A bit over 18 months ago, former judge Mike Anderson called me on the phone looking for an endorsement in his effort to unseat District Attorney Pat Lykos. It was the sort of call I'm used to getting as a precinct chair here in Harris County, though intra-party challenges to an incumbent are unusual. What I figured would be a brief call turned into a nearly 45 minute discussion of youth crime and how to deal with young offenders and kids facing criminal charges for what were disciplinary issues back when I was a teenager. I liked what I heard, and offered an enthusiastic endorsement. I had high hopes for his tenure as district attorney -- but this spring Anderson announced he was undergoing cancer treatment.
Harris County District Attorney Mike Anderson, who announced in May that he had cancer, died Saturday from the illness.
In an email to staffers Saturday, First Assistant Belinda Hill mourned "a good man doing great things."
"When my longtime friend and colleague Mike Anderson asked me to be his First Assistant last year, I accepted the offer because it was an opportunity to return to the office I loved and work closely with a man for whom I had a great deal of respect," Hill wrote. "I believed that we would do great things together for years to come."
Anderson, 57, took office Jan. 1, following his election in November. His campaign enjoyed wide support from prosecutors in the office and area law enforcement.
To Mike's beloved wife, former Judge Devon Anderson, and children, I offer my prayers and condolences. To members of the DA's office, I offer my sympathy at this time of loss. As a resident of Harris County, I recognize that we have lost a very good man who was devoted to the service of this community.
In days to come there will be much discussion of a successor and possible candidacies in next year's primary -- but now is not the time for that. Instead let us take the time to remember Mike Anderson as the good man he was and regret that he was taken from us all to soon.
John Roberts sure did screw the pooch on that one Ė and Obama and his minions continue to thumb their noses at him and the rest of the Supreme Court majority in the ObamaCare case.
The Internal Revenue Serviceís (IRS) final rule on Obamacareís individual mandate, released this week, uses the term ďShared Responsibility PaymentĒ more than 50 times to describe the mandateís non-compliance penalty, which the Supreme Court in 2012 defined as a tax.
The IRS also used the term ďshared responsibility penaltyĒ in the rule, which does not identify the individual mandate as a tax.
The 75-page rule published by the IRS, which is tasked with enforcing Obamacare as the law is fully implemented in 2014, is entitled ďShared Responsibility Payment for Not Maintaining Minimum Essential Coverage.Ē
In other words, despite the payment being ruled a tax and not a penalty, the lawless administration in Washington continues to call it a penalty Ė and refuses to call it a tax. Hopefully we will see judges -- and the Supreme Court -- take Obama and company at their word and overturn the erroneous decision in the original case.
You may think Iím being unfair, but consider how even the Obama-friendly AP presents this matter.
Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.
In other words, Congress declined to make laws the President requested, so the President is making law all on his own, despite lacking the constitutional authority to make laws. But this is typical of Obamaís manner of governing Ė if he does not get what he wants, he simply issues a decree to implement the law that was not passed anyway Ė or he simply declares a law suspended, refusing to faithfully execute the laws as required by his oath of office. In a country where the Constitution meant more than partisanship, such an individual would be impeached. But not in America Ė not today, and not if it means failing to show deference to Obama.
Are there really zombies on the estate of a former governor? Is the problem with some cars that they attract zombies?
Well, at least they didnít put the Walking Dead photo as the thumbnail for the ďNFL cheerleaders through the yearsĒ gallery.
Well, at least he is honest enough to admit it isnít about race Ė unlike so many of his supporters.
President Obama late Wednesday dismissed the notion that partisan gridlock on Capitol Hill is the result of his stature as the country's first black president, instead accusing Republicans of a "habit" of attempting to "delegitimize" Democratic presidents.
"There does [seem to] be a habit sometimes of just Democratic presidents generally being Ė efforts being made to delegitimize them in some fashion," Obama told the PBS NewsHour. "And thatís fine because, you know, politics is Ė is not Ė is not bean bag, as they used to say Ė itís not a noncontact sport. And I donít worry about it personally."
Obama did say that he had observed a resistance to "any change in the status quo, particularly when it came to economic opportunity," but chalked that up "less to ... my race" than sentiments that "the governmentís the problem instead of the solution."
Letís be honest Ė the GOP opposed many of Obamaís policies when Clinton was president, or when Gore and Kerry ran on them during their campaigns. Why on earth would they embrace them once Obama took over? After all, it would be racist to cave on principle just because of the color of the manís skin.
But the notion that there is some sort of ďhabitĒ of delegitimizing only Democrats in the White House is absurd. Think about it Ė Democrats spent 8 years trying to tear down George W. Bush because of the closeness of the 2000 election (with the notable exception of the immediate post-9/11 period). They pressed his father to violate his ďread my lipsĒ pledge Ė and then pilloried him for having done so. Reagan was demonized, too Ė and letís not forget the treatment that Nixon got despite winning 49 states in 1972 (and no, it was not all over Watergate). What Obama is complaining about is Democrats being treated by Republicans the way that Democrats treat Republicans.
Republicans have long blamed President Obama's signature health care initiative for increasing insurance costs, dubbing it the "Unaffordable Care Act."
Turns out, they might be right.
For the vast majority of Americans, premium prices will be higher in the individual exchange than what they're currently paying for employer-sponsored benefits, according to a National Journal analysis of new coverage and cost data. Adding even more out-of-pocket expenses to consumers' monthly insurance bills is a swell in deductibles under the Affordable Care Act.
Health law proponents have excused the rate hikes by saying the prices in the exchange won't apply to the millions receiving coverage from their employers. But that's only if employers continue to offer that coverage--something that's looking increasingly uncertain. Already, UPS, for example, cited Obamacare as its reason for nixing spousal coverage. And while a Kaiser Family Foundation report found that 49 percent of the U.S. population now receives employer-sponsored coverage, more companies are debating whether they will continue to be in the business of providing such benefits at all.
In other words, if you get to keep ďthe insurance plan you likeĒ it may be changed in ways that will make you like it less because it will cost you more. And that is assuming that your boss doesnít dump you and/or your familyís insurance benefits completely and throw you into the insurance exchanges set up as a result of what is more properly called the UnAffordable They-Donít-Care Act.
Thanks, Barry, Harry, and Nancy.
Kim Jong-un's ex-girlfriend was among a dozen well-known North Korean performers who were executed by firing squad nine days ago, according to South Korean reports.
Hyon Song-wol, a singer, rumoured to be a former lover of the North Korean leader, is said to have been arrested on Aug 17 with 11 others for violating laws against pornography.
The reports in South Korea's Chosun Ilbo newspaper indicate that Hyon, a singer with the Unhasu Orchestra, was among those arrested on August 17 for violating domestic laws on pornography.
All 12 were machine-gunned three days later, with other members of North Korea's most famous pop groups and their immediate families forced to watch. The onlookers were then sent to prison camps, victims of the regime's assumption of guilt by association, the reports stated.
Speculation is that there executions were either related to an effort by Kim to consolidate power by eliminating popular figures supporting other government factions or jealousy on the part of Kimís wife, a former member of the Unhasu Orchestra.
Here are this weekís full results.
See you next week!
Believe it or not, there is a limit to how much you can take from the productive.
France cannot take any more taxes,
But interestingly enough, despite an announcement that there will be be no new taxes, there are already new taxes scheduled to go unto effect next year in France. Perhaps we will see a new French Revolution -- complete with a return of the guillotine to deal with tax and spend socialists -- in the near future.
Let the Democrats take heed.
There's an interesting piece by Kevin Williamson in the National Review on Bradley Manning's announced desire to live as and be treated as a woman while in prison. Without getting into the details of the article, I'd like to note what I see as the single most important point when if comes to this matter.
Sex is a biological feature that is present at the level of DNA. That fact is known even to Barack Obamaís Justice Department, which in April disclosed through an anonymous leak (of course) that it had discovered ďfemale DNAĒ at the site of the Boston-marathon bombing. The ladies and gentlemen at Eric Holderís disposal did not ask the DNA whether it identified as male or female, but instead took a look at the chromosomes, which answered the question for them.
You are male or you are female from the moment of conception, with a few exceptions which are most properly recognized as genetically freakish and considerably outside of the biological norm. How one chooses to dress and act and conduct oneself notwithstanding, you are what your genes decree. No amount of cross-dressing, sex-organ surgery or well-intentioned legislation, regulation and adjudication changes that, and that will be the case until there is a way to bring about change at the level of one's DNA.
Man -- hate-blogger John Cobarruvias has come back with a vengeance, making sport of Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott. And in typical Coby fashion, he is doing so in an incredibly hypocritical way.
For most Texans this is nothing short of incredibly insensitive and disrespectful to parents and care givers who tend to those who are mentally challenged. How would Greg Abbott or his family feel if someone referred to him as a cripple because of his physical disability? Unfortunately Gregg Abbott has become a member of the Tea Party and being disrespectful to those who are struggling with mental and physical disabilities is part of their so called "family values".
Hmmm... "disrespectful to those who are struggling with mental and physical disabilities."
You mean like this, directed at Abbott by Cobarruvias back in 2010?
Leave it to our Texas Attorney General, Greg Abbott, to finally get off his ass and take a stand.
He then went on to make it clear how clever he thought he was being mocking Abbott's disability. Apparently such remarks are part of John's family values.
Or maybe this comment made about his own party's nominee for Congress from his own congressional district a couple of months later:
Yeah, I guess that John means THOSE liberal Democrat family values that he adheres to.
Or maybe John just finds it offensive to call a blonde-haired white woman a retard bu finds it an acceptable epithet to fling at an African-American. You know -- given the long history of Kluxerism among Democrat officials like Cobarruvias, it would not be at all shocking for him to be just one more in the dishonorable line of Democrat leaders who have disgraced this nation. After all, he is the guy who called for the murder of political opponents a few months back, has a long history of threatening/encouraging acts of violence against political opponents as well as racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-disabled hate speech directed against them as well. Heck, he's even threatened to engage in acts of violence to keep Republicans from voting, just like his Klannish predecessors in Democrat leadership. So we know exactly what sort of values John and the Democrats of Texas and Harris County stand for.
The explosive hypocrisy of this one is astounding.
After all, the blogger and Democrat activist John Cobarruvias tweeted and Facebooked death threats to NRA leaders and members right after Newtown and has a long history of racist, sexist, ageist, homophobic and anti-disabled rhetoric.
But I'm not surprised he blogged on this kerfuffle.
First RedStateís Erick Erickson called state Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, ĎAbortion BarbieĒ in the wake of her filibuster against tighter abortion restrictions and the resulting national profile that has her mulling a race for governor.
Now there is a ďthanks for your supportĒ from the Twitter feed of Attorney General Greg Abbott, the top GOP contender for governor, to a backer who called Davis ďRetard Barbie.Ē
* * *
The tweet from @jefflegal said, ď@GregAbbott_TX would absolutely demolish idiot @WendyDavisTexas in Gov race Ė run Wendy run! Retard Barbie to learn life lesson.Ē
Abbott responded, ďJeff, thanks for your support.Ē
Abbott later posted, ďFYI: I thank supporters on Twitter, but I donít endorse anyoneís offense language. Stay positiveĒ
Now let's be honest -- Abbott probably is not the individual who sent out "thank you" tweet. It was probably some staffer who didn't read the entire thing before sending the canned response. Abbott has better things to do with his time.
But that didn't stop the former Texas State Democratic Executive Committee member from writing this.
You would think that someone like Abbott who is disabled, even though it was because of his own lack of judgement, would be very sensitive to those with disabilities whether it is physically or mentally. Abbott obviously either needs a new social media director, needs to get off of Twitter, or needs to apologize.
But Abbot is a teabagger and this is what teabaggers do. F*&^ing twittidiot.
If John had any judgement at all, he would not have hit the button to publish that, given his own history as a twitterrorist. After all, for the rhetorically violent and ethically challenged blogger to declare an accomplished individual like Greg Abbott to be a "twittidiot" is astounding after these tweets sent out back in December.
Oh, yeah -- and his Facebook post.
If I had put those out to the world a few months back, I don't know that I'd be critiquing the tweets sent out in anybody's name. But that's Johnny for you -- no judgment and no class rolled into one violent, hate-mongering, profanity-laced ball of hypocrisy. After all, he has a history of calling a Democrat woman (and a minority Democrat woman at that) a "retard" (scroll to last comment on the thread).
UPDATE: Just got reminded by a fan that John was ranked as the #2 deleted tweet of the year 2012 by the folks at Twitchy. One more reason that the twitterrorist over at Bay Area Houston has no business deciding who is a "twittidiot"?
JOANNE LIPMAN: So letís dive right in. The loudest criticism that we often hear about ďThe New York TimesĒ ó I donít know if itís the most frequent but itís certainly the loudest ó is that it has a liberal bias. Does it?
MARGARET SULLIVAN, PUBLIC EDITOR ďTHE NEW YORK TIMES: Well, some of my predecessors have taken that head-on. In fact, Daniel Okrent, the first public editor, once wrote a column ó and I think the headline said something like ďIs ĎThe Timesí a Liberal Newspaper?Ē
And his answer in the lead was, of course it is. And he went on from there. And it got quite a bit of response.
I mean that is obviously something people feel about ďThe Times,Ē and I think maybe the best way to think about it is that ďThe TimesĒ reflects its readership, its community. Itís an urban paper; itís a New York City paper. I mean thatís a reasonable criticism, I think.
LIPMAN: So it is a yes?
SULLIVAN: Itís a modified yes with a lot of nuance in it.
And I, for one, don't care if it is a nuanced yes or an unabashed in your face yes. I just appreciate the honest in acknowledging the bias.
Because i don't care if a paper or magazine or network has a bias -- as long as they have the integrity to acknowledge it.
After all, there is nothing wrong with having a point of view. It is when you deny the point of view and claim you play things right down the middle that there is a problem.
That is all a part of exercising your freedom.
Here are this weekís full results.
See you next week!
Just remember -- they are the Religion of Peace and would NEVER seek to offend others with their outrageous speech and actions.
On August 11, I reported on the march being planned by the Muslim advocacy group named the American Muslim Political Action Committee (AMPAC) and ourselves noted that it is little else but a finger in Americanís eyes. Now others are echoing that sentiment.
Recently on Fox News, Doctor Zudhi Jasser, president of the Islamic Forum for Democracy, criticized the picking of the very day that Muslims killed over three thousand Americans.
ďTheyíre basically a bunch of Ďtruthersí who think that Americaís to blame for everything,Ē Jasser said. He went on to say that the Anti-Defamation League has identified some of the leaders of the march as ďbeing virulent, anti-Semites who think 9/11 was a conspiracy theory.Ē
Shameful -- just shameful. But hardly surprising.
I agree with Ed Morrissey on this one -- our strength on 2016 is not in Washington, but in the states. The GOP should not be looking to Cruz, Paul, or Rubio at the top of the ticket -- they need more seasoning. Instead, we need someone with a track record of governing successfully.
By the time 2015 rolls around and candidates have to commit to a run, a number of GOP governors will be staking out their ground as well.
New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie will almost certainly use his considerable media presence and blunt style to launch the next phase of his career. Scott Walker has to win a re-election bid in Wisconsin in 2014; a win will re-establish his fighting credentials on budgets and reform.
Mike Pence got some attention early in the 2012 cycle as a potential presidential contender, but decided to go home to Indiana to add executive office to his already-impressive conservative credentials. Susana Martinez, who like Cruz was given a featured-speaker slot at the national GOP convention last year, should sail to a 2014 re-election in New Mexico, with approval ratings that have never dropped below 60%.
There's also Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley to consider as well, each of whom has complied a good record in office.
It isn't that I don't like the three senators I mentioned earlier. I think each is going to be a distinguished Senator who will contend for the presidency in the future -- but that future should be in 2020, 2024, or even 2028 (Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio will only be 58 on Inauguration Day in 2029, while Rand Paul will have reached the ripe old age of 65). Let's not rush things with them; I've long argued that Barack Obama's biggest problem as president has been an arrogance born of a rapid rise based upon charisma rather than competence. Do we really want to nominate a candidate with one term or less in the Senate? I say no, despite my respect for Rubio, admiration for Paul, and outright adoration of Cruz. I'd rather they stay in the Senate a few years more and get some more seasoning while racking up records of accomplishment, not rhetoric.
I came across this bit of wisdom written by a student from Missouri -- in an age that is notoriously less politically tolerant than when i was in college three decades ago, these points are important for you to remember.
1. Headís up, everyone that surrounds you on campus, including professors and students will more than likely be liberal. Itís the constant struggle that all Conservative college students face. At times you may feel like youíre one in a million because your political views are so different than the people around you. Donít be discouraged, there are Conservatives on your campusĖI promise. You just have to find them.
2. The classes will be biasedĖmostly against you. Donít be afraid to speak up even if your opinion is different than your professors. However, do not be rude. They are still your professor and they are in charge of the classroom. If a professor ever truly picks on you in a distasteful way about your beliefs being different than his or hers, contact an administrator. Some good administrators to start out having conversations with are you collegeís Vice President of Student Affairs, the Dean of Students, or the department head of that specific academic area. Having differing opinions is okay in a college setting; being mistreated because of them is not okay and should not be tolerated.
3. You will be shocked at how easily students absorb Liberal teachings. Some conservative students even get swept away by these teachers and change their morals and ideals. Donít fall into this trap. Keep thinking and reasoning for yourself.
4. Join a Conservative organization. Nearly all colleges will have a College Republicans, Young Americans for Liberty, Young Americans Foundation, or some other Conservative group. Joining these groups from the start can help weed out some of the Democrat trolls who will despise your existence because you are a Republican. You will always feel more at home and be in good company around fellow Conservatives.
5. If youíre interested in going into political policy-making or government work in the future, join your Student Government Association at your college. It doesnít matter if everyone is a Liberal in your SGA, if youíre competent and a hard-worker you can accomplish great things while on campus. Most schoolsí SGAís will be non-partisan.
6. If you want to start a riot, do so respectfully. Chances are, your views will be almost always different than other people. If youíre mad about something and want someone to know about it, donít use profane language or insult anyone in the name of your Conservative cause. That makes the rest of us look like we all belong in the Westboro Baptist Church. Youíre still under the authority of the administration at your college, even if you disagree with them. Make sure you are following the set-aside rules for protesting and spreading information to other students on campus.
7. Be prepared for your new college friends to start trolling you on Facebook and Twitter when you voice your political opinion. This will especially become apparent when election season is rolling around where everyone who never cared about politics suddenly turns into Rush Limbaugh-esque commentator on social media.
8. Get connected with local Republican politicians and Conservative groups in your community. Sometimes seeking Conservative companions off campus is greatly rewarding. The older members of these groups would love to see younger members and college-age involvement. You might even end up getting an internship or working on a campaign. Getting your name ďout thereĒ off campus is extremely important if youíre wanting to go into politics.
9. Wearing Republican/Conservative t-shirts, stickers, pins, and putting stickers on your laptop in class will almost always spark a conversation with professors and other students. They will probably call you weird, or grill you on your ideology. But, if you know what youíre talking about then you should be okay. Just donít start a political World War III in the classroom about your differing political views than your peers.
10. Join the young Conservative cause online. There are thousands of other college-aged students like yourself going through the daily struggles of living on a Liberal campus. Start following young Conservatives on Twitter, Facebook, blogs like this one, and YouTube. You just might be surprised that you will meet some of your most supportive team of companions online.
I was fortunate to start my college career on a conservative campus -- and when I transferred I ended up at a school that had a tolerant political atmosphere. Indeed, the only time I ever ran into a serious political issue was when I took a position on an issue that involved both political and religious issues and a professor from my department had the audacity to contact the bishop of my diocese with a demand that I be ORDERED to publicly retract my claims that student funds were being used to support anti-Catholicsm on campus (I did get a call from the chancery office -- praising me for having raised the issue). With this exception, I was well-treated by my professors, including the state ACLU board member who I worked for as a graduate assistant.
But i will also urge you to be prepared to take serious action in the event that you find yourself a target. If backed into a corner where your rights are being violated, don't back down -- contact groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom or the American Center for Law and Justice for legal assistance. You may not want to go to court, but if you are being muzzled by discriminatory treatment or threatened with academic retaliation for using your First Amendment rights, it is important that you stand firm.
David Gregory asks the following on MTP today.
"Do Americans, specifically Democratic voters, do they want to see a third Obama term or would they like to see the restoration of the Bill Clinton era?"
So asked David Gregory on NBC's Meet the Press Sunday.
Uh, dude -- why do you assume that those are the only two options? Why do you assume that only Democrat voters matter? Given Obama's sinking approval ratings AND Hillary's lead in early polling for the Democrat nomination, why do you think anyone would prefer some sort of "third Obama term"? And why the failure to consider the very real possibility that a GOPer -- whether Chris Christie, Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Paul Ryan, Rand Paul, or Ted Cruz -- may turn out to be the answer to the question of what Americans want in 2014, bringing with them a return to Reaganism?
Maybe I'm cursed for having studied history and actually remembering it. Perhaps my fascination with the medieval period and the Renaissance have left me unsuited for life in polite society in Obama's America. But I'll say it now -- I'm not in the least bit offended by the Missouri Rodeo Clown Scandal that has rocked America this week. Indeed, I think that the actions of this latter day fool are in the highest traditions of his calling.
Let me explain.
If one goes back a half-dozen centuries or, one discovers that rather than being banned from political humor that mocks the nation's ruler, the Jester was the one person who could mock the king. How honored were these fools? Consider the picture below.
One of course recognizes Henry VIII at center, closely flanked by Prince Edward and Queen Jane Seymour, with his daughters Mary and Elizabeth a panel removed. But the two figures spying in the doors of the outer panels? They are none other than Will Sommers, the most famous of all court jesters of the Tudor period, and Jane Foole, his female counterpart! Their roll -- mocking the king and his extravagances and follies, made them honored and beloved even by the king himself, not outcasts to be derided and reviled. After all, it was not the lords and ladies of the court who Henry had included in the portrait along with his family -- it was the clowns who mocked him and brought laughter at his own expense.
Which leads us to the current controversy in Missouri.
We've got accusations of racism from all the usual suspects, both nationally and on the local level. The man has been banned from all rodeos in an entire state for the performance, been denounced by some clown as being unethical and accused of committing a hate crime by the head of the NAACP in the state and even been denounced by the White House!
For what? For mocking the President of the United States.
You know, something that is fully protected by the First Amendment and has gone on for as long as we have had presidents of the United States.
That includes ones generally remembered as good presidents, and ones who were popular.
Well, I think you get the point.
And while we are on the topic of rodeo clowns and political humor, let me make an observation as a rodeo fan whose favorite clown is the great Leon Coffee, who I see 8-10 times a year at RodeoHouston, one of the most beloved figures in his field.
Though I can't recall any political humor from him here in Houston, he is not above engaging in a little at other rodeos.
In a break in Thursday nightís Xtreme Bulls competition, bullfighter and comic relief expert Leon Coffee crawled out of his hiding spot in the barrel on the dirt floor of the AT&T Center to ask a serious question.
Had anyone heard about the time that Chelsea Clinton met President Bush, Coffee asked, before continuing:
ďShe said, ĎWhat are your three biggest fears?í
ďHe thought for a moment, and said:
Ē ĎAnd yo mama.í Ē
And if you object that he is not wearing a mask in this particular instance, he does at other times.
It is part of the rodeo clown schtick. Public figures, even political leaders, get mocked. It is funny -- or at least it is supposed to be.
Which brings me back to the incident in Missouri. I've watched the video, and that is where the whole thing fails -- the act wasn't funny. And it has nothing to do with Obama being president or Obama being black. The whole thing wasn't done well. And if folks were up in arms over that, I'd join in the critique.
Instead, I'll join with my Congressman in extending an invitation for him to come perform here in Texas. But don't expect me to drop by for the performance -- I'll go see someone who is actually funny.
Why mycustomworkout.com is so famous now?
Weight loss has been a topic on my mind for some of playing. As an adolescent my pops referred to me as "husky" a thing I can''t stand hearing even today. My first real ''diet'' was age eleven with the encouragement of my grandmother. It worked and also by the end in the summer I was an eleven year old ninety pound kid, almost average for my height. My problem was I loved food and snacking and I wasn''t like my buddies that could eat anything they wanted and turn into thin as a rail. Looks like myscustomworkout.com brings quality for visitors, as its not really often to see such place full of real reviews, product opinions, workout plans etc. For example it brings best Somanabolic Muscle Maximzier review you can find online. Below is just part of Andrew Samson blog wisdom.
Every day check up''s
You need to monitor your everyday schedule first, you may notice unhealthy eating, no exercises. You need to follow tips from mycustomworkout.com by Andrew Samson. You need to change something with your eating habits. Eat most of nutritious food. No need to starve, even if you''re hungry. Starving doesn''t reduce fat, instead it brings other troubles. You need to eat each of the proteins, carbs, fibers, little fats, etc., daily. Proper balanced diet provides changes in your metabolism. Your metabolism will increase. You should drink plenty of fluid. It can be of any type water, juice, milk, etc. This will help you to be fit and healthy and cool your system.
Tip: No meals are able to burn up fat. Grapefruit, celery, and cabbage are healthy foods because they contain fiber and fiber allows you feel full, these foods do not burn off fat. Any diet that strictly limits calories is dangerous. A diet less than 800 calories daily may cause heart rhythm abnormalities that may be fatal.
When to start any lose weight program?
Starting too quickly (with no knowledge of the facts) - Please, you should, take a step today to begin your new program. Do not hesitate yet another minute. But make sure that you also do your research and get sound advice concerning how to go about slimming down in the quickest and healthiest manner. Do not fall into the trap of thinking that counting calories and running about the treadmill work most effectively ways to lose fat.
Muscle Maximizer program
As is often said, the key to a diet and good plan/program . Kyle Leon''s new program can be a combination of the right physical exercises with good, nutritious, low calorie meals. Before you embark with a weight lifting or other heavy exercise program, however, make sure to consult your doctor first to rule out any other health risks. Mycustomworkout.com can provide you great Somanabolic Muscle Maximizer review to read
Some of us are packing on weight faster than others, or we''re able to say that reducing your weight also is determined by how fast we have been burning fat. The most important thing isn''t to lose faith and continue to find out what kind of diet or program will last us, what''s going to be mostly our unique method to follow a particular regime.
The things you ingest also matter if you''re concerned about excess fat. To lose weight, you have to cut down on the volume of calories that you simply eat. It is advisable to include more fresh vegetables and fruits in your daily diet. These foods are high in nutrients and fiber and also this is necessary if you wish to live a healthy life. You also must change the form of carbohydrates which you eat if you wish to get in shape. As for diet supplements, according to Phen375 customer reviews complex carbohydrates are more suitable in comparison to simple ones since they have fewer calories and they also keep you feeling fuller for longer. The complex carbohydrates which you can try include millet, barley, brown rice and whole wheat grains breads. Proteins also need to part of your diet plan but you should make sure you choose healthy options like nuts, beans and lean meat. Most people take more proteins which they need which is one of the explanations why they put on weight.
Not that this is new -- the death-threat spewing Democrat who used to talk about politics over at Bay Area Houston had a tendency to do that from time to time. But now we have other members of the "progressive" tribe going after Attorney General Greg Abbott needing adaptive technology for mobility purposes.
Damn Captain Kroc at McBlogger beat me to it, so I guess I'll just have to post some pictures.
This isn't mean or even tacky. I would wager most Texans -- hell, most Republican primary voters -- aren't aware the man is
a stone-cold fascistin a wheelchair.
Yeah, that's it -- put a man in a wheelchair and he is some sort of fascist. Why, the blogger who Perry referred to above goes even a bit beyond what Perry wrote with this pair of bizarre comparisons.
One of my favorite all-time movies. The Dr. Strangelove character, bound to a wheelchair, is loony, delusional, and power-mad with a broad streak of self-loathing. He reminds me of someone. No, not Charles Krauthammer, though thatís a good guess.
In unrelated news, I keep going back to Greg Abbottís announcement, in the sweltering blast furnace heat, of running for governor. He keeps saying Texas, Texas, Texas, as though Heil, Heil, Heil was a little over the top Ė at least for now.
Apparently just like blacks and Hispanics who don't know their place as subservient to white liberals, disabled individuals who support conservative principles get a double dose of hate and bigotry from the Left. After all, they are tolerant of diversity of all kinds -- except diversity of thought and belief, which are fundamentally intolerable in their eyes and makes such individuals fair game for the bigotry that lurks at the heart of progressivism.
Could they explain why the failed to take a similar stand about the old "Slap Sarah Palin" game that has floated around the internet for years? After all, how is this more offensive than the Palin "game"?
Or the "Slap Bush" game.
For that matter, is the failure of Democrats to condemn the "Slap Obama" game implicitly racist (and no, I won't link to the original site for that one -- its content is EXPLICITLY racist)?
Apparently not -- they are just making an issue of the anti-Hillary game.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on Friday condemned an online game posted by an anti-Hillary Clinton group this week that allows users to virtually slap the former secretary of state every time she speaks.
ďĎSlap HillaryíĒ site isnít a game, it isnít funny,Ē Pelosi said in a statement to TPM. ďLike all violence against women, itís sick. GOP needs to grow up and take this site down.Ē
The game has been on the Internet since around 2000, but The Hillary ProjectĖa group that plans to ďwage war on Hillary Clintonís imageĒ ahead of a possible presidential run in 2016Ėreposted the animated game this week.
EMILYís List, an organization that backs pro-choice female political candidates, has launched a petition demanding that every GOP 2016 candidate pledge to refuse money from The Hillary Project for advocating violence against women.
In other words, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats who are caterwauling about the "Slap Hillary game are not really against violence against ALL women -- just against liberal Democrat women. They also are not against violence against men or against African-Americans (of course as Democrats, they stand in a long line of Democrats who had no problem with violence against black people).
Oh, the hypocrisy of it all!
Professors always think what they do is of paramount importance.
ďJournalism instructors assign much more value to a degree in the discipline than do practicing journalists, according to a new Poynter study.Ē
Oh where, oh where has my Lydia gone?
Oh where, oh where can she be?
With her tail cut short and her ears cut long --
Oh where, oh where can she be?
Here are this weekís full results.
See you next week!
Gotta love this headline from WaPo about the new Iranian President.
Iranís new president takes oath of office,
asks West to abandon Ďlanguage of sanctionsí
Of course, he's a "moderate".
Iranís new president on Sunday called on the West to abandon the ďlanguage of sanctionsĒ in dealing with the Islamic Republic over its contentious nuclear program, hoping to ease the economic pressures now grinding its people.
President Hasan Rouhani spoke after being sworn in as president in an open session of parliament, capping a weekend that saw him endorsed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iranís supreme leader.
Rouhani, a moderate cleric who won a landslide victory in the June 14 presidential elections, continued his call for dialogue with the West while asking foreign powers to respect Iran in its negotiations.
ďIf you seek a suitable answer, speak to Iran through the language of respect, not through the language of sanctions,Ē the president said in a speech broadcast live by Iranian state television. He later added that any negotiations would require ďbilateral trust building, mutual respect and the lessening of hostilities.Ē
Don't believe it -- he's already talked about Israel being a "wound" on the Muslim world that needs to be removed. So what we have is a new face but the same old genocidal program. So much for "the language of respect."
Amid much hype and speculation, Peter Capaldi was unveiled as the next Doctor during a special live television event on BBC ONE tonight.
Widely regarded as one of the biggest roles in British television, Capaldi will be the Twelfth Doctor and takes over from Matt Smith who leaves the show at Christmas.
Peter Capaldi says : ďBeing asked to play The Doctor is an amazing privilege. Like the Doctor himself I find myself in a state of utter terror and delight. I can't wait to get started."
Steven Moffat, lead writer and executive producer says : ďIt's an incendiary combination: one of the most talented actors of his generation is about to play the best part on television. Peter Capaldi is in the TARDIS!Ē
Doctor Who companion, Jenna Coleman says "I'm so excited Peter Capaldi is the man taking on the challenge of becoming the Twelfth Doctor. With Steven's writing and his talent I know we'll be making an amazing show with an incredible incarnation of number 12. I can't wait to start this new adventure!"
This was the odds-on favorite among UK bookmakers, and seems to be a quite popular choice among the Brits. I'm pleased (but not as pleased as I would have been with Ben Daniels).
Fans of the show will remember Capaldi from this appearance several years ago in "The Fires of Pompeii"..
I'm just a little bit sad that he isn't keeping this from his upcoming role as Cardinal Richelieu.
So, what do you think -- funny Doctor or serious Doctor. White-knight Doctor or something a bit darker?
Well, I think that statement is pretty representative of what most Democrat politicians think -- but Keith Ellison was honest enough to say it.
ďThe bottom line is weíre not broke, thereís plenty of money, itís just the government doesnít have it,Ē Ellison continued, ďThe government has a right, the government and the people of the United States have a right to run the programs of the United States. Health, welfare, housing Ė all these things.Ē
The ĎInclusive Prosperity Actí would levy a sales tax on the trading of stocks, bonds and derivatives. Ellison estimates it would generate $300 billion in revenues annually.
For those of you who don't get what Ellison is saying, it boils down to this -- "Your money isn't your money -- it is the government's money and we just have to figure out how to take it from you so it can be spent on the government's priorities rather than yours."
Wealthy gay dad, Barrie Drewitt-Barlow, says he and his civil partner Tony will go to court to force churches to host gay weddings.
He told the Essex Chronicle that he will take legal action because ďI am still not getting what I wantĒ.
A Government Bill legalising gay marriage passed Parliament recently but it included measures to protect churches from being forced to perform same-sex weddings.
Mr Drewitt-Barlow said: ďThe only way forward for us now is to make a challenge in the courts against the church.
ďIt is a shame that we are forced to take Christians into a court to get them to recognise us.Ē
He added: ďIt upsets me because I want it so much Ė a big lavish ceremony, the whole works, I just donít think it is going to happen straight away.
ďAs much as people are saying this is a good thing I am still not getting what I want.Ē
There you have it - he's "not getting what I want" and will therefore demand "what I want" and use the courts to force others to give him "what I want" -- despite the fact that this means government forcing religious groups and religious institutions (as well as religious individuals) to act contrary to their religious beliefs and therefore in violation of what has long been recognized as a fundamental human right.
And remember -- when the law legalizing gay marriages was passed in the UK, it made a specific provision allowing churches to opt out of performing them. Now that is being subjected to challenge in the courts -- and given the hostility to Christian teachings against homosexuality, I would not be surprised to see this exemption overturned.
Not, mind you, that the litigious couple are receiving universal support for their lawsuit. Certainly those who support religious freedom have a problem with it, but they are even getting some push-back from within the gay community. But there was never much doubt that there would be such legal action, by either willful couples or militant organizations who believe that "not getting what I want" is a violation of human rights that trumps freedom of conscience and the freedom to practice one's religion as an individual and a community in conformity with that conscience.
Which brings us to America. Professor Althouse, one of my favorite bloggers, is just certain that such a thing could never happen in the United States.
They've got an established church over there. We have the separation of church and state, freedom of religion, and freedom of speech, and a legal tradition of defending these rights. And that makes all the difference, in case you are worried that as gay marriage becomes the legal norm, our churches (and other religious organizations) will be required to perform weddings for same-sex couples.
But will it be that simple? We've already seen religious freedom of individuals and couples limited proscribed when it comes to refusing to cover same-sex spouses on insurance policies, refusal to participate in gay weddings as a contractor, and refusal by religious organizations to forbid gay marriage ceremonies or receptions on their properties. How much longer until some enterprising judge somewhere in America -- perhaps a state judge, perhaps a federal one -- to rule that there is a right to have a gay marriage in the house of worship of one's choice and that refusal of clergy to perform same-sex marriages is not an exercise of religious freedom but instead of invidious discrimination? How long until we find the refusal of a church to marry a gay couple to be the legal equivalent of the refusal of a restaurant to serve racial minorities? It takes very little imagination (I'd argue none) to envision a lawyer with a gay rights group, a professor at a prestigious law school, or a law student who made the law review working up the arguments right now -- "church as public accommodation", "incorporation vitiates First Amendment rights", "performing marriages that are civilly valid subjects ministers to civil rights laws" or even some expansion of the argument from the Bob Jones University case that would strip tax exemptions from churches that do not conform to the spirit of the age on gay marriage. Heck, they will certainly have plenty of foreign law to appeal to as well. So rest assured that there will be an attack through the courts on the autonomy of religious institutions with regards to solemnizing gay marriages.
Please note -- this post is not one dealing with the morality or immorality of homosexual relations, nor is it one arguing for or against gay marriage. Rather, it is one that notes that the goalposts keep getting moved on gay issues. I'm old enough to remember 40 years ago when the gay community was quite specific that they just wanted to be left alone and that nobody was ever going to be forced to go against their religious beliefs in how they operated their business -- and certainly nobody was going to have to recognize or accept men marrying men or women marrying women. We've now moved beyond "being left alone" to a situation where acting on traditional religious beliefs regarding homosexuality is in most places illegal and gay marriage is becoming more common and may yet be constitutionalized by the courts. Where does this leave the rights of churches -- and religious believers -- with regard to issues of sexual orientation and same-sex marriage and how will society respect the rights of religious institutions and religious believers, if at all? That is a question that we as a society must settle and settle soon, lest an American Barrie Drewitt-Barlow forces "what I want" upon everybody else, regardless of what they want.
And as a fan of the British science fiction series for the last 40 years or so, I'm excited.
Back in June we confirmed that Matt Smith would be leaving Doctor Who and since then thereís been intense speculation about who would be taking over the role of the Doctor. But the guesswork and conjecture end this weekendÖ The BBC will reveal the identity of the next Doctor during a live BBC One show that begins at 7pm on Sunday, 04 August. You can watch a trailer for the programme now!
The news about the announcement has been delivered in the following press release:
Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor
In a special one-off live television event on BBC One this Sunday 4th August at 7pm, the next Doctor will be exclusively revealed to the nation.
Widely regarded as one of the most hotly contested roles in British television, the show's host Zoe Ball will unveil the 12th Doctor in the first ever interview in front of a live studio audience set against the backdrop of a swirling vortex, amongst Daleks and the TARDIS.
The half hour show will include live special guests, Doctors old and new, as well as companions and celebrity fans.
Here's the trailer.
So that is Sunday, August 4, 2013 at 2:00 Eastern Time -- which is 1:00 Central time here in Houston. You folks further west can figure out your time zones yourself. Oh, yeah -- it is on BBC America.
It was a confluence of magnificent proportions that led to six agents from the joint terrorism task force to knock on my door Wednesday morning. Little did my husband and I know that our seemingly innocent, if curious to a fault, Googling of certain things were creating a perfect storm of terrorism profiling. Because somewhere out there, someone was watching. Someone whose job it is to piece together the things people do on the internet raised the red flag when they saw our search history.
Most of it was innocent enough. I had researched pressure cookers. My husband was looking for a backpack. And maybe in another time those two things together would have seemed innocuous, but we are in "these times" now. And in these times, when things like the Boston bombing happen, you spend a lot of time on the internet reading about it and, if you are my exceedingly curious, news junkie 20-year-old son, you click a lot of links when you read the myriad of stories. You might just read a CNN piece about how bomb making instructions are readily available on the internet and you will in all probability, if you are that kid, click the link provided.
He learned about racism growing up on the mean streets of Honolulu. Now he's threatening to make race relations worse than he already has.
President Obama said that if economic prescriptions of the type he supports to increase economic growth and reduce ďincome inequalityĒ are not adopted, then race relations in the United State may deteriorate further.
ďIf we donít do anything, then growth will be slower than it should be. Unemployment will not go down as fast as it should. Income inequality will continue to rise,Ē Obama said in an interview published Sunday by the New York Times. ďRacial tensions wonít get better; they may get worse, because people will feel as if theyíve got to compete with some other group to get scraps from a shrinking pot. If the economy is growing, everybody feels invested, Ē he said.
Instapundit nails it -- WELL, I SAID A WHILE BACK THAT THE WORSE HE DID AS PRESIDENT, THE BLACKER HEíD DECIDE TO BE.
Democrats -- sexually exploiting women since at
Anthony Weiner uhhhh. . . Eliot Spitzer errrr. . . John Edwards ummmm. . .. Bill Clinton.
A sex tape that Monica Lewinsky recorded for Bill Clinton at the height of their scandalous affair has leaked, during which the former White House intern is heard planning a secret sexual rendezvous with the president and declaring she is ďtoo cute and adorableĒ to be ignored.
* * *
According to The Enquirer, Lewinsky originally played the tape for Linda Tripp ó the woman whose secret telephone tapes of Lewinsky ultimately led to Clintonís impeachment ó on Nov. 20, 1997.
The cassette was delivered to the Oval Office the next day, according to a report by the Office of Independent Counsel Ken Starr.
The tape and other racy mementoes, including love letters Lewinsky wrote to Clinton, were obtained by an individual who was hired as a ďcleanerĒ by individuals close to Lewinsky.
The source kept the sensational material private for the past 15 years and the Clintons reportedly thought the evidence had been destroyed.
I hope we get every single second of this tape made into spots for the 2016 Democrat presidential primaries -- and for then for the general election.
And presumably we'll get some questions to Hillary Clinton about "Gingko Blowjoba" and the possibility of future "bimbo eruptions" impacting her ability to do her job effectively.
After all, while the message of the Phelps Phamily of Phreaks is repulsive, they don't use bullhorns, they don''t blockade grieving families in place, and they don't sic attack dogs on families of the dead whose funerals they appear at.
On the other hand, union thugs do.
A judge ordered one of Chicagoís most politically powerful labor unions to suspend picketing against 16 funeral homes last week after receiving reports that striking Teamsters had, among other things, disturbed a childís funeral.
SCI Illinois Services, Inc., one of the nationís largest funeral home chains, asked a district court to intervene after striking funeral directors and drivers with Teamsters Local 727 allegedly harassed grieving families.
ďWe are grateful that the court agreed to issue this temporary restraining order, and we are hopeful that it will help protect grieving families who are experiencing the most difficult times of their lives,Ē Larry Michael, managing director for SCI Illinois Services, Inc., said in a release. ďWhile we recognize and respect the Teamstersí right to lawfully picket, we have been shocked and saddened by their attempts to make grieving families the target of the cruel and outrageous attacks.Ē
The company testified in its filing that union members blocked grieving family members from leaving its parking lot, used bullhorns to shout obscenities at workers and mourners, and unleashed a German Shepard on a dead womanís daughter and husband.
The funeral home was eventually forced to call the police when picketers allegedly disrupted a childís funeral with laughter. The officer asked the Teamsters to leave, but protesters returned when he drove away.
ďWe will be here for the visitation; we will be here for your funeral,Ē Teamster driver Lester Plewa allegedly shouted into a bullhorn as a funeral director met with a dying man planning his arrangements with family members.
And the sad thing is that there are laws that privilege these organized criminal activities engaged in by unions. Just one more reason we need to become a right-to-work nation.
UPDATE: Wow! Gateway Pundit supplies further details that show how low these sick union trash will go in their criminal effort to destroy the business and reputation of those who refuse to knuckle under to their extortion efforts.