October 30, 2008

Sarah Palin delivers speech on special needs

National Review editors have posted a nice piece - perhaps the only piece in widely-read media that will be written - highlighting Sarah Palin's recent speech on special needs child education and the school voucher idea that might save it.

Palin, and John McCain alike, support granting school vouchers to parents so that the government education money is tied to the child, not the school. This frees parents up to find a school - sometimes specialized, like an art, religious, occupational or special needs-oriented - that will best address the education they want for their kids. Privately-owned institutions would also have more freedom to address problems with individual students, as the class and school sizes would stay low (unlike a public school that all types of kids from all jursdictions attend, where the general populations are higher).

Palin's three-fold plan includes mandating "federal funding for IDEA [the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act], which requires state and local public-school systems to make full provision for children with special needs." Palin also emphasized that a personal approach is necessary for making any real progress in the area of education as a whole; as opposed to simply throwing more money into public schools, more choices need to be given to parents so that, much like the health insurance industry, government red-tape is eliminated and federal guidelines do not prevent children from getting the individualized education they need.

Please read the article by clicking this link.

October 27, 2008

Starting the week off with a laugh

According to CNN.com, Sarah Palin is "going rogue."

One of the McCain advisors claims Palin has gone "off message" several times and may even be doing it deliberately.

Oh my goodness, someone has alerted the press that Sarah Palin has an opinion of her own! Egad! This is why women shouldn't be allowed in politics!

By 'women,' I mean the presumed McCain advisor. Here's what they (she) said:

"She [Palin] is a diva. She takes no advice from anyone," said this McCain adviser. "She does not have any relationships of trust with any of us, her family or anyone else. Also, she is playing for her own future and sees herself as the next leader of the party."

No relationships within her own family? Yeah, that family looks pretty broken to me...

The advisor finishes with this Tyra Banks-like explanation:

"Remember: Divas trust only unto themselves, as they see themselves as the beginning and end of all wisdom."

She sounds a bit more diva than credible witness to the Palin express supposedly running amok.

The original article is posted here. Judge for yourself exactly who is throwing whom under the bus.

October 25, 2008

Planned genocide in the black community

I love black people.

I respect their culture, their commitment to family, their loyalty and ability to survive and strive toward better lives for themselves. And I do not believe that a small percentage make for a proven stereotype about black people (i.e. they're all on welfare), or that predominantly black neighborhoods are bad, or that all black people love violence and crime!

Which is why it grieves me to see black people trying to hurt their own brothers and sisters by promoting abortion.

This year we've heard an outspoken proponent (Jeremiah Wright) spewing a completely convoluted idea about black people being held back "by the white man." While Wright's commitment to black liberation theology is totally immoral, he has brought to national light that there are challenges in the black community that need to be addressed, for the good of the whole country.

Abortion is the biggest of these challenges. To be precise, call it an "epidemic."

There are significantly more abortion clinics in black neighborhoods throughout the U.S. than in white, or even hispanic communities. Black women account for 37% of abortions performed in the U.S., and the rate of black abortions is 15 million over the past thirty years. Abortion now ranks as the #1 killer of black people in the U.S., topping all disease, accident and crime deaths.

Planned Parenthood is the largest, most accessible abortion clinic in the U.S. Of course, they do provide other services, such as free contraception, adoption options and family planning education. That is, sadly, unless you are a black woman. In that case you will be encouraged to seek an abortion, destroying any chance that child had to have a life, and leaving you to struggle with the emotional trauma and regret of that choice for the rest of yours.

Barack Obama wants to make sure black women have that choice at their fingertips.

Just one more reason not to support this man as leader of our nation.

Related video:

One man's ode to his aborted child
Happy Birthday

Post sources:
Guttmacher.org statistics on abortion
Black Genocide.org

October 24, 2008

Pretty, Witty and Mommy: A faux feminist's worst nightmare

Call it old school cattiness if you like.
just don't care for Sarah Palin.

But what makes Palin so offensive to these women? Let's look at what "feminists" believe in to get a better picture.

Sarah Palin is pretty, in a womanly way. First, we all know if you support "women's rights" you can't care a lick what you look like because physical appearance distinguishes us from men. This woman thinks John McCain chose Palin as VP runningmate based solely on her physical appearance.

Sarah Palin is pretty. Really, naturally pretty; women and men alike recognizing it. And that's a problem.

Palin dresses nicely. Her suits are designer and come with a price tag most of us aren't used to. That is, unless you're an executive, lawyer, doctor, anchorwoman (Diane Sawyer) or talk show host (Oprah), in which case you are comfortable acknowledging that dressing professionally is part of your job. If you're an editorial cartoonist, however, Palin's suit choice can easily be linked to her presumed stupidity (see the Oct. 24th cartoon). After all, who on earth would pay those prices? Only a woman who doesn't spend her reduced wages (compared to a man in the same job) wisely.

Sarah Palin has a lot of kids. One of them is a retarded baby that will certainly cause her problems because of his "special needs." It must be on Palin's mind; she's always talking about those darn special needs kids. In fact, Trig is already inhibiting her career; will Palin be able to juggle being VP and breast feed at the same time?

Palin's large family also points to her lack of confidence that her career would fulfill her, like any feminist's would. If she were smart, she would've had her two and gone back to work. After all, think of where she could be now if she hadn't been taking care of all those kids at home?

Palin's witty and charming. Palin is quick with a joke that endears her to reg'ler folk. At a rally in Florida, which country singer Gretchen Wilson attended, Palin spotted her in the crowd and said, "Someone called me a redneck once and... I said 'thank you!' "

This is an obvious weakness of hers for two reasons: a real feminist would never show any sign of vulnerability. Remember when Hilary Clinton cried during an event? And look where she is now. Secondly, smart feminists now that the majority of women out there are backwoods, baby-having, religion-clinging, out-of-touch, uneducated dopes. And feminists for sure can't be seen associating with them.

Palin stands her ground. Now, normally this would be a good thing. If Katie Couric had been berating Gloria Steinem (whose name be blessed), for example, in the same way she recently did Palin, Steinem would be laughed out of academia if she didn't fight back. Double street cred if Steinem chose not to answer the questions at all.

But for Palin, not answering with the exact words Couric is trying to leech out of you means you're stupid.

Forget that a tenant of feminism is supporting other women- in professional careers, for example, taking care not to join in with men as they belittle and discredit fellow women. In any other case, this would mean NOT reposting stories in which people call Palin dumb, Caribou Barbie, inadequate, stupid, a liar, or worse.

If feminists held to their own professed tenants, they'd be clamoring to interview with Sarah Palin.

If they didn't promote abortion, wanting women to choose their own lives over them and their baby's...

If they admitted that they'd prefer their fellow feminists to be woman-lovers, or at the very least, man-haters, and traditional marriage opposers...

If they admitted that conservatism- in any area- just doesn't mesh with their views...

If they stopped being hypocrites by voting according to their feelings about a candidate and not because of principle...

If feminists would for once be honest and call themselves something else, I'd be happy.
Because I'd like to get on board with equality for women, but not if it means giving up on Sarah Palin and every bit of real progress for women that she stands for.

October 23, 2008

U.K. parents may be charged for assisting son's suicide

Parents: This post may be extremely troubling for you given the subject matter, assisted suicide of a young man. Please do not read if you think it hit too close to home emotionally.


Mark and Julie James may be charged with assisting their son's suicide, which could be punished by up to 14 years in prison.

Daniel James, a 23-year-old rugby player, was paralyzed from the chest down in an accident during a practice last year. He recently told his parents he couldn't live without being able to play rugby. His parents sympathized and flew with Daniel to Switzerland, where assisted suicide is legal, to help him end his life.

Daniel James

Mark and Julie were not directly involved in the process of Daniel's assisted suicide. Except, of course, if you count their transporting him and supporting his decision to take his own life.

The question is, well.. there are many questions. Is it a moral right, as a Bristish philosopher is asserting, of Daniel's to kill himself? How accountable are his parents in their involvement? Did they, did he, have other options- like counseling or support of fellow rugby-playing parapalegics (one did try to talk with Daniel to empathize)- that were not explored better? Does it make a difference that Daniel was over 18? How old is old enough to decide what to do with your life? For that matter, just whose life is it anyway?

For Christians, our truth is that God gave us our lives and it is His will to decide what to do with them. As frustrated, annoyed, joyed, impatient, thrilled, content, uncertain, or just plain happy we ever are about the turns our lives take, we can rest in God's perfect will. Sometimes that is all we have to rest in. Believe me, I know what that feels like, and I know you do, too. It can be extremely trying of your emotions, not to mention put a great strain on close relationships and even your sanity.

But.. and this is a big but... we can rest in God's will. Which means if we were faced with a huge decision- let's say a life or death decision- we could put it to prayer and search the Scriptures, counsel with our pastors; we can search God for an answer. And if we don't get one, we can wait on Him, knowing He will bring us to the right decision in His time.

You might call that frustrating, but there is great hope is trusting God. You're relying on Him, and who He is, to come through for you. I am not to be trusted, this I am learning; my emotions are erratic and usually don't properly reflect how I really feel about something. So how can I decide what to do if I don't even know how to judge what kind of outcome I want?

For Mark and Julie James this would be a problem, too. How do they know what was "right" for their son? How do they make that choice without their own feelings being tied into it?

Apparently, they were trying to support their son's choice. What a tangled web. How did he conclude it was all over? Rugby was out of the picture; is that enough reason to end one's life?

I don't have any conclusion to this. It burns in my heart and my motherly-instinct to think that parents could chooise to give up their son at the age of 23, and to give up on any more life, better or worse, that he might live. I know he was in incredible pain and had gone through several unsuccessful surgeries to restore feeling to his limbs. But... death was the decision?

Part of me wants to say that Mark and Julie James should have stepped over their son's decision and said no, we won't help you do this, argued for his future. There is a way to say 'no' in love, isn't there? But would that have meant Daniel would take his life in a more painful way, by himself, and die in resentment of his parents? Would that be worse?

Please comment.

October 22, 2008

Midweek "Why am I not surprised?!"

If San Franciscan voters give it the OK next month on Proposition K, prostitutes will no longer be arrested, investigated, or prosecuted for selling sex!

Leading the country even ahead of Las Vegas, NV (aka "sin city"), San Fran-sicko (courtesy Michael Savage) would become the first major city in our fair America to decriminalize prostitution.

Congratulations are in order to Sodom for yet another progressive political move. U.S. Constitution, you are so over!

pictured below: the presumed source of evil eminates from downtown San Fran

October 21, 2008

Biden wonders whether Obama is qualified to be President

Check the sidebar for article link! -------->>>>>>>>>

October 20, 2008

Colin Powell endorses Obama, but... why?

It's pretty late in the game for an endorsement of Obama to make a difference, isn't it?

Sure, the endorser matters, and depending on the type of "expert" opinion he/she gives regular folks like you and I could be swayed. After all, Joe the plumber is causing a big change in the independent vote, which now swings toward John McCain. Joe's grace under pressure and unpretentious, no-nonsense (and well-informed) attitude are inspiring to many voters who feel intimidated- or just annoyed- by the elitist, we-know-better-than-you personas of the Democrats and their accompanying media pundits.

And on the liberally-leaning conservative side of the voting population, Powell is a champion. He quibbled with Bush (albeit, privately) about whether or not to engage in combat in Iraq, pushed forward the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" legislation which allowed gay men and women to join the military without revealing their sexual agenda, and publicly declared that Saddam Hussein was actively producing wmds. His first White House appointment was as National Security Advisor to President Reagan, and he's a highly decorated Vietnam veteran too.

He's shown himself to be cautioned and thoughtful; even when it's turned out to look like foot-dragging he's stuck to his ground. All in all he's a pretty respectable advisor and military man.
But does the demographic he appeals to large enough to tip the voting scale toward a "President Obama?"

Powell's reasons for supporting Obama are also a little sketchy. It's not about race, Powell says. Ok, right. But his other reasons for supporting Obama are vague and lacking in power. We're supposed to believe that: "Powell's endorsement may also sway some voters who were hesitant to vote for Obama because they felt he was not ready to be the nation's commander in chief, said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst." (CNN.com) Ok, but why exactly?

"It was extremely reassuring for this experienced military leader, a general, someone who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who was secretary of state..." (Keep in mind at this point Schneider is still talking about Powell, not Obama!)

"...to endorse Barack Obama and say, 'His world experience, his commitment and knowledge of national security are fine. You can vote for him without those kinds of reservations,' " Schneider said."

Fine? Obama's "world experience" and "knowledge of national security" are just fine? Sorry, but I want a President whose knowledge and experience are above average, his policies innovative and reflective of the people, not of his own ideology alone. I don't want fine, I want excellent.

Powell also cites that, "over the last seven weeks, the approach of the Republican Party and Mr. McCain has become narrower and narrower." But shouldn't McCain's focus become narrower as he sets sights on the most important issues for the American people, so that when he is in office he knows where to begin? I don't want my newly-elected President to start thinking about his major moves after he unpacks the boxes!

Finally, in regard to the economic bailout situation, "Powell said he found McCain 'a little unsure as how to deal with the economic problems that we were having, and almost every day, there was a different approach to the problem' (CNN.com). Again, if McCain was trying to come up with several solutions and some of them didn't work, so be it. At least he was trying! There has been no better moment than, at the recent "roasting" of Obama, McCain joked sarcastically that Obama would be ready for all drastic economic changes, even a rapid rebound. If that were to happen, McCain guffawed, Obama would halt all campaigning and rush to D.C. to stop it.

So, is Powell's endorsement the "warm glass of milk" that Schneider thinks it is to voters yet undecided? It does bear a resemblance: it's tepid and uncontroversial, bland and goes down easy. Yet it has no substance. In comparison, McCain as of late looks like a shot of whiskey.

October 18, 2008

John Stossel's "Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics"

I try not to kvell about news.

After all, with the "dinosaur media" (t.v.) consistently feeling out their unchecked power in new and frightening ways (like Diane Sawyer only sticking up for Obama, for example), it's hard to even take what they're saying seriously. When you suspect them of stacking the deck so viciously, why even play the game?

Having said that, I've been a fan of 20/20 since I was about twelve. Back then Barbara Walters was my gal, and I could make a strong argument that her presence on Friday night t.v. inspired me to personal journaling, college journalism and, ultimately, this blog. But she's since gone awol, indiscreetly pandering to the liberals in a most disturbing way. I used to look up to her, for goodness sake; now she's on "The View!" Several other tried-and-true anchors have also turned left recently, which leaves wide open space in the weekly news genre.

Enter John Stossel.

Though I don't always agree with him, he has proven himself to be the most objective journalist on the scene nowadays. He's put together two great specials in the past year, one on the stupidity of our students (pre-college) and his "Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics."

In the latter, Stossel takes a stance against the broad scope of government, citing several ways in which more bureaucracy has been equal to less progress in the actual arenas it's trying to control, including the saving the family farm, regulating campaign spending and rebuilding of homes after natural disasters like Hurricane Katrina. His interviews with economists and politicians are revealing of their agendas in surprising ways.

These topics may sound boring, but trust me and watch the videos. For me they are a welcome break from the relentless individualistic campaigning of the two presidential candidates, while simultaneously talking about the candidates and how government works (and doesn't) in a broader sense. Eye-opening!

I've put them all here so you don't have to search on You Tube.

October 10, 2008

McDonald's agrees not to promote 'gay' agenda

I referenced this a couple days ago (see: "Folsom Street Blues") in regard to companies that donate to the gay agenda. By way of the Americans for Truth website, I found out McDonald's had donated $20,000 to the National Gay & Lesbian Chamber of Commerce. The American Family Association quickly promoted a boycott of the fast food chain.

The AFA has now called their efforts a success since the McDonald's executive who had been serving on the NGLCC board decided to step down from his position and take a job for McDonald's Canada. McDonald's also stated that the executive liason position to the NGLCC would not be filled by anyone in the future.

"McDonald's stated that the company would remain neutral in the culture war surrounding homosexual marriage," the AFA said.

So... your only conflict of conscience now is how bad that food is for you! But their fries are good...

You can find the full story on World Net Daily here.

Firey Friday!

Ah, who am I kidding? I'm always on fire about something.

Today it's that I was asked to stay on at my job for another 30 days, working a normal M-F, 8-5 workday! This news comes after finding out only yesterday our CAT (catastrophe) unit is being shut down and disseminated, thus eliminating my temp position.

So how psyched am I? Very! Don't get me wrong; my job finder has been good about setting me up with things back-to-back, but getting a direct request is waaay better (sorta makes me look better, too).

Giving credit where it is due: Thank God for another job. He is continuing to bring these to me even though I am who I am, and don't deserve any of it. Praise God for His being so good, and not just, and loving toward me (and you)!

ps. Thanks everyone for the bday well wishes!

October 8, 2008

ACORN voter registrars say, "We don't know if a card is fictitious"

A national voter-registration group admitted to Cuyahoga County election officials Tuesday that it cannot eliminate fraud from its operation.

The group blamed inefficiency and lack of resources for problems such as being unable to spot duplicate voter-registration cards or cards that may have been filled out by workers to make quotas.

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, has turned in at least 65,000 cards to the Cuyahoga County Board of Elections in the last year. The board has investigated potentially fraudulent cards since August.

The group has faced similar inquiries in other large Ohio counties. And Nevada state authorities recently raided ACORN's Las Vegas headquarters searching for evidence of fraud, according to the Associated Press.

Local representatives of the organization told Cuyahoga board members that they don't have the resources to identify fraudulent cards turned in by paid canvassers who are told to register low- and moderate-income voters.

Cuyahoga election workers flagged about 50 names on suspicious cards. The cards were to register the same names, raising the possibility that canvassers shared information when trying to make quotas.

"This is not something you can catch with your internal controls, apparently," said board member Sandy McNair at the meeting.

"Not perfectly, no," replied Mari Engelhardt, ACORN political director for Ohio.
Once stacks of registration cards are returned to ACORN offices, workers verify information by calling the phone number provided on the card, the board was told. If information is missing or ACORN identifies a suspicious card, it is given to the Board of Elections with a notice that it could be problematic.

ACORN workers who double-check cards can't be expected to remember names and addresses previously verified, said Teresa James, an attorney for Project Vote representing ACORN.

Engelhardt said supervisors sometimes fail to prevent different canvassers from attempting to register the same person.

"We do not have the resources to know if a particular card is fictitious," James said.
Voter-registration organizations cannot, by law, withhold registration cards from election boards. The groups are obligated to report potential errors, a spokesman for Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner told The Plain Dealer.

Kris Harsh, ACORN's head Cleveland organizer, blamed the elections board for not scrutinizing ACORN's suspicious cards. He said the group can't be expected to catch everything.

"None of us have ever achieved perfection," Harsh said.

The elections board will continue its inquiry Monday, when it expects testimony from three people it will subpoena after a review of the ACORN investigation. The names appeared on multiple registration cards submitted by ACORN and other organizations.

Posted by Joe Guillen/Plain Dealer Reporter (cleveland.com/blog) October 07, 2008

*Emphasis mine

October 7, 2008

Less Money, More Problems

Mortgages, Fannie, Freddie, "predatory lending," CSA, Obama, ACORN and Clinton: what do all these things have in common? They're all components of an economic mystery that recently surfaced and I, for one, am disastrously confused by.

Fortunately for me there is National Review, full of intelligent and forthright journalists who fill in all the gaps for me.

And fortunately for you, you've got me to read and report back to you. Ain't life grand?

Stanley Kurtz wrote an excellent article today about the whole loan debachle. Covering the history of these "militants unafraid to confront the powers that be" (author Heidi Swarts) from 1977 to 2008, this informative piece will bring you up-to-speed on the financial tumult, who's involved, and how it all turns out to be a good ol' Democratic conspiracy (they set 'em up, knock 'em down, then blame it on someone else!).
For anyone whose head is spinning from the Stock Market stats and the confusing buying-lending speak of the pundits, this one's for you. Please note the systematic accomplishment of ACORN's strategy (paraphrased from article):

1. [Use] provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA) to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards.

2. Pressure local banks into offering poor or minority applicants a 5-percent down-payment rate, instead of the normal 10-20 percent (leaving all the responsibility of these mortgages to the local banks, because Fannie and Freddie would, at that rate, refuse to buy them).

3. Accuse Fannie and Freddie of loan bias, thus coercing them into relaxing credit standards on the loans they would buy, so they are politically-moved into buying them.

"Housing activists have been pushing hard to improve housing for the poor by extracting greater financial support from the country’s two highly profitable secondary mortgage-market companies. Thanks to the help of sympathetic lawmakers, it appeared...that they may succeed."
Chicago Tribune, 1991

4. Celebrate the victory of formerly-bankrupt, poor credit historied peoples being able to mortgage a home. (Um... hooray?)

Here's the excerpt:

At first, ACORN’s anti-bank actions were relatively few in number. However, under a provision of the 1989 savings and loan bailout pushed by liberal Democratic legislators, like Massachusetts Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, lenders were required to compile public records of mortgage applicants by race, gender, and income. Although the statistics produced by these studies were presented in highly misleading ways, groups like ACORN were able to use them to embarrass banks into lowering credit standards.

At the same time, a wave of banking mergers in the early 1990's provided an opening for ACORN to use CRA to force lending changes. Any merger could be blocked under CRA, and once ACORN began systematically filing protests over minority lending, a formerly toothless set of regulations began to bite.
Planting the Seeds of Disaster, Stanley Kurtz

October 6, 2008

Folsom Street Blues

*** warning * graphic text and innuendo follows***

Once again the Folsom Street spectacle (I refuse to call it a "fair;" fairs don't have totally naked men walking around pleasuring each other) of sadomasochism has made its way through the winding streets of San Fran-sicko, California. For those of you unschooled in the ways of this parade of debauchery... God bless it! You've not been exposed to this filth masquerading as "free love." Unfortunately, after reading this, you'll get the idea and be appalled. D'oh!

This year I'm not going to honor it by writing anything grand, or even scathing. I'm not writing more than 300 words about it. That said, I want to refer you to a couple points:

--Miller co-sponsored the event this year. I hope knowing this will lead you to modify future alcohol purchases.

--Americans for Truth is an organization committed to exposing the gay agenda (and the corporate support and furthering of it) in the broader sense. The link provided here will take you to their "corporate promotion" page, which highlights who's who among gay supporters. You will be SHOCKED at who is donating to PFLAG (Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) and the HRC (Human Rights Commission).

In effigy of the Folsom business I have changed my homepage and search engine to Altavista, instead of using Google (they donate oodles of money to support gay "rights"). I encourage you to reconsider your buying patterns after you read what Americans for Truth have put together on the topic.


Related Posts with Thumbnails