"Joe Legal VS. Jose Illegal"

Here is an example of why hiring illegal aliens is not economically
productive for the United States .. ((and I did Jose Illegal in green
because of his "green card!"))


You have two families: "Joe Legal" and Jose Illegal".
Both families have two parents, two children, and live in California ..

Joe Legal works in construction, has a Social
Security Number and makes $25.00 per hour with taxes deducted.

Jose Illegal also works in construction, has NO Social Security Number,
and gets paid $15.00 cash " under the table".

Ready? Now pay attention.

Joe Legal:
$25.00 per hour x 40 hours = $1000.00 per week, or $52,000.00 per year.
Now take 30% away for state and federal tax;
Joe Legal now has $36,400.00.

Jose Illegal:
$15.00 per hour x 40 hours = $600..00 per week, or
$31,200.00 per year. Jose Illegal pays no taxes.
Jose Illegal now has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays medical and dental insurance with limited coverage for
his family at $600.00 per month, or $7,200.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $29,200.00.

Jose Illegal has full medical and dental coverage
through the state and local clinics at a cost of $0.00 per year.
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal makes too much money and is not eligible
for food stamps or welfare.
Joe Legal pays $500.00 per month for food, or $6,000.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $23,200.00.

Jose Illegal has no documented income and is eligible
for food stamps and welfare. Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays rent of $1,200.00 per month, or r $14,400.00 per year.
Joe Legal now has $8,800.00.

Jose Illegal receives a $500.00 per month federal
rent subsidy. Jose Illegal pays $500 per month or $6,000.00 per year.
Jose Illegal still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal pays $200.00 per month, or $2,400.00 for insurance.
Joe Legal now has $6,400.00.

Jose Illegal says, "We don't need no steeeenkeeeen' insurance!"
and still has $31,200.00.

Joe Legal has to make his $6,400.00 stretch to pay utilities, gasoline, etc.

Jose Illegal has to make his $31,200.00 stretch to pay utilities,
gasoline, and what he sends out of the country every month.

Joe Legal now works overtime on Saturdays or
gets a part time job after work.

Jose Illegal has nights and weekends off to enjoy
with his family.

Joe Legal's and Jose Illegal's children both attend the same school.

Joe Legal's kids eat breakfast at home, & he pays for his children's lunches.

Joe Illegal's children get a government sponsored breakfast & lunch.

Joe Legal's children go home after school.

Jose Illegal's children have an after school ESL program.

Joe Legal and Jose Illegal both enjoy the same police and fire services,
but Joe Legal paid for them and Jose Illegal did NOT pay.

Do you get it, now?

If you vote for or support any politician that supports
illegal aliens ... You ARE part of the problem!

It's way PAST time to take a stand for America and Americans!

850KOA Live

850KOA Live

Shared via AddThis

"Obama's Secret Past"

In February 2009 this was posted, and holds some great questions, with information, and concerns which many of us hold.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0dAucT_TDG4

Some have decided that it's no use, but there are others of us who will continue to question this persona who came from nowhere ... and is being used as a puppet on strings. These are questions that have become hushed/suffocated/silenced ... but I have no doubt in my mind that there is truth to this info of this potus' and his regime. There are just too many unanswered questions still lingering ... and as of yet, they are not totally silenced!

"Who Do You Think I Am?"

Read to the end...please. You Will Be Surprised.

"WHO AM I?"

* I was born in one country, raised in another. My father was
born in another country. I was not his only child. He fathered several
children with numerous women.

* I became very close to my mother, as my father showed no
interest in me. My mother died at an early age from cancer.

* Later in life, questions arose over my real name.

* My birth records were sketchy and no one was able to produce a
legitimate, reliable birth certificate.

* I grew up practicing one faith but converted to Christianity,
as it was widely accepted in my country, but I practiced nontraditional
beliefs & didn't follow Christianity, except in the public eye under
scrutiny.

* I worked and lived among lower-class people as a young adult,
disguising myself as someone who really cared about t

* That was before I decided it was time to get serious about my
life and I embarked on a new career.

* I wrote a book about my struggles growing up. It was clear to
those who read my memoirs that I had difficulties accepting that my
father abandoned me as a child.

* I became active in local politics in my 30's then with help
behind the scenes, I literally burst onto the scene as a candidate for
national office in my 40s. They said I had a golden tongue and could
talk anyone into anything. That reinforced my conceit.

* I had a virtually nonexistent resume, little work history, and
no experience in leading a single organization. Yet I was a powerful
speaker and citizens were drawn to me as though I were a magnet and they
were small roofing tacks.

* I drew incredibly large crowds during my public appearances.
This bolstered my ego.

* At first, my political campaign focused on my country's
foreign policy. I was very critical of my country in the last war and
seized every opportunity to bash my country

* But what launched my rise to national prominence were my views
on the country's economy. I pretended to have a really good plan on how
we could do better and every poor person would be fed & housed for free.

* I knew which group was responsible for getting us into this
mess. It was the free market, banks & corporations. I decided to start
making citizens hate them and if they were envious of others who did
well, the plan was clinched tight.

* I called mine "A People's Campaign" and that sounded good to
all people.

* I was the surprise candidate because I emerged from outside
the traditional path of politics & was able to gain widespread popular
support.

* I knew that, if I merely offered the people 'hope' , together
we could change our country and the world.

* So, I started to make my speeches sound like they were on
behalf of the downtrodden, poor, ignorant to include "persecuted
minorities" like the Jews. My true views were not widely known & I
needed to keep them unknown, until after I became my nation's leader.

* I had to carefully guard reality, as anybody could have easily
found out what I really believed, if they had simply read my writings and
examined those people I associated with.

* I'm glad they didn't. Then I became the most powerful man in
the world. And the world learned the truth.

*Who am I?*

ADOLF HITLER

WHO WERE YOU THINKING OF?
Scary isn't it?

"Sarah Palin & Her Family ~ Deserves More Than Just An Apology"

What a rotten thing to do, when Governor Palin was there in NY to speak for
an autistic event. Letterman couldn't even bring up something positive for the reason that she was there. A Special "Thank You" To "Embassy Suites" for removing their ads with CBS ~ because of Letterman!!!

1.) Greta's Report On This 'Usual Letterman Trash':
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZVBi0P8YXQ

2.) Bill O'Reilly's Report On Dispicable Letterman's Slutty
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zFtyg-VTruk&feature=related

3.) Letterman's 'Low-Life' Apology:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrM1dtMLPys

4.) TV Guide's Take on Letterman's Apology ... (This is still not good enough of an apology to me! ~Naomi~)
http://www.tvguide.com/News/Letterman-Apology-Palin-1006911.aspx

5.) Great Blog with information on Companies who do ads on Letterman! Let them know that you will not support them if they overlook what Letterman said about Palin & her daughters!!!
http://hillbuzz.org/2009/06/10/list-of-david-lettermans-advertisers/

Governor Sarah Palin ~ Such a Lady ~ Accepts Letterman's Apology On Rotten Comments About Her Daughter"

As far as I'm concerned Letterman has lost it! That was absolutely wrong ... and I think that we need to make sure and send a "special note of thanks" to Embassy Suites! Sarah Palin is such a gracious lady, and her family is wonderful! I want to see her run for President!!! Letterman has absolutely NO brain ... he is a louse!!! ~NomiAnn~

/~//~///~//~///~//~/

June 16, 2009
**A message to all members of Team Sarah**

Dear Friends,

Last night David Letterman again addressed the distasteful “jokes” he made at the expense of Governor Sarah Palin and her teenage daughter on June 8. Governor Palin issued a statement accepting last night’s apology:

"Of course it's accepted on behalf of young women, like my daughters, who hope men who 'joke' about public displays of sexual exploitation of girls will soon evolve. Letterman certainly has the right to 'joke' about whatever he wants to, and thankfully we have the right to express our reaction. And this is all thanks to our U.S. military women and men putting their lives on the line for us to secure America's right to free speech - in this case, may that right be used to promote equality and respect."

The controversy over Letterman’s “jokes” has already cost CBS at least one advertiser: Embassy Suites. Company spokeswoman Kendra Walker told TVGuide.com, “We received lots of e-mails from concerned guests and we assessed that the statement that he made was offensive enough to our guests and prospective guests that we elected to take the ads down."

Governor Palin has very graciously accepted Letterman’s apology, and her hope that men who make jokes of this nature will “evolve” certainly resonates with the public. It is OUR hope that David Letterman has seen first hand how the laughter ends when comedy routines become nothing more than thinly-disguised ideological grandstanding designed around the humiliation of others for cheap laughs.

THANK YOU to all of the Team Sarah members who have contacted CBS and their sponsors to express their views on this latest controversy. We are truly touched by all of the supportive comments and emails we have received.

Best,

Lisa S.
teamsarahhq@gmail.com

"The First Supreme Court Latino? ~ By Antonio Olivo, The Chicago Tribune

Some say that Justice Benjamin Cardozo, reportedly of Portuguese descent, beat her to it in the 1930s. The debate renews old questions about the labels 'Latino' and 'Hispanic.'

By Antonio Olivo
May 31, 2009
Reporting from Chicago

When President Obama nominated federal Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the U.S. Supreme Court, ethnic advocacy groups praised the selection of the first Latino to the nation's highest court.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**NomiAnnz Thoughts on this....**

It absolutely amazes me that we are So Full Of "being self absorbed" & "being called the first" that Sotomayor seems to want to claim it. Should it matter? Absolutely NOT! If that's what she is in there for, Then Step Down! There are plenty of "much better" Hispanic, Black, Portugese, Scottish, Irish, Indian, etc., to be in there. The "color of the skin" has NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER for WHY we should appoint/select anyone! The only reason that ANYONE should be appointed to an office of leadership ... IS BECAUSE THEY WILL DO THE JOB WELL!!! LEAVE OUT THE COLOR OF THE OUTER SKIN ~ THE ETHNICITY, ... IT'S THE HEART AND MIND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT TO LEAD OUR NATION!!!

AMERICA, LAND OF THE FREE ... HOME OF THE BRAVE!!! (Leave the ethnicity out of it!!! Thank Goodness God IS "Colorblind"!!!) ~NomiAnn~

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yet some political opponents, such as Republican strategist Karl Rove, sought to downplay the nomination's significance by pointing out that Benjamin N. Cardozo, who served on the Supreme Court in the 1930s, was born to parents who claimed Portuguese descent. So did that make him the first Latino?

The question since has been hotly debated in the blogs and other media. Then on Thursday, the Pew Hispanic Center issued a report that said Sotomayor, whose parents were Puerto Rican, is indeed the first Latino Supreme Court nominee. But the authors added that the category depends on how people define themselves, meaning that Cardozo might argue differently were he still alive.

If that sounds confusing, consider the fact that "Hispanic" is a word made up by federal bureaucrats preparing for the 1980 U.S. census, in an attempt to categorize what was becoming an increasingly diverse population of residents with roots in "Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico" and other Spanish-speaking places, according to the Pew report.

Jeffrey Passel, a senior researcher who co-wrote the study, said that initial efforts to define who might fit into such a category faltered.

"People didn't really know what the word meant . . . and that seemed to be true of Hispanics and non-Hispanics," he said.

By the mid-1980s, however, the term was used widely enough to make it into the Oxford English Dictionary, which partly defines it as "pertaining to Spain or its people." The first definition in Webster's New World is "Spanish or Spanish-and-Portuguese," adding force to the argument that Cardozo was Hispanic.

In fact, 12% of America's small Portuguese population and about 15% of Brazilian immigrants identified themselves as "Hispanic" in the 1980 census. Those responses dropped to 1% and 4% in 2007, Passel said.

In the 1980s, a decade in which U.S. involvement in Latin America's civil wars fanned historical resentment over imperialism and the Spanish conquest, the term "Hispanic" was rejected by activists who preferred to call themselves "Latino." That word "has much more, in its roots, the indigenous connotation as well as the Spanish connotation of the people from Latin America," said Sylvia Puente, executive director of the Latino Policy Forum.

The term was coined in Chicago, Puente said. Although initially used mainly on the East Coast, it gained enough traction elsewhere in the country during the 1990s to be included along with "Hispanic" in 2000 census questions.

But, because the Census Bureau does not confirm respondents' heritage, anyone can say they're Hispanic/Latino.

"It really depends on how you feel about yourself," said Angelo Falcon, president of the National Institute for Latino Policy in New York.

And that brings the issue back to Cardozo. When he was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1932, the New York-born justice was embraced by the Jewish community there as a son of Sephardic Jews, which is how his parents identified themselves.

Today, he might have recognized the political advantages of identifying himself with the nation's fastest-growing demographic group, Passel said.

"We don't know because he's not alive to tell us," he said.

Nelson de Castro, the Portuguese consul general in Chicago, said that "in the context of the United States," most descendants of Portuguese immigrants "see themselves as Hispanic."

But he said the Portuguese in general might see it differently.

"First and foremost," he said, "the Portuguese identify themselves as European."

"The Truth IS: Justice Benjamin Cardozo Did Beat Sotomayor!!"

Some say that Justice Benjamin Cardozo, reportedly of Portuguese descent, beat her to it in the 1930s. The debate renews old questions about the labels 'Latino' and 'Hispanic.'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR THE RECORD:

War of words: a glossary to the debate over Sonia Sotomayor. Some Republicans rebuke Limbaugh, Gingrich on Sotomayor criticism First Hispanic justice: An article in Sunday's Section A about Sonia Sotomayor and former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin Cardozo incorrectly used, in the headline and the first three paragraphs, the term Latino. The article referred to a semantic debate over whether Sotomayor was the first Hispanic to be nominated to the Supreme Court and not Cardozo. The article should have said that advocacy groups praised Sotomayor, a New-York born Puerto Rican, as the first Hispanic, which prompted political opponents to argue that Cardozo's Portuguese heritage qualified him as the first Hispanic. —

~/~//~/~//~/~//~/~//~/~//~/~

Yet, some political opponents, such as Republican strategist Karl Rove, sought to downplay the nomination's significance by pointing out that Benjamin N. Cardozo, who served on the Supreme Court in the 1930s, was born to parents who claimed Portuguese descent. So did that make him the first Latino?

The question since has been hotly debated in the blogs and other media. Then on Thursday, the Pew Hispanic Center issued a report that said Sotomayor, whose parents were Puerto Rican, is indeed the first Latino Supreme Court nominee. But the authors added that the category depends on how people define themselves, meaning that Cardozo might argue differently were he still alive.

If that sounds confusing, consider the fact that "Hispanic" is a word made up by federal bureaucrats preparing for the 1980 U.S. census, in an attempt to categorize what was becoming an increasingly diverse population of residents with roots in "Mexico, Cuba, Puerto Rico" and other Spanish-speaking places, according to the Pew report.

Jeffrey Passel, a senior researcher who co-wrote the study, said that initial efforts to define who might fit into such a category faltered.

"People didn't really know what the word meant . . . and that seemed to be true of Hispanics and non-Hispanics," he said.

By the mid-1980s, however, the term was used widely enough to make it into the Oxford English Dictionary, which partly defines it as "pertaining to Spain or its people." The first definition in Webster's New World is "Spanish or Spanish-and-Portuguese," adding force to the argument that Cardozo was Hispanic.

In fact, 12% of America's small Portuguese population and about 15% of Brazilian immigrants identified themselves as "Hispanic" in the 1980 census. Those responses dropped to 1% and 4% in 2007, Passel said.

In the 1980s, a decade in which U.S. involvement in Latin America's civil wars fanned historical resentment over imperialism and the Spanish conquest, the term "Hispanic" was rejected by activists who preferred to call themselves "Latino." That word "has much more, in its roots, the indigenous connotation as well as the Spanish connotation of the people from Latin America," said Sylvia Puente, executive director of the Latino Policy Forum.

The term was coined in Chicago, Puente said. Although initially used mainly on the East Coast, it gained enough traction elsewhere in the country during the 1990s to be included along with "Hispanic" in 2000 census questions.

But, because the Census Bureau does not confirm respondents' heritage, anyone can say they're Hispanic/Latino.

"It really depends on how you feel about yourself," said Angelo Falcon, president of the National Institute for Latino Policy in New York.

And that brings the issue back to Cardozo. When he was confirmed to the Supreme Court in 1932, the New York-born justice was embraced by the Jewish community there as a son of Sephardic Jews, which is how his parents identified themselves.

Today, he might have recognized the political advantages of identifying himself with the nation's fastest-growing demographic group, Passel said.

"We don't know because he's not alive to tell us," he said.

Nelson de Castro, the Portuguese consul general in Chicago, said that "in the context of the United States," most descendants of Portuguese immigrants "see themselves as Hispanic."

But he said the Portuguese in general might see it differently.

"First and foremost," he said, "the Portuguese identify themselves as European."

May 31, 2009
Antonio Olivo
aolivo@tribune.com

Something Of Historic Proportians Is Happening In Our Nation Today!" ~ Pam Geller

THIS LADY HAS IT RIGHT ON THE MARK!!!

About the author via Google...

Pamela "Atlas" Geller began her publishing career at The New York Daily News and subsequently took over operation of The New York Observer as Associate Publisher. She left The Observer after the birth of her fourth child but remained involved in various projects including American Associates, Ben Gurion University and being Senior Vice-President Strategic Planning and Performance Evaluation at The Brandeis School.

I am a student of history. Professionally, I have written 15 books in six languages, and have studied history all my life.

I think there is something monumentally large afoot, and I do not believe it is just a banking crisis, or a mortgage crisis, or a credit crisis. Yes, these exist but they are merely single facets on a very large gemstone that is only now coming into a sharper focus.

Something of historic proportions is happening. I can sense it because I know how it feels, smells, what it looks like, and how people react to it. Yes, a perfect storm may be brewing, but there is something happening within our country that has been evolving for about 10 - 15 years. The pace has dramatically quickened in the past two. We have spent two or more decades intentionally de-industrializing our economy. Why?

We have intentionally dumbed down our schools, ignored our history, and no longer teach our founding documents, why we are exceptional, and why we are worth preserving. Students by and large cannot write, think critically, read, or articulate. Parents are not revolting, teachers are not picketing, school boards continue to back mediocrity. Why?

We have now established the precedent of protesting every close election (now violently in California over a proposition that is so controversial that it wants marriage to remain between one man and one woman. Did you ever think such a thing possible just a decade ago?).

We have corrupted our sacred political process by allowing unelected judges to write laws that radically change our way of life, and then mainstream Marxist groups like ACORN and others to turn our voting system into a banana republic. To what purpose?

Now our mortgage industry is collapsing, housing prices are in free-fall, major industries are failing, our banking system is on the verge of collapse, Social Security is nearly bankrupt, as is Medicare and our entire government.

Our education system is worse than a joke (I teach college and know precisely what I am talking about.) The list is staggering in it's length, breadth, and depth. It is potentially 1929 x 10. And we are at war with an enemy we cannot name for fear of offending people of the same religion who cannot wait to slit the throats of your children if they have the opportunity to do so.

Now we have elected a man no one knows anything about, who has never run so much as a Dairy Queen, let alone a town as big as Wasilla, Alaska. All of his associations and alliances are with real radicals in their chosen fields of employment, and everything we learn about him, drip by drip, is unsettling if not downright scary (Surely you have heard him speak about his idea to create and fund a mandatory civilian defense force stronger than our military for use inside our borders? No? (Oh, of course. The media would never play that for you over and over and then demand he answer it. Sarah Palin's pregnant daughter and $150,000 wardrobe is more important.)

I have never been so afraid for my country and for my children as I am now. This man campaigned on bringing people together, something he has never, ever done in his professional life. In my assessment, Obama will divide us along philosophical lines, push us apart, and then try to realign the pieces into a new and different power
structure.

Change is indeed coming. And when it comes, you will never see the same nation again.

I thought I would never be able to experience what the ordinary, moral German felt in the mid-1930s. In those times, the savior was a former smooth-talking rabble-rouser from the streets, about whom the average German knew next to nothing.. What they did know was that he was associated with groups that shouted, shoved, and pushed around people with whom they disagreed; he edged his way onto the political stage through great oratory and promises. Economic times were tough, people were losing jobs, and he was a great speaker. And he smiled and waved a lot. And people, even newspapers, were afraid to speak out for fear that his "brown shirts" would bully them into submission. And then he was duly elected to office, with a full-throttled economic crisis at hand [the Great Depression]. Slowly but surely he seized the controls of government power, department by department, person by person, bureaucracy by bureaucracy. The kids joined a Youth Movement in his name, where they were taught what to think. How did he get the people on his side? He did it promising jobs to the jobless, money to the moneyless, and goodies for the military-industrial complex. He did it by indoctrinating the children, advocating gun control, health care for all, better wages, better jobs, and promising to re-instill pride once again in the country, across Europe, and across the world. He did it with a compliant media - Did you know that?

And he did this all in the name of justice and .. .. .. CHANGE. And the people surely got what they voted for. (Look it up if you think I am exaggerating.) Read your history books.. Many people objected in 1933 and were shouted down, called names, laughed at, and made fun of.

When Winston Churchill pointed out the obvious in the late 1930s while seated in the House of Lords in England (he was not yet Prime Minister), he was 'booed' into his seat and called a crazy troublemaker. He was right, though.

Don't forget that Germany was the most educated, cultured country in Europe. It was full of music, art, museums, hospitals, laboratories, and universities. In less than six years - a shorter time span than just two terms of the U.S. presidency - it was rounding up its own citizens, killing others, abrogating its laws, turning children against parents, and neighbors against neighbors. All with the best of intentions, of course. The road to Hell is paved with them.

Since many of you enjoy senior citizen status or will sometime in the not too distant future, I thought you might be interested in this information.

IN GOD WE TRUST... Every body that is on this mailing list is either a senior citizen, is getting close or knows somebody that is.

Most of you know by now that the Senate version (at least) of the "stimulus" bill includes provisions for extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens. The author of this part of the bill, former senator and tax evader, Tom Daschle was credited today by Bloomberg with the following statement. Bloomberg: "Daschle says health-care reform "will not be pain free." Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them.

If this does not sufficiently raise your ire, just remember that Senators and Congressmen have their own healthcare plan that is first dollar or very low co-pay which they are guaranteed the remainder of their lives and are NOT subject to this new law if it passes.

Please use the power of the internet to get this message out. Talk it up at the grassroots level. We have an election coming up in one year and nine months. We have the ability to address and reverse the dangerous direction the Obama administration and it allies have begun and in the interim, we can make our voices heard!

Lets do it!

If you disagree, do nothing. You'll have yourself to blame for what you and your children get! It won't be pretty!

And Nomi has to say again ... this lady is RIGHT ON THE MARK!!! And ... believe me ... IT WILL NOT BE PRETTY!!! I had to fight for the rights of both of my children in their schooling in the late 1980-1990's and back then it wasN'T pretty ... and my children along with myself were 'listed' to be cautious of from a school district which was 'playing' with my children's minds! I fought, and I made strong moves for the rights of my children, and they both were placed in phenominal schools, and those new schools, which were tough, got to know how we 'really' worked well and backed the schools. You HAVE to fight for your rights ... to really win this battle that now faces our once great United States of America!!! If we don't fight ... we will become a nation of crybabies in socialism!

"Sarah Palin Receives Overwhelming Media Malpractice!"

"Sarah Palin Interviewed by John Ziegler"

1.) Media Malpractice ~ John Ziegler on Bill O'Reilly
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYbtwM4xibA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALrZVoXUOus

2.) Media Malpractice on Sarah Palin ~ by John Ziegler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-95wkCMeUkk

3.) Media Malpractice on Sarah Palin ~ by John Ziegler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYbtwM4xibA

4.) Media Malpractice ~ How The 'o' got Elected ~ John Ziegler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQSv2WhRuds

5.) Media Malpractice on CBS w/ Ziegler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJy65GiAYn8

6.) Media Malpractice ~ Brawl on the 'view' with John Ziegler
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeFtE8Reb1E

7.) Media Malpractice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8

"Sean Hannity With Sarah Palin":

1.) "Part 1 ~ Hopeful POTUS candidate for 2012"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7VUn8l0pGU

2.) "Part 1 (before election) ~ Hopeful POTUS candidate for 2012"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgAtvT_aSoY

3.) Part 2 (before election) ~ Didn't make 2008 but Hopeful POTUS candidate for 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6mhfGmTtVw

4.) Dick Morris Going After Colmes on Sarah Palin During 2008 Election ;)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q50jlSgXyiY


"Media Malpractice ~ by Hilights"

Media Malpractoce ~ Hilights 1
1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSD6YjpViUU
Media Malpractice Hilights 2
3.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srsmxz5vcdc

"One of NomiAnn's Stances On Global Warming"

Intellectual Thought Process on Global Warming

**This is an article that I stand strongly on, and I'm conversing with a guy named 'dogstar' ~ to which I refer to in the argument as 'honeypups'. He calls those of us who 'think' things through ... 'luddites' lol for which we take and just let go. This is dogs referal to my stance on global warming ... and the continuing saga of our dis'gust'ion (discussion) lol:

Dog: This is not my group. I don't remember inviting anyone.

Furtheremore, luddites you are and luddites you remain.
If you stubbornly refuse to accept science in an effort to advance a political agenda, there is no other more fitting epithet.

You insist on repeating implausible hypothesese that you neither fully understand nor can adequately explain.

Now, maybe where you come from everyone either agrees with the loudest braying ass in the barnyard or they go home.
But here in the rest of the world, this is called 'holding a differing opinion'.
But no one is shouting you down, nor am I attempting to stifle what you or anyone else is saying.

This is called criticism.
It requires critical thinking.
If you are not capable of it, that's your problem.

posted by dogstar7
about 12 hours ago

Nomi: Well, honeypups, as I recall, you said:

**Luddites Unite! You have nothing to lose but your ignorance!

posted by dogstar7

Well, honeypups, you called out for your group of "Luddites" to unite. Well, we have chosen to not be "luddites luddnuts to unite" and honeypups we don't care to join you and your "Luddites Luddnuts" group!!

You know, if I even thought you had studied this fully, I would have known. But in reading Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia, S. Fred Singer's lecture thesis which was delivered on the Hillsdale College campus on June 30, 2007, during a seminar entitled "Economics and the Environment," PLUS many other college professors and scientific writings on "Global Warming: Man-Made or Natural" I have found that what is said by others besides "political nuts," "newspapers," the "media," and some "bloggers who hear about the 'smoke' and run yelling FIRE, FIRE, FIRE" to start creating a political frenzie in the midst of an election campaign ... is not in depth, as to what truly is happening. NOT that we do not face a serious problem ... but those who are screaming, trying to make this a superficial scare tactic are doing the same thing which happened in the '70's with the "global cooling fears" which turned out to be what you might call an environmental fad.

It is very important, because of what all is at stake in this venting of fears, it is essential that people better understand this issue.

There are natural causes of warming, as I discussed many times in my messages.

**As Professor Singer said, "Natural causes of climate change, for their part, CANNOT BE CONTROLLED BY MAN. THEY ARE UNSTOPPABLE! Several policy consequences would follow from this simple fact:

1. Regulation of CO2 emissions is pointless and even counterproductive, in no matter what kind of mitigation scheme is used, such regulation is hugely expensive.

2. The development of non-fossil fuel energy sources, like ethano and hydrogen, might be counterproductive, given that they have to be manufactured, often with the investment of great amounts of ordinary energy. NOR do they offer much reduction in oil imports.

3. Wind power and solar power become less attractive, being uneconomic and requiring huge subsidies.

4. Substituting natural gas for coal in electricity generation makes less sense for the same reasons.

*** "None of this is intended to argue against energy conservation. ON THE CONTRARY, (just as I've said in my many statements before, dog ...) conserving energy reduces waste, saves money, and lowers energy prices ... irrespective of what one may believe about global warming.

"There is such Science vs. Hysteria. There has been evidence presented that indicates there is not appreciable man-made warming today. We presented this evidence, thereby suggesting that attempts by governments to control greenhouse-gas emissions are pointless and unwise. There are all sorts of people who have thrown their financial support into this upheaval. It is also worth noting that tens of thousands of interested persons benefit directly from the "global warming scare -- at the expense of the ordinary consumer. Environmental organizations globally, such as Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Environmental Defense Fund have raked in BILLIONS OF DOLLARS. Multi-billion-dollar government subsidies for useless mitigation schemes are large and growing. Emission trading programs will soon reach the $100 billion a year level, with large fees paid to brokers and those who operate the scams. In other word, many people have discovered they can benefit from climate scares and have formed an entrenched interest. Of course, there are also many sincere believers in an impending global warming catastrophe, spurred on in their fears by the growing number of "one-sided" books, movies, and media coverage.

"The irony is that a slightly warmer climate with more carbon dioxide is in many ways beneficial rather than damaging. Economic studies have demonstrated that a modest warming and higher CO2 levels will increase GNP and raise standards of living, primarily by improving agriculture, as well as forestry. It's a well-known fact that CO2 is plant food and essential to the growth of crops and trees -- AND ultimately to the well-being of animals and humans.

"You wouldn't know it from Al Gore's: An Inconvenient Truth, but there are many upsides to global warming. Northern homes could save on heating fuel. Canadian farmers could harvest bumper crops. Greenland may become awash in cod and oil riches. Shippers could count on an Arctic shortcut between the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. Forest may expand, Mongolia could become an economic superpower. Might there be a silver lining for the frigid regions of Canada and Russia? "It's not that there won't be bad things happening in those countries," economics professor Robert O Mendelsohn of the Yale School of Forestry & Environmental Studies says. "BUT the idea is that they will get such large gains, especially in agriculture, that they will be bigger than the losses.: Mendelsohn has looked at how gross domestic product around the world would be affected under different warming scenarios through 2100. Canada and Russia tend to come out as clear gainers, as does much of norther Europe and Mongolia, largely because of projected increases in agricultural production.

*** "To repeat a point made at the beginning: Climate has been changing cyclically for at least a million years, and has shown huge variations over geological time. Human beings have adapted very well, and will continue to do so.

"The nations of the world face many difficult problems. Many have societal problems like poverty, disease, lack of sanitation, and shortage of clean water. There are grave security problems arising from global terrorism and the proliferation of nuclear weapons. ANY of these problems are VASTLY MORE IMPORTANT than the imaginary problem of man-made global warming. *IT IS A GREAT SHAME THAT SO MANY OF OUR RESOURCES ARE BEING DIVERTED FROM REAL PROBLEMS TO THIS 'NON-PROBLEM.' Perhaps in ten or twenty years this will become apparent to everyone, particularly if the climate should stop warming (as it has for eight years now) or even begin to cool. (Like in the '70's).

"We can only trust that REASON WILL PREVAIL" in the face of an onslaught of propaganda, like Al Gore's movie, and despite the incessant MISINFOMATION generated by the media. Today, the imposed costs are still modest, and mostly hidden in taxes and in charges for electricity and motor fuels. IF the scaremongers have their way, these costs WILL become ENORMOUS.

**BUT...

"...BUT I BELIEVE SOUND SCIENCE AND GOOD SENSE WILL PREVAIL IN THE FACE OF IRRATIONAL AND SCIENTIFICALLY BASELESS CLIMATE FEARS!"

THIS is where the rubber hits the road with facts ... and there are many more where these came from.

(And dog thought I was foolish!!) Ah dog, I am NOT foolish. What I had said before was right along these facts. I will only suggest to you to clean out your ears and listen to TRUTH!!!

Proud to be an AMERICAN! Proud to be an Independant Conservative Republican, and proud to be the wife with intellect of my sweet and adoring husband of intellect for nearly 40 years.

Wisdom comes from study, study means you check out ALL sides of the box, and make sure that all that is said is true, valid, and has integrity in it's process/progression.

NomiAnn

"Barack Obama's 10 mistakes in Cairo ~ June 2009" ~ Toby Harnden

"Barack Obama's 10 mistakes in Cairo"
By: Toby Harnden
Jun 4, 2009 ~ 10:03 p.m.

Barack Obama's speech in Cairo was quite a moment. I say moment, but it lasted some 56 minutes and contained more than 6,000 words. Too long. Yes, he said a lot, ensuring to some extent that it could be all things to all people - almost everyone can take something away from it to 'feel good' about.

That doesn't mean, however, that it was an effective speech. It was, of course, very well-delivered and contained many fine phrases. But we know that Obama can do this and he's subject to the law of diminishing returns. The more I think about it, the more potentially problematic I find the speech. Here, for starters, are 10 mistakes he made:

1. "Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail." With this phrase, Obama dismissed the notion of American exceptionalism, the belief that the United States occupies a special place among nations. Obama clearly doesn't see the United States as a "Shining City upon a Hill" or its history, constitution or way of life giving it special qualities or responsibilities in the world. When asked in Strasbourg whether he reduced "American exceptionalism" - a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville - as mere patriotism. "I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism." By trying to reduce US status to that of just another nation, Obama diminishes the role of American leadership.

2. "I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk." While watering down America's status in the world, Obama has consistently sought to elevate his own status to that of a universal, healing symbol as if his very being, his inspiring life story, his Muslim background, his father from Kenya, his childhood spell in Indonesia will square the circle in the Middle East. If only it were as easy as that. This comes across as naive, even pandering.

3. "Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust.... On the other hand..."

Yes, Obama spoke strongly and unequivocally about the six million Jews who were exterminated in the Holocaust. But he immediately appeared to equate this with the suffering of Palestinians who have "endured the pain of dislocation...endure the daily humiliations - large and small - that come with occupation...the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable". This comes dangerously close to moral equivalence.

"The U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality." Probably the worst passage of all. By highlighting the most superficial aspect of women's rights is the Muslim world, Obama dramatically underplayed the oppression women face. It's not people in the West who believe women who cover their hair are less equal, it's countries in the Middle East that dictate that all women are less equal. From the Left, Peter Daou, who grew up in west Beirut, rails against the weakness of Obama's stance on human rights: "With women being stoned, raped, abused, battered, mutilated, and slaughtered on a daily basis across the globe, violence that is so often perpetrated in the name of religion, the most our president can speak about is protecting their right to wear the hijab?" From the Right, Stephen Hayes, points out: "In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive. In Iran, they're stoned on suspicion of adultery. In Pakistan, politicians publicly defend 'honor killings' of young girls who have the audacity to choose their own husbands."

5. "I am honoured to be in the timeless city of Cairo..." It's one thing to go to the heart of an autocracy in the Middle East and to deliver hard turths. It's quite another to describe President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt as a "force for stability" and then go to Cairo and soft pedal on human rights abuses there. Many Arabs battling for democracy and freedom in their own countries feel undermined by Obama's choice of venue. Spengler of Asia Times goes even further: "By addressing the 'Islamic world' from Cairo, Obama lends credibility to the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and other advocates of political Islam who demand that Muslims be addressed globally and on religious terms."

6. "Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible." In its essence no neo-con from the Bush administration would disgree with this. But the "although" betrays that Obama is trying to have it both ways - he's glad that Saddam's gone but he's against the war that removed him. Yes, it was a choice. Sometimes hard choices have to be made. Yet Obama seems to think that he can just split the difference and please both sides.

7. "No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point." No single speech - but perhaps a series of speeches, Obama implied. He later said that "words alone cannot meet the needs of our people" but Obama's preference for words rather than actions is clear. For all its grand vision, this speech contained no concrete proposals.

8. "And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year."

The "just as" is troubling because it goes dangerously close to equating what happened on 9/11 with the alleged alteration of American principles afterwards. Like the "on the other hand", it's sloppy speechwriting. Obama was eager to use the t-word - torture (though not another t-word - terror). By constantly referring to torture - which, even if one concedes that it was used was done so used in very limited circumstances and ended several years ago during the Bush administration - Obama buys into the narrative that America is to blame. Obama conveniently ignores the fact that torture of a far more heinous nature than has ever taken place at Guantanamo Bay occurs almost routinely in countries across the Middle East - and the victims are often more dissidents rather than suspected terrorists. Once again, Obama highlights the closure of Guantanamo Bay - though he has yet to resolve where to transfer its inmates.

9. "I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other." Obama talked about democracy but he failed to speak about the democratic government of Iraq. Whatever one thinks of the US invasion in 2003, that is a tremendous achievement and one brought about at a massive cost in American and Iraqi lives. It's an achievement that needs to be supported and built on, not least to demonstrate to other Arab countries that democracy in the Middle East is possible. Yet Obama seemed to want to ignore Iraq because he opposed the invasion.

10. "For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat."

After 9/11, the Bush administration - with the full bipartisan support of Congress - cracked down on terrorist financing via some groups that posed as Islamic charities. So what's Obama hinting at here? As David Frum puts it: "It is not at all hard for American Muslims to give to legitimate charities. What has been made difficult is giving to terror groups. Is the president suggesting he will relax those restrictions?"

___________________________________________

Certainly, there were aspects of the speech that were praiseworthy. Rich Lowry, no Obama fan, summarises some of them: "He extolled America as 'one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known'; pledged we will 'relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our country'; condemned Holocaust denial as 'baseless, ignorant, and hateful'; said 'it is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus'; insisted that 'the Arab-Israel conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems'".

There's been lots of breathless commentary today about the "historic" moment and the power of Obama's oratory. In time, however, the speech will probably be remembered, at best, for its high-flown aspirations rather than the achievements it laid the foundations for. Or, at worst, for the naive and flawed approach it foretold.
_________________________________

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/toby_harnden/blog/2009/06/04/barack_obamas_10_mistakes_in_cairo

"Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas ~ A One~On~One Gentleman"

Two young men who had just visited University of Nebraska, return home and sit beside Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. They talked to him all the way back to the east coast, and he took great interest in these two young men. They finally realized just who he was, and when they returned back to their school, they asked their high school Principal if Thomas could come & speak at their graduation service. The Principal sent out the invitation, and this wonderful man, Clarence Thomas accepted! Supreme Court Justice Thomas ... YOU Are A Gentleman!! Thank You For Your Being A Down-To-Earth Gentlman ... Our Love & Prayers Are With You & Your Family!!! God Bless This Man!!! A great story to read!

http://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/We-Didnt-Know-He-Was-Clarence-Thomas.html?corder=regular&pg=1#comments