3,400 confidential and totally free groups to call and go to in the U.S...1,400 outside the U.S. . . . 98 of these in Canada.
Free, financial help given to women and families in need.More help given to women, families.
Helping with mortgage payments and more.More help.
The $1,950 need has been met!CPCs help women with groceries, clothing, cribs, "safe haven" places.
Help for those whose babies haveDown Syndrome and Other Birth Defects.
CALL 1-888-510-BABY or click on the picture on the left, if you gave birth or are about to and can't care for your baby, to give your baby to a worker at a nearby hospital (some states also include police stations or fire stations), NO QUESTIONS ASKED. YOU WON'T GET IN ANY TROUBLE or even have to tell your name; Safehaven people will help the baby be adopted and cared for.

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Planned Parenthood v. Carly Fiorina

Food for thought. That is, if you're one of those "trying to dismiss the videos," and if so, just remember, you are in the minority, no matter what the mainstream or liberal media news says:
"Most Americans are morally appalled by late-term abortions. Planned Parenthood and its allies know this...In other words, the people horrified by these videos aren’t out of the mainstream — they are the mainstream. The people trying to dismiss the videos are the extremists, and the media give them cover."

"Fiorina argues persuasively that it is Democrats, not Republicans, who are 'extreme' when it comes to abortion. Speaking at the Susan B. Anthony List dinner this year, Fiorina described how 'women come up to me and say, "I agree with Republicans on so many things, but I just can’t support this extreme pro-life platform of the Republican Party." And the way I answer that always is to say, "Well, I can respect that. Have you ever read the Democratic Party platform? Well, here’s what it says: Any abortion, at any time, at any point in a woman’s pregnancy, for any reason, to be paid for by taxpayers. . . . Do you agree with that?" Nobody agrees with that! Even people who think they are pro-choice don’t agree with that.'”

"As a conservative woman, [Fiorina] defied the unofficial rules of the abortion debate and put the truth, including the emotional truth, directly in front of more than 20 million Americans, with various social-media shares likely accounting for millions more. This is what the Left fears most, and it will strike back hard and fast — indeed, it already is doing so — but the damage is done, and in attempting to rebut Fiorina, they are giving her more exposure."

The worst one can say is that she appears to have mistaken the baby in the footage for the one the technician describes having cut up. And perhaps one can fault the video makers for creating that impression, but it seems to us the Federalist is correct when it observes that “illustrating stories with appropriate images is a common journalistic technique, one used by all media outlets.”

The baby seen in the footage at the 5:56 mark was indeed taken from inside an abortion clinic, according to the owner of the footage. Gregg Cunningham, executive director of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, the organization that obtained the footage and provided it to CMP, said in a statement to The Federalist:

“The video clip we provided to CMP depicted an intact delivery abortion. It was filmed at an abortion clinic. It was not a miscarriage. Mothers don’t go to abortion clinics to miscarry. Had this case been a miscarriage, the mother would have presented at a hospital and her baby would have been rushed to an Isolette for appropriate neonatal care — not abandoned to writhe and eventually expire in a cold, stainless steel specimen vessel. As regards the organizational affiliation of the abortion facility in which this termination was performed, our access agreements forbid the disclosure of any information which might tend to identify the relevant clinics or personnel with whom we work. Preserving confidentiality is vital to future clinic access. I can, however, assure you that the footage in question is not anomalous. It is representative of the frequent outcomes of many late term intact delivery terminations performed at clinics of all organizational affiliations.”

The media have consistently failed to cover the Planned Parenthood footage, and now they are covering up the truth. The reality is that babies of the same gestational age are having their organs harvested every day. These videos feature graphic footage of abortionists mangling babies to harvest organs to sell. They feature abortionists admitting that babies often survive those abortions. They show high-level Planned Parenthood officials encouraging this organ-harvesting scheme, acknowledged that it is happening, and attempting to skirt scrutiny from it.

The videos Carly Fiorina referenced do indeed exist, and they reveal the barbaric realities of the abortion industry.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Wednesday, September 23, 2015

"Carly demanded to be fired..."

"The Truth About Carly" New York Times


By Tom Perkins

RESPONSE TO: Andrew Ross Sorkin August 17, 2015 article “Carly Fiorina’s Business Record: Not So Sterling”

The consensus is clear: Carly Fiorina won the first Republican Primary debate. As a result she is climbing the polls and into the top tier of candidates. Her rise has led pundits to speculate about her tenure as CEO of Hewlett-Packard.

I was a member of the HP Board of Directors much of the time Carly was the CEO. I was in the room for many of the decisions she made. I can attest to the strength of Carly’s leadership, the accuracy of her vision and the quality of her management.

Carly was an excellent CEO. She led HP through one of the worst economic times in decades. Less than two years into Carly’s leadership, the dot com bubble went bust. Silicon Valley was in chaos. Companies were shedding jobs almost daily. There were so many layoffs The Associated Press ran weekly announcements regarding layoffs at tech companies. And The San Francisco Chronicle declared 2001 “The Year of the Layoff.”

While other Silicon Valley icons like Sun Microsystems disappeared, Carly’s vision and execution not only helped to save HP but made it a strong, more versatile company that could compete in the changing technology sector.

I was on the Compaq Board during the HP-Compaq merger and remained a member of the new HP Board once the merger was complete. Both companies knew that we needed something dramatic to inject life back into our companies. The merger, while controversial, was unanimously approved by every member of the HP Board and won approval from shareholders. Thanks to Carly’s leadership there was a path forward for this storied but troubled company.

Critics questioned the move, but history proves Carly was right. Post merger, HP became the biggest computer company in the world. It positioned HP to compete in integrated systems and allowed us to compete in sectors beyond the core strength of the company, printers.

Carly was hired at HP because it was struggling. Revenues were down, quarterly earnings were missed, innovation lagged and growth stagnated. HP, once the leader in Silicon Valley, was clinging to the status quo and failing to embrace the new tech era. Silicon Valley companies were prospering by taking advantage of the new technologies; HP was stubbornly clinging to the past. HP needed a change agent and someone who could return the company to its glory days. Carly was the right choice.

The results of Carly’s transformational leadership? HP revenues doubled to more than $80 billion, innovation tripled to 15 patents per day, the growth rate more than quadrupled 6.5 percent and we grew to become the 11th largest company in the country. Carly did what she was brought in to do: turn the company around make it successful again. Not only did she save the company from the dire straits it was in, she laid the foundation for HP’s future growth.

Critics often claim [she] was fired at HP because she was unsuccessful. As a member of the board, I can tell you this is not true. In truth, it was the Board I was a part of that was ineffective and dysfunctional. The HP board of directors included family members of the founders. Carly worked with the hand she was dealt as best as one could. While Carly fought to save the company and the employees within, some board members fought for their own power or advancement. You see, some board members wanted to micro-manage the company, hand picking friends and allies to run divisions. This is no way to run a global company and Carly had the strength of character and courage of conviction to stand up to it and ultimately she lost her job because of it.

While lesser leaders would have accepted offers of transition plans and graceful resignations, Carly would have none of that. Carly demanded to be fired. In order to restore peace to the board I voted to fire her. That was a mistake. In the months and years after Carly left, the Board of Directors remained dysfunctional. The Board members who plotted Carly’s ouster eventually resigned after an embarrassing investigation by Congress.

I have no question that Carly is a transformational leader who uniquely has both vision and the expertise to implement it. We are in the middle of a heated election, and often facts and the truth get lost in the heat of partisan rhetoric. As someone who worked with and observed Carly first hand I can attest to her abilities, intellect and talent. I am proud to support Carly Fiorina for President of the United States.

Tom Perkins

Tom Perkins is the founder of the California venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers.

Paid for by the CARLY For America Committee. CARLY For America is an independent expenditure committee and not authorized or coordinated with any federal candidate or candidate's committee.

[emphases this blogger]

ANOTHER REFERENCE POINT: " seems clear that (a) Fiorina didn’t leave behind a basket case of a company and (b) the Fiorina-Hurd era was -- again, by the metric of total shareholder return -- a relative success."

ANOTHER REFERENCE POINT: "What Do Bill Clinton & Carly Fiorina Have In Common?"

FINAL THOUGHT: If feminists of any stripe really do want their daughters, sisters, nieces and/or granddaughters to be able to break the "Glass Ceiling" and have the equal right to succeed as CEO of any Fortune 500 company if that is what they aspire to, then what, pray tell, do you think they're going to act like when they get there? Do you honestly think that equality for women means they're going to be effective acting touchy-feely or granting high-paying-jobs-for-everyone-for-life when they get to be CEO somewhere? They won't be CEO for very long if they don't have the company's bottom line as the first and foremost priority.

Any so-called equality-for-women feminists who condemn a Carly Fiorina for acting, while a CEO, like the precise CEO she was hired to be, are condemning their own daughters, nieces and granddaughters to continued inequality in the exact same breath.

And, I might add, go try doing it yourselves. I'd like to see you try to run a Fortune 500 "legacy" company, never mind turn it 180 degrees around into the Internet Age.

Good luck with that, armchair feminists.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Do As Hillary Says, Not As She Does

"[A]ny woman who reports an assault should be heard and believed, and there should be a process that is in place — not made up every time that something like this happens — to examine what she is saying, to begin to hear from people to make some kind of decision that is viewed as fair to everybody, because it does need to be fair to everybody. But many women like her feel that they are basically being asked to remain silent. That nobody wants to hear from them, that nobody wants to believe them, and nobody wants to have the comprehensive services that they need." ~ Hillary Clinton

" the 1990’s [when] multiple women...accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault and misconduct...[when Hillary]...was doing her best to run interference for Bill, Hillary most certainly did not believe that sexual assault survivors should be 'heard and believed.' Oh, no. The policy back then was that women who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault were to be immediately slimed and shamed."
Just ask Kathleen Willey, Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, and Gennifer Flowers.

Go read that link. Go read the facts that even left-leaning SLATE publicized about this:

"According to Carl Bernstein's A Woman in Charge, as her husband prepared to run for president, she pushed to get sworn statements from women he'd been rumored to have been involved with, statements in which they were supposed to say they'd had no relationship with him. She even interviewed one of these women herself, at her law firm. She also led efforts to undermine Gennifer Flowers, whom she referred to as 'trailer trash.'"
Hillary Clinton can't give the speech [about gender] because she has not always been so sisterly, and if her biggest fans knew who she really blamed—other women—they might not still be fans.
Don't take anyone's word for it, that Hillary is no friend to real feminists. Just read about the truth, for yourselves.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

"Obama is a Muslim" Rumor Started By HILLARY Campaign, in 2008

But for Hillary Clinton to come out and criticize anybody for spreading the rumors about Barack Obama [being a Muslim], when it all started with her and her campaign passings things around in the Democratic primary is rich."

"The Republicans are wrong for doing what they're doing," Scarborough said. "This started with Hillary Clinton and it was spread by the Clinton team back in 2008. That is the truth."

Agreed. Stupid Republicans, for doing what Hillary started. Stupid Hillary, for starting this in the first place.

Yes, I've seen the Hillary-Denies-It bit. Facts are facts, though:

"At the time, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said, '[This is] the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election'."
Slate, February 25, 2008:
Today, the Drudge Report posted a big, fat headline that howled, “Clinton staffers circulate ‘dressed’ Obama.” Accompanying the headline was a picture of Obama on a diplomatic trip to Kenya in 2006, wearing some type of traditional dress of the area—complete with a turban-looking headdress…

First, the Obama campaign sent around a press release at 9:29 a.m. from campaign manager David Plouffe, in which he said the photo is “exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world.”

Then, at 10:54 a.m., Clinton’s campaign manager, Maggie Williams, pierced the quiet with her own release. “Enough,” she wrote. “If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.” She goes on to say Obama is trying to “distract from the serious issues.” Note that they never refuted Drudge’s piece…

In December, the [Clinton] campaign asked two of its employees to resign after they proliferated rumors that Obama was a Muslim.

Let me remind you again, as I did this morning, that Hillary herself once hedged when asked if Obama was a Muslim, saying there was no evidence of that “as far as I know.”

NBC's Morning Joe panelists chime in on the hypocrisy. Even the UK's Telegraph gives the history of the rumor's origin with Clinton's 2008 campaign workers.

As for what Ben Carson said, read the exchange for yourselves. Then, read about how many Muslims worldwide, and where, believe in Sharia Law, how it should be applied and how some of it absolutely conflicts with or destroys American ideals, values and law, even if just applied to domestic disputes (like what to do to adulterers, which is to stone them to death):

CHUCK TODD: ...Should a President's faith matter? Should your faith matter to voters?

DR. BEN CARSON: Well, I guess it depends on what that faith is. If it's inconsistent with the values and principles of America, then of course it should matter. But if it fits within the realm of America and consistent with the constitution, no problem.

CHUCK TODD: So do you believe that Islam is consistent with the constitution?

DR. BEN CARSON: No, I don't, I do not.

CHUCK TODD: So you--

DR. BEN CARSON: I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that.

CHUCK TODD: And would you ever consider voting for a Muslim for Congress?

DR. BEN CARSON: Congress is a different story, but it depends on who that Muslim is and what their policies are, just as it depends on what anybody else says, you know. And, you know, if there's somebody who's of any faith, but they say things, and their life has been consistent with things that will elevate this nation and make it possible for everybody to succeed, and bring peace and harmony, then I'm with them.

CHUCK TODD: And I take it you believe the president was born in the United States and is a Christian?

DR. BEN CARSON: I believe that he is. I have no reason to doubt what he says.

[emphases this blogger]

I think that Carson didn't quite say this all how he should have said it, even in later comments. It seems Carly Fiorina is more on the same page with me, and Marco Rubio, than Carson.

This is the interpretation I believe Carson means: "...a pro-Constitution Muslim who accepts Islam’s religious tenets but rejects the imposition of sharia on society would be fine; an adherent of Islamic ideology who seeks to impose sharia on society (i.e., an Islamist or Islamic supremacist) would not."

It's clear to anyone who can read that there are some outrageously horrific parts of Sharia, but not all of it is so. Does it all have to be condemned to condemn just the condemnable parts? I honestly don't know. I do know that Carson is right that:

"I don't care what religion or faith someone belongs to. If they're willing to subjugate that to the American way and to our Constitution, then I have no problem with that."
For some unbiased education on Sharia Law, I'll point you to two sources:
  1. " authoritative sharia manual endorsed by, among other prominent Muslims, the scholars at al-Azhar University (the center of Islamic scholarship for over a century)" which shows that:
    "Islamic law rejects the premise that people are free to govern themselves as they choose, rejects freedom of conscience, rejects freedom of speech, rejects equality between Muslims and non-Muslims, rejects equality between men and women, justifies wars of aggression against non-Muslims, and rejects our safeguards of liberty and privacy – prescribing draconian penalties, often including death, for apostasy, homosexuality, sex outside of marriage, and other personal choices."
  2. Then check out this survey by The Pew Research Center, in 2013:
    Although many Muslims around the world say sharia should be the law of the land in their country...

    ... the survey reveals divergent opinions about the precise application of Islamic law. Generally, supporters of sharia are most comfortable with its application in cases of family or property disputes. In most regions, fewer favor other specific aspects of sharia, such as cutting off the hands of thieves and executing people who convert from Islam to another faith.
    Overall, among those in favor of making sharia the law of the land, the survey finds broad support for allowing religious judges to adjudicate domestic disputes. Lower but substantial proportions of Muslims support severe punishments such as cutting off the hands of thieves or stoning people who commit adultery. [emphasis this blogger]

    Family and Property Disputes

    Islamic law addresses a range of domestic and personal matters, including marriage, divorce and inheritance. And most Muslims who say sharia should be the law of the land in their country are very supportive of the application of Islamic law in this sphere. Specifically, in 17 of the 20 countries where there are adequate samples for analysis, at least half favor giving Muslim leaders and religious judges the power to decide family and property disputes.

Isn't adultery a family dispute? And if most Muslims agree that Sharia law should be practiced regarding family disputes, then that implies that most agree with stoning an adulterer to death.

To put this survey into perspective: in Egypt, for example, about 74% of Muslims think Sharia should be the law of the land, and 74% of that 74% think it should apply to all citizens, non-Muslim and Muslim alike, and 81% of that first 74% favor stoning as punishment for adultery. With "around 80 million Muslims, comprising 94.7% of the population, as of 2010" in Egypt, that's about 44 million Muslims in Egypt who favor stoning adulterers of any and all faiths.

This interview presents the opposite look at Sharia, but I'm concerned about the softballs asked by the interviewer. It really would have been useful to ask this Muslim scholar what she thinks about the above statistics, in particular about whether stoning for adultery is in fact dictated by Sharia law, or not, and how many actually support that punishment worldwide.

Instead, she mentions that if any aspects of Sharia law are not acceptable, she is content to let us battle out in the courts, to decide which not to allow:

"There may be times that we as a state want to limit some aspects of the private practice of Islamic law. A California court, for example, ruled that allowing women to take a certain sum of money upon divorce, as is typical in Islamic marriage contracts, was against the state’s policy of forbidding profiteering from divorce. Other courts have found differently on that issue. And so there may be times when the issue arises as to whether Islamic legal practices conflict with public policy, and then the courts will resolve these issues and they will be adhered to..."
Still: no mention whatsoever of stoning adulterers, or cutting off the hands of thieves. When are Muslim scholars and advocates going to address these elephants in the room? Surely they must already well know that these are among the reasons for people's suspiciousness of Islam. Along with this kind of thing, especially when said by leaders of countries hostile to us and others.

All non-Muslim Americans have been given every right to be wary, at macro and at micro levels.


The hypocrisy of the media and those on the left knows no bounds, it would seem:
In other words, Carson could support a bad Muslim for the presidency but not a good one—a position that shocks liberals even as they take an identical one with respect to Christians...

Fresh from the Kim Davis controversy, during which liberals took the position that traditional Christians should no longer hold the government office of marriage clerk, liberals are denouncing Ben Carson for “bigotry” against Muslims. They piously quote the Constitution’s line from Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Read that again. Slowly. Doesn't it just scream "double-standard" at you? Honestly!
Of course, Carson never denied that Muslim Americans are eligible to run for office. He simply said that he wouldn’t vote for one who supported Sharia law. America’s founding fathers would have agreed.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Monday, September 14, 2015

Best Campaign Ad So Far? You be the judge

Even if I didn't see value in Fiorina as a candidate, I'd have to agree with those who say this is the best campaign ad of the season so far:

Are we expecting fireworks this Wednesday for the next Republican debate? I bet it'll be even more watched than the last one, by many different groups from both parties. If I had to pick who will come out looking better (of the two, Trump or Fiorina), I'd pick Fiorina. Too bad I might not be able to watch it live (but then again, maybe I can).

I'm also working on a few thoughts about Trump, and his fans, to be posted hopefully soon, with any luck at all, before that debate. Just my two or three cents I'm sure Trump won't lose any sleep over. Stay tuned.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Thursday, September 10, 2015

Some Really Good Questions For Hillary...

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

"And he was heavy into the world of abortion and he was a doctor," said The Donald, about Ben Carson

"And you look at his views on abortion, which were horrendous..."

I've watched at least 2 or 3 speeches by Ben Carson by now. Those attacks by Trump just didn't jibe with the man I saw in those speeches. But when I read those lines, and listened to that Trump audio, I just had to look into that further.

It turns out that Donald Trump is clinging to inadequate, irresponsible research and left-leaning propaganda:

Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson participated in research in which tissue from two spontaneous abortions were used, Carson explained that he took no part in actually studying the tissue and defended the practice of using fetal tissue to advance science and medicine."
Spontaneous abortions. You know what those are? Miscarriages. Not "elective abortions" which are what abortion providers like Planned Parenthood provide.

So Trump appears to get his news the way most liberals get it: from the erroneous reporting on sites like Salon, Huffington Post and the original blogger who thought she had a good "scoop."

Mr. Trump, do you not know this "issue" was debunked about a month ago?

"Well I have not actually worked with fetal tissue. The left has put information that I have done research on fetal tissues because my name appears on an article in which the pathologists compared specimens that I deliver from the operating room to fetal tissues," Carson explained. "My part is to do the operation and supply the tissue. At that point, I move on the next operations. To suggest that I am in the laboratory actually doing the research or retrieving fetal tissue is nothing but propaganda."
Read that again, more closely: he provided non-fetal tissue (brain tumors, to be exact) to the pathologist-researchers who themselves then compared those to fetal tissues from a miscarried fetus.

Carson also explained that fetal tissues used in pathology labs tend to come from miscarriages and ectopic pregnancies and added that pathology labs consistently stock specimens from "day one of conception until 99 years."
“We have banked material in the pathology lab from people from every age — from day 1 of concept to 120 years told. Those specimens are available for people who want to do comparisons,” Carson said.
More on why there isn't much need to worry about Ben Carson's pro-life credibility or his faith:
I don’t take Carson to be hedging on the philosophical question of where life begins; he has stated countless times his belief that life begins at conception. He is making a political point: “I understand that others disagree with me about life’s starting at conception. But at the very least we can agree that life begins when there is a heartbeat, right?”
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Monday, September 07, 2015

Wonder Who Thomas Sowell Will Vote For in 2016?

A great read about a brilliant man, who went from being a Marxist, to not being one:

In his 2002 memoir, “A Personal Odyssey,” Mr. Sowell describes how he once pawned a suit of clothes to buy food—a knish and an orange soda at a little restaurant on the Lower East Side in New York City. “Since then I’ve eaten at the Waldorf Astoria, I’ve eaten in Parisian restaurants and in the White House,” he tells me. “But no meal has ever topped that knish and orange soda.”

And he explains "disparate impact" in a way that even I can understand it:

Or take “disparate impact,” the idea that different outcomes among different groups—say, that there are more male CEOs than female—is ipso facto evidence of discrimination. The Obama administration has used disparate impact to charge racism in housing, employment and other matters. In the absence of discrimination, the theory goes, people naturally would be dispersed more or less at random. Nonsense, Mr. Sowell says. “In various books I’ve given lists of all the great disparities all over the world, and I recently saw a column by Walter Williams in which he added that men are bitten by sharks several times as often as women.”

Differences in outcome is a matter that Mr. Sowell takes up in his new book, “Wealth, Poverty and Politics: An International Perspective,” out Sept. 8. Its theme, he says, is that “in a sense, there was never any rational reason to believe that there would be this evenness that they presuppose.” Some continents have more navigable rivers and deep water harbors than others. Some cultures value education highly, and some don’t. Underwhelming as the conclusion might sound to those with the urge to reorder society, many disparities arise simply because people are different, and because they make different choices.

Another problem is that the “disparate impact” assumption misidentifies where group differences originate. He sets up an example: “If you have people in various groups in the country, and their kids are all raised differently, they all behave differently in school, they do differently in school. And now they’re grown up and they go to an employer, and you’re surprised to find that they’re not distributed randomly by income.” It’s “just madness,” he says, to assume “that because you collected the statistics there, that’s where the unfairness originated.”

Does that ever make sense. Think about it this way: you get hired to do a job, and someone else also is hired to do the same exact kind of job in your very same department. Through your references, your new employer already learned that you always show up on time and ready to go right to work, you work hard all day, every hour, you abide by all the policies and rules of your employer, you do every piece of work that crosses your desk, as accurately as humanly possible, following-through to resolution, and you meet or exceed all the requirements of your job. And you continue to do likewise in this new job.

Your co-worker, on the other hand, clocks in on time but often spends the first fifteen minutes of her shift in the breakroom eating her breakfast or visiting with her boyfriend. She takes multiple unapproved breaks throughout the day, goofs off and chats while working or is up and out of her seat whenever the supervisors aren't around, makes and takes personal phone calls on company phones and on company time, texts, web-surfs or even watches movies/podcasts on her iPhone while supposedly working, avoids 99% of the hard, time-consuming work and cherrypicks the high-volume orders to advance her own productivity numbers, even to the extreme point of stealing someone else's productivity-boosting tasks, all after having signed or verbally given multiple agreements not to do any of the above. Plus, she's known by all the managers to make a large amount of errors, many of them repeat errors, day in, day out, never learning from her mistakes, even when told of them.

Would it be "unfairness" and "discrimination" for you to be evaluated, paid and rewarded better than that co-worker? Heck no. Though you don't know the details, isn't it obvious she was raised differently than you were? And that her behavior now had to have originated in different behavior, and different results, when she was in her home and in her school? She couldn't possibly have just suddenly developed such atrocious work habits/ethics upon getting this specific job.

Yet in real-life, the “disparate impact” assumption keeps that co-worker employed, valued and perhaps even paid better than you are.

Thomas Sowell knows of what he speaks.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Sunday, September 06, 2015

Ben Carson- Want To Learn More?

"As a boy, Ben Carson watched his father walk out on his family, closing the door on a life the 8-year-old would never know again. Through periods of heartbreak, fear and financial struggle, his mother, Sonya Carson, provided for Ben and his brother. A determined woman with only a third-grade education, she insisted her sons see their potential and that they never let circumstances get them down. She taught them that education would change their lives." - SUCCESS Magazine's 2011 profile on Dr. Carson

"Ben Carson, 40 — His are the hands that doodled and danced aimlessly on elementary school tests, threatened his mother with a hammer, and stabbed a friend whose belt buckle deflected the knife."- FORTUNE Magazine's 1992 profile on Dr. Carson
"We know we aren’t served well by those who have been handed everything they have, whether through privilege or poverty, because usually their agenda isn’t service toward others at all. Often those types don’t have a grip on responsibility and appreciation. But we are all best served by those with tired eyes and worn skin and dirt under their nails. [emphasis the quoted author] They know hard work. They know sacrifice, suffering, forfeiture, endurance. These folks are an example because they know what life without is like and are therefore more driven to stay out of the miry pit they once occupied in some way, and that comes through serving others first, as Mrs. Carson modeled for her kiddos."
- from "Thank You, Mrs. Carson" by a blogger called The Peacock Quill
Seriously, do go read all three whole articles. I'd quote major passages here if it wouldn't be so long.

Now, fast forward to the present:

Politico's article "Ben Carson, the Superior Outsider"

and for what it's worth, Yahoo Politics' article, "Ben Carson on the issues: Inside the mind of the retired neurosurgeon surging in polls, rivaling Trump".

I wouldn't be surprised if these two ladies, this mom, and Marine vet Michael Whaley wish that Ben Carson becomes our next President.

Looks like this young man might feel the same:

I'm not a black man nor am I a mom of a black man, so I really can't answer this, but if you are either, can you relate to a guy who did all or even some of what was described in those first two articles above, and then did this?

"Carson...has a powerful testimonial about getting down on his knees as a young man unable to control his temper and saying, 'Lord, unless you help me, I'm not going to make it.'"
Maybe this is why a lot of folks, black and white, are responding to Carson: he admits his past weaknesses and is an example of how to overcome the extreme despair, abandonment, depression, poverty of a Detroit ghetto, without the help, handpicking or escorting-in by any Party Machine to the highest office in the land.

Some would say about President Obama that he had never governed anything, never accomplished anything governmental, never managed a company, a definitive agency or a serious budget. As a Senator, of course, no one's really running anything. Well, neither has Ben Carson. If it didn't stop Obama, why should it stop Ben Carson?

And the more I think about it, the more Carson seems to be what I've been looking for in a candidate:

"He is more gentlemanly and more conservative, with a more compelling life story. Carson is a man of faith who, despite his manifest accomplishments, has a quiet dignity and winsome modesty about him. Ben Carson is a throwback..."
...but a throwback in all the good ways.

ADDENDA: On CNN's Crossfire last year, Ben Carson ably corrects the mis-accusations from former Ohio Democrat Governor Ted Strickland (who has his own Bill Clinton "It depends on what you think the meaning of 'is' is" moment and, today, along with Hillary "misses the mark with Millennials" in his home state) and proves Stephanie Cutter wrong on when both the 2009 Iranian election protests and the invasion of Georgia by Russia actually took place)...

What Carson actually said regarding the two quotes he was challenged on is this:

  • He did not say the United States of America was like Nazi Germany. He said the government and its institutions were:
    Following a standing ovation at his address to the standing-room-only crowd, Dr. Ben Carson said that the current state of our government and institutions are “very much like Nazi Germany.” Carson says, “You had the government using its tools to intimidate the population. We now live in a society where people are afraid to say what they actually believe.”
  • Referring to his being targetted by the IRS for uncalled-for audits following his February 2013 National Prayer Breakfast speech: "We live in a Gestapo age," Carson said. "People don't realize it".
    Dr. Benjamin Carson, the former director of pediatric neurosurgery at Johns Hopkins Hospital who is considered a possible GOP contender for the 2016 GOP nomination, told Newsmax TV on Monday that he and his family have been personally targeted by the IRS in retribution for his frank critique of President Obama’s policies at the February 2013 National Prayer Breakfast.

    Carson said audits and other harassment began in May or June of 2013 and gradually expanded to include family members, associates, and his charitable endeavors.

    "I’ve been quite I would say astonished at the level of hostility that I have encountered," Carson said in an exclusive interview with host John Bachman on "America’s Forum" on Newsmax TV.

    "The IRS has investigated me. They said, ‘I want to look at your real estate holdings.’ There was nothing there. ‘Well, let’s expand to an entire [year], everything.’ There was nothing there. ‘Let’s do another year.’ Finally, after a few months, they went away. But they’ve come after my family, they’ve come after my friends, they’ve come after associates."

The UK's The Guardian on Ben Carson and his lifestory

The Speech That Got Carson National Attention:

Carson on how he "used to be a flaming liberal:"

August 18, 2015 full speech in Arizona, well worth the long time to watch this one (especially the big fact he drops--with backing from 17 Nobel Laureates in Economics--at the 22:00-23:00 minutes mark!):

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Religious Freedom, As Defined By Our Forefathers and Our Constitution, Is No More

It   has begun, in earnest now.

Did you know that Kim Davis, the Kentucky county clerk now in jail, is a Democrat? I didn't.

For the record, she now should resign her job.

Why, pray tell, haven't they just fired her? Because they want to make a spectacle, an example of her? They should release her unvilified and free from jail (they did nothing to Barack Obama, Eric Holder or other officials when they ignored and broke laws they swore to uphold), and she should find work elsewhere, but I'm glad she has obeyed God. By doing so in the way she did, she has helped to bring this supreme hypocrisy into the light for all to see and for those who choose, to be forced to ignore. Funny thing about hypocrisy, though: ignoring it doesn't make it any less real:

Yet the Davis case also underscores a glaring double standard. In response to Judge Bunning’s decision to jail Ms. Davis, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, “The success of our democracy depends on the rule of law, and there is no public official that is above the rule of law.”

We don’t recall President Obama insisting on “the rule of law” when his then Attorney General, Eric Holder, announced in 2011 that he wouldn’t defend challenges to what was then the law—the Defense of Marriage Act signed by President Bill Clinton—in the courts. Nor did we hear about upholding the law when mayors such as Gavin Newsom in San Francisco issued marriage licenses to same-sex couples in defiance of state laws.

Officials such as Messrs. Holder and Newsom were as guilty as Ms. Davis of elevating personal preferences over the law. Yet they were lionized by those now holding up an obscure Kentucky clerk as a national villain...

Certainly the losers in the marriage debate need to recognize the new legal reality. But how much easier acceptance would be if the winners did not insist on hunting down every last dissenter and making federal cases out of disputes better worked out elsewhere.

from the op-ed "My Old Kentucky Double Standard: Vilifying a county clerk while lauding other official disobedience," Wall Street Journal, Sept.3, 2015

Let's start with the prevailing hypocrisy surrounding the attacks on Davis, a Democrat, and what it tells us about the state of American political debate and policymaking in 2015 -- because as you may have noticed, the rule of law only seems to be sacred when it happens to comport with liberal values.

As far as I can tell, there are only three unassailable constitutional rights left in the United States: the right not to be "discriminated" against, the right to have an abortion and the right to have a gay marriage. In the eyes of liberals, nothing -- not the freedom of association or religion or anything else mentioned in the First Amendment or Second Amendment -- will ever supersede these consecrated rights.

The rest? Well, it's malleable, depending on the situation.

When GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio commented that Kentucky should probably respect the beliefs of county clerks, John Podesta, chairman of Hillary for America, tweeted: "SCOTUS says LGBT couples can marry. Officials should uphold the law. Period. What's next, Professor Rubio?"

Professor Podesta, you may not know, makes his living advocating that presidents should ignore the rule of law by circumventing the legislative process and creating regulatory regimes to battle climate change. Now, obviously, there are legal distinctions, but in the grand scheme of things, Podesta embraces the same kind of moral authority to exhibit contempt for the rule of law. But a pliable deference to law is not unique. When Democrats say states should find ways to undermine the First Amendment by weakening the Supreme Court decision on Citizens United -- as unfettered political speech from a couple of libertarian billionaires is problematic to their mission -- they are applauded for the effort.

In America, we have a city council in Denver that advocates shutting down a business such as Chick-fil-A because the CEO once took a public position against gay marriage. In this country, people who are here illegally can march in the streets to protest their station without any genuine fear of being rounded up and expelled. They are celebrated. Moreover, we have cities across this country that ignore immigration laws they don't like and create sanctuaries from law. We have cities that ignore federal drug laws because they find them oppressive. Yet no one finds himself in jail. When Californians approved Proposition 8, which banned gay marriage, a number of officials refused to enforce the law. They were celebrated. I may even agree with the impulse.

But not one elected official has been hauled off to jail for any of these stands.

Yet a Christian struggling to come to terms with the implications of a decision that the Supreme Court reached only a couple of months ago -- and our progressive president embraced only a couple of years ago -- is hauled off to jail. In the end, the state is creating martyrs. Christians will have no choice but to take more obstinate positions in these battles of the culture war -- battles that could easily have been avoided if a judge had exhibited more compassion and come to an accommodation. There are about 125 other marriage clerks in Kentucky who can issue licenses to gay couples. And they should.

Or we could go the other way. And if we're going to be rigid about the rule of law, let's throw all officials who ignore it into cells. We can start with the president and work our way down.

by David Harsanyi, senior editor at The Federalist, Sept. 4, 2015.

(all emphases this blogger)

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Sunday, August 16, 2015

What Do CNN and The Washington Post Have In Common?

Willful ignorance of real science.

CNN’s Chris Cuomo Has Absolutely No Idea Where Babies Come From...

...and neither does the Washington Post. Marco Rubio is right, because he's using noted embryologists for his science. Like we've done repeatedly for years also.

Who does CNN and WaPo use for their "science?" The ACOG, long known to be pro-abortion, even pro-partial-birth abortion, and who advocate a redefined definition of pregnancy to be starting now at implantation instead of conception, even though the world-renowned embryologists haven't changed their definitions because the science hasn't changed.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Saturday, August 15, 2015

Pro-choice New Hampshire Politician Defunds Planned Parenthood

Pro-choice politician in New Hampshire who previously supported allotting taxpayer dollars to his state’s Planned Parenthood clinics, says nuh-uh:
States should not fund an organization facing credible criminal allegations and currently being investigated by Congress and a dozen state governments...“If this had been any other business with this type of legal and ethical scrutiny, there would be no question about cutting state funds.”
The launch of the congressional investigation, however, prompted Sununu to search for alternative providers. He asked the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services to aid in his search.

New Hampshire has a variety of clinics and hospitals with different services and specializations. “The options are definitely there,” [Republican executive councilor Chris] Sununu says. “We need to entice those providers to bid” on this newly available contract, especially because “more-rural areas do have sparser health care.”
Governor Maggie Hassan has refused to investigate New Hampshire’s Planned Parenthood clinics based on what she calls “a rumor.”...Hassan declined to help expand women’s alternatives to Planned Parenthood. That decision “made no sense,” Sununu says. “It was beyond belief. How providing choices is ever a negative thing, I can’t imagine. She’s trying to justify the monopolistic position Planned Parenthood has put themselves in.”

That's because, for Gov.Hassan, and all those like her, it isn't about helping women, it's about preserving abortion.
0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Friday, August 14, 2015

Daily Beast Columnist and What His Pro-Life Wife Called Him On

The Daily Beast's Ruben Navarette Jr. writes "I Don’t Know if I’m Pro-Choice After Planned Parenthood Videos":
As I’ve only realized lately, to be a man, and to declare yourself pro-choice, is to proclaim your neutrality. And, as I’ve only recently been willing to admit, even to myself, that’s another name for “wimping out.”

At least that’s how my wife sees it. She’s pro-life, and so she’s been tearing into me every time a new video is released. She’s not buying my argument that, as a man, I have to defer to women and trust them to make their own choices about what to do with their bodies. To her, that’s ridiculous—and cowardly.

“You can’t stand on the sidelines, especially now that you’ve seen these videos,” she told me recently. “That’s bullshit! These are babies that are being killed. Millions of them. And you need to use your voice to protect them. That’s what a man does. He protects children—his own children, and other children. That’s what it means to be a man.”

I didn’t like the scolding, but I needed to hear it. For those of us who are pro-choice, the Planned Parenthood videos are a game changer. As to whether that means I’ll change my view, I’m not sure. I’m on the bubble. Ask me in a few weeks, after the release of more videos.

0 comment(s): (ANONYMOUS ok -but mind our rules, please)                                      << HOME

Traducir todo esto en español, o cualquier otro idioma, copiar las palabras, y luego ir aquí y pegarlo en el cuadro en el lado izquierdo de la página, a continuación, haga clic en el idioma que desee en el lado derecho de la página y haga clic en el derecha botón azul para traducir.

NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

NATIONAL REVIEW Online's The Corner ~ Kathryn Jean Lopez links to Ap blog, 1/22/07

Associated Press/San Francisco Chronicle: Banno On Boxer and the Illegal Abortion Deaths Urban Legend

San Diego Union Tribune: more Boxer Urban-Legend-Debunk coverage

Ellen Goodman retraction impetus: Aa blog initiates The Straight Dope coverage...and is listed in National Review Senior Editor Ramesh Ponnuru's book The Party of Death, p. 255, Chap. 3 Endnote #11,   4/2006

NY Daily News: "Atheist's Site Is All The Rave

"After Abortion, by Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, two women who had abortions in the 1970s, ...tries to avoid the political tug-of-war that tends to come with this turf. They concentrate instead on discussing the troubling personal effects of abortion on the mothers." ~ Eric Scheske, Godspy contributing editor, in NC Register's "Signs of Life in the Blogosphere", 2/2006

"Godbloggers could, in the best of worlds, become the new apologists...[including] laymen with day jobs: Emily Peterson and Annie Banno, for instance, at the blog After Abortion..."~ Jonathan V. Last, The Weekly Standard online editor, in First Things's "God on the Internet", 12/2005

Amy Welborn, at BeliefNet, links to AfterAbortion blog's Crime & Abortion Series

Catholic News Service: Silent counterprotest at the March For Choice

COMMENTING   Also see Harris Protocol. Correspondence is bloggable unless requested otherwise.
E-mail                Joy

Who We Are        Hiatus Interruptus
NOTICES (Freedoms of Religion/Speech/Press, Copyrights, Fair Use) at bottom

4,800 confidential groups helping now.

We are too. Here are folks who can help:

Feeling Really Bad?: Call
1-800-SUICIDE (784-2433)
& a friend, right now.

Suicide Hope Lines: U.S.A. (by state) or call 1-800-Suicide (784-2433)

Suicide Help - Canada: "If you can't find a crisis centre near you, any of the 24-hour tollfree numbers in your province will be able to help."

UK, ROI: 08457 90 90 90 ,

Suicide Helplines in over 40 other countries

George & Linda Zallie, Stacy's parents, "assisting women who made the difficult choice of ending their pregnancy in finding nonjudgmental help" for suicidal feelings.

For immediate help, call tollfree, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week: national, confidential, post-abortion-recovery hotlines:
1-877-HOPE-4-ME or
1-866-482-5433 or

...more help below...

"I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion...[many are] aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and [do] not doubt that it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace...You will come to understand that nothing is definitively lost and you will also be able to ask forgiveness from your child..."

Hope after Abortion
Ideas for Healing
Rachel's Vineyard Retreats
(non-Christians, even non-religious do attend; they also have interdenominational retreats designed expressly for people of any religion or no religion)
Abortion Recovery
"Entering Canaan" - a ministry of reverence for women and men who suffer following an abortion
Lumina - Hope & Healing After Abortion
Option Line
Books that help
(includes non-religious Post Abortion recovery books)
In Our Midst
For MEN - Resources List
     ** UPDATED 2015 **

Message boards, chat rooms &
   e-groups ** UPDATED 2015 **

Regional & local resources
         ** UPDATED 2015 **

Silent No More Awareness Campaign
After Abortion
Welcome! Our sidebar continues at great length, just below the "MORE HILLARY BACKPEDALS" section, with many links to helpful, respect-life folks of all shapes, sizes, minds & creeds, science, research, stories & just.plain.stuff. Just text-search or browse. But grab a cup of Joe first.

FULL-SEARCH AbortionPundit:

Powered by


Why NOT Hillary?

  1. Abortion Rhetoric Backpedal
  2. Chicago Tribune: "Our hero: Hillary Clinton, the last truth bender"
  3. Rapper Timbaland's $800K and "Ho's" lyrics
  4. Criminal "fugitive", media-ignored Hsu
  5. $5K per Kid
  6. Criminal Berger
  7. "I remember landing under sniper fire...we just ran with our heads down."...
  8. ...and other false claims on her Foreign Policy "chops"

The sidebar continues...

(Below, 320-Links Sidebar Reorg In Progress: Thank You For Your Patience)



Obama On Abortion: A Summary 1990-2009

1) Obama Is 2nd-Highest-Paid Politician by Fannie Mae, Taking $126,346 in only 4 years as Senator; Now Derides GOP/Bush for Allowing Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac To Do Business, When It Was Democrat Presidents Bill Clinton & Jimmy Carter Who Passed The Law Requiring Fannie & Freddie To Give Out Bad Subprime Loans To Those Who Couldn't Afford Them, Which Caused The Entire Financial Meltdown … 2) Jim Johnson (Obama VEEP vetter and former Fannie Mae executive who made millions there) Backpedal … 3) Obama's hiring, connection, support of ACORN, which supported that very law and whose staff have been involved in voter fraud … 4) Rezko's Favor A "Boneheaded" Mistake … 5) Jeremiah Wright Backpedal … 6) Fr. Michael Fleger Backpedal … 7) NAFTA Backpedal … 8) Campaign Financing Backpedal … 9) Mr. "Negotiates-With-Terrorist-States" … 10) Bittergate … 11) Hamas' Chief Political Adviser Hopes BO Will Win Election … 12) Banning Handguns Backpedal … 13) Who Exactly Are "The Rich" He's Going to Sock it to? … 14) Flag Pin Backpedal … 15) Once Open to School Vouchers That Work, Now Deadset Against … 16) Now OK with residual force in Iraq...up to 50,000 troops. … 17) First voted against a law protecting babies who survive an abortion procedure, then lied saying he didn't, then finally forced to admit that he did vote to deny such born babies protection. 18) … "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country." ~ MO

Region-specific blogs of note: Washington, Midwest, California, Connecticut, Canada (adding as we get the time)


Atom Site Feed

Powered by Blogger

FREEDOM OF RELIGION, FREEDOM OF SPEECH, FREEDOM OF THE PRESS NOTICES: From its inception in 2005 forward, the postings on this site are the co-bloggers' own personal opinions, observations and research, do not reflect or represent the views of any employer(s), past, present or future, nor do/will they relate in any manner to said employer(s) or their businesses at any point in time. The writings expressed herein are protected expression by virtue of the First Amendment of the United States of America and by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in particular Articles 18 and 19, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948:

1) The First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

"The Free Exercise Clause reserves the right of American citizens to accept any religious belief and engage in religious rituals. The wording in the free-exercise clauses of state constitutions that religious “[o]pinion, expression of opinion, and practice were all expressly protected” by the Free Exercise Clause.[1] The clause protects not just religious beliefs but actions made on behalf of those beliefs. More importantly, the wording of state constitutions suggest that “free exercise envisions religiously compelled exemptions from at least some generally applicable laws.”[2] The Free Exercise Clause not only protects religious belief and expression; it also seems to allow for violation of laws, as long as that violation is made for religious reasons."

2) Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by the U.S.A. in 1948, states: "Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance."

3) Article 19 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of the physical, emotional, social and spiritual negative effects of abortion on women, men and families, and to provide resources for help and information to anyone experiencing these effects or trying to help those who are. This constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.

"COPYRIGHT NOTICE: This weblog is Copyright © 2005 - 2015 - Annie Banno - All Rights Reserved. "Skews" Reporting ™ is a trademark of Annie Banno Copyright © 2004 - 2015. All Rights Reserved. All original content by the weblog author(s) is protected by copyright(s). This includes writings, artwork, photographs, and other forms of authorship protected by current U.S. Copyright Law, especially as described in Sections 102(a) and 103. PERMISSION GRANTED FOR UNLIMITED BUT NON-COMMERCIAL AND ONLY RESPECTING-ALL-HUMAN-LIFE USE. CREDIT REQUIRED. No rights in any copyrighted material, whether exclusive or non-exclusive, may be transferred in the absence of a written agreement that is the product of the parties' negotiations, fully approved by independent counsel retained by the author(s) and formally executed with manual signatures by all parties to the agreement pursuant to the statutory requirements of Section 204(a) of current U.S. Copyright Law, Federal Copyright Act of 1976, appendices and provisions."

Since 6/13/2005