Doesn’t it warm your heart that part of Obama’s economic “stimulus” package includes $75 million for smoking cessation research?

I’m still looking to see how much is being given to fund CHILDHOOD CANCER RESEARCH.

So while we have thousands of children suffering through painful and grueling treatment for cancer, we are spending tax money on things such as:

$75 million for smoking cessation research

Amtrak gets $1 billion (Amtrak hasn’t turned a profit in 40 years!)

$50 million for the National Endowment for the Arts

$650 million (in addition to the billions already doled out) for digital TV conversion coupons.

$600 million for the federal government to BUY NEW CARS!

$7 BILLION to “modernize” federal buildings and facilities.

$150 for the Smithsonian. I’m wondering how that will stimulate the economy?

I think President Obama and every single United States Senator and Representative should be required to spend a day with a child who is battling childhood cancer.

There’s Lily - who two month ago was running and playing with her friends. Then she was diagnosed with Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia on December 1, 2008. Now she spends her days going to physical thereapy because she has trouble walking - will likely need leg braces soon. She can’t run or skip - not because she doesn’t want to. She is physically unable to.

She actually is cancer-free right now. However, in order to KEEP her cancer-free, she must continue to endure chemotherapy for more than two more years. And the poisonous chemotherapy is what is causing these horrible side effects. We are POISONING our children because we HAVE to in order to give them a chance at living. There has to be a more humane way to successfully treat cancer in children.

These are our CHILDREN. Our FUTURE. They never smoked a cigarette. They don’t want a new car. They could care less if our federal buildings are “modernized.” All they want is to be able to live a “normal” life - to go to school, to be with their friends, to ride a bike, to run and skip. It is a national disgrace that we are not POURING federal funds into finding a cure for childhood cancers.

It’s true that you can tell a lot about a civilization by the way it treats its most vulnerable members. And our federal government is abysmally failing the test of being “civilized.”

Visit Lily’s Garden.

Sphere: Related Content

The irrationality of the “pro-choice” folks always amuses me - especially vapid celebrities like Pamela Anderson. To them, since they can’t “see” unborn babies, the babies are only “fetuses.” They lack the ability to visualize the living, formed baby just a few inches beneath the surface.

Thanks for Darleen for this cartoon that perfectly depicts what an idiot Pamela Anderson is.

Sphere: Related Content

It is almost comical to watch Campbell Brown “interview” anyone from the Republican party about Sarah Palin. She gets so over-wrought that she literally shrieks at them. She simply can’t stand that fact that John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his VP choice.

Campbell Brown - Shrieks at Republicans
I watched her a couple days ago and was appalled at her unprofessional behavior. Then, lo and behold, she did the same thing awhile ago. By the end of the segment, she composed herself and tried to end things a semblance of civility. However, she’d already blown any attempt at being objective. I’ve completely lost any trace of respect I might have had for CNN and especially for Campbell Brown.

Sphere: Related Content

The “Reverend” Jesse Jackson said he wants to cut off Obama’s nuts because he believes Obama talks down to black people. THAT is the awful, horrible, obscene, violent, repulsive thing that none of the television stations will actually repeat on the air. The way Wolf Blitzer of CNN was talking about it earlier this afternoon, you would have thought there were at least a few F-words or N-words or something added to the comment.

Here’s the video if you want to watch it for yourself.

You gotta love the Democrats this year. I’ve never seen such a self-destructive group of people. All the in-fighting and back-stabbing and name-calling. You would think that with the Obamassiah as their candidate, they’d all join hand and sings Kum-ba-yah all the way to the White House.

Sphere: Related Content

I’m in professional development meetings this week with instructors from Teachers College of Columbia University. The information on reading workshop is wonderful. Today, though, when I was reading part of the thick binder of information we each were given, I had to laugh at one little snippet:

“The author Annie Dillard once said that sometimes it is as if writers have all these Christmas tree ornaments and no Christmas tree to hang them on. If you forgive the religious reference, I suspect you’ll see that Dillard’s image can be a wise critique of too many primary reading units of study.”

IF YOU FORGIVE THE RELIGIOUS REFERENCE! That cracked me up.

A place like Teachers College WOULD feel the need to apologize for using the C-word. I’m actually surprised they didn’t quote another author or substitute a different metaphor: books without a bookshelf, plants without a garden , hot dogs without a grill, charms without a chain, merchandise without a store….. well, you get the idea.

Sphere: Related Content

I was just watching CNN, and they were doing a “man-on-the-street” interview about “The American Dream.” When asked what the American Dream is, one guy said, “It’s about being rich and wealthy - and I’m not living it!” Others talked about being happy, several mentioned owning a home. One replied, “Freedom.”

Then I started my morning internet rounds, and I came upon an article titled “Makers and Takers” on Townhall. The article is an interview of Peter Schweizer who wrote the book Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and. Fascinating title, and fascinating interview. I highly recommend that you read the entire article. Here’s a small exerpt.

Kengor: What is a Maker and what is a Taker, and why are conservatives in the former category and liberals in the latter?

Schweizer: The research shows that conservatives are much more outward-oriented and liberals tend toward looking at themselves. There is a sense of entitlement on the left. They are concerned with rights, but not responsibilities. The data clearly shows that.

Kengor: The subtitle is quite a statement in and of itself: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less… And Even Hug Their Children More than Liberals. Surely, Peter, you’ve exaggerated. Can you back up every single one of those claims, or is this book just a diatribe against liberals?

Schweizer: No, this is not a diatribe. Each one of those areas gets a full chapter, and I only included research from the top academic journals and research programs. I didn’t include research from conservative think-tanks, which I purposely avoided.

Kengor: I suppose that of all the charges against liberals in the subtitle, the one that liberals will probably protest most vehemently is the point on materialism. And in their defense, Peter, I must say that I’ve seen some pretty darned materialistic conservatives.

Schweizer: Well remember, in all of this we are talking about tendencies. Not all conservatives are one way and not all liberals are the other. That said, the research really does indicate that liberals value money more than conservatives. After health, they are more likely to consider it the most important thing in their life. And they are more likely to say that there is no wrong way to make money. I think this actually makes sense when you look at modern liberalism. After all, what do liberals use as their measure of justice and equality? Income, or money! This is the reason I believe that modern liberals are also much more likely to be envious of other peoples’ success. They are constantly looking at the money yardstick.

Sphere: Related Content

I have been reading about the Supreme Court’s decision in Bourmediene v Bush, and I’ve found it enormously disturbing. I’ve read blog posts about it from around the blogosphere - everything from the braggart “Supreme-Court-Showed-Bush-Who-Was-Boss” type posts to “This-Decision-will-have-far-reaching-repercussions” type posts. The most well spoken post was by Fred Thompson at Townhall.

It is truly stunning that this court has seen fit to arrogate unto itself a role in the most important issue facing any country, self-defense, in a case in which Congress has in fact repeatedly acted. This was not a case where Congress did not set the rules; it did. But the court still decided – in the face of overwhelming precedent to the contrary – to intervene. This decision, or course, will allow for “President Bush Is Rebuffed” headlines, the implication being that the Administration was caught red-handed violating clearly established Constitutional rights when in fact the Administration, and the Congress for that matter, followed guidelines established by the Supreme Court itself in prior cases.

People can disagree over whether Congress got it right, but at least members have to face the voters. What remedy do people have now if they don’t like the court’s decision? None. If that thought is not enough to cause concerned citizens to turn out on Election Day to elect a new president, then I don’t know what will be.

And considering that the liberal Supreme Court judges were the majority in this decision, it is obvious we need to elect John McCain as President in November.

Sphere: Related Content

The Wall Street Journal has an article this morning that speaks directly to my feelings about Barack Obama. . . and many Democrats. Rather than face the moral issue of abortion, they try to justify their stance on the issue by saying they can’t legislate someone else’s personal decisions. It’s all about “choice.”

Abortion is no more a “personal decision” than . . . let’s say “murder.” Instead of working towards a woman having the “choice” to kill her baby at any time - even after birth, why not work towards safe and effective birth control? Why not work towards helping women who have unplanned pregnancies make other choices that don’t involve killing their babies?

No matter how you skirt around the issue, abortion kills a human baby. It stops a beating heart. It is painful for the baby. There are many websites where you can find documentation and even video about how abortion affects the baby. Of course the ultimate effect is the baby’s death. But between the beginning of the abortion and the baby’s death, there are horrors indeed for that defenseless baby. It’s heart-rending. Apparently, however, since the baby is unseen by the mother and by society, it is easier to relegate it to a “mass of cells” or a “fetus” instead of a living baby.

And now we have Barack Obama running for president - a man who has a 100% record of voting for “reproductive freedom” i.e. killing a baby - even after birth is it is unwanted.

I wrote about Gianna Jessen a couple years ago. Actually I wrote about her here and here, too. We had the same personal trainer at the gym I attended at the time. I watched as Gianna ran in the gym’s neighborhood. I felt humbled because she ran despite overwhelming physical difficulties - difficulties that are the result of the saline abortion she survived.

This morning’s WSJ article is entitled “The Audacity of Death” and the author tells about Gianna Jessen. Guess who Gianna WON’T vote for in November?

Gianna survived then, and thrives now, because, as she told me recently with a laugh, “I guess I don’t die easy.” Which is what the abortionist might have thought as he signed his victim’s birth certificate. Gianna’s medical records state that she was “born during saline abortion.”

. . . . On the campaign trail, Mr. Obama seldom speaks about abortion and its related issues. But his few moments of candor are illuminative. When speaking extemporaneously, Mr. Obama will admit things like “I don’t want [my daughters] punished with a baby.” Or he’ll say that voting for legislation allowing Terri Schiavo’s family to take its case from state courts to federal courts in an effort to stop her euthanasia was his “biggest mistake” in the Senate. Biggest mistake?

I’ve written before that morally and ethically I could never support Barack Obama. I would have a difficult time supporting any Democrat.

Sphere: Related Content

Freedom of speech isn’t valued much in France. Brigitte Bardot has been sentenced to a hefty fine for insulting Islam. I wonder if the French courts fine Muslims who insult Christians or Jews? I really doubt it.

PARIS — Former French film star and sex symbol Brigitte Bardot has been fined 15,000 euros ($23,160) for remarks insulting Muslims.

A Paris court fined the animal rights campaigner for her repeated verbal attacks on the Muslim feast of Eid al-Adha, which involves slaughtering a sheep, among other Islam traditions.

Bardot, already fined four times since 1997 for similar racial incidents, will have to pay the hefty fine in addition to damages to several anti-racism organizations.

Bardot’s lawyer Francois-Xavier Kelidjian told French newspaper Le Monde that it is doubtful Bardot will appeal because she is “tired” of trials. Bardot was not present for the most recent decision.

Sphere: Related Content

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
~Sir Winston Churchill, (1874 - 1965)~