Did Perez Purposely Set Miss California Up with Gay Question?

.
Carrie Prejean, Miss California USA, while competing for the Miss USA crown, answered a question honestly. By doing that, royally ticked off the Miss California USA Directors and many others and might have thrown the contest. Did Perez Hilton, asking this stupid question, purposely cost her the Miss USA title?

Pageant judge and blogger, Perez Hilton, posed the following question to her: “Vermont recently became the 4th state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit. Why or why not?”

Prejean answered, “Well, I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. And you know what, in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that’s how I was raised and that’s how I think it should be between a man and a woman. Thank you very much.”

Gay advocates in the crowd made sure people knew they were offended. A Miss California director Keith Lewis is quoted in a statement as saying, "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman." "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family." His felllow co-director, Shanna Moakler, agreed.

Excuse me? If the Pageant organizers don't want politics or religion in the pageant, they shouldn't have allowed such a politically charged question. It's not Prejean's fault The question was asked. It's the pageant's fault for having allowed the question. I applaud her for an honest answer.

Then there was Scott Ihrig, a gay man who attended the pageant with his partner and was shouting in the lobby afterwards. "It's ugly," he said. "I think it's ridiculous that she got first runner-up. That is not the value of 95 percent of the people in this audience. Look around this audience and tell me how many gay men there are."

Wake up, Scott. Miss California represents California, not the pageant audience. Most of the people in California do not support gay marriage. That's why gay marriage lost at the polls, remember? If the pageant organizers don't want honest answers, they shouldn't ask questions. In my mind, Miss California should have won due to her courage and conviction.

But Scott's statement begs additional questions. What qualified a gay blogger to judge the Miss USA contest? And why WERE lots of gays attending the event? I guess many of us don't pay as much attention to pageants as others do. There are many more important things to do - and more important issues to pay attention to. Economy, Iraq, world hunger...to name a few.

But if you can't win at the California polls...cause controversy at televised events in order to give the appearance of populous angst.

You don't think so? What kinds of questions did the other contestant get? Were their questions equally politically charged? If not, was it a fair contest? Why was Miss California targeted with this particular question? Did Hilton know her background and how she would answer?

Be on the look out for this type of gimmick to happen again and again.
.

Obama Won't be Upstaged By That Silly Jesus

.
It seems that Obama, who claims to be a Christian, is ashamed of the Gospel. He didn't want to appear on TV surrounded by Christian symbols, and worse, a symbol of Jesus Christ's name. Maybe he thought all his non-Christian supporters would be offended. Maybe he thought his new buddies in the Middle East would be offended. At any rate, it wasn't important whether other Christians were offended, or worse, the Lord himself.

Either Obama was ashamed of the Gospel, or "The One" didn't want to have to compete with the True Lord for attention. All eyes and homage needed to be on Obama.

Whatever the reason, on Tuesday, April 14, Georgetown, a Christian University founded in 1789 by the Jesuits, hid the inscription "IHS" at the request of President Obama's staff. "IHS" is short for Iesous Christos - the Greek name of Jesus Christ.

According to Fox News, White House staff asked the school to cover up all religious symbols and signs while the president was on stage. Apparently, they didn't want Jesus' name to show up on TV during his speech. The monogram, which is normally above the Gaston Hall stage, was covered over with what Fox News said appeared to be black wood during the speech.

The White House said that the backdrop, which included blue drapes and American flags, was standard during policy speeches and other events. They insisted that the move was made only to provide a proper setting for the speech -- and said that "any suggestions to the contrary are simply false."

I have to wonder why the founding Jesuits made the decision to decorate the Hall as they had. Do you suppose they put it there during all events, over the head of all speakers, for the very purpose of continutally reminding all those in the hall that Jesus is Lord and the most important factor in all we think do and say? How would the founding Jesuits have felt about the hiding of Jesus Christ's name?

Many a foolish king has decided he's more important than God. If Obama is a Christian, surely he has read and understands the spiritual consequences of pushing God aside in order to puff himself up.
.

Loser McCain's Top Strategist Still Trying to Give Advice

.
Steve Schmidt, Senator McCain's top adviser from the presidential campaign, is still a loser and still giving loser advice. On Friday he told Republicans to ditch Religion and support same-sex marriage.

At a Log Cabin Republican Convention in Washington DC, he urged Republicans to support civil unions. "If you put public policy issues to a religious test, you risk becoming a religious party," he said. "And in a free country a political party cannot be viable in the long-term if it is seen as a sectarian party." "If the party is seen as anti-gay, then that is injurious to its candidates" in Democrat-leaning and competitive states, he said.

In other words, all that matters is the survival of the Party itself. What it stands for, the principals it holds, are irrelevant. Winning and keeping power are all that matters.

My quesion is, if what a Party stands for doesn't matter or is fluid to the times, than what is the point of being a member of that Party? If the only reason for being a member of a Party is to be on a "team" that works together to gain control of the power in the community, than I suppose what he said makes sense. But most of us choose a party that best reflects our beliefs out of a hope that it's candidates will support those beliefs while in office. We're not trying to get "just anyone" elected. We're trying to get someone that REPRESENTS us elected.

This "strategist" for McCain obviously missed that point during the Presidential campaign and is still missing it. He thinks that for many of us, the social issues are of equal or less importance than the economic issues. Therefore, in the hope of obtaining our economic goals, we should have no problem letting go of what we believe is socially important.

That's obviously how he advised McCain during the campaign. That's why McCain's team marginalized all that Sarah Palin stood for. And that's why so many conservatives couldn't stand McCain.

What a dunce.

He and his fellow jerks, those that are currently in control of the Party, may very well win their way and get the Party to wimp out on what it has stood for for so long. But in doing do, they will lose millions of conservative voters, who will simply walk away to find candidates that are willing to stand for the social issues we care about. We have no interest in supporting Steve Schmidt, Senator McCain, or any of their ilk. They can have the Republican Party if they really want it. Many of us are already so fed up with it we're actively searching for a new, better, third party. Maybe it will be the Tea Party.
.

.

CNN, MSNBC, Mock Tea Parties with Lewd Jokes

.
According to reports, MSNBC's David Shuster lewdly mocked hundreds of thousands of Americans Monday while filling in for fellow jerk, Keith Olbermann.

The Tea Party protests, he said, amounted to "Teabagging day for the right wing and they are going nuts for it." He described the parties as "full-throated" and "toothless." He even said, "They want to give President Obama a strong tongue-lashing and lick government spending" and protesters "whipped out" the demonstrations this past weekend.

Other gross commentators included CNN's Anderson Cooper, analyst David Gergen, MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, and Air America's Ana Marie Cox.

Their disrespect is Unbelievable. What's wrong with these people? Do they forget that half of America votes conservative? How can they continue to mock us like this, and yet expect to be listened to and respected? The only thing I can figure is that they really do believe that the media has huge control over people. They truly believe that conservative believe as they do because Limbaugh tells them to, and if they can be a little more clever than Limbaugh, Americans will start to like and believe them instead. They really don't understand that the reason we like Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and others isn't because they are telling us what to think, but because they are saying what WE ALREADY think. And no, it doesn't matter how clever jerks like Shuster and Olbermann think they are. We won't ever like them.
.

McCain Snubs Palin on Jay Leno

.
Can you Beleive it? Mr. Spineless, the guy that slithered his way through his Presidential Campaign, gave Leno a list of Governors he considered "young and dynamic" as leaders of the Republican Party and left Sarah Palin off the list. Excuse me? She is the only reason I voted that ticket. McCain has never impressed me as someone that could be depended on.

He's the one that chose her for vice president. I had never heard of her prior to the Republican Convention. He's the one that brought her forward so we could all hear her. Many of us fell in love with her practical, conservative beliefs right away. Again, I was going to go ahead and vote Ron Paul, except that she stepped into the picture. A large number of people voted for her, not him. She's the only reason he didn't lose by a landslide.

Now, for some reason, she's not good enough for him. Jerk.

If Republican Party leaders continue to jealously diss her, maybe we'll have to ask her to lead the new Tea Party.
.

ABC's Gun Control Propaganda

.
JOHN LOTT: ABC’s Shameful ‘20/20′ Experiment
Posted at Fox News By John R. Lott, Jr.

Gun control advocates look desperate. Last Friday night, on April 10, ABC aired a heavily promoted, hour long “20/20″ special called “If I Only Had a Gun.” It is ABC’s equivalent of NBC’s infamous exploding gas tanks in General Motors pickups where NBC rigged the truck to explode. With legislation in Texas and Missouri advancing to eliminate gun-free zones at universities, perhaps this response isn’t surprising.

The show started and ended by claiming that allowing potential victims to carry guns would not help keep them safe –- not even with hundreds of hours of practice firing guns.

No mention was made of the actual multiple victim public shootings stopped by people with concealed handguns nor did they describe who actually carried out such shootings. Instead, ABC presented a rigged experiment where one student in a classroom had a gun. But sometimes even the best editors can’t hide everything the camera sees.

The experiment was set up to make the student fail. It did not resemble a real-world shooting. The same scenario is shown three times, but in each case the student with the gun is seated in the same seat –- the center seat in the front row. The attacker is not only a top-notch shooter –- a firearms expert who teaches firearms tactics and strategy to police -– but also obviously knows precisely where the student with the gun is sitting.

Each time the experiment is run, the attacker first fires two shots at the teacher in the front of the class and then turns his gun directly on the very student with the gun. The attacker wastes no time trying to gun down any of the unarmed students. Thus, very unrealistically, between the very first shot setting the armed student on notice and the shots at the armed student, there is at most 2 seconds. The armed student is allowed virtually no time to react and, unsurprisingly, fails under the same circumstances that would have led even experienced police officers to fare poorly.

But in the real world, a typical shooter is not a top-notch firearms expert and has no clue about whether or not anyone might be armed and, if so, where they are seated. If you have 50 people –- a pretty typical college classroom –- and he is unknown to the attacker, the armed student is given a tremendous advantage. Actually, if the experiment run by “20/20″ seriously demonstrated anything, it highlighted the problem of relying on uniformed police or security guards for safety: the killer instantly knows whom to shoot first.

Yet, in the ABC experiment, the purposefully disadvantaged students are not just identified and facing (within less than 2 seconds) an attacker whose gun is already drawn. They are also forced to wear unfamiliar gloves, a helmet, and a holster. This only adds to the difficulties the students face in handling their guns.

Given this set-up the second student, Danielle, performed admirably well. She shot the firearms expert in his left leg near the groin. If real bullets had been used, that might well have disabled the attacker and cut short his shooting spree.

Nevertheless, even terrible shooters can often be quite effective. Despite all of ABC’s references to the Columbine attack, the network never mention the armed guard at the school. He had an unusually poor target shooting record –- indeed it is reported that he couldn’t even hit a target. Yet, his bravery still saved many lives because his poorly aimed shots forced the two killers to engage in gunfire with him. This slowed down their killing spree and gave many students a chance to escape the building. The guard was only forced to retreat and leave the school himself because of the homemade grenades that the Columbine murderers had.

The Columbine murderers strongly and actively opposed passage of Colorado’s right-to-carry law, particularly the part that would have allowed concealed handguns being legally carried on school campuses. What goes unnoticed is that the Columbine attack took place the very day that the state legislature scheduled final passage of the concealed handgun law.

Time after time the attackers in these multiple victim public shootings consciously avoid areas where people might be able to defend themselves. In the attack on the Jewish community center in Los Angeles in which five people were wounded, the attacker had apparently “scouted three of the West Coast’s most prominent Jewish institutions—the Museum of Tolerance, the Skirball Cultural Center and the University of Judaism—but found security too tight.”

In the real world, even having a gun and pointing it at an attacker has often convinced the attacker to stop shooting and surrender. Examples include high schools in Pearl, Mississippi and Edinboro, Pennsylvania, as well as the Appalachian Law School in Virginia. Street attacks in Memphis to Detroit ended this way, too, without any more shots fired.

Even if the cases don’t get much attention, gun permit holders stop these multiple victim attacks on a regular basis. Ironically, just this past Saturday, the day after ABC’s broadcast, a permit holder in Columbia, Texas stopped a mass robbery by fatally shooting the criminal. Some Web sites have started collecting these and other defensive gun use cases (e.g., see here, here, and here).

ABC’S “20/20″ exaggerates “the danger of accidentally hitting a friend” when confronting an attacker. The show cites as an example is a man who mistook his wife for an intruder. Obviously that case is a tragedy, but those cases are exceedingly rare. But why didn’t they present a single multiple victim attack as an example? Simple, because it has not happened.

ABC pushes the notion that gun show regulations, rather than arming potential victims, can stop these attacks. But very few criminals get their guns from gun shows: a U.S. Justice Department survey of 18,000 state prison inmates showed that less than one percent (0.7%) of prisoners had obtained their gun from a gun show. Even adding flea markets and gun shows together raises the number to just 1.7 percent. There is not a single academic study showing that regulating private individuals selling their own guns — the so-called “gun show loophole” — reduces any type of violent crime. What the regulations have accomplished is cutting the number of gun shows by 25 percent.

The show ends with this claim:

“If you are wondering where are all the studies about the effectiveness of guns used by ordinary Americans for self-defense, well keep searching, we could not find one reliable study and the ones we found were contradictory.”

Yet, “contradictory” is an overstatement. There have been 26 peer-reviewed studies published by criminologists and economists in academic journals and university presses. Most of these studies find large drops in crime. Some find no change, but not a single one shows an increase in crime.

You would think that if gun control worked as well as ABC implies, there wouldn’t be these multiple victim public shootings in those European countries with gun laws much stricter than those being publicly discussed in the United States or by ABC. Yet, multiple victim public shootings are quite common in Europe. In just the last few days, there have been a shooting at a college in Greece and in a crowded café in Rotterdam. Of course, the worst K-12 public school shootings are in Europe.

Given the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been spent annually in the United States for police officers on campus and other programs, one would hope that this relatively inexpensive alternative, where people are willing to bear the costs themselves to protect others, would be taken more seriously.

ABC never mentions a simple fact: all multiple victim public shootings with more than 3 people killed have occurred where permitted concealed handguns are prohibited. Rather than studying what actually happens during these shootings, ABC conjured up rigged experiments aimed at convincing Americans that guns are ineffective. Unfortunately, ABC’s advice, rather than making victims safe, makes things safer for attackers.

John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of More Guns, Less Crime (University of Chicago Press, second edition, 2000) and The Bias Against Guns (Regnery, 2003). Much of the discussion here is based on both books.
.

Tea Party Day - Obama still doesn't get it

There weren't any Tea Parties in our area, so we had a special on Tea at our restaurant yesterday. 50% off. It was much appreciated by businessmen in our community. It doesn't matter what party people are in; people are mad about taxes. I don't know what cloud Obama has his head in, but he totally misunderstands the average working American.

Interesting that despite that numbers of people out at the Tea Parties, President Obama totally ignored them. He didn't address them at all. What can one expect. He's a Chicago Politician. He knows Chicago and how that works. He supports people on Welfare, because many of his Chicago constituents were on welfare. He understands crooked politicians, pay back, and paying off, because he's from Chicago. But he doesn't understand most Americans.

Ban All Personal Expression in College Faculty Offices

.
From Fox News, Friday, April 10, two students are suing Peralta Community College District in California for threatening to suspend them for praying.

Fox reports that according to the San Francisco Chronicle, Kandy Kyriacou and Ojoma Omaga said the College of Alameda accused them of "disruptive behavior" and issued suspension notices to them after they had prayed with a sick teacher in a faculty office in December of 2007.

The Chronicle reported that U.S. District Judge Susan Illston ruled that the women can proceed with a lawsuit against the college district because students have the right to pray in private outside the classroom. Their attorney, Steven Wood, was quoted as saying that they aren't seeking damages apart from attorneys' fees. All they want is an acknowledgment of their right to pray, an apology, and all disciplinary action to be rescinded. However, the district's attorneys argue that faculty offices are "places for teaching and learning and working" not "protests, demonstrations, prayer" or other disruptive activities.

How sickening that the District would try to cover their spiritual prejudice by showing even more stupidity - putting prayer in the same line as protests and demonstrations in faculty offices. Unbelievable.

If prayer is considered disruptive equal to protests and demonstrations, then they need to make their rule cover everything else as well. Arguments between staff, Birthday parties, Holiday decorations, listening to the radio, personal conversations, telephone calls to Mom, and muttering under ones breath. What jerks.
.

Obama to Force Doctors to do Abortions

.

A letter I received today:

"...You might be interested in learning about the Obama Administration’s proposed plan to overturn federal regulations known as “conscience protections” that protect health care workers and organizations that refuse to provide abortions or other medical procedures that violate their convictions.

"The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has announced that it will have a 30-day comment period for Americans to express their opinions about the government’s plan to withdraw existing conscience protections for health care professionals. "A Doctor's Right" needs your help in informing HHS that reversing conscience protections violates freedom and punishes health care providers for choosing to act according to their conscience. Connie just visited http://www.adoctorsright.com/ and emailed a comment directly to HHS through our website and thought you too might want to get involved. We must urge the government to protect freedom of conscience for health care workers.

"Please visit http://www.adoctorsright.com/ to submit a comment to HHS voicing your opposition to rescinding regulations that protect health care professionals’ ability to act according to their conscience. The comment period ends April 9, so we must act now!

"Sincerely,
The "A Doctor's Right" Coalition - http://www.adoctorsright.com"

And Rita writes:

On April 9, Obama will remove the protection of concience from Health and Human services..we will be forced to support abortion, etc. Hospitals, physicians pharmacists. et al.
Phone call to comment line 202-456-2222 or http://wwwfreedom2care.org

Phone calls prefered,,immediately - before April 9.
Rita Senkler

Scream at Congress and Obama.

.
Obama's behavior in London has been embarrassing. I can't believe he's given the Queen of England an ipod with his speeches on it. What a self-absorbed child!

He and his people are on a road to doing serious damage to our country. They are children playing adult.

We all need to scream at our Congress people and Obama, and do it right away because they are voting on the budget today or tomorrow - and get as many others to scream as well.

For a complete list of contact information for Congress, Obama, his cabinet, and 40 top Obama aides, go to www.Data-aide.com. Get the Contact info and share it with your friends.

This administration is going to continue to steam roll over everyone unless people start to scream.
.

Obama is Truly Scary

.
Starting with the decision to move the 2010 census into the White House where that Obama team can "manage" it, to firing CEO's of private companies, telling companies what they can and can't do with their legal contracts, telling car companies what kinds of cars they can and can't make, 'allowing the car companies to have some input" in the white house decisions as to who is on their boards, and finally the bail out money that frightened banks now can not return even if they want to.

Now there is talk of mandatory "volunteer" programs for teen agers. I think part of the joy my daughter gets in all of the volunteer work that she does is in the knowledge that it is all really volunteer.

And knowing a wide spectrum of teenagers and their personalities, I have to wonder how the government would make a "volunteer" program work; ie who would supervise it, what kind of "educating" would be included, how far they would go to enforce participation, and how much the volunteer program would end up costing.

The current social climate is more scary to me that the global warming fuss.
.