Quote of the Day - Chelsea Clinton Edition

“did not have access to services that are so crucial that Planned Parenthood helps provide.”

Chelsea Clinton talking about the people who gave birth to her grandmother.  One must wonder if she understood that what she really said there was that her grandmother, her mother, and she herself, could have been prevented had planned parenthood existed back then.   Considering she worked so hard for her mother to become the first female U.S. President she would see for herself that just because a child is not planned, doesn't mean that the child isn't wanted nor can they not achieve amazing things.  Asshat

The SNAP Challenge and the Congressional Aide

There has been an ongoing debate in the House in regards to the "Farm Bill" which contains additional money to be added to the SNAP program.  Many people in the house who feel that the money should be added have decided to take the "SNAP Challenge", which is basically living off the amount of money which most people get for benefits on a monthly basis.  Know the SNAP program stands for  Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.  A few key words here, supplemental and nutrition.

adjective

1.

supplementary.

2.

nonscheduled (  def 2 ) .

3.

(of a pleading, an affidavit, etc.) added to furnish what is lacking or missing.

The entire point of the program is give people of limited means additional money towards eating healthier foods.  It is was never meant to be your only source of groceries.

As such the democrats that are taking this challenge are being dishonest because they are basing their claims that this is the only source of food these people have.  So in walks Danny Ferguson, an aide for Steve Stockman (R-TX).  He decides to do a little experiment on his lunch hour.  He goes to a dollar store to buy a weeks worth of groceries with the budget of $31.50 per week.  Here is a list of what he purchased:

Two boxes of Honeycombs cereal
Three cans of red beans and rice
Jar of peanut butter
Bottle of grape jelly
Loaf of whole wheat bread
Two cans of refried beans
Box of spaghetti
Large can of pasta sauce
Two liters of root beer
Large box of popsicles
24 servings of Wyler’s fruit drink mix
Eight cups of applesauce
Bag of pinto beans
Bag of rice
Bag of cookies

This is what he feels that people of limited means should be eating for a week.  He says his total cost came to $27.58, so he came in at $3.92 under budget:

“Not only did I buy a week’s worth of food on what Democrats claim is too little, I have money left over.  Based on my personal experience with SNAP benefit limits we have room to cut about 12 percent more.  “I didn’t use coupons, I didn’t compare prices and was buying for one, instead of a family. I could have bought even more food per person if I were splitting $126 four ways, instead of budgeting $31.50 to eat for one. I could have bought cheaper vegetables instead of prepared red beans and rice, but I like red beans and rice.  Folks aren’t buying fast food instead of vegetables because of benefit limits, they’re buying fast food because fast food tastes great and vegetables taste like vegetables.”

So he will get some protein from the peanut butter, he will get some fiber from the wheat bread, and some vitamins from the apple sauce and milk.  He will also get very large amounts of fat, salt, and cholesterol.  I don't know how old he is or what his fitness habits are, but it is very possible if that he ate like this on a permanent basis he would gain a great deal of weight and over time develop some health issues.  It would seem from his above statement he isn't a big fan of healthier foods, but many people are.

Now I recently moved from the D.C. area and where I am living now is actually more expensive when it comes to food.  I spend more than $40 a month on milk alone.  I don't live on peanut butter and beans & rice.   Where is the meat in this diet?  It is possible that he is a vegetarian, but most vegatarians I know personally spend a great deal of money on food because fresh vegatables and grains can be very expensive.

So I decided to buy his grocery list at my local grocery store.  I went to the online section and purchased the list.  Now, I don't buy many of these items on a regular basis, but the milk and the peanut butter  was the same price online as it is in the store.  My total came to $45.37.   Now I had to buy a larger jar of peanut butter and the pinto beans and rice could be different sizes, but I got as close as I could.  Now I don't want to eat some sugary cereal every morning, call me picky, but it isn't my cup of tea.  So if I had bought the type of cereal I wanted it would have cost me more as it seems when they put less junk in a box of cereal it actually costs more.  So to say that it can be cut across the board for every area of the country is simply untrue. A facebook friend and I were discussing this and she said she ran out of money as well.  As I said I lived that area for years and years, dollar stores are pretty much everywhere.  I left that area about six months ago, and I couldn't tell you where the nearest dollar store is here.  I am sure there are some, but I don't know where.  So that type of store isn't going to be accessible to everyone.

The truth is this, both sides politicalize this issue and end up sounding like idiots.  Democrats forget the fact that people are supposed to be adding their own funds to the grocery bills over the month.  But republicans have the habit of only talking about the fraud in the system and how easy it is to live on Food Stamps and that those that do end up eating better than they do.  Neither is true.  I have heard people say that they see people in the grocery stores all the time buying better cuts of meat then they can afford.  The average payout for the SNAP program is about $6 per person per day.  For that budget you are not eating filet mignon and lobster every night.  It just isn't possible unless you are putting your own money in as well.

Another thing that happens is the fraud issue is overblown by both sides.  Democrats hold onto the myth that it doesn't go beyond the 3% estimates given out by the federal government.  That is what they catch.  That isn't what the fraud is.  Republicans act like the Fraud is about 50% or even higher.  There are those that think the program should be done away with altogether.  I am not among them.  I think the SNAP program is necessary and I have no problem with my tax dollars being used for it.  But I would like to see more crackdown on the fraud.  I worked for years with a homeless day shelter, and I can tell you the fraud is well above what dems say and well below what the GOP says.

Sadly, real people are caught up in the middle of the back and forth.  People who are having a hard time making ends meet.  People who have real reasons why they need some help from time to time.  Food banks around the country say they cannot keep up as the need is great right now.  So to say that it should be only charity that does this isn't working at the moment.  Especially when you consider that many food banks do get government grants to cover some of their costs.  The day shelter I was involved with got some state money, while many of their expenses are covered by churches (it is a faith based organization) and chartiable contributions, they don't cover all of the costs.

The economy is improving but not quickly enough for many people.  Many families that never thought they would need assistance have found themselves in the unfortunate situation that they must look for other sources to feed their families.  What this aide really did was demonize those people.  They don't need no stinkin chicken.  Heck they don't even get hamburger.  So for those on the right that say they eat better than you do, is this diet you want to eat week after week?

But hey, don't worry about Ol' Danny.  His salary is public record, he made $17,211.10 for the first three months of 2013, so I am sure he can afford to buy himself a steak sandwich on occassion.  People on food stamps, hey they can have some pinto beans.  Is it any wonder that conservatives get told they don't care about the less fortunate?  Sadly, I don't think he even sees what he did.

We need to make changes to these programs.  We need to cut out the fraud and abuse.  We need to find ways to make these programs a helping hand to people in need and not a lifestyle.  What he did just makes it all the harder to accomplish.  Shame on him.

Quote of the Day - Jim Allen Edition

"Rodney Davis will win and the love child of the D.N.C. will be back in Shitcago by May of 2014 working for some law firm that needs to meet their quota for minority hires, the little queen touts her abstinence and she won the crown because she got bullied in school,,,boohoo..kids are cruel, life sucks and you move on.. Now, miss queen is being used like a street walker and her pimps are the DEMOCRAT PARTY and RINO REPUBLICANS."

 Jim Allen, Republican Party Chair on Congressional Candidate Erika Harrold 

There are days that I am ashamed by republicans and this is one of them.  I don't know much about Ms. Harrold and her stances, but what I do know is that she is a human being that deserves more respect than this man has shown her.  

We have gotten to the point in this country that anytime anyone disagrees with your views it is perfectly acceptable to personally attack them.  To bring her race into this just makes it all the worse.  People like this need to be drummed out of party leadership.  This reflects on all republicans, even though it is not their views.  

Is it any wonder we get called racists?  

Quote of the Day - Chris Matthews Edition

“I think a lot of the problem he had today was the late afternoon sun in Berlin. I think it ruined his use of the teleprompters and his usual dramatic windup was ruined”

Is there no water this man won’t carry for President Obama?  It doesn’t seem to occur to this man that he should be able to give a speech without a teleprompter.

Quote of the Day - Sally Kohn Edition

98.5% of abortions performed before 20 wks. Republicans only supporting later-term ban to foster broader anti-abortion climate in US

I suppose the undeniable fact that babies feel pain during late term abortions shouldn't enter into the equation.

Federal Law, State Law & The Constitution

I have seen much going around on social media on the SCOTUS ruling on Arizona and the motor voter laws.  Yesterday, the court came out with a 7-2 ruling that Arizona couldn't add additional requirements to the federal forms for voter registration.  Arizona wanted to require additional paperwork proving American citizenship.  

On the face it seems silly that the court would come out against this.  But it isn't silly.  It is completely Constitutional.  The federal government gives states money to cover the costs of all seats that are held in the federal government.  The Constitution says:

The Elections Clause, Art. I, §4, cl. 1, provides:
“The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections
for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed
in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the
Congress may at any time by Law make or alter
such Regulations, except as to the places of chusing
Senators.”

Now that sentence about Senators is no longer valid since the 17th amendment made senators also subject to direct elections.  But the point is the federal government absolutely has the right to decide how registration is done for federal elections.  

The court also has given Arizona a pathway to make changes to the Motor Voter form.  Arizona can, if the so choose, go to the Elections Assistance Commission and ask them to make changes to the federal form.  While that is highly unlikely under the current administration, if they don't like the result, they then can take it to court.  

The Court did not rule on anything other than could a state require additional information on a mail in federal form for registration.  Arizona is free to require additional information on state forms.  Those registration rolls can be cross checked if they so choose to do it.  

The main point of this ruling is that the court did exactly what it was supposed to do, follow the constitution.  You may not necessarily like the outcome, but the federal government has the right and the responsibility to set rules for how federal elections are set up.  If we want changes made to include more safeguards for proof of citizenship, the avenue to do that is there.  The State of Arizona doesn't seem to be shy about pursuing their options, so let them lead the charge to put more safeguards into place.  

You can read Scalia's opinion here.  

Dick Cheney on Snowden, IRS, and NSA

But, But, I Thought Guns Were Bad? White House Father's Day Photo

I know that this is silly, but it just part of the hypocrisy of it all.  If he truly believes that guns are so bad, why is playing with them with his kids?

Rand Paul on Violence Against Christians Worldwide - Video

Headline of the Day - The Today Show Edition

Sales of Orwell's '1984' up over 6,000 percent after NSA news

LOL 

Some Morning Humor

Yes, this about covers it.

Happy Father's Day - Richmond, VA Boasts a 60% Single Parent Rate

The City of Richmond, VA is one of the country's leaders in single parent households.  This past weekend the city sponsored a Celebrate Fatherhood celebration in order to draw some attention to this very serious problem.  The number grows to 86% percent in black community of the city.  

Think about that, barely over 1 in 10 black children grow up in a two parent home.  That number is not just stunning, but horribly tragic.  Lets face it, a single parent has a much more difficult time raising a child when they don't have another person in the home to help them.  There are things that have to be done, laundry, grocery shopping, cleaning, cooking, and all the other chores that have to be done to keep a household running.  When does this parent have time to read a book, throw a ball, help with homework?  I am not saying that single parents can't be wonderful.  Many single parents do a great job.  But the problems that go along with being a single parent can't be ignored.  

This isn't even an American issue:

The poverty rate for children living with a single parent has risen 15 per cent since 2001, up from 20.9 per cent to 24.1 per cent. The HILDA survey, managed by the University of Melbourne, has tracked social trends by interviewing the same 12,000 people each year since 2001.

In America:

Over one quarter of U.S. children under age 18 reside with only one of their parents, and as many as half of U.S. children may reside in a single parent family at some point in their childhood.  The vast majority - over 85% - of single parents are single mothers.
Poverty is widespread and severe in single mother families.  According to the recently released Census Bureau data on poverty in 2010, people in single mother families had a poverty rate of 42.2% and an extreme poverty rate of 21.6%.

There are very real reasons that women end up being single parents.  In some cases they leave an abusive relationship and are doing the very best that they can under difficult circumstances.  But one of the outcomes of so many children being raised in single parent homes is the fact they grow up thinking that men don't/won't stick around.  They grow up thinking that men are much more than a sperm donor.  It just creates more problems for future generations.  

Sadly, in the U.S. our government actually encourages single parent homes through our welfare system.  If you are married, you are basically punished.  It makes much more sense for a woman who is low-income to not marry.  While living on welfare certainly isn't an easy life, getting benefits is far better than getting none even though your job skills are no different if you are married or single.  

Lets take a look at crime rates in Richmond:

Richmond Crime Data

CRIME INDEX

8

(100 is safest)Safer than 8% of
the cities
in the US.

Richmond Annual Crimes

VIOLENT	PROPERTY	TOTAL
1,456	9,361	10,817

annual crimes per 1,000 residents
7.08	45.55	52.63

Violent Crime Comparison per 1,000 residents

NATIONAL MEDIAN3.9
MY CHANCES OF BECOMING A VICTIM
in Richmond 1 in 141
in  Virginia 1 in 508

		7.08	1.97
		Richmond	Virginia

Population 205,533

Richmond violent crimes

	MURDER	RAPE	ROBBERY	ASSAULT
REPORT TOTAL	36	54	686	680
RATE PER 1,000	0.18	0.26	3.34	3.31

Population 311,591,917

United States violent crimes

	MURDER	RAPE	ROBBERY	ASSAULT
REPORT TOTAL	14,612	83,425	354,396	751,131
RATE PER 1,000	0.05	0.27	1.14	2.41

Property Crime Rate Comparison per 1,000 residents

NATIONAL MEDIAN29.1
MY CHANCES OF BECOMING A VICTIM
in Richmond 1 in 22
in Virginia 1 in 44

		45.55	22.50
		Richmond	Virginia

Population 205,533

Richmond property crimes

	BURGLARY	THEFT	MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
REPORT TOTAL	1,924	6,500	937
RATE PER 1,000	9.36	31.63	4.56

Population 311,591,917

United States property crimes

	BURGLARY	THEFT	MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT
REPORT TOTAL	2,188,005	6,159,795	715,373
RATE PER 1,000	7.02	19.77	2.30

Crimes Per Square Mile

NATIONAL MEDIAN 39.6

		173	22
		Richmond	Virginia

92% of U.S. cities are safer than Richmond.  Which is really a shame.  If you have never been there, Richmond is a beautiful city filled with history.  But you need to be careful where you go or you will likely end up being a victim of crime.  Of course there will be some saying these two things are not connected.  The police chief disagrees with you.  

“I do know that a large of number of young folks we interact with do not have a father in their home and I think it’s on all of us to recognize a responsibility to help those children,” Chief Middleton said.

Wouldn't it be a good idea for the government to stop rewarding single parenthood?  From Web MD:

In the latest study, reported in the Jan. 25 issue of The Lancet, European researchers reveal that the risks facing children living with one parent may be even more widespread and immediate. They found the risk of suicide was more than twice as high among children in one-parent households compared with those living with both parents

Children in single-parent homes were also twice as likely to have a psychiatric disease, have alcohol-related problems, and were up to four times more likely to abuse drugs

Gee, what a good idea to support that.  

“We have a major father absenteeism issue in Richmond,” First Things First Executive Director Truin Huntle said. “I wish more people were discussing why this is such a major issue. We see more people beginning to give some credence to it because they are looking for the root cause of other issues like childhood poverty, poor performance in school. Father absenteeism, broken homes, broken marriages and teen pregnancy are continually being found as the root cause of those problems.”

This is a man who is on the front lines in Richmond, working every day to help children and fathers.  Maybe he is someone worth listening to.  

Snowden: Hero or Traitor

The short answer is that Snowden is both a traitor and a hero.  There is no question that Snowden broke the law, releasing classified information to those who are not authorized is a felony.  The U.S. Government has every right and the responsibility to go after him and prosecute to him to the fullest extent of the law.  

That said I am glad that Snowden did what he did.  One of the things that must be remembered in all of this everything this government does is done in the name of average Americans.  We all have a vested interest in what this government does.  This is true about both domestic and foreign policy.  We have a Bill of Rights and a Constitution.  Both of those of documents intent was to give the power to the people and to reign in the power of a centralized government.  We are losing those rights more and more every single day.  Snowden has only confirmed what many around the country already knew.  This government is taking more and more control over our daily lives.

We have been hearing for days now that this is a "legal" program.  A program that has been authorized by congress and is put in front of a court.  That is supposed to make me feel better?  We have plenty of evidence that congress passes laws all the time that they have no constitutional authority all the time.  One very simple example is the Violence Against Women act.  I am in no way in favor of violence against women, but is there any state that doesn't have laws against this already?  Why in heaven's name would spousal abuse a federal issue?  Every state has the right to request a fugitive from another state.  If the laws are not strong enough in one state then people should be working on the state level to strengthen those laws.  Not forcing every police department across the country to deal with cumbersome federal regulations and completely ignoring the fact that Tribal Courts have more power over non Native Americans, even though these courts do not have to give constitutional rights to anyone that is in that court.  

The opposition's first concern is that the power given to tribal courts would strip non-reservation residing offenders of their constitutional rights. Tribal courts are not bound by the laws of federal and state governments, and do not offer to defendants legal protections such as the First and Fifth Amendments or due process. Additionally, offering tribal courts jurisdiction over sex crimes would set a precedent for their jurisdiction when other crimes are involved.

So, it is of no comfort that congress has authorized this.  It is of no comfort that President Obama is basically saying "Trust Me".  I don't trust that man as far as I can throw him.  He certainly hasn't proven that he has my best interests at heart.  

One of the things that I find so infuriating about this whole thing is that it was just a few weeks ago that President Obama gave a speech on terrorism where he said this:

Today, the core of al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan is on a path to defeat. Their remaining operatives spend more time thinking about their own safety than plotting against us. They did not direct the attacks in Benghazi or Boston. They have not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11

If that is true why exactly are we expanding the programs?  I have been against The Patriot Act from day one.  I agree with the founders who warned us that giving up security in the name of liberty would give us neither.  I don't dismiss the dangers of terrorism and Islamic extremism.  What I question is how effective are these programs?  I say not so much.  

The path to his capture, according to the public records, began in April 2009, when British authorities arrested several suspected terrorists. According to a 2010 rulingfrom Britain’s Special Immigration Appeals Commission, one of the suspects’ computers included email correspondence with an address in Pakistan.
The open case is founded upon a series of emails exchanged between a Pakistani registered email account sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com and an email account admittedly used by Naseer humaonion@yahoo.com between 30 November 2008 and 3 April 2009. The Security Service’s assessment is that the user of the sana_pakhtana account was an Al Qaeda associate…”
“For reasons which are wholly set out in the closed judgment, we are sure satisfied to the criminal standard that the user of the sana_pakhtana account was an Al Qaeda associate,” the British court wrote.
Later that year, according to a transcript of Zazi’s July, 2011 trial, Zazi emailed his al Qaeda handler in Pakistan for help with the recipe for his bombs. He sent his inquiry to the same email address: sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com.
An FBI agent, Eric Jurgenson, testified, “I was notified, I should say. My office was in receipt of several e-mail messages, e-mail communications.” Those emails — from Zazi to the same sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com — “led to the investigation,” he testified.

Here are some sad truths, the Fort Hood Shooter was a terrorist.  A terrorist that we should have been able to stop before his killing spree.  The reason we did not was due to political correctness.  To this day this is not even called an act of terrorism but work place violence.  The Russians turned over information on one of the Boston Bombers, yet we did nothing.  Are these programs worth the loss of our liberties when it is obvious that when given the information on a silver platter they are still able to go ahead with their dastardly deeds.  

One of the biggest problems is that we are still not willing to follow a simple tried and true criminal investigation tool; profiling.  We have seen recently a Muslim turn over a fellow Muslim 

Both the Prime Minister and the leader of the Opposition took a moment in the House of Commons on Tuesday to thank the Muslim community for its role in thwarting an alleged terror plot against a Via Rail train.
“I’d like to begin by thanking law enforcement officials, as well as a brave religious leader from the Toronto Muslim community who, as we learned yesterday, helped to prevent a potentially devastating attack on Canadian soil,” NDP leader Tom Mulcair said as he opened question period.

If we start working with these communities maybe they will start communicating more and realize we are only interesting in rooting out terrorism and want to leave law-abiding citizens alone to live their lives.  

I, for one, am not willing to give away my liberties for a false sense of security.  I want my civil liberties to left alone.  There are plenty of ways to thwart terrorism without our government gathering information on virtually every American and have a huge database that can be used and abused in ways that we really don't fully understand.  

The government has shown us over and over again that they can't be trusted and have abused their power.  The IRS ring a bell for the naysayers?  

Snowden is both a hero and criminal.  Snowden has raised an issue that needed to be raised.  How much of your privacy are you willing to turn over to clandestine government agencies?  Where does it end?  This isn't a left or right issue.  This is an issue that should matter to all Americans.  To those that are willing to do this in the name of security, just remember your chance of being killed by terrorist is even less likely than being struck by lightning.  Yes we have dangers to deal with, but those dangers are relatively remote.  The powers of big government are not.  

Quote of the Day - Marco Rubio Edition

Let's be clear. Nobody is talking about preventing the legalization. The legalization is going to happen. That means the following will happen: First comes the legalization. Then come the measures to secure the border. And then comes the process of permanent residence

Ok, I am done.  I want to see immigration reform.  Especially when it comes to visa reform.  But until the borders is secured, there is nothing to talk about.  Luckily it seems that they can't get the house on board.

Shame on you Senator Rubio, shame on you.

Rand Paul on NSAGate and Immigration

Quote of the Day - Herman Cain Edition

Hey, South Carolina! If we ask nicely, will you give us more Gowdy and less Graham? ...please?

LOL   

Press Release of James Clapper on Verizon Phone Records

DNI Statement on Activities Authorized Under Section 702 of FISA

Thursday, June 06, 2013

• 

June 6, 2013

DNI Statement on Activities Authorized Under Section 702 of FISA
The Guardian and The Washington Post articles refer to collection of communications pursuant to Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.  They contain numerous inaccuracies.

Section 702 is a provision of FISA that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning non-U.S. persons located outside the United States.  It cannot be used to intentionally target any U.S. citizen, any other U.S. person, or anyone located within the United States.

Activities authorized by Section 702 are subject to oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the Executive Branch, and Congress. They involve extensive procedures, specifically approved by the court, to ensure that only non-U.S. persons outside the U.S. are targeted, and that minimize the acquisition, retention and dissemination of incidentally acquired information about U.S. persons.

Section 702 was recently reauthorized by Congress after extensive hearings and debate.
  
Information collected under this program is among the most important and valuable foreign intelligence information we collect, and is used to protect our nation from a wide variety of threats. 

The unauthorized disclosure of information about this important and entirely legal program is reprehensible and risks important protections for the security of Americans.


James R. Clapper, Director of National Intelligence 

Quote of the Day - ACLU Edition

‘It Is Beyond Orwellian’

On the news of the Obama administration gathering of Verizon phone information.  This doesn't happen all that often, but I agree.   

Quote of the Day - Louie Gohmert Edition

 "We've all got an Obama phone now"

LOL.

This is a very serious issue, but a little levity never hurts.

The Incredible Ego of Anthony Weiner

As we all know Anthony Weiner has decided that he wants to be New York City's next mayor.  Now let's be honest here, he won't be all that much of  a step down from Nanny Bloomberg, but he really does expect people to forget his perv past.  Apparently he doesn't even like it when a democrat questions him on it.  District leader Chris Owens asked:

“I have a three-word question: How dare you?”

“I am outraged and disgusted by you.  Both by what you did and by the fact that you have the arrogance to run for mayor.

“I want to understand how you explain to us how you used a public facility to tweet offensive material to . . . minors you did not know, you then lied about it . . . and now you come back.”

His response:

“I appreciate the question Chris, and I know some people may feel that way.

“I think it might be influenced in part . . . [because] I supported Yvette Clarke over you when you ran for Congress [in 2006.]”

“I apologize to you, but now people have to decide whether or not that disqualifies me.
“Frankly, everyone wasn’t going to vote for me whether I did that or not.”

But he fully expects people to vote for him in spite of it:

When asked about how he handle a teacher accused of doing the same type of thing his response was:

“If you believe that my personal failings disqualify me, then don’t vote for me. I’m going to win this election and I’m going to govern this city really well. You’re supporting another candidate who’s not going to win.”

Sadly I am not even stunned by this.  I should be, but I am not.  This is what our government has come to.  We elect people who have shown through their actions that they can't be trusted.  The truth is this, we get the government that we deserve.  When we have candidates that can text obscene photos of their private parts to underage strangers and they truly believe that they still have a political future there can be no wonder why our country is in such a mess.

Elected officials are entrusted with tax payers dollars, they make choices that affect how we live our daily lives, and expecting them to be someone who has character and sense of decency isn't a great deal to ask.  We all make mistakes, we all have things in our lives that we wish we could take back, but sexting pics of your penis and various stages of undress, while in a building that is paid for by the tax payers, really is a step too far.  The fact that he even may have a chance to become an elected official again is nothing short of tragic.

Do we really have any chance of turning this ship around if this is the type of people we elect?   Congressman Mark Sanford should not be in congress and Anthony Weiner shouldn't be the next mayor of New York City.  Morality matters, no matter what letter you put after your name.

Kathleen Sebelius and Organ Transplants

I am most likely not going to make many friends with this post, but oh well, here it goes anyway.

I have been somewhat following the story of  Sarah Murnaghan, the ten-year CF patient, that is dying due to her lungs being in such bad shape due to her illness.  Absolutely tragic story.  One of the guidelines of the transplant lists UNOS is that children receiving adult organs must be 12 or older.  Of course that number is for the most part arbitrary, the data shows that children don't always do well with adult organs.  Although it seems that is less common with lungs.

Sarah's parents are talking to every media outlet they can to raise awareness to this issue.  I would hope that any parent would do the same.  As a parent, part of your responsibility is to be an advocate for your child.  This mom is trying to save her daughter's life.  I can't imagine being in her position.  I couldn't hate someone enough to wish this on anyone.

A congressman from Pennsylvania has asked Kathleen Sebelius to waive this requirement and allow her to be put on the adult waiting list.  Sebelius has declined that request.

“I would suggest, sir, that, again, this is an incredibly agonizing situation where someone lives and someone dies,” Sebelius replied. “The medical evidence and the transplant doctors who are making the rule — and have had the rule in place since 2005 making a delineation between pediatric and adult lungs, because lungs are different that other organs — that it’s based on the survivability [chances].”

While this is a very hard thing to do when the life of a ten-year old is hanging in the balance, these decisions must be made without emotion.  What she said is 100% true.  When making decisions about who gets the organ and who doesn't is a life and death decision.  Many people die every year while waiting for an organ to become available.

Dr. Stuart Sweet, director of the pediatric lung transplant program at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis says this:

When asked about concerns over whether adult candidates who are less sick are getting transplants instead of sick children, Sweet said, “There’s no way to really answer that question.” He said the number of adults who die waiting for an organ transplant greatly exceeds the number of children.

"The reality is ... the numbers suggest that there are lots of patients who are running out of time on the waiting list and many more patients run out of time ... in the older age group than the younger group,"

The question also becomes does she even have the legal authority to waive this rule?  The UNOS list is not a federal list.  It is done by a private organization that has government oversight, but operates independently.   This is one of the few things in our country that are still done by need.  The only exception being that before being put on the list you must be able to prove that you can pay for the medications that are mandatory for all transplant patients after surgery.  In most cases that will be done through medical insurance.

We have to look at outcomes when these decisions are made.  There are only so many organs to go around.  This from The Mayo Clinic on lung transplants on CF patients:

• Lung transplant. If you have severe breathing problems, life-threatening lung complications or increasing resistance to antibiotics used to treat lung infections, lung transplantation may be an option. Because both lungs are affected by cystic fibrosis, both need to be replaced. Lung transplants for people with cystic fibrosis are controversial because studies indicate the procedure is associated with many complications, and may not prolong life or enhance quality of life.

We also have to remember that is said to be "end stage".  CF affects more than just the lungs.  It also damages the liver, causes intestinal damage and quite a few other problems.  What are her other health issues?  Like it or not in cases such as these survivability rates must be taken into consideration.  Doesn't it make more sense to give the limited amount of organs to people who have the most likelihood to survive?  Now, I am not saying that Sarah is not one of these people, she may well be.  But the truth is we aren't hearing that side of the story.  We are hearing the pleas from a family who is facing the loss of a child.  

It is very possible that we need to look at these rules again.  As medical advances are made it may be very possible that putting adult organs into children has gotten to be an easier procedure than in the past and that number can be lowered or even done away with.  But looking at that data is going to take more time than she has.  As an update to this story, her family has filed a lawsuit this afternoon asking a judge to waive the rule while the regulations are being studied again.  

This sounds cruel and looks nothing less than wicked in writing, but these decisions must be made by medical need, not emotion.  Again, I wouldn't do anything different if Sarah was my child.  I would do everything possible to save the life of my child.  But we have to step away from the emotion of this and look at the medicine of the situation.  This has nothing to do with Obamacare, as I have heard ballied about today and yesterday.  These rules were in place long before he even took office let alone before Obamacare became law, current regulations came into place in 05.  

The amount of available organs in this country are few and become even fewer for young children.  The organs must go to the people who are the most likely to have a positive outcome.  We cannot run an organ donor list based on giving to the squeaky wheel, who has more money, more prestige, or any thing other than medical need and survivability rates. The science at the time when these rules were put into place said that a young child taking an adult lung wasn't that person.  

A very sad truth is that someone has to die in order for this child to live.  Another sad truth is that an adult who likely is just as ill will not get the organs if she does.  There are no good outcomes in this situation.  47 people in her state are on the adult list waiting for the same organ.  We should take a step back and realize that not everything is political.  This tragic story isn't about politics, it is about a family facing the loss of their child and being helpless, and an organ list that will always make a choice about who gets a second chance of life and who doesn't.  Sad, but true.  

Kathleen Sebelius did exactly the right thing, she left these choices up to medical professionals instead of getting the government involved. This is exactly what conservatives say they want.  

  

Mint Juleps and the Stay at Home Mom (or Dad)

"There are some people who want to lean in. There are some people who want to lean back and be on a rocking chair drinking a mint julep."

Yep, this is the latest attack on SAHM's.  Sadly, this one came from a "republican", Ana Navarro on Meet the Press over the weekend.

It is now almost 10:15.  I have made breakfast on two different occasions.  I am on my second load of laundry, I have read three books, hung some crayon art, and am presently getting ready for some finger painting.  I will need to make some lunches, pick someone up from school about an hour after that.  Then I will have snack time and listen to all the adventures that went on in school today.   Two play dates will follow the snacks.  My kitchen floor is a mess and must be cleaned today (I hope anyway).  Grocery shopping must be done before dinner if I want to eat.  I have dishes that need to be put away, fold the laundry, put it away, take the dog out for her walk (which I try to make at least a mile, she is a big dog and needs a great deal of exercise).   I will have a few more stories to read before the day is over, bath times, a dinner to make, a birthday cake to bake for tomorrow, a church meeting to attend, a blog to keep up with, a man that I need pay attention to as well.   Oh yeah, I have yet to make the beds, I am still somewhat getting a new house in order, three handwritten thank you notes to write; I guess I have a stop at the post office to make too!  The flower beds need some tending, I had the windows opened last night to save a little money on the electric bill, so the chances are good I have to wipe off the window sills; allergies.  

She then went on to slam the even smaller community of  the SAHD:

When I say in my house that I want to be a kept woman, the answer I get back is I want to be a kept man. So, you know, that`s not working -- it`s not working in my house.

A kept woman?  That is what she thinks I am.  I looked up recently the costs of what I do every day.  It is about $60K per year.  Personally I think that is very low.   I think I am being way underpaid, but I don 't mind.  This is what I CHOOSE to do.  I am not being forced, I am not doing this against my will, nor do I put other women who make other choices down.  Some families simply cannot afford for a parent to stay home.  Some women put a great deal of time into getting an education (I graduated from an Ivy League school by the way) and decide not to put that on hold while raising their children.

I know plenty of single mothers who have done an incredible job raising their kids.  One of my high school friends has two kids in college now and they both are honor students, very motivated, happy, healthy, well-adjusted young adults figuring out their place in the world.  I also know people who had stay at home moms are very troubled.  There is no one way to guarantee your children will grow up to be well-adjusted adults, but virtually all studies show that children that have both parents in the home and a mother who stays at home statistically will do better.

Wanting to give that best chance to my children doesn't make me lazy or someone who is sitting in a rocking chair drinking day after day.  It well past time that women stop putting down other women and their choices they make for their familes.

Becky Gerritson Testifies in Front of Congress on IRS Abuses - Video

She was fabulous, just fabulous.  

Government Allowed to Take DNA without Warrant

The Supreme Court today ruled that it is perfectly acceptable for the police to take your DNA without a warrant.  Oh my.  

In 2009 a man named Alonzo King was taken under arrest and charged with assault, during this arrest the police took a swab and matched his DNA to an unsolved rape.  Mr. King was not taken under arrest for the rape, nor was he believed to be involved at the time of the arrest.  He was charged, prosecuted, and found guilty of the rape.  His attorney's filed an appeal under the fourth amendment of illegal search and seizure.  

The court has decided that DNA swabs are no different than taking a photograph and fingerprints.  It is only a source of identification.  Really?  Giving the government bodily fluids is just another source of making an ID?  

Scalia joined with the more liberal wing of the court and said this in his dissent:

"The Fourth Amendment forbids searching a person for evidence of a crime when there is no basis for believing the person is guilty of the crime or is in possession of incriminating evidence," Scalia said. "That prohibition is categorical and without exception; it lies at the very heart of the Fourth Amendment."

But my favorite has to be:

"I hope that the Maryland officials who read the Court’s opinion do not take it seriously,"

Doesn't those on the court understand how this can be abused?  Now, it seems pretty obvious that King is indeed a rapist.  I have zero sympathy for him, zero.  But he isn't really the point.  These cases are always about something bigger than person who brought the case.  When he was arrested, there doesn't seem to be that there was evidence he was guilty of committing this rape.  So why would they have right to take his DNA?  The entire point of our justice system is the presumption of innocence.  By automatically taking DNA swabs of every person who is arrested we have forgone that presumption and walking towards something that will no longer resemble our justice system.  

What is so odd is that it seems that the deciding vote came from Justice Stephen Breyer.  Strange bed fellows indeed.  

But sadly we have gotten to the point in this country that the government's desires and needs are now over taking our rights.  This government was built on the rights of the individual being paramount.  That seems to no longer exist.  

Sunday Funny