Nationwide is on your side -- Not!

In 1999, Richard Gibbons smashed into the Greg Tanner family's car. The impact left the Tanner's 7-year-old son, Roney, in a coma for a week. When he came out of the coma, he rquired hospitalization for a month and physical therapy for the next 5 years.

Mr. Gibbons, surprisingly, was insured. But his Nationwide insurance is refusing to pay the Tanner's bills. Why? Because Gibbons was fleeing the police when he threw their family into chaos. He should have known that running from red lights and sirens at 100 mph and disregarding traffic lights and signs was dangerous Nationwide says.

While I agree with Nationwide's contention that Mr. Gibbons is completely at fault here, the Tanners are completely innocent. Texas requires liability insurance not to protect the purchaser, but to protect those he may harm. Nationwide should pay the Tanners' claim, then cancel Gibbons' insurance. But that's a moot point. Gibbons was released on bail, and he is nowhere to be found.

The Tanners' case is now before the Texas Supreme Court. Let's hope there are enough common sense judges there to overturn the previous rulings in favor of Nationwide, and the Tanner family will get the judgment they are entitled to. In the meantime, don't buy insurance from Nationwide -- they're not on your side!

"Insurer's refusal to pay before high court." The Dallas Morning News; November 29, 2008; p. 4A.

Texas is so unfair!

I wrote about how unfair Texas is the other day in the post titled "Well, bless their little hearts . . ." I just came across another news item that reinforces what a big old bully the state is.

Raul Meza received a 30 year prison sentence in 1982. He became eligible for parole in 1993. He is currently in a county jail on a mandatory supervised release. He's suing the state for illegally depriving him of the chance to re-enter society. He says parole officials take so long to approve potential job prospects, that they're gone by the time he finally applies. Poor Mr. Meza! Those mean old parole officials!

I agree that Mr. Meza's situation is grossly unfair -- but not to him. It's grossly unfair to Kendra Page, to her family, and to every citizen in the State of Texas. Mr. Meza's 30 year sentence was for raping and killing 8-year-old Kendra. By my calculation, he should still be in prison until 2012. But with the goofy Texas system, a prisoner usually serves less than half his time. Kendra, though, who would be 34 years old now, can't complain about how unfair this is to her. It's up to us to complain for her. A 30 year sentence should be just that -- 30 years. Though I think 30 years is a pretty light sentence for what Raul Meza did. I can guarantee you it would have been more severe than that if Essie May had been the one handing down the punishment!

"Murderer claims unfair treatment." The Dallas Morning News; November 10, 2008; p. 3A.

Pushing things forward? I think not.

Did you hear about the Miss Texas preliminary pageant for Miss Oak Cliff/Miss Oak Lawn Area? It was hosted by Cassie Nova. Cassie Nova is a drag queen and runner-up Miss Gay Texas 2008. It was held at the Rose Room. The Rose Room is a gay bar. Jean Magness, executive director of the Miss Texas Organization, said, "I didn't know a drag queen was going to have that prominent of a role." She should have known -- isn't that her job?

Barbara Cox, an elementary school teacher, was at the pageant because her daughter was a contestant. "It was pretty clear they were pushing an agenda," she said. "It's never healthy when society deviates to the extreme. I can't see where something like this would be beneficial to our nation. As a matter of fact, I see it as a detriment." I agree with Barbara 100%. So why didn't she get her daughter, demand her entry fees be returned, and walk out? Until we start taking some stands against the gay agenda, things will only get worse.

Dustin Fitzner, the local pageant's executive director disagrees with Mrs. Cox. He said, "That's like saying everything I believe in is immoral and wrong." Ya' think?!! Mr. Fitzner continued to say, "I'm a gay man, and this was a way to support my community." Hmmm -- I didn't realize that was one of the goals of the Miss Texas/Miss America organization. Wonder if they realize that?

Anyway, Cassie Nova summed up very well why we should be fearful of what the gays are doing to American. He said of his stage routine, "I held back quite a bit. My onstage personality is a little bit more vulgar. I edited myself so I could win them over and make them not fear the unknown so much." That's precisely how gays are forwarding their agenda on a large scale -- lull us into complacency and then our younger generation will see nothing wrong with deviancy. If you doubt that, here's what the young winner of the Oak Cliff/Oak Lawn pageant said when asked if she thought having competed in the gay venue would hurt her in the state pageant: "I don't think it will be a disadvantage. I'm glad to be a part of something that's pushing things forward."

"There (s)he is?" The Dallas Morning News; November 22, 2008; p. 1B.

Turkey - 1, Bad Guy - 0

Did you hear about poor Fred Louis Ervin of Raleigh, North Carolina? Fred stole some money from a gas station. He then ran to a nearby grocery store parking lot and tried to steal a woman's car. But other shoppers came to her rescue. One of them clubbed Fred in the head with his frozen Thanksgiving turkey. Fred is under arrest in the hospital in serious condition. Turkey -1, Fred - 0.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING!

Do they believe what they say?

When liberals want to teach favorably about condoms or evolution or communism, or they want to put down capitalism or religion, their favorite mantra is "Knowledge is power." But they don't really believe that. What they mean is "Teaching only what we want is power." Here's the proof of my theory:

There is a big controversy going on in Texas right know over science curriculum. Those scientists who see holes in the theory of evolution want those deficiencies discussed in the classroom. Those who swallow the theory whole despite its deficiencies do not. They say they believe "any focus on the weaknesses of evolution theory and on alternative theories would harm students' college readiness and their ability to compete for jobs." To paraphrase, "Lack of knowledge is power. If you know more, you won't be ready for college. If you know more, you will be less able to get a job."

Texas Freedom Network president Kathy Miller said, " . . .the political crusade against evolution and other attempts to dumb down our public school science curriculum are deeply misguided." Since when does presenting all the facts dumb something down? Are we not dumbing down by not presenting all the facts for discussion? Wouldn't it be better to say, "Some people see this contradiction (or weakness or whatever) in the theory of evolution. But that can be explained by . . ." Exactly what are the evolutionists afraid our students will find out? Could it be that they have no explanations for the weaknesses in the theory of evolution, and they are afraid students will be able to think for themselves and discover what a sham the whole theory is?

"Study: Professors back evolution alone." The Dallas Morning News; November 18, 2008; p. 5A.

Well, bless their little hearts . . .

Did you know parolees are really mistreated in Texas? They are protesting parole restrictions -- specifically Condition X. Condition X applies mostly to sex offenders. It limits where they can work, where they can live, their internet access, and, in some cases, who they can date.

Mary Sue Molnar says Condition X is unfair. Her 22-year-old son had sex with his 16-year-old girlfriend. I believe they call that statutory rape. Anyway, he got deferred adjudication - a mere slap on the wrist. When he later was caught with drugs and alcohol in violation of his deferred adjudication stipulations, he was sent to prison. She says, "You're looking at a man who [because of Condition X] cannot come up with the money for the order to pay probation fees, treatment fees, polygraph." Maybe he should have considered that before he violated the terms of his probation. Since we know he has trouble abiding by the rules, he needs to be strictly watched

Attorneys challenging Condition X say that when the Parole Board considers putting a convict under Condition X, the inmate doesn't know what evidence is presented against him and has no opportunity to respond. He can't even be sure the Board members have read his file. I say if Condition X is so unfair, then both the offenders and society would be better off if the offenders just completed their sentences in prison. That way, they don't have to worry about Condition X at all.

"Criminals battle parole restrictions." The Dallas Morning News; November 12, 2008; p. 6A.

You heard it here first . . .

Remember the name Valerie Jarrett. Many of you may not know who she is, but remember the name. Essie May predicts that within four years, she will be involved in a national scandal. And remember . . . you heard it here first!

What's that noise?

I have long been a supporter of the Salvation Army. Founded by William Booth in 1865 in London, it is a wonderful organization that does a great work for those facing impoverished circumstances and/or disaster. It is one of the few organizations that seems to be untainted by corruption. I never pass a red kettle during the Christmas season without putting in a few dollars.

This year, the Army has introduced a new convenience for those who wish to contribute to the kettle campaign -- they'll be taking credit cards. I have no problem with that. The Army had an unveiling ceremony of the new "cashless kettles" in Dallas. Guess who was given the honor of introducing this Christian organization's innovation? Two scantily-clad Dallas Cowboys cheerleaders.

Do you hear that noise? It's General William Booth spinning in his grave.

"Changing it up." The Dallas Morning News; November 21, 2008; p. 2B.

Live and let live? I think not!

I know I sound like a broken record, but the more I read the more I realize how serious this issue of gay rights is. Homosexuals do not want us to have religious freedom or freedom of speech, nor do they respect the will of the majority. Many demonstrations were held because California voters passed Proposition 8 which outlawed gay marriage in the state. At one of these demonstrations outside a Mormon temple in Washington, homosexual Dennis Williams said, "I'm fed up and disgusted with religious institutions taking political stances and calling them moral when it's nothing but politics. Meanwhile they enjoy tax-free status while trying to deny me rights that should be mine at the state and federal level." Church spokesman Michael Otterson said that while citizens have the right to protest, he was "puzzled" and "disturbed" by the gathering since the majority of California's voters had approved the amendment.

Bash Back, a gay rights group in Washington state went even further. While trying to find information on the vandalism of a Mormon church in Olympia, I came across one of their websites. This is what they have to say: "It is now clear that the tactics of direct confrontation are spreading like wild fire. There is no doubt that the countless acts of property destruction in the passed [sic] week were committed by frustrated/pissed off queers. People are acting up on their own. We would rather fight than continue to support organizations and politicians that do not represent our vision of the Queerest world possible." Other gay threats against the Mormon church include:

"Burn their ******* churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers."

"While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve."

"Can someone in CA please go burn down the Mormon temples there, PLEASE. I mean seriously. DO IT."

"I'm going to give them something to be ******* scared of. … I'm a radical who is now on a mission to make them all pay for what they've done."

"Let this be a warning to the Mormon church, dissolve completely or be destroyed. The choice is yours."

Dozens of other Mormon temples have been targeted as well as the Knights of Columbus and people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign. For example, Marjorie Christofferson of Los Angeles contributed $100 to the campaign. Her father owns a restaurant. Queers rioted outside his restaurant and filled the blogosphere with negative reviews of it. A tearful Christofferson pleaded with the idiots to stop. Their response? "She had a chance to make nice and blew it. I was almost feeling a tiny bit of sympathy for her. Not no more."

Frank Schubert was one of the leaders of the Proposition 8 campaign. Amidst all this hate and disrespect for the will of the people, he says, "Not a single elected leader has spoken out against what is happening. Where is Governor Arnold Schwarzenengger while churches are being attacked? And where is Senator Dianne Feinstein while people are losing their jobs and grandmothers are being bullied by an angry mob?"

I agree. If the situation were reversed, and gay churches and businesses were being targeted by moral people, wouldn't they all be sitting in jail facing federal hate crime charges? We better wake up! The gay agenda is not about "equal rights" and "acceptance." It's about destroying America and its Christian base!


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/14/gays-target-mormon-church-in-nuptials-war/

http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day_Saints_and_California_Proposition_8

'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban, WorldNet Daily (Nov. 5, 2008)

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08111711.html

How unbiased is the media?

Paris, Texas, has been splattered all over the state and national news lately because a little group of racist blacks get upset when black criminals are arrested, tried, and sentenced. They also get upset when white criminals aren't immediately lynched when they are arrested. There are about half a dozen of these people in Paris, and a few outside agitators that they bring in for their rallies.

What irritates me is all the coverage they get. Why would the media cover the New Black Panther party? Have you ever read their agenda? It includes, among other things, all blacks being exempt from taxes, all blacks being given billions of dollars in assets, all blacks being given free health care, all blacks being exempt from military service (they are now, guess they don't know we don't have a draft), and all blacks being released from all jails and prisons. That's just a few of their inane points.

Anyway, at their latest rally, The Paris News decided to cover the coverers -- they did an article on all the news media that were there. I found what J. D. Myles, a reporter with Channel 11, said to be very revealing of the media mindset. He said that he was a little disappointed in the crowd mumbers at the noon rally. "I covered the incident in Jasper and there was certainly more intensity in that situation."

Disinterested reporter covering what he saw, or a yellow journalist itching for a big brawl to splash on the evening news?

"Observing from the sidelines." The Paris News; November 18, 2008; p. 1A.

Those crazy Peruvians!

Have you seen the dog the Peruvians have offered to Barack Obama? I think the Peruvians must be hysterical with laughter. "Let's offer him this dog. He can't refuse it without running the risk of offending a friendly country. But if he takes it, he has to parade it around for photo-ops for four years!"

Can't you just see this dog running out to greet the presidential helicopter as it lands on the White House lawn? Can't you just see this dog on the Obama family Christmas card? Can't you just see this dog lying by Obama's feet as he delivers a "fireside chat" from the White House? I think it's entirely appropriate -- it fits at the White House about as much as Obama does!

Do we really have to?

President-elect Obama (doesn't that kind of make your tongue stick to the roof of your mouth when you say it?) said this week, "We've got to set up a negotiation between banks and borrowers so that people can stay in their homes. And, you know, one thing I'm determined is that if we don't have a clear, focused program for homeowners by the time I take office, we will after I take office."

I have a problem with that philosophy. Most of the people in trouble on their mortgages (and I know there are exceptions) made foolish decisions. They bought $250,000 homes when they could afford only $80,000 homes. They took out second liens to finance trips or pay credit card bills. They signed notes with ridiculous terms. Why should we bail them out?

I heard Sean Hannity on his radio program the other day talking about the economic situation our country is in. He said that even though he could afford a much larger house then he has, and even though he could drive a much nicer vehicle than he does, he always buys with the thought that "I may be fired tomorrow. I want to be sure that even if that happens, I'll still be OK for awhile." Our economic "crisis" goes back to an "I deserve it even if I can't afford it" mentality -- I deserve a new car every three years; I deserve to live in a house as big as yours; I deserve lobster and steak instead of hamburger; I deserve a cruise every year; and even though I'll have to charge it all, I'm going to have it. So people got in hock up to their eyeballs; then the government said, "We have to bail them out"; then all of us hardworking people who made wise decisions have our money confiscated through higher taxes, higher prices, and devalued retirement funds.

So, back to my original question -- do we really have to make sure homeowners (who aren't really homeowners -- they're debtors) stay in houses they can't afford by bailing them out with our money?

Will legitimizing gay rights affect you?

Gays like to tell us they're "just like everybody else," and they deserve the same rights as everybody else. I disagree that they're just like everybody else. And they already have the same rights as everybody else -- gays are not precluded from shopping in stores, from voting, or from any other public or government service. "But we aren't allowed to marry," they complain. Sure they are -- they have the same rights everyone else has. Homosexuals are not allowed to marry a person of the same gender in 48 right-thinking states, but neither are heterosexuals; ergo, they have the same rights.

Eugene Volokh is a UCLA law professor who backs the gay rights agenda. He says that a goal of the gay rights agenda is "delegitimizing and legally punishing private behavior that discriminates against or condemns homosexuals." What does that mean? Your pastor will no longer be allowed to say homosexuality is a sin. If he does, your church's tax exempt status may be yanked. Your First Amendment right to voice your opinion on depravity will be revoked -- if you say, "Those queers are freaks," you will probably be accused of a hate crime.

Have you noticed how every sitcom, drama, movie, etc. has to have a homosexual character? And how at least 99% of the time they're loveable, witty, wise and quite charming? That's the gay agenda conditioning us to accept what God has called an abomination. We better wake up and quit laughing along with them -- they are out to destroy America! That may sound fanatical and off the wall, but God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah because of that particular sin. If He destroyed them, why would He spare us?

To all the media . . . .

Let's see if you can get these facts straight. The Brandon McClelland death in Paris is in no way "similar to the James Byrd killing." Quit calling the McClelland case a "dragging death."

1) James Byrd was chained to a truck -- Brandon McClelland was not.
2) James Byrd was probably killed because he was black -- Brandon McClelland was not.
3) I don't think James Byrd even knew his attackers -- Brandon McClelland did.
4) James Byrd was purposely dragged for miles -- Brandon McClelland was accidentally dragged a few yards.
5) James Byrd was intentionally tortured and killed -- evidence indicates Brandon McClelland may have been accidentally killed.

Why does the media deliberately distort the facts? Well, they won't sell as many newspapers and have such sensational tv news "ticklers" if they report the truth -- that Brandon McClelland was out drunk in the middle of the night with his low class thuggy cohorts who he had been running with and getting into trouble with since high school, and they got into an argument and he ended up dead.

If they'd all been white, nobody would be saying a word. And if they'd all been black, nobody would be saying a word. And if Brandon had been white and the other two black, nobody would be saying a word.

This is a case I happen to know about -- it makes me wonder about the reporting on all those cases I don't know about. How skewed are the media on those? Moral: take everything you hear with a great big old grain of salt!

Maybe I'm unclear on the concept, but . . .

Do you remember the day after the election all the brouhaha about a noose being found hanging in a tree at Baylor University and reports of students burning Obama campaign signs in their barbecue grills? The blacks were outraged! A clear case of racism! This must be investigated!

It turns out, the rope was not a noose -- it was a rope swing a bunch of students had been trying to rig up. It turns out, the signs were not signs -- they were empty cartons some students were getting rid of. Yet this Saturday's newspaper pictures a weeping young woman at a "silent march against racism" on the campus. What racism??!!! Looks to me like it's a bunch of excitable wannabe Malcolm X's and MLK's who spy racists behind every tree and shrub.

"Highlighting race concerns." The Dallas Morning News; November 15, 2008; p. 3A.

Don't have a social security number -- let's just make one up!

Just when you think you've heard it all with the Dallas Independent School District, they come up with something else that boggles the mind. Superintendents buying extravagant furniture for their homes, secretaries and teachers buying all sorts of things on district credit cards, purchasing agents taking kickbacks, failure to budget for 700 new teachers -- and I'm sure I've left something out. Now it's been reported that payroll personnel at the district have been very accommodating to teachers who lack a social security number. "That's OK -- we'll just make one up for you."

Any normal person would know that you can't go around just making up social security numbers! As it happens, the numbers they made up belong to other people in Pennsylvania. Even when state agencies realized what they were doing several years ago and told them the practice was illegal and they should stop, they continued to do it.

Not only are these people (mostly bilingual teachers) illegal (if they were legal, they would have the proper documentation), but they are not paying taxes properly, and they have messed up social security records for the poor innocent victims whose numbers they have stolen. It was also noted that DISD has not been submitting "New Hire" reports to the Attorney General. A new hire report is what the AG uses to track those who owe child support. I work for a very small business with an almost non-existent turnover, but we faithfully submit new hire reports. If we knew to do it, surely an entity as large as a school district knows these reports are required.How many kids out there is the taxpayer supporting because deadbeat dad or mom who owes child support is working for DISD and the AG doesn't know where they are?

In a related article, it was noted that this district that is so strapped for money they've fired hundreds of teachers last week threw away stacks of new reading and math workbooks ($15 apiece) still in the cellophane wrappers. And these people have been entrusted with the responsibility of teaching the children. Sheesh! Maybe the district ought to just fire everybody and start all over.

"DISD ignored ID rule." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2008; p. 1A.
"Unused school workbooks tossed out." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2008; p. 3A.

Has Dallas really been set back 50 years?

I wrote earlier this week about Dr. Robert Jeffress' s sermon on "Why Gay is not OK" and the handful of wannabe gay activists who showed up to try to tell a man what he can and cannot preach in his own church. I was not the only one with an opinion on that incident.

Keeping in mind that Ed Davis of Dallas wasn't there, so he has no idea what Dr. Jeffress said, he comments on the sermon: "This type of ranting has taken us back at least 50 years and reeks of gay hatred. It's 2008, not 1958. Dallas must be the laughingstock of the nation."

Would that Dr. Jeffress did have the power to take us back to 1958 when immorality was still something to be ashamed of and even those deep into sin still had some semblance of respect for God and His church!

"Sermon sets Dallas back years." The Dallas Morning News; November 12, 2008; p. 12A.

Would you let her babysit your children?

Dena Schlosser cut off her 10-month-old baby's arms in 2004. She was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed to Rusk State Hospital.

Last week, State district Judge Chris Oldner ordered her released. He says that "her needs and the safety of the community can be met with outpatient services." The Collin County District Attorney's office feels that Mrs. Schlosser needs to be hospitalized longer, because her last psychotic episode was less than two years ago.

Her attorney says that reports and testimony from mental health professionals who have been treating her convinced the court that she's not a threat to herself or to others. I'm not convinced that a woman so mentally ill that she thought God told her to cut off her baby's arms can be cured in the two years she's been at Rusk. I kind of doubt the judge really is convinced of it, either. If he allows her to babysit for his children or grandchildren, I'll eat my words.

"mom who killed baby to be freed." The Dallas Morning News; November 8, 2008; p. 1A.

What does it take to be smart?

Joel Stein, a columnist for The Los Angeles Times, has a theory. He says that people today (some of whom have difficulty finding their own home countries on the map) are not any less smart than their elders. They just know different things. He says people concerned about our growing Idiocracy are just insecure about their own intelligence. Thinking he's just as smart as anyone else, he asked Adam Winer, the author of How Dumb Are You?: The Great American Stupidity Quiz, to write a test so he could challenge Susan Jacoby, author of The Age of American Unreason.

One of the questions was to quote the third line of our national anthem, The Star-Spangled Banner. Mr. Stein's answer? "Who brought stripes and bright stars through the perilous night." Mr. Stein defends his answer -- "at least my version, unlike the real one, makes sense and has a verb in it." Is he kidding? We learned all the words to the national anthem in the second grade. Our teacher made sure we understood the history and significance of the song. Mr. Stein might be interested to know that there is, indeed, a verb in the "real one," and it does, indeed, "make sense." The part he quoted is only the beginning of the question, "Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, o'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?" Mr. Stein should understand that Mr. Key was overwhelmed at the sight of the U.S. flag still waving over Ft. McHenry after a night of fierce fighting. What is the "sense" of Mr. Stein's version?

Mr. Stein contends that his generation knows how to "problem-solve and filter information better than our grandparents ever did." Tell that to Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford, Eli Whitney, Marie Curie, Clara Barton, Helen Keller, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Queen Victoria, George Washington Carver. . .
if Mr. Stein has ever even heard of these people.

Mr. Stein has certainly not convinced Essie May he is smarter than she is. By the way, Mr. Stein failed Mr. Winer's test. Ms. Jacoby missed only two questions.

"Are Americans getting dumber? Not exactly." The Dallas Morning News; November 5, 2008; p. 31A.

God bless Dr. Robert Jeffress!

Dr. Robert Jeffress is the pastor of First Baptist Church of Dallas. He took a very bold step when he planned his current sermon series. The title of the series is "Politically Incorrect," and this past Sunday's sermon was "Why Gay Is Not OK." I hope God raises up more pastors like Dr. Jeffress, who will not water down the truth because of the feared public reaction. It really doesn't matter what the public thinks -- it matters what God thinks.

A small group of gays and lesbians saw Dr. Jeffress' sermon title on the church's marquee and staged a protest Sunday morning in front of the church. Patrick Hancock, one of those protesting, said, "Most of the people here are Christians, and they're taking offense at the Baptist Church trying to say how Christ's love should be interpreted." Well, Patrick, I'm pretty sure God is taking offense at your promotion of a lifestyle He deems perverted.

The crux of the matter is this: those close-minded gays and lesbians would have been much better off inside the church learning why gay is not OK than outside the church trying to cause a ruckus and using the Lord's Day to promote their sin.

"'Gay Is Not O.K.' sermon draws fire." The Dallas Morning News; November 10, 2008; p. 1A.

Free love ain't so free

Normandy High School in St. Louis, Missouri has a serious problem. According to the health department, as many as 50 of their students may have been exposed to HIV, the virus that causes AIDS. The school has sent a letter to parents and guardians informing them that epidemiologists have reason to believe that the virus might have been transmitted "among some Normandy Senior High School students."

The health department offered free testing. What is astounding to me is that 97% of the 1,300 students went in for testing. If there is an HIV scare in my community, I'll feel extremely confident that I don't have it. If I've had a recent blood transfusion, or been accidentally pricked with a tainted needle at the doctor's office, I'll go for testing. Otherwise, I won't be worried. So why are all these students concerned? Well, it could be because they don't have abstinence only sex education and they are promiscuous. Or it could be that their sex education curriculum is woefully deficient as demonstrated by this quote: " . . .students awaited their test results and tried to guess how it was that this deadly virus intruded on their high school years." High school students don't know how HIV is spread? It appears their sex education curriculum doesn't teach much besides it's OK to have sex!

"AIDS scare puts students on edge." The Dallas Morning News; November 9, 2008; p. 10A.

Darned if you do, darned if you don't!

After a recent tragic accident involving a police chase in Dallas, the Dallas Police Department instituted a new policy of calling off car chases deemed too dangerous. I had mixed emotions about the policy change. Certainly, the law-abiding public should not be subjected to unnecessary risk; however, are they not subjected to risk if the criminal element is given a bye?

Unfortunately, this policy proved to be ineffective this past Thursday night. Eric Austin, on probation for a DWI offense, was spotted driving erratically by a police officer. The officer tried to pull him over; Austin fled. The officer took down the license plate number and did not pursue. When Mr. Austin reached Mockingbird Lane and Maple Avenue a short time later, he broadsided a car driven by Clay Cornutt of Morgan, Texas. Mr. Cornutt was killed.

We'll never know if the policeman would have been able to safely stop Austin if he had pursued him. But I somehow believe the Cornutt family wishes he had been able to try. I also somehow believe they, like I, wonder why this man wasn't in jail instead of driving drunk on city streets on a suspended license.

"Driver in fatal crash was on DWI probation." The Dallas Morning News; November 8, 2008; p. 2B.

A double standard at work

In September of this year, Marine Sergeant Jan Pawel Pietrzak got married. He and his bride bought a home and began their life together. October 15, Mrs. Pietrzak did not show up for work. Her worried mother called the police. When the police arrived at the Pietrzak home, they found the front door open. Inside the house, they found the couple bound, gagged, and shot. Mrs. Pietrzak had been raped.

Investigation led them to four suspects, all marines. Two of the marines were Sergeant Pietrzak's men. The police theorize the motive was robbery, because some of the Pietrzaks' belongings were found in the the possession of the suspects. I had another suspicion. When I saw the photos of the suspected murderers, my suspicion was reinforced.

You see, Sergeant Pietrzak was white. His wife was black. At least three of the four men who murdered them are black. I think the fourth one is as well, but it was hard to tell from his photograph. I think this was a race crime. Yet the news media has not breathed one word or intimation that that may be the case. If the perpetrators were white, don't you think Al Sharpton, the Black Panthers, and all the rabble-rousers would be shouting, "Hate crime"? (See my post of October 29, "Hate crime or 3 thugs hanging out together").

Why do I think it was a racially motivated crime? Why would a group of four men plan to rob their own sergeant? Being in the Corps themselves, they would know that a sergeant's pay is certainly nothing to brag about. And certainly their own sergeant would be able to identify them. If they didn't expect the couple to be at home, why the brutality of the murders? They could have just shot them and left it at that, but evidence indicates this couple was tortured. That sounds more like an emotional motive than a material one. I think they didn't like the fact that a white man married one of "their" women.

So where are the Black Panthers demanding justice for this crime? They seem to be mysteriously absent.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=6204853

A little classified ad humor

I once wrote a post about how funny classified ads can be. Here's an example from the "Who Has It" section of this week's "Shopper's Edge," a classified ad tabloid distributed weekly in our area.

"Looking for German Shepherd puppy up to 102 yrs. old. German bred type 1-580-298-5620."

If you have one of these rare dogs, give the guy a call! Remember, that's only 714 in human years.

You can't say that! But I can.

Don't you just love letters to the editor? What other place can people display their ignorance so prominently? I especially like those letters of righteous indignation where the writer presents a logical argument that it's not right to judge others, but that's what his whole letter is.

Take for example a letter by Kristy Moore of Paris. Kristy didn't like a column by Tommy Felts that explained his reasons for not voting for Barack Obama. She found his words concerning Obama's pro-abortion stand "offensive."

Now let's see if Kristy has a logical argument, or if she's all over the map with her reasoning.

• She says an abortion decision is deemed responsible by some and irresponsible by others. Both, she says, are right. Impossible!
• "Never ever should such a private and extremely personal decision be weighed by someone else other than the person having to make that decision," she says. Then in the next sentences she says that those women who find themselves in the clinic year after year are "profoundly wrong" -- they shouldn't be using abortion as birth control. But she just said, "Never ever should . . . someone other than the person having to make that decision" judge it. That is, unless it happens to be Kristy, herself -- she's got that right!
• Then she says, "Late term abortions should be illegal." But, she says, she won't stand in judgment of those people. Didn't she just do that?
• Back to the second bullet point -- she talked about those women using abortion as birth control and finding themselves in the clinic time after time. Go down a paragraph or two and she says of abortion, "The toll it takes on that woman alone keeps them from ever having a repeat visit." Contradiction?
• Then she appeals to our patriotism -- "We as Americans applaud how fortunate we are that we are able to make choices in this country. Why should this choice be decided by a state's politics or a president's views? It shouldn't." I wonder if Kristy's ever heard of NAMBLA? NAMBLA is an organization of pedophiles -- it stands for the North American Man Boy Love Association. They think having sex with little boys should be their choice -- that there is nothing wrong with what they do. They agree with Kristy completely -- "Why should this choice be decided by a state's politics or a president's views? It shouldn't." I wonder if Kristy agrees with them.

"Decision to vote is personal." The Paris News; November 4, 2008; p. 4.

It's a sad day!

The people of the United States have elected a man who:

1) thinks stealing from one person to give to another is a good thing.
2) thinks marriage between two men is a good thing.
3) thinks abortion is a good thing.
4) thinks negotiating with terrorists is a good thing.
5) thinks siding with the Muslims is a good thing.
6) thinks doing away with our defense systems is a good thing.
7) thinks replacing the military with a sort of "Hitler Youth" type organization is a good thing.
8) thinks God d ___ American is a good thing (he says not, but his actions belie his words).
9) thinks associating with people who've bombed the pentagon is a good thing.
10) thinks refusing to show proof he is even eligible to serve as President is a good thing.

But there is hope -- as of this writing, the people of these states are voting thus:

1) The State of Arizona thinks marriage between two men or two women is NOT a good thing!
2) The State of Arkansas thinks gays adopting children is NOT a good thing!
3) The State of California thinks marriage between two men or two women is NOT a good thing! (52% to 48% with 91% of the precincts reporting).
4) The State of Florida thinks marriage between two men or two women is NOT a good thing!
5) The State of Nebraska thinks affirmative action is NOT a good thing!

As Sean Hannity is fond of saying, "Let not your heart be troubled." Barack Obama may think he is God, but we worship the God who said, "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God" Romans 13:1. Even with an evil man in power, God will work His plan and we can trust completely in Him.

Gay rights activists exhibit intolerance.

We are bombarded daily with the plea for "tolerance" from gay rights activists, yet they are the most intolerant bunch I've ever seen. Not content to have "tolerance" from society at large, they are now demanding rights on faith-based college campuses.

A group called Soulforce, on a nationwide bus tour called the Equality Ride, has held forums on several campuses to promote "inclusion" at schools it believes discriminate against gay students. Three of the members were arrested last week after trespassing on a chapel service at Southwestern Assemblies of God University in Waxahachie. University spokesman Ryan McElhaney said the group had been asked to stay off the campus.

I must say I was disappointed to find that I have more in common with the stand taken by this school than by one of my own denomination. The official stand of the Southwestern Assemblies of God University -- "It's not a question that's up for debate for us. We love the people, but we do believe that homosexuality is a sin." The school that's been most receptive to the group according to Soulforce spokeswoman Caitlyn MacIntyre -- Dallas Baptist University. I think we Baptists need to become a bit more intolerant of sin!

"3 gay-rights activists arrested at university." The Dallas Morning News; October 30, 2008; p. 2B.

Give us an example.

A group of men who were once on death row but have been exonerated or otherwise released called on the Texas Legislature Friday to halt executions. I say they are proof that the system works. Clarence Brandley, one of the men exonerated says, "There have been some innocent people that have been executed right here in Texas. But the politicians are not going to say that." I call on Mr. Brandley to give us one case where he has proof an innocent person was executed in Texas. I seriously doubt he can do that, or he would have been waving around a sign saying, "Remember (insert name here)!"

"Exonerees ask for halt to executions." The Dallas Morning News; November 1, 2008; p. 3A.

More about Obama's pies

I was listening to a radio show the other day, and they were interviewing an economist and his take on Obama's tax plan. Before the interview, they played some Obama sound bites.

When Obama was still campaigning for the Democrat nomination, his plan started out with tax cuts for everyone making less than $300,000. That didn't last too long before the cuts applied to everyone making less than $250,000. Then, in the last couple of weeks, he's been heard to say the cuts apply to those making less than $200,000. Joe Biden, just this week, said the cuts apply to those making less than $150,000. And just yesterday, Bill Richardson said the cuts apply to those making less than $120,000. Remember, these figures apply to small businesses -- a small business that takes in as little as $384 to $812 a day in gross receipts will feel the brunt of Obama's tax plan.

Now for a little more analysis. This economist said those making more than Obama's threshold (whether it's $120,000 or $300,000) will pay thousands more in taxes -- an average of $3000 to $5000. Those taxpayers making more than $100,000 will get an average tax cut of -- are you ready for this -- $3. Those paying taxes who make less than $100,000 will get around $300 in cuts. Here's the kicker -- those who pay no taxes will get $1000.

My numbers may be a little off on this, because I was driving while I was listening and couldn't write them down; however, they are certainly within the ballpark of what this man was saying. Even if you like the tax the "rich" part, remember, when a small business pays $5000 more in taxes, they'll either raise prices or lay off employees. If you're paying the higher prices everywhere you shop, your $300 tax cut will go pretty quickly. If you're the employee who gets laid off, I guess you'll do OK -- you'll get the $1000 for someone who pays no taxes. But you won't be spending much which will hurt other businesses paying that extra $5000 in taxes. When their sales go down, you know what they'll do? They'll lay off more employees. Sounds like a lose/lose proposition to me.

Vote McCain, and everybody gets a real tax cut.

Whose pie will he take?

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." Michelle Obama at a roundtable discussion with working women and mothers at a preschool in Harrisburg, North Carolina on April 8, 2008 (as reported in the Charlotte Observer on April 9).

And guess who gets to decide which pie they're going to take from and which pie they're going to add to. A vote for Obama is a vote for less middle-class pie!