And they said George Bush had fuzzy math!

I've been reading with amazement Obama's plan to tax the wealthy to pay for health care. Here's how part of his plan works:

Those making $250,000 or more would have their itemized deductions frozen. If they are in the 35% bracket, and they have $10,000 in itemized deductions, that would amount to a savings on their tax bill of $3,500 ($10,000 x .35). Under Obama's plan, though, they would only get to deduct as if they were in the 28% bracket or $2,800. In other words, you don't get a full dollar for your deductions. Obama says this is only fair -- it is not right for "high-income people to get a bigger tax break than middle-income people for claiming the same deductions."

What backwards thinking! Does he think we are all idiots? They are not getting a bigger tax break -- their tax rate is higher to begin with. What he is saying is that the wealthy's deduction dollars are of less value than their taxable dollars. Let's break it down using these general examples and analyze it to see if these people are, indeed, getting a bigger tax break.

As it stands now, Joe Wealthy makes $250,000 a year and is in the 35% bracket. His tax bill is $87,500. But Joe has $10,000 in deductions. That means he will pay tax on only $240,000 a year, or $84,000. Joe has saved $3,500 on his tax bill making his effective tax rate 33.6%. Joe's tax rate dropped .4%.

Joe's neighbor, Jim Notaswealthy, makes $150,000 a year and is in the 28% bracket. His tax bill is $42,000. But Jim also has $10,000 in deductions, so he will pay on only $140,000. His tax bill is now $39,200. Jim has saved $2,800. His effective tax rate is now 26.13%. Jim's tax rate dropped .67%.

Which one got the better tax break? Looks to me like Jim did. Now let's see what happens to Joe under Obama's new plan.

Joe may have $10,000 in deductions, but he will be able to count only $7,200 of them, because Obama plans to freeze his deductions to the 28% bracket. That means Jim will now pay tax on $242,800 -- a total of $84,980. That makes his effective tax rate 33.99%. His deductions will have afforded him only a .31% savings. So Jim's deductions are worth more than twice as much to him as Joe's are.

If that's all too complicated, look at it this way. Macy's is having a 10% off sale. You and your shopping buddy decide to take advantage and are there when the doors open. You find a really cute blouse marked $50. Your friend finds what she likes for $30. When you check out, your friend gets her $30 blouse for $27. When the cashier rings up $47 for your blouse, you remind her that it's a 10% sale -- your blouse should be $45. "Oh, no," she says. "It's not fair for you to get a bigger discount than your friend." That's how Obama is treating the taxpayers -- one is allowed to deduct a percentage, and the other's deduction is limited to a dollar amount. They are not the same thing. And that is what's unfair! (And I haven't even mentioned that Obama plans to raise Joe's rate to more than 39% to begin with).

Well, this all doesn't bother me any -- I don't make $250,000. But remember, Obama started out in his campaign not raising taxes on anyone who made more than $400,000. Then it kept sliding. He still has three years and eleven months to get down to you!

"Health care tied to tax on rich." The Dallas Morning News; February 26, 2009; p. 1A.

Is that the best you can do?

There's a trial going on in Dallas. Elizabeth Prezio was riding her bike on the Katy Trail in 2007 when she was attacked by Jose Torres and a juvenile. They wanted to steal her ipod. She was beaten and kicked repeatedly, causing multiple broken bones. She said she remembers her attackers laughing during the assault.

These brilliant criminals were caught when they used Prezio's cellphone to call Torres' girlfriend. So what is Torres' defense? It wasn't aggravated robbery -- Torres' attorney says Ms. Prezio had "pre-existing medical conditions that contributed to her condition after the attack." So, according to this theory, as long as somebody is already sick or otherwise debilitated, go ahead and beat the stuffing out of them and take their possessions. They can't pin aggravated robbery on you, because they were already in bad shape!

All I can say is, if that's the best defense this idiot has, he should have just gone ahead and pled guilty!

"Woman: I was kicked, laughed at on Katy Trail." The Dallas Morning News; February 25, 2009; p. 6B.

Another Octonut Update

The Octonut case just gets crazier and crazier. Denis Beaudoin has told Good Morning America that he suspects he is the father of the octuplets, and he wants DNA testing done. And why did he donate his sperm (about 10 years ago) to this nut? Because she told him she had ovarian cancer and could not have children. The Octonut says this is not true. She does admit that Beaudoin donated his sperm to her. But he can't have kids, she says. I guess she doesn't count the two he has with his ex-wife (according to some sources I read, he is married, but the AP says he's divorced).

Denis says he suspects some of the older children are his as well. I'd like another look at those babies, because Denis Beaudoin is black. I didn't notice that the babies had any black traits, but it's sometimes hard to tell with newborns. What I think is that he sees a possible gravy train, and he wants his share of the pie. What I hope happens is that the courts hold him responsible for child support.

As for the Octonut, I'm pretty sure there's a good reason God hasn't allowed her to conceive naturally.

Essie May funny for the day: Seen on a sign in a golf pro shop -- "On Sale! Hail-sized golf balls"

"Ex-beau seeks paternity test." The Dallas Morning News; February 24, 2009; p. 4A.

And he walks on water, too!

In last Saturday's presidential address, Barack Obama said he was determined to "get exploding deficits under control" and that his plan would "restore fiscal discipline." This from the man who just doubled our deficit with his big stimulus package. Now he says, "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences." He's promising to cut our deficit in half by the end of his first (and we hope only) term. How's he plan to pull this rabbit out of his hat?

By raising taxes on businesses and the wealthy. It's what we conservatives call "redistribution of the wealth." What it means is that if you're a productive, hard-working citizen who takes care of all your bills, they're going to take your money and give it to all those deadbeats who expect the government to support them. But I'm not wealthy, and I don't own a business, so it won't affect me. Think again. When businesses are taxed, they'll recoup that money by cutting jobs and benefits. When the wealthy are taxed, they'll cut down on buying from the retail outlets people work for. The retail outlets will cut jobs. Then services like beauty shops, car washes, contractors, and others will feel the effects. When these cuts start manifesting themselves, factories won't need to produce as many goods. That will result in factory layoffs. You can't penalize the people who keep this country running and expect there to be a positive result. The newspaper reports that even non-partisan observers are questioning the wisdom of announcing tax increases in the midst of a recession. The bottom line is that gravity works -- wealth doesn't "trickle up."

I would like to think, for the sake of our country, that Obama can double the deficit today and cut it in half tomorrow. But I, for one, don't believe this hypocrite can walk on water!

Paris News funny for today: Mary Madewell, in her editorial of February 23, says, "I continue to be amazed at fragrant violations of Texas law . . . communication among council members about city affairs, whether by personal contact, telephone calls or e-mails is strickly prohibited." Strickly speaking, Mary, it smells pretty fishy to me, too.

"Obama says he'll halve U.S. deficit." The Dallas Morning News; February 22, 2009; p. 1A.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_economy

Is it any wonder?

It seems the newspapers are full today of problems with the younger generation: teenage promiscuity and pregnancy, illiteracy, violence, lack of a work ethic. What has caused all these problems?

My guess is a generation of parents who either are ignorant or just don't care. Mark Davis had a column in Sunday's Dallas Morning News that I think perfectly explains the origin of today's lost generation. He went to see the movie The Wrestler. It is a very explicit R-rated feature with violence, nudity, and sex. A few seats down from him sat an oblivious father with a child around four years old -- old enough to absorb what was going on on the screen even if she didn't fully understand it. Mr. Davis said that as the film credits rolled, he confronted the father with, "I'm sure the child enjoyed the film."

I'm afraid that was probably a little too subtle for the moron who subjected this child to such adult material. Where has common sense gone? Does the father see nothing wrong with a little girl watching this stuff? What effect will that have on this child? Will she have nightmares? Will she think if someone touches her inappropriately it's OK, because the people in the movie did it? And if Dad is so lax in this area of the little girl's life, what else is he subjecting her to?

I think this is all a sign of the times -- people being lovers of pleasure more than lovers of God, lovers of their own selves, without natural affection, truce-breakers, inventors of evil things, without understanding, disobedient to parents, blasphemers, unthankful, unholy, and the list goes on. It appears to me from the last election that God has given up the U.S. to a reprobate mind. Until, as a country, we fall on our knees and confess our sin, we can only expect things to get worse. Be not deceived, God is not mocked; whatsoever a man (or a nation) soweth, that shall he also reap. For at least forty years now, the U.S. has been sowing the wind. Now, we are reaping the whirlwind.

Essie May will now step down from the pulpit.

"Why I spoke up at this Oscar movie." The Dallas Morning News; February 22, 2009; p. 4P.

And the winner is . . . .

Here we are at the Dorothy Chandler Pavillion watching all the Hollywood luminaries take their walks down the red carpet. What an exciting night this is! Actors, directors, producers, composers -- all adorned in designer fashions and accessories! Vera Wang, Versace, Prada, Ralph Lauren, YSL, diamonds, rubies, emeralds -- there's more glitter here than in a kindergarten art class!

Here comes another limo -- let's see who's about to face the cameras and the adoring crowds. The chauffeur is opening the door -- it's Essie May! Essie has been nominated for the special Miss Cleo Award for best prognostication for her December 17, 2008, prediction of Oscar winners. And isn't she lovely? Leave it to Essie May to scoop the fashion world with her cotton print dress by Sears. And those little Mary Janes by Naturalizer certainly set it off, don't you think? And look at that stunning As Seen on TV Buxton over the shoulder organizer. I'm told that her Timex was lent to her by Wal-Mart, and J. C. Penney provided her cubic zirconia.


Now it's time for the announcement for the Miss Cleo Award for best prognostication. The cameras have all the nominees in view. And the winner of the special Miss Cleo Award for best prognostication goes to -- the envelope, please -- I'm so nervous! -- ESSIE MAY FOR DECEMBER 17, 2008, PREDICTION OF SEAN PENN AS BEST ACTOR FOR MILK!

Essie May rushes to the stage to a standing ovation. Her acceptance is phenomenal. "You like me, you really like me!"

When did you last have a helpful problem?

Maybe we are graduating students who don't know how to write a coherent sentence because their teachers can't accomplish that task themselves. A local elementary school teacher of superior students was quoted in an article in the newspaper this past week: "The kids have to scrapbook everything and then they have a six page paper they have to write addressing all the problems that are going to help the community." Since when do problems "help the community"? Did she mean to say, "The kids have to write a six page paper offering helpful solutions to the problems the community faces"? I honestly don't know. I wonder if she does, or if she was just trying to say something that sounded important.

"A healing look at life." The Paris News; February 19, 2009; P. 1.

That wasn't my idea!

Have you noticed how Barack Obama has one of his Cabinet or staff members float his ideas before he claims them? I've been kind of watching this, and yesterday there was another example.

Transportation Secretary Ray Lahood had said that taxing citizens on how much mileage they put on their vehicles was "something we should look at." But I guess the right people weren't very enthusiastic about the idea, because the Department then issued this statement Friday: "The policy of taxing motorists based on how many miles they have traveled is not and will not be Obama administration policy."

If the idea had been received well, I'm sure Obama would be out in the forefront with "his bold new initiative." But since it fell flat, he can just say, "Oh, I never even considered that." I can number the times I agree with Obama on one hand with at least two or three fingers left over, but I have to give him this -- he is the ultimate politician!

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/20/driving.tax/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

Applause! Applause!

When Barack Obama signed his massive boondoggle of a stimulus bill Tuesday, there were smiles all around and enthusiastic applause. And Saturday's newspaper featured a photo of a joyous Nancy Pelosi and a positively ecstatic Charles Rangel. Yes, the Democrats are really proud of themselves.

Doesn't seem like investors are quite as optimistic about them, though -- the stock market closed at a six-year low yesterday. And it will be interesting to see how many Americans are applauding Obama and his party six months from now. I have a feeling it will be far from a standing ovation.

Tacky, Tacky, Tacky!

Did you hear about Michelle Obama's snide remark in the March issue of Vogue? Speaking of their home in Chicago, she said, "We like to joke that the South Side of Chicago is our Kennebunkport."

If Laura Bush had made such a tacky remark about the Obama's (which I cannot feature her ever doing) , she would have been ridden out of town on a rail. Michelle Obama may carry the title of First Lady, but she will never be the lady that Laura Bush is!

"Talking Points." The Dallas Morning News; February 15, 2009; p. 1P.

Coming to a prison near you . . .

Obama has made a big deal out of closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Like all his plans, it's long on rhetoric and short on specifics. It sounds real good, but when you analyze it, the details aren't so appealing.

Thankfully, the Texas Republican delegation to Congress is vocally protesting the relocation of these terrorists to our state. In a letter to Obama, they pointed out what any rational person would not require being told -- that "any such detention facility in the continental United States would instantly become a target for terrorists." The Texas Democrats pooh-pooh the idea of these prisoners of war being relocated to U.S. soil -- "I want the detainees to be taken to the most secure facilities that can be found. I doubt that would be in Texas," said Representative Chet Edwards of Texas. Has Mr. Edwards forgotten that in a 2007 hearing, Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio was posited as a site for detainees? Has he not heard that immigration facilities in the El Paso area are being considered? And just where does Mr. Edwards think a more secure facility than Gitmo will be found? So far as I know, there haven't been any escapes from there, so it sounds like it's pretty secure to me.

At any rate, I echo the sentiments of Representative Sam Johnson of Plano: "Don't send terrorists to Texas. We don't want them."

"Republicans: Keep detainees out of Texas." The Dallas Morning News; February 12, 2009; p. 8A.

It depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

I was flipping through the TV channels the other night (Mr. Essie May's usual habit) when I came across a press conference on C-SPAN. It was Senator Roland Burris and his attorney. Senator Burris was recently appointed by now-ousted Illinois Governor Rod Blagojavich to fill Barack Obama's senate seat.

Mr. Burris now finds himself on the hotseat. The issue is did he perjure himself when he testified before Blago's impeachment committee. It seems there are some discrepancies between an affidavit he signed and what he told the committee. "Much ado about nothing," Mr. Burris says. You see, he explains, the affidavit was about "the appointment," and the committee testimony was about the "senate seat." Doesn't that bring back memories? It all depends on what the meaning of "is" is.

Octonut Update

The media have taken to calling Nadya Suleman the Octomom. She doesn't deserve the title of mom -- Octonut fits much better.

Anyway, we learned that she already receives almost $500 a month in foods stamps plus Social Security on her three disabled children. These payments will, of course, increase with the addition of eight children to the household. The hospital caring for the octuplets has requested reimbursement from Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program. Yet the Octonut insists that's not welfare. Whatever she calls it, it evidently is not enough. If you would like to donate some of your hard-earned money to her, you may do so at her website. Otherwise, she'll be supporting her family with student loans and daycare provided by California State University day care center and volunteers. But she evidently has some disposable income. Her lips don't look natural to me -- they look like they've had some Angelina Jolie injections.

The Octonut's attorney defended her: "I would just ask people to consider her situation, and she has been under a tremendous amount of pressure that no one could be prepared for." Her situation? She chose to do this. She's a nut, and those children should be removed from her care.

"California taxpayers may be on hook for baby costs." The Dallas Morning News; February 12, 2009; p. 10A.

Yeah, Kelsey, me too!

There was an article in Thursday's paper about the Obama's attending a gala celebrating the renovation of Ford's Theatre. The Associated Press says many of the glitterati attending were inspired by Obama. "I still get a tear in my eye every time I see him on television," said Kelsey Grammer. Me too, Kelsey!

"Obama hails Lincoln for attempt at unity." The Dallas Morning News; February 12, 2009; p. 15A.

Explain this one to your 6-year-old.

God-fearing people can no longer take their children on the public streets without exposing them to perversion. A bunch of gays and lesbians staged a "wedding" in front of the Dallas Records Building Thursday. One of the couples, Rose Preizler and Kim Davis, have already "married" in Canada. I guess they were just trying to force Canadian loose morals on Texas. At any rate, they had their little ceremony and kissed on the street while other degenerates surrounded them singing "Chapel of Love." Then they went into the Records Building to get a license. I don't know why they did it backwards -- when Mr. Essie May and I married, we got the license first, then we got married.

They were told by one of the records clerks that "Unfortunately, in the state of Texas, they don't allow same-sex marriages." I am offended by the clerk's editorializing. Most Texans don't consider it "unfortunate" that we take a moral stand here. This clerk is paid by the taxpayers, and she or he should keep personal opinion out of the workplace.

At Thursday's display of perversion, Daniel Kanter, a minister at the First Unitarian Church of Dallas (that's the "church" that espouses the theology that whatever you want to believe is right) performed the "wedding" and said, "I say we stand on the side of love and not on the side of hate." Essie May says we stand on the side of God and not on the side of what He deems abomination.

Classified ad in the local shopper tabloid: 'Who has setaline torch for sale? 903-785-4014." Wonder if those work as well as the acetylene ones?

"Gay couples raise one voice for same-sex marriage rights." The Dallas Morning News; February 13, 2009; p. 3B.

It's for their own good!

I have long argued that recipients of food stamps should have strict limitations on what they may purchase with the stamps: no soft drinks, no candy, no chips, no cake mixes, no cookies, no ice cream, no frozen entrees -- they should be able to purchase only staples, fruits, vegetables, pasta and rice, dairy, and meats. I've been called everything from selfish and heartless to a name I won't print on here because I'm too much of a lady to say it.

I now have another reason for limitations. It seems, according to ABC News, that the people of Appalachia have a severe dental problem. It is the most toothless area in the United States. The reason: the people, most of whom are on food stamps of some sort, are addicted to Mountain Dew. A dentist who built himself a mobile clinic out of a big rig truck to serve the area says it is a very high acid drink, and it destroys their teeth -- and virtually all of them drink it. We're talking 2-year-olds. One dentist said he sees the toddlers who may have only two teeth, but 12 cavities. They showed a film clip of a parent or grandparent putting Pepsi in one toddler's bottle. I know milk is expensive, but wouldn't buying powdered milk cost less than Mountain Dew or Pepsi?

They didn't do a lot to increase my sympathy for these folks. The family they featured had a drug-addicted mother. She and her boyfriend are mandated to attend GED classes to continue receiving welfare. That's the boyfriend with the cigarette hanging out of his mouth. That's about $4 a pack that I bet he spends every day, not counting whatever her drug of choice costs. That's $28 a week at the very least -- bet that would provide some real milk for those babies.

UPDATE: I just saw this morning's edition of GMA. Did you know that all these toothless people are victims of the Pepsi Cola Company? Pepsi made a statement that said they needed to learn better dental hygiene and better dietary habits. The dentist who works with them said Pepsi was "blaming the victims." All I can say is that it's a confused world!

I'm confused.

Did you know that our government offers visas to illegal aliens who report crimes committed against them and cooperate in catching the perpetrators? Maybe I'm missing something here, but what's to prevent an illegal from staging a crime against himself and then cooperating to catch the "perpetrator" in order to get a quick visa? And do illegals who report other illegals get a visa? After all, they're cooperating in catching a criminal, aren't they?

Note for The Paris News proofreaders: Again, may I remind you that "affect" is the verb and "effect" is the noun. Low water pressure may affect firefighting efforts and the resulting effect could be catastrophe. But low water pressure cannot effect firefighting efforts, unless you mean that low water pressure can bring about firefighting efforts.

"Few crime victims helped by 2000 law." The Dallas Morning News; February 8, 2009; p. 6A.

Not as easy as you thought, is it?

Barack Obama boldy promised in his campaign that he would have the troops out of Iraq within 16 months. George Bush continued to insist that it was not easy to set a timetable. Now that Obama has the power, sources in his administration say it could take 19 months --- or maybe 23 months --- It's a complex process they say, and many concerns accompany such a decision. Under either timetable, a number of brigades will be left behind and "redesigned and reconfigured as multipurpose units . . . these brigades would be considered noncombat outfits." That means they won't be allowed to defend themselves without triggering an international fallout.

Not as easy as it looks, is it? However, I'm sure President Bush is not holding his breath until he gets an apology.

Today's funny classified ad in the "Who has it" section: "Needed old blankets for liter of puppies. Call 903-732-4969."

"Obama considers longer Iraq withdrawal." The Dallas Morning News; February 7, 2009; p. 7A.

Americans are imbeciles -- they need congress to take care of them.

After several years of warnings and months of TV ads telling us the Digital TV conversion will take place on February 17, and after distributing $1.34 billion worth of coupons for $40 off on a digital converter box, Congress decided to delay the transition because some Americans may not be ready yet.

If they're not ready now, they never will be. One must assume that affected Americans already have television sets, and that they watch them on a fairly regular basis. If that's right, then they've surely seen the ads bombarding the airwaves. Those voting for the delay say that "the delay was necessary to not only disburse more coupons but also help educate people about issues that arise from the transition." Number 1, they have no more coupons to disburse right now. Number 2, people have had a year to request coupons -- if they haven't done it yet, when do you think they'll get around to it? Number 3, if they haven't seen the "educational" PSA's yet, they don't watch much TV anyway. Rep. Anna Eschoo from California said, "We are not ready for this transition. We can fix these problems and minimize this catastrophe if we pass this legislation." Catastrophe? Give me a break! From what I've seen on TV lately, losing the signal wouldn't be too much of a loss.

What it boils down to is an insulting proposition -- Congress thinks people are too dumb to take care of themselves.

Paris News funny for the day: A February 6 headline states, "Star Gazers look to the stars." Imagine that.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/05/BU5L15N8V6.DTL&feed=rss.business

Talk about dysfunctional!

The single unemployed disabled woman who had eight babies implanted says she had the 14 babies (she already had six) because she had a dysfunctional childhood and wanted children to erase that. Is she so delusional that she thinks her children are going to have a normal childhood? I would think a person still carrying substantial psychological scars from a dysfunctional past would be the last person in the world to entrust 14 children to.

Anyway, she's been drawing disability since 2002 for a bad back. A normal single child pregnancy is pretty hard on a healthy woman's body. What do you think carrying eight babies on top of the six she's already carried would do to a woman so physically disabled she can't work?

I do hope they will yank the license of the dysfunctional doctor responsible for this fiasco!

"Mom: Lonely childhood made me want big family." The Dallas Morning News; February 6, 2009; p. 10A.

Why we need to teach the weaknesses of evolution

The committee overseeing science curriculum for the State of Texas caved to the politically correct crowd recently when it deleted the requirement to include the weaknesses of the theory of evolution in the classroom lessons. Why was this requirement important? Well, mostly because there are weaknesses in the theory of evolution. The pc crowd denies this, but there are scientists just as renowned as the ones pushing the evolution agenda who don't believe in evolution. They say there are too many unanswered questions.

I have no problem with teaching that a man came up with this idea of how human life evolved, and scientists along the way since then have studied it and come up with their own ideas. However, that's not how the theory of evolution is being taught. The theory of evolution is being taught as fact -- something that is far, far from certain. And our children, at quite young ages, are being brainwashed. Take, for example, the recent letter to the editor by a seventh grade boy from Parkhill Junior High in Dallas. He says that the "theory" of evolution is not a guess; that people who use the term theory in that context are using it incorrectly. Then he gives the dictionary definition of "theory."

I don't care what the dictionary says about the word "theory," or how men describe their best guesses. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet, and a theory with as many holes as the theory of evolution is still nothing more than a misguided guess.

So why is the pc crowd so afraid to teach the weaknesses? My theory is because if they did, they just might have to admit that God did the whole thing. And wouldn't that be a catastrophe!

"'Theory' is more than a guess." The Dallas Morning News; January 31, 2009; p. 20A.

My mama always said, "Actions speak louder than words."

The mantra of the gay rights crowd has been for years, "We just want tolerance." But they want more than that. They want the nation to bow to their immorality and they want revenge on those who stand in their way.

Eightmaps.com is a website for gay activists. I haven't checked it out, because I'm reluctant to visit websites that might sign me up for junk I don't want on my computer. However, according to Rod Dreher, I could be on that website. People who have offended the gays by supporting Prop 8 in California have their personal information along with Google maps to their homes posted there.

Here are a couple of examples that Dreher gives (some he gave, I've noted in other posts to this blog, so I've left those out):

• A man who wrote a letter to the editor found his personal information on eightmaps.com with encouragement for "in ugly language, retribution against the author's business and its identified clients."
• In Fresno, the city's mayor and a local pastor received death threats and the pastor's church was vandalized.

The gay terrorists' justification for the website was voiced by Andrew Sullivan: "Why should you be able to protect yourself from the consequences [of supporting prop 8]?" Gee, I thought that in America, we were supposed to have the freedom to vote however we choose without fear of consequences. What he is describing sounds more to me like a totalitarian regime. Dreher says this should be a lesson about the tolerance those who do not support same sex marriage will receive if it becomes legal.

"Tolerance, tolerance, tolerance . . . ." -- but actions speak much louder than words!

Paris News letter to the editor funny for the day: Dr. Harold Rowland says in his letter published February 4, "If one has nothing to hide, he need not worry about eves dropping." Wonder what kind of doctor he is.

"And next time, they'll come for you." The Dallas Morning News; January 25, 2009; p. 5P.

So don't come to Texas! We won't miss you!

Gays are having a problem in Texas. All these loving couples who wanted to spend the rest of their lives together and "got married" in the few backward states that allow same sex marriage are now deciding that they don't want to spend the rest of their lives together after all. The problem is, they've left the immoral states that told them they were just like heterosexuals and moved to states with enough moral fiber to not recognize their pseudo-unions. States that don't recognize same-sex marriage don't have provisions for divorce from something that doesn't exist in the first place. Kudos to Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott for not bowing to the pc crowd.

Kenneth Upton Jr. calls the situation heartbreaking. He says, "When a government affirmatively requires discrimination against its citizens and advocates that they suffer harm, it shows once again how far we have to go to reach the promises of liberty and equality." Give me a break! The queer guys knew Texas didn't condone their sin when they moved here. What do they expect to happen when you flaunt God's laws and exhibit rebellion the way they do? If they want a divorce, go back to the state that "married" them in the first place. We won't miss you in Texas!

"Same-sex divorce news overlooks real issues of justice." The Dallas Morning News; February 2, 2009; p. 15A.

And we're paying for these people why?

Obama signed a $32.8 billion bill yesterday that will add four million children to the number for whom we are already covering health care costs. Included in that four million are the children of legal immigrants. Why are we paying for them? If they want to come here, fine, but they shouldn't be a drain on our society. We have enough problems of our own! The real kicker is that more than half of those four million children included in the bill already have health insurance. This isn't about making sure children are covered -- it's about Obama's takeover of our liberties!

By the way -- $32.8 billion for four million children comes out to $32,800 per child. That's some pretty expensive health insurance!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090205/ap_on_go_pr_wh/children_s_health_26

But my dog's not dangerous . . .

There was a fracas in a Dallas dog park this past weekend. A pit bull mix attacked an Australian shepherd. The owner of the shepherd tried to separate the dogs but was unsuccessful. So he pulled a knife out of his pocket in an attempt to rescue his pet. In the ensuing melee, the woman who owned the pit bull was accidentally slashed across the forehead with the knife. The man trying to protect his dog was arrested. They arrested the wrong one! What he did was in self-defense.

When will people learn that pit bulls are unpredictable, aggressive, mean animals? How many people, most of them children, have been killed or seriously maimed by these devils? How many innocent pets have been killed or seriously maimed? The clueless idiot who owned the pit bull in this story? She says of her dog, the one that almost chewed the nose off the dog he attacked, that "I don't have problems with him. I've had him since he was a baby." And she says that the breed shouldn't have to suffer for the actions of a few animals that show viciousness because their owners haven't cared for them properly. Obviously, she doesn't feel her animal fits in the vicious category. I have to wonder just exactly what her definition of "vicious" is.

"Dog park fracas leaves pet owner stabbed." The Dallas Morning News; February 3, 2009; p. 1B.

No wonder the Democrats think you need to pay more taxes!

First, we learned that our new Treasury Secretary didn't pay his taxes. Now we learn that our soon-to-be Health and Human Services Secretary didn't pay his, either. No wonder the Democrats don't care how much the tax rate is -- they don't pay them anyway!

You know, I've been thinking about all the people who voted for Obama's "Change we can believe in." I wonder if they've begun to realize that the change he was talking about is all they'll have left in their pockets when he's done?

Paris News funny for the day: Paris Police Chief Karl Louis was honored with a big retirement party recently. Paris News reporter Bill Hankins says he "was presented with a shadow box with the three badges he wore, a special retirement badge and several plagues." What a way to start retirement!

The doctor is as looney as the mother!

I'm sure you've all heard about the woman in California who had octuplets last week. More and more information about the case is slowly being revealed.

She already had six children under the age of eight. Her family says she's always had an obssession with children. She is not married. When a friend asked her how she could afford in vitro and go to school at the same time, she replied that she got paid for it. One of her other children is autistic. She quit working several years ago because of an on-the-job injury. After the injury is when she began having all the other children. Her mother, who is helping her raise the children, filed for bankruptcy last year claiming nearly a million dollars in liabilities. And some idiot doctor implanted eight embryos in this woman!

Now, who do you suppose will be paying to raise these 14 children? It will be you and me, but it should be the doctor who needs just as much psychiatric treatment as this nutcase woman!

"'Obsession' with kids resulted in 8 more." The Dallas Morning News; February 1, 2009; p. 4A.

Texas' greatest threat?

What do you think is the greatest threat the State of Texas faces? Terrorism? Economic collapse? Illiteracy? High crime rate? Illegal aliens? Natural disasters?

If you chose any of those, I'd have to hit the 'WRONG" buzzer on you. Texas' greatest threat, according to State Senator Jane Nelson, is -- are you ready for this -- obesity. Senator Nelson says that obesity is "the single most serious threat that we face." And Senator Nelson believes it's the state's responsibility to legislate away all these overweight people. She thinks she can do that by mandating physical education and nutrition education in the schools and "ordering studies of whether youngsters easily can obtain healthy food. "

Maybe Senator Nelson has a point. There do seem to be an awful lot of fatheads in the state legislature!

"Texas obesity rate is expected to soar." The Dallas Morning News; January 30, 2009; p. 3A.