"temporarily...dysfunctional" prefers IE7

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

How Does Jewish Tradition View Proposition 8? Look at the Midrash for the Story of Noah, This Week's Torah Portion!

(Another perspective...Thanks to the "Kosher Hedgehog")

In Jewish tradition, the weekly Torah portion always has special significance for the week in which it is read.
Therefore it is undoubtedly not coincidental that election day, Tuesday, November 4, the day that Proposition 8 appears on the ballot in California, falls out in the week of Parshat Noach, the Torah portion that relates the story of Noah and the Flood.
The Midrash tells us, twice in fact:

"Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Yosef, 'The generation of the Flood was not wiped out until they wrote marriage documents for the union of a man to a male or to an animal.'"--Genesis Rabbah 26:5; Leviticus Rabbah 23:9.

"I know...we should have voted 'Yes' on Prop. 8. I guess we missed the boat on that one."

"A Call to Arms"

A flag to rally the troops and a call to arms.

"YES on Prop.8" Protect Marriage

Monday, October 27, 2008

"Operation Free Speech"
Vigilance and Technology = Arrests

Enough is enough. Determined proponents of Prop #8 help the police apprehend thieves. Yes (on Prop. 8)

"Yes on Prop. 8"
It's for our Children!!!

Friday, October 24, 2008

"Samuel the Lamanite" says...

Brian Andre from Irvine created this graphic.

(Brian is also the graphic designer who created the poster of the four candidates for Pres and VP who all said they support traditional marriage)

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?

By Orson Scott Card

Note: Orson Scott Card is a Democrat and a newspaper columnist, and in this opinion piece he takes on both while lamenting the current state of journalism.

An open letter to the local daily paper — almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor — which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house — along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of Congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting sub-prime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

As Thomas Sowell points out in a TownHall.com essay entitled "Do Facts Matter?" ( http://snipurl.com/457townhall_com ): "Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury."

These are facts. This financial crisis was completely preventable. The party that blocked any attempt to prevent it was ... the Democratic Party. The party that tried to prevent it was ... the Republican Party.

Yet when Nancy Pelosi accused the Bush administration and Republican deregulation of causing the crisis, you in the press did not hold her to account for her lie. Instead, you criticized Republicans who took offense at this lie and refused to vote for the bailout!

What? It's not the liar, but the victims of the lie who are to blame?

Now let's follow the money ... right to the presidential candidate who is the number-two recipient of campaign contributions from Fannie Mae.

And after Freddie Raines, the CEO of Fannie Mae who made $90 million while running it into the ground, was fired for his incompetence, one presidential candidate's campaign actually consulted him for advice on housing.

If that presidential candidate had been John McCain, you would have called it a major scandal and we would be getting stories in your paper every day about how incompetent and corrupt he was.

But instead, that candidate was Barack Obama, and so you have buried this story, and when the McCain campaign dared to call Raines an "adviser" to the Obama campaign — because that campaign had sought his advice — you actually let Obama's people get away with accusing McCain of lying, merely because Raines wasn't listed as an official adviser to the Obama campaign.

You would never tolerate such weasely nit-picking from a Republican.

If you who produce our local daily paper actually had any principles, you would be pounding this story, because the prosperity of all Americans was put at risk by the foolish, short-sighted, politically selfish, and possibly corrupt actions of leading Democrats, including Obama.

If you who produce our local daily paper had any personal honor, you would find it unbearable to let the American people believe that somehow Republicans were to blame for this crisis.

There are precedents. Even though President Bush and his administration never said that Iraq sponsored or was linked to 9/11, you could not stand the fact that Americans had that misapprehension — so you pounded us with the fact that there was no such link. (Along the way, you created the false impression that Bush had lied to them and said that there was a connection.)

If you had any principles, then surely right now, when the American people are set to blame President Bush and John McCain for a crisis they tried to prevent, and are actually shifting to approve of Barack Obama because of a crisis he helped cause, you would be laboring at least as hard to correct that false impression.

Your job, as journalists, is to tell the truth. That's what you claim you do, when you accept people's money to buy or subscribe to your paper.

But right now, you are consenting to or actively promoting a big fat lie — that the housing crisis should somehow be blamed on Bush, McCain, and the Republicans. You have trained the American people to blame everything bad — even bad weather — on Bush, and they are responding as you have taught them to.

If you had any personal honor, each reporter and editor would be insisting on telling the truth — even if it hurts the election chances of your favorite candidate.

Because that's what honorable people do. Honest people tell the truth even when they don't like the probable consequences. That's what honesty means . That's how trust is earned.

Barack Obama is just another politician, and not a very wise one. He has revealed his ignorance and naivete time after time — and you have swept it under the rug, treated it as nothing.

Meanwhile, you have participated in the borking of Sarah Palin, reporting savage attacks on her for the pregnancy of her unmarried daughter — while you ignored the story of John Edwards's own adultery for many months.

So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.

It's not too late. You know that if the situation were reversed, and the truth would damage McCain and help Obama, you would be moving heaven and earth to get the true story out there.

If you want to redeem your honor, you will swallow hard and make a list of all the stories you would print if it were McCain who had been getting money from Fannie Mae, McCain whose campaign had consulted with its discredited former CEO, McCain who had voted against tightening its lending practices.

Then you will print them, even though every one of those true stories will point the finger of blame at the reckless Democratic Party, which put our nation's prosperity at risk so they could feel good about helping the poor, and lay a fair share of the blame at Obama's door.

You will also tell the truth about John McCain: that he tried, as a Senator, to do what it took to prevent this crisis. You will tell the truth about President Bush: that his administration tried more than once to get Congress to regulate lending in a responsible way.

This was a Congress-caused crisis, beginning during the Clinton administration, with Democrats leading the way into the crisis and blocking every effort to get out of it in a timely fashion.

If you at our local daily newspaper continue to let Americans believe — and vote as if — President Bush and the Republicans caused the crisis, then you are joining in that lie.

If you do not tell the truth about the Democrats — including Barack Obama — and do so with the same energy you would use if the miscreants were Republicans — then you are not journalists by any standard.

You're just the public relations machine of the Democratic Party, and it's time you were all fired and real journalists brought in, so that we can actually have a news paper in our city.

This article first appeared in The Rhinoceros Times of Greensboro, North Carolina

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Proposition 8: Who's Really Lying?

Here is a press release from Chip White of protectmarriage.com. It is kind of a long read but very revealing as to the opposition's claim that our Ads are full of lies and mis-information. If you got a couple of minutes, read it and let me know what you think.

Subject: Proposition 8: Who's Really Lying?Date:
Thu, 16 Oct 2008 12:15:38 -0700

Memorandum Contact: Chip White
For Immediate Release
October 16, 2008

Proposition 8: Who’s Really Lying?

Public Records Show Proposition 8 Opponents Want Gay Marriage To Be Taught In Public Schools – ‘The earlier the better.’
Sacramento -- The top issue that has emerged in the Proposition 8 campaign is whether same-sex marriage will be taught in California public schools if the initiative is not enacted.
Opponents of Proposition 8 are spending millions of dollars on television commercials telling voters that the Yes on 8 campaign’s claim that gay marriage will be taught in public schools is a lie.
Yet a review of public records filed with the First District Court of Appeal in Boston shows these same organizations who claim our statement is a lie fought to make it true in Massachusetts. Specifically, they fought to ensure that gay marriage be taught in Massachusetts public schools, even over the objection of parents who sought an “opt out” for their children.
Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.
Further, their assurance that parents can always “opt-out” of such instruction when it is taught is belied by the fact that in Massachusetts, they argued successfully that Massachusetts’ parental opt-out provision should not be permitted.
“These damning public records show that it is in fact the organizations leading and financing the No on 8 campaign who are lying to California voters,” said Yes on 8 campaign manager Frank Schubert.
“On one coast of the country they tell judges that gay marriage should be taught to children in school at the youngest possible age.
But, on the opposite coast, here in California, they have the audacity to tell voters that gay marriage has nothing to do with public schools.”
Lying…who’s really lying?
The Yes on 8 campaign has been airing television and radio commercials factually presenting what happened in Massachusetts where second graders were taught in class about gay marriage using the book, “King and King.”
This book is about a prince who married another prince, and includes an illustrated scene of the two men kissing.
In response, the No on 8 campaign has purchased at least $1.25 million in television time to run an ad that says, “They’re using lies to persuade you…[Prop. 8] will not affect teaching in schools.
Another lie.” (Source: No on Prop. 8 Ad available at www.noonprop8.com)
In the greatest irony, of course, just two days after the No on 8 “Lies” television commercial began airing, a first grade public school class in San Francisco was taken on a field trip to a lesbian wedding at City Hall, officiated by Mayor Gavin Newsom.
School officials said they wished to provide their five and six year old students a “teachable moment.”
It should also be noted that the day after the first Yes on 8 ads began running, the Los Angeles Times reported that "Newsom called the (Yes on 8) ad 'classic distraction' and misleading."
Ten days later, he officiated at the above-mentioned and now infamous field trip.
“Not only do the organizations leading the No on 8 campaign want gay marriage, under the guise of ‘diversity,’ taught in public schools, they believe it is important to teach it at the earliest possible age,” Schubert said.
Massachusetts begins its “diversity education” to five year old children in kindergarten.
According to legal records on file with the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in Boston, Massachusetts in the case Parker v. Hurley (514 F.3d 87 (1st Cir.2008)),
some of the very organizations who are funding and driving the No on 8 campaign have argued vociferously that gay marriage should be taught in the public schools under the guise of “diversity,”
and any attempt to prohibit such instruction –
or to permit parents to opt their children out of it – must be stopped.
The following are statements filed in amicus curiae briefs in Parker v. Hurley.
The statements show how organizations leading the No on 8 campaign are lying to California voters when they say gay marriage will not be taught in California public schools.
From the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Amicus Curiae Brief: “In the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, where the right of same-sex couples to marry is protected under the state constitution, it is particularly important to teach children about families with gay parents.”
[p 5]“Diversity education is most effective when it begins during the students’ formative years.
The earlier diversity education occurs, the more likely it is that students will be able to educate their peers, thereby compounding the benefits of this instruction.”
[p 3](Note: The ADL is a leading member of the No on 8 campaign, and publicly announced they had joined the campaign opposing Proposition 8 on September 9, 2008.)
From the Human Rights Campaign Amicus Curiae Brief:
“There is no constitutional principle grounded in either the First Amendment’s free exercise clause or the right to direct the upbringing of one’s children, which requires defendants to either remove the books now in issue –
or to treat them as suspect by imposing an opt-out system.” [pp1-2]
“In short, there can be no serious dispute that the books in issue are both age-appropriate and reflect the growing diversity of American families.” [p 9]
“Lexington’s selection of the [three] books…for inclusion in its curriculum is firmly rooted in the long-recognized tradition of public schools as a place for disseminating the knowledge and information that helps to foster understanding between diverse groups and individuals for the overall benefit of society.” [p 13]
(Note: The Human Rights Campaign has organized one of the largest recipient committees to oppose Proposition 8.
The committee, Human Rights Campaign CA Marriage PAC (ID# 1307246) has received more than $2.2 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including over $100,000 from the Human Rights Campaign itself in non-monetary contributions.
The committee has funneled over $2 million of its funds to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
From the ACLU Amicus Curiae Brief:“Specifically, the parents in this case do not have a constitutional right to override the professional pedagogical judgment of the school with respect to the inclusion within the curriculum of the age-appropriate children’s book…King and King.” [p 9]
“This court has astutely recognized that a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would fatally compromise the ability of a school to provide a meaningful education, a conclusion that holds true regardless of the age of the child or the nature of the belief.” [p 18]
“First, a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would subject a school to a staggering administrative burden…
Second, in contravention of the axiom that ‘the classroom is peculiarly the ‘marketplace of ideas’’ [citations], a broad right of a parent to opt a child out of a lesson would chill discussion in the classroom…
Third, the coming and goings of those children who have been opted out of lessons would be highly disruptive to the learning environment.
Moreover, such comings and goings would fatally undermine the lessons that schools teach the other students.”
[pp 22-23](Note: The Northern California Chapter of the ACLU has also formed a Proposition 8 opposition committee:
No on Prop 8, Campaign for Marriage Equality, a project of the ACLU of Northern California (ID# 1308178).
This committee has collected $1.6 million in contributions (as of 10/8/08), including more than $70,000 from the ACLU of northern California, as well as $8,000 from the ACLU Foundation.
This committee has contributed $1,250,000 to No on 8, Equality for All (ID# 1259396), the main No on Proposition 8 campaign committee.)
These are the facts.
This is the truth about the calculated efforts to deliver gay marriage into our public school classrooms, against the wishes of the people of our state.
Voters may differ about how they feel about gay marriage, but there is no disputing that the organizations funding and leading the No on Proposition 8 campaign have already revealed, in their own words, their desire to impose this subject on children in the public schools –
‘whether you like it or not.’


Northern & Central California (Sacramento Press Office): Chip White
Los Angeles & Southern California: Sonja Eddings Brown
Protect Marriage, 915 L Street, # C-259, Sacramento, CA 95814
To be removed from our mailing list, please send an email to info@ProtectMarriage.com.
For more information, visit http://www.protectmarriage.com/
Paid for of California Renewal. 915 L Street, #C-259, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Major funding by Knights of Columbus, National Organization for Marriage California Committee and Focus on the Family.

Friday, October 10, 2008

cute..CUTE! Hats - Scarves - fingerless Gloves

That little nip in the air gives us just cause to bring out our favorite CUTE Hats, Scarves and even fingerless Gloves!

Yarnlovertn - Custom Knit and Crochet Accessories
is just the place to shop!

Thursday, October 9, 2008

I LOVE Pumpkin! - 2 Great Recipes

THANK YOU! Crystal at "Everyday Food Storage"!!!
Wonderful! Wonderful! recipes!

Out of This World Pumpkin Cookies

Whole Wheat Pumpkin Cookies

2 C. Whole Wheat Flour
1 C. Oats (quick, uncooked)
1 t. Baking Soda
1/2 t. Salt
3/4 C. Butter
1 C. Firmly packed brown sugar
1/2 C. Sugar
1 Egg (1 T. dry powdered egg + 2 T. Water)
1 t. Vanilla
1 C. Pumpkin
1 t. Pumpkin Pie Seasoning
1/2-1 C. Butterscotch or Chocolate Chips

Pre-heat oven to 350 degress.
Cream the butter, add the sugars (beat together until fluffy.
Add egg and vanilla. Combine all dry ingredients in a separate bowl.
Alternate between dry ingredients and pumpkin.
Add chips.
Drop by rounded tablespoonfuls and bak for 10-12 minutes.

Whole Wheat Pumpkin Bread

Whole Wheat Pumpkin Bread

1 cup canned pumpkin
1 cup white sugar
1/2 cup firmly packed brown sugar
3 egg whites (or 2 T. dryPowdered Egg + 1/4 C. Water)
1/2 cup fat-free milk (1-1/2 T. Dry Powdered Milk + 1/2 C. Water)
1/4 cup canola oil
2 cups whole wheat flour
2-1/2 tsp. Baking Powder
2 tsp. pumpkin pie spice
1/4 tsp. salt

PREHEAT oven to 350ºF.
Grease a nonstick 9x5-inch loaf pan; set aside.
Mix pumpkin, 1 cup granulated sugar, the brown sugar, 3 of the egg whites, milk and oil in large bowl.
Add flour, baking powder, pie spice and salt; stir just until moistened.

SPOON the pumpkin batter into prepared pan.

BAKE 1 hour to 1 hour 5 min. or until wooden toothpick inserted in center comes out clean.
Run knife or thin spatula around edges of pan to loosen bread;
cool in pan on wire rack 10 min.
Remove bread from pan to wire rack;
cool completely.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

6 Questions - Tag

"Editorializing" comes easy - answering personal questions is always very hard for me! - LOL

1) Six places that I go to over and over:
my Tempur-pedic and 1 of 2 comfy chairs - giggle

2) Six people who e-mail me regularly:
DH, jarca(my sister Rachael), Bro. Ewer (best jokes! LOL), DIL Miglet, all my kids and grandkids - smile

3) Six of my favorite places to eat:
Home (DH is a GREAT cook!), Arby's Mozzarella sticks; delivery from Pizza Hut or Chinese, occasionally The Lodge (their Prime Rib is to die for!) and El Charro's

4) Six places I would rather be right now:
at the Temple; someplace nice with DH; at my sister's; in the mountains; Wal-Mart/Costco(giggle); just driving

5) Six people I think will respond:
I think all my peeps are ahead of me!

6) Six TV shows I watch:
anything on HGTV; Jon and Kate + 8; 17 and Counting; The Closer; Burn Notice; Top Chef

Monday, October 6, 2008

Why California NEEDS to Vote YES on Prop 8!

What happened in Massachusetts will happen here, too!

Please take the 7 minutes to view this video.
It shows first hand what will happen to parents' rights if we don't amend the California constitution to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.

California already voted on this issue and the people have spoken...
but four judges with personal agendas decided they knew better???!!!

Whether we like it or not, we have to fight YET AGAIN.
Please vote YES ON PROP 8!

Thank you, Megan

The Home Is the Most Significant Classroom

thoughts from: Family Gems

The Home Is the Most Significant Classroom

"Perhaps most significant of all classrooms is the classroom of the home.
It is in the home that we form our attitudes, our deeply held beliefs.
It is in the home that hope is fostered or destroyed.
Our homes are the laboratories of our lives.
What we do there determines the course of our lives when we leave home.
Dr. Stuart E. Rosenberg wrote in his book The Road to Confidence,
'Despite all new inventions and modern designs, fads and fetishes, no one has yet invented, or will ever invent, a satisfying substitute for one's own family.' "

Thomas S. Monson, "Precious Children--A Gift from God," Ensign, Nov. 1991, 68

Thursday, October 2, 2008

Behind the BURST of the HOUSING BUBBLE

OR -"Julie is NOT a very happy person today!!"

Could YOU get a home loan today???
Do you want to know really why you might not be able to?!

Please watch this video to the end.
It may (or may not) change your mind...

Thank megs - ((HUGS))

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Why I will Vote YES on California's Prop. 8


Bill May is the chairman of Catholics for the Common
Good, a nonpartisan Catholic organization focusing on issues related to the
social teachings of the Catholic Church. He wrote a wonderful article in the San
Francisco Chronicle that I would like you to read. It is titled "Prop. 8
protects rights of those who support traditional marriage".

Bill May

Wednesday, October 1, 2008

Proposition #8 isn't just about the
rights of loving and committed gay couples.
If that were the issue, Proposition 8 wouldn't be on the state ballot. All
Californians respect the right of gay couples to live the lifestyle they choose
and to enjoy the same legal protections of every citizen. California's laws,
including our expansive domestic partnership statutes, already provide every
legal right to gay couples that are provided to married spouses.

California Supreme Court's ruling last May gave birth to a broader perspective
on same-sex marriage, and that is how it affects the rest of society. That's why
Proposition 8 is on the ballot, and that is why we are working hard to pass it.

If the California Supreme Court's ruling is not overturned, then the
consequences facing voters are serious and real. First, it was wrong for a
narrow majority of the court to ignore the decision of more than 61 percent of
the electorate, more than 4 million voters, who decided that marriage should be
as it always has been - between a man and a woman. To ignore the will of the
voters, the court should find in unequivocal terms that the voters have done
something they cannot legally do. That was not the case here. This case hotly
divided the court and resulted in a narrow decision to overturn the voters' will
- not because what voters did was legally wrong, but because four judges decided
to change the meaning of the law to suit their own views.

Second, the
court elevated same-sex marriage to the highest legal class possible: a
protected class. That means when the rights of people opposed to same-sex
marriage on moral or religious grounds conflict with the rights of same-sex
couples, the courts will almost always side with same-sex couples because of the
protected class status conferred by the state Supreme Court. Even expressing a
view in opposition to same-sex marriage often exposes people to personal attack,
ostracism, and even threats of loss of employment for standing for what they
understand to be true about marriage.

This goes beyond acceptance and
tolerance. Many supporters of Proposition 8 are already experiencing these
pressures to some extent, but the ruling of the court clears the way for
lawsuits and further legislation to penalize people who do not cooperate with
the desires of same-sex couples.

Finally, perhaps the most profound
consequence will be to our children. California law provides for the teaching of
children about marriage. Under the court's ruling, they would have to be taught
that there is no distinction between the same-sex marriage and traditional
marriage, and it would be discriminatory to view them otherwise. This interferes
with a parent's right to teach their children the true meaning of marriage,
which is important to their futures. This is the case in Massachusetts, which
also legalized same-sex marriage. In one recent and famous case, a teacher
taught a second-grade class using a book recounting the story of a prince
marrying another prince, rather than a princess. Instructing young children
about same-sex marriage in school undermines the rights of parents to approach
this subject with their children on their own timetable and according to their
family's values and beliefs, religious or otherwise. This is a major concern to
California parents.

These are the issues that are fueling the views of
voters on this crucial issue. It is no wonder that supporters in every corner of
California are preparing to make their voices heard. Everything we as a people
hold dear is on the ballot.

Election 2008

To read The
Chronicle's endorsements on Prop. 8 and others on the Nov. 4 general election
ballot, go to sfgate.com/campaign2008/

Bill May