Wednesday, December 12, 2012
Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Why would US support personnel be "painting the target" if there were no assets in the air to actually HIT a target? Who "called off" the counter-attack in Benghazi? If it wasn't "called off" - then who "disobeyed orders?" President Obama has stated he said to do whatever is necessary to protect American lives. IF that "target was painted" and IF either the drone or other military assets were in the air to "see" that "painting" and the counter attack was NOT made, who decided NOT to attack back?!
That brave former Navy Seal GAVE UP his position in "painting the target," something he would NOT have done if the assets were not in the air to ACT upon that "painting."
This keeps getting worse and worse!
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Overall, on substance I believe Governor Romney still "wins" - but in "debate points" I may lean toward President Obama. The problem is, while he wins the debate points - once the "fact checking" takes place, he loses the actual argument. For those who just watch the debate and do not watch for the fact checking, I believe there's a slight edge to the President. For those who do wait for the fact checking, I believe the evidence will be overwhelmingly in Governor Romney's favor. So, while Obama "wins the night" (barely), Romney actually "wins the debate." One fact I've already heard verified was where Gov. Romney claimed a 50% drop in drilling contracts - the fact is it's over 60% for off-shore drilling and about 33% for on-shore drilling (Chris Wallace). To that point, I must add, Governor Romney asked a specific question, "How much did you cut them by?" President Obama diverted and answered about how much oil is being drilled... he answered a question which Romney didn't ask.
National Journal: Obama wins debate points - but ultimate verdict is uncertain (in short, a tie).
A "Quick Poll" on Huffington Post says Obama wins:
CNN says "Obama comes on Strong, Romney holds his ground." Their poll suggests Obama won, but also conceded that the results were within the margin of error.
The Global Post states that while Obama "held his own" it also says "but Romney didn't lose much."
Foxnews says it's a split decision - Democrats say Obama won, Republicans say Romney won.
The bottom line is, after President Obama's dismal showing in the Denver debate, he needed a grand slam, knock it out of the park victory tonight in order to quell Governor Romney's momentum - and while Obama was more aggressive, Romney stood his ground - or as the Global Post put it, "Romney didn't lose much." Therefore, President Obama didn't get the kind of win - if there was any "win" at all for him - he needed this time round so I predict that Romney will continue to overtake Obama - and in some polls, he already has.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Even one of the greatest Democrat Presidents of the United States agrees! Cutting the tax rate will increase the tax revenue - not only did John F. Kennedy say this, but so did Ronald Reagan, it the FACT is it is absolutely TRUE! Governor Romney and Senator Ryan are proposing virtually the SAME THING that President Kennedy proposed! Was President Kennedy wrong? If it was right then, it is right now!
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
The attack stems from Governor Romney's comment from the first presidential debate held last Wednesday where he said, "I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for. That's number one." President Obama's attack ad sarcastically states that Big Bird is "a menace to our economy" and that Governor Romney is "taking on our enemies no matter where they nest." Now, is that what Governor Romney REALLY said? No! He said he likes PBS and LOVES Big Bird - but he cannot justify sending money to support PBS (including Sesame Street) if we have to borrow that money from China to do it.
Romney's side has used an image of "The Count" and references Big Bird and Elmo - counting the number of times the Obama Campaign has referred to Big Bird and Elmo compared to how many times Lybia or "Plans to Fix the Economy" have been mentioned.
Again, Sesame Workshop requests their trademarked characters be left out of the political campaign ads. The Republican image is not as offensive as the Democrat one, but both should respect the wishes of Sesame Workshop.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
In the aftermath of last night's debate the liberal media has been, thus far, been expressing their disgust with President Obama's lack of preparation ... soon you can expect them to begin circling the wagons and rallying to support the president. Watch and see!
And so I just want to wish, Sweetie, you happy anniversary and let you know that a year from now we will not be celebrating it in front of 40 million people.Romney could have responded:
Mr. President, first off, congratulations on your 20th anniversary. I will do my best to make sure you spend your next one in Chicago and not in the White House.While not a lot of substance to the statement, it would have been a bit of humor which would have resonated with the observers.
Another thing I noticed was that when President Obama was asked a direct question by Mr. Lehrer his response was almost every time a distraction to another subject. Lehrer, in my humble opinion, should have then stated, "but my question was..." and then repeat the question. Obama should not have been able to get away with the red herring tactic so easily with such an experience moderator (Lehrer has hosted the first presidential debate every time since 1988).
President Obama seemed to be stuck on Governor Romney allegedly planning a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, even after Romney repeatedly stated he has no such plan. If Obama believed he indeed had such a plan then he should have been prepared with the facts of when Romney announced such a plan - rather than just keep repeating it is Romney's plan after Romney denied it (several times).
Now this was just the first debate, not the election. There's still plenty of time for President Obama to rebound - but if he doesn't rebound from this, the swing is going in Romney's favor.
Full transcript of the debate can be found here:
Please feel free to add your own comments.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
The terrible call was to call the catch in the end zone "simultaneous possession." How could that be?! Jennings is a good 8-10 inches higher than Tate, the ball is clearly IN his hands before Tate touches it - then as they go to the ground Tate grabs hold of the ball with Jennings - but Jennings already has it securely in his arms and against his chest! It was clearly Jennings' ball that Tate was attempting to steal away.
The horrendously missed call was PRIOR to the catch - where Tate, with two hands, SHOVES #37, Sam Shields, out of the way! That's what REAL refs would call "offensive pass interference" which would nullify any chance or argument for Tate catching the ball. See for yourself:
Thursday, September 20, 2012
― Alexis de Tocqueville
Monday, September 3, 2012
The original intent therefore, has nothing to do with prohibiting prayer in public places, nativity scenes on public squares, etc. for these are "free exercises thereof." The Constitution prohibits Congress from establishing a religion, as in a "state religion" (like they had under British rule, where Anglicanism was the "Church of England" - a "church of state").
President Jefferson closes his letter by reciprocating the prayer and intention of the DBA.
Below are the letters of historic reference:
Letter from the Danbury Baptist Association:
The address of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut, assembled October 7, 1801.The letter as delivered to the Danbury Baptist Association:
To Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America
Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration , to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the Unite States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere.
Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution. And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, [so] that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, [or] should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States--and all the world--until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you--to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association,
Neh,h Dodge }
Eph'm Robbins } The Committee
Stephen S. Nelson } (Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/)libissuesarticles.asp?id=65)
Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, and Stephen s. Nelson
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, in the State of Connecticut.
Washington, January 1, 1802
Gentlemen,--The affectionate sentiment of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Jan. 1. 1802 (Source: http://www.wallbuilders.com/libissuesarticles.asp?id=65)
Draft of President Jefferson's letter (not sent):
To messers Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.So, when someone says "separation of church and state" - help educate them on where that REALLY came from and WHY President Jefferson said it. It must be granted that President Jefferson himself "refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion," because in his personal opinion it was not his role to do so - but he does not state they cannot be performed - as these were "to the voluntary and discipline of each sect." It must be noted too - THAT part was NOT INCLUDED in the final draft which was sent to the DBA, thus even though we can see it was his opinion - THAT part was not expressed to the DBA and is only found in the drafts of that particular letter. When considering that which he DID write to them, THAT part should not be considered - it was left out for a reason.
The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and, in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" thus building a wall of eternal separation between Church & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect,
[Jefferson first wrote: "confining myself therefore to the duties of my station, which are merely temporal, be assured that your religious rights shall never be infringed by any act of mine and that." These lines he crossed out and then wrote: "concurring with"; having crossed out these two words, he wrote: "Adhering to this great act of national legislation in behalf of the rights of conscience"; next he crossed out these words and wrote:]Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience I shall see with friendly dispositions the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced that he has no natural rights in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & the Danbury Baptist [your religious] association assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Jan. 1. 1802. (Source: http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpost.html)
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Thursday, March 22, 2012
I wish I would have come up with this idea, but then again... I'd probably be branded a racist if I did!
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.
I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit? In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone's bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.
My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.
What did Sandra Fluke really say? The source I am quoting from actually opposes Rush and is asking for support in that opposition - I do not support the opposition.
My name is Sandra Fluke, and I’m a third-year student at Georgetown Law School. I’m also a past-president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice or LSRJ. And I’d like to acknowledge my fellow LSRJ members and allies and all of the student activists with us and thank them so much for being here today.
We, as Georgetown LSRJ, are here today because we’re so grateful that this regulation implements the non-partisan medical advice of the Institute of Medicine.
I attend a Jesuit law school that does not provide contraceptive coverage in its student health plan. And just as we students have faced financial, emotional, and medical burdens as a result, employees at religiously-affiliated hospitals and institutions and universities across the country have suffered similar burdens.
We are all grateful for the new regulation that will meet the critical health care needs of so many women.
Simultaneously, the recently announced adjustment addresses any potential conflict with the religious identity of Catholic or Jesuit institutions.
When I look around my campus, I see the faces of the women affected by this lack of contraceptive coverage.
And especially in the last week, I have heard more and more of their stories. On a daily basis, I hear yet from another woman from Georgetown or from another school or who works for a religiously-affiliated employer, and they tell me that they have suffered financially and emotionally and medically because of this lack of coverage.
And so, I’m here today to share their voices, and I want to thank you for allowing them – not me – to be heard.
Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships, that’s practically an entire summer’s salary. 40% of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggle financially as a result of this policy.
One told us about how embarrassed and just powerless she felt when she was standing at the pharmacy counter and learned for the first time that contraception was not covered on her insurance and she had to turn and walk away because she couldn’t afford that prescription. Women like her have no choice but to go without contraception.
Just last week, a married female student told me that she had to stop using contraception because she and her husband just couldn’t fit it into their budget anymore. Women employed in low-wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice.
And some might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways. Unfortunately, that’s just not true.
Women’s health clinic provide a vital medical service, but as the Guttmacher Institute has definitely documented, these clinics are unable to meet the crushing demand for these services. Clinics are closing, and women are being forced to go without the medical care they need.
How can Congress consider the [Rep. Jeff] Fortenberry (R-Neb.), [Sen. Marco] Rubio (R-Fla.) and [Sen. Roy] Blunt (R-Mo.) legislation to allow even more employers and institutions to refuse contraception coverage and then respond that the non-profit clinics should step up to take care of the resulting medical crisis, particularly when so many legislators are attempting to de-fund those very same clinics?
These denial of contraceptive coverage impact real people.
In the worst cases, women who need these medications for other medical conditions suffer very dire consequences.
A friend of mine, for example, has polycystic ovarian syndrome, and she has to take prescription birth control to stop cysts from growing on her ovaries. Her prescription is technically covered by Georgetown’s insurance because it’s not intended to prevent pregnancy.
Unfortunately, under many religious institutions and insurance plans, it wouldn’t be. There would be no exception for other medical needs. And under Sen. Blunt’s amendment, Sen. Rubio’s bill or Rep. Fortenberry’s bill there’s no requirement that such an exception be made for these medical needs.
When this exception does exist, these exceptions don’t accomplish their well-intended goals because when you let university administrators or other employers rather than women and their doctors dictate whose medical needs are legitimate and whose are not, women’s health takes a back seat to a bureaucracy focused on policing her body.
In 65% of the cases at our school, our female students were interrogated by insurance representatives and university medical staff about why they needed prescription and whether they were lying about their symptoms.
For my friend and 20% of the women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription. Despite verifications of her illness from her doctor, her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay. So clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy for her.
After months paying over $100 out-of-pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore, and she had to stop taking it.
I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of the night in her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room. She’d been there all night in just terrible, excruciating pain. She wrote to me, ‘It was so painful I’d woke up thinking I’ve been shot.’
Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary as a result.
On the morning I was originally scheduled to give this testimony, she was sitting in a doctor’s office, trying to cope with the consequences of this medical catastrophe.
Since last year’s surgery, she’s been experiencing night sweats and weight gain and other symptoms of early menopause as a result of the removal of her ovary. She’s 32-years-old.
As she put it, ‘If my body indeed does enter early menopause, no fertility specialist in the world will be able to help me have my own children. I will have no choice at giving my mother her desperately desired grandbabies simply because the insurance policy that I paid for, totally unsubsidized by my school, wouldn’t cover my prescription for birth control when I needed it.’
Now, in addition to potentially facing the health complications that come with having menopause at such an early age – increased risk of cancer, heart disease, osteoporosis – she may never be able to conceive a child.
Some may say that my friend’s tragic story is rare. It’s not. I wish it were
One woman told us doctors believe she has endometriosis, but that can’t be proven without surgery. So the insurance has not been willing to cover her medication – the contraception she needs to treat her endometriosis.
Recently, another woman told me that she also has polycystic ovarian syndrome and she’s struggling to pay for her medication and is terrified to not have access to it.
Due to the barriers erected by Georgetown’s policy, she hasn’t been reimbursed for her medications since last August.
I sincerely pray that we don’t have to wait until she loses an ovary or is diagnosed with cancer before her needs and the needs of all of these women are taken seriously.
Because this is the message that not requiring coverage of contraception sends: A woman’s reproductive health care isn’t a necessity, isn’t a priority.
One woman told us that she knew birth control wasn’t covered on the insurance and she assumed that that’s how Georgetown’s insurance handle all of women’s reproductive and sexual health care. So when she was raped, she didn’t go to the doctor, even to be examined or tested for sexually transmitted infections, because she thought insurance wasn’t going to cover something like that – something that was related to a woman’s reproductive health.
As one other student put it: ‘This policy communicates to female students that our school doesn’t understand our needs.’
These are not feelings that male fellow student experience and they’re not burdens that male students must shoulder.
In the media lately, some conservative Catholic organizations have been asking what did we expect when we enroll in a Catholic school?
We can only answer that we expected women to be treated equally, to not have our school create untenable burdens that impede our academic success.
We expected that our schools would live up to the Jesuit creed of ‘cura personalis‘ – to care for the whole person – by meeting all of our medical needs.
We expected that when we told our universities of the problem this policy created for us as students, they would help us.
We expected that when 94% of students oppose the policy the university would respect our choices regarding insurance students pay for – completely unsubsidized by the university.
We did not expect that women would be told in the national media that we should have gone to school elsewhere.
And even if that meant going to a less prestigious university, we refuse to pick between a quality education and our health. And we resent that in the 21st century, anyone think it’s acceptable to ask us to make this choice simply because we are women.
Many of the women whose stories I’ve shared today are Catholic women. So ours is not a war against the church. It is a struggle for the access to the health care we need.
The President of the Association of Jesuit Colleges has shared that Jesuit colleges and the universities appreciate the modifications to the rule announced recently. Religious concerns are addressed and women get the health care they need. And I sincerely hope that that is something we can all agree upon.
Thank you very much.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
She said "It's President's Day!"
She is a smart kid. So, I asked "What does President's Day mean?" I was waiting for something about Washington or Lincoln etc.
She replied, "President's Day is when President Obama steps out of the White House, and if he sees his shadow we have one more year of unemployment."
You know, it hurts when hot coffee spurts out your nose.