candy

Maybe. . we were supposed to meet the wrong people before meeting the right one so that, when we finally meet the right person, we will know how to be grateful for that gift.

Maybe . . . when the door of happiness closes, another opens; but, often times, we look so long at the closed door that we don't even see the new one which has been opened for us.

Maybe . .. . it is true that we don't know what we have until we lose it, but it is also true that we don't know what we have been missing until it arrives.

Maybe . .. . the happiest of people don't necessarily have the best of everything; they just make the most of everything that comes along their way.

Maybe . .. . the brightest future will always be based on a forgotten past; after all, you can't go on successfully in life until you let go of your past mistakes, failures and heartaches.

Maybe . .. . you should dream what you want to dream; go where you want to go, be what you want to be, because you have only one life and one chance to do all the things you dream of, and want to do.

Maybe . .. . there are moments in life when you miss someone -- a parent, a spouse, a friend, a child -- so much that you just want to pick them from your dreams and hug them for real, so that once they are around you appreciate them more.

Maybe . .. . the best kind of friend is the kind you can sit on a porch and swing with, never say a word, and then walk away feeling like it was the best conversation you've ever had.

Maybe . .. you should always try to put yourself in others' shoes. If you feel that something could hurt you, it probably will hurt the other person, too.

Maybe . .. you should do something nice for someone every single day, even if it is simply to leave them alone.

Maybe . .. giving someone all your love is never an assurance that they will love you back . Don't expect love in return; just wait for it to grow in their heart; but, if it doesn't, be content that it grew in yours.

Maybe . . . happiness waits for all those who cry, all those who hurt, all those who have searched, and all those who have tried, for only they can appreciate the importance of all the people who have touched their lives.

Maybe . .. . you shouldn't go for looks; they can deceive; don't go for wealth; even that fades away. Go for someone who makes you smile, because it takes only a smile to make a dark day seem bright. Find the one that makes your heart smile ..

Maybe . .. you should hope for enough happiness to make you sweet, enough trials to make you strong, enough sorrow to keep you human, and enough hope to make you happy

Maybe . .. . you should try to live your life to the fullest because when you were born, you were crying and everyone around you was smiling but when you die, you can be the one who is smiling and everyone around you crying. 

life is like a ripple in a pond, every action we take affects everything else in the pond... don't build your house on shifting sand!

'Be who you are and say what you feel...
Because those that matter...don't mind...
And those that mind...don't matter. '

  I have seen for quite some time that although we won the Cold War -- and defeated the Soviet communist empire -- America is vulnerable to varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, "creeping socialism" (Ronald Reagan's phrase), class-warfare rhetoric, and generally milder, more palatable (but still dangerous) forms of disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and truth about communism is not taught by our educators.   October 10, 2008 Why Obama's Communist Connections Are Not Headlines By Paul Kengor
There's a lot of frustration among conservatives over how Barack Obama's radical past seems to be making no impact whatsoever among the American public. His connection to communists in particular, from communist-terrorists like Bill Ayers to the communist agitator-journalist Frank Marshall Davis to fellow travelers like Saul Alinsky, has simply failed to resonate beyond the political right. Quite the contrary, the more information that becomes available on Obama's radical associations, the more he seems to widen his lead over John McCain, a man who was tortured by communists in Vietnam.

I understand these frustrations completely. I'm also not surprised.
I have seen for quite some time that although we won the Cold War -- and defeated the Soviet communist empire -- America is vulnerable to varying degrees of collectivism, wealth redistribution, "creeping socialism" (Ronald Reagan's phrase), class-warfare rhetoric, and generally milder, more palatable (but still dangerous) forms of disguised Marxism. Why? How? The answer is simple: The history and truth about communism is not taught by our educators.
That total failure to remind and understand means that Americans are painfully vulnerable to repeat mistakes that should have been forever tossed onto the ash-heap of history.
Communism and the Cold War has been my area of research for years. I've written books on the subject. I lecture on the subject at Grove City College and around the country. The book I'm currently researching with Peter Schweizer is a Cold War book, which, ironically, inevitably brought us into contact with Marxist characters who allied with and even mentored Barack Obama.
Of all the lectures that I do around the country, none seem to rivet the audience as much as my discourse on the horrors of communism. In these lectures, which are usually connected to my books on Ronald Reagan, I do a 10-15 minute backgrounder on the crimes of communists-from their militant attacks on private property, on members of all religious faiths, and on basic civil liberties, to their total death toll of over 100 million bloodied, emaciated corpses in the 20th century.

As I do these presentations, the young people, especially on college campuses, are locked in, amazed at what they are hearing. I think they are especially struck that I always ground every fact and figure in reliable research and authorities -- books published by Harvard University Press and Yale University Press, quotes from the likes of Mikhail Gorbachev and Vaclav Havel and Alexander Yakovlev, anti-Soviet appraisals from certain Cold War Democrats like Harry Truman and John F. Kennedy and even early liberals like Woodrow Wilson. I rarely use right-wing sources because I don't want the professors of these students to be able to later shoot a single hole in my presentation -- a potential tactic to undermine the overall thesis.
And speaking of those professors, that gets to my point here: As the young people in my audience are fully engaged, hands in the air with question after question -- obviously hearing all of these things for the first time in their lives, from K-12 to college, as they are eager to inform me after my talk -- the professors often stare at me with contempt. In one case, a British professor, who could not step sighing, squirming, and rolling her eyes as I quoted the most heinous assessments of religion by Marx and Lenin, got up and stormed out of the room.
These professors glare at me as if the ghost of Joe McCarthy has flown into the room and leapt inside of my body. In fact, that's the essence of their criticism: It is not so much that these professors approve of communism as much as they disapprove of -- actually, utterly despise -- anti-communism. They are anti-anti-communist more so than pro-communist. Conservatives need to understand this, so as to avoid broad-brushing and losing credibility. Sure, a lot of professors are Marxists, and many more share the utopian goals of Marxism, but the vast majority are simply leftists.
Being on the left entails many strange contradictions and political pathologies, one of which is this bizarre revulsion toward anti-communists. These leftists -- to their credit -- despise fascism, and will preach anti-fascism until their blue in the face. They are as appalled by fascism as conservatives are by communism. But while conservatives detest both communism and fascism, liberals only detest one of the two.
For instance, I recently saw that Human Events created a list of the top 10 worst books ever written, which included, as the top two, Marx's Communist Manifesto (#1), followed by Hitler's Mein Kampf (#2). That ranking is easily defended solely on numbers: Hitler killed at least 10 million; communism killed at least 100 million. Either way, kudos to Human Events, a conservative newspaper, for putting both communism and fascism in its top two. Yet, conversely, any liberal version of such a list would not even place the Communist Manifesto in the top 10. I guarantee that liberals who read the Human Events list will snicker at its alleged Neanderthal anti-communism.
The leftist intelligentsia that dominates higher education, and which writes the civics texts used in high schools -- I've read and studied these texts -- and which trains the teachers who teach in high schools, is not in the slightest bit notably anti-communist. These liberals do not teach the lessons of communism.
What's more, aside from failing to instruct their students in the crass facts about communism's unprecedented destruction -- its purges, mass famines, show trials, killing fields, concentration camps -- these educators are negligent in failing to teach the essential, non-emotional, but crucial Econ 101 basics that contrast capitalism and communism and, thus, that get at the heart of how and why command economies simply do not work. Each semester in my Comparative Politics course at Grove City College, it takes no more than 50 minutes to matter-of-factly lay out the rudimentary differences. Whereas capitalist systems are based on the market forces of supply and demand, which dictate prices and production levels and targets, communist systems are based on central planning, by which a government bureau attempts to manage such things. Capitalism is based on private ownership; communism on public ownership. Capitalism thrives on small government and taxes; communism on large government and taxes, typically progressive income-tax rates and estate taxes -- both advocated explicitly by Marx -- and much more.
This stuff isn't rocket science. It is easy to teach, if the professor desires. The problem is that it isn't being taught. Consequently, Americans today do not know why communism is such a devastating ideology, at both the level of plain economic theory and in actual historical practice. It is a remarkably hateful system, based on literal hatred and targeted annihilation of entire classes and groups of people. (Nazism sought genocide based on ethnicity; communism sought genocide based on class.)
Most Americans generally know that the USSR was a bad place and that it was good that the Berlin Wall fell; they lived through that. But they know little beyond that, especially young Americans in college today, born around the time the wall fell -- Obama's biggest supporters. Nowhere in America is Barack Obama worshipped as he is on college campuses, by students and professors alike.
What does it all mean for November 2008? It means that millions of modern Americans, when they hear that Barack Obama has deep roots with communist radicals like Bill Ayers and Frank Marshall Davis, don't care; they don't get it. Moreover, the leftist establishment -- from academia to media to Hollywood -- will not help them get it. To the contrary, the left responds to these accusations by not only downplaying or dismissing them but by ridiculing or even vilifying them, given the left's reflexive anti-anti-communism. The left will create bad guys out of the anti-communists who are legitimately blowing the whistle on the real bad guys.
When the leftists of the ‘60s took over higher education and the media, they really knew what they were doing. This was brilliant, masterful, a tactical slam-dunk, a tremendous coup for them and their worldview, with ripple effects we can scarcely imagine.
Does this mean that the McCain camp, talk radio and conservatives generally shouldn't bother exposing these things? Not at all. The truth is the truth, and needs to be told. Moderates especially need to be informed that Barack Obama is not your typical liberal: he is the most hard-left Democrat that his party has ever nominated for the presidency. It is absolutely not a coincidence that the man with these far-left associations just so happens to be ranked -- quantifiably, objectively, by non-partisan, respected sources like National Journal -- the most far-left member of the U.S. Senate, which is no small thing given the leftward drift of the modern Democratic Party. In other words, Obama's extremist associations matter; they are fully revealing, illustrative of the political-ideological realities that the pro-Obama media will not expose. His voting record bears this out.
That said, I warn my fellow conservatives: Be prepared to be really, really frustrated when few people seem to care.
The Santayana aphorism is correct: those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it. For decades now, we haven't taught the next generation what it needs to know from its immediate past. And now, to borrow from the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, America's chickens have come home to roost.
Paul Kengor is author of The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism (HarperPerennial, 2007) and professor of political science at Grove City College. His latest book is The Judge: William P. Clark, Ronald Reagan's Top Hand (Ignatius Press, 2007).

So we have black folks in elected offices calling out white boys and making other racial slurs BUT THAT'S ALL GOOD............unbelievable to say the McCainis a racists........COMMON OBAMA you have been more racists than anyone here......YOU DEEMED YOURSELF A 'BLACK" MAN in your black surroundings thenWHEN YOU ARE AROUND THE WHITE FOLKS.........you so gently remind everyone HOW YOUR "WHITE GRANDPARENTS" took care of you................AND YOU HARDLY SPEAK OF YOUR MOMMA BUT I GUESS its SHOW TIME.....so why not bring HER "WHITE BODY TO LIFE".........after all SHE DID GIVE YOU LIFE............and those white people WERE THE ONES THAT GOT YOU WHERE YOU ARE...................NOW YOU WASTE TAX PAYERS MONEY BY INVESTIGATING AN OFFICER WHO MERELY called you by YOUR NAME.........oh wait ...........did you have a name change like BARACK  "BUCKWHEAT" OSAMA..................cause last I heard that name the offier used WAS PROPER............tsk tsk.......YOU STILL FOOL NO ONE.................what a shame and disgrace to the human race............I think I have heard enough.

McCain’s Racist Code Words  

Some folks say that McCain calling Obama “that one” during the debate was racist.

Some folks say that McCain campaign is using “code words” to appeal to the racist vote.

Some folks are absolutely right.

Here are some of the code words & phrases used by John McCain during the debate:

---

“working Americans” - as in Hillary’s “working, hard-working Americans. White Americans.”

 

“the match that lit this fire was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac” - veiled reference to cross-burnings.

“I’d like you to see the letter that a group of senators and I wrote warning exactly of this crisis. Sen. Obama’s name was not on that letter” - there’s the “T” word again.

“some of these organizations that are the watchdogs” - “dawgs” or “gangstas”. Degrading to inner-city youths.

“$3 million for an overhead projector at a planetarium in Chicago, Illinois” - sounds like “plutonium”, which Obama would sell to Iran because he’s a Muslim and a terrorist sympathizer.

“eliminate our dependence on foreign oil” - a black substance.

“we’re going to have to eliminate those that aren’t working” - A call for the genocide of the black welfare class.

“except for defense, Veterans Affairs, and some other vital programs, we’ll just have to have across-the-board freeze” - subtle plug for Gov. Palin from icy-cold Alaska.

“establish priorities with full transparency” - an extreme form of whiteness.

“like nailing Jell-O to the wall” - The spokesman for Jello Pudding was Bill Cosby, a black man.

“The only bright spot” - almost as obvious as “transparency”.

“the smartest people in America” - “whitest”.

“he’ll impose mandates” - Obama will force men to have same-sex romantic relationships.

“Sen. Obama will fine you” - well, the FIRST letter of the word he meant was “f”…

“do the math” - which black people like Obama are too stupid to do

“like hair transplants” - blatant Biden dig.

“when to go in and when not, when American military power is worth the expenditure of our most precious treasure” - white people.

“That requires a cool hand at the tiller” - In a better America, Obama would be a slave out tilling a field.

“I’ll get Osama bin Laden, my friends. I’ll get him. I know how to get him” - it’s racist to use middle names.

“we hardly know where they are on the map” - a derisive reference to undocumented Mexican migrant workers

“I know what it’s like in dark times” - can’t believe he got away with THAT one.

---

As a Melanin-Challenged-American, I am ashamed to share a skin color with McCain, and hereby denounce all his racist remarks.  

  Writes Murtagh: "Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends' and supporters' violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country."

Why Ayers Still Matters By Patrick O'Hannigan Published 10/10/2008 12:08:21 AM

Like many of his Big Media colleagues, Scott Conroy of CBS News thinks Governor Palin's recent criticism of Senator Obama for associating with terrorist-turned-education-professor-and-curriculum-gur
u Bill Ayers signals Republican willingness to "make the election a referendum on Obama's character, rather than the issues facing the country."

Get a load of the "rather than," which cloaks refusal to admit that the character of a major party nominee for the presidency might actually be one of the issues facing the country,

Conroy goes on to write that "Palin has increasingly focused her remarks on tearing down Obama." Like the CNN panelist who stopped analyzing the second presidential debate to fret that "what Sarah Palin is doing is so dangerous," Conroy seems to think it would be better to build up the junior Senator from Illinois than to criticize his judgment.

Why affirmation of all things Obama is a task that belongs even to his opponents, or how silencing argument squares with the First Amendment, no Palin critic will say.


WITH EARLY VOTING already under way in many states, Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod now tiptoes up to questions about Ayers by recycling the defense that his boss first used to distance himself from Rev. Jeremiah Wright. What Axelrod told the New York Post can be paraphrased as "Bill Ayers the unrepentant terrorist is not the Bill Ayers whom Obama (barely) knows."

To hear Axelrod tell it, Obama was ignorant of Ayers' past when he launched a state senate campaign at a fundraising party in the home that Ayers shares with his wife, fellow Weather Underground terrorist Bernadine Dohrn. After all, the defense goes, Ayers and Dohrn were well into their second careers by 1995, and the bombings that sprang from their zealous opposition to the Vietnam War happened when Obama was only eight years old.

As a chronology of tactical adjustments by members of the Weather Underground and a nod to the blame-shifting impulse of violent hippies, that is correct as far as it goes. But it is also more like a scene from Forrest Gump than the Obama campaign probably intends.

The "too young to know" line tries to absolve Barack Obama of surprising ignorance while soft-pedaling the explosive rage of the man who helped launch his political career. In both respects, it fails in the same way that "the war and that lying son of a bitch Johnson" cannot justify sucker-punching a girlfriend.

Ayers and Dohrn are professors in a neighborhood where the local coffee shop almost doubles as a faculty lounge for the University of Chicago. Their jobs, in other words, are unremarkable. But they are celebrities of sorts because they bombed whatever they could back in the day.

Nearly forty years after the crimes for which he and his associates became notorious, "Ayers sees his education work as carrying on his radicalism in a new guise," writes Stanley Kurtz.

That Obama knew none of this as a rising politician fails even the smell test at Democrat-friendly CNN. Long past his eighth birthday, Obama publicly endorsed Ayers' book on juvenile justice. The two men worked together against a 1998 juvenile crime bill that neither liked. And Ayers' memoir of life on the run has striking tonal similarities to Obama's Dreams From My Father.


EVEN IF WE ACCEPT the argument from ignorance, we know that Barack Obama had heard about Ayers' past by 2001, as a campaign spokesman recently admitted to Mark Halperin of Time magazine. That year, Ayers was photographed stomping on an American flag, He also reminisced about his bomber days in a profile that the New York Times had the misfortune to publish on September 11. People have parted company with each other for lesser reasons, but nothing Ayers did or said caused Obama to resign from the board of the comically progressive foundation on which they both served at the time.

Moreover, as Stanley Kurtz points out, when a New York Times reporter writes that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers' radicalism, "he's flat wrong," In fact, Obama helped bankroll that radicalism via grants to school projects and community organizing groups that teach what Ayers calls his "small-c communist" philosophy.

Because it is now impossible to ignore a story that they were never troubled by, Big Media has adopted the fallback position of referring to Ayers as a "former" radical or an "alleged" terrorist. The Associated Press even turns the odometer back to call Ayers a "60s" radical, as though his career ended before the Beatles broke up. "Former" and "alleged" are weasel-word adjectives for a man who called himself "guilty as sin" and has never repudiated the radicalism of his youth. Far from going the way of bell-bottom pants and mutton chop sideburns, that radicalism simply earned academic credentials while morphing from "Kill the pigs" into "Leave the gun. Take the cannolli."

All of this has received less attention than it deserves, partly because Hillary Clinton let Obama wax indignantly about an Ayers question early this year, and partly because John McCain whiffed his own chance to ask Obama about Ayers on live TV. McCain could have raised questions about Ayers in the context of people like Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko, but he remains reluctant to look at the crowded asphalt under Obama's bus, or glance overseas at the likes of Obama supporters like Kenyan Communist Raila Odinga, and so he left that line of inquiry to his running mate.


WHEN AYERS WAS ELECTED this past March to a leadership role in the nation's largest organization of education school professors and researchers, Sol Stern was one of the few journalists who sprinted for the bell tower to warn the rest of us about the Hyde Park drifter coming to paint the curriculum red. "Ayers is widely regarded as a member in good standing of the city's civic establishment, not an unrepentant domestic terrorist," Stern wrote. "But Obama and his critics are arguing about the wrong moral question. The more pressing issue is not the damage done by the Weather Underground 40 years ago, but the far greater harm inflicted on the nation's schoolchildren by the political and educational movement in which Ayers plays a leading role today."

Stern had a point. Ayers would be the "distraction from real issues" that Obama supporters make him out to be if he were an aberration in the senator's life, but he's just another angry mentor in a long string of associates whose political views range from Old Left to New Left. Even Obama's chief blogger is an avowed socialist. And the impetus for worrying about this striking lack of diversity, for those who have forgotten, is that socialism depends on coercion.

It may seem unfair to pick on Obama for his willingness to hobnob with disreputable characters, knowing that his more fervid supporters misread even naked opportunism as attention to messianic duty, but the candidate does no better if you look exclusively at his policy prescriptions. Forget finger-pointing over war strategy and tax plans: we've already seen Obama say in two debates that he's going to go "line by line" through the federal budget, "ending programs that don't work and making those that do work more efficient." It's "stroke of the pen; law of the land," as performed by an honors graduate of the "Magick School of Problem Solving" who really seems to have it in for the country he calls "Pockeestan."

In short, neither personal nor political lenses do Obama's vaunted judgment any favors. Barnum and Bailey built a big-top empire on fewer delusions, and that is why the last word on whether any relationship between Barack Obama and Bill Ayers should be considered a legitimate subject for discussion properly belongs to John M. Murtagh, one of the people whom Bill Ayers tried to kill.

Writes Murtagh: "Nobody should hold the junior senator from Illinois responsible for his friends' and supporters' violent terrorist acts. But it is fair to hold him responsible for a startling lack of judgment in his choice of mentors, associates, and friends, and for showing a callous disregard for the lives they damaged and the hatred they have demonstrated for this country."

You think Murtagh is wrong?

Me, neither.


Patrick O'Hannigan is a writer in North Carolina.  

The cultural prejudice against children with genetic conditions was evident in the political reaction to Sarah Palin's decision not to abort her newborn son, Trig, who has Down syndrome. Nicholas Provenzo of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, a libertarian organization, wrote that he was "troubled" by Palin's decision, because "...it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome..." According to another blogger, those who lauded Palin's decision not to abort were guilty of "the worship of retardation."   Intolerance for Imperfection By Daniel Allott Published 10/10/2008 12:07:57 AM

Earlier this year, a British couple caused an uproar after subjecting their daughter to cosmetic surgery. The couple's daughter, Georgia, was forced to undergo "radical and painful" surgery three times before she was five years old in order to improve her appearance so that she could "fit in" with other students.

Georgia's flaw? She has Down syndrome.

Late last year, an over-worked Illinois mother used a plastic bag to suffocate her three-year-old daughter, who has autism. And a mother is currently on trial for allegedly drowning her four-year-old daughter in a bathtub because she was ashamed and embarrassed by her daughter's cerebral palsy.

These anecdotes reflect a culture increasingly un-accepting and intolerant of children with developmental disabilities, who often face brutal and sometimes deadly prejudice. But with a stroke of his pen, President Bush can provide hope to all those who know that with special challenges come unexpected blessings.


THE NUMBERS PAINT a bleak picture. Gallup recently found that more than 6 in 10 Americans do not want a child with an intellectual disability at their child's school. An opinion survey by Disaboom, a website by and for persons with developmental disabilities, found that 52 percent of respondents would rather die than live with a life-altering disability. Polls suggest public support for abortion ranging from 55 percent to 75 percent when there is a strong likelihood of a mental or physical defect in the child.

According to a 2006 poll by National Opinion Research Center, 70 percent of Americans believe a woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion if there is a strong chance of a "serious defect" in the baby. At least 28 states recognize "wrongful life" or, more commonly, "wrongful birth" lawsuits, in which parents of disabled children are granted compensation, sometimes reaching into millions of dollars, when doctors fail to inform them that their unborn child may be at higher risk of a genetic disorder.

The cultural prejudice against children with genetic conditions was evident in the political reaction to Sarah Palin's decision not to abort her newborn son, Trig, who has Down syndrome. Nicholas Provenzo of the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism, a libertarian organization, wrote that he was "troubled" by Palin's decision, because "...it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome..." According to another blogger, those who lauded Palin's decision not to abort were guilty of "the worship of retardation."

The fundamental misconception at the root of such prejudice is that persons with disabilities inevitably lead unhappy lives and overburden their families and society. In short, that the lives of persons with disabilities are lives not worth living.

In a 2007 study published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dutch researchers interviewed women who aborted babies because of Down syndrome. Ninety-two percent said they believed the child would never be able to function independently; 90 percent considered the abnormality too severe; 83 percent said they felt the burden for the child was too heavy; and 73 percent considered the burden too heavy for their other children.

But numerous studies have shown that children with developmental disabilities affect their families more positively than negatively, and help cultivate virtues like kindness, empathy and respect for diversity. This helps explain why there are waiting lists of couples ready to adopt children with Down syndrome and other genetic disorders.


PEOPLE WITH DEVELOPMENTAL disabilities challenge our view of the world. Because they require more patience and self-giving, they can be sources of growth, tolerance, joy and hope to those they encounter. Unlocking these powerful truths is especially important in a time when superficial, exploitative and selfish relationships have become all too common. As Simon Barnes, a sportswriter for the Times of London, put it simply in a touching piece about his son with Down syndrome: "human beings are not better off without Down's syndrome."

The recognition of these truths was evident when Thomas Vander Woude acted on September 8. When Vander Woude's son Joseph, who has Down syndrome, fell through a small piece of metal that covered a septic tank in the family's backyard, Thomas jumped in after him, submerging himself in waste in order to keep his son's head above the sewage. When rescue workers arrived, after the father and son had been in the tank for 15 to 20 minutes, they pulled the two out, but Vander Woude was unconscious. Joseph survived but his father was pronounced dead at a hospital. Francis Peffley, pastor at Vander Woude's church, Holy Trinity, told the Washington Post that Vander Woude's courageous act of self-sacrifice to save his son surprised no one, adding, "They always considered Joseph a wonderful blessing to the family."

These sentiments are reminiscent of the Palin's reaction to Trig's diagnosis. The family released a statement after his birth in which the words "beautiful," "adored," "blessed," "privileged," "gift" and "unspeakable joy" were used to describe Trig and the effect he had already had on them.

Sadly, up to 90 percent of babies with Down syndrome, cystic fibrosis, spina bifida and other genetic conditions are aborted once their condition is detected. Abortion decisions are often made with little accurate information about what it's like to raise a child with a developmental disability.

That's a problem legislators are attempting to alleviate with a new federal law. The Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act would, among other things, expand and develop a national clearinghouse of information for parents of children with disabilities. It would also provide for the expansion of national and local peer-support groups and call for the creation of a national registry of families willing to adopt children with pre- or post-natally diagnosed conditions.

On September 23, the Senate unanimously passed the Prenatally and Postnatally Diagnosed Conditions Awareness Act. Two days later, the House of Representatives passed the bill. It now awaits the president's signature to become law.


Daniel Allott is senior writer at American Values, a Washington, D.C., area public policy organization. He is a former community support provider for persons with developmental disabilities.

KENYA DETAINS ANTI-OBAMA REPORTER...

Author of 'Obama Nation'...

UPDATE: KENYA DEPORTS CORSI...

OBAMA CAMPAIGN: NO COMMENT...

Was set for book unveil...

 
My Way News - Obama money from abroad could total $3.3 million
 

Funny while WE AMERICANS ARE SUFFERING THE REMBRANTS OF THE CLINTON'S ADMINISTRATION................heres a man with some money to share...............blah blah .......I think OBAMA NEEDS TO REPAY ALL THE FOODSTAMPS he used.........lol





just my opinion

  This is just a small sampling of why this man is unfit for thie presidency of this great nation.    No Flag Pin for Obama: 'That Became a Substitute for ...True Patriotism'   YouTube - Obama Says A Baby Is A Punishment   YouTube - Barack Obama Grandmother Typical White Person   YouTube - Debate - Clinton and Obama - William Ayers Questio... 4/16/08   SHOCKING Obama words: what he really thinks of white folks   than I can my white grandmother   Let's not forget his speech in Germany, which was perhaps the most narcisstic and pompous in modern times.  He APOLOGIZED to the world for our horrible country.  Darryl Wolk Blog: Full Obama speech in Germany

"People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time.I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we've struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We've made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions."

Lastly, the text of his final comments at the first debate:    

OBAMA: And one last point I want to make. It is important for us to understand that the way we are perceived in the world is going to make a difference, in terms of our capacity to get cooperation and root out terrorism.

And one of the things that I intend to do as president is to restore America's standing in the world. We are less respected now than we were eight years ago or even four years ago.

OBAMA: And this is the greatest country on Earth. But because of some of the mistakes that have been made -- and I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue, for having identified that as something that undermines our long-term security -- because of those things, we, I think, are going to have a lot of work to do in the next administration to restore that sense that America is that shining beacon on a hill.

 


The SNL Sketch Is Back

The SNL bailout sketch has been reposted by NBC. 

 

2005   [Victor Davis Hanson]

"He [Obama] said they have not spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Mr. Obama began serving in the United States Senate in January 2005"  (New York Times, 10/3)

Why in the world was Barack Obama still communicating on the phone or via email with Bill Ayers up until 2005 — when in 2001 Ayers gave widely publicized interviews claiming he had no regrets about the bombing, indeed regretted that he had not done enough, and did not necessarily have any remorse either about his Weathermen career?

Ponder that: the possible next President of the United States, well after 9/11 and in the climate of hourly worry over terrorism here at home, was still friendly and communicating with an associate that had to abandon his book tour due to popular outcry, and was widely quoted as absolutely unrepentant about his terrorism. That is a damning indictment of his judgment — among other things — and it is no "smear" to raise the issue.

Indeed, there is a disturbing pattern here. Obama's once-close radical Chicago associates are never jettisoned out of principle, but only at the 11th-hour when they became impediments to Obama's political career. Thus Wright is defended throughout his racist rantings, until he makes the unfortunate decision of bringing that hatred to DC's elite nexus at the National Press Club — and only then is immediately dropped, as Obama resigns from Trinity Church. Ditto Ayers. What made Obama cease communciations with Ayers was not the latter's radicalism (indeed Obama facilitated it by serving with Ayers to dispense millions to questionable organizations), nor even Ayers' boasts in 2001 of having no regrets about trying to blow up government buildings. Instead, 2005 coincides with Obama's ascension to the Senate and the plan to begin running for the Presidency — and thus Ayers, like Wright later, became expendable. Ditto Rezko, Pfleger et al.

October 07, 2008, 7:00 a.m.

Planting Seeds of Disaster
ACORN, Barack Obama, and the Democratic party.

By Stanley Kurtz

‘You’ve got only a couple thousand bucks in the bank. Your job pays you dog-food wages. Your credit history has been bent, stapled, and mutilated. You declared bankruptcy in 1989. Don’t despair: You can still buy a house.” So began an April 1995 article in the Chicago Sun-Times that went on to direct prospective home-buyers fitting this profile to a group of far-left “community organizers” called ACORN, for assistance. In retrospect, of course, encouraging customers like this to buy homes seems little short of madness.

Militant ACORN
At the time, however, that 1995 Chicago newspaper article represented something of a triumph for Barack Obama. That same year, as a director at Chicago’s Woods Fund, Obama was successfully pushing for a major expansion of assistance to ACORN, and sending still more money ACORN’s way from his post as board chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Through both funding and personal-leadership training, Obama supported ACORN. And ACORN, far more than we’ve recognized up to now, had a major role in precipitating the subprime crisis.

I’ve already told the story of Obama’s close ties to ACORN leader Madeline Talbott, who personally led Chicago ACORN’s campaign to intimidate banks into making high-risk loans to low-credit customers. Using provisions of a 1977 law called the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA), Chicago ACORN was able to delay and halt the efforts of banks to merge or expand until they had agreed to lower their credit standards — and to fill ACORN’s coffers to finance “counseling” operations like the one touted in that Sun-Times article. This much we’ve known. Yet these local, CRA-based pressure-campaigns fit into a broader, more disturbing, and still under-appreciated national picture. Far more than we’ve recognized, ACORN’s local, CRA-enabled pressure tactics served to entangle the financial system as a whole in the subprime mess. ACORN was no side-show. On the contrary, using CRA and ties to sympathetic congressional Democrats, ACORN succeeded in drawing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into the very policies that led to the current disaster.

In one of the first book-length scholarly studies of ACORN, Organizing Urban America, Rutgers University political scientist Heidi Swarts describes this group, so dear to Barack Obama, as “oppositional outlaws.” Swarts, a strong supporter of ACORN, has no qualms about stating that its members think of themselves as “militants unafraid to confront the powers that be.” “This identity as a uniquely militant organization,” says Swarts, “is reinforced by contentious action.” ACORN protesters will break into private offices, show up at a banker’s home to intimidate his family, or pour protesters into bank lobbies to scare away customers, all in an effort to force a lowering of credit standards for poor and minority customers. According to Swarts, long-term ACORN organizers “tend to see the organization as a solitary vanguard of principled leftists...the only truly radical community organization.”

ACORN’s Inside Strategy
Yet ACORN’s entirely deserved reputation for militance is balanced by its less-well-known “inside strategy.” ACORN has long employed Washington-based lobbyists who understand very well how the legislative game is played. ACORN’s national lobbyists may encourage and benefit from the militant tactics of their base, but in the halls of congress they play the game with smooth sophistication. The untold story of ACORN’s central role in the financial meltdown is about the one-two punch to the banking system administered by this outside/inside strategy.

Critics of the notion that CRA had a major impact on the subprime crisis ask how a law passed in 1977 could have caused a crisis in 2008? The answer has a lot to do with ACORN — and the critical years of 1990-1995. While the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act did call on banks to increase lending in poor and minority neighborhoods, its exact requirements were vague, and therefore open to a good deal of regulatory interpretation. Banks merger or expansion plans were rarely held up under CRA until the late 1980s, when ACORN perfected its technique of filing CRA complaints in tandem with the sort of intimidation tactics perfected by that original “community organizer” (and Obama idol), Saul Alinsky.

At first, ACORN’s anti-bank actions were relatively few in number. However, under a provision of the 1989 savings and loan bailout pushed by liberal Democratic legislators, like Massachusetts Congressman Joseph P. Kennedy, lenders were required to compile public records of mortgage applicants by race, gender, and income. Although the statistics produced by these studies were presented in highly misleading ways, groups like ACORN were able to use them to embarrass banks into lowering credit standards. At the same time, a wave of banking mergers in the early 1990's provided an opening for ACORN to use CRA to force lending changes. Any merger could be blocked under CRA, and once ACORN began systematically filing protests over minority lending, a formerly toothless set of regulations began to bite.



ACORN’s efforts to undermine credit standards in the late 1980s taught it a valuable lesson. However much pressure ACORN put on banks to lower credit standards, tough requirements in the “secondary market” run by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac served as a barrier to change. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac buy up mortgages en masse, bundle them, and sell them to investors on the world market. Back then, Fannie and Freddie refused to buy loans that failed to meet high credit standards. If, for example, a local bank buckled to ACORN pressure and agreed to offer poor or minority applicants a 5-percent down-payment rate, instead of the normal 10-20 percent, Fannie and Freddie would refuse to buy up those mortgages. That would leave all the risk of these shaky loans with the local bank. So again and again, local banks would tell ACORN that, because of standards imposed by Fannie and Freddie, they could lower their credit standards by only a little.

So the eighties taught ACORN that a high-pressure, Alinskyite outside strategy wouldn’t be enough. Their Washington lobbyists would have to bring inside pressure on the government to undercut credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Only then would local banks consider making loans available to customers with bad credit histories, low wages, virtually nothing in the bank, and even bankruptcies on record.

Democrats and ACORN
As early as 1987, ACORN began pressuring Fannie and Freddie to review their standards, with modest results. By 1989, ACORN had lured Fannie Mae into the first of many “pilot projects” designed to help local banks lower credit standards. But it was all small potatoes until the serious pressure began in early 1991. At that point, Democratic Senator Allan Dixon convened a Senate subcommittee hearing at which an ACORN representative gave key testimony. It’s probably not a coincidence that Dixon, like Obama, was an Illinois Democrat, since Chicago has long been a stronghold of ACORN influence.

Dixon gave credibility to ACORN’s accusations of loan bias, although these claims of racism were disputed by Missouri Republican, Christopher Bond. ACORN’s spokesman strenuously complained that his organization’s efforts to relax local credit standards were being blocked by requirements set by the secondary market. Dixon responded by pressing Fannie and Freddie to do more to relax those standards — and by promising to introduce legislation that would ensure it. At this early stage, Fannie and Freddie walked a fine line between promising to do more, while protesting any wholesale reduction of credit requirements.

By July of 1991, ACORN’s legislative campaign began to bear fruit. As the Chicago Tribune put it, “Housing activists have been pushing hard to improve housing for the poor by extracting greater financial support from the country’s two highly profitable secondary mortgage-market companies. Thanks to the help of sympathetic lawmakers, it appeared...that they may succeed.” The Tribune went on to explain that House Democrat Henry Gonzales had announced that Fannie and Freddie had agreed to commit $3.5 billion to low-income housing in 1992 and 1993, in addition to a just-announced $10 billion “affordable housing loan program” by Fannie Mae. The article emphasizes ACORN pressure and notes that Fannie and Freddie had been fighting against the plan as recently as a week before agreement was reached. Fannie and Freddie gave in only to stave off even more restrictive legislation floated by congressional Democrats.



A mere month later, ACORN Housing Corporation president, George Butts made news by complaining to a House Banking subcommittee that ACORN’s efforts to pressure banks using CRA were still being hamstrung by Fannie and Freddie. Butts also demanded still more data on the race, gender, and income of loan applicants. Many news reports over the ensuing months point to ACORN as the key source of pressure on congress for a further reduction of credit standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result of this pressure, ACORN was eventually permitted to redraft many of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s loan guideline.

Clinton and ACORN
ACORN’s progress through 1992 depended on its Democratic allies. Whatever ACORN managed to squeeze out of the George H. W. Bush administration came under congressional pressure. With the advent of the Clinton administration, however, ACORN’s fortunes took a positive turn. Clinton Housing Secretary Henry Cisnersos pledged to meet monthly with ACORN representatives. For ACORN, those meetings bore fruit.

Another factor working in ACORN’s favor was that its increasing success with local banks turned those banks into allies in the battle with Fannie and Freddie. Precisely because ACORN’s local pressure tactics were working, banks themselves now wanted Fannie and Freddie to loosen their standards still further, so as to buy up still more of the high-risk loans they’d made at ACORN’s insistence. So by the 1993, a grand alliance of ACORN, national Democrats, and local bankers looking for someone to lessen the risks imposed on them by CRA and ACORN were uniting to pressure Fannie and Freddie to loosen credit standards still further.

At this point, both ACORN and the Clinton administration were working together to impose large numerical targets or “set asides” (really a sort of poor and minority loan quota system) on Fannie and Freddie. ACORN called for at least half of Fannie and Freddie loans to go to low-income customers. At first the Clinton administration offered a set-aside of 30 percent. But eventually ACORN got what it wanted. In early 1994, the Clinton administration floated plans for committing $1 trillion in loans to low- and moderate-income home-buyers, which would amount to about half of Fannie Mae’s business by the end of the decade. Wall Street Analysts attributed Fannie Mae’s willingness to go along with the change to the need to protect itself against still more severe “congressional attack.” News reports also highlighted praise for the change from ACORN’s head lobbyist, Deepak Bhargava.

This sweeping debasement of credit standards was touted by Fannie Mae’s chairman, chief executive officer, and now prominent Obama adviser James A. Johnson. This is also the period when Fannie Mae ramped up its pilot programs and local partnerships with ACORN, all of which became precedents and models for the pattern of risky subprime mortgages at the root of today’s crisis. During these years, Obama’s Chicago ACORN ally, Madeline Talbott, was at the forefront of participation in those pilot programs, and her activities were consistently supported by Obama through both foundation funding and personal leadership training for her top organizers.

Finally, in June of 1995, President Clinton, Vice President Gore, and Secretary Cisneros announced the administration’s comprehensive new strategy for raising home-ownership in America to an all-time high. Representatives from ACORN were guests of honor at the ceremony. In his remarks, Clinton emphasized that: “Out homeownership strategy will not cost the taxpayers one extra cent. It will not require legislation.” Clinton meant that informal partnerships between Fannie and Freddie and groups like ACORN would make mortgages available to customers “who have historically been excluded from homeownership.”

Disaster
In the end of course, Clinton’s plan cost taxpayers an almost unimaginable amount of money. And it was just around the time of his 1995 announcement that the Chicago papers started encouraging bad-credit customers with “dog-food” wages, little money in the bank, and even histories of bankruptcy to apply for home loans with the help of ACORN. At both the local and national levels, then, ACORN served as the critical catalyst, levering pressure created by the Community Reinvestment Act and pull with Democratic politicians to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac into a pattern of high-risk loans.

Up to now, conventional wisdom on the financial meltdown has relegated ACORN and the CRA to bit parts. The real problem, we’ve been told, lay with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In fact, however, ACORN is at the base of the whole mess. ACORN used CRA and Democratic sympathizers to entangle Fannie and Freddie and the entire financial system in a disastrous disregard of the most basic financial standards. And Barack Obama cut his teeth as an organizer and politician backing up ACORN’s economic madness every step of the way.

Crime Passionel   [Mark Steyn]

From the statement of educators in support of Bill Ayers:

All citizens, but particularly teachers and scholars, are called upon to challenge orthodoxy, dogma, and mindless complacency, to be skeptical of authoritative claims, to interrogate and trouble the given and the taken-for-granted. Without critical dialogue and dissent we would likely be burning witches and enslaving our fellow human beings to this day...

The current characterizations of Professor Ayers—-“unrepentant terrorist,” “lunatic leftist”—-are unrecognizable to those who know or work with him. It’s true that Professor Ayers participated passionately in the civil rights and antiwar movements of the 1960s, as did hundreds of thousands of Americans.

Really? Hundreds of thousands of Americans plotted to kill soldiers and their dates by blowing them up at a dance? No wonder Barack's ahead in the polls.

The point is not that President-designate Obama is a "close friend" of the unrepentant Ayers, or that he was only eight when his patron was building bombs to kill the women of New Jersey. As Joe Biden would no doubt point out on his entertaining "This Day In History" segment, McCain was only six when Czogolsz killed President McKinley. But I doubt he'd let the guy host a fundraiser for him.

But, in the world in which Obama moves, it would seem absurd and provincial to object to partying with an "unrepentant terrorist." The senator advanced and prospered in a milieu in which men like Ayers are not just accepted but admired for their "passionate participation", and function as power-brokers and path-smoothers. This is a great country, and most of us (as Peter Kirsanow notes below) make it without having to kiss up to America-haters like Ayers and Wright. But not Obama.

Who is this man on course to be 44th president? Apparently, it's not just impolite but racist to ask. As notorious white supremacist Thomas Sowell puts it:

But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

Can the industrial-strength Doris Day fuzzy filter the media are filming him through be penetrated? Time is running out, McCain seems disinclined to do it, and (as Rich says) his lack of an economic message will make the point moot.

 

This post has been edited by an administrator

AND ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR PUTTING DOWN THIS IDIOT IDEA.....OF TURNING FORECLOSED HOMES INTO LOW INCOME HOUSING.........YOU ARE RIGHT......THIS WILL ONLY BRING GARBAGE TO THE HOODS.......LIKE OUR CHILDREN NEED MORE OF THAT AROUND.......AND THE PROBLEM WILL PERSISTS........SOMEONE IN ORANGE COUNTY WANTS TO MAKE A BIT OF DOUGH ON THE EXPENSE OF THE PEOPLE......HOW FF NICE.............IT HAS TO BE A DEMOCRAP......OF COURSE, LETS NOT FORGET....OSCEOLA.....IS MOVING INTO ORANGE COUNTY TERRITORY.........THEY DONE ..WELL NOT YET..........BUT OSCEOLA IS GOING DOWN THE SEWERAGE....SO NOW THEY ARE COMING THIS WAY...........TO PUT ORANGE COUNTY DOWN HILL WITH THEM.........PLEASE BE ADAMANT.....I PRAY SOMEONE OF IMPORTANCE READ THIS BLOG...............AND REMEMBER......"LOW INCOME" MEANS.........GHETTO PROJECTS......THEY DON'T WORK.....AND THEY DON'T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING BUT PUTTING MONEY INTO OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS FAT POCKETS.............AND that's lovely............that The Federal Court and County people......ARE THE ONES BUYING THESE HOMES........peoples dreams......for just a buck or two...........freaking distasteful...........and now the greed moves onto trying to make them INTO HOUSING........BLEEP!!................THERE ARE MANY PEOPLE OUT THERE WITH SOLID INCOME.......that fell into a dire strait position INSTEAD OF BASHING THEM DOWN......work with them to stay in their homes.........FREAKING....FLORI-DUH............is turning into nothing but SHYSTERS......and these stemming from "THE DEMOCRAPPY PARTY AFFILIATES MOVING UP THIS WAY..........THEY DONE KILLED JERSEY AND PUT IT IN A "DEFICIT" WHY NOT INFILTRATE AND GO FOR THE SOUTH......where still we have some decent people.........THAT'S WHY..........well never mind.....My plan is in action.....and EVERYONE KNOWS.....every single name and person of interest.......see .........I DON'T TAKE THREATS......so therefore.....whatever happens THERE WILL BE A LEAD TO FOLLOW......................the yellow brick road. In all sincerety I DO WANT TO GIVE SPECIAL THANK YOU ..TO THOSE OF YOU IN OFFICE WHICH ARE OPPOSING.....THIS NONE WORKABLE OPTION OF LOW INCOME HOUSING.............its a killer for the economy and it will BRING MANY RATS.......

This post has been edited by an administrator

Boy I was shocked to hear Barack said.........whatever whatever....blah blah......I was raised by my grandmother......earning grants to make it through college......BUT WAIT.......I THOUGHT I READ IN A TIME MAGAZINE......HIS GRANDPARENTS.....BOTH NANNA AND GRANDPAW RAISED HIM AND "PUT" HIM THROUGH COLLEGE.............then he sezs...............mommy WAS ON FOOD STAMPS.....to put food on the table.......BUT WAIT.......I THOUGHT I READ MOTHER WAS DOING ALRIGHT.........DADDA..LEFT TO KENYA TO HAVE SOME KUMKENBIANS......OR WHATEVER SEVERAL WIVES.......or to become a LEADER OF THE TRIBE.....WHILE MOMMIE...WENT A TRAVELING EVEN HAD A DAUGHTER.........WHAT HAPPEN TO YO SISTA....BARACK.....WHY DON'T YOU BRING HER INTO THE YOUR LOVELY FAMILY PICTURE.......that's odd......A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE "PROMOTING...........FOOD STAMPS FOR EVERYONE......AND GRANTS.................hell is no wonder all the spanish, low incomes and LOW LIFES are voting for this man.............WELL........I RATHER STARVE MR. BERACKO.........THEN TAKE FOOD STAMPS FROM A 'REAL FAMILY THAT NEEDS IT"......AND DAM BOY..........FOOD STAMPS GOT YOU ALL THIS AND MUCH MORE............is no wonder they WANT TO MAKE ORANGE COUNTY A "LOW HOUSING PROJECTS........is really called a "GETTO".............YEAH.......I SURE AS HELL DON'T WANT THIS GUY TO BE MY PREZIDENT...........if I am broke now supporting ALL THE ILLEGALS AND WELFARE PEOPLE.....(YOUNG PEOPLE....PEOPLE THAT CAN WORK - THERE IS WORK.....GET THE BLEEP UP IN THE MORNINGS......INSTEAD OF DOING DRUGS, DRINKING AND SLEEPING ALL MORNINGS......AND YOU MAY JUST GET LUCKY AND FIND A JOB).................. DID ANYONE ELSE NOTICE BARACK'S WORD TO AMERICAN PEOPLE........"FOOD STAMPS"..........GRANTS..........WHAT AN ENTICING DEBATE FOR BATE.................you done sunk real low...........NOW RUN ALONG TO UNIVISION.......AND TELL YOUR SPANISH AUDIENCE........THEY WILL SURE TO SHANT.....AND PRAISE THE MAN ....THAT WILL GIVE THEM FREE MEDICAL.......FREE FOOD..............AND DAM.........EVERYONE ON A GRANT.....................thanks for NADA. I am a human being and I am disgusted I HAVE NEVER HEARD A PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE PROMOTE............FOOD STAMPS......YES HE DID.....BECAUSE AFTER ALL THIS FF TIME ON THE ROAD CAMPAIGNING; AFTER ALL THE ARTICLES...............this is the first time I heard my momma was on Food stamps to raise us.....WHATEVER..............guess FOOD STAMP ALSO PAID FOR HER PLANE FARE AND YOUR DADDA TRIPS......TOO..........AMERICA.....VERY GOOD COUNTRY TO ME ... McCAIN/PALIN..................2008........CHANGE WE CAN ENDURE...............stomp your feet...claps your hands.........NO FOOD STAMPS...............unless you are elderly and sickly.......TRUELY NEEDY......................

I dunno what Zoelando is so upset about.......BUT REST ASSURE I WILL CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE PBA, FIA, CIA ALL POLICE OFFICERS AND FIRE DEPARTMENT...........THAT'S RIGHT............THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE.........AND I COULDN'T BE HAPPIER.........................YOU GO BOYS/GALS..........YOU ARE DOING YOUR COUNTRY A REAL JUSTICE.........................THANK YOU THANK YOU......YOU WILL BE GETTING MY CHECK IN THE MAIL REAL SOON................YOU DO CARE..........I LOVE YOU PEOPLE PERSONS...............