Free Speech Thread

[SoCal]

Wow! These guys far outstrip Nixon in the dirty politics game:

(Former Obama Deputy Campaign Manager Stephanie Cutter – now a high ranking member of Organizing for Action)


First, let us revisit the description of Organizing for Action given to us this week by White House Insider:

gWell just look under the slimy rock of his Organizing for Action group. The are all 501fnd up now and starting out with millions of donations and the single biggest voter database in the history of American politics. They got the whole California system in place for them, are already telling the IRS to fuck off, itfs the political beast slouching over America. And I ainft being poetific there. Thatfs the cold hard fact of it. Organizing for Action is the post 2012 kick the shit out of traditional America program that is meant to be in place long after Obama has gone into his version of political retirement. Itfs global. Itfs tied in with the U.N., climate change, gun control, healthcare, taxation, global taxation, currency, education, poverty, hunger, they got every big name item involved and it is what was intended all along. All they need to finish it up is to clear the runway for Barack Obama in 2014. Thatfs what this sequestration is all about, what it intended to do the whole damn time. h -WHI g2014 LINK

Now here is the excerpt today from Breitbart.com:

Organizing for Action, the purported gissues advocacyh social welfare organization established in January, sent out a campaign-style email on Wednesday to an extensive email list of Obama supporters developed by its predecessor organization, the Obama for America presidential campaign committee, attacking congressional Republicans.
The email pushes the boundaries of the standard that defines allowable communications that can be sent out by gissues advocacyh social welfare non-profit groups organized under Section 501(c)4 of the Internal Revenue code. In effect, Wednesdayfs OFA email constitutes one of the first campaign ads of the 2014 mid-term Congressional elections, sent by a partisan Democratic organization billing itself as a social welfare group.

cWhile the OFA email carefully avoids those eight specific words, there is no doubt that it is a partisan attack on congressional Republicans, and its purpose is to mobilize voters in February and March of 2013 as a broader plan to get-out-the-vote for Democrats and against Republicans in the November 2014 Congressional mid-term elections

[SoCal]

Thank you illegal aliens......

Annual Medicare, Medicaid spending in California tops $100 billion
By Phillip Reese
The Sacramento Bee
Published: Tuesday, Feb. 26, 2013 - 5:35 pm


The Sacramento Bee. Government health spending in California now exceeds the size of the entire state general fund budget.
The federal and state government spent $46 billion on Medicaid (Medi-Cal), a health care program for the poor, and the federal government spent $59 billion on Medicare, a health care program for the elderly, in 2011, according to recent estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. That's roughly $2,800 per California resident.
Medicare and Medicaid spending in California has doubled in the last 15 years, even after adjusting for inflation.
Rising health care costs are a key driver of the nation's budget deficit. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that Medicare and Medicaid spending will rise from 5 percent of the nation's gross domestic product today to 10 percent of GDP by 2037. In other words, one of every ten dollars produced by the American economy could soon pay for Medicare and Medicaid.
The government spent six times as much on Medicare and Medicaid in 2011 as it did on unemployment benefits; 16 times as much on Medicare and Medicaid as on food stamps; and about 65 percent more on Medicare and Medicaid than on Social Security retirement benefits, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.
Payroll taxes cover 36 percent of the costs of Medicare. Premiums paid by beneficiaries cover another 12 percent. The remaining amount is paid by the federal government, often through borrowing, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Both federal and state governments pick up the costs for Medicaid. California pays about $16 billion a year from its general fund toward its program, called Medi-Cal. Spending on the program has slowed a little as the economy improves and state cuts take effect. About one of every five residents in the state are enrolled in Medi-Cal.
This chart shows growth in Medicare and Medicaid spending in California, adjusted for inflation into current dollars, over the past 40 years.
Adjusted for inflation into current dollars
Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates

[SoCal]

[SoCal]

Barry to send a delegation to a despot's funeral. What a jack-ass.


Obama sending official delegation to Chavez funeral

Services By Guy Taylor - The Washington Times
March 7, 2013, 03:35PM


The Obama administration has dispatched an official delegation to Caracas to attend Friday’s funeral for deceased Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

In addition to James Derham, who presently serves as Charge d’Affaires at the U.S. Embassy in the Venezuelan capital, the State Department said Thursday that the delegation to the socialist revolutionary’s funeral will include U.S. Rep. Gregory Meeks, New York Democrat, and former U.S. Rep. William Delahunt, Massachusetts Democrat.

Details were not forthcoming about why Mr. Meeks and Mr. Delahunt were chosen to represent the U.S. at the funeral.

However, Mr. Delahunt, who served on the House Foreign Affairs Committee while in Congress from 1997 through 2011, has a history of quietly attempting to forge positive diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Venezuela.

During the early 2000s, he partook in a little reported effort known in foreign policy circles as the “Groupo De Boston,” which brought U.S. members of Congress to meet socially with Venezuelan lawmakers in Caracas. Subsequently, the effort saw several Venezuelan lawmakers arrive on Cape Cod, in Massachusetts, to partake in more social meetings.

Mr. Delahunt also met personally with Mr. Chavez in 2005 to help arrange a program that would eventually see the Chavez government supply subsidized heating oil to thousands of low-income and elderly residents in Massachusetts — a state known for its left-leaning politics.

[AntiArbitrator]

Dr. Carson should have been advised to make his comments in this Free Speech thread.

Ben Carson is a phenomenally brilliant neurosurgeon but he made the same mistake others have made. He said exactly what he thought. That is not acceptable to people. It appears to me that Freedom of Speech is acceptable when people say what the majority wants to hear and even then, it must be in the tone and choice of words acceptable to them or the person will be castigated.

Some of Dr. Carson’s words were ill-advised and people focused on those words rather his overall opinion. This caught my attention because I have admired him for many years and I am baffled by a brilliant man thinking Freedom of Speech actually meant he could say what he really thought in a public forum. A little back story, this is the black doctor who criticized President Obama and was courted by certain parties to run for president. He declined.

---

"BALTIMORE —A critically-renowned Baltimore pediatric neurosurgeon who made derogatory comments about same-sex marriage recently has withdrawn as commencement speaker at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

His candor helped propel Carson into the political spotlight. Well known and highly respected for his medical expertise, motivational words and charitable works, the neurosurgeon claimed he would speak plainly about his beliefs.

Carson, who has recently made headlines for commentary on social and political issues, said in a Fox News appearance that marriage was between a man and a woman. He said the definition could not be changed by members of the gay community or by "people who believe in bestiality." He also compared same-sex marriage supporters to pedophiles.

Carson later apologized for his language and said there were better ways he could have made his point.

In an email to medical school dean Paul Rothman, Carson mentions the attention surrounding statements he made about his belief in traditional marriage.

Carson writes: "I believe it would be in the best interests of the students for me to voluntarily withdraw as your commencement speaker this year. My presence is likely to distract from the true celebratory nature of the day."

Some students complained, and the comments also were condemned by the medical school dean.

Members of the Johns Hopkins Health and Human Rights student group had already started a petition to remove him as a commencement speaker at the diploma ceremonies for the schools of medicine and education. Now he has decided to withdraw.

Others believe Carson would have been a powerful motivator.
"He's, like, so respectful in all these other ways that people should not get so worked up over this kind of small thing," Hopkins student Lucy Gao said."


Read more: www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/Ben-Carson-withdraws-as-Hopkins-commencement-speaker/-/10131532/19708912/-/q7218pz/-/index.html#ixzz2QC8Dhjm9

[Aeryn]

Feb 23, 2013 15:20:57 GMT -5 SoCal said:

A book with a broken spine is a truly loved book.

Same could be said about an ex-boyfriend.

[SoCal]

Apr 11, 2013 17:39:31 GMT -5 AntiArbitrator said:

Dr. Carson should have been advised to make his comments in this Free Speech thread.

Ben Carson is a phenomenally brilliant neurosurgeon but he made the same mistake others have made. He said exactly what he thought. That is not acceptable to people. It appears to me that Freedom of Speech is acceptable when people say what the majority wants to hear and even then, it must be in the tone and choice of words acceptable to them or the person will be castigated.

Some of Dr. Carson’s words were ill-advised and people focused on those words rather his overall opinion. This caught my attention because I have admired him for many years and I am baffled by a brilliant man thinking Freedom of Speech actually meant he could say what he really thought in a public forum. A little back story, this is the black doctor who criticized President Obama and was courted by certain parties to run for president. He declined.

---

"BALTIMORE —A critically-renowned Baltimore pediatric neurosurgeon who made derogatory comments about same-sex marriage recently has withdrawn as commencement speaker at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

His candor helped propel Carson into the political spotlight. Well known and highly respected for his medical expertise, motivational words and charitable works, the neurosurgeon claimed he would speak plainly about his beliefs.

Carson, who has recently made headlines for commentary on social and political issues, said in a Fox News appearance that marriage was between a man and a woman. He said the definition could not be changed by members of the gay community or by "people who believe in bestiality." He also compared same-sex marriage supporters to pedophiles.

Carson later apologized for his language and said there were better ways he could have made his point.

In an email to medical school dean Paul Rothman, Carson mentions the attention surrounding statements he made about his belief in traditional marriage.

Carson writes: "I believe it would be in the best interests of the students for me to voluntarily withdraw as your commencement speaker this year. My presence is likely to distract from the true celebratory nature of the day."

Some students complained, and the comments also were condemned by the medical school dean.

Members of the Johns Hopkins Health and Human Rights student group had already started a petition to remove him as a commencement speaker at the diploma ceremonies for the schools of medicine and education. Now he has decided to withdraw.

Others believe Carson would have been a powerful motivator.
"He's, like, so respectful in all these other ways that people should not get so worked up over this kind of small thing," Hopkins student Lucy Gao said."


Read more: www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/Ben-Carson-withdraws-as-Hopkins-commencement-speaker/-/10131532/19708912/-/q7218pz/-/index.html#ixzz2QC8Dhjm9

Why is it liberals ALWAYS want to shut down the free speech rights of conservatives? Liberals are supposed to LOVE diversity......as long as it toes their line. Jack asses.

And why do conservatives ALWAYS give in to the liberal despots at these schools? Wimps.

Ben Carson should have given his speech and the liberal weenies at Johns Hopkins be damned. This is the same university that wouldn't recognize a pro-life club on campus, calling it a terrorist organization. They recently had to cave, but it's shocking.

[AntiArbitrator]

Apr 12, 2013 13:40:30 GMT -5 SoCal said:

Apr 11, 2013 17:39:31 GMT -5 AntiArbitrator said:

Dr. Carson should have been advised to make his comments in this Free Speech thread.

Ben Carson is a phenomenally brilliant neurosurgeon but he made the same mistake others have made. He said exactly what he thought. That is not acceptable to people. It appears to me that Freedom of Speech is acceptable when people say what the majority wants to hear and even then, it must be in the tone and choice of words acceptable to them or the person will be castigated.

Some of Dr. Carson’s words were ill-advised and people focused on those words rather his overall opinion. This caught my attention because I have admired him for many years and I am baffled by a brilliant man thinking Freedom of Speech actually meant he could say what he really thought in a public forum. A little back story, this is the black doctor who criticized President Obama and was courted by certain parties to run for president. He declined.

---

"BALTIMORE —A critically-renowned Baltimore pediatric neurosurgeon who made derogatory comments about same-sex marriage recently has withdrawn as commencement speaker at the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

His candor helped propel Carson into the political spotlight. Well known and highly respected for his medical expertise, motivational words and charitable works, the neurosurgeon claimed he would speak plainly about his beliefs.

Carson, who has recently made headlines for commentary on social and political issues, said in a Fox News appearance that marriage was between a man and a woman. He said the definition could not be changed by members of the gay community or by "people who believe in bestiality." He also compared same-sex marriage supporters to pedophiles.

Carson later apologized for his language and said there were better ways he could have made his point.

In an email to medical school dean Paul Rothman, Carson mentions the attention surrounding statements he made about his belief in traditional marriage.

Carson writes: "I believe it would be in the best interests of the students for me to voluntarily withdraw as your commencement speaker this year. My presence is likely to distract from the true celebratory nature of the day."

Some students complained, and the comments also were condemned by the medical school dean.

Members of the Johns Hopkins Health and Human Rights student group had already started a petition to remove him as a commencement speaker at the diploma ceremonies for the schools of medicine and education. Now he has decided to withdraw.

Others believe Carson would have been a powerful motivator.
"He's, like, so respectful in all these other ways that people should not get so worked up over this kind of small thing," Hopkins student Lucy Gao said."


Read more: www.wbaltv.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/Ben-Carson-withdraws-as-Hopkins-commencement-speaker/-/10131532/19708912/-/q7218pz/-/index.html#ixzz2QC8Dhjm9

Why is it liberals ALWAYS want to shut down the free speech rights of conservatives? Liberals are supposed to LOVE diversity......as long as it toes their line. Jack asses.

And why do conservatives ALWAYS give in to the liberal despots at these schools? Wimps.

Ben Carson should have given his speech and the liberal weenies at Johns Hopkins be damned. This is the same university that wouldn't recognize a pro-life club on campus, calling it a terrorist organization. They recently had to cave, but it's shocking.

Exactly! I have seen this more and more. I understand that people who are running for public office need to be careful what they say. However, other people who stick to beliefs they have had for 40 years are criticized for saying they disagree with certain changes. Why is it okay for people who want change to jump on a bandwagon and scream it to the heavens, but those who do not want change should keep quiet?

[VelvetEars]

From a letter to the editor:

The Bible condemns homosexuality as an immoral and unnatural sin. Leviticus 18:22 identifies it as an abomination, a detestable sin. Romans 1:26-27 declares homosexual desires and actions to be shameful, unnatural, lustful and indecent. First Corinthians 6:9 states that homosexuals are unrighteous.

[VelvetEars]

Angel, in light of the importance of what you responded to, I believe they deserve their own topic. If you would be so kind, please move your response there.

[AntiArbitrator]

Done!

[VelvetEars]

Part of a letter to the editor in response to a letter written by someone offended by a Christian prayer at a school event:

"I am offended by the letter written to the editor on April 28 ... I’m a Christian and very upset by the article. If your children feel like outsiders, maybe you need to introduce them to the savior of the world."

[KyleEl]

One of my Facebook friends can't seem to attack Obama enough (her husband went to high school with me).

On the other hand, I got unfriended by another one (someone I went to high school with) for saying something anti-Obama. But it was my own fault for not knowing in advance whether he would accept opposing views, as another of our Facebook friends did (someone we went to high school with).

[AntiArbitrator]

Kyle, I understand and it is unfortunate your friend was upset.

I know people on both sides in our Presidential Debate thread were offended by opposing comments.

[Aeryn]

I've just discovered autopsy photos of Peter Steele, a guy I REALLY wanted to...get close to.

Wow, even in death there was a part of him that was HUGE. So, when I'm bored I stare at the autopsy pictures. And I play snake charmer music.

[SoCal]

LOVE this video:

[AntiArbitrator]

Thanks SoCal. So, presumably, the narrator is still alive?

[SoCal]

I hope so. He's imaginative!

[VelvetEars]

A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots

by Jeff Foxworthy:

If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you have to get your parents’ permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If, in the nation’s largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is “cute,” but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class in grade school is perfectly acceptable — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If the government’s plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldn’t be found — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more “safe” according to the government — you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots.

What a country!

How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America!

Amen (thank you Jeff)

[SoCal]

Great post, VE. Should be required reading by all members of this forum.

[SoCal]

“We are,” John Adams wrote to a friend early in June 1776, “in the very midst of a Revolution, the most compleat, unexpected, and remarkable of any in the History of Nations.”

Adams was right, but it took prescience to discern it at that moment. In the aftermath of the costly British victory at Bunker Hill the year before — a few more victories like that, one former officer observed, and British army will be annihilated — George Washington had driven the Brits from Massachusetts, but they were on their way back with the largest armada ever sent across the Atlantic till that time.


Asked later who was primarily responsible for pushing the American colonists to embrace independence, Adams liked to cite King George III. His implacable demands made reconciliation impossible. And now Lord Germain, the king’s minister for the America colonies, meant to crush the rebellion once and for all by a massive military blow that would destroy the fledging American army and bring the rebellious Americans to heel.

You can see the logic. The Howe brothers, General William and Admiral Richard, commanded overwhelming military force. The Continental Army, such as it was, presented a sorry face to the world — “half starved,” as Washington later recalled, “always in Rags, without pay.” Yet the Howes, notwithstanding their mandate from Whitehall, tried desperately to avoid carnage. They pleaded with colonial — from the beginning of July and the official declaration of independence, they were national — leaders to reconsider. In August, after the rout of American forces from Gowanus Heights, Long Island, Howe forbore to pursue the Continental Army. That show of force, and of magnanimity, should have been sufficient. Surely, the Americans could see that resistance was futile.

Early in September, Howe convened a parlay. Benjamin Franklin and Adams (both of whom, should the British have been victorious, would surely have been hanged) led the American contingent. A friend of Franklin’s in earlier days, Howe expressed his affection for his American cousins, adding that “if America should fall, he should feel and lament it like the loss of a brother.” Franklin, Adams recalled years later, bowed, smiled, and replied: “My Lord, we will do our utmost to save your Lordship that mortification.”

It is easy to forget now, but the summer of 1776 was a deeply inauspicious time for the American revolution. Washington’s decision to stay and attempt to hold New York was a costly, near fatal, blunder. At any point until November, when the Continental Army managed to slip away to New Jersey, the Howes, commanding absolute naval superiority as well as a vastly superior and more numerous army, could have “corked the bottle” that was Manhattan and trapped them.

An interesting question — it is a leitmotif of Joseph Ellis’s marvelous new book Revolutionary Summer: The Birth of American Independence — is whether, had the American army been destroyed early on, the rebellion would have guttered and died. The Howes never put it to the test. As Ellis shows, able military men though they were, they aspired to be diplomatists more than conquerors. They wished to return to England not as military heroes so much as such successful statesmen, having brokered a peace and reconciliation more than having won a war.

It was not to be, partly because of the conviction, shared by Franklin and Adams, that American independence was not hostage to the Continental Army. “If the Enemy is beaten,” Franklin observed, “it will probably be decisive for them; . . . But our growing Country can bear considerable Losses, and recover them, so that a Defeat on our part will not by any means occasion our giving up the Cause.”

The Treaty of Paris in 1783 formally acknowledged the American triumph at the siege of Yorktown in 1781. In the years that followed, there was much soul-searching in London to explain what happened. One current of thought, pushed by Germain and others, assumed that, had the Howes acted more aggressively in 1776 they would not only have destroyed the Continental Army — almost everyone agrees that they would have done so — but also that they would thereby have crushed the rebellion and ended the war. Ellis acknowledges that we can never know for sure what would have happened. But his book eloquently argues that “the balance of historical scholarship over the last forty years has made that a highly problematic assumption.” To win the war, Britain would not only need to destroy the American Army, it would also have to subjugate the American people as a whole. And that, as Franklin saw, was a task that not even all Europe could accomplish.

It’s a heartening but also a sobering thought. On this July 4, 2013, nearly a quarter of a millennium after the exploits Ellis recounts, it is worth recollecting and celebrating the spirit that, even more than Washington’s armies, made American independence possible. It is also, in this era of bloated governmental intrusiveness upon the rights and liberties of citizens, worth pondering what future that spirit is likely to enjoy. “Well, Doctor, what have we got — a Republic or a Monarchy?” someone asked Frnalin as he left the Constitutional Convention in 1787. “A Republic,” replied Franklin, “If you can keep it.” Can we? I wish I felt more certain about the answer than I do.

[SoCal]

Christ....just one more example of how California is being destroyed bit by bit...

The Los Angeles Times reports that Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will resign today.

Janet Napolitano, the U.S. secretary of Homeland Security and former governor of Arizona, is being named as the next president of the University of California system, in an unusual choice that brings a national-level politician to a position usually held by an academic, the Times has learned. Her appointment also means the 10-campus system will be headed by a woman for the first time in its 145-year history.


Napolitano’s nomination by a committee of UC regents came after a secretive process that insiders said focused on her early as a high-profile, although untraditional, candidate who has led large public agencies and shown a strong interest in improving education.

UC officials believe that her Cabinet experiences –- which include helping to lead responses to hurricanes and tornadoes and overseeing some anti-terrorism measures — will help UC administer its federal energy and nuclear weapons labs and aid its federally funded research in medicine and other areas.

Another back-room deal to grant an incompetent official a golden parachute…?

Napolitano’s tenure at Homeland Security has been marred by scandal and dishonesty. Napolitano infamously declared that the porous U.S.-Mexico border is “as secure as it has ever been,” using bogus statistics to make her case. Democrats and Republicans alike have called for her resignation for years, over issues ranging from border security to terrorism. In 2009, her DHS released a report that depicted conservative political activists and war veterans as potential terrorist threats. In September 2012, a pair of Napolitano’s hand-picked executives at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement bureau resigned amid a sex scandal. Napolitano infamously laughed at Texas Gov. Rick Perry when he requested more help to secure the Texas-Mexico border, and downgraded Islamist terrorism as “man-caused disasters.”

[skylander]

It sounds as if the University wants someone with shady government connections

or

someone who is willing to lie about big issues.

[SoCal]

What the hell does a government hack know about running a university system?

[AntiArbitrator]

SoCal, I have been thinking about the University and that is definately a strange choice. It might take a couple of years, but we will eventually learn what they are up to.

[SoCal]

AA, I hate to imagine what Calfornia will be like in a couple more years. It used to be a nice, laid-back, easy going state. Now it's filled with illegals who want the taxpayers support them and judges who want criminals let out of our jails because "they are too crowded." Fine....release them...into the judges neighborhoods.

Any houses for sale in Montana or Wyoming?

[AntiArbitrator]

I am laughing because my image of Montana and Wyoming are based on the westerns of the 1950s and 1960s. I guess those states have changed a little since then.

I saw a portion of a documentary recently that showed the inside of a California prison. My mental image of prisons was based on the movies and that prison looked nothing like the movies.

I am not a hypocrite - I agree with you that the the prisoners should be housed in the judges' and some of the budget decision makers' neighborhoods.

[VelvetEars]

A young woman went to her grandmother and told her about her life and how things were so hard for her. She did not know how she was going to make it and wanted to give up. She was tired of fighting and struggling. It seemed that as one problem was solved, a new one arose.

Her grandmother took her to the kitchen. She filled three pots with water and placed each on a high fire. Soon the pots came to a boil. In the first, she placed carrots, in the second she placed eggs, and the last she placed ground coffee beans. She let them sit and boil, without saying a word.

In about twenty minutes she turned off the burners. She fished the carrots out and placed them in a bowl. She then pulled the eggs out and placed them in a bowl. Then she ladled the coffee out and placed it in a bowl.

Turning to her granddaughter, she asked, "Tell me, what do you see?"

"Carrots, eggs, and coffee," she replied.

She brought her closer and asked her to feel the carrots. She did and noted that they were soft. She then asked her to take an egg and break it. After pulling off the shell, she observed the hard-boiled egg. Finally, she asked her to sip the coffee. The daughter smiled as she tasted its rich aroma.

The granddaughter then asked, "What does it mean, Grandmother?"

Her grandmother explained that each of these objects had faced the same adversity -- boiling water -- but each reacted differently. The carrot went in strong, hard and unrelenting. However, after being subjected to the boiling water, it softened and became weak. The egg had been fragile. Its thin outer shell had protected its liquid interior. But, after sitting through the boiling water, its inside became hardened. The ground coffee beans were unique, however. After they were in the boiling water, they had changed the water.

"Which are you?" she asked her granddaughter. "When adversity knocks on your door, how do you respond? Are you a carrot, an egg, or a coffee bean?"

Think of this: Which am I? Am I the carrot that seems strong, but with pain and adversity? Do I wilt and become soft and lose my strength?

Am I the egg that starts with a malleable heart, but changes with the heat? Did I have a fluid spirit, but after a death, a breakup, a financial hardship or some other trial, have I become hardened and stiff? Does my shell look the same, but on the inside am I bitter and tough with a stiff spirit and a hardened heart?

Or am I like the coffee bean? The bean actually changes the hot water, the very circumstance that brings the pain. When the water gets hot, it releases the fragrance and flavor of your life. If you are like the bean, when things are at their worst, you get better and change the situation around you. When the hours are the darkest and trials are their greatest, do you elevate to another level?

How do you handle adversity? Are you changed by your surroundings or do you bring life, flavor, to them?

ARE YOU A CARROT, AN EGG, OR A COFFEE BEAN?

[SoCal]

Why do democrats (who hypocriticly tout their support for equitable treatment of women) seem to get away with the raunchiest of behavior toward them. I guess it's because wives aren't as important as single women.

Daily News: 'No. No. No. Weiner Must Go'


On Wednesday, the New York Daily News editorial board called for embattled Democratic mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner to drop out of the race for mayor of New York City, even though his name is already "locked onto" the Sep. 10 primary ballot.
Weiner admitted Tuesday that he had continued sending lewd messages and images to women he met on the Internet, even after resigning from Congress in disgrace in June 2011.

"He is not fit to lead America's premier city," the Daily News editorial said. "Lacking the dignity and discipline that New York deserves in a mayor, Weiner must recognize that his demons have no place in City Hall."

The editorial listed several lies that Weiner had told the public over the course of the scandal: that he had stopped sexting, that he had achieved "maturity and self-control," and that he had been "the best dad and husband he can be." The last lie, the Daily News noted, had come in 2012 from Weiner's wife, Huma Abedin, who remained resolutely at his side at his press conference Tuesday, voicing her continued support.

The Daily News accused Weiner of exploiting Abedin, and of "shamelessly holding the mother of his child out as the ultimate endorsement of his trustworthiness." It added that the two might have formed "a partnership of ambition."

It concluded: "He cannot be mayor."

[PattiOFurniture]

“Westboro praises God for his righteous judgments. Hell won’t be gleeful for Cory Monteith.”

Exactly how would they know how Cory Monteith was judged?