HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!!!
May 2012 be everything you want it to be.
.
Custom Search
Saturday, December 31, 2011
Happy New Year 2012
By Susan Duclos
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!!!
May 2012 be everything you want it to be.
.
HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!!!
May 2012 be everything you want it to be.
.
Iranians Decide To Keep Christian Pastor In Prison For Another Year Hoping To Force His Conversion To Islam
Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani was arrested in his home city of Rasht, Iran on October 13, 2009. He was charged with ‘apostasy’ (renunciation of a religion) and ‘evangelim’. Yousef was tried on Sept. 21–22, 2010 by the 1st Court of the Revolutionary Tribunal and sentenced to death on Nov. 13 for apostasy.
Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani has been under the death threat since 2009. The Iranian government has imprisoned and torture Pastor Nadarkhani for the last 3 years.
As long as Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani refuses to convert, he will stay alive. The minute he converts, they will kill him for blasphemy.
Pray for the safety of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani. He is in the lion's den. May G-d send one of his angels to stand besides him.
By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle
Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani has been under the death threat since 2009. The Iranian government has imprisoned and torture Pastor Nadarkhani for the last 3 years.
An Iranian court is likely to delay its verdict in a case concerning Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani, who is facing death penalty for converting to Christianity, to allow authorities to further coerce him to convert to Islam as he remains in jail.The Iranians are giving themselves another year of imprisonment and torture to force this good man to renounce the faith he loves and embrace the horror of Islam. This is how Islam has converted millions over the years. Not by logical arguments, but by torture and the sword.
The evangelical pastor’s lawyer has learned that the head of Iran’s judiciary, Ayatollah Sadegh Larijani, has asked the presiding judge over the trial, Ghazi Kashani, to delay the pending judgment and keep him in prison for another year, Present Truth Ministries said in a statement Thursday.
Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani
Nadarkhani, a 32-year-old house church leader from the Church of Iran denomination, was convicted of apostasy last year and was sentenced to death by hanging. However, the Supreme Court of Iran asked for the retrial of his case by a lower court in the city of Rasht in northern Gilan Province.
The deliberate delay is meant to let the case “slip away from international attention” even as the authorities continue to “use whatever means necessary to cause him to convert to Islam,” said Jason DeMars, the founder of the ministry that was first to report on the pastor’s arrest two years ago.
It was earlier learnt that the court in Rasht had asked Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei, the highest ranking political and religious authority in Shi’a-majority Iran, to rule on whether the pastor should be put to death.
The pastor was arrested in October 2009 from Rasht for allegedly protesting Islamic instruction in schools for his children, Daniel, 9, and Yoel, 7, and after he sought to register his church. Authorities, however, later changed the charges to apostasy. He has been lodged in a prison in Lakan, about seven miles south of Rasht, since then.
In June 2010, authorities also arrested pastor’s wife Fatemah Pasindedih to pressure him to convert. During this time their boys went to live with a relative. Yousef and his wife were also threatened that their children would be taken away and given to a Muslim family, but they remained firm. Pasindedih was later released.
The Rasht court convicted the pastor of leaving Islam and sentenced him to death in November 2010.
The pastor appealed against the Rasht court’s ruling at the Supreme Court in December 2010, as apostasy is not a crime as per Iran’s penal code. The court, however, held in June 2011 that apostasy was still punishable under Sharia or Islamic law but asked the lower court to reexamine whether Nadarkhani was a believer in Islam when he adopted Christianity at the age of 19.
During the hearings held in September 2011, Pastor Nadarkhani was told by authorities that he would be given three opportunities to embrace Islam and renounce his faith in Christianity to have the charges removed. But he refused to do so.
On Sept. 26, the court determined that Youcef was a Muslim when he adopted Christianity because he was born in a Muslim family. All witnesses stated that he did not practice Islam, yet the court inexplicably determined he was a national apostate.
While the court is likely to wait for another year before reaching a decision, “there are no assurances that he will not be executed,” warned the ministry. “It could happen at any time. This is the way that the Iranian government operates with executions. They do not give advance notice and it is done in secret.”
Finish reading here.
As long as Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani refuses to convert, he will stay alive. The minute he converts, they will kill him for blasphemy.
Pray for the safety of Pastor Yousef Nadarkhani. He is in the lion's den. May G-d send one of his angels to stand besides him.
By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle
Bipartisan Emergency Legislation Proposed To Intervene In VA GOP Ballot Battle
By Susan Duclos
Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Virginia are jumping into the ballot dispute which recently roiled the state of Virginia when two of the four GOP candidates that submitted signatures to be included on the VA GOP primary ballot were disqualified after VA's certification process.
FOX News:
Related WuA pieces on this issue:
Virginia GOP Changed Rules For Primary In November 2011?
Rick Perry Sues Virginia For Ballot Access
.
Republican and Democratic lawmakers in Virginia are jumping into the ballot dispute which recently roiled the state of Virginia when two of the four GOP candidates that submitted signatures to be included on the VA GOP primary ballot were disqualified after VA's certification process.FOX News:
Only Mitt Romney and Ron Paul qualified for the Virginia primary, a contest with 49 delegates up for grabs.
The failure of other candidates to qualify -- notably Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry -- led to complaints that the 10,000-signature requirement is too stringent.
Cuccinelli, who is a Republican, shared the concerns.
"Recent events have underscored that our system is deficient," he said in a statement. "Virginia owes her citizens a better process. We can do it in time for the March primary if we resolve to do so quickly."
Cuccinelli's proposal is expected to state that if the Virginia Board of Elections certifies that a candidate is receiving federal matching funds, or has qualified to receive them, that candidate will upon request be automatically added to the ballot.
Two former Democratic attorneys general are also backing the move, along with a former Democratic state party chairman and a former Republican state party chairman.
Former state Attorney General Tony Troy called the Virginia process a "legal and constitutional embarrassment."
Fellow former top Virginia prosecutor Steve Rosenthal said: "This is not a Democratic or Republican issue. If it takes emergency legislation, then we need to do it."
Sources told Fox News that Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell is expected to support the emergency legislation as well.
Related WuA pieces on this issue:
Virginia GOP Changed Rules For Primary In November 2011?
Rick Perry Sues Virginia For Ballot Access
.
Steep Decline Of Disillusioned 2008 Obama Youth Voters Is Profound Loss To Democratic Party
By Susan Duclos
"I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."--- Hillary Clinton 2008- (Source- CBS News)
The nonpartisan, independent Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), in an analysis of current voter registration data in the key electoral states of Nevada and North Carolina, found what they term as a "profound loss of the registration advantage Democrats held during the 2008 election cycle."
That loss was shown to be a steep decline of youth voters, which two-thirds of predominantly registered and turned out to support Barack Obama in 2008.
This is representative of what is being seen across the nation and shouldn't be a huge surprise since polling has shown this pattern of disillusionment from youth voters for a while now.
Back in June, The Hill reported that a plurality of youth voters disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy by a 44 percent to 31 percent margin and 61 percent said they would "place higher priority on a candidate’s position on issues and record in office, rather than charisma and likability when they cast their vote for president next year."
Young voters just becoming politically active are often taken in by "hope and change" rhetoric, feel good speeches, and unrealistic and impossible campaign promises, but hopefully the youth voters from 2008 learned a valuable lesson about the importance of experience and voting records.
.
"I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say. He's never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002."--- Hillary Clinton 2008- (Source- CBS News)The nonpartisan, independent Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), in an analysis of current voter registration data in the key electoral states of Nevada and North Carolina, found what they term as a "profound loss of the registration advantage Democrats held during the 2008 election cycle."
That loss was shown to be a steep decline of youth voters, which two-thirds of predominantly registered and turned out to support Barack Obama in 2008.
•North Carolina — Between November 2008 and November 2011, North Carolina saw a net gain of 93,709 in the number of overall, new registrations. However, youth registrants (ages 18-25) lost a net of 48,500 new registrations, while older adults (ages 26 and over) gained over 142,000 registrants. Of the 48,500 net loss in youth registrants, 80.4% were lost among registered Democrats, a net loss of 39,049 young Democratic registrants.
•Nevada — Nevada’s registration rolls have shrunk by a net of 117,109 people since the 2008 election, of whom 50,912 (or 43% of the decline) are between the ages of 18-24. The significant challenge for Democratic candidates in Nevada in 2012, including the re-election campaign of President Barack Obama, is not the ratio of Democrats to Republicans among Nevada youth, since Democratic young people still outnumber Republican young people on the registration rolls by 45,222 to 25,182. However, the potentially, negative electoral impact for the re-election campaign of President Obama is due to the decline in the youth share of all registrants — youth were 11% of Nevada’s registered voters in 2008 election but just 7.85% in October 2011. Given the overwhelming support young voters showed President Obama’s 2008 campaign, with nearly two-thirds of young voters casting their ballot for Obama, this drop in the share of the electorate comprised of young voters could prove a major difficulty to the 2012 re-election campaign for President Obama in Nevada.
This is representative of what is being seen across the nation and shouldn't be a huge surprise since polling has shown this pattern of disillusionment from youth voters for a while now.
Back in June, The Hill reported that a plurality of youth voters disapproved of Obama's handling of the economy by a 44 percent to 31 percent margin and 61 percent said they would "place higher priority on a candidate’s position on issues and record in office, rather than charisma and likability when they cast their vote for president next year."
Young voters just becoming politically active are often taken in by "hope and change" rhetoric, feel good speeches, and unrealistic and impossible campaign promises, but hopefully the youth voters from 2008 learned a valuable lesson about the importance of experience and voting records.
.
Friday, December 30, 2011
Plurality Believe Republican Will Take White House In 2012
By Susan Duclos
Short and sweet, from Rasmussen:
.
Short and sweet, from Rasmussen:
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 47% of Likely U.S. Voters think the Republican candidate is most likely to beat President Obama, while 39% expect the incumbent to win reelection.
.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Videos- Huntsman 'Iowa Caucus Is Irrelevant', Perry 'Win Iowa'
By Susan Duclos
With the Iowa caucuses set for January 3, 2012, two of the GOP candidates, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry couldn't be further apart regarding Iowa.
The Rick Perry campaign produces a video titled "Win Iowa" (shown below)
On the other end of the spectrum we see, via RCP, that Jon Huntsman spoke with NH Host Paul Westcott on WGIR AM 610 and 96.7 the Wave, and said Iowa will be "forgotten in a day or two," and believes the Iowa caucuses are "irrelevant."
Iowa is not the be-all-end-all of the GOP primaries/caucuses but each and every state is important and stating publicly that Iowa is irrelevant just days before their caucus goers head to vote, isn't exactly the smartest political move a candidate can make.
.
With the Iowa caucuses set for January 3, 2012, two of the GOP candidates, Jon Huntsman and Rick Perry couldn't be further apart regarding Iowa.
The Rick Perry campaign produces a video titled "Win Iowa" (shown below)
On the other end of the spectrum we see, via RCP, that Jon Huntsman spoke with NH Host Paul Westcott on WGIR AM 610 and 96.7 the Wave, and said Iowa will be "forgotten in a day or two," and believes the Iowa caucuses are "irrelevant."
Iowa is not the be-all-end-all of the GOP primaries/caucuses but each and every state is important and stating publicly that Iowa is irrelevant just days before their caucus goers head to vote, isn't exactly the smartest political move a candidate can make.
.
List Of States Where Unemployment Is Still At Or Above 8%
By Susan Duclos
According to priority polling, via Polling Report.com, those that include unemployment and jobs in their survey question, the majority of Americans list economy and jobs as their number one priority, which is indicative of unemployment numbers and/or the economy playing a very large part of the decision making process in 2012 when voters will decide whether to reelect Barack Obama or replace him with another president.
The United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics has a page which lists the local area unemployment statistics and the areas still at or above 8 percent as of November, are listed below.
Alabama- 8.7%
Arizona- 8.7%
Arkansas- 8.0%
California- 11.3%
Colorado- 8.0%
Connecticut- 8.4%
D.C.- 10.6%
Florida- 10.0%
Georgia- 9.9%
Idaho- 8.5%
Illinois- 10.0%
Indiana- 9.0%
Kentucky- 9.4%
Michigan- 9.8%
Mississippi- 10.5%
Missouri- 8.2%
Nevada- 13.0%
New Jersey- 9.1%
New York- 8.0%
North Carolina- 10.0%
Ohio- 8.5%
Oregon- 9.1%
Rhode Island- 10.5%
South Carolina- 9.9%
Tennessee- 9.1%
Texas- 8.1%
Washington- 8.7%
Excluding DC, that is over half the states in America who are still at or above 8% unemployment.
Early December it was reported the national "official" unemployment dropped to 8.6%, which did not include the 2.6 million persons marginally attached to the work force, ready, able, needing and willing to work but had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
Including those people, the U6 Unemployment according to the Department of Labor is 15.6%.
The reasoning behind the drop in the official unemployment numbers was cause for concern by many experts and was explained by Bloomberg at the time:
Using December 2011 polling numbers from Reuters/Ipsos, Associated Press/GfK, Rasmussen Reports and CBS News, the national average shows that 69.8% of the public believes the country in heading in the wrong direction with only 25% thinking the U.S. is heading in the right direction.
Other polling numbers show that 60% of voters disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy and 54% of voters do not believe he has performed his job as president well enough to be reelected. (Source- CBS News)
In November 2012, jobs, the economy and Obama jobs performance in specific areas, will be uppermost in the minds of voters when they cast their vote on whether to reelect Barack Obama or change the direction this country is heading and replace him.
Barack Obama recently said "We’re Better Off Today Than When I Took Over."
Are we?
Are you?
.
According to priority polling, via Polling Report.com, those that include unemployment and jobs in their survey question, the majority of Americans list economy and jobs as their number one priority, which is indicative of unemployment numbers and/or the economy playing a very large part of the decision making process in 2012 when voters will decide whether to reelect Barack Obama or replace him with another president.The United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics has a page which lists the local area unemployment statistics and the areas still at or above 8 percent as of November, are listed below.
Alabama- 8.7%
Arizona- 8.7%
Arkansas- 8.0%
California- 11.3%
Colorado- 8.0%
Connecticut- 8.4%
D.C.- 10.6%
Florida- 10.0%
Georgia- 9.9%
Idaho- 8.5%
Illinois- 10.0%
Indiana- 9.0%
Kentucky- 9.4%
Michigan- 9.8%
Mississippi- 10.5%
Missouri- 8.2%
Nevada- 13.0%
New Jersey- 9.1%
New York- 8.0%
North Carolina- 10.0%
Ohio- 8.5%
Oregon- 9.1%
Rhode Island- 10.5%
South Carolina- 9.9%
Tennessee- 9.1%
Texas- 8.1%
Washington- 8.7%
Excluding DC, that is over half the states in America who are still at or above 8% unemployment.
Early December it was reported the national "official" unemployment dropped to 8.6%, which did not include the 2.6 million persons marginally attached to the work force, ready, able, needing and willing to work but had not searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey.
Including those people, the U6 Unemployment according to the Department of Labor is 15.6%.
The reasoning behind the drop in the official unemployment numbers was cause for concern by many experts and was explained by Bloomberg at the time:
The unemployment rate, derived from a separate survey of households, was forecast to hold at 9 percent. The decrease in the jobless rate reflected a 278,000 gain in employment at the same time 315,000 Americans left the labor force.
“You’d like to see the unemployment rate coming down when people are coming into the job market, not disappearing,” James Glassman, senior economist at JP Morgan Chase & Co. in New York, said in a radio interview on “Bloomberg Surveillance” with Tom Keene.
Using December 2011 polling numbers from Reuters/Ipsos, Associated Press/GfK, Rasmussen Reports and CBS News, the national average shows that 69.8% of the public believes the country in heading in the wrong direction with only 25% thinking the U.S. is heading in the right direction.
Other polling numbers show that 60% of voters disapprove of Obama's handling of the economy and 54% of voters do not believe he has performed his job as president well enough to be reelected. (Source- CBS News)
In November 2012, jobs, the economy and Obama jobs performance in specific areas, will be uppermost in the minds of voters when they cast their vote on whether to reelect Barack Obama or change the direction this country is heading and replace him.
Barack Obama recently said "We’re Better Off Today Than When I Took Over."
Are we?
Are you?
.
Wednesday, December 28, 2011
9/11 Survivors approach important January 2 deadline
*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita*
There seems to be much confusion as to which 9/11 Survivors will be affected by the looming deadline of January 2, 2012.
The New York Times had this the other day:
Zero hour for 9/11 victims
By DAVID B. CARUSO
More than 1,600 people who filed lawsuits claiming their health was ruined by dust and smoke from the collapsed World Trade Center must decide by Jan. 2 whether to keep fighting in court, or drop the litigation and apply for benefits in a federal compensation fund.
For some, the choice is fraught with risk. Federal lawmakers set aside some $2.76 billion last winter for people who developed illnesses after spending time in the ash-choked zone.
But to be considered for a share of the aid, all potential applicants must dismiss any pending lawsuits by the deadline and give up their right to sue forever over 9/11 health problems. Anyone with a lawsuit still pending on Jan. 3 is barred from the program for life...
Confused enough yet? A 9/11 group I belong to sent out a mass email today, which clarifies:
January 2, 2012 deadline regarding the Victims Compensation Fund
There has been great confusion over the January 2, 2012 deadline regarding the Victims Compensation Fund. I want to use this email to help clarify some points and help you protect your rights.
First, the January 2, 2012 deadline only applies to those men and women who have CURRENTLY PENDING LITIGATION BEFORE A STATE OR FEDERAL COURT. For those who have currently pending litigation, it is imperative that you discuss this matter with your attorney and decide whether to continue your litigation or withdraw such court action so that you may enter the Victims Compensation Fund. If you do not withdraw the pending litigation prior to January 2, 2012 you will be barred from entering the Victims Compensation Fund. This appears to be a steadfast statute of limitations issue and there will be no exceptions. Please do not miss this deadline without giving this issue due and proper consideration.
Please note, that if you have previously settled all your court claims and are simply awaiting your final payments, this deadline does not apply to you. However, if you are uncertain whether you have currently pending litigation before any federal or state court, I urge you to contact your attorney immediately to ascertain this information. No one should miss this deadline due to lack of information!
For those that know they have currently pending litigation, and are uncertain whether their attorney has withdrawn the matter, I again urge you to contact your counsel immediately and advise them of your wishes. If you are unable to contact counsel timely, but wish to withdraw your claims, I urge you to write letters both to your attorney and Judge Hellerstein advising of your desire to have your claims withdrawn. I would suggest that you send these letters via certified, overnight mail or FedEx in order to properly track them and show proof that you attempted to withdraw your matters in a timely fashion.
In closing, for those that have currently pending litigation, please do not take this issue lightly. It is a very difficult choice that you face and I urge you all to listen to the advise of your attorneys. Neither I nor anyone other than counsel can properly inform you which avenue to choose, but I can advise you that inaction will make the choice for you. ..
All the First Responders who worked within the madness that was 9/11 need to be sure they have the FACTS to protect their rights to what they so selflessly EARNED on that day, and in the weeks and months following.
News Flash: Iowa Is A Closed Primary/Caucus State- Only Registered Republicans Count
By Susan Duclos
Headline from Democratic leaning Public Policy Polling today blares "Paul Maintains His Lead."
Dig into the article and the poll shows that Paul's lead is mainly with Democrats and Independents and has in fact shrunk among Republican voters.
News Flash: Iowa is a closed primary/caucus state.
Closed primary/caucuses mean that only voters registered with a given party can vote in the primary.
Caveat: Voters may change registration on the day of the primary.
Using PPP's polling from a week ago and again this week, we see that favorable impressions among Democrats rose from 59 percent to 70 percent. Favorability among Independents rose from 60 percent to 63 percent.
Favorability among Republicans fell from 52 percent to 49 percent.
Perhaps a percentage of those Democratic Paul supporters will change their registration to Republican and for the sake of argument lets say a portion of Independents will give up their party freedom to register as a Republican.
How many? Will there be enough that change party affiliation or register to push Paul into a win in Iowa? Are the Democrats that are willing to change party affiliation to Republican, just to participate doing it because they are disappointed in Obama or to cause "mischief ?"
With all the headlines and discussions talking about the Paul lead in Iowa, not much is seen mentioning the fact that Iowa is a closed primary/caucus, so a simple Google search finds some mention although not a whole lot.
Neil Stevens over at RedState on December 13, talks about it.
The bottom line here is a Republican nor Democratic candidate of choice, the eventual nominee, no matter who takes Iowa and/or New Hampshire primaries and caucuses, is chosen by the party faithful not "the other party" and Paul's highest level of support is from Democrats.
.
Headline from Democratic leaning Public Policy Polling today blares "Paul Maintains His Lead."Dig into the article and the poll shows that Paul's lead is mainly with Democrats and Independents and has in fact shrunk among Republican voters.
Paul's strength in Iowa continues to depend on a coalition of voters that's pretty unusual for a Republican in the state. Romney leads 22-20 with those who are actually Republicans, while Paul has a 39-12 advantage with the 24% who are either independents or Democrats.
News Flash: Iowa is a closed primary/caucus state.
Closed primary/caucuses mean that only voters registered with a given party can vote in the primary.
Caveat: Voters may change registration on the day of the primary.
Using PPP's polling from a week ago and again this week, we see that favorable impressions among Democrats rose from 59 percent to 70 percent. Favorability among Independents rose from 60 percent to 63 percent.
Favorability among Republicans fell from 52 percent to 49 percent.
Perhaps a percentage of those Democratic Paul supporters will change their registration to Republican and for the sake of argument lets say a portion of Independents will give up their party freedom to register as a Republican.
How many? Will there be enough that change party affiliation or register to push Paul into a win in Iowa? Are the Democrats that are willing to change party affiliation to Republican, just to participate doing it because they are disappointed in Obama or to cause "mischief ?"
With all the headlines and discussions talking about the Paul lead in Iowa, not much is seen mentioning the fact that Iowa is a closed primary/caucus, so a simple Google search finds some mention although not a whole lot.
Neil Stevens over at RedState on December 13, talks about it.
But these numbers are not as great for Ron Paul as some would have us believe. Ron Paul is only winning among Paul caucusers in the state, and he came in fifth place in 2008 at 10%, well behind Mike Huckabee’s 34%. The only way Paul wins is to register new Republicans by the truckload and then drive them to the caucuses. As the polls show, so far that’s not happening. His supporters are still independents, not Republicans, and thus don’t matter in the final tally.
The bottom line here is a Republican nor Democratic candidate of choice, the eventual nominee, no matter who takes Iowa and/or New Hampshire primaries and caucuses, is chosen by the party faithful not "the other party" and Paul's highest level of support is from Democrats.
.
Rick Perry Sues Virginia For Ballot Access
By Susan Duclos
As was discussed the other day, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich turned in the required 10,000 plus names to qualify for their names to be added to the Virginia GOP primary ballot, but because they turned in less than 15,000 names, the Virginia GOP put those names through a verification process and disqualified both Perry and Gingrich.
(Both turned in over 11,000 signatures)
Romney and Paul were the only two the Virginia GOP certified to be listed on the March 2012 primary ballot.
Yet, Romney, by virtue of how many names (over 15,000) was allowed to bypass the verification process.
It was recently reported that the verification process had not been utilized in previous elections and was determined to be used for the 2012 elections, in November of 2011.
After the news hit that the Virginia GOP did not certify Gingrich and Romney, it was suggested that this issue might be seen in court.
Which brings us to today's news from MSNBC's First Read, who reports Rick Perry has filed a lawsuit against Virginia to gain access to the GOP primary ballot.
While some experts say the lawsuit faces long shot odds, over at Hot Air it is pointed out that certain federal appellate court rulings have sided with Perry's argument about requirements for petition circulators, to be unconstitutional.
The Perry complaint can be found here.(PDF)
Why didn't Perry approach Gingrich about teaming up for this lawsuit since both candidates submitted over 11,000 names, both were disqualified by the verification process, and both subject to Virginia's onerous rules?
.
As was discussed the other day, Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich turned in the required 10,000 plus names to qualify for their names to be added to the Virginia GOP primary ballot, but because they turned in less than 15,000 names, the Virginia GOP put those names through a verification process and disqualified both Perry and Gingrich.
(Both turned in over 11,000 signatures)
Romney and Paul were the only two the Virginia GOP certified to be listed on the March 2012 primary ballot.
Yet, Romney, by virtue of how many names (over 15,000) was allowed to bypass the verification process.
It was recently reported that the verification process had not been utilized in previous elections and was determined to be used for the 2012 elections, in November of 2011.
After the news hit that the Virginia GOP did not certify Gingrich and Romney, it was suggested that this issue might be seen in court.
Which brings us to today's news from MSNBC's First Read, who reports Rick Perry has filed a lawsuit against Virginia to gain access to the GOP primary ballot.
While some experts say the lawsuit faces long shot odds, over at Hot Air it is pointed out that certain federal appellate court rulings have sided with Perry's argument about requirements for petition circulators, to be unconstitutional.
Here’s one case, from the Tenth Circuit, finding state residency requirements for petition circulators unconstitutional; two other federal appellate courts have ruled similarly. The question is whether the Fourth Circuit, which covers Virginia, will rule the same way.
The Perry complaint can be found here.(PDF)
Why didn't Perry approach Gingrich about teaming up for this lawsuit since both candidates submitted over 11,000 names, both were disqualified by the verification process, and both subject to Virginia's onerous rules?
.
Tuesday, December 27, 2011
Gingrich '06 Memo Expresses Grave Concerns Over Romney Health Care
By Susan Duclos
After reading the top headline on Memeorandum which states, "Gingrich ’06 Memo: “Agree Entirely With Gov. Romney” on Health Care," one would think that Newt Gingrich actually agreed, in fact, "entirely" agreed, with Mitt Romney and Massachusetts legislators on Romney's proposed and passed health care laws.
Noel Sheppard over at NewsBusters reads the full memo and notices how the ABC News headline and article misrepresent Gingrich's words by referring to areas of disagreement as "some criticisms."
No, it doesn't.
What it does sound like is ABC News' deliberately misleading and false headline using only specific quotes that make it appear their headline is factual, is another attempt by the mainstream media to influence politics by pushing their readers to false conclusions and towards the GOP candidate the media themselves are trying to make inevitable.
With examples of journalistic incompetence like this, is it any wonder that Pew Research in September found that 66 percent of Americans believe news stories are often "inaccurate" and do not get the facts straight?
More:
Headlines like ABC's, shown above, with only half of the information given to support their false conclusions within the article, is one of the main reasons for the high level of distrust Americans have come to associate with the mainstream media.
Sidenote- No candidate is inevitable, remember in 2007 Hillary Clinton was also hailed by the media as the inevitable Democratic nominee for president, and look what happened there.
After reading the top headline on Memeorandum which states, "Gingrich ’06 Memo: “Agree Entirely With Gov. Romney” on Health Care," one would think that Newt Gingrich actually agreed, in fact, "entirely" agreed, with Mitt Romney and Massachusetts legislators on Romney's proposed and passed health care laws.Noel Sheppard over at NewsBusters reads the full memo and notices how the ABC News headline and article misrepresent Gingrich's words by referring to areas of disagreement as "some criticisms."
Inside the actual document uncovered by BuzzFeed’s Andrew Kaczynski, the former Speaker didn't "agree entirely with Gov. Romney" at all (emphasis added):While in theory the plan should be affordable if the whole state contributes to the cost, the reality is that Massachusetts has an exhaustive list of health coverage regulations prohibiting insurers from offering more basic, pared-down policies with higher deductibles. (This is yet another reminder that America must establish a cross-state insurance market that gives individuals the freedom to shop for insurance plans in states other than their own.)In our estimation, Massachusetts residents earning little more than $30,000 a year are in jeopardy of being priced out of the system. In the event that this occurs, Governor Romney will be in grave danger of repeating the mistakes of his predecessor, Mike Dukakis, whose 1988 health plan was hailed as a save-all but eventually collapsed when poorly-devised payment structures created a malaise of unfulfilled promises. We propose that a more realistic approach might be to limit the mandate to those individuals earning upwards of $54,000 per year.
Does that sound like Gingrich "agree[d] entirely with Gov. Romney?"
No, it doesn't.
What it does sound like is ABC News' deliberately misleading and false headline using only specific quotes that make it appear their headline is factual, is another attempt by the mainstream media to influence politics by pushing their readers to false conclusions and towards the GOP candidate the media themselves are trying to make inevitable.
With examples of journalistic incompetence like this, is it any wonder that Pew Research in September found that 66 percent of Americans believe news stories are often "inaccurate" and do not get the facts straight?
Americans also believe that news stories are often inaccurate - with 66 percent thinking that, compared with 34 percent in 1985. Only 25 percent of those surveyed think news organizations “get the facts straight.”
And when reporters get the facts wrong, 72 percent of Americans said that they “try to cover up their mistakes” rather than admitting them, yet another record high, according to Pew. Only 18 percent said that reporters were willing to admit their mistakes.
While majorities of Americans said that the news media remained highly professional (57 percent) and care about the quality of their work (68 percent), a historically large percentage of respondents thought that reporters were “not professional (32 percent) and “don’t care about how good a job they do” (31 percent).
By a large margin, respondents said that reporters were “politically biased in their reporting,” with a record high 63 percent agreeing with this view and only 25 percent disagreeing.
More:
Meanwhile, another new poll out this week reaffirmed the continuing American perception of liberal bias in the news media, and showed deep mistrust in the accuracy of their reporting.
Americans were asked if they how much trust and confidence in the mass media, and a majority - 55 percent - responded “not very much” or “none at all,” according to a new Gallup poll. A majority of Americans have remained distrustful of the media since 2007.
A significant majority of Americans, 60 percent, also perceive bias in the media. 47 percent said that the media is too liberal, and 13 percent said that that it was too conservative.
Americans have perceived more liberal bias in the media than conservative bias by a large margin since at least 2002, according to Gallup.
Headlines like ABC's, shown above, with only half of the information given to support their false conclusions within the article, is one of the main reasons for the high level of distrust Americans have come to associate with the mainstream media.
Sidenote- No candidate is inevitable, remember in 2007 Hillary Clinton was also hailed by the media as the inevitable Democratic nominee for president, and look what happened there.
Monday, December 26, 2011
Virginia GOP Changed Rules For Primary In November 2011?
By Susan Duclos
With the recent news that both the Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich campaigns submitted the required 10,000 signatures to obtain access to be put on the Virginia primary ballot but were disqualified during the verification process, this report by BallotAccess.org is extremely relevant.
If this is indeed the first year the VA GOP actually performed the verification process, then comparing any other year to this situation is like comparing apples to oranges.
Changing the rules a month before the deadline is a significant screw up on the party of the VA GOP.
Furthermore, if a candidate submits 15,000 signatures the signatures aren't verified at all.
Because Perry and Gingrich only submitted 11,000 plus signatures they had to be individually verified, yet Paul and Romney's signatures went through NO verification process whatsoever because they submitted over 15,000.
.
With the recent news that both the Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich campaigns submitted the required 10,000 signatures to obtain access to be put on the Virginia primary ballot but were disqualified during the verification process, this report by BallotAccess.org is extremely relevant.But what has not been reported is that in the only other presidential primaries in which Virginia required 10,000 signatures (2000, 2004, and 2008) the signatures were not checked. Any candidate who submitted at least 10,000 raw signatures was put on the ballot. In 2000, five Republicans qualified: George Bush, John McCain, Alan Keyes, Gary Bauer, and Steve Forbes. In 2004 there was no Republican primary in Virginia. In 2008, seven Republicans qualified: John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, and Alan Keyes.
If this is indeed the first year the VA GOP actually performed the verification process, then comparing any other year to this situation is like comparing apples to oranges.
Changing the rules a month before the deadline is a significant screw up on the party of the VA GOP.
Furthermore, if a candidate submits 15,000 signatures the signatures aren't verified at all.
Under the Code of Virginia, any candidate who wants to have their name placed on the March 6, 2012 Republican Presidential Ballot or the June 12, 2012 U.S. Senate Primary must collect the signatures of 10,000 registered voters statewide, with at least 400 signatures of registered voters from each of Virginia’s 11 Congressional Districts.
“Any candidate who submits at least 15,000 signatures of registered voters on valid petitions statewide and has at least 600 signatures of registered voters on valid petitions from each of the 11 Congressional Districts shall be deemed to have met the threshold for qualification and will be certified (provided, of course, that other requirements of State law have also been met)”
“If any candidate submits fewer than 15,000 signatures of registered voters on valid petitions statewide or fewer than 600 signatures of registered voters on valid petitions in one or more of the 11 Congressional Districts, the Republican Party of Virginia will individually verify signatures until the 10,000 signature statewide threshold and/or 400 per Congressional district is met.”
Because Perry and Gingrich only submitted 11,000 plus signatures they had to be individually verified, yet Paul and Romney's signatures went through NO verification process whatsoever because they submitted over 15,000.
.
Frmr Paul Aide's Damning Image Of Paul As He Defends Racist, Anti-Semite, Homophobic Accusations
By Susan Duclos
Former Paul staffer, Eric Dondero, paints a damning picture of Ron Paul while clearing the air and saying his previous statements have been "have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides."
First, via RightWing News, we see who Eric Dondero is:
Dondero denies that Ron Paul is racist but admits that Paul is "clueless" and "out of touch" with both Hispanics and Black culture.
Decades old newsletters with a Ron Paul byline, show differently. (Paul denies writing them as well as denies knowing what was in them even though he made money off of them and allowed his name to headline them.)
He denies that Paul is an anti-Semite but states Paul is "Anti-Israel" and "wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all." Further more Dondero admits Paul "sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs."
Polling shows Paul is severely disconnected from Americans on the issue of Israel where Gallup, this year, has found that the majority of Americans (63%) are more sympathetic toward Israeli's than they are toward Palestinian's (17%).
Dondero says that in answer to the question "Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe?", the answer is yes and no. He claims Paul is not "bigoted towards homosexuals," but is "uncomfortable around homosexuals."
Homophobia: Unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
Antipathy: A natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
Dondero's defense of Ron Paul's personal idiosyncrasies seems to be based on the era Paul was born in and while generally I do not factor in age but rather mental competency, policy stances and previous recorded voting, in deciding who I would and would not vote for, if the "era" or age is the reason a candidate is disconnected and out of touch with American voters and they cannot join the 21st century, then they should not be elected to represent those that are not stuck in a bygone era, nor should they be representing the majority of Americans that do not hold the same beliefs.
I cannot imagine any scenario in which the Republican party as a whole would commit political suicide and hand Barack Obama a second term by nominating Ron Paul as the GOP nominee of choice.
.
Former Paul staffer, Eric Dondero, paints a damning picture of Ron Paul while clearing the air and saying his previous statements have been "have been twisted and used for an agenda from both sides."
First, via RightWing News, we see who Eric Dondero is:
Fmr. Senior Aide, US Cong. Ron Paul, 1997 – 2003
Campaign Coordinator, Ron Paul for Congress, 1995/96
National Organizer, Draft Ron Paul for President, 1991/92
Travel Aide/Personal Asst. Ron Paul, Libertarian for President
1987/88
Dondero denies that Ron Paul is racist but admits that Paul is "clueless" and "out of touch" with both Hispanics and Black culture.
Decades old newsletters with a Ron Paul byline, show differently. (Paul denies writing them as well as denies knowing what was in them even though he made money off of them and allowed his name to headline them.)
He denies that Paul is an anti-Semite but states Paul is "Anti-Israel" and "wishes the Israeli state did not exist at all." Further more Dondero admits Paul "sides with the Palestinians, and supports their calls for the abolishment of the Jewish state, and the return of Israel, all of it, to the Arabs."
Polling shows Paul is severely disconnected from Americans on the issue of Israel where Gallup, this year, has found that the majority of Americans (63%) are more sympathetic toward Israeli's than they are toward Palestinian's (17%).
Dondero says that in answer to the question "Is Ron Paul a homo-phobe?", the answer is yes and no. He claims Paul is not "bigoted towards homosexuals," but is "uncomfortable around homosexuals."
Homophobia: Unreasoning fear of or antipathy toward homosexuals and homosexuality.
Antipathy: A natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
Dondero's defense of Ron Paul's personal idiosyncrasies seems to be based on the era Paul was born in and while generally I do not factor in age but rather mental competency, policy stances and previous recorded voting, in deciding who I would and would not vote for, if the "era" or age is the reason a candidate is disconnected and out of touch with American voters and they cannot join the 21st century, then they should not be elected to represent those that are not stuck in a bygone era, nor should they be representing the majority of Americans that do not hold the same beliefs.
I cannot imagine any scenario in which the Republican party as a whole would commit political suicide and hand Barack Obama a second term by nominating Ron Paul as the GOP nominee of choice.
.
Sunday, December 25, 2011
Wishing You A Very Merry Christmas, 2011
By Susan Duclos
A couple favorites, video and lyrics
Hark! The Herald Angels Sing
Lyrics:
Hark the herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled"
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
"Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" by Frank Sinatra
Lyrics:
Have yourself a merry little Christmas
Let your heart be light
From now on, our troubles will be out of sight
Have yourself a merry little Christmas
Make the yuletide gay
From now on, our troubles will be miles away
Here we are as in olden days
Happy golden days of yore
Faithful friends who are dear to us
Gather near to us once more
Through the years we all will be together
If the fates allow
Hang a shining star upon the highest bough
And have yourself a merry little Christmas now
Through the years we all will be together
If the fates allow
Hang a shining star upon the highest bough
And have yourself a merry little Christmas now
Carol of the bells - Christmas song
Lyrics:
Hark! how the bells
sweet silver bells
All seem to say
throw cares away.
Christmas is here
bringing good cheer
To young and old
meek and the bold
Ding, dong, ding, dong
that is their song,
With joyful ring
all caroling
One seems to hear
words of good cheer
From everywhere
filling the air
O, how they pound
raising the sound
Oer hill and dale
telling their tale
Gaily they ring
while people sing
Songs of good cheer
christmas is here!
Merry, merry, merry, merry christmas!
Merry, merry, merry, merry christmas!
On, on they send
on without end
Their joyful tone
to every home
Hark! how the bells
sweet silver bells
All seem to say
throw cares away.
Christmas is here
bringing good cheer
To young and old
meek and the bold
Ding, dong, ding, dong
that is their song
With joyful ring
all caroling.
One seems to hear
words of good cheer
From everywhere
filling the air
O, how they pound
raising the sound
Oer hill and dale
telling their tale
Gaily they ring
while people sing
Songs of good cheer
christmas is here!
Merry, merry, merry, merry christmas!
Merry, merry, merry, merry christmas!
On, on they send
on without end
Their joyful tone
to every home.
On, on they send
on without end
Their joyful tone
to every home.
Have a very Merry Christmas everyone.
(Lyrics compliments of Christmas Songs Net)
A couple favorites, video and lyrics
Hark! The Herald Angels Sing
Lyrics:
Hark the herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!
Peace on earth and mercy mild
God and sinners reconciled"
Joyful, all ye nations rise
Join the triumph of the skies
With the angelic host proclaim:
"Christ is born in Bethlehem"
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Christ by highest heav'n adored
Christ the everlasting Lord!
Late in time behold Him come
Offspring of a Virgin's womb
Veiled in flesh the Godhead see
Hail the incarnate Deity
Pleased as man with man to dwell
Jesus, our Emmanuel
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"
"Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas" by Frank Sinatra
Lyrics:
Have yourself a merry little Christmas
Let your heart be light
From now on, our troubles will be out of sight
Have yourself a merry little Christmas
Make the yuletide gay
From now on, our troubles will be miles away
Here we are as in olden days
Happy golden days of yore
Faithful friends who are dear to us
Gather near to us once more
Through the years we all will be together
If the fates allow
Hang a shining star upon the highest bough
And have yourself a merry little Christmas now
Through the years we all will be together
If the fates allow
Hang a shining star upon the highest bough
And have yourself a merry little Christmas now
Carol of the bells - Christmas song
Lyrics:
Hark! how the bells
sweet silver bells
All seem to say
throw cares away.
Christmas is here
bringing good cheer
To young and old
meek and the bold
Ding, dong, ding, dong
that is their song,
With joyful ring
all caroling
One seems to hear
words of good cheer
From everywhere
filling the air
O, how they pound
raising the sound
Oer hill and dale
telling their tale
Gaily they ring
while people sing
Songs of good cheer
christmas is here!
Merry, merry, merry, merry christmas!
Merry, merry, merry, merry christmas!
On, on they send
on without end
Their joyful tone
to every home
Hark! how the bells
sweet silver bells
All seem to say
throw cares away.
Christmas is here
bringing good cheer
To young and old
meek and the bold
Ding, dong, ding, dong
that is their song
With joyful ring
all caroling.
One seems to hear
words of good cheer
From everywhere
filling the air
O, how they pound
raising the sound
Oer hill and dale
telling their tale
Gaily they ring
while people sing
Songs of good cheer
christmas is here!
Merry, merry, merry, merry christmas!
Merry, merry, merry, merry christmas!
On, on they send
on without end
Their joyful tone
to every home.
On, on they send
on without end
Their joyful tone
to every home.
Have a very Merry Christmas everyone.
(Lyrics compliments of Christmas Songs Net)
Saturday, December 24, 2011
In The Beginning...
I originally published this post in 2008 on the 40th anniversary of the Apollo 8 mission. I feel that tonight is a good time to repost it. I do hope you enjoy it.
By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle
Three words read by William Anders aboard the Apollo 8 mission on Christmas Eve 1968.On this Christmas Eve I wish to again recall the words of Apollo 8 in wishing you a Merry Christmas.
1968 was our Annus horribilis. It was a year of unrest at the Democratic National Convention. It was the year that saw the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr. It was a year in which riots and protests were the daily fare on the nightly newscasts. It was a year in which America felt at its lowest point. And America needed a boost.
When the Apollo 8 mission was originally planned the mission was not suppose to go to the moon. It was suppose to be in a low Earth orbit checking out the systems on the Command module and possibly the lunar module if one had been ready by then. Instead the mission was changed and Apollo 8 would be the first manned mission to go to the moon. In itself it would be a very dangerous mission, the first of anything is alway a dangerous mission to accomplish. Because of the nature of the mission and the decision to change it, the true mission was kept a secret from the public until the official announcement on 12 November 1968, less than 40 days before the scheduled launch.
Apollo 8 launched at 7:51:00 a.m. on December 21, 1968. During the flight, three fellow astronauts served on the ground as capsule communicators (usually referred to as "CAPCOMs") on a rotating schedule. The CAPCOMs were the only people who regularly communicated with the crew. Michael Collins was the first CAPCOM on duty and at 2 hours, 27 minutes and 22 seconds after launch radioed, "Apollo 8. You are Go for TLI". This communication signified that Mission Control had given official permission for Apollo 8 to go to the moon. Over the next twelve minutes before the TLI burn, the Apollo 8 crew continued to monitor the spacecraft and the rocket. The S-IVB third stage rocket ignited on time and burned perfectly for 5 minutes and 17 seconds. The burn increased the velocity of Apollo 8 to 35,505 feet per second (10,822 m/s) and the spacecraft's altitude at the end of the burn was 215.4 miles (346.7 km). At this time, the crew also set the record for the highest speed humans had ever traveled.
Five hours after launch, Mission Control sent a command to the S-IVB booster to vent its remaining fuel through its engine bell to change the booster's trajectory. This S-IVB would then pass the Moon and enter into a solar orbit, posing no further hazard to Apollo 8. The S-IVB subsequently went into a 0.99 by 0.92 AU solar orbit with an inclination of 23.47° and a period of 340.80 days.
The Apollo 8 crew were the first humans to pass through the Van Allen radiation belts, which extend up to 15,000 miles (25,000 km) from Earth. Scientists predicted that passing through the belts quickly at the spacecraft's high speed would cause a radiation dosage of no more than a chest X-ray, or 1 milligray (during the course of a year, the average human receives a dose of 2 to 3 mGy). To record the actual radiation dosages, each crew member wore a Personal Radiation Dosimeter that transmitted data to Earth as well as three passive film dosimeters that showed the cumulative radiation experienced by the crew. By the end of the mission, the crew experienced an average radiation dose of 1.6 mGy.
At about 55 hours and 40 minutes into the flight, the crew of Apollo 8 became the first humans to enter the gravitational sphere of influence of another celestial body. At 64 hours into the flight, the crew began to prepare for Lunar Orbit Insertion-1 (LOI-1). This maneuver had to be performed perfectly, and due to orbital mechanics had to be on the far side of the Moon, out of contact with the Earth. After Mission Control was polled for a Go/No Go decision, the crew was told at 68 hours, they were Go and "riding the best bird we can find". At 68 hours and 58 minutes, the spacecraft went behind the Moon and out of radio contact with the Earth.
When the spacecraft came out from behind the Moon for its fourth pass across the front, the crew witnessed an event no one had ever seen — Earthrise. Borman saw the Earth emerging from behind the lunar horizon and called in excitement to the others, taking a black-and-white photo as he did so: Earthrise, seen for the first time by human eyes. In the ensuing scramble Anders took the more famous color photo, later picked by Life magazine as one of its hundred photos of the century.
As they rounded the Moon for the ninth time, the second television transmission began. Borman introduced the crew, followed by each man giving his impression of the lunar surface and what it was like to be orbiting the Moon. Borman described it as being "a vast, lonely, forbidding expanse of nothing." Then, after talking about what they were flying over, Anders said that the crew had a message for all those on Earth. Each man on board read the story of creation from Book of Genesis. Borman finished the broadcast by wishing a Merry Christmas to everyone on Earth. His message appeared to sum up the feelings that all three crewmen had from their vantage point in lunar orbit. Borman said, "And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, and a Merry Christmas to all of you, all of you on the good Earth"
After 10 lunar orbit, Apollo 8 returned to Earth on 27 December 1968. A successful and historic mission.
So on this Christmas Eve, we should remember a historic moment in Human history that took place 40 years ago.
William Anders
"We are now approaching lunar sunrise and, for all the people back on Earth, the crew of Apollo 8 has a message that we would like to send to you.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.Jim Lovell
And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
"And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.Frank Borman
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
"And God said, Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
And from the crew of Apollo 8, we close with good night, good luck, a Merry Christmas – and God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth."
View at YouTube
And God bless all of you, all of you on the good Earth.
By Findalis of Monkey in the Middle
Friday, December 23, 2011
President Ronald Reagan: The Candle's Beacon of a Foregone Era of Strength
"They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force..."Those words were part of an address given by President Ronald Reagan on December 23, 1981, as a response to the brutal imposition of Martial Law in Poland.
From Videofact.com:
On a cold and snowy Sunday morning on December 13, 1981 the Poles woke up to find their country under Martial Law (literally - The State of War or "stan wojenny"). The Martial Law was imposed by the Military Council for National Salvation lead by, then, prime minister Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski and consisting of 20 other high ranking military officers.The WRON declared Martial Law to "defend socialism". They felt threatened by the members of the first independent trade union behind the Iron Curtin - the Solidarity (Solidarnosc). The Solidarity had been founded only 18 months earlier, in August of 1980 after several weeks of strikes. The workers had gone on strike to protest poor living conditions and lack of independent representation. With the birth of the Solidarity hopes were high that the new trade union would help to pressure the government to introduce economical reforms and ease restrictions. The government quickly realized that the Solidarity was a threat to the system. Several road blocks were created to derail the Solidarity but the union seemed to grow stronger. The situation made the Soviets very worried and they, on he several occasions, pressured the Polish government and the Polish Communist Party (PZPR) to de-legalized the Solidarity. For the Polish government it soon became apparent that the union was too strong and far too popular to simply de-legalize it. A drastic action was need to oust the Solidarity, so martial law was imposed.
The Constitution stated that martial law could be imposed for defense or national security reasons. The Constitution allowed the State Council (Rada Panstwa) to impose a martial law while the parliament (Sejm) was not in session. Although the parliament was in session, the State Council headed by Henryk Jablonski unconstitutionally passed the law under pressure from the military. Only one member of the Council, Ryszard Reiff, voted against the resolution. The vote took place in the early morning hours of December 13 while Martial Law was under way: people arrested, restriction imposed. The State Council merely rubber stamped the decision of the military that took over the control in the country.
Thousands of Solidarity leadership and activists were arrested and imprisoned without court sentence. Among those arrested was Lech Walesa, the legendary Solidarity leader. The WRON, in an obvious public relations stunt, also arrested some prominent figures from the previous government....
(source)
In 1981, I was in university, and the birth of Solidarnosc was one of the few rare occasions when I became politically active. Sure, I had been aware of world events up until then, but the events in Poland jarred me from my sleep-deprived new motherhood and prompted me to join with thousands of others - on my own campus, and with other campuses and free citizens around the world - to protest the brutal regime stomping on the liberties of ordinary men and women in Poland. I was compelled to raise my voice, and get involved to speak out, to act, against opppression. And so I did.
I was reminded of this just yesterday when a friend (thanks, Maggie) shared a column she had found:
Christmas 1981: A Flame for Freedom in Poland
by Paul KengorDecember 2011 might not be an anniversary on the minds of American Catholics, but it is close and near and dear to the hearts of Polish Catholics. As American Catholics, we ought to pause here, today, to consider why. The reasons are historically and even spiritually inspiring.
It was 30 years ago, December 13, 1981, that martial law was imposed upon Poland by the communist government. Poles were aghast, horrified, frightened. And so was the man in Rome, a Polish native named John Paul II, and so was another man thousands of miles away in Washington, DC, President Ronald Reagan.
When word of the communists’ actions reached the White House, President Reagan was furious. He wanted to help the people of Poland in any way he could. At that very moment, Reagan committed to save and sustain the Polish Solidarity movement as the wedge that could splinter the entire Soviet bloc, as the first crack in the Iron Curtain.
[...]
On that date, Reagan held a private meeting in the White House with the Polish ambassador, Romuald Spasowski, and his wife, both of whom had just defected to the United States. Michael Deaver, a close Reagan aide, witnessed the meeting. Deaver later recorded:
The ambassador and his wife were ushered into the Oval Office, and the two men sat next to one another in plush-leather wingback chairs. Vice President Bush, and the ambassador’s wife, sat facing them on a couch.
[...]
Then, almost sheepishly, [the ambassador] said, “May I ask you a favor, Mr. President? Would you light a candle and put in the window tonight for the people of Poland?”
And right then, Ronald Reagan got up and went to the second floor, lighted a candle, and put it in the window of the dining room....
This really IS a must read column here.
As Americans may remember, President Reagan addressed the nation on December 23 (yes, this day in 1981) as he was also reaching out to the Pope John Paul II behind the scenes - you know, away from the media cameras.
Take a look, and listen (carefully)
UncleSamAmerican on Oct 2, 2009
(December 23,1981)
In August 1980, a worker's strike began in Gdansk, Poland in reaction to the struggling economy and massive shortages. In a compromise, the Communist government legalized Solidarity, but this only increased tensions. Imports from the Soviet Union and the West failed to improve the economy, with more strikes becoming endemic throughout 1980 and 1981. Fearing a Soviet military invasion to restore order, President Ronald Reagan issued a stern warning to Moscow in the spring of 1981. On December 13, the Polish Communist Party, prodded by the Soviets, declared martial law and outlawed Solidarity. Reagan wished to quarantine the Soviets & Poland with no trade, or communications across their borders, he told the National Security Council, and tell our NATO allies & others to join us in such sanctions or risk an estrangement from us. In the following televised address, however, the president issued more modest sanctions on Poland.
I couldn't figure out how to access Part 2 for the end of the President's speech, but if you go here, you'll find a video (without embedding options) of the whole thing. GO watch. You'll also find the transcript of the speech.
This speech is amazing, as President Reagan first talks about Christmas and America:
We've lived here as your tenants for almost a year now, and what a year it's been. As a people we've been through quite a lot—moments of joy, of tragedy, and of real achievement—moments that I believe have brought us all closer together.
[...] we've begun the long, hard work of economic recovery. Our goal is an America in which every citizen who needs and wants a job can get a job. Our program for recovery has only been in place for 12 weeks now, but it is beginning to work. With your help and prayers, it will succeed. We're winning the battle against inflation, runaway government spending and taxation, and that victory will mean more economic growth, more jobs, and more opportunity for all Americans...
President Reagan then goes on to discuss the situation in Poland, and what he intends America's response to be:
As I speak to you tonight, the fate of a proud and ancient nation hangs in the balance. For a thousand years, Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people. They have been betrayed by their own government.
The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted...
[...]
As I speak to you tonight, the fate of a proud and ancient nation hangs in the balance. For a thousand years, Christmas has been celebrated in Poland, a land of deep religious faith, but this Christmas brings little joy to the courageous Polish people. They have been betrayed by their own government.
The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted...
[...]
These actions [sanctions] are not directed against the Polish people. They are a warning to the government of Poland that free men cannot and will not stand idly by in the face of brutal repression. To underscore this point, I've written a letter to General Jaruzelski, head of the Polish government. In it, I outlined the steps we're taking and warned of the serious consequences if the Polish government continues to use violence against its populace. I've urged him to free those in arbitrary detention, to lift martial law, and to restore the internationally recognized rights of the Polish people to free speech and association....
The rest of the transcript is here.
As I watched the video, and read the transcript of this great speech and declaration of America's power being brought to bear in the name of freedom around the world, of course my thoughts turned to today. The state of the world today, and the current resident (Mouth In Chief) in 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue highlighted for me - yet again - the sorry shape we are all in, as BHO tries to destroy America's standing in the world, and yes, the dire straits America is in at home.
For me, it is impossible to watch this speech without lamenting that those days when America stood up for the oppressed in the world, and was very open and clear what her views on tyranny were, apparently are but a mere shadow of the past. In those days, NObody doubted for one minute that America would stand 'for the innocent and the weak' no matter where in the world they happened to be born.
Don't believe that times have changed, and that America's response to governments' oppressing and killing their own citizens is now a mere shrug?
Remember this picture?
That's Iran, and images like that went around the world, as did the video of Neda, a protestor being killed on the streets of Iran, also went global. Remember THIS? I do, as I also remember the placards begging the world to help them, as they fought for democracy.
BHO's answer on behalf of America? Harsh words for the Iranian regime. Period. Today the violence and killing in Iran still continues, and Obama spouts disapproval - and does nothing. I am reminded as I watch America's response to Iran, of the day Ronald Reagan became President of the US. On that day, those held hostage in the American Embassy in Tehran were released. This after many months of that other great appeaser president, Jimmy Carter, talk talk talking in his futile attempts to reason with the Iranian terrorists holding Americans for ransom.
Iran is not the only stark example of the differences between the days of the Ronald Reagan presidency and the inept tool who holds that globally respected office today - well, at least it was respected back in those days. Today? Not so much.
Today, BHO and his minions go on camera and express 'outrage' in empty platitudes as daily news of governments killing their citizens assail us all, and the killings continue. Syria, anyone? Many countries on the African continent are also still killing their own citizens.
Now, as back in the Reagan era, and as Ronald Reagan said so eloquently in this speech:
The world is full of peril, as well as promise. Too many of its people, even now, live in the shadow of want and tyranny.
Obama makes pretty speeches, and does NOTHING, and the murderers around the planet continue their crusades of tyranny. When Ronald Reagan spoke for America, the thugs around the world KNEW that swift and measured - just - action would follow. And it DID.
'Pretty speeches...' Much has been made of the inspirational speeches BHO delivers. Yes, for some I suppose his oratory sounds good, but the tyrants of the world KNOW he is an empty suit, spouting empty words written by someone else. Yes, Ronald Reagan previously was an actor, used to delivering lines someone else may have written for him, but even in this speech, the listener hears the sincerity, knows he means those words.
Ronald Reagan knew and demonstrated that he knew that he spoke FOR America. In this speech, alone, he talks of being the 'tenant in the people's House.'
Compare and contrast.
Yes, I am sure the Obamabots will say I am being petty, and picking at straws, but this picture symbolises, for me, just one of the obvious, myriad, differences between the respect and dignity Ronald Reagan and BHO hold for the highest office in the land, and as Leader of the Free World.Leader of the Free World? Used to be that the American President was revered and respected as such. Today, not so much. Used to be (as Tony Blair once famously said, and I paraphrase here,) that America and all she stood for was so envied around the world that escapees from despots struggled to arrive in the USA. Nowadays? Not so much, except of course, the illegals that are pouring across America's southern borders. And yes, note well that many of those illegals are terrorists of various stripes. Why not, since Obama is working almost overtime on ensuring that those very same illegals are given the sames rights and privileges that native American citizens are born into. You know, those GOD-given rights.
And there again, another difference between Reagan and BHO: Regean always had a humility about him as he performed his duties, as he acknowledged - often - his Christian faith. BHO? How many times have we all seen him kowtow to every muslim leader? I am no conspiracy theorist - no, really I'm not! - but why it is only recently that we see or hear Obama
make reference to our Christian God, as he bows and scrapes to the Muslim leaders? Hmmmmmm?
I won't even get into a discussion of the American economic state, and the obvious differences between the Reagan administration and BHO administration solutions to address the - again - almost parallel state of the nation of the two presidents. Listen to President Reagan's speech and compare and contrast.
All of these differences are well documented elsewhere, but for me the most stark contrast is in the foreign policy arena.
In this speech, Ronald Reagan says:
I want emphatically to state tonight that if the outrages in Poland do not cease, we cannot and will not conduct "business as usual" with the perpetrators and those who aid and abet them. Make no mistake, their crime will cost them dearly in their future dealings with America and free peoples everywhere. I do not make this statement lightly or without serious reflection...
He then goes on to itemise all the steps he has already ordered the US government to take in response to the crushing of liberty in Poland.
BHO's response to the madness marauding so many places today? Pretty words, and wagging of fingers. Sure, economic sanctions have been put in place, but even those or anything beyond those pretty words of Obama's are usually only after the global community has taken the lead.
Compare and contrast - again:
They are a warning to the government (of Poland) that free men cannot and will not stand idly by in the face of brutal repression.
America today is not seen as a force to be reckoned with (and yes, I'll leave the discussion of America's Military to those more qualified to speak on that topic, like the Veterans, such as War On Terror News etc.)
One of the last paragraphs in President Reagan's speech has this:
Once, earlier in this century, an evil influence threatened that the lights were going out all over the world. Let the light of millions of candles in American homes give notice that the light of freedom is not going to be extinguished. We are blessed with a freedom and abundance denied to so many. Let those candles remind us that these blessings bring with them a solid obligation, an obligation to the God who guides us, an obligation to the heritage of liberty and dignity handed down to us by our forefathers and an obligation to the children of the world, whose future will be shaped by the way we live our lives today.
As a foreigner who has come to know and love many wonderful Americans, and count them as my family, I often despair for the future of not only America, but for the children of our world. I do.
But I still - and will always - hang on to, and believe in the strength and moral courage of every day Americans, of whom Obama is but a dimly lit caricature. Despite BHO's best effforts, I really DO believe that America's standing in the world will revert back to those halcyon days when America did more than talk of the outrages daily wrought against innocent citizens globally; those days when America spoke, and terrorists and despots quaked in their boots, because they KNEW America meant what she said. I do hold firm to the knowledge that America's Candle (the) Beacon of a Foregone Era of Strength will shine as ever brightly around our world, as it did in other dark days in world history.
In the meantime, as President Reagan ends this speech:
“God bless us, every one.”
[*cross-posted from Assoluta Tranquillita*]
Utah Supreme Court: Term 'Minor Child' Includes 'Unborn Child' or "Fetus'
By Susan Duclos
The Utah Supreme Court ruled that parents of an stillborn baby may file a lawsuit against a health care provider for wrongful death, claiming doctors who provided prenatal care were negligent, resulting in the death of the couple’s unborn child.
The full story is here at Salt Lake Tribune, but LifeSiteNews points to specific segment of the original argument:
This is a limited definition and does not apply to abortion law in general.
More at Desert News, ABC4 written by AP writers.
H/T JGalt9@Twitter.
.
The Utah Supreme Court ruled that parents of an stillborn baby may file a lawsuit against a health care provider for wrongful death, claiming doctors who provided prenatal care were negligent, resulting in the death of the couple’s unborn child.
The full story is here at Salt Lake Tribune, but LifeSiteNews points to specific segment of the original argument:
The justices were split on the issue. There was no majority opinion released, but four justices agreed the term "minor child" used in the law includes fetuses.
"In my view, a plain language reading reveals that the term ‘minor child,’ as used in this statute, includes an unborn child," wrote Chief Justice Christine Durham. "The statute does not itself define the term ‘minor child,’ but in general usage the term ‘child’ may refer to a young person, a baby or a fetus. The term ‘minor’ then, may refer to the period from conception to the age of majority, thereby encompassing an unborn child."
Justice Ronald Nehring disagreed in his dissent.
"The majority’s conclusion that an unborn fetus is a "minor child" ... is wrong because 1) the plain meaning of ‘minor child’ does not include a fetus, (2) a wrongful death cause of action may only be recognized through clear legislative direction , and 3) a construction of ‘minor child’ that encompasses and unborn fetus creates absurd results under our laws."
This is a limited definition and does not apply to abortion law in general.
More at Desert News, ABC4 written by AP writers.
H/T JGalt9@Twitter.
.
Voters Leave Political Parties But Independents Lean Toward Conservative
By Susan Duclos
USA Today reports that voters are leaving the Republican and Democratic parties in droves.
There are still more registered Democrats than there are Republicans and Independents have gained significantly.
The good news for Republicans here comes from a Pew Research poll in September 2011, that shows "All Voters" and "Independents" lean towards conservatism, not liberalism.
Click image to enlarge
Swing states are going to be critical in the 2012 presidential election and according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll, in December 2011, "Sixty-one percent of Republicans say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president next year, compared with 47% of Democrats."
If these numbers hold in the swing states, this will largely negate the lead Democrats have in the amount of Democrats registered compared to Republicans, leaving Independents to a very important voting bloc for deciding the 2012 presidential election.
.
USA Today reports that voters are leaving the Republican and Democratic parties in droves.
A USA TODAY analysis of state voter registration statistics shows registered Democrats declined in 25 of the 28 states that register voters by party. Republicans dipped in 21 states, while independents increased in 18 states.
The trend is acute in states that are key to next year's presidential race. In the eight swing states that register voters by party, Democrats' registration is down by 800,000 and Republicans' by 350,000. Independents have gained 325,000.
There are still more registered Democrats than there are Republicans and Independents have gained significantly.
The good news for Republicans here comes from a Pew Research poll in September 2011, that shows "All Voters" and "Independents" lean towards conservatism, not liberalism.
Swing states are going to be critical in the 2012 presidential election and according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Swing States Poll, in December 2011, "Sixty-one percent of Republicans say they are extremely or very enthusiastic about voting for president next year, compared with 47% of Democrats."
Among the most enthusiastic are some of the GOP's core voters: conservatives, middle-aged men and those 50 to 64 years old. Those who are least enthused include core Democratic groups that were critical to Obama's election in 2008, including minorities and younger voters.
If these numbers hold in the swing states, this will largely negate the lead Democrats have in the amount of Democrats registered compared to Republicans, leaving Independents to a very important voting bloc for deciding the 2012 presidential election.
.
Videos- Obligatory Ron Paul Hate Filled Newsletters: Deja Vu
By Susan Duclos
In answer to the emails asking why I have completely ignored the Ron Paul Newsletter scandal, my answer is, been there, done that, in 2008.
I really don't have anything else to say about them but if you are one of those people that didn't hear all about them in 2008, there are plenty of people discussing it today again.
The New Republic: TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul's Most Incendiary Newsletters
Discussions: The Daily Dish, Outside the Beltway and GOP 12
Reuters: In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast “race war”
Discussions: Talking Points Memo, The Hill, Outside the Beltway, A Blog For All, The Politico, The Daily Caller, Campaign 2012, Riehl World View, americanthinker.com, iOwnTheWorld.com, Questions and Observations, ABCNEWS, Catholic Bandita, Weasel Zippers, Hot Air, The Right Scoop, CBS News, Little Green Footballs, Doug Ross, The New Republic and msnbc.com
Headlines and discussion via Memeorandum.
Watch Paul discuss his newsletters in 1995 via C-SPAN below:
December 21, 2011: Rep. Ron Paul Gets Irked By Newsletter Questions, Walks Out Of CNN Interview- Watch Below
There you go, your obligatory Ron Paul Newsletter piece for 2011.
.
In answer to the emails asking why I have completely ignored the Ron Paul Newsletter scandal, my answer is, been there, done that, in 2008.I really don't have anything else to say about them but if you are one of those people that didn't hear all about them in 2008, there are plenty of people discussing it today again.
The New Republic: TNR Exclusive: A Collection of Ron Paul's Most Incendiary Newsletters
Discussions: The Daily Dish, Outside the Beltway and GOP 12
Reuters: In ad for newsletter, Ron Paul forecast “race war”
Discussions: Talking Points Memo, The Hill, Outside the Beltway, A Blog For All, The Politico, The Daily Caller, Campaign 2012, Riehl World View, americanthinker.com, iOwnTheWorld.com, Questions and Observations, ABCNEWS, Catholic Bandita, Weasel Zippers, Hot Air, The Right Scoop, CBS News, Little Green Footballs, Doug Ross, The New Republic and msnbc.com
Headlines and discussion via Memeorandum.
Watch Paul discuss his newsletters in 1995 via C-SPAN below:
December 21, 2011: Rep. Ron Paul Gets Irked By Newsletter Questions, Walks Out Of CNN Interview- Watch Below
There you go, your obligatory Ron Paul Newsletter piece for 2011.
.
The Obama Administrative Official's Screaming Fits At Journalists For Reporting News
By Susan Duclos
When one joins the political world they have to expect to be in the public eye. Cameras flashing, reporters hanging on every word and movement and article after article gets written, some flattering and some not.
It is the world of politics and celebrity.
When you put yourself in the public eye, you are news.
Period.
The Obama administration has a unique way of dealing with reporters that do not bow down and kiss Obama butt.
They scream, yell, and cuss at reporters for doing their job.
Washington Post:
This is not an isolated incident either, as reported back in October, here and other places including Business Insider and Huffington Post.
That isn't all they do though, evidently they also send out "nastygrams".
There is more!!
How about the Obama administration officials removing and threatening to ban SFGate reporter, Carla Marinucci, for using multimedia.
That was also reported on widely as a Google search shows.
With high disapproval ratings and over half the country thinking Barack Obama shouldn't be reelected to a second term, it seems the Obama administration is quite touchy when they cannot control the media.
.
When one joins the political world they have to expect to be in the public eye. Cameras flashing, reporters hanging on every word and movement and article after article gets written, some flattering and some not.It is the world of politics and celebrity.
When you put yourself in the public eye, you are news.
Period.
The Obama administration has a unique way of dealing with reporters that do not bow down and kiss Obama butt.
They scream, yell, and cuss at reporters for doing their job.
Washington Post:
Carl Cannon, a longtime political journalist who is the Washington editor of the Web site Real Clear Politics, says he recently got zinged. After his site posted a headline and video of President Obama promoting a political fundraising raffle at the White House in June — which Republicans said could be a violation of campaign-finance law — Cannon heard about it in no uncertain terms. A deputy press official let loose “a screaming, profane diatribe that lasted two or three phone calls,” Cannon recalled. “It hurt my ear.”
This is not an isolated incident either, as reported back in October, here and other places including Business Insider and Huffington Post.
During the controversial operation "Fast and Furious" illegal guns were trafficked from the United States into Mexico so investigators could track how drug cartels and other criminals used the guns. As CBS' Bob Schieffer put it, described it, the operation became a "disaster" and the trafficked guns have been used to kill Mexican officials.
Attkisson told Ingraham that, when she broke a damning story about the operation, she got extremely aggressive pushback from the Obama administration. She said that a DOJ spokeswoman named Tracy Schmaler had yelled at her on Monday about the story, but that it was nothing compared to the way a White House spokesman named Eric Schultz had acted.
Attkisson said he had "literally screamed at me and cussed at me" about the story, and that the White House also told her that she was the only reporter not being "reasonable" about the issue.
That isn't all they do though, evidently they also send out "nastygrams".
“They shoot first and ask questions later,” said Julie Mason, who has reported on the George W. Bush and Obama White Houses for the Houston Chronicle, the Washington Examiner and Politico. In one of the e-mails that reporters have dubbed “nastygrams,” White House press secretary Jay Carney branded one of Mason’s stories “partisan, inflammatory and tendentious.” National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor, reacting to comments Mason made in a TV discussion, sent her an e-mail that included an animated picture of a crying mime — a visual suggestion that she was whining.
“They don’t seem to realize or care that [e-mails sent from the White House] will become part of the official archives of the presidency,” says Mason, who last month became host of a national talk show about politics on Sirius XM Radio.
There is more!!
How about the Obama administration officials removing and threatening to ban SFGate reporter, Carla Marinucci, for using multimedia.
Other sources confirmed that Carla was vanquished, including Chronicle editor Ward Bushee, who said he was “informed that Carla was removed as a pool reporter.” Which shouldn’t be a secret in any case because it’s a fact that affects the newsgathering of our largest regional paper (and sfgate)and how local citizens get their information.
What’s worse: more than a few journalists familiar with this story are aware of some implied threats from the White House of additional and wider punishment if Carla’s spanking became public. Really? That’s a heavy hand usually reserved for places other than the land of the free.
That was also reported on widely as a Google search shows.
With high disapproval ratings and over half the country thinking Barack Obama shouldn't be reelected to a second term, it seems the Obama administration is quite touchy when they cannot control the media.
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)