Obama's Kenya

Unless you believe Christian women should be beaten and thrown in jail for refusing to wear a headscarf, then it's probably not a good idea for you to vote for Barack Obama.

Once again, the media has botched reporting on Obama's connections to radical Islam, which Corsi's bestselling book "Obama nation" reveals the traceable connections which extend into the third world.

This is no more evident than in Kenya, where a man claiming to be Obama's cousin, "Raila Odinga" who is a native Kenyan and supposedly and Anglican Christian has helped to install a radical Islamic government. The new Islamic members of the coalition government have made an agreement with Odinga to impose radical Islam by force on hundreds of thousands of Kenya's Catholics and Protestants.

While there have been ethnic clashes between several tribes in Africa for many years, with violence coming from both sides, it is not an excuse for Mr. Odinga to sign a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Muslim Leaders Forum, to Islamisize Kenya.

The Memorandum of Understanding between Mr.Odinga and the muslim leaders calls for all religions other than Islam to be banned, the Koran taught in all schools, changing the court system over to muslim Sharia law, and for women to wear a headscarf, and possibly a full length garment covering up their bodies.

Before you read the rest of this article, I urge you to take a look at the actual Memorandu. The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya has posted the Memorandum on their website, which I have provided a link for below.

Why would an Anglican Christian which Mr. Odinga claims to be, agree to such harsh terms with the Muslim leaders in a country where most of the Kenyans are Christian?

To date, Obama has not backed away from his support for Mr.Odinga despite his agreement with the Muslims, nor has he disputed the claim that Mr.Odinga is his cousin.

While Obama presents a picture of his muslim relatives who are seemingly Christian tolerant to the press, there is a different picture emerging behind the scenes. In the not too distant future, thanks to Mr. Odinga, the Christian women in Kenya may have to don the hijab.

 http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4353

 http://eakenya.org/newsevents/article.htm?id=8

Expanding Healthcare and Heart Disease

When asked how I would describe a liberal, I think I would have to reply, "Imagine a  big circle with a tiny dot in the middle of it, now if you can, picture that the tiny dot is the CURRENT social services budget, you know education, health care, etc...., and the circle around the dot
is the amount of STATE and federal spending, we'd have to do to fund
ALL the great idea's liberal's have."

A quick reminder, the fed only covers a PORTION of health insurance
for the uninsured. The STATE taxpayers still have to cover the rest. Not only that, but the amount the fed pays and the amount of doctors expenses covered, varies from state to state.

Another factor, if the fed raises FEDERAL payroll taxes to cover only
their portion of the spending increases, then how are STATES going to
get money out of taxpayers to cover their share of insuring the
uninsured?

A cautionary tale.

In the last few years, the fed has given states money to insure millions of uninsured children, with out the states having to match any of the funding. Isn't that great!!

 However, a quick peek behind the scenes, instantly reveals that
AFTER THE PROGRAM BEGAN insuring children, the fed decided to give
states the ability to use the money for CHILDRENS HEALTHCARE
INSURANCE for other things, such as insuring adults and to cover pre natal care expenses. So really it wasn't CHILDRENS HEALTH INSURANCE at all, but it was touted as such.

This still isn't something the public was aware of. While we think we were insuring children, states like California used the money to catching up on a medical funding budget crisis caused to a large degree in California by undocumented women, where the state can't keep up with the prenatal expenses. The state is still in crisis.

Meanwhile, while liberals at the fed knew that the childrens insurance money was being used to catch up on other things besides children, it didn't stop them from taking advantage of promoting the expiration of s-chip childrens health insurance as children getting cut off and stranded without insurance.

For weeks, the expiring s-chip bill became the liberal media's
darling, telling us how the poor little kids were going to be cut
off. It was total misinformation, like I said, covering up a budget
crisis, and didn't address the problem of trying to stop undocumented
women from becoming pregnant and coming here, for cash, which soon
runs out.

This leaves me to wonder, if we can't successfully cover 3 million
kids with FEDERAL TAXPAYERS MONEY, then how are we going to cover 10 times the number of people, and pay for the STATE portion of the bill?

The states expand and improve  at vastly differing rates. There is no
one size fits all magic formula, or solution. Each state needs to
work the best it can with the fed and with their budgets and
taxpayers.

Cost containment, getting some federal or state money from cheap
employers who need nudging to get their employees insurance would
help yes.But my biggest concern is, what if it ends up in courts for years, or stuck in some 674 page bill for 5 years like most legislation.

We need solutions now, and that means cost containment, and
efficiency, not pie in the sky thinking. That might mean coming up
with some specific underfunded preventive programs for the uninsured such as heart care or diabetes.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4478

http://www.cdc.gov/Women/lcod.htm

I truly believe that states need to decide to a large degree for themselves, where spending is most needed.

In the meantime healthcare costs are expected to rise 10%.

South Ossetia not Kosovo

Several days ago I was watching television when the message at the
bottom of the screen read "Georgian troops attack separatist region,
1,500 - 2,00 killed in South Ossetia". 

 So, naturally, you can imagine my suprise when instead of hearing more about the hostile Georgian troops, the Georgian President appeared on tv defending his actions, calling for help from the US.

A quick tour around the internet trying to find out more about the background of the area, revealed a low level conflict going on for 10 years between South Ossetian's who want their independence from Georgia, and the government of Georgia.

On May 10, 2007, the South Ossetians rejected the newly appointed Georgian minister for their region and threatened not only to overthrow him, but also claimed they didn't need Moscows help defending themselves against Georgia. Russia meanwhile advised against the Ossetians taking such firm action.

In my mind this indicates that Russia at one point had hoped for South Ossetians to come to a peaceful resolution with Georgia, before the tensions increased.

In the hours that followed, nothing more was said about the 1,500 to 2,000 people that were supposedly killed in South Ossetia by Georgian troops. And in fact, there was only one brief mention that South Ossetians hoped that this could be another Kosovo.

Believe you me, anyone who knew about the history of South Ossetia,  was probably as apprehensive as I was, watching the president of Georgia asking for help, knowing that he is accused of starting the conflict, and has potentially authorized the killing of all these innocent people, and feel ok dokey about it. In my mind, he's been asking us to side with him against a retailiatory attack he prompted.

The reasons the President of Georgia gave for some of his actions included the notion that he supported minority rights, and that Russia was responsible for the disappearance of thousands of minority Chechens. Talk about a complete blunder, the President of Georgia either seemed to have no idea that he was defending extremist Islamic militant Chechens, who are a declared US enemy of state, or he was unconsiously signalling for a broader widespread extremist muslim response across the region. My bet is that it was the later - he was simply grasping at straws. Chechen rebels are a large source of trouble for Georgians too, and Russia and Georgia have often found themselves at odds, over how to solve the problem of the militant Islamic radicals crossing into Georgia.

In the days that followed, I watched disappointedly as the media swept the 2,000 people the President of Georgia may have killed, which was now reported in underground news to have started the whole conflict. Instead their attention switched to focusing on the advancing Russian troops who were retailiating against something the President of Georgia prompted.

 I wasn't very impressed either when the Georgian president started painting a picture of Mr.Putin as being this Russian KGB officer, whose military was just waiting to devour his government. 

Who is he to talk? I mean really, like whoop-de-doo whats so great about him and his government? Him and his troops invaded South Ossetia, blew up the entire South Ossetian milita and a host of civilians in a sustained attack prompting a retaliatory response.
 

We must remember that we are far from the cold war of yesteryear. New threats in the form of militant Islam are far more of a problems these days for Russia. So it upset me to hear all these conspiracy theorists talking about how Russia created tension because it doesn't want Georgia to join NATO or because of this Polish Missile Defense System.

Russia has been selling us the uranium from all of their cold war warheads - hardly an indication that Russia is planning to take over the world. I mean, why would you dismantle so many warheads, if you needed the uranium for any new ones?


While I am far away from South Ossetia, Georgia and Russia, I can say
that I hope that they will be able to resolve South Ossetias and
other separatist regions civil uprising against Georgia peaceably and
broker an agreement which the South Ossetians are happy with.

Unfortunately, though it doesn't seem entirely likely that this will
be another Kosovo anytime soon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Oj6vx8Q2Q

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,366217,00.html

Visa holders Not required to pay capital gains

Did you know that the top 5% of all high income earners pick up 60% of the entire Federal tax burden for the US, while the bottom 50% of all  US taxpayers pay less than 4% of all Federal taxes?

I don't know why, but somehow the tall tale that America favors it's rich,and doesn't tax them is an enduring one. However, as you can see, nothing could be further from the truth.

Another enduring myth is that Republicans favor the rich and tax the poor. In reality, low income people earning under 31K have paid slightly less in taxes for the past eight years,than they did during the Clinton Administration, while high income earners, making between 183K and 388K, have been hit with highest taxes in a decade beginning in 2006, under the Bush Administration.

Speaking about tax concerns, President Bush, along with people on both sides of the aisle, expressed concern that the tax breaks for farmers in the recently passed Farm Bill were too high. Economists have been warning that President Bush's tax cuts, designed to benefit small business will be unsustainable in the coming years, and that the next administration is going to be faced with some tough choices on taxes.

While John McCain who has an A rating from the National Taxpayers Union has promised not to raise taxes on anyone, Obamas plan to raise both capital gains tax and Social Security taxes on high net worth individuals earning over 250K, has drawn criticism from many economists including the National Taxpayers Union, and the Heritage Foundation.

So where do we tax?

There are workable options to increase government revenue available that aren't being discussed by either party. One solution would be to close loopholes in the law which have opened up since Hurricane Katrina, that give individuals and companies making overseas charitable contributions the ability to write off the entire donation on their tax return.

In addition to scaring capital out of the United States, and discouraging domestic investment, US charities are complaining that the incentives to send money overseas, has caused their donations to US Charities to
decrease.

Though remittance payments are down, charitable tax contributions are increasing. Lack of regulation, over the increasing number of charitable organizations offering write offs is a worrying sign, that loopholes are being exploited "legally" to act as conduits for "value
added" "remittance payments" with a "write off". While doing research on this, I discovered firms that specialize in corporate "gifting", going out of their way to describe these loopholes in the law that allow people send money overseas, while getting a tax write off.

Trust me, high net worth individuals like Bill Gates and Oprah aren't just investing in Africa out of the goodness of their hearts. They are getting a 100% tax write off! And it's not just high net worth individuals who are sending money overseas and getting write offs,
remittance payments are well over a trillion dollars a year.By closing the loopholes, the US can expect to increase it's revenue, without raising taxes on our high income earners, and US entreprenuers, or by raising taxes on the lower and middle income earners.

Another option would be to review the tax treatment given to foreign companies and workers who have reciprocal agreements with the US.

The US has long favored giving different tax treatment to foreign investors and workers. In addition to giving foreigners a break on paying capital gains tax on stock market gains, I was suprised to learn tha we allow foreign visa holders the ability to come here with short term visa's, and purchase a home, even though they don't have permission yet to remain in the US indefinitely. On top of this, we allow them to sell the home for a profit, and give them a capital gains write off of up to $500,000 on profits made from the sale of the home.

While I am already getting alot of negative feedback from some people about my feelings on this, I have to say, that in my four years as a journalist and Legislative developer,that this the most unfair policy I have come across.

Most of the state personal income tax in my home state of California, comes from profits made on capital gains made by our top income earners.California has long been the top destination spot for foreign visa holders, who enjoy our generous state benefits, have kids here in our state school system, and have teenagers in higher education. And it is upsetting to know that they aren't contributing to healthcare, education or higher education in my state.

 

Chart

Obama loses evangelical vote

While it's true, that evangelicals are only part of the vast "Christian Right", it was still a major victory for John McCain when 90 leading evangelical leaders met on July 2nd, 2008, to endorse him as their choice for President.

While a few evangelical leaders at the meeting commented, "Obama had a good message", it was John McCain's unwaivering commitment to traditional values
that ultimately won their hearts.

Nowadays, if you look on the Internet, there are stories
about a handful of evangelical leaders who have gone public about becoming more tolerant of gay people. Note however, that for them, tolerance doesn't mean they approve of or endorse being gay, and they clearly draw the line at gay marriage.

Young evangelicals are not making the distinction between tolerance and gay marriage. The number of young evangelicals who oppose gay marriage is reportedly only 76%. In my opinion, they don't understand the implications for not having any boundaries, and that there are many gay issues,not just gay marriage.The gay, transgender study bible not only competes with the bible, it replaces it, by altering it's meaning with heavy bias.

Last month, Obama threatened to use "bullying" tactics on people that are unwilling to allow bi-sexual and transgenders to adopt children. Acceptance for transgenders and bi-sexual people is much lower than for just "gay people". I strongly believe that children who were adopted by transgender parents would be open to more heartache and ridicule, and this is not fair to the children. In Mr. Obama's world, judges or adoption centers who didn't award custody to the bi-sexual or transgender parent would be open to sexual discrimination lawsuits.

Mr. Obama hoped that by promoting an intentionally ethnically diversified group of left wing progressive evangelicals, that he could create the illusion that his CHRISTIAN campaign is stronger than it is

There has always been a small left wing evangelical movement, but it is not the majority of young or old evangelicals. Like I said, the "Religious Right" extends far beyond evangelicals, and includes Catholics,Protestants, Mormons, etc...

I believe that by ignoring this vast moral majority, and endorsing gay marriage,Mr.Obama  has lost much more than just the evangelical vote, but the large uncompromising "Christian Right" vote.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/julyweb-only/128-21.0.html

Saving Homes or Second Homes

Where is Ron Paul when you need him, telling us how dollar hegemony is an evil practice?

In recent years, his greatest hope was that other countries would dump the dollar, thereby fulfilling his grand utopian vision of some great global rebalancing of wealth.

However, now that his wish has come true, everyone is paying more for gas. Thanks to Iran, convincing other countries to dump the dollar not only for oil trades, but as a complete reserve currency.

Ron Paul, didn't predict global bankers would flee to oil and commodities for use as an asset class shelter as a hedge against global currency imbalances. Nor did he forsee Enron and SWAP loopholes gathering speculative momentum on a high speed unregulated electronic exchange, that garnerered over 90% of all oil trades in the world on just two contract prices of WTI and Brent Crude in the space of only a few years.

The damage? Global inflation, high oil and commodity prices worldwide, and a US mortgage meltdown, spurred on by a need to "keep the economy moving", the loss of 9 large US banks, and 1 in 197 Americans recieving some sort of foreclosure notice.

Thankfully, the Commodities Futures Trading Commission and participating exchanges have now fixed some of the problems by requiring long overdue reporting requirements, higher margins and most importantly price discovery.

I now spend my days wondering, not if but when, the popular carbon trading credits, will get out of hand.

I suppose you can tell I'm not a carbon credit fan either, because even though the new regulations will prevent speculation, there is to date no standardized global regulation on who gets dinged or credited, that has a regulatory body overseeing it. A new market of "Babel"? Perhaps.

I hate to say "I saw it coming", or "thank god we're in with Iraq, and maybe they can help us keep stability in global currency." It doesn't matter anymore. Currency alone has ceased to be important since the end of dollar hegemony. 
Besides, not only is Iraq a fickle friend, no matter how many billions of taxpayers dollars we give to their government directly, this weeks female suicide bombing in Kirkuk, to protest annexation of oil rich Kirkuk indicate separation instead of unification.

There is no incentive for anyone to drill in Iraq- if the pipes are just going to be sabotaged.
Moving the troops out of Iraq, only to put them into Afghanistan? Another pyrrhic victory.

My biggest concern now though, is Americans losing their homes. Over 1 million homes in the US are in pre-foreclosure, and in places like California, the number is 1 in 78 people who have recieved some sort of foreclosure notice.

I haven't heard much about the fine details of the deal, to pump money back into helping the economy, the banks, the lenders and most of all the homeowners in foreclosure. All I know is that the deal gives banks a chance to either sell the loans to the Federal Housing Administration, who will then re-fi the loan for the customer.  Or the bank, can re-fi the customer themselves with their own loans, with help from the government.

I would like to know, if there is a plan for fair distribution of money in states, amongst banks, and whether it equally serves low income as well as middle class people, and not just preferred customers with great credit who own a second home, and have cash flow, but are behind on payments.

There was alot of talk about 4 billion dollars for the hardest hit areas., but it didn't say whether there was any debt forgiveness. A few thousand dollars of debt forgiveness might go a long way for a middle class mortgage or low priced home of $120,000 home in one state, but it wouldn't put a dent in the millions of middle class mortgages in California above  $700,000.

So how are they planning to help people whose housing prices are doubled and tripled in the last few years, leaving homebuyers stuck with unaffordable loans?

I don't know much about real estate or loans, but there must be some sort of bridging loan on offer, where the owner can sell the house, move into a cheaper home and wrap the mortgage debt into a cheaper home.

In my opinion, there should be some sort of emphasis on helping people who need roofs over their heads, but in this new legislation, it looks like banks will decide who gets help. That said and done, like I said, I don't approve of giving debt forgiveness to people with second homes.

Media bias on Baracks "Dreams From My Father"

I am deeply concerned abou the media's slant on Barack Obama's book "Dreams From My Father", where Barack is dreaming of his priviliged Harvard educated father, who was Muslim most of his life, and whom critics are skeptical about the family claims that he "ditched Islam".


The media as enabler downplays, Baracks affinity with his Muslim heritage.I mean, it's natural to be sentimental about your heritage, and Barack has many priviliged Muslim cousins, aunts and other relatives from Kenya, and other sides of the family, that the media ignores.

So, why can't the media just come out and say it.

I personally don't like the phrase he chose to put in his book.
"White folks greed runs in a world of need. Apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another......this is the world upon which hope sits. The remark may have been made by the politically motivated distancing from Pastor Wright, but Barack chose it for his book.

The statement "White folks greed", isn't a nice statement.

The other statement "Apartheid in one hemisphere, apathy in another, is another strong intentionally unintellectual and vague statement.

The lack of spread wealth in other parts of the world is sometimes because of it's leaders and many countries try to get ahead by having less regulation. Sometimes there is opportunity for people and sometimes there just simply isn't. You can't solely blame the United States, as many people seem to do without thinking.

India, with one the worlds largest populations has a very large caste system, where there are two classes of people. And it's only in recent years, that entrepreneurs in India no longer have to wait ten or 12 years even, to get a license to open their store, or  produce something. In other countries as well, doing business
is restricted.

From his muslim education, to his organizing the "Million Man March", only a little more than a decade ago, where they marched to DC demanding their own country, with Muslim leader Farrakhan, theses are Baracks major influences in his life.

If elected, the Muslim relatives he spent time with in Kenya, will assuredly be sitting in the White House having dinner with Barack. I wonders how many of them, agree with his statement. I think it is only fair that the majority of voters who haven't read the book, decide what they believe, instead of
blithely accepting liberal media bias.

Thermometer prevents pregnancy

Did you know that the United States has the highest rate of abortion in developed countries.

Every year over one million easily preventable abortions occur.
Which leaves me to wonder if cost is an issue. For a start, some of the women who risk becoming pregnant are only 18-19 years old.
For them birth control is very expensive.

Asking low income mom's and families to come up with $40 to $50 dollars for birth control pills every month, may be too much for some people on a tight budget.

But we can't just keep waving them off, saying "use a condom".We need to level with ourselves, that if a woman can't afford birth control, then she is at risk of getting pregnant. Asking a sexually active woman, to use a condom 31 days a month, isn't really working.

Women need to arm themselves with the facts. Women ovulate only 3 days a month. And women can pinpoint exactly when these 3 days are with a digital basal thermometer. And the great news is that you can pick one up for $6 to $10 bucks at your local drugstore.

In case you're wondering, a digital thermometer is totally different than a regular glass thermometer, or ordinary thermometer that is digital. The temperature on a basal body temperature thermometer only displays a range between 96 and 100 degree.

By being able to deteect one tenth to one half a degree in temperature, it  is able to help women detect ovulation.
A woman's temperature usually rises 0.5 or above 98 degree's when ovulation is occuring. Most women have a basal body temperature of either 97.2 to 97.4.  There is a slight dip in termperature, just before ovulation occurs.

So, watching a temperature dip to 97 means pre ovulation and rising to 98 means ovulation

Because sperm can live in the body up to 5 days, with 2 being the norm, women have to count the days since their last menstrual  cycle to determing when she is heading into the danger zone of getting pregnant, this is  usually the 12 -17th day after her menstruation.

Also, after three days of raised termperature to 98, the egg has died, and women can resume for 14 days without worrying.

It's cheap, it's simple and it works. Maybe if people were told about it, they would switch to using this method.

Muslims who hate

For many Americans of my generation, reading the "Diary of Anne Frank", played a major role in helping us to develop feelings of "empathy" for victims of the Holocaust.

In a similar fashion, the heartwrenching story of 10 year old Brigitte Gabriel, who spent her childhood, dodging the bullets of Muslims snipers because she was Christian; brought out all my protective instincts for her.

In 1971,  Brigitte's family lived without heat or running water in an 8 x 10 underground hiding place during the Lebanese Civil War. They were forced to give up their home and resturaunt or face being killed by Muslims roving the streets killing Christians. For seven years they lived in a space a quarter the size of an ordinary American bedroom, until they were rescued in 1978, when they barely escaped with their lives.

Reading this story has helped me connect with the plight of families belonging to some of oldest Christian sects in the world, which have existed for many centuries in Lebanon and throughout the Middle East. While some people think "Muslim extremists" are an invention of the "Bush administration"; this book clearly reveals how the Muslim war on Christians was very much alive and kicking in the 70's. And, not being very familiar with Lebanon's history, I was very suprised to learn that the Lebanese civil war didn't actually end until 1990.

Today Mrs. Gabriel has founded an organization called "American Congress for Truth", whose goal is to prevent Muslims from slowly permeating American culture and eventually dominating the United States. If you think this couldn't happen in 30 years, and it all seems so far fetched; guess again. Mrs. Gabriels list of supporters is extensive, and includes many people from the intelligence community and the military.

One of the biggest problems the intelligence community has in the war on terror, is getting American's to understand that most Muslim terrorists look like ordinary middle class citizens. While most of us, picture "terrorists" as brainless, irrational, working class men, who prefer to wear robes; unfortunately the opposite is true. Most Muslim terrorists within the United States are highly educated middle class people who attend Universities and work in a professional capacity.

To date, Ms. Gabriels organization focuses on exposing the vast underworld of widespread "hate speech" and extreme anti -American sentiment that is thriving amongst even the most moderate appearing Muslims living in the U.S.

I must warn you though, that even though there is a lot of "touchy-feely" things that will warm you to Ms. Gabriel, that this thought provoking book is hardly light reading for liberals.

She doesn't mince words, or suffer fools gladly, when she makes it abundantly clear that she is opposed to embracing Christian/Muslim multiculturalism. Whether it's alerting us to the latest bank to offer "Sharia banking", schools teaching children about "the Haj", or the mosque down the street laden with people reading text which refers to "Christians as infidels", she warns that diversity mavens are a dangerous lot, and that in a dozen years we will most definitely be in for more than we bargained for, once their population increases.

And while it is a hard sell to those hell bent on "inclusiveness", watching the video's that I have provided the links to, convinced me, that she has a valid point.

Ms. Gabriel's book "Because they Hate" has remained at the top of the New York Times " Bestseller's List", week after week. Proof that conservative thought is still running strong as ever amongst American readers. After all, no one is more well equipped than Ms. Gabriel, to sound the alarm, with forward looking statements, that ultimately "Muslims have a hostile agenda".

While our country was watching it's first episode of "Star Wars", Ms. Gabriel and her family lost the "Lebanon they loved, as the thriving "Christian cultural capital of the Middle East", erupted into Muslim vs Christian violence, forcing them to fear for their lives.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8fa9yKQeTY

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0gBTEwATwU&feature=related

 

 

 

 

 

 

Liberals leveraging Jesus

The ink on the Obama approved gay marriage licenses had barely dried,when liberal spin doctors eager to build the new genre of "liberal Christianity" began "Jesus-ifying" Obama.

Like Scarlett O'Hara waving her fist before god in the moonlight
amongst the turnips; Obama's opportunist "brave new gay Christian frontier" speeches, sounded more like old fashioned Sunday sermons than pagan propaganda.

While the latest round of soundbytes sailed airly over the heads of most moderate Christians; the notion spread by Obama-ites, that evangelicals have selected Obama as their poster child for Christian values, is as likely as Micheal Jackson becoming an ambassador to the boy scouts.

Personally, I'm amazed that he's gotten away with this "psuedo
Christian" media circus act, for an entire week.

Perhaps,the dizzying pace has worn us out. While, "Arnold can't be bothered", neither does anyone say anything about the endless grasping behavior of, flaky Mayors "Villagarosa" and
"Newsom",circling the wagons round the stadium with the gay
gladiators, humming "we shall overcome".

It's terrible watching them scurry around trying to win votes,  by one minute, literally selling off Christianity, then trying to win it back the next day by handing out flyers with their "self styled 300 maps", detailing directions on how to break through the pass, at La Raza conferences.

And while American's have gotten used to hearing the blather of politicians with amnesty promises, liberals suddenly seem more excited to hear about the latest gay marriage promises. It's like entertainment for them.

Apparently proclaiming gay marriage last month wasn't enough for Mr. Obama. Nothing is more frustrating, than watching Obama support gay marriage, then have his campaign people turn around and proudly announce that he is winning the hearts of the evangelicals. But that is exactly what is happening. The voice of ordinary Christians, is being drowned out. 

Meanwhile, nobody seems to notice that this 5,000 year old tradition is in deeper trouble than it's ever been. One gay Christian is sueing a church, demanding they change the wording of the bible.

For some reason, people seem unwilling to believe me, when I tell them that when newly gay married couples parade down the
streets of San Francisco sporting symbolically Christian wedding
veils, and wearing Melissa Etheridge "Lesbians for the Immaculate Conception" tee shirts, that "revisionist Jesus" is not far behind.


I imagine all this will come to a crescendo, the minute, the
bestselling "gay transgender study bible" finally hits the front page of some leisure section of a major liberal newspaper.

At that point, all hell will break loose, and evangelicals will
finally wake up and have the hissy fit, I've been waiting all week
for them to have.

I mean, maybe black Governor Paterson can get black Holy Rollers to swallow his "Jesus loves gays" stealth campaign to wheedle black politicians into the charmed executive branch, but I doubt Obama will get them to stoop to endorse "transgender Revelations", or "Lesbian Leviticus". 

 

 

 

Many undocumented moms are teenagers

Over one third of the pregnant undocumented women who arrive in California every year, are Hispanic teenagers.

Walk into any welfare office in an area where there is even a small undocumented population, and it's easy to see what attracts teens to come over the border illegally. Many welfare and immigration advocacy office shelves are simply brimming with information, on the numerous benefits available to pregnant undocumented women. The biggest draw however is the mail-in application for generous expedited cash aid checks, and guaranteed Medi-Cal.

In a state with 280,000 children waiting for on child car lists, shrinking budgets a steady flow of undocumented women arriving every year; teen pregnancy is a crisis.

In Los Angeles, where there are over 40,000 to 60,000 undocumented births every year; over one million people rely on a food bank, to feed their families.

Sadly, the majority of these million people attending food banks in Los Angeles are low income two parent Mexican American families. In addition to working, many of the families also recieve food stamps, yet they still don't make enough to get by.

Because of the constant influx of new undocumented single poor unworking moms from across the border into California, there is only a small percentage of two parent families who qualify for cash benefits.  

Lawmakers need to come up with an outreach plan to prevent these teens from coming over the border, and taking much needed benefits from single moms and low income families, and seniors. 

More often than not, life in America, doesn't turn out according to their expectations. Plans of getting a good paying job, marrying well, and buying the house of their dreams, quickly fade for someone that's only 15.

 After the baby is born, they find themselves having to choose between buying the baby "Pampers" or keeping the cell phone switched on. If there is anyone who can warn Hispanic teenagers about the hardships of raising a baby on welfare, it's California's black teenage women.

Despite a culture riddled with sexual promiscuity, violence and dependence on the government, black teenage women and even black women in their 20's and 30's in California not only have a low number of California's overall births, but they are leery about having babies out of wedlock.

Although black teenagers have the highest number of teen pregnancies nationally, when it comes to California, they have a low number of births. No doubt this is because, black teenage women in California have to constantly compete for government benefits, low income housing and child care with the large number of poor Hispanic undocumented moms who arrive in California year after year.

This is interesting, because it means that growing up in "black culture" or "Hispanic culture" isn't a major factor in whether or not they decide to have a baby or not. It seems like, all teens are less inclined to have a baby if they know that benefits, housing and child care are not so readily available.

 Unfortunately, while new federal regulations for child care recipients require American teen moms to participate in tough new work participation requirements, undocumented women are exempt from having to do anything to obtain benefits.

This is why it is even more important than ever for lawmakers to create more outreach to prevent Hispanic teen pregnancy. They need to know that cash child care benefits only last a few years, and that feeding a baby, working and paying for child care is almost impossible for low income moms.

I'd like to think that perhaps dispelling some of the myths about benefits, will prevent teen pregnancy.

Myth One - Cash benefits for Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, (CalWorks) will last until a child reaches adulthood.

Reality - Cash benefits to help single moms and low income families care for their children is limited to five years. By the time a teenage mom is in her twenties, she will have "timed out" of qualifying for benefits.

Myth Two - Cash benefits will cover rent, food and expenses.

Reality - While cash benefits are more in larger families, if one person in the family gets a job, the amount of benefits for the entire family, is drastically reduced. Benefit checks for single moms on their own with only one child, oftentimes won't even cover rent.

Myth Three - cash child care benefits in which the state pays moms to employ a relative provider, to care for their children will last for years.

Reality - Only a small percentage of moms with children, will receive  the generous cash child care checks California provides to for child care. While a majority of the funds go to undocumented women, so that they can care for their infants, the money is only for a short period of time.

Myth Four -  There is a program specifically for "poor women" who use up their five year limit on benefits, which allows them to continue to receive money.

Reality - While there is "emergency funding", for women who use up their five year limit on benefits, it is only available to a small percentage of recipients every month, and it is temporary.

Myth Five - An amnesty will allow undocumented women to qualify for "more benefits", and "healthcare".

Reality - Being a green card recipient or an American does not necessarily qualify you for benefits, or free healthcare. Most welfare recipients on benefits, don't have healthcare, and rely on the same "emergency services" which the state of California guarantee's to all undocumented people.

Besides providing outreach to Hispanic teens on the other side of the border, about benefits, providing free birth control to teens in high risk area's and teaching women inexpensive precautions they can take, if they "accidentally skip a day" of taking their pill. By counting the days from their menstruation, and taking their body temperature, women can find out whether or not their body is "ovulating". Not all women have access to birth control pills. Not only is "natural birth control" accurate, it is inexpensive, and the pope approves of it. Teaching low income women to carry a purse sized thermometer, and track their ovulation, might be an effective way to provide low income women with affordable birth control solutions.

 

 http://ww2.cdph.ca.gov/data/statistics/Documents/VSC-2006-0205.pdf

 

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_ATSRH.html

 

 

 

 

 

New Child Care Rules unfair to U.S. mom's and families

The 2008 reauthorization of "Temporary Assistance To Needy Families"  that passed this month, claims to encourage the institution of marriage. After reading the text of the bill, though, it became obvious that it punishes married couples.

Not only are the work participation requirements tougher, but policy makers failed to add provisions that ensure an adequate number of child care slots go to the underserved population of working, two parent families.5 hours a week (or an average of 55 hours

The Deficit Reduction Act retained nearly all of the TANF 
provisions enacted in the original welfare reform law. For example, the 
law retained the requirement that 50 percent of all families with an 
adult participate in the 12 allowable work activities for specified 
hours each week and that 90 percent of two-parent families similarly 
participate for certain, specified hours.

The hourly work participation requirements that adults must achieve to count in the State's work 
participation rates also did not change. This requires a single 
custodial parent with a child younger than six to participate for at 
least an average of 20 hours a week and for all others to participate 
for at least an average of 30 hours a week to count in the overall 
participation rate. Similarly, two-parent families must participate for 
at least an average of 35 hours a week (or an average of 55 hours a 
week if federally-funded child care is provided) to count in the two-
parent participation rate.
unt in the rent particpipating.ation rate.

The bill states that it's main goal is "to allow children to be cared for in their own homes". There were no secondary goals mentioning the importance of educational goals such as striving to provide quality center based care, preschool and helping to prepare kids for kindergarten.

Encouraging kids stay to opt to stay home and be babysat by a relative isn't necessarily good for the child. It depends on the parents ability and willingness to be educators.

In California, 50% of our kindergarteners have not mastered English yet, and yet there are more than  three milion infants and toddlers who will enroll in elementary in the next few years .

Part of the reason these kids are allowed to remain English deficient, is because we give parent(s) who are deficient in English, a choice of whether they want to put their child in a school or let them  stay home, and recieve a check from the government to have a relative babysit their kids.

Over 63% of Hispanic women, chose to have their kids to stay home. For many of these low income people, giving the relative the job of caring for their child, is more important than using the services of a qualified child care teacher who could easily help their child with English, math and reading.

And those cute things called "infants and toddlers" are in all actuality, experiencing the most important developmental stage of their lives. This is the time where the fastest brain growth in a person's life occurs. Stimulating the baby with developmental toys and games that all trained child care and preschool teachers use, can help the dendrites in an infant or toddlers brains to grow.  After this crucial period of growth is over, the unused brain dendrites shrivel and die, and can never be brought back to life.

Another child care issue that concerns me, is that unlicensed child care workers, in many states such as California want to unionize. In California unlicensed workers are better paid than licensed workers, despite the fact that they aren't trained to assist infants and toddlers in developmental growth. It takes hours of training, and years of college for child care teachers, to  learn how to create "super babies and kids" out of disadvantaged children.

I don't know about other states, but in California, the state has been paying relative babysitting children up to $13.00 per hour, per child. No wonder parents want relatives to babysit instead of sending them to preschool!

However, having a check from the government to invest in an infant, toddler or preschoolers children's education is a gift that will last forever. We shouldn't allow people to throw their kids chances of having the ability to be a top student.

Ethnicity plays a large role in the importance placed on preparing a child for kindergarten. While Hispanic and Black women mostly opt to use their check to hire a relative to babysit their children, low income white women earning the EXACT amount of money prefer to place their little one's in child care centers and preschools,  and rely on teachers to expose them to more learning.

When their parent(s) go to pick them up, they are full of stories to tell about the things they learned, such as a riddle or rhyme they learned to say during story time, or a game they played. They sit in the car counting things aloud, and telling you their ABC's.

Infants and toddlers in English deficient homes are simply missing out. Even if their parent(s) put them in childcare or preschool just a few hours a day, it would be better for them than sitting at home with a relative, during those crucial developmental stages.

Believe it or not, even part time preschool can work wonders in helping a child acquire basic language, reading and math skills, and it is proven that children who start attending child care centers and preschools early on in life, have less chance of developing into a juvenile offender.
 

Another thing that bothered me about this federal bill, is that women who are are already on benefits are guaranteed child care, while people who have a job have to wait in line.

Part of the deal with people who recieve childcare and do not have a job,  is that they have to engage in some sort of work participation. Under the new  strict federal guidelines, recipients will have to work twice as hard to prove they are trying to get a job, or risk losing their benefits.

This rule does not apply however to California's illegal citizens, who make up 51% of TANF spending. Illegal citizens are exempt  from having to have a job, or participate in any work requirements at all. This is outrageous.

And to add insult to injury, because undocumented mom's are exempt, from work participation, they get to stay at home with the relative who is making $7 to $13 dollars and hour in money babysitting their child.

(n)(1) Work-eligible individual means an adult (or minor child 
head-of-household) receiving assistance under TANF or a separate State 
program or a non-recipient parent living with a child receiving such 
assistance unless the parent is:
    (i) A minor parent and not the head-of-household;
    (ii) A non-citizen who is ineligible to receive assistance due to 
his or her immigration status; or
    (iii) At State option on a case-by-case basis, a recipient of 
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits or Aid to the Aged, Blind 
or Disabled in the Territories.
    (2) The term also excludes:
    (i) A parent providing care for a disabled family member living in 
the home, provided that there is medical documentation to support the 
need for the parent to remain in the home to care for the disabled 
family member;
    (ii) At State option on a case-by-case basis, a parent who is a 
recipient of Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) benefits; and
    (iii) An individual in a family receiving MOE-funded assistance 
under an approved Tribal TANF program, unless the State includes the 
Tribal family in calculating work participation rates, as permitted 
under Sec.  261.25. 

Because undocumented mom's with new infants, go immediately on benefits, they are first in line to qualify for child care. For years they have cut in line in front of our low income people who aren't on benefits and are working.

We shouldn't allow next years new undocumented arrivals, to stay home and collect babysittting money, that easily.This bill is sure to encourage more undocumented to women to come.

I'm upset that nothing, was done in this bill, to grandfather in the undocumented mom's here, and make the undocumented mom's who arrive next year get in the back of the line of 280,000 kids who are on California's child care waiting list.