I know that this is not what you want to see, but think about it. Why doesn't Hillary, Obama, Guilani, Romney and the rest of the candidates take some of the campaign donations and set up foundations for the type of "bills" that they want to get passed? From what is being quoted on TV as to their campaign donations, they could save Social Security and pay for all the illegals in the country to become legal citizens, legally. They keep talking about what they will do if they get in office, but none of it really affects the average American citizen. Hillary talks about repealing the tax cuts given by Bush, but then spends more money on her campaign. They are all trying to buy their way to the White House.

OK, I need to make my remakrs about this article. It is one thing to support gay marriage, but I do not think that should be brought into the school system for 2nd graders. I think that it should be something the parents talk to their kids about. It is one thing to teach sex eduation, but this is going overboard. Some will argue that not having such a book would be lack of Freedom of Speech. That is taking that WAY to far. I am not surprsied that these two democrats said these things. Hillary is not even opening the door on this, because she knows it is not something that should be done. Yet, she is not taking a stand against it either. I would say I was shocked at this article, but the way we are headed in this country, nothing shocks me anymore. Will I am not a big fan of BUSH, and I think that he has let power go to his head, at least he does not support this kind of thing, altough if he were up for reelection, it would be hard to say. They will do anything to get in!

See article below!

 

"King and King" is a children's book in which a prince searches for a wife, only to pick another prince. Democratic presidential candidates John Edwards and Barack Obama said Sept. 26 they have no problem with the book being read to second graders HANOVER, N.H. (BP)--Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and John Edwards said Sept. 26 they would be comfortable with teachers reading to second graders a children's book supportive of "gay marriage."

The leading Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, was less clear in her answer.

"Yes, absolutely," Edwards said during a debate when asked if he'd be comfortable with the homosexual-themed children's book, "King & King" being read to his children. The 29-page book tells the story of a prince who searches for a wife, only in the end to choose another prince. It ends with the two princes "marrying" and living "happily ever after," and then kissing.

"What I want is I want my children to understand everything about the difficulties that gay and lesbian couples are faced with every day, the discrimination that they're faced with every single day of their lives," Edwards said.

Edwards added it "might be a little tough" to read such a book to second graders, although he said it's important even in that grade "to be exposed" to various beliefs.

"I don't want to impose my view," he said. "Nobody made me God."

The question at the debate at Dartmouth College in New Hampshire centered around a controversy last year in a second grade class in Lexington, Mass., where a teacher read the book to her students. The superintendent backed the decision, saying "gay marriage" is legal in the state.

"I feel very similar to John," Obama said. "... [T]he fact is, my 9-year-old and my 6-year-old, I think, are already aware that there are same-sex couples. And my wife and I have talked about it. And one of the things I want to communicate to my children is not to be afraid of people who are different, and because there have been times in our history where I was considered different, or Bill Richardson [a Democratic candidate who is Hispanic] was considered different."

Clinton, leading among Democrats in the national polls, was not as direct.

"I really respect what both John and Barack said," she said. "... With respect to your individual children, that is such a matter of parental discretion. I think that obviously it is better to try to work with your children, to help your children to understand the many differences that are in the world and to really respect other people and the choices that other people make, and that goes far beyond sexual orientation."

The "issue of gays and lesbians and their rights will remain an important one in our country," she added.

LAND, DOBSON DISAGREE ABOUT THOMPSON -- Richard Land and James Dobson are friends but apparently disagree about whether Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson could be acceptable to Christian conservative voters.

Dobson, the founder of Focus on the Family, sent out a private e-mail -- obtained by the Associated Press -- saying he could not support Thompson's bid for the White House. A spokesman for Focus on the Family confirmed that Dobson penned the e-mail.

"Isn't Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won't talk at all about what he believes, and can't speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?" Dobson wrote. "He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent 'want to.' And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!"

Land, president of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, said he believes the criticism is unfair. Part of Dobson's criticism apparently focused on recent comments where Thompson said his church attendance "varies" and that he attends church when in Tennessee but not in Virginia, where he currently lives.

"I have tremendous respect and admiration for Dr. Dobson and what he has done for our country," Land said Sept. 25 in an interview with MSNBC's Tucker Carlson. "But I found it to be, I guess, unfortunate, considering the fact that he's never met the senator. I do have Dobson at a disadvantage there, in that Senator Thompson was my senator for eight years, since I live in Tennessee.

"... The thing that concerned me the most was that he seemed to equate Thompson not going to church regularly with Thompson's belief and Thompson's claim to be a Christian. ... [A]s a Baptist minister, would I like Thompson to go to church every Sunday? I would like for him to go to a Baptist church every Sunday. But Ronald Reagan didn't go to church regularly either. I think we have to be careful about challenging the faith of people who don't meet our standards for church attendance. I think that's just unnecessarily harsh."

Land applauded Thompson's pro-life views, noting that Thompson has said he favors overturning Roe v. Wade.

"Here's a man who has said [and] I have heard him say it with my own ears, 'I have always been pro-life, but it's personal with me now. I have seen the sonograms of my two young children.' I have no questions about where his loyalties are when it comes to the pro-life issue," Land said.

Land acknowledged he disagrees with Thompson about a constitutional marriage amendment. Thompson opposes the current form of a federal marriage amendment -- he has said it would violate his federalism beliefs -- although he has said he would support one that in essence would constitutionalize the Defense of Marriage Act. Thompson's proposal would prevent judges from legalizing "gay marriage" and would keep it a state issue. It also would prevent one state from being forced to recognize another state's "gay marriage." State legislatures, though, would be able to pass such a law.

"To say that he is for 50 different views of marriage in 50 different states is a gross mischaracterization of his position," Land told CBN News. "... It's [Thompson's position on a marriage amendment] a problem. I think Southern Baptists have an ethical issue in which they need to deal. They may face a situation where they have a choice of three candidates. One they agree with 95 percent of the time, one they agree with 80 percent of the time and one they agree with 10 percent of the time. It may come to pass that they're faced with a choice."

DEMOCRATS' FAVORITE VERSE? -- The Democratic presidential candidates were asked during a New Hampshire debate Sept. 26 to name their favorite Bible verse. Although none of the candidates gave a specific chapter and verse, the leading candidates did reference specific New Testament passages. At least one of them, Dennis Kucinich, didn't mention a biblical passage at all. Here were their answers, according to a transcript from The New York Times:

-- Barack Obama: "The Sermon on the Mount, because it expresses a basic principle that I think we've lost over the last six years."

-- Hillary Clinton: "The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. I think that's a good rule for politics, too."

-- Mike Gravel: "The most important thing in life is love. That's what empowers courage and courage implements the rest of our virtues."

-- Dennis Kucinich: "Prayer from St. Francis, which says, 'Lord make me an instrument of your peace.'"

-- John Edwards: "What you do unto the least of those, you do unto me."

-- Bill Richardson: "The Sermon on the Mount, because I believe it's an issue of social justice, equality, brotherly issues reflecting a nation that is deeply torn and needs to heal and come together."

-- Christopher J. Dodd: "The Good Samaritan would be a worthwhile sort of description of who we all ought to be in life."

-- Joseph Biden: "Christ's warning of the Pharisees. There are many Pharisees, and it's part of what has bankrupted some people's view about religion. And I worry about the Pharisees."
--30--
Michael Foust is assistant editor of Baptist Press.

© Copyright 2007 Baptist Press

I know there is another post with a similar topic, but my point differs greatly.

To kick things off - I always vote.  Therefore, I have a say.

I'm trying to figure out how people have confused a ballot measure - voted by the people - with the government telling gays they can't get married.  In the state of Missouri, there was an amendment proposal defining marriage as a union between a man and woman only.  This was voted on by the people of Missouri, and overwhelmingly (about 75% if memory serves) the PEOPLE of the state of Missouri felt that marriage needed to be defined in said manner.  Apparently, several other states' PEOPLE felt the same way when they VOTED to have marriage defined as one man and one woman.

If you VOTED on the subject and you disagree with the outcome, then, by all means, voice your opposition.  If you VOTED and agree, then, by all means, make your stance.

However, if you did NOT vote, shut your pie hole.  The government brought the measure to the table and the PEOPLE spoke.  Also, especially if you DID vote,  it should be understood that the government is simply upholding the vote of the people at this point.  I suppose those that blame the government would like to OVERTURN what the MAJORITY has voiced?

 Remember, we are a nation for the people and by the people.  If you don't like that, there is an entire globe to find your place.

I went to the Plaza last night ..first time in quite awhile...for a birthday dinner for my nephew...and was shocked...by All The Panhandlers...on every street corner...and some even in the middle of the block....I thought Kansas City Passed a Law...to make it illegal to panhandle especially in the Plaza area...This is the Crowning Jewel...of KC...Many tourist when they come to KC wants to go to the Plaza...It is know world wide...and yet we have this group...who does not want to work...but would rather...stand/ sit/ hold signs..and beg others for a buck....If we have no law it is time our city council...look very seriously at this issue...Tourism brings alot of $$$$ to KC....and helps our economy...should any going into the Plaza or even Downtown KC...be subject to these low life individuals? I Say NO!!!!!!!!!

Newt Gingrich, one of the most partisan Republicans in the nation, says there's an 80 percent chance the Democrats will win the White House in 2008. Gingrich believes the country feels let down by the Bush administration over Iraq, Katrina, illegal immigration and enormous federal spending. The former speaker of the House says the folks want change and that could very well mean Hillary in the White House.

For me, it is hard to imagine Sen. Clinton as president because, according to the polls, almost half of registered voters say they would never vote for her even if she ran against someone like Michael Moore. Her poll negatives are huge and, seemingly, intractable. But people do sit out elections, and if the Republicans don't put forth a dynamic candidate, Hillary could very well win by rallying her base while the opposition sulks.

Certainly, even far-left Democrats, who generally dislike Mrs. Clinton, would pull the lever in her direction the next time around. To elect another Republican would be unthinkable.

Republicans, however, are not so united. Many on the right are caught up in selective issues like abortion and gay marriage. If a candidate doesn't see things their way, they won't support that candidate, even if it's Hillary staring at them from across the divide.

There are two wild cards right now. If Iraq improves, the Democrats lose momentum on their big issue. So some Democrats are actually rooting against their own country in Iraq. That is dangerous territory, as the MoveOn.org blunder over Gen. Petraeus demonstrated.

Also, the far left is totally out of control in this country, and a smart Republican candidate will tie those loons around the necks of Hillary or Barack Obama. Few Americans want to see Rosie O'Donnell and George Soros spending the night in the Lincoln bedroom. Separately, of course.

What the Democrats do have going for them is the general feeling that Republicans are out of touch and hypocritical. Believe me, Sen. Larry Craig will find his way into some campaign ads, and it won't be pretty. But I think the presidential race will be much closer than many think. Sen. Clinton has a penchant for not answering direct questions and avoiding the non-partisan media. Twice she was asked if the MoveOn-Petraeus ad was appropriate. Twice she dodged the issue. I believe many voters will find her evasiveness off-putting.

In the end, unforeseen circumstances will dictate the election, and it will most likely come down to Florida and Ohio again. The Democrats have a powerful coalition of motivated black, Hispanic and white liberal voters. The Republicans must turn out all their crew, as well as convince 60 percent of independent voters that Hillary will turn the country into a socialistic nightmare. That is a very tough task.

So Speaker Gingrich is correct in listing the Democrats as the favorites in this crucial upcoming election. But, for the moment, the smart money is holding out. Stuff can and will happen. Hillary shouldn't be buying that inaugural gown just yet.

Veteran TV news anchor Bill O'Reilly is host of the Fox News show "The O'Reilly Factor" and author of the book "Culture Warrior." To find out more about Bill O'Reilly, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Webpage at www.creators.com. This column originates on the Website www.billoreilly.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 BillOReilly.com.

DISTRIBUTED BY CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Hillary Clinton has spent years trying to erase the memory of her failed attempt to bring socialized medicine to the United States, but this week the ghost of Hillary Care was lurking in the wings again as she unveiled her new plan to overhaul the nation's health system. Touted as an "American Health Choices Plan," Sen. Clinton's proposal is short on choice but full of government mandates, including a new directive that every American purchase health insurance.

Like her Democratic rivals — and even some Republicans running for president — Clinton makes it sound as if we are facing a health care crisis, one that only government can solve. But what exactly is the problem?

Advocates of universal health coverage like to trot out the statistic that about 46 million Americans lack health care coverage, a number based on Census data from 2005. But the figure is misleading.

Most people, upon hearing that so many Americans lack health insurance, automatically assume it is because they can't afford it, but the Census study tells a different story. More than 17 million of those counted as uninsured earn more than $50,000 a year, including almost 9 million who make over $75,000 a year. Some of these people are, no doubt, self-employed, healthy and young, which is why they choose not to buy health insurance for themselves. Since there are few options out there for catastrophic coverage — the kind that will take care of your bills if you're injured in a car crash or suddenly get cancer — many of these Americans opt not to spend the money on expensive comprehensive health insurance, just as many people choose not to buy life insurance. Does it make sense to force them to do so?

What's more, nearly half of the 46 million uninsured remain so for only a brief time, on average four months. Many of these persons are between jobs and choose not to pay the premiums for continued coverage available to most persons covered by an employer-provided health plan if they lose or quit their jobs.

Finally, of the remaining uninsured, about 10 million are non-citizens, including an unknown number of illegal aliens.

So, when the numbers are dissected, the health care "crisis" comes down to, according to some estimates, fewer than 10 million Americans who lack long-term access to health care coverage. Yet to deal with this problem, Hillary Clinton wants to dramatically change the way the rest of us receive our health care.

Clinton's plan would force insurers to offer coverage at the same rates to everyone: smokers would pay no more than non-smokers; drug addicts and alcoholics would receive the same rates as the abstemious; obese people would pay the same as the physically fit — even though all of these behaviors affect health and can be avoided. The consequence would be higher rates for those who choose to behave responsibly.

Moreover, to pay for the estimated $110 billion cost of the new Hillary Care, Clinton would raise taxes. First, she'd wipe out most of the Bush tax cuts, and then she'd tax employer-provided health care plans themselves for those she deems "rich."

Clinton likened her plan of forcing all individuals to purchase health insurance (and requiring the government to pay for those who ostensibly can't afford it) to some states' requirement that drivers maintain insurance in case they injure someone in an accident. But the comparison couldn't be farther off the mark. Car and property insurance don't cover routine maintenance, and premiums are tied to actual risk. You don't submit claims to your car insurer for tune-ups or brake repairs or to your home insurer for painting your house or putting on a new roof. And your premiums depend on whether you are a good driver and how much your house is worth.

But most people expect their health insurance to pay at least a portion of the cost of visits to the doctor for routine care when they get the flu or need vaccinations for the kids, and they don't want to pay more if they choose unhealthy lifestyles.

We do need a new system — one that rewards individual efforts to stay healthy and provides incentives to get regular, prophylactic care. But Hillary's plan doesn't come close to doing that and will only result in higher taxes and rationed health care.

Linda Chavez is the author of "An Unlikely Conservative: The Transformation of an Ex-Liberal." To find out more about Linda Chavez, visit the Creators Syndicate web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2007 CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

it is unconstitutional to not allow it.
seperation of church and state. its in the constitution hello!
morality shouldnt have any say in the matter, and who cares anyway? who is to say that a gay couple dont love each other that a strait couple do? love is the same through and through. remember when it was taboo for interracial love? i think in some places it still is. they allow gay couples to adopt children, so why not let them get married.

ok so this country was essentially built on theivery, lies, murder, and god. but we are supposed to go along believing that it was ok to do that, but after the country and government was established people who came here, willfully, had to go through a bureaucratic process and a health screening, atleast in the 1900's. so why is everyone crying about imigration reform? get the illegals out of here! most of them come here looking for the american dream, but mostly turning to a life of crime and other various negative stereo-types. morality should have no say when it comes to getting the people out of here that are here illegally and truely illegally. ever hear of the constitution and the amendment that talks about seperation of church and state? illegal immigrants shouldnt be entitled to the same right that citizens have because hello THEY ARENT CITIZENS OF THIS COUNTRY!!! when an american citizen breaks laws in foreign countries they have no rights and are expected to know that what they were doing is wrong.
yes, if it werent for imigrants most of us wouldnt be here, but the people who immigrated here from europe came here legally. and as for the african americans who have ancestors who were forced here, im sorry that it happened to them but my family came here from a life of persecution and poverty during the first world war. but arent you happy youre here and not there fighting lions and what ever else out there?
most of the poeple who come here illegally dont even want to become citizens, just live here and be. they arent willing to learn to speak english, which is the national language of the country, decided way back when the country was formed. 1 vote decided for english over german.

i think that the kids who go to the "kansas city" schools that are in the independence city limits probably do get a lesser quality of education. i know someone who actually graduated from van horn high school, and he turned out just fine. now, i think that the kids that go to those schools are less interested in education.
has anyone ever looked at the neighboorhoods surrounding those schools?mostly  poor. very poor. thus if the independence schools did acquire the kansas city schools, independence is going to have to do alot to change the schools and the attitude of the children going to those schools. im sure that test scores would plummit indefinetly. i say kansas city can keep their stupid kids. the independence school district already gets enough flack, because its "independence". but what about the schools that are "blue springs" district that are in the independence city limits? why arent people crying about those schools? blue springs kids are the worst, they have the money to go out and get the drugs and alcohol they want because mommy and daddy give them the allowance and turn a blind eye to what their kids are actually doing despite what their kids tell them.
now i do think its unfair that kids living in "inter-city" areas get the short end of the stick when it comes to education, and thats probably where most of the sterotypes start. but if the parents that are causing all this fuss about their kids and the education they get, why not just move to a better area?

has anyone ever thought to go after barnes and noble in leawood? they have very graphic books and magazines of people having sex that are very accessable to everyone who goes into that store.  in the store that i work at the sex books are right next to the childrens book section! and i know that there are many negligent parents out there and dont watch their kids as closely as they should, and if their child were to wonder off and pick up one of those books and bring it back to the parent, they would be upset that there were such things in the store. not that they werent watching their child like they should have been. do people really need a book showing how to have sex? i really dont think so. many people have made it thus far. i think that the only people who need books on how to procreate are the ones who arent getting any. now im sure that if the crusaders were to go after barnes and noble im sure they would put out some sort of press realease saying that they dont censor and mention freedom of speech or something. i do think that freedom of speech is stretched a little far these days.
in short why arent they going after the corporate big people and not just the little guy?

How many of you remember Mary Jo Kopechne and the incident at the Edgartown, Massachuetts Bridge on July 17, 1969?

I've been watching "The War" on PBS, the documentary by Ken Burns about WWII.  It's fascinating, on multiple levels, but I've found myself thinking about one particular aspect of the war - the overwhelming united support of the war effort at home.  I, of course, had heard of victory gardens and how my mom and her friends used to draw black lines on the back of their legs to mimic the look of the seamed nylon stockings that were no longer available.  But saving bacon fat?  Turns out it can be converted into glycerin, which can be made into explosives.  Wow.  That would explain why my mom still has a tin can of bacon grease in her frig (not, however, circa WWII).  And why she systematically saves EVERYTHING - butter wrappers, tinfoil, rubber bands, plastic containers - the list is endless. 

As I marvel at the collective effort the folks at home made to support their boys overseas during the 40's, I can't help but wonder when the shift began.   The shift from complete private citizen involvement to "I gave at the office."  Why don't we save bacon grease?  Ok, that's really not the issue.  But putting our time, talents and resources into supporting the war effort has declined dramatically, maybe beginning with the Korean War?  I don't know.  I know there are currently hundreds of agencies dedicated to addressing the needs of our servicemen, but it seems like the general public has kind of been let off the hook.  It might be because so few of us are directly affected by the war.  Not every family has someone in harm's way.  We aren't being asked to sacrifice very much, except maybe at the gas pump, but it hasn't stopped us from buying SUV's and other gas guzzling vehicles.  Maybe if we were asked to sacrifice more there would be more motivation to bring our sons and daughters, moms and dads, aunts and uncles back home NOW.  But, in that same breath, I have to ask myself if I'd want to make the sacrifice of sending my 19-year old son to Iraq.  I could barely send him off to college two months ago.

My heart aches thinking about the magnitude of the losses the world has experienced, not only during WWII, but in all wars.  There's no easy solution.  If the solution was easy, we might not be fighting in the first place.

DENVER - Source (AP News)

James Dobson, one of the nation’s most politically influential evangelical Christians, made it clear in a message to friends this week he will not support Republican presidential hopeful Fred Thompson.

In a private e-mail obtained Wednesday by The Associated Press, Dobson accuses the former Tennessee senator and actor of being weak on the campaign trail and wrong on issues dear to social conservatives.

“Isn’t Thompson the candidate who is opposed to a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, believes there should be 50 different definitions of marriage in the U.S., favors McCain-Feingold, won’t talk at all about what he believes, and can’t speak his way out of a paper bag on the campaign trail?” Dobson wrote.

“He has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent ’want to.’ And yet he is apparently the Great Hope that burns in the breasts of many conservative Christians? Well, not for me, my brothers. Not for me!”

The founder and chairman of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, Dobson draws a radio audience in the millions, many of whom first came to trust the child psychologist for his conservative Christian advice on child-rearing.

Gary Schneeberger, a Focus on the Family spokesman, confirmed that Dobson wrote the e-mail. Schneeberger declined to comment further, saying it would be inappropriate because Dobson’s comments about presidential candidates are made as an individual and not as a representative of Focus on the Family, a nonprofit organization restricted from partisan politics.

Dobson’s strong words about Thompson underscore the frustration and lack of unity among Christian conservatives about the GOP field. Some Christian right leaders have pinned their hopes on Thompson, describing him as a Southern-fried Ronald Reagan. But others have voiced doubts in recent weeks about some of the same issues Dobson highlighted: his position on gay marriage and support for the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform legislation.

Dobson and other Christian conservatives support an amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would bar gay marriage nationally.

Thompson has said he would support a constitutional amendment that would prohibit states from imposing their gay marriage laws on other states, which falls well short of that.

Karen Hanretty, a spokeswoman for the Thompson campaign, said Wednesday in response to the Dobson e-mail: “Fred Thompson has a 100 percent pro-life voting record. He believes strongly in returning authority to the levels of government closest to families and communities, protecting states from intrusion by the federal government and activist judges.

“We’re confident as voters get to know Fred, they’ll appreciate his conservative principles, and he is the one conservative in this race who can win the nomination and can go on to defeat the Democratic nominee.”

In his e-mail addressed “Dear friends,” Dobson includes the text of a recent news story highlighting Thompson’s statement that while he was baptized in the Church of Christ, he does not attend church regularly and won’t speak about his faith on the stump.

U.S. News and World Report quoted Dobson earlier this year as questioning Thompson’s commitment to the Christian faith — comments Dobson contended were not put in proper context.

Dobson in this week’s e-mail writes that suppositions “about the former senator’s never having professed to be a Christian are turning out to be accurate in substance.”

Earlier this year, Dobson said he wouldn’t back John McCain because of the Arizona senator’s opposition to a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.

Later, Dobson wrote on a conservative news Web site that he wouldn’t support former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani should he win the Republican nomination. Dobson called Giuliani an “unapologetic supporter of abortion on demand” and criticized him for signing a bill in 1997 creating domestic-partnership benefits in New York City.

Last week, Dobson announced on his radio show that the IRS had cleared him of accusations that he had endangered his organization’s nonprofit status by endorsing Republican candidates in 2004. The IRS said Dobson, who endorsed President Bush’s re-election bid, was acting as an individual and not on behalf of the nonprofit group.

It goes to prove that BUSH does not care about anything but the war at this point because look where we are headed. My prediction is that we will soon be into yet another recesion despite what the experts say. Look at states like Michigan where unemployment is at the highest in the country. The housing market there is the worst, and some towns are really going down. So what does our government do? NOTHING!

Consumer confidence drops in September

By ANNE DINNOCENZIO, AP Business Writer2 hours, 23 minutes ago

Worries about jobs and the economy flared in September, driving a key barometer of consumer sentiment to its lowest level in nearly two years, a private research group said Tuesday.

The bad news was compounded by a report from the National Association of Realtors that sales of existing homes declined for a sixth straight month in August, pushing activity to the lowest point in five years.

The pair of reports rattled Wall Street further as investors got more evidence of a souring economy. In the first hour of trading, the Dow Jones industrial average fell 19.43 or 0.14 percent, to 13,739.63.

The New York-based Conference Board said its Consumer Confidence Index fell to 99.8, an almost 6-point drop from the revised 105.6 in August. The reading was below the 104.5 that analysts had expected.

It marked its lowest level since a 98.3 reading in November 2005, when gas and oil prices soared after hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast.

"Weaker business conditions combined with a less favorable job market continue to cast a cloud over consumers and heighten their sense of uncertainty and concern," said Lynn Franco, director of The Conference Board Consumer Research Center, in a statement. "Looking ahead, little economic improvement is expected, and with the holiday season around the corner, this is not welcome news."

The Present Situation Index, which measures how shoppers feel now about the economy, declined to 121.7 from 130.1 in August. The Expectations Index, which measures shoppers' outlook over the next six months, declined to 85.2 from 89.2.

Economists closely monitor confidence since consumer spending accounts for two-thirds of U.S. economic activity.

The National Association of Realtors reported Tuesday that sales of existing single-family homes dropped by 4.3 percent in August, compared to July. Sales at a seasonally adjusted annual rate dropped to 5.5 million units, the slowest pace since August 2002.

Meanwhile, a S&P/Case-Shiller report, also released Tuesday, showed that the decline in U.S. home prices accelerated nationwide in July, posting the steepest drop in 16 years. The index of 10 U.S. cities fell 4.5 percent in July from a year ago. That was the biggest drop since July 1991.

Tuesday's reports showing eroding consumer confidence and a further weakening of housing do not bode well for retailers, who are already bracing for a challenging holiday season. Merchants have seen spending slow all year amid falling home prices and higher gas and food bills. The financial turmoil in August and escalating problems in the credit market have made economists and retailers more nervous about the prospects for a decent holiday shopping season.

Two of the nation's leading retailers — discounter Target Corp. and home improvement merchant Lowe's Cos. — both tempered their sales forecasts on Monday.

While The Federal Reserve's decision last week to cut its interest rate by half a point was meant to soften the impact of the housing woes on the overall economy, economists say it won't do much to help spending this holiday.

A big issue is the job market, which saw its first drop in job creation in four years in August. Economists expect the job market to add 100,000 jobs in September when the Labor department reports its data on Oct. 5. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate is expected to inch up to 4.7 percent from 4.6 percent in July.

God, Politics, and Politicians Albert Mohler

Written and posted on September 13, 2007

How are we to think about the religious commitments of political candidates? Are their actual beliefs off-limits in terms of public policy?

That is the conventional wisdom among many in the media and the political class. As these opinion-shapers see it, religion is a privatized affair with no obvious policy impact. In other words, we should not expect that a politician's religious commitments will actually mean anything when it comes to their policies and their conduct in office.

The presidential candidacy of John F. Kennedy raised all of these issues in 1960 and, according to the prevailing political wisdom, we are to see his approach in the campaign as the appropriate model. Kennedy knew that his Catholicism was an issue and the 'Catholic question' was a constant distraction for the campaign. In order to neutralize the issue, Kennedy gave an address to a group of Baptist pastors in Houston and pledged that his Catholicism would not drive his presidential decision-making. Kennedy's narrow win seemed to validate his approach in many eyes.

Similarly, former New York Governor Mario Cuomo presented a major speech at the University of Notre Dame in 1984, making essentially the same argument with regard to the issue of abortion. Cuomo, a Roman Catholic, claimed to be personally opposed to abortion but politically obligated to support a woman's "choice" to abort her unborn child -- something his church teaches is nothing less than murder.

That approach is an insult to both religious conviction and intellectual honesty. One cannot honestly believe that abortion is murder and that an option for murder should be legally protected.

Michael Kinsley obviously agrees. In his commentary published in this week's edition of TIME magazine, Kinsley argues that candidates owe voters a more honest and coherent account of their faith than has yet been forthcoming. Kinsley is a well-known commentator, journalist, and political pundit. His article seems to be prompted by the candidacy of former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, a Mormon, but his point applies to all candidates.

In Kinsley's words:

Mitt Romney wants the J.F.K. deal with voters: If you don't hold my religion against me, I won't impose my religion on you. But that deal made little sense in 1960 and makes no sense today. Kennedy said, "I believe in a President whose religious views are his own private affair." But the Roman Catholic Church holds that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being. Catholic liberal politicians since Mario Cuomo have said they personally accept the doctrine of their church but nevertheless believe in a woman's right to choose. This is silly. There is no right to choose murder. Either these politicians are lying to their church, or they are lying to us.

As Kinsley argues, presidential candidates commonly speak of the importance of their faith and beliefs. In his words, they "are required to wear religion on their sleeves." As Kinsley explains:

God is a personal adviser and inspiration to all of them. They all pray relentlessly. Or so they say. If that's not true, I want to know it. And if it is true, I want to know more about it. I want to know what God is telling them--just as I would want to know what Karl Rove was telling them if they claimed him for an adviser. If religion is central to their lives and moral systems, then it cannot be the candidates' "own private affair." To evaluate them, we need to know in some detail the doctrines of their faith and the extent to which they accept these doctrines. "Worry about whether I'm going to reform health care, not whether I'm going to hell" is not sufficient.

At the very least, Christians should certainly understand that Christian beliefs are never, as Kinsley observes, "our own private affair."  Christianity makes a claim upon every area and dimension of life -- discipleship cannot be relegated to a privatized compartment.

Kinsley is a defender of liberal principles, and it becomes clear that the beliefs he fears are those that might lead to policies restricting personal behaviors.  "Most important, we need to know what forms of conduct a candidate's religion forbids or requires and how the candidate interprets that injunction," he argues.  "Is it a universal moral imperative or just a personal lifestyle choice? Every religion has its list of no-nos."

But Kinsley doesn't stop there.  Consider this fascinating paragraph:

Some church doctrines give offense even though they don't constrain an outsider's behavior in any way. They can imply a more general worldview, and voters have a right to know if a presidential candidate shares that perspective. Until recently, just about all religions had a built-in patriarchal worldview--God the Father, male priests and so on--that many today find offensive. To what extent has the candidate's church moved with the times, and what has the candidate done to push his or her church in the right direction? I say the right direction, but many voters, of course, believe that this kind of modernization is the wrong direction. They also are entitled to know where the candidate stands and to vote on that basis.

With these words, Kinsley launches into dangerous territory.  He is no longer talking about how religious conviction might influence public policy, he is talking about the beliefs that govern the church's internal life. 

It is important that Christians look carefully at Michael Kinsley's argument.  Some United States senators have begun grilling presidential nominees on matters internal to their churches.  Are Orthodox Jews, Roman Catholics, and many conservative evangelicals now to be excluded from public office, just because these three groups limit the rabbinate/priesthood/pastorate to men?

Kinsley is right to argue that the privatized argument of  Kennedy and Cuomo will not stand close scrutiny.  He is also right to call for candidates to share how they struggle with these questions.  He needs to struggle a bit more himself, and think carefully about the distinction between doctrines that relate directly to public policy and those that do not.

© All rights reserved, www.AlbertMohler.com. Used with permission.

 

Find this article at: http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11554034/

Rudy Giuliani answers a call from his wife while
addressing the NRA.

Click play to hear is short n sweet conversation!

Your walking down a deserted street with your wife and two children. Suddenly from around a corner an Islamic terrorist  screams obscenities, praises Allah, raises a knife and charges towards you and your family.

You are carrying a Glock cal 40, and are an expert shot. In a few seconds you decide to?

 

Democrat:

Well; its not enough information to answer the question.

Does the man look poor or depressed?

Have I ever done anything to inspire him to attack?

Could I run away?

What does my wife think?

What does the law say about this situation?

Does the Glock have the appropriate safety built into it?

Why am I carrying a loaded gun anyway, what kinda message am I sending my children?

Why is the street so deserted?

Could we raise taxes, have a paint and weed day and make this a happier, healthier street to discourage such behavior?

Republican:

"BANG"

Red Neck:

"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG" click click reloading , "BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"BANG"

Daughter: Nice grouping daddy! Were those silver tips or hollow points?

Son: you got him! Can I try the next one?

Wife: Your not taking that to the taxidermist!

I'm so sick of the Bush bashing. Listen, "Divided we fall".

When it comes to dealing with countries in the Middle East, the Bush administration knows only two approaches. It either tries to blow them up or bribe them. God forbid that Washington should try to find out what the people in the region actually want -- or what might actually work.

Bush tried the blowing-up approach in Iraq. With the results now in, he has returned to the more traditional approach of bribery. After the bizarre neocon aberration of Iraq, with its highfalutin talk of democratization and its ostentatious hand-wringing over Washington's past support for autocratic regimes, Team Bush has returned to the tried-and-true path: propping up dubious allies with vast arms deals and using them as proxies to fight an evil empire. Belatedly, the Bush administration has embraced a Cold War paradigm in the Middle East, with the good guys -- Egypt, the Gulf states and Saudi Arabia -- being paid off to contain the bad guys -- al-Qaida, Iran, Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah.

The Bush administration's proposed $60 million to $70 billion Mideast arms deal takes us back to the cynical realpolitik of traditional great power politics, with puppet-master America jerking around half-willing strongmen with billion-dollar strings. Washington is offering to sell $20 billion of high-tech weaponry to Saudi Arabia, and also sell arms to the Gulf States of Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman and the United Arab Emirates. To ensure that Israel maintains its military superiority over its neighbors, the U.S. will increase the already vast amount of annual military aid it gives the Jewish state by 30 percent, offering $30 billion over 10 years. And Egypt will also wet its beak, with a $14 billion 10-year arms deal.

By paying off the "moderate" Sunni states to confront hard-line states and militant groups, Bush is hoping to reverse the changes he brought about in Iraq -- the most pernicious, in the eyes of the U.S., being that the war greatly empowered Iran. By demonizing Iran and inciting U.S. allies to take a hard line against it, Bush hopes both to stabilize Iraq and to roll back Iran's and Syria's influence. In a larger sense, he aims to place the entire region back under American strategic control -- just as it was before his Iraq war threw everything into chaos. It's the time-honored American solution for every problem: When in doubt, buy more guns. It worked in the Wild West, why not in the Middle East?

The Bush administration is presenting the arms deal as part of a grand strategy. "This is a big development because it's part of a larger regional strategy and the maintenance of a strong U.S. presence in the region," a senior official told the Washington Post. "We're paying attention to the needs of our allies and what everyone in the region believes is a flexing of muscles by a more aggressive Iran. One way to deal with that is to make our allies and friends strong."

But Bush's last-second swerve into supposedly realistic, high-strategy policies is completely incoherent. It is self-contradictory to try to roll back Iran while simultaneously propping up the Shia regime in Iraq: One action undoes the other. And Washington's larger strategy of trying to create a stable Mideast NATO made up of moderate Sunni states that are fearful of both Iran and militant groups like Hezbollah and Hamas depends on a fair resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis -- which the Bush administration, despite loud lip service of late, is completely incapable of achieving. The Bush administration is too in thrall to its neoconservative, pro-Israel ideology to be an honest broker. As a result, its proposed arms deal will only tighten the lid on the Middle East pressure cooker -- perhaps postponing an explosion for a time, but increasing the danger of a bigger one later. The arms deal will further destabilize Iraq and the region, spark the dragon's teeth of sectarian hatred, alienate the Sunni regimes from their people, stall Arab reform, increase the risk of an arms race with Iran, and further weaken America's standing in the Middle East. It's a move that reeks of desperation and short-sightedness.

America has a long history of such heavy-handed meddling in the region, and it has always in the end backfired. The most glaring example was our support for the dictatorial Shah of Iran, which blew up in our faces when the Ayatollah Khomeini led the 1979 Islamist revolution. Reagan's clumsy attempt to intervene on the Christian-Israeli side in Lebanon in the aftermath of Israel's invasion in 1982 led to the bombing of the Marine barracks and a hasty, humiliating U.S. withdrawal. Our support for Saddam Hussein in his bloody eight-year war against an enemy we feared more, Iran, achieved nothing except adding to a mountain of corpses.

It isn't just meddling that has gone wrong. Sincere efforts to resolve the region's most bitter conflict, the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, have foundered because the U.S. has never been even-handed. Even Jimmy Carter's much-praised Camp David agreement had equivocal consequences. It may have prevented another Arab-Israeli war, but because -- as Carter himself admits -- it failed to resolve the underlying issue, the tragedy of the Palestinians, it left the door open to future conflict. By essentially bribing the Egyptians not to attack Israel, thus removing any leverage that the U.S. had over Cairo, Camp David also contributed to the stagnation and despotism that has plagued the Arab world's most powerful state.

In short, as the British journalist Robert Fisk has eloquently chronicled, our blundering 60-year course through the Middle East has retarded the development of the region, propped up autocratic regimes, helped give rise to al-Qaida, damaged human rights, turned an entire region against us, enabled Israel as it stumbled into a calamitous occupation and severely harmed our long-term global interests.

Now Bush, having briefly tried to change the Middle East through the direct use of American military might -- call it gun-barrel democracy -- is back to "merely" being a heavy-handed puppet master. But this is no cause for celebration, for he hasn't changed his underlying beliefs at all. One of Bush's hands is on the puppet strings, but the other is still on the trigger, and he could easily decide to start another war against Iran. Even if he refrains from that mad act -- which would have consequences that would make Iraq look like Grenada -- his new strategy is a terrible mistake. At best, it will simply lock in place the unhealthy status quo, in which autocratic "moderate" leaders -- now armed with billions of dollars' worth of weaponry -- do the absolute minimum to comply with U.S. demands, while the region's underlying problems fester. At worse, it could lead to a Middle Eastern Cold War with religious-sectarian overtones, a Sunni-Shia confrontation far more volatile than the U.S.-Russia standoff.

So far, congressional and media reaction to the proposed deal has consisted of predictable and superficial Saudi-bashing. (Saudi Arabia is the only country equally despised by left and right alike, by Michael Moore as much as by Fox News.) Some of this is justified; much of it, as Sameer Lalwani argues in the Washington Note, is not. Lalwani points out that Saudi Arabia cooperated with the U.S. on Iraq, has taken strides to combat jihadists, is moving toward economic reform and is acting constructively to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian crisis. But the problems with the arms deal run far deeper than simply the question of the reliability of the Saudis. Until those problems are openly discussed, America's Middle East policy will continue to run in circles, even after George W. Bush is no longer president.

The new "hard-headed" plan, just like the old "idealistic" plan, is almost entirely based on wishful thinking. Just as Bush and his neocon brain trust convinced themselves that Iraqis would put flowers in the barrels of U.S. guns, so they have now convinced themselves that the U.S. can happily ride the tiger of an ever-more-divided and ever-more-heavily-armed Middle East, pulling on the tiger's fur when it veers too far in one direction. This is not just delusional, but dangerous.

It's dangerous because Bush is not simply paying off shaky allies to try to get them to stop making trouble in Iraq (a bargain that has rarely worked, as Rachel Stohl noted in Foreign Policy in Focus) but playing the far more explosive game of divide and conquer. Bush claims to be supporting "moderates" against "extremists," but in fact he is strong-arming Sunni states to line up against Shia Iran and Hezbollah. As Brian Whitaker noted in the Guardian, this gives a free hand to the harsh regimes in Cairo and Riyadh to persecute their Shiite minorities. Worse, it opens the door to a poisonous regional sectarianism, which will only encourage a threatened Tehran to pursue nuclear weapons.

Moreover, the "moderate-extremist" distinction exists only in Bush's mind. By insisting on acting as if it were a reality, and refusing to talk to "extremists" (except in Iraq, where the stakes are too high for such moral niceties, and yesterday's "terrorists" have become today's "valued allies in the fight against al-Qaida"), he is making it impossible for America to achieve its policy goal of a stable Middle East. Sunni regimes may fear the threat posed by Islamist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, but the uncomfortable truth is that most of their people respect the "extremists" for standing up to America and Israel. The Shia militant group Hezbollah is supported by large numbers of Sunnis across the Middle East, just as the Sunni militant group Hamas is by many Shiites. Moreover, these groups, which America refuses to talk to because they have engaged in acts of terrorism, are deeply embedded in the fabric of their societies -- which is why they cannot be destroyed, short of quasi-genocidal means that the world no longer deems accep...

"Don't tase me, bro!"

Can't we all just get along???

 
Get the story here, complete with poll question and more video!