Latest baseball scores, trades, talk, ideas, opinions, and standings

Archive for the ‘ACLU’ Category

>Alien Ants Are Devouring Everything In Texas. Ants so Devastating Who Needs al Quaeda and the Taliband?


Destructive ants marching on San Antonio

01:31 PM CDT on Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Deborah Knapp, KENS 5


var jsVideoWidgetShareUrlPath = ‘/video/index.html’; var jsVideoWidgetSize = 0; var jsVideoWidgetVideoId = 362756;


May 18th, 2009

The crazy rasberry ant is named after exterminator Tom Rasberry, who first discovered it in 2002.

>More News video

A destructive menace is heading west on Interstate 10 toward San Antonio.
It’s the crazy Rasberry ant that was first spotted in Houston in 2002. No one knows where it came from or how to control it, but it reproduces faster than any insect experts have ever seen.
“This is an alien species,” says Sam Houston State University Entomologist Dr. Jerry Cook. “This is in higher densities than any other insects I’ve ever seen. They number in the billions and cover everything around them.”
“Where you’ll have 200,000 ants in a big fire ant mound, you’ll have billions of crazy ants in one area, in that one group. They form a carpet of ants over acres that is several inches thick.”
“It’s a potential ecological disaster, displacing everything in front of it, other insects. Some people think getting rid of insects is good but it’s not good for the environment. Insects play a vital role. When you destroy insects, you destroy the food for birds and other animals that depend on these insect populations. It could affect our food supply, reducing the crop yield by 30 to 40 percent.”
The crazy ants even kill fire ants, which many may think is good news, but they are more destructive to homes and businesses than fire ants. They pack into electrical equipment in such dense numbers that they short out computers, air conditioning units and car computers.

Don’t forget to praise or be afraid to comment negatively.
If you are having trouble finding something specific and can’t find it on our web site, let us know so that we will be better able to help you in the future. Leave feedback. Hit the COMMENTS button.

>What’s Wrong With America Is The ACLU

>Proposition 209 was a 1996 California ballot proposition which amended the state constitution to prohibit public institutions from considering race, sex, or ethnicity. That same year Michigan passed a similar proposition.

What’s wrong with that? Nothing, but shortly thereafter, On 27 November 1996, U.S. District Court Judge Thelton Henderson blocked enforcement of the proposition. A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently overturned that ruling. Proposition 209 has been the subject of many lawsuits in state courts since its passage.

Since the passage of Proposition 209, higher graduation rates have been posted at University of California schools,which led opponents of affirmative action to suggest a causal link between Proposition 209 and a better-prepared student body. The African American graduation rate at the University of California, Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent,and rose even more dramatically, from 26 percent to 52 percent, at the University of California, San Diego.

While African American graduation rates at UC Berkeley increased by 6.5 percent,the enrollment rates dropped significantly[1]. Criticism was made of the fact that of the 4,422 students in UCLA’s freshman class of 2006, only 100 (2.26%) were African American. In fact, opponents of Proposition 209 note that there are greater disparities in elite education in the post-Proposition 209 era due to decreased African American and Latino enrollment. Proponents, on the other hand, note that Asian American enrollment rates dramatically increased at a majority of UC campuses. Still, this observation fails to take into consideration that though Asian Americans are a racial minority in the United States, they are generally an overrepresented group in college admissions and significantly less likely to be from a family living in poverty.

Who was this Judge Thelton Henderson and why did he rule against the will of the people? He was a Jimmy Carter appointee, and that should tell you enough. Furthermore, he was both a board member of the ACLU and Equal Rights Advocates. Enough said.

Consider the State of Washington where voters overwhelmingly approved a state-wide referendum, which validated the state’s statute banning assisted suicide. Five years later, in Compassion in Dying Versus Washington, Judge Stephen Reinhardt of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited public opinion polls as a basis for overturning the will of the people. In a closing statement, the judge blasted religious people, saying “they are not free…to enforce their views, their religious convictions, or their philosophies on all the other members of a democratic society. In his book, The Enemy Within, Michael Savage observed: “Why am I not surprised to learn Reinhardt’s wife, Ramona Ripston, is the executive director of the Southern California chapter of the ACLU?”

Here’s another example of the ACLU trying to dominate the thinking and actions of the majority of the people. Do you recall–in the fall of 2003 California had a governor named Gray Davis? As governor, he was a failure. The state’s finances were a mess and he showed absoluteley no positive leadership. But he wasn’t going to go down without a fight. He tried to block the democratic process of a recall by the people. In the eleventh hour of the recall campaign, he granted driver’s licenses to illegal aliens primarily from Mexico in order to get votes.

He knew immigration is the provence of the federal government, not the state of California. To wit: Davis’ own office has said that numerous times. For example, the radicals in California once fought a ballot initiative, Prop. 187, which would have denied funding for illegal aliens for education and medication. California voters overwhelmingly approved the measure at the ballot box.

The radicals “shopped” the outcome to a federal judge, arguing immigration is a federal affair and must be decided by a federal court. U.S. District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer overturned the votes of 6 million Californians, forcing them to pay valuable tax dollars to support medication and education for illegal immigrants.

Here’s where Savage believes our federal government is failing us. He thought George Bush had the power to overturn Davis’s decision either either under immigration laws or under Homeland Security. It’s complicated, but I think the Federal Government could have sued the state for redress of this problem of state’s rights verses federal rights and that would have overturned the governor’s order.

>Can We Defeat The ACLU?


The ACLU Must Be Destroyed

Joseph Farah wrote a resounding blog in November 2004 calling for freedom loving Americans to fight the ACLS. It was reprinted again in in 2008 and I’m foursquare behind his words.

Farah reminds us that because we American conservatives took a passive stance in 2004, the Pentagon succumbed to pressure from the ACLU, beating up a fine, patriotic organization called the Boy Scouts, calling it a “subversive organization.”

In reality, it is the ACLU that needs to be destroyed because it is a “subversive organization” contrary to the faith and purpose of our fathers in every respect.

Farah said “Most Americans just laughed and shook our heads in disbelief years ago when a handful of extremists began systematically targeting the Boy Scouts as a “subversive organization.”

But over time, because most Americans didn’t fight back, didn’t marginalize the extremists, didn’t speak up proudly and stand behind the Boy Scouts, it is this outstanding civic organization that has taken a beating.”

The decision by the Defense Department under President George Bush’s watch—shame on you Mr. President and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfield–to accommodate the American Civil Liberties Union at the expense of the Boy Scouts “illustrates the way our country is being reshaped by the worldview of the extremists.”

Our founding fathers must be spinning in their graves today.

If you take the ACLU and other extremists supporting its agenda at their word, you have to believe this fight is about “tolerance.”

They maintain they oppose the Boy Scouts because of their “intolerance” for people who don’t embrace their values. And, in the name of “tolerance,” the ACLU and those who consider the Boy Scouts “subversive,” have no tolerance for the Boy Scouts – or anyone else who disagrees with them.
The Pentagon agreed to warn its bases not to sponsor Boy Scout troops in appeasement of the ACLU and end a 5-year-old lawsuit that had charged the government with improperly supporting a group promoting belief in God.
Listen to Farah: “The ACLU is never going to change. It is an anti-American organization. It is a group that seeks to destroy all that makes America a unique experiment in freedom. It is an organization in league with all of America’s enemies. It is an organization that hates God, hates what is right, decent and morally upright. It is an organization in league with the Devil, as far as I am concerned.”

And the ACLU is an organization that needs to be isolated, exposed for what it is, recognized for what it is and destroyed if necessary.

Instead, because most Americans have a live-and-let-live attitude, we “tolerate” the ACLU. We wink at it. Maybe we laugh at it. But the ACLU and its allies continue to push our society, to transform it, to remake it in its own twisted image.

The Boy Scouts have been targeted by the ACLU and the homosexual activists because the Boy Scouts have been uncompromising in their views and standards. The subversives hate that. They hate when people stand up for what’s right.

When it becomes dangerous to stand up for what’s right in America, you know we’re in trouble as a nation.

Farah asked a good question: “Let me ask you a question: Would you rather live next door to a family that hosts a Boy Scout troop or a family of homosexual activists? Would you rather live next door to a family of people who attend church or synagogue every week, or would you prefer to live next door to the local head of the ACLU? “

What’s so scary about the Boy Scouts?

A Boy Scout pledges to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.

A Boy Scout vows to keep himself physically strong, morally straight and mentally alert.

And because of these characteristics and goals, the Boy Scouts today are under siege – the latest target in the Culture War.

When you see an institution like this under attack, it should set off an internal warning that our very way of life – not just the Boy Scouts – is threatened by an organized, well-funded conspiracy.

I’m with Joseph Farah and the Boy Scouts, how about you?


Any Idea How Subversive The ACLU Is?
They’ve Made Americans Second-Class Citizens

It’s interesting–whenever there’s a controversy that will make the front pages you can bet the American Civil Liberties Union is all over it. Naturally, they are the darlings of both America’s liberal court system and its left wing “Fourth Estate.”

Many years ago when I went to law school there was no such thing as the “cultural defense.” Yet, today the ACLU has this defense up its sleeves every time there is a foreigner in the news or on the verge of getting kicked out of the country for violation of our laws. But because of the “cultural” defense, the ACLU has had uncanny success with judges in getting a matter dismissed that would land an ordinary American in jail for several years–and which used to warrant deportation of an alien.

Example: The ACLU invented the new “Cultural Defense” so that their foreign clients with plenty of money could slither around the law. In his book, The Enemy Within, radio show host and author Michael Savage paints an exasperating picture. “The cultural defense goes something like this: ‘Your Honor, I know my client killed his wife here in America, but she cheated on him. In the village in China where my client was born, it’s actually okay to kill your wife if she cheats on you. My client was just acting in accordance with his culture.”

Savage then cites an actual case where this defense worked in the New York Supreme Court, “People Versus Chen.” Doug Lu Chen lived in New York as a Chinese immigrant. He was there for a year when he learned his wife Jian Wan had an extramarital affair. Several weeks later, September 7, 1987, Chen “wacked” his wife in the head eight times with a hammer.

The ACLU paid for and produced an expert witness from a fancy liberal college–and you can find many of them in and around New York and Boston–an anthropologist from Hunter College, who told the court that in China Chen’s infidelity would be viewed in the traditional Chinese culture as a sign of Chen’s weakness. Murdering her could be explained by understanding his cultural background.

Since when did we have to understand someone’s cultural heritage to not call murder murder? The ACLU succeeded in moving the court over to this defense, and the judge drank it in like a stupid teat suckling jackass. Little do they know the harm they have done to our country. Or maybe they know and don’t care. We all had a brush with Muslim “honor killings” when the Islamic from Texas intentionally killed his two beautiful teenage daughters. Had he lived in an Arab country, Islamic law would have condoned those “murders.” But he was living in Texas, actually holding dual citizenship in Egypt and America.

He fled, and I haven’t heard whether he caught a flight to Egypt and went into hiding or not. But it doesn’t really matter because when and if American authorities apprehend him or not. If extradited and brought to trial in America, a liberal court, egged on by the ACLU, would find him not guilty anyway. There have been similar cases of so-called “honor killings” this year, and with more Muslims living in the U.S. there will be plenty more. These people are trying to live a bankrupt religion, as per their understanding of the Quran or the Hadiths.

Nobody claimed that Chen was insane or irrational under pressure. Her attorney stuck with the “cultural differences” argument. It diminished his capacity, he couldn’t just divorce the woman or get over it and forgive her.

Justice Edward K. Pincus wanted to side with the ACLU and he did. He stated: “Cultural factors lesson the defendant’s responsibility for certain crimes.” Wow! It didn’t matter that this was a capital one case. Murder in New York could have carried the death penalty or at least a penalty of life in prisonment without parole. New York’s capital punishment law wasn’t declared unconstitutional until 2004. An American citizen born in America would have faced capital punishment under similar circumstances.

As the worm turns, it pays to be foreign born in America. Foreigners have greater rights in America than Americans? Yes! That’s what liberal judges have done to us, under the prodding of the ACLU. Chen ended up with a charge of manslaughter in the second degree and a sentence of five years probation after murdering his wife in cold blood.

Savage has researched this and says it is not an isolated exception. As you will discover in future articles, in a growing number of American courts Americans take a back seat to their foreign counterparts when we decide issues of fairness for crimes committed here in the land of the free. Indeed, we are becoming a nation of second-class citizens, made so by our liberal judiciary and a crooked ACLU.

>How The Liberal Bureaucrats Control America


Do you have any idea how subversive the American Civil Liberties Union is? It is a nationwide army of more than 275,000 ultra-leftist members armed with a $35 million budget whose number one goal is to attack and weaken the Ten Commandments. It would like to strip the mention of God from our schools and our public buildings–and it is succeeding–and silence the Pledge of Allegiance and
our National Motto “God Bless America.”

Watch out, Major League Baseball. You could be their next target.

You laugh, but these people are relentless in how they want to destroy America as we know it. The ACLU has attacked the Boy Scouts of America and is trying to redefine marriage, while their network of more than 300 chapters is working to defend the rights of pornographers, terrorists, advocates for homosexual adoption, and even child molesters.

They use the threat of lawsuit to bully their way around, like they attempted to do to the Boy Scouts who refused to include Gays as Cub masters, scoutmasters, officers or leaders in their organization. And who was their lead counsel? You guessed it, Ruth Bader Ginsburg who is now a Supreme Court Justice.

Why is she there? Because so-called “moderate” Republicans like Bob Dole (R-K) and Arlen Specter (R-PA) failed to vote against her. Because conservative Republicans like Utah’s Orin Hatch were almost alone in their opposition of her.

“Federal courts and judges in America today are more feared than al-Qaida. They are unelected, unaccountable radicals who have twisted our laws to advance their own extremist agenda. They compromise our borders, language, and culture as they melt Lady Liberty down into a golden calf of their own making.” Those are the words of Michael Savage, prominent conservative talk show host and author of books such as The Enemy Within which I highly recommend.

With all due respect to women, next the ACLU will find something wrong with baseball. Mark my words, before long it will be illegal to field a Major League Baseball team without an equal compliment of female athletes playing on the same team, using the same showers, and dressing in the same locker rooms. I predict it’s coming, jocks, so be prepared to share your sport with a bunch of–pardon the expression–large, bossy women. You won’t get the pretty, petite ones. Only the pushy babes who will threaten a manager with an ACLU-supported lawsuit and scrutinize his/her every move.

Yes, I said her (managers). The ACLU will insist that half of baseball manager be women.

Here’s a question for you bloggers. Why aren’t there many good women baseball teams or leagues? Has women’s softball destroyed their desire to compete on a baseball diamond?

Get hold of Don and Carolyn White’s successful new book,a must read for our economic times, “SELLING FAST: We Sold Our House in One Day And You Can Too.”

>"No-Cost" Loans Rated Best

>Mortgage-Broker Study
Finds High Fees Charged
Original Story By JAMES R. HAGERTY Edited
May 30, 2008

In an article on May 30, 2008 the Wall Street Journal revealed that the home-mortgage industry takes advantage of consumers’ confusion to charge some people much higher fees than others.

This comes following a study by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). This is an illegal maneuver on the part of the mortgage companies and any infractions should be promptly reported to HUD officials.

The study by Susan Woodward, a former chief economist for HUD, also found that loans arranged by brokers typically carried higher fees than those obtained directly from lenders.

HUD looked at 7,560 fixed-rate home-purchase loans completed in May and June 2001 and insured by the Federal Housing Administration, an arm of HUD.

The study says lenders typically make better offers to borrowers in neighborhoods with higher general levels of education. Where’s the ACLU and NAACP when you need them?

Total fees paid to the lender and broker averaged nearly $3,400 on loans with an average initial principal balance of $105,000, the report said. For brokered loans, the average fees were $4,000, compared with $3,150 for loans made directly by the lender. Those fees are a combination of upfront charges and additional funds brokers and lenders get for selling loans with relatively high interest rates.

For brokers, these additional payments are known as yield-spread premiums. Brokers often defend yield-spread premiums as a way for borrowers to reduce their upfront fees in exchange for paying a slightly higher interest rate. But the study found that the yield-spread premiums mainly benefited the brokers. For every $100 extra they paid in higher rates, the borrowers on average received only a $7 reduction in upfront fees. Banks also typically kept most of the benefit when borrowers paid above-market interest rates, the study said.

Paying Points To Lower Interest Rates Is Bogus
Borrowers who paid “discount points” to lower their interest rates typically didn’t benefit from a corresponding savings in their interest costs, the study said.

“No-Cost” Loans May Be The Best For Borrowers
It found that borrowers who chose “no-cost” loans — in which all fees are built into the interest rate — typically paid the lowest effective fees.

Roy DeLoach, executive vice president of the National Association of Mortgage Brokers, said that the study relies on “stale” seven-year-old data and that other studies have shown consumers save money by obtaining loans through brokers.