Buy low, Sell High

You don’t have to be a financial advisor or a wall street vet to know that buying low and selling high is the answer to making money, it’s common sense. Right now the market is very low when compared to the last couple years so if you have the money now is the time to invest. Prices may continue to drop a bit but now is the best time to buy stock; buy low and sell high.

A lot of people are in a panic right now and think our whole economy is going to fall apart. Calm down people. Think about the last couple of years and the trend we saw in the stock market. Think about how quickly the Dow rose and how high inflation went. Stock can only increase so much before it's not worth the price anymore and that is what has happened. Things were going too good and now it has to level out. The Dow is now at the same level is was in 2003. What were you doing in 2003? We're you in economic peril? Likely not.

The media dwells on crisis, it’s like their tonic. Save yourself a lot of grief and tune them out. Watch the history channel instead, they don’t spend their time predicting what the market is going to do…it’s history they already know. The more the media dwells on the faltering economy the less people want to spend…the less people spend the less money companies are making, the less companies are making, the more people they lay off and the more people that get laid off the less people there are spending money… it’s a viscous cycle.

There’s another trend in the stock market that is important to keep in mind right now. This election is a big deal, we don’t have the choice of electing an incumbent therefore we are entering into the unknown (sounds epic… well it is really). The unknown makes people afraid and that fear is always reflected in the stock market. Once the election is over (regardless of who wins) things will settle down a bit (whoever wins the election will claim they are the reason the stock market recovered of course).

So my official advise to everyone right now… take a chill pill and buy stock if you can…

Obama, America's anti-Christ.

What more do we need as proof that Barrack Hussein Obama is Anti-American. Here’s just a short glimpse at the overwhelming evidence against him.

Obama will not say the pledge of allegiance and will not place his hand over his heart.
He will not wear an American flag on his lapel because he does not believe it shows patriotism.
He removed the American flag from his private jet and replaced it with his own name.
He is a member of a church that claims America got what it deserved on 9/11 and believes we should sing “God Damn America” instead of “God Bless America”
His mentor, Frank Marshal Davis, is a self described communist.
Obama’s good friend William Ayers attempted to blow up the Pentagon and New York police headquarters. He later said he never regretted the attempts and believes he didn’t do enough.
Obama will not acknowledge that we face Muslim Terrorists.
Obama has strong connections with radical Palestinians and feels we need to negotiate with Terrorist countries without threat of restrictions, embargos, or war.
His mother denied being American while in Indonesia.
Plans to dramatically downsize the military, pull out of Iraq and invade Pakistan.

What is Obama’s true goal in becoming president? It is seeming more and more likely he wants to weaken and harm this country. Lets not write off the fact that Obama’s father was a Muslim and Obama attended a muslin school. There is a doctrine in Islam, al-Taqiyya, that permits the faithful to conceal their true faith if it will help them reach their goals. Imagine what Bin-Laden would do if he could have concealed his identity and faith in an attempt to run for public office. Imagine the damage he could have done from the inside. What makes us so arrogant as to think that this could not happen. It seems to me that Obama is evidence that it is happening. Why would someone with such strong anti-American connections want to be the president unless it is to destroy and weaken the country. Why does he so desperately want to weaken this country. I hate to use the 9/11 card but has he forgotten, or does he has an ulterior motive. We need to be careful who we allow to become president. On one ticket we have a man who loves his country enough to surrender his life in service and on the other we have a man who’s own wife says she’s never been proud to be an American and who allies himself with a church that openly hates America.

Obama Tells American Kids to Learn Spanish

Posted by Bobby Eberle
July 10, 2008 at 6:17 am


I hope the American public is watching. For months, Barack Obama was a blank slate. The only thing people knew about him was that he gave a good speech and that he wanted "change." This apparently was enough to garner him the Democratic presidential nomination. (That should be a clue to most Americans NOT to vote for him.) But now, with no help from the media, the real Barack Obama is starting to appear.

The media won't write stories about what he says, but they don't need to. With today's technology, we can see for ourselves, and this latest incident is a doozy! Our education system is crazy enough with all these liberal, feel-good programs. Forget adding, subtracting, spelling, and grammar. Now, despite the fact that the rest of the world is learning English, he says that American kids should learn Spanish? What? Learn Spanish? Yes, and it shows just how out of touch and far left Obama is. We need a president who will put America first, not push for our culture to be forgotten.


What an absolutely ridiculous speech. We need to make sure our kids can speak Spanish? Why? That is the question. Oh, and I have the answer. It's because the liberals are quite happy seeing millions of illegal aliens pour across our border and do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it. Rather than solve the problem of illegal immigration by enforcing laws and securing our border (after all, if we did that, liberals would call us racists), the far left would rather Americans simply learn Spanish. That is their solution to the problem.

And it is definitely becoming more and more of a problem. Example... during these very nice summer months, my kids love to go swimming with me at our neighborhood pool. We go in the late morning and spend an hour or two there. Afterward, we come home for lunch. On some days, we go out, and they love it when we get sandwiches at Subway. Getting the sandwiches, however, has become more and more of an ordeal. In fact, the last time we went, it took forever simply because I couldn't understand the attendant, and the attendant couldn't understand me.

I'll have a six-inch ham sandwich on wheat with lettuce and tomato... All I got was a blank stare. I repeated the order, with my daughter looking on. The lady finally grabbed the wheat bread and then selected turkey. No... I said ham.

Now, this being a Subway restaurant in AMERICA, one would think that I could place my order in English. Wrong. This must be a Barack Obama Subway restaurant, and the only way to place an order is to do it in Spanish. Hmmm... I guess I should thank Obama for his speech. What he was trying to get across was the idea that we should teach our kids Spanish just so we can order a sandwich at an American restaurant. Thanks Obama for looking out for me!

Sarcasm aside, Barack Obama continues to show that he is not ready for the presidency, and more importantly, America is not ready for him. Our kids should not be told to learn Spanish. Our kids should be told to learn English and math and science, so they can become contributing American citizens. Obama's example in his speech is that Americans sound silly when they go to France because they can only say a simple phrase. What's his point? Is he saying that we should all learn French for that day that we spend thousands of dollars to travel to France?

English has become the language of international business, commerce, science, and technology. Other nations learn English, because English is the "universal" language in which things get done. Only in America (an English-speaking country) would left-wing Barack Obama tell Americans that their kids should learn Spanish.

Boxer's Big Idea

My Friends, I know we are all feeling frustrated and upset about the gas prices we are seeing at the pump. As American's we expect that our political leaders will have our best intrests at heart but that is not the case with Senator Boxer. Today congress voted on a piece of legislation that would have increased the tax on gas by over $1.00 a gallon. At a time when most of us are having trouble being able to afford gas it is insane to me that our state senator would want us to pay even more. The piece of legislation was not passed and Boxer had harsh words for the members in congress that voted against it. She claims that this new tax force the big oil companies to invest in alternative fuel sources, which she apparently believes would suddenly make gas prices come down.

I think it's pretty safe to say that we all want to see alternative fuel sources developed and implemented into our society. We need to find reasonable renewable energy sources to replace oil in our economy. The problem is this will not happen over night. While we do need to find alternative energy we can not leave everyone high and dry until then. Boxer believes that if people are forced to pay more for gas fewer people will use gas and there fore prices will come down. This is backwards thinkning. Where are her true intrests?

The real solution is drilling. While many people do not want to see oil rigs popping up everywhere understand this, China drills oil off the coast of California, but we are not allowed to. China is sucking up our oil while we watch from the shoreline. In Alaska we are told we can not drill because we may impose on the Caribu's habitat. Boxer would have you believe that there is only enough oil in Alaska to last 6 months (she actually said that today) but the truth is there is enough oil to last over 100 years (do the research, you'll be suprised).

There are risks involved in drilling for oil but the benifits far out weigh the risk. Let's think about what things democrats in congress want. They want to get out of Iraq, and they want to stop beign dependant on foreign oil. If we drill for our own oil we would no longer be dependant on foreign oil. Boxer, and many other democrats in congress, believes that we are in Iraq to protect our oil intrests, therefore if this truely is a war fought over oil we could drill here and bring our men and women home like they've wanted all along. So, by drilling here in our own country we could drop foreign oil and end the war in Iraq, who wouldn't want that.

Boxer needs to stop pretending she's keeping with our best intrests. Her ideas are backwards and she's working against the good of our economy. If gas prices continue to rise so will the cost of everything else. If we dont' get a break soon our economy is going to collapse. Ms. Boxer has the right idea with alternative fuel sources for our future but she doesn't get that we need relief right now. Let her know that we need relief now, not new taxes. Check our her web site, there you'll find a link to send her an email (do it daily even!).

http://boxer.senate.gov/

A nation of sheep.

It amazes me the things people allow themselves to believe. One of the girls I work with is very disillusioned about what power the president actually has. We were talking about food prices and how high costs are then she actually made a comment that implied the president is to blame for high food prices. I laughed because it’s ridiculous to actually think that. She then said that she KNOWS the president is to blame for the high gas prices. She knows! It’s crazy to think that people I otherwise would think are smart would actually think the president sets gas prices. This isn’t China afterall, we live in a free market where companies can set their own prices with out government interference, hence “Free Market.” Many people believe the president has more power than he actually does, they must not understand a little system called “Checks and Balances.” Whether we have a republican or a democrat president the true law makers are those in congress.

Everyone tries to blame the president for anything that goes wrong but that is just pure ignorance. I wish I could make people smart. I wish I could wake people up to their own stupidity. I’m surrounded by sheep who will believe anything the media tells them. Pathetic.

Where does oil come from?

Have you ever wondered where oil comes from? Most people have heard and accepted the theory that oil was created from fossilized plant and animal matter and that soon it will run out but did you know that many scientists don’t believe that to be the case. No scientist knows for sure how oil is made, where it comes from, or how much of it there is. Many politicians though seem to know for sure that it is going to run out in the next 8-9 years. How do they know this, do they have research they are not sharing with the rest of the world?

Although most of us know better, politicians should be people we can trust to keep our best interests their priority. We should trust that information they bring to us would be factual with evidence to back it up yet that rarely happens. Instead of bringing us the evidence to support their claims, politicians shove their fear creating stories down our throats until we believe them. If you hear something enough from people you should be able to trust you may start to forgive the fact that there are no facts and start to accept that their claim is the truth. Most issues that politicians create are to advance their own cause and have little to do with the people’s best interest. We the people need to start holding politicians responsible for the information they provide to us as fact. We need to start demanding facts from credible sources and questioning everything politicians tell us. Politicians thrive on creating fear to promote their cause. The more people that live in fear the more likely they are to let politicians do what ever they say is necessary.

We don’t know if oil is going to run out, we don’t know if the earth is continually making it and we don’t even know what it is made from. To protect ourselves it is a good idea to find alternative plans for energy but not at the cost of scaring the population into thinking we’re going to run out and be left with out any energy. Politicians who claim they know oil is going to run out are lying to you, don’t listen, they are just trying to make themselves richer. Also, the more people believe that oil is going to run out the easier it is for gas companies to raise their price and claim an oil shortage. It’s all connected….

A beautiful tale of true love and self sacrifice.

If only all women could be so self sacrificing. This courageous woman was faced with a true life or death situation. If she lived, her baby died, if she died her baby lived.

Mother Delays Cancer Treatments So Baby Can Live
Friday , January 25, 2008

Expectant mother Lorraine Allard learned the devastating news that she was in the advanced stages of liver cancer when she was four months pregnant, according to the Daily Mail.

Allard, of St. Olaves in the U.K., had a choice: Delay treatment to save her baby, or terminate the pregnancy to save herself.

She chose the former, waiting until the fetus was viable before scheduling a Cesarean section.

"If I am going to die, my baby is going to live," Allard told her husband, Martyn, according to the Mail.

The baby came a week early and Allard, 33, gave birth on Nov. 18 to a healthy but premature boy she named Liam.

Exactly two months later, Allard died. She'd begun chemotherapy just after her son's birth. But in the end, it was too late.

Doctors believe Allard had bowel cancer that had gone undetected for years, eventually spreading to her liver. She realized something was wrong after she began suffering from stomach cramps, and tests revealed that her liver was covered with malignant tumors, the Mail reported.

"The doctors said they couldn't do anything because she was pregnant," Martyn Allard, 34, told the Mail. "She told them straight away they were not going to get rid of it. She'd have lost the will to fight."

The courageous and selfless mother was able to get out of bed and hold her tiny son several times beside his incubator before her death. Liam is the Allards' fourth child and first boy; his sisters are Leah, 10; Amy, 8; and Courtney, 20 months.

"Lorraine was positive all the way through," Martyn Allard told the paper. "She had strength for both of us. I can't begin to describe how brave she was. Towards the end we knew things weren't going well, but she was overjoyed that she had given life to Liam."

It's getting down to the wires.

The Iowa caucuses have passed, New Hampshire primaries are tomorrow and Super Duper Tuesday is only around the corner yet many people still seem undecided about who they are going to vote for. Saturday night was the New Hampshire debates hosted by Face book. I think the debates shed a lot of light on exactly where each candidate stands. If you missed the debate the first hour and a half was the Republican debates then the next hour and a half was the democratic debates. Having both the republicans and democrats debate back to back gave people a better chance to compare and contrast the two parties and what they stand for and I think it worked rather well.

This was one of the first debates I actually watched all the way through and it was the first time I've watched the democrats debate during this whole election season. Things got pretty heated during the republican debates. McCain and Romney had a lot of words for each other but I think Romney did a very good job of handling himself professionally and keeping his cool even with all the shots directed at him. After watching the debate I support Romney even more now than I did before. I hope there were some democrats watching Romney during this debate because if there were they'll see that he really does have the best plan to improve the health care system. He is the only candidate on either side who has put into place a health care plan and made it work. Not even Hillary can claim that. The big difference between what Hillary and other democrats want and what Romney did, is he kept the system private instead of making it government run and that is why it worked.

Health care was definitely a big topic of the night but the other big topic was illegal immigration. The candidates all agree that something must be done but many of them disagree on how to deal with it. Of all the candidates ideas I actually support Ron Paul the most. I think this is the only issue he's got right. In the debate he brought to light the fact that while we do need to secure our borders we also need to get rid of the incentives that bring illegal immigrants here. We need to stop allowing illegal immigrant children access to public education, we need to stop allowing medical care at no cost to anyone who comes into an emergency room and we need to crack down on businesses who hire illegal immigrants. If we take away all the freebees we give illegals they will no longer be such an incentive to cross the border illegally. Many people might say that not allowing illegals medical care is inhumane but as Ron Paul pointed out, lets think about the emergency rooms that are being forced to closed because they can't afford to stay open anymore and lets think of the citizens who need care and now can not go to that hospital. Here in Brea there used to be several hospitals open but over the years they have all gone out of business because they could not afford to give out free health care to those who could not pay and the laws prohibit them from turning anyone away. Those laws need to be changed. So long as people know they can come here and get free health care, send their kids to school and find work with out going through the legal process to get here they will continue to cross our borders illegally.

The democrat's debate was a little boring if you ask me. The candidates spent a lot of time avoiding direct answers to questions and arguing about who's more for change. They all claim to be more for change than the other but they didn't really specify what kind of change. They also spent a lot of time talking about how all of the problems in this country are because of the "current administration." One thing is for sure though, I would much rather see Obama get the nomination then Clinton. Obama seems to have a better sense of where people are right now and a more logical approach to dealing with this country’s situations. Hillary is all about big government, higher taxes and running people's lives. She just doesn't get it.

I hope that the nominees for the presidential race will be Romney and Obama. I think it would be a good race and a very close one at that. If you’re registered to vote on Feb 5 please don't be lazy, your voice does count. Besides, if you don't vote then you can't complain if it doesn't turn out the way you want it.

People want a change in the White house?

I heard a great quote last night but I didn't catch who said it...who ever it was they make a lot of sense...


"People claim they won't vote for a republican president in 2008 because they want change, but Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton is not change."

Simple and makes sense.
Think about it people!

A Small Sign of Hope

I just came across this story on Michellemalkin.com

This isn't something you'll find on the daily news but it is something everyone in this country deserves to see, a sign of hope, however small, in a war torn country.

The story comes from Michael Yon and if you don't know who he is check out his blog and read a little more about him on Wikipedia

From Micheal Yon;
Thanks and Praise: I photographed men and women, both Christians and Muslims, placing a cross atop the St. John’s Church in Baghdad. They had taken the cross from storage and a man washed it before carrying it up to the dome.

A Muslim man had invited the American soldiers from “Chosen” Company 2-12 Cavalry to the church, where I videotaped as Muslims and Christians worked and rejoiced at the reopening of St John’s, an occasion all viewed as a sign of hope.

The Iraqis asked me to convey a message of thanks to the American people. ” Thank you, thank you,” the people were saying. One man said, “Thank you for peace.” Another man, a Muslim, said “All the people, all the people in Iraq, Muslim and Christian, is brother.” The men and women were holding bells, and for the first time in memory freedom rang over the ravaged land between two rivers

Comments from Michelle Malkin;
Yes, Christian persecution remains rampant in the Muslim world and apostasy is still punishable by death. But there are glimmers of good news, and they won’t be broadcast on the nightly news or the front page of the NYTimes. Thanks to the lens of Michael Yon, we can see a fuller, truer picture of Iraq than the “grim milestone”-driven legacy media lens allows us to see. That deserves thanks and praise, too.

Score 1 for God.

California School District Approves 'In God We Trust' Classroom Displays
Tuesday , November 06, 2007

BAKERSFIELD, Calif.

Trustees of the largest high school district in the country voted 4-1 Monday night to mandate displays bearing the nation's motto — "In God We Trust" — and other historical documents in over 2,300 district classrooms and offices.

The display of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights will be included in the posters approved by district trustees in Bakersfield, Calif. Monday night.

Kern County High School District trustee Chad Vegas initially proposed the measure as a way of promoting patriotism. But the idea sparked a contentious debate.

"I'm exteremely pleased the measure passed and was in fact expanded beyond what I had originally proposed," said Vegas.

In addition to placing the displays in over 2,300 classrooms, the posters will also be hung in district boardrooms, libraries, administrative offices and other rooms.

Board President Bob Hampton, a former teacher in the district, told The L.A. Times he would vote against the posters because they reflect a "spiritual agenda."

"The spiritual side of students belongs at home and at church, not in the educational system," Hampton said.

The classroom displays were first suggested by the non-profit group In God We Trust — America Inc., whose president, Jacquie Sullivan, is a Bakersfield councilwoman.

"I encouraged the trustees to put this on the agenda," she said. "It's very important. We need to promote patriotism and promote it in our schools. We can't just assume that the younger generations are going to have that strong love for God and their country the way the older generations do."

Sullivan's organization has offered to provide funding for the project at Kern.

The councilwoman, who said she is a registered Republican and a Christian who attends a local Baptist church, told FOXNews.com that she has neither a religious nor political agenda in pushing for the measure.

"It's not political. It's not religious. It's patriotism," Sullivan said. "American patriotism is love of God and love of country. It's pride in our country."

She believes schools are becoming more casual about teaching children to appreciate the ideals and values the United States was founded on, and she thinks it's important to "get back to the basics."

"Some schools have gotten so lax as to not be pledging allegiance to the flag everyday," Sullivan said. "We can easily get out of the habit of doing good things. (Patriotism) is something that continually needs to be taught."

And she believes that most Americans have faith in God, so having the national motto posted in school shouldn't offend anyone.

"We are faith-based people for the most part," Sullivan said. "Sometimes you have to go with the majority."

Other Bakersfield residents said there's nothing wrong with posting the nation's motto on classroom walls — even if it does mention God.

"Most kids in Bakersfield already have that seed planted, but for the others, it couldn't hurt," Malia Casarez told the Times. "My daughter is just 9 months old and I'm already scared of sending her to school, with all the things you hear about."

Trustee Bryan Batey said he could support displaying the posters in some classrooms, but not all. Two other members on the five-person board have said they do not support the proposal, The Bakersfield Californian reported.

The Kern district superintendent's office and the office of trustees did not immediately return calls from FOXNews.com seeking comment

Good News is apparently No News

Since the news will never tell you this I thought I'd pass it along for everyone to read.

"The Day Nobody Was Killed in Iraq"

By Michelle Malkin • November 4, 2007 09:54 PM

You haven't read about this on the front page of the NYT have you? Doesn't fit the narrative:

There have certainly been several days in the past month when no US or British soldiers were killed.

During a five-day stretch between October 19 and 23, there were no deaths among coalition forces. Although three US servicemen died from "non-hostile causes", this was the longest period without combat deaths for almost four years. And, between October 27 and 29, there were more days without coalition deaths.

Such statistics do not take account of deaths among the Iraqi security forces or civilians. But Iraqis, too, have had days when no one in their ranks has died. On October 13, for instance, neither the coalition nor the Iraqi military suffered any deaths. But one Iraqi policeman was killed, along with four reported civilian deaths in Baghdad.

Two days later, there were no deaths among the coalition but six among the Iraqi security forces.

October 19 was a death-free day for both coalition and Iraqi security forces, but 12 civilians were killed.

The civilian death toll was lower on October 23 - when four were killed - but they were joined in the mortuaries by two Iraqi policemen.

On October 30, the Iraq Interior Ministry reported that there were no civilian deaths in Baghdad but three US troops and four Iraqi policemen were killed.

It is beyond dispute, though, that the tide of violence in Iraq has been stemmed.

Maybe they'll get around to it next year.

Early Detection is Key to Survival.

As many of you know, October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month and this story I'm posting below really highlights the importance of early detection. The girl is the story is only 21 years old and was diagnosed with breast cancer.

Most of us think of breast cancer as something our moms need to think about but the truth is if you have boobs your at risk. Simple monthly self breast exams can help detect lumps that may be cancerous. If you do find a lump make sure you get to a doctor as soon as you can because you never know what it can be. Check out Susan G. Kolman to learn self breast exam techniques and to get your own Breast exam card free.

Also, don't forget to click here fund free mammograms everyday! It only takes a second and doesn't cost you anything but it will help those who can't afford a mammogram receive the care they need.


21-Year-Old College Student Battles Breast Cancer

It was the summer before her senior year in college. And Colleen Cappon was looking forward to the same thing most 21-year-olds look forward to: relaxing, spending time with friends and, yes, even a little partying.

But this past July, she received a shock that would change the outcome of her summer and follow her as she completes her college career.

Breast Cancer?

“I just put my bra on one day and it just so happened that the lump that I had was really hard and really big and it was really close to the skin,” Cappon explained. "So it was really easy to feel and I was wondering what it was and went to my gynecologist.”

Despite a family history of breast cancer, Cappon’s mother has had the disease twice, Cappon’s family and gynecologist thought the lump was more than likely just a cyst.

Click here for a video interview with Colleen Cappon

After receiving a sonogram, which revealed the lump was not a cyst, Cappon was referred to a breast health surgeon in her hometown of Watertown, N.Y., a rural community near the Canadian border.

The surgeon believed Cappon’s lump to be fibroadenoma, which is nothing more than calcium and fatty tissue. To be sure though, the lump was removed and sent to a lab for identification.

"Luckily, I had a couple of days off of work that week, so I went in,” Cappon said. “It was like this big joke between me and my friends that I was getting this lump taken out. No big deal.”

But it was a big deal. The surgeon called Cappon, a former FOX News intern, after getting the lab results and broke the news to the soon-to-be SUNY Cortland senior.

“I’m really sorry to tell you this, but the lump that we took out was breast cancer.”

It was a phrase no 21-year-old expects to hear.

“I was like, 'What? Seriously? Shut up. Really?'” Cappon recalled. “I couldn’t believe it. She couldn’t believe it. She was going to get it checked again at the lab and make sure they didn’t make a mistake. She said I needed to come in that day and we needed to talk about it because, not only was it breast cancer, but it was a nasty one.”

October is Breast Cancer Awareness Month and Cappon is evidence that all women, regardless of age, are at risk for the disease.

"Twenty-one-year-olds should know there are things that can go wrong, and you don’t have to be scared of it and paranoid about it, but you just need to keep a check on it," Cappon said.

Cappon was ultimately diagnosed with Stage III breast cancer. Worse, the tumor was fast growing and had tripled in size within a span of nine days.

Stage III breast cancer is divided into two subsections, A and B. Stage IIIA describes invasive breast cancer in which the tumor measures larger than five centimeters, or where there is significant involvement of lymph nodes.

Stage IIIB describes invasive breast cancer in which a tumor of any size has spread to the breast skin, chest wall, or internal mammary lymph nodes.

Cappon's tumor was 2.5 centimeters and had spread into her mammary lymph nodes.

But Cappon's prognosis is good and she believes with a little humor and a positive attitude she can beat the disease, according to her close friend, Rachel Bregautit.

"She is just like, 'I'm going to get through this. I'm a strong person. It's just a little obstacle that we're going to get through,'" Bregautit recalled Cappon saying. "I mean, Colleen, she would exercise regularly, eat healthy, but she still got this. She never takes anything for granted and I know that she’s going to get through this."

Not a Young Person’s Disease

Many people think of breast cancer as a disease that affects middle-aged women. And, for the most part, it is, say doctors.

"Breast cancer in women younger than 30 is so rare,” said Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, who has not treated Cappon. “I think the media focuses on young women because it’s so shocking when someone in their 20s gets cancer. But what you end up with are women in their 20s and 30s who are terrified that they're going to get cancer and women in their 50s who think they don’t need to worry about it, when the opposite is true."

Of the nearly 200,000 women who will get breast cancer next year, half will be over the age of 61. About 25,000 women will be under the age of 40, said Dr. Marisa Weiss, a Philadelphia oncologist and the founder and president of breastcancer.org.

“It’s still a significant number, but when you compare it to the overall number of women who get breast cancer, it’s a small percentage,” said Weiss, who has not treated Cappon.

Zuckerman said even women with a history of breast cancer in their families are not likely to get the disease in their 20s. Despite a family history, Cappon does not carry the BRCA 1 or BRCA 2 genes that have been linked to the disease.

“We don’t want to terrify young women into thinking their days are numbered while they’re still in their 20s,” Zuckerman said. “But women are getting it younger than ever before. We have some theories on the why; the major belief is that it stems from chemicals in the environment that have similar properties to estrogen. Those hormone disrupting chemicals are in pesticides, in some plastics, and in many cosmetics — even some nail polishes contain these chemicals."

Although most people are exposed to some environmental estrogens, it is believed, said Zuckerman, that some people are more susceptible to their effects. People who are exposed to high levels of hormone disrupting chemicals

Although most people are exposed to some environmental estrogens, it is believed, said Zuckerman, that some people are more susceptible to their effects. People who are exposed to high levels of hormone disrupting chemicals, especially those exposed at very young ages and while still in the womb, are believed to be most at risk.

The Treatment

Once she received the breast cancer diagnosis, Cappon’s doctors told her they’d have go in and remove more tissue from her breasts and lymph nodes, and that she would need radiation and chemotherapy treatments. She also has to go on hormone suppression therapy for five years to stop her ovaries from producing estrogen.

Cappon plans to have a double mastectomy, followed by reconstructive surgery. “When it was first suggested to me, doctors kind of tiptoed around it,” she said. “But if I don’t have it done, I’ll be constantly worrying about it and the chances of it coming back.”

About 75 percent of women diagnosed with breast cancer do not need mastectomies, said Zuckerman. But even if Cappon had a less-advanced stage of breast cancer, Zuckerman said she would more than likely recommend a mastectomy.

“If you have a 21-year-old with real breast cancer, a mastectomy might be appropriate because more than likely the cancer is very aggressive,” she said. “Usually if a woman has a lump that she can feel or see, that lump has been growing for years.”

On the bright side, Zuckerman said surgeons have new techniques that allow them to reconstruct breasts that look and feel more natural.

“The woman won’t have any feeling in them, unfortunately,” she said.

But, like everything else about her illness, Cappon is also taking losing her breasts in stride.

"So I'll get new boobs for Christmas," she said. "A present not many people get."

Cappon’s biggest fear was losing her ability to have children and is exploring egg-harvesting as an option.

“I know that I eventually do want kids, so that was something I was pretty upset about,” she said. “I think that in five years from now, when I’m done with the hormone therapy, there’s like a 70 percent chance that my ovaries will just wake right back up and be OK, ready to go. But there’s a 30 percent chance that they’ll just stay asleep and not want to do anything.”

The Fight

Cappon returned to college in September, anxious to finish out her senior year. She must drive an hour-and-a-half home every other week for her treatments.

“I told the professors that I have for my classes and they’ve been awesome,” Cappon said. “More than helpful, willing to do whatever it is they need to do.”

Although she was forced to shave off her blonde hair and begin wearing a wig once she started treatments (Cappon donated her hair to an organization that makes wigs for women battling cancer), she’s determined to continue life as a normal college student: riding her bike around campus and even occasionally going out drinking with her friends on the weekends. She’s also planning a spring break trip.

“I hate to say the drinking thing, but I’m 21 and I’m not a huge, huge drinker,” she said. “But it was hard the first time. I had one treatment and I went out with my friends drinking. The next morning, I had never been so hung-over in my life. It's like my poor body is trying to fight this and look what I do, it hates me.”

Cappon also hopes to be an advocate and to educate other young women about the dangers of breast cancer. “I don’t want them to have to feel the way that I felt: just totally in the dark, dumbfounded, in disbelief that this could even happen,” she said.

But Cappon is confident she will beat breast cancer. "I just feel like I wouldn’t get dealt something that I couldn’t handle and I thought I was pretty kick-ass before, now, after this, I’m going to be really kick-ass," she said.

To read more about Cappon and what her doctors say about her prognosis, visit Foxnews.com/health Monday, Oct. 15.

Newest Bush Veto... Children's Health Care

I would really like to know how you feel about this bill and if you agree it should have been vetoed or if you feel it should have been signed into law.

Read about the bill and the veto here

The bill would have expanded government run health care programs for low income children. It would have added $35 Billion over 5 years allowing an additional 4 million people to be added to the already 6 million that currently use the Children's Heath Care insurance program. Sounds pretty good, but at what cost....

To pay for the $35 Billion increase the bill proposed to raise cigarette tax to $1.00 a pack. Currently the tax is at $.61 per pack. Now I'm extremely anti-smoking but I do feel that if people want to kill them selves with cancer sticks they have a right to do that and the government should not have the right to target them out and impose such a huge tax burden on them...although at the same time I hope it will encourage people to stop smoking.

But who would this bill have really helped.....

It would have allowed children from families that make as much as $80,000 a year to qualify for free government run health care programs. $80,000 a year! The bill provided incentives to states to offer the health care programs to their lowest income families first but they would be able to offer the program to people making 6 times the poverty level.

I personally feel this bill was irresponsible and the president was right to veto it. I'm OK with an expansion in children's heath care programs for poor families but expanding the program to wealthy families at the expense of tax payers is irresponsible and dangerous. It was moving to far into socialized medicine territory. Democrats in Washington are complaining that the president will spend billions to pay for this war but will not increase the amount spend on Children's health care but protecting this country from terrorists and extremists and expanding democracy are the primary jobs of the government, providing health care at tax payer's expense.

I feel that anytime taxes are raised to provide funding for social issues the people they want to pay for it should vote on it. Since this bill would have only affected smokers, smokers should have been allowed to vote on it. Of course, how do you single out smokers and only allow them to vote... Exactly why taxes should not be imposed on a single group of people. If we're going to pay for something, we should have the right to vote on it and determine for ourselves if it's something we feel is worth spending our money on. Democrats fail to recognize that individuals should have the right to say where their money goes.

So I'd be very interested to hear how you feel about this veto.

Another Key Player Killed.

Hey, I thought that the terrorists weren't in Iraq and that there was no reason for us to be there... Oh wait, that's just what Harry and Nancy want us to believe. Mayeb they should read this story....

Senior Al Qaeda in Iraq Leader Killed by U.S. Forces
WASHINGTON — U.S.-led forces have killed one of the most important leaders of Al Qaeda in Iraq, a Tunisian believed connected to the kidnapping and killings last summer of American soldiers, a top commander said Friday.

Brig. Gen. Joseph Anderson said the death of the terrorist in a U.S. airstrike Tuesday south of Baghdad, and recent similar operations against Al Qaeda, have left the organization in Iraq fractured.

"Abu Usama al-Tunisi was one of the most senior leaders ... the emir of foreign terrorists in Iraq and part of the inner leadership circle," Anderson said.

Al-Tunisi was a leader in helping bring foreign terrorists into the country and his death "is a key loss" to Al Qaeda leadership there, Anderson told a Pentagon news conference.

"He operated in Yusufiyah, southwest of Baghdad, since the second battle of Fallujah in November '04 and became the overall emir of Yusufiyah in the summer of '06," Anderson said in a videoconference from Baghdad.

"His group was responsible for kidnapping our American soldiers in June 2006," Anderson said.

He did not name the soldiers and Pentagon officials said they did not immediately know whom he was referring to. But three U.S. soldiers were killed that month in an ambush-kidnapping that happened while they were guarding a bridge.

Spc. David J. Babineau was killed at a river checkpoint south of Baghdad on June 16, 2006, and Pfc. Kristian Menchaca and Pfc. Thomas Tucker were abducted. The mutilated bodies of the kidnapped soldiers were found three days later, tied together and booby-trapped with bombs.

Anderson said recent coalition operations also have helped cut in half the previous flow of foreign fighters into Iraq, which had been at about 60 to 80 a month.

He credited the work of the Iraqi Department of Border Enforcement and U.S. teams.

Commanders have said previously that the increase in troops ordered by President Bush in January — and the increased operations that followed — have pushed militants into the remote parts of the north and south of the country. Additional operations have been going after those pockets of fighters.

"We're having great success in isolating these pockets," Anderson said.

"They are very broken up, very unable to mass, and conducting very isolated operations," he said. He could not estimate the number of foreign fighters in Iraq but said they commit over 80 percent of suicide bombings in the country.

Anderson laid out a series of operations over the last two weeks that led up to the air strike that killed al-Tunisi in the town of Musayib.

He said an associate of al-Tunisi's was captured in one mission on Sept. 12 in Baghdad and another with links to him was captured Sept. 14 in Mahmudiyah when coalition forces targeted the network that facilitates the flow of foreign fighters in the southern belts around Baghdad.

More associates were captured over the next few days. On Sept. 25, commanders received information that a meeting was taking place near Musayib with al-Tunisi and other Al Qaeda in Iraq members. A U.S. Air Force F-16 aircraft attacked the target.

Al-Tunisi's presence was confirmed by a detainee who had just fled the area before the attack and was captured minutes later, Anderson said.

9/11 - "United" States?

I will never forget. It seems like just yesterday I was getting ready for school when I heard a report that a small commuter plane had crashed into the World Trade Center. A lot happened in the wake of 9/11, our country was united in a desire to get the bad guys, we were united in our desire to end terrorism, we were united in our desire to help each other and keep America the strongest nation in the world. Where is that unity now?

When G.W. led us to war the entire country supported the effort. We were one country undivided. When the war didn't end right away our unity started to split at the seams and people who supported the war suddenly started saying they never supported it. Did people actually think war would be quick and easy? Now this country is divided, almost evenly, right down the middle. On the right is everyone who understands that war is not quick and takes a great deal of time and effort but that defeat and surrender are not options if we are to remain the world's superpower. On the left are the "Bush Haters" who hate everything about this country, the war and believe that we must surrender and that we cannot win the war no matter what. The left doesn't seem to recognize how dangerous it would be to surrender. Osama Bin Laden, the world's most wanted man, wants our country to surrender. Why would any American want the same thing as a mastermind terrorist who's greatest wish is to see the U.S. fall.

We're entering into a huge election year and the war is going to be one of the biggest topics. The dem's strategy is going to be to knock G.W and the war and try to convince everyone that surrender is the right choice. But hopefully the American people wake up before it's to late and realize that we are winning the war and it would be suicide to pull out now. General Petraeus gave a very detailed description of what is going on in Iraq and the surge is working. He even predicts that we can start withdrawal by next summer, earlier than Hillary or Obama were pushing for. The dems are knocking Petraeus and trying to convince the public that he's Bush's puppet. I wish people would realize that Petraeus doesn't care about the politics of Washington, he's not trying to play into any one political party... he cares about what it takes to win the war and he cares about what our troops need to accomplish that.

In a post 9/11 world, we need to be vigilant about fighting terrorism and preventing another 9/11. If we pull out of Iraq now, Al Qaeda will have an un-interrupted chance to re-build. Our troops are constantly breaking up terror cells and preventing Al Qaeda from gaining strength but if we bring all of our troops home Al Qaeda will have the chance to recruit and they will strike again. They are constantly trying to find ways to hit us again and if we are not vigilant about stopping them they will succeed. Many dems will claim that predicting that Al Qaeda will strike again is just scare tactics that republicans use to gain support for the war but that is exactly what Al Qaeda wants us to think. They want us to pull out of Iraq, they want us to feel like we are safe and they don't want us to remain on the offense and they definitely don't want us looking for them any longer.

I hope today people have a chance to remember where they were 6 years ago and remember the emotions they felt when they saw the towers fall. I pray that it doesn't take another terrorist attack for our country to once again stand as one nation indivisible.

National Poverty Crisis?

With the 2006 Census Bureau “Income, Poverty, and Heath Insurance” report coming out this month many people are up in arms about the number of people living in this country that are considered to be at or under the poverty threshold. The poverty threshold is listed at $10,210 for a single person and $13,690 for a two-person household. In 2006, 36.5 million people lived under the poverty threshold. Sounds like alarming numbers.

Of that 36.5 million people in poverty, 12.8 million were children under the age of 18. Children represent 35.2 percent of people living in poverty and 24.9 percent of the total population. If you take a look at the total population of children it is also notable that 42.1 percent of children living in single parent homes are living in poverty while only 8.1 percent of children who’s parents are married live in poverty. Those numbers vary significantly when you look at children under the age of 6 in which 52.7 percent of children under 6 living in poverty are born to single mothers, that is over 5 times the rate of married couple families who have children under the age of 6 living in poverty. With fewer people getting married each year the number of children born out of wedlock is rising drastically. Last year 37 percent of children born were born out of wedlock. If poor mothers married the fathers of their children 75 percent of children would be lifted out of poverty.

The report also breaks down the poverty and income levels based on race and nativity. The median income for a native born citizen in 2006 was $49,074. Surprisingly, the median income for naturalized citizens, foreign born but took the proper steps to become a citizen, is above that of native-born citizens. The average naturalized citizen makes approximately $51,440 a year. This should be good motivation for all the illegal immigrants to take the steps and become citizens. The number of Whites, Blacks and Asians, living in poverty remained the same from 2005 to 2006 while the number of Hispanics living in poverty decreased from 21.6 percent to 20.6 percent. The number of non-Hispanic Whites living in poverty in 2006 was 8.2 percent, accounting for 43.9 percent of the total population in poverty. The poverty rate for Blacks in 2006 was 24.3 percent and the rate of Asians living in poverty was 10.3 percent. It is notable that Blacks see the fewest number of marriages with in their race and the highest number of out-of-wedlock childbirths, which significantly increases their own poverty rate.

Based on this report it seems that many people living in this country must be suffering intolerable conditions. When most people think of persons in poverty they relate it to individuals who are homeless and do not have enough to eat. But are our poor really that bad off. The answer is a resounding “No.” The Census Bureau also found while conducting the report that 43 percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by a person under the poverty threshold has 3 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and a garage. Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning, 75 percent own a car, 31 percent own 2 cars, 97 percent own a color television, 50 percent own 2 or more color televisions, 78 percent have a DVD player, 89 percent own a microwave, 50 percent own a stereo and 33 percent own an automatic dishwasher. The average poor person in American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna and Athens. Not so bad off after all.

Of all poor persons the average number of hours worked each year averages 800, about 16 hours a week. If individuals raised their amount of work to 2,000 hours a year, or 40 hours a week, nearly 75 percent would be lifted out of official poverty.
Instead of encouraging these individuals to work more and get married, the government creates programs such as welfare to give aid to those individuals who do not meet the poverty threshold. Many people in this country could raise themselves out of poverty if they got married and worked full time. Welfare, public housing and food stamp programs both penalize marriage but the report shows that if poor individuals with children would marry they could lift themselves out of poverty. Programs such as these should reward those who work to get themselves out of poverty, otherwise why not live on government aid for the rest of their lives.

These standards of living for our country’s poor are good news. Things are not as dire as the media will make it out to be. Even better news is the fact that the country can substantially reduce the number of children living in poverty by encouraging parents to work more and get married. 75 percent of children in poverty could be lifted above the poverty threshold if their parents married. Additionally, 75 percent of children in poverty could be raised out of poverty if their parents worked full time. Government aid is not the answer, hard work has and always will be the answer to reducing the poverty levels.

Global Warming in 1922!

Check this story out..

A journalist was digging through some archived newpapers and found a headline news story that said "Artic Ocean Getting Warm, Seals Vanish and Ice Bergs Melt." This headline ran in 1922. Yes you read that right, 1922. Must have been all the green house gases causing that too right? What about in the 70's when the media warned that we were heading into another Ice Age, was that from green house gases too??? Turns out the hottest year on record was 1934. What don't people understand about climate change??? The earth goes through cycles. We're not causing it. It's normal! If the same thing was happening in 1922 that is happening now you'd think some people were smart enough to see it's a cycle. Anyway theres even more in the story (transcript) below...

Rush Limbaugh
RUSH: From yesterday's Global Warming Stack, from the Washington Times, John McCaslin, Inside the Beltway, reports that a "D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: 'Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt.' The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention 'great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones,' and 'at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared.' 'This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s,' says Mr. Lockwood. 'I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all.'"

Now, this is an interesting thing. We've talked about this, but you may not remember it, and I wish I could remember who did this. Two guys, their names escape me, but what they did was an analysis of media. I know Koko will find this and we can put it up on the website this afternoon when we update it for today's content, but what they did was research the media treatment of climate change going all the way back to the 1800s. What they found was fascinating, that the whole notion of climate change could not be in the public domain were it not for a willing accomplice media, and every 25 years the cycle changes, from warming, to warning about cooling. It was a fascinating piece. This 1922 Washington Post story illustrates that that's exactly what's happened. So you can have a bunch of scientists at any time in history say, "Hey, we just did some research here and the glaciers are expanding, the world is getting colder." Remember 1979, TIME and Newsweek, "The coming ice age"? It's about a little more than 25 years ago, but the cycle is starting to repeat itself, isn't it?

So it was global cooling back then; now we're into global warming. This has been the cycle; every 25 to 30 years, the media changes its tune. It's all part of the narrative. It's all about having something catastrophic on the horizon to report, just like they're going nuts with these two storms. We have Tropical Storm Erin Burnett out there, Tropical Storm Street Sweetie, which is about to hit Corpus Christi. We have Tropical Storm Dean, hasn't become a hurricane yet. It's down there in the southern Atlantic, and the track on that one keeps changing. But the Drive-Bys are excited now, folks, we have catastrophe on the horizon, and this is something that excites them. I know people are starting to pound me out there for saying this whole global warming thing is a hoax. Let me clarify. We may be warming up. What is a hoax is that only rich industrialized nations are causing it, that it is manmade. I don't think we have the ability, and I think it's outrageous for people to claim with such vanity that we have such power on the one hand, and on the other hand we're no more important than field mice. In fact, some people would say that for the earth to survive, we'd have to get off of it, or die. It's a religion.

The whole thing is a political process and a political agenda, hiding behind the saving of the planet and so forth. I don't know if it's warming up or not, but I think it's always warming or cooling. How do we know what the ideal temperature on the planet is? Who the hell are we? None of us have been around more than 85, a hundred years. And look at our vanity: "Why, it's perfect right now. This is what the world was meant to be, and it's changing, and it's our fault." It's just cockeyed. Hotter in the past, colder in the past, who's to say what's normal, natural, and ideal? We have to adapt to whatever happens, which is what we've done. We're doing great things and the right things and keeping the climate clean or the environment clean. Every species has to adapt in order to thrive because it's a constantly changing climate, a constantly changing environment. But we have all the vanity now suggesting that it's just as it was supposed to be right here, and we, because we are here right now, are destroying it. I think, folks, that is sophistry.

Here, another interesting story: "Trees Won't Fix Global Warming." Now, of course, trees are the linchpin to another hoax, and that's carbon offsets. You don't want to reduce your carbon footprint, i.e., your pollution? Fine and dandy, go out and buy some carbon offsets. There are a bunch of companies that will scam you into doing this, and you'll pay them to go plant a bunch of trees, and then you can rest easy, you can keep polluting all you want, knowing full well that your carbon footprint is going to be absorbed because somebody's out there planting trees for you. Well, guess what? "The plan to use trees as a way to suck up and store the extra carbon dioxide emitted into Earth's atmosphere to combat global warming isn't such a hot idea, new research indicates. Scientists at Duke University bathed plots of North Carolina pine trees in extra carbon dioxide every day for 10 years and found that while the trees grew more tissue, only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming." Only the trees that received the most water and nutrients stored enough carbon dioxide to offset the effects of global warming. "The Department of Energy-funded project, called the Free Air Carbon Enrichment (FACE) experiment, compared four pine forest plots that received daily doses of carbon dioxide 1.5 times current levels," and it made no difference. It didn't make a hoot's worth of difference. This is why I say all of this is a hoax.

Look at this from Live Science: "Irrigation Counteracts Global Warming." No! Irrigation is destroying the planet, I thought. "Irrigation isn't natural; it's manmade; God never intended it, nature never intended it. We're destroying what was pristine and wonderful, Mr. Limbaugh." "Irrigation can counteract global warming on a local scale, a new study shows, but increasing demand for water is likely to curb that influence in the future, scientists predict. Scientists from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California showed that there was an irrigation-induced cooling in agricultural areas, based on observations of temperature and irrigation trends throughout California." Weeell, how about that? I got an idea, folks, let's start irrigating Laurie David's backyard. Let's irrigate Brentwood. Let's irrigate Bel Air and Beverly Hills. They care about global warming out there. They got the solution right in their backyards. Dig a ditch and put some water in it.


BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: By the way, one more global warming story here. This is from Reuters. Get this: "Australian scientists have discovered a giant underwater current that is one of the last missing links of a system that connects the world's oceans and helps govern global climate." They just found this? Would somebody tell me how in the name of Sam Hill -- and there was such a guy -- how in the name of Sam Hill can they been predicting all this global warming when there's been such a huge missing link that they just now found? "New research shows that a current sweeping past Australia's southern island of Tasmania toward the South Atlantic is a previously undetected part of the world climate system's engine-room." They just found it. What else don't they know? See, I thought this was settled science. I thought it was settled and the consensus was there.


END TRANSCRIPT

Bush admin to crack down on Illegal Immigration.

Bush is finally starting to crack down on illegal immigration. Since our joke of a congress wasn't able to pass any kind of reform President Bush is making some changes in our current plan that will fine employers who hire illegal immigrants. Personally I think this is a good start but so much more needs to be done. For starters, why don't we try enforcing the laws we already have in place! We also need to crack down on Apartment homes who are renting to illegal immigrants. If they can't work here and can't live here they'll be no need for them to come here illegally. Just a thought. (hey if you can't beat them, fine the heck out of them) ...Anyways, check out the latest.... read below.

Government to Step Up Immigration Law Enforcement
Friday , August 10, 2007
WASHINGTON —

The Bush administration on Friday unveiled a host of changes aimed at stepping up enforcement on illegal immigration, which officials said was necessary because Congress failed to act on comprehenesive reform legislation earlier this year.

"Our hope is that the key elements of the Senate bill will see the light of day at some point, but until Congress chooses to act, we'll be taking some energetic steps of our own," Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said Friday.

The new measures are aimed at strengthening border security, further preventing illegal immigrants from taking jobs, finding immigrants who have already entered the United States, and revising temporary worker programs.

The measures would include fines for employers by as much as 25 percent, and a stepped up process to punish employers who knowingly and repeatedly hire illegal immigrants, Chertoff said. The administration also would speed deployment of border agents and increase processing facilities.

Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez announce the changes in a news conference Friday.

The administration also wants to expand the list of international gangs whose members are automatically denied admission to the U.S., reduce processing times for immigrant background checks, and install by the end of the year an exit system so the departure of foreigners from the country can be recorded at airports and seaports.

In addition, employers will face possible criminal sanctions if they don't fire employees unable to clear up problems with their Social Security numbers.

The Homeland Security Department will ask states to voluntarily share their driver's license photos and records with the agency for use in an employment verification system. The sharing is meant to help employers detect fraudulent licenses, according to the summary, which was provided by a congressional aide.

Some of the initiatives are similar to proposals contained in the recent immigration measure which failed to pass in the Senate, though they are not nearly as sweeping.

The legislation was opposed by many conservatives who complained that people don't trust their government to start new immigration programs since existing immigration laws are not enforced.

The Senate bill would have allowed millions of illegal immigrants to obtain legal status and eventually apply for legal residency. It also would have created a guest worker program and stepped up border security.

Some lawmakers have kept up efforts to tighten the border. Last month, the Senate added $3 billion to a homeland security bill and devoted the money to U.S.-Mexico border security.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

The Expoitation of our Heroes.

On July 21 the city of San Diego hosted a "gay pride" parade in which they forced the city firefighters to participate in. Imagine if the company you worked for forced you to take part in a "gay day." They were not even given the choice to opt out of this parade. Forcing these men and women to participate in something like this is nothing short of sexual harassment and exploitation. The firefighter's that were subjected to this are suing the city for sexual harassment charges, are rightly so.

If this were a Christian parade the ACLU would be claiming that religion was forced upon these fire fighters and they'd be suing the city, just like they did with a public school that had a "Christmas" play.

If the company I worked for hosted any kind of homosexual event and forced me to go you'd bet I'd sue too. No one should be forced by their employer, especially under threat of losing their jobs, to attend any kind of event that compromises their beliefs and values, especially a sexually explicit one. This is definitely sexual harassment and is unacceptable.



San Diego Firefighters Claim Harassment
Tuesday, August 07, 2007

By ALLISON HOFFMAN, Associated Press Writer
SAN DIEGO —

Four firefighters are pressing sexual harassment claims against the city's fire department after they were taunted while driving a fire engine in a gay pride parade last month, an attorney said Monday.

The men claim their battalion chief ordered them to ride in the July 21 parade through San Diego's Hillcrest neighborhood, according to their attorney, Stephen Stirling. The firefighters followed the order out of concern they would otherwise be suspended or punished.

During the parade, the firefighters said, bystanders taunted them with sexually explicit comments and colleagues called to tease them for participating in the event.

"I was forced into a situation that would compromise what I hold true and what I believe in," engineer Jason Hewitt said in a statement.

The four contend the department failed to protect them from sexual harassment and didn't immediately act to correct the situation, Stirling said.

Their lawyers sent a letter Wednesday to the state Department of Fair Employment and Housing seeking right-to-sue notices, a first step toward a lawsuit. The Thomas More Law Center, a conservative Christian legal organization based in Michigan, is helping represent the plaintiffs.

Fire department spokesman Maurice Luque said the four men, who were assigned to a fire station in the parade route area, were called in after another crew that had volunteered to participate canceled at the last minute because one firefighter had a family emergency.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.