Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Random Shots - Gas Prices, Kids Lunches, and More!

First Shot!

Price of Gas Shooting Up!

I know that most of you who read this blog have the wisdom to understand that America needs to look out for America first and above all else.

But for you folks out there who are still against drilling here in America, who still don't want to get oil from North Dakota or ANWR, and who are against the Keystone XL Pipeline, I have to ask.

If you're happy these days with what its costing Americans at the pumps these days? I mean, if you're happy with the way things are going than it shouldn't matter to you that Gas prices are the highest ever for this time of year.

The national average is at $3.53 a gallon. Prices have already gone up 25 cents since January 1st, and yes, Experts say that Gas Prices could reach a record $4.25 a gallon by late April across the nation.

The Obama economy grew at a sluggish 2.8 percent in the fourth quarter.

When President George W. Bush was saddled with the similar problem, he lifted the moratorium on drilling. Within 7 months, gas prices went from above $4 a gallon nationally to $1.85 a gallon nationally.

He knew that America could not sustain such a burden and took action even though the Liberal News Media would attack him. He knew that working families needed help and he opened up more Federal land to oil and gas drilling as a way to get American on the road to U.S. Energy Independence.

Friends, American Energy Independence starts with lower pump prices!

High oil and gas prices now set the stage for even sharper increases at the pump because gas typically rises in March and April.

Every spring, refiners shut down for repairs and maintenance operations, and of course to change from types of gasoline.  Winter gas supplies are sold off before March, when refineries need to start making a new formula of gasoline that's required in the summer.

That can mean less supply for service stations, resulting in higher gas prices. And summertime gasoline is more expensive to make.

Why is it more expensive to make? Government Regulations!

The Federal government mandates that it contain less butane and other cheap organic compounds because they contribute to the formation of ground-level ozone, a primary constituent in smog. That means more oil, a costlier component, is needed to produce each gallon.

The Oil Price Information Service predicts that gasoline could peak at $4.25 a gallon by the end of April - although it could top $5 a gallon in many parts of the country. The record of $4.11 a gallon was in July 2008 when President George W Bush was still in Office - and didn't wait for political advice, instead he took action.

The national average for gasoline began the year at $3.28 a gallon. The average price for February so far is $3.49 a gallon. That's up from $3.17 a gallon last February, a record at the time. Back in 2007, before the recession hit, the average for February was $2.25 a gallon.

Here in California, we are already paying more than $4 a gallon!

According to the latest reports, prices are already higher on the East and West Coasts where prices are always higher - but never this high!

And yes, watch the economy because as higher gas prices put a strain on people's budgets less money will be available for things like new cars, appliances and even everyday items.

"Americans spent about 8.4 percent of their household income on gasoline last year when gas averaged an all-time high of $3.51 a gallon. That's double the percentage of a decade ago. They could pay even more this year, even though demand is the lowest in 11 years as people drive fewer miles in more efficient cars," says Tom Kloza, chief oil analyst at OPIS.

And let's be real honest about a few things here!

People in the city don't feel the pinch like other Americans do. People in the suburbs, and out away from the urban sprawl and into rural American have to buy gas. We have to drive for everything.

City people can afford to take this lightly only so far. Yes, you have buses and trains and taxis and subways, and what have you, so you can shirk the concern about driving and the price of gas. But friends, don't make the mistake of thinking that this doesn't concern you big time!

If you're some lettuce munching vegetarian? Guess what, your lettuce is going up in price. If you're some style conscious dude who likes to wear this year's fashionable trendy clothing? Well dude, your clothes will get more expensive.

And how about you, you know who you are! You're that College student who hates America, but yet loves it's wines, it's music, its books, and its electronic gadgets! Get ready, you Turkey, because you are going to be paying more for your pretentious bullshit Socialist lifestyle!

Second Shot!

Republican Senator Caught Cheating!

During the last Presidential Election, we the American people got a great look at corruption at Voting Booths across the nation.

If you remember correctly, ACORN was an organization that Barack Obama once worked for. ACORN took it upon itself to register all sorts of votes for the Democratic Party to vote for Barack Obama.

They did all sorts of under-handed things. They registered dead people, they registered people who signed up with all sorts of fictitious names including Micky Mouse. They also bused Democrat voters into areas that they did not live in. They registered 43 people to a two bedroom home in one city.

I know what you're thinking, isn't there laws against that sort of thing? Well, I guess not. And yes, because of that, I expect Democrats to do it whenever and wherever they want to.

Watch this year, it will be no different. The Democratic Party will most likely truck people to vote the way they are told. And no, I don't know if they will most likely be Union Workers who owe their livelihood to their Unions and not to our country.

And no, I don't know if those being bused in would mostly be Welfare Recipients or more College Students like those in other Occupy Protesters who have shown a genuine hatred for America.

So my friends, since we know that no one should be voting in an area where they do not live, should we allow someone to Represent us in Congress if they are not from our area and do not live among us?

Well, that's what has been happening since 1977!  Republican Senator

That's right! Dick Lugar has not had an address in the area he has represents in more than 30 years!

Indiana Republican Sen. Richard Lugar does not actually live at the address he uses to claim residency.

To me, this is truly unbelievable! I cannot understand how he has gotten away with this for so many years!

The senior Indiana Senator has been using the address of a home that he actually sold all the way back in 1977.

Even the address on his Driver's License belongs to the house that Dick Lugar sold in 1977 after he was first elected to the U.S. Senate. Lugar told reporters that he sold the house because "it was too expensive, at least for us at that time in our lives, to maintain two houses."

He said after being elected that he moved his family to the Washington, D.C., area.

The Indiana state Election Commission plans to take up the controversy at a hearing this Friday, though Lugar maintains that two attorneys general have found he is a legal Indiana resident. But how can that be?

How can anyone say that he is a legal resident of some place that he doesn't live in? In that case, he can say that he's resident of anywhere.

Lugar's re-election campaign reports that between February 2011 and February 2012, the Senator spent 89 days in Indiana - and that Lugar still owns a farm in the state. 

But wait, Lugar told Fox 59 that he doesn't use the farm as his official address because "I do not live there."

Dick Lugar is taking heat from both sides, so much so that even all of his good Liberal friends are leaving him. And yes, even though he is supposed to be a Republican, Dick Luger is a Republican In Name Only.

Yes, he has been a RINO for years.  Yes, while Republicans remained steadfast in their opposition to many of Obama's proposals and nominations, Dick Lugar has been a steadfast ally of Barack Obama.

But this time, Harry Reid and even Barack Obama can't help him. As his primary challenger and the Indiana state Democrats rag on him over the residency issue, conservative groups are now lining up against him over his voting record.

His Voting Record is impressive if he were a Liberal Democrat. He voted for the DREAM Act. He voted to confirm Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, supporting both of Obama’s Judicial Nominations to the Supreme Court even though they are both Pro-Abortion.

Lugar voted to raise the debt ceiling, and is the only Senate Republican to publicly endorse the New START pact that Obama has negotiated with Russia.

He has voted consistently to increase his own salary. He voted for TARP. He backs Cap & Trade, and he is against American Oil and American Oil Independence. Dick Lugar has even voted for tougher Federal Gun Control laws.

Dick Lugar is as against the Tea Party as a politician can get. He has gone on record saying that he blames the Tea Party for Republican Party problems. He went so far as to say that the Tea Party destroyed the chances for Republican majority in the Senate at the last elections.

He claimed that the Tea Party didn't want a Republican majority because the Tea Party did not want Republicans like him. And no, he doesn't understand that the Tea Party doesn't march to the tune of the Republican Party - the Tea Party feels it doesn't have to sell its soul like so many Republicans do.

That's right - Republicans like Lugar just doesn't get it!

And folks, after November, I hope Lugar finds another job. Although I'm sure he won't have to worry too much about work, after all, he can always go to work for the Democratic Party and come out of the closet once and for all.

Next Shot! 

Man Goes To Jail For Failure To Get His Dog A License

No kidding! In Denver, Colorado, a couple is fighting fines after the husband was jailed for failure to get a license for his daughter's service dog.

And that's not all! Local authorities say that another 50 people in Jefferson County could face the same fate.

Matthew Townsend says he spent seven hours in jail after the dog got out and he was issued a $50 ticket. Townsend ignored the ticket and was arrested. His wife was fined $100.

Last year, the county issued nearly 500 citations for violations.

OK, so KCNC-TV ran down exactly what was going on when it reported that the dipsticks in Jefferson County need the money to pay for a new $10 million Foothills Animal Shelter.

Friends, raising $10 Million for an Animal Shelter is crazy as it is, but for them to arrest and jail people for not licensing their Service Dogs is just about one of the most ignorant things I've ever heard of.

First off, with the problem with not having enough room in most jails, you folks in Jefferson County are using needed space for these hardened criminal types! Give me a break! Where is your common sense?

For you folks in Foreign countries reading this, allow me to explain that a service dog is a companion dog that has been specially trained  to help people who have disabilities - including visual or hearing impairment, and also to help people with mental disabilities including severe depression.

Some dogs are even trained to help with medical conditions such as recurrent seizures or diabetes. So yes, we Americans now have a County Government in Colorado that is penalizing people with service dogs for not having the money to get their companion dogs licenses.

Like true caring individuals that they are, they throw these people in jail! And yes, God only knows what they do with repeat Dog License offenders?

For you folks in Jefferson County, Colorado, I have only one question.

Have you folks been completely taken over by liberals from California that you now find it OK to do things like this? What sort of California refugee told you folks that building an Animal Shelter that you obviously can't afford is OK to build - as long as you get the needed funds from those who need their money more than you do?

Oh well, I guess folks with Service Dogs should just stay out of Jefferson Country, Colorado!

Last Shot!

Pre-School Government Agents!

This is about as bad as what's going on in Jefferson County, Colorado, but it's different!

On Valentine's Day, a Pre-schooler's homemade lunch replaced with cafeteria chicken nuggets.

In Hoke County, North Carolina, a 4 year old pre-schooler was fed chicken nuggets for lunch because a State Worker felt that her homemade lunch did not meet the State and Federal mandate.

The West Hoke Elementary School student was in her classroom when a State Agent who was inspecting lunch boxes decided that her packed lunch - which consisted of a turkey and cheese sandwich, a banana, apple juice and potato chips - "did not meet U.S. Department of Agriculture guidelines."

This is for real folks! I scan the news looking for bullshit like this, because honestly the whole idea of there be a "State Agent" that has the job of "inspecting" lunches made by Mom just irks me to no end!

According to the report filed by the Carolina Journal, the decision was made under consideration of a regulation put in place by the the Division of Child Development and Early Education at the Department of Health and Human Services, which requires all lunches served in pre-kindergarten programs to meet USDA guidelines.

In other words, the Feds think they know how to feed your children better than you do Mom!

The student’s mother told the Journal that she received a note from the school about the "incident" and was charged $1.25 for the cafeteria tray, from which her daughter only ate three chicken nuggets.

The note explained how students who did not bring “healthy lunches” would be offered the missing portions and that parents could be charged for the cost of the cafeteria food, the Carolina Journal reports.

The little girl's mother expressed concern about School Officials telling her daughter that she wasn’t "packing her lunch box properly."

The mother wrote a complaint to her State Representaive Republican G.L. Pridgen of Robeson County. In her letter she states, "I don't feel that I should pay for a cafeteria lunch when I provide lunch for her from home."

According to the Carolina Jounal, the girl’s grandmother, who sometimes helps pack her lunch that she is a petite, picky 4-year-old who eats white whole wheat bread and is not big on vegetables.

"What got me so mad is, number one, don’t tell my kid I’m not packing her lunch box properly," the girl’s mother said. "I pack her lunchbox according to what she eats. It always consists of a fruit. It never consists of a vegetable. She eats vegetables at home because I have to watch her because she doesn’t really care for vegetables."

The Carolina Jounal reported that when the girl came home with her lunch untouched, her mother wanted to know what she ate instead. "Three chicken nuggets," the girl answered. Everything else on her cafeteria tray went to waste.

"She came home with her whole sandwich I had packed, because she chose to eat the nuggets on the lunch tray, because they put it in front of her," her mother said. "You’re telling a 4-year-old., 'Oh. your lunch isn’t right,’ and she’s thinking there’s something wrong with her food."

While the mother and grandmother thought the potato chips and lack of vegetable were what "disqualified" the lunch, a spokeswoman for the Division of Child Development said that should not have been a problem.

"With a turkey sandwich, that covers your protein, your grain, and if it had cheese on it, that’s the dairy," said Jani Kozlowski, the fiscal and statutory policy manager for the division. "It sounds like the lunch itself would’ve met all of the standard."

The lunch has to include a fruit or vegetable, but not both, she said. There are no clear restrictions about what additional items — like potato chips — can be included in preschoolers’ lunch boxes.

What should bother everyone reading this - folks, this is not uncommon these days. Schools in America want the State to be the parent. This is not that strange a concept. It's happening more an more across the country.

In some States, schools are handing out Condoms against the wishes of parents. In other States, some classes like those teaching children about sex and accepting homosexuality is being forced on kids.

There are schools out there right now that are teaching classes on the Occupy protest - sort of a "How To" class to encourage distain for America.

The concept of having the State become the Parent is not uncommon in large scale applications. In the 1930s, Adolph Hitler used this idea to start the Hitler Youth groups and engineer the so-called "Master Race" which was to be obedient only to Germany.

Communist and Muslims both have this in common as well. Both believe that their greatest impact on a person's thought process, belief system, the way to get people obey them - whether they are a totalitarian State like say the former Soviet Union was, or if they are a hate filled religion only interested in killing "non-believers" - conditioning during the child's forming years is the key.

I don't like the whole idea that we have "State Agents" in amongst our children, especially when the State's agenda and a parent's might be polar opposites.

It's a shame that people are surrendering so much of their freedom to the Federal Government. And please understand where I'm coming from on this.

It is one thing to have "guideline" and "recommended" practices from the Federal and State governments. It is one thing to have to work to establish codes and standards. It is one thing to have laws that safeguard.

But the idea of any government agency trying to usurp itself with some sort of self-imposed authority and take the place of the parent, especially when there is a caring nuturing parent available, then the Federal and State governments are out of line.

The government is not supposed to be involved in our daily life, they have no business being a part of things.



Story by Tom Correa

Friday, February 17, 2012

Random Shots - 4th Best President? Sean Penn? Dipsticks!

First Shot!

Sean Penn Warns Great Britain! 

Yes, that's right! Another American Hollywood Leftist thinks he's important enough to have his or her words count as something more than Hot Air!

The Associated Press reported that while in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Hollywood's Left-wing ambassador Sean Penn is now taking Argentina's side in the latest Falkland Islands dispute between Great Britain and Argentina.

How or why anyone who allow Sean Penn to meet with Argentine President Cristina Kirchner is a question that many people really can't understand. But after his meeting, the leftist actor then had the gaul to think he's important enough to actually issue a "warning" to Great Britain and to join the United Nations sponsored talks over what Penn is calling "the Malvinas Islands of Argentina."

The actor's warning to Great Britain, "the world today is not going to tolerate any ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology" Penn said.

As if that were the case, which it is not. Colonialzation went out years ago, but please try explaining that to High School dropouts who take up acting.
Great Britain has refused to negotiate with Argentina for a reason. As long as the citizens living on the Falkland Islands want to remain part of Great Britain, then they will remain British citizens and part of Great Britain.

Known as "Falklanders," they have recently started increasing the island's military defenses ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falkland's War.

It is amazing how a ultra-left winger like Sean Penn can skip over the history of almost any subject and take the position he does.

So allow me to help the dipstick. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited when first discovered by Europeans. The islands were first discovered by British navigator John Davis s in 1592. The islands were called the "Davis Islands" for a few years.

In 1594, the islands were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."


In 1600, Sebald de Weert, a Dutchman, visited them and called them the Sebald Islands (in Spanish, "Islas Sebaldinas" or "Sebaldes"), a name which they bore on some Dutch maps into the 19th century. Please remember that Spain had influence on the Dutch for many many years.

English Captain John Strong sailed between the two principal islands in 1690 and called the passage "Falkland Channel" - it is now known as Falkland Sound, after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition and later became First Lord of the Admiralty.

From that body of water, Falkland Sound, the island group later took its collective name.

So where does Sean Penn's ""the Malvinas Islands" come from? Well, the French! I bet you though Spain!  
 
You see, France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast in 1764. The French name "Îles Malouines" was given to the islands – "malouin" being the adjective for the Breton port of Saint-Malo. In 1766, the French left.
 
The Spanish translation for the French name "Îles Malouines" is "Islas Malvinas."  It is a direct Spanish translation of the French name for the islands.
 
In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont.
 
The population, estimated at 3,140, primarily consists of Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian. Immigration from the United Kingdom, Saint Helena, and Chile has reversed a former population decline. The predominant and official language is English. Under the British Nationality Act of 1983, Falkland Islanders are British citizens.

It was almost 200 years later, that Argentina first made its claim to the islands - that was in 1938.

Their claim died off and no further interst was made, especially during World War II when German warships were patroling the islands. The Argentine government at the time had no opposition to Great Britain having ownership of the islands while the Nazi War Machine was in the picture.

Argintine interest in the Falkland Islands only resurfaced as a diversion while the Argentine "Dirty War" was underway and thousands upon thousands of Argentine citizens were killed by it's dictatorships.

In early 1982, President Leopoldo Galtieri, the head of the Argentina's ruling military junta, authorized the invasion of the British Falkland Islands.

The whole reason for the operation was to draw attention away from Argentina's Human Rights Violations, and the economic crisis that plagued Argentina. It was in the middle of their so-called "Dirty War" where the Argentine govenment slaughtered thousands upon thousands of their own citizens. They epitimized the term, "Gone Missing" when it came to their citizens being arrested, taken into custody, and simply disappearing. 

It seems that Socialist all seem to use the same playbook. At the time, Argentine President Galtieri used his invasion of the Falklands in an attempt to bolster National Pride and take the heat off his regime.

After an incident between British and Argentine forces on nearby South Georgia Island, where Argentine forces landed in the Falklands on April 2nd. The small garrison of Royal Marines resisted, however by April 4th, the Argentines had captured the capital at Port Stanley.

Of course, the Falklands War was the last time Argentina tried seizing the islands using military force.

On April 2nd, 1982, a huge Argentine force landed in the Falklands. Two days later it captured the islands. After the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, which resulted in the imprisonment of all of the islands inhabitants, Great Britain reacted with huge public support and a sense of overwhelming justification to rescue its citizens.

On the 5th of April, a large British naval task force set out on the 7500 mile journey to liberate the tiny group of small fairly flat windswept islands in the South Atlantic.

On 1st of May, the British began the biggest naval action to take place since World War II. The initial phases of the conflict occurred mainly at sea between elements of the Royal Navy and the Argentine Air Force.

On May 21st, British troops landed on the island to confront the Argentine troops. Ironically, because of military spending on the part of Argentina, both nations had armed there forces with similar infantry rifles.

Though the Argentine forces heavily outnumbered the British, by June 14th the British had compelled the Argentine occupiers to surrender.

In 1982, during the military engagement to rescue the "Falklanders" and regain the islands, the British lost 255 men and women. And of course, that doesn't even count the almost 800 wounded.

Of the 28,000 British Airmen, Sailors, Soldiers and Marines who sailed south in May of 1982, 255 did not return.

Sources state that there were 123 British Army personnel, 88 Royal Navy, 10 Royal Fleet Auxiliary, 9 Merchant Navy, 25 Royal Marines, 1 RAF, and 3 women civilian casualties - for a total of 255 British men and women killed during the Falklands War.
So why did I repeat myself so many times with the numbers of British servicemen and women lost in the Falklands War?

Well, it's because I really feel that Left-wingers don't care about those who have died in the service of their nation. It really appears as though they simply do not matter to the Left, especially those Leftist in Hollywood. 

I really believe, in my opinion, that people like Sean Penn have absolutely no respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the military - especially in the service of a democratic nation like Great Britain.

Unlike years ago when actors served their country proudly, I see today's Hollywood left as being made up of the spineless and the loud, the creepy, the queer, the uneducated, the shallow, the extreme, the anti-American, the puppet, and the used.

Second Shot!

Dipsticks Running Loose All Over Washington DC!

Liberal Democrats Accuse Clergy of Acting in Complicity with Republicans

Today, a panel of Religious leaders testified in front of Congress about the Obama mandate for all religious organization to provide contraceptives supplies and abortion needs - even though directly goes against Catholic beliefs and violates Church teachings and policy.

Democrats got pretty testy with their Republican counterparts at a House hearing that has intensified the debate over Obama Care and the president's recent mandate.

One ultra-left Democrat even went so far as to call into question the motives of the clergymen who were there.

"I believe today's hearing is a sham!" said Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., of the first of two session held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during the day.

His angry tone was sharp as he pointed his finger. Then Connolly went on to declare the witnesses - who included a Catholic bishop, a Lutheran reverend, an Orthodox rabbi, and two Baptist theologians, all opposed to the Obama mandate as being "complicit" with the Republicans.

Complicit how? Well, Connolly believes that the Republicans' were "trampling" on House traditions that would, if observed, have produced a more balanced panel - that was his opinion.  And yes, I can't help but wonder if that dipstick would have wanted Planned Parenthood to be present at the hearing.

"You are being used for a political agenda," Connolly told the religious panel, after Republicans brandished images of President John F Kennedy and others to enforce their points. "This is a panel designed - with your conscious participation or not - to try, one more time, to embarrass the President of the United States and his administration, by overstating an issue which is sacred to all Americans: religious freedom. But of course, in order to do it, we have to, in an almost Stalinist-like fashion, have signs of Democratic icons to rub Democratic faces in it, as if those icons would be on the same side of this dispute today."

Yes, he called President John F Kennedy a "Democratic icon"! Image the cojones on this guy! Well folks, I hate to be the one to enlighten this Congressman - but just for the record, President John F Kennedy is an American Icon. And that trumps his political affiliation.

Besides, the truth is the truth. Like it or not, President Obama is the first president to be anti-American in his beliefs and attitudes toward the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.  He has demonstrated himself to be openly anti-Christian.

And yes, if one is to look at the policies of President Kennedy, anyone would see that he has nothing in common with the Modern Democratic Party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Democrat who serves as the District of Columbia's non-voting representative in the House, clashed with the Hearing's Chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., about the composition of the religious panel - screaming out - "I want to have the right to make a parliamentary inquiry!"

Issa rejected the minority members' complaints about the witness list, offering a timeline by which the list was developed and noting that he had included some witnesses at their behest, even though House rules did not require him to do so.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who sat next to Norton and averted her gaze when the D.C. delegate yelled at Representative Issa, then registered her own objection to the religious composition of the witness panel.

"What I want to know is, where are the women?" she asked. "I don't see one single woman representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning."

Imagine that! Give me a break! It was a Religious panel there to discuss the Obama Contraceptive and Abortion policy mandate. What would non-Religious clergy woman be doing on that panel? Nothing, other then supporting the use of contraceptives and abortions as a means of Birth Control.

Then another Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, the son of two ministers, took up the Liberal Birth Control mantel to underscored Maloney's point.

He wanted to get his colleagues to consider the "interests of women" as well as Religious Freedoms. "The pill has had a profound impact on their well-being - far more than any man in this room can possibly know,"
Then the liberal Cummings went on to accuse Representative Issa of "promoting a conspiracy theory that the federal government is conducting a war against religion."

At issue is the Obama Care policy that mandates all employers to provide free contraception and abortion counseling to women as part of their health care plans - Religious groups included - even if it goes directly against the beliefs of that religion.

Under pressure from religious groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Obama announced an "accommodation" under which Catholic-affiliated charities, hospitals, and schools - where the use of birth control is opposed on doctrinal grounds - would still have to provide the contraception and abortion counseling - but their insurers would have to pick up the tab.

Just for the record, yes, it's a perfect example of Chicago Politics 101: If you want them on your side - tell them that someone else is paying for it.

They believe that anyone can be bought! Too bad it didn't work!
The Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the Obama bribe, as did the witnesses on the House panel. Reverend William E. Lori, the bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., and chairman of a committee on religious liberty at the Conference, related "the parable of the Kosher Deli" to make his point.

"It is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich," Lori said. "But it is beyond absurd for that demand to be backed up with the coercive power of the state."

"While we are grandfathered under the very narrow provisions of the HHS policy," testified Reverend Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church's Missouri Synod, "we are deeply concerned that our consciences may soon be martyred by a few strokes on the keyboard."

Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, said Obama's attempted compromise had proved "no accommodation at all."

"The religious organizations would still be obligated to provide employees with an insurance policy that facilitates acts violating the organization's religious tenets," Soloveichik told the lawmakers.

To that Rep. Carolyn Maloney, of New York, angrily said, "You can have your own beliefs about birth control, but Americans are entitled to theirs, and I don't think they agree with you."

And no, I don't think she is a practicing Catholic or Christian. If she were, then I don't think she would have made such an asinine statement!

Third Shot! 

California Judge deems ramming a Jewish Woman with a Shopping Cart is "Free Speech."

This is a story from last month, and honestly, I found it hard to believe that this can happen in America.

Back in June of 2010, a so-called leader of a pro-Palestinian student group at California State University  Berkeley allegedly rammed a Jewish woman with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to an anti-Israel "Apartheid Week" rally conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine.

The counter-protest was dubbed "Israel Wants Peace Week."

In January, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg deemed that the Muslim students who harassed Jessica Felber and other Jewish students were simply engaging in "protected political speech."

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech and dismissed the case against the university.

Judge Seeborg went on to say that the University of Berkeley did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.

Felber and another Jewish student claimed the University did not do enough to prevent the harassment which included the Muslim group conducting checkpoints around the campus. Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the checkpoints.

"The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit," Judge Seeborg stated. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Seeborg said that much of the conduct involved "pure political speech" that is constitutionally protected even if it "contained language that plaintiffs believe was inflammatory, offensive or untrue."

Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer said, the judge’s decision affirms that Muslims assaulting Jewish students is now protected speech.

"This is an outrageous decision. The Muslim students were trying to silence the freedom of speech of the Jewish students. The judge says this is a ruling in favor of free speech, but actually the freedom of speech was being infringed and the judge is saying that is ok to protect the freedom of speech of the Muslim students. Don’t the Jewish students have freedom of speech as well?"

My question is this, say those Muslims on campus decided to use baseball bats instead of a shopping cart? Or let's say they used a car instead of a shopping cart? When does their "freedom of speech" become simple Assault and Battery?

I also can't help but wonder if the roles were reversed, and it was a Jewish man who rammed a Muslim woman, would the ruling be the same? For some reason, I think not!

Last Shot! 

"I'm the Fourth Best President in American History!"

This is too funny! It happened during an interview on 60 Minutes last December. 

During the interview, Barack Obama said, "I'm the fourth best President in American History!" 

So you don't think that Obama could possibly be so full of himself? And what, you really don't believe me. Well, he can thank 60 Minutes for editing it out when it was first aired.

But if you want to hear him say it, click here!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57341009-10391709/president-obama-the-full-60-minutes-interview/?tag=contentBody;listingLeadStories

http://youtu.be/TxvSjDkF7HE

It might give you a great laugh.

 
Story by Tom Correa

Marine Corps Tact & Diplomacy - A Great Joke For A Friday!

Every once in a while I get a great joke in my e-mail that I just have to share.
Here goes!


Marine Corps Tact And Diplomacy

A young Naval Officer was in a terrible car accident, but due to the
heroics of the hospital staff, the only permanent injury was the loss of
one ear. Since he wasn't physically impaired he remained in the military
and eventually became an Admiral. However, during his career he was
always sensitive about his appearance.

One day the Admiral was interviewing two Navy Master Chiefs and a Marine
Sergeant Major for his personal staff.

The first Master Chief was a Surface Navy type and it was a great
interview. At the end of the interview the Admiral asked him, "Do you
notice anything different about me?"

The Master Chief answered, "Why yes sir. I couldn't help but notice you
are missing your starboard ear, so I don't know whether this impacts
your hearing on that side." The Admiral got very angry at this lack of
tact and threw him out of his office.

The next candidate, an Aviation Master Chief, when asked this same
question, answered, "Well yes sir, you seem to be short one ear." The
Admiral threw him out also.

The third interview was with the Marine Sergeant Major. He was
articulate, extremely sharp, and seemed to know more than the two Master
Chiefs put together. The Admiral wanted this guy, but went ahead with
the same question. " Do you notice anything different about me?"

To his surprise the Sergeant Major said, "Yes, sir. You wear contact
lenses."

The Admiral was impressed and thought to himself, what an incredibly
tactful Marine. "And how do you know that?" the Admiral asked.

The Sergeant Major replied, "Well sir, it's pretty hard to wear glasses
with only one f@$#*n ear!"


The Admiral hired the Marine!


God Bless the Corps!

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Cattle Production Lowest Since 1952 - It Is Insanity!

Yes, it is insanity!

A combination of drought, heat in the Southwest, a lousy economy, and high feed and fuel costs have all contributed to a short supply of cattle in the United States in 2011.

This all has meant a drop in the total herd count to 90.8 million animals. And according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, that is the lowest since 1952.

Imagine that for a moment. We are producing the lowest herd count in 60 years!

And no, contrary to what the idiots in PETA have to say, this is not a good thing at all. Fact is that the world population has not stayed the same as it was 60 years ago. And yes, people need to eat.

For the American consumer, this means that these latest numbers will continue a trend that has caused supermarket beef prices to rise by about 12% last year, this is according to the U.S. Department of Labor.

Inside cattle traders are saying that report came to no surprise to many, and said that consumers will most likely continue to see high beef prices through the summer. The price of ground beef was up 23% last year, with the more expensive choice cuts rising less.

But, yes, that's according to Federal government figures which may or may not be accurate depending on what you read.

It is a mixed bag of figures. Some are saying that the price of choice boneless roast was up 12%, but the price of choice sirloin steak was up only 1%. Supposedly the difference is because retailers protected their most profitable beef item.

Iowa maintained its 3.9 million-cattle herd, the nation’s fifth-largest total. But of the states ahead of Iowa, only Nebraska was able to raise its herd totals, from 6.2 million animals to 6.45 million.

Texas, which was hit extremely hard by a crippling drought, lost 1.4 million animals, to bring them in at 11.9 million. Oklahoma saw its total herd drop 600,000 animals, to bring them in at 4.5 million. And yes, Kansas also lost 200,000 head of cattle, which brought them in at 6.1 million.

Some reports say that consumer demand for beef has been declining in recent years, others say it has just flattened out due to a sour economy. But this, combined with a tough weather year and high feed and energy costs, has made cattle producers react by restricting the size of their herds.

The good news for the cattle market is that, while the domestic market may be sluggish, the export demand has actually risen by 30% in 2011.  Asian countries, such as Japan and South Korea, are leading the up swing in purchases of U.S. beef. 

Yes, the Chinese want American beef. China made a large purchase of U.S. beef in the last days of 2011.

So the lower number of cattle available, a sour economy and a higher cost of producing cattle here, was sort of off set by a rise in foreign demand for cattle. But that did not stop cattle prices from rising by more than 25% last year.

A few weeks ago slaughter-ready cattle closed up 15 cents per hundred-weight at $124.70, and younger feeder cattle were up 98 cents per hundred-weight at $154.60

My problem with this news is that just last year the cattle industry was declaring a livestock glut. So how can there be a "glut" of cattle last summer, but now there is a shortage?

And also, if folks take a long look at this new revelation that the amount of cattle produced in America is at the same level as it was in 1952, then people should be screaming for answers as to who's fault is it?

Yes, this is not a good thing at all!  Friends, comparing 2011 cattle numbers with 1952 cattle numbers is not comparing apples and oranges. It is a huge flare signaling trouble!

Why you ask? Well, the biggest thing that jumps right at you is the fact is that the population of the United States has about doubled since 1952.  This means that will have about 150 Million more American mouths to feed than we did in 1952.

Do you see where I'm going with this? America can feed a starving world if we had sane partnership in the form of the Federal government.  And yes, like it or not, the Feds have made themselves partners in the same way that an extortionist does.

You see the Federal government does not encourage the production of more food. It does this in the same way that it does not encourage new manufacturing businesses. Over regulation from Federal agencies restrict growth and in many ways force Americans out of business.

Take feed and food for example!

We eat corn, but the Federal government in all of its wisdom is now encouraging Americans to grow and use corn as a bio-Fuel alternative to American oil.  This is fine if it does not have other ramifications - but it does!

First, because of the Federal government mandate that so much corn will be used in bio-Fuel, the price of corn and products that use corn is climbing.  This means that an American food source is now having to compete in price with it being used as an "alternative fuel source."

Because of the Federal government, a farmer can now get a higher price for corn used as bio-Fuel than he can for corn used as food. Because of this, farmers who normally grow corn for food are switching their crop to a lower grade of corn to be sold for bio-Fuel.

And that leads us to the problem connected to changing farming as a result of the Federal Mandate for bio-Fuels, the price of hay is going through the roof. Hay is the basic feed for livestock. These days farmers can get more if they plow under their hay fields and produce corn for bio-Fuel.

Why? Because the price of corn is high - and they can make more money on a richer crop than by growing hay.  This means that beef and other livestock hay, along with feeds made mostly of corn, are steadily going up in price.

Yes, it's a double hit!  This all means that a livestock producer, and cattle producers being the biggest of them, are having to cut costs. If not, then between the cost of adhering to Federal regulations and the higher feed prices may put them out of business.

And friends, there are only so many ways to cut cost when running a business. And yes, cattle producers have the same limitations. They can either cut down on the cost of expenses by laying people off, or by feeding in other ways, or by producing less cattle to feed. 

The numbers show that most are raising less cattle. And that, in a time when the population of the world is growing by almost 2% yearly, is insane!

Granted a combination of drought, unusual heat in the Southwest, and a bad economy have all attributed to the problem, but the Federal government and its policies have driven up the price of feed and and fuel costs and made the problem even worse.

Yes, I do blame the Federal government for this insane policy of driving up production costs by diverting needed food resources to other industries - especially when the alternatives for energy are out there and food sources don't need to be touched as one alternative.

Americans should be growing more food to feed people, not growing less. Our Federal government should be allowing our ranches and farmers the ability to raise what they can as long as the weather and their own hard work allows.

The Feds should not be restricting growth, or impeding their efforts. And yes, people should be using food to feed people and animals - not to power high priced Hollywood limos or small Eco-friendly cars. 

Our government should be encouraging Americans to use our own resources for what they are designed for - oil for machinery - and corn for food and feed. What's so difficult about that to understand?

Yes, weather conditions are certainly a factor in agriculture, but Americans should not be having higher prices at the store as a result of what the Federal government is doing to control our food and feed producers.

The government seems to be under the impression that they need to control every aspect of our daily lives, especially when they have no right trying to do so.  


Story by Tom Correa

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

My Valentine's Day Card To My Wife!

Today is a day when my wife woke early to color her hair.

It is a day that I have to drive the 17 miles to get to town to find flowers and maybe a gift. It is the gift that weighs on my mind because I've been so busy with other things that I've done what many men do - and yes, that's waiting to the last minute to get something for the women he loves.

Today is hectic, rushed, and will not slow down until after the movie and we are home tonight. It is that way because I care so much about her.

She is a good woman. She is also hard-headed, ornery, and yes, sometimes so stubborn that I quit trying to explain my point - Thank God that those times are far and few between around here.

As I said, she is a good woman. She has been a great friend and companion. She is exciting and her laughter fills a room - it echoes in my heart.  She is half crazy sometimes, and yes, I've found that this is keeping me younger and happier than I've been in forever.

I know that it might seem to you folks reading this that I'm only concerned about what she does for me. And I guess that's a part of love, isn't it? Doesn't a lot of love have to do with what the other person does for you?

Love is not about cooking and that sort of thing. It is about that feeling, that wonderful emotion called love that the other person brings out of you - yes, that's what my wife does for me.

I certainly hope and pray that I do that with her. Because friends, this is my Valentine to my wife, and yes, I love her!

Yes Deanna, you are special and funny and clever and cute. You are witty and sensitive and caring, and yes, you are sassy!

You are a self-made cowgirl and the best part of my life. And I, well, I thank God everyday for the person you are.

I love you! Would you be my Valentine?

Yours

Monday, February 13, 2012

Random Shots - A Purple Squirrel, Drunk Indians, and More!


First Shot!

Drunk Indians!

OK folks, here you go! The dilemma of what comes first - the chicken or the egg?

In this case, it has to do with intoxicated Indians and the stuff that's making them that way! So which comes first?

Well, the Oglala Indian tribe has decided to sue some of the world's largest beer makers - claiming that the beer makers "knowingly" contribute to devastating alcohol-related problems on South Dakota's Pine Ridge Indian Reservation.

That's right! According to the Associated Press story, the Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota has said that it is demanding $500 Million in damages for the cost of health care, social services, and child rehabilitation caused by chronic alcoholism on the reservation - which just so happens encompasses some of the nation's most impoverished counties.

The lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court of Nebraska, and also targets four beer stores in Whiteclay, a Nebraska town near the reservation's border. Whiteclay only has about a dozen residents, but the stores there have sold nearly 5 Million cans of beer in 2010.

Friends, 5 Million cans of beer is a lot of beer! And no, I'm not trying to play down the problems that alcohol brings with it, but that is a lot of beer to consume by only a relatively small number of folks.

I just can't help myself from asking who was forcing them to drink that much booze?! But wait, no one was forcing anyone to drink irresponsibly.  They did it on their own!

That little fact did not stop the Oglala tribal leaders and activists from blaming the Whiteclay businesses for what they are calling "chronic alcohol abuse and bootlegging on the Pine Ridge reservation." And by the way, legally alcohol is banned on the Pine River reservation.

The tribal leaders are saying that most of the stores' customers come from the reservation, which spans southwest South Dakota and dips into Nebraska.

Owners of the four beer stores in the town of Whiteclay were unavailable or declined comment when contacted by The Associated Press.

A spokeswoman for Anheuser-Busch InBev Worldwide said she was not yet aware of the lawsuit, and the other four companies being sued - SAB Miller, Molson Coors Brewing Company, MIllerCoors LLC and Pabst Brewing Company - did not immediately return messages to the AP.

The Oglala lawsuit alleges that the beer makers and stores sold to Pine Ridge residents knowing they would smuggle the alcohol into the reservation to drink or resell. The beer makers supplied the stores with "volumes of beer far in excess of an amount that could be sold in compliance with the laws of the state of Nebraska" and the tribe.

The Oglala reservation is the size of Connecticut and has struggled with alcoholism and poverty for generations, despite an alcohol ban that has been in place since 1832.  The Pine Ridge reservation did legalized alcohol in 1970 - but restored the ban only two months later. An attempt to allow it in 2004 died after a public outcry.

The lawsuit says one in four children born on the reservation suffer from fetal alcohol syndrome or fetal alcohol spectrum disorder. The average life expectancy is estimated between 45 and 52 years, the shortest in North America, according to the lawsuit. The average American life expectancy is 77.5 years.

The lawsuit states that "The illegal sale and trade in alcohol in Whiteclay is open, notorious and well documented by news reports, legislative hearings, movies, public protests and law enforcement activities. All of the above have resulted in the publication of the facts of the illegal trade in alcohol and its devastating effects on the Oglala Lakota people, especially its children, both born and unborn."

Supposedly, Nebraska lawmakers have struggled for years to curb the problem and are considering legislation this year that would allow the state to limit the types of alcohol sold in areas like Whiteclay. The measure would require local authorities to ask the state to designate the area an "alcohol impact zone."

If that happens, then the Nebraska state liquor commission could then limit the hours alcohol sellers are open, ban the sale of certain products or impose other restrictions.

This is really a bad situation for the Indians there. They want to drink - that's obvious from the amount of beer they've consumed. Like I said, 5 Million cans of beer is a lot of beer!

But I don't know how you can get a way with banning the sale of alcohol to Indians while at the same time say it's OK to sell to other folks who may be White, Brown, or Pink from San Francisco. That in itself reaps of segregation and Jim Crow laws.

Besides, again it comes down to the chicken or the egg. What is the problem here, Indians who willingly drink too much or the availability of beer in general. Folks, I've known drunks in my lifetime who would easily drive 30 miles or more if it meant that they can find a bar that's open when others are closed.

I really think the tribe should take some responsibility for the actions of their folks out there and place more burden on them to knock off their drinking.

I'm sorry if I don't sound very sympathetic, I just think that we as a society can't keep blaming other things for our problems. We give too much power to things that simply exist and don't have any power.

It's as nonsensical as anti-Gun groups blaming guns for killings, yet I for one have never seen a gun just jump off a table - get into a car - drive for two hours - walk up to a person - be angry - get more angry - then shoot someone all by itself. There has to be a man or woman involved to make it happen.

It's the same as drinking, and trust me when I say that I used to drink a lot, yet I've never seen a can of beer follow a man home and force that man to drink.

Sorry, but to me, it just sounds like more of the blame game.

Second Shot!

Brian Dead Socialists!

You would think that the Occupy Protesters, since they are mostly University students, would learn something about those who created the Marxist-Leninist idea of Socialism and Communism.

Vladimir Ilyich Lenin was a Russian Marxist revolutionary and Communist politician who led what became known as the "October Revolution" on Russia in 1917. 

In 1893, at the age of 23, Lenin became a "Professional Revolutionary." Later, he became the leader of the Bolsheviks. He then helped create, and then headed the Soviet state during its initial years from 1917 to 1924.

He worked to create a Socialist Economic System that would later fail because it limited individual freedoms by enslaving generations of Russians to the Soviet Government.

As a politician, Lenin was a fiery speaker. As a leader and politician, he was ruthless in his methods to bring into effect the theory and philosophy of Marxism. This produced Marxism–Leninism, which was his application of Marxism

Lenin died 21 January 1924, suffering from a degenerative brain disorder known as neurosyphilis.

Neurosyphilis is an infection of the brain and the spinal cord. It usually affects people who have had untreated syphilis for many years - usually about 10 to 20 years.

So really, since he only started being active in the Communist revolution about 10 years before he died, it is possible that he may have been suffering from the brain damaging effects of syphilis long before he ever decided to trumpet the virtues of a Socialist State.

At the time of Lenin's death, his brain was less than a quarter of its normal size.

And yes, that just goes to prove that Lenin was pretty much Brain Dead while he was pushing Communism on the rest of the world - not unlike most Liberal Socialist today!

Third Shot!

The Purple Squirrel!

Folks in Pennsylvania have caught a purple squirrel!

Yes, that's right! A bright purple squirrel was trapped by a Pennsylvania couple. And now, well now the experts are offering all sorts of colorful theories - but no solid reason.

Percy and Connie Emert from Jersey Shore, Pennsylvania, trapped the brightly colored critter while trying to keep the birds safe in their backyard feeder - reported Accuweather.com.

They told the weather service they had no explanation for its deep purple color saying, "We have no idea whatsoever. It's really purple. People think we dyed it, but honestly, we just found it and it was purple."

Experts who were questioned by Accuweather had several theories for the unusual look, but no hard answers. Indeed, Krish Pillai, a professor at Lock Haven University of Pennsylvania, told Accuweather he thought the coloring was dangerous for the animal.

"I’ve got to think one of the suggestions might be it fell in a Porta John that had blue coloration." said Henry Kacprzyk, the Pittsburgh Zoo curator.

"This is not good at all. That color looks very much like Tyrian purple. It is a natural organobromide compound seen in molluscs and rarely found in land animals. The squirrel (possibly) has too much bromide in its system," he said.

The port-a-potty theory seems to have its fans, but then who knows? 

For us around here, we have a lot of gray tree squirrels. In Livermore California, where I lived for a while, there were a mess of gray/brown ground squirrels. Over in Menlo Park California, I've seen a what someone told me were "Russian black squirrels." And yes, while traveling I've see red squirrels.

Of course, I've seen some really odd squirrels in San Francisco. In my opinion, the city is full of squirrelly folks!

Fourth Shot!


OK, I guess the mighty have spoken!

Obama's Chief of Staff said that there will be "No more compromise, contraceptive rule is done deal!"

So despite concerns from Catholic and other Christian leaders and lawmakers, according to the Obama administration they are done "negotiating" and will finalize its plan requiring religions to provide free contraception to women working and studying at religious institutions.

Jacob Lew told "Fox News Sunday" that the compromise offered last week to address objections by the Catholic Church is clear and consistent with the president's "very deep belief that a woman has a right to all forms of preventive health care, including contraception."

"We have set out our policy," Obama chief of staff Jacob Lew said matter-of-factly. "We are going to finalize it in the final rules, but I think what the president announced on Friday is a balanced approach that meets the concerns raised both in terms of access to health care and in terms of protecting religious liberties, and we think that's the right approach."

Late Friday, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops issued a statement declaring the new policy of "grave moral concern" and urged Congress to overturn the regulation.

"Today's proposal continues to involve needless government intrusion in the internal governance of religions institutions and to threaten government coercion of religious people and groups to violate their most deeply held convictions," the bishops said in a lengthy statement.

The bishops noted that the change appears to make no consideration for religious insurers or self-insuring religious employers -- or for religious for-profit employers and secular nonprofit employers.

"In a nation dedicated to religious liberty as its first and founding principle, we should not be limited to negotiating within these parameters. The only complete solution to this religious liberty problem is for HHS to rescind the mandate of these objectionable services," the bishops said.

The conference also reiterated its original objection made to the Department of Health and Human Services last year when it began developing the rule.

"All the other mandated 'preventive services' prevent disease," the bishops wrote, "and pregnancy is not a disease."

But Jacob Lew does not agree! Instead he believes that the policy holds true to the "core principles of our country." He noted that the revision had earned support from liberal Catholics and lay groups.

Check out this statement that he made, and see if you find the same problem with it that I did. "The solution that we reached is consistent with those core principles. That's why it got the support of a range of groups from the Catholic Health Association and Catholic Charities to Planned Parenthood," he said.

Planned Parenthood, the Pro-Abortion Group! What the hell do they have to do with the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and our Religious Freedoms?  They believe in killing babies! They get 46% of their money from the American Taxpayer through appropriations voted on by Democrats in Congress! 

So what do they have to do with the discussion of Religious Rights of Americans? Nothing!

But no, that didn't stop Obama's chief of staff from going on to say that the Obama mandate isn't just about preventing babies. "There are many health conditions in women that are affected by whether or not contraceptive health is available," he said.

That's right! He really said that, but he didn't offer any example of what he's talking about. Besides, how does a Federal mandate for all religious organizations to provide birth control and abortion assistance not have anything to do with anything other than preventing or killing babies?

In defending the Obama mandate, Lew said, president Obama is authorized to implement the mandate under the Affordable Care Act passed by Democrats in Congress in 2009. Its also know as Obama Care!

Then to add insult to injury he threw in some good old fashion liberal idealism, saying that by shifting the mandated birth control and abortion coverage requirements to the insurance companies doesn't hurt a religion's bottom line.
In other words, the Obama White House doesn't have a clue as to what concerns the Catholic church on this issue.

Allow me to help them understand the situation. It's not about money! It is a moral issue!

It's about our religious doctrine that says that we Catholics don't believe in birth control or abortion - especially if abortion is used as a form of birth control.  And yes, let's not fool ourselves by saying that abortion is not a form of birth control. Most pro-Abortion groups hesitate to admit it, but abortion is the ultimate in birth control.

In a statement issued separately from the conference, Cardinal Donald Wuerl, Archbishop of Washington, said the uproar over the mandate has made clear that Americans believe in upholding the principle of religious liberty.

"Regardless of whether or not they agree with Church teaching on a particular issue, people believe strongly that the government should not force the Church and its institutions to do things it considers morally wrong. Hopefully, the ultimate resolution of this issue will reflect this longstanding American principle. No matter the outcome, we must continue to be vigilant against the encroachment of government on the free exercise of religion," he said.

All of this makes me wonder if Obama's lack of upbringing has had a profound impact on how he views America - and our basic liberties. Fact is that he was raised a Muslim, in a foreign country, and then when he came to Illinois - his formative years were completed by living with grandparents who were both Atheist and Communist sympathizers.

He is a product of his life, just as we all are. In my opinion, Obama's anti-Catholic, anti-Christian, pro-Socialist outlook on life is what is guiding his policy making. And yes, it has divided America like nothing has since the Civil War.

It's what happens when a person with no principles
meets a person with principles -
they want to know if you're keeping yours and why?!


Last Shot!

This is a sad story about an old Liberal women who is hired to interpret the laws of the United States.

That old Liberal women is Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. And yes, now we find out that she does not think that our Constitution should be used as a model by those who may be struggling to establish democracies of their own.  

Why? Well, I gather that she thinks its out of date and not very specific as to what the government will do for its citizens. And no, I guess just granting freedom might not be that big a deal to the old gal.  

My friends, the Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court interpret the law. That's what they do. When we say "the Court," meaning the U.S. Supreme Court, we mean the Justices of the Supreme Court.

When we say "The Court" decides "sticking points" in law, or hand down a "final" decision on the matter, we mean "the Justices."

Supreme Court Justices hear a limited number of cases, and interpret the law relative to the United States Constitution. They also have Original Jurisdiction, as the nation's first court, over conflicts between the states.

They are also responsible for interpreting the Constitution and federal law, and monitoring how those rules are applied in the real world.

Their main functions are to interpret the Constitution and to examine challenged laws to ensure they comply with Constitutional mandates.

Obama mandating Catholics to provide birth control devices and abortion pills goes against their religious beliefs. Government oppression cannot be forced upon any religion because religions are protected by our Constitution.

If the whole of Obama Care goes before the Supreme Court, they cannot pick and chose what is Constitutional or not. No, instead they must look at the entire law and weight it as being against the Constitution or in accordance with the Constitution.

The Constitution is what keeps Presidents like Obama from being Dictators.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently visited Cairo where she told Egyptian revolutionaries not use the U.S. Constitution as a model when designing a Constitution for their country.

"I would not look to the U.S. Constitution, if I were drafting a constitution in the year 2012," Ginsburg said in an interview on Al Hayat television. "I might look at the constitution of South Africa. That was a deliberate attempt to have a fundamental instrument of government that embraced basic human rights, have an independent judiciary. It really is, I think, a great piece of work that was done."

As Egypt prepares to write a new constitution, Ginsburg, who was traveling during the court's break to speak with legislators and judges in Egypt as well as Tunisia, spoke to students at Cairo University, encouraging them to enjoy the opportunity to participate in the "exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state."

When asked about models for the Egyptian people, Ginsburg said Egyptians "should certainly be aided by all the Constitution-writing that has gone on since the end of World War II."

She then pointed not only to South Africa's constitution, but to Canada's 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the European Convention on Human Rights.

"Why not take advantage of what is else there in the world? I'm a very strong believer in listening and learning from others," Ginsburg added.

Indeed, Ginsburg's comments are not that foreign to her overall judicial philosophy. She had previously stated that she looks at Foreign Laws when deciding on an American case.

She has said, "the notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a certain kinship to the view that the U.S. Constitution is a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification." 

Ginsburg told that to an audience at the American Society of International Law in April 2005. What she failed to mention is that forgien laws have nothing to do with Americans in the same way that laws governing Americans have nothing to do with laws in foreign countries like say Japan or Yemen, or anywhere else in the world.

And as far as looking into a newer more "social conscious" Constitution, it appears, that like most Liberals, she can't admit that our Constitution is as incredible as it is though written more than 200 years ago.

Newer doesn't always mean better. Some struggling countries change their Constitution every time you turn around. Mostly because they understand what a Constitution does!

In seems that most Liberals want a Constitution that lists benefits that the Government will do for them. They want a Constitution to be a "Social Contract" filled with Federal Benefits.

It bothers me that most Liberals have no understanding of the basic premise of the United States Constitution. The Constitution of the United States was written by men who were openly and honestly afraid of a too powerful, tyrannical, abusive government, that would try to enslave its people.  

The Constitution of the United States was written to tell the Federal government its duties, its job, its responsibilities, and to make sure that it understands its limitations in clear and concise language. The U.S. Constitution is not a "Social Contract." No, instead it is a job description for the Federal Government to adhere to. 

And yes, to make sure it understood its limitations, our Founding Fathers wrote the Bill of Rights which tells the government that these Rights do not come from the government - and subsequently the government cannot tamper with them.

A lot of people make the mistake of thinking that the U.S. Constitution is designed to keep the American people "in line" - that is the furthest from the truth. In truth, it is a fact, our Constitution is designed to keep the government "in line' and not become a threat to "We the people!"

I would think any and all people can use our Constitution as a model - especially if they fear their government from becoming too powerful and tyrannical.

For someone who has sworn an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, it's too bad that Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg apparently doesn't understand it very well.

Story by Tom Correa

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Random Shots - The Actress Might Be Nuts!!

First Shot!

Things never stop amazing me! No really, as I get older, I would think that I've seen it all to the point that nothing would amaze me - but that's just not the case.

There are people out there who believe in all sorts of fantastic things. It seems Hollywood has its share and than some.

It's no secret that most in Hollywood are extremely liberal and more than willing to tell us how to live our lives. Just ask them, they are as opinionated as the day is long, and more then willing to tell you that they know everything about every thing.

All this, and yet most of them seem ride a razor's edge on being absolute loons. A good example of this was shown lately when the actress, who used to be "The Nanny" on television, came out of the closet and revealed that she'd been kidnapped by Aliens as a teenager.

Not Illegal Aliens, but Space Aliens. The little green men type. Maybe like the ones in that Hollywood Classic "Mars Attacks." 

No kidding! Fran Drescher believes that she was abducted by Aliens.

She was serious folks, the same lady who I saw on television say that she believed Obama is the most intelligent President the United States has ever had, is now saying that she was abducted by Aliens from outer space.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, the former "The Nanny" star said that she and her ex-husband Peter Marc Jacobson both have been "visited" when they were in their teens.

Now to me that automatically means that this actress might be nuts!

"Peter and I both saw Aliens before we knew each other, doing the same thing, driving on the road with our dads," the actress Fran Drescher said. And no, she was supposedly sober when she said it.

"We were both in junior high. A few years later, we met, and we realized that we had the same experience. I think that somehow we were programmed to meet. We both have this scar. It's the exact same scar on the exact same spot," she said.

Ex-husband Marc Jacobson, who is best known as the co-creator of the popular sitcom "The Nanny" which of course he created and wrote with his then wife actress Fran Drescher, claims that Fran's scar is from a drill bit or is the result of burning herself with hot water.

But friends, that explanation is too simple to sit well with Fran Drescher. The actress argues, "That's what the Aliens programmed us to think. But really, that's where the chip is."

OK, stop laughing! She wants to be taken seriously! Just remember that she really believes this.

Besides, if you recall, in 2008, Fran Drescher said that she had been considering a run for the United States Senate to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton. So who knows, as a strong Democrat, she might be a part of the Obama White House soon - as maybe a Czar for the White House Office of Intergalactic Relations.

And yes, just imagine that she will again be running around the country telling you to vote for Obama - because like most Hollywood types, she knows what she's talking about.

You betcha!

Second Shot!

This is straight from the Associated Press. Why? Simple, no one would believe me after they read this.

Inmates in Ohio spend $38 Million on junk food!

That's right, Ohio inmates spent $38 Million at state prison commissaries last year buying junk food, sodas, and other items with money from home - and from working prison jobs.

Total commissary sales were up from $37.18 million in 2010, The Dayton Daily News reported.

Inmate junk food sales average around $745 per inmate per year, with candy, chips, cookies and soda among the big sellers - that's statewide.

So where is Michele Obama when we need her?! I thought she was representing the Obama Administration's efforts to regulate junk food across the nation. She should be there putting a stop to this!

Taxpayers do not pay for inmates' junk food, or even their deodorant. Inmates earn on average $18 a month working prison jobs, and family and friends can add money to their accounts for commissary items. More expensive items such as sneakers and TVs are purchased through a secure online system and shipped to inmates.

Inmates can earn money through a variety of positions at Ohio facilities, including working as janitors and in commissaries, libraries and food service.

Profits are used for shared amenities including books, televisions in prison "common areas." Those types of items keep inmates involved in "positive activities," said JoEllen Smith, a spokeswoman for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction.

"Inmate idleness can oftentimes lead to management issues within a prison," she said.

Management issues? Is that code for unrest, rebellion, and revolt, if they don't get their sugar? Just so you know, the Prisoners, Opps ... I mean Inmates, get a pretty good deal on their junk food.

The markup on commissary items averages 25 percent, but it is limited to a maximum of 7 percent on stamps and items such as over-the-counter medications.

Imagine that. Wow, it's been a long time since I worked in Corrections in the Marine Corps. In those days, there was no such thing as prisoners getting OTC (over-the-counter) medications of any sort. And as for sodas and junk food, are you kidding?!

Back in the mid to late 70's, the last thing we wanted was our Prisoners all sugared-up and bouncing off the walls with energy. I'm thankful that the bleeding hearts that are here today weren't so many back then.

Yes, we had a few anti-victim bleeding heart liberals back then. They were usually easily recognized because they were always the College Educated Officers who demanded that we stop beating child molesters and rapists in our custody.

Joanna Saul, director of the Ohio Correctional Institution Inspection Committee, said Inmates lodge about five complaints a month on commissary issues, including complaints about price gouging, poor product offerings and suspension of privileges, an occasional disciplinary tactic.

The commissary is one of the most important issues for inmates, next to visitation and recreation, and many "rely on it for basic essentials such as personal hygiene items and food," Saul said.

Top-selling goods at the Dayton Correctional Institute are soft drinks Mountain Dew and Pepsi, followed by chicken-flavored ramen noodles.

"The things that are difficult to keep in stock, depending on the season, are pop and ice cream," Dayton's commissary manager Fern Boddie said.

That commissary stocks more than 1,000 items, employs 14 inmates, and moves $59,800 in merchandise monthly. Inmates slip order forms through a window slot and the purchase price is electronically deducted from their accounts.

Prisoners owing court costs are limited to spending $15 a month, but others spend around $40 a week, said Fern Boddie.

Boddie has stocked a wider variety of personal care products since the prison switched from a male to a female population in October. "The men didn't really care about the numbers and types of shampoo," Boddie said. "The women really, really care."

But of course they do! Everyone needs to look and feel good in prison!

Third Shot!

This is the ultimate all-terrain vehicle. It is called "The Conquest."

Happily, it's made in Canada. I'm just glad that China doesn't make it. I'm tired of China stealing technology to build things.

OK so that don't steal it all, some or it they buy from greedy people willing to sell their souls and their country for a dollar.

"The Conquest" is lightly armored, anti-mine, anti-riot and "almost" bombproof.

It is ready for any run against Occupy Protest Forces in any city including liberal-ville Oakland California, a skirmish against AK-47 armed gangs in East L.A., angry deer poachers in Railroad Flat, violent abortion advocates, gay San Francisco, or the last gasp of charging apocalyptic Hollywood zombies bent on bringing Communism to America. 

Of course the definitive question as to its usefulness: Will it get me to Wal-Mart after the Mayan Calender runs out?

After all, since most people in this liberal nuthouse called California may throw themselves off a cliff and into the sea because they take things like a Mayan Calender way too serious, there are a whole lot of us that live in the real world and don't take that sort of nonsense serious at all.

Fourth Shot!

This leads us to our last shot of the night - believe it or not, it relates to the last shot.

How? Well, Ford demanded that GM and NBC pull their Chevy Super Bowl ad during the big game.

Why? Well, in response to a Super Bowl ad for Chevy trucks, Ford sent letters to both GM and NBC asking that the $7 million ad be pulled from the air during the game.

The minute-long ad, entitled "2012," is a spoof on the Mayan Calender nonsense. It features a Silverado Chevy truck driving through what is supposedly the ruins of a city after the 2012 apocalypse - as predicted by those little Mayans folks who didn't have the smarts to save their own society - but are supposedly so smart as to have predicted the end of the world. Right!

So Ford is angered by the suggestion in the ad that a driver of a Ford truck would not be among the survivors.

So let's see if I have this correct. Ford is upset that they are not getting equal time in a spoof about a stupid calender that has no known relevance other than belonging to a people long dead.
According to Motoramic.com, Ford sent the "cease and desist" letter to Chevrolet and was pressuring NBC to pull the ad.

GM Global Chief Marketing Officer Joel Ewanick responded with a press release saying the company stands by its claim that the Silverado is "the most dependable, longest lasting full size pickup on the road."

Joel's statement went on to say, "We can wait until the world ends, and if we need to, we will apologize. In the meantime, people who are really worried about the Mayan calendar coming true should buy a Silverado right away."

I can't help but admire Joel. He sounds like a man who understands what to say when you're dealing with children.

Ford spokesman Mike Levin, who wasn't amused, told Motoramic: "Claims are made in advertising frequently by every auto manufacturer… This type of ad protest happens from time to time," adding that "we'll always defend our products."

I can't help but wonder if the Ford spokesman took a time-out after he said that!

Have a great middle of the week, and remember that the best medicine for the blues is to find things that make you laught. And yes, the news is full of it!


Story by Tom Correa