LilSugar

Oregon Man Gives Employees the Company

stephley — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 13:17:05 -0800

MILWAUKIE, Ore. â€” Scores of employees gathered to help Bob Moore celebrate his 81st birthday this week at the company that bears his name, Bob's Red Mill Natural Foods.

Moore, whose mutual love of healthful eating and old-world technologies spawned an internationally distributed line of products, responded with a gift of his own â€” the whole company. The Employee Stock Ownership Plan that Moore unveiled means that his 209 employees now own the place and its 400 offerings of stone-ground flours, cereals and bread mixes.

"This is Bob taking care of us," said Lori Sobelson, who helps run the business' retail operation. "He expects a lot out of us, but really gives us the world in return."

Moore declined to say how much he thinks the company is worth. In 2004, however, one business publication estimated that year's revenue at more than $24 million. A company news release issued this week stated that Bob's Red Mill has chalked up an annual growth rate of between 20 percent and 30 percent every year since.

"In some ways I had a choice," Moore said of what he could have done with the company he founded with his wife, Charlee, in 1978. "But in my heart, I didn't. These people are far too good at their jobs for me to just sell it."

It's not that the offers aren't there. Hardly a day goes by that Nancy Garner, Moore's executive assistant, doesn't field a call or letter from someone wanting to buy the privately held company or take it public.

"I had four messages waiting when I returned from a recent vacation," she said. "Three of them were buyout offers." Garner said she and other employees are floored by Moore's plan, under which any worker with at least three years tenure is now fully vested.

"We're still learning all of the details," Garner said, "but it's very humbling to be part of a company that cares this much about its employees."

An employee stock-ownership plan, or ESOP, is a retirement plan in which the company contributes its stock to the plan to be held in trust for the benefit of its employees. The stock is never bought or held directly.

Vested employees are sent annual reports detailing their respective stakes in the company. When those employees quit or retire, they receive in cash whatever amount they â€” and the company, through increased revenues, new sales and controlled costs â€” are due.

"Eventual payouts could be substantial," said John Wagner, the company's chief financial officer and, along with Moore, one of four partners.

Moore said he began thinking about succession about nine years ago. He'd heard about employee-stock-option programs and got much more serious about the idea three years ago.

That Moore has now pulled off what few other company owners would even dream about comes as no surprise to longtime acquaintances, such as Glenn Dahl, owner of NatureBake bakery in Milwaukie.

"Bob's a force of nature," said Dahl, whose family's Gresham-area bakery was Moore's first wholesale customer in the 1970s. "He's always been that way. He gets an idea and just makes sure it happens, one way or the other."

Moore's own background is in electrical and mechanical engineering, but he fell in love with the mechanics of stone grinding in the 1960s after reading about old stone-grinding flour mills.

At about the same time, Charlee began sharing with him her delvings into the nutritional benefits of eating whole-grain foods. The couple put their passions to work by starting, with their three sons, their first milling operation in Redding, Calif.

In 1978, the couple moved to Portland to retire. Moore's idea at the time, reflecting his long-held sense of spirituality, was to learn the Bible in its original languages. A chance walk past a closed mill site near Oregon City changed everything.

"I call it my emotional epiphany," Moore said. "Whatever excuse I care to give, I was just sucked into it like a vortex."

A 1988 arson destroyed the mill, when Moore was 60. Undeterred, he rebuilt the operation, moved once because of space needs and now occupies a 15-acre production facility and a two-acre headquarters and retail outlet along Oregon 224 in Milwaukie.

Three production shifts, running six days a week, turn out a line of goods distributed throughout North America, Asia and the Middle East.

The company earned an extra splash of international recognition when a team traveled to Scotland and, apparently feeling its oats, won the world's porridge-making championship.

Employees are just now grasping the meaning of Moore's birthday gift.

"It just shows how much faith and trust Bob has in us," said Bo Thomas, the company's maintenance superintendent, who has put his four children through college during his two decades there. "For all of us, it's more than just a job. Obviously, it's the same way for Bob, too."

For Moore, meanwhile, nothing about the new arrangement will change a thing. He plans to do for the foreseeable future what he has done every day for decades.

"I may have given them the company," he said, chuckling, "but the boss part is still mine."

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2011111010_birt...

Palin's campaign against the "R-word" hits snag with Limbaugh

bluesarahlou — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 16:02:23 -0800

Sarah Palin's campaign against the derogatory usage of the word "retard" collided with her campaign to maintain her popularity with conservatives today, with confusing results.

A Palin spokeswoman seemed to back away from earlier criticism of conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh. Yesterday, when asked for comment on Limbaugh's use of the "r" word in a recent broadcast, Palin spokeswoman told Greg Sargent of the Washington Post, "Governor Palin believes crude and demeaning name-calling at the expense of others is disrespectful." Today, Stapleton claims the statement was meant generally and she was not specifically referring to Limbaugh. Still, she declined to say that Palin believes Limbaugh's statements were acceptable. Sargent reprinted the email he sent Stapleton in which he specifically asked about Limbaugh's statement.

Palin's non-rebuke rebuke of Limbaugh comes after she called on President Obama, earlier in the week, to fire his chief of staff after using the word. According to the Wall Street Journal, Rahm Emanuel called liberal activists who wanted to run ads against conservative Democrats "f------ retarded" in a closed-door meeting at the White House. On her Facebook page, Palin likened Emanuel's "slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities" to using the "N-word," something she deemed "unacceptable" and "heartbreaking." Emanuel later issued an apology to Special Olympics chairman and CEO Tim Shriver.

However, Palin's conservative cohort Rush Limbaugh took offense to people, presumably including Palin, protesting Emanuel's remark. On his radio show, Limbaugh lamented that "our political correct society is acting like some giant insult's taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards." That comment caused Greg Sargent to request a reaction from Palin's spokeswoman. It also caused confusion over whether Palin believes Limbaugh's public statements - like Emanuel's private ones - crossed the line.

One person who is not letting Limbaugh off the hook is Special Olympics CEO Tim Shriver. Shriver's campaign against the "r" word is the reason Emanuel issued an apology when the controversy initially broke out. Shriver's office exclusively provided Yahoo! News with a strongly worded email he sent to Limbaugh today, part of which reads:

As a public figure, you have the great opportunity to influence the hearts and minds of millions of people in this country and around the world. People with intellectual disabilities - the largest group of people with disabilities in the world - have suffered generations of discrimination and humiliation. In the 21st century, they, together with their families and friends, are continuing their battle for the simplest form of justice: the justice that comes with a recognition of their full humanity. In their eyes and in the hearts of millions of others who love and care about them, language is important. So together, we have chosen to try to sensitize others to the pervasive but often ignored prejudice they suffer by asking for a change of language and a change of heart. For you or for anyone else to mock those who strive, often against long odds, for the recognition and respect they deserve, seems gratuitously hurtful and degrading.

Our message is as simple as it is powerful: people with intellectual disabilities are human beings. Gaining social recognition of that humanity continues to be an elusive goal for them and for those who love and care about them. For centuries, they have borne the stigma of institutionalization, sterilization, social isolation, and bigotry. The names associated with them - such as "retarded" and "retard" - have for too long been used as cruel taunts.

Despite the searing pain that this word (and others) has visited on millions, people with intellectual disabilities have nonetheless persevered to try to gain their dignity. For half a century, mothers, fathers, siblings, and people with intellectual disabilities have worked to open the eyes of the world to the simple truth that each of us has gifts. They do not deserve to be mocked by you."

In closing, Shriver calls on Limbaugh to help the mentally disabled by "ending your use of this term and by further using your great influence and position to help others do the same." (Read the whole letter here.)

The controversy over the "R-word" comes just as the Special Olympics is gearing up for its second annual "Spread The Word to End the Word" campaign.They have set up a website, www.r-word.org, where people can pledge not to use the word anymore. According to a spokesperson, they're hoping to obtain at least 100,000 pledges to "change the conversation," and as of this writing, they've collected over 55,000 pledges, including Rahm Emanuel's.

Source

Robert Pattinson Admits All the Tabloid Rumors Are True

kty — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:27:11 -0800

By Michael Y. Park

It's all true, Twilight fans: Robert Pattinson is dating a costar, is engaged, has had a drug overdose, and has had an injury involving his derriere. All of it. "I actually come up with these rumors myself," the British actor, 23, laughingly told Matt Lauer on Thursday morning's Today show. In a chuckle-filled, rapid exchange of questions and answers with the morning host, Pattinson squarely took on all the outlandish rumors that have dogged him for the last few months – and jokingly fessed up to each and every one.
RELATED: Peter Facinelli Delivers Love Letters to Rob Pattinson
"You've been dating nonstop," Lauer said. "Literally nonstop, yes," Pattinson said, looking relatively serious. "You're dating a costar whose name rhymes with Tristan Blewart," Lauer said. After a stammering, laughing pause in which he stared at the ceiling and formulated a dodge about the ever-simmering romance rumors, Pattinson answered: "Tristan Blewart ... there was a Liston Hewitt last year. That would be true, yes." And so it went: Engaged? Yes. Hit by a cab? Yes. Had a drug overdose? Yes. "And this talk about butt accident, butt injury? What was that?" Lauer asked. "That was my mother giving birth," Pattinson said between guffaws. Seriously, though, the actor said he was still shocked by the fame that the vampire saga has brought him, and has to use his professional skills to keep his sanity.
I speak in an American accent when I speak to the crowd," he said. "I feel like it's acting. I mean, I think it's the only way I don't go completely mad." And he's well aware of the irony that he almost missed out on being in Twilight because he wasn't getting enough recognition. "The day before I had this audition, I was going to quit acting," he noted, adding, "I guess it's not quitting when you're not acting – it's surrendering to fate."

Healthcare provision seeks to embrace prayer treatments

stephley — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:06:21 -0800

A little-noticed measure would put Christian Science healing sessions on the same footing as clinical medicine. Critics say it violates the separation of church and state.
By Tom Hamburger and Kim Geiger

Backed by some of the most powerful members of the Senate, a little-noticed provision in the healthcare overhaul bill would require insurers to consider covering Christian Science prayer treatments as medical expenses.

The provision was inserted by Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) with the support of Democratic Sens. John F. Kerry and the late Edward M. Kennedy, both of Massachusetts, home to the headquarters of the Church of Christ, Scientist.

The measure would put Christian Science prayer treatments -- which substitute for or supplement medical treatments -- on the same footing as clinical medicine. While not mentioning the church by name, it would prohibit discrimination against "religious and spiritual healthcare."

It would have a minor effect on the overall cost of the bill -- Christian Science is a small church, and the prayer treatments can cost as little as $20 a day. But it has nevertheless stirred an intense controversy over the constitutional separation of church and state, and the possibility that other churches might seek reimbursements for so-called spiritual healing.

Phil Davis, a senior Christian Science Church official, said prayer treatment was an effective alternative to conventional healthcare.

"We are making the case for this, believing there is a connection between healthcare and spirituality," said Davis, who distributed 11,000 letters last week to Senate officials urging support for the measure.

"We think this is an important aspect of the solution, when you are talking about not only keeping the cost down, but finding effective healthcare," he said.

The provision would apply only to insurance policies offered on a proposed exchange where consumers could shop for plans that meet standards set by the government.

But critics say the measure could have a broader effect, conferring new status and medical legitimacy on practices that lie outside the realm of science.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, a group of atheists and agnostics that promotes separation of church and state, said the opportunity to receive payment for spiritual care could encourage other groups to seek similar status.

"This would be an absolute invitation to organize," Gaylor said.

The Christian Science Church, which was founded in Boston in 1879, has pushed throughout its history to secure official recognition for its paid prayer practitioners. Their job, as outlined by the church's founder, Mary Baker Eddy, was to pray for healing and charge for treatment at rates similar to those of medical doctors.

In the early 20th century, the church sought recognition from state regulators so the practitioners would not be prosecuted for practicing medicine without a license. Criminal courts have convicted Christian Scientists in cases where children have died after visiting prayer healers instead of receiving conventional medical care. The church says no such incidents have occurred for two decades.

About 90 years ago, private insurance companies began paying for Christian Science prayer treatments, but more recently, managed-care insurers declined reimbursements, insisting on paying for care that produced proven medical results.

The Internal Revenue Service allows the cost of the prayer sessions to be counted among itemized medical expenses for income tax purposes -- one of the only religious treatments explicitly identified as deductible by the IRS. Some federal medical insurance programs, including those for military families, also reimburse for prayer treatment.

The spiritual healing provision was introduced in the House by Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.), whose district includes a Christian Science school, Principia College.

Two committees in the House voted to include the measure in their versions of the overhaul, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco) stripped it from the consolidated House bill last week after a few members argued it was unconstitutional.

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Irvine School of Law, said the provision raised serious questions about government support of religion.

"I think when Congress mandates that health companies provide coverage for prayer, it has the effect of the government advancing religion," he said.

The legal issue, however, may not be cut and dried.

Michael McConnell, who heads the Stanford University Constitutional Law Center, said that "as long as patients are the ones who choose, and religious choices are given no legal preference or advantage, the proposals would appear to be consistent with constitutional standards."

In the Senate, the provision is included in a version of the bill drafted by the health committee. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is considering whether to include it in the consolidated bill he will send to the Senate floor.

Kerry's spokeswoman, Whitney Smith, disputed that insurers would be forced to cover prayer. Instead, she said, "the amendment would prevent insurers from discriminating against benefits that qualify as spiritual care if the care is recognized by the IRS as a legitimate medical expense. Plans are free to impose standards on spiritual and medical care as long as both are treated equally. It does not mandate that plans provide spiritual care."

Hatch said, "I offered this amendment because I believe that everyone, regardless of religious affiliation, should have access to healthcare."

But Dr. Norman Fost, a pediatrician and medical ethicist at the University of Wisconsin, said the measure went against the goal of reducing healthcare costs by improving evidence-based medical practices.

"They want a special exception for people who use unproved treatments, and they also want to get paid for it," he said. "They want people who use prayer to have it just automatically accepted as a legitimate therapy."

Christian Science leaders say many critics misunderstand their faith. Christian Scientists do not reject medical care, church leaders said. Instead, they promote spiritual healing and do not interfere with decisions about whether to pursue medical help.

Davis has been trained as a practitioner and still occasionally treats the sick.

"We'll talk to them about their relationship to God," he said. "We'll talk to them about citations or biblical passages they might study. We refer to it as treatment. It's an affirmation of their relationship with God, and the understanding that comes from their prayer, of their relationship with God."

During the day, Davis may see multiple patients and pray for them at different moments. He charges them $20 to $40 for the day, saying, "I think that it would be considered modest by any standard."

The church, which has seen a steady decline in adherents, does not reveal membership numbers. It claims between 1,700 and 1,800 congregations in more than 60 countries.

Davis said the church consulted legal experts to develop legislation that was constitutional and consonant with the overall goals of healthcare reform. It also hired a major Washington law firm, Mayer Brown, to lobby for the provision.

"We think this is an important aspect of the solution," Davis said, arguing that Christian Scientists are leading the fight for all who believe in spiritual healing. "We don't believe there should be hurdles between an individual and spiritual treatment that could be the most important solution to healthcare in this country."

http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-health-religion3-2009nov03,...

Vatican Backs Obama’s Global Agenda

Eleuthera — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 09:03:45 -0700

By Cliff Kincaid | October 12, 2009
Accuracy in Media

Some pro-life Catholics are acting shocked that the Vatican warmly greeted the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama, who is pro-abortion. They don't seem to understand that the Vatican and Obama agree on most major international issues. This is the untold story-how Obama and the Vatican accept major ingredients of what has been called a New World Order.

Another untold story is how, despite a disagreement over abortion, the U.S. Catholic Bishops and the Obama Administration agree on major aspects of so-called health care reform.

These topics are mostly taboo in the liberal and conservative media. Liberal and conservative Catholics alike would prefer not to discuss how the Catholic Church, here and abroad, functions like a liberal/left-wing political lobby.

But the facts should not be much of a surprise. A majority of Catholics voted for Obama, despite the fact that his pro-abortion record was well known, and when he was honored at Notre Dame, the premier Catholic University in the U.S., only about one-third of U.S. Catholic Bishops publicly objected.

The Nobel Committee's award to Obama has been viewed by many, on the left and right, as a surprise. But it makes perfect sense. The committee noted that Obama "has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play." All of this is true. Obama has built up the power of global institutions at the expense of the United States.

While the Vatican statement congratulating Obama was also seen by some as a surprise, it too makes sense. The Vatican expressed the hope that "this most important recognition will ultimately encourage such a difficult but fundamental commitment for the future of humanity, so that it might bring the expected results."

The "expected results" are evident when one considers that Pope Benedict, the leader of 1.2 billion Catholics, had endorsed a "World Political Authority," a form of world government, in his recent encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." This world political authority, in the Vatican view, is supposed to "manage the economy," bring about "timely disarmament," and ensure "food, security and peace."

However, researcher Carl Teichrib points out in a new study (PDF) that some Catholic writers are reluctant to face up to the Vatican's embrace of global government.

On domestic matters, it is frequently reported that the Roman Catholic Bishops in the U.S. oppose the Obama health care plan. In fact, the bishops believe that "health care is a basic human right," which is the premise of the Obama plan and it is driving the campaign to have the federal government take over the health care sector.

The Bishops disagree with Obama on tax-funding of abortion, but on other matters-such as health care for immigrants and the poor-the Bishops are to the left of the plans introduced by Congressional Democrats.

The Bishops also agree with the Obama Administration and Congressional Democrats on what is euphemistically called "immigration reform." On October 8, Catholic Cardinal Theodore McCarrick told the Senate that a new bill should help bring illegal aliens "out of the shadows" and give them permanent residency and citizenship. Such a bill figures to be one of the next major Obama initiatives.

On the matter of a cap-and-trade energy bill, which would raise energy prices supposedly to combat global warming, the Catholic Bishops believe that the U.S. should adopt "mitigation and adaptation" approaches that mean "shifting behavior now to adjust to the near-term impacts of climate change." The Bishops explain that "Mitigation means cutting back on the emissions of harmful global warming pollutants and taking action to prevent further harm to the atmosphere."

Again, this is the Obama Administration position.

The Bishops have launched a "Climate Change Justice and Health Initiative" that promotes "legislative action," including "the transfer of such technologies and technical assistance that may be appropriate and helpful to developing countries in meeting the challenges of global climate change." This, too, is accepted and being promoted by the Obama Administration.

On the controversial matter of what to do in Afghanistan, left-wing pressure is being applied on the Obama Administration by Pax Christi, a Catholic group which insists that the U.S. military presence has "fueled the spiral of violence and further destabilized the region." It says that the solution lies in "reducing the U.S. military footprint" and favors ending the use of air strikes and drones on terrorist targets. Its "solution" is more diplomacy and foreign aid.

On an equally serious matter, Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Dave Robinson, executive director of PaxChristi USA, recently signed a letter endorsing "the administration's intent to engage Iran diplomatically..." Robinson favors more talking with Iran, not more sanctions and certainly not military action against the fanatical regime.

What's interesting is that you find the same Catholic personnel working on domestic and foreign policy issues.

For example, the executive committee on the Pax Christi national council includes figures such as Donna Toliver Grimes, a "Poverty Education and Outreach Manager" for the bishops who also serves on the staff of the Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). This is the entity that has poured millions of dollars into ACORN and related organizations over the years. Funding of ACORN was recently suspended because of corruption allegations.

In an October 2 memorandum (PDF), Bishop Roger P. Morin acknowledged that the CCHD had also been funding several groups promoting public policy positions in violation of Catholic moral teaching. These were groups promoting homosexual rights and abortion. Morin claimed that the funding had been cut off.

However, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, which uncovered the scandal, says that Morin's response is unsatisfactory and "factually deficient in several areas."

In response to one of my previous columns on the Catholic connection to ACORN, a conservative Catholic blog called CatholicCulture.org agreed with my point that some in the media are reluctant to raise the issue because they fear being accused of having an anti-Catholic bias. The blog said, however, that the matter must be thoroughly probed because while funding for ACORN has been suspended, the ties that CCHD has to other radical groups remain.

My column also noted evidence that Obama's community organizing days in Chicago began in an organization funded by the Catholic Church.

This has been confirmed by several sources. Obama "worked in several Catholic parishes, supported by the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, helping to address severe joblessness and housing needs in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods of Chicago," noted the group calling itself Catholic Democrats. Another group, Catholics for Obama, says that "President Barack Obama reflects core values of Catholic Social Teaching, which informs how we live our faith in the world."

The president of Catholic Democrats, Patrick Whelan, serves on the board of Catholics for Obama and as co-director of Pax Christi in Massachusetts.

In the newsletter (PDF) of Pax Christi Massachusetts, Whelan writes about flying to Chicago in May of this year, "where I attended a reunion of Catholic Priests and community activists who hired a young Barack Obama in 1985." Whelan says that Obama, in his book, Dreams from My Father, "created a character named Marty Kaufmann, based on two real-life community organizers who attended this gathering on May 16, 2009."

Whelan also writes about Obama's meeting with the Pope. "Overall," he says, "it was clear that the common ground between the US Government and the Holy See-on poverty, the environment, international armed conflict and peace in the Middle East-far outweighed their differences."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Kincaid is the Editor of the AIM Report and can be reached at cliff.kincaid@aim.org

AP Newsbreak: Nobel jury defends Obama decision

starangel82 — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 09:49:24 -0700

OSLO – Members of the Norwegian committee that gave Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize are strongly defending their choice against a storm of criticism that the award was premature and a potential liability for the U.S. president.

Asked to comment on the uproar following Friday's announcement, four members of the five-seat panel told The Associated Press that they had expected the decision to generate both surprise and criticism.

Three of them rejected the notion that Obama hadn't accomplished anything to deserve the award, while the fourth declined to answer that question. A fifth member didn't answer calls seeking comment.

"We simply disagree that he has done nothing," committee chairman Thorbjoern Jagland told the AP on Tuesday. "He got the prize for what he has done."

Jagland singled out Obama's efforts to heal the divide between the West and the Muslim world and scale down a Bush-era proposal for an anti-missile shield in Europe.

"All these things have contributed to - I wouldn't say a safer world - but a world with less tension," Jagland said by phone from the French city of Strasbourg, where he was attending meetings in his other role as secretary-general of the Council of Europe.

He said most world leaders were positive about the award and that most of the criticism was coming from the media and from Obama's political rivals.

"I take note of it. My response is only the judgment of the committee, which was unanimous," he said, adding that the award to Obama followed the guidelines set forth by Alfred Nobel, the Swedish industrialist and inventor of dynamite, who established the Nobel Prizes in his 1895 will.

"Alfred Nobel wrote that the prize should go to the person who has contributed most to the development of peace in the previous year," Jagland said. "Who has done more for that than Barack Obama?"

Aagot Valle, a left-wing Norwegian politician who joined the Nobel panel this year, also dismissed suggestions that the decision to award Obama was without merit.

"Don't you think that comments like that patronize Obama? Where do these people come from?" Valle said by phone from the western coastal city of Bergen. "Well, of course, all arguments have to be considered seriously. I'm not afraid of a debate on the peace prize decision. That's fine."

In Friday's announcement, the committee said giving Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

The left-leaning committee whose members are appointed by the Norwegian Parliament lauded the change in global mood wrought by Obama's calls for peace and cooperation, and praised his pledges to reduce the world stock of nuclear arms, ease U.S. conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.

However, the decision stunned even the most seasoned Nobel watchers. They hadn't expected Obama, who took office barely two weeks before the Feb. 1 nomination deadline, to be seriously considered until at least next year.

The award drew heated derision from Obama's political opponents in the Republican party, and was even questioned by some members of Obama's own Democratic party, who wondered what the president had done to merit the $1.4 million honor.

Michael S. Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, said naming Obama showed "how meaningless a once honorable and respected award has become."

In a fundraising letter, Steele wrote that "the Democrats and their international leftist allies want America made subservient to the agenda of global redistribution and control. And truly patriotic Americans like you and our Republican Party are the only thing standing in their way."

Columnist Thomas Friedman wrote in the New York Times that Obama "has not done anything yet on the scale that would normally merit such an award."

Even in Europe, where Obama is hugely popular, many editorials and pundits questioned what he had done to deserve the award.

"Scrap the Nobel Peace Prize," foreign affairs commentator Bronwen Maddox wrote in The Times of London. "It's an embarrassment and even an impediment to peace. President Obama, in letting the committee award it to him, has made himself look vain, a fool and dangerously lost in his own mystique."

Yet Obama was humble in acknowledging the prize.

"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations," Obama said Friday in the White House Rose Garden. "To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize."

Nobel Committee member Inger-Marie Ytterhorn noted that the president didn't greet the news with joy.

"I looked at his face when he was on TV and confirmed that he would receive the prize and would come to Norway, and he didn't look particularly happy," she told AP.

Some of the most celebrated peace prize laureates include Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa and Nelson Mandela. The award has occasionally honored more controversial figures, like the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat or former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. Sometimes it raises the profile of peace workers or activists, such as Rigoberta Menchu of Guatemala in 1992 or Kenyan environmentalist Wangari Maathai in 2004.

"Whenever we award the peace prize, there is normally a big debate about it," said Ytterhorn, a nine-year veteran of the award committee.

Asked whether there was a risk that the prize could backfire on Obama by raising expectations even higher and give ammunition to his critics, Ytterhorn said "it might hamper him," because it could distract from domestic issues such as health care reform.

Jagland said he didn't think the Nobel Peace Prize would hurt Obama domestically but added the committee did not take U.S. politics into consideration when making their decision.

"I'm not so familiar with American politics, and I don't want to interfere with it, because this is a totally independent committee," he said. "We should not look at internal politics."

Kaci Kullman Five, a former Conservative Party parliamentarian and longtime Nobel committee member, said "we all expected that there would be a discussion" about awarding Obama. She declined further comment, deferring to the Nobel Peace Prize tradition of only having the committee chairman discuss prize selections publicly.

Valle, who left her seat in Parliament last week because of her Nobel panel appointment, said the criticism shouldn't overshadow important issues raised by the prize.

"Of course I expected disagreement and debate on the prize, on giving him the prize," she said. "But what I want now is that we seriously raise a discussion regarding nuclear disarmament."

Source: Yahoo! News

Twilight Cast - Nikki Reed

darktwilightrose — Sat, 03 Oct 2009 09:57:58 -0700

Short Biography

Nicole Houston "Nikki" Reed(born May 17, 1988)is an American film actress and screenwriter. She became known in 2003, after the release of the film Thirteen, for which she co-wrote the screenplay. Reed has since appeared in several films, including Lords of Dogtown and Mini`s First Time. She also portrayed Rosalie Hale in the film adaptation of the book Twilight by Stephenie Meyer.Reed was born in West Los Angeles, California, the daughter of Cheryl Houston, a beautician, and Seth Reed, a set designer. She has an older brother, Nathan. Reed`s father is Jewish and her mother is of Cherokee and Italian descent; Reed was raised without religion, though she grew up around Judaism (her brother had a Bar Mitzvah).Reed has described her home life as "complicated." Her parents divorced when she was two, and she grew up with her mother. She describes herself as having been "shy and a bookworm," but at the age of twelve, while attending Palms Middle School, she became rebellious and emotionally volatile. The relationship between Reed and her mother became strained when Reed experimented with drugs, alcohol, and sex. At the age of fourteen, Reed was emancipated; she then moved out and began living on her own. She had no specific desire to become an actress.CareerReed and director Catherine Hardwicke finished the script for the semi-autobiographical film Thirteen in six days, a relatively fast time for a Hollywood script to be written. Producers asked Reed to play a role in the film because they had trouble casting it, considering it an "uncomfortable" role for most young actresses. The film, starring Evan Rachel Wood, was released in 2003 to glowing reviews, giving Reed recognition in Hollywood as both an actress and a screenwriter. Following the film`s release, Reed also appeared on The Ellen DeGeneres Show and hosted a number of award shows, including the Young Hollywood Awards (2003) and the Independent Spirit Awards Nomination Show, followed by the West Independent Spirits Awards, both in 2004.Reed has continued to participate in racy roles that involve the portrayal of sexually-promiscuous teenagers, including Lords of Dogtown, also directed by Hardwicke. In early 2006, she appeared on the series The O.C., playing Sadie, a new love interest for the character Ryan Atwood. Reed has noted that she disagrees with what she describes as the "trendy and shallow things" that The O.C. promotes, and that she appeared in the series only on the advice of her agents.Her most distinctive recent role is in Mini`s First Time, which received a limited release in the United States on July 14, 2006. In the film, Reed played a teenager who, through seduction, involves her stepfather in a plot to murder her mother. Reed has noted that her character does not "understand the weight of consequence," and that she enjoyed playing someone who she describes as "crass" and having a "trucker`s mouth." Reed`s character participates in explicit sex scenes, which had to be filmed from the point of view of Reed`s back, as she was sixteen at the time and thus legally unable to film her scenes in a more explicit manner.Reed has written another script set in New Zealand between the 1960s and the 1980s. Reed has noted that she feels she is a versatile actress, but feels typecast in roles of "sexy bad girls," noting that producers often tell her that she is too "sexy" for a particular part.

Actor Credits

1. Breaking Dawn Part 1 (2011) ..... Rosalie Hale
2. Eclipse (2010) ..... Rosalie Hale
3. K-11 (2009) ..... Mousey
4. New Moon (2009) ..... Rosalie Hale
5. Chain Letter (2008)
6. Familiar Strangers (2008) ..... Allison
7. Last Day of Summer (2008) ..... Stefanie
8. Privileged (2008) ..... Lauren Carrington
9. Twilight (2008) ..... Rosalie Hale
10. Twilight (2008) ..... Rosalie Hale
11. Cherry Crush (2007) ..... Shay Bettencourt
12. Justice (2006) ..... Molly Larusa
13. Mini`s First Time (2006) ..... Mini
14. American Gun (2005) ..... Tally
15. Lords of Dogtown (2005) ..... Kathy Alva
16. Man of God (2005) ..... Zane Berg
17. The O.C. (2003) ..... Sadie Campbell
18. Thirteen (2003) ..... Evie Zamora

Gates: AP decision 'appalling'

piper23 — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 09:41:18 -0700

Mike Allen

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is objecting “in the strongest terms” to an Associated Press decision to transmit a photograph showing a mortally wounded 21-year-old Marine in his final moments of life, calling the decision “appalling” and a breach of “common decency.”
The AP reported that the Marine’s father had asked – in an interview and in a follow-up phone call - that the image, taken by an embedded photographer, not be published.
The photo shows Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard of New Portland, Maine, who was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade in a Taliban ambush Aug. 14 in Helmand province of southern Afghanistan, according to The AP.
Gates wrote to Thomas Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer. “Out of respect for his family’s wishes, I ask you in the strongest of terms to reconsider your decision. I do not make this request lightly. In one of my first public statements as Secretary of Defense, I stated that the media should not be treated as the enemy, and made it a point to thank journalists for revealing problems that need to be fixed – as was the case with Walter Reed. …
“I cannot imagine the pain and suffering Lance Corporal Bernard’s death has caused his family. Why your organization would purposefully defy the family’s wishes knowing full well that it will lead to yet more anguish is beyond me. Your lack of compassion and common sense in choosing to put this image of their maimed and stricken child on the front page of multiple American newspapers is appalling. The issue here is not law, policy or constitutional right – but judgment and common decency.”
The four-paragraph letter concluded, “Sincerely,” then had Gates’ signature.
The Associated Press reported in a story about deliberations about that photo that “after a period of reflection,” the news service decided “to make public an image that conveys the grimness of war and the sacrifice of young men and women fighting it.
“The image shows fellow Marines helping Bernard after he suffered severe leg injuries. He was evacuated to a field hospital where he died on the operating table,” AP said. “The picture was taken by Associated Press photographer Julie Jacobson, who accompanied Marines on the patrol and was in the midst of the ambush during which Bernard was wounded. … ‘AP journalists document world events every day. Afghanistan is no exception. We feel it is our journalistic duty to show the reality of the war there, however unpleasant and brutal that sometimes is,’ said Santiago Lyon, the director of photography for AP.
“He said Bernard's death shows ‘his sacrifice for his country. Our story and photos report on him and his last hours respectfully and in accordance with military regulations surrounding journalists embedded with U.S. forces.’”
The AP reported that it “waited until after Bernard's burial in Madison, Maine, on Aug. 24 to distribute its story and the pictures.”
“An AP reporter met with his parents, allowing them to see the images,” the article says. “Bernard's father after seeing the image of his mortally wounded son said he opposed its publication, saying it was disrespectful to his son's memory. John Bernard reiterated his viewpoint in a telephone call to the AP on Wednesday. ‘We understand Mr. Bernard's anguish. We believe this image is part of the history of this war. The story and photos are in themselves a respectful treatment and recognition of sacrifice,’ said AP senior managing editor John Daniszewski.
“Thursday afternoon, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates called AP President Tom Curley asking that the news organization respect the wishes of Bernard's father and not publish the photo. Curley and AP Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll said they understood this was a painful issue for Bernard's family and that they were sure that factor was being considered by the editors deciding whether or not to publish the photo, just as it had been for the AP editors who decided to distribute it.”
The image was part of a package of stories and photos released for publication after midnight Friday. The project, called “AP Impact – Afghan – Death of a Marine,” carried a dateline of Dahaneh, Afghanistan, and was written by Alfred de Montesquiou and Julie Jacobson:
“The U.S. patrol had a tip that Taliban fighters were lying in ambush in a pomegranate grove, and a Marine trained his weapon on the trees. Seconds later, a salvo of gunfire and rocket-propelled grenades poured out, and a grenade hit Lance Cpl. Joshua ‘Bernie’ Bernard. The Marine was about to become the next fatality in the deadliest month of the deadliest year of the Afghan war.”
The news service also moved extensive journal entries AP photographer Julie Jacobson wrote while in Afghanistan. AP said in an advisory: “From the reporting of Alfred de Montesquiou, the photos and written journal kept by Julie Jacobson, and the TV images of cameraman Ken Teh, the AP has compiled ‘Death of a Marine,’ a 1,700 word narrative of the clash, offering vivid insights into how the battle was fought, and into Bernard's character and background. It also includes an interview with his father, an ex-Marine, who three weeks earlier had written letters complaining that the military's rules of engagement are exposing the troops in Afghanistan to undue risk.”

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20090904/pl_politico/26759

JD Robb: In Death Series

Myst — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 20:48:42 -0700

In honor of Reading Is Sexy's grand opening, I'm going to start off with the series that's has been holding me in a chockhold for going on 10 years now.
Nora Roberts, writing as JD Robb in her not so far distant future has captured my attention since my very good friend lend me a copy of the 1st of the series, Naked In Death. That copy started me on my 10 year journey of hunting and gathering mission to find and read every one of the books in the series. Luckily, JD Robb is too kind and releases 2 books a year under this series. I can happily say that I'm a proud owner of all 34 books so far and you'll have to pry them from my cold dead hands before I let them go.
Brief Synopsis:
The In Death Series is a futuristic police procedural by author J.D. Robb centering around NYPSD Lieutenant Eve Dallas and her fight to bring justice to those brutally murdered in her city. Many might call this series more of a futuristic romantic suspense series, because so much of it revolves around the marriage of Eve to Irish billionaire Roarke. But while there's plenty of romance between our favorite couple, there's also plenty of suspenseful murder mystery. Put that together with some very interesting futuristic world-building, and you get a series that shows up on bestseller lists with every new release.

Books

	Naked in Death - #1 in the "In Death" Series - July 1995 Breaking every rule, Eve gets involved with Roarke, a suspect in her latest murder case. But passion and seduction have rules all their own.
	Glory in Death - #2 in the "In Death" Series - December 1995 In Eve's latest case, two murder victims have one connection: Eve's lover, Roarke.
	Immortal in Death - #3 in the "In Death" Series - July 1, 1996 She was one of the most sought-after women in the world. A top model who would stop at nothing to get what she wanted -even another woman's man. And now she's dead, the victim of a brutal murder. Police lieutenant Eve Dallas puts her life on the line to take the case when suspicion falls on her best friend, the other woman in the fatal love triangle. Beneath the façade of glamour, Eve finds that the world of high fashion thrives on an all-consuming obsession with youth and fame-one that leads her from the lights of the runway to the dark underworld of New York City, where drugs can fulfill any desire, for a price.
	Rapture in Death - #4 in the "In Death" Series - October 1, 1996 An investigation of three apparent suicides draws Eve into the world of virtual reality -- where the mind can become the weapon of its own destruction.
	Ceremony in Death - #5 in the "In Death" Series - May 1, 1997 Conducting a top secret investigation into the death of a fellow police officer has Lieutenant Eve Dallas treading on dangerous ground. She must put professional ethics before personal loyalties. But when a dead body is placed outside her home, Eve takes the warning personally. With her husband, Roarke, watching her every move, Eve is drawn into the most dangerous case of her career. Every step she takes makes her question her own sense of right and wrong - and brings her closer to a confrontation with humanity's most seductive form of evil...
	Vengeance in Death - #6 in the "In Death" Series - October 1, 1997 He is an expert with the latest technology . . . a madman with the mind of a genius and the heart of a killer. He quietly stalks his prey. Then he haunts the police with cryptic riddles about the crimes he is about to commit - always solved moments too late to save the victims' lives. Police lieutenant Eve Dallas found the first victim butchered in his own home. The second lost his life in a vacant luxury apartment. The two men had little in common. Both suffered unspeakable torture before their deaths. And both had ties to an ugly secret of ten years past - a secret shared by none other than Eve's new husband, Roarke.
	Holiday in Death - #7 in the "In Death" Series - June 1, 1998 No one likes to be alone during the holidays. For New York's most posh dating service, Personally Yours, it is the season to bring lonely hearts together. But Lieutenant Eve Dallas, on the trail of a ritualistic serial killer, has made a disturbing discovery: all of the victims have been traced to Personally Yours. As the murders continue, Eve enters into an elite world of people searching for their one true love--and a killer searching for his next victim. A world where the power of love leads men and women into the ultimate act of betrayal.
	Midnight in Death/Silent Night Anthology - #8 in the "In Death" Series - November, 1998 When her first Christmas with her new husband Roarke is interrupted by reports of the naked, mutilated body of the judge responsible for convicting serial killer David Palmer, Eve learns that her name appears on the list of others to be killed. This is another "ensemble" book, "Midnight" being one of four in the book "Silent Night." "Midnight" should come directly after "Holiday."
	Conspiracy in Death - #9 in the "In Death" Series - April 1999 In the late 21st century, on the streets of New York City, a street sleeper is found murdered, his diseased heart removed with surgical precision. His death would typically drop to the bottom of a list of senseless and inexplicable killings, but Lieutenant Dallas, who "would stand for the dead and the living," is not about to let that happen. When her research uncovers similar crimes in several cities that were dropped under mysterious circumstances, Dallas knows she's facing a killer cruel enough to prey on the weakest in society and powerful enough to conspire an extensive coverup. To complicate matters further, Dallas faces an equally troubling threat to her career when she's linked to the death of a fellow cop. Now she must fight to restore her good name as well as track down the killer.
	Loyalty in Death - #10 in the "In Death" Series - October 1999 Eve Dallas returns to face her most ingenious foe -- a 'secret admirer' who taunts her with letters...and kills without mercy.
	Witness in Death - #11 in the "In Death" Series - March 2000 Eve Dallas is thrust into the spotlight when she becomes the key witness in the brutal murder of a famous actor.
	Judgment in Death - #12 in the "In Death" Series - September 2000 When a cop killer cuts loose in a club called Purgatory, Lieutenant Eve Dallas descends into an underground criminal hell.
	Betrayal in Death - #13 in the "In Death" Series - March 2001 At the luxurious Roarke Palace Hotel, a maid walks into suite 4602 for the nightly turndown-- and steps into her worst nightmare. A killer leaves her dead, strangled by a thin silver wire. He's Sly Yost, a virtuoso of music and murder. A hit man for the elite. Lieutenant Eve Dallas knows him well. But in this twisted case, knowing the killer doesn't help solve the crime. Because there's someone else involved. Someone with a more personal motive. And Eve must face a terrifying possibility--that the real target may, in fact, be her husband Roarke.
	Interlude in Death/Out of This World Anthology - #14 in the "In Death" Series - August 8, 2001 Lieutenant Eve Dallas uncovers a murder-frame plot at a law enforcement seminar held at an off-planet resort owned by her husband, Roarke. One story out of four by different authors in the book "Out of This World."
	Seduction in Death - #15 in the "In Death" Series - September, 2001 Lieutenant Eve Dallas is searching for a Casanova killer with a deadly appetite for seduction.
	Reunion in Death - #16 in the "In Death" Series - March 5, 2002 A birthday party sets the scene for a frightening reunion with a killer from Eve Dallas's past.
	Purity in Death - #17 in the "In Death" Series - August 27, 2002 A frightening new computer virus is spreading and it knows no boundaries. And Eve Dallas must face the impossible -- that this computer virus can spread from machine to man.
	Portrait in Death - #18 in the "In Death" Series - March 1, 2003 Photos seemed to be nothing out of the ordinary for any pretty young woman starting a modeling career. Except that she wasn't a model. And that these photos were taken after she had been murdered. Now Dallas is on the trail of a killer who's a perfectionist and an artist. He carefully observes and records his victim's every move. And he has a mission: to own every beautiful young woman's innocence, to capture her youth and vitality--in one fateful shot.
	Imitation in Death - #19 in the "In Death" Series - September 2003 Police Lieutenant Eve Dallas encounters one of her most difficult cases in this latest offering from J. D. Robb. With the very first victim, Eve realizes that the killer stalking the streets of New York City isn't a run-of-the-mill serial murderer. The copycat executions are imitating the methods and victim choices of an ominous list of notorious serial killers, beginning with Jack the Ripper. And when the killer leaves a distinctive note at the crime scene, it's clear that he's targeting Eve personally--a fact that worries Roarke, Eve's shrewd husband.
	Remember When - #20 in the "In Death" Series - September 2003 Laine Tavish is an ordinary woman living an ordinary life in the small town of Angel's Gap, Maryland, as the proprietor of Remember When, an antique treasures and gift shop. At least, that's what everyone in Angel's Gap thinks. They have no idea that she used to be Elaine O'Hara, daughter of the notorious con man Big Jack O'Hara. Or that she grew up moving from place to place, one step ahead of the law . . . Laine's past has just caught up with her, though-in a very dramatic way. Her long-lost uncle suddenly turned up in her shop, leaving only a cryptic warning before dying in the street, run down by a car. Soon afterward, her home is ransacked. Now it's up to Laine, and a sexy stranger named Max Gannon, to find out who's chasing her, and why. The answer lies in a hidden fortune-a fortune that will change not only Laine's life but also the lives of future generations. And danger and death will surround that fortune for years to come. Until New York City detective Lieutenant Eve Dallas gets on the case. A thrill-ride of a novel that blends present-day romance and futuristic suspense, Remember When is a tale of deceit and secrets, of strong women and fascinating men-a brilliant combination of the incomparable talents of the two sides of Nora Roberts.
	Divided in Death - #21 in the "In Death" Series - January 22, 2004 Reva Ewing was a former member of the Secret Service, and now a security specialist for Roarke Enterprises--until she was found standing over the dead bodies of her husband, renowned artist Blair Bissel, and her best friend. But Lieutenant Eve Dallas believes there was more to the killing than jealous rage--all of Bissel's computer files were deliberately corrupted. To Roarke, it's the computer attack that poses the real threat. He and Reva have been under a code-red government contract to develop a program that would shield against techno-terrorists. But this deadly new breed of hackers isn't afraid to kill to protect their secret--and it's up to Lieutenant Eve Dallas to shut them down before the nightmare can spread to the whole country. The first strictly "In Death" novel to be released in HARDCOVER January 22, 2004
	Visions in Death - #22 in the "In Death" Series - August 9, 2004 On one of the city's hottest nights, New York Police Lieutenant Eve Dallas is sent to Central Park-and into a hellish new investigation. The victim is found on the rocks, just above the still, dark water of the lake. Around her neck is a single red ribbon. Her hands are posed, as if in prayer. But it is the eyes-removed with such precision, as if done with the careful hands of a surgeon-that have Dallas most alarmed. As more bodies turn up, each with the same defining scars, Eve is frantic for answers. Against her instincts, she accepts help from a psychic who offers one vision after another-each with shockingly accurate details of the murders. And when partner and friend Peabody is badly injured after escaping an attack, the stakes are raised. Are the eyes a symbol? A twisted religious ritual? A souvenir? With help from her husband, Roarke, Dallas must uncover the killer's motivation before another vision becomes another nightmare. . . .
	Survivor in Death - #23 in the "In Death" Series - February, 2005 The members of the Swisher family were murdered in their beds with brutal, military precision. The state-of-the-art security was breached, and the killers used night-vision equipment to find their way through the cozy, middle-class house. Clearly, Dallas is dealing with pros. It seems the only mistake they made was to overlook the nine-year-old girl cowering in the darkened kitchen. Now Nixie Swisher is an orphan-and the sole eyewitness to a seemingly inexplicable crime. Kids are not Dallas's strong suit. But Nixie needs a safe place to stay, and Dallas needs to solve this case. With her partner, Peabody, back on the job-and her husband, Roarke, providing the kind of help that only he can give-Lieutenant Eve Dallas is running after shadows, and dead-set on finding out who's behind them.
	Origin in Death - #24 in the "In Death" Series - July, 2005 New York police lieutenant Eve Dallas and her partner Peabody enter the hallowed halls of the Wilfred B. Icove Center for Reconstructive and Cosmetic Surgery on an open and shut case of self-defence. But before they can leave they are called to another crime scene. Dr. Wilfred B. Icove himself has been found dead in his office - murdered in a chillingly efficient manner: one swift stab to the heart. Struck by the immaculate condition of the crime scene, Dallas suspects a professional killing. Security discs show a stunningly beautiful woman calmly entering and leaving the building - the good doctor's final appointment. Known as "Dr. Perfect," the saintly Icove devoted his life to his family and his work. His record is clean. - Too clean for Dallas. She knows he was hiding something and suspects that his son - and successor - knows what it is. Then, like father like son, the young Dr. Icove is killed...with the same deadly precision. But who is the mystery woman - and what was her relationship with the good doctors? With her husband, Roarke, working behind the scenes, Dallas follows her darkest instincts into the Icoves' pasts. And what she discovers are men driven to create perfection - playing fast and loose with the laws of nature, the limits of science, and the morals of humanity...
	Memory in Death - #25 in the "In Death" Series - January, 2006 In December 2059, a mysterious woman shows up in Eve's office claiming to be her "mama." It's Trudy Lombard, the cruel foster mom who took nine-year-old Eve in after Eve killed her abusive father. Trudy made Eve take cold baths and locked her in closets, among other torments, and now Trudy wants Eve to pay $2 million to keep her past a secret. Readers of the series will know how Roarke, Eve's rich, deadly husband, handles the situation; he tosses Trudy out on her ear. When Trudy is found murdered the next day, it's up to Eve to catch the killer and prove that neither she nor Roarke was behind the bludgeoning.
	Haunted in Death/Bump in the Night Anthology - #26 in the "In Death" Series - July, 2006 In this short story, Eve finds herself investigating a murder in an old nightclub which some claim is haunted. Are there really "ghosts"?? Are the "ghosts" responsible for murder?? Eve finds herself in a tough battle between what she can rationally prove, and what her irrational mind is telling her. "Bump in the Night" is an anthology of stories from J.D. Robb, Ruth Langan, Mary Kay McComas and Mary Blayney.
	Born in Death - #27 in the "In Death" Series - November, 2006 As a New York homicide detective, Lieutenant Eve Dallas is used to death - the mysterious murders of two young professionals she's investigating with her partner, Peabody, almost seem like the norm. Harder to deal with is her best friend Mavis' nearly-to-term pregnancy, and Mavis' terror over the strange disappearance of another woman who is about to give birth. Now Eve is fighting on two fronts, hunting a ruthless killer, searching the streets for a missing woman--and time is running out, because Eve has a terrible hunch that she'd better recover the mother-to-be quickly, or an innocent life could be ruined forever.... According to Nora: "It's in Born Mavis will, at last, have the baby."
	Innocent in Death - #28 in the "In Death" Series - February, 2007 Eve Dallas has a mysterious homicide to solve when a popular teacher at a posh Upper West Side school turns up dead in his classroom. It doesn't help when an old flame from Roarke's past suddenly comes roaring back into his life. While Eve is fighting off jealousy, she grows more and more frustrated with the case. But from the mouths of babes, she pieces together enough evidence to prove no one is as innocent as they seem.
	Eternity in Death Novella/"Dead of Night" Anthology - #29 in the "In Death" Series - October 30th, 2007 When club-hopping bad girl Tiara Kent is found dead in her plush Manhattan apartment, the killing has all the earmarks of a vampire attack. The ever-practical Lieutenant Eve Dallas has to deal with superstitious cops carrying garlic and stakes, as well as the ever-hysterical press. None of the wealthy young victim’s friends seem to know much about the Dark Prince she has been secretly seeing. The chase to stop him before he kills again will lead Eve and her team into areas of the city that not even the most intrepid cop wants to visit, and into the very heart of darkness.
	Creation in Death - #30 in the "In Death" Series - Nov 6, 2007 Lieutenant Eve Dallas keeps the streets of New York City safe in this extraordinary series. But even she makes mistakes, and is haunted by those she couldn't save - and the killers she couldn't capture. When the body of a young brunette is found in East River Park, artfully positioned and marked by signs of prolonged and painful torture, Eve is catapulted back to nine years ago. A man the media tagged "The Groom" - because he put silver rings on the fingers of his victims - had the city on edge with a killing spree that took the lives of four women in fifteen days. But now, The Groom has returned - and Eve's determined to finish him. Familiar with his methods, Eve knows that he has already grabbed his next victim. Time is running out on another woman's life. When it turns out that the dead woman was employed by Eve's billionaire husband, Roarke, she brings him onto the case - a move that proves fitting when it becomes chillingly clear that the killer has made it personal. The victim was washed in products from a store Roarke owns, and laid out on a sheet his company manufactures. And chances are that he's working up to the biggest challenge of his illustrious career - abducting a woman who will test his skills on every level and who promises to give him days and days of pleasure before she dies: Eve.
	Strangers in Death - #31 in the "In Death" Series - Feb 19, 2008 Technology may be different in 2060 New York, yet the city is still a place of many cultures and great divides. But as ever, some murders receive more attention than others - especially those in which the victim is a prominent businessman, found in his Park Avenue apartment, tied to the bed - and strangled - with cords of black velvet.It doesn't surprise Lieutenant Eve Dallas that Thomas Anders' scandalous death is a source of titillation and speculation to the public - and of humiliation to his family. But while all those in the city are talking about it, people close to Anders aren't so anxious to do the same. With some help from her billionaire husband, Roarke, Eve is soon knocking on doors- or barging through them - to find answers.But the facts don't add up. Physical evidence suggests that the victim didn't struggle. The security breach in the apartment indicates that the killer was someone connected to the family, but everyone's alibi checks out. Was this a kinky sex game that turned into a crime of passion - or a meticulously planned execution? It's up to Dallas to solve a case in which strangers may be connected in unexpected, and deadly, ways.
	Salvation in Death - #32 in the "In Death" Series - November 4, 2008 A priest is conducting the funeral service for a beloved member of his congregation. But when he lifts the chalice to his lips, he dies suddenly and horribly ? poisoned by the blood of Christ. Who would want to murder a parish priest in such a way? And who could get access to the closely guarded communion wine? Lieutenant Eve Dallas is called to the scene to investigate. Although initially there seems to have been nothing out of the ordinary about the priest's life, there is something about the situation that just doesn't add up. And then she starts to uncover the evil lurking behind the ceremonial robes. The dead priest was not who he seemed to be ? he harboured a dark, deadly secret that could bring Eve's own demons rushing back ...
	Ritual in Death Novella/"Suite 606" Anthology - #33 in the "In Death" Series - November 4, 2008 When a high-society party is crashed by a naked, knife-wielding, blood-covered man who "thinks" he might have killed someone, Eve Dallas must track down the crime, and the criminals. Everything points to Satanic ritual, but Eve doesn't believe in devil worship...
	Promises in Death - #34 in the "In Death" Series - January/February, 2009 Amaryllis Coltraine may have recently transferred to the New York City police force from Atlanta, but she's been a cop long enough to know how to defend herself against an assailant. When she's taken down just steps away from her apartment, killed with her own weapon, for Eve the victim isn't just "one of us." The truth will need to be uncovered one layer at a time, starting with the box that arrives at Cop Central addressed to Eve containing Coltraine's guns, badge, and a note from her killer: "You can have them back. Maybe someday soon, I'll be sending yours to somebody else." But Eve Dallas doesn’t take too kindly to personal threats, and she is going to break this case, whatever it takes. And that's a promise.

Upcoming Titles

Kindred in Death - #35 in the "In Death" Series - November, 2009
A phone call from up high interrupts Eve's plans to have a lazy day with her husband: The teenage daughter of Captain Jonah McMasters, head of the NYPD drug squad, has been found raped and strangled in her bedroom. A terrifying video of Deena, bloody and beaten beyond recognition, hints at a link between her death and a criminal in McMaster's own past, someone determined to exact revenge in the cruelest way possible. Searching through McMasters' cases leads Eve nowhere - until another rape-murder, and another video, reveals the killers deadly intent: to target every single person involved in his family's case over a decade ago. With barely anything to go on except a tangle of dead ends, Eve and her team must work fast to identify the next victim of a killer with who will stop at nothing ...

Missing in Death Novella/"Lost" Anthology - #36 in the "In Death" Series - November, 2009
"....a woman goes missing on a NYC ferry and Eve Dallas has to find her: if she isn't on the ferry and isn't in the water, where is she??"

To The Undecided Voter

chancleta — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:05:35 -0700

I know most (if not all) of the Conservative Sugar gals have their minds made up about this election.
So the following post is aimed at the Liberal Sugar gals and any undecided readers who may frequent Conservative Sugar.
The following article is written by Neal Boortz. A Libertarian radio talk show host famous for telling his informed take on politics with out any regard to what Democrats nor Republicans will think of him. You may not agree with every thing he says but he's a pretty smart man.

I hope you'll find this article enlightening and read it with an open mind.

To The Undecided Voter
Neal Boortz
Tuesday, October 21, 2008

This is long; very long. Hey, I’m a pretty entertaining writer … so give it a go. If you’re an undecided voter in this presidential election the least you owe your country is to try to base your final choice on some substantive facts. No, I don’t have all the facts here … but I have enough of them to perhaps convince you that voting one particular way on November 4th might not be the most brilliant move you’ve ever made.

This election is my 10th. My 10th presidential election since I became a radio talk show host. My 10th election since I began spending more time than the average American thinking about, researching, reading about and talking about the choices voters faces. Look; I mean no arrogance here. It’s just that the average American doesn’t spend from 15 (then) to 22.5 (now) hours a week over the period of a presidential race talking about the candidates, the issues, the non-issues and the consequences of voter choice.

Never in those ten elections can I remember choices so stark and possible outcomes so perilous. For the record, over those 10 elections I voted for the Republican candidate six times and the Libertarian four. Never have I voted for a Democrat for president. I see no need to vote for a Democrat since I have no plans or desires to become a ward of the government. Somehow I don’t think 2008 is going to be the first time.

I’ve noted that some other “pundits” out there are starting to post, in columns and in their blogs, the reasons they are going to vote the way they are going to vote. I’ll make no attempt here to refute their (oh-so refutable) arguments here. Instead, I’m just going to put my thoughts and reasoning in writing just to cleanse my mind. If you can make some use of them; whether it is for laughter, talking points or intellectual consideration, have at it. Me? I’m just pulling the handle.

The Race Factor

Are many black voters going to vote for Barack Obama primarily because of race? Of course, many will. Surveys and polling have shown that the figure may reach 20%. I think it’s well more than that. Is race a sound reason to cast a vote? Probably not. Is it understandable? Absolutely. I cannot fault a black American for voting for Obama. It may turn out to be a negative vote insofar as their dreams and goals are concerned. It may not work out all that well for their children, especially if they’re ambitions and talented. But I don’t think many of us can absolutely say that we wouldn’t be casting the same vote were we in their shoes.

If you are a white American there is no way in the world you can look at this election through the same eyes as a third or fourth generation black American citizen. Several months ago a caller to my show suggested that Barack Obama’s ascendency in the presidential sweepstakes was Black America’s biggest accomplishment. I disagreed. Though I can’t remember the exact words, I said that, in a general sense, the shining moment for Black America may have been the show of patience and restraint shown by black men when they returned from putting their lives on the line in World War II and in Korea to a country with segregated schools, colored waiting rooms, whites only water fountains, beatings, lynchings, water hoses, police dogs and systematic discrimination pretty much every where they looked. The restraint showed by black Americans during the civil rights struggles of the 50’s and 60’s, though not universal, was something to behold.

Now .. try, though you won’t succeed, to put yourself into the mind of a black American. How can you experience or understand the legacy of segregation, violence and second-class citizenry your ancestors went through and not take pride in a black American on the verge of winning the presidency? How many black American voters do you think are uttering to themselves: “If my grandfather had only lived to see this.” It takes a great deal of maturity and a clear understanding of the possible future consequences for someone to put their racial pride aside and swim against the tide on this one. So, there will be no name-calling, at least not here, for people who cast their vote on the basis of race in this election. As I said, It’s understandable.

And Then There’s the Race Card

This really isn’t really a reason to vote for or against Barack Obama, but you do need to know what the next four years are going to be like with an Obama presidency.

During the campaign there have been some rather amazing charges of racism. Let’s see if we can remember a few:

• Using the word “skinny” to refer to Obama is racist.

• “Community organizer” is a racist term.

• Any reference to a connection between Obama and Franklin Raines, the former head of Fannie Mae is racist … that would be because Raines is black.

• All references to Jeremiah Wright are racist; that being due to Wright being black.

• Referring to Obama as “eloquent” is racist because it infers that other blacks are not eloquent.

• For goodness’ sake, don’t say that Obama is “clean.”

• This just in from The Kansas City Star: Calling Obama a “socialist” is also racist because “socialist” is just another code word for black.

And so it goes. We’ve also had several pundits, columnists and opinion-makers flat-out state that if you are white and you don’t vote for Barack Obama it can only be because he’s black. There is simply no other legitimate reason to deny this wonderful man your vote. Vote for McCain, you’re a racist. Simple as that.

Now let’s consider the next four years under President Obama. He is certainly going to introduce ideas and pursue policies that are pure poison to many Americans; especially achievement-oriented self-sufficient citizens. Whenever anyone dares to utter a word in opposition to any Obama position or initiative you can be sure that there is going to be someone waiting close by to start screaming “racist!” By the end of Obama’s first year in the White House virtually every white American will have been called a racist for one reason or another. So, what else is new?

The Republicans

One thing for sure … the Republicans deserve exactly what is happening to them in this election. It’s just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer the lion’s share of the punishment the Republicans so richly deserve. In 1994 the voters were fed up with Clinton and the Republicans swept to control of both houses of congress, largely on the strength of Newt’s Contract with America. Do you remember some of the promises? One that sticks in my mind is their promise to dismantle the Department of Education. Republicans – in 1994 – recognized that the quality of American education had been going steadily downhill since this government behemoth was formed. Well, that was then … this is now. The size of the Education Department, as well as the cost, has doubled. Republicans did this, not Democrats.

As a matter of fact, it’s not just the Department of Education; it’s our entire federal government. Spending has doubled. Size has doubled. All under the Republican watch inside the beltway. Pork barrel spending is completely out of control, and Republicans are behind the wheel. Education and pork spending aside, we have the Medicare prescription benefit, McCain-Feingold, Sarbanes-Oxley, a tepid response to Kelo vs. New London … all elements of a well-deserved Republican drubbing. The problem here is that the cure, that being Barack Obama, might well be much worse of than the disease.

The Republicans don’t deserve power in Washington just as you don’t deserve a boil in the center of your forehead. There are worse things, however. Complete Democrat control or, in the case of your forehead, a nice big melanoma. Pretty much the same things, actually.

It’s not that the Republicans did everything wrong. They got the tax cut thing right, and they responded correctly, for the most part, to the radical Islamic attack on our country. They just did so much wrong at the same time. They got drunk with power, and the hangover affects all of us.

Obama’s Friends

By “Obama’s Friends” we mean the likes of Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezko and other assorted miscreants. I could spend a lot of time here detailing the crimes of Obama’s friends --- and make no mistake, they were his friends. At this point I don’t think that any votes are going to be changed one way or another by detailing the corruption of Rezko, the America-hating of Wright or the unrepentant terrorism of Ayers. Suffice it to say that Obama was close to all of these people … and these were associations born of mutual interests and philosophies. If you think that it is fair to judge the character of a person by observing the people they surround themselves with, then the judgment of Barack Obama would be a harsh one.

Obama’s varied storylines regarding his relationship with Ayers have, to say the least, been interesting. The list is incomplete, but thus far we have:

• He was just a guy who lived in my neighborhood.

• I was only eight years old when he was throwing bombs.

• I didn’t know about his history when we started working together

• I thought he had been rehabilitated.

Yeah … I guess it’s OK if you form a close relationship with a bomb-throwing terrorist, as long as he threw the bombs when you were a kid. Works for me. Work for you? In a similar vein, It must be your pastor rails against America, as long as you aren’t in church on those particular days. Or maybe we should say as long as nobody remembers actually seeing you in church on those days.

One interesting point: If Barack Obama was applying for a security clearance as a government employee, these associations would disqualify him. We are, my friends, about to have a president who doesn’t qualify for a security clearance. Pretty pathetic. If Barack Obama becomes president, he would not even qualify to be his own bodyguard.

Obama’s Tax Policies

You may consider this to be horribly old fashioned, but I operate on the principle that governments have the power to tax so that governments can collect the money needed to pursue and pay for the legitimate functions of that government. By “legitimate functions” I’m referring to law enforcement, national defense, a system of courts to adjudicate interstate disputes, national infrastructure and the costs associated with running the legislative, judicial and executive branches of government, for instance.

Now we can get into quite an argument over what constitutes a “legitimate” function of government, but let’s save it for later. Suffice it to say that Barack Obama has a much different picture of our government’s taxing authority than many of us do.

Before we go on, let me remind you of a point that I first heard made by former Libertarian presidential candidate Harry Browne. Government has one unique power that you don’t have, and neither do I. This is a power that is denied all private businesses and individuals in this country. That power .. the power unique to government .. is the power to use deadly force to accomplish its goals. If you have a business; a restaurant, for instance; you have to convince people to come to your establishment for a meal. You can advertise for customers, but they make the decision whether or not to give your restaurant a try. When the customers do come in it is up to you to deliver to them a superior product with exemplary service. This is how you get them to come back. Not through force, but through value and service.

Not so the government. You have no choice as to whether you are going to be a customer of government or not. Your patronage is compelled and your payments are extracted at the point of a gun. Supreme Court Justice John Marshall said that “the power to tax is the power to destroy.” The power to tax in the wrong hands can certainly bring destruction to our economy an even to our country. I submit to you that the power to tax in the hands of Barack Obama is dangerous: Dangerous to you personally, and dangerous to the very fabric of our Republic.

Just take a look at some of the rhetoric Barack Obama uses when he talks of his plans to increase taxes on the evil, hated rich. In a television interview with (I think) Charles Gibson, Obama was asked if he understood that tax increases have often resulted in decreases in government revenue. Obama responded that he was aware of this fact. He was then asked why, then, would he be so eager to raise taxes? Obama responded that, to him, tax increases were simply a matter of “fairness.” In other words, Obama didn’t wish to use the police power of the state to collect taxes necessary for the legitimate functions of government; he wanted to use his taxing power to promote some vaporous “fairness” in our economy. After all, as Obama put it, the people he wants to tax have more money than they actually need and he wants to give that money to people who actually need it.

Now I ask you, does any of that sound vaguely familiar? Hmmmmm, let’s see. I know I’ve heard something like that somewhere before. Wait! I think I have it. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Some character named Marx made slogan quite popular around 1975 in a writing called “Critique of the Gotha Program.” This phrase is one of the most well-known principals of communism. You can yell, scream, spin around on your eyebrows and spit wooden nickels all you want, but what Barack Obama is pushing here, at least insofar as his tax policies are concerned, is communism. This shouldn’t come as a surprise considering Obama’s self-professed affinity for communist student groups and communist professors during his undergraduate years. Oh, you didn’t read that? Maybe that’s because you read his second book, not the first one. But what the heck. He’s eloquent, isn’t he? And he has a good narrative.

As I’ve indicated, I’ve been doing talk radio for 39 years now. I was on the air when we were fighting communism in Southeast Asia. I was flapping my jaws when Soviet leaders seriously entertained dreams of world communism. Throughout all of those years I was never one to scream “communism” every time someone came up with an oddball idea on governance, and I never once found a communist under my bed. But now, at least when you consider tax policy, we have a candidate for president who seems very comfortable with some basic communist principals. Too comfortable. But none of this should really bother you … right? A little communism or socialism never really hurt anyone that you can remember. Besides, Europe is telling us that they’ll like us again if we vote for Obama. That pretty much overrules everything, doesn’t it?

Does this reflect your philosophy?

Come on! Put the celebrity worship aside for a moment. Put skin color aside. Just think about Obama and his “spread the wealth around” tax policy.

Let’s talk heartbeats. Sounds weird, but I’m going somewhere here. A bit of Internet research led me to the fact that the average number of heartbeats in a life time for a human being is about one billion. To make this more understandable, the average human heart beats around 70 times a minute. In one eight-hour work day your heart beats around 33,600 times. This is your heart beating .. every beat subtracted from the one billion .. every beat a part of your life gone, never to be recovered. If you are a moderately successful human being Barack Obama is going to take about 13,000 (39%) of those heartbeats away from you every working day. Put your finger on your wrist and feel your pulse. Feel every heartbeat. Just count up to 100. How much of your life went by as you counted? You can’t get those beats back. They’re gone, for good. Remember, you only have a finite number of those beats of your heart left … and Obama wants 13,000 of them every working day of your life. Those heartbeats – your life – being expended creating wealth. Your heartbeats, your wealth. Obama wants them. You don’t need them. Someone else does. The police power of the state.

Taxes are a nasty little reality of life. Nobody wants anarchy. Government is a necessity. Government, though, is not supposed to create winners and losers. Government is not, as Obama intends, to be used as an instrument of plunder. Almost all Americans are perfectly willing to surrender an appropriate percentage of their earned wealth to fund the legitimate functions of government. I, for one, don’t want to see my wealth confiscated because some bureaucrat has determined I don’t “need” it, and then have to watch as that wealth is used to buy votes from someone who is simply too lazy to generate the wealth they need by themselves … or, as Obama puts it, “spread around.”

What is Obama going to do? How does he determine “need?” What data does he use to determine “fairness?” Maybe he’ll set up some bureaucracy staffed with like-minded leftists who will use data collected in the last census and from those pesky American Community Surveys to establish a basic “need” level for people living in different areas. Once it is determined how much of a person’s wealth they really don’t “need,” it will be a simple matter of confiscation and redistribution to those who do need it. After all, that would be “fair,” wouldn’t it? Come on, it’s not exactly like you worked for that money.

Listen to the rhetoric of the left. Those who are in need are called “the less fortunate.” This means that their status as needy was due to nothing but bad luck. It stands to reason, then, that those with more than they need were just lucky. The fortunate and the less fortunate. The lucky and the not so lucky. And here comes Barack Obama riding over the rainbow on his Unicorn to set everything right and make it all fair. Isn’t that the world you want to live in?

There’s a quote that’s been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy’s name was Tytler. Let’s not argue spelling right now … let’s just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”
Think about this, my friends. Isn’t this exactly what we’re seeing right now? In fact, hasn’t this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he’s only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn’t take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don’t need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else’s money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.

Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That’s change you can believe in.

Those Amazing Vanishing Jobs

Barack Obama repeatedly tells the American people that he is going to cut taxes for 95% of them. Now that’s a pretty nifty trick when more than 40% of Americans don’t pay income taxes in the first place. Tell me please … just how do you cut taxes for someone who doesn’t pay taxes?

Here’s the fancy narrative (Obama supporters just love that word) that the Obama campaign has come up with. Even if you don’t pay income taxes, you still pay payroll taxes. So Obama is going to give these people who only pay Social Security and Medicare taxes an offsetting tax credit. At this point Obama’s plan becomes almost impossible to explain. It’s convoluted, to say the least, but that’s out of necessity. When people started reminding him that about one-half of the people he’s going to cut taxes for don’t pay taxes he had to come up with something. The bottom line is this. Obama says that he is not going to take the cost of his tax credits from the Social Security Trust Fund. That’s nice, considering the fact that this so-called Trust Fund exists only on paper anyway. But if that money isn’t subtracted from the Trust Fund … where does it come from? Obama’s people explain that at first the deficit will just have to increase while these checks are written. Later they’ll just go out there and get the money from those “rich people.”

OK … so there we are. It’s tax the rancid rich time so that money can be transferred to the poor. But just who are these evil rich people destined to be beaten down by Obama’s taxes? At first Barack Obama defined them as “people making over $250,000 a year.” That definition had to change when it became known that the $250,000 a years was only for a married couple filing a joint tax return. In a heartbeat Obama changed his rhetoric to note that the tax increase would nail “families,” not “people” earning over 250 grand. If you’re single, the figure will be somewhere between $150,000 and $200,000, depending on who you’re talking to. We’ll try to let you know when Obama settles on a hard figure.

There’s your first lie.

So, what does all of this have to do with jobs? Well the very people that Barack Obama wants to nail with these tax increases are the people who create most of the jobs in our economy; America’s small business owners.

The Democrats spend no small amount of time excoriating corporations. To listen to a Democrat candidate corporations and lobbyists are the sole sources of evil in our society. Oh … and right wing talk show hosts. Well, you can forget these evil, nasty corporations for now. Fact is 70% of all jobs in our economy come from America’s small business owners. The Small Business Administration recently reported that 80% of all new jobs are being created by these small business owners. These are people who report all of their business income on their personal income tax returns. As such, they are squarely in the crosshairs for The Chosen One’s tax increases.

If you are an American concerned about your job with a small business … and if you vote for Obama … then you very well could be cutting your own economic throat. Think about it. If the small business owner(s) who employs you has his taxes increased by Barack Obama he is going to look for a way to replace that money. So where does he go to replace his income lost to Barack’s tax increases? The best way would be to cut expenses. Well guess what? You’re an expense! Will it be your job that is cut to compensate for the increased taxes? Maybe you’ll be lucky and just have to forego your next raise. Maybe there would just be a cut in your pay or a reduction in benefits. Cast your vote and take your chances!

In recent days the McCain campaign has finally started to warn people about the possible consequences of Obama’s tax increases on America’s small businesses. This has forced the Obama campaign to come up with a response. Initially Barack Obama started saying that he was going to give a break on capital gains taxes to small businesses. This worked for a while until people started figuring out that small businesses don’t pay capital gains taxes. Back to the drawing board, and this time they came up with a beauty. It’s a con, but it works. Barack Obama is now telling the media and anyone else who will listen that 95% of America’s small businesses don’t make $250,000 a year, and thus won’t be affected by Obama’s tax increases.

That’s the second lie. A lie of omission.

Obama’s statistics may be accurate .. or nearly so. But the statement leaves one very important statistic out. Initially when you hear that “95% of all small businesses” line you probably think that this 95% employ about 95% of all of the people working for small businesses. You could think that, but you would be wrong.

The trick here is that the vast majority of America’s small businesses are just that … small. I owned a title abstract business in the 80’s that had one employee. My wife owned a travel agency that had two employees. Neither of these small businesses came anywhere near the $250,000 line.

When you think about it you will understand that the important statistic here is the percentage of small business employees who will be affected, not the percentage of small businesses.

The October 21st edition of The Wall Street Journal addressed this issue in an article entitled “Socking It to Small Businesses.” The WSJ reports that Obama is right “that most of the 35 million small businesses in America have a net income of less than $250,000, hire only a few workers, and stay in business for less than four years.” There’s more to the story though: “.. the point is that it is the most successful small and medium-sized businesses that create most of the new jobs.. And they are precisely the businesses that will be slammed by Mr. Obama’s tax increase.” The Senate Finance Committee reports that of those who file income taxes in the highest two tax brackets; three out of four are the small business owners Obama wants to tax.

The WSJ reports that the National Federation of Independent Business says that only 10% of small businesses with one to nine employees will be hit by Obama’s tax increase. However, almost 20% of the small businesses that employ from 10 to 19 people will get nailed, and 50% of small businesses with over 20 employees get punished.

Again … it is not the percentage of businesses who will have to pay the increased taxes; it’s the percentage of the total of small business employees who work for those businesses. The Obama campaign is counting on you not making that distinction; and they know the media won’t make it for you; so Obama’s “95% of all small businesses don’t make $250,000” line will probably rule the day.

Come on folks. These are your jobs we’re talking about here. It’s time to take your blinders off and see through some of this Obama rhetoric. The Obama campaign has some wonderful people working for them to tell them just how to parse words to hide intent and meaning. Just because they’re trying to fool you doesn’t mean that you have to be so easily suckered. When Obama talks about change .. he may well mean that you are going to have to change jobs. Now that’s change you can believe in, right?

Pandering to the Unions .. at Your Expense.

Now since we’re talking about jobs here, you need to be up to speed on The Messiah’s “Employee Free Choice Act.” Let me step out on a limb here and say that applying the words “free choice” to Obama’s plan to eliminate secret ballots in union elections is like applying the words “fun sex” to an act of rape. Freedom has nothing to do with Obama’s plan, and fun has nothing to do with rape.

Going in you need to recognize that union membership has been falling for decades. You only see growth in union membership in government employee unions. This, of course, is troubling to union leaders. It is also troubling to Democrats. Unions, you see, almost exclusively support Democrat candidates, both with money and time. Big money and lots of time … and it’s all behind Obama’s candidacy.

To know what Obama is up to here, you need to know how union organizing works under the current law. Union organizers circulate a petition among employees. Employees are asked to sign a card saying that they would like to be represented by a union in their workplace. If a majority of the workers sign the cards the employer has the option of immediately recognizing the union and allowing them to organize the workplace. More often the employer will call for an election – an election using secret ballots. Every employee will be given the opportunity to express their desire to join or not to join a union in secret. Their co-workers will not know how they voted. They can prance around the workplace touting their support of unionization all they want in order to impress or appease their fellow workers, especially those who are trying to organize the union, but then vote “no” on the secret ballot if that’s how they truly feel.

How, you might ask, do Democrats feel about the secret ballot in union elections? For a clue let’s go to a letter from 16 House Democrats dated August 29, 2001. The letter was written on the letterhead of California Congressman George Miller, a Democrat representing the 7th District of California. That letter reads:

[Letterhead of George Miller, Congress of the United States]

Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje del Estado de Puebla
Lic. Armando Poxqui Quintero
7 Norte Numero 1006 Altos
Colonia Centro
Puebla, Mexico C.P. 7200
Dear members of the Junta Local de Conciliacion y Arbitraje of the state of Puebla.

As members of Congress of the United States who are deeply concerned with international labor standards and the role of labor rights in international trade agreements, we are writing to encourage you to use the secret ballot in all union recognition elections.

We understand that the secret ballot is allowed for, but not required, by Mexican labor law. However, we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.

We respect Mexico as an important neighbor and trading partner, and we feel that the increased use of the secret ballow in union recognition elections will help bring real democracy to the Mexican workplace.

Signed:

George Miller
Bernard Sanders
Lane Evans
Marcy Kaptur
William J. Coyne
Bob Filner
Martin Olav Sabo
Joe Baca
Dennis J. Kucinich
Fortney Pete Stark
James P. McGovern
Barney Frank
Zoe Lofgren
Calvin M. Dooley
Barbara Lee
Lloyd Doggett

So there you go. These 16 Democrats are on the record as being solidly in favor of using secret ballots in union recognition elections. So far, so good … because that, as they point out in their letter, is clearly the right stance.

That brings us to piece of legislation – a piece of Obama sponsored legislation --designated as H.R. 800, the Employee Free Choice Act. Would you care to guess just what H.R. 800 does? Well, that’s simple. It will eliminate the secret ballot in union recognition elections. You got it! Obama has decided to really do something nice for the union bosses that are supporting him in this election, and he is determined to do away with secret ballots in union elections. When H.R. 800 gets passed … and trust me, with Barack Obama in the White House, this thing will become law … the union organizers will visit all of the workers, perhaps even visiting some of them in their homes, and “urge” them to sign the card calling for a union. I can hear it now: “Mrs. Johnson, wouldn’t you and your children want your husband to be represented by our union at his job?” Now put yourself in the worker’s place!

Are you going to say no? This organizer is sitting in your living room looking at you and your wife and saying “You do want to be represented by our union in your workplace, don’t you?” And you’re going to tell him no?

Are you getting the big picture here? This is nothing less than Barack Obama and his Democrat pals legitimizing union intimidation in the workplace. If you don’t see that, then there is virtually no hope for you when it comes to understanding basic politics. It’s payback the unions time .. pay them back for all of that financial support and all of those volunteer hours. Besides … the more union members there are the more union dues the union bosses have to spread to Democrats as campaign contributions.

But – we’re saved, right? After all, we have those 16 Democrats who signed that letter to Mexico. What was it they said? Oh yeah: “ … we feel that the secret ballot is absolutely necessary in order to ensure that workers are not intimidated into voting for a union they might not otherwise chose.” So these 16 Democrats will certainly put up a spirited defense of secret ballots in union organizing elections, right?

Well … um … maybe not. You see, four of these congressmen (Dooley, Sabo, Evans and Coyne) are no longer in the Congress. One of the signers, Bernie Sanders, is now a Senator. That leaves 11 of the 16 signees still in the house to defend the principal of the secret ballot.

I’m afraid we have a small problem though. It seems that every one of the 11 remaining signees is now a sponsor of H.R. 800. In fact, the so-called Employee Free Choice Act was actually introduced by none other than George Miller – the very California Democrat on whose letterhead that letter to Mexico was written. Bernie Sanders is a sponsor of the same legislation in the Senate along with Barack Obama. No surprise .

On the one hand we have these Democrats writing a letter extolling the virtues of a secret ballot in union organizing elections, and then they sponsor a bill eliminating those very secret ballots! And here’s Barack Obama pledging to sign the bill as soon as it comes to his desk! So what changed between 2001 and 2007? What happened that made these 12 Democrats go from believing that a secret ballot in a union election was “absolutely necessary,” to introducing a bill eliminating those “absolutely necessary” secret ballots? Control of congress; that’s what changed. In 2001 the Republicans ran the show. In 2007 it was the Democrats … and it was time to return some favors to union bosses. Do you know what you’re seeing here? You’re seeing just how much power unions have over Barack Obama and the Democrat party. It doesn’t matter what kind of letter you wrote, or what stance you took in the past --- when we say “frog” you had better jump.

Let me tell you what is going to happen as soon as Barack Obama is elected. Employers are going to look at the so-called Employee Free Choice Act and they’re going to be very afraid. They know what a union can do to their business and their profitability. Just look at our auto industry. So employers are going to immediately start working to minimize the damage. How do you do that? Well, automation is one way. Go ahead and buy that machinery you need to automate much of your workplace. That will allow you to get rid of these employees before they can unionize. You might also want to consider the possibility of moving some of those jobs overseas where union intimidation might not be such a negative factor in your business operations.

When Obama gets his unionization by intimidation thing in place – and he most certainly will – jobs are going to be lost and businesses will fail. This is the price Obama is willing to pay to pay back the unions who have supported him.

Just another reason to vote for The Chosen One, right?

The Supreme Court

This is getting to be a bit long. We’re over 6,200 words here. So let’s end this message to the undecided voter with a few words about the Supreme Court.

It is quite possible that Barack Obama will get to make one, maybe two Supreme Court appointments before he’s through in Washington. It is also possible that he will have a filibuster-proof Senate to help him ram those choices through.

I’m a lawyer, and I’ve always had this strange idea that the U.S. Supreme Court should base its decisions on the supreme law of our land, our Constitution. Many people think differently these days. A recent and rather shocking survey showed that around 80% of people who support Barack Obama believe that the Supreme Court should base its decisions not on the Constitution, but on what’s “fair.” Egad! On the other hand, the strong majority of McCain voters believe that the Supremes should look to our Constitution as the final authority.

Let’s just make this short and sweet, because I know you want to get out of here. If Barack Obama gets those two nominations, and if the Democrat Senate rubber-stamps them, then we are going to have a Supreme Court making decisions based on their liberal definition of “fairness” with some consideration to foreign court decisions tossed in. This is perhaps Obama’s greatest opportunity to do permanent damage to our Republic; permanent and irreparable damage. It’s one thing when Barack Obama talks about wealth seizure and redistribution in terms of “fairness.” It’s quite another when that talk is legitimized by a Supreme Court decision.

So, dear undecided voters … as Og Mandino (a great American) once said: “Use wisely your power of choice.” There’s a lot hanging in the balance.