Sign Grassfire.org's FairTax Petition!

Ian, a member of the new Yahoo group, Bill H.R.25 / S 25 Support Group, sent the message a few moments ago that he had gotten Grassfire.org on board with a petition drive! Here's the e-mail:

"I've been asking Grassfire.org to put the FairTax on the front burner, and LO AND BEHOLD - IT'S HERE (see below).

FairTaxers, click the link below and JOIN Grassfire.org's efforts (they're highly media visible) to lobby for the FairTax.

Also, send them a NOTE thanking them for HELPING TO SET THE FAIR TAX MOVEMENT "ON FIRE" throughout America.

-Ian"

From Grassfire.org Alliance++

Your immediate action requested (see details below)

The time has come to end the tyrannical and oppressive tax system that is slowly draining the lifeblood of our nation.

That's why Grassfire has launched an aggressive petitioncampaign to demanding our leaders adopt a more progressiveFair Tax system. Click here for more: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=1016&rid=11106505+ +

Fair Tax: An idea whose Time has come

Our dwindling workforce can no longer carry the ever-increasing tax burden. By scrapping the current, antiquated system, and adopting a consumer-based FairTax system, Americans would be given control of their tax burden!

In other words, you would keep 100 percent of your paycheck. Your savings and investments would never be taxed, and all current forms of federal taxation would end.

Additionally, such a system would create more jobs, and give the U.S. a level playing field when selling overseas.

Read more about the Fair Tax and how it can benefit you by clicking here: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=1016&rid=11106505+ +

Calling on Grassroots America

While the Fair Tax isn’t in anyone's immediate future, we believe we can make this an Election Year issue. If grassroots Americans begin to raise their voices and begin demanding an end to the tax oppression, we can advance the Fair Tax cause!

Our goal over the next 60 days is to rally a minimum of100,000 citizen petitions. Once we reach that goal, we can get the attention of lawmakers on Capitol Hill--including Sen. Chambliss, Rep. Linder and others who support the Fair Tax Act of 2005.

We need you to step up and become a leader in this cause by adding your name to our national "Fair Tax" petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.aspu=1016&rid=11106505

Thank you for being such an integral part of all we do atGrassfire, and be sure to read our latest Grassroots Alert!

Grassfire.org Alliance

P.S: In 60 days, must have at least 100,000 signatures to present to key leadership. Please add your name today and alert your friends to take action with you. + +

Sign our "Fair Tax" Petition: http://www.grassfire.net/r.aspu=1016&rid=11106505+ +

Read latest Grassroots Alert: The "Fair Tax": An idea whosetime has come: http://www.grassfire.net/r.asp?u=1016&rid=11106505+ +

For more on this and other Grassfire issues: http://www.grassfire.org

+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +

Grassfire.org Alliance is a non-profit 501(c)4 issues advocacy organization dedicated to equipping our 1.5 million-strong network of grassroots conservatives with the tools that give you a real impact on the key issues of our day.

Gifts to Grassfire.org are not tax deductible.+ +

Comments? Questions?http://www.grassfire.org/email.asp?ind=10

FELLOW "FAIRTAXERS" UNITE!!!

Important Announcement:

There is a NEW "FairTax" Yahoo Group in town! I'd like to recommend that anyone, from anywhere in the country who is either a FairTax supporter or would like to learn more about the "FairTax" to visit: Bill H.R.25 / S 25 Support Group and request an invitation! In this group questions may be asked and a network of supporters will be there to help each other answer them. There's POWER in numbers, folks!

Here is the description of the group:

This group has been established as an open forum for grassroots "FairTax" supporters to meet without the contraints of working under AFFT, who must abide by IRS regulations and laws pertaining to a 501c non-profit group.

This is a completely open forum to discuss and advance Bill HR 25/S 25 to the President's desk for signature. Your ideas, research and voice is coveted. The owner wishes you to feel free to discuss political candidates, elections and endorse candidates, post articles and research information and share promotional ideas concerning the Bill known as the FairTax Act of 2005.

Feel free to discuss and report on this site how you perceive the FairTax to eliminate problems such as illegal immigration, Social Security funding, leveling the playing field in foreign trade, etc.

Your e-mail will not be limited here and there will be no complaints about the volume of e-mail sent. If any member has a problem with the volume of e-mail let it be known when you become a member you will be responsible for your own e-mail settings, you may opt to receive every e-mail or a weekly digest, it is each member's personal responsibility to limit their own e-mail as they desire.

As a group, we will try to address questions concerning issues pertaining to the Bill. Senators, Congressmen, State Representatives, Legislators and their staff are all welcome and members are encouraged to invite them and other supporters. This is not a State group, but an National group.

Join TODAY!

Progressives are Losing the Argument, OBVIOUSLY

Neal Boortz reports on Nealz Nuze today, under the topic of "Olbermann's Nazi Salute," that:

"...there's one thing that he's (Olbermann's) finally being called to account over. And that's his use of the Nazi salute when pretending to be Bill O'Reilly. The implication is that Fox News is really a Nazi propaganda machine. Always remember the following template when it comes to liberals. If a liberal has lost an argument and has absolutely nothing left to say, they will call their opponent a Nazi. The Democrats have been doing it to George Bush for 5 1/2 years.

But those who are offended by Olbermann's tactics have gotten tired of it. So the Anti-Defamation League fired off a letter to Olbermann which read, in part:

"As a respected and well-known media personality, your actions have consequences and can set a standard for others to emulate. We are especially concerned that young people viewing your program might take their cues from your free use of the "Sieg Heil" salute.""

So, I'm surfing around the net today, hitting some blogs and what do I come across? Why, I come across Bob at I am a Christian Too, he's posted an entry, » Conservatives Without Conscience: Christians and Earthly Authority, in which he discusses John Dean's new book, Conservatives Without Conscience, here'a a snippet:

Dean is a Goldwater Republican who finds that most beliefs held by Bush conservatives run directly counter to his traditional conservatism (you know, fiscal responsibility, personal freedom, avoiding international adventurism that conservatism.) When he went looking for an explanation for this tectonic shift, he came across some academic studies trying to understand why so many Germans followed Hitler's immoral rule during WWII. A lone madman like Hitler is one thing. A large segment of the population willing to follow a Hitler or a Mussolini is another. Where was their conscience?

These psychological studies developed a profile of the type of person likely to participate in immoral actions merely because a strong leader tells them to. These authoritarians tend to be submissive to authority and in favor of punishing the declared enemies of the authorities. Authoritarians conform to conventional behaviors, are hostile to minorities, and view themselves as more moral than others. They also aren't very self-aware; it's difficult for them to see their actions from outside the context of the authoritarian structure.

As you might expect, conservative Christians tend to score highly on this scale.

Yeah, sure, Bob. We might expect a progressive Christian to try to compare Conservatives to Nazis and those who followed like blind sheep as Hitler committed genocide. Of course, in doing so we would ignore the very real Nazis in the world today, like the leader of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who as CNN.com reports:

"...Ahmadinejad quoted a remark from Iran's Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, who said that Israel "must be wiped out from the map of the world.

"The president then said: "And God willing, with the force of God behind it, we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism," according to a quote published by IRNA....

... Ahmadinejad is quoted as saying, "Anybody who recognizes Israel will burn in the fire of the Islamic nation's fury.""

There is a fascism raising it's head today, but author John Dean, Bob at I am a Christian Too and other Progressive/Democrat's like him and Keith Olbermann would have us believe that these terrorist fascists who seek to invoke another holocaust on Israel are a minority group who should be protected from the evil neo-conservative "Crusade." Puhleaaase.

As Neal said: "If a liberal has lost an argument and has absolutely nothing left to say, they will call their opponent a Nazi."

To quote the churchlady from Saturday Night Live: "Isn't that special?"

Who Will Pay the Price for Bill HR 25?

It's needless to say that I am somewhat let down after the primary election.

I was particularly pulling for Jeff Parnell and Michael Goodart. I only hope that they will run again in the future and we'll get 'em next time guys!

There has to come a time when voting is not all about name recognition and money. These last few years there have been many divisive issues which have faced us but none so polarizing as the Iraq war and none so impassioned as the immigration issue.

It is my heart's desire to see people become as impassioned and active in support of Bill HR 25/S 25 as they have been about the immigration issue, particularly. There are very few issues which Americans are interested in which the "FairTax" Bill will not impact upon becoming law.

For years now good Americans have supported the Bill by signing petitions and working as grassroots volunteers for Americans For Fair Taxation (AFFT) but there are rumblings of discontent among AFFT volunteers as we are feeling more and more stifled by rules and regulations which hamper the cause of educating and watching this Bill be pushed into law.

Most recently, with the advent of FairTax Yahoo Groups, volunteers in each State have come together but under the umbrella and watchful eye of AFFT. Because AFFT is a 501c non-profit group which lobbies Congress they cannot endorse any politician. They, and I too, don't get me wrong, want the Bill to be a non-partisan issue but, frankly, it just isn't working. Democrats are suspicious of anything which has more support from Republican pundits than Democrat pundits and it is the natural inclination of Democrats to pit themselves against anything which has garnered a great deal of Republican support. Volunteers who would like to campaign and support candidates, primarily Republican and Libertarian, because they support the Bill are kept from doing so by AFFT. AFFT has no choice, being the 501c lobbyist group that they are.

Another complaint communicated by many "FairTax" volunteers regarding the Yahoo Groups is that they were set up to be a way for volunteers to encourage one another and communicate ideas but in many cases and in many different groups mail volume has been discouraged. How can volunteers encourage one another when moderators of these groups complain and discourage them from sharing their ideas with one another and posting to one another? These moderators exercise such censorship control over the volunteers that they have, over the years, discouraged many members who have, as a result, left the group and ceased from promoting the Bill.

Many volunteers are now in private discussions about ways that we can continue to support the Bill without such close association with AFFT because we feel that as American citizens who are not paid staff or employees of AFFT that our free speech and expression rights are being trampled by the very organization who has brought the "FairTax" to the state of recognition which it now enjoys. Many of us feel it is time to bring the promotion to a new level wherein grassroots VOLUNTEER supporters of the Bill are no longer encumbered and held back by the IRS tax rules which stifle AFFT's actions. In other words, it is time for grassroots supporters to break out, leave the stifling guidance of AFFT's watchful eye and make our own waves, without censorship from a group governed by IRS laws and regulations. We are American citizens, individuals, who have every right to discuss who we will support or not support in the political arena based on their support or non-support of HR 25/S25.

I recently attended the FairTax Seminar in Springfield, Missouri and I greatly enjoyed it. It's time to go forth and use what we know to further the cause of the "FairTax." If that means voting a Roy Blunt out of office to do so then that's what we should do. If that means showing a Jim Talent that IF, as the rumor mill has it, he supports the Bill but will not/cannot announce his support until after the election...well, what does that tell us? That he doesn't really support the bill enough to stand up for it during an election cycle?

Many "FairTaxers" are one issue voters, if a candidate will not endorse and support the Bill then they do not want to endorse or support the candidate. I am NOT a one issue voter, myself, but Bill HR 25/S 25 is ONE of the many issues I look at when deciding who I will vote for and I look at that first, then among "FairTax" supporting candidates I choose the one which most aligns with my political viewpoint. I am becoming more of an independent voter all the time. What does this mean this November? It means that Republicans who do not support the "FairTax" had better start taking note.

Nationwide there are approximately 700,000 Bill HR 25/S 25 supporters, and that is only those supporters who have signed a petition with AFFT or joined a Yahoo Group, that tells me there are many more supporters who are uncounted. If I must vote for a Libertarian who will support the "FairTax" and is not ashamed to announce it as opposed to a Republican who will not come out in support of it until AFTER the election I will definitely consider doing so. I have become consistently less and less impressed with the political status quo and I do not think I am alone. Politicians take note, you WILL either start listening to and representing your base or you WILL pay a price.

Spotlight on Bernard Kennetz, Jr., Primary Opponent in the 7th District and FairTax Supporter

Dr. Bernard Kennetz, Jr is running in the Republican primary for Roy Blunt's seat in the 7th District of Missouri. He makes a good argument (kennetzforcongress.com) for change. Here is a quote from Kennetz on taxation:

Income Tax: There is no justification for a compulsory income tax when there are other options. Citizens must be given choice, freewill, freedom, when that is in the realm of possibilities. A national sales tax is a completely volitional tax. The citizen makes the choice, not his/her government. There are no legal loopholes. The income tax should, and must be abolished if America is to remain a moral country living up to its ideals. It must be replaced with the national sales tax where all people are treated equally under the law.

Dr. Kennetz is a petition signer and supporter of the Fair Tax Bill, HR 25/S 25.

Jeff Parnell ~ Hardy Campaigner

(Check out Jeff Parnell for U.S. Congress - Missouri's 4th District - Home for pictures and a recap of Jeff's visit to "Hermitage at an event hosted by the Hickory County Republican women.")

I felt since there were some unfounded accusations being hurled at Jeff Parnell, Republican primary candidate for the 4th district in Missouri, in the comment section of my recent blog on the fight for the 4th district primary that I should address them formally.

An anonymous commentator is claiming that Mr. Parnell has done nothing to campaign for his seat, that all he has done is work in his tire shop (a necessity for a man with a family and household expenses, as most Missourians realize) and play music.

The fact is that Mr. Parnell has campaigned vigorously and taken a hands on approach, rather than spending a lot of his own resources on signage or a big campaign bus.

I sent Mr. Parnell an e-mail query about where he has campaigned, here is just a partial listing of the towns and cities he has visited and from where he has spoken regarding his campaign, it was considerate of Mr. Parnell to provide me with this personal answer to my query as I know that today, of all days, he must be very busy, as a matter of fact, he is speaking this evening in Hermitage, Missouri:

Lamar
Nevada
Butler
Harrisonville
Marshfield
Jefferson City
California
Wheatland
Camdenton
Osage Beach
ORLANDO, FLORIDA

Further, Mr. Parnell stated in his e-mail reply that he has it on good authority that Mr. Conner did not attend some events because he knew that Mr. Parnell was going to be there and would be performing his music, which Parnell both writes and performs.

If Mr. Parnell is such a poor candidate one would have to question why the Kansas City Star endorsed him as the best candidate, writing:

Four conservative Republicans, however, are on the 4th District ballot. The best choice appears to be Jeff Parnell, a small-business owner from Rogersville who also sought the nomination two years ago.

Parnell is well-informed on a range of issues and expresses considerable enthusiasm for cleaning up the fiscal mess in Washington. He also emphasizes strict border security.

Also in the race are James A. Noland, Alan Conner and Lloyd D. Sanders Sr.

Noland, a former state legislator, has repeatedly sought the
congressional seat with odd statements and poorly thought-out positions.

Connor, a farmer and businessman who has not previously sought political office, has mounted a vigorous campaign.

But he shows poor judgment, for example, in attacking judicial
independence — a cornerstone of American democracy.

Sanders, a minister and political novice, offers appropriate criticism of shoddy Washington ethics but is vague on other issues.

Some people have money to throw around on a campaign and some people have vision and common sense and can win on the issues. It is a false charge to say that Mr. Parnell has done NOTHING to campaign, he has worked very hard in this campaign without requiring a large bankroll to do so while managing a business in the process. This is the sort of financial conservatism and multi-tasking management we need in Jefferson City.

I support and endorse Jeff Parnell.

Spotlight on Michael Goodart, FairTax Supporter

Michael Goodart is running in the 138th district of Missouri in the Republican primary. He is a graduate of Missouri State University with a B. S. in Political Science and minored in Finance and General Business. Mr. Goodart worked as an intern for Majority Whip Chuck Purgason in 2003. He is a charismatic young man with great communication skills, as I witnessed when listening to his debate with his primary opponent Steve Helms: stevehelms.net (According to the Springfield News-Leader "Helms does not dispute... that in 2003 he filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy, reporting $767,079 in debt, including more than $100,000 in credit card debt.")

Mr. Goodart is an avid supporter of the Fair Tax, Bill HR 25/S 25. I have heard few people better able to articulate the benefits of the FairTax than Mr. Goodart. When I listened to the debate between Mr. Goodart and Mr. Helms on the Vincent David Jericho Show, which is on KSGF Monday through Friday from 6:00 to 9:00 am, it became clear to me that Michael Goodart is the stronger advocate for the FairTax of the two primary opponents. While Helms claims to support it, it seemed to me that he spent much of his time arguing against the FairTax while Goodart spent his time arguing in support of it.

If you would like to learn more about Mr. Goodart's stands on issues such as the FairTax, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Personal Responsibility and Business and what he would do to work for Missouri, please visit his website. I cannot remember being more impressed with a young politician as I am with this fine young man.

A Voice, Not an Echo

Following is an email letter which was sent out to Alan Conner's constituents. It was forwarded to me yesterday:

"FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
August 4, 2006

Media Contact: Mike Lodewegen, Campaign Manager
(417)830-4350"

As we all know, anyone can file suit against anybody. The suit filed by Mrs. Noland is now in the hands of attorneys on both sides. I will not be surprised if this suit is dropped after we win the primary Tuesday.

We will be busy for the next four days campaigning as we are in this
Congressional race to win. Thank you for your continued support."

Your Republican Candidate for Congress, Alan Conner

For more information visit ConnerforCongress.com

Paid for by: Missourians for Alan Conner, Aaron Hunter, Treasurer "

I sent an e-mail query to Mr. Conner yesterday but it was not delivered because Mr. Conner's e-mail in-box was full. I guess many people had questions for Mr. Conner yesterday.

As I mentioned in reply to a Conner supporter in the comment section of my previous blog entry, The Fight for the 4th District Republican Primary, politics has been TOO much about money and not enough about issues and causes, it is time for a fresh face, and that face is Jeff Parnell. Mr. Noland has tried to beat Ike Skelton over and over again, he wasn't up to the task in the past, perhaps Jeff Parnell will be.

People all over the country are tired of the status quo. We are tired of wealthy Americans buying their way into their Statehouses and Washington, D.C. We are ready for the common man who is in touch with his base, the common man who knows first hand the plight of working hard to keep milk in the refrigerator and bread on the kitchen counter, the common man who struggles in the heat to do a good honest day's work to provide for his family, the common man who has not been so removed from the people that he can no longer represent them because he can no longer identify with them, himself. A common man with common sense. A voice, not an echo. That common man, that voice, is Jeff Parnell.

"Fine sense, and exalted sense, are not half as useful as common sense.--There are forty men of wit to one man of sense.--He that will carry nothing about him but gold, will be every day at a loss for readier change." ~Pope.

The Fight for the 4th District Republican Primary

As a Fair Tax supporter, I have been watching the primary race in the 4th District of Missouri with interest. One of the Republican primary candidates is Jeff Parnell.

Parnell recently performed his original song "Perhaps We Need a Tea Party Again" at the Orlando, Florida FairTax Babe Pancake Breakfast, as announced by Neal Boortz at boortz.com July 21, 2006. View the Slideshow of that event on July 29, 2006 prior to the FairTax Rally. The Rally was attended by between 10,000 to 12,000 people according to the Orlando, Florida Police Dept. :)

I have been told by sources close to the 4th District primary campaign that one of his primary opponents, Alan Conner, wanted to drop out of the race but waited too late to take his name off the ballot so is forced to run for a seat he, evidently, doesn't want. Alan Conner, according to the News-Leader is now being sued by the wife of another Republican primary opponent, Mrs. Janice Noland, wife of primary candidate Jim Noland, claims that Conner made threats to her over the telephone. According to the News-Leader " Janice Noland alleges that businessman Alan Conner called her in mid-July demanding to talk. When she refused and hung up, the lawsuit claims, Conner called back and left a threatening message on her answering machine, saying, "I will bring you down."" Mrs. Noland also "alleges Conner also threatened to sue her and report her to the Missouri Bar." These events prompted Jeff Parnell to issue this response for immediate release:

"While some in Missouri's 4th District Congressional Republican primary
allegedly engage in malicious threats and other bad behaviors, I continue to be
the only candidate actively involved in policy change on a national level, most
notably my work in raising awareness about the Fair Tax."

Last week, I traveled to Orlando, Florida to participate in a Fair Tax
Rally which drew between 10,000 - 12,000 people; I emceed an event and
performed my song Perhaps We Need A Tea Party Again; was recognized on
Neal Boortz' nationwide radio program, and appeared on statewide radio in
Florida. I also made appearances on radio in Springfield and gave numerous
interviews as a result of the event. In short, I am working hard on issues
that I believe will be good for Missouri and America.

When voters in the 4th District go to the polls Tuesday, I hope they will
not be dazzled by Washington D.C. Style Pork-Barrel Campaigning, or vote for any
candidate who cannot control himself or his temper."

I don't know about the 4th District but I am tired of childish politicians who cannot work together reasonably on behalf of their constituents and in the best interest of same. Both Conner and Noland appear unable to even run in a primary contest without resorting to schoolyard antics.

The 4th District of Missouri voters have an opportunity to select a candidate who has actively worked a business in Springfield, MO, Parnell Tire, consecutively while running a clean campaign promoting interest in policy issues which not only would work to better the lives of Missourians but Americans Nationwide. I wholeheartedly endorse Jeff Parnell. I hope after reading this entry those of you in the 4th District will, as well.

In closing, I'll let Jeff speak for himself regarding the Fair Tax Act:

"Perhaps We Need a Tea Party Again"

Lyrics and music by: Jeff Parnell

One night in Boston Harbor, the tea flew overboard.
They said, "We don't owe King George a thing, we answer to our Lord."
They built this land of freedom, but things have changed since then.
Perhaps we need a tea party again.

They passed the 16th amendment, and the income tax was law.
But it punishes achievement, and that's just one of many flaws.
Then along came withholding, we don't know what we pay in.
Perhaps we need a tea party again.

There's a better way to pay the bills, and the Fair Tax is its name.
We can fully fund this government, and end these silly games.
We can save Social Security, and Medicare it's true.
And the Congress needs to hear all this from You.

Career politicians love the power of tax and spend.
And it's time that all of us take a stand and reign them in.
This country is worth saving, and I'm telling you my friends,
"Perhaps we need a tea party again."

There's a better way to pay the bills, and the Fair Tax is its name.
We can fully fund this government, and end these silly games.
We can save Social Security, and Medicare it's true.
But the Congress needs to hear all this from You.

One night in Boston Harbor, the tea flew overboard.
They said, "We don't owe King George a thing, we answer to our Lord."
We built this land of freedom, but much has changed since then.
Perhaps we need a tea party again.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Update on this story: Lake Sun Leader has an article on the law suit brought by Mrs. Janice Noland against Mr. Conner. Here's a quote:

Conner said last week he is the only credible candidate in the primary race. His campaign has raised $343,000, according to The AP, $138,000 of which he spent on a campaign bus to travel around the 25-county district, which includes the Lake of the Ozarks.

Also running in the primary are Jeff Parnell of Rogersville, and the Rev. Lloyd Sanders of Richland.

While some candidates in this primary allegedly engage in malicious threats, I continue to be the only candidate actively involved in policy change on a national level, Parnell said Saturday in an e-mail to the Lake Sun.

“When voters ... go to the polls Tuesday, I hope they will not be dazzled by Washington D.C.-style pork-barrel campaigning, or vote for any candidate who cannot control himself or his temper,” Parnell said.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Additional update: Check out: Ozarks Newsstand - Candidate Jim Noland's wife files suit against Alan Conner

Rev. Timothy Simpson, Promoting Propaganda by Proxy

I’ve noticed a lot of action from the “Progressive” Christian community on the internet and in the streets lately. I’ve seen billboards that say “Would Jesus discriminate?” popping up around the city, put there by self-proclaimed “progressive Christians” who apparently believe recognizing sin as sin is the same thing as “discriminating.”

Now I find in my mail a piece written by Reverend Timothy F. Simpson from the Christian Alliance for Progress, http://www.christianalliance.org/, titled, “The President Turns a Blind Eye to the Suffering and Death of Americans.”

Well, if LYING can be considered progress, the “progressive Christians” are certainly progressing!

Rev. Simpson suggests that by vetoing federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, the President will cause “…the early deaths and unnecessary suffering of millions of Americans.” He further opines that the President’s decision was “irrational” and evidence that “America is under the sway of theocrats whose obsession for ideological purity outweighs their concern for America's, and the world's, sick and dying.”

Let’s look at the reality of this issue. EMBRYONIC (I must emphasize that adjective as the “Progressives,” like the good Rev. Simpson, conveniently leave this very important qualifier out of their propag….er, arguments) stem cells have not cured one disease. Zip. Zero. Nada. Zilch. In fact, EMBRYONIC stem cells, in the treatment of animals, have either done nothing for the malady which researchers were attempting to treat, or worse, it made the lab animals receiving them DEAD.

EMBRYONIC stem cells are attractive to researchers because they’re thought to be “pluripotent”, which means, in essence, that the cells have not made up their little minds what kind of specialized cell they’d like to be when they grow up. This, theoretically, opens the path for researchers to train them to become whatever kind of specialized cell a researcher could want. This hasn’t happened. EMBRYONIC stem cells, instead of being told to grow up specializing in this or that by researchers, have a mind of their own….forming bone inside recipients’ brains, or tumors, oftentimes fatal, wherever they please. EMBRYONIC stem cells don’t take instruction well at all.

ADULT stem cells, however, DO.

ADULT and CORD BLOOD (very important adjectives, setting these cells apart from embryonic stem cells in that they are not harvested by killing human embryos, and denoting the fact that different kinds of stem cells exist, something “progressives” conveniently overlook) stem cells possess more pluripotent properties, like those thought to be possessed by EMBRYONIC stem cells, than researchers ever thought possible. They can grow into specialized cells apart from that in which they’ve already specialized. Treatment with these stem cells is much less risky than treatment with the unruly EMBRYONIC stem cells, cells which can only be obtained by killing a human embryo, a.k.a. a baby.

Further, ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells are currently being used to treat more than 70 different diseases. We are treating cancer, cardiovascular diseases, auto-immune diseases, neurological diseases, blood diseases and conditions, various injuries, including spinal, wounds, and a whole host of other debilitating diseases and conditions with ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells. Unlike EMBRYONIC stem cells, treatment with ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells has shown real progress for real people with real diseases. Unlike EMBRYONIC stem cells, treatments with ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells have proven effective.

To recap:

EMBRYONIC stem cells have not cured one disease and have caused the death of many test animals upon the administration of these stem cells.

ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells are currently being used to treat 72 different diseases and conditions, with approximately 300 trials showing promise for treatment of other diseases and conditions currently underway.

The scorecard for EMBRYONIC v. ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cells is:

EMBRYONIC – 0
ADULT/CORD BLOOD - 72

See the difference?

The good Reverend Timothy F. Simpson hopes you don’t.

Taking this reality into account, it makes perfect sense that President Bush would veto federal funding for research that has, thus far, proven to be a failure. The hype of the past decade regarding EMBRYONIC stem cell research was just that….hype…..hype which overshadowed the miraculous breakthroughs and progress in the fields of ADULT and CORD BLOOD stem cell research, the research fields most deserving of federal funds. Even so, EMBRYONIC stem cell research continues, just not with federal funds beyond that which was previously allowed on existing lines. The President's veto did not put an end to all EMBRYONIC stem cell research as the good Reverend would have you believe.

In light of this, it seems the only one obsessed with ideological purity and theocracy is Reverend Timothy F. Simpson. He obfuscates the debate by blending ALL stem cell research into one category, pretending that lack of federal funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research will cause death and suffering, as though it has been useful in preventing those things previously (it has not); by ignoring the fact that EMBRYONIC stem cells haven't successfully treated one disease, condition or ailment; and, further, he wants the federal government to fund the killing of human embryos even though it is against the morals of many taxpayers. To him, and those like him, religion and morals are good so long as they are THEIR morals and THEIR religion. Anything else is deserving of demonization and lies.

Reverend Simpson bemoaning another’s obsession with ideological purity is like the KKK’s Grand Kleagle lamenting the racists in his midst.

Showing concern for the world's sick and dying does not entail what the good Reverend gives us - slickness and lying.

An Open Letter to Americans For Fair Taxation

Dear Leo Linbeck, Tom Wright, Genie Hayes, and anyone else it concerns,

A few short weeks ago my husband and I watched with participatory satisfaction, the Senate vote down the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act (CIRA, S.2611).

It is my belief that if it were not for the completely grassroots organized and unorganized outcry of opponents of this amnesty bill that it would have sailed through the Senate. I believe that the grassroots effort of millions of Americans, who were sending faxes, letters, emails and making phone calls to their local and State Representatives, Senators and radio stations regarding the "Amnesty legislation," as well as local protests across the Nation crying for our government to secure our borders in the interest of National security, is solely responsible for getting the attention of those Senators, causing them to sit up and take notice of what the people they represented wanted done and/or would not accept from their Senators.

With this in mind I would like to take to task Americans for Fair Taxation (AFFT) for trying to keep grassroots supporters of the FairTax bill from voicing their opinions and demanding that the FairTax, Bill HR 25, become law.

My husband has been very active in supporting the FairTax. At every turn he is met with someone from AFFT who will tell him that this is not the way it is done, or that is not the way it is done. Enough! This is a free country!

While AFFT is a 501c organization, the average citizen grassroots supporter who is NOT on your staff, who is NOT a PAID EMPLOYEE of your organization, is in no way bound by the laws by which that 501c organization is bound, further, AFFT, itself, as a 501c organization, is in a position to fear the IRS, the very government agency which they would like to put out of business. Every action AFFT takes must be considered in light of their abiding of the laws of taxation in our Nation.

The staff and paid employees of AFFT are LOBBYISTS to Congress. If the passage of the FairTax Bill is successful their organization will roll up the sidewalks and go home. In short, their paid staff and paid employees will be OUT OF A JOB. This leaves me to question their intentions, right or wrong.

I am tired of the very organization which was put in place to support the FairTax Bill holding down its supporters, trying to restrict the free speech rights of their supporters and making an effort to keep them under their thumbs. The day that they begin to pay a salary or hourly wage to all of their grassroots supporters is the day they can begin to expect those grassroots supporters to abide by their policies and not a day sooner. For a long time we have honored the wishes of AFFT in its promotion of the FairTax Bill, but the Bill does not seem to get enough steam to become law, the next thing we know there is a NEW Congress and the effort must be started all over again. It is a vicious cycle and appears to be going nowhere under the current policy of promotion.

Regarding the upcoming Orlando, Florida FairTax Rally which is featured at Neal Boortz's blog : 580wdbo.com: Event Guide Neal Boortz Fair Tax Rally, my husband has called Orlando's local radio station with a couple of suggestions and questions. A paid lobbyist for AFFT has just called to let my husband know that it is "causing confusion" when he calls and that AFFT has a policy that only one person from the organization may contact the station. My husband obliged that request. I'll tell you what I would have said to this lobbyist: "The day you are paying me a wage for my opinions, thoughts and ideas regarding FairTax support and promotion is the day that I will abide by your organization's policies."

It is my personal belief that AFFT holds back the cause of the FairTax grassroot supporters. If the treatment my husband has received is any indication of the actions taken by AFFT in an effort to silence the vocal support for the Bill HR 25 then this may be the very reason, or at least a contributory factor, that the FairTax Bill cannot get the support of Senators and therefore passage into law in our Nation.

Is it in the best interest of the FairTax Bill to hold back its supporters and keep them so bound in their support of the FairTax? I have to wonder. Personally, I think there is an argument to be made that it would be in the best interest of Bill HR 25 to let your people go! Stop trying to control the natural inclinations of your grassroots supporters and give them back their own voices without micro-managing their support!

Sincerely,
Jacke M.

AlterNet Misleads on the Issue of the HPV Vaccination

Today this AlterNet article was posted in the internet debate group, of which I am a member...following is how I addressed it (and this is just an excerpt of the AlterNet article):

Why the Religious Right Fights Cancer Prevention

By Gene Gerard, Truthdig
Posted on June 13, 2006, Printed on June 14, 2006
http://www.alternet.org/story/37485/

The Food and Drug Administration advisory panel approved a vaccine for the human papilloma virus (HPV) last week. The vaccine appears to be 100 percent effective at protecting against the most prevalent viruses that cause cervical cancer. While public health professionals view the vaccine as miraculous, many conservative organizations oppose it on the grounds that it might encourage promiscuity among adolescent girls. Now that the FDA has approved the vaccine, conservatives are already working feverishly to limit or even prevent its use.

Alternet uses this blog link: Feministing as their source proof that "conservatives are already working feverishly to limit or even prevent" the use of the new HPV vaccine...please point to any statement made by Dr. Finger which offers to limit or prevent it's use:

June 08, 2006

Are we Finger fucked?

Contributed by
Madeline Halperin-Robinson

Merck just announced that the FDA has approved their HPV vaccine, Gardasil. This should be great news, but we all know that nothing is simple these days in matters of public policy and women’s health.

The real battle over the vaccine will be in the coming weeks as the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) issues their recommendations for how the vaccine should be administered. While the ACIP decisions are non-binding, its recommendations set the standard by which states decide if they will mandate vaccination, insurance companies choose to cover the cost, and doctors decide how to advise their patients. Their decision on June 29 will determine whether or not we will be on our way to eradicating an STI that affects 80% of women by age 50 and is at the root of almost all cases of cervical cancer.

The only member of the 15-member panel to publicly state his opinion about making the vaccine routinely available is Reginald Finger. Dr. Finger nominated himself to the ACIP after the ultra-conservative Focus on the Family was asked to provide a list of scientists to nominate for various federal boards. Dr. Finger (sorry, I can’t get over that name) describes himself as a liaison between the CDC and Focus on the Family. He says, “Focus on the Family wants to have good relationships at CDC - and I can help make those happen.”

He has also said that if “people begin to market the [HPV] vaccine or tout the vaccine that this makes adolescent sex safer, then that would undermine the abstinence-only message.” For the record, Finger would also be wary of approving an HIV vaccine, should one become available.

Sigh. I hope the other 14 members of the ACIP will make their decision based on science and public health. The Family Research Council weighed in at the last ACIP meeting, so you should submit written comments to the ACIP before their June 29 hearing:

Advisory Committee on Immunization PracticesCenters for Disease Control and
Prevention1600 Clifton Road, NEMS E-05Atlanta, Georgia 30333

Posted by Ann at 02:37 PM in Health , Politics , Reproductive Rights

Here are a few excerpts from Dr. Finger's interview with "The Sharpshooter," the link is provided in "Feministing," AlterNet's source, under the hot link for "Reginald Finger:"

"...I helped defend the National Immunization Survey when Congress almost
canceled it. In 1996, I was at the meeting in Atlanta where we decided that
global eradication of measles was a thinkable concept...."

"...Q The Sharpshooter: So how did your appointment to the ACIP come about? And what is the ACIP?

A Dr. Finger: The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is appointed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with CDC to set immunization policy for the nation. We look at the safety, effectiveness, and costs of vaccines, new and old, and the epidemiology of diseases that can be prevented by vaccination, and hammer out recommendations and schedules for the use of each vaccine. These are then accepted and published by CDC. My appointment came about because a little over a year ago, Focus on the Family was asked—along with a number of other organizations—to line up a list of qualifiedscientists to suggest to Secretary Thompson for service on various federal boards. My bosses here gave the assignment to me and kindly suggested that I put my own name on the list. So I did—and this spring HHS called and asked if I would serve onthe ACIP! It was a marvelous opportunity and I jumped at the chance...."

In the interview, Dr. Finger has this
exchange:

"...Q The Sharpshooter: Did you take on smallpox or influenza for a subcommittee assignment within ACIP?

A Dr. Finger: No I didn’t, because these are very complex issues and have lots of people working on them already. My approach was much like a freshman legislator’s might be—to pick an important but less visible issue and try to become expert on it. So I picked—meningococcal disease...."

"Feministing" blog goes on to state: "He has also said that if “people begin to market the [HPV] vaccine or tout the vaccine that this makes adolescent sex safer, then that would undermine the abstinence-only message.”"

And, while Dr. Finger certainly did say that, if you click on the link "also said" and read "The Hill" article the real issue seems to be whether the vaccine should be MANDATORY, which is what the vaccine maker would like, they'd like the government to MANDATE it's use. Finger is doing his job by discussing the uses for the HPV shot...that IS why he is a member of ACIP, after all. Here are some excerpts from that link from "The Hill" CDC panel discussing uses for HPV shot:

"...Democrats worry conservatives’ qualms could cause roadblocks similar to the two-year battle surrounding approval of the emergency contraceptive Plan B as an over-the-counter drug.

Conservatives say they welcome the vaccine but worry the ACIP could recommend making it mandatory for school-age children because it would violate parents’ rights.

“That’s something that should be left up to parents to decide,” said Wendy Wright, executive vice president of conservative Concerned Women for America.

A spokesman for Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), a physician who is widely known for his pro-abstinence stances, agreed.

“[Coburn] just thinks it should be made available and that doctors would counsel parents and kids together and that it not be mandatory,” said spokesman John Hart. “Women have the right to access the vaccine, and parents in the case of underage kids should have informed consent about what the vaccine could and could not do.”

Other conservatives say abstinence is the most effective defense against HPV and worry that administering a mandatory HPV vaccine could give a false sense of security for teenagers engaging in premarital sex.

“If people begin to market the vaccine or tout the vaccine that this makes adolescent sex safer, then that would undermine the abstinence-only message,” said Reginald Finger, a member of the ACIP and a former medical adviser for the pro-abstinence Focus on the Family...."

XXX, would you argue that discussion and overview of this issue is unhealthy? Or do you just dislike it when the discussion is coming from what you view as "Conservative" Christians?

There's more...from the "Hill" article:

“...We’re hearing from a lot of different groups across the spectrum of their
support for Gardasil as a vaccine,” Dougherty said, adding that conservative
groups such as the Medical Institute for Sexual Health have expressed support for the vaccine, despite press reports indicating opposition. “We are all working to reduce the risk of cervical cancer....”

I guess it's just not okay to voice concerns and discuss uses of a vaccine and issues such as how it can be marketed or utilized in such a way that children will not get a false sense of security that it will make promiscuous sex "safer," when in truth, yes, it may make it safer in that one regard, but it is certainly still not safe...but bring that issue up and you'll be accused of trying to keep a good vaccine from the people and refusing to allow the vaccine to be used at all and painted with a broad brush suggesting that the "Religious Right is fighting against Cancer Prevention" Lol...give me a break, XXX....and this is why your source "Alternet" is laughable.

Oh, in the "Hill" article Hillary Clinton is quoted:

“I am also concerned that ACIP’s reputation may be sullied if their
recommendations are seen as politically biased,” Clinton wrote."

If she's so concerned that ACIP's reputation may be sullied if their
recommendations are SEEN as politically biased then why is she promoting the idea that it is politically biased to even DISCUSS this issue? Geesh, what a maroon.

Memorial Day 2006

I just finished watching the PBS Memorial Day tribute. I was moved to tears hearing the stories read by actors on behalf of our servicemen. Truly, we should all do more than we do to honor these men and women.

I drove to the cemetery on Sunday. I first drove through the veteran's section, past the row of American flags flying in the breeze. It was an honor to think of the men who sacrificed but my heart was most heavy for the family members who were left behind, without fathers, without husbands, without sons. I don't mean, at all, to neglect the women who have worn uniforms either, those losses must in some ways seem even more cruel, if that were possible.

Then I drove to my grandmother, grandfather and step-grandfather's grave sites and decorated them. Then to my step-dad, Cal. Oh, how I loved him! My mother, being ill was not up to going with me and I believe it was the first time I had ever gone alone, without her company. I felt lost without her, like a torch was being passed. I do hope to drive her through next week, maybe when I take her to the lab on Tuesday.

Before I left I passed back by those flags flying on a breezy day, stopped toward the end and wished I had my camera to catch a picture of the last five flags fluttering with the hills and plains behind them, it would have made a lovely picture, but, you know I still have that picture in my mind, as I will have a picture in my mind of what that young man saw the day he watched seven of his brothers die in Iraq. A picture may, indeed, be worth a thousand words but words are powerful tools, I'd have trouble believing that pictures are more powerful.

Say a prayer for those left behind today, for those struggling with the loss of their son or daughter, husband or wife, sister or brother, father or mother.

I was thinking about the story mom used to tell me of my grandmother and great aunts sitting around the table in my grandmother's kitchen a week before Memorial Day. She tells me they made crepe paper flowers and then dipped them in parafin wax to preserve them. I can just imagine them sitting for a week, every day, preparing flowers, dipping them in wax and oh, what stories they must have told! I'll bet they talked about the family members who had passed before them and shared many sweet memories about them. Those old days, balmy, I'm sure, without any air conditioning, grandma probably had to take time out from patching sacks for the feed mill.

I'd like to try making those crepe paper flowers someday.

North American Union?

Okay, I'm NOT a conspiracy theorist but a friend of mine called a couple of columns to my attention this morning and they make far too much sense to just be ignored. The first, Bush's Real Goal - Dissolve America Into The NAU, was written by Jerome R. Corsi of Swift Boat Veteran's for the Truth fame. I was going to just post some excerpts but I have decided to post it in its entirety because every word is important:

Bush's Real Goal - Dissolve America Into The NAU

North American Union To Replace USA?

By Jerome R. Corsi

HumanEventsOnline.com

5-19-6

President Bush is pursuing a globalist agenda to create a North American Union, effectively erasing our borders with both Mexico and Canada. This was the hidden agenda behind the Bush administration's true open borders policy.

Secretly, the Bush administration is pursuing a policy to expand NAFTA to include Canada, setting the stage for North American Union designed to encompass the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. What the Bush administration truly wants is the free, unimpeded movement of people across open borders with Mexico and Canada.

President Bush intends to abrogate U.S. sovereignty to the North American Union, a new economic and political entity which the President is quietly forming, much as the European Union has formed.

The blueprint President Bush is following was laid out in a 2005 report entitled "Building a North American Community" published by the left-of-center Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). The CFR report connects the dots between the Bush administration's actual policy on illegal immigration and the drive to create the North American Union:

At their meeting in Waco, Texas, at the end of March 2005, U.S. President George W. Bush, Mexican President Vicente Fox, and Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin committed their governments to a path of cooperation and joint action. We welcome this important development and offer this report to add urgency and specific recommendations to strengthen their efforts.

What is the plan? Simple, erase the borders. The plan is contained in a "Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America" little noticed when President Bush and President Fox created it in March 2005:

In March 2005, the leaders of Canada, Mexico, and the United States adopted a Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP), establishing ministerial-level working groups to address key security and economic issues facing North America and setting a short deadline for reporting progress back to their governments. President Bush described the significance of the SPP as putting forward a common commitment "to markets and democracy, freedom and trade, and mutual prosperity and security." The policy framework articulated by the three leaders is a significant commitment that will benefit from broad discussion and advice. The Task Force is pleased to provide specific advice on how the partnership can be pursued and realized.

To that end, the Task Force proposes the creation by 2010 of a North American community to enhance security, prosperity, and opportunity. We propose a community based on the principle affirmed in the March 2005 Joint Statement of the three leaders that "our security and prosperity are mutually dependent and complementary." Its boundaries will be defined by a common external tariff and an outer security perimeter within which the movement of people, products, and capital will be legal, orderly and safe. Its goal will be to guarantee a free, secure, just, and prosperous North America.

The perspective of the CFR report allows us to see President Bush's speech to the nation as nothing more than public relations posturing and window dressing. No wonder President Vincente Fox called President Bush in a panic after the speech. How could the President go back on his word to Mexico by actually securing our border? Not to worry, President Bush reassured President Fox. The National Guard on the border were only temporary, meant to last only as long until the public forgets about the issue, as has always been the case in the past.

The North American Union plan, which Vincente Fox has every reason to presume President Bush is still following, calls for the only border to be around the North American Union -- not between any of these countries. Or, as the CFR report stated:

The three governments should commit themselves to the long-term goal of dramatically diminishing the need for the current intensity of the governments' physical control of cross-border traffic, travel, and trade within North America. A long-term goal for a North American border action plan should be joint screening of travelers from third countries at their first point of entry into North America and the elimination of most controls over the temporary movement of these travelers within North America.

Discovering connections like this between the CFR recommendations and Bush administration policy gives credence to the argument that President Bush favors amnesty and open borders, as he originally said. Moreover, President Bush most likely continues to consider groups such as the Minuteman Project to be "vigilantes," as he has also said in response to a reporter's question during the March 2005 meeting with President Fox.

Why doesn't President Bush just tell the truth? His secret agenda is to dissolve the United States of America into the North American Union. The administration has no intent to secure the border, or to enforce rigorously existing immigration laws. Securing our border with Mexico is evidently one of the jobs President Bush just won't do. If a fence is going to be built on our border with Mexico, evidently the Minuteman Project is going to have to build the fence themselves. Will President Bush protect America's sovereignty, or is this too a job the Minuteman Project will have to do for him?

Mr. Corsi is the author of several books, including "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" (along with John O'Neill), "Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil" (along with Craig R. Smith), and "Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians." He is a frequent guest on the G. Gordon Liddy radio show. He will soon co-author a new book with Jim Gilchrist on the Minuteman Project.

http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=14965

The second column, was written by James P. Pinkerton, who writes for Newsday and is titled "Bush cons the American public on immigration," you can find it at the Union Leader. Here are some excerpts from that column:

"...At his White House news conference Tuesday, alongside Australian Prime Minister John Howard, Bush said quite a lot, revealing much about his mind-set. He thinks he can fool his fellow citizens, enough of them at least, by using a few focus-grouped buzzwords. And as for those recalcitrant types who aren't gulled -—well, he figures he can cow them into submission with loaded smear words....

... "Comprehensive" is code for a bill that makes pro-immigration constituencies happy — that is, big business, the Democrats, Hispanic reconquistadors and the Mexican government. The key to making the pro-imms happy, of course, is legislation that negates itself. Build a big wall? Fine, so long as you then shoot it full of holes. Bush will agree to tighten up the border, but only if it's linked to a guest-worker program that loosens things up everywhere else. That's what "comprehensive" means — and the alternative spelling, by the way, is S-H-E-L-L G-A-M-E.

Further demonstrating his hope that the American people are a bunch of dopes who will fall for the cheapest of rhetorical tricks, Bush then set up a straw man: "You know, there are some in our country who say, 'Let's just deport everybody.'" There might be some who say that, but the spearhead of the secure-the-homeland movement, Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., is long on record as favoring an "attrition" strategy against those who are here illegally, mostly by toughening up on employers.

Yet, the Bush administration has virtually eliminated work-site policing: The Government Accountability Office counted 2,849 immigration arrests in 1999, but just 159 in 2004, a decline of 94 percent. And on Sunday, The Washington Post reported that the number of "absconders" — those who were arrested for immigration violations and released on bail, and then simply disappeared — has risen by nearly half under Bush, to 536,000 in 2005. No wonder a Heritage Foundation study projects that if present trends continue, total immigration into the United States could increase in two decades by 217 million.

Having used a code word and set up a straw man, Bush then tried to sound soothing: "We've got to be rational." The obvious point: Anyone who opposes him is irrational...."

Pay attention, people, the future sovereignty of our Nation depends on it.

What are you doing here, Jacke? (Revisited)

On April 4, 2006 I wrote a blog entry, What are you doing here, Jacke?, and I discussed questions I was asking myself about why I blog and in what direction I should be going. I had this to say:

"Forgive me, God for being such a miserable human being full of petty thoughts, full of diversion away from You. Where are You? You are in the eyes of my Mother, who needs me, who calls to me. You are in the eyes of the children who look to me for guidance and actually value the example you alone enable me to set. You are in the eyes of my husband just before he kisses my mouth. You, dear God, are in the quiet, in the questions. Only You hold the answers."

And I referenced 1 Kings 19:11-13 (New International Version):

"11 The LORD said, "Go out and stand on the mountain in the presence of the LORD, for the LORD is about to pass by." Then a great and powerful wind tore the mountains apart and shattered the rocks before the LORD, but the LORD was not in the wind. After the wind there was an earthquake, but the LORD was not in the earthquake. 12 After the earthquake came a fire, but the LORD was not in the fire. And after the fire came a gentle whisper. 13 When Elijah heard it, he pulled his cloak over his face and went out and stood at the mouth of the cave. Then a voice said to him, "What are you doing here, Elijah?"

So, what I'm doing is not blogging on anything unless I feel *inspired* to do so. Unfortunately, I haven't felt very inspired lately. Angry, perhaps, over the border security issue and the prospects of amnesty-like proposals in the Senate. Angry, perhaps, over what I have perceived as little interest on the part of our elected representatives to represent us. Not inspired.

So, I decided to give kudos to Angel at The Rogue Angel for helping to inspire me to get to this point, a point in which I am weaning myself away from arguing with "Progressive" Christians, and fairly successfully, I might add :) . It was a post from Angel that shined the light of truth in my direction and being unable to either argue or disagree with her points made (to argue with her about this issue would be to argue with God Almighty, how could I do that? The answer is, I can't.) Here's the link to the post that shook me up, though somewhat grudgingly: More Than Fitting.

Anyway, I want to give credit where credit is due and so, I wanted to share a reply I wrote to an article posted in that political debate group to which I belong. The article, Religious Liberals Gain New Visibility, from the Washington Post says in part:


"The Rev. Joseph W. Daniels Jr., senior pastor of Emory United Methodist Church in Northwest Washington, said a key question for him is whether the religious left will become "the polar opposite to . . . the religious right" or be "a voice in the middle."

"What this country needs is strong spiritual leadership that is willing to build bridges. We don't need leaders who are lightning bolts for division and dissension," he said.

Nonetheless, some observers doubt that the revitalization of the religious left will lessen the divisions over religion in politics. "I do think," said Hertzke, "that, if in fact this progressive initiative takes off, we will see an even more polarized electoral environment than we did in 2004.""

...and here was my reply:

I just broke down and read the article that went with the headline. Lol. It was very predictable. The thing is, there is no way that "religious" leftists and "religious" righties can come together. They talk about different issues. The leftists want poverty, the environment and peace to be their focus, well, that's all well and good, but they don't want other moral issues to get any focus. On the other hand "Conservative" Christians are concerned about poverty, the environment and peace, as well as OTHER moral issues, they just disagree with the "Progressive" Christians about the best way to address the pet issues of the "Progressives," and they, both factions, come at THOSE issues from a purely partisan political standpoint defined by liberal or conservative politics rather than their particular brands of religion.

In the meantime, I keep hearing the Southern Baptists, a primarily Conservative Christian denomination, receive accolades for their work in helping the victims of Katrina. They are STILL there, still serving food to those who need it. Where are the Unitarians and the Lutherans? I've heard nothing about them in NO. I'm not saying they aren't there, they very well might be, but I keep hearing about the Southern Baptists and what good work they are doing, not the Unitarians, not the Lutherans who are staunch advocates for this new Progressive Christian movement.

The "Progressive" Christians want to throw money, money gained from over-taxing the American people, at all Nations living in poverty, Conservatives disagree with continuing to throw more and MORE money at those Nations, whose actual, poor citizens reap little benefit from that money, the money instead ends up lining the pockets of corrupt government leaders. It serves to make the "Progressive" Christians feel better if they throw some more money that way, all the while complaining about commercialism while driving their foreign made cars and playing with their house full of high tech gadgets. That's my humble opinion after being on the front line trying to communicate with "Progressive" Christians. After making many months attempts at finding some common ground and compromise and finding very little I decided it would never be possible and there IS clear scripture which guides Christians not to argue and be divisive with one another over words:

A Workman Approved by God

Keep reminding them of these things. Warn them before God against quarreling about words; it is of no value, and only ruins those who listen. Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the word of truth. Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly. Their teaching will spread like gangrene. Among them are Hymenaeus and Philetus, who have wandered away from the truth. They say that the resurrection has already taken place, and they destroy the faith of some. Nevertheless, God's solid foundation stands firm, sealed with this inscription: "The Lord knows those who are his," and, "Everyone who confesses the name of the Lord must turn away from wickedness."

In a large house there are articles not only of gold and silver, but also of wood and clay; some are for noble purposes and some for ignoble. If a man cleanses himself from the latter, he will be an instrument for noble purposes, made holy, useful to the Master and prepared to do any good work.

Flee the evil desires of youth, and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart. Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead, he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will. - 2 Timothy 2

Thanks to the Rogue Angel.

End of my reply.

So, I repeat, thank you, Angel, for the reminder and the gentle way in which you accomplished it.

For those of you who read my blog and are looking for that "spunk?" Lol, I've still got spunk and though at times I feel I have retreated from a battle, which really, really irritates me, I also realize that in all my efforts to "communicate" with "Progressive" Christians I didn't change their minds about a thing and other than feeling that I am a little more tolerant and less ready to judge others they have not changed my views on particular political issues, either. So, what's it about, then? Arguing for the sake of arguing? That's what I decided.

I'll continue to blog about issues which I feel inspired to blog about. Maybe I'll even show a little "spunk" from time to time but I'm thinking my days of arguing with fellow Christians for the sake of argument are behind me. :)

Governor Matt Blunt

There's a very nice article about Missouri Governor Matt Blunt found here: Taking a Blunt Approach.

Matt had a lot of clean-up to do in the State of Missouri after the term of Democratic Governor Bob Holden.

He is currently being attacked by some staunch conservatives for his stance on stem cell research, but I'll have to say he deserves an abundance of credit for the accomplishments he's made so far in the State.

The facts are that we will never find a candidate, Democrat or Republican, with whom we agree on every point, so we make the best choice we have.

Matt Blunt is the best choice for Missouri.

Illegal Aliens and American Medicine

Over at News-Leader.com Forums I am being called "hysterical," among other things, because I have suggested that illegal aliens are carrying infectious diseases from Mexico (and actually other foreign lands) into our country and infecting American citizens with diseases we had, in some cases, eradicated and others, nearly eradicated. Since my credibility is under attack and I am being painted as hysterical and an alarmist I did a little research this morning.

Here is what I found from the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 10 Number 1 Spring 2005 edition:

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no1/cosman.pdf

This entire research paper, replete with footnotes, spells out the problems created by illegal aliens on our American Health Care System.

To date, due to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act of 1985 (EMTALA) (Read it here: EMTALA Full Text) 84 California hospitals are closing their doors due to hospital bankruptcies. EMTALA, forces our hospitals to treat the conditions of illegal aliens without Federal reimbursement. Though the Federal Government mandates this treatment they do not pay the hospitals for the expenses incurred by treating disease, or for delivering babies or even for treating a cough or sniffly nose. All that is required is for the illegal alien to claim he/she needs "emergency" treatment.

Among the diseases PROVEN re-introduced into America by ILLEGAL ALIENS who have crossed the border without health screening or examination:

Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis (MDR-TB)

Chagas disease, also known as American trypanosomiasis or "kissing bug disease"

Leprosy

Dengue fever, which while not fatal, per se, causes dengue hemorrhagic fever which is routinely fatal

Polio

Hepatitis A ,B, and C are resurging

The research paper goes on to issue "A Proposal to Prevent Medical Cataclysm." Among its suggestions is the CLOSING OF OUR BORDERS.

Hysterical? I think not. Look at the facts, this research is a must read.

On "Immigration Debate Needs Dose of Civility"

I thought I might as well share this reply to editorial columnist Tony Messenger of the Springfield News-Leader here.

In reply to his column "Immigration debate needs dose of civility" found here: News-Leader.com Tony Messenger, I wrote:

Dear Mr. Messenger,

How ironic that you call for a dose of civility in the immigration debate while based on this simple one sentence note written and left at the Acambaro Restaurant stating...:

"This is a disgrace to the country that is supporting you. ... You have proved nothing by closing."

...you go on to imply that American citizens who disagree with aliens entering our country ILLEGALLY and who would like our borders secured are:

• unable to see "shades of gray"
• suspect every brown skinned person in America of being an illegal alien, "a lawbreaker, a felon."
• do not stand up for families
• do not support their neighbors
• would run like "a raging train of "white flight" once "one of them" moved in"

You write that this debate has nothing to do with the rule of law, but rather "plain, old fashioned bigotry."

When have you addressed the issues I raised at your blog site the other day? When have you replied to these legitimate complaints?:

1). It is ILLEGAL to cross the border without observing legal immigration guidelines

2).They are driving down wages of American citizens, whether those jobs are held by legal immigrants or natural citizens, and the threat is spreading into more and more fields of expertise. Where it was once agriculture, it is now construction and other fields and it is spreading over time.

3). The serious issue of border security at a time when our country is engaged in a war on terrorism. If illegal aliens are allowed to flood across the border unchecked then what is to stop terrorists from crossing that border as well? Will it take another 9/11 before you and our "representatives" represent the best security interests of our OWN country?

4). The issue of disease control. Many illegals who cross the border into our country may not have not been vaccinated for strains of disease that may be effecting our population. Kansas City has recently called on the CDC to help in an investigation into the cause of a recent mumps outbreak

Instead of addressing these issues, Mr. Messenger, and treating them as the legitimate concerns they are, you would prefer to play the role of apologist for illegal immigration. That is certainly your right, however, when you make statements like the one below...:

"...Before we can even consider repairing its fraying edges, however, we have to sit at the table together in an atmosphere of trust, with respect, without name-calling.

We can't even begin to discuss solutions to this complicated problem that was decades in the making until we elevate the discussion beyond white and brown, beyond flag-waving and chest-beating."

...and then imply that anyone who supports HR 4437 is a bigot, or at least the writer of a simple one sentence note left at a restaurant on May Day, which did not name call and did not make ANY of the statements you implied in your column, is a bigot, it is apparent that you only disfavor name calling if coming from those who do not chose to be apologists for ILLEGAL aliens and exempt yourself from that rule.

How ironic that you would call on people to be civil in debating the immigration issue while implying that all those who do not view illegals as "American dreamers," as bigots. The only name calling I saw in your column was coming from you, Mr. Messenger.

Regarding your implications:

• I am able to see "shades of gray"
• I do not suspect every brown skinned person in America of being an illegal alien, "a lawbreaker, a felon."
• I do stand up for the families of the citizens of our country and those of LEGAL immigrants to our country.
• I do support my neighbors
• I would not leave my neighborhood if a Hispanic moved into it, as a matter of fact, I did have a Hispanic neighbor for several years.

I support border security and the ENFORCEMENT of our current immigration laws. I want the border secured and the immigrants who come here to do so legally as law abiding contributors to our society, and I want these issues addressed, rather than certain columnists' attempts at painting all people who support those legitimate concerns as bigots in an effort to ignore the legitimate debate we could be having.

You asked for more than simple "if you don't like our country, leave it," replies. I have given you two, now. Do you really want to have a debate, Mr. Messenger, or do you want to pretend that everyone who might not agree with your apologist position is a bigot? It is entirely up to you.

It appears that shrillness is an option only for apologists for illegal immigration. Those who show passion from the other side of the issue are "accusatory," "screaming, bigots," thank you for your interest in "civil" debate.

Sincerely.

Carissa, at the Church Carnival

Black hair shining, always in your eyes but never seeming to bother you, you never brush it away, doesn't it tickle your nose?

face painted like a pink cat with black lips and whiskers, a little black nose, your flip flops tossed aside

you're jumping

you're sliding

you're laughing

your teeth so white

beside your little black cat lips!

your sister so quiet, following you, following you, would do nothing without you, would be pulling at me instead of laughing, her shoes next to yours in the sun

and your brother sits in a strange mood in the bed of the truck eating his second funnel cake, wearing a balloon hat and a balloon sword, eating, eating, his back to the crowd

you are the sunshine of the day, little black haired darling, a pink princess kitten with no shoes

Of Causes and People

Our country faces serious problems today. Problems having to do with the legitimacy of law and its enforcement and the legitimacy of granting amnesty to people who have no respect for those laws. Problems having to do with security and problems having to do with the loyalty of our representatives to the people who elected them.

Our Nation faces a time in which its citizens are, all too often, complacent in the political arena, in which they pay little attention to issues of grave importance to the future of our Nation when each of us should be giving our all in support of values and traditions which have been passed, generation by generation, down to us by ancestors who were active in their political system and who cared enough about the future of their descendents to pay attention to what their representatives were doing in Washington. I have a story to tell about causes and people.

There is a woman in Springfield, a woman who, for years, stood alone to support the mission of her country's military in its fight in the war against terrorism, which includes the war in Iraq. A woman who has fought against the mind set that there is or should be no cost of freedom, that there is nothing worth fighting for, there was and is nothing worth laying our collective all on the line for, there is no country deserving of more respect than any other country, no system of government or values for which to hold higher respect than others, no country to be held to higher standards than its global political opponents who would have us believe that a system of hierarchy and totalitarianism is just as commendable as a system which has held its people should have a voice and should elect and hold responsible its government, elected by and of and for the people. A mind set which holds Hugo Chavez in high esteem as well as other dictators, a mind set which would place on a pedestal entities such as a Cindy Sheehan when she would call our President the biggest terrorist on the face of the Earth, as though his cause was less moral than those who would fly airplanes into buildings, killing approximately three thousand American citizens in the process, citizens guilty of nothing but going to work to earn a living to support their families, citizens with Mothers and Fathers, sisters, brothers, wives, children and friends. Citizens who believed in freedom of expression for all, who were accustomed to living their lives in absolute freedom and in absolute abundance so long as they were willing to work for that abundance and keep themselves free of their own, self accepted chains. But enough, I digress from my point.

Are we people of causes or people of loyalty to those who would promote the causes in which we believe? Are we people who will fight for freedom, or people who will blindly follow others? Are we people who no longer question the motives of others and, most of all, are we people who feel that if others do not toe our own individual ideological lines that we would cut them out of our lives entirely, never to look back, as though everyone in the world somehow owes us deep respect and we are above questioning? Do we, any of us, find ourselves holding others to higher standards than we hold ourselves? Do any of us question others motives and yet leave no room for questions about our own loyalty and if we do, while championing our cause, is it our cause we are championing or ourselves?

There is a story, of which I have become privy to the inside discussion. A story in which I have read private email exchanges and heard public admonitions. A story in which one who immigrated, legally, here to America and stands against anti war protesters and illegal aliens thumbing of their noses at our laws but in the process...

...in the process, does not allow for questioning of what he does, at least in this instance, by doing so he would take questions to a wide public audience, and though not naming you by name, this person will question your patriotism because you dared to question his motives. Is it about people, or is it about the cause? Is it about "getting off the couch," or is it about following the leader?

My friend has a daughter in the Navy. I have her permission to post an email she sent to a particular radio talk show host and I have the reply of that radio talk show host to her email. I do not have this radio talk show host's permission to post his email and therefore I will not. That radio talk show host read my friends email on the air, without identifying her. I could certainly post his here without identifying him but I would not without his express permission, that does not prohibit me from commenting on it's content, however, and I intend to do so. He has a platform which he may use to speak to the entire region, my friend has only her consistent and historic support for an ongoing cause to represent her. I have no *blind loyalty* to offer her but she has earned my respect. Here is my friend's email, which I must type for you as I didn't save it in my mail but I do have a paper copy of it and of the reply of said talk show host.

The email of my friend, just as it was read on the air in Springfield and the regions surrounding it. I made no corrections but did emphasize a point glossed over by the host and I removed names:

"Just want to let you know how disappointed I am in your choice of program guest. As you know I strongly believe in the ability to exercise our freedom of speech and since it is your program you certainly have the right to have whoever you wish on. I guess I'm trying to figure out why you would give your air time to help support the peace networks most highly publiced figure. I have received many emails and phone calls this morning from different people trying to figure out exactly what you're doing. The person who has tried to build a solid reputation here in springfield for supporting our Military and upholding high family values and openly showing their strong Christian Beliefs has really got a lot of our Springfieldians shaking their heads. That's not to mention the reaction and the fuel you have given certain big church leaders who have tried to discredit you and your program. Wow ____ I dont think that I've been more disappointed since I found out there wasn't a Santa Claus. I feel that this has greatly discredited us and besides it really warps me the wrong way its crap like this that gives fred Phelps group a chance to speak out...Think you missed the boat on this one _____ ____ ___"

This email was replied to venomously, in my opinion, by the talk show host. My friend's "loyalty" was questioned. My friend's trustworthiness was questioned. His guest was touted as being good at furthering his point of view and those who questioned what he was doing were excoriated for not calling into the show to counter that point of view, though my friend had called in that day. My friend's intelligence was questioned as though she weren't "cerebral" enough to understand what he was doing and the person, my friend, who stood on city streets in counter protest to anti war activists all alone for years before this talk show host ever hit town was told not to ever email him again. Now, reader, go back and read my friend's email again, did it warrant such a diatribe? I ask you again, are you supporting your cause or are you blindly following your leader? Is this about questioning our leaders?

I must say I am somewhat amused. The great champion of all our causes, the one who excoriates certain other city leaders for being unwilling to go on the air with him to answer his questions is above questioning in a private email by one who considered him friend. Don't ever email me again!? Puhlease.

Today there was a Pro-America rally, I was unable to attend because I had some things to do for my Mother, sometimes our little lives get in the way of our activism, don't they? :) but my friend was there. Let's not ever forget the "cause" is sometimes bigger than the "personalities" who promote them. Let's be sure and take advantage of every opportunity for activism in support or opposition of important issues but let's do it for the cause, not for the people who may or may not support it.

It is not my intention to take sides with one or the other personalities involved in this story. I merely wish to be active in supporting my own causes and in the truth. I welcome the promotion of important causes by radio talk show hosts and private citizens, alike, that said, respect is something earned, not something to which any of us, including myself, should feel entitled.

End of sermon. ;)