Deeds Visits Prince William

Creigh Deeds, who seems to still be stuck in "me-too" mode in his campaign, followed Bob McDonnell into eastern Prince William County today, to open a field office in Ridgewood, where Obama had his office last year I think.

McDonnell was in town to meet with "Tito the Builder", and talk about support among hispanic voters. Even the Media General coverage noted how Deeds seemed to be mimicking the McDonnell campaign:

Munoz, though, while firmly backing McDonnell, said the needs of Hispanic voters are no different than those of other Virginians.

“We share the same values as any other American,” he said.

Ironically, his words were remarkably similar to what Deeds said when asked about what he could do for Virginia’s Hispanic voters, many of whom live in Prince William.

Deeds went on to sound his major campaign theme, which is that he has no plans for anything:

But that doesn’t mean his campaign has formulated policies for individual ethnic groups, he said.
“I’m focused on creating economic hope and opportunity in every part of the state for every single Virginian,” Deeds said.

I don't think anybody ever thought the Deed's campaign had formulated any policies, for individual groups or for the state. That's why most of the time Deeds seems to be running around repeating whatever McDonnell says.

Why should I care what AAA does?

The AFA sent out an alert complaining about AAA giving "family" memberships to homosexual couples:

During a face-to-face meeting yesterday between Equality Florida and AAA South, top management at the 4th largest AAA affiliate in the country committed to recognizing all spouses, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. The policy allows gay married couples to receive spousal discounts under AAA's Associate Membership program.

First of all, this is not the "AAA"; it is one part of AAA. AAA is a private entity, and they have decided to grant family memberships to couples that are gay.

This is not the same as a company spending money pushing a homoesexual agenda. This isn't even a company trying to force gay marriage on the country. It's just a company trying to make money by getting people who live together to pay more money for a family membership.

A lot of companies grant family memberships without regard to marriage; their goal is to get more members and money, not make judgments one whether people are legally married or not.

So long as a company isn't using profits from my business to actively promote gay marriage, I don't have a problem with them. People in this country have the right to enter into voluntary associations, and companies have a right to recognize those associations as they see fit.

I don't want the government to use my tax dollars to reward homosexual marriages, because such marriages are not beneficial to society. I don't want government to force churches to recognize marriage, or to force children to learn about and welcome gay sexual activity as normal.

And if people want to stop using AAA because of their policies, that's fine with me -- it's a free country. And I want to keep it a free country, something that is increasingly hard with Obama and the Democrats in charge, taking over companies and dictating to the rest of us how we have to live our lives. Soon we won't be able to buy incandescent bulbs; we won't have the choice of cars we want, we'll be paying taxes if our health care is too good, we'll be forced into health insurance whether we want it or not, we'll be forced to buy insurance that covers things we don't want or need coverage for.

So pardon me if I don't get worked up over AAA giving family discounts to gay couples.

Black President Opposed by Citil Rights Organization?

One thing you would have expected from America's First Black President was a strong support for civil rights. After years of contention between civil rights leaders and George Bush, you would expect smooth sailing for a Democratic administration led by an African-American, especially with a justice department headed up by another first African-American.

But in the six short months that Obama has been destroying the country we know, he has shown that the old expectations simply do not apply to the man who is now President, especially when it comes to treatment of people without regards to who they are or which candidate they supported in the election. This administration has made it their mission to use the entire force of government, and both our tax dollars and the tax dollars of our children and grandchildren, to reward those who support them, and to pay off those who worked for them or support their causes.

So I guess it shouldn't be surprising that this administration has run afoul of the U.S. Civil Rights commission, over of all things the clearest case of voter discrimination from the past year. From the Washington Times, "Panel Blasts Panther Case Dismissal":

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights is demanding that the Justice Department explain why it recently dismissed a civil complaint against members of the New Black Panther Party who disrupted a Philadelphia polling place during last year's election, saying the department has offered only "weak justifications."
...
In January, the Justice Department filed a civil complaint in Philadelphia against the New Black Panther Party after two of its members in black berets, black combat boots, black shirts and black jackets purportedly intimidated voters with racial insults, slurs and a nightstick. A third party member was accused of managing, directing and endorsing their behavior. The incident was captured on videotape.

Here is that videotape:



The government had already won the lawsuit against the Black Panthers; so why did Eric Holder's justice department decide to drop the charges?

The Black Panthers were doing the bidding of the Democratic party, that's why. They were keeping whites from voting against Obama.

We had a local complaint about voter intimidation last year, because the Help Save Manassas members showed up at a polling place with a sign reminding people they had to be citizens to vote, and a camera recording them. This was considered "vote suppression" by some because illegal immigrants would be worried about getting deported, even though illegals aren't supposed to vote.

Well, imagine if Greg Lettiecq had been standing at an hispanic polling place with a baseball bat. You can be sure there'd be a prosecution for voter intimidation. But in the Obama administration, it's not about what you do, it's about who you know, and how much money you gave to support Obama. Sotomeyer will soon be a Supreme court justice who thinks that you should be judged on the color of your skin rather than what the law says. People get stimulus dollars based on their support for democrats.

Obama, Democrats plan to destroy private health care

Despite claims to the contrary, there can be little doubt that Obama and the Democrats seek to destroy private health care in this country. Pelosi and the Democrat's summer attacks on the "evil Health Insurance Industry" is just one clear sign that they mean to eliminate all private health insurance, forcing people to accept government-run health care. After all, why would they pass a plan supporting private health insurers if they think those insurers are evil?

Then there are "slips", like Charles Rangel noting that the current plan is just an incremental step on the way to universal public health care.

The latest indication though, is a comment made by one of the Democrat's closest allies, Planned Parenthood. The Political reports that, speaking about how important it was for the public health care option to cover abortions, Laurie Rubiner, vice president for public policy and advocacy at Planned Parenthood, lets the cat out of the bag once again:

On “Fox News Sunday” this past weekend, budget director Peter Orszag said he is “not prepared to rule ... out” taxpayer financing for abortions.

Planned Parenthood’s Rubiner said the alternative would be slashing benefits for millions of women who currently have coverage for abortions and cited polling suggesting such services have popular support.

The anti-abortion activists’ demand “violates the first principle of health care reform, which is: Don’t make people worse off under health care reform than they are today,” she said.

Why would limiting abortion in the public option "slash benefits" for anybody who have coverage now under private plans?

Only if those private plans are going away.

Which is obviously what the liberal expect. It's the only way that Rubiner's statement makes any sense.

The Obama administration, with Pelosi, Reid, and the Democratic majority, plan on replacing people's private coverage with the public option. So if the public option doesn't cover abortions, millions of women WILL lose abortion coverage, when the Democrats wipe out their private health insurance benefits.

Thank you, Planned Parenthood, for providing more evidence for the real plans of this administration. When Obama promises you can keep your insurance, just remember: Your insurance company is evil, Obama will tax your plan, your company will want to push you into the public option, and Planned Parenthood expects millions of women to lose their private coverage.

And note: not one major news organization has asked WHY Planned Parenthood thinks women will lose their private insurance -- because they all know that is the plan under Obama.

I'm not dead, just resting

One of my favorite lines from Monty Python "It's not dead, it's just resting"



Anyway, we're still here, just "resting". OK, I did get tired of all the fighting and bickering, about the incompetence and impotence of the GOP, and the general tone of politicial discourse.

So I've been busy with other things. I worked on losing enough weight to clear the Boy Scout maximum weight limits before I went to summer camp. I had a business trip. I spent a lot of time on the train show, and my wife and daughter took a trip to Costa Rica.

I have to get back into blogging. I like writing for the paper, but the restriction to write only about local things drives me nuts.

Frankly, what is happening nationally is the most critical local issue we have.

What we need to do here in Virginia is to consider passing a law preventing the federal government from taking over our lives. If our representatives in the house and senate won't protect our liberties, our state government needs to take action to prevent the feds from ruining our state as they ruin the country.

The government has no business messing around with my health care, or anybody else's health care. If you need a doctor, go see a doctor. If the doctor wants money, pay them. If you are smart, you will buy insurance so if you have a major illness, you can get treatment, just like you insure your car and house. But if you have a cold, pay for it. If you need a drug, pay for it. Or get a job that gives you comprehensive insurance, or buy comprehensive insurance and cancel the cable -- that will benefit you in TWO ways.

But don't tell me that I have to change how I use MY money to provide for my family, just because some other people think it costs too much for them to take care of themselves. I don't have to buy "food insurance" to guarantee I can eat dinner, why should I have to buy health insurance?

Nothing, NOTHING in the constitution gives the government the right to interfere with people's health care. It's not commerce, it's not security, it's simply government meddling.

Cap and trade is STUPID because they are solving a problem that doesn't exist, with programs that will kill the economy without making a difference. But at least the problem they THINK they are solving is one that makes sense for government to solve, since the government IS responsible for keeping the commons available for the masses.

But not so with Health Care, or with their interference in private business like taking over the auto industry, or taking billions of our tax dollars to pay off their union buddies who elected them.

Fortunately, America is waking from it's slumber. Unfortunately, those in power could care less what is good for America, OR what Americans say they want. They have a plan to remake our country in their marxist image, and they seem hell-bent on implementing it.

Hopefully, we will elect some conservatives this fall, so that Virginia can be a beacon of hope for our nation, as it was in the beginning. Virginia has the chance to lead our country out of darkness, if we can get out of the darkness ourselves first. 7.3 percent unemployment -- I never thought I'd see that here in Virginia, even with Democrats in charge. We used to elect better Democrats I guess.

And of course, the real unemployment is much worse; Northern Virginia is pretty much driving that number down because of all the government make-work jobs Obama is pushing for his public union buddies.

Democrats Pass Bill they didn't write.

Obama won election by promising an end to the absurd practice of the Democrats to pass bills that nobody had a chance to read.

Well, as rediculous as that is, the Democrats have found a way to make things even worse.

It turns out that on Friday, they passed a bill that they hadn't even bothered to WRITE.

Story by Powerline: (quoting the Examiner):

Through a series of parliamentary inquiries, the Republicans learned that the 300-plus page managers' amendment, added to the bill last night in the House Rules Committee, has not even been been integrated with the official copy of the 1,090-page bill at the House Clerk's desk, let alone in any other location. The two documents are side-by-side at the desk as the clerk reads through the instructions in the 300 page document for altering the 1,090 page document.

So nobody could read the final bill, because nobody has written the final bill yet. As the Republicans sarcastically ask:

"If a bill for which there is no copy were to actually pass this body," Barton asked, "could the bill without a copy be sent to the Senate for its consideration?"

The House was in such a rush to pass this, they couldn't be bothered to read or write it. But there was no need for a rush, as this bill won't be considered by the Senate until September. The only reason they rushed it is because they would lose votes every day they waited, especially if they ever wrote the bill so people could see what is in it.

Poster Explains Obama's Health Care Plan

Obama Discusses Death Bed Treatment

Obama said families need better information so they don't unthinkingly approve "additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence shows is not necessarily going to improve care."

So if your parent gets sick, and the treatment has a 70% success rate, say goodbye, because the treatment won't "necessarily" improve care.

And note that it is "improve care", not "improve your life". If the treatment will be successful, but leave you taking medication the rest of your life, that will drive up the cost of care, and won't "improve care", so you might as well just go off and die.

Obama, who is a multi-millionare and raised 700 MILLION dollars for his campaign, left his grandmother who raised him confined to a wheelchair, and hardly visited her, when doctors told her she could die in 9 months and she needed hip replacement surgery:

She fell and broke her hip, "and the question was, does she get hip replacement surgery, even though she was fragile enough they were not sure how long she would last?"

Actually, He never said whether she got the surgery, but the story makes no sense if he gave her the surgery. But who cares if a millionare spends their own money to make their own parent's end-of-life experience better? How does Obama paying for his granmother's surgery drive up MY health care costs?

The only reason this makes any sense is if you assume that we all have to pay for everybody else's care. If you don't, you have no reason to tell other people what kind of care they can get with their own money.

But Obama wants to take over health care, because he says the problem with rising costs is ingrained in the system. It is -- we want better treatment, we want to live longer, and every new procedure, new drug, new discovery costs us more, but gains us more as well.

The solution to rising costs due to better care, is to stop giving better care. An analogy -- a new owner of a baseball team can cut costs by hiring less-capable athletes. But then the team doesn't do as well. Obama says we spend too much money keeping old people alive, and he wants to stop it -- by forcing everybody into a public health plan that won't ALLOW anybody to do so (except I'm sure congressmen and rich democrat donors, who will be exempted).

Because, after all, if the federal government can't afford to give expensive treatment to a poor unemployed welfare recipient, Bill Gates shouldn't be allowed to get that treatment either -- it wouldn't be "fair".

If your parents are putting off any treatments, better rush them in now -- Obama is looking for some clean white pillows for them.

Obama Strongly Opposes Obama's "Health Care" plan

Obama, in a scathing speech last October, ripped apart President Obama's proposed funding schemes for his ill-considered health care plan:

“[President Obama] and I have real differences on this issue. [President Obama]'s been eager to share some of the details of his health care plan, but not all of them. It's like those ads for prescription drugs. You know, they start off, everybody's running in the fields and everybody's happy and then there's the little fine print that says, you know, side effects may include.

Now, first of all, we found out that [President Obama] wants to pay for his plan by taxing your health care benefits for the first time in history. Just like George Bush. That was bad enough.

But ‘The Wall Street Journal’ recently reported that it was actually worse than we thought. It turns out [President Obama] would pay for part of his plan by making drastic cuts in Medicare. $882 billion worth. $882 billion in Medicare cuts to pay for an ill-conceived, badly thought through health care plan that won't provide more health care to people. Even though Medicare's already facing a looming shortfall.

...

So what would [President Obama]'s cuts mean for Medicare at a time when more and more Americans are relying on it? It would mean a cut of more than 20 percent in Medicare benefits next year. If you count on Medicare, it would mean fewer places to get care and less freedom to choose your own doctors. You'll pay more for your drugs. You'll receive fewer services. You'll get lower quality care.

I don't think that's right. In fact, it ain't right.” (Senator Barack Obama, Remarks, Roanoke, VA, 10/17/08)

As much as I disliked Senator Obama, the Presidential Candidate, he was still better than President Obama, left-wing Lackey.

(note: In the original text, the name was not "President Obama", but rather "Senator McCain". Also, while here Obama decries 882 billion in medicare cuts, President Obama has actually proposed more than 900 billion in cuts now that he is President.)

Post Continues to shill for Democrats

Even when they are trying to report something negative, the Washington Post does it's best to make people feel good about Obama and the Democrats. The front page is not a place to do political endorsements, but the Post joins it's big brother the New York Times in doing it's best to minimize the damage.

In today's article, "Obama's Spending Plans May Pose Political Risks", the shilling starts in the headline. Note the "May" along with "Political Risks". In fact, his spending plans DO pose serious risks to our economy and the livelyhoods of the American people, along with the savings of our elderly retired citizens. By suggesting this is merely a political problem, and that is is only a possibility, the Post suggests that, whatever the risks, they are not reasonable.

And lest even this mild headline throw off their readers, the Post starts this analysis of the shortfalls of spending trillions we don't have by lying about Obama's meager record of the first five months:

After enjoying months of towering poll numbers, legislative victories and well-received foreign policy initiatives, the White House has become increasingly concerned that President Obama's spending plans, which would require $9 trillion in government borrowing over the next decade, could become a political liability that defines the 2010 midterm elections.

Let's start with the closest to the truth, the "towering poll numbers". First, some history: Bush's March 2001 poll numbers:

Two months after becoming the 43rd President, George W. Bush is riding high in the polls. His job-approval rating hovers near 60%, and some two-thirds of Americans like him personally. His Cabinet gets very high marks. A large majority favors his tax cut.

In fact, Gallop had Bush at 69%, while Obama's march numbers from Rasmussen were only 56%. Heck, Bush Sr. had higher poll numbers in march:

George W. Bush 69%
George H.W. Bush 63 %
Barack Hussein Obama 56 % !!!!

Of course, CNN polling has shown that 110% of real Americans love Barack Obama.

How about those months of "legislative victories"? Well, certainly the Democrats, being in charge of the house, senate, and the executive branches, and having a decade worth of plans to implement, should have a bevy of bills passed, right? But so far Obama has failed to pass Card Check, the congress defeated his request for money to close Guantanamo, he has no support for his plan to put terrorists in our country, and even on the Stimulus package, he failed to get what he wanted, instead having to bow to an even worse plan by democrats in the house.

He did manage to pass SCHIP, which had already passed several times, and would have been law if the democrats hadn't insisted on covering the world with the child medical plan.

Of course, by "victory" they must have simply meant "passed", because by any measure the OBama "stimulus" package is a dismal failure. They rushed a bill of 900 billion dollars saying the money was needed. But so far only about 20 billion has been spent, unemployment is ABOVE where it was projected to be at the end of the year WITHOUT a stimulus, and the weakening of the Dollar due to the overspending has helped drive Oil and gas prices up again.

Meanwhile, his attempts to save two car companies failed, leaving him a socialized takeover of GM and Chrysler, no doubt driving unemployment even higher.

On bill after bill, Obama has provided only the vaguest of hints as to what he wants, because when he makes it clear, the house and senate democrats ignore him and pass what they want anyway. Easier to claim "victory" when you claim whatever comes out as your own.

And don't forget that while Obama promised to allow the American people to see each piece of legislature for 5 days before signing them, he has yet to allow us to see ANY bill he has signed for that long. So he can't even implement policies that he has complete control over.

But the most laughable is the 'Well-received foreign policy initiatives". In his brief time trying to learn how to be President, he has become the laughingstock of the world. He slighted our closest ally, England, multiple times, mistreating Brown, and more recently with the Uigher fiasco in Bermuda -- a country who Obama has now managed to seriously destabilize, along with Palau.

Iran just re-elected their anti-American leader. Obama refused to eat with Sarkozy claiming he had more important things to do, and then Obama came home and played golf. He has seriously undermined our solid relationship with a close ally and democratic country Israel, while his kissing up to anti-democratic muslim governments and extremists has earned the US no benefit.

North Korea is blatantly testing nuclear weapons, and has announced the will enrich uranium, and Obama has no answer. While Europe is electing new leadership that sees the danger of muslim radicals taking over their countries, Obama is lying about the number of muslims in our country, and trying to sell the fiction that we used to be the enemies of the Muslim world. This after we sent our troops to die defending muslims in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Kosovo, Albania, Afghanistan, and Iraq, and have been close allies with Pakistan and and other muslim countries.

No, in the short time Obama has been in office, our nation's debt has skyrocketed, the respect we had in the world (not the kissy-faced platitudes, but the actual respect that kept our enemies at bay and our friends close beside us) has been destroyed, muslim extremists are launching terror attacks on our own soil again, the world is increasingly dismissing our currency, oil and gas prices are skyrocketing, and our businesses are being undermined by Obama's ill-considered belief that the government can run things better than we can.

Obama has no answers, other than to continue to blame the previous administration for actions the democrats took over the past two years when they controlled congress. The Washington Post helps out:

"The reckless fiscal policies of the past have left us in a very deep hole," Obama said last week. "And digging our way out of it will take time, patience and some tough choices."

But in fact, for the spending of the last two years, except for the war in Iraq, Obama voted FOR all the spending. He pushed for and claimed credit for the TARP bill. He joined his fellow democrats blocking the fixes to the mortgage industry that might have staved off the worst of the downturn. Obama cannot blame others for the economy, which was fine before his party took over the Senate in 2007 and drove gas and oil prices to record highs.

Note that the oil and gas prices only dropped when the democrats, trying to win re-election, allowed bans on drilling to expire. Then, when he took office, Obama blocked exploration of offshore oil, and announced plans to ban more drilling, and oil and gas prices shot back up.

Obama doesn't get it though, as seen by his "plan" to fix the deficit:

Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff, said that a quick economic recovery would have the single biggest effect on the grim budget forecasts and that the administration's top priority will be "getting America's fiscal house in order" once Congress finishes work on health-care and energy reform legislation.

"energy reform" is their name for cap-and-trade, which will kill our economy and run up the deficits more. health-care as perceived by Obama means trillions more in government spending. So in addition to the record deficits Obama has charged up this year and last year as a Senator, he plans on trillions more, before he gets our "house in order".

A quick economic recovery would have been the best. The TARP passed last year didn't help, although it might have worked if it was smaller and more targeted to what it was supposed to be, buying off toxic assets to free up capital. The failure of the democrats to pass a good TARP bill (and many republicans went along with that fiasco) hurt our economic recovery. But Obama's "stimulus" package sunk our recovery, directing money we didn't have NOT to stimulate, but to pay off his political supporters. They gave him 700 million dollars to win the election, and he returned the favor with 700 billion in money paid out to unions, colleges, ACORN, and liberal groups throughout the country.

Democrat Senator Leahy questions Sotomayor's impartiality.

In 1990, faced with confirming conservative judges appointed by the Bush administration, the Democrats on the judiciary committee decided to implement a rule regarding the membership in exclusive, discriminatory clubs.

From the Washington Times:

In June 1990, Arlen Specter, then a Republican from Pennsylvania, and all but one of the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary committee sponsored a resolution warning nominees that having belonged to such clubs could be enough to deny them confirmation. The resolution claimed that membership in such organizations "conflicts with the impartiality, and the appearance of impartiality" expected of judges and that it will be held against the nominee unless they "actively engaged" in efforts to get underrepresented groups into the organizations.

Sens. Leahy, Specter and Herb Kohl, Wisconsin Democrat, supported the resolution and are still on the Judiciary Committee. Joseph Biden, who was the committee chairman at the time, is now vice president.

Well, it turns out that Judge Sotomayor is a current member of a discriminatory, exclusive organization:

It was revealed Friday that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor belongs to the Belizean Grove, a highly selective club for women only.

The Democrats applied this rule against nominees if they had EVER, no matter how far in their past, been members of such an organization, even if they had quit, and even if they had denounced the group.

In 2001, they held up one nominee for over a year for belonging to a fishing club:

When Judge D. Brooks Smith was nominated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2001, his confirmation was held up for almost a year in part because he belonged to an all-male fishing and gun club.

But Sotomayor has never denounced this group. In fact, she JOINED the group well after being confirmed as a judge, just last year in fact (from the Politico):

Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor last year accepted an invitation to join the Belizean Grove, an elite but little-known women’s-only group.
...
Sotomayor’s membership in the New York-based group became public Thursday afternoon in a questionnaire submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Of course, because she is a Democrat, and they are Democrats, Leahy and Kohl will ignore the rules and vote to confirm her anyway. Democrats in general are very bad when it comes to consistancy, prefering hypocrisy.

But in fact, Sotomayor has violated more than a longstanding Democrat-sponsored judiciary rule. She has violated the ethics standards for Judges:

The American Bar Association's Canons of Judicial Ethics stipulates that judges "shall not" be members of any organization that unfairly discriminates based on gender.

So Sotomayor, having a lifetime judicial appointment to the appeals court, knowingly defied the ABA canon of Judicial Ethics, casting doubt on all her rulings by joining a discriminatory exclusive club. She should be censured, not given a promotion.

Her membership in a club that excludes men from it's membership casts a new and disturbing light on her previous comments that a "wise latina woman" would make better decisions than a "white man". She can no longer pretend she treats genders equally, now that we know of her bigoted membership in this club.

IN many ways, this is much worse than her membership in the racist organization "La Raza". We already know she is biased for people of her own ethnic background -- I have no doubt that a white man won't get justice from her against hispanics. So it isn't really a surprise that she belongs to a bigoted racist organization like "La Raza", (whose name says it all).

Sotomayor: conflict of interest in Ricci Case?

A recent revelation of a legal seminar in which Judge Sotomayor participated in the 1990s reveals a conflict of interest which should have caused her to recuse herself from the Ricci firefighter case.

That she did not do so raises new questions about her ethics.

According to CNN:

The female panel members politely objected to her characterizations of how she overcame such obstacles, pointing out she graduated from law school with honors and was on the prestigious law review. Sotomayor countered that those were signs test scores alone do not offer the full measure of a person's capability. Test scores, she said, often can be the result of "cultural biases."

The question in the Ricci case was whether test scores are the result of "cultural bias" and therefore could be thrown out. Sotomayor already had an opinion on the merits of the case, and made a flippant ruling which simply reflected her biased and preconcieved notions.

It is no wonder that she didn't really look into the facts of the case, as she already "knew" from her "life experiences" that the Firefighters were wrong and the city was correct.

This isn't the only unethical thing about Sotomayor that is being ignored by the media.

Study: Children raised by Gays 7 times more likely to be Gay

A doctor doing analysis of studies performed in the last decade of children raised in homosexual households discovers a "hidden" statistic supporting an obvious observation: such children are much more likely to have homosexual encounters than the general population.

Dr. Trayce Hansen, Phd, makes this discovery public in a recent column "Pro-Homosexual Researchers Conceal Findings: Children Raised by Openly Homosexual Parents More Likely to Engage in Homosexuality":

Research by social scientists, although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others. Studies thus far find between 8% and 21% of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual. For comparison purposes, approximately 2% of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children.

Dr. Hansen goes on to point out ways that the various researchers tried to bury this information, since it goes against the public message that homosexual couples are just as good for children as biological families, and that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition, not something that could be induced by environment.

But if true, this analysis of studies would blow a hole in that theory, showing instead that encouraging homosexual acceptance will in fact encourage homosexual behavior among children who would otherwise live an exclusive heterosexual lifestyle.

Along with other recent studies showing that any genetic component of homosexuality can only account for about 10 percent of homosexuality, it is now becoming clear that Americans have been sold a bill of goods by the homosexual lobby in their push to justify and "normalize" nontraditional, nonreproductive sexual activities.

Regardless, no one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, "Of course our children are going to be different."

You would expect that children raised in a homosexual household would be more accepting of homosexual activity, since they would naturally want to believe their parents are normal and acceptable.

And in fact, the insistance that being gay was something you were born with and couldn't be taught was so ingrained that most people arguing against gay couples adopting children focused on the serious deficiency of children raised with only one gender of parent.

Findings from the best and most recent twin studies have found that homosexuality, unlike eye color, is not genetically-caused. But there are a number of non-genetic mechanisms through which homosexuality could be transmitted from one generation to the next. Those mechanisms include role-modeling, social learning and differential reinforcement, as well as outright encouragement of non-heterosexuality by parents or others.

It is one thing to argue that two consenting adults, who desire to have a non-traditional relationship, should have the right to do so without interference by the government. It is another to argue that gay couples have a natural right to impose their sexual preference on children through the act of adoption.

Obama: too busy for his job

Obama, asked why he refused to eat with French President Sarkozy (who is, shockingly, more conservative than our current President), laughingly said:

“I have a very tough schedule and I would love nothing more than to have a leisurely week in Paris, stroll down the Seine, take my wife out to a nice meal, have a picnic in Luxembourg Gardens,” Obama said, pointing out that he was caught up in dealing with the pressing financial crisis at home.

Of course, last week his "tough schedule" didn't preclude him from taking a day off to spend tens of thousands of our tax dollars to take his wife to a broadway play in New York, inconveniencing thousands of New Yorkers in the process, all of whom probably had tough schedules of their own that were ruined by the President.

Not that Obama really understands schedules, as he is late for everything.

But he had to rush home to do his job, after all. Except within 90 minutes of arriving back at the White House, he was rushing off to his next pressing financial engagement -- a leisurely round of golf.

Of course, it would have been fun to watch Obama walk on water, so I wish he had taken the time to "walk down the Seine".

Is Obama using Control of Chrysler to pay off political donors?

The internet has been buzzing with the discovery that many of the Chrysler dealerships that were shut down were owned by Republican supporters who opposed Obama. However, this didn't seem like a solid argument to me at the time. First, I presume that most entrepeneurs who have to work for a living would oppose Obama, so maybe most all of the dealerships are Republicans. Second, we were told that the list of closures was generated by Chrysler, so there was no chance for Obama to interfere.

However, tonight Gateway Pundit is reporting new information that blows a hole in that theory, and strongly suggests that Obama is in fact using the power of the presidency, and the control he has over the car companies because of OUR TAX DOLLARS, to reward democratic donors and Obama supporters while driving better dealerships run by Republicans out of business.

From the Gateway Pundit:

Now there's this...RLJ-McLarty-Landers is owned by three men.One was the former Chief of Staff for President Clinton.One is the founder of Black Entertainment Television and a huge Obama supporter.All 6 of their Chrysler dealerships will remain open.And, get this... Their local competitors have been eliminated!
...
More... The decision to close the dealerships was made by Obama officials and not Chrysler.

I dislike major stories reported from blogs. It is a shame that the major media outlets refuse to even investigate this story, as it could be a bigger scandal than Watergate, a greater abuse of presidential power than the teapot dome scandal.

Terry McCauliffe -- Bad for Virginia

OK, so it's not my party's primary. And it would be fun to attack McCauliffe in the general election with his record.

But what lesson have we learned from the 2008 elections? Once the Democrats pick their candidate, it won't matter even if we catch him with a dead girl AND a live boy in his bed, the Democrats will vote Democrat, and some independents will totter along if the candidate has enough money to sway them.

And McCauliffe has tons of money, which according to the Washington Post, he earned in the way that Obama says is evil.

The Post in fact deflates the bubble that is McCauliffe's ego, showing that his claims of creating hundreds of thousands of jobs and launching dozens of companies, ALL SUCCESSFUL, is just one more of Terri McCauliffe's lies:

Yet McAuliffe's business pedigree is not so simple. He is a dealmaker who made millions from investments. And many of his biggest deals came in partnership with prominent donors and politicians, creating a portrait over the years of a Washington insider who got rich as he rose to power within the Democratic Party.
...
But they belie the complexity of a business career built mostly on intricate land deals and dot-com investments, often with wealthy political donors -- and sometimes with no jobs to show for it.

The Post details deal after deal which were little more than Terri paying off political allies in exchange to access. And it mentions a case where Terri seems to have taken advantage of the unions:

The pension fund put up virtually all the money -- about $40 million compared with McAuliffe's $100 -- even though McAuliffe would own a 50 percent share in the partnership. This detail would become a point of contention in a lawsuit filed against the fund trustees by the Department of Labor, which regulates the management of pension funds and which determined that it had not been a good investment for the electrical workers. In 2001, after two years of litigation, the trustees, including Moore, settled in U.S. District Court.

Terri had 5 companies in Virginia which he touts, but none had any employees:

And at a candidates' forum in December, in response to Moran's claim to be the only candidate who had run a business and raised a family in Virginia, McAuliffe boasted of launching five businesses in Virginia. It turned out that all five are investment partnerships, with no employees, registered to his home address in McLean.

At least he didn't try to claim a grass-cutting business. But he sure likes to "exaggerate", which is the Democrat's euphamism for "lie":

McAuliffe's tendency to exaggerate his successes adds to that perception. Describing the apartments he purchased with the union fund, McAuliffe said he "went through every apartment myself, like 1,600 of them, to make sure the toilets worked" -- but then added: "Well, I didn't go through 1,600. But I went through every property exhaustively. Sure I did! I owned them!" McAuliffe then claimed that his home-building company built 1,300 homes at its peak, but an adviser later clarified that the figure was closer to 800.

The post story is a must-read, which is something I very rarely say.

Train Show

One reason for light blogging is that I am lazy.

Another is that I am working on an exhibit for the 15th annual Manassas Railway Festival, to be held June 6, 2009 at the Manassas Rail Station.

I did this back in 2006, when I had my back problems. This year has been a lot easier, since I am not in constant pain. Also, the tables were already built, and I still have most of my models.

So of course, I took the opportunity to make it bigger and badder. I've added a full 2nd level, with an extra wing, so instead of an "L" I now have a "U". I'm also working on intermediate levels, giving a more "3-dimensional" look.

So here's hoping for a sunny, cool day on June 6th. It should be a lot of fun. There will also be live music and games for the kids.

You know you want to have fun, and you know you can't afford to travel this year, so come on out and spend a day with your neighbors looking at trains. You can also see the big empty lot where they don't have an annoying sign.

Sad fact: when I did the last train show, I was right next to that property, and I have pictures of the house that used to be there before they burned it down and made it into a neighborhood eyesore.

Still here.

I'm still around. Just don't have anything to say that isn't being said somewhere already. Anyway, in the era of Obama, it seems clear the best course of action is to hide under a rock.

You certainly don't want to say anything against what he's doing, because he seems quite willing to use the power of government against people who displease him. I figure if the guy can take over two car companies, what chance do I have?

It is interesting to note that a couple of months ago, we were all told how bad the economy would get by the end of the year if we didn't pass Obama's idea of a "stimulus package". But now that we DID pass Obama's bill, we've already reached all the milestones that were expected by the end of the year. Which would suggest that rather than "stimulating" the economy, Obama actually made it worse.

We have lost more jobs since Obama took office than he promised to "save or create". I once joked that when Obama promised to save 4 million jobs, that the other 100+ million jobholders better watch out. But we won't lose 100 million jobs, because Obama isn't going to cut any government positions. He'll probably hire people to help him run the car companies.

Gas prices dropped like a stone when we got rid of the stupid ban on offshore drilling. But now that Obama seems to be re-imposing the ban by dictatorial fiat, prices are shooting up again.

The problem with the Stimulus bill is that most of the money went to state and local governments. I was in Fair Oaks mall last saturday, and I looked all around, but I didn't see government shopping. If you give money to real people, they go spend it, which means businesses stay open and hire people who spend their earnings which means more business.

If you give money to the government, government doesn't go to the shopping mall, they generate new programs to waste the money where it will do no good. Oh, and they take forever to do no good, apparently after all the rush to enact the stimulus package, only about 15% of the money has been spent.

And when you are trying to figure out who to thank for the federal stimulus money we are getting, thank me. I'm a taxpayer, and it's my money they are giving out. And yours, if you are a taxpayer. Some people are thanking Connally, or Obama, or Webb/Warner. Sorry, they aren't giving you their money, they are giving you MY money. Might as well thank the robber who gives you money he just stole from the guy in the alley.

In 2007, Democrats promised change. Hope you are happy.

I was cleaning out my e-mail, and stumbled across an article from mid-2007 written by Larry Kudlow. He was commenting on the new Democratic Majority's promise to change things. As he pointed out, at the time the market was at an all-time high, housing values were up 200%, unemployment was at near-historic lows, oil prices were dropping, and our deficit had been cut in half.

And he asked the obvious question -- what exactly where the Democrats going to change?

The answer is now clear. The question is why anybody who actually had any money saved would ever have voted for the Democrats or Obama -- and whether anybody who used to have money before the Democrats took over would make that mistake ever again.

Obama may be a good President for the unemployed and those who spent money they didn't have. Democrats are good at supporting their constituency, which apparently are a mix of people who don't invest, people who don't work, and people who have money but never had to work for it and have it protected. Oh, and I forgot tax cheats.

But, to paraphrase Margaret Thatcher, socialism is great for the have-nots, until they run out of "haves" to steal from. Which Obama is taking care of in record fashion. At some point, maybe Obama will realise that if the nation is bankrupt, the Russians and the Chinese and the Palistinians aren't going to come bail us out. And you can't give away health care if you don't have it to give. And, well, all of us really did want to retire some day, even if Obama is too young to give a damn.

Holder: Guantanamo's great, but we'll close it anyway.

Leave it to the new Democratic administration to realise that Guantanamo bay is nothing like what they thought, but still stick to their stupid plan to close it.:

WASHINGTON – Attorney General Eric Holder said Wednesday the Guantanamo detention center is a well-run, professional facility that will be difficult to close — but he's still going to do it. Holder visited the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, on Monday and spoke to reporters about his trip during a news conference Wednesday.

In what world does that make sense? The fantasy world of the Obama Administration. If a federal program has failed miserably, like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, he wants to spend billions more on it. But a "well-run, professional facility?" Shut it down, and use the money for programs that don't work.

Holder said his visit to the site was instructive. He met with military officials and toured the facilities, including the court setting where military commissions were to be held until Obama suspended them.

He said he did not witness any rough treatment of detainees, and in fact found the military staff and leadership performing admirably.

"I did not witness any mistreatment of prisoners. I think, to the contrary, what I saw was a very conscious attempt by these guards to conduct themselves in an appropriate way," he said.

The attorney general said none of those impressions alters the administration's goal of closing Guantanamo by January 2010.

My guess is that Guantanamo is run better than most of the in-state prison facilities where we will end up sticking these terrorists, until they get out on technicalities and launch new attacks on our country.

And when they do, Obama will no doubt blame Bush for "making them hate us". Obama would be a one-trick pony if he had any tricks at all.

Relative Lack of inexperience

Obama is one of the least experienced presidents we have ever had. As my wife said after watching him a little last night "He was like the head Cheerleader", rather than a President.



The local paper thought the most important quote from Obama was "The time to secure our future is here". The only thing more trite would be if he said "The time to secure our future is now" -- which at least would have had the advantage of showing the President knows how to use English. Really: The time is HERE? And I guess he is now.



But Obama is trying to look more experienced by appointing inexperienced, unqualified people to his cabinet (in retrospect, Clinton as Secretary of State looks positively golden, and she had never held a single position working with foreign issues before her appointment).



But the Democrats in congress will cover for him. I loved this comment about Carl Levin from Defense Daily:

{Carl} Levin says he “can’t foresee” opposing nominee for top Pentagon procurement post, but adds it’s “perfectly legitimate” to question Carter’s lack of acquisition experience at upcoming confirmation hearing.

Thanks, Carl, for suggesting that it's OK to ask why the nominee has never done the job he is being nominated for. Was there NO person in the aquisition department that was ready to take over the top job?



For Commerse, we now has former Governor Locke, who apparently has no commerce experience, but is another lobbyist. Remember when Obama was opposed to lobbyists, back when he was trying to get elected? Now it seems that lobbyists are the only people qualified to work in his administration.



When Obama DID nominated a qualified person for Commerse (Senator Gregg), he then drove him off by taking away all the department's responsibilities and essentially explaining that Gregg would be the "token experienced person".



Don't forget the Treasury secretary who didn't know how to do his taxes. That's good for a laugh, except then he had no idea what his plan was for saving the banks -- way to go, yes we can, ruin the economy.



When Obama said yesterday that he had never been in a helicopter, so he didn't know why he would need new Presidential copters, someone had to explain to him that the beanie with the propeller on his head wasn't the real Presidential copter, and that the real ones were fine except for the getting old and falling apart thing.