Never mind -- we have plenty.

 

England's Royal Society for the Protection of Birds says that the cuckoo is in danger of extinction. Not to worry -- we have hundreds infesting Washington D.C., and we'll be glad to ship you some.

 

"Britain's cuckoo at risk of dying out." The Dallas Morning News; May 29, 2009; p. 11A.

Uno, Dos, Tres . . .

 

I came across this in an old newspaper, and for some reason, it struck me as quite amusing.

 

 

The Cinco de Mayo festival originally scheduled for May 2 will take place May 30 from 9 a.m to 5 p.m. in Old Town Lewisville.

 

"Cinco de Mayo rescheduled." The Dallas Morning News; May 28, 2009; p. 3B.

Would a black on the jury change the evidence?

 

As part of a gang initiation, Christina Walters kidnapped and shot to death Susan Raye Moore and Tracy Rose Lambert execution-style in North Carolina. She then participated in the carjacking of Debra Cheeseborough, a restaurant manager. Debra was shot seven times and left for dead, but miraculously survived. Investigators say the victims were chosen purely at random. Walters, a Lumbee Indian, was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. 

 

After robbing a finance company in Kingstree, South Carolina, Timothy Golphin shot Highway Patrol Trooper Ed Lowry and Cumberland County (NC) Sheriff's Deputy David Hathcock with an SKS rifle. As the two lawmen lay dying, Timothy's brother took Lowry's gun and shot the two at pointblank range. Timothy was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. This is Timothy. Doesn't he look like a fine upstanding citizen? 

 

 

In 2001, Quintel Augustine shot Police Officer Roy Turner as he got out of his patrol car in an area known for cime and drug activity. Quintel was tried, convicted, and sentenced to death. This is Quintel. He looks as fine and upstanding as Timothy does, doesn't he? By the way, Officer Turner was black.

 

Judge Gregory A. Weeks has commuted the death sentences of these three to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The reason is that he feels there weren't enough blacks in the jury pools of their respective trials. But would a black on the jury change the evidence? I would think that a black juror would be just as incensed at the murder of a black man as a white juror would. Judge Weeks happens to be black himself. Perhaps we should get the perspective of a white judge on this one.

 

"Judge commutes 3 death sentences, cites racial bias." The Dallas Morning News; December 14, 2012; p. 7A.

 

  

Your racism and misogyny is showing again, Buckwheat!

 

Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price recently referred to fellow Commissioner Maurine Dickey as Honey Boo Boo. Very little has been said about it. What do you think the reaction would have been if Commissioner Dickey had referred to John Wiley as Buckwheat?

Whatever happened to Jeremiah Wright?

 

You never hear Obama or Michelle mention Jeremiah Wright anymore, but it would not surprise me if he suddenly becomes a frequent White House visitor after the inauguration. I recently came across a quote on the influence that Jeremiah Wright had on Obama, and I don't think Obama just let that influence disappear -- I think he just played it quietly until he could be re-elected.

 

Here's the scary quote from the Reverend Frederick D. Haynes III: "Whenever you get excited about the eloquence coming out of the White House, remember he did not get that from Harvard, Columbia or Hawaii. He got that because for 20 years he was blessed to be exposed to the scholarship, the genius and the spirit of  . . . the Rev. Jeremiah Wright."

 

"Wright delivers passionate sermons, without controversy." The Dallas Morning News; April 27, 2009; p. 7B.

Si habla español?

 

Did you know that U.S. federal law requires that anone with a commercial driver's license speak English well enough to talk with police? I didn't. Manuel Castillo did, though. And he was upset when an Alabama trooper ticketed him for not speaking English.

 

Manuel says he speaks English at about a third grade level, and that he can communicate anything about his business very well. Incidentally, he spoke Spanish when he told his story to the reporter who wrote this article.

 

"Trucker fined over speech." The Dallas Morning News. July 18, 2008; p. 8A.

And they lived happily ever after!

 

Don't you just love a happily ever after story? Most of you probably remember the story of Dallas Wiens. He was horribly disfigured in an accident when his head touched a high-voltage power line while he was painting a church window. He literally completely lost his face.

 

Dallas was the first man to receive a full face transplant. I remember when his little daughter saw him for the first time after the transplant. Even though his mouth sagged on one side and he didn't look quite normal, his little girl crawled up into his lap and said, "Daddy, you're so handsome." Now some of you know Essie, and you know she's not a particularly emotional person, but even as I type that story, tears come to my eyes.

 

Jamie Nash has endured her own living hell. She was texting while driving and had a terrible accident in 2010. She was severely burned over 70% of her body and has her own scars and rehab to deal with. Between the two of them, Jamie and Dallas have had 69 surgeries. Dallas's philosophy is, "You can get better or you can get bitter. I chose better."

 

Jamie and Dallas never met while both were patients at Parkland Hospital, but a nurse who had worked with both of them finally got them together. And they fell in love. But they delayed their engagement until Jamie's scarred ring finger grew straight enough to wear a ring. When she first was able to straighten it in rehab, she called Dallas, and they headed for the jewelry store. Dallas and Jamie plan to be married March 30 at the church where Dallas had his accident.

 

Merry Christmas, Dallas and Jamie, and may your marriage truly be happily ever after!

 

"It was totally romantic." The Dallas Morning News; December 4, 2012; p. 1B.

Oh, we just forgot!

 

Robert Menendez is a Democrat Senator from New Jersey. Until the first part of this month, he employed a registered sex offender who also happens to be an illegal alien as an intern. It has been known for weeks that Abrahan Sanchez Zavaleta was in this country illegally and that he was a sex offender. But the Department of Homeland Security instructed federal agents not to arrest him until after the election -- presumably when Menendez's opponent couldn't do him any harm with the information.

 

Menendez offers an excuse/reason/rationalization for Zavaleta's position on his staff: "I can't know who is here to pursue the American dream vs. who is here to do it damage if I cannot get people to come forth out of the shadows, go through criminal background checks and then determine who is here to pursue the dream and make sure that those who are here and have criminal backgrounds ultimately get deported." Huh?

 

I don't care why they are here, if they are here illegally, they should be deported. As for coming out of the shadows, Zavaleta wasn't in the shadows -- he worked in Menendez's office! Did Menendez not check him out before he hired him? If that's the case, then Menendez doesn't have enough sense to be in Congress. If he did check him out, then he flagrantly broke the law. Either way, he should have some 'splainin' to do as should Homeland Security!

 

"Ex-Senate intern faces deportation." The Dallas Morning News; December 13, 2012; p. 7A.

Now we have to value them.

 

The University of Iowa has added a question to its admissions application: what is your sexual orientation and gender identity? Gays, lesbians, transgenders, and other assorted perverts have hailed the addition of the question. The University says it "sends a strong signal that they value the diversity that the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender students bring to campus."

 

There was a time when all we had to do was tolerate them. Now we have to value them. All other things being equal, do you suppose the queer applicant gets picked before the straight student?

 

"Sex orientation on college application." The Dallas Morning News; December 13, 2012; p. 6A.

Did He really, now?

 

Gays amaze me when defending their perversion. All of a sudden, they become theologians on Jesus's thoughts and the question of "WWJD."

 

Jeffery Weber of Dallas says that "Jesus valued the diversity of God's creation." Hmmm - I guess that depends on your definition of "the diversity of God's creation." I challenge you, Jeffery, to come up with one scripture that says Jesus valued homosexual relationships. Show me that, then we might talk.

 

In the meantime, perhaps you might take heed to something Jesus actually said, "For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind." Judgment is coming, and Jesus will not take your sin lightly.

"Jesus valued diversity." The Dallas Morning News; April 4, 2009; p. 18A.



I know!

 

John Zeigler of Denton is rightly upset at the random violence of shooters such as James Holmes -- and he would undoubtedly include Adam Lanza and his heinous crime. But John's solution to the problem is quite naive. John says that we must have more laws regulating guns. Think about it, John -- guns are not responsible for these crimes any more than automobiles are responsible for the more than 10,000 lives lost each year in drunk driving accidents.

John thinks his solution will work, because he is evidently under the impression that people who are intent on killing other people are law-abiding. I have a better solution than violating the Constitution by taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Instead of outlawing guns, let's outlaw murder, and that will cover all the weapons from strychnine to anti-freeze to ropes to knives to AK-47's.

 

"NRA, end your denial." The Dallas Morning News; July 24, 2012; p. 12A.

 

 

 

 

The world is nuts!

Social worker Jonathan Grace worked with Grant Wells for a long time. Wells was an alcoholic, and Grace arranged to find the homeless man an apartment with no conditions -- he doesn't have to go to counseling or in any way try to help himself. In fact, Grace's goal was to "get him a home that's near the bar." He says that's Wells's comfort zone.
 

"First, a house for homeless." The Dallas Morning News; July 1, 2012; p. 1B.

Poor Kids

 

Lisa Gamble-Candler of Allen takes issue with people who don't like homosexuals parading around in front of their children. She says that you just explain to your children that sometimes two men fall in love and get married, and sometimes two women fall in love and get married, and sometimes a man and a woman fall in love and get married.

 

Lisa likens these explanations to her dislike of Mondays. She says that even though she doesn't like Mondays, she includes them in the other days of the week when she tells her children about them. Lisa may not like Mondays, but are Mondays immoral? I feel sort of sorry for Lisa's children.

 

". . .or anything else you dislike?" The Dallas Morning News; September 24, 2008; p. 20A.

 



I'm confused.

 

Conservatives in the British government plan to introduce a bill to legalize gay marriage in England. However, the bill will ban the Church of England from performing same-sex marriages.

 

I'm confused. Is it morally right, or isn't it?

 

"Conservatives to file same-sex marriage bill." The Dallas Morning News; December 12, 2012; p. 10A.

Write your own poem, Pam.

 

One of my fondest childhood Christmas memories is my mother helping me to memorize Clement Moore's "A Visit from St. Nicholas," better known as "The Night Before Christmas." But not even Mr. Moore's brilliant portrayal of Santa Claus is safe from the revisionists.

 

Pamela McColl of Vancouver, Canada, has published her own version of Moore's poem. She's offended by the lines, "The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth, and the smoke, it encircled his head like a wreath," so she has deleted them. She says those lines teach children to smoke. It sounds to me like she's been smoking something. On the cover of her book, she claims it has been edited by Santa Claus for the benefit of the children of the 21st Century.

 

If Ms. McColl thinks she can improve upon Clement Moore's masterpiece, she should write her own poem instead of monkeying with his. And she certainly shouldn't have the gall to blame her own stupidity on Santa Claus.

 

"Pitching of Santa's pipe raises clatter." The Dallas Morning News; December 12, 2012; p. 8A.

Everybody does it!

 

Have you ever heard of backpage.com? It is a classified advertising website used to sell auto parts, furniture, boats, and girls -- many of them minors. It is owned by the alternative Village Voice Media which also owns The Dallas Observer.

 

Backpage accounts for about 70% of prostitution advertising among five websites that carry such ads and earns more than $22 million annually from those ads. When confronted about their sex trade, a Village Voice spokesman said it was "shortsighted, ill-informed and counterproductive" to focus on Backpage when other websites were involved. So I guess she's saying that it really doesn't matter that what they are doing is immoral as long as other media outlets are doing it too.

 

Alissa, one of the young victims of Backpage advertising, says for Backpage to make millions off these young girls is "like going back to slave times." Don't you wonder why the liberals and the NOW gals aren't incensed by this? Could it be because they are afraid to hold a gay media outlet accountable?

 

"Quit taking pimps' ads!" The Dallas Morning News; March 22, 2012; p. 13a.

World's Dumbest Criminal Award

 

I nominate Hannah Sabata for the World's Dumbest Criminal Award. Hannah posted a video on YouTube in which she is seen displaying hands full of cash. She says, "I just stole a car and robbed a bank. Now I'm rich, I can pay off my college financial aid, and tomorrow I'm going for a shopping spree."

 

Hannah was arrested not long after the video was posted. Doesn't look like that college education did her much good.

 

"Talking Points." The Dallas Morning News; December 9, 2012; p. 1P.

Poor Jerry!

 

Poor, poor, Jerry Sandusky, the serial child molester. His lawyer says Jerry's outlook has improved since his conviction, and he wants prison officials to house him in "less-restrictive conditions." Don't you feel sorry for him?

 

"Sandusky wants confinement eased." The Dallas Morning News; December 8, 2012; p. 5A.

 



Fallacies in Fred's Argument

 

Fred Hiatt says the federal income tax charitable deduction is unfair because it means more to a rich person than it does to a middle class one. Then he makes his points -- many of which are flawed.

 

I'm not going to debate the wisdom of keeping the deduction. I'm of the opinion that the best way to reform the tax code is to institute a flat tax of 10% on all income -- no deductions. That way, everyone foots the bill on an equal basis. If you don't make much, you don't pay much. If you make a lot, you pay a lot.

 

At any rate, Fred says that the deduction "lets people feel they are beating the system even as they practice virtue." Wow! Fred sure has a high opinion of people, doesn't he? Mr. Essie May and I itemize our charitable contributions, but taxes are not the reason we give. We'll give the same whether we get a deduction or not. And we pay so much in taxes I've never felt we've been able to "beat the system."

 

Fred says the deduction overwhelmingly benefits the wealthy and the rest of the country has to make up the gap. Has Fred considered that the charitable contributions those people are making may be keeping some people off the government dole and saving the government money? Maybe those "wealthy" people are really closing a gap there. Fred is assuming that the increase in taxes the "wealthy" would pay without the deduction has to be made up by someone else. Not really, Fred. The government could cut some waste. See my recent post on Homeland Security expenditures.

 

Fred uses an example. He says a California billionaire gives $10 million to a Los Angeles hospital. If he takes that deduction, he will pay $3.5 million less than he would have had to pay otherwise. So let's look at this. If the billionaire had not made the donation, the hospital would not be able to offer the additional services it now offers because of its expansion. The billionaire would have to pay $3.5 million in taxes, but he'd still have $6.5 million in his pocket. Making the donation, even with his tax deduction, he has $6.5 million less in his pocket. How does that profit the billionaire?

 

Then Fred expands his example. He posits that the billionaire made his donation with stock for which he paid $5 million and that has increased to $10 million in worth. He said he avoids paying any capital gains tax which he would have had to pay had he sold the stock and put the money in his bank account. But he didn't sell the stock, so he had no proceeds. You make money on a stock only when you sell it.

 

Then Fred says that if someone in a lower tax bracket than Fred made the donation, he wouldn't get to take the full value of the deduction, because his tax rate is lower, and that's unfair to him. In the first place, someone in a lower tax bracket probably couldn't afford to give $10 million away. But, for the sake of argument, let's examine Fred's contention. Let's say Fred's billionaire made $500 million dollars in the year he made his $10 million donation, and he's in the 35% bracket. So he pays 35% on $490 million or $171,500,000. Fred uses the example of someone at a 15% rate, so let's follow that logic. If your rate is 15% and you made $500 million dollars and made your $10 million donation, then you paid $73,500,000. Sounds like the 15 per-center is better off to me.

 

So Fred sums up his garbage by stating that we need to decide how much we want to "pay to help renovate that hospital wing with the billionaire's name above the door." As far as I can tell, Fred, it hasn't cost me a cent.

 

"Charitable deduction a question of fairness." The Dallas Morning News; December 4, 2012; p. 13a.

 

 

 

 

 

Was it really a panacea?

 

When the multi-million dollar The Bridge Homeless Shelter was opened in Dallas in 2008, it was to be the panacea for Dallas' homeless problems. Now, just four years later, it appears that maybe it wasn't all it was cracked up to be.

 

The city is contemplating contributing $950,000 to the $1.35 million cost to renovate the shelter. The outdoor pavilion will be enclosed to try to keep the homeless from wandering the streets nearby. It seems they are constantly complaining about the heat and the cold there. The entrance will be switched to the opposite side of the building from where it currently is. It seems business owners in the area and the Farmers Market vendors are plagued by panhandlers, drug dealers, and prostitutes. But the business owners on the side of the building that will now be the entrance aren't too happy. Mike Sarimsakci owns property to the west of the building, and he said the city hasn't said how they'll handle the problems on his side.

It sounds to me as if Dallas still has a homeless problem -- they're just shifting it from one spot to another.

 

"Shelter to move entrance, enclose pavilion." The Dallas Morning News; December 6, 2012; p. 3B.

 



Why We Face a Fiscal Cliff

 

Expenditures through the Department of Homeland Security:

• $24,000 for a mobile latrine in Fort Worth
• $98,000 for an underwater robot in Columbus, Ohio -- note that there are no major rivers and few lakes nearby
• $285,933 for an armored "BearCat" vehicle for Keene, New Hampshire -- note that the population of Keene is less than 25,000 and has had 1 homicide in the last 3 years
• $21 for a fish tank in Seguin, Texas
• $250,000 for security upgrades at Lucas Oil Stadium in Indianapolis
• $6,167 for animal crates and a hog catcher in Liberty County, Texas

Does Obama truly want what's good for the nation?

 

I read with interest where Obama "flatly rejected any budget deal that did not raise tax rates on income above $250,000 a year, even if it meant driving the economy into a recession."

 

And most assuredly, raising taxes will drive the economy into a recession. Obama, himself, has said that now is not the time to raise taxes. If it's about revenue, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan both proved that lowering the tax rate on the wealthy benefits everyone -- revenues increase, because the wealthy are not afraid to invest in enterprises that generate profits on which taxes are paid and generate jobs for other people who pay taxes on their salaries and spend their money at other businesses that become more profitable  and pay more taxes and hire more people, etc., etc., etc. Besides, if Obama raises taxes on "the rich" at the rates he proposes, it will bring in enough to operate the government for approximately 8 days. Who's going to foot the bill for the other 357?

 

Raising taxes, on the other, hand, causes businesses to retrench, to cut the workforce, and to delay expansion. When people are out of work, they not only don't contribute on the revenue side, they also take from the expense side. But Obama continues to insist that economic expansion must come from "the middle out." He hasn't yet provided an explanation of how such a thing can be accomplished. All he knows is that the "rich" need to pay more.

 

Besides that, he's not willing to address spending cuts at all. "You give me my way on taxes," he says, "And we'll cut spending later." Yeah, right. If you believe that, someone near and dear to me has a fountain to sell you! This country doesn't have a revenue problem -- it has a spending problem. And for the icing on the cake, Lord Obama has proposed that Congress turn over its constitutional power to raise the debt ceiling to him -- and require a 2/3 majority vote to overrule him. I find it alarming that the news media have said very little about such a blatant power grab -- with all his czars and the unlimited power bestowed upon the HHS Secretary through Obamacare, I fear we are headed toward dictatorship. Obama is headed toward unfettered control, and that, my friends, is what he really wants. 

Here are the alternatives.

 

Several restaurant chains have announced that the burdens of Obamacare are forcing them to take measures such as limiting all their employees to 30 hours a week or less. Elizabeth Walley thinks they are "spiteful, cheap businesses that hurt their employees to score political points." She recommends not patronizing those establishments. I guess she thinks closing and laying off employees is more advantageous to the employee than curtailed hours.

 

Actually, Elizabeth, a restaurant has little to gain from hurting its employees. And most restaurants are in business to make a profit -- not influence politicians. What they are dealing with is an economic reality. The money, and we're talking a lot of money, has to come from somewhere. But, to humor you, here are some alternatives.

 

Higher prices -- how much more are you willing to pay so that the business can continue to keep all its employees at full time?

 

Lower quality food -- the restaurant can cut back on portion size and food quality. Instead of the best beef, they can buy an inferior grade. Instead of Grade A large eggs, they can buy small eggs. Instead of the best vegetables, they can buy the culls. They can water down the sodas and the tea and coffee. 

 

Fewer employees -- should the restaurant fire enough of its workforce to be able to continue carrying the rest full time?

 

Less efficient service -- with fewer employees, you can bet your service won't be what it once was. So will you cut back on the tips for a worker who is already trying to cover for the two employees the restaurant had to let go?

 

Fewer locations -- In order to keep the number of employees below the Obamacare limit, some chains will probably close some of their locations or not expand where they had planned to. Instead of driving a couple of miles to that Olive Garden, you may have to drive 10 or 20 miles.

 

Less profit -- the restaurant owner may decide that it's no longer profitable enough for him to stay in business, so he'll just close up altogether and do something else. Then no one will have a job, and you won't have a choice of where to go eat.

 

So, Elizabeth, you tell us -- which alternative is the best one? Don't know? I'll give you a hint -- REPEAL!

 

"Do your staff right." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2012; p. 18A.

 



Perry and Dewhurst score points for this one!

 

Governor Perry and Lt. Governor Dewhurst are supporting a bill that would require drug testing for all welfare and unemployment recipients. The bill would also ban them from buying alcohol, tobacco and lottery tickets with public funds.

 

Of course, the ACLU is having conniption fits. "This proposal is a costly, ineffective, inhumane and punitive effort by state government based on stereotypes about our state's neediest Texans," said ACLU spokesman Terri Burke. What's inhumane about asking someone who's asking you to support him to be drug tested? If it's inhumane, why are employers allowed to do it? Punitive? Not if the applicant isn't using drugs. If he's drug free, he'll get the benefits he qualifies for. Stereotypes? Let's face it -- stereotypes often have some basis in reality. Perhaps many of "our state's neediest Texans" (isn't that redundant?) are needy because they have a drug and/or alcohol habit.

 

On the unemployment benefit side, Governor Perry states, "It is simply not the role of employers who fund these benefits to carry workers who keep themselves in an unemployable condition." Well said!

 

"Perry, Dewhurst back drug testing for welfare recipients." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2012; p. 3A.

Poor Fellow!

 

The Texas Supreme Court is wasting the taxpayers' time and money. They are hearing a case brought by Michael Blair. Michael is a confessed child rapist. He is serving four life terms in the Texas Department of Corrections.

 

He spent a few years on death row for the murder of little Ashley Estell. It was later determined that, scum though he was, it's possible he was not the one who killed Ashley. Ashley's killer, if it's not Michael, still hasn't been found. Michael wants to be compensated from the exonerees' fund for the time he spent on death row -- where he should still be if you ask me.

 

It's Pearl Harbor Day -- I don't think those brave men and women who served our country during WWII served so that animals like Michael Blair could turn our government on its head to profit from their crimes.

 

"Child rapist wants pay for time spent on death row." The Dallas Morning News; November 14, 2012; p. A.

 



Rights and privileges are two different things.

 

Mike Thomas of Denton thinks an open carry law for Texas is a "poor idea." Mike bases his theory on a common but highly inaccurate interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

 

Mike says, "The Second Amendment and one's rights are certainly privileges to be enjoyed to the fullest, but only when tempered with discretion."

 

No, Mike, one's rights are just that -- rights. They are not privileges. A privilege implies one has received permission to do something. No permission is needed to exercise a right.

 

For example, Mike has the right to spout off silly arguments to support his untenable position. Mike does not have a right to have those arguments printed in the newspaper -- The Dallas Morning News granted him the privilege of printing his thoughts.

 

Perhaps this will help clear up Mike's confusion -- the founding fathers did not call those first ten amendments "The Bill of Privileges."

 

"Open carry not safe, sensible." The Dallas Morning News; December 1, 2012; p. 20A.

 



From the WIST File

 

"Amina Khan of the Los Angeles Times writes that the American Academy of Pedicatrics issued a new policy statement urging doctors to give underage teenagers prescriptions for emergency contraceptives, such as Plan B, before they start having sex. . .

 

 

Absent from the recommendations of the new policy is what I call Plan MC -- moral compass. Families and society are abandoning their role of presenting human sexuality as a beautiful gift from God uniting the permanent love of two people (marriage) and bringing forth human life. . .

 

The new policy also presumes that teenagers don't have free will and are incapable of choosing God's plan for human sexuality, love and life. Only when human sexuality is presented in this noble sense will the rate of teen pregnancy drop and the sacredness of sexuality be reaffirmed."

 

Douglas Deshotel

auxiliary bishop

Diocese of Dallas

Did they not pay you what they said they would?

 

The union walkout on Walmart last Thursday seems to have been a bit of a flop. I think stores should stay closed on Thanksgiving, and I don't approve of any of them opening on a day set aside to thank God for our blessings just to make a few extra bucks. On the other hand, I think it's stupid to walk out on a job in these economic times, but then, what do I know?

 

At any rate, Chris Riley is a Walmart employee who decided he wasn't going to work his scheduled shift last Thursday. He "rallied" outside the store in Lancaster for about 30 minutes, then sashayed over to tell the store managers that he had a right to come back to work if he wanted to. I suspect he was trying to get them to say he couldn't so he could make a scene, but the managers said, "OK."

 

Chris makes $8.10 an hour. He's a part-time stocker. He says he doesn't like the low wages and work schedules. I don't know what he thinks a stocker should make, but I would imagine making any more than minimum wage on that job is decent. Chris says, "It's a frustrating thing to come to work and work as hard as you do and it doesn't show on your paycheck." I'm not sure what he means by that. Doing one's best at a job is a sign of good character, no matter what the pay is. Is Chris saying that Walmart isn't paying him the $8.10 for each hour he works? If Walmart is paying him $8.10 for each hour he works, then Walmart is fulfilling it's end of the employment agreement, so what is the gripe? If Walmart isn't paying him for each hour he works, then he should report them to Fair Labor Standards. If Chris wants to make more money, maybe he should get more education. Since he works part-time, that certainly should be an option.

 

I guess the main point is that if Chris isn't satisfied with the working conditions at Walmart, he's free to look elsewhere. Walmart can't hold him there against his will.

 

"Area Wal-Mart employees rally." The Dallas Morning News; November 24, 2012; p. 1D.

That's not what I read.

 

Robert Lawson of Dallas takes issue with the fact that Trammell Crow is donating money to fight illegal immigration in Farmers Branch. He didn't like the headline on The Dallas News article which detailed the donation: "Crow bolsters city's legal defense fund."

 

Lawson says the headline should have read, "Rich guy donates $300,000 from trust fund to help make the lives of working poor harder." Hmmm - I didn't see "working poor" mentioned. I don't think Crow has any problem with legal residents working even if they're poor. The issue I saw was illegal aliens.

 

Do you think Robert has a reading comprehension problem?

 

"Rich guy vs. working poor." The Dallas Morning News; November 28, 2012; p. 22A.

Now, wait just a minute . . .

 

Jim Barber of Dallas responded to an op-ed piece by John Davidson in which Davidson says that Medicaid expansion will put a huge financial burden on the states -- and Davidson is right.

 

But Jim disagrees. He says that Davidson omitted the fact that health care for the poor in Texas now is paid by the counties. And, to some degree, he is right. Jim says that caring for the poor in Dallas County costs the Dallas County taxpayers approximately $300 million a year. He says expanding Medicaid will take the bulk of this burden off Parkland and Dallas taxpayers. Well, yeah -- and it will put it on those of us who don't even live in Dallas County. How about Jim and the citizens of Dallas County take care of their poor, and we'll take care of our poor?

 

"A better way to care for poor." The Dallas Morning News; November 28, 2012; p. 22A.

How to Take Over a Country Without Firing a Shot

 

Mexico's new President is forming an alliance with Obama to push for Obama's comprehensive immigration reform which will grant legal status to millions of illegal Mexicans. Enrique Pena Nieto came to Washington this week to meet with Obama along with Representatives Ruben Hinojosa, Xavier Becerra, Silvestre Reyes, and Henry Cuellar.

 

He said to Obama in his oval office visit, "We fully support your proposal." Hinojosa said that Pena Nieto wants to "address . . . the benefits that would come from comprehensive immigration reform." Benefits for whom, I wonder? Maybe we'll find out when we become the Estados Unidos de Mexico.

 

"New leader backs Obama on immigration." The Dallas Morning News; November 28, 2012; p. 5A.

You heard it here first.

 

Obama gets to be inaugurated one more time. Thank heavens for presidential term limits! But don't rejoice too quickly. Just because Barack can't run again doesn't mean there won't be an Obama in the race in 2016.

 

After the inauguration, watch for a much more prominent role for Michelle as a "trusted advisor" to the President on all sorts of issues. Watch for Barack to begin using terminology such as the "co-president." Sound vaguely familiar? Think Bill and Hilary. Watch for her to show up in a lot of presidential-looking meetings. Watch for more business suits instead of the horrendous "fashions" she's usually seen in. Watch for more press conferences and TV talk show guest appearances. Then, somewhere around January 2015, we'll get the announcement.

 

Essie just could be wrong about all this. It could be Valerie Jarrett instead of Michelle, but I promise, it will be one of the two. Sort of nauseates you, doesn't it?

Which one is really the hostage-taker?

 

The arrogance and duplicity of Obama really annoys me. In his weekly video address last week, Obama said that the House of Representatives "shouldn't hold the middle class hostage." Of course, he's speaking of the Bush tax cuts. The House leadership has said that because it would be bad for the economy, a vote for raising tax rates on people who already pay the bulk of the taxes is not an option. Instead, they want to tighten up deductions with plans such as putting a cap on total deductions allowed. Obama has said that he'll see taxes raised on the middle class before he'll agree to not raising the rates on the upper wage-earners, even though he admitted that raising taxes is bad for the economy. So who is really holding the middle class hostage here?

 

What Obama is really saying is, "I don't care if our economy goes straight to the sewer -- I want my way and I want it now!" And as he, himself, said -- he doesn't have to run anymore, so he can pretty much do whatever he pleases.

 

"Obama: Extend tax cut." The Dallas Morning News; November 18, 2012; p. 5A.

Why work if you don't make any more than welfare pays?

 

Emory Burton of Dallas argues that the minimum wage should be raised. He says he'd like to see a proposed budget for a family of three living on one minimum-wage salary.

 

First, Mr. Burton, if we assume that the family of three is a father, a mother, and a child, then there should be at least two minimum wage salaries coming in. If that's not possible, then there shouldn't have been a child in the family until there was more than minimum wage coming in. If the family consists of a single parent and two children, then the missing parent should certainly be contributing to the living expenses of the children. If the missing parent is deceased, then we can assume that the children are drawing Social Security survivor benefits

 

Second, Mr. Burton, we can assume that the minimum wage earner will not always be a minimum wage earner. If he is performing well in his job, then he most certainly will receive raises and/or promotions.

 

Third, Mr. Burton, suppose the minimum wage earner is mopping floors for a living or loading garbage into a truck. There is absolutely nothing wrong with those jobs, but just how much are they worth? Would you pay the floor mopper, a pimply-faced 16-year-old who doesn't know up from down, $12.50 an hour? Is that enough? If you pay the floor mopper $12.50, what about the cashier who is responsible for making sure the money balances at the end of the day? Surely he would be worth $15 an hour. Let's assume the floor mopper and the cashier work at a fast food restaurant. How much are you willing to pay for an order of fries so that the teenage floor mopper can make more money? Is $3 too much? $5?

 

Mr. Burton sums up by asking, "Why work if you don't make any more than welfare pays." I guess Mr. Burton, like 47% of the people in this country, has never heard of strength of character, self-reliance, self-respect, pride in a job well-done, ambition, goal-setting, and consideration of others.

 

"Wage gives workers a chance." The Dallas Morning News; August 2, 2008; p. 18A.

For your convenience.

 

I sometimes buy the refrigerated Jello pudding packs to keep on hand for my afternoon snack. About six weeks ago, I noticed on the 6-pack a grand new announcement by the Jello folks. "Coming Soon!" it said. "Jello Pudding in a 4-pack!"

 

They were trying to get me excited about them short-changing me by two pudding cups! You see, the 6-pack is no longer available, and we pay the 6-pack price for the 4-pack. The same thing has happened to butter. If you're used to buying a pound of butter (four sticks in a box), you'll have to adjust. It's now two sticks in a box. Some of the brands still had some of the pound packages on the shelf last week, but I anticipate that we won't be seeing them around very long.

 

I've written before about the new 3-pint convenience carton of ice cream at Braums. For our convenience, it costs the same as the old inconvenient half-gallon carton. Propane suppliers are doing the same thing. They've reduced by two pounds the amount of gas they put in a 20-pound tank. Blue Rhino spokesman Chris Hartley says that was done to "save consumers a price jump." Now let's analyze this. I don't know what propane cost, but just for ease of example let's say that you've been paying $18.00 for 18 pounds of propane. That's $1 per pound. But now you get only 15 pounds of propane for $18.00. That's $1.20 a pound. Is that a price jump? I'd say that's a 20% price jump.

 

I understand that prices go up and companies must economize or raise prices. But don't try to fool me into thinking you're doing me a big favor by giving me two sticks of butter (in the new convenience pack) for the price of four. And don't cut down on the quality of my food -- I'm tired of getting the stem end in my Del Monte canned carrots!

Oh, well, then -- you're excused. Take whatever you want.

 

Robert Daniel Webb walked into a convenience store with his little 9-year-old daughter, Meadow, pulled a gun, and threatened to kill the clerk if he refused to give him the contents of the till. But don't think harshly of Robert. As he told the clerk, "I'm out of work. My daughter's got to survive." And he might have added, "And I have to have cigarette and booze money."

 

Oh well, then, you're excused, Robert. You're not supposed to have to buck up to adversity as long as there is someone out there who has more than you do. You just go take what you need. We understand. Except that the jury who convicted him didn't.

 

"Dad accused of robbing store as child watched." The Dallas Morning News; April 3, 2009; p. 6A.

Where is she now?

 

Some parents just aren't hip! About four years ago, the Detroit, Texas, ISD won a lawsuit filed against it by some really cool parents. These parents were upset because the school doesn't allow students to use its computers to access inappropriate websites. Their child should be allowed to look at anything she wants to, they contend.

 

The lawsuit was a result of several sixth grade students being disciplined when the teacher caught them on a naughty website called "Sexy Dress-Up." The site involves nudity and sexual fetishes.

 

So, why am I bringing up something that happened three years ago? I'm just curious. I wonder where the unnamed student of these really cool parents is now and how she and they are handling her teenage years.

 

"Detroit ISD wins discipline lawsuit." The Paris News; April 5, 2009; p. 1A.

 

 

 



If you voted for Obama, we have you to thank!

 

Obama's insistence on raising taxes on those who already provide the bulk of the government's handouts is resulting in the average taxpayer (that's you and me) getting hit with an extra $3,700 on this year's taxes.

 

Some Denny's restaurants will add a 5% surcharge to each meal to help them pay for the cost of Obamacare. Every business that falls under Obamacare will also have to raise prices even if they don't label it as Obamacare.

 

Many restaurants are cutting their employees back to part-time, and some are simply closing their doors rather than deal with the hassle. Economists say that the Obamacare regulations coupled with higher taxes will most certainly plunge this country back into recession.

The Association of American Medical Colleges estimates that in 2015, the country will have 62,900 fewer doctors than needed. That number will more than double by 2025 as the expansion of insurance coverage under Obamacare takes full effect. Medicare has been and is being raided to pay for Obamacare -- that means less reimbursement to hospitals and doctors. That means the hospitals will have fewer nurses to care for more patients. According to some health care experts, this will result in more elderly patients failing to survive a hospital stay.

 

Texas is a right-to-work state. That means you don't have to join a union to work if you don't want to. This is protected under Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. On Obama's agenda -- removing that provision so that union membership is required in all states. And we see what unions are good for -- no more Twinkies and HoHos and the loss of 18,500 jobs because of stupid union rules such as prohibiting shipping bread and Twinkies in the same truck. AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka made some startling statements this week. This is the same Richard Trumka who advises the President on a regular basis: "I’m at the White House a couple times a week. Two, three times a week. I have conversations everyday with someone in the White House or in the administration — Everyday.” This is the same Richard Trumka who said that there's no fiscal cliff and any address of runaway government spending is just "a manufactured crisis." An almost $17 trillion debt is a manufactured crisis??? And why is Obama so beholden to Trumka? Because the unions dump hundreds of millions of dollars into his campaign coffers.

 

What really sticks in my craw is that Obama, himself, has admitted that raising taxes will hurt rather than help the economy. He knows that when taxes on the wealthy are cut, the economy booms -- and the IRS brings in more revenue. It works this way -- when the wealthy get a tax increase, they hold on to their money instead of investing it. When they get a tax cut, they invest in and expand their businesses and create jobs. They make more money to pay taxes on, and they employ more people who make more money to pay taxes on, and those people spend their money creating even more jobs for more people to make more money to pay taxes on. Obama knows this and has said as much, yet he still insists on taxing the wealthy. Why? Because it's not about raising revenue -- it's about punishing the rich and destroying capitalism and providing a lavish lifestyle for the big union bosses.

 

And that, my friends, is just the tip of the iceberg. So if you voted for Obama, thank you, thank you, thank you (if you have problems recognizing sarcasm, that was it)! May you reap what you have sown.

Read More At IBD: http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/111512-633686-trumka-denies-budget-reality-opens-gate-for-unrest.htm#ixzz2CWRhl75j

It is our moral obligation to protect porn stars.

 

As if the recent election, General Petraeus, Benghazi, legalized pot and outlawed soft drinks were not enough, would you like more proof that our country is going to hell in a handbasket?

 

It seems that an AIDS group in California is looking for a California lawmaker to introduce legislation that will require porn stars to use condoms while they are working. "It is only fair that these performers be afforded the same safeguards as other Californians in their workplaces," said Michael Weinstein. Hmmmm -- do other workplaces in California require their employees to wear condoms while they're on the job?

 

Weinstein wants the local public health departments to enforce safety laws on condom use on porn sets. I just gotta' tell you, if Mr. Essie May worked for the health department, and he told me he was going down to the porn studio to inspect a bunch of people having sex, Mr. Essie May would be looking for another job.

 

"AIDS group wants to take porn condom law statewide." The Dallas Morning News; November 10, 2012; p. 8A.

What kind of a father is this?

 

Ron Cuff of Heath thinks people are a little paranoid. He thinks we need to create a Department of Chicken Little. What has his feathers in a fluff?

 

The ridiculous action of the authorities on college campuses who insist on evacuating the facilities and searching when a bomb threat has been received. Ron says, "No bomb has ever been found, to my knowledge, for any of these threats." That reminds me of a councilman we had many years ago. When the city staff recommended installing a tornado warning system, he considered it a waste of money, saying, "We've never had a tornado before." It was only about a year later that a tornado wiped out a large portion of the city, killed approximately 10 people, and injured dozens of others.

 

I assume Ron has no children in college. What kind of a father would not want his child evacuated from a building that has been threatened? Maybe no bomb has been found before, but would a loving father really take the chance that no bomb will ever be found? I can assure you that if my child called me and said that his college had received a bomb threat, and they were going to ignore it, I'd tell him to get his fanny off the campus - pronto!

 

I might be wrong, but if I were a betting woman, I'd bet a week's wage that old Ron would be the first one yelling about the authorities doing nothing if the campus did blow up!

 

"Stop playing up bomb threats." The Dallas Morning News; October 26, 2012; p. 26A.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

 

The ACLU and other civil rights organizations are calling for an investigation. As far as I can see, the story is pretty simple. I really don't know what needs investigating.

 

October 25, Texas State Troopers tried to pull over a pickup they suspected of carrying illegal drugs. The truck fled. A department helicopter was called to assist in the chase. One of the tactical flight officers, Miguel Avila, fired his weapon to disable the pickup. Two people in the pickup were killed.

 

As it turns out, the pickup was not carrying illegal drugs. It was carrying illegal aliens from Guatemala. Either way, it appears to me the officer was justified in stopping the fleeing lawbreakers.

 

"ACLU seeks probe of killings by trooper." The Dallas Morning News; November 2, 2012; p. 4A.

You better get it right!

 

Upset with the weatherman because he said it wasn't going to rain, and you got caught in a deluge without your umbrella? If we follow Italy's example, you can make him pay for that one!

 

An Italian court convicted seven scientists of manslaughter for failing to predict the earthquake that killed more than 300 people in the central part of the country in 2009. The indictment alleged "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information." They were sentenced to six years in prison. Wonder if we could indict all the political pollsters for "inexact, incomplete and contradictory information"?

 

"Scientists get prison for not warning about quakes." The Dallas Morning News; October 23, 2012; p. 16A.

Obamacare is good for everybody . . . or is it?

 

Obama is the President who cares about the middle class. He passed Obamacare, and it's good for everybody. Or is it?

 

Starting in 2013, a couple of provisions of Obamacare will kick in that economists and health care professionals say will impact middle class families -- especially those with special needs children. These people will have to pay more out of pocket for medical expenses as well as higher taxes (but that can't be . . . Obama said no one making less than $250,000 would have his taxes raised).

 

One of the provisions is that a cap will be placed on pre-tax dollars that can be placed in a medical flexible spending account. People with high medical expenses often deposit enough in their flexible spending accounts to pay for insurance premiums and deductibles. The cap means they will have to pay more tax, because they won't be able to put as much money in the account as they have been. Many employers currently cap the amount at $5,000 -- some have no caps at all, but Obamacare caps it at $2,500. In a 25% bracket, that means an additional $625 in taxes for the average person who uses a flex account.

 

The other provision increases the tax deduction threshold for medical expenses from 7.5% to 10%. So before Obamacare, if a taxpayer had unreimbursed expenses of $9,000 on an income of $100,000, he could take a $1,500 deduction. After Obamacare kicks in, he takes zero deduction.

 

Yes, Obama certainly is making health care more affordable!

 

"Special-needs setback." The Dallas Morning News; November 3, 2012; p. 1D.

 



Pigs are flying past my window!

 

I just looked out the window, and I saw pigs flying by! Why? Because I think Barack Obama is being unfairly criticized by Pete Earley.

 

Pete takes the President to task for this quote: "We have to . . . make sure that we're keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, those who are mentally ill."

 

I happen to agree with old Barack on this one. It's stupid to allow the mentally ill and criminals to legally possess firearms. But Pete says we shouldn't include the mentally ill in that group -- that we wouldn't say we should keep firearms out of the hands of blacks or hispanics or Republicans.

 

Well, no, because unless a black or a hispanic or a Republican is a criminal or mentally ill, he has a constitutional right to own a firearm. Pete makes his argument from a personal experience. His son has a severe mood disorder. Pete says his son has been stigmatized -- that he cannot find a job or friends, and that people whisper behind his back (do you think he's paranoid, as well?).

 

If his disorder is so visible that he doesn't have a job or friends and that people talk about it, would you want him to have a gun or two? What if his mood gets really dark, and he decides he'll no longer put up with the man who turned down his employment application, or the girl who won't go out with him, or the people he thinks are talking about him? Do you think they'll be safe?

 

And I wonder -- would Pete Earley, himself, feel comfortable if his son had ready access to a gun?

 

"Vilifying mentally ill is offensive." The Dallas Morning News; October 26, 2012; p. 27A.

Take heart!

 

Like many of you, I awoke yesterday morning discouraged, downhearted, depressed, and feeling as if it just isn't worth trying to fight the battles anymore. How could America vote for a man and party whose values and platform are so antithetical to God's principles and the American way?

 

As I puttered around taking care of morning chores, I had the television on. I heard one commentator say, "Fifty-six million people did NOT vote for Obama." And the light went on! My mind immediately went to the story of Elijah.

 

Elijah lived under the most evil ruler with the most evil wife that the Nation of Israel had ever seen. Jezebel had a bounty on his head. So Elijah gave up and went out and sat down under a tree and said to God, "Why don't you just go ahead and kill me?"  [Essie's paraphrase].

 

God sent an angel to feed him, and Elijah got up and went and hid in a cave. And God said to him, "What are you doing here?" And Elijah said, "I've stood up for right while my nation has gone down the tubes through disobedience to you -- they've made fun of spiritual things and persecuted your people. I'm the only one left, and they're trying to kill me." [Again, Essie's paraphrase].

 

And God said to Elijah, "I have seven thousand in Israel who have not bowed the knee to Baal."

 

Take heart, America! There are 56 million who have not bowed the knee to Baal! Though it may seem that we have been forsaken, God is still in control. He gave our nation a clear choice, and the majority chose unwisely, but God will not forget those 56 million who remain true to Him and His Word. So double up on your prayers, keep doing what's right, and be not discouraged!

He's a good boy . . . well, if you don't count the murder and attempted murder.

 

Austin Reed Sigg has been arrested for the kidnap and murder of 10-year-old Jessica Ridgeway. He has confessed to the especially heinous crimes -- little Jessica was dismembered.

 

Sigg has also confessed to trying to abduct a jogger who fortunately got away. Sigg's attorney, Ryan Loewer, argued for bail for his client. He says he has no prior criminal history. Does that mean you get one free murder? Ted Bundy didn't have a prior criminal history, either, before he raped and murdered several women. I have to wonder if Loewer has any conscience at all. I wonder how he would feel if bail were granted to this murderer without a record and Loewer's daughter disappeared while Sigg was running around free.

 

"Teen confesses to girl's slaying, tied to attack on runner." The Dallas Morning News; October 26, 2012; p. 9A.

What's important to the Obama's?

 

At a fundraiser after the last Presidential debate, Michelle Obama said, "On Nov. 7 we're going to party hard."

 

We're going to party hard despite a 7.9% unemployment rate (if you believe the latest skewed numbers where the rate miraculously fell below 8% for the first time in his Presidency. The true unemployment rate is somewhere around 14.5%).

 

We're going to party hard despite a $16 trillion debt that's grown more under his Presidency than in in other in history.

 

We're going to party hard despite $3.50 a gallon gasoline.

We're going to party hard despite having rammed through a national health care system that threatens to bankrupt small businesses.

 

We're going to party hard despite four Americans losing their lives to terrorists in Libya.

We're going to party hard despite all the reports of a GSA that's out of control with Las Vegas and Hawaii "conferences" involving hot tubs, clowns, and other lavish spending.

We're going to party hard despite a Mexican drug cartel problem that is costing the lives of border patrol agents.

 

Yes, partying hard seems to be all this President and First Lady have cared about for the last four years. Don't expect it to change in the next four if they are re-elected.

 

"Talking points." The Dallas Morning News; October 21, 2012; p. 1P.

Good Guys 2 - Bad Guy Dead

 

Beverley Valentine-Creeks came home about midnight the other night. But somebody had arrived before her -- she saw the door had been kicked in, and she encountered three strangers in her home.

 

Beverley ran back to her car, grabbed her gun, and "maintained a position outside her home." When two of the men came out of the front door, Beverley opened fire. When she saw the third coming out of a bedroom window, she shot at him, too.

 

Beverley has pretty good aim. One of the robbers died at the scene. A wounded one made it to a nearby convenience store where he was arrested along with his unhurt partner in crime.

 

Now, if we could just educate Beverley on which party will protect her right to continue defending herself and her property -- Beverley has a "Vote Democrat 2012" sign in her yard.

 

"Woman kills home burglar." The Dallas Morning News; October 28, 2012; p. 1B.

Oklahoma fires one for the 2nd Amendment!

 

Effective November 1, those with concealed carry permits in the State of Oklahoma may openly carry their weapons. Score one for the 2nd Amendment! However, as I read the 2nd Amendment, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed -- there shouldn't have to be a state law permitting a person to carry a weapon since the Constitution already guarantees the right to do so.

 

I do hope the Texas legislature is taking note of our neighbor's action and will follow suit.

 

"No longer concealed." The Dallas Morning News; November 1, 2012; p. 3a.

Gotta love those PETA nuts!

 

PETA folks are in mourning. They have lost some dear, dear friends in a tragic traffic accident. They want a roadside memorial to these friends, and they want the City of Irvine, California, to pay for it.

 

Who were these dear friends whose lives were cut short? They were 1,600 pounds of saltwater bass being hauled to market. PETA spokesnut Dina Kourda says that the sign, "In memory of hundreds of fish who suffered and died at this spot," would remind drivers that fish value their lives. Spokesnut Ashley Byrne said, "They are on their way to slaughter . . . To suffer an accident on the way and be left in the middle of the street is unthinkable."

 

Irvine spokesman Craig Reem says there won't be a memorial to the dearly departed. I guess when PETA asked if he had any signs, he told them to, "Go fish."

 

"Sign sought for fish killed in road crash." The Dallas Morning News; October 31, 2012; p. 6A.

 



Is it just barely possible . . .

 

State senators in Texas are worried that the state has gone too far in its zero-tolerance policy for bad behavior in schools. While I agree that may be the case -- we've all heard the stories of kids who have been suspended for technically breaking the rule without any intent whatsoever to misbehave or disobey -- the senators are looking at it from a different angle than I am.

 

They note that more minority students than non-minority students are disciplined under zero-tolerance. This is inherently unfair, they say. They cite studies that show that 83% of black male students and 70% of black female students statewide have faced at least one disciplinary action. One of the cases they refer to is that of a 14-year-old girl. She was cited for truancy and fined $500. She couldn't help it, they claim. She was pregnant and too embarrassed to go to school. In today's society, I find it remarkable (though admirable) that a 14-year-old is embarrassed by pregnancy. However, the fact remains that she did not go to school. If zero-tolerance applies to white girls who don't go to school, then certainly it should also apply to black girls who don't go to school regardless of the excuse they give.

 

At any rate, is it just barely possible that minorities are written up more often because they flaunt the rules more often?

 

"Panel questions zero tolerance." The Dallas Morning News; October 31, 2012; p. 3A.

 



Stupid or deliberately misleading?

 

Paula Haynes of Irving says that the GOP wants to win the election so they can keep women barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen where they think they belong. Is she honestly stupid enough to believe that? Does she think Condoleezza Rice thinks that? Does she think Sarah Palin thinks that? Does she think Kay Bailey Hutchison thinks that? Or Laura or Barbara Bush? Or Ann Romney? Or Michelle Malkin? Or Dana Perrino?

 

Paula says that women have fought long and hard for contraception rights. Well, Paula, nobody is threatening your right to contraception, and to say they are is nothing less than fear-mongering and disingenuous.

 

Paula says the GOP admits it doesn't want to pay women the same as men. I'd like to know where she heard that one. I haven't heard it. I have heard, however, that women in Obama's White House make substantially less than their male counterparts. According to a report published by the Free Beacon in April, the 2011 annual report on White House staff revealed that the median annual salary for female White House employees was 18 percent less than male employees — $60,000 compared to $71,000. And in 2008, Scripps Howard syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock noted that as in Obama’s U.S. Senate office, women were paid less than men: While the average male staffer brought home $54,397, female staffers averaged $45,152.

And of course, under President Obama, more and more women have come to rely on food stamps. What better way to keep a woman under control than to make her dependent on a government handout?  In fiscal 2011, the federal government spent more than $75 billion on food stamps, up from $34.6 billion at the end of fiscal 2008. "We ought to be looking for ways to save money in the program, not to encourage more people to use it," said Chris Edwards, an economist with the Cato Institute. In other words, we should be doing something to improve the economy so all women can be independent and pay for their own food and their own contraceptives. That's what will keep them shod and unpregnant.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/16/obama-touts-fair-pay-for-women-despite-records-showing-women-paid-less-in-his-own-white-house/#ixzz2AukLK5eH

 

http://money.cnn.com/2012/06/25/news/economy/food-stamps-ads/index.htm

 

"A vote for GOP against women." The Dallas Morning News; October 30, 2012; p. 14A.

Crazy? Or just a shameless publicity hound?

 

Last year, Uriel Landeros went into the Menil Collection of art in Houston and spray painted graffiti on a Pablo Picasso painting. He supposedly fled the country and is in hiding somewhere in Mexico.

 

Instead of being censured by James Perez who owns a gallery in Houston, Perez is hosting a showing of Landeros' "art." Perez says he supports what Uriel did in the case of the Picasso. He says, "It's just taking something and making it your own. I like what Uriel did. That it makes it yours." Hmmmm - I always thought that was called stealing.

 

Since Perez feels that way, perhaps we should all get up a painting party and go graffiti his house and car and gallery. I may be wrong, but I don't think he would like us making those things ours. If he truly would approve of it, the man needs to be committed to a mental institution.

 

"Gallery defends showing works of man who vandalized a Picasso." The Dallas Morning News; October 26, 2012; p. 4A.