ShoutMix chat widget

Monday, December 31, 2007

*The violent unrest

Pakistan's electoral commission has delayed its decision on whether to put back elections planned for 8 January.The violent unrest which has followed the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has put the election date in doubt.

The violent unrest which has followed the assassination of Benazir Bhutto has put the election date in doubt. Her widower, Asif Ali Zardari, said her Pakistan People's Party would contest the poll. He and his son, Bilawal, will take over the leadership of the party.

Pakistan's stocks fell by 4.7% as they resumed trading after three days of mourning following Ms Bhutto's death.

from: "http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7165448.stm"

Tuesday, December 4, 2007

* Fastest growing cause of women dying in pregnancy

This is an article I found about how being overweight during pregnancy can increase the risk of death. Yes, we all should know that....and even if we do know it...we still don't exercise like we should! I know I don't! I am talking about the people who are capable...and don't have other health issues that may make losing weight more difficult. Maybe I will remember this article next time I want a cheeseburger! ....I am not close to being pregnant now...but I wouldn't want to be unhealthy when I do become pregnant!


Maternal deaths linked to obesity
By Branwen Jeffreys
BBC News Health Correspondent

Maria Thornton

Pregnant and 19st

Obesity is the fastest growing cause of women dying in pregnancy or childbirth in the UK, a report shows.

More than half the 295 women who died during or after pregnancy between 2003 and 2005 were overweight or obese.

Experts say the number of deaths - from a total of two million pregnancies - is low - but the trend is very worrying.

The Confidential Enquiries into Maternal Deaths (CEMACH) report calls for more support and advice for obese women before and during pregnancy.

Obese pregnant women are probably at four or five times greater risk of suffering maternal death than a woman of normal weight - and the same for their babies dying
Dr Gwyneth Lewis
Maternity tsar

Calculate your BMI

Gwyneth Lewis, CEMACH director and the government's maternity tsar, said the figures showed that childbirth was very safe in the UK.

But she said the growing evidence of a link to obesity was a cause for concern.

Significant problem

The figures suggest that a modest amount of extra weight in pregnancy carries little extra risk, but obesity poses a significant problem.

Fifteen per cent of the mothers who died were morbid or super-morbidly obese.

Dr Lewis said: "Obese pregnant women are probably at four or five times greater risk of suffering maternal death than a woman of normal weight - and the same for their babies dying."

Catherine Collins

Nutrition advice

She is concerned many women are not aware of the risk associated with obesity.

Overall, the UK has one of the lowest rates of maternal death in the world, at seven per 100,000 pregnancies.

In comparison, the rate in the US is 14 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies, and in France it is 18.

However, the death rate in the UK has stopped falling. With obesity levels predicted to soar experts say it is vital that women are fully aware they should try to get to a healthy weight before trying to conceive.

The report says excess weight not only puts a woman at risk of medical complications, it can mask symptoms and cause logistical problems.

In one case, there was a delay in spotting that a woman was at risk of seizures, because a blood pressure cuff could not fit around her arm.

Thursday, November 22, 2007


It's a simple word game.

One right answer is 10 grains of rice for someone without food.
If everyone answers just a few questions a day, it will add up.

Make it your home page.
Invite your friends.

Feed the hungry.
Improve your vocabulary.

Here's how it works:
They're not sitting on a pile of rice, waiting to decide how much to give...
Nor are they manipulating poor farmers to donate rice.
The ads at the bottom of the website fund the purchace of the rice, which is distributed through the United Nations World Food Program.

Monday, November 19, 2007

What is driving oil prices so high?

Oil prices have surged to record highs above $97 a barrel.

Prices have more than quadrupled since 2002 and are currently 40% higher than at the start of the year.

What factors are causing this unremitting increase and what are the likely consequences for consumers and the global economy?

What is causing the latest price spike?

This was triggered by simmering tensions between Turkey and Kurdish separatists in northern Iraq and fears of possible incursions by Turkish troops into Iraq.

Oil refinery in Colombia
Prices have remained above $70 a barrel for most of the year

The amount of oil produced in northern Iraq is actually very small while the major pipeline linking the Iraqi town of Kirkuk, just south of the Kurdish region, with Turkey has been shut for long periods since the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

But it is fears that the dispute may escalate and threaten oil output in the wider region - Iraq, Iran, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia between them account for 20% of global supplies - which have fanned the price rises.

In particular, there are concerns about potential Kurdish reprisals on an important pipeline in Turkey, which delivers 700,000 barrels a day from Azerbaijan to the port of Ceyhan.

The situation in northern Iraq is just one of a number of geopolitical factors which are causing uncertainty in the market and helping to push prices up.

Iran's push to acquire nuclear power and, many believe, nuclear weapons has sparked concerns it could use its own oil supplies as a bargaining chip in any future showdown.

Barely-veiled threats from the US, suggesting that military action remains a live option, have further accentuated fears.

Militant violence in Nigeria's largest oil-producing region and recent violence in Afghanistan and the Yemen has also served to inflate prices.

The weak dollar, which makes it cheaper for importers to buy dollar-denominated oil supplies, is also a major factor.

Is demand for oil continuing to soar?

Yes. The biggest catalyst for oil's seemingly remorseless rise has been the simplest economic driver there is: the balance between demand and supply.

Demand is at an all-time high, fuelled by the continued breakneck economic expansion of the Indian and Chinese economies.

With more than a billion people in each country, and both economies growing fast, manufacturers and consumers are sucking in energy at an ever-increasing rate.

Chinese construction workers
China's booming economy is sucking in a huge amount of oil

China overtook Japan as the world's second-largest consumer of oil in 2003 and is closing in on the US, with demand for oil growing at about 15% a year.

Analysts worry global demand for oil is so intense that supplies may not keep pace.

Demand will rise by an average of 2.2 million barrels a day next year, the International Energy Agency says, compared with the 1.5 million-barrel rise seen in 2007.

It says annual demand will rise 2% up to 2012, while other projections suggest demand could soar from about 90 million barrels a day to as much as 140 million over 25 years.

What is Opec doing about the situation?

As the leading oil supplier in the world, producers' cartel Opec is under constant pressure to do something about the price bubble.

It recently bowed to pressure to pump more oil, agreeing to raise its production quotas by 500,000 barrels a day from 1 November.

Reports suggest the move was forced through by Saudi Arabia and that few other Opec members either have much stomach for increasing output or much capacity to spare.

Opec has said the market is "very well supplied" with crude and will continue to be so in the immediate future.

It has blamed speculation by market traders - who can make money by betting on the future direction of prices - for the continuing price rises.

Critics of Opec say it must act more aggressively to bring prices down.

"The response from Opec has been pretty poor so far," says John Roberts, an energy security analyst with commodities research firm Platt's.

"The sentiment in the market is that it is time for Opec to increase production again."

Who are the winners and losers from costly oil?

Taking inflation into account, prices are still below levels seen in late 1980, when a barrel of oil - in today's prices - was worth more than $101.

Back then, costly oil helped contribute to a recession in the US and similar fears are resurfacing now.

The Bush administration has said it is "very concerned" about current price levels, at a time when the economy is already expected to slow significantly next year.

High energy prices make life more expensive for consumers and businesses, having an knock-on effect on their spending in other areas.

Gasoline prices are hovering not far below the $3-a-gallon mark in the US, while UK petrol retailers have warned prices could soon rise above £1 a litre.

But on the other side of the fence, oil giants such as ExxonMobil and BP are having a wonderful time, while oil-rich countries are also smiling.

Oil wealth has underpinned President Hugo Chavez's efforts to reshape Venezuela, allowing him to fund extensive social programmes and reject US criticism of his policies.

Russia's oil and gas bonanza has underwritten efforts by President Vladimir Putin to exert state control over the country's energy sector.

Where will prices head next?

Many people scoffed when analysts from investment bank Goldman Sachs said in 2005 that prices could eventually top $100 a barrel.

This now seems a real possibility, although analysts caution that the market remains volatile.

"There is every reason to suppose the price could hit $100," says Platt's John Roberts.

"At the same time, one good thing goes right and the price goes tumbling back down to $70 or $60."

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7048600.stm

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

*Birth control for 11 year olds?

Below is a blog from "http://momblog.gainesville.com/default.asp?item=689868" and this is a mothers prospective on this issue. I do not agree with the schools move to give students as young as 11 birth control! For so many reasons! A child at the age of 11 should not be worried about if they will get pregnant...and if they are...then i think the school has other issues to worry about before they start handing out birth control! Also, the health issues that could result in a childs life if they started birth control at 11 and continued until marriage...this could be 10 years in most cases...this could cause a child to not be able to become pregnant when they finally want to....those are two of my main reasons....now lets hear from a mothers side:

"Birth control for 11 year olds?

Okay, how can we not discuss this one?

School officials at King Middle School in Portland, Maine, have passed a policy that will allow children as young as 11 to obtain birth-control pills at a middle-school health center without their parents knowing about it, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Parents are required to sign a waiver allowing their children to receive medical care at the school. However, now that medical care -- in the area of birth control -- is kept secret from the parents.

The school defended its decision by saying that the new policy is aimed at a tiny number of sexually active students. It also said that birth control would be given out only after extensive counseling, and no prepubescent children would get it.

The school will become the first middle school in Maine, and apparently one of only a few in the nation, to make available a full range of contraception, including birth-control pills and the patch.

I understand what this school is trying to do -- they are trying to protect sexually active children, who maybe cannot talk to their parents, from getting pregnant. But I think they are missing it. So, here are the big issues I have with this:

1. Birth Control is a medication: Like all medications, there are a slew of side effects that the pill can cause, not to mention the danger of drug interactions. If a kid who is on another medication takes the pill, there could be severe consequences.

2. STDs: I think that simply handing out the pill could give a young girl a false sense of protection. While she may not get pregnant (assuming that she could responsibly take a daily pill that most adults even forget,) what about the risk for STDs?

3. Parents' right to know: This is a big one for me, as a mom. So, you are telling me that you -- the school -- could give my child prescribed medication and I am not allowed to know about it? The thought of that simply makes my blood boil. In trying to protect a small number of students, you are trampling over my rights as a parent.

Okay, so let's hear it. I know there are people on both sides of the fence. Honestly, how do you feel about this? Parents across the country are furious, especially in Portland, Maine. If it were your kid's school, what would you do?"

Go ahead and tackle her questions here!

Monday, October 22, 2007

*Your LA TOPS information LOST!!!

click on the following link to access a secure website to see if you were among those affected:

Additional information, including a toll-free call center number will be provided to you once you have completed this on-line query.

"Sensitive data for virtually all Louisiana college applicants and their parents over the past nine years were in a case lost by a Boston-based contractor last month during a move, officials said.

The lost case held backup data for every Louisiana application for federal student aid -- just about anyone who applied to college -- from 1998 through Sept. 13 of this year. It also involved anyone who had a college savings account under the START Saving Program or who applied for the TOPS scholarship program in those years.

The data included Social Security numbers for applicants and their parents; the bank account information for START account holders also was involved. Sophisticated equipment and knowledge would be required to access the data.

The case was lost Sept. 19 when a driver for a Boston-based contractor failed to follow company procedures when loading it onto his vehicle, according to a statement e-mailed Wednesday by Laura Sudnik, spokeswoman for Iron Mountain Inc.

"Our entire business is built around high security and reliability and we regret that this employee error took place," the data-protection and storage company said.

The driver was fired. Sudnik said the man had worked five years for Iron Mountain and his work record had been in good standing. The loss of the case was an accident without malicious intent, Sudnik said.

The data was being moved from Iron Mountain's Port Allen storage building to Baton Rouge. Iron Mountain said it notified the state immediately of the problem, but Amrhein said the office waited until this week to discuss the loss publicly to allow time to find the case.

Colleges did not learn about the problem until Monday, said Jim McCoy, LSU vice provost for enrollment management. "We're working diligently today to find out exactly what this means," McCoy said.

The student aid office set up a telephone hotline and posted a notice on its web site with a link to a secure site where people can find out if their records were among those lost. It advised people affected to place fraud reports with credit agencies and for those whose bank accounts were affected, to change the accounts.

More than 60 college-related records breaches have occurred nationwide this year, according to the Privacy Rights Clearinghouse.

State Commissioner of Higher Education Joseph Savoie said he was shocked by the large number of breaches. "The whole issue of identity protection is something everyone needs to be concerned about," Savoie said."

Student aid's office notice, with secure link:



Source: http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/10/17/sensitive_financial_data_lost_on_louisiana_college_applicants/

Saturday, October 20, 2007


Use the link below to visit and compare candidates so you can make an educated Choice!!!


Sunday, October 14, 2007

*Info about upcoming LA elections!

Election Information...
^Click the link above to find out any of the following...
>Dates and Times
>My Ballot
>Candidate Qualifying
>Where Do I Vote?
>What District Am I In?
>Ballots by Parish
>Proposed Constitutional Amendments
>Important Dates for 2007 Election Cycle for State Legislators
>Other Statewide Races
>Members Elected Without Opposition: Senate House
>Members Retiring: Senate House
>Members Term-Limited: Senate House
>Campaign Finance Disclosure
>Campaign Finance Contribution Report
>Campaign Finance Expenditure Report

Louisiana Candidates and Referendums
November 2007 General Election

^This is a directory of Louisiana Candidates and Referendums November 2006 General Election provided by Vote-USA.
Use the candidate name links to obtain
a) biographical information about each candidate,
b) each candidate's position and views on issues, and
c) a pictures of each candidate.

Use the office buttons to obtain side-by-side comparisons of the candidates' views and positions on various issues.

Who is running for what???

Monday, October 8, 2007

*Hillary would ruin this nation!

This is one of the reasons why I will NOT BE VOTING FOR HER! As much as I think it would be a big step for women...I can't vote for her! I think that she would not only be the first woman president...she would also be the last!

If you are voting for her..tell me why?!!?? I do not understand why anyone would choose her of all the candidates...even tho our choices are lacking....but HER??!! As far as I am concerned if the name "Clinton" never made it back into the white house the US would be better off!

Convince me otherwise?! Who are you voting for...and why? Let your voice be heard! We are becoming a silent generation and we are slowly killing our freedoms and leaving no hope left for our children and grand children. Is it that you really don't are? Or are you scared?(post with no name then!)....or are you just lazy??

visit this link if you need help with who to vote for...it is a chart of where they stand on popular issues:


Have a good one!

Sunday, September 23, 2007

*The Jena Six...

In a small highly segregated rural Louisiana town of Jena in September 2006, a black student asked permission from school administrators to sit under the shade of a tree commonly reserved for the enjoyment of white students. School officials advised the black students to sit wherever they wanted and they did. The next day, three nooses, in the school colors, were hanging from the same tree. The Jena high school principal found that three white students were responsible and recommended expulsion. The white superintendent of schools over-ruled the principal and gave the students a three day suspension, saying that the nooses were “a youthful stunt.” Black students decided to resist and organized a sit-in under the tree to protest the lenient treatment given to the noose-hanging white students.

Racial tensions remained elevated throughout the fall. On Monday, December 4 2006, a white student who allegedly had been racially taunting black students in support of the students who hung the nooses got into a fight with black students. Allegedly, the white student was taken to the hospital treated, released, reportedly attended a social function later that evening.

As a result of this incident, six black Jena students were arrested and charged with attempted second degree murder. All six were expelled from school. The six charged were: 17-year-old Robert Bailey Junior whose bail was set at $138,000; 17-year-old Theo Shaw - bail $130,000; 18-year-old Carwin Jones--bail $100,000; 17-year-old Bryant Purvis--bail $70,000; 16 year old Mychal Bell, a sophomore in high school who was charged as an adult and for whom bail was set at $90,000; and a still unidentified minor.

On the morning of the trial, the District Attorney reduced the charges from attempted second degree murder to second degree aggravated battery and conspiracy. Aggravated battery in Louisiana law demands the attack be with a dangerous weapon. The prosecutor was allowed to argue to the jury that the tennis shoes worn by Bell could be considered a dangerous weapon.

When the pool of potential jurors was summoned, fifty people appeared, all white. The jury deliberated for less than three hours and found Mychal Bell guilty on the maximum possible charges of aggravated second degree battery and conspiracy. He faces up to a maximum of 22 years in prison.

The rest of the Jena 6 await similar trials. Theodore Shaw is due to go on trial shortly. Mychal Bell is scheduled to be sentenced July 31. If he gets the maximum sentence he will not be out of prison until he is nearly 40 years.



Thursday, September 6, 2007


"The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive how the veterans of earlier wars were treated and appreciated by their nation."

George Washington

Please join us in this FLY THE FLAG campaign and please tell everyone about this effort and for them to pass on the word. We have a little less than one week and counting to get the word out all across this great land and into every community in the United States of America .

On Tuesday, September 11th, 2007 , an American flag should be displayed outside every home, apartment, office, and store in the United States . Every individual should make it their duty to display an American flag on this anniversary of our country's worst tragedy. We do this in honor of those who lost their lives on 9/11, their families, friends and loved ones who continue to endure the pain, and those who today are fighting at home and abroad to preserve our cherished freedoms.

In the days, weeks and months following 9/11, our country was bathed in American flags as citizens mourned the incredible losses and stood shoulder-to-shoulder against terrorism. Sadly, those flags have all but disappeared. Our patriotism pulled us through some tough times and it shouldn't take another attack to galvanize us in solidarity. Our American flag is the fabric of our country and together we can prevail over terrorism of all kinds.

Thank you for your participation.

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Today in History

Today in History August 29


Atahualpa, the last ruler of the Incas, was murdered as Francisco Pizarro completed his conquest of Peru.


Shays's rebellion, an insurrection of Massachusetts farmers against the state government, began.


The Treaty of Nanking was signed, ending the Opium Wars and ceding the island of Hong Kong to Britain.


Brigham Young died in Salt Lake City, Utah.


The U.S.S.R. tested their first atomic bomb.


Strom Thurmond ended the longest filibuster in U.S. Senate history. He spoke for more than 24 hours against a civil rights bill; the bill passed.


The Beatles played their last major live concert at Candlestick Park, California.


Stacy Nason was born in Baton Rouge, Louisiana.


The Supreme Soviet, the parliament of the U.S.S.R., suspended all activities of the Communist Party, bringing an end to the institution.


Hurricane Katrina slammed into the U.S. Gulf Coast, destroying beachfront towns in Mississippi and Louisiana, displacing a million people, and killing more than 1,000.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

*Teacher in Space!!!

"HOUSTON — Teacher-astronaut Barbara Morgan transformed the space shuttle and space station into a classroom Tuesday for her first education session from orbit, fulfilling the legacy of Christa McAuliffe with joy and also some sadness.

"I've thought about Christa and the Challenger crew just about every day since 20-plus years ago," Morgan said in a series of interviews right before class got under way. "I hope that they know that they are here with us in our hearts."

Morgan, 55, who was McAuliffe's backup for the doomed 1986 flight, got her first opportunity to talk with schoolchildren late Tuesday afternoon, almost halfway through her two-week mission."



I thought some good news would be a nice change of pace. We don't get as excited about space travel as we used to. The nation used to stop in its tracks to watch a space launch. History was made this past week as a teacher finally made her way to space to teach from the shuttle! It is still an amazing thing that we can travel to space. Check out the link above for more photos and video of the historic event!

Wednesday, July 25, 2007

*Hidden Taxes You're Probably Paying

From Forbes.com I just thought you might want to be aware of these taxes!

Payroll Tax

Employers and employees split the cost of payroll taxes--the Social Security, Medicare and miscellaneous taxes you see listed as "FICA" on your paycheck. But many economists argue that you're paid less so that your employer can compensate for tax it pays just to keep you on the payroll. If you earn $97,500 or less, this could mean a 15.3% reduction in your take-home pay. (Half in the payroll tax you pay, half in your employer's share.) According to the Tax Policy Center, about two-thirds of all wage earners fork over more to Uncle Sam in payroll taxes (including the employer's share) than in income taxes.

Alternative Minimum Tax

The IRS' National Taxpayer Advocate calls the AMT "the poster child for tax law complexity." And because it's not indexed to inflation, it's ensnaring more of the middle class--particularly families with lots of kids and second mortgages. The AMT affected 4 million taxpayers in 2006, but this number could balloon to 23 million this year if Congress does not fix the problem, as it has done in years past. Why don't lawmakers just eliminate the AMT? Because it's expected to bring in about $800 billion in government revenue over the next 10 years.

Sources: Tax Policy Center, Internal Revenue Service

Social Security Tax

For your entire working life, Uncle Sam takes a chunk of your pay to help pay for Social Security. But when you start receiving a Social Security paycheck, you still may be taxed on some of this income--sometimes as much as 85% of it. If your total income plus half of your Social Security benefits exceeds $34,000 ($44,000 for couples filing jointly), you get stuck paying the 85% rate. Others, who earn less, either have 50% or 0% of their Social Security taxed. Like the AMT, these figures aren't adjusted for inflation, meaning an increasing number of people are being ensnared by the tax. Some price for retiring!

Sources: IRS, Tax Policy Center

Tuesday, July 24, 2007

*Teaching sex education in kindergarten????

Below is a transcript of the Rush Limbaugh show. It is a conversation including Obama and other strong voices. Do you think kindergarten students should be taught sex ed? And if so....on what level? Read about it below! Also, what do you think about all of the things Hilary Clinton is trying to control? Shouldn't you get to choose what kindergarten your child attends? I agree to some degree about teaching children at a young age where they should not allow anyone to touch but it is a very fine line to walk. There are just things that a five year old can't understand and shouldn't have to try to understand. They are only children once and it would be a terrible thing to force them to grow up faster then needed. I would love to hear your opinions. I am a little torn but I think if it is handled VERY carefully and VERY controlled it is possible teaching children things they need to know to protect themselves could be a good thing. But really....how much that is "controlled" by the government is "handled very carefully"? I mean we see people on welfare who are in "poverty"....and yet they walk around fully clothed, with cars, and are obviously well fed! ....now don't get offended because I know some people really do need the food stamps and the help and they are trying to turn their lives around....but some people....even if they started out with good intentions are now taking advantage of the welfare system. So, who is to say that this new teaching system wouldn't get taken advantage of or overlooked/neglected in the future?

July 23, 2007

www.RushLimbaugh.com :

Listen To It! WMP | RealPlayer

Audio clips available for Rush 24/7 members only -- Join Now!


RUSH: On Tuesday of last week, Planned Parenthood's annual public affairs conference in Washington, Barack Obama, referring to Republican Alan Keyes and sex education, said this.

OBAMA: I remember him using this in his campaign against me, saying, "Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners." (Laughter.) And -- you know, which, I didn't know what to tell him. (Laughter.) But it's the right thing to do. You know, to -- to provide age-appropriate sex education, science based sex education in the schools.

RUSH: Yeah, kindergarten. Barack Obama, sex education in kindergarten. Now, the next day, July 18th, on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney responded to these comments from Obama by saying this.

ROMNEY: How much sex education is age-appropriate for a five-year-old? In my view, zero is the right amount. (Applause.) Instead of teaching about sex education in kindergarten to five-year-olds, let's clean up the ocean of filth, the cesspool in which our kids are swimming.

RUSH: All right, amen, right on, right on, right on, right on, right on, right on. This is all part of the Democrat effort -- if you listen to Obama and Hillary and Edwards, they want abortion on demand, paid for by the taxpayers, they want national, universal health care for everybody. They just want total control over your life, now to the point of sex education of kids. Well, this finally woke up somebody who's been dormant and lying prostrate for a little while, Joycelyn Elders. Remember her, the sturgeon general from the Clinton administration. She was on Fox and Friends this morning, Gretchen Carlson talked to her, said, "Look, Senator Obama last week said that he would agree with certain types of sex education for kindergarteners when it comes to teaching them what appropriate touching is, what inappropriate touching is. I assume you agree with Barack Obama to the full capacity, or do you have a differing opinion at all?"

ELDERS: I agree with Mr. Obama to the full capacity. I feel that we should have age-appropriate, scientifically based evidence, sex education taught in schools from kindergarten through twelfth grade.

RUSH: Okay, so as for kindergarteners, what would be appropriate?

ELDERS: To teach them that there are certain places on the bodies nobody is to touch. If they do, they should tell somebody, and if somebody is touching them in ways that makes them feel uncomfortable, you know, so much more sex goes on above the neck than it does below the waist.

RUSH: Hmm. That's why I've been missing out all my life. I've been heading in the wrong direction. Sex takes place above the neck. She would know, from the Clinton administration, wouldn't you think? No wonder I've been bombing out. I've been zeroing in on the wrong places. Let's go back, shall we? July 11th, 1999, Fox News Sunday, Elaine Bennett and Joycelyn Elders. Tony Snow hosting the show said, "Dr. Elders, you earlier said that we shouldn't be guilty of innocence. Is that an overly innocent way of looking at the way the world works these days?"

ELDERS: You know, if we want to talk about teaching children sexuality education, it starts at birth. And it's self-esteem, how you feel about yourself, it's all of those things.

RUSH: Let's go even further back, from the woman who just told us that more sex goes on above the neck than it does below the waist, this is audio from my TV show, December 12th, 1994. Here is Joycelyn Elders talking about masturbation.

ELDERS: In regard to masturbation, I think that that is something that is a part of human sexuality, and it is a part of something that perhaps should be taught.

RUSH: So my only question, since she thinks that masturbation should be taught, and she meant in grade school, masturbation should be taught and much more sex goes on above the neck than it does below the waist, how she must know this. How do you masturbate above the neck?


RUSH: Since we're talking about sex, kindergarten and all this, I want to share with you an editorial from the Investor's Business Daily, actually an opinion column. It was from July 20th, posted last Friday. "Senator Hillary Clinton ignited few fireworks, speaking before the nation's largest teachers union over the July 4th holiday, but one proposal is proving explosive: state-run preschool for all families. Her proposal, which was introduced Thursday in the Senate, last Thursday, would give the states $28 billion over five years to incorporate the nation's 120,000 preschools now run in firms, churches, and storefronts into a government-run system. The former Goldwater girl's come a long way from the western ways of neighborhood values that she once embraced. Her universal preschool idea is sparking heated debate over the back fence and in policy circles, but the question is basic: How much control should the government have in raising and teaching our young kids?"

Now, what you have to remember about this, she's saying that the government should take over small, independent preschools. What are small, independent preschools? They are independent and private businesses. A preschool is a private business. You send your kid to a preschool that's not part of the state education system, and you're paying for it, you obviously know you're sending your kid to a private business. Hillary Clinton wants to come in and essentially nationalize them all, under state control. I'm telling you, these people, if they get power, if they win the White House, the first thing that they're going to do is go after and outlaw home schooling. It's going to happen so fast it will curl your hair. They want control over every aspect of your kid's life, even now suggesting sex education in kindergarten, and let's not pull any punches. We all know what that's about. We all know what sex education in kindergarten is all about. These people are loony, folks.

They're painting Mrs. Clinton here as a moderate? But compared to Obama and Edwards, I mean they're all suggesting the same thing: government-provided abortion, socialization of the health care system, taking your kids at age four now, and getting them into their state-run, government-run kindergartens. They're basically taking away your choice, and they're taking away your kid. You want to send your kid to a preschool that you pay for. Mrs. Clinton wants to shut them down and have them taken over by the states just like she wants to seize the profits from Exxon as she said.

Friday, July 13, 2007

*US House backs Iraq withdrawal

"The US House of Representatives has voted in favour of pulling most combat troops out of Iraq by April 2008, defying the threat of a presidential veto.
The move came hours after the Bush administration
conceded that an interim assessment showed the
Iraqi government was making only limited progress
on military and political issues.

The Democrat-controlled house approved the troop
withdrawal measure, 223 in favour to 201 against.
The legislation would require combat troops to begin
pulling out within 120 days, with a full withdrawal
completed by April 1, 2008.

A poll has showed more than 70 per cent of Americans
favour withdrawing nearly all US troops by April [AF

The measure says only a limited residual force

would remain to train Iraqi troops, protect US

assets and fight al-Qaeda and other groups.

Earlier George Bush, who has ruled out any

immediate shift in policy, sought to defend his

troop "surge" strategy in Iraq, saying he would

wait until a fuller report is delivered by the head

of US forces there in September.

"I believe we can succeed in Iraq, and I know

we must,"' Bush said at a White House news

conference at which he stressed the interim

nature of the report. The much-anticipated

assessment released on Thursday said that the

security situation in Iraq remained "complex and

extremely challenging", and that the level of

violence had "undermined efforts to achieve

political reconciliation". "Amid such violence, it

became significantly harder for Iraqi leaders to

make the difficult compromises necessary to

foster reconciliation," it added.


The interim assessment said only eight of

the 18 US benchmarks in Iraq have been

achieved satisfactorily.

It said progress on eight other benchmarks,

intended to grade Iraqi political and security

developments, had been unsatisfactory, while

progress on two others had been mixed.

The interim report gave a bleak assessment
of progress in Iraq [EPA]

The interim report gave a bleak assessment
of progress in Iraq [EPA]

The report found that the US-backed

government had failed to achieve goals

considered necessary to bring sectarian

violence under control, such as passing

legislation to divide the nation's oil revenues.

But despite the bleak tone, Bush said he

continued to have confidence in Nuri al-Maliki,

the Iraqi prime minister.

"Yeah, I've got confidence in him, but I also

understand how difficult it is. I'm not making

the excuses, but it is hard," said Bush.

Bush highlighted the benchmarks that had been

satisfactorily achieved, including the Iraqi

government's co-operation in letting Iraqi forces

combat anti-US fighters and money spent to

train and equip its forces.

But Hoda Abdel Hamid, Al Jazeera's Baghdad

correspondent, said military people on the ground

– both American and Iraqis – have told her that

co-operation is well below levels Bush might expect.

She said: "A lot of recruits do not show up for work.

"The Iraqis are more reluctant to go into

neighbourhoods because of sectarian reasons and

other times because they just don't have the equipment.

"Sometimes they don't have bulletproof vests,

they don't have bulletproof cars and sometimes

they don't really have bullets."

Breaking ranks

Bush signalled he would veto any legislation
requiring a "hasty" withdrawal [EPA]

The report came as several prominent Republicans

broke ranks with Bush on Iraq, saying the so-called

troop "surge" was not working and it was time to

rethink US policy.

Asked about waning Republican support, Bush

said he took what was said into account. "I value

the advice of those senators, I appreciate their

concerns ... and I will continue listening to them."

But he said he would also waiting to hear from General

David Petraeus, the most senior US commander in

Iraq, in September.

Some analysts have suggested Bush is trying to shift

blame for failure of the so-called "surge" on to the

military. Speaking before the vote on withdrawing

troops in the House of Representatives, Bush signalled

that he would veto any legislation requiring what he

described as a hasty pull-out from Iraq.

"I don't think Congress ought to be running the war," he said.

"The idea of [Congress] telling our military how to conduct

operations, for example, or how to deal with troop strength,

I don't think it makes sense today, nor do I think it's a good

precedent for the future."

A USA Today/Gallup poll this week showed more than

seven in 10 Americans favour withdrawing nearly all

US troops by April."

Source: Al Jazeera and agencies


As of right now I am in support of us pulling back out troops.
We have been there for a long time and if it isn't working yet
...I don't know if it ever will. Apart of me wants our troops to
stay to help them get established and have their democracy
...but it doesn't seem that is what they want or that right now
it is even possible. I think we have lots of issues that should
be taken care of right here in our own country. Imagine if we
had put half the effort ,required of our troops over these long
years, into ending poverty or violence. Those are just a few
deas. But you get my point. It is just hard for me to understand
sometimes why soooo much effort, time, and money has been
spent on this effort. Please help me to understand!!!

Wednesday, July 11, 2007

Alex's Lemonade stand for Cancer

I saw a precious commercial for Alex's Lemonade stand. You may be wondering what's the big deal? Well, read this and you will understand.

Here is the touching story behind this childs desire to raise money to fight cancer!


In 2000, a 4 year old cancer patient named Alexandra "Alex" Scott announced a seemingly simple idea -she was holding a lemonade stand to raise money to help "her doctors" find a cure for kids with cancer. The idea was put into action by Alex and her older brother, Patrick, when they set up the first "Alex's Lemonade Stand for Childhood Cancer" on their front lawn in July of 2000.

For the next four years, despite her deteriorating health, Alex held an annual lemonade stand to raise money for childhood cancer research. Following her inspirational example, thousands of lemonade stands and other fundraising events have been held across the country by children, schools, businesses, and organizations, all to benefit Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation for childhood cancer. On August 1st, 2004, Alex died peacefully at the age of 8 -- she had raised over $1 million for childhood cancer research in her short lifetime.

Alex's spirited determination to raise awareness and money for all childhood cancer while she bravely fought her own deadly battle with cancer has inspired thousands of people, from all walks of life to raise money and give to her cause. Alex's family and supporters are committed to continuing her inspiring legacy through Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation, a registered 501c3 charity. As of June 2007, Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation has raised over $12 million for childhood cancer research. The result -- Alex's Lemonade Stand Foundation has given millions of dollars for childhood cancer research across the country!


please visit the link below to see how you can be apart of the solution!


Sunday, July 8, 2007

*Kids today...WHAT IS GOING ON???

"Preteens allegedly kidnap baby, demand ransom

ENID, Oklahoma (AP) -- Detectives arrested a 12-year-old girl and her 10-year-old sister for allegedly abducting their neighbor's 1-year-old son and demanding $200,000 for his return.

Authorities escort two sisters, ages 10 and 12. The girls are accused of abducting their neighbor's baby.

Brandon Wells was back at home Thursday night, hours after intruders broke into his family's residence and took him while his mother, Sheila Wells, slept, police said.

"I've been doing this 18 1/2 years, and this is the first time I know of when a 10- and a 12-year-old kidnapped a 1-year-old," said police Capt. Dean Grassino. "It definitely ranks up there with the unusual crimes."

"If you want to see your son again then you won't call police and report him missing and you will leave $200,000 on the sofa tonight and we will return your son back safe," the note read, according to police.

The girls appeared in Garfield County District Court on Thursday afternoon and were taken to Community Intervention Center for juveniles. They have not been formally charged.

"I know they're so young, but they need to learn from their mistakes," Wells said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

"If you want to see your son again then you won't call police and report him missing and you will leave $200,000 on the sofa tonight and we will return your son back safe," the note read, according to police.

The girls appeared in Garfield County District Court on Thursday afternoon and were taken to Community Intervention Center for juveniles. They have not been formally charged.

"I know they're so young, but they need to learn from their mistakes," Wells said."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.


This is a crazy story! I wonder what gave these kids this idea? It also makes me wonder how kids can think that they can get away with this...or if they thought they were doing it as a joke....what gave them the idea that it was funny? What do you think? Do you think the media or video games or some other influence causes kids to behave like this? Do you think it is parents who don't teach their kids how to respect others? It just all makes me wonder. This is just one story but I am sure there are many others with children acting out in ways as outrageous as this. What can we do to change the course of a generation?

Wednesday, July 4, 2007

* A Health Warning!

Thought this was important to share in case any one reading might be doing this or thinking of doing this:

Diabetes eating disorder warning

Injecting insulin
People with type 1 diabetes need daily insulin injections
Thousands of young diabetics could be skipping insulin injections in order to lose weight, the BBC has learned.

People with type 1 diabetes need daily injections to help them absorb glucose to use as fuel. Failure to take correct doses can lead to rapid weight loss.

Charity Diabetes UK estimates that up to one-third of young women with the disease miss injections to stay thin.

Doctors warn that the "diabulimia" eating disorder can lead to blindness, heart and kidney disease.

US doctors recently went public on their concerns about the practice.

Since then, the BBC's Radio One Newsbeat has received correspondence from dozens of type 1 diabetics in the UK who say they have done the same.

A Diabetes UK spokesman said: "Blood glucose that is too high for too long can cause serious complications.

"Diabetes is the leading cause of blindness in younger people.

"Cardiovascular disease can also result from long period of insulin abuse as well as kidney disease and nerve damage."

( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6267910.stm )

Thursday, June 28, 2007

*U.S. Senate blocks Bush's immigration bill

WASHINGTON: The Senate drove a stake Thursday through President George W. Bush's plan to legalize millions of unlawful immigrants, likely postponing major action on immigration until after the 2008 elections.

Responding to a stinging political setback, Bush sounded resigned to defeat.

"Legal immigration is one of the top concerns of the American people, and Congress' failure to act on it is a disappointment," Bush said after an appearance in Newport, Rhode Island. "The American people understand the status quo is unacceptable when it comes to our immigration laws. A lot of us worked hard to see if we couldn't find common ground. It didn't work.


Some one explain this to me...am I reading this right? Did Bush want to legalize all the illegal immigrants??? Please tell me that is not what I'm reading. That makes NO sense! They break the law and come to the U.S. illegally and not only do we reward them by not sending them home but now we want to legalize them....just for the fun of it?? If I'm getting this wrong....someone please tell me! I really hope I'm just having bad understanding because it's late at night!!!

Monday, June 18, 2007

*Paris or.....something important?

I have noticed in the past few months that there has been more said about Paris and other celebs in the national media then the war, immigration, and gas prices.

Why do you think this is? I have an idea. I think that the media has figured out that people don't want to hear about all of the "bad" things. Because if they knew what was going on they would actually have to deal with it. People would rather hear about other peoples problems (like Paris in jail) then issues that actually affect them. It makes sense to me that they would want to hear about things going on that actually affect them...that way they would know what they can do to make sure they have a say the outcome.

There are many bills being tossed around in government that we should be aware of and make a choice about. We need to let our representatives and on up the ladder know how we feel.

What it boils down to is this...

In ten years when things have ended up in a mess and you begin to realize that the nation is in trouble...if you never took notice and voted...then you don't have a place to complain.

I am hoping that in 10 years we can all look back and realize that we did make a difference and helped the nation get back on track by making our voices heard instead of sitting back and thinking "oh, someone else will do it."

BE someone!

I am curious of a few things:
1. Your age?
2. Did you vote in the last Pres. Election? Why or why not?
3. Who are you leaning towards in the coming election? Why?
4. Who is the Speaker of the House?
5. Who is serving time in jail and misses her dog?

Thank you for taking the time to answer these to give us an idea of where we are as a nation!

*Men who rape drunk women face tougher law


"Men who have sex with drunken women face a higher risk of being convicted for rape even if the alleged victim appears to give her consent, under reforms suggested by the government.

A new white paper is expected to propose that judges should give far firmer guidance to juries in cases where there is a question over whether a woman claiming she was raped was capable of giving or withholding consent to sex.

If she was deemed so drunk she was incapable, the man would be far more likely to be convicted of rape.

The change would mark a significant departure from the current law, under which a man can escape conviction if he can convince the jury he believed a woman wanted sex, even if she was drunk.

Police recorded 14,449 allegations of rape in 2005, one of the highest figures ever. However, only a fraction of rape cases ever reach court – about 12% – and few of those which do result in convictions.

The white paper will leave far more discretion to judges and juries than would have been the case under an earlier proposal to have legally determined thresholds of alcohol consumption above which a woman would be deemed incapable.

The government’s decision will disappoint those demanding more hard and fast rules to ensure more convictions. But the final version of the white paper follows a pivotal ruling by appeal court judges earlier this year.

They declared it would be “unrealistic” to create a “grid system” on alcohol consumption in rape cases, because people’s ability to cope with drink varies so greatly.

Ministers describe the appeal court decision in March as “incredibly useful” because it set a legal precedent. They say it has exposed the need for more help for juries considering such cases.

Benjamin Bree, a 25-year-old software engineer, was initially sentenced to five years in jail for raping a 19-year-old student in her halls of residence at Bournemouth University after she convinced a jury she was too drunk to consent to sex.

But the deputy lord chief justice, Sir Igor Judge, sitting with Lady Justice Hallett and Mrs Justice Gloster, overturned the conviction, arguing the jury had not been given clear enough directions.

They ruled that capacity to consent “could evaporate” well before someone became unconscious, but whether this was so “depended on the actual state of mind of the individuals involved on the particular occasion”.

A minister involved in the proposed rape law reforms said: “On cool reflection, it is clear we cannot have some sort of hard and fast law about how much drink is too much drink. What we need to do is provide better training for judges and juries on how to decide whether a woman was capable of consent.”

Other proposals in the white paper include the introduction of a “victim’s advocate”, who is not a lawyer, to give practical support to rape victims through bringing their cases to court and to help them see their way through fears and doubts about the court case.

A pilot project in which alleged victims of domestic abuse were assigned such representatives led to a significant increase in conviction rates.

However, the white paper is not expected to include proposals floated last year to allow expert witnesses to explain the psychological impact of the crime on women in court.

The government examined whether this might help juries understand why some rape victims show little emotion when describing their ordeals in court. In some cases, defence lawyers have successfully argued that the woman’s behaviour is inconsistent with someone who has suffered such a trauma.

However, ministers have concluded that allowing psychologists to give evidence would be fraught with difficulty and could lead to an American-style “trial of expert witnesses”.


I would like to hear your opinions about this topic before I share mine! :D I am leaning one way with what I think but before I share I would like to hear your take on the issue! I know you have an opinion...so...lets hear it!