DADvocate

Reading comments on another blog the other day, it struck me how many liberal posters continually included small, but harmful, lies in their comments, such as calling a man's running shoe a "boot" in the MoveOn.org incident in Lexington, KY. Now, here's Obama inserting another lie concerning the global fight against AIDS.

...we're funding global AIDS, and the other side is not.

Assuming the "other side" is Republicans, i.e. the enemy that needs to be punished, Obama's comment is a blatant lie.

The United States devotes enormous sums of money to fighting AIDS. In 2009 the United States was the largest donor in the world, accounting for more than half of disbursements by governments. And it's Bush's fault! Or, rather, credit.

As the AP reported at the end of Bush's time in office, Bush launched a $15 billion plan in 2003 to expand AIDS prevention, treatment and support programs in 15 hard-hit countries, 12 of them African, which account for more than half the world's estimated 33 million AIDS infections.

The AP report notes that the initiative tied in with a World Health Organization campaign to put 3 million people on AIDS drugs by 2005 -- a goal it says was reached in 2007. The AP added that Congress passed legislation in 2008 that more than tripled the budget to $48 billion over the next five years, with Republicans and Democrats alike hailing the program as a remarkable success.

Obama probably hopes he can keep slipping in these little lies and the masses will believe him without question. Inserting these little lies is a form of subliminal messaging. A person doesn't really question or pay attention to the little detail because it's not the central subject, yet this small lie creates a bias in one's mind that "the other side" is bad.

Pay close attention to what Democrats and liberals say. You'll find their comments riddled with little lies. Little lies because big ones are too easy to spot and the Democrats can't stand on the truth.

When he's running for Congress. I received a flier in the mail from Surya Yalamanchili, who is running for Congress in my district. I have heard his "Vote for Chili" ads on the radio. The one thing I noted is that he makes no mention of party affiliation.

Even the fine print on the flier doesn't mention party. I assumed he wasn't Republican as he's running against Republican incumbent Jean Schmidt. Maybe he's an independent, I'll visit his website and find out.

On the sidebar, towards the bottom of the page there's a clue, "Cincinnati Enquirer comments on Democratic Candidates" it says. Hmmm, is Yalamanchili one of the Democratic candidates or is this a link to something critical of the Democratic candidates?

The only other clues I find at votechili.com are in an email address on his volunteer page, "@ohiodems". The bumper stickers and yard signs carry no indication of party.

The text of the blurb at the link, which is within the votechili.com domain, doesn't erase all doubt. The headlines mentions Democrats but the text doesn't clearly state if Yalamanchili is Dem or something else.

Next I find a Cincinnati Enquirer article with the headline, "Surya Yalamanchili (D)." Is that "D" for Democrat or Desperate? Finally, within that article, assuming the Enquirer is correct, I find the answer. "The East End Democrat...."

What's is mean when a Democratic candidate for Congress hides his party affiliation? Is it shame, embarrassment or knowing you must fool voters into thinking you're not what you are?

Neo-neocon via Instapundit. The entire post:

Oops! A letter to Obama from Harvard Law professor Larry Tribe, written while the president was mulling over Justice Souter’s replacement, has surfaced. In it, he urged the president to nominate Kagan, and wrote the following about Sotomayor:

Bluntly put, she’s not nearly as smart as she seems to think she is…

Bluntly put, it occurs to me that much the same could be said of Obama.

But I’m not sure that anyone could be as smart as Obama seems to think he is.

LOL

Found in The Washington Post:

In a radio interview that aired Monday on Univision, President Obama chided Latinos who "sit out the election instead of saying, 'We're gonna punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us.' " Quite a uniter, urging Hispanics to go to the polls to exact political revenge on their enemies - presumably, for example, the near-60 percent of Americans who support the new Arizona immigration law.

This from a president who won't even use "enemies" to describe an Iranian regime that is helping kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan. This from a man who rose to prominence thunderously declaring that we were not blue states or red states, not black America or white America or Latino America - but the United States of America.

This is how the great post-partisan, post-racial, New Politics presidency ends - not with a bang, not with a whimper, but with a desperate election-eve plea for ethnic retribution.

(Emphasis added)

Not words I want to hear any American president saying about American citizens. What Democrats will start finding out over the next few years is that many Hispanics have core conservative family values and came to America to escape banana republic governments, not to create a new one.

Last week there was quite a bit of laughter that so many lefties didn't get Sarah Palin's reference to 1773. (The original Boston Tea Party) Reading Instapundit today, I noticed an oft told myth.

WITHOUT PROPER TRAINING, RUNNING A MARATHON CAN DAMAGE YOUR HEART. Well, remember what happened to the first guy who ran one.

Instapundit's reference is to the first person, Pheidippides, to run a marathon dying. The trouble is, Pheidippides didn't die.

The Athenian generals sent Pheidippides, a professional runner, to Sparta to ask the spartans to help fight the Persian army, who had arrived by ship at Marathon. Pheidippides completed the 145 mile journey and arrived in Sparta the day after he left Athens. He delivered the Generals' request, then returned to Athens with the Spartan's reply - which was that due to observances they could not leave Sparta until the full moon. Upon receiving this news the generals decided to attack the Persians anyway, the result being an Athenian victory against seemingly overwhelming odds.

Herodotus makes no mention of Pheidippides dying.

While everyone is going bonkers over Christine O'Donnell, let's not forget Alvin Greene, Democratic candidate for Senate in South Carolina.



Inspiring in a crazy, scary way.

What worries you more?

That the national debt has increased by $3 trillion dollars since Obama took office

New numbers posted today on the Treasury Department website show the National Debt has increased by more than $3 trillion since President Obama took office.

The National Debt stood at $10.626 trillion the day Mr. Obama was inaugurated. The Bureau of Public Debt reported today that the National Debt had hit an all time high of $13.665 trillion.

The Debt increased $4.9 trillion during President Bush's two terms. The Administration has projected the National Debt will soar in Mr. Obama's fourth year in office to nearly $16.5-trillion in 2012. That's more than 100 percent of the value of the nation's economy and $5.9-trillion above what it was his first day on the job.

Mr. Obama frequently lays blame for soaring federal deficits on his predecessor.

Hat tip to Darren.

or, that Christine O'Donnell claims (correctly) that the Constitution doesn't contain any phrase stating "separation of church and state"?

Some are much more concerned about O'Donnell that the huge national debt we're accumulating and leaving to our kids and grandkids. Beats me. It's not like the leftie Democrats have shown and concern for the Constitution and its principles except when it helps them gain power over your personal life.

UPDATE: Law professors agree with my assessment on O'Donnell's statement about the Constitution and separation of church and state.

Professor Glenn Reynolds of the University of Tennessee: At 8:39 AM today - "Once you understand that to the credentialed-instead-of-educated, the Constitution is a wish-fulfillment device rather than, you know, an authoritative text, it all makes sense. And there’s no real need to know or care about the words in the text, since it means whatever you want it to mean at the moment."

And at 2:52 PM "The Constitution stands for things that are good. The things that we want are good. Therefore, the Constitution stands for what we want. QED. How can those dumb wingnuts not understand this simple logic?

Meanwhile, I agree that the O’Donnell focus is a deliberate distraction. But I also think it’s important to use this opportunity — like the Sarah Palin “1773″ brouhaha — to point out that the credentialed gentry class isn’t nearly as smart, and certainly isn’t as well-educated, as it thinks it is. Because, you know, it isn’t.

Perhaps Widener law students can’t be expected to understand constitutional doctrine like Wisconsin or Cornell law professors. But they can be expected to avoid showing their ignorance through ill-mannered displays. One of the underappreciated virtues of good manners is that they help you to avoid making an ass of yourself when you are not as smart as you think you are."

Ann Althouse, professor of law at University of Wisconsin Madison - Says: "Plainly, the Constitution does not say "separation of church and state," so there's nothing stupid there. It's provocative, because many people like that gloss on the text.

...

O'Donnell reacts: "That's in the First Amendment?" And, in fact, it's not. The First Amendment doesn't say "government." It says "Congress." And since the discussion is about what local school boards can do, the difference is highly significant.

Also, it isn't "shall make no establishment of religion." It's "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." There's a lot one could say about the difference between those 2 phrases, and I won't belabor it here. Suffice it to say that it was not stupid for O'Donnell to say "That's in the First Amendment?" — because it's not. Coons was presenting a version of what's in the cases interpreting the text, not the text itself."

William A. Jacobson, law professor, Cornell University says

The concept of separation of church and state is not, indeed, in the wording of the First Amendment. Rather, as explained in the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Lynch v. Donelly:

This Court has explained that the purpose of the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment is

to prevent, as far as possible, the intrusion of either [the church or the state] into the precincts of the other.

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 614 (1971).

At the same time, however, the Court has recognized that

total separation is not possible in an absolute sense. Some relationship between government and religious organizations is inevitable.

....

So, O'Donnell unquestionably did not agree with the popular liberal conception that the First Amendment by its written terms requires a "separation of church and state," but she was not wrong.

And what an embarrassment to Widener Law School that as soon as O'Donnell questioned whether "separation of church and state" was in the First Amendment, the crowd erupted with gasps of disbelief and mocking laughter.

And if O'Donnell's imperfect -- or perhaps nuanced? -- understanding of the First Amendment were so outrageous, how about the inability of Chris Coons, a Yale Law School graduate, to identify the other freedoms protected by the First Amendment, and his misquoting the text of the First Amendment in his challenge to O'Donnell

Reminds me of the words of a great philosopher: Stupid is as stupid does...

I just watched The View clip where Whoopie Goldberg and Joy Behar walk off the stage when Bill O'Reilly says Muslims killed us on 9/11. Generally, I avoid watching these clips because they are simply stupid sound bite arguments.

Maybe this one is too. Goldberg and Behar seemed quite prepared to walk off stage, as if they had discussed it before hand. Why did they walk off stage? Because O'Reilly stated the truth, that Muslims killed "us" on 9/11. How dare him!!

Col. Jessep: *You want answers?*
Kaffee: *I want the truth!*
Col. Jessep: *You can't handle the truth!*

Searching for some info on the web, I came across editorial from the Dayton Business Journal from 2004 when John Kerry was running for president. It gives an interesting perspective to the Democrats and Obama's position on taxes.

This issue also gets bogged down in rhetoric about the wealthy getting this, the middle class getting that, and almost deteriorates into a class warfare frenzy where the have-nots are thirsting for the haves to pay more taxes (picture an image of the unkempt masses ramming a log into the castle door trying to get at the Lord of the Manor).

Why do we need to raise taxes at all, on anyone? Taxes are an extra burden for all people, and exist only to pay for the necessities of government that help the people, not to fund a government that exists for its own sake.

With that mindset, tax cuts should be every politician's goal. The government should do what us common folk have to do when what's going out doesn't match what's coming in -- tighten our spending. We can't just go to our boss and say, "I got this new addition to the back of the house I'm looking at this year. You need to give me an extra big raise."

Another problem I have with Kerry's tax plan is that it is based on the premise that anyone earning $200,000 or more will have their taxes raised. While that plays well to those making less, that could backfire and cost more than it would gain.

There are many small businesses that are taxed as personal income of the owner, rather than under the corporate tax system. Those small businesses will be taxed more under the Kerry plan. And with the economy yet to fully rebound, we need to be helping businesses, especially small businesses that are the engine for job growth in our country.

Kerry also says multimillionaires can afford paying extra taxes. But there are lots of people who make more than $200,000 but are not millionaires. Small-business owners, for example, aren't jetting off to Paris for dinner and a play for the weekend. They often are struggling to get by as they continue to reinvest in their business; and any extra money they make goes toward hiring more people in order to grow the business.

Sounds eerily like the same debate being made today. Real unemployment is through the roof. Obama's inciting class warfare more and more. And, the left just doesn't get it. More realistically, the left doesn't care. They want the power and control and will do what ever they can get away with to get it.

A new study suggests that "investigations did little or nothing to improve the lives of those children."

Researchers examined the records of 595 children nationwide, all at similar high risk for maltreatment, tracking them from ages 4 to 8. During those years, Child Protective Services investigated the families of 164 of these children for suspected abuse or neglect. The scientists then interviewed all the families four years later, comparing the investigated families with the 431 families that had not been investigated.

The scientists looked at several factors: social support, family functioning, poverty, caregiver education and depressive symptoms, and child anxiety, depression and aggressive behavior — all known to increase the risk for abuse or neglect. But they were unable to find any differences in the investigated families compared with the uninvestigated in any of these dimensions, except that maternal depressive symptoms were worse in households that had been visited.

---

In an editorial published with the study, starkly titled “Child Protective Services Has Outlived Its Usefulness,” Dr. Abraham B. Bergman suggests some essential changes: child abuse, because it is a crime, should be investigated by the police; public health nursing services should be the first to respond to concerns of child neglect; social workers should assess appropriate living situations and work with families to obtain services, and not be engaged in law enforcement. But Dr. Bergman, who is a pediatrician at the Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, expressed considerable skepticism that such changes would happen.

Dr. Campbell, an assistant professor of pediatrics at the University of Utah, is more optimistic. “I don’t believe that C.P.S. has outlived its usefulness,” she said. “The problem is that someone needs to continue working with these families — those risk factors don’t go away, and I’m not sure we should expect C.P.S. to deal with them. C.P.S. deals with acute issues. We don’t know how to deal with what remains.”

One factor they don't consider is that the social work, human services, psychology and other "helping" professions are highly biased and peopled by the marginally competent. Their bias is heavily in favor of women. When my ex-wife bruised my son about 12 years ago, the social worker seeing him in counseling and supposedly helping him immediately went to the aid of my ex-wife who was supposedly so grief stricken over having so roughly disciplining my son that she bruised his arms and back.

The social worker never reported the suspected abuse as required by law. When I reported her ethics violation, I found this social worker was a social work trainer. (I can't remember the agency to which I reported her, either the state licensing board or the state branch of the National Association of Social Workers.)

In general social workers and human services personal are of average intellect with little curiosity and prefer being spoon fed propaganda that suits their bias. When I reported my son's abuse, I found at brochure on the table at the child protective services office (in Kentucky) declaring all domestic abuse was committed by men. They had done a survey that showed this. Of course, they only surveyed women.

Look at the statement of the National Association of Social Workers on "Diversity and Equity."

NASW is committed to social justice for all. Discrimination and prejudice directed against any group are damaging to the social, emotional, and economic well-being of the affected group and of society as a whole. NASW has a strong affirmative action program that applies to national and chapter leadership and staff. It supports three national committees on equity issues: the National Committee on Women's Issues, National Committee on Racial and Ethnic Diversity and the National Committee on Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Issues. The information below reflects some of NASW's material and work on diversity and equity issues.

National committees on women's issues, racial and ethnic diversity, and gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender issues. Wow!! If you're a heterosexual, white male you're SOL. Who cares about those angry white men any way? Not the social work professions, that's for sure.

To sum it up, the helping professions don't help because they're not concerned with helping but with pushing their biases and agenda. Normal people need not apply.

Despite Obama's efforts to rally his troops, the truth of Obama and the Democrats disastrous economic policies continues to smack us in the face.

Astoundingly, the unemployment rate during the 15 months of "recovery" averages over three full percentage points higher than the average unemployment rate during the recession. There is no comparable "recovery" on record since the Great Depression.

The latest unemployment rate in September of 9.6 percent is bad enough -- a loss of almost 400,000 jobs since May. If you include those who have given up looking for work and those forced to take part-time jobs because they can't find full-time work, the unemployment rate stood at 17.1 percent.

But even worse, the unemployment picture deteriorated dramatically after the Department of Labor did its survey in mid-September.

In the mean time, Obama and the Democrats attack the job providing small business sector by spreading lies about the Chamber of Commerce using foreign money to run ads while Obama "is the largest recipient of money from British Petroleum."

Obama can't even sling mud competently.

During my high school years and beyond, I loved listening to Soul music, sometimes call the Mowtown sound after Detroit where much of it originated. Otis Redding died in a plane crash before I finished high school. Other soul musicians passed on over the years. Earlier today, Solomon Burke passed away in an Amsterdam airport.

Below is "Cry to Me." As soulful and heartrending as a song can be. The lyrics and his warm, sad voice touch me and I feel, well, like crying. Anyone who has watched "Dirty Dancing" will recognize the song.

My son's football team played on Thursday night this week (Won 56-8) which allowed him and some friends to go watch the football game in the neighboring county. They sat in the home team stands and happened to sit behind a guidance counselor for that high school. The next day she sent this email to my son's football coach.

Coach --------,

I had the pleasure of sitting in front of 4 of your football players at the XXXXX-xxxxxxx football game tonight. The players were some of the most mannerly polite young men that I have been around in a long time. I have been around high school students for 22 years, 19 years as a high school math teacher and currently, I'm one of the counselors at ------- County. I just wanted you to know how well these players represented your team and your school.

Good Luck to you and your team for the rest of the season.

Sincerely,

xxxxx xxxxxxx

I had the players give me their numbers so I could watch for them when we play zzzzz County. The boys' numbers are:

#79
#20
#68
#16

My son's coach replied to the email identifying each boy to her and copied the parents also. My son is number 79, the big guy on the right side of the photo below. (Number 68 is in the back row, center. This being a picture of the seniors on the team, the other two boys are not in the picture.)



I give my son's coach a lot of credit, too. He strongly emphasizes good character and academics while consistently producing excellent teams. And, I think it's wonderful that the guidance counselor recognized and acknowledged 4 boys behaving as we always want them to.

Things like this make being a parent worth all the effort. But, most of all, I thank my son. He could be whatever kind of person he chooses, but he, and his friends, choose to follow the right path.