Let them eat cake

House Panel OKs School Lunch Funding Cut


By LIBBY QUAID, Associated Press Writer Fri Oct 28, 8:22 PM ET
WASHINGTON - The House Agriculture Committee approved budget cuts Friday that would take food stamps away from an estimated 300,000 people and could cut off school lunches and breakfasts for 40,000 children.

The action came as the government reported that the number of people who are hungry because they can't afford to buy enough food rose to 38.2 million in 2004, an increase of 7 million in five years. The number represents nearly 12 percent of U.S. households.
"If there are cuts to be made, why should we make them on food stamps?" said Rep. David Scott (news, bio, voting record), D-Ga. "This is the meanest cut of all."
The cuts, approved by the Republican-controlled committee on a party-line vote, are part of an effort by the House GOP to curb federal spending by $50 billion. The food and agriculture cuts would reduce spending by $3.7 billion, including $844 million on nutrition, $760 million on conservation and $212 million on payments to farmers.
"The fact is, our country is going broke," said Rep. John Boehner (news, bio, voting record), R-Ohio. "We're spending money we don't have and passing it onto our kids, and at some point, somebody's got to say, `Enough's enough.'"

The $574 million reduction in food stamp spending would affect families who receive food stamps because they receive other non-cash government assistance. The change is estimated to shut up to 300,000 people out of the program.
The restriction also could take free meals away from an estimated 40,000 school children, because children in many states are automatically eligible for school meals when they get food stamps, according to the
Congressional Budget Office.

SOMETIMES I AM ASHAMED TO CALL MYSELF A CONSEVATIVE. It's a damn good thing those poor congressmen did not cut their salaries or even pork spending.

I'm proud to be an oilman

Bush team resists tax hit on oil profits
But signals it may find way to help fund home heating for low-income families

MATTHEW LEISING AND JIM EFSTATHIOU JR.
Friday, October 28, 2005 Page B8Bloomberg News

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration, facing mounting pressure from the U.S. Congress to address record energy costs, has ruled out a tax on soaring oil company profits.Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said yesterday that he opposes any proposal for a windfall profits tax.

He was responding to a question at a Senate hearing about a Deutsche Bank analyst report that the White House might offer a plan to tax oil companies to fund home heating aid for low-income families.

alright, who do these useless feeders think they are wanting me to tax Big Oil?They earned this money fair and square, and I'm tired of hearing about the low and middle class needing heating oil, gas and such stuff. Bunch a damn sissies, hell you don't hear anyone in Congress cry babying about that stuff. Buck it up, stand up and act like men. If you can't put up with a little cold what good are ya? GWB

Entry Word: greed
Function: noun
Text: an intense selfish desire for wealth or possessions
Synonyms acquisitiveness, avarice, avariciousness, avidity, covetousness, cupidity, greediness, rapaciousness, rapacity
Related Words materialism, possessiveness; appetite, craving, hankering, hunger, itch, longing, lust, passion, ravenousness, thirst, voracity, yearning, yenNear

Antonyms contentment, fulfillment, satisfaction; bounteousness, bounty, charity, generosity, generousness, liberality, openhandedness, openheartedness, unselfishness....... you know, all those qualities that Christ expects from us.

Oh Heathen Canada........ How's that song go?

Canadian Government Caught Funding Anti-Christian Bigotry

OTTAWA, October 27, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Conservative MP has discovered through documents obtained under Access to Information that Status of Women Canada has been funding anti-Christian bigotry and pro-abortion activism. However, in a startling exchange of correspondence, the Minister responsible for the funding neither offered to pull the funding nor to apologize to Christian Canadians for funding groups which defame them.
Writing to Minister of Canadian Heritage and Minister responsible for Status of Women Liza Frulla last month, Conservative MP Maurice Vellacott pointed out that the documents obtained through access to information requests revealed the government granted $27,400 last year to the BC Pro-Choice Action network (pro-CAN).
In his letter to the Minister, MP Vellacott notes:
Pro-CAN spokesperson Joyce Arthur uses derogatory labels to describe individuals who are pro-life, saying their opposition to abortion, "comes primarily from religious justifications for oppressing women" and a need to "maximize (the Catholic Church's) membership levels to maintain their worldly influence and wealth." Pro-CAN accuses pro-life Christians of being "religious fanatics" who do "little or nothing for children once they are born." She says pro-life Christians are "anti-woman and anti-child," have views which are "uninformed, sexist, cruel," and lack the ability to empathize which "breeds intolerance, hate crimes, and war." Ms. Arthur says that the pro-lifer's attitude towards women is like "the slaveholder's attitude to blacks, and the Nazi's attitude to Jews."
Vellacott suggested that the Minister withdraw funding from the group and apologize to Christian Canadians for funding such bigotry. "The government should be taking no part in spreading this sort of bigotry. Please ensure that any current funding to Pro-CAN ceases immediately and that no future taxpayer money be given to this group. And please have your department issue a public apology to all Christians and pro-life Canadians because of your department's financial support of this hate mongering organization," said Vellacott.
In a curt reply dated October 18, Minister Frulla says, "I appreciate being made aware of your concerns." The Minister acknowledges that pro-CAN and the other pro-abortion activist groups mentioned in the letter by Vellacott, "did indeed receive funding under the women's Program of Status of Women Canada."
Frulla suggested she was well aware of the activities of pro-CAN, but found no objection to funding the anti-Christian group with public monies. "Each application is assessed according to a stringent set of objectives and criteria . . . Please be assured that the initiatives cited in your letter, which did indeed receive funding, met all of the above-mentioned objectives and eligibility criteria."
Frulla concluded her response, "Please accept my best wishes for the challenges ahead."
Express your concerns to the Prime Minister:pm@pm.gc.caor write or fax the Prime Minister's office at:Office of the Prime Minister80 Wellington StreetOttawaK1A 0A2Fax: 613-941-6900
To Liza Frulla House of CommonsOttawa, ON K1A 0A6(613) 995-6403 Frulla.L@parl.gc.ca

Hey....I know that nerd

OK...How many of you guys remember a geeky little nerd from school. Was it this guy?
Well, he's stealing all of our money

CELEBRITY Disfunction

I am sick to death of hearing about so called celebrities. These are the most disfunctional people on the planet. How can anyone be that self absorbed? How can they believe anyone cares about a damn thing they have to say.
I mean, I don't imagine that anyone reading this blog gives a shit about what I think.
Who honestly cares if Tom Cruise is a freakin' Scientologist? Any one with half a brain knows that shit is made up silliness.
Who cares if Brittany had a kid?
Really, are we such pathetic creatures that we have to find the true meaning of life from these pinheads.
A normal, everyday, clear thinking, functional human would be so embarrassed to be one of these losers. Really, these are the dysfunctional and pathetic of the planet. What makes someone think that they are Sooooooo inportant that anyone cares.

All together now..... tell these losers how pathetic they are.
Ready?
"You guys are the height of dysfunctional, and I don't give a damn about reading, or hearing about your pathetic little life.

'The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed' Miers nomination

Senate Minority Leader Reid reacts'The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed' Miers nomination
Posted: October 27, 200511:36 a.m. EasternSen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., the minority leader of the Senate, responded to Harriet Miers' withdrawal of her nomination to the Supreme Court today on his website:
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
"The radical right wing of the Republican Party killed the Harriet Miers nomination. Apparently, Ms. Miers did not satisfy those who want to pack the Supreme Court with rigid ideologues.
"I had recommended that the President consider nominating Ms. Miers because I was impressed with her record of achievement as the managing partner of a major Texas law firm and the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. In those roles she was a strong supporter of law firm diversity policies and a leader in promoting legal services for the poor. But these credentials are not good enough for the right wing: they want a nominee with a proven record of supporting their skewed goals.
"In choosing a replacement for Ms. Miers, President Bush should not reward the bad behavior of his right wing base. He should reject the demands of a few extremists and choose a justice who will protect the constitutional rights of all Americans."

NO, you Moron, clear thinking conservatives derailed a non qualified pick that was only recommended as payback to services rendered.
You knotheads are not fooling the public, America can see through this criminal and ethically challenged behavior.
Reid, you are an IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

I"m a Conservative American, and I am mad as hell, and I am not going to take it anymore

ConocoPhillips World Robber Barons

ConocoPhillips profit beats forecasts

By Deepa Babington Wed Oct 26,11:48 AM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - ConocoPhillips (NYSE:COP - news), the No. 3 U.S. oil company, on Wednesday reported quarterly profit surged 89 percent, surpassing Wall Street forecasts, driven by record oil prices and sharply higher refining margins.

ConocoPhillips, like other major oil companies, has reaped a windfall from soaring crude oil prices -- which touched a record $70 a barrel in the quarter -- and better refining margins, as powerful hurricanes blew through the Gulf of Mexico, severely disrupting energy operations.
The Houston company's net profit in the third quarter rose to $3.8 billion, or $2.68 a share, compared with $2.01 billion, or $1.43 a share, a year earlier.
Shares of ConocoPhillips were up $2.56, or 4.1 percent, at $65 on the
New York Stock Exchange' name=c1> SEARCHNews News Photos Images Web' name=c3> New York Stock Exchange.

THIS IS OBSCENE - This has not received very much attention from the media, where the hell are they? This is blatant, in your face theft all in the name of greed.

We shoud all be mad as hell and let congress know that we are not gonna take it anymore. We have to let these do nothing legislators, that suppport such theft in the name of big business and profits know that we are OUTRAGED.

NO MORE!!!!

Hey,...... you there, .....if you are reading this get up off yer ass. Go to the phone and call your elected officials. Tell them they are NOT gonna get re-elected as long as this crap goes on

This is in your face rasberry they are giving us. The big finger. Spread the word far and wide that we are not gonna take it.

OK, all together now......real loud!...........I"M MAD AS HELL AND I AIN"T GONNA TAKE IT NO MORE!!!!!!!!!!!!

ONE MORE TIME..............I'm mad as hell, and I ain't gonna take it no more

Lord of Glory

Miers and the Duck Test:

Alan Keyes for President.
Alan has a clear mind and a clear vision for America.
One of my true hero's


Posted: October 24, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
The latest news about Harriet Miers' record hardly seems likely to assuage the concerns of conservatives in and out of the Senate who already have serious doubts about her conservative credentials. As president-elect and president of the Texas Bar Association, she supported (passionately according to one report) a scheme for preferential treatment of minorities and women that surely would pass the duck test as a quota system in the judgment of most conservatives.
Doubtless Miers' supporters will stick with their reassurances about her conservative philosophy – whatever her personal views about quotas – while implying that in any case this is just one of a range of issues that she will have to deal with on the Court. Unfortunately, it's also just one of a series of indications that Harriet Miers' "personal views" are seriously at odds with conservative ideas and principles.
Judging by the record, she had no personal qualms about supporting a lecture series at SMU that touted leftist feminists as role models of achievement. She had no personal compunctions about supporting an organization for young girls that encouraged acceptance of lesbianism. She also felt personally inspired to volunteer disparagement of membership in the conservative Federalist Society.
Of course, when answering a campaign questionnaire as she ran for the Dallas City Council, she did support a constitutional ban on abortion, and she did buy a ticket to a pro-life dinner when appearing there could help her candidacy. The record begins to suggest that though Miers is personally opposed to conservatism, she believes it's her duty to disregard personal conviction when doing so will advance her career.
In this case, however, the problem with the "personal views" argument lies in the tenuous distinction between personal and official convictions. The oath of a Supreme Court justice is binding upon personal conscience. If such an official believes that a certain position corresponds to right and justice, that official is oath bound to act in good conscience.
The Roe v. Wade case, for example, turned on the question of whether the individual in the womb must be regarded as a person or not. Justice Blackmun, after reviewing the views of different religions and philosophies, and taking account of what he claimed was the position of "the law" in the United States and elsewhere, reached the conclusion that in the womb the infant is not a person. This was not a conclusion about the Constitution. It reflected the (presumably) conscientious views of the justices who concurred in his opinion.
If, in conscience, a justice disagreed with that conclusion – i.e., he conscientiously believed that, because all are created equal, from conception the infant must be regarded as a person – he was bound to oppose their opinion. None of them could contend that they had to follow the Constitution, whatever their personal convictions, because the conclusion about what was constitutional required a prior conclusion of conscience about the personhood of the infant in the womb. That conclusion, by the way, was not specific to the facts or circumstances of the Roe case itself.
As Blackmun acknowledged, it necessarily reflected broad religious and philosophic ideas. The justices had to assess these ideas in light of their own reason, common sense and moral judgment.
A justice who takes an oath binding upon personal conscience – then disregards the dictates of conscience in the performance of her duties – forswears her oath. She perjures herself, in the literal sense of the word. Conservatives like James Dobson presumably believe that Harriet Miers will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade should the opportunity arise. But Roe v. Wade should be overturned only if it was wrongly decided, and it was wrongly decided if the infant in the womb must be regarded as a person.
If in good conscience Harriet Miers believes the infant is a person, she would be bound in conscience to overturn Roe. Otherwise, she would not be. If in her judicial actions she acts against her conscientious convictions, she cannot claim any constitutional requirement, since the requirement doesn't exist until the issue of conscience has been decided one way or the other. Obviously, therefore, her personal convictions (i.e., the views she holds as a matter of personal conscience) cannot be regarded as irrelevant to the issue of her fitness for the Supreme Court. In fact, if she (or any other nominee for that matter) gives the impression that in her judicial actions she will disregard her conscientious convictions, she raises serious doubts about the integrity with which she will perform her constitutional duties.
Judging by her actions, Harriet Miers believes that diversity, proven by percentages that reflect the general population, justifies discrimination based on race and gender. This belief is seriously at odds with conservative principles, or what President G.W. Bush would call conservative judicial philosophy. The conservative argument can be simply summarized. Our Constitution derives from the principle that, since all men are created equal, physical or material differences do not give some people prior claim to be superior to and rule over others. Government must therefore be based upon the consent of the governed, as registered through institutions based upon elective representation.
Representative self-government rests on the premise of human moral equality. In the public realm, discrimination that relies on physical or material differences as such is unjust because it violates this premise. Hence the ban against racial and gender discrimination. Of course, it is permissible to discriminate among individuals based upon their performance; their fitness for a given function; their proven capacity to achieve a goal, etc. Physical and material differences may play a role in these results, but the results are the acceptable basis for discrimination, not the physical characteristics themselves.
If Harriet Miers passionately supports quota-driven preferences for women and minorities, she must believe that, under certain circumstances the premise of moral equality can be set aside. But this would mean that, in her view, respect for moral equality is a matter of calculation, not a fundamental issue of principle. If some preferred outcome is achieved by disregarding it, she appears willing to do so.
But respect for the premise of moral equality is not just the key to conservative opposition to quotas. It is the principle of conservative opposition to abortion as well. As we have noted, the argument in Roe v. Wade turns on the personhood of the infant in the womb. The majority in that case denied personhood on account of the infant's imperfect physical development. They discriminated on the basis of physical characteristics, which were taken in and of themselves as sufficient grounds to treat the child in the womb as an inferior being with no unalienable right to life.
The premise of moral equality is treated as a matter of numerical calculation rather than principle, so that questions of how long, how many and how much decide the critical issue of human worth and dignity.
Harriet Miers' promotion of quota-style affirmative action thus raises new doubts about her grasp of and adherence to the conservative judicial philosophy President Bush claims on her behalf. The White House has encouraged people to judge Miers on her record. But as we learn more about her actions, the gap between her apparent beliefs and any reasonable understanding of conservative philosophy grows ever larger.
I fear it has already become too large to be overcome by her performance in Senate hearings. Her actions speak so loudly it may be too difficult to lend credence to mere words. As the bard wrote, "words to the heat of deeds too cold breath give." President Bush has handed conservatives in the Senate a nomination that may be too hot to handle credibly. For their sake and his, it might be better if Harriet Miers takes action now to allow the president to offer a different choice.
Be sure to visit Alan Keyes' communications center for founding principles, The Declaration Foundation.

Murder leads to child abuse

Springfield, IL (LifeNews.com) -- For decades, evidence has existed showing abortion contributes to a rise in child abuse. Now a new study by a post-abortion research institute and Bowling Green State University professors finds that women who have abortions are more likely to abuse their children.

Published in the medical journal Acta Paediatrica, the study found that women who have had abortions are 2.4 times more likely to physically abuse their children. Pro-life advocates say it proves the need for providing women with post-abortion counseling to help deal with the emotional trauma of the abortion.

Another study that shows that murder can lead to child abuse. Now there's a novel idea.
Who would have imagined that a woman who would rip her child from her belly and have him killed and thrown into the trash would ever abuse her children?

Taxing America

Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.,

Finally Some legislators are determined to eliminate the illegal non-government entity based in Puerto Rico known as the IRS. No more tax returns to file.

A nationwide consumption tax is the only fair and equitable form of taxation. The rich pay more, the poor pay less.
Why has common sense eluded our elected officials for so long.