act is a bill that will codify Roe. The purpose of this bill is to ban ANY state legislature from passing a law banning abortion. The bill currently is locked in committee awaiting Barack Obama's election as President.

If Obama is elected and signs this bill, it would mean that the Pro Life movement is officially rendered obsolete, from a legal perspective.

However, as far as we are concerned, the Pro Life movement is dead already. Congress need not sign any more bills. The PLM is weak, lazy, complacent, and incompetent. Our belief that we are superior in our tactics, compared to those on the left, the pro choice crowd, is our downfall. We feel that expressing our anger in public, is beneath us as an organization. We have not adequately conveyed the true horrors of abortion to the public.

While the liberal left is telling young women about the acceptance of the "choice" to commit murder of their own, we sit back afraid to "offend" the youth with the truth. We have wasted time preaching to the choir and then patting ourselves on the back because we spent 2 hours on a Saturday standing outside of a Planned Parenthood QUIETLY showing our disapproval.

We get flipped off, yelled at, cursed at, spit on, and harassed, and we take it with a smile, believing that we can beat them with kindness. Well, we are wrong. The PLM has failed miserably. We have allowed over 40 million babies to be murdered...babies who had the potential to become anything! We may have allowed the execution of the baby who would have grown up to find the cure for cancer...or perhaps the baby who would have grown to become a great peace maker.

We lost the war in Vietnam because of expressed infuriation, defiant protests, and draft card burning. Radical Feminism was achieved because of burning bras, militant protests, and constant rage towards men. Gay marriage is just around the corner because of relentless demands and outrage in the name of "discrimination" and abortion was legalized because of militant feminism, selfishness, and expressed fury.

We are on borrowed time now. Obama has stated that he will immediately sign the Freedom of Choice Act. This is not an anti Obama post or a threat, this is a fact. This means that we have less than seven months left to act with anything meaningful. But are we willing to become more outraged? Are we willing to show our true disgust and fury over this practice? We have been hearing daily since the start of war in Iraq how many soldiers have sacrificed their lives, over 4000 at this point, yet...we sit back and allow the daily slaughter of over 4000 babies A DAY!

It's time to take some action, make some changes in our approach and truly demonstrate our disgust with this evil. "Changing hearts and minds" is no longer enough...we need to take to the streets with fury and anger, just as they did during the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960's! We are not calling for violence...we are simply calling for more intense protests, more anger, more outrage and more consistency. We need to make this our daily mission; not just something we march against every year one day in January. We need to demonstrate that we mean business, that this practice is no longer acceptable and that we indeed want this horror finally banned in All THE STATES for good!

~Leftistdestroyer, Neat62

Just another from Ann, too good not to share!

Ann, in her typical fashion (humor, sarcasm and TRUTH) hits the nail on the head with this one!


June 11, 2008

In a conversation recently, I mentioned as an aside what a great president George Bush has been and my friend was surprised. I was surprised that he was surprised.

I generally don't write columns about the manifestly obvious, but, yes, the man responsible for keeping Americans safe from another terrorist attack on American soil for nearly seven years now will go down in history as one of America's greatest presidents.

Produce one person who believed, on Sept. 12, 2001, that there would not be another attack for seven years, and I'll consider downgrading Bush from "Great" to "Really Good."

Merely taking out Saddam Hussein and his winsome sons Uday and Qusay (Hussein family slogan: "We're the Rape Room People!") constitutes a greater humanitarian accomplishment than anything Bill Clinton ever did -- and I'm including remembering Monica's name on the sixth sexual encounter.

But unlike liberals, who are so anxious to send American troops to Rwanda or Darfur, Republicans oppose deploying U.S. troops for purely humanitarian purposes. We invaded Iraq to protect America.

It is unquestionable that Bush has made this country safe by keeping Islamic lunatics pinned down fighting our troops in Iraq. In the past few years, our brave troops have killed more than 20,000 al-Qaida and other Islamic militants in Iraq alone. That's 20,000 terrorists who will never board a plane headed for JFK -- or a landmark building, for that matter.

We are, in fact, fighting them over there so we don't have to fight them at, say, the corner of 72nd and Columbus in Manhattan -- the mere mention of which never fails to enrage liberals, which is why you should say it as often as possible.

The Iraq war has been a stunning success. The Iraqi army is "standing up" (as they say), fat Muqtada al-Sadr --the Dr. Phil of Islamofascist radicalism -- has waddled off in retreat to Iran, and Sadr City and Basra are no longer war zones. Our servicemen must be baffled by the constant nay-saying coming from their own country.

The Iraqis have a democracy -- a miracle on the order of flush toilets in that godforsaken region of the world. Despite its newness, Iraq's democracy appears to be no more dysfunctional than one that would condemn a man who has kept the nation safe for seven years while deifying a man who has accomplished absolutely nothing in his entire life except to give speeches about "change."

(Guess what Bill Clinton's campaign theme was in 1992? You are wrong if you guessed: "bringing dignity back to the White House." It was "change." In January 1992, James Carville told Steve Daley of The Chicago Tribune that it had gotten to the point that the press was complaining about Clinton's "constant talk of change.")

Monthly casualties in Iraq now come in slightly lower than a weekend with Anna Nicole Smith. According to a CNN report last week, for the entire month of May, there were only 19 troop deaths in Iraq. (Last year, five people on average were shot every day in Chicago.) With Iraqi deaths at an all-time low, Iraq is safer than Detroit -- although the Middle Eastern food is still better in Detroit.

Al-Qaida is virtually destroyed, surprising even the CIA. Two weeks ago, The Washington Post reported: "Less than a year after his agency warned of new threats from a resurgent al-Qaida, CIA Director Michael V. Hayden now portrays the terrorist movement as essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border."

It's almost as if there's been some sort of "surge" going on, as strange as that sounds. Just this week, The New York Times reported that al-Qaida and other terrorist groups in Southeast Asia have all but disappeared, starved of money and support. The U.S. and Australia have been working closely with the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, sending them counterterrorism equipment and personnel.

Read further here

Narrated by John Wayne

You ask me Why I Love Her? Well, give me time and I'll explain. Have you seen a Kansas sunset Or an Arizona rain? Have you drifted on a bayou Down Louisiana way? Have you watched a cold fog drifting Over San Francisco Bay? Have you heard a bobwhite calling In the Carolina pines,

Or heard the bellow of a diesel At the Appalachia mines? Does the call of Niagara thrill you When you hear her waters roar? Do you look with awe and wonder At her Massachusetts shore, Where men who braved a hard new world First stepped on Plymouth's rock? And do you think of them when you stroll Along a New York City dock? Have you seen a snowflake drifting In the Rockies, way up high?

Have you seen the sun come blazing down From a bright Nevada sky? Do you hail to the Columbia As she rushes to the sea, Or bow your head at Gettysburg At our struggle to be free?Have you seen the mighty Tetons? Have you watched an eagle soar? Have you seen the Mississippi Roll along Missouri's shore?

Have you felt a chill at Michigan When on a winter's dayHer waters rage along the shore In thunderous display? Does the word "Aloha" make you warm? Do you stare in disbelief When you see the surf Come roaring in at Waimea Reef? From Alaska's cold to the Everglades,

From the Rio Grande to Maine, My heart cries out, my pulse runs fast At the might of her domain.You ask me Why I Love Her? I've a million reasons why:My Beautiful America, Beneath God's wide, wide sky.

~ John Mitchum ~

Friday, June 13, 2008

Obama's Abortion Bombshell: Unrestricted Abortion Over Wishes of Individual States a Priority for Presidency

By Peter J. Smith

WASHINGTON, D.C., June 10, 2008 ( - Barack Obama, the presumptive pro-abortion nominee of the Democratic Party, has plans to reward the allies that helped him topple Hillary Clinton from her throne by making total unrestricted abortion in the United States his number one priority as president.

In light of Obama's recently achieved status as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, Focus on the Family's CitizenLink has decided to remind its supporters that almost one year has passed since Obama made his vows to the Planned Parenthood Action Fund that abortion would be the first priority of his administration.

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) is legislation Obama has co-sponsored along with 18 other senators that would annihilate every single state law limiting or regulating abortion, including the federal ban on partial birth abortion.

The 2007 version of FOCA proposed: "It is the policy of the United States that every woman has the fundamental right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health of the woman."

Obama made his remarks in a question-and-answer session after delivering a speech crystallizing for abortion advocates his deep-seated abortion philosophy and his belief that federal legislation will break pro-life resistance and end the national debate on abortion. (see transcript:

The Rest Here

Freedom of Choice Act

(a) STATEMENT OF POLICY.—It is the policy of the
19 United States that every woman has the fundamental
20 right to choose to bear a child, to terminate a pregnancy
21 prior to fetal viability, or to terminate a pregnancy after
22 fetal viability when necessary to protect the life or health
23 of the woman.

ment may not—
(1) deny or interfere with a woman’s right to
2 choose—
3 (A) to bear a child;
4 (B) to terminate a pregnancy prior to via5
bility; or
6 (C) to terminate a pregnancy after viability
7 where termination is necessary to protect the
8 life or health of the woman; or

24 This Act applies to every Federal, State, and local
25 statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice
, or other action enacted, adopted, or
2 implemented before, on, or after the date of enactment
3 of this Act.

This bill would make Roe, a permanent Law of the land in the US. ALL of the US, Federal, State, and Localities. The Pro Life side, will have lost any and all legal battles and accomplishments that we have made to date. Roe would be a permanent fixture in America with no recourse what so ever. Essentially, this would end all Pro Life movements from a legal perspective. It must not be allowed. If it is, then it is time to lock and load.

Greens Thwart Gasoline Production

Thursday , June 12, 2008

By Steven Milloy
Four-plus-dollar gasoline is forcing Americans to realize that we need increased domestic oil production to meet our ever-growing demand for affordable fuel. But even if the greens lose the political battle over drilling offshore and in places like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, they nevertheless are way ahead of the game as they implement a back-up plan to make sure that not a drop of that oil ever eases our gasoline crunch.

The Sierra Club and the Natural Resources Defense Council, or NRDC, successfully pressured the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to block ConocoPhillips’ expansion of its Roxana, Ill., gasoline refinery, which processes heavy crude oil from Canada, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.

The project would have expanded the volume of Canadian crude processed from 60,000 barrels per day to more than 500,000 barrels a day by 2015. After the Illinois EPA had approved the expansion, the green groups petitioned the federal EPA to block it, alleging ConocoPhillips wasn’t using the best available technology for reducing emissions of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides.

Apparently, the plant’s planned 95 percent reduction in sulfur dioxide emissions and 25 percent reduction in nitrogen oxides wasn’t green enough. NRDC’s opposition is quite ironic since ConocoPhillips and the activist group actually are teammates in the global warming game. Both belong to the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of eco-activist groups and large companies that is lobbying for global warming regulation.

So even though ConocoPhillips is aiding and abetting the NRDC to achieve the green dream of absolute government control over the U.S. energy supply, the enviros still are in take-no-prisoners mode, refusing to allow the expansion of a single refinery.

Imagine what the rest of us can expect from the greens.

Meanwhile, in California, green groups are working through the state attorney general’s office to block the upgrade of the Chevron refinery in the city of Richmond. The $800 million upgrade essentially would expand the useable oil supply by permitting the refinery to process lower-quality, less-expensive crude oil.

California Attorney General, ex-Gov. and climate crusader Jerry Brown claims the upgrade will produce an additional 900,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions per year. But Chevron says the upgrade actually will reduce the emissions by 220,000 tons.

Whose figure is closer to the truth?

It’s hard to know for sure at this point, but it’s worth noting that material false statements made by Chevron are prosecutable under the federal securities laws and California state law, while Brown and the activists pretty much can say whatever they want without legal accountability.

The Rest Here

These environNazi bastards! Locate them, and shoot them. Why are the politicians so afraid of these assholes? Are you tired of this shit yet? What will it take for you to get the balls enough to march up the Capitol and scare the ever loving shit out of Congress?!?! This nation is full of weak pansy assed pussies! I am ashamed to be an American lately. Bunch of gutless wimps.

Obama's promise to Planned Parenthood...

In July of 2007, Obama spoke before Planned Parenthood, admitting that he is completely pro-choice, with NO LIMITS on when an abortion can be performed AT ALL! During his speech to Planned Parenthood, he promised:

"The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act," Obama said in his July speech to abortion advocates worried about the increase of pro-life legislation at the state level.

The Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) would invalidate ALL LIMITS on abortion, completely nullifying the national ban on partial birth abortion and would prohibit any state from passing any law that would limit or regulate abortion in any way.

Planned Parenthood...the big "donor" to the Democratic party and one group that has helped Obama beat Hillary in the primaries. If you believe abortion is acceptable and moral, check out the link to the left: The Liberal Grail

Of course, Obama dares to state that if a woman is not allowed to choose to MURDER her own child...that she is somehow denied the "same" rights as know...women have the same rights to say NO to the act that may cause the consequence of pregnancy...the SAME AS MEN!

But of course, we are supposed to believe that women are just too damn stupid to say no...that we instead, are nothing more than animals totally in capable of controlling our emotions and desires...that we ACT without thinking and that is absolutely acceptable...sigh...

You want to empower women...let them know that they have the power to say NO!

Barack Obama before Planned Parenthood Action Fund, July 17, 2007
Transcribed by Laura Echevarria,, (view the video of this speech at

Barack Obama: Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, well, Ariana, thanks for stealing the show. [Laughter] That’s how, that’s how we teach young people at Trinity United Church of Christ. They’re not shy. It’s so wonderful to see and thank you for the wonderful introduction and the great work that you are doing. You’re representing the church and the city of Chicago very, very well. All right—give her a round of applause [Applause].
I heard, Ariana, I heard your folks are here, where are they—Oh, I see, the one with the camera [Laughter] video taping everything. All right, I should have figured that out. Well, you should be proud, she’s extraordinary.

Thanks to all of you at Planned Parenthood for all the work that you are doing for women all across the country and for families all across the country—and for men, who have enough sense to realize you are helping them, all across the country. I want to thank Cecile Richards for her extraordinary leadership. I’m happy to see so many good friends here today, including Steve Trombley and Pam Sutherland from my home state of Illinois. We had a number of battles down in Springfield for many many years and it is wonderful to see that they are here today.

You know it’s been a little over five months since I announced my candidacy for President of the United States of America and everywhere we’ve been, we’ve been inspired by these enormous crowds. We had twenty thousand people in Atlanta, twenty thousand people in Austin, Texas, fifteen thousand people in Oakland, California and I would love to take all the credit for these crowds myself, to say to myself that it’s just because I’m just so fabulous, but [Laughter] my wife says otherwise. Michele, I think, confirms that these crowds are not about me. It’s about the hunger all across America for something different. It’s about the sense that we can do better—that we’ve come to a crossroads, that we’re not pointed in the right direction.

And as I look out over these crowds—and they are a wonderful cross-section of the country, male, female, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, disabled, gay, straight, old, young—what I’m heartened to see is particularly the young people who are getting their first chance to be part of a larger movement of Americans. I see young women who are Ariana’s age and younger, and I think about my own two daughters, Sasha and Malia, and sometimes it makes me stop and makes me wonder: what kind of America will our daughters grow up in?

What kind of America will our daughters grow up in?

Will our daughters grow up with the same opportunities as our sons? Will our daughters have the same rights, the same dreams, the same freedoms to pursue their own version of happiness? I wonder because there’s a lot at stake in this country today. And there’s a lot at stake in this election, especially for our daughters. To appreciate that all you have to do is review the recent decisions handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States. For the first time in Gonzales versus Carhart, the Supreme Court held—upheld a federal ban on abortions with criminal penalties for doctors. For the first time, the Court’s endorsed an abortion restriction without an exception for women’s health. The decision presumed that the health of women is best protected by the Court—not by doctors and not by the woman herself. That presumption is wrong.

Some people argue that the federal ban on abortion was just an isolated effort aimed at one medical procedure—that it’s not part of a concerted effort to roll back the hard-won rights of American women. That presumption is also wrong.

Within hours of the decision, an Alabama lawmaker introduced a measure to ban all abortions. With one more vacancy on the Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a woman’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe versus Wade and that is what is at stake in this election. The only thing more disturbing than the decision was the rationale of the majority. Without any hard evidence, Justice Kennedy proclaimed, “It is self-evident that a woman would regret her choice.” He cited medical uncertainty about the need to protect the health of pregnant women. Even though the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists found no such uncertainty. Justice Kennedy knows many things, my understanding is he does not know how to be a doctor.

[Laughter and Applause]

He dismissed as mere preferences the reasoned judgments of the nation’s doctors. We’ve seen time after time these last few years when the president says otherwise, when the science is inconvenient, when the facts don’t match up with the ideology, they are cast aside. Well, it’s time for us to change that. It is time for a different attitude in the White House. It is time for a different attitude in the Supreme Court. It is time to turn the page and write a new chapter in American history.


We know that five men don’t know better than women and their doctors what’s best for a woman’s health. We know that it’s about whether or not women have equal rights under the law. We know that a woman’s right to make a decision about how many children she wants to have and when—without government interference—is one of the most fundamental freedoms we have in this country. We also know that there was another voice that came from the bench—a voice clear in reasoning and passionate in dissent. The voice rejected what she called, quote “Ancient notions of women’s place in the family and under the Constitution. Ideas that have long been discredited.” Unquote. One commentator called the decision in Gonzales, “An attack on Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s entire life’s work.” And it was. But we heard Justice Ginsburg and we know what she was saying. She was saying, “We’ve been there before and we are not going back. [Applause] We refuse to go back. [Applause]”

We know, we know it’s not just one decision. It’s the blow dealt to equal pay in the Ledbetter [v. Goodyear] case, it’s the blow dealt to integration in the school desegregation case, it’s an approach to the law that favors the powerful over the powerless—that holds up a flawed ideology over the rights of the individual. We don’t see America in these decisions—that’s not who we are as a people. We’re a country founded on the principle of equality and freedom. We’re the country that’s fought generation after generation to extend that equality to the many not restrict it to the few. We’ve been there before and we’re not going back.

I have worked on these issues for decades now. I put Roe at the center of my lesson plan on reproductive freedom when I taught Constitutional Law. Not simply as a case about privacy but as part of the broader struggle for women’s equality. Steve and Pam will tell you that we fought together in the Illinois State Senate against restrictive choice legislation—laws just like the federal abortion laws, the federal abortion bans that are cropping up. I’ve stood up for the freedom of choice in the United States Senate and I stand by my votes against the confirmation of Judge Roberts and Samuel Alito [Applause]

So, you know where I stand. But this more is than just about standing our ground. It must be about more than protecting the gains of the past. We’re at a crossroads right now in America—and we have to move this country forward. This election is not just about playing defense, it’s also about playing offense. It’s not just about defending what is, it’s about creating what might be in this country. And that’s what we’ve got to work together on.

There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield. But that doesn’t mean that we can’t find common ground. Because we know that what’s at stake is more than whether or not a woman can choose an abortion.

Read the full transcript of his speech here

Thursday, June 12, 2008

So now "gay marriage" isn't enough...they want "gay divorce" too!

One of the arguments we constantly hear in support of gay marriage is that those who enter homosexual relationships usually do so for the "long-term" what is this all about? By the of the couples that brought forth the CA Supreme Court case that was just decided is also, no longer "together" much for that whole "long-term" thing I guess huh?

This is an interesting observation, providing evidence that one of the main objectives of this whole "movement" is to make a MOCKERY of Marriage and further disrupt society by enforcing acceptance of their way of life upon all of us!

“A lot of people wanted to make a statement, and others got married for no other reason other than suddenly they could,” says Jo Ann Citron, a divorce lawyer in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legalized in 2004.

“It's very easy to get caught up in the moment, in an exciting historical time, and this newfound freedom and opportunity of the revolutionary moment often overrides the personal issues that marriage usually involves,” Ms. Citron says.

Judge Raises Constitutional Issue in R.I. Gay Divorce
Thursday, June 12, 2008 11:00 AM

PROVIDENCE, R.I. -- A Superior Court judge has refused to hear the divorce case of a lesbian couple, but questioned whether the law that barred the women from ending their marriage unconstitutionally denied them a right enjoyed by heterosexual Rhode Islanders.

The Rhode Island Supreme Court last year ruled that the state's family court could not grant a divorce to Margaret Chambers and Cassandra Ormiston, who wed in 2004 in Massachusetts soon after sex-sex marriage became legal in that state.

The justices said the state statute that created the family court recognized marriage as between only a man and a woman and the court, therefore, could not divorce a same-sex couple.

Chambers then sought a divorce in Superior Court. Judge Patricia Hurst denied the request on Wednesday, saying her court does not have jurisdiction to handle divorce.

But she also questioned the constitutionality of the statute relied on last year by the Supreme Court.

"It seems to me that this is a matter needing immediate attention and one that very plainly belongs in the hands of the legislature and the executive branch," Hurst said.

She said the law could be challenged in family court and ultimately ruled on by the Supreme Court.

The couple, both from Rhode Island, filed for divorce in Rhode Island in 2006, citing irreconcilable differences. Ormiston has been renting a room in Massachusetts, where she must live for a year for the couple to get divorced there.

Read further here

For THIS reason alone...we need to vote McCain!!

Once again, the liberal justices on the Supreme Court prove to us they could care less about the US Constitution and the rule of law...sigh... read the full text of the decision here

They are willing to give TERRORISTS, who would like to do nothing MORE than behead each and everyone of them, as well as YOU and ME, "rights"! Rights to access our civil courts to "sue" our own government for detaining them as captives...this is OUTRAGEOUS!

In the next four least two of these liberal justices will have to retire, or may likely pass on (due to age, illinesses, etc)...we will need a President who will nominate justices who will at the very least, follow the letter of the law and remain strict Constitutionalists!

We will not only lose the war on terrorism...we will lose all of America unless we start getting ANGRY enough to TAKE IT BACK from these looney liberals who hate America! Anger accompanied with reason, moves one to action...and now more than ever we need some ACTION!

High Court sides with Guantanamo detainees again

By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer 19 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Thursday that foreign terrorism suspects held at Guantanamo Bay have rights under the Constitution to challenge their detention in U.S. civilian courts.

In its third rebuke of the Bush administration's treatment of prisoners, the court ruled 5-4 that the government is violating the rights of prisoners being held indefinitely and without charges at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The court's liberal justices were in the majority.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court, said, "The laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times."

Kennedy said federal judges could ultimately order some detainees to be released, but that such orders would depend on security concerns and other circumstances.

The White House had no immediate comment on the ruling. White House press secretary Dana Perino, traveling with President Bush in Rome, said the administration was reviewing the opinion.

It was not immediately clear whether this ruling, unlike the first two, would lead to prompt hearings for the detainees, some of whom have been held more than 6 years. Roughly 270 men remain at the island prison, classified as enemy combatants and held on suspicion of terrorism or links to al-Qaida and the Taliban.

The ruling could resurrect many detainee lawsuits that federal judges put on hold pending the outcome of the high court case. The decision sent judges, law clerks and court administrators scrambling to read Kennedy's 70-page opinion and figure out how to proceed. Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth said he would call a special meeting of federal judges to address how to handle the cases.

The administration opened the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks to hold enemy combatants, people suspected of ties to al-Qaida or the Taliban.

The Guantanamo prison has been harshly criticized at home and abroad for the detentions themselves and the aggressive interrogations that were conducted there.

The court said not only that the detainees have rights under the Constitution, but that the system the administration has put in place to classify them as enemy combatants and review those decisions is inadequate.

The administration had argued first that the detainees have no rights. But it also contended that the classification and review process was a sufficient substitute for the civilian court hearings that the detainees seek.

In dissent, Chief Justice John Roberts criticized his colleagues for striking down what he called "the most generous set of procedural protections ever afforded aliens detained by this country as enemy combatants."

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also dissented.

Scalia said the nation is "at war with radical Islamists" and that the court's decision "will make the war harder on us. It will almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed."

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens joined Kennedy to form the majority.

Read further here

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

School drops Pledge of Allegiance during ceremony

By Bob Heye and KATU Web Staff

PORTLAND, Ore. - The exclusion of the Pledge of Allegiance from a southwest Portland elementary school's ceremony has proved upsetting for a local mom.

Departing fifth-graders at Capitol Hill Elementary usually open their promotion ceremony with the Pledge of Allegiance - but not this year.

"I was sad," said parent Briana Reese. "The flag was sitting up there, you know. Two of the kids went up and they said 'Everybody rise,' and we rose, and I thought for just a second 'Oh yeah, we're going to put our hands on our hearts and we're going to salute the flag' - but no."

Reese had heard that the principal planned to take the pledge out of the ceremony.

"I think that's what they should be doing - telling kids you should be pledging your allegiance to this country," Reese said. "This is a great country. You're here for a reason."

The pledge was instead replaced with a singing version of the preamble to the Constitution.

KATU tried repeatedly to talk with Principal Pam Wilson but got no results. However, in an e-mail response to Reese's questions, she explained the pledge was removed "out of respect for the diversity of religious faiths."

The Rest Here

More PC Bullshit! I'm sick of it! The Commie BS that never ends: 13. Do away with all loyalty oaths THis pinko bitch principal removed the Pledge because of Muslims?!?! What? They don't believe in God too? This bitch principal is a Liberal fascist, plain and simple. And what is with this "Promotion Ceremony" for 5th graders anyway?!?! What is that crap?! Toughen up! THIS is what you have to do! You are required to move up in grade levels! I am sick of this pansy ass Liberal PCBS!

Send this bitch principal an e mail to let her commie ass know that this is NOT acceptable!

Phone: 503-916-6303
Fax: 503-916-2616
E-mail: Grade levels: K-5
Principal: Pam Wilson

Woman pretended to be mom of girl who got abortion

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 06/11/08
A Hall County woman is serving a year in jail for pretending to be a girl's mother when she signed off on the girl's abortion.

In reality, Cindi Cook was the mother of the girl's boyfriend, who also was 16 when she became pregnant in early 2007.

Displeased that the baby would ruin her son's chance of going to college, Cook, 44, pressured the 16-year-old girl to have the abortion in the spring of 2007, found a clinic that would do it without her present, and paid for the procedure, DeKalb Solicitor General Robert James said Wednesday.

Last week, a judge sentenced Cook to a year in jail — the maximum for a misdemeanor — for interfering with custody and violating a parental notification law.

"This conduct is reprehensible," James said. "There's not a parent anywhere who'd be OK with what she did."

James said his office is now investigating whether the facility — Northside Women's Clinic in Chamblee— broke a state law that required parental notification when a girl under the age of 18 has an abortion.

According to its Web site, Northside Women's Clinic offers abortions through the 15th week of pregnancy, usually in about 10 minutes.

A woman who answered the phone Thursday morning said the clinic had no comment and did not have an attorney. She would not give her name or title.

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution is not identifying the girl because she is a minor.

More than a year after the abortion, "she's still struggling with the loss of the baby," said Fenn Little, her family's attorney. "She's getting better, but there's going to be a lot of counseling and issues that have to be addressed."

The Rest Here

Here, is what this woman did.

Replay video | Share video | Watch more videos

She should not be in jail, she should be hanged. If you are against infanticde, then YOU MUST speak up! We are on our own here, the politicians are not interested in helping to end this. Abortion is their meal ticket on BOTH sides. It is up to us, to end infanticide. DO NOT be afraid to speak up on this issue anymore. Say it loud, hell, scream it, but for God's sake, do not be silent, or you may as well support infanticide yourself.

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

Sun Goes Longer Than Normal Without Producing Sunspots

Global Warming? WRONG! Try Sunspots, and save $45 trillion

ScienceDaily (Jun. 9, 2008) — The sun has been lying low for the past couple of years, producing no sunspots and giving a break to satellites.

That's good news for people who scramble when space weather interferes with their technology, but it became a point of discussion for the scientists who attended an international solar conference at Montana State University. Approximately 100 scientists from Europe, Asia, Latin America, Africa and North America gathered June 1-6 to talk about "Solar Variability, Earth's Climate and the Space Environment."

The scientists said periods of inactivity are normal for the sun, but this period has gone on longer than usual.

"It continues to be dead," said Saku Tsuneta with the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, program manager for the Hinode solar mission. "That's a small concern, a very small concern."

The Hinode satellite is a Japanese mission with the United States and United Kingdom as partners. The satellite carries three telescopes that together show how changes on the sun's surface spread through the solar atmosphere. MSU researchers are among those operating the X-ray telescope. The satellite orbits 431 miles above ground, crossing both poles and making one lap every 95 minutes, giving Hinode an uninterrupted view of the sun for several months out of the year.

Dana Longcope, a solar physicist at MSU, said the sun usually operates on an 11-year cycle with maximum activity occurring in the middle of the cycle. Minimum activity generally occurs as the cycles change. Solar activity refers to phenomena like sunspots, solar flares and solar eruptions. Together, they create the weather than can disrupt satellites in space and technology on earth.

The last cycle reached its peak in 2001 and is believed to be just ending now, Longcope said. The next cycle is just beginning and is expected to reach its peak sometime around 2012. Today's sun, however, is as inactive as it was two years ago, and scientists aren't sure why.

"It's a dead face," Tsuneta said of the sun's appearance.

Tsuneta said solar physicists aren't like weather forecasters; They can't predict the future. They do have the ability to observe, however, and they have observed a longer-than-normal period of solar inactivity.

In the past, they observed that the sun once went 50 years without producing sunspots. That period, from approximately 1650 to 1700, occurred during the middle of a little ice age on Earth that lasted from as early as the mid-15th century to as late as the mid-19th century.

The Rest Here

Monday, June 09, 2008

Moving on...

On Saturday, Hillary finally decided it was time to move on. She let go of her aspirations to become the Democratic Presidential nominee (at least for now) and threw her support behind her fellow candidate, Obama.

Letting go and moving on can be a good allows us to see clearly the path we should be taking, the path that will lead us where we truly want to be. I learned that myself this past weekend. Like Hillary, I have let go and decided to move on. To my surprise I was awarded with a wonderful gift and had one of the best weekends I have had in a very long time. I have learned that we can't always see what God has planned for us...and that's okay, as long as we Trust in Him.

Hillary, I am sure is going to struggle the next several months as she tries to envision her future...a future that doesn't include her living in and pillaging from the While House once again. Sadly, I don't believe she has the Trust in God, which I mentioned above, that she will need to carry her through this rough time...but thankfully; we will be able to at least MOVE ON with the campaign and perhaps finally hear and have the truth about Obama exposed in the coming months.

Clinton exits, endorses Obama
Senator strongly urges support for former rival
By Paul West Sun reporter
June 8, 2008

WASHINGTON - Hillary Clinton ended her campaign yesterday with a full-throated endorsement of Barack Obama and a stirring summation of her bid to become the first woman president.

Clinton used a nationally televised speech in downtown Washington to praise the party's likely 2008 nominee and urge her backers to work as hard for his election as they had for hers.

In abandoning a campaign she launched more than 17 months ago, Clinton congratulated Obama "on the victory he has won. ... I endorse him and throw my full support behind him."

There were scattered boos at mentions of Obama's name but mainly cheers as Clinton pleaded with the Democratic "family" to "come together" after a "tough fight."

Her remarks appeared to meet, if not exceed, the expectations of Obama's campaign, which is eager to close rifts within the party and attract many of the voters, including women, Hispanics and working-class whites, who tilted strongly to Clinton in the primaries.

Obama, in a statement released by his campaign, said he was "thrilled and honored" to gain Clinton's support and praised her "valiant and historic campaign." He added that he is "a better candidate" for having had to compete against her.

Portions of Clinton's 28-minute speech, delivered in an air-conditioned hall on a sweltering afternoon, were drawn directly from her campaign stump speech. But she departed in one significant respect by addressing feminism, a topic she largely avoided in the campaign.

Friday, June 06, 2008

Obama - Give back the Liberal Interest Money...

At least until he realizes that the party is about $15 million short in paying for their own convention!!

The party is having all sorts of difficulties in raising the required $40.6 million and has, in fact, missed two deadlines already!

Mind you, this is the party that wants to tax YOU MORE and believes that it knows how to SPEND YOUR money better than YOU DO!!

Democratic Party returns lobbyist, PAC money

Jun 6 07:11 PM US/Eastern
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Democratic National Committee, now operating under Barack Obama's fundraising rules, on Friday returned about $100,000 in money from lobbyists and political action committees.

The donations were already "in the pipeline" when Obama, the presumed Democratic presidential nominee, instituted the standards for the committee, a party official said.
Obama imposed the rules to avoid a conflict with his own ban on money from federal lobbyists and PACs. On Thursday he sent one of his top strategists to the DNC to help with its general election operation.

Republican John McCain does accept money from lobbyists and PACs as does the Republican National Committee and other party committees. Obama's ban does not apply to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee nor to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.

Obama does accept money from lobbyists who do not do business with the federal government and he also accepts money from spouses and family members of lobbyists. And the DNC ban is also not retroactive, which means the DNC will keep lobbyist and PAC contributions it received earlier in the election cycle.

According to its latest report with the Federal Election Commission, the DNC had raised $2 million from PACs in the past 16 months. And according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, the DNC raised a mere $53,360 from executives or associates in lobbying firms so far this election cycle. That total, however, includes employees of lobbying firms who are not registered lobbyists.

The DNC has lagged behind the RNC in fundraising. On Thursday, the McCain campaign announced it had raised $21.5 million in May and the RNC said it had collected nearly $24 million. The DNC raised almost $5 million during the month. The Obama camp, which has been raising at a clip of $1 million a day or better, has not announced its May totals.

Read further here

Miracles do happen!!

So because this woman thought she would be unable to withstand possibly losing another baby...she decided to murder it....huh?? Seems to me that would be ensuring the loss...sigh...but thankfully, God had other plans and this beautiful baby survived against the odds, proving LIFE is not in our hands, but rather in the hands of the Heavenly Father!

Baby Miraculously Survives Abortion, Expected to Live 'Normal' Life
Thursday, June 05, 2008

A mother who decided to abort her son because he may have inherited a life-threatening kidney condition is overjoyed that he survived the procedure.

Jodie Percival of Nottinghamshire, England, said she and her fiancee made the decision to abort baby Finley when she was eight weeks pregnant.

Percival's first son Thane died of multicystic dysplastic kidneys — which causes cysts to grow on the kidneys of an unborn baby — and her second child Lewis was born with serious kidney damage and currently has just one kidney, the Daily Mail reported.

Click here for a photo of baby Finley.

"I was on the (birth control pill) when I became pregnant," Percival, 25, said. "Deciding to terminate at eight weeks was just utterly horrible but I couldn't cope with the anguish of losing another baby."

A short time after the abortion, Percival felt a fluttering in her stomach. She went to the doctor for a scan and discovered she was 19 weeks pregnant.

Read further here

Thursday, June 05, 2008

Good news on the teenage front!

In a new study released by the CDC yesterday, it appears that more teenagers are choosing to abstain today then in the 1990's. Of course, the MSM will never say that abstinence teaching in schools have any effect on behavior...they will just continue to tell us that it's more important for "safe sex" to be taught...sigh...

CDC Study: Teen Sex, Drug Use Down Compared to 1990's
Thursday, June 05, 2008

Teen sex, as well as drug and alcohol use has declined compared to the 1990's, but Hispanics are not sharing in the progress, according to a new federal survey.

Hispanic high school students use drugs and attempt suicide at higher rates than their black and white classmates, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey found.

The CDC questioned 14,041 students in grades nine through 12 in 39 states in the spring of 2007 on a range of risky behaviors.

In 1991, 54 percent of the high school students said they had ever had sexual intercourse, compared to 48 percent in 2007. In 1991, 19 percent said they had at least four sexual partners, compared to 15 percent last year, the survey showed.

For the students overall, just under half have had sex, 75 percent have tried alcohol and 20 percent smoke.

The study is given to high school students every two years. The new report noted that black and white students are reporting less sexual activity than in years past, but there was no decline among Hispanics.

However, whites reported the highest rates of smoking and heavy drinking, while blacks reported the highest rates of obesity and violence.

Read further here

Obama - just a bad judge of character??

Yesterday, Obama issued this statement: “I’m saddened by today’s verdict. This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform. I encourage the General Assembly to take whatever steps are necessary to prevent these kinds of abuses in the future.”

So...although, he's had a relationship with Tony Rezko for over 20 years (sound familiar?) he had NO IDEA, this man would do something so "criminal"...cause all Obama ever saw was a man of upstanding character and integrity...uh...YEA!!!

Funny thing is Obama also has known rev Wright for 20 years...Fr. Pfleger for 20 years...and of course, who could forget his best buddies the "underground weatherman", Bernardine Dorn and Bill Ayers? Then there is Rob Malley who has ties to Hamas...sigh...and we are supposed to just believe that Obama didn't really "know" these individuals? Obama somehow has just made a "few" mistakes in judgment of character of these people? Sorry...but if he can't properly choose his own "friends and advisors"...why would I want to put him in charge of the entire free world???

Of course, we have been told that "we" are not to question his relations with these individuals...that in fact, they do not matter...and that Obama won't be "dangerous" for America...oh no...he's the new "savior" of us all...sigh....pathetic!

Ya'll remember though when Jack Abramoff plead guilty to 3 counts of corruption every Republican that ever had any sort of connection, even if it was a brieft encounter, with Abramoff was dragged through the mud and thoroughly investigated...the MSM ran this story as their headlining story for weeks and weeks.

Typically though...this little revelation about Rezko and his GUILT on 16 counts has been conveniently buried by the MSM and of course, Obama's 20 year relationship is not significantly noted...sigh...

Barack Obama ally Tony Rezko convicted of fraud, attempted bribery and money laundering

By Tom Leonard in New York
Last Updated: 1:39AM BST 05/06/2008

Barack Obama faces new political embarrassment after an old friend and former fundraiser was found guilty yesterday of corruption.

The conviction in Chicago of Antoin "Tony" Rezko on fraud, attempted bribery and money laundering charges prompted Republicans to raise concerns about Mr Obama's fitness for office.

Rezko, 52, a Chicago property developer and former fundraiser for several politicians including Mr Obama, was found guilty on 16 of 24 counts.

He had been accused of extorting millions of dollars in bribes and campaign donations in exchange for influencing the award of state contracts. He is due to be sentenced in early September, two months before the presidential election, but his lawyers said yesterday they were likely to appeal.

Although Mr Obama has severed his connections with Rezko and the trial barely touched on their relationship, the case has dogged the senator's political campaign.
The Republican party's national committee said in a statement: "This is further proof that Obama's high-flying rhetoric is just that.... today's verdict and Obama's friendship with Rezko raise serious questions about whether he has the judgment to serve as president."

The Syrian-born developer and restaurant entrepreneur had a close friendship with Mr Obama and the trial heard how the latter received campaign donations generated by Rezko for his US senate bid in 2004.

Read further here

Wednesday, June 04, 2008

Fr. Pfleger...he didn't think he was being "filmed"

Apparently, the outrageous things he said such as: while supposedly imitating Hillary Clinton, saying, "I really believe that she just always thought, 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white, and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate.' Then out of nowhere came, 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama,' and she said, 'Oh, damn! Where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show!'" Would have been okay if as long as he wasn't film, no foul! Tsk, tsk, tsk...he also admits that he, as a Catholic priest, is not allowed to offer support publicly to one candidate over another...yet...that didn't stop him from doing so and not just at Trinity Church, but at his own St. Sabina's as well. A week prior to his comments at Trinity, he stated during a homily at St. Sabina's: "Hillary and McCain would wish they had a preacher with the integrity of Jeremiah Wright. … They got some old weak preacher…some old Joel Osteen cotton candy preacher."

Pfleger: 'This is a dangerous time in America . . . you have to whisper your thoughts'

EXCLUSIVE Contrite Father Mike regrets Hillary 'dramatization,' pain he's inflicted on his church
June 3, 2008

BY CATHLEEN FALSANI Religion Columnist

On Sunday morning, I was enjoying a brisk walk along the Hudson River in lower Manhattan and some quiet contemplation when my cell phone rang. It was my editor.

"Mike just called, and he wants to talk, but he'll only talk to you," he said.

Mike, as in the Rev. Michael Pfleger, the perpetually embattled pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in Chicago, who most recently has been under siege from comments he made about Hillary Clinton a week ago from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ -- a k a Barack Obama's former (as of Saturday) church.

"Oh, really? Well I don't want to talk to him," I said. "I'm pissed at him. How could he do this? He probably thinks I'm a sympathetic ear, but I'm not. I pretty much want to slap him."

"Just think about it," my editor said with a whiff of smugness, "and call me back in five minutes when you've changed your mind."

I hate it when he's right.

I've been writing about Pfleger for almost as long as I've been writing about anything in Chicago. He's a perennial source for theologically intriguing, often controversial, sometimes plainly outlandish stories on the religion beat. Pfleger, 59 years old and a priest for 33 of those years -- nearly all of them served at St. Sabina in the Auburn-Gresham neighborhood -- has never met a cardinal-archbishop of Chicago he didn't aggravate. During his tenure, the activist priest has had throwdowns with all three of the "men in the red dresses," as we call them, who have run the Catholic Church in this town.

Pfleger is always in trouble over something, with someone.

This time, the tone is a little different, as Pfleger's waves have made a loud, acrimonious splash on the national and international scene. In video clips broadcast on YouTube, he stood in the same pulpit the Rev. Jeremiah Wright vacated not too long ago, mocking Clinton's tearfulness earlier this spring on the campaign trail and accused her of expecting white entitlement in the face of her black opponent's wildly successful campaign.

In the wake of the Clinton flap, Cardinal Francis George officially silenced Pfleger, whom he had pressured to resign a month ago from the Catholics for Obama committee.

"He and I have had conversations, and I won't go into the conversations; I'll only say that he has asked me to remove myself from Barack's public campaign -- from the group Catholics for Obama -- and that was before all of this," Pfleger told me as we sat alone in a conference room Monday in Sabina's rectory. "He said that, as a Catholic priest, I'm not allowed to publicly support a candidate. I said my understanding was that, as an individual, I can support anyone I want, but that I would never tell parishioners who to vote for. First of all, from my point of view, that insults the congregation. They make their own choice.

"While I disagreed with him, I told him that I did not want to create another distraction for him or for Barack," Pfleger said. "So I wrote a letter to Barack, telling him just that: that I did not want to create a distraction for him, that the cardinal has said no priest is allowed to have his name on a [campaign committee] and that this is a bishop's rule throughout the country. Now, I don't know because I haven't done all the research, but he told me there is no other priest in anybody's campaign listing of support around the country."

As for his performance from the Trinity pulpit at a Sunday night service May 25, Pfleger has apologized for "the words that I chose" and for "my dramatization." Pfleger told me he called the Clinton campaign to apologize directly but had not heard back from Clinton or her representatives.

All that is well and good, but how, as a friend and passionate supporter of Obama's campaign for president, could he do what he did, with cameras rolling?

Pfleger's short answer? He didn't think the service and his "conversation" -- a more casual address than a classic sermon, he explained -- were being broadcast live online, as Trinity often does.

Read further here

Blog Archive

BTTS - Where Personal Responsibilty is the EXPECTED NORM!