The truth about ObamACORN (OneNewsNow.com)
Shared via AddThis
Friday, May 29, 2009
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Court Upheld the Law instead of changing it.. YAY
The justices uphold the same-sex marriage ban but also rule that the 18,000 gay couples who wed before November will stay married. The decision is sure to spark another ballot box fight.
By Maura Dolan May 27, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.
Interactive: Gay marriage chronology
Photos: Prop. 8 decision: photos
Full coverage of same-sex marriage, Proposition 8
Answering your questions, taking comments about the Prop. 8 decision
Cheers, anger and tears in response to decision on gay marriage
The court was unanimous in deciding that an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the November election would continue to have their marriages recognized by the state.Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.
"Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right," George wrote.UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."She agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision, but said the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.Describing Proposition 8's "limited effect," the majority said that simply reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples "does not have a substantial, or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment."In deciding that gay couples who married in California before the November election will remain married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution."If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote."We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical."It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."
By Maura Dolan May 27, 2009
Reporting from San Francisco -- The California Supreme Court's decision Tuesday to uphold Proposition 8 and existing same-sex marriages left in place all rights for California's gays and lesbians except access to the label "marriage," but it provided little protection from future ballot measures that could cost gays and other minorities more rights, lawyers and scholars said Tuesday.In a 6-1 ruling, the court said the November ballot measure that restored a ban on same-sex marriage was a limited constitutional amendment, not a wholesale revision that would have required a two-thirds vote of the Legislature to be placed before voters.
Interactive: Gay marriage chronology
Photos: Prop. 8 decision: photos
Full coverage of same-sex marriage, Proposition 8
Answering your questions, taking comments about the Prop. 8 decision
Cheers, anger and tears in response to decision on gay marriage
The court was unanimous in deciding that an estimated 18,000 same-sex couples who married before the November election would continue to have their marriages recognized by the state.Proposition 8 merely "carves out a narrow and limited exception" to the state constitutional protection gays and lesbians now receive, Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote for the majority.The court majority said same-sex couples would continue to have the right to choose life partners and enter into "committed, officially recognized and protected family relationships" that enjoy all the benefits of marriage under the state's domestic partnership law.
"Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples enjoy this protection not as a matter of legislative grace, but of constitutional right," George wrote.UC Berkeley constitutional law professor Goodwin Liu said the ruling shows "the court continues to be very deferential to the processes of direct democracy in California."In a separate, concurring opinion, Associate Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar noted some rights married couples have that domestic partners do not, and suggested that the state now has the duty "to eliminate the remaining important differences."She agreed with the majority that Proposition 8 was not an illegal constitutional revision, but said the ruling's definition of revision was too inflexible.Describing Proposition 8's "limited effect," the majority said that simply reserving the term "marriage" for opposite-sex couples "does not have a substantial, or, indeed, even a minimal effect on the governmental plan or framework of California that existed prior to the amendment."In deciding that gay couples who married in California before the November election will remain married, the court said it would be unfair and might even invite chaos to nullify marriages those couples entered into lawfully.Ending those marriages would be akin to "throwing property rights into disarray, destroying the legal interests and expectations of thousands of couples and their families, and potentially undermining the ability of citizens to plan their lives according to the law as it has been determined by the state's highest court," George wrote.Portions of the majority ruling read as a lament over the ease with which the California Constitution can be amended.The 136-page majority decision contained a lengthy history of the state Constitution and the ballot amendment process and distinguished California's amendment process from those of other states and the federal Constitution."If the process for amending the constitution is to be restricted," George wrote, "this is an effort that the people themselves may undertake."It is neither impossible nor improper to limit how voters may change the Constitution, George wrote."We have no doubt that an express restriction could be fashioned that would limit the use of the initiative power in the manner proposed by petitioners -- but the California Constitution presently contains no limits of this nature," he said.By stressing that only the term "marriage" was affected by the November election, the court seemed to signal that a broader ballot measure might not be upheld.But the court's definition of what would be an impermissible constitutional revision was also narrow and left gay rights activists nervous and several legal scholars skeptical."It leaves us to the kindness of strangers," said Jon W. Davidson, legal director of Lambda Legal, a gay rights organization. "They could take away anything."
Russia is worried isn't that telling you anything Barack?
Russia Fears Korea Conflict Could Go Nuclear
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Print
ShareThis
APTN
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
MOSCOW — Russia is taking precautionary security measures because it fears tensions over North Korea's atomic test could descend into nuclear war, news agencies quoted an official as saying on Wednesday.
Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying that a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang's nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea.
"The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures," the source said.
"We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean Peninsula," he added.
North Korea has responded to international condemnation of its nuclear test and a threat of new U.N. sanctions by saying it is no longer bound by an armistice signed with South Korea at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Itar-Tass news agency quoted a Russian foreign ministry official as saying the "war of nerves" over North Korea should not be allowed to grow into a military conflict, a clear reference to Pyongyang's decision to drop out of the armistice deal.
var adsonar_placementId="1425871",adsonar_pid="1367767",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=224;adsonar_zh=93,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";
qas_writeAd();
"We assume that a dangerous brinkmanship, a war of nerves, is under way, but it will not grow into a hot war," the official told Tass. "Restraint is needed."
The foreign ministry often uses statements sourced to unnamed officials, leaked through official news agencies, to lay down its position on sensitive issues.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has condemned North Korean tests but his foreign ministry has warned the international community against hasty decisions.
Russia is a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which is preparing to discuss the latest stand-off over the peninsula.
In the past, Moscow has been reluctant to support Western calls for sanctions. But Russian officials in the United Nations have said that this time the authority of the top international body is at stake.
"We cannot provide cover for any actions that lead to the destabilisation of the non-proliferation regime," Interfax quoted its foreign ministry source as saying.
Related Stories
U.N. Chief Sees 'Violation' if North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed
Experts: North Korea a Fully Fledged Nuclear Power
N. Korea May Restart Nuclear Plant in Months
U.N. Deadlock Over N. Korean Rocket Apparently Easing
Japan Strengthens Sanctions Against N. Korea After Rocket Launch
World Eyes Frail Kim Jong Il at North Korea Parliament
North Korean Media: Kim Jong-Il Sobbed During Rocket Launch
First Images of N. Korea Rocket Launch Revealed
N. Korea Rocket Passes Over Japan Without Incident
U.N. Security Council to Hold Emergency Session Over N. Korea Launch
Report: North Korea Turns on Radars, Removes Top Part of the Rocket
North Korea Tracked Closely Ahead of Possible Saturday Rocket Launch
South Korea: North May Launch Rocket Saturday
N. Korea Fueling Rocket in Final Preparation for Launch
N. Korea Threatens to Retaliate With 'Thunderbolt of Fire'
N. Korea 'Will Mercilessly Shoot Down' U.S. Spy Planes
Reports: Iran Experts Aiding North Korea Rocket Launch
Admiral: North Korea Rocket Could Reach Hawaii
Pictures Emerge of N. Korea Launchpad as Warships Move Into Area
Japan Issues Order to 'Destroy' N. Korea Rocket
North Korea Threatens to Restart Nuke Program Over Rocket Launch Sanctions
Japan Readies Crisis Steps for North Korea Missile
FAST FACTS: A Glance at North Korea's Missile Arsenal
U.S.: North Korea Loading Rocket on Launchpad
N. Korea Reasserts Right to Satellite Launch
Intelligence Officials: North Korea's 'Satellite' Is Long-Range Missile
Official Says North Korea is Month Away From Launching Missile or Rocket
North Korea Bans IAEA From Yongbyon Nuclear Facilities
Reports: North Korea Fires Short-Range Missile Into Yellow Sea
Photo Essays
North Korea Missile Plan
North Korea Missiles
The Interfax source made clear Russia has not finally made up its mind on the U.N. vote yet. "We should not subscribe to any specific option beforehand," the source said.
However, the Tass source indicated Russia could back sanctions.
"The (U.N. Security Council) resolution is most likely to involve sanction-like measures," he said. "The U.N. Security Council is engaged in a tough work."
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
ShareThis
APTN
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
May 26: North Koreans are seen during a ceremony to celebrate the nation's underground nuclear test, in Pyongyang, North Korea.
MOSCOW — Russia is taking precautionary security measures because it fears tensions over North Korea's atomic test could descend into nuclear war, news agencies quoted an official as saying on Wednesday.
Interfax quoted an unnamed security source as saying that a stand-off triggered by Pyongyang's nuclear test on Monday could affect the security of Russia's far eastern regions, which border North Korea.
"The need has emerged for an appropriate package of precautionary measures," the source said.
"We are not talking about stepping up military efforts but rather about measures in case a military conflict, perhaps with the use of nuclear weapons, flares up on the Korean Peninsula," he added.
North Korea has responded to international condemnation of its nuclear test and a threat of new U.N. sanctions by saying it is no longer bound by an armistice signed with South Korea at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Itar-Tass news agency quoted a Russian foreign ministry official as saying the "war of nerves" over North Korea should not be allowed to grow into a military conflict, a clear reference to Pyongyang's decision to drop out of the armistice deal.
var adsonar_placementId="1425871",adsonar_pid="1367767",adsonar_ps="-1",adsonar_zw=224;adsonar_zh=93,adsonar_jv="ads.adsonar.com";
qas_writeAd();
"We assume that a dangerous brinkmanship, a war of nerves, is under way, but it will not grow into a hot war," the official told Tass. "Restraint is needed."
The foreign ministry often uses statements sourced to unnamed officials, leaked through official news agencies, to lay down its position on sensitive issues.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has condemned North Korean tests but his foreign ministry has warned the international community against hasty decisions.
Russia is a veto-wielding permanent member of the U.N. Security Council, which is preparing to discuss the latest stand-off over the peninsula.
In the past, Moscow has been reluctant to support Western calls for sanctions. But Russian officials in the United Nations have said that this time the authority of the top international body is at stake.
"We cannot provide cover for any actions that lead to the destabilisation of the non-proliferation regime," Interfax quoted its foreign ministry source as saying.
Related Stories
U.N. Chief Sees 'Violation' if North Korea Nuclear Test Confirmed
Experts: North Korea a Fully Fledged Nuclear Power
N. Korea May Restart Nuclear Plant in Months
U.N. Deadlock Over N. Korean Rocket Apparently Easing
Japan Strengthens Sanctions Against N. Korea After Rocket Launch
World Eyes Frail Kim Jong Il at North Korea Parliament
North Korean Media: Kim Jong-Il Sobbed During Rocket Launch
First Images of N. Korea Rocket Launch Revealed
N. Korea Rocket Passes Over Japan Without Incident
U.N. Security Council to Hold Emergency Session Over N. Korea Launch
Report: North Korea Turns on Radars, Removes Top Part of the Rocket
North Korea Tracked Closely Ahead of Possible Saturday Rocket Launch
South Korea: North May Launch Rocket Saturday
N. Korea Fueling Rocket in Final Preparation for Launch
N. Korea Threatens to Retaliate With 'Thunderbolt of Fire'
N. Korea 'Will Mercilessly Shoot Down' U.S. Spy Planes
Reports: Iran Experts Aiding North Korea Rocket Launch
Admiral: North Korea Rocket Could Reach Hawaii
Pictures Emerge of N. Korea Launchpad as Warships Move Into Area
Japan Issues Order to 'Destroy' N. Korea Rocket
North Korea Threatens to Restart Nuke Program Over Rocket Launch Sanctions
Japan Readies Crisis Steps for North Korea Missile
FAST FACTS: A Glance at North Korea's Missile Arsenal
U.S.: North Korea Loading Rocket on Launchpad
N. Korea Reasserts Right to Satellite Launch
Intelligence Officials: North Korea's 'Satellite' Is Long-Range Missile
Official Says North Korea is Month Away From Launching Missile or Rocket
North Korea Bans IAEA From Yongbyon Nuclear Facilities
Reports: North Korea Fires Short-Range Missile Into Yellow Sea
Photo Essays
North Korea Missile Plan
North Korea Missiles
The Interfax source made clear Russia has not finally made up its mind on the U.N. vote yet. "We should not subscribe to any specific option beforehand," the source said.
However, the Tass source indicated Russia could back sanctions.
"The (U.N. Security Council) resolution is most likely to involve sanction-like measures," he said. "The U.N. Security Council is engaged in a tough work."
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Happy to see California Supreme Court actually did the right thing.
I am speaking of Prop 8 of course. I thought with all the liberal special interest money out there rallying against this law or Ban on Gay marriage that the Liberal judges would determine the law passed by the PEOPLE to be unconstitutional. I was pleasantly surprised that wasn't the case. Whether you are for something or against something doesn't give you the right as part of the MINORITY to change a law the people have passed. For so many years California has been overturning things in court that shouldn't have even been heard. It's just a nice change to see that Judges weren't MAKING laws this time and instead inforcing the voice of THE PEOPLE.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Take a Stand against high Gas Prices....
Live frugally and stay close to home on holidays and during the summer months. Demand needs to come down but refineries at the same time need to increase reserves and production. We are heading into Hurricane Season and reserves need to increase as well as production to prepare in case rigs and refineries are damaged by Storm weather later on in the season. Plan ahead people. This happens every year. The soaring gas prices a year or so ago actually started our spiral downward.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Barack has to take a stand against Pelosi
Debs says: "ASK FOR THE WITCHES RESIGNATION. She isn't qualified to be in such a position anyway.
She should climb on her broomstick and fly back to her corrupt San Francisco, where people on the left can say or do anything they wish and only the Conservatives are flogged."
Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence
Wednesday, May 20th 2009, 4:00 AM
He's the man with the silver tongue, "a gift," as he once called his inspired ability with words. Yet while a heated battle with national security implications rages around him, President Obama has pushed his mute button.
It's been six days since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went wiggy and accused the Central Intelligence Agency of repeatedly lying to her and others in Congress, saying "they mislead us all the time."
But Obama has not said a single word on the subject. His press secretary has brushed off efforts by reporters to learn whether Obama agrees with fellow Democrat Pelosi or with Leon Panetta, his CIA director.
Panetta, a former Democratic congressman himself, forcefully rejected Pelosi's charges, which, if true, would constitute serious crimes.
Republicans are happy campers, with Pelosi's televised rant providing a welcome break from their own problems. GOP House leader John Boehner, partisan motivations aside, is right when he challenges Pelosi either to offer evidence she was misled by the CIA on the waterboarding of terror detainees, or apologize to those trying to keep America safe.
Pelosi's refusal to budge is Obama's cue to get involved. He must come to the defense of the CIA or explain why he thinks Pelosi has a case.
Silence is not an option. The stakes are too high for the President to take a pass.
In political terms, Obama's desire to stay neutral is understandable. It's a no-win situation, with Pelosi holding the fate of his numerous pieces of sweeping legislation.
He would also pay a price for alienating the CIA by backing Pelosi. The spook-and-dagger crowd is well known for getting even with Presidents it doesn't like - see George W. Bush - and it takes only one disgruntled agent to leak unflattering information.
Yet the presidency is more than just our politician in chief. And the sweeping nature of Pelosi's charges, coming while we are at war with an enemy that vows to attack us again, demands Obama's voice and judgment. We cannot afford to have a demoralized CIA.
If he doubts the seriousness, Obama need only review Pelosi's shocking claims. She said she had attended a CIA briefing in September 2002, where "the only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed."
The CIA disputes that, saying it told her the interrogation technique had been used. Panetta issued a confirming report, citing agency notes.
Curiously, Pelosi does admit she learned from an aide in early 2003 that waterboarding had been used, but never once complained to the CIA or the White House about a technique she calls torture. At the time, she was the top leader of House Democrats, so her complaints could have made a difference.
Some of Pelosi's theatrics heighten the need for Obama's involvement. In what struck me as a partisan fixation bordering on paranoia, Pelosi ranted in an "us against them" way that was disturbing: "This is their policy, all of them. This is their policy. This is what they conceived. This is what they developed. This is what they implemented. This is what they denied was happening."
Later, with reporters questioning her honesty, she tried to turn the tables on the unnamed bogeymen again. "They mislead us all the time. I was fighting the war in Iraq at that point, too, you know, saying to my members the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that they are conceding. . . . They misrepresented every step of the way. And they don't want that focus on them. So they try to turn the attention on us. We had to win the election to make the change."
Indeed, Democrats won two elections in a row and Obama sits in the Oval Office.
That responsibility demands his leadership on this sordid mess.Read more: "Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence" - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html#ixzz0G8xv6wKK&A
Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence
Wednesday, May 20th 2009, 4:00 AM
He's the man with the silver tongue, "a gift," as he once called his inspired ability with words. Yet while a heated battle with national security implications rages around him, President Obama has pushed his mute button.
It's been six days since House Speaker Nancy Pelosi went wiggy and accused the Central Intelligence Agency of repeatedly lying to her and others in Congress, saying "they mislead us all the time."
But Obama has not said a single word on the subject. His press secretary has brushed off efforts by reporters to learn whether Obama agrees with fellow Democrat Pelosi or with Leon Panetta, his CIA director.
Panetta, a former Democratic congressman himself, forcefully rejected Pelosi's charges, which, if true, would constitute serious crimes.
Republicans are happy campers, with Pelosi's televised rant providing a welcome break from their own problems. GOP House leader John Boehner, partisan motivations aside, is right when he challenges Pelosi either to offer evidence she was misled by the CIA on the waterboarding of terror detainees, or apologize to those trying to keep America safe.
Pelosi's refusal to budge is Obama's cue to get involved. He must come to the defense of the CIA or explain why he thinks Pelosi has a case.
Silence is not an option. The stakes are too high for the President to take a pass.
In political terms, Obama's desire to stay neutral is understandable. It's a no-win situation, with Pelosi holding the fate of his numerous pieces of sweeping legislation.
He would also pay a price for alienating the CIA by backing Pelosi. The spook-and-dagger crowd is well known for getting even with Presidents it doesn't like - see George W. Bush - and it takes only one disgruntled agent to leak unflattering information.
Yet the presidency is more than just our politician in chief. And the sweeping nature of Pelosi's charges, coming while we are at war with an enemy that vows to attack us again, demands Obama's voice and judgment. We cannot afford to have a demoralized CIA.
If he doubts the seriousness, Obama need only review Pelosi's shocking claims. She said she had attended a CIA briefing in September 2002, where "the only mention of waterboarding at that briefing was that it was not being employed."
The CIA disputes that, saying it told her the interrogation technique had been used. Panetta issued a confirming report, citing agency notes.
Curiously, Pelosi does admit she learned from an aide in early 2003 that waterboarding had been used, but never once complained to the CIA or the White House about a technique she calls torture. At the time, she was the top leader of House Democrats, so her complaints could have made a difference.
Some of Pelosi's theatrics heighten the need for Obama's involvement. In what struck me as a partisan fixation bordering on paranoia, Pelosi ranted in an "us against them" way that was disturbing: "This is their policy, all of them. This is their policy. This is what they conceived. This is what they developed. This is what they implemented. This is what they denied was happening."
Later, with reporters questioning her honesty, she tried to turn the tables on the unnamed bogeymen again. "They mislead us all the time. I was fighting the war in Iraq at that point, too, you know, saying to my members the intelligence does not support the imminent threat that they are conceding. . . . They misrepresented every step of the way. And they don't want that focus on them. So they try to turn the attention on us. We had to win the election to make the change."
Indeed, Democrats won two elections in a row and Obama sits in the Oval Office.
That responsibility demands his leadership on this sordid mess.Read more: "Barack, get off the fence: Pelosi's accusations against the CIA can no longer be met with silence" - http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/columnists/goodwin/index.html#ixzz0G8xv6wKK&A
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
Will Credit Cards reconsider rate hikes on good customers?
I am hoping. I was given notice yesterday via mail that my Capital One card was going to be raising my rate by 4 percent in July. All I can do is opt out of this change if I don't like it which means ruining my credit score, by making me look like more of a risk or I can go along with the rate change and just pay down my card as I have been anyway but now having a higer rate and payments. Doesn't really seem fair when GOOD CUSTOMERS are getting these greed fees tacked on their accounts when all they have been doing is paying their card as agreed. I pay on time and over my minimums every month and still get rewarded with a 4 percent increase in my interest rates. NICE! NOT!!!!
I know Congress is trying to help but once again.. They are not helping the people that are good customers and didn't mess up their credit or not pay their bills. They are helping those who have defaulted and don't seem to care that the folks who have been paying their bills on time every month and haven't ever gone over their limits or defaulted in any way are getting screwed paying higher interest rates and any tacked on fees they might throw at us in a particular month.
I am not opting out because that hurts me. I could keep the interest rate I have and would pay down my card at that rate but the account would be closed and my credit score would shoot down 100 pts just like that through no fault of my own. IS THIS FAIR? I think not!
I know Congress is trying to help but once again.. They are not helping the people that are good customers and didn't mess up their credit or not pay their bills. They are helping those who have defaulted and don't seem to care that the folks who have been paying their bills on time every month and haven't ever gone over their limits or defaulted in any way are getting screwed paying higher interest rates and any tacked on fees they might throw at us in a particular month.
I am not opting out because that hurts me. I could keep the interest rate I have and would pay down my card at that rate but the account would be closed and my credit score would shoot down 100 pts just like that through no fault of my own. IS THIS FAIR? I think not!
Monday, May 18, 2009
RISING GAS PRICES
Why? Refineries need to be boosting supplies, not stiffling them. This is the summer, places on the East Coast and around the Gulf need to have back up supplies in case of hurricanes etc. We go through this BS every year. The cost of Gasoline is what helped along the fall of the economy last year. People were putting their bills in a hat and deciding what got paid that way. When Gasoline is 3 and 4 dollars a gallon, we are all curbing how much we can actually be in the car. People were deciding to pay for gasoline to get them to their jobs instead of paying for their meds and their food and even their house payments in some instances. Don't let that happen again Mr. Obama. WE all know you suck but you can protect us from this crap happening again. DO IT! Stop the gouging and the speculation over oil and allow the refineries to pump more supply so we don't have to depend on foreign countries for it again and agree to their pricing. WE can' afford that. In case you haven't heard.. unemployment numbers, Foreclosure numbers and inflation are all up right now.. ON YOUR WATCH OBAMA. Do something about it.!!!!
Help the common folk to fill up their tanks for less than their car payments. Help people to get to work and keep taking their medicine and pay all their bills. Having such a big chunk come out for Gas expense just isn't fair or planned on. Can't be planned on. I have watched our gas prices here go from just over 2.00 just a month ago to a high here of 2.69... In a month.... That is insane!!! Do something about it now... Not when people are hurting even more. We know you don't have to worry about paying for gas for your Obama mobiles or airplanes or helicopters but the rest of us don't think we are Princes or live like one.
Help the common folk to fill up their tanks for less than their car payments. Help people to get to work and keep taking their medicine and pay all their bills. Having such a big chunk come out for Gas expense just isn't fair or planned on. Can't be planned on. I have watched our gas prices here go from just over 2.00 just a month ago to a high here of 2.69... In a month.... That is insane!!! Do something about it now... Not when people are hurting even more. We know you don't have to worry about paying for gas for your Obama mobiles or airplanes or helicopters but the rest of us don't think we are Princes or live like one.
Monday, May 11, 2009
OBAMA POLL RESULTS
Thank you for taking the poll:
Do You Support President Obama?. The poll results are listed below.Special note: The poll results may include data for questions that were not included on the poll that you took.
Do You Support President Obama? (103,618 Respondents)
What is your opinion of Barack Obama?
Favorable
35,704 (27.23%)
Unfavorable
95,421 (72.77%)
Do you currently support President Obama's domestic policy agenda?
Yes
33,033 (25.33%)
No
97,352 (74.67%)
Do you currently support President Obama's foreign policy agenda?
Yes
34,109 (26.22%)
No
95,958 (73.78%)
Describe your view of President Obama since the election:
More conservative than I expected
5,401 (4.13%)
More liberal than I expected
38,809 (29.65%)
Just about what I expected
86,684 (66.22%)
Do you want President Obama to succeed?
Yes
59,111 (45.86%)
No
69,795 (54.14%)
Who did you vote for in 2008?
McCain
83,514 (64.45%)
Other
13,563 (10.47%)
Obama
32,493 (25.08%)
Do You Support President Obama?. The poll results are listed below.Special note: The poll results may include data for questions that were not included on the poll that you took.
Do You Support President Obama? (103,618 Respondents)
What is your opinion of Barack Obama?
Favorable
35,704 (27.23%)
Unfavorable
95,421 (72.77%)
Do you currently support President Obama's domestic policy agenda?
Yes
33,033 (25.33%)
No
97,352 (74.67%)
Do you currently support President Obama's foreign policy agenda?
Yes
34,109 (26.22%)
No
95,958 (73.78%)
Describe your view of President Obama since the election:
More conservative than I expected
5,401 (4.13%)
More liberal than I expected
38,809 (29.65%)
Just about what I expected
86,684 (66.22%)
Do you want President Obama to succeed?
Yes
59,111 (45.86%)
No
69,795 (54.14%)
Who did you vote for in 2008?
McCain
83,514 (64.45%)
Other
13,563 (10.47%)
Obama
32,493 (25.08%)
Friday, May 8, 2009
Michael Savage fighting back about BS PC Ban
US radio presenter Michael Savage, who has been placed on a list of people banned from entering the UK, describes himself as an "explosive conservative radio talk show host".
A so-called "shock jock", Savage hosts a nationally-syndicated right-wing talk show, The Savage Nation, reaching an estimated eight million US listeners a week.
That makes Savage - real name Michael Alan Weiner - the third most popular radio host in the US.
Savage's self-described "brash commentary and unapologetic solutions" are carried across US airwaves by hundreds of radio channels from his home station, KNEW in San Francisco.
Brash commentary
In his 10 years at the helm of The Savage Nation show, he has offended groups including gays, Muslims, women and immigrants - to name a few.
The 67-year-old has urged Americans to "burn the Mexican flag on your street corner" and attacked autistic children as "brats" in need of discipline.
He has also described the Islamic holy book the Koran as "a book of hate" and told Muslims: "Take your religion and shove it up your behind."
He later defended the remarks on autism and Muslims as having been taken out of context.
He was fired in 2003 after a brief stint at US cable TV channel MSNBC for saying on air to a caller: "You should only get Aids and die, you pig!" He later apologised.
The remarks have sparked angry protests from rights groups on several occasions, and even prompted some advertisers and radio stations to pull out of his shows.
Hitting back
The conservative political commentator has lashed out at his critics in the past, setting his lawyers on the US-based Islamic advocacy group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and suing the University of California for rejecting a job application. Both cases were later dropped.
Now that he has been included in a list of 22 people banned from the UK for fostering extremism and hate, he has threatened to sue the British government for defamation.
A scientist by training, Savage holds two Masters degrees in botany and anthropology. He also got a doctorate in nutritional ethno-medicine from the University of California at Berkeley in 1978.
Savage has authored some 18 books - both as Michael Weiner and Michael Savage - on topics that range from nutrition and alternative medicine to beer and politics.
His political book, The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture, reached the top of the New York Times best-seller list.
Savage, who grew up in the Bronx in New York, now lives in San Francisco with his second wife. They have two children
A so-called "shock jock", Savage hosts a nationally-syndicated right-wing talk show, The Savage Nation, reaching an estimated eight million US listeners a week.
That makes Savage - real name Michael Alan Weiner - the third most popular radio host in the US.
Savage's self-described "brash commentary and unapologetic solutions" are carried across US airwaves by hundreds of radio channels from his home station, KNEW in San Francisco.
Brash commentary
In his 10 years at the helm of The Savage Nation show, he has offended groups including gays, Muslims, women and immigrants - to name a few.
The 67-year-old has urged Americans to "burn the Mexican flag on your street corner" and attacked autistic children as "brats" in need of discipline.
He has also described the Islamic holy book the Koran as "a book of hate" and told Muslims: "Take your religion and shove it up your behind."
He later defended the remarks on autism and Muslims as having been taken out of context.
He was fired in 2003 after a brief stint at US cable TV channel MSNBC for saying on air to a caller: "You should only get Aids and die, you pig!" He later apologised.
The remarks have sparked angry protests from rights groups on several occasions, and even prompted some advertisers and radio stations to pull out of his shows.
Hitting back
The conservative political commentator has lashed out at his critics in the past, setting his lawyers on the US-based Islamic advocacy group the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and suing the University of California for rejecting a job application. Both cases were later dropped.
Now that he has been included in a list of 22 people banned from the UK for fostering extremism and hate, he has threatened to sue the British government for defamation.
A scientist by training, Savage holds two Masters degrees in botany and anthropology. He also got a doctorate in nutritional ethno-medicine from the University of California at Berkeley in 1978.
Savage has authored some 18 books - both as Michael Weiner and Michael Savage - on topics that range from nutrition and alternative medicine to beer and politics.
His political book, The Savage Nation: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Borders, Language and Culture, reached the top of the New York Times best-seller list.
Savage, who grew up in the Bronx in New York, now lives in San Francisco with his second wife. They have two children
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
This is very interesting. I invite you to listen to "the other side" argument against Global warming. This man wasn't permitted to speak in front of congress and present his FACTS congress or the American people. It would have made Chubby Gore look like an ignorant lunatic.
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5614
http://michaelsavage.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=5614
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
"Grandma" Reflections of a Granddaughter
GRANDMA
I wanted you all to know how my grandmother Betty was when we were all young. In short, she was the BEST! She and grandpa were pretty much perfect grandparents. I was born in 1960 to Jack, her only son, and Judy. I was pretty much spoiled rotten by my grandparents as I was the first baby. I had them to myself for 5 years before my sister Heather made her debut. Then came Brother Chris, followed several years later by Sister Julie. I have only good memories of my childhood as do my siblings. It's very much because of having my grandparents in our lives and so close to us back then. I feel extremely lucky to have had them live in the next town over and get to see them so often. We saw them ALL THE TIME.
I remember going to grams office (liberty Mutual) where she would proudly show off her grandchildren to her co workers. She loved us to death and would do anything for us. I remember all the weekends and holidays we spent together and all the New Years Eves we spent together staying up late, having shirley temples and icecream and watching the ball drop at Midnight. I especially remember the Lake property and spending most of our summers there with our grandparents. They would make everything special. I remember Grandmas Grilled cheese sandwiches and the simplest things always tasted better because she made them for us. I remember my wedding day (first time around) She was standing in the bathroom door as I finished getting ready... With tears and a smile and gave me a big hug and said... You won't be Debbie Olson after today. I will always be Debbie Olson though. We smiled and cried a bit . I remember the first time she met my first born baby girl. Jennifer was 2 months old when we traveled to NY. Gram and Grandpa were visiting my parents. Gram was the first one to run out and meet us in the driveway and she took my baby girl in her arms and was totally happy.
These are the memories I will hold dear and absolutely cherish. There are so many more it would take albums and albums to hold them and tell you just what my grandparents mean to me and all of us. No one can or will ever take her place. She was one of a kind. She was Strong, Emotional, Giving, loving, Gentle yet not afraid to speak her mind for sure. She was honest and sincere and quite honestly... The best grandmother anyone could have had as a child, teen, young adult and now a middle aged lady. I miss you Gram. I always will. I love you!! Thank you for being my grandma.
Deb
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
