Thanksgiving Divorce
A man in Phoenix calls his son in New York the day before Thanksgiving
and says, "I hate to ruin your day, but I have to tell you that your
mother and I are divorcing; forty-five years of misery is enough.
"Pop, what are you talking about?" the son screams. We can't stand the
sight of each other any longer," the father says. "We're sick of each
other, and I'm sick of talking about this, so you call your sister in
Chicago and tell her."
Frantic, the son calls his sister, who explodes on the phone. "Like heck
they are getting divorced," she shouts, "I'll take care of this,"
She calls Phoenix immediately, and screams at her father, "You are NOT
getting divorced. Don't do a single thing until I get there. I'm calling
my brother back, and we'll both be there tomorrow. Until then, don't do
a thing, DO YOU HEAR ME?" and hangs up.
The old man hangs up his phone and turns to his wife. "Okay," he says,
"they're coming for Thanksgiving and paying their own way."
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Attention Washington! "Norman, Okla Has The Solution to the Auto Bailout"
Congressman Cole, Congresswoman Fallin, Senator Inhofe, Senator Coburn, please take the time to review the proposal below. Mayor Lewis and Rod Cleveland have an idea that makes more sense that the bailout that the goverment is considering.
Auto makers bail out
I have got an idea for the auto maker bail out. Don't give the auto
makers cash from the US government but issue vouchers to local and
state governments (not federal) for new automobiles, trucks, and
equipment. The local entity then takes that voucher to the local
dealer and turns it in and pays a nominal processing fee or prep fee.
The dealer turns it into the auto maker and gets it's money from the
government that way. This gets inventory turned and continues the
making of automobiles and adds to the supply that can be sold in
Mexico.
If there are not enough local governments for 25 billion dollars then
institute a national auto lottery that you could win a voucher for a
price range of a make and a style. Charge a buck for a ticket and
have drawings everyday. The winner takes the voucher to the dealer and
pays a prep and process charge and gets a new car.
Rod Cleveland
Cleveland County Commissioner
Norman, OK
Auto makers bail out
I have got an idea for the auto maker bail out. Don't give the auto
makers cash from the US government but issue vouchers to local and
state governments (not federal) for new automobiles, trucks, and
equipment. The local entity then takes that voucher to the local
dealer and turns it in and pays a nominal processing fee or prep fee.
The dealer turns it into the auto maker and gets it's money from the
government that way. This gets inventory turned and continues the
making of automobiles and adds to the supply that can be sold in
Mexico.
If there are not enough local governments for 25 billion dollars then
institute a national auto lottery that you could win a voucher for a
price range of a make and a style. Charge a buck for a ticket and
have drawings everyday. The winner takes the voucher to the dealer and
pays a prep and process charge and gets a new car.
Rod Cleveland
Cleveland County Commissioner
Norman, OK
Oklahoma Bar Wants To Discriminate
Oklahoma Bar trying to help the Homosexual agenda. The public needs to know what the Bar is up to. If you have been a Boy Scout leader or belong to Promise Keepers and if the Bar has it's way you could not qualify to be a Judge. The Bar wants to discriminate and this is just flat wrong!!!
Bob
Oklahoma Bar Association to make recommendations that will affect Oklahoma Judicial Candidates
Who is behind this move?
OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Bar Association Board of Governors will discuss in their Committee language that will determine if people who are members of groups that discriminate against people because of sexual preference will be eligible to become judges.
Since most major religious denominations oppose homosexual practices, these church membership is specifically exempted, but not religious auxiliary organizations such as Promise Keepers or Knights of Columbus.
It is not difficult to imagine that the judicial candidates would no longer be able to participate in Boy Scouts which does not allow admitted homosexuals to be adult leaders or military support organizations since the US Military still bars openly homosexuals from serving in the military.
The concern of many people in the state is that overly broad language that could keep someone from being a judge would cause many attorneys to withdrawal from civic organizations in order to have the potential of being a judge in the future. This would be bad for two reasons:
1) It would hurt Oklahoma by taking away great leaders from civic organizations
2) Further serve to isolate the judiciary from the general public
While the Bar Association could make the rules very specific by saying “judicial candidates cannot be members of known hate groups” or even better, just allowing people to know what groups the judicial candidates belong to, would give the voters the right to make decisions as to who should be on the bench, not obscure committees who could deny Oklahomans from having access to a greater pool of potential jurists.
The question remains – who is behind this proposed rule and what is the bigger agenda? National homosexual advocacy groups have been leading boycotts and other pressure tactics on the Boy Scouts of America to force the private organization to allow homosexuals to become adult leaders in despite the expressed wishes of parents and participants in scouts that the ban should continue.
Is this just the latest attempt for a vocal minority to inflict its will on the majority?
The wording of the proposed amendment:
RULE 3.6
Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations (A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices
invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
[2] An organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis
of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be
eligible for admission. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is a complex question to
which judges should be attentive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s
current membership rolls, but rather, depends upon how the organization selects members, as well as other
relevant factors, such as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or whether it is an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not constitutionally be prohibited.
[3] When a judge learns that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination, the
judge must resign immediately from the organization.
[4] A judge’s membership in a religious organization as a lawful exercise of the freedom of religion is not a violation of
this Rule.
[5] This Rule does not apply to national or state military service.
Bob
Oklahoma Bar Association to make recommendations that will affect Oklahoma Judicial Candidates
Who is behind this move?
OKLAHOMA CITY – The Oklahoma Bar Association Board of Governors will discuss in their Committee language that will determine if people who are members of groups that discriminate against people because of sexual preference will be eligible to become judges.
Since most major religious denominations oppose homosexual practices, these church membership is specifically exempted, but not religious auxiliary organizations such as Promise Keepers or Knights of Columbus.
It is not difficult to imagine that the judicial candidates would no longer be able to participate in Boy Scouts which does not allow admitted homosexuals to be adult leaders or military support organizations since the US Military still bars openly homosexuals from serving in the military.
The concern of many people in the state is that overly broad language that could keep someone from being a judge would cause many attorneys to withdrawal from civic organizations in order to have the potential of being a judge in the future. This would be bad for two reasons:
1) It would hurt Oklahoma by taking away great leaders from civic organizations
2) Further serve to isolate the judiciary from the general public
While the Bar Association could make the rules very specific by saying “judicial candidates cannot be members of known hate groups” or even better, just allowing people to know what groups the judicial candidates belong to, would give the voters the right to make decisions as to who should be on the bench, not obscure committees who could deny Oklahomans from having access to a greater pool of potential jurists.
The question remains – who is behind this proposed rule and what is the bigger agenda? National homosexual advocacy groups have been leading boycotts and other pressure tactics on the Boy Scouts of America to force the private organization to allow homosexuals to become adult leaders in despite the expressed wishes of parents and participants in scouts that the ban should continue.
Is this just the latest attempt for a vocal minority to inflict its will on the majority?
The wording of the proposed amendment:
RULE 3.6
Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations (A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices
invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.
[2] An organization is generally said to discriminate invidiously if it arbitrarily excludes from membership on the basis
of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation persons who would otherwise be
eligible for admission. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is a complex question to
which judges should be attentive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s
current membership rolls, but rather, depends upon how the organization selects members, as well as other
relevant factors, such as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or whether it is an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not constitutionally be prohibited.
[3] When a judge learns that an organization to which the judge belongs engages in invidious discrimination, the
judge must resign immediately from the organization.
[4] A judge’s membership in a religious organization as a lawful exercise of the freedom of religion is not a violation of
this Rule.
[5] This Rule does not apply to national or state military service.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Supreme Court Rules Obama In Trouble
"Supreme court ruling on Obama's eligibility for presidency"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.
A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President..."
What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.
Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari.
The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days premature.
The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding President-elect Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.
Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship:
· The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;
· The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;
· The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;
· The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.
· The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states." Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."
· The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;
Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court Of The United States (SCOTUS) Justice David Souter has agreed that a review of the federal lawsuit filed by attorney Phil Berg against Barack Hussein Obama II, et al., which was subsequently dismissed for lack of standing is warranted. SCOTUS Docket No. 08-570 contains the details.
A review of that docket and the Rule 10 of the Supreme Court makes abundantly clear that Justice Souter's granting of a review on the Writ of Certiorari is not a right entitled to citizen Phil Berg, but rather is a matter of judcial discretion based upon a compelling reason. That compelling reason is the Constitutional requirement that "No person except a natural born citizen ... shall be eligible to the office of President..."
What this means is that on or before 1 DECEMBER 2008 Barack Hussein Obama II must respond to the writ of certiorari, and since the Berg v Obama case hinged primarily on the question of Obama's place of birth, it is almost inconceivable that Barack Obama will thumb his nose at the Justices of the Supreme Court and he is absolutely compelled to provide a vault copy his original birth certificate.
Another very salient fact to consider at this time is that, despite all of the pronouncements of the print and broadcast media, Barack Obama is not yet the President-elect of the United States. Barack Obama can only become the President-elect after the Electoral College convenes on 15 DECEMBER 2008 in their respective state capitals around the nation and casts their votes to elect the President and the Vice President. As you can see this election day occurs two weeks after the required response to the Supreme Court granted Writ of Certiorari.
The bottom line is this: the presidential election of 2008 remains an ongoing process, the outcome of which remains undetermined, and all talk about a potential Constitutional crisis in the United States are at least 36 days premature.
The inevitable constitutional crisis regarding President-elect Obama, of course, revolves around his inability (or unwillingness) to produce an authentic Hawaiian birth certificate with the raised certificate stamp that the Federal Elections Commission can independently verify.
Here are some of the unanswered issues hanging over the head of President-elect Barack Obama and the question of his American citizenship:
· The allegation that Obama was born in Kenya to parents unable to automatically grant him American citizenship;
· The allegation that Obama was made a citizen of Indonesia as a child and that he retained foreign citizenship into adulthood without recording an oath of allegiance to regain any theoretical American citizenship;
· The allegation that Obama's birth certificate was a forgery and that he may not be an eligible, natural-born citizen;
· The allegation that Obama was not born an American citizen; lost any hypothetical American citizenship he had as a child; that Obama may not now be an American citizen and even if he is, may hold dual citizenships with other countries. If any, much less all, of these allegations are true, the suit claims, Obama cannot constitutionally serve as president.
· The allegations that "Obama's grandmother on his father's side, half brother and half sister claim Obama was born in Kenya," the suit states." Reports reflect Obama's mother went to Kenya during her pregnancy; however, she was prevented from boarding a flight from Kenya to Hawaii at her late stage of pregnancy, which apparently was a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight. Stanley Ann Dunham (Obama) gave birth to Obama in Kenya, after which she flew to Hawaii and registered Obama's birth."
· The claim could not be verified by inquiries to Hawaiian hospitals, since state law bars the hospitals from releasing medical records to the public;
Even if Obama produced authenticated proof of his birth in Hawaii, however, the suit claims that the U.S. Nationality Act of 1940 provided that minors lose their American citizenship when their parents expatriate. Since Obama's mother married an Indonesian citizen and moved to Indonesia, the suit claims, she forfeited both her and Barack's American citizenship
No Bail Out Mitt Romney
Let Detroit Go Bankrupt
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008
Boston
Times Topics: Auto Industry Bailout
Times Topics: Mitt Romney
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Read entire article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1
By MITT ROMNEY
Published: November 18, 2008
Boston
Times Topics: Auto Industry Bailout
Times Topics: Mitt Romney
IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.
Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
I love cars, American cars. I was born in Detroit, the son of an auto chief executive. In 1954, my dad, George Romney, was tapped to run American Motors when its president suddenly died. The company itself was on life support — banks were threatening to deal it a death blow. The stock collapsed. I watched Dad work to turn the company around — and years later at business school, they were still talking about it. From the lessons of that turnaround, and from my own experiences, I have several prescriptions for Detroit’s automakers.
First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.
That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.
Read entire article
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1
Chris Wilson Republican Future
TEN THOUGHTS ON THE 2008 ELECTIONS AND THE FUTURE OF THE GOP
Chris Wilson, President of Wilson Research Strategies
November 18, 2008
[Publisher's Note: As part of an ongoing effort to bring original, thoughtful commentary to you here at the FlashReport, I am pleased to present this column from Chris Wilson, the President of Wilson Research Strategies. This data is helpful in our ongoing dialogue about the future of the GOP - Flash]
If you are new to the FlashReport, please check out the main site and the acclaimed FlashReport Weblog on California politics.
NOTE: Wilson's column below is accompanied by this outstanding PowerPoint presentation (now in .pdf format) which I recommend you read. It contains a lot of interesting data.
Ten thoughts about the 2008 elections and the future of the GOP based on Wilson Research Strategies’ election night poll and post-election analysis.
1) This was a winnable race after the convention. Failure on the economy cost McCain and Republicans.
It is easy to forget because the Presidential race seemed to be over about a month before any votes were cast, but coming out of the conventions the McCain campaign had a real chance to win.
Coming out of the DNC Senator Obama had only an eight-point lead in Gallup’s nightly tracking, a relatively small convention “bounce”. After a very well handled RNC, McCain had moved to a six-point lead. While this was a “bounce” as well, it does indicate how close and winnable the race was at that point.
To read the entire articles go to http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2008111812283848
Chris Wilson, President of Wilson Research Strategies
November 18, 2008
[Publisher's Note: As part of an ongoing effort to bring original, thoughtful commentary to you here at the FlashReport, I am pleased to present this column from Chris Wilson, the President of Wilson Research Strategies. This data is helpful in our ongoing dialogue about the future of the GOP - Flash]
If you are new to the FlashReport, please check out the main site and the acclaimed FlashReport Weblog on California politics.
NOTE: Wilson's column below is accompanied by this outstanding PowerPoint presentation (now in .pdf format) which I recommend you read. It contains a lot of interesting data.
Ten thoughts about the 2008 elections and the future of the GOP based on Wilson Research Strategies’ election night poll and post-election analysis.
1) This was a winnable race after the convention. Failure on the economy cost McCain and Republicans.
It is easy to forget because the Presidential race seemed to be over about a month before any votes were cast, but coming out of the conventions the McCain campaign had a real chance to win.
Coming out of the DNC Senator Obama had only an eight-point lead in Gallup’s nightly tracking, a relatively small convention “bounce”. After a very well handled RNC, McCain had moved to a six-point lead. While this was a “bounce” as well, it does indicate how close and winnable the race was at that point.
To read the entire articles go to http://www.flashreport.org/featured-columns-library0b.php?faID=2008111812283848
Allan Keyes Claims Obama Not A Citizen
By Rich Rogers rrogers@nbcaugusta.com and NBC Augusta Staff
Story Published: Nov 18, 2008 at 9:52 AM EST
Story Updated: Nov 18, 2008 at 8:16 PM EST
SACRAMENTO, Calif.- A former opponent of Barack Obama's has come back to haunt him over questions regarding Obama's citizenship.
According to a press release from the American Independent Party, former presidential candidate Alan Keyes and other members of the party have filed suit in California Superior Court in Sacramento to stop the state from giving its electoral votes to President-elect Barack Obama until documentary evidence is provided to prove Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States.
Keyes also ran against Obama as a Republican for the U.S. Senate seat in Illinois in 2004. Obama won that election to serve his first and only term in the U.S. Senate.
The Obama campaign countered similar accusations early in 2008 by posting Obama's certification of live birth, and saying: "Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."
Pistol Pete Maravich & Sooner Hoops
Throughout my life I have had the good fortune to witness many basketball legends. Growing up in South Oklahoma City I used to watch Abe Lemons's OCU Chiefs run and gun game back in the 60s. The highlight of every year was attending the All-College Basketball Tournament that used to be held at the State Fairgrounds and was later moved to the Myriad and then to the Ford Center. After getting married I would drag Barbara to the All College games.
I remember watching Pistol Pete Maravich play numerous times when he played for LSU. And I remember being awed by Pistol Pete's moves. I had never before seen a guy dribble the ball behind his back or pass the ball between his legs. He hit 61 points one night during the All College. I fell in love with basketball and even Barbara from that time on was ready to watch a basketball game any time.
In 1988 Pete was invited back to the All College Tournament to be honored. Before the game and the award ceremony I bought Pistol Pete's book. After he received his award at half time I climed over the ramp and got down on the floor and asked if he would sign the book. He was very polite and even took some time to talk about basketball with me. A week later he died at the age of 40 of a heart attack.
Watching Stephen Curry of Davidson University last night brought back all those great memories. Curry is quick just like the Pistol. He hit a career high 44 points last night with a hand in his face the complete game. Stephen Curry is the best shooter I have seen come around since Pistol Pete Maravich. What a fun game last night. The Griffen brothers and Willie Warren will no doubt take OU to the Big Dance this year. OU has a great coach and great team that is fun to cheer for.
Bob
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Monday, November 17, 2008
New Bond Film
Here is your opportunity to take part. So lets hear from you.
Is that a Sean Connery cameo in the New Bond Film?
by Patrick B. McGuigan,
In the new film, "Quantum of Solace," there is a brief scene involving British secret agent 007 in the lobby of a cheap hotel in Haiti. It is a half hour or so into the story. Daniel Craig, as James Bond, has a brief exchange with the receptionist at the desk, before retrieving a brief case that belongs to someone else (a crucial moment in development of the plot).
Before and after this chat between the girl at the desk and Bond, the camera provides brief glimpses of a fellow sitting in an easy chair near the front desk, reading a newspaper. The second sighting seemed to last a bit longer than the first. I whispered to my wife, with me at the film's showing on a big screen here in Oklahoma City, "I think that is Sean Connery" -- who created the first cinematic interpretation of Ian Fleming's enduring character.
As has been the case after initial release of many films in the series, critics are having fun with the recurring debate about whose Bond is best. A strong case can be made for Craig, who has performed stunningly in both of his appearances as Bond. But Connery deserves praise for his magnificent combination of grit and grace as the original.
For me, the moment sketched above was a "Hitchcock"-like moment (Alfred Hitchcock repeatedly did uncredited cameos in his own films).
If a Connery cameo has been reported already somewhere in print on the Internet, I've missed it completely (that's certainly possible). I have thus far one other person who concurs with my Connery sighting, and two brief online references to the lobby scene, but I've not seen anything in the advance publicity to indicate the director/producers incorporated Connery into an uncredited moment in the film.
I'll be doing my own favorable review of the film shortly, perhaps after a second viewing. Meanwhile, I invite readers to share their assessments: Is that Sean Connery, or merely a remarkable look-alike? Email me your answer at: pmcguigan@cox.net.
About the Author: Patrick B. McGuigan is managing editor of The City Sentinel in Oklahoma City, and a lifelong fan of Ian Fleming's books and the James Bond film series.
Is that a Sean Connery cameo in the New Bond Film?
by Patrick B. McGuigan,
In the new film, "Quantum of Solace," there is a brief scene involving British secret agent 007 in the lobby of a cheap hotel in Haiti. It is a half hour or so into the story. Daniel Craig, as James Bond, has a brief exchange with the receptionist at the desk, before retrieving a brief case that belongs to someone else (a crucial moment in development of the plot).
Before and after this chat between the girl at the desk and Bond, the camera provides brief glimpses of a fellow sitting in an easy chair near the front desk, reading a newspaper. The second sighting seemed to last a bit longer than the first. I whispered to my wife, with me at the film's showing on a big screen here in Oklahoma City, "I think that is Sean Connery" -- who created the first cinematic interpretation of Ian Fleming's enduring character.
As has been the case after initial release of many films in the series, critics are having fun with the recurring debate about whose Bond is best. A strong case can be made for Craig, who has performed stunningly in both of his appearances as Bond. But Connery deserves praise for his magnificent combination of grit and grace as the original.
For me, the moment sketched above was a "Hitchcock"-like moment (Alfred Hitchcock repeatedly did uncredited cameos in his own films).
If a Connery cameo has been reported already somewhere in print on the Internet, I've missed it completely (that's certainly possible). I have thus far one other person who concurs with my Connery sighting, and two brief online references to the lobby scene, but I've not seen anything in the advance publicity to indicate the director/producers incorporated Connery into an uncredited moment in the film.
I'll be doing my own favorable review of the film shortly, perhaps after a second viewing. Meanwhile, I invite readers to share their assessments: Is that Sean Connery, or merely a remarkable look-alike? Email me your answer at: pmcguigan@cox.net.
About the Author: Patrick B. McGuigan is managing editor of The City Sentinel in Oklahoma City, and a lifelong fan of Ian Fleming's books and the James Bond film series.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
Democrats Have Know Family Values
The will of the people is being ignored. We have an election and one side loses but wait according to the Democrats that does not matter.
What happened to family values in the Democrat Party?
It is clear Democrats Really Aren't for Family Values at All!
Democrats cheat to get elected then when they lose they continue to complain.
43 Democratic legislators, including the leaders of the Senate and Assembly, filed a brief requesting that state Supreme Court judges void Proposition 8. None of the petitioners were Republicans.
Bob
By Kathleen Gilbert
SACRAMENTO, California, November 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 43 Democratic
legislators in both of California's legislative houses, including the leaders
of the Senate and Assembly, filed a brief requesting that state Supreme Court
judges void Proposition 8.
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and incoming
President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg were among the signers of the friend of the
court brief, which included a little over a third of the state's 120
legislators. None of the petitioners were Republicans.
According to the LA Times, the lawmakers' brief described the 500,000-vote margin as a "bare majority" that was "compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law."
"Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group."If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities," states the brief.Supreme Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said the court plans to act quickly on the anti-Proposition 8 legislation, and may reach a decision as early as this week.
The three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 were launched immediately after the November 4 passage of Proposition 8, which inserted the true definition of marriage into California's constitution.
Legal experts say opponents' claims that Proposition 8 is an illegal revision of the constitution, rather than an amendment, are not likely to hold water.According to a Union-Tribune column, recall election expert Ted Costa voiced concerns that, despite the legality of Prop. 8, the four Supreme Court judges originally responsible for legalizing same-sex marriage earlier this year may
again side with homosexualist lobbyists and void the amendment. In that case, said Costa, Proposition 8 supporters are likely to call for a recall vote to remove the judges.
What happened to family values in the Democrat Party?
It is clear Democrats Really Aren't for Family Values at All!
Democrats cheat to get elected then when they lose they continue to complain.
43 Democratic legislators, including the leaders of the Senate and Assembly, filed a brief requesting that state Supreme Court judges void Proposition 8. None of the petitioners were Republicans.
Bob
By Kathleen Gilbert
SACRAMENTO, California, November 12, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - 43 Democratic
legislators in both of California's legislative houses, including the leaders
of the Senate and Assembly, filed a brief requesting that state Supreme Court
judges void Proposition 8.
Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata and incoming
President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg were among the signers of the friend of the
court brief, which included a little over a third of the state's 120
legislators. None of the petitioners were Republicans.
According to the LA Times, the lawmakers' brief described the 500,000-vote margin as a "bare majority" that was "compromising the enduring constitutional promise of equal protection under the law."
"Proposition 8 seeks to effect a monumental revision of this foundational principle and constitutional structure by allowing a bare majority of voters to eliminate a fundamental right of a constitutionally protected minority group."If Proposition 8 takes effect, this court will no longer be the final arbiter of the rights of minorities," states the brief.Supreme Court spokeswoman Lynn Holton said the court plans to act quickly on the anti-Proposition 8 legislation, and may reach a decision as early as this week.
The three lawsuits challenging Proposition 8 were launched immediately after the November 4 passage of Proposition 8, which inserted the true definition of marriage into California's constitution.
Legal experts say opponents' claims that Proposition 8 is an illegal revision of the constitution, rather than an amendment, are not likely to hold water.According to a Union-Tribune column, recall election expert Ted Costa voiced concerns that, despite the legality of Prop. 8, the four Supreme Court judges originally responsible for legalizing same-sex marriage earlier this year may
again side with homosexualist lobbyists and void the amendment. In that case, said Costa, Proposition 8 supporters are likely to call for a recall vote to remove the judges.
Democrats Trying To Cheat To Win
Again Democrats Cheat!
A Changed Election?
Comedian turned Democratic politician Al Franken had little to laugh about on Election night. By dawn the next morning -- after all of the votes were supposedly counted in his race against Republican Norm Coleman for one of Minnesota’s U.S. Senate seats -- the returns showed that Franken had lost narrowly by just 725 votes.
Coleman’s slim margin of victory meant that there will be an automatic statewide recount. But that’s the part of this story yet to come. The recount hasn’t even begun -- and won’t until later next week -- nevertheless Franken has already closed the gap convincingly.
Indeed, Franken must be more than amused now because, in the week following the election, Senator Coleman’s initial lead has all but evaporated -- without any significant stashes of uncounted ballots being uncovered or rejected votes being tallied.
By the night after the election, Franken’s deficit had shrunk by more than a third, so that only 477 votes separated the comic from being able to dazzle C-SPAN audiences by delivering his standup routine from the floor of the U.S. Senate. A day later, Coleman’s lead took another hit, meaning that it now amounted to less than half the initial margin, down to 336 votes. Last Friday turned the tables nearly another hundred votes, so that Franken then trailed by just 239 votes. The weekend and a government holiday didn’t stop the change.
By late Sunday night, another 18 votes were shaved off, lowering Coleman’s margin of, by then, less-than-apparent victory to 221. Several days later, on Veteran’s Day, Franken had closed the gap even further so that only 206 votes separated him from inauguration day.
All of this has been especially puzzling to election observers because, as previously noted, Franken hasn’t yet been the beneficiary of a recount that finds large numbers of previously uncounted votes or that tallies significant figures from earlier machine-rejected ballots. Rather, as University of Maryland research scholar John Lott Jr. wrote in a column that appeared Monday, Franken’s fortunes have risen as “local election officials correct[ed] claimed typos in how the numbers were reported.”That has raised an awful lot of questions about what is adding up to be all but the margin of victory.
You see, “corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate,” Lott explained. “The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count, 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state house races.”
Indeed, the 500-plus vote swing in favor of Franken “is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined (a sum of 482),” Lott noted.
Raising even more questions, “virtually all of Franken’s new votes came in just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in just one precinct -- Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior,” Lott explained. “None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct,” he added.
All of this led Lott to observe that, while the “Minneapolis Star Tribune attributed these types of reporting mistakes to ‘exhausted county officials,’ … the sizes of the errors in these three precincts are surprisingly large.”On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page escalated the questions that naturally arise from what everyone has seen over the last week in Minnesota.
“It isn’t unusual for officials to report that they transposed a number here or there,” the Journal acknowledged. But “[i]n a normal audit, these mistakes could be expected to cut both ways,” the editorial continued. “Instead, nearly every ‘fix’ has gone for Mr. Franken, in some cases under strange circumstances.”Which brings us, finally, to the recount that will begin next week.
The conclusion of the Journal editorial was an admonition that, “if Minnesota wants to retain its reputation as a state with clean elections, it needs to run an honest recount.” That really should be straightforward because, as Lott pointed out, recounting the Minnesota vote in 2008 won’t be like recounting the Florida vote in 2000.
Unlike the punchcards used by Florida eight years ago, Minnesotans cast their votes using optical scan ballots. This is significant because optical scan machines have some vote-proofing qualities that ensure against mistakenly cast undervotes or overvotes.
“Voters themselves insert[ed] their ballots into the machine that reads and records their votes, and if the machine finds that a vote isn’t recorded, voters can either mark the race that they forgot to mark or didn’t mark clearly,” Lott explained. “Or if voters ‘overvoted’ and accidentally marked too many candidates, voters can also get a fresh ballot. There should be no role to divine voters’ intentions. If a voter wanted a vote recorded for a particular race, the machine tells him whether his vote in all the races was counted.”
In other words, the Minnesota recount of 2008 needn’t look anything like the Florida recount of 2000. Judges shouldn’t be examining ballots to guess whether the voter had attempted to vote for Franken, and lawyers shouldn’t be arguing that rejected ballots should be counted based on such mixed signals. The optical scan machines already gave the voters that second chance, which the voter didn’t take if the ballot got cast anyway.This isn’t to say anyone thinks the recount won’t devolve into such machinations.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune ran a headline Tuesday noting that both candidates were “getting all lawyered up for the Senate recount.” After all, since election officials have already corrected away more than two-thirds of Coleman’s initial margin of victory, it has become a lot more believable to Franken that he can finish changing the election results so long as he tries.
A Changed Election?
Comedian turned Democratic politician Al Franken had little to laugh about on Election night. By dawn the next morning -- after all of the votes were supposedly counted in his race against Republican Norm Coleman for one of Minnesota’s U.S. Senate seats -- the returns showed that Franken had lost narrowly by just 725 votes.
Coleman’s slim margin of victory meant that there will be an automatic statewide recount. But that’s the part of this story yet to come. The recount hasn’t even begun -- and won’t until later next week -- nevertheless Franken has already closed the gap convincingly.
Indeed, Franken must be more than amused now because, in the week following the election, Senator Coleman’s initial lead has all but evaporated -- without any significant stashes of uncounted ballots being uncovered or rejected votes being tallied.
By the night after the election, Franken’s deficit had shrunk by more than a third, so that only 477 votes separated the comic from being able to dazzle C-SPAN audiences by delivering his standup routine from the floor of the U.S. Senate. A day later, Coleman’s lead took another hit, meaning that it now amounted to less than half the initial margin, down to 336 votes. Last Friday turned the tables nearly another hundred votes, so that Franken then trailed by just 239 votes. The weekend and a government holiday didn’t stop the change.
By late Sunday night, another 18 votes were shaved off, lowering Coleman’s margin of, by then, less-than-apparent victory to 221. Several days later, on Veteran’s Day, Franken had closed the gap even further so that only 206 votes separated him from inauguration day.
All of this has been especially puzzling to election observers because, as previously noted, Franken hasn’t yet been the beneficiary of a recount that finds large numbers of previously uncounted votes or that tallies significant figures from earlier machine-rejected ballots. Rather, as University of Maryland research scholar John Lott Jr. wrote in a column that appeared Monday, Franken’s fortunes have risen as “local election officials correct[ed] claimed typos in how the numbers were reported.”That has raised an awful lot of questions about what is adding up to be all but the margin of victory.
You see, “corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate,” Lott explained. “The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count, 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state house races.”
Indeed, the 500-plus vote swing in favor of Franken “is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined (a sum of 482),” Lott noted.
Raising even more questions, “virtually all of Franken’s new votes came in just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in just one precinct -- Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior,” Lott explained. “None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct,” he added.
All of this led Lott to observe that, while the “Minneapolis Star Tribune attributed these types of reporting mistakes to ‘exhausted county officials,’ … the sizes of the errors in these three precincts are surprisingly large.”On Wednesday, the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page escalated the questions that naturally arise from what everyone has seen over the last week in Minnesota.
“It isn’t unusual for officials to report that they transposed a number here or there,” the Journal acknowledged. But “[i]n a normal audit, these mistakes could be expected to cut both ways,” the editorial continued. “Instead, nearly every ‘fix’ has gone for Mr. Franken, in some cases under strange circumstances.”Which brings us, finally, to the recount that will begin next week.
The conclusion of the Journal editorial was an admonition that, “if Minnesota wants to retain its reputation as a state with clean elections, it needs to run an honest recount.” That really should be straightforward because, as Lott pointed out, recounting the Minnesota vote in 2008 won’t be like recounting the Florida vote in 2000.
Unlike the punchcards used by Florida eight years ago, Minnesotans cast their votes using optical scan ballots. This is significant because optical scan machines have some vote-proofing qualities that ensure against mistakenly cast undervotes or overvotes.
“Voters themselves insert[ed] their ballots into the machine that reads and records their votes, and if the machine finds that a vote isn’t recorded, voters can either mark the race that they forgot to mark or didn’t mark clearly,” Lott explained. “Or if voters ‘overvoted’ and accidentally marked too many candidates, voters can also get a fresh ballot. There should be no role to divine voters’ intentions. If a voter wanted a vote recorded for a particular race, the machine tells him whether his vote in all the races was counted.”
In other words, the Minnesota recount of 2008 needn’t look anything like the Florida recount of 2000. Judges shouldn’t be examining ballots to guess whether the voter had attempted to vote for Franken, and lawyers shouldn’t be arguing that rejected ballots should be counted based on such mixed signals. The optical scan machines already gave the voters that second chance, which the voter didn’t take if the ballot got cast anyway.This isn’t to say anyone thinks the recount won’t devolve into such machinations.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune ran a headline Tuesday noting that both candidates were “getting all lawyered up for the Senate recount.” After all, since election officials have already corrected away more than two-thirds of Coleman’s initial margin of victory, it has become a lot more believable to Franken that he can finish changing the election results so long as he tries.
Friday, November 14, 2008
Congress Looking At Tax Breaks
Democrats believe they can do a better job of investing our retirement money. Just look at the bailout of AIG, do we really trust the Government with our retirement account. Read the Wall Street article.
Bob
Targeting Your 401(k)
Congress has an eye on the tax break for your retirement.
November 14, 2008
You may have heard about Argentina's plan to nationalize private retirement accounts. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill are inspired, and with their big election victory they may get the chance to test Peronist ideas in America.
Meet Congressmen George Miller and Jim McDermott, who are eager to change the way Americans save for their golden years. They'll also be powerbrokers in the next Congress. Mr. Miller, who came in with the Class of 1974 from California, chairs the House Education and Labor Committee. Mr. McDermott, who has represented Seattle the past two decades, runs a House Ways and Means subcommittee on income security and family support.
Before Election Day, the Congressmen began to target the $3 trillion in 401(k) accounts held by about 60% of Americans. Mr. Miller called the system "an inadequate vehicle" that "has not been terribly successful" in encouraging retirement savings. He wants a "wholesale re-examination" of pensions.
Just what alternative these Democrats support is unclear, and nothing has been formally proposed beyond Mr. Miller's plan to make the system "more transparent," reduce fees charged by the money managers, and suspend the tax penalty for seniors over 70 who don't take the "required minimum" withdrawal from their account, regardless of the market situation.
But the Chairman has also signalled greater ambitions. At a hearing last month, Mr. Miller put the 401(k) system into play. Under the current system, employers match employee contributions that aren't taxed until redeemed, an indirect subsidy worth some $80 billion today. "We have to start to think about in Congress . . . whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should," Mr. Miller said. "For a taxpayer investment of this size, we must ensure that the structure of 401(k)s adequately protects the nest eggs of participating workers."
His committee listened to possible reform proposals. Most eye-catching was an idea from Teresa Ghilarducci at New York's New School for Social Research. Her plan would end the tax breaks for 401(k)s; she proposes instead to give all workers an annual $600 inflation-adjusted tax credit for retirement and force them to invest 5% of their pay into a government-run retirement account managed by the Social Security Administration. She called the 401(k) "a failed experiment." A McDermott spokesman called her proposals "intriguing" and "part of the discussion." Mr. Miller hasn't so far endorsed the plan.
The main liberal objection to 401(k)s seems to be that they let average Americans control their own investment decisions for retirement. As Shlomo Benartzi, a professor at UCLA's Anderson business school, told Mr. Miller's committee, "Individuals have a tendency to buy at the peak, and then panic when the markets drop and sell at the bottom." Better to have the government do this instead.
It is certainly true that retirement plans have lost, on paper, some $4 trillion in the past 15 months -- half in 401(k) and IRAs and half in company defined-benefit plans. Average 401(k)s are down a quarter this year. But assuming sensible policies and a normal economic recovery, those asset values should rise again over time. In any case, investment returns on stocks and bonds over extended periods far exceed the paltry returns on Social Security that for some workers are a mere 1% to 2%.
Tax breaks alone hardly explain the popularity of 401(k)s. Over the past 30 years, the number of individuals covered by them nearly trebled, up to 65 million accounts, while the number under defined-benefit pension fell 30%. People are attached to their 401(k)s because it is their property, which they can carry with them to new jobs (unlike traditional pensions), manage as they see fit and bequeath to heirs.
Before entertaining dreams of state-managed retirement accounts, Congressional Democrats might ask why Europe and Latin America have tried so hard in recent years to move in the opposite direction. Their pension systems are debt-ridden, can't easily adjust for demographic shifts and show a historically lower return.
If Democrats want to improve the prospects for American retirees, their first priority should be removing barriers to economic growth. Anger over the drop in 401(k) balances is one reason that voters who belong to the "investor class" swung to Democrats in greater than usual numbers this year. Their mandate is for policies that improve those returns, not strip them of tax benefits
Bob
Targeting Your 401(k)
Congress has an eye on the tax break for your retirement.
November 14, 2008
You may have heard about Argentina's plan to nationalize private retirement accounts. Some Democrats on Capitol Hill are inspired, and with their big election victory they may get the chance to test Peronist ideas in America.
Meet Congressmen George Miller and Jim McDermott, who are eager to change the way Americans save for their golden years. They'll also be powerbrokers in the next Congress. Mr. Miller, who came in with the Class of 1974 from California, chairs the House Education and Labor Committee. Mr. McDermott, who has represented Seattle the past two decades, runs a House Ways and Means subcommittee on income security and family support.
Before Election Day, the Congressmen began to target the $3 trillion in 401(k) accounts held by about 60% of Americans. Mr. Miller called the system "an inadequate vehicle" that "has not been terribly successful" in encouraging retirement savings. He wants a "wholesale re-examination" of pensions.
Just what alternative these Democrats support is unclear, and nothing has been formally proposed beyond Mr. Miller's plan to make the system "more transparent," reduce fees charged by the money managers, and suspend the tax penalty for seniors over 70 who don't take the "required minimum" withdrawal from their account, regardless of the market situation.
But the Chairman has also signalled greater ambitions. At a hearing last month, Mr. Miller put the 401(k) system into play. Under the current system, employers match employee contributions that aren't taxed until redeemed, an indirect subsidy worth some $80 billion today. "We have to start to think about in Congress . . . whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should," Mr. Miller said. "For a taxpayer investment of this size, we must ensure that the structure of 401(k)s adequately protects the nest eggs of participating workers."
His committee listened to possible reform proposals. Most eye-catching was an idea from Teresa Ghilarducci at New York's New School for Social Research. Her plan would end the tax breaks for 401(k)s; she proposes instead to give all workers an annual $600 inflation-adjusted tax credit for retirement and force them to invest 5% of their pay into a government-run retirement account managed by the Social Security Administration. She called the 401(k) "a failed experiment." A McDermott spokesman called her proposals "intriguing" and "part of the discussion." Mr. Miller hasn't so far endorsed the plan.
The main liberal objection to 401(k)s seems to be that they let average Americans control their own investment decisions for retirement. As Shlomo Benartzi, a professor at UCLA's Anderson business school, told Mr. Miller's committee, "Individuals have a tendency to buy at the peak, and then panic when the markets drop and sell at the bottom." Better to have the government do this instead.
It is certainly true that retirement plans have lost, on paper, some $4 trillion in the past 15 months -- half in 401(k) and IRAs and half in company defined-benefit plans. Average 401(k)s are down a quarter this year. But assuming sensible policies and a normal economic recovery, those asset values should rise again over time. In any case, investment returns on stocks and bonds over extended periods far exceed the paltry returns on Social Security that for some workers are a mere 1% to 2%.
Tax breaks alone hardly explain the popularity of 401(k)s. Over the past 30 years, the number of individuals covered by them nearly trebled, up to 65 million accounts, while the number under defined-benefit pension fell 30%. People are attached to their 401(k)s because it is their property, which they can carry with them to new jobs (unlike traditional pensions), manage as they see fit and bequeath to heirs.
Before entertaining dreams of state-managed retirement accounts, Congressional Democrats might ask why Europe and Latin America have tried so hard in recent years to move in the opposite direction. Their pension systems are debt-ridden, can't easily adjust for demographic shifts and show a historically lower return.
If Democrats want to improve the prospects for American retirees, their first priority should be removing barriers to economic growth. Anger over the drop in 401(k) balances is one reason that voters who belong to the "investor class" swung to Democrats in greater than usual numbers this year. Their mandate is for policies that improve those returns, not strip them of tax benefits
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Senator Reynolds Recount
Today, I spent 8 hours watching the recount of the ballots of Senator Jim Reynolds and his opponent, David Boren. To bring you up to speed on Sen. Reynolds' race, going back to filing day, a person, by the name of David Boren filed to run against Senator Reynolds, only minutes prior to the campaign deadline. During the months ahead David Boren did nothing to get elected, no ads, no door hangers, no door knocking, no nothing, zilch, natta. Then just a few days prior to the November General Election, the Democrats started running TV and radio ads claiming all kinds of issues against Senator Reynolds. None of the TV ads had any truth to them. Reynolds won the race by 159 votes. Then, last week Boren filed for recount.
Several of us were asked to be watchers on behalf of the Republican Party and Jim Reynolds. We went to the State Party Tuesday to go through the format of the recount. See below directions.
1. The recounts will be held at tables. Four Election Board employees will be stationed at each table. A Caller, a Stacker and Two Tallyers. Both candidates are allowed one Watcher per table.
2. Ballots will be viewed one at a time. The Watcher will call out the name of the candidate as indicated on the ballot. The Stacker will take possession of the ballot and set it in a finished stack.
3. When the caller states the name of the appropriate candidate, the Tallyers will mark on piece of paper, in groups of five votes.
4. Watchers are to have an unobstructed view of the ballots. If you see anything remiss, you are to raise your hand or express objection verbally. The ballot will be set aside for review by members of the Election Board.
Thursday morning, we met at the Election Board and then proceeded over to the Court House for a brief hearing in Judge Hetherington's Court room.
The amazing part about the recount fiasco today neither Boren, his attorney nor watchers appeared in court for the brief hearing. Since Reynolds Senate Seat includes part of Cleveland County and Oklahoma County they also had a hearing in Oklahoma City where Boren was an hour late for that hearing. At our hearing, the judge instructed the recount to go forward. We left the court room and proceeded back across the street to the election board. We thought the counting of the ballots would take place at the Court House where there was plenty of room to process the votes. Instead of utilizing one of the large rooms, at the Court House the Election Board Secretary, Paula Roberts had small tables set up in the Election Board office.
The Election Board Secretary instructed her staff the formality of the recount that morning. The recount was very disorganized and crowded, at first. Four tables were set up with four people to a table. Two Republicans and two Democrats assigned to each table along with one Democrat and one Republican watcher. It was difficult to hear the names with others reading names only a few feet away.
The Election Board employees were all very interested and dedicated individuals. They took their assignments very seriously and it was very obvious they wanted to get the count completed in a fair and honest manner. Everyone of the individuals should be commended for being such diligent workers.
After 8 hours of counting close to 11,000 ballots, Jim Reynolds had a net gain of 1 vote. Man what a waste of time, energy and money. Tomorrow they will finish the recount in Oklahoma County. I am willing to bet the outcome will be the same as Cleveland County.
Special thanks to the Cleveland County Election Board for a job well done.
Bob
Editor Of Gazette
This letter is from one of Oklahoma's top bloggers www.reddirtreport.com. Please read
Bob
The following letter was one I wrote in reaction to a column written by far-left Oklahoma City-based pastor Robin Meyers, which appeared in this week's issue of the Oklahoma Gazette. - Andrew
Dear Editor,
Driving east into the Oklahoma Panhandle from New Mexico a few days before Election Day, I paid attention to the political signs I saw driving back home to Oklahoma City. Save for some signs supporting some local Democrats on the local and state level, there was not a single sign along the roadside touting support for Democrat candidates Andrew Rice, Jim Roth or Barack Obama, at least until I got into Oklahoma County.
I thought this said a lot about rural Oklahoma and the conservative values they hold dear. The sanctimonious rantings of Robin Meyers would lead one to believe that there is an army of liberals here in the Sooner State that have somehow been disenfranchised by know-nothing conservatives. The simple fact is that the majority of Oklahoma voters paid attention to the campaign and saw that Obama, Roth and Rice held views counter to their own. With that in mind, Oklahomans voted accordingly.
Meyers, meanwhile, says that with all 77 Oklahoma counties voting for McCain-Palin we are now a "national embarrassment." Beyond our state's borders, the country and the world "wept for joy" at the election of America's first black president. While that is a remarkable achievement for our nation, one has to look deeper, beyond the packaging and words of the candidate and look to see what they really represent. In the case of President-Elect Obama, well, he appears to be a far-left globalist more interested in pleasing the world and his handlers than in doing what is right for the American people.
And then there are all the unanswered questions swirling around Obama. He's really a bit of a mystery man. I talk to folks of different political stripes and more than one has indictated they feel like the American people are getting conned by a guy who, like Harold Hill in "The Music Man," and his promises of a boy's band, won't deliver. In Obama-world, the South Side Savior promises well-meaning rubes, from Seattle to Schenectady, "hope" and "change." Hope? Change? Trouble in River City, indeed!
Reportedly, Obama performed well during his at Harvard Law, yet strangely the Obama team refuses to release any specific information regarding his time there or while he was at Columbia University. Why is that? Perhaps Rev. Meyers knows? I mean in 1990, Obama was made editor of Harvard Law Review. Yet, while serving in that position he wrote little more than a heavily-edited note or two, one, bizarrely, calling for limitless abortions.
Yet, Meyers would say that Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin are imbeciles in comparison to the Messiah-Most-Merciful whose grades are unknown to the public even today.
Having been burned before by the snake-oil peddlers in the Democrat Party - look at the corrupt Stipe machine in Little Dixie for instance - Oklahoma voters could sniff out a con-man right away and when it came to picking a president, John McCain was more in line with their political beliefs, which include lower taxes, less government intervention and yes, fewer abortions.
Meyers wants you to believe that Oklahoma "fell flat on its face" on Election Day. But when I saw the ruby-red map of Oklahoma after the election, I knew a lot of us stood tall, our spines straight. We can be proud that we weren't conned into voting for a slick product. Rather, we made a choice we felt was right for our state and we stand by that choice.
Cordially,
Andrew Griffin
editor of RedDirtReport.com
Oklahoma City,OK
(405) 420-2940
Bob
The following letter was one I wrote in reaction to a column written by far-left Oklahoma City-based pastor Robin Meyers, which appeared in this week's issue of the Oklahoma Gazette. - Andrew
Dear Editor,
Driving east into the Oklahoma Panhandle from New Mexico a few days before Election Day, I paid attention to the political signs I saw driving back home to Oklahoma City. Save for some signs supporting some local Democrats on the local and state level, there was not a single sign along the roadside touting support for Democrat candidates Andrew Rice, Jim Roth or Barack Obama, at least until I got into Oklahoma County.
I thought this said a lot about rural Oklahoma and the conservative values they hold dear. The sanctimonious rantings of Robin Meyers would lead one to believe that there is an army of liberals here in the Sooner State that have somehow been disenfranchised by know-nothing conservatives. The simple fact is that the majority of Oklahoma voters paid attention to the campaign and saw that Obama, Roth and Rice held views counter to their own. With that in mind, Oklahomans voted accordingly.
Meyers, meanwhile, says that with all 77 Oklahoma counties voting for McCain-Palin we are now a "national embarrassment." Beyond our state's borders, the country and the world "wept for joy" at the election of America's first black president. While that is a remarkable achievement for our nation, one has to look deeper, beyond the packaging and words of the candidate and look to see what they really represent. In the case of President-Elect Obama, well, he appears to be a far-left globalist more interested in pleasing the world and his handlers than in doing what is right for the American people.
And then there are all the unanswered questions swirling around Obama. He's really a bit of a mystery man. I talk to folks of different political stripes and more than one has indictated they feel like the American people are getting conned by a guy who, like Harold Hill in "The Music Man," and his promises of a boy's band, won't deliver. In Obama-world, the South Side Savior promises well-meaning rubes, from Seattle to Schenectady, "hope" and "change." Hope? Change? Trouble in River City, indeed!
Reportedly, Obama performed well during his at Harvard Law, yet strangely the Obama team refuses to release any specific information regarding his time there or while he was at Columbia University. Why is that? Perhaps Rev. Meyers knows? I mean in 1990, Obama was made editor of Harvard Law Review. Yet, while serving in that position he wrote little more than a heavily-edited note or two, one, bizarrely, calling for limitless abortions.
Yet, Meyers would say that Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin are imbeciles in comparison to the Messiah-Most-Merciful whose grades are unknown to the public even today.
Having been burned before by the snake-oil peddlers in the Democrat Party - look at the corrupt Stipe machine in Little Dixie for instance - Oklahoma voters could sniff out a con-man right away and when it came to picking a president, John McCain was more in line with their political beliefs, which include lower taxes, less government intervention and yes, fewer abortions.
Meyers wants you to believe that Oklahoma "fell flat on its face" on Election Day. But when I saw the ruby-red map of Oklahoma after the election, I knew a lot of us stood tall, our spines straight. We can be proud that we weren't conned into voting for a slick product. Rather, we made a choice we felt was right for our state and we stand by that choice.
Cordially,
Andrew Griffin
editor of RedDirtReport.com
Oklahoma City,OK
(405) 420-2940
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Obama Dictatorship
This article is from Newsmax Media. www.reddirtreport.com had this article on his blog. It is something to think about.
Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship
Monday November 4th
WASHINGTON — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.
Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."
Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.
© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Congressman Warns of Obama Dictatorship
Monday November 4th
WASHINGTON — A Republican congressman from Georgia said Monday he fears that President-elect Obama will establish a Gestapo-like security force to impose a Marxist or fascist dictatorship.
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
Broun cited a July speech by Obama that has circulated on the Internet in which the then-Democratic presidential candidate called for a civilian force to take some of the national security burden off the military.
"That's exactly what Hitler did in Nazi Germany and it's exactly what the Soviet Union did," Broun said. "When he's proposing to have a national security force that's answering to him, that is as strong as the U.S. military, he's showing me signs of being Marxist."
Obama's comments about a national security force came during a speech in Colorado about building a new civil service corps. Among other things, he called for expanding the nation's foreign service and doubling the size of the Peace Corps "to renew our diplomacy."
"We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set," Obama said in July. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."
Broun said he also believes Obama likely will move to ban gun ownership if he does build a national police force.
Obama has said he respects the Second Amendment right to bear arms and favors "common sense" gun laws. Gun rights advocates interpret that as meaning he'll at least enact curbs on ownership of assault weapons and concealed weapons. As an Illinois state lawmaker, Obama supported a ban on semiautomatic weapons and tighter restrictions on firearms generally.
"We can't be lulled into complacency," Broun said. "You have to remember that Adolf Hitler was elected in a democratic Germany. I'm not comparing him to Adolf Hitler. What I'm saying is there is the potential."
Obama's transition office did not respond immediately to Broun's remarks.
© 2008 Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
