Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited

 

The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?

 

READ ABOUT IT...

Friday, March 16, 2007

Nab 'Em, Grap 'Em, Cuff 'Em & Scare 'Em to Tears: New Wave Police Work

A dangerous criminal was nabbed in Baltimore according to an AP report...

March 16, 2007 11:37 AM EDT

BALTIMORE - Police arrested a 7-year-old boy, handcuffed him and took his mug shot and fingerprints on a charge of riding a motorized dirt bike on a sidewalk.

At the station, Gerard Mungo Jr. was handcuffed to a bench and interrogated before being released to his parents.

"They scared me," Gerard told The Baltimore Examiner before breaking down in tears."

Hardcore criminal that little suspect. Had that officer and his supervisor shaking in their socks, I bet. They'll probably have nightmares for the rest of their lives about what that little boy might have done to them if they hadn't gotten him handcuffed to that bench in time. Not sure where they got their training, but I guess it came in handy -- they got a confession out of that little burger and have him on file should the bank down the street get robbed next week and some little feller gets away on a dirt bike.

Isn't this all amazing?

Parents can't swat their child on the behind for inappropriate behavior without fear of the state getting involved, and yet, the police can grab a child, treat him like a dangerous criminal and think they were within their rights? Excuse me!?!? A seven year old child should never be treated as this one was.

A swat or being handcuffed, fingerprinted, interrogated and having a mug shot? Which is likely to be the most traumatic and with irreversible damage? I dare anyone to say a swat. Any that might, I'd not be able to take anything else they said seriously. And I am sure there are a great many of them out there. The ones that tell us that wrong is right and good is bad and that there is always some justification for stepping over the ledge into the madness they are leading this world into. What do they think they are accomplishing? Whatever it is, by the grace of all that is good, I pray they don't succeed.

Let's bring back some sanity and balance before we forget what they are!


Wednesday, March 14, 2007

Hitler's Youth Concept Still Alive and Well It Seems!

I might say that I can't believe the excerpt I'm about to post, but I believe it only too well. This is what we have come to.



From LifeSiteNews..


"Illinois High School Orders Students Not to tell Parents about Homosexual Propaganda Sessions

By Gudrun Schultz

DEEFIELD, Illinois, March 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Fourteen-year-old students at an Illinois high school were told to keep their attendance at a school panel discussion promoting homosexuality a secret from their parents, Concerned Women for America reported on Christian Newswire March 13.

Students at Deerfield High School were required to attend a “Straight Gay Alliance Network” panel led by upperclassmen identified as homosexual, as part of an advisory class that promoted homosexuality. Students were also required to sign a “confidentiality agreement” before attending the session that forbade them from telling anyone--including their parents--about the panel material."


Since when can fourteen year olds enter into a binding agreement (contract)? And since when can a state school demand that a child disrespect and lie to a parent (even by omission)? Wouldn't that be considered contributing to the delinquency of a minor, under normal circumstances? But then... what is normal about how the schools and society seem to think our children are theirs for the taking? We only get all the responsibility, while they seem to think they should have all the rights and say in how OUR children are raised and what they are taught. Hitler would be so very proud!

How far does this have to go before people realize the seriousness of others having FAR TOO MUCH SAY in the raising of OUR children? When will we say, "No more!"... and take back our rights as parents? We better do it before it is too late to undo the destruction the interference of the "It Takes A Village to Raise A Child" thinkers have caused and continue to cause! After all, contrary to what they may think -- these are OUR kids we are talking about. -- not theirs!

Just remember that Hitler snuck up on society as well! Snuck up and taught children that parents were of nothingness and he and his teachings were of everything. History tells of the death, torture and destruction that followed. Do we really want to repeat a history such as that?


Texas: Baby's Mom Receives 10 Day Notice

The Austin American-Statesman's (statesman.com) writer, Mary Ann Roser, wrote an article on March 13, 2007, "Doctors say they plan to cut off baby's respirator -- Mother has 10 days to find another hospital for son ... " The article is in reference to a 16-month-old who doctors say has Leigh's disease. The mother does not agree with the doctors and anonymous ethics committee that have decided her son falls under the Futile Care Law that gives them the right to discontinue treatment.



The Children's Hospital of Austin gave the 23 year old mother, Catarina Gonzales, the ten day notice and thus far she has not been able to find a facility that will accept little Emilio.



The child may very well be terminal but the question then becomes, why can't the doctors and hospital treat him with comfort care while leaving him on the respirator and providing necessary treatment, until God and his body decides it is time to let go or his mother decides the time has come? Why are they in such a hurry to rush him off? Is it because his mother did not agree with the doctor? Or has the funds run out? One can only wonder.



The futile care law is an abuse of power with anonymous people playing god with other people's lives. Where is the accountability? It's time the futile care law be removed from the books and human life be returned to something valued not devalued and so easily tossed away.



In the meantime, God bless little Emilio and his mother!


Florida Law May Save the Life of A Child Murderer

I was reading another report on KMBC.com's site...



"Jury Wants Jessica Lunsford's Killer Executed" (Posted March 14, 2007 on TheKansasCityChannel.com)



John Couey was found guilty of raping, sexually battering and murdering 9 year old Jessica Lunsford. The jury apparently wants Couey to be executed for the crimes with which he has been found guilty. His attorneys, however, are claiming that Couey is mentally retarded.


"Couey's lawyers argued that convicted killer Couey is mentally retarded and that the 48-year-old has the mind of a child during testimony in the sentencing phase of the convicted killer's trial. "

"Florida law and a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling prohibit execution of retarded people."




What Couey did to that little child is beyond horrendous! He is guilty of causing such unspeakable harm to one of our little ones, YET, Florida law may protect him from being executed, while having condoned the sentencing of an innocent brain damaged woman (Terri Schiavo) to a torturous death by starvation and dehydration?



Can anyone truly explain the supposed logic of any of this?


HPV Researcher Blasts HPV Vaccine Marketing

fwdailynews.com features an article today about Diane M. Harper who is speaking out about the lies being told about the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccination. Harper is a scientist, professor and director of the Gynecologic Cancer Prevention Research Group at the Norris Cotton Cancer Center at Dartmouth Medical School in New Hampshire.

The article starts

A lead researcher who spent 20 years developing the vaccine for humanpapilloma virus says the HPV vaccine is not for younger girls, and that it is "silly" for states to be mandating it for them.

Not only that, she says it's not been tested for effectiveness in younger girls, and administering the vaccine to girls as young as 9 may not even protect them at all. And, in the worst-case scenario, instead of serving to reduce the numbers of cervical cancers within 25 years, such a vaccination crusade actually could cause the numbers to go up.

"Giving it to 11-year-olds is a great big public health experiment,"

Is Harper a Right-wing wacko like me? Her qualifications:

Internationally recognized as a pioneer in the field, Harper has been studying HPV and a possible vaccine for several of the more than 100 strains of HPV for 20 years - most of her adult life.


The article points out that the vaccine doesn't protect against all strains of HPV, which could lead parents and girls with a false sense of security.

She also points out that the drug has not been tested on girls as young as the vaccine is being recommended for (11 or in some cases 9 years of age).

A number of people have repeated the fallacy that the vaccine is a "vaccine against cancer," but the "mainstream" media should know better than this. The fact that a number of articles have called Gardasil a vaccine against cancer is either sloppy journalism or pure propaganda, because reporters are in a position to know better--and should be doing better research. But as the article says from Harper:

It is not a cancer vaccine or cure. It is a prophylactic - preventative - vaccine for a virus that can cause cancer.

It is not 100 percent effective against all HPVs. It is 100 percent effective against two types that cause 70 percent of cervical cancers.

The actual tests on the younger girls, ages 9 to 15, were only for safety and immune response, Harper said, and then only as a shot by itself, or in combination with only one other vaccine, Hepatitis B. It has not been tested in conjunction with any other shots a girl receives at about age 11, Harper said.

So far more than 40 cases of Guillian-Barre syndrome - a dangerous immune disorder that causes tingling, numbness and even paralysis of the muscles have been reported in girls who have received the HPV vaccine in combination with the meningitis vaccine.


Again, this is not just some Right-wing pro-family sex-hater saying this (actually I LOVE sex--in the right circumstances), but a scientist:

In the end, inoculating young girls may backfire because it will give them a false sense of protection. And, for both young girls and women, because the vaccine's purpose has been so misinterpreted - and mis-marketed - Harper feels that too many girls and women who have had the vaccine will develop a false sense of security, believing they are immune to cancer when they are not, and failing to continue with their annual Pap exams, are crucial to diagnosing dysplasia before it can develop into cancer.


This is an another important point which is not brought out in most of these HPV vaccination discussions: Pap exams will stop most cervical cancers, without exposing young girls to dangerous drugs and a false sense of security that may promote promiscuity.

Another important consideration not mentioned in this article is that Merck, the manufacturer, is only counting on the vaccine to be effective for 5 years. If you vaccinate a girl at 11 (the min. age for the South Dakota initiative), when may it wear off? When she's 16. If girls are going to become sexually active before marriage, when is that likely to happen? High school and college.

Hmmm....


It Appears Penguins Have More Sense of Protecting the Young Than At Least One Referee

KMBC.Com (Channel 9 -- KCMO) reported...

"Man In Penguin Costume Heckles Youth Players

Gardner Coach Says Man Is League Referee

(POSTED: 10:04 pm CDT March 13, 2007 -UPDATED: 10:44 pm CDT March 13, 2007) - GARDNER, Kan. -- A man wearing a penguin suit was caught on video while heckling fifth-grade basketball players, KMBC's Martin Augustine reported.

The incident happened Saturday at a youth basketball game at Gardner Elementary School.

Parents at the game said the man is a referee who was taking some revenge on the kids and the coach."

You didn't read wrong. It was actually a referee that was behaving in such an inappropriate manner. The report even goes on to state that the man cheered when players fell down. And this is someone that should be around and influencing children? I think not!

The madness keeps on spreading!


Tuesday, March 13, 2007

Who Is Most Responsible for the Mortgage Woes?

In the past several years, I have driven by (or otherwise seen) new housing additions spreading like wild-fire. Housing additions that only hosted the $200,000, $300,000 or maybe even $450,000 houses. I looked at others and asked, "Where are all these people working that they can afford these homes?"



We looked at each other in wonder. None of us had a clue.



Then I began reading about the new loans where one only makes payments on the interest. The bait. The enticement. The making it easy for people to get what they want NOW with little thought of the consequences likely to follow. The suggestion that it all makes sense and will work out all right, except what happens when it doesn't?



I was reading "Wall Street banks walloped by mortgage worries" by By Tim McLaughlin, (Reuters - March 13, 2007) and can't agree with the concept that is implied (through his sources) that the fault of all problems in this mess rests with loans being given to those with poor credit histories etc.

No, I certainly can't agree.



I know of a family that doesn't have a perfect credit history due to unexpected hardships, medical issues and some inaccurate allegations that the credit bureaus, and others, don't seem interested in correcting. This family wanted to get a home loan for $20,000. They weren't even considered because the loan wasn't enough. However, if they would apply for a mortgage on a more expensive house, their application would be considered and was suggested to be likely to be approved (when any financial information was provided & considered). Several companies were contacted and the minimum for most was $50,000 or $60,000.



The couple didn't want a $50,000 home or the payments that went with it -- they wanted the house for $20,000 and the ability to readily pay it off. No one would help.



How odd that common sense and financial planning was so disregarded.



Poor credit rating is not necessarily a poor risk indicator. Not all reporting on people is being done so with truth and honesty. Nor does a rating give a true picture of what has transpired. Anyone can fall into hard times. Anyone.



So, the answer is to charge a higher interest rate for those less able to pay it? If they can't pay it, who benefits? Does the short term collection of high rates make any of it worth while, when it is actually those "high rates" , in and of themselves, that have set many people up for the likelihood of failure and a repossession in the making? And this makes sense because "why"? I would think that successful completion of any financial agreement would reap better benefits for all concerned, than a setup to fail for any in the legitiment field of finances.



What about the people that merely want a safe, healthy and affordable house that would actually have payments less than rent, but no one will consider them because the focus is on financing the high dollar houses for those who can't actually afford them, but are perhaps "told" they can?



With all the foreclosurers we are hearing about -- will we have housing additions that are like the ghost towns of the past? Ghost additions and a sad memory of the promises that someone once presented as a possibility that really wasn't as easy as suggested?



It's good to look rich, I suppose, but what about all the families that merely want an affordable home that meets their family's needs and is safe and economical to boot? That doesn't take a $450,000 house to do that no matter what many may think.



So "who" was pushing these high priced homes and the suggestion that so many could afford them by paying interest only payments without truly discussing that at some point there would be a requirement to pay beyond the interest and the consequences that might bring?



(And how come low amount mortgages weren't also considered in the scenario of it all of paying interest only for a time by many, if not all, lenders?)



Who becomes most responsible about any of this? The customer that got sold a bill of goods, the salesperson that was selling the bill of goods, or the financial instituation that made it all happen?


The Stroke That Never Was: Misinformation Continues to Circulate

It seems that mis-information is still out there floating around for the unsuspecting to happen upon.



I just read...


"Ms. Lilly's story brings to mind one of the most remarkable and highly publicized cases of a person in a long-term vegetative state. Terri Schiavo [2] was starved to death in March of 2005 after a Florida judge ordered her feeding tube to be removed. Schiavo [2] had been in a "persistent vegetative state" for years following a stroke, and while her family insisted she responded to their presence, doctors determined that she would likely never recover." (JBS.org - Published by The John Birch Society - Truth, Leadership, Freedom - "Colorado Woman Briefly Wakes From a 6 Year Coma" By Mary Benoit, Created 2007-03-12 17:14)

A stroke, if it had happened, would explain why a healthy young woman (Terri Schiavo) was suddenly suffering from brain damage. But it didn't happen. She neither had a stroke nor a heart attack. So how she was a healthy young woman at work one day to being brain damaged and headed toward the death penalty the next, is the mystery of the centuries.

How any of our laws allowed such to happen (her death by dehydration) goes even beyond that mystery! When did we sink that low, and care that little, about what was and is happening to the innocent among us?

I'm not sure when any of this began to happen, but I am sure that there is "mis-information" out there that entices and embraces a "sense" of justification that isn't truly justified.

Terri Schiavo DID NOT have a stroke. What media initially (and wrongly) suggested she did and why? Why hasn't the correction been made? Why is this wrongful information allowed to continue to circulate and influence the opinion of what was done to Terri Schiavo and those such as she?

Opinions -- especially those that involve life and death decisions -- should never be based upon anything other than absolute truth and facts! All efforts must be made to avoid making a mistake that can wrongly take the life of another!


 
Clicky Web Analytics