Jamie Lynn Spears’ breastfeeding photo
It appears that Casey Aldridge is “not too bright, y’all,” said Pink is the New Blog. Aldridge, the father of Jamie Lynn Spears’ baby, dropped off photos—which included a shot of Spears breastfeeding their daughter, Maddie—at a Wal-Mart to be developed. Now, big surprise, someone has made copies of the photos and is trying to sell them.
Spears: Was her privacy violated?
(AP Photo/Danny Moloshok)
This is “just another day in the life” of the always-“classy” Spears family, said Jossip. And who else but “Spears’ baby daddy” would want to have pictures of Jamie Lynn breastfeeding? Regardless, whoever stole the photos could face prison for, among other things, “peddling pornography.”
“What a terrible violation of privacy!” said I’m Not Obsessed. I “feel really bad” for the Spears family. But couldn’t they “just buy a printer and print out their family photos” at home?
How embarrassing for this author. This is news? This prick got paid to write this drivel? Jesus wept, we are finished as a civilized society..
In delivering his third press conference this week on the economy, President-elect Barack Obama announced Paul Volcker’s appointment to head his administration’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
In addition to announcing Volcker’s appointment, The President-elect sought to remind Americans that times are tough, and will probably get tougher. But he ended it with a fairly positive note;”There is no doubt that during tough economic times family budgets are going to be pinched, “Obama said,”I think it is important for the American people, though, to have confidence that we’ve gone through recessions before, we’ve gone through difficult times before, that my administration intends to get this economy back on track.”
As we approach the holiday season and Black Friday, all eyes will be on the consumer numbers as retailers are counting on the season’s revenue to stop some of the bleeding. Granted, there is not much Barack can do before he is sworn in, so maybe a message of confidence from the President-elect will go a long way toward helping the retailers. But we are still left with an economic quagmire. What else needs to happen in the economic theater from an Obama Administration?
In declaring “Help is on the way”, and that his economic plan will be ready the day he is inaugurated, the President-elect will find himself busy on 21 January. Several parts of his plan have been revealed and others speculated on. The middle class tax cut and an increase on the top wage earners have already been discussed, so what can, say, the US manufacturing sector or the agriculture sector look forward to in terms of help?
This column professes no knowledge of farm subsidies, but is there plan for ethanol subsidies? How will these subsidies affect supply in terms of food distribution? In addition, we are ignorant of ways to fix the problems in the manufacturing sector. In a time where jobs don’t have to go as far as China (Mexico is much closer), we wonder how to lure manufacturing jobs back to the US. Or whether we even should.
Factory and manufacturing jobs, with the exception of skilled jobs, are basically minimum wage jobs. If we have to raise the minimum wage to accommodate those who seek those types of jobs, aren’t we just perpetuating a lower class of earners? Wouldn’t it make more sense to break the cycle of minimum wages jobs for those who have families? High school age employees not withstanding (in the sense they are still living at home), it doesn’t make sense to plan on struggling through life. We wonder if job training and easier access to financing for trade schools, tech schools, and community colleges, might eliminate this cycle, and the need for low paying jobs in the community as a sole source of income for families.
So President Obama has his work cut out for him and his team. Volcker is smart pick, and so is the New York Fed guy. But it’s a tough row to hoe for anyone, it is quite the mess. So we await more of the details on the plan, and have to wonder if John McCain isn’t just a tad bit relieved he didn’t inherit this mess.
Over the next few weeks this column will attempt to touch on all of the immediate issues facing President-Elect Obama and his transition team. Obviously the economy looms large over Inauguration Day, but there is another topic that must addressed soon, the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Established after prisoners were being rounded up in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, or Gitmo as it’s called, has been vilified by the Left and condemned by the World .The prisoners held in Gitmo have been given certain constitutional rights by the Federal Court and there is talk of bringing them here to be tried in our court system. One wonders why there would be some so eager to give these folks every possible break.
To be sure, if anyone of the Gitmo denizens were tried here, and convicted, they would be doing long stretches in federal prison, and would probably never see the light of day again. But what charges would they face here? The basis for holding them off of US soil is that they are “enemy combatants” with no country to claim and no reason to be engaging US troops within a third country’s borders. One of the popular rallying cries on the Left is the Geneva Convention.
Under the Convention’s rules, warring nations must have their troops clearly marked, and be part of a declared or defensive posture (Paraphrasing here). A majority in Cuba hold no status, and certainly weren’t “marked” on the battlefield. With these departures from the Convention on their part, why should US Laws and rights be applied to them? We will always adhere to the Convention, but these folks with no country’s citizenship, who have declared a hostile intent to the United States and the world, did not.
President Obama will have to deal with these folks sooner, rather than later. World opinion is that he should immediately close down the facility, let a majority of the detainees go, and try the rest either internationally, or under US Law. Others feel they should stay right where they are. These are bad folks and intend to bring harm to the United States, why bring them here for any reason? Releasing them to what they call their home countries is dangerous, too; how many detainees that have been released to a third country escaped? One would be too many.
Senator Obama is smart enough to realize that this could become a hot potato, one that could be a thorn in the first months of his administration’s side. This column feels that the status quo could be a good way to backburner the issue until we know exactly who we are, lets face it, inviting in to enjoy freedoms and rights that they don’t deserve or haven’t earned. In a country where some feel the ACLU has more influence than any of our religious institutions, there is the chance one of these combatants could actually be let go!
We also hope the President-Elect sees the same irony that this column does in a United States absorption of Gitmo detainees. The Mariel Boatlift filled South Florida and our prisons with the worst folks Cuba had to offer, and we couldn’t do anything about it. Now there are some who actively champion a repeat of a criminal exodus from Cuba to America’s shores. President Obama should keep them right where they are.
Today in Phoenix, John McCain made clear his intention to run for his Senate seat again in 2010. Since his return to DC after the campaign, Senator McCain has been bouncing around gathering support for what he feels is the only way out of mire that the Beltway has become. Bi-Partisan Leadership.
To some however, there is concern that maybe the Arizona Senator has run his course. According to various internet postings, and I claim no sanction of what any of them say, it’s time for some new blood in the Senate representing conservatism. Senator McCain, it is argued, has drifted too far in his “Maverickdom” from Republican principles and platforms. The issue of immigration is the one issue that those on the right part ways with John McCain.
Hailing from Arizona, one would think the Senator would have a firm grasp on the problems that arise from unchecked immigration. Just in terms of economics alone, one has to see the the reason for reform of some kind. But at what expense?
To just absorb a burgeoning populace, and lets face it, a Third World one, will never work. There is just not enough jobs here for everyone. Mass deportation? Never work, simply because America doesnt have the stomach for images of busloads of crying families heading for the border. This column claims to have no viable solution, but would argue that enforcement of current laws is a good place to start.
So as the Senator talks re-election and bi-partisan immigration reform, there will be many who will be watching and wondering if there will any conservative principles in John McCain’s plans for the Senate and beyond 2010.
If there is any silver lining to be found in the Lefts pummeling of the GOP, it’s that Missouri remains in the Red category. Living here in the Midwest, one gets a sense of how things should be. One of the largest and busiest retail outlets in the area is a fishing and hunting chain. Pick up trucks and country music are prevalent and Hunting season is like pilgrim week.
Here in Missouri, and the surrounding states, you will see a few more churches than you will on the coasts. More pro-gun bumper stickers, and picket fences. Conservative values just seem more prevalent on the outskirts of Rural America. After GOP strongholds like Virginia and Indiana turned Blue, Missouri’s retention was all that more important.
But what are the differences between Missouri, Virginia and Indiana? To be sure, Indiana is a Midwestern farm state, pretty much in the same mold as Missouri. Virginia, with a burgeoning northern population, is still a fairly rural state. Granted, the cities are growing much faster with transplants, but it was always a traditional values state. Missouri voted a number of tax increases in, and it did take a long time to count the votes, and when it was done, it was a razor thin margin; a couple of tenths of a point. Indiana was defeated by two counties. So, while in Missouri we held on to our Red status, the trend may be moving Blue. The loss of the Bellweather status maybe a harbinger as well.
Whatever the trends are in the Midwest, Missouri opted to stay with traditional values, even if it took weeks to figure it out.
Senator Obama added his third Clintonista to his team, by announcing Bill Richardson as Commerce Secretary. Who will be next? My money is on Zoe Baird. She has taken care of that nanny thing (she never got rid of her,the kids grew up), so she could probably pass the vetting process. How about that guy Huang? He has already had a security clearance! Speaking of vetting processes, how about one of the Clinton in-laws? Roger Clinton is probably off probation now. Or perhaps everyone’s favorite Clinton era villain, Craig Livingstone. Remember him? Probably not, no one even remembers who hired him.
As I sit here going over the news, I realize that being in the opposition isn’t the same as it was during the Clinton Occupation. Of course the internet has changed much about about the political process, but this opposition piece just feels different. Maybe it’s because the Clinton Boogeymen mentioned above weren’t as bad as they were made out to be, compared to some of the folks Obama is known to pal around with. Perhaps its because of the overwhelming support Senator Obama had versus a tepid GOP campaign. Whatever it is, there seems to be a bigger sense of urgency now, than there was in nineties.
Certainly one indicator would be the skyrocketing guns and ammo sales that have occurred since Barack’s election. Another would be the tanking market. Yet another would be the fear of higher taxes. All of these things, coupled with an Al Qaeda taunting of the President-elect, haven’t done very much soothe fears in the opposition camps.
So while all the retros are lining up looking for jobs in the new administration, we are wondering where Jamie Gorelick is going to land. But, in the coming days, Im sure we will be hearing more and more about Obama’s cabinet. I look forward to, er, commenting on them from my perch on the outside looking in.
President-elect Obama at a press conference in Chicago, Friday, Nov. 7, 2008. Standing behind Obama are (L-R) Vice President-elect Biden, Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm, former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker and incoming Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
CNSNews.com) – President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is showing its hostility toward lawful firearm owners by “weeding out” job applicants who own firearms themselves, a Second Amendment group says.
The Illinois State Rifle Association (ISRA) notes that question 59 – part of a 63-item questionnaire given to Obama administration job applicants – asks for information about firearms owned by the applicant and his or her family.
Found in the questionnaire’s “Miscellaneous” section, question 59 reads, “Do you or any members of your immediate family own a gun? If so, provide complete ownership and registration information. Has the registration ever lapsed? Please also describe how and by whom it is used and whether it has been the cause of any personal injuries or property damage.”
Other questions in the Miscellaneous section ask about the applicant’s postings on Facebook and MySpace Web sites; health and medical status; associations with groups that could be used against the applicant; and any other information that could prove embarrassing to the applicant.
Although it’s not clear that gun ownership would disqualify a job applicant, ISRA says question 59 shows the Obama team’s “distaste” for firearm owners.
“Question 59 provides clear insight into how Obama and his people perceive firearm owners,” said ISRA Executive Director Richard Pearson. “The questionnaire poses a number of questions asking the applicant to reveal any unethical activities, or embarrassing Internet chats, then wraps up by asking if anyone in the applicant’s family owns a firearm. Obviously, Obama feels that owning a firearm is akin to talking dirty in Internet chat rooms.”
Pearson says the attitude is not surprising, given that Obama – as an Illinois State senator — voted for SB1195, which included a provision calling for gun owners to be registered in the same manner as sex offenders.
“Once again, we have to ask ourselves just what candidate Obama was talking about when he said he has ‘respect’ for the 2nd Amendment,” said Pearson.
ISRA, which describes itself as an advocate of safe, lawful and responsible firearms ownership, has posted a copy of the questionnaire on its Web site.
The National Rifle Association also noted the anti-Second Amendment implications of the Obama’s team’s employment questionnaire:
“As this litmus test shows, they have every intention of putting together an administration that is hostile to firearms ownership and to Second Amendment rights,” said NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre.
“One of their first official acts is to make a list of gun owners among their own employees. It proves where their hearts are. It shows what their philosophy is. This is more proof that this administration is coming after our freedom and NRA stands ready.”
At least one Republican took offense at the Obama team’s decision to question job applicants about gun ownership.
“I am deeply disturbed that President-elect Obama is asking job applicants whether they or members of their family own guns. Millions of law-abiding Americans own firearms and they should not be discriminated against.,” Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) said on Friday.
“The questionnaire already seeks information about illegal activity so there is no reason to ask this question unless the Obama Administration plans to use it to discriminate based on lawful activity. For this reason, I will seek to enact legislation to prohibit this type of discrimination,” DeMint added.
Anti-gun sentiment as a requirement for a schedule C employment? That has to be against the law. Also look at the questions asked. Now will America realize how important judicial appointments are?