Monday, November 30, 2009
Thirty-five bomb-laden Muslim terrorists stormed a crowded middle school full of parents, teachers, and children. By doing so, they immediately gained what they desired most: the eyes of a watching world paralyzed with fear at what they might do. And the world had reason to fear. Over the course of this three-day massacre, the terrorists barricaded doors and tied up authorities in "negotiations" that were used only to buy them the time they needed to coldly execute the stronger men hostages, rape young girls in front of their watching mothers, and rig explosives throughout the complex to ensure that when the authorities stormed the building there would be massive casualties.
This horrific drama played out in the quiet Russian town of Beslan just five short years ago. In the end, 394 lay dead (over half of them children) with another 704 injured.
And stunningly, Barack Obama has just invited the same carnage to our shores.
When the President's Attorney General Eric Holder announced the administration's breathtakingly ignorant decision to bring 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) and five compatriots to New York City to stand trial in civilian court for their act of war, there was undoubtedly a collective gasp in the small towns outside New York. The citizens there surely must recognize that the high-profile status of KSM alone is enough to tempt every terror cell this side of Basra to consider making their rural middle schools the stage for Beslan: Act Two.
Why any president sworn to protect the lives of his fellow citizens would take such an outrageously absurd and completely unnecessary risk is unfathomable. And make no mistake...it is unnecessary. KSM and his fellow terrorists were already being tried by military commissions far away from American children and out of the international spotlight that they so desperately crave. Many, including KSM, had already pled guilty and requested execution.
But Barack Obama halted these commissions when he came into office, apparently more concerned with bolstering his image as a "citizen of the world" than protecting his own people. He then passed the buck to Eric Holder who announced that the terrorists would be brought to one of America's largest cities for the trial of the century.
The negative consequences of this decision are plentiful. From endangering innocent Americans to gift-wrapping a perfect propaganda opportunity for the terrorist world, this decision is inexcusable. And considering that the choice to try these monsters in civilian courts was to supposedly ensure that justice would be done, this decision becomes incomprehensible. (How, for instance, will these show trials result in any better or more just outcome than a guilty plea and execution sentence – something that the military commission had all but secured?)
In short, this is about to be a circus. [Editor's Note: Results from a related OneNewsNow poll question appear at the end of this column.]
Obama and Holder have now given constitutional "rights of the accused" to these terrorists (something that has never been done throughout all of American history). And if you don't think that their lawyers are going to bring up the manner of their detainment, the circumstances surrounding their capture, any perceived threats or mistreatment, any notion of coerced confessions, their lack of immediate access to attorneys, demand for relocation, complaints about a biased jury, calls for mistrials, and the need for an extensive appeals process, you aren't thinking...sort of like the Obama administration.
With a decision this bad – one that is receiving scorn across the country from angry Americans of all political backgrounds – one might hope that Team Obama would come to its senses and reverse course. Not likely.
When announcing this preposterous decision Holder stated, "To the extent that there are political consequences, I'll just have to take my lumps."
Frankly, sir, the grisly images of Beslan are a little too fresh in our minds to be overly concerned with your personal political consequences. We're a bit more concerned about the potentially deadly consequences this ragingly incompetent administration may have just brought on innocent American citizens.
Vice President Joe Biden once criticized Barack Obama's lack of preparedness for the serious responsibilities associated with the job of president by saying that the presidency was "not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." God forbid that we're about to see just how right he was.
"Please people wake up about BHO!! It is time that this man answers for all the damage he has done and will continue to do to our once sovereign nation. Why aren't more people in an uproar over this? Gosh! I just don't understand the silence."
Friday, November 27, 2009
Superior Judge William Cohen ruled last week that Lisa Miller, a former lesbian who is now a Christian, must hand her daughter, Isabelle, over to her former partner, Janet Jenkins by Jan. 1.
Miller conceived Isabella through artificial insemination while she was in a civil union with Jenkins. About a year later, Miller left homosexuality.
Jenkins sued for custody, even though she has no biological tie to the child.
Miller admits she made mistakes, like signing a custody agreement while still in the relationship with Jenkins, but Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel and legal counsel for Miller, said that wouldn't stop him from appealing the decision to the Vermont Supreme Court.
"This judge in Vermont ultimately ruled that he is going to switch custody from Lisa Miller," he said, "and take her own biological daughter Isabella and move her from Virginia and put her into an activist lesbian household up in Vermont with a person she really doesn't know, who's not her biological mother, and frankly who's not acted as a parent."
The courts had ordered to spend time with Jenkins in the past, and Miller complied until her daughter complained.
"Every time that the visitation actually occurred, Isabella had violent reactions, because Janet exposed her to the lesbian lifestyle," Staver said. "(Jenkins) tried to convince her that she has two moms and even tried to scare her by saying that she was going to be taken from Lisa and transferred to Vermont."
Eventually, Miller refused the court-ordered visitations.
Historically, courts have sided with the biological mother in custody battles, and Staver said the judge has never questioned Miller's fitness as a parent.
"How can a third party, a stranger," he asked, "interfere with the parental rights of a biological parent when that parent is fit?"
Rena Lindevaldsen, professor at Liberty University School of Law, said it's another example of where activist courts are taking the culture.
"To have the first reported decision in the country stripping a biological mother of her child," she said, "solely because she has refused to give visitation to a legal stranger, is shocking.
"There's a lot of talk nowadays about drawing that line in the sand and understanding that government can't order certain things. When you're ordering a child to be stripped from her biological mother, you've got to wonder, has the court overstepped its bounds?"
"Absolutely the courts have overstepped their bounds. But we know that most judges are liberal left-wingers who have thrown the constitution away and interpret the law by their own biased standards, not what the law clearly states. I truly pray that this woman will be able to keep her child away from that destructive environment.
What happened to the best interests of the child? Clearly the judge presiding over this case has decided that this innocent little child should be subjected to this deviant lifestyle he, more than likely, supports. Indeed this is very tragic news.
I pray that the Lord will help this mother and child out of this mess and soon."
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.
The three, all members of the Navy's elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral's mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.
Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named "Objective Amber," told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.
Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.
Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.
Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.
Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.
The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.
FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.
The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.
"I gave the detainee a glance over and then left," the SEAL wrote. "I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health."
Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.
United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.
The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that "Objective Amber" planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and "they had been tracking this guy for some time."
The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.
The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.
Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.
The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.
"Now this should really tick off every single American. They finally caught the scumbag and what do these poor men get for all of their trouble? They get charged for punching him. So, who the hell cares? I probably would have done a lot more than that. He's lucky they didn't shoot down his sorry you-know-what. So he got a little slap in the face and a bloody nose. Give him a tissue and move on.
I can't even begin to imagine the atrocities of what he did to his prisoners. Yet, our government feels he needs protection? What a debacle of justice! I cannot believe these Navy Seals are being charged, they did their job. The idiot is still alive and kicking, what more do they want? Should they have bowed down and kissed his hand? Like someone we all know?"
"And lest we forget, we just lost four more AMERICAN SOLDIERS in Afghanistan, and what does are vile president do? He is going to wait until December 1st, AFTER celebrating Thanksgiving and then he and congress are going to decide how much it is going to cost to send in more troops!!! Does this not enrage anyone else? Our AMERICAN SOLDIERS are dying, giving their lives and that man has the audacity to tell them to wait after Thanksgiving!
Monday, November 23, 2009
I was also pleasantly surprised to find out that The Love Finds You is a series published by Summerside Press, they have used real town names and plan on doing a story on all 50 states, sweet. I intend to hit the library and see how many I can find. There is just something special and intriguing about the pioneer days. It's fascinating.
I am truly thankful to LitFuse, for providing me with a copy of The Lonesome Prairie, what a privilge.
ABOUT THE BOOK: In 1890, Julia Cavanaugh travels west from New York City to unite orphans in her care with new families. Imagine her horror when she discovers that she's to be "delivered," too--as bride to an uncouth miner! But with no return fare, Julia's options are bleak. What does God have planned for her on the lonesome prairies of Montana?
BUY THE BOOK:
ABOUT THE AUTHORS: Tricia Goyer is the author of several books, including Night Song and Dawn of a Thousand Nights, both past winners of the ACFW's Book of the Year Award for Long Historical Romance. Goyer lives with her family in Montana. To find out more visit her website: http://www.triciagoyer.com/
Ocieanna Fleiss is a published writer and has edited six of Tricia Goyer's historical novels. She lives with her husband and their four children in the Seattle area. Connect with Ocieanna on Facebook!
The authors, Tricia and Ocieanna, have put together one humdinger of a contest for this blog tour! Enter the Fall in Love With Lonesome Prairie Contest and WIN a perty Montana Gift Basket!
To enter, simply fill out the entry form (http://www.triciagoyer.com/contest.html ), (then tell 5 or more friends about the contest)! The winner will be announced December 14th, just in time for an old-fashioned Montana Christmas. Giddy-up!
The Winner of our ‘Fall in Love with Lonesome Prairie’ giveaway will receive a fantastic Montana Gift Basket, including:
*Winter fleece throw
*Huckleberry chocolate bar
*Paula Dean candle
*Burt’s Bees gift set
*Wild Huckleberry taffy
*Montana stationary notebook
*Montana greeting card set
*Montana ball cap
*Montana refrigerator magnet
*Charlie Russell 2010 Montana Calendar
If you are a fan of the old west and frontier times, this book is definitely a keeper.
Friday, November 20, 2009
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Also, the task force said breast self-exams do no good and women shouldn't be taught to do them.
For most of the past two decades, the cancer society has been recommending annual mammograms beginning at 40.
But the government panel of doctors and scientists concluded that getting screened for breast cancer so early and so often leads to too many false alarms and unneeded biopsies without substantially improving women's odds of survival.
"The benefits are less and the harms are greater when screening starts in the 40s," said Dr. Diana Petitti, vice chair of the panel.
The new guidelines were issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, whose stance influences coverage of screening tests by Medicare and many insurance companies. But Susan Pisano, a spokeswoman for America's Health Insurance Plans, an industry group, said insurance coverage isn't likely to change because of the new guidelines.
Experts expect the task force revisions to be hotly debated, and to cause confusion for women and their doctors.
"Our concern is that as a result of that confusion, women may elect not to get screened at all. And that, to me, would be a serious problem," said Dr. Len Lichtenfeld, the cancer society's deputy chief medical officer.
The guidelines are for the general population, not those at high risk of breast cancer because of family history or gene mutations that would justify having mammograms sooner or more often.
The new advice says:
_Most women in their 40s should not routinely get mammograms.
_Women 50 to 74 should get a mammogram every other year until they turn 75, after which the risks and benefits are unknown. (The task force's previous guidelines had no upper limit and called for exams every year or two.)
_The value of breast exams by doctors is unknown. And breast self-exams are of no value.
Medical groups such as the cancer society have been backing off promoting breast self-exams in recent years because of scant evidence of their effectiveness. Decades ago, the practice was so heavily promoted that organizations distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps in their breasts.
The guidelines and research supporting them were released Monday and are being published in Tuesday's issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine.
The new advice was sharply challenged by the cancer society.
"This is one screening test I recommend unequivocally, and would recommend to any woman 40 and over," the society's chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, said in a statement.
The task force advice is based on its conclusion that screening 1,300 women in their 50s to save one life is worth it, but that screening 1,900 women in their 40s to save a life is not, Brawley wrote.
That stance "is essentially telling women that mammography at age 40 to 49 saves lives, just not enough of them," he said. The cancer society feels the benefits outweigh the harms for women in both groups.
International guidelines also call for screening to start at age 50; the World Health Organization recommends the test every two years, Britain says every three years.
Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women. More than 192,000 new cases and 40,000 deaths from the disease are expected in the U.S. this year.
Mammograms can find cancer early, and two-thirds of women over 40 report having had the test in the previous two years. But how much they cut the risk of dying of the disease, and at what cost in terms of unneeded biopsies, expense and worry, have been debated.
In most women, tumors are slow-growing, and that likelihood increases with age. So there is little risk by extending the time between mammograms, some researchers say. Even for the minority of women with aggressive, fast-growing tumors, annual screening will make little difference in survival odds.
The new guidelines balance these risks and benefits, scientists say.
The probability of dying of breast cancer after age 40 is 3 percent, they calculate. Getting a mammogram every other year from ages 50 to 69 lowers that risk by about 16 percent.
"It's an average of five lives saved per thousand women screened," said Georgetown University researcher Dr. Jeanne Mandelblatt.
Starting at age 40 would prevent one additional death but also lead to 470 false alarms for every 1,000 women screened. Continuing mammograms through age 79 prevents three additional deaths but raises the number of women treated for breast cancers that would not threaten their lives.
"You save more lives because breast cancer is more common, but you diagnose tumors in women who were destined to die of something else. The overdiagnosis increases in older women," Mandelblatt said.
She led six teams around the world who used federal data on cancer and mammography to develop mathematical models of what would happen if women were screened at different ages and time intervals. Their conclusions helped shape the new guidelines.
Several medical groups say they are sticking to their guidelines that call for routine screening starting at 40.
"Screening isn't perfect. But it's the best thing we have. And it works," said Dr. Carol Lee, a spokeswoman for the American College of Radiology. She suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the decision, but Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists also has qualms. The organization's Dr. Hal Lawrence said there is still significant benefit to women in their 40s, adding: "We think that women deserve that benefit."
"Men, this may make you uncomfortable but read it if you have wives, daughters, nieces, etc. Okay...
I am totally and completely against this. I know for a fact that self-examination works, many women have found lumps, some have been benign, like my own, and others caught cancer in the early stages and were able to receive treatment and sometimes, wonderfully, cured.
I am thankful to my PCP for making me go and get a mammogram done, they found a lump and it was biopsied and I thank GOD that it was benign. We cannot mess around with breast cancer, it kills women. I was one of the blessed ones. Not all women are that lucky.
To me all women are worth saving and we should unite on this matter, whether we are at odds in politics, but not when it comes to saving a woman's life, that should take precedence."
Monday, November 16, 2009
H.E.B., a large grocery chain in south Texas, is the sponsor of the 60th parade in the series which is held on Thanksgiving Day. Parade spokesperson Wendy Slaton tells OneNewsNow the parade is televised, and by calling it a "holiday" parade, some stations will carry it through December. She says that just because the name has been changed, it does not mean that Thanksgiving is forgotten.
"We definitely address Thanksgiving all throughout our parade," Slaton notes. "In fact, our showcase float is our Tom Turkey float, and throughout the parade we wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving and we recognize our heroes and our community groups."
Local resident Jeff Herrin objects to calling the event a "holiday" parade because he feels it waters down the meaning of Thanksgiving. Plus, he says a turkey is not what the day is all about.
"Thanksgiving is about giving thanks to God that we are free and a nation able to praise him and act accordingly," argues Herrin.
He says that if Americans lose the name and its purpose, Thanksgiving just becomes like July 4th -- another day off work. Herrin believes Thanksgiving is such an important day for the nation's faith-based population that it should never lose that meaning.
"OH the hypocrisy never ends. It is almost comical of how so many stores have decided to opt out and avoid the words "Christmas and Thanksgiving" and choose a more PC term of "holiday." It is asinine. What this all boils down to is the almighty dollar. If they offend one person there goes money out of their pockets. So, instead they decide to offend God and the birth of His son.
And the spokesperson, Wendy Slaton, needs to read up on the true meaning of Thanksgiving Day, so she can learn it is NOT about a stupid turkey. Good grief! Where do these ignorant people come from?" I almost, feel sorry for her."
It is rather sad how such wonderful and precious days of celebration have been turned into a political and PC ring circus. At least those of us who know the true meaning of Thanksgiving and Christmas can still celebrate.
However, I will be parading my button that says, "God's Gift....Merry Christmas." And I will say that to every person I encounter. I am not ashamed of my Savior or what my Heavenly Father did for me."
Friday, November 13, 2009
Federal prosecutors have announced they are taking steps to seize four U.S. mosques and a New York City skyscraper owned by a nonprofit Muslim organization. The organization -- the Alavi Foundation -- has long been suspected of being under the control of the Iranian government. Prosecutors say the Foundation has been helping to illegally funnel money back to the Iranian government.
The U.S. government filed a forfeiture action in federal court in New York to seize the four mosques, which are located in that city and in Maryland, California, and Houston. The government also wants to take control of a 36-story office tower on New York's Fifth Avenue. The filing starts what could be a drawn-out legal process.
Robert Spencer, director of Jihad Watch, views the alleged scheme as part of a much larger objective. "It's probably just the tip of the iceberg," he says. "There's massive investment of the government of Iran and other Islamic states into the United States -- and this is an important part of the jihad against the United States to ultimately gain control of our financial institutions and our finance in general."
Relinquishing financial control, he believes, would put America in peril. "[T]hat, of course, would have very, very dangerous implications for the continuing freedom of the West," says Spencer. "I certainly hope that a whole lot more of this [type of prosecution] happens, and that also law enforcement will investigate and consider the implications of Saudi funding of American mosques also."
The four mosques and the office tower will remain open while the forfeiture case works its way through court.
"It's about time! We cannot allow one more terrorist act happen on US soil. And for that matter, if the Muslims want to live in this country they had better learn to adapt to our way of life and quit expecting us to bend the rules just for them. Sharia law does not apply here."
Thursday, November 12, 2009
I can relate to a couple of stories in this book, being a survivor of abuse myself, and it helps that you are not alone. If it wasn't for God, I would not be here today."
I really admire these women for sharing such personal and intimate details of such their painful pasts."
About the book:
With His love and grace, God covered the unexpected pain in my life of becoming an adult orphan and transformed this pain into a pearl. We are all Pearl Girls. Each of us has been touched by God's gift of love and grace, and it's a gift that I want to share with others. That's why I am launching Pearl Girls.
Actually, my very first gift from my parents was a pearl. The gift of my name. Margaret means "precious pearl." So perhaps this is what I was always supposed to do. My heart's prayer is that Pearl Girls will be a blessing to others - to the women who contribute their literary talent to the Pearl Girls projects; to the readers who are inspired and comforted by the life experiences shared through these projects and to the women and children who will benefit from the proceeds given by Pearl Girls to various charities. This is a win-win for everyone, and each of us has a special part in making the Pearl Girls projects "blessed sellers."
After the first Pearl Girls tea in Atlanta, I went to my brother, Claude's home to help sort through our parents' boxes in his basement. It was an emotional experience and tedious process to discover what was in each box, to decide what to do with each item and to discard those belongings which we needed to let go. After several long hours of sorting, I received an incredible hug from heaven - a confirmation that Pearl Girls is something that is meant to be. I discovered a three strand necklace of painted pearls belonging to my grandmother from the early 1900s! Isn't that amazing?
BUY THE BOOK
It’s about Connecting Hearts and Souls to Impact the World.
As you know Margaret doesn’t keep a penny of any proceeds. When getting the word out about Pearl Girls, please let people know that 100% of the royalties go directly to two charities:WINGS (women in need growing stronger). The proceeds will help fund a Safe House in the Chicago suburbs. It costs $50 a night to provide safe shelter for a woman and her children. During this economy, WINGS is receiving even more phone calls for a safe place to stay. Already, the Pearl Girls have provided 60 nights with the advance royalties.
Hands of Hope. The proceeds will help build wells in Uganda for school children. Can you imagine a child at school without a water fountain in the hallway where he or she can grab a quick sip of water in between classes on a hot day? These children have to drink from puddles and other water sources which carry diseases and parasites. It costs $12,000 to build a well in Uganda. Already, the Pearl Girls have provided funds to build ¼ of a well.
First and foremost Margaret would like you to highlight above all else that 100% of the book’s royalties go to Charity.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
I am so thankful that I was able to be a part of the military family, being an Army brat and all. I place very high regards and hold in high esteem to our military men and women for the sacrifices that they have made in keeping this nation free from tyranny.
Thank you so much from the bottom of my heart. I honor you all.
Now to my post:
A conservative activist and former presidential candidate says despite the recent election setbacks, he does not think President Obama will moderate his ways and that he will continue to push his left wing agenda on the American people.
Saturday night, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives narrowly passed landmark healthcare legislation that includes a government health insurance plan. The final vote was 220-215, with only one Republican voting with the Democrats.
The vote was portrayed by the mainstream media as a victory for President Barack Obama, who is now urging the Senate to "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line."
Gary Bauer, Chairman of American Values, says, "I really believe the evidence is overwhelming that President Obama is committed to making fundamental, unchangeable alterations in American society. I think he believes [the] government ought to run more of the economy [and] that successful people ought to be paying much higher taxes."
Bauer does not think the recent gubernatorial election setbacks will dissuade the president from his agenda.
"I think he's so committed to this thing that his rhetoric may change a little, but I don't believe he's going to back off on any of these issues in the months ahead," Bauer predicts.
Even so, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is already hinting that senators may not be able to finish a healthcare measure this year.
"This is not surprising. Obama is relentless to change America that way he feels it should be. No matter how much opposition he faces he will not stop until he gets what he wants. I know this may sound a bit ignorant on my part, but doesn't that sound just like Hitler, Saddam Hussein, Hugo Chavez, etc.?"
Off the subject a bit, I did not care to hear or see Obama speak at the memorial service today at Ft. Hood. I just couldn't take the hypocrisy, not today. I had heard that did not salute the pictures of the fallen victims. Every president before him have always saluted the soldiers that had died, but not him, oh no. What do you expect from a man who has never, ever saluted the American flag."
Monday, November 9, 2009
The situation involves a manager from another shop telling Peter Vadala of her impending wedding to another woman. Vedala did not immediately react, nor did he provoke his superior to discuss the issue further. However, after being approached multiple times, he did later express the view of his faith toward homosexual conduct. A short time later, he heard from the chain's human resources department.
"I was fired from my job," Vadala reports. "The reason wasn't that I didn't do my job correctly. It was because I expressed my belief that homosexuality is wrong. That's the reason that I was fired."
In Massachusetts, the state anti-discrimination law provides special protection for homosexuals, and that results in silencing any opposition.
"Basically, if you work for any company in Massachusetts, if you work for any business, they can fire you for expressing your beliefs as a Christian." The former Brookstone employee iterates that this can happen "even if other people are expressing beliefs to the contrary, which [the manager] did by bringing up her so-called female fiancé."
In the termination letter Vadala received, his actions were reported as "harassment," and his comments were deemed "inappropriate and unprofessional."
"I'm a little upset that I got fired because I expressed my belief after being countered with this superior's belief multiple times."
Vadala contends that if homosexual marriage becomes legal in other states, people will risk their jobs if they express their sincere, Christian belief that homosexuality is wrong.
"This is what is going to happen to every single Christian who lives in America. We are being systematically silenced. I am surprised this poor young man wasn't arrested. That day is soon to come, though. Don't be surprised. Christians will lose their liberty."
I know for one thing, this man is going to be blessed with an even better job than the one he just lost. God is so good and I know He will provide."
Friday, November 6, 2009
Judge David Hamilton says lawmakers can pray to Allah – but not to Jesus.
Federal District Judge David Hamilton has been nominated for a seat on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Conservative senators have objected to Hamilton, because he believes in the "empathy standard" brought to light in the confirmation hearings of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The "empathy standard" means judges call on personal and life experience when making decisions, instead of following the rule of law.
In one ruling, Hamilton said legislators in the Indiana House could not pray in the name of Jesus, but prayers to Allah were acceptable.
Jay Sekulow, chief counsel with the American Center for Law and Justice, said Hamilton has ruled against religious liberty.
"This is a judge that's making the statement that having a prayer during a legislative session that ends in the name of 'Allah the Magnificent' is constitutional," he said, "but having that same prayer end in the name of 'Jesus our Messiah' is not."
Tim Goeglein, vice president for external relations for Focus on the Family Action, said the judge's reasons were confusing.
"Hamilton said it was unconstitutional," he said, "and that somehow praying in the name of Jesus, in his words, 'advanced Christianity.'"
Goeglein said lawmakers need to stand against judicial activism.
"Unfortunately, David Hamilton has a record of judicial activism," he said. "His record seems to be soft on law-and-order issues and radically pro-abortion and hostile to religious liberties."
While Hamilton may not be a Supreme Court nominee, Sekulow said his appointment is still crucial.
"It's a big deal, because 99.9 percent of the cases do not go to the Supreme Court of the United States," he said. "It's these appellate courts that are the final word."
Ask your senators to oppose the nomination of David Hamilton.
"If this nation hasn't learned yet, I hope yesterday was a horrific wake-up call that Islam is NOT a peaceful religion and there will be consequences for allowing the Muslims so much leeway here on American soil. We cannot allow this to continue.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Omigosh!! I am livid, ENRAGED!! These are American soldiers and American civilians that just got shot and killed. Families are in mourning! And this no-good for nothing of a president acts like it is just another day to give one of his long-winded speeches!
HOW DARE HE!! Please tell me someone else caught this debacle, this atrocity? Now I know for a fact he cares nothing for the American soldiers, or for the civilians of this nation.
Get that monster out of the White House now!
You know what? I need to calm down, my hands are actually shaking from anger towards that wretched, arrogant, cold and callous monster.
OH! Guess what? The shooter that was killed has been identified as Major Malik Nadal Hasan.
See for yourselves.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is hoping to begin floor debate on Democrats' healthcare bill (H.R. 3692) Friday night, with the goal of holding a vote as early as Saturday. Meantime, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is warning that the Senate may be unable to help President Obama make good on his repeated promise to pass healthcare legislation before the end of the year.
Blue Dog Democratic Congressman Bart Stupak (Michigan) said in a statement Wednesday he "will oppose bringing the bill to the floor until an amendment can be offered or language agreed that will prevent public funding for abortion." Fellow Blue Dog Travis Childers (D-Mississippi) has voiced similar intent, for the same reason. Stupak also said he will continue to encourage his other pro-life Democratic colleagues to block the bill "until there is satisfactory language to prevent public funding for abortion."
Congresswoman Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyoming) notes that the Capps Amendment, which allows federal funding of abortion, was incorporated into the healthcare bill.
"The way that [Democrats] are trying to characterize it is saying that direct federal taxpayer dollars will not be used -- but premium dollars will be used," she explains. "And these premium dollars are coming from basically the taxpayers, so it is a nuanced argument -- it is incorrect. Yes indeed, people will be able to get publicly funded abortions in the bill."
In addition to being divided over whether to allow taxpayer funding of abortion in their healthcare bill, Democrats have also failed to resolve their differences over providing government health insurance subsidies to illegal aliens.
What's good for the goose...
Meanwhile, a Georgia lawmaker says Democrats' refusal to enroll in the public health insurance program they are seeking to create "reeks of hypocrisy." Congressman Phil Gingrey (R-Georgia), co-chair of the GOP's Doctors Caucus, is co-sponsoring an amendment that would automatically enroll all members of Congress in the public option. He acknowledges there is little chance the amendment will be considered. (Listen to audio report)
"Clearly if this public option is so good -- and you've got these health choices administrators very powerfully saying this is what an insurance plan coverage will look like; and then you have the Comparative Effectiveness Council saying these are the things that we'll pay for and these are the things we won't pay for -- then by golly, every member of Congress and also every member of the administration and all these czars created by President Obama and his team of advisers...ought to sign up as well for the public option," he states.
"If the Democrats are so desperate for this healthcare bill, maybe they should use it first, before shoving it down our throats."
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
in Virginia and New Jersey?
This is a victory indeed, but far from over. The GOP has a long way to go. We are still divided in many areas and need to get things in order and unite the party. From what I have gathered many people that voted were "Independents" which does not bode well. I, myself, have been severely discouraged by the Republicans and have my doubts about them turning things around.
Americans want their voices to be heard by their representatives and to expect some action. We need leaders who will stand up for the people and abide by their wishes, and not go on their own cognizance. The majority of people need and want to keep traditional marriage, to make abortion illegal, to have our borders secure, to support Israel, get out of debt from China.
Most importantly to remain a Christian nation under God, not Allah.
We need to get back to the basics and look at how our forefathers ran this nation. Study the constitution and Bill of Rights and not change things at a whim.
Okay, I guess I am done ranting and raving.
Monday, November 2, 2009
"In my own life, in my own small way, I have tried to give back to this
country that has given me so much," she said. "See, that's why I left a job at a big law firm for a career in public service, "... Michelle Obama
No, Michele Obama does not get paid to serve as the First Lady and she
doesn't perform any official duties.
But, this hasn't deterred her from hiring an unprecedented number of
staffers to cater to her every whim and to satisfy her every request in the midst
of the Great Recession.
Just think, Mary Lincoln was taken to task for purchasing china for the
White House during the Civil War. And Mamie Eisenhower had to shell out the salary for her personal secretary from her husband's salary.
Total Personal Staff members for other first ladies paid by taxpayers:
Mamie Eisenhower : 1 paid for personally out of President's salary
Jackie Kennedy: 1
Roseline Carter: 1
Barbara Bush: 1
Hilary Clinton: 3
Laura Bush: 1
Michele Obama: 22
How things have changed! If you're one of the tens of millions of Americans facing certain destitution, earning less than subsistence wages stocking the shelves at Wal-Mart or serving up McDonald cheeseburgers, prepare to scream and then come to realize that the benefit package for these servants of Ms Michelle are the same as members of the national security and defense departments and the bill for these assorted lackeys is paid by YOU, John Q. Public:
Michele Obama's personal staff:
1.. $172,200 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and
White House Social Secretary for Mrs. Obama)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and
Director of Communications for the First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and
Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lel yveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for
the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social
11. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and
Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director
for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M. (Associate Director and Deputy Press
Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and
Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence
For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samanth a (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff
to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Jackson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of
Correspondence for the First Lady)
(total = $1,591,200 in annual salaries)
There has NEVER been anyone in the White House at any time
who has created such an army of staffers whose sole duties
are the facilitation of the First Lady's social life.
One wonders why she needs so much help, at taxpayer expense.
Note: This does not include makeup artist Ingrid Grimes-Miles, 49, and "First Hairstylist" Johnny Wright, 31, both of whom traveled aboard Air Force One to
"I verified this at Truth or Fiction. And it says that the amount of staff members of Laura Bush and Hilary Clinton are incorrect, but they do not say how many?"
Does this surprises anyone? The Obamas' have been misusing taxpayer money since the first day they walked into the White House. They have no regard for all the hard-working Americans and they use OUR money as their own personal piggy banks.
And why do we have to hear this from a Canadian news source? Because our biased MSM wouldn't dare report this kind of truth. There is no way they would tarnish their messiah's good name.
It's a shame that this kind of information cannot be used to force Obama out of office. Misuse of funds, or something, right?
Page 110 of H.R. 3962, the Affordable Health Care for America Act, authorizes a new government health insurance program to pay for all elective abortions. Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, explains.
"This is a federal agency, a federal program, [and] of course it's going to spend federal funds -- that's the only kind of funds it's got," he notes. "So all of these assurances that some prominent Democrats, including President Obama, have given that there won't be federal funding for abortions, that's not what's in the bill."
Johnson warns that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) wants to ram the bill through without representatives having a chance to vote on a single amendment. However, in order to use that "closed rule" procedure, a majority of House members have to agree to the move. The pro-life spokesman is urging members to vote "no" on a closed rule.
"We want to vote on an amendment that would take abortion out of this bill, which is the [Bart] Stupak amendment," Johnson clarifies, referring to the Michigan Democrat. "We believe if we could get a vote in the full House on that amendment, it would pass."
Congressman Stupak has vowed that if he does not get a vote on his amendment barring federal funding of abortion, he and 40 pro-life Democrats will block a full House vote on the healthcare bill.