Eat Your Okra

Dangers of the Speech In Cairo

2009-06-09T11:09:00.000-07:00

Obama wants to unify the religions of the world, just one more step toward globalization and the ushering in of a new world order also known as a one world government. He wants Israel to allow Islam to establish a state with its capital in Jerusalem and put its religion on the same level as Christianity and Judaism. He wants Islam to have the same positive image as Christianity and Judaism and seems to be willing to rewrite history and paint an image of an Islam different than what it has shown itself as in order to change Islam's image globally and especially in the United States.

Why is this dangerous? Read Revelation 13:7,8.

"And it was given unto him (antichrist) to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the lamb slain from the foundation of the world."

The above verse will come to fruition once the religions of the world unite as a global religion.

The Bible says that there will be a terrible and successful attack on Israel. "I will gather all nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city." (Zechariah 14:2) One only need to know their biblical scripture to know what comes after that.

Psalm 83 lists groups of Arab peoples who border Israel on every side. Psalm 83:2 "Come they say let us destroy them as a nation that the name of Israel be remembered no more." But this nation of ours should heed the warning in verses 13-17 of the Psalm that they will not be successful but will be punished for wanting to destroy Israel. Which side does this country want to be on in a battle between Israel and Arab nations? And if the United States decides not to fight with Israel but let her fight on her own, what will become of this nation?

For those who think that the Bible is only a book of fiction and that predicting the future with its verses is only grabbing at straws, one only need to read verses that have been fulfilled throughout history. The scattering of the Jews written in Deuteronomy 28:64 was fulfilled in AD135 by the Romans. The future persecution of the Jews throughout history was written in Deuteronomy 28:65-67. The regathering of the Jews written about in Deuteronomy 30:1-5 and in the book of Ezekial was fulfilled in 1948.

http://www.acwitness.org/psalm83english.html

100 Day Press Conference

2009-04-29T14:39:00.000-07:00

Fox has decided not to air today's Presidential Press Conference and every numb nut out there is screaming from the rafters about how Fox isn't "fair and balanced". Helllllloooo! Fox News uses the "fair and balanced" logo and they are being just that by airing the Press Conference. Fox made the decision based on loss of ad revenue during Sweeps Week. They are still making it available on Fox News and Fox Business.

And for all those comments out there I've seen about how Republicans would have thrown a fit blah blah blah if a major network didn't carry a speech by George W. Bush, well it happened. Do your research. Fox didn't carry a Prime Time speech of GWB back in 1991.

I do find it funny that in place of the press conference, "Lie To Me" will be shown instead. And to further lighten the mood on the ridiculous accusations spewed at Fox over this, I leave you with this (click on to see all of the joke):

A Lack of Education at Our Schools of Higher Learning

2009-04-22T14:33:00.000-07:00

College campuses have been a place for protests for several decades in this country, so it amazes me that students are not protesting the proposal of in-state tuition for illegal aliens. What are they protesting? The speakers who are against proposals for in-state tuition for illegal aliens.

I'd say these protestors are ignorant but when they are students of higher learning and have the knowledge and resources readily available to them to research, their protest comes off as sheer stupidity.

Thumbs down to those students of University of North Carolina, Michigan State University, Georgetown, and Columbia who did not allow these speakers the freedom of speech on your campuses. Maybe you would've learned something that you obviously haven't learned yet in college.

You Might Want To Rethink This One

2009-04-22T09:34:00.001-07:00

Seriously? As a homosexual, is this is who you want representing you? I know I know. You, per se, may not have picked him but he sure is putting himself out there as the spokesperson for gay marriage on shows like Larry King Live.

He and Janeane Garofolo need to mate and have their Anger Baby already.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sophia-a-nelson/ms-california-vs-gay-marr_b_190058.html

The Future of Talk Radio

2009-04-21T08:10:00.000-07:00

While on vacation I had the displeasure of reading an article on conservative talk radio. Although it was a displeasure, it is always important to educate ones self on all views. The reading material shall remain nameless because I wouldn't want such a one-sided left leaning publication to get more subscribers. And just to let you know, I didn't purchase it. It was left behind at the pool for anyone to read.

The main focus of the article was on Rush Limbaugh and the prediction that conservative talk radio will soon be extinct based on its findings that the average listener is a white male in his late 60's. Funny thing is, I doubt NPRs listening audience, of its political content, is all that different. It made mention of only the political analysts fitting that same bill such as Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich, and Dick Morris. The writer would have the reader believe that no non-caucasian conservatives exist. The writer of the article fed in to Obama's ridiculous warning and protest of Rush Limbaugh being the defacto leader of the GOP. I say ridiculous because Limbaugh is an opponent to Obama's ways of leadership for this country, and to jump from that to the defacto leader of the GOP is just laughable. A radio talk show host is not a threat to this country but leaders of countries like Iran and South Korea are. Limbaugh is a thorn in Obama's side but hardly a threat to this nation.

The average listener of conservative radio may be male, white, and late 60's but many of the calls I hear that come in to the various conservative radio talk shows out there are from females, African Americans, and persons younger than their 60's. That certainly isn't to say that conservatives should rest. The GOP certainly should have learned a lesson from the Democrats on early voting registration.

My vote for a conservative talk radio show of their own is Michelle Malkin. Add her to radio while keeping her blog to reach the internet crowd, and continue her television commentary spots. She's female, Asian American, and young. Get a smart young woman like Michelle, who can hold her own, her own show and conservative talk radio will not die. It will flourish.

I Promise To Help Weaken Us As A Nation By...

2009-04-15T15:19:00.000-07:00

making my first phone call as President to Mahmoud Abbas the leader of the Fatah party in the Palestinian territory
by allowing an interview. The media in the U.S. have fawned all over me and never asked me the tough questions they should've been asking of a person who is going to be leading one of the most powerful countries in the world so I decided to give back....to Al Arabia television by granting them my first one-on-one interview as President.
by halting all the military trials of detainees formerly at Guantanamo Bay even though there is proof of some of the detainees ties to 9/11.
by closing all our CIA interrogation centers abroad. Why would we need intelligence overseas?
letting bygones be bygones and withdrawing all charges regarding the bombing of the USS Cole and The World Trade Center. I don't want to look too tough on terrorism because there is no war on terror. I got rid of that phrase as soon as I got in office.
doing what is important to our national interest by using up to $20.3 million dollars of our Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund for Palestinian migration needs. Oh, do some of them have ties and loyalties to Hamas? Oopsy.

Hot Topic

2009-04-14T08:15:00.000-07:00

The Iowa Supreme Court ruled the ban on same sex marriage unconstitutional. Many Iowans are hot over two things: the over night sneaky decision by its state Supreme Court with very little notification that the topic was even to be discussed and the denial to allow a vote on same sex marriage. Senators are elected by the people to represent the people even if that means those Senators don't agree with the people.

Iowa Governor Chet Culver (D) has said he believes that marriage is between a man and a woman but he will not support an amendment to ban gay marriage. He says there are more pressing matters that he needs to focus on like the economy. Gay marriage is a highly volatile topic in the state right now but the governor is using the economy as an excuse to wash his hands of it.

House Democrats decided in a private meeting that they don't want to vote this year on whether to start an amendment process against gay marriage. Why? Because it could splinter the party.

Gay marriages are allowed to be performed as early as this month in the state of Iowa and proposals to ban citizens of other states to come to Iowa to get married are being shot down.

Whether you're for or against it, the people of the state should have the right to vote on such matters.

Don't Relinquish Control

2009-04-09T12:06:00.000-07:00

The state our country is in did not occur overnight. Blindly, people hear the word 'universal' or 'global' and see it as a good thing. We've elected a president who lacks experience and credibility but his shady associations don't even raise an eyebrow with voters. Our stock market is crashing, our taxes are increasing, and our social programs keep growing. Americans are too dependent on handouts while at the same time being bankrupted further increasing each individual's dependency on big government. You know what happens when you let big government make all your decisions for you? You are controlled. This is the Land of the Free but soon we won't be free to make our own decisions.

Check out the post GLOBAL SOCIALIST DOMINATION on valsword (a must read!):

http://valsword.spaces.live.com/blog/

Not Learning From the Mistakes of History

2009-04-06T08:51:00.000-07:00

In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs, just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about in Thoene’s Shiloh books.In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was elected to power by promising “Change.” He blamed the “Zionists” around the world for all our problems. He told everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had. He promised when he was leader, the greedy Zionist bankers would be punished. The Zionists, he promised, would be wiped off the face of the earth. So Hitler was elected to power by only 1/3 the popular vote. A coalition of other political parties in parliament made him supreme leader. Then, when he was leader, he disgraced and expelled everyone in parliament who did not go along with him.

Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would.

The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement.It began with praise of the Fuhrer’s programs on the lips of innocent children. Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the schoolrooms and in the play yard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang these songs as they walked home from school. My brother came home and told Papa what was happening at school.The political hymns of children proclaimed Change was coming to our homeland and the Fuhrer was a leader we could trust. I will never forget my father’s face. Grief and fear. He knew that the best propaganda of the Nazis was song on the lips of little children. That evening before he said grace at the dinner table, he placed his hands upon the heads of my brothers and me and prayed the Living Word upon us from Jeremiah 1:4-5…‘Now the Word of the Lord came to me, saying, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to The nations.”Soon the children’s songs praising the Fuhrer were heard everywhere on the streets and over the radio. “With our Fuhrer to lead us, we can do it! We can change the world!”

Soon after that Papa, a pastor, was turned away from visiting elderly parishioners in hospitals. The people he had come to bring comfort of God’s Word, were “no longer there.” Where had they vanished to while under nationalized health care? It became an open secret. The elderly and sick began to disappear from hospitals feet first as “mercy killing” became the policy. Children with disabilities and those who had Down syndrome were euthanized. People whispered, “Maybe it is better for them now. Put them out of misery. They are no longer suffering…And, of course, their death is better for the treasury of our nation. Our taxes no longer must be spent to care for such a burden.” And so murder was called mercy.

The government took over private business. Industry and health care were “nationalized.” (NA-ZI means National Socialist Party) The businesses of all Jews were seized. (Perhaps you remember our story in Berlin on Krystalnacht in the book Munich Signature)The world and God’s word were turned upside down. Hitler promised the people economic Change? Not change. It was, rather, Lucifer’s very ancient Delusion leading to Destruction.

What began with the propaganda of children singing a catchy tune ended in the deaths of millions of children. The reality of what came upon us is so horrible that you in this present generation cannot imagine it. Our suffering is too great to ever tell in a book or show in a black and white newsreel.

When I spoke to Bodie about some of these things, she wept and said she could not bear to write them. Perhaps one day she will, but I asked her, “who could bear to read our suffering?” Yet with my last breaths I warn every Christian and Jew now in the name of the Lord, Unless your course of the church in America is spiritually changed now, returning to the Lord, there are new horrors yet to come. I trembled last night when I heard the voices of American children raised in song, praising the name of Obama, the charismatic fellow who claims he is the American Messiah. Yet I have heard what this man Obama says about abortion and the “mercy killing” of tiny babies who are not wanted.There are so few of us left to warn you.

I have heard that there are 69 million Catholics in America and 70 million Evangelical Christians. Where are your voices? Where is your outrage? Where is passion and your vote? Do you vote based on an abortionist’s empty promises and economics? Or do you vote according to the Bible? Thus says the Lord about every living child still in the womb…“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you…”I have experienced the signs of the politics of Death in my youth. I see them again now. Christians! Unless you stand up now, you will lose your freedom of religion.In America priests and preachers have already lost their freedom to speak openly from their pulpits of moral danger in political candidates. They cannot legally instruct you of which candidate holds fast to the precepts of scripture! American law forbids this freedom of speech to conservative pastors or they will lose their “tax exempt” status. And yet I have heard the words of Obama’s pastor Damning America! I have heard the words of Obama damning and mocking all of you in small towns because you “Cling to your religion…”

But I am a woman whose name is unknown. My life is recorded as a work of fiction. I have no fear of reprisal when I speak truth to you from the pages of a book. (Though the Zion Covenant books are mocked and condemned by the Left in America.) I am an old woman and will soon go to be with my Lord. I have no fear for myself, but for all of you and for your children, I tremble. I tremble at the hymns to a political leaders which your children will sing at school. (Though even now a hymn or a prayer to God and our Lord Jesus is against the law in public school!)Your vote must put a stop to what will come upon America if Barrack Obama is elected. I pray you will personally heed this warning for the sake of your children and your grandchildren. Do not be deceived. The Lord in Jeremiah 1:7-8 commands every believer to speak up!“Do not say, ‘I am only a youth,’ for to all whom I send you, you shall go, and whatever I command you, you shall speak. Do not be afraid of them for I am with you, declares the Lord!

I am in Prayer for you, and for the Church! Spoken to you in the authority of Jesus the Christ, the Name Above All Names,
Lori Kalner

Will A Stand Be Taken Before It's Too Late

2009-03-30T12:48:00.000-07:00

Does anyone else remember Obama's curt response when asked if he was in favor of a global currency? "No, I don't see a need for a global currency. Next question."

Has he been in contact with Geithner lately? When asked by U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, "Would you categorically renounce the United States moving away from the dollar and going to a global currency as suggested by China and also by Russia?" Geithner replied, "I would, yes." The Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke sung the same as Geithner. Geithner has pledged to work with his European counterparts on a new framework to govern the global financial sector prior to his participation in the G20 summit on Thursday. Geithner has also said if the dollar doesn't rebound Washington is open to a global reserve currency run by the International Monetary Fund. Doesn't sound like Obama and Geithner are on the same page. They're on the same page alright. One of them just wasn't supposed to spill the beans. Thanks for the heads up. I only hope the American public will use Geithner's verbal slippage to its advantage to help stand for this nation's sovereignty. A global currency may seem like a good idea on the surface but it would hand our monetary policy over to an entity we don't control.

Let's look at the European Union. The European Commission makes it next to impossible for the members of the European Union to fully understand each individual item that it passes with its continuous influx of laws. Sounds reminescent of Obama's stimulus plan. Let's hurry and get it passed before everyone realizes what they've actually okayed. Each sounds like a fantastic way towards a New World Order type of government.

More of the Same Blame Game

2009-03-23T10:25:00.000-07:00

Last night's recurring theme that I picked up on during Obama's interview on 60 Minutes was 'Let's draw negative attention away from me'. This theme was a constant throughout his candidacy and nothing has changed with that theme throughout his Presidency thus far.

Obama made sure to let everyone know, if we hadn't heard it before, during his interview that 'this is the legacy of the past administration that's been inherited' and trying to toss back the negativity ball on the Bush administration.

Is it just me or does it remind anyone else of when you were a child and being scolded and your reaction was to point out something wrong your sibling did? What did your parent or teacher usually say? Something along the line of "We're talking about YOU, not your (brother) (sister) (etc.),"right? When is our President going to start acting like a President and quit pointing the finger, start answering the questions that are asked of him, not react to opposition like someone in a school yard with a juvenile thuggish remark such as "bring it on" and "he'll tear him apart", and try not giggling when it comes to talking about the demise of our auto industry?

You're the leader of the United States. Please try to act like it.

Perhaps Mary Kate Cary said it best: The president sets the tone of the conversation in America. As much as President Obama would like to be a man of the people, "a regular guy," he's not anymore. His job description encompasses being Commander-in-Chief, leader of the Executive Branch of government, and Head of State. He's "The Leader of the Free World." Doing Jay Leno lessens the stature of the office, and diminishes the man. On Leno, he becomes just one more talk show guest, a celebrity on the circuit promoting his latest movie or book. It's a decision that speaks volumes about Obama's approach to the office. For that matter, so does his signing of op-eds about specific legislation in newspapers and his picking fights with radio talk show hosts...

What a sad statement it makes of our nation that our President and those running for office feel the need to reach the American public by going on celebrity talk shows. We are a bunch of citizens more interested in being entertained than being educated.

Civil War On the Horizon?

2009-03-16T09:11:00.000-07:00

Political Science Professor Igor Panarin predicted the breakup of the U.S. back in 1998. His predictions were aimed at the year 2010. He based his predictions on the U.S. mass immigration, economic decline, and social and political conflicts.

Panarin believes the U.S. will break into five or six regions divided by racial and cultural lines spurred on by the collapse of our financial system. According to Panarin, he foresees the wealthier sections of the country to withold funds from the federal government, effectively causing states to secede from the union. It is at this point he believes social unrest will arise resulting in a civil war that will ultimately allow foreign powers to move in. Panarin goes so far as to predict how sections or states of the U.S. will be divided and under what foreign powers they will be controlled. Panarin predicts that American elites will be split into two warring factions: Globalists representing international financial interests and Statists representing manufacturing and the military with the prosperity of their country in mind.

Panarin sees this civil war being triggered by the U.S. failing to honor its own currency. How could this happen you ask? According to Panarin, a secret agreement was made in 2006 between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico to implement the 'Amero' as a new currency unit. Current U.S. money could be "frozen" by using an excuse as simple as terrorists having made false notes which need to be checked.

As recently as November 2008 The Drudge Report reported on Panarin's predictions. A month later The Wall Street Journal (followed up by U.S. News and World Report) ridiculed those predictions. Back in the news today, The Huffington Post made those predictions news again today. Ridicule aside, could there possibly be some truth to what Panarin has said?

Millions of citizens have lost their savings, prices of goods continue to increase, unemployment keeps growing with entire towns unemployed, corporations are collapsing, and governors are demanding money from the federal center. Is it likely Obama's economic recovery plan will work?

What say you?

Business Owners, Employees and HR Generalists Beware

2009-03-09T13:58:00.000-07:00

Obama has promised that the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) will become law. The EFCA was sponsored by Obama and is expected to be introduced sometime this year in the Senate. If that doesn't concern you, here are a few other bills sponsored by Obama that may. Let's hope these don't come to fruition:

"The Working Families Flexibility Act"
This act would require that when an employer denies an employee's request regarding a change in working conditions, the employee will have rights to challenge the decision through a series of escalation from employer to administrative law judge hearings, ultimately ending in federal court. It is the burden of the employer to prove that the denial of request is justified. A change in working conditions is an employee's request for a change in work hours, start and end times, and location of work.

"Protecting America's Worker Act"
An act that will increase OSHA penalties, impose significant mandatory sentences, and allow criminal penalties for non-fatal incidents.

"Healthy Families Act"
This act will require companies with more than 15 employees to provide 7 annual sick days. Employers cannot use the excuse that sick days are already provided, they will be required to add an additional 7 to the already exsisting sick days.

"The Paycheck Fairness Act"
This act would make it illegal for any employer to prohibit or discourage employees from sharing salary information. It also limits an employers defenses to EPA claims, uncaps damages for both punitive and compensatory, and eases restrictions on class action suits.

Strings Attached

2009-03-02T13:31:00.000-08:00

Citigroup took over Merril Lynch. Citigroup didn't want to take the bailout money but were forced to by the government once it was found out how in debt Merril Lynch was. It's scary to think that the government is forcing their bailout money on businesses. Will Bank of America also be forced by the government to take the bailout money? So why is it that Citigroup didn't want to take the money? Because of all the government regulations tied to that money. You take the money, you are beholden to what Obama wants for this country. He is on the path to destruction of our businesses (large and small). He is squashing entrepreneurship, just another way to move from capitalism to socialism.

Obama claims he will cut our deficit in half within his first term in office yet doesn't say how he's going to do it. It just sounds good. Like all his speeches. It sounds good. He throws a little "preacher voice" in for good measure and the sheep gobble it up. Making the masses buy the load of what you know to be crap is just half the battle. Can someone tell me how you get out of a deficit by spending?! Is that how you get out of credit card debt? Charge more?

A Nation of Cowards

2009-02-20T09:11:00.000-08:00

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder says we are a nation of cowards when it comes to race relations. Yes, we are a nation of cowards but not because of his perceived lack of racial integration in our country. We are a nation of cowards because we won't take a stand to protect our country for fear of being called racist.

Prime Minister John Howard of Australia said it best:

Muslims who want to live under Islamic Sharia law were told on Wednesday to get out of Australia , as the government targeted radicals in a bid to head off potential terror attacks.Separately, Howard angered some Australian Muslims on Wednesday by saying he supported spy agencies monitoring the nation's mosques.Quote: 'IMMIGRANTS, NOT AUSTRALIANS, MUST ADAPT. Take It Or Leave It.. I am tired of this nation worrying about whether we are offending some individual or their culture. Since the terrorist attacks on Bali , we have experienced a surge in patriotism by the majority of Australians'.

'This culture has been developed over two centuries of struggles, trials and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom'. 'We speak mainly ENGLISH, not Spanish, Lebanese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become part of our society . Learn the language!

''Most Australians believe in God. This is not some Christian, right wing, political push, but a fact, because Christian men and women, on Christian principles, founded this nation, and this is clearly documented. Itis certainly appropriate to display it on the walls of our schools. If God offends you, then I suggest you consider another part of the world as your new home, because God is part of our culture.

''We will accept your beliefs, and will not question why. All we ask is that you accept ours, and live in harmony and peaceful enjoyment with us.

''This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom,'THE RIGHT TO LEAVE'.''If you aren't happy here then LEAVE. We didn't force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.

While The Blogger Was Out

2009-02-19T08:48:00.000-08:00

My head has been spinning over all the stimulus talk and I'm now trying to wrap my head around it all now that it has been passed. I'll be back to post my take on it all. In the meantime, I've been trying to catch up with everyone's blogs and have even discovered a new one along the way. Check out The Debonair Dude over at http://ourworldasweseeit.blogspot.com . While I'm gathering my thoughts on my next post, who in your blog roll do you highly suggest I add to mine? I'm always looking for some good reading!

Someone's Smoking Something

2009-02-01T16:59:00.000-08:00

$200 Million for GRASS for the National Mall?! Can someone explain to me how GRASS for the lawn of the National Mall could possibly stimulate the economy? Thank you GOP for criticizing such a ridiculous use of money and thank you House Rules Committee for stripping that provision from the stimulus plan.

Isn't That Rich?

2009-01-27T07:11:00.000-08:00

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have asked for $16 million of the bailout money. My question to them is don't you think you've done enough?

Good For America?

2009-01-23T08:06:00.000-08:00

In what seems like a flurry to prove too hard he knows what he's doing, Obama is on a rampage to change everything. Taking abstinence education out of schools, using our tax dollars to fund abortions in other countries, taking away the requirement for an underage female to notify her parents about getting an abortion, closing interrogation facilities used by the CIA, and $4 million dollars allotted to NASA to study global warming. All from someone who sat in the Senate and could never make up his mind and often checked Present.

Obama says abstinence education doesn't work. He's also said, "A woman should not be punished with a child just because she made a mistake." Did you read that? Punished with a child. What a sad man to equate a child with punishment. We sure wouldn't want a woman to be put upon by a child now would we?

Whether you agree with the right to have an abortion or not, why should U.S. tax dollars go towards funding abortions or anything else in another country than our own?

Women's Rights groups stand for the right to choose. We're not talking about women here, we're talking about girls. A girl may be fearful of telling her parents she is pregnant but a parent has a right to discuss, counsel, and console their daughter on a pregnancy and whether or not it leads to an abortion. Think of the long term damage it can cause for a girl to hide an abortion from her parents.

With so quickly ridding homeland security measures put in to place after 9/11, has anyone heard Obama's ideas on how we are going to keep this country safe from terrorists? Liberals will laugh and tell you that there are no threats to U.S. soil. It's all just a manufactured fear tactic. Silly Libs, it is U.S. Intelligence that has worked hard over the decades and continues to work hard every day to make citizens feel safe and secure by the intelligence they gather.

In Obama's Inauguration speech he said we are all going to have to make sacrifices. Is $4 million dollars for a study one of those sacrifices?

Repeal of English Only For Iowans?

2009-01-23T07:47:00.000-08:00

Just yesterday the citizens of Davidson County of Tennessee voted on enacting English Only within their county. The English only debate has now moved to Iowa. Former Governor Tom Vilsack (D) signed in to law restricting the official use of languages other than English. Now current Governor Chet Culver (D) wants the law repealed and a bill has been introduced to do just that. Culver has always opposed the law. While campaigning for the governorship he promised to push for repeal of the English-only law.

Points For and Against Repealing the Law

that have been brought up are:

For- to allow voter registration forms in other languages besides English

Against- millions of dollars will be spent to include bilingual road signs across the state

A couple of Democratic Presidential hopefuls quotes, on the subject, while campaigning in Iowa:

"You're going to have to learn English." - Hillary Clinton promising to crack down on businesses that employ illegal immigration and addressing immigrants that are here.

"I think they ought to learn to speak English." - Jon Edwards when asked what criteria someone should have to meet to earn legalization.

Finances

2009-01-21T13:52:00.000-08:00

Do you remember the outrage over the cost of George W. Bush's inauguration party? $40 million dollars to be exact.

Fast forward to yesterday. In Obama's speech he said that he, along with the rest of America are going to have to make sacrifices to get this country back on track economically. What he didn't include in that statement was, 'but not until after I've spent $170 million dollars on my inauguration party.'

TMZ Tells A Funny

2009-01-19T16:20:00.000-08:00

I thought a ticket to the inauguration was hard to get. Then I heard MC Hammer is going.

Cult of Celebrity

2009-01-19T09:04:00.000-08:00

Don't forget to purchase your Obama poster! It will be a nice addition to those other posters you already have on display in your home of Che and Mao, don't you think?

Immigration and English-Only

2009-01-15T07:52:00.000-08:00

On January 22nd, residents of Davidson County in Tennessee will vote on an English-only policy for Davidson County employees and officials.

Opponents of an English-only policy stand behind Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and that it violates the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment and First Amendment free-speech protections. They claim that this referendum would prohibit fire and police personnel from speaking to crime victims in any language other than English and translators would be forbidden in parent-teacher conferences and courtrooms. This is their scare tactic. They don't want Davidson County voters to know that exceptions will be made in regard to health, safety, and other key issues. What school would not want a parent to understand what they are trying to communicate regarding a child's education which ultimately affects our nation's future? It is a ridiculous argument by those against an English-only policy.

Opponents reach even further by arguing that American Sign Language is not English. They question if signers will be allowed to translate during public hearings and court proceedings. Sign language is not spoken, it is signed. It is used for communication for those with a disability and not for those who refuse to speak English. But what about non-English-speaking tourists? Will they not be able to report a crime or a fire? Once again, exceptions will be made in regard to health, safety, and other key issues.

Not enforcing an English-only stance, along with government benefits for illegal immigrants, employers looking for cheap labor with no apparent ethics or scruples, and sanctuary cities, in this country have contributed to our constant flow of illegal labor. U.S. citizens are required by law to speak, write, and understand English. Why isn't this being enforced? New Haven, CT; San Francisco; New York City; Washington D.C.; Los Angeles; Chicago; Salt Lake City; Portland, Maine; Santa Ana, CA; San Diego; Phoenix; Dallas; Baltimore; Miami; Detroit; Minneapolis; Jersey City; Houston; and Denver have ordinances banning city employees and police officers from asking people about their immigration status. Come on in! We make it easy for you to obtain employment and benefits without even proving you're a citizen!

To succeed in this country, you need to be fluent in English. Name one immigrant who didn't learn English that was or is successful here. When immigrants came through Ellis Island they wanted to assimilate through a common language. Why are we so against it today? Governments across the world conduct business in their native languages. If you choose to live in a foreign country, and you want to be successful you need to learn their language. You don't expect them to meet your first language needs.

Global Economy

2009-01-09T15:59:00.000-08:00

Are we on the fast track to losing our sovereignty? Will financial meetings with European countries result in a one world currency further pushing us towards a one world government? If so, our nation will no longer be able to set itself apart from other nations and our super power title will be taken away with devastating consequences. Maybe I'm getting way ahead of myself and thinking the worst but I don't believe a one world currency is completely unthinkable. Corporations and citizens of this nation want the economy fixed and fast. This just may be part of that quick fix. But at what cost?

Two Sides To Every Story

2009-01-05T10:03:00.000-08:00

Since when is it not okay to defend one's country and the people within its borders? I ask this question because every time I turn on the news the media is telling me about the atrocities that Israel imposes upon its neighboring countries. I don't see or read with the same fervor by the media the attacks on Israel. I don't see the bleeding hearts out on street corners with their signs protesting the terrorist acts against Israel.

If one of our neighboring countries were attacking us on a regular basis, wouldn't we want our military forces to protect us? Why shouldn't Israel be allowed to do the same without the world tsk tskng them for their actions? But they've killed innocent civilians you argue. When Hamas fights from the mosques and hospitals of Palestinian civilians they are putting civilians at risk. Where is the tsk tskng of Hamas for putting their civilians in harms way?

Lest, you've forgotten like the media: http://www.adl.org/Israel/israel_attacks.asp

Hope You Had A Merry CHRISTmas and Blessings For the New Year!

2008-12-30T07:27:00.000-08:00

I am a Jew, and every single one of my ancestors was Jewish. And it doesn't bother me even a little bit when people call those beautiful lit up, bejeweled trees Christmas trees. I don't feel threatened. I don't feel discriminated against. That's what they are: Christmas trees. It doesn't bother me a bit when people say "Merry Christmas" to me. I don't think they are slighting me or getting ready to put me in a ghetto. In fact, I kind of like it. It shows that we are all brothers and sisters celebrating this happy time of year. It doesn't bother me at all that there is a manger scene on display at a key intersection near my beach house in Malibu. If people want a creche, it's just as fine with me as is the Menorah a few hundred yards away.

I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat.
- Ben Stein (read it in its entirety at http://www.benstein.com/121805xmas.html )

You And Me Both

2008-12-18T08:19:00.000-08:00

2008-12-15T12:05:00.000-08:00

Is it just me or does everyone with a facebook account have a tingle running up their leg for Obama? I'd say more than half of my friends with facebook accounts are Obama supporters and will unabashedly chastise you if you tell them you did not vote for Obama. They all have joined the "Yes We Did" group on facebook and I just roll my eyes everytime I see it.

Barack Obama Day

2008-12-05T06:49:00.000-08:00

That's right. A National holiday already in the works for the One. My question is, doesn't one have to earn a national holiday by actually DOING something? Or at least be dead?

That's What He Said

2008-11-26T14:35:00.000-08:00

"The American people would be troubled if I selected a treasury secretary or a chairman of the National Economic Council at one of the most critical economic times in our history who had no experience in government whatsoever."

-Obama defending his selection of several former Clinton officials for his administration

Why should the American public be troubled with the selection of inexperience in the Obama administration? He was voted in wasn't he?

A Slippery Slope

2008-11-20T14:28:00.000-08:00

On December 2 Georgians will vote in the U.S. Senate election. ACORN is back to work along with the unions and B.O. in Atlanta garnering support for the Democratic candidate.

What's at stake in this Senate election? Secret ballots. Unions want to do away with them. B.O. has pledged to pass the card-check bill allowing workers to form a union simply by collecting a majority of cards signed by workers supporting a union within their workplace. Currently, cards are submitted by workers to request union certification and an election takes place under secret ballot voting. The pending bill (Employee Free Choice Act) will no longer require a secret ballot unless at least 30% of workers call for it.

Union leaders prefer to move away from open elections in which employers and unions compete for worker votes. By eliminating secret ballots "It will allow workers to form a union through majority sign up and card checks and strengthen penalties for those employers who are in violation." -B.O.

Take away secret ballots for unionization? What's next?

Breast Health Information

2008-11-18T14:44:00.000-08:00

WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 23
BREAST CANCER

There is an ominous relationship between the abortion of your first pregnancy and later development of breast cancer.

Is this proven?
No, but there is a very close correlation that has been demonstrated in a large number of scientific studies. If further studies continue to demonstrate this and no other definitive cause is found, it is highly likely that this will some day be seen as a cause and effect.
Is breast cancer increasing?
According to the American Cancer Society. In 1962 there were 63,000 cases.
In 1972, 90,000 In 1982, 120,000 In 1992, 180,000 Perhaps some of the above is attributable to better diagnoses with mammograms, etc. Even so, the increase is dramatic. In 1960, one women in fourteen developed breast cancer. Today, it is nearing one in eight.

There are certain other risk factors, are there not?
Major risk factors that are well recognized are:
- family history in first degree relatives
- early onset and late cessation of menstruation
- being female (male breast cancer, while rare, has not increased)
- nulliparity, i.e., not being pregnant.
There are other suspected risk factors?
Yes, diet is one. It is postulated that a high fat diet may contribute. Toxic chemicals, pesticides and pollutants have been suggested, as have lack of antioxidants in the diet. Alcohol, smoking and drugs may be implicated. Electromagnetic fields, such as living under high-tension wires or being exposed to electronic display boards have been suspected. Certain genes may predispose. None of these, however, have been proven.
Contraceptive pills have been implicated. While nothing has been proven, it would seem that the use of the pill before twenty years of age, or the continuing use of pills for more than 10 years might be a causative factor.
In the overall, however, 60% to 70% of all breast cancer occurs in women who do not have any of the classic risk factors.

Does pregnancy protect?
Yes, definitely. Women who have never been pregnant have twice the risk of breast cancer compared to those who have had children. Women who delay their first pregnancy into their thirties have almost a doubled risk of breast cancer compared to those who have babies in their late teens or early twenties. It is also possible that breast-feeding may add another protective affect, but there is no real proof for this. B. MacMahon, et al., 1970 Bull. Wld. Halth. Org., 43:20921

When was abortion first suspected as a cause?
Dr. M. C. Pike, at the University of Southern California in l981, published the first serious scientific study that demonstrated a direct association of induced abortion with later breast cancer. He studied 163 women who developed breast cancer before age 33, and compared them with 272 controls. He showed that if a woman had aborted her first pregnancy, her chance for developing breast cancer was increased by a factor of 2.4 times. Pike MC, Henderson BE, Casagrande JT, Rosario I, Gray CE (1981) Brit. J. Cancer, 43:726.

Give me other definitive studies.
Certainly one of the definitive studies was by H. L. Howe. Her study was done in upstate New York using official statistics from the New York State Health Department. This was an excellent study by epidemiologic standards and was not subject to any kind of recall memory bias from people asked in questionnaires. It used only hard data. She investigated all the women in this area who developed breast cancer under age 40 and checked to see whether or not they had had abortions. The conclusion was that women who had aborted their first pregnancy had a 1.7 times increased risk of breast cancer. Those who had gone on to abort their second and/or third pregnancy had a 4.0 times increased risk. Howe HL, Senie RT, Bzduch H, Herzfeld P (1989) et al., Int. J. Epidemiol. 18:3004.
Another was in Washington State: Few studies on this issue receive media attention. This went worldwide and broke the defacto embargo on reporting the abortionbreast cancer link. Janet Daling did a very professional study that could not be discounted. It found:
- An induced abortion raises a woman’s chance of getting breast cancer before age 45 by 50%. If done before age 18, it increases 150%; if after age 30, it’s up 110%.
- A woman with a family member with breast cancer who had her first abortion after 30 years increased her risk 270%.
- All 12 women in the study with a family history of breast cancer, who aborted before age 18 — all 12 — got breast cancer before age 45. J. Daling, Risk of Breast Cancer Among Young Women, J. Nat. Ca. Inst., Vol. 86, No. 21, 11/2/94, pg. 1584
Other studies done since then include: Greece: An overall increased risk of 51% was reported in women who had abortions, compared to those who did not. It involved 850 patients in Athens. L. Lipworth, Int. J. of Cancer, April ’95 U.S.A.:
A statistically significant increased risk of 23% of breast cancer was shown to be attributable to induced abortion. For women over 60 years, the risk was 80%. P. Newcomb et al., Preg. Termination & Risk of Breast Cancer, JAMA 1/24/96, Vol. 275, No. 4, pg. 283
For a thorough explanation of the Newcomb study above, see Natl. RTL News, 2/6/96, by J. Brind. Paris: "Having at least two abortions if associated with an increased breast cancer risk" of 2.1 times. N. Andrieu, Role of Genetic & Repro. Factors in Br. Ca., Genetic Spidem. 11 (3): 285, 1994
There are, in addition, many competent studies done in the last 20 years which also confirm this linkage. See: Before You Choose, The Link Between Abortion & Breast Cancer; And: Legalized Abortion and the Sudden Increase of Breast Cancer, both by Scott Somerville, P.O. Box 159, Paeonian Springs, VA 22129.
These are comprehensive analyses citing 74 studies.

Has anyone investigated recurrences of previously treated breast cancer?
Yes, Dr. H. Ownby did this in 1983. This was a study of women who had breast cancer that had been treated and gone into remission. Ownby studied how many of these developed a recurrence of their cancer. His research showed that among women who had carried their first pregnancy to term, 10% had a recurrence of their cancer within three years. Of those women who had aborted their first pregnancy 20% had a recurrence. Among those who had aborted their second and/or third pregnancy also, 30% had recurrences. H. Ownby, Interrupted Pregnancy Poor Prognosis . . . in Breast Cancer, 1983 Breast Cancer Res. Treat. 3:339344

How about the aggressiveness of the tumor?
In 1991 H. Olsson studied the aggressiveness of, and the propensity to metastasize of diagnosed breast cancer. His study showed, if she had aborted her first pregnancy and later developed breast cancer, that her cancer was more aggressive and more quickly lethal than cancers among women who had carried their first pregnancy to term.
A marker gene associated with breast cancer, 1NT2, was shown to be eighteen times higher than the normal rate among those who had aborted. H. Olsson et al., Cancer 67:128590.

Are there ethnic differences?
Two studies have investigated this. In 1978, Choi in the U.S. and Israel, investigated the difference between groups of Protestant and Catholic women in Canada and found that the Protestant women had more breast cancer. Helmrich, in 1981, investigated the difference between Jewish and Catholic women and found that there was more breast cancer among the Jews.
Does this mean a difference due to ethnicity? Or could it be that the Catholic women had fewer abortions? Certainly no conclusions can be drawn, but this may be a bit of circumstantial evidence. N. Choi, An Epidem. Study of Br. Ca., Am. J. Epidemal. 107:510, 1978 S. Helmrich, Risk Factors for Br. Ca., Am. J. Epidemal. 117, 3545
Are there differences in economic classes?
There were two studies done in the state of Washington that are suggestive but again offer no hard proof.
That state legalized abortion in 1969 by state referendum. For the first 5 years it did not pay for welfare abortions, then in 1974, the state began to pay for welfare abortions. Bearing this in mind, the following has been shown. Women of higher social economic status had an increase in breast cancer during those first 5 years which then leveled off. Poor women did not experience a similar rise in breast cancer until after 1974 when their incidence rose up to the plateau earlier achieved by the rich.
There was a similar study by Krieger in 1990 in California showing similar results. Choi ’78, Denesa ’80, Kelsey ’81, Lowe ’70, Krieger ’90
If induced abortion is a problem, does spontaneous loss carry the same risk?
Early on, some thought yes, but more recent studies have shown dramatically lower levels of female hormone in those who miscarried. Among these studies were ones by B. Witt, Tulane Med. Sch. in 1990; a study in the Br. J. OBGyn. in 1976; one by D. Stewart, U. of CA Davis in 1993; one by A. Guilloume in NY City, and the well known one by Janet Daling in ’94. All have shown that miscarriages are not associated with an increased risk.

What about the contraceptive pill? Certainly many who take the pill also get abortions. Could it be that the pill causes the cancer and not the abortion?
Good question! Many have asked it. At this time in history there is no definitive answer and the pill remains suspect. There are, however, a number of studies relevant here which seem to implicate abortion as a causative factor rather than the pill.
There are three major studies, from Russia, Estonia, and Soviet Georgia that were done prior to Russia’s opening to the West. During those years there were almost no contraceptive pills used in those nations. During those years abortion was the method of birth control. And what happened to breast cancer? It increased by approximately 300 percent. L. Remennick, Reprod . . . & Cancer Incidence in USSR, Intl. J. Epidemal., 18:498512, 1989
Incidentally, the above reasoning, such as it is, would also apply to the suggestion that food additives and street drugs are part of the cause of the increase in breast cancer. Prior to the lowering of the Iron Curtain, there were essentially no food additives used in the Soviet Union and neither were there many street drugs. The breast cancer rate however, as noted, skyrocketed in these countries. This would seem to implicate abortion as a cause and to see such additives as only aggravating factors, if indeed they are implicated at all.

What of breast feeding? If pregnancy is protective, does it add further protection?
It would seem logical that this would be so. If maturation of the breast is what causes the protection, and if lactation in any way completes the maturing of the milk glands, then logically breast-feeding should be an additive protective factor. In fact, sufficient studies have not been done on this, and so we cannot draw any firm conclusions. Newcomb, however, in the January 1994 New England Journal of Medicine, did find a decreased risk of premenopausal cancer among mothers who had nursed, but not among postmenopausal women. One such study, ambivalent as it is, is not enough to draw any conclusions.

What about differences between the black and white races?
There have been two studies out of Howard University in Washington, DC that have addressed this issue. They are the first ones to compare races. Laing, in her study, found that those with abortions had an increased incidence of breast cancer among black women, the increase centering largely among black women who were over 50 years old. He also found an increase in breast cancer among black women who used birth control pills. She found an increase in breast cancer after induced abortion, but not after spontaneous miscarriage, which was called a "protective factor." A. Laing, Br. Ca. Risk Factors in AfricanAmerican Women, J. Nat. Med. Assn., Dec. ’93, Vol. 85, No. 12, pg. 931
Is this a genetic ethnic difference, or might there be another explanation? It is difficult to ignore the fact that black women in the United States, where this study was done, have three abortions for every one that their white counterparts have. A high percent of these abortions cluster in the teen years which, by definition, means many of them are first pregnancies. If abortion is a causative factor, and if black women, particularly young black women, have three times as many abortions as white women, then it would seem logical that they should have a higher incidence of breast cancer, which in fact they do.
Sadly, black women die almost twice as often from breast cancer as whites. Eley et al., Racial Differences in Survival, JAMA 9/28/94, Vol. 272, No. 12, pg. 947
This study found a relatively increased risk of 50% up to age 40, increasing during the 40s to 180%, and to 370% to women over 50 years of age.

What about diet? It has been suggested as a causative factor.
Yes it has. Time magazine, in 1994, devoted the major subject matter of one issue to this, strongly suggesting that a high intake of fat and red meat might increase the incidence of breast cancer. It is a fact that the female hormone implicated in breast cancer, estrogen, is stored in fatty tissue. Therefore, obese women may be at greater risk. The concern, however, is not about obesity as such, but rather about dietary intake.
Again, there is no proof. But it is interesting to note that the breast cancer rate in Japan has gone up sharply and it has been suggested that, with their increased standard of living, it is due to their increasing consumption of red meat and fatty foods. In the U.S. the breast cancer rate has also gone up sharply, and this has continued during the last decade or two during which time the intake of red meat and fat has decreased sharply. We could compare to a third nation, the Soviet Union before its opening to the West. There the abortion rate rose even faster, but there the intake of red meat and of fat was minimal. To draw a conclusion is unscientific, as other factors undoubtedly play a part. But, if fat is causative one might surmise that it has gone up in Japan because they have increased such dietary intake; that it has gone up in the U.S. because of a decrease in this dietary intake, and that it went up even higher in the former Soviet Union because of a near deficiency of these dietary factors.

Can stress cause breast cancer?
Investigators at the University of Wisconsin have found no link at all. "Although women with breast cancer often attribute it to stress or depression, we found no evidence of such an association." They followed without and 258 with cancer for 5 years. P. Carbone, Relationship . . . Refuted, Primary Care & Cancer, July ’96, Vol. 16, No. 7, p. ll
These studies on the association of abortion with breast cancer are rather convincing. But if they are true, how do you explain the mechanism of the development of this cancer?
This is best understood by looking at the female breast in three different phases of maturity: Immature Phase: This is the 5 year old girl whose breast, under the microscope, is indistinguishable from that of her 6 year old brother. Her brother’s breast never matures. Her’s will.
Nulliparous Adult Stage: During adolescence there is a flood of female hormone which causes her breast to grow in size and shape. To external appearances her breast is mature but it can not yet produce milk, and the internal structure remains relatively undeveloped. Parous Breast: This is the third stage, the breast after being pregnant. Most women who have been pregnant remember that their breasts became swollen and tender very soon after missing their period. Also, by about 3 months, they no longer felt this very much. What happened was the last phase of growth and maturation of her breasts. During this phase the internal milk glands completed their development and readied her to produce milk.

So what has this to do with later cancer?
Perhaps a lot. We don’t know all the causes that trigger the growth of cancer but we call such causes carcinogenic agents. We know that the immature breast cells are relatively resistant to such agents. We know that after the first phase of growth the cells are more susceptible and that after a pregnancy and full maturation the cells are again more resistant. In early pregnancy there is a rapid growth and change of these cells. If this is suddenly interrupted, the breast is left with many transitional cells in a state of change, half way between immature and mature, cells in intermediate stages. It is thought that these cells are more unstable and less resistant to carcinogenic insult — to the triggering of cancer.

What if she has a baby and then aborts the next one?
According to this reasoning this should not increase the risk. In fact, some studies do show a further increase in risk.
If all of this is true, how many women will actually die of breast cancer?
There are approximately 1.5 million induced abortions annually in the United States. Over half, or 800,000 of these, are first pregnancies. At a conservative estimate one in ten of these women will get breast cancer. This is 80,000 cases. About onefourth of those who develop breast cancer, that’s 20,000 women, will die from the disease. If in fact, abortion of her first pregnancy increases her chance of breast cancer from 1.0 to 1.5 then we should see, not 80,000 but 120,000 cases of cancer among this target population. If the death rate among them remains at 25 percent, (and it could be higher), then not 20,000, but 30,000 women will die. Among this group, however, if instead of aborting their first pregnancy, these 800,000 women would have carried to term and delivered. They would have reduced their chance for breast cancer from 1.0 to .75. Accordingly, the 80,000 expected cases would be reduced to three-fourths of that or 60,000 cases, and the 20,000 deaths would have been reduced to 15,000 deaths.
Continuing this comparison we see that, if abortion is in fact causative, then it is responsible for 10,000, plus 5,000, or a total of 15,000 deaths annually from breast cancer that would not have occurred if the women, who had aborted their first pregnancies, had instead carried those pregnancies to term.
A major study that refutes your thesis is the Lindeford Harris study from Sweden. What of it?
It is poorly done from a scientific standpoint, and its authors’ conclusions do not accurately reflect some of its actual findings. Dr. Brind, mentioned above, has called it the "Swedish data massage." It compared Swedish women with breast cancer, to the entire Swedish population, which contains all of the same Swedish women who have breast cancer. Therefore, this comparison to the control group is invalid. Even in this study however, there is proof of the very thing its authors deny. In their article’s conclusion, the authors state that there is no overall risk of breast cancer from abortion. However, within the report, a table of results shows that women who aborted after having a live birth had 58% of the average risk of breast cancer, while women who aborted before their first live birth had 109% of the average risk. This is an 88% increase in breast cancer, and it is clearly shown in the heart of this study, a study that is routinely held up as proving exactly the opposite.

But there are many other studies that tend to disprove your claims.
So they claim, but, with few exceptions, these were flawed by: inappropriately crude age matching or adjusting of controls (the main problem); interpreting as statistically insignificant some retrospective case controls with low statistical power; minimizing the actual results obtained in their conclusions; and attributing results to patient’s "recall bias," even though a close exam refutes such a claim. 178 B. M. LindeforsHarris et al., Response Bias. . . . Abortions. . . . Two Swedish Studies, Am. J. Epidemal. 1991, Vol. 134, No. 9, Pg. 1003
But I haven’t seen such criticisms in any public reports.
There has been a true conspiracy of silence by the media and also by many researchers who, like the Swedish study, bury actual findings and conclude otherwise, e.g., editorials in journals, listing exhaustively multiple possible causes of breast cancer and never even listing abortion, e.g., JAMA, July 21, 1993, and New England Journal of Medicine, Jan. 1994, as well as Time magazine on Jan. 14, 1991. Dr. Remennick concluded "an initial attitude of researchers toward abortion usually determines the way they interpret results." 10 Remennick LI (1989) Int. J. Epidemiol. 18:498510.

Has anyone compared all the studies?
Yes, happily a comprehensive metaanalysis examined 61 published studies and subjected them to critical comparative analysis. Its conclusion was: "The results support the inclusion of induced abortion among significant independent risk factors for breast cancer, regardless of parity or timing of abortion relative to the first term pregnancy. Although the increase in risk was relatively low, the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age." J. Brind et al., "Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis," Hershey Med. Center, J. Epidemol. Community Health, 1996

Preach!

2008-11-18T11:56:00.000-08:00

From last Sunday's sermon I took away this:
What you do to provide yourself and your family the basic necessities is what you do for a living. As a Christian and follower of Christ, your job is to lead others to Christ. Never confuse what you do for a living with your job.

Not Necessarily A Recommendation

2008-11-18T11:44:00.001-08:00

My latest Netflix rental.

Good subject matter with important information but probably the driest documentary I've ever tried to watch.

To The President-Elect

2008-11-18T08:24:00.001-08:00

Hey Obama,

Appoint McCain to head the

Department of Veteran Affairs

so we can get our veterans the good healthcare they deserve.

What Causes Me Great Concern (as it applies under the new presidency)

2008-11-12T09:50:00.000-08:00

Spreading the wealth
Higher payroll, dividend, and income taxes
Taxpayer funding of abortion through Medicaid
Universal health care and employer mandates
The enforcement of bilingual education in public schools
National ID cards
A civilian army
The World Bank
One World Government
The Fairness Doctrine
Allowing convicted felons to vote
Taking secret ballot voting away in the workplace concerning Unions