Another Pathetic Study Offering MORE for WOMEN to Whine About

April 11, 2008
The Drudgery ReportBy Kathleen Parker

WASHINGTON -- Every few years, social scientists update Americans about how unfair life is -- for women, that is -- by comparing the amount of housework men and women do.

The latest, from the University of Michigan, found that though women's housework load has been reduced by about half and men's has doubled since researchers began measuring such things, life is still a drudge for the fairer sex.

The picture, nevertheless, is far from gloomy. In 1976, women averaged 26 hours of housework per week compared to just six hours for men. In 2005, women averaged 17 hours per week and men 13. Not quite equal, but vastly improved.

Yet, the study's findings have been presented and reported as un-glad tidings for women. The university news release carried the headline: "Exactly how much housework does a husband create?"

This much: "Having a husband creates an extra seven hours a week of housework for women. ... For men, the picture is very different: A wife saves men from about an hour of housework a week."

Needless to say, the hell gets hotter for women when children enter the picture. The only good news is for single men and women, both of whom do less housework -- as long as they stay clear of the altar.

In other words, marry, have a family and be miserable. Remain single and childless and be happy. More or less.

Today's women don't want equality...they want superiority!

Once upon a time a woman was proud to call herself a mom and loving wife and men exhibited character and courage, going out each day to their jobs, working hard to care and provide for their families.

Today, however, we see the complete feminization of men. Men are "in touch" with their feelings and half the time can't decide what it is they are feeling at all. While women have become more and more like men, asserting themselves and proud to do so, in all aspects of life, except for one, motherhood!

Women somehow have been made to feel that they need to seek "superiority" over man, instead of understanding that men and women are different, simply because we were created that way.

Today's men are afraid of commitment and women don't want it.

Men don't know whether to hold open the door or allow the woman to hold it open for them. We have sent them so many mixed messages over the past 40 years, who can blame them? We tell them we want them to treat us with respect and love, but at the same time, we demand they treat us as if we were just "one of the guys."

Women expect be treated as equals and to hold high places in business, politics and even the military, but at the same time, they expect "special treatment" through programs like Affirmative Action simply because they are "women" and after all, they have "emotions."

Is it any wonder that men are so confused today? They don't know if they want to marry us women or if they should stick with their own gender, because women have been telling them for so long that we are "just like them" in every way.

Women want to go out and have sex without regard to consequence only to cry when they find themselves pregnant or with an STD that some "evil" male did this to me. As if they had no choice in the matter at all. They think nothing of murdering their own through abortion and then want to be thought of as compassionate, tolerant and loving women.

They want to be regarded as intellectuals but then tell us that they are incapable of making rational decisions or controlling themselves when it comes to their sexual desires.

They want to throw "it's MY body" in the face of the man when they find themselves pregnant and looking to abort, but demand payment and support when they choose to give birth, despite what the father's wishes may be.

No, its not about "who" does more housework over the other...its about today's women believing they are "entitled" to do less, because they demanded to be allowed into the work force and have only now begun to realize they, in fact, can't do it all!

Again, they don't want equality...they want to be deemed superior to men...yet they fail to realize that in the greatest way they are "superior," - simply because they are the one's who were given the blessed gift of delivering new life...something NO MAN will ever be able to do!

Finally a Reason to go to the Movies Again

Ben, "Bueller, Bueller" Stein is responsible for giving me the desire to enter a movie theater again! In this new film, Ben Stein takes on the Scientific co9mmunity as he reveals how the "darwinists" and athiests have taken hold of the community and persecute any and all scientists who dare to even question their "evolution" theory. In the film you will see how those who have attempted to question and reveal new evidence that casts doubt on Darwin's evolution theory, have been basically blacklisted - losing their jobs, credibility and sometimes, even much more!

I have viewed several of the trailers offered on the site...linked above...and it is telling! I can't wait to get to the theaters on opening night...I will gladly hand over my $12 to support Ben Stein's courageous efforts and so should you!!

The film opens at selected theaters April 18, check out his website "Expelled" to see if a theater near you is listed and if not...get on the phones and demand that your theaters offer it!

And no...I have no connection to Mr. Stein...although, I wish I did, I would love to thank him personally for making this film!!

Monument to Lincoln Brigade(American Communists) unveiled

Cecilia M. Vega,Carl Nolte, Chronicle Staff Writers
Monday, March 31, 2008
David Smith was a young college student with no military training when he shipped off to Spain to fight in the brutal Spanish Civil War.

On Sunday, a throng of Bay Area history buffs gave him a standing ovation and shouted "Viva Dave!" as the now-92-year-old Berkeley resident teared up and pumped his fist in the air at the unveiling of San Francisco's newest public monument: a memorial to soldiers who fought in the lost war more than six decades ago.

About 2,800 Americans battled against Gen. Francisco Franco's forces in an international force known as the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. Today, there are just 39 survivors, and 11 of them were on hand for the unveiling of the monument, which one organizer called "an antidote to amnesia."

"Our monument is to remember a group of people who stood up to take a stand," said Peter Carroll, chairman of the board of the New York-based Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives.

The war, fought between 1936 and 1939, was widely seen as a prelude to World War II. The Spanish rebels fought under Franco's leadership with the support of Hitler's Germany and Benito Mussolini's Italian Fascist regime. The United States at the time was strongly isolationist, and Spain seemed far away, and its battles between the Fascists on the right and the Spanish republic on the left were difficult to understand.

The republican forces were defeated in the war and many of the Lincoln Brigade volunteers were regarded with suspicion by conservatives, particularly during the McCarthy era following World War II.

Nate Thornton, 93, remembers it well.

He and his father enlisted together and fought in Spain, where Thornton's duties included driving a truck and an ambulance to transport supplies and troops.

"I knew I was getting into a fight against the Fascists and that was the main thing," the Hayward resident said. "I was hoping I could help the Spanish government become a socialist government."

Ninety-two year old Abe Osheroff of Seattle recalled a battle in which 80 out of 250 crew members died when the ship they were on was torpedoed off the coast of Spain. On Sunday, he thanked San Francisco for erecting the country's first-ever Lincoln Brigade monument and "for making us immortal."

The monument, 40 feet long and 8 feet high, is located near the Vaillancourt Fountain on the Embarcadero, not far from San Francisco's Ferry Building.

"We picked San Francisco because the city is tolerant and progressive," said Carroll. "Standing up for what is right is a San Francisco thing to do."

The structure is made of 45 onyx panels held together by a steel structure. The translucent stone squares show scenes from the war and faces of soldiers, as well as words about the period from writers like Ernest Hemingway.

It was designed by Ann Chamberlain and Walter Hood and cost $400,000, donated by the Abraham Lincoln Brigade Archives and Veterans and Friends of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade.

Spanish Ambassador Carlos Westendorp y Cabeza attended the unveiling and thanked the veterans for risking their lives for his country.

"It is a monument that does justice to a heroic deed," he said.
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/03/31/BAB6VSI4R.DTL
This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Abraham Lincoln Brigade

I know the source is Wikipedia, but it is accurate. It can be confirmed through a simple search.
So, we have San Fransico honoring communists.

Great, like this is a shock? Need I remind all of you, that Communism, is responsible for the deaths of 100 million people in the world. This "memorial" is being dedicated with the full knowlege of the destruction, oppression, and murder enforced by communism! While San Fransico and Berkely kick out and spit on our own US millitary, they are providing a "memorial" to communists!! To me, this proves that the Liberal party, is in fact, communist! To Hell with San Fransico AND Berkely. To Hell with them.

Indeed, may he rest in Peace

Charlton Heston: October 4, 1924 - April 5, 2008

Memorable Quotes from this Legendary Man:

"My life has been blessed with good fortune. I'm grateful that I was born in America, that cradle of freedom and opportunity, where a kid from the Michigan Northwoods can work hard and make something of his life. I'm grateful for the gift of the greatest words ever written, that let me share with you the infinite scope of the human experience. As an actor, I'm thankful that I've lived not one life, but many. Above all, I'm proud of my family ... my wife Lydia, the queen of my heart, my children, Fraser and Holly, and my beloved grandchildren, Jack, Ridley and Charlie. They're my biggest fans, my toughest critics and my proudest achievement. Through them, I can touch immortality. Finally, I'm confident about the future of America. I believe in you. I know that the future of our country, our culture and our children is in good hands. I know you will continue to meet adversity with strength and resilience, as our ancestors did, and come through with flying colors - the ones on Old Glory."

Message sent to the US troops in Iraq, April 2003:
"There is no duty more noble than that which has called you across the world in defense of freedom. Yours is a mission of hope and humanity for the oppressed. Rest assured that while pretend-patriots talk of supporting you, even as they condemn your noble cause, an unwavering vast majority of Americans share and take pride in your mission. You represent all that is good and right about America and are the true face of American patriotism. You walk in those same righteous footsteps of all those patriots who, before you, fought to preserve liberty for all. Our prayers and our personal gratitude are with you and your families. May God Bless You, Charlton and Lydia Heston."

Talking about modern Hollywood's stereotypical portrayals of religious figures:
"Clergymen tend to be unreliable and pompous figures. Seldom Jewish rabbis, less often Catholic priests, but Protestant ministers tend to be ... not really very admirable. Not necessarily evil, but silly. And wrong, of course."

On Racism:
“I marched for civil rights with Dr. King in 1963 - long before Hollywood found it fashionable. But when I told an audience last year that white pride is just as valid as black pride or red pride or anyone else's pride, they called me a racist. I've worked with brilliantly talented homosexuals all my life. But when I told an audience that gay rights should extend no further than your rights or my rights, I was called a homophobe. I served in World War II against the Axis powers. But during a speech, when I drew an analogy between singling out innocent Jews and singling out innocent gun owners, I was called an anti-Semite. Everyone I know knows I would never raise a closed fist against my country. But when I asked an audience to oppose this cultural persecution, I was compared to Timothy McVeigh." (1999)


"Mainstream America is depending on you - counting on you - to draw your sword and fight for them. These people have precious little time or resources to battle misguided Cinderella attitudes, the fringe propaganda of the homosexual coalition, the feminists who preach that it's a divine duty for women to hate men, blacks who raise a militant fist with one hand, while they seek preference with the other."

"The Constitution was handed down to guide us by a bunch of those wise old, dead, white guys who invented this country. It's true - they were white guys. So were most of the guys who died in Lincoln's name, opposing slavery in the 1860s. So, why should I be ashamed of white guys? Why is Hispanic pride or black pride a good thing, while white pride conjures up shaved heads and white hoods?"

"Affirmative action is a stain on the American soul."

"Political correctness is tyranny with manners."

On President Bill Clinton:
"America didn't trust you with their health-care system, America didn't trust you with gays in the military, America doesn't trust you with our 21-year-old daughters. And we sure, Lord, don't trust you with our guns."

"I find my blood pressure rising when Clinton's cultural shock troops participate in homosexual rights fund raisers but boycott gun rights fund raisers - and then claim it's time to place homosexual men in tents with boy scouts and suggest that sperm-donor babies born into lesbian relationships are somehow better served."

On Gun Rights:
"Here's my credo. There are no good guns, There are no bad guns. A gun in the hands of a bad man is a bad thing. Any gun in the hands of a good man is no threat to anyone, except bad people."

"You can take my rifle ... when you pry it from my cold dead hands!"

"It is essential that gun owners unite in an active, growing force capable of flexing great muscle as the next millennium commences."

"In Hollywood there are more gun owners in the closet than homosexuals”

"It is not widely known that one of the finest gun collections on the West Coast is Steven Spielberg's. He shoots, but very privately."

Web site restores ‘abortion’ as search term
Johns Hopkins site had restricted its use after inquires by USAID

The Associated Press
updated 7:32 p.m. CT, Sat., April. 5, 2008

BALTIMORE - A prominent public health school has restored the word "abortion" as an acceptable search term on a reproductive health Web site funded by a federal agency that restricts references to abortions.

The move by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health follows criticism from some health advocates and librarians that the restriction amounted to censorship.

The restriction on the POPLINE Web site — "population information online" — had been put in place after inquiries by the United States Agency for International Development, which funds the site, according to a statement from Dr. Michael J. Klag, the dean of the Bloomberg school.

USAID denies funding to non-governmental organizations that perform or actively promote abortion as a methods of family planning in other nations. The policy was started under President Ronald Reagan and was revived when President Bush took office in 2001.

"I could not disagree more strongly with this decision, and I have directed that the POPLINE administrators restore 'abortion' as a search term immediately," Klag said in a statement. "The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health is dedicated to the advancement and dissemination of knowledge and not its restriction."

USAID officials did not immediately respond to calls seeking comment Saturday.

POPLINE is a free database containing citations and abstracts of scientific articles, reports and books about population, family planning and related health issues. It contains nearly 360,000 records.

Loriene Roy, president of the American Library Association, applauded Klag's action, saying the restriction denied "researchers, students and individuals on all sides of the issue access to accurate scientific information."

Wayne Shields, president and CEO of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals, said in a statement that restricting access to the information could possibly jeopardize patient care, because it prevented doctors and women from linking to scientific literature on the topic.

"Removing abortion as a search term on a publicly funded reproductive health database is clearly a decision driven by ideology — and not based on the medical or scientific needs of the reproductive health professional community the database exists to serve," Shields said.

Copyright 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Once again, free speech is limited by Liberals. Their distorted version of free speech, again, only applies to those who agree with them. If you disagree with Liberals, you are a facist, Hitler, Denier, Hater, Hillbilly redneck. Hypocrites!

It's called a Tramp Stamp, give it to the children

Got a trampy little kid

that isn't quite ready to get inked? No problem. Toys "R" Us has lower-back tattoo stickers for little miss thing.

We like how they're right next to the Hannah Montana and Minnie Mouse stickers.

Think this is bad, check out THIS: Padded brs for six year olds.

And This:
Thongs for 10 year olds

This is all because of Liberalism.

Green groups challenge a bid to speed the border fence.

Andrew Murr
Newsweek Web Exclusive
Updated: 5:32 PM ET Apr 4, 2008

The reaction was swift and angry. After Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced Tuesday that he would speed up construction of the wall along the U.S.-Mexican border by sidestepping three dozen federal environmental laws, House Homeland Security Committee chair Bennie Thompson denounced the move as "an extreme abuse of authority." Defenders of Wildlife president Rodger Schlickeisen lamented that "laws protecting wildlife, land, rivers, streams … (were) just a bother to the Bush administration." The Sierra Club's Carl Pope broadly suggested that rushing the fence to keep out illegal aliens might spell environmental disaster, even "the destruction of the borderlands region."

Public outrage was the easy part. Fighting back effectively will be more difficult. In the wake of Chertoff's announcement, which he hopes will lead to the erection of 370 miles of border fence before the end of George W. Bush's final year in office, environmental groups and their congressional allies are scrambling to fight the Homeland Security plan to speed the project along. They are hoping the Supreme Court will take up a case, filed last year, in which environmental groups challenged the constitutionality of the section of the 2005 immigration law that Chertoff used this week to waive compliance with "all legal requirements" that might slow border security improvements. At the same time, activists are hoping to persuade Congress to curb Chertoff—through political pressure, or by repealing the section of the law that established his authority to do so in the first place. "We expect Chertoff's decision will galvanize opposition to the wall and to the waiver," says Oliver Bernstein, a Sierra Club spokesman.

In announcing the waiver Chertoff said that Homeland Security would not compromise "its commitment to responsible environmental stewardship" while speeding up construction designed to slow the flow of illegal immigrants across the U.S.-Mexican border. But environmental leaders opposed to the wall don't believe him. They say that what's at stake are thousands of square miles of wildlife habitat from Texas to California. A border fence would cut off small American populations of threatened or endangered species like the jaguar, the ocelot and the jaguarundi, or weasel cat, which live mostly in Mexico but have tiny ranges in this country, says Brian Segee, staff attorney for the Defenders of Wildlife. The separation would cut off breeding between the two countries' populations and might drive some species to extinction in the United States. Even birds could be affected. In wetland areas, activists say, the building of border barriers would harm birds by silting up wetland oases or shifting the flow of seasonal rivers away from water-loving cottonwood and willow trees that provide crucial habitat areas to dozens of bird species.

Advocates of the fence praised Chertoff's move. Illegal immigration degrades the environment by trampling vegetation and littering border areas with "tons of trash," says Ira Mehlman, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR). "Obviously we are concerned about endangered species," Mehlman adds. "The tradeoff here is that we have compelling interest both from a national security point of view and also to stop massive immigration to get that fence completed." CNN anchor and anti-illegal immigration crusader Lou Dobbs praised Chertoff on air for "doing the right thing" and helpfully declared that his program's "official position" was that "the Sierra Club can stick it."

The environmental groups' legal strategy is to challenge the constitutionality of the section of the 2005 Real ID law that let Chertoff sidestep the federal environmental and land management laws, which include the Clean Water Act, the National Park Service Organic Act and the Antiquities Act. In March lawyers for the Defenders of Wildlife and the Sierra Club submitted a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case of a very limited waiver Chertoff signed last year to speed construction on a few miles of fence and road that cross the San Pedro Riparian National Conservation Area, south of Tucson, Ariz. The Real ID law deals mainly with improving the security of state driver's licenses to prevent counterfeiting. But one section grants amended federal legislation to hasten fence construction. The groups maintain in their suit that the waiver provision of Real ID violates the Constitution's separation-of-powers guarantees by effectively granting Homeland Security the power to circumvent environmental protections without sufficient judicial review.

The government rejects that view and points out that lower courts upheld the constitutionality of the broad waiver rules in two earlier cases. A federal district court judge in the San Pedro case rejected the theory last December, and the Supreme Court is weighing whether or not to hear the case. Segee, the Defenders of Wildlife attorney, says the legal team will file a notice with the high court about this week's waiver. "I think this week's decision by the secretary increases the chances of the court taking the case," says Segee, who adds that he hopes others will submit friend of the court briefs supporting his group's position.

Other opponents are hoping to drum up opposition in Congress. The Sierra Club and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), an opponent of the border fence, will jointly send a letter to House and Senate members Friday denouncing Chertoff's move. "We think [Congress] can … make sure the secretary makes a good-faith effort to abide by the laws," says Brent A. Wilkes, LULAC's national executive director. "They are the ones who gave him the authority, and they can take it away whenever they want." Other groups plan to fan public anger as a way of convincing legislators to take notice. "There's a groundswell already happening," says Mike Daulton, director of conservation policy at the National Audubon Society. "We are hoping that this is such an extreme decision that there will be a public outcry against an agency that thinks it's above the law."

The decision has also angered some local groups opposed to the wall. In Texas, Steve Ahlenius, president and CEO of the McAllen Chamber of Commerce, complained that Chertoff's moves will allow 22 miles of wall-and-berm construction that "is going to destroy habitat and lose it forever." Jim Peugh, a local Audubon volunteer in San Diego, complained, "If they have to design a fence, you'd think they'd be committed to designing it right."

Some on Capitol Hill want to repeal the law that enabled Chertoff's broad decision. Arizona Rep. Raúl Grijalva hopes to gain more congressional support for a bill he introduced last year that would, among other provisions, cut language that grants the homeland secretary the broad power. The Borderlands Conservation and Security Act would also force consultation with local land managers before construction could begin. In an interview Grijalva, chair of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands of the House Resources Committee, says he will expand the focus of his first hearing on the bill, later this month in Texas, to include Chertoff's decision.

Still, opponents aren't bragging about their chances. Environmental groups failed in legal bids to stop two previous waivers that Chertoff granted, in Texas and Arizona. Environmentalists and opponents of the wall seem keenly aware that the politics of immigration and border security, especially after 9/11, trump environmental protection. Fewer than 25 members have stepped in to cosponsor Grijalva's bill since last summer. And the congressman knows that an election year may not be the best time to rally opposition to Chertoff—particularly in districts where illegal immigration is unpopular. "Honestly, I don't know if my colleagues have the political guts to challenge [the administration] on this issue," he says, criticizing fellow Democrats as well as Republicans. The question may hang fire until next year, when a new homeland security secretary takes over. By then many miles of the fence may be built. And it looks as though the next president will be one of three senators who voted to approve the border fence.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/130492

I don't get it. There are animals in zoos all over the planet, and I don't see that killing them. We have pets in our homes, and unless fixed, we see them reproducing. This is bullshit, once again by the nutjobs in the US who hate President Bush. Oh, don't belive me? OK.

"Defenders of Wildlife president Rodger Schlickeisen lamented that "laws protecting wildlife, land, rivers, streams … (were) just a bother to the Bush administration."

Time to get a set of balls anywhere in Washingotn, and slap these environazis down to the ground and keep kicking them until the stop moving.

Schools ban cake in New Zeland

New Zealand school: Find another way to celebrate birthdays with class
Reuters updated 2:35 p.m. CT, Fri., April. 4, 2008

WELLINGTON, New Zealand - Children in a New Zealand school have been banned from bringing cakes to share on their birthdays, due to new government healthy eating guidelines.

Pupils at Oteha Valley primary school north of Auckland have been told they are allowed to celebrate their birthdays, but the cake must stay at home, the New Zealand Herald newspaper reported.

The Ministry of Education has been on a fat-busting crusade, introducing sweeping guidelines against unhealthy food in New Zealand schools.

Oteha Valley has a large number of pupils born in September and October, and there can be up to four cakes a week in some classes, principal Megan Bowden told the Herald.

It had gotten to the point where parents thought they were required to provide a cake for their child's birthday.

The school has advised parents in a newsletter to stop sending cakes to school from the next term.

A Ministry of Education spokesman told the Herald the government guidelines only applied to food sold on the premises, and schools did not need to monitor food brought in from outside.

Copyright 2008 Reuters. Click for restrictions.

It's simply a matter of time until this happens here. Oh wait, it already is:

"Illinois authorities are not the first to look at implementing restrictions on the sale of junk food in schools, in response to concerns over the growing incidence of childhood obesity.

Elementary schools in Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York, and West Virginia have already banned the sale of junk food in schools until at least after lunch. And other states have gone even further. Hawaii bans junk food in all schools all day. Florida bans the sale of junk food in elementary schools all day, and in secondary schools until after lunch."

God forbid they control the real reason for obesity: Video Games and the media. Video games because of going outside to play, kids sit on their fat asses and play video games all night. And the media because they scare the hell out of parents with their doom and gloom stories all day long. Keep voting Democrat and let them take away our basic living freedoms. Lock-N-Load baby.

Just because SHE'S taken testoserone it doesn't make HER a MAN

AN obstetrician has declared the pregnancy of transgender man Thomas Beatie "normal" and says the baby he is carrying his healthy.

As Mr Beatie and his wife appeared on Oprah this morning, his doctor gave the first medical confirmation of the pregnancy, which has made headlines around the world.

Mr Beatie told TV host Oprah Winfrey he always wanted to have a child and considered his situation a miracle.

"It's not a male or female desire to have a child. It's a human desire," the thinly bearded dad-to-be said."I have a very stable male identity."Pregnancy neither defined him nor made him feel feminine, he said.

Insemination
Mr Beatie, 34, who lives in Oregon, was born a woman but decided to become a man 10 years ago. He began taking testosterone treatments and had breast surgery to remove glands and flatten his chest. "I opted not to do anything with my reproductive organs because I wanted to have a child one day," he told Oprah. Mr Beatie's wife Nancy said she inseminated him with a syringe using sperm purchased from a bank.

This is one of the biggest jokes ever....and goes to prove how the MSM and liberals on the left are more than willing to try to pull the wool over American's eyes. The outrageous statements that "Thomas Beatie" is a man is absolutely ridiculous...you can't be a "man" unless you are anatomically correct!

Anatomically correct –adjective: having representations of the sexual organs

This is a complete LIE...as SHE is a WOMAN not a man...and fact is, a MAN'S sperm was still REQUIRED for HER egg to be fertilized INTO a BABY!!

Course...note how the MSM qualifies this pregnancy as a "baby"...instead of a blob of fetal tissue...as they do so when discussing a "woman's right to choose!" Which is it????

Finally...this is only ONE of many reasons I don't give OPRAH any credibility on ANY issue...she's irrelevant in my opinion and the more she pushes her liberal agenda and the more she glamourizes LIES such as this one...the more she appears to be losing her grip and the less of an impact she has on ANYONE!

A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation

Straight or gay? U.S. court says Web site can't ask
Thu Apr 3, 2008 6:50pm EDT
By Adam Tanner

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A roommate-finding site cannot require users to disclose their sexual orientation, a U.S. appeals court ruled on Thursday, in the latest skirmish over whether anti-discrimination rules apply to the Web.

The U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said Roommates.com, which obliges users to list their sexual orientation, was different than Internet sites where people can volunteer or withhold personal information.

To inquire electronically about sexual orientation would not be different from asking people in person or by telephone if they were black or Jewish before conducting business, the panel said in an 8-3 ruling that partly overturns a lower federal court decision.

"If such screening is prohibited when practiced in person or by telephone, we see no reason why Congress would have wanted to make it lawful to profit from it online," 9th Circuit chief judge Alex Kozinski wrote. "Not only does Roommate ask these questions, Roommate makes answering the discriminatory questions a condition of doing business."

Roommates.com says it offers more than 100,000 rental listings on its site across the United States and is owned by Roommate.com LLC.

The court contrasted such requests for information with online search engines such as Google, which could allow people to search for terms such as "white roommate."

'CLOSE CASES'

"Web sites are complicated enterprises, and there will always be close cases where a clever lawyer could argue that something the Web site operator did encouraged the illegality," Kozinski wrote. "Such close cases, we believe, must be resolved in favor of immunity."

"Where it is very clear that the Web site directly participates in developing the alleged illegality -- as it is clear here with respect to Roommate's questions, answers and the resulting profile pages -- immunity will be lost."

A Roommates.com section allowing users to add additional comments of their choosing is immune from liability as outlined in the 1996 Communications Decency Act, the San Francisco-based court found.

Congress "didn't intend to prevent the enforcement of all laws online," the court said. "Rather, it sought to encourage interactive computer services that provide users neutral tools to post content online to police that content without fear that ... they would become liable for every single message posted by third parties on their Web site," it said.

Three judges dissented, saying the court was creating a dangerous precedent and future confusion for Internet firms.

"The majority's unprecedented expansion of liability for Internet service providers threatens to chill the robust development of the Internet that Congress envisioned," Judge Margaret McKeown wrote.

Roommates.com "should be afforded no less protection than Google, Yahoo, or other search engines."

The Fair Housing Council of San Fernando Valley and the Fair Housing Council of San Diego filed suit against the Web site, claiming it violated the Fair Housing Act and various state laws.

(Editing by Eric Auchard and Xavier Briand)

© Reuters 2007

Liberals are for freedom, huh? BULLSHIT! I have had it up to my hairline with political correctness! Had it with Liberals! You know what? Fuck the gays! Screw the fags, no pun. I this does not tell you all that the radical gay movement is trying to force acceptance of their disgusting behavior, I don't know what will! This must END! And I really don't care how anymore, just END IT!

Corn Hits $6 a Bushel on Tight Supplies

Thursday April 3, 6:56 pm ET
By Stevenson Jacobs, AP Business Writer
Corn Prices Jump to Record $6 a Bushel, Driving Up Costs for Food, Alternative Energy

NEW YORK (AP) -- Corn prices jumped to a record $6 a bushel Thursday, driven up by an expected supply shortfall that will only add to Americans' growing grocery bill and further squeeze struggling ethanol producers.
Corn prices have shot up nearly 30 percent this year amid dwindling stockpiles and surging demand for the grain used to feed livestock and make alternative fuels including ethanol. Prices are poised to go even higher after the U.S. government this week predicted that American farmers -- the world's biggest corn producers -- will plant sharply less of the crop in 2008 compared to last year.

"It's a demand-driven market and we may not be planting enough acres to supply demand, so that adds to the bullishness of corn," said Elaine Kub, a grains analyst with DTN in Omaha, Neb.

Corn for the most actively traded May contract rose 4.25 cents to settle at $6 a bushel on the Chicago Board of Trade, after earlier rising to $6.025 a bushel -- a new all-time high.

Worldwide demand for corn to feed livestock and to make biofuel is putting enormous pressure on global supply. And with the U.S. expected to plant less corn, the supply shortage will only worsen. The U.S. Department of Agriculture projected that farmers will plant 86 million acres of corn in 2008, an 8 percent drop from last year.

Moreover, cold, wet weather in parts of the U.S. corn belt may force farmers to delay spring planting, potentially sending prices even higher.

While corn growers are reaping record profits, U.S. consumers can expect even higher grocery bills -- especially for meat and pork -- as livestock producers are forced to pass on higher animal feed costs and thin their herd size.

"Higher corn prices is going to affect meat prices. If you're feeding with $6 corn, you'll definitely have some (cost) pressure," Kub said.

In addition, corn and corn syrup are used in an array of products, meaning the price of everything from candy to soft drinks will eventually go up, analysts say. It's the latest dose of bad news for U.S. consumers, who are already struggling with higher food costs from record increases in the price of wheat, soybeans and other agriculture products.

Another loser in higher corn costs is ethanol producers, who are struggling to squeeze out gains as corn's record-setting run outpaces the price of ethanol, currently at around $2.50 a gallon.

"For years, corn was cheap and fermentation processes for ethanol production came to completely dominate the biofuel industry in North America," Michael Jackson, president and chairman of Vancouver-based ethanol maker Syntec Biofuel, said this week. "Now, with corn prices well over $5 a bushel, corn ethanol economics have gone out the window."

The nation's 147 ethanol plants now have the capacity to produce 8.5 billion gallons of fuel a year, according to the Renewable Fuels Association. Corn is the basic feedstock for most of the plants and about 20 percent of last year's 13 billion bushel corn crop was consumed by ethanol production. That percentage is expected to increase to 30 percent for the next crop year, which ends Aug. 31, 2009, according to Terry Francl, a senior economist for the American Farm Bureau Federation.

There are still plans to build or expand another 61 plants, which will add about 5.1 billion gallons of capacity. However, as corn prices have climbed over the past year or so, construction of several plants has been halted or delayed, shaving about 500 million gallons worth of capacity off the original figure, according to Broadpoint Capital analyst Ron Oster.

At least one facility, the Alchem plant in Grafton, N.D., shut down late last year because of high prices.

A new plant hasn't broken ground over the past couple of quarters, Oster said, and while producers can have positive gross margins with ethanol at $2.50 a gallon and corn at $6 a bushel, that doesn't mean companies are profitable.

"Bottom line earnings are near break-even or modestly below break-even," he said.

Looking ahead, only the strongest ethanol producers will survive in an era of ever-rising corn prices, said Soleil Securities analyst Ian Horowitz.

"There are going to be some particular companies that definitely have the balance sheet and efficiencies that will be able to eke out a positive return in this kind of environment," Horowitz said. "And then there will be others that will suffer at the hands of $6 corn."

Associated Press Business Writer Lauren LaCapra contributed to this report

First off: According to the agriculture department, corn planting is expected to remain at historically high levels but could be down this year because of the high expense of growing corn and favorable prices for other crops, such as soybeans.

Farmers are not going to plant less corn simply to keep the prices up. They are just planting more of other crops.

OK. This is what happens when Liberals make knee jerk reactions to gas price increases. This is what happens when the government gets involved with private business: The costs go up!

So, not only are we paying higher prices for gasoline, but now we are paying higher prices for food! Cows eat corn. Chickens eat corn. NOW, the prices for those foods will increase, so we can "save the planet" by buying inefficiant gas(ethanol)! While the US government chastised oil executives earlier in the week over high gas prices, the same government is deliberatley causing food prices to rise as well!! WTF?!

Last year, there was a tiny little protest over the rising cost of tortillas in Mexico City. Perhaps you heard of it? I doubt it. But here it is: Tens of thousands of people have marched through Mexico City in a protest against the rising price of tortillas.Save the Planet, kill it's inhabitants! No thought, just emotional, feel good, stupid ideas. The Liberal way. Maybe they can explain to tens of thousands of impoverished people, why they must pay more for their food? Ted Turner may be right when he say's that we will resort to canibalism if we do not "save the planet" soon. We will be forced into canabilism because the Liberas will starve us to death! Fuckin hypocrites!

Air America Host Suspended for Clinton Remarks

By Brian Stelter

Randi Rhodes, an afternoon host for the progressive Air America radio network, was suspended Thursday after repeatedly insulting Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at an event last month.

Ms. Rhodes used vulgar language that likened Mrs. Clinton to a prostitute at an event sponsored by KKGN, the Air America affiliate in the San Francisco area, on March 22. A video of Ms. Rhodes’ remarks was published to the video-sharing Web site YouTube on Tuesday, prompting condemnations by some bloggers.

In a statement, Charlie Kireker, the chair of Air America, said the radio network “encourages strong opinions about public affairs but does not condone such abusive, ad hominem language by our hosts.”

The network called Ms. Rhodes’ suspension “indefinite” and did not elaborate on the fate of her daily three-hour radio show. “The Randi Rhodes Show” is normally broadcast from 3 to 6 p.m. weekdays. Sam Seder, another Air America host, was scheduled to fill in for Ms. Rhodes on Thursday.

On the video, Ms. Rhodes is also shown using derogatory language to describe Geraldine A. Ferraro, a former congresswoman and a supporter of Mrs. Clinton. Ms. Ferraro resigned from a committee of Mrs. Clinton’s campaign last month after making controversial remarks about Senator Barack Obama.

Earlier this year, David Shuster, a reporter for MSNBC, was been suspended because of comments he made about Chelsea Clinton. Mr. Shuster said Ms. Clinton had been “pimped out” to make calls to superdelegates on behalf of her mother.

And here is the American Left. Here is Randi Rhodes a.k.a. P.O.S.


1) This was supposed to be funny?

2) Oh, ok, she can be suspended for saying this, but not for saying this: "A spoiled child (Bush) is telling us our Social Security isn't safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here's your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of 4 gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little b*stard. [audio of gun being cocked]." -- A "humor bit" from the Randi Rhodes show

3) This is what the left wants to turn America into. Scumbags, like Randi Rhodes. This is what the left claims our Forefathers meant, when they wrote the First Amendment. It is not. That is a deliberate distortion of the First Amendment. As decent citizens of America, it is our duty to curtail people like Randi Rhodes...to keep them in check. I call upon all decent people in America, to repeatedly spit in Randi Rhondes face if ever they come in contact with her. This woman is human garbage and a piece of shit. If you vote for Obama, this is what you are voting for.

4) This was supposed to be funny?

RELATED: Current Communist Goals, #'s:

24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.

Ted Turner - "The world has too many people"

Ted Turner: Global warming could lead to cannibalism
Billionaire environmentalist says world has too many peopleBy
MIKE MORRISThe Atlanta Journal-ConstitutionPublished on: 04/03/08

Failure to address global warming will have us all dead or eating each other by mid-century.

So says Ted Turner, the restaurateur, environmentalist and former media mogul whose controversial comments have earned him the nickname "Mouth of the South."

If steps aren't taken to stem global warming, "We'll be eight degrees hotter in 30 or 40 years and basically none of the crops will grow," Turner said during a wide-ranging, hour-long interview with PBS's Charlie Rose that aired Tuesday.

"Most of the people will have died and the rest of us will be cannibals," said Turner, 69. "Civilization will have broken down. The few people left will be living in a failed state — like Somalia or Sudan — and living conditions will be intolerable."

One way to combat global warming, Turner said, is to stabilize the population.

"We're too many people; that's why we have global warming," he said. "Too many people are using too much stuff."

Turner suggested that "on a voluntary basis, everybody in the world's got to pledge to themselves that one or two children is it."

Admitting that he's "always suffered from foot-in-the-mouth disease," Turner added, "I've gotten a lot better, though. It's been a long time since anybody caught me saying something stupid."

Turner went on to say that military budgets need to be cut "way back."

"Right now, the U.S. is spending $500 billion a year on the military, which is more than all 190 countries in the world put together," he said.

"The two countries that the military industrial complex and some of our politicians would like to demonize and make enemies are Russia and China," Turner said. "China just wants to sell us shoes. They're not building landing craft to attack the United States, and Russia wants to be our friends, too."

He said that despite the United States' huge military budget, "we can't win in Iraq."

"We're being beaten by insurgents who don't even have any tanks, they don't have a headquarters, they don't have a Pentagon, we don't even know if they have any generals," Turner told Rose.

Turner called the Iraqi insurgents "patriots" who "don't like us because we invaded their country and occupied it. Nobody likes to be invaded."

The CNN founder also said he thinks his old network has veered too far away from serious news, instead favoring lighter stories delivered by attractive female "chickies" and opinion-based news such as Lou Dobbs' show.

Hey, I know...we could start by eliminating the "billionaires" like Ted and Al Gore, so that we can then spread their wealth amongst the "poor"...they wouldn't mind that right, since they are always pushing wealth redistribution through their socialist, entitlement, government run programs!!

After all, what use is he to anyone now? He's old...he's tired and he's obviously INSANE! Oh yea, lest I forget a MORON to top it all off...so, yea...the world may be better off without the likes of idiots like him!

California State Senator Calls For Repeal of Cold War Communist Laws

Tuesday , April 01, 2008

LONG BEACH, Calif. —

Democratic state Sen. Alan Lowenthal is proposing legislation calling for California to drop Cold War-era laws aimed at penalizing individuals who join the Communist Party, saying the provisions are “outdated” and "unconstitutional."

Lowenthal's measure goes before the Senate Education Committee on Wednesday. It would repeal statutes that allow teachers and other public employees to be fired from their jobs if they are communists.

The courts have long declared such provisions unconstitutional and the legislation seeks only to protect people’s First Amendment rights, Lowenthal told FOXNews.com in an interview Monday. He said membership alone in any party should not cause an individual to lose his or her job,

"Being a member of the Communist Party in and of itself does not mean you advocate the overthrow of the government. It doesn’t mean we agree with them, but they’re not a threat to our survival," he said.

Though Lowenthal said he believes communism no longer threatens the U.S. government’s political well-being, nonetheless, his bill makes clear that one cannot teach communism with “the intent to inculcate a preference for communism.”

“There is literally not one part of this bill that does anything but repeal unconstitutional provisions of law,” added Lowenthal’s chief of staff John Casey. “It does not allow communism back in schools.”

Lowenthal made reference to the case of a University of California professor who was fired from her job in 1969 because of her membership in the Communist Party. Angela Davis, who was imprisoned for her association with Communists, was later acquitted of all charges and rehired by the university after courts ruled her dismissal to be unconstitutional.

But Lowenthal’s bill has sparked controversy among those who say the threat of communism is alive and well. Critics say the legislation will promote communism in public schools.

“At a time when California students are struggling to pass basic exams, Senator Lowenthal is focusing on communism — the very government system responsible for the deaths of an estimated 100 million people since its implementation,” said Meredith Turney, a legislative liaison with the Capitol Resource Family Impact.

“Communism is still a threat to us, and he [Lowenthal] wants to repeal laws that allow schools to fire educators who might be teaching such treason. His bill would actually allow the promotion of communism in California public schools,” Turney told FOXNews.com.

Lowenthal refutes the idea that his bill will encourage young, impressionable students to support a communist regime.

“The argument that we’re promoting communism is a fallacious one,” he said. “My issue is just to protect people and get rid of outdated codes."

“Senator Lowenthal’s bill seems utterly sensible,” added Georgetown University law professor David Cole.

“The Supreme Court long ago ruled that it violates the First Amendment right of association to deny employment — and even security clearances — based on membership in the Communist Party. California should bring its law in line with the Constitution, and bring its legislation into the 21st century. Guilt by association is never justified, but guilt by association with threats that no longer exist is not only unconstitutional, but irrational," Cole said.

Why in the Hell is this an issue??? Well...let me show you from one of my previous posts: Current Communist Goals Now, we can check off number 33, which say's: 33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus. NOTE: This is being requested by a Democrat. No doubt, a Liberal, Democrat. I'm not suprised.

Street-sweeper cameras eye illegal parking

April 2, 2008


By Gary Emerling - D.C. officials have put cameras on light poles, police cars and government buildings. Now they're preparing to put them on street sweepers in the latest example of increasing surveillance of city residents.

The D.C. Council yesterday unanimously passed legislation introduced at the request of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty that will let officials equip the District's tractor-sized street-sweeping machines with cameras that can scan license plates and photograph vehicles illegally parked in a street-sweeping zone.

The bill will face a final vote by the council next month and would expand the District's automated enforcement network that already monitors red-light running and speeding. The city also operates 74 surveillance cameras affixed to light poles and buildings in neighborhoods as part of an effort to deter crime.

But critics have charged that the latest devices serve as a moneymaker for the city and an intrusion on privacy instead of a public safety tool, as officials contend.

"The greater concern for us is the expansion of the program," said John B. Townsend II, a spokesman for AAA-Mid Atlantic. "I think it's hard to say to people that revenue is not one of their ulterior motives."

Scheduled street-cleaning service takes place weekly in every city ward except for Ward 3, and it is temporarily suspended during winter. Signs prohibit parking along curbs during a two-hour window while the service occurs, and violators caught by the cameras will receive a $30 citation in the mail.

Linda Grant, a spokeswoman for the D.C. Department of Public Works (DPW), which operates the street-sweeping program, said the legislation will provide the agency with an added tool to clean streets without obstruction and rid neighborhoods of trash and toxins.

DPW officials say parking control officers are able to enforce street-sweeping regulations on only about 20 percent of the routes.

A 2007 agency study showed that street sweepers removed pollutants like oil and grease at a rate of 10 pounds per mile swept, while chemicals like nitrogen and phosphorus were brushed up at a rate of three pounds per mile swept.

"If we can encourage people to change their behavior so that we can sweep, then that's our point," Miss Grant said. "It's not about ticket writing; it's about being able to clean the streets."

The cameras will cost roughly $40,000 each and will be placed on two street sweepers initially. Warning notices will be issued during the first 45 days of the program.

Miss Grant said her agency issued 114,000 tickets on streets with residential sweeping in fiscal 2006, and that the agency averages about 450 tickets per day for street-sweeping violations.

Officials say that if 20 percent of motorists violate regulations against parking in blocks marked for street sweeping in a given month, the city will collect about $213,000 in additional monthly revenue.

Mr. Townsend said he fears the program will place tourists and motorists who live outside the District at a disadvantage because they don't know about the automated enforcement.

But council member Jim Graham, Ward 1 Democrat and chairman of the Committee on Public Works and the Environment, also stressed that increasing revenue isn't the program's end goal.

"What we're going to find is with these increased violations, we're going to find a source of revenue generation, which is not our purpose at all," Mr. Graham said. "Our purpose here is to get clean streets."

The last paragraph is absolute BULLSHIT! It is a bold faced lie! THIS, is the slippery slope that we Conservative speak about! This is it, right here. And I will also point out to those on the left who whine about Republicans wanting to take away our right's, know this: All these cameras are in big cites. Big cities ran by LIBERAL DEMOCRATS!

Diplomats: China Has Provided IAEA With Intelligence on Iran's Nuke Program

Wednesday, April 02, 2008


China, an opponent of harsh U.N. Security Council sanctions against Iran, has nonetheless recently provided the International Atomic Energy Agency with intelligence linked to Tehran's alleged attempts to make nuclear arms, diplomats have told The Associated Press.

Beijing, along with Moscow, has acted as a brake within the council, consistently watering down a U.S.-led push to impose severe penalties on Tehran for its nuclear defiance since the first set of sanctions was passed in late 2006.

A Chinese decision to provide information for use in the agency's attempts to probe Iran's purported nuclear weapons program would appear to reflect growing international unease about how honest the Islamic republic has been in denying it ever tried to make such arms.
The new development was revealed by two senior diplomats who closely follow the IAEA probe of Iran's nuclear program. One commented late last week and the other Wednesday.

The IAEA declined comment, and nobody was picking up phones at the Iranian and Chinese missions to the IAEA.

John Bolton, the previous U.S. ambassador to the United Nations and before that the U.S. undersecretary of state in charge of the Iran nuclear dossier, said any such Chinese move would be "potentially significant" because of Beijing's former military ties to Tehran.

In a telephone call from Washington, Bolton said America believed that the Chinese had helped Iran develop its nuclear program, particularly in one area of uranium enrichment, "plus they had cooperation on ballistic missile programs as well."

The diplomats said Beijing was the most surprising entry among a fairly substantial list of nations recently forwarding information to the agency that adds to previously provided intelligence, and which could be relevant in attempts to probe Iran for past or present nuclear weapons research.

But they said several other countries not normally considered to be in the anti-Iran camp had also done so in recent weeks.

The diplomats — who demanded anonymity because their information was confidential — declined to name individual nations. But they attributed a generally increased flow of information to the U.N. nuclear watchdog to concerns sparked by a multimedia presentation to the 35 IAEA board members by the agency in February about intelligence previously forwarded by member states on Iran's alleged clandestine nuclear arms program.

One of the diplomats said the agency also was on the lookout for misleading information provided it, either inadvertently or in attempts to falsely implicate Iran.

One example, he said was a document showing experiments with implosion technology that can be used to detonate a nuclear device. While the document appeared genuine, it was unclear whether it originated from Iran, said the diplomat.

Suspected weapons-related work outlined in the February presentation and IAEA reports preceding it include:

—uranium conversion linked to high explosives testing and designs of a missile re-entry vehicle, all apparently interconnected through involvement of officials and institutions;

—procurement of so-called "dual use" equipment and experiments that also could be used in both civilian and military nuclear programs; and

—Iran's possession of a 15-page document outlining how to form uranium metal into the shape of a warhead.

A U.S. intelligence estimate late last year said Tehran worked on nuclear weapons programs until 2003, while Israel and other nations say such work continued past that date.

Tehran continues uranium enrichment, which can generate the fissile core of nuclear warheads, and has led to three sets of Security Council sanctions but insists it is developing the technology only for its other use — power generation.

It denies ever trying to make atomic arms and last month declared the issue of its purported nuclear weapons strivings — and any attempt to investigate them — closed, asserting that information suggesting it ever had a nascent nuclear arms program is fabricated.

But the agency has signaled it is not giving up on its efforts to investigate purported military aspects of Tehran's nuclear activities. Other diplomats told the AP that deputy director general Olli Heinonen planned to meet in the next few days with Ali-Ashgar Soltanieh, Iran's chief delegate to the agency, to press for answers.

Ahead of that tentative meeting, Gregory L. Schulte, the chief U.S. delegate to the IAEA, urged Tehran to end its stonewalling. He told the AP that with the next IAEA report due in about two months, time was running out for Iran to "explain these serious indications of troubling activities."

An IAEA report in February said suspicions about most past Iranian nuclear activities had eased or been laid to rest. But it also noted that Iran had rejected the information provided by IAEA member nations to the agency for its probe of suspected weapons research as false and irrelevant.

It also noted that Iran had blocked agency requests to talk to key officials suspected of possible involvement in past military nuclear programs, among them one identified by diplomats as nuclear engineer Mohsen Fakhrizadeh.

They told the AP that he and others active as academics in Iran's civilian nuclear faculties are suspected by the agency of key roles in secret nuclear activities with a possible military dimension, including the procurement of "dual use" equipment.

In a summary recently forwarded to the AP, the National Council of Resistance of Iran, an opposition group that claims to have informants inside the Iranian government, identified three others as Revolutionary Guard commander Fereydoon Abbasi, Seyed Jaber Safdari and Mohammed Mehdi Nejad-Nouri.

It said the three and others are involved in clandestine nuclear weapons-related research at three Iranian universities: Beheshti; Malek Ahstar and Imam Hossein.

Asked for verification, a senior diplomat of an IAEA member state said that a fact check run by his country's relevant agency showed the claims to be generally accurate. Another senior diplomat also said the information appeared to be fairly reliable.

Question to Libs: Can we invade when Iran does get the bomb or would we still be warmongers? Idiots.

Gay Partner Initially Barred by Pentagon

Apr 1, 8:58 PM (ET)

By FREDERIC J. FROMMER

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon at first blocked Rep. Tammy Baldwin's domestic partner from traveling on a military plane with a congressional delegation on a trip to Europe but gave in after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intervened.

The Pentagon said it was merely following House rules, which do not define domestic partners as spouses. Pelosi's office countered that the Pentagon has its own rules about who can go on its planes.

Both sides agree that Defense Secretary Robert Gates reversed the decision to keep Baldwin's partner, Lauren Azar, off the plane after getting contacted by Pelosi, D-Calif.

"It's a matter of fairness that spouses should be allowed to go, and she is Ms. Baldwin's spouse," said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly. He said that Baldwin had raised the exclusion with a colleague, who mentioned it to Pelosi. The lawmakers visited France, the Czech Republic and Poland last month.

Baldwin, a Wisconsin Democrat and openly gay House member, declined to talk about the incident, which was first reported by the political newspaper Politico. Azar, a Madison energy law attorney who serves on the Wisconsin Public Service Commission, did not return a call seeking comment Tuesday.

The Pentagon still has in place its "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which bars gays from serving openly in the military. But that had nothing to do with this case, said Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell.

"This is strictly about following our statutory guidelines and the House rules," he said.

Morrell said that Pelosi asked Gates to honor her decision to waive House rules to allow Azar to travel and that Gates asked her to put that request in writing.

"She did so, and he - in this one case only - agreed to it," Morrell said. "This is not a precedent by any means. This does not open the doors for life partners to travel on congressional delegations." But Gates has agreed to review future requests on a case-by-case basis, Morrell said.

Daly said that both the Pentagon and Pelosi had to issue waivers.

In her letter to Gates last month, Pelosi wrote that she was using "the waiver authority inherent in the speaker's travel policies to authorize the travel of Ms. Lauren Azar to accompany Representative Tammy Baldwin on a congressional delegation scheduled for the March congressional work period. I request that you in turn use your waiver authority to facilitate Ms. Azar's participation in the delegation."

"It's a matter of fairness that spouses should be allowed to go, and she is Ms. Baldwin's spouse," said Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly.

Ms. Baldwin's spouse??? SPOUSE???

Spouse:
–noun 1. either member of a married pair in relation to the other; one's husband or wife.
–verb (used with object) 2. Obsolete. to join, give, or take in marriage.


Sorry pal, she has no spouse. This is how they are working this: Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly is speaking as if gay marriage has been accepted by mainstream America. Well let me clue you in pal, WE HAVEN'T! So stop speaking as if we have! The Libs think they are so slick when they try to speak as if something is commonplace. Nice try bonehead, but no go!

Obama Suggests Jesus Christ Not the Only Way to Heaven

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven during a campaign event in North Carolina.

Thu, Mar. 27, 2008 Posted: 18:28:19 PM EST


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

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that Jesus Christ is not the only way to heaven during a campaign event in North Carolina.

While answering a question about his Christian faith, Obama said he believes that Jesus Christ died for his sins and through God’s grace and mercy he could have “everlasting life,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

But he also believes Jews and Muslims and non-believers who live moral lives are as much “children of God” as he is, according to The Associated Press.

As an example, he spoke about his late mother who was “not a believer.”

"[S]he was the kindest, most decent, generous person that I have ever known," Obama said, according to the Times. "I'm sure she is in heaven, even though she may not have subscribed to everything that I subscribe to."

Obama’s response came amid the recent controversy surrounding his former Chicago pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who made inflammatory remarks about race and America in sermons he delivered many years ago.

The Illinois senator, who has made religion a cornerstone of his campaign, has denounced the comments – which included “God damn America” for its racism – but refuses to distance himself from the pastor, whom he compares to an uncle.

During his response on Wednesday, Obama praised his church, Trinity United Church of Christ, especially its choir, and said it was very warm and welcoming and is like any other church in America in that it exists to praise God.

Obama also said he believes in putting the Gospel to action here on Earth and treating people with “dignity” and “respect” as children of God, according to the Los Angeles Times.

Currently, Obama is leading the Democratic race with 1,622 delegates compared to Hillary Clinton’s 1,485, according to CNN.

Jennifer Riley
Christian Post Reporter

"As an example, he spoke about his late mother who was “not a believer.”

"[S]he was the kindest, most decent, generous person that I have ever known," Obama said, according to the Times. "I'm sure she is in heaven, even though she may not have subscribed to everything that I subscribe to."

Nah, I'm pretty sure she is in Hell buddy. Did she support abortion like you do?

Obama: What a dick!

April 02, 2008 2:02 PM

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: He's been running for president for 13 months and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., may be showing some of the wear and tear of the campaign trail.

One particularly aggressive person -- who, according to the campaign, may be a professional autograph seeker/seller who needed 'proof' that he actually been with the candidate in order to sell the Senator's autograph(s) online -- seemed to fray Obama's nerves as the Senator made an unadvertised stop an Italian market in Philly on Wednesday.

Watch the VIDEO HERE.

In three separate acts -- perhaps entitled "The Irritation of Obama" -- the normally calm and collected candidate grew increasingly agitated:

Run in #1:
Outside the first shop, on the way in
Man: "Senator, can I have a quick picture with you?"
(Obama has his arm on the guys arm in a very nice way, like he does when he shakes a hand but refuses to take a picture and walks away)
Man: "It will take you two seconds. Don't cram me, I'm not doing anything to anybody. Jesus."

Run in #2:
After the first shop
Man: "Senator, can I get a picture with you?"
Obama: (slightly annoyed) "You are wearing me out brother."
Man: "I got one with Hillary Clinton, and I got one with McCain. Come on Senator, that's not right."

Run in #3:
In the street
Man: "Senator, can I please, a quick one?"
Obama: (very annoyed) "No, you know what, no."
Man: "Can I just say something to you real fast?"
Obama: "Yea, you can."
Man: "I had one with Hillary Clinton and I had one with Senator McCain."
Obama: "I am sure you do. Because when I was trying to talk to some kids –- and, I know, look...
Man: "No, my wife is a school teacher and she was there. She had to go back and that wasn't right. What, won't you just take a picture with me? I'm not asking you for a autograph; it's for my family.
Obama: "Yeah, well, whatever. Just take it. I won't be smiling. Because you're wearing me out. . . No no, you've been really rude about it. Just take a shot."

Obama and the man did not take a shot. The man was still arguing with the Senator when Secret Service stepped in (non confrontationally) to provide the denouement.

Take the flippin picture!! Is that how you treat the people that you may lead(ha, ha, ha)? What a dick!

SCOTUS Rejects Authority of World Court

by Ted Cruz (more by this author)
Posted 04/01/2008 ET
Updated 04/02/2008 ET


Over the past few years many Americans have become deeply concerned that judges have begun relying more and more on foreign law to decide questions of U.S. constitutional law. One doesn’t have to be a constitutional scholar to object to foreign laws and foreign courts -- laws that are not enacted by our democratic government and judges who are not selected as our Constitution provides -- ruling on Americans’ rights and the powers of American government. These concerns are largely well founded, and reflect the increasing degree to which modern constitutional adjudication has become altogether unmoored from the text and original understanding of the Framers.

Yet an even bigger issue was before the Supreme Court this Term. In Medellín v. Texas, the issue was not simply whether U.S. judges should consult foreign law to guide their decision-making; instead, the central question before the U.S. Supreme Court was whether the United Nations’ World Court has the legal authority to bind the courts of the United States. In other words, the issue was whether decisions of the World Court are superior to those of the Supreme Court, and whether Americans will be governed by the decisions of foreign judges in The Hague.

Thankfully, by a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court got this one right.

The case began fifteen years ago, when two teenage girls were brutally gang-raped and murdered in northwest Houston, just a few blocks from where I attended church as a child. All six gang members were caught, convicted, and unanimously sentenced to death (except for one who was too young to be eligible for capital punishment). Now approaching two decades after this horrific crime, only one gang member has so far had his sentence carried out.

Another of the gang members, Jose Ernesto Medellín, has seen his case become an international cause célèbre, making it all the way to the World Court and twice to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Last week, in a landmark ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected all of Medellín’s claims and paved the way for the victims’ grieving families to finally see justice. But the issues in Medellín v. Texas extend well beyond this one confessed murderer.

Medellin argued that the U.S. Supreme Court was bound by the World Court, and that the World Court had already decided he deserved a new trial. By a vote of 6-3, the U.S. Supreme Court emphatically concluded that the World Court has no such authority. That decision was correct because the Constitution doesn’t grant foreign courts any authority over U.S. courts, and it was critical to preserving our Nation’s fundamental sovereignty.
How on earth did this Texas murder case get to the World Court? Well, in 2003, the nation of Mexico sued the United States in the International Court of Justice (the formal name of the World Court), which is the judicial arm of the United Nations. And, in 2004, the World Court ruled for Mexico.

Mexico’s suit was filed on behalf of 51 Mexican nationals, including Medellín, all of whom were convicted murderers on death row throughout the United States. Our southern neighbor argued, correctly, that these Mexican nationals had a right under the Vienna Convention on Consular Affairs (a treaty ratified by the United States in 1969) to contact their local Mexican consulates for assistance. As a result -- even though the suit raised no questions concerning the proven guilt of these 51 murderers -- Mexico sought to have all of their convictions annulled.

The problem was that most of the 51, including Medellín, had failed to raise any Vienna Convention claims at trial, and the usual rule in American criminal law is that if you fail to raise a claim at trial, that claim is forfeited.

Not overly concerned with the usual rules of criminal law in the United States, the World Court agreed with Mexico across the board and issued a remarkable ruling: it “ordered” the United States to reconsider the convictions and death sentences of all 51 convicted murderers.

The World Court ruling was unprecedented. In over 200 years of our Nation’s history, no foreign tribunal has ever before asserted the authority to bind U.S. courts, much less to reopen final criminal convictions. And, armed with the decision of the World Court, Medellín argued that American courts had no option but to obey.

Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court disagreed. In an opinion authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the Court held that the World Court decision cannot be enforced in U.S. courts.

The Supreme Court’s decision was a victory for the State of Texas, but, even more importantly, it was a victory for the American people. Medellín’s argument -- which three Justices on the Court would have largely adopted -- would fundamentally undermine the sovereignty of our Nation.

The United States Constitution vests sovereignty in the Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, the President, the fifty States, and ultimately, in We the People. Had Medellín prevailed, American sovereignty and independence would have been gravely undermined.

If Medellín had prevailed, it would have elevated the World Court above the Supreme Court of the United States, given that foreign court binding authority, and made its far-away judges the final arbiters of the law that governs American citizens.

Nobody disputes that the United States should comply with treaty obligations, and both the federal and state governments have gone to extraordinary lengths to ensure foreign nationals are notified of their rights under the Vienna Convention. But that is not a reason to disturb the convictions of unquestionably guilty murderers.

Jose Ernesto Medellín voluntarily confessed, in writing, and bragged about raping and killing these young girls as they pleaded for their lives. A jury of his peers unanimously sentenced him to death, and the families of the girls he murdered have waited far too long to see that sentence carried out.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that the victims’ families won’t have to wait much longer for justice to be served.

This was kind of obvious, don't ya think?