It's My Mind

Capitol Fax: Quinn says he will work to help “build a majority” for same sex marriage

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 14:20:58 PST

A round-up stories on the new push for same sex marriage in Springfield from Rich Miller's blog. My general position is that I accept civil unions. At the same time I had the idea that civil unions wasn't much different from marriage.

Other states have civil unions and in Illinois civil unions are for everybody whether gay or straight. At the same time what's the difference between marriage and civil unions. It seems as if there is a faction that insists on allowing marriage between same sex couples. Apparently for them the issue isn't solved with civil unions.

When Gov. Quinn started his full term last year, he consider a number of bills passed by the General Assembly that were signed into law by him. One of them were civil unions, but then there was also the tax hike. Those bills were certainly controversial in some respects. One of the bills he rejected was for conceal carry, he just couldn't be persuaded to enact that into law.

I'm saying this to note that there have been proposals like that out there over the years, however, it took years to enact them into law. It took years to raise income taxes in Illinois and surely it took years to finally enact civil unions. It also took years to build support to even allow conceal carry to be passed out of the Illinois General Assembly.

It could still take years yet for gay marriage to be adopted in this state. How long will it in fact take? Only time will tell!

BTW, also posted at the Capitol Fax on Tuesday a gay rights group takes literally a satire -from our NBC affiliate - about marriage a little too literally by that same group. As you see they eventually saw it as satire and issued a retraction later.

The President announces African-Americans for Obama...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Wed, 15 Feb 2012 11:51:39 PST

[VIDEO] I recieved this video via Newsalert that asks, "Could you imagine Romney launching a website titled whites for Romney?". All I can say to that is if someone wanted to organize such a group it could be considered a lame answer to this. Not sure what I would say if this was formed before Obama unveiled this campaign organization.

Also there's probably someone out there who will answer that question by saying that white people already run this country so why should there be a whites for Romney. A comment made by the extremist amongst us, whoever they may be.

Anyway, Obama is probably just attempting to organize a potent constituency. It's safe to say they're not going anywhere else in this election. We'll see if this makes a huge difference for Obama in 2012.

Happy Valentine's Day...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:41:10 PST

[VIDEO] So, from last night's episode of Conan, propmaster Bill Tull gives us some budget Valentine's Day tips. Some of them could work, I know it! :P

Why are some 80-plus-year-old seniors as sharp as people 30 years younger? - Chicago Sun-Times

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Sat, 11 Feb 2012 23:29:29 PST

Why are some 80-plus-year-old seniors as sharp as people 30 years younger? - Chicago Sun-Times

I sincerely hope that I will get this lucky when I make 80+.

“Some have less than a high school education. We have people who have medical degrees,” she said. “We have people at 80 who are going to the gym five days a week and leading exercise classes and people who still smoke a pack a day and have for 30 years.”

“There is no one path to SuperAging,” she said, adding that researchers believe that all participants provide clues into the way the aging brain functions.

Publication of the research from Rogalski’s group, which has studied the SuperAging phenomenon for more than four years, is pending. But the early data is giving intriguing clues into the mystery of aging.

Those qualified for the study undergo extensive tests of memory, IQ and executive function. There are DNA blood tests and MRIs of their brains. Eighteen months after the initial three-day screen, they are asked to report back to the lab for another two days of testing. They will be part of the study as long as they are alive and willing to participate.

Some of the MRIs revealed the possibility that their brains shared characteristics with younger brains atypical of an average brain in an 80-year-old. The SuperAgers’ brains weren’t shrinking in the same way most brains shrink as people age. The reason for this isn’t clear but as the study grows, researchers hope to learn about possible connections to lifestyle or genetics.

The SuperAgers are asked to donate their brains for further study after they die.

I hope that they will publish their research. Although surely it will be highly academic, I hope that I will be able to understand their findings!

Some needs some convincing of this...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 20:30:01 PST

Found this on FB, it was very interesting to see this. A positive message too bad so many won't even get beyond either "won't do it" or "can't do it". You don't go anywhere that way!

Wall Street Journal: The Heartland Tax Rebellion

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 06:30:03 PST

I really wish we could consider this in Illinois. Up until it was time to enact our state's 1970 constitution this state had no income taxes. Last year we raised income taxes while it was important for the sake of this state's fiscal health to do so, I've seen some pieces that suggest that it wasn't even enough. On saving grace to income taxes in this state is that it's a flat tax but there are those who want to change that to progressive taxation.

This op/ed explores the tax regimes of other states around the nation:

Oklahoma Governor Mary Fallin is starting to feel surrounded. On her state's southern border, Texas has no income tax. Now two of its other neighbors, Missouri and Kansas, are considering plans to cut and eventually abolish their income taxes. "Oklahoma doesn't want to end up an income-tax sandwich," she quips.

On Monday she announced her new tax plan, which calls for lowering the state income-tax rate to 3.5% next year from 5.25%, and an ambition to phase out the income tax over 10 years. "We're going to have the most pro-growth tax system in the region," she says.

She's going to have competition. In Kansas, Republican Governor Sam Brownback is also proposing to cut income taxes this year to 4.9% from 6.45%, offset by a slight increase in the sales tax rate and a broadening of the tax base. He also wants a 10-year phase out. In Missouri, a voter initiative that is expected to qualify for the November ballot would abolish the income tax and shift toward greater reliance on sales taxes.

South Carolina Governor Nikki Haley wants to abolish her state's corporate income tax. And in the Midwest, Congressman Mike Pence, who is the front-runner to be the next Republican nominee for Governor, is exploring a plan to reform Indiana's income tax with much lower rates. That policy coupled with the passage last week of a right-to-work law would help Indiana attract more jobs and investment.

That's not all: Idaho, Maine, Nebraska, New Jersey and Ohio are debating income-tax cuts this year.

But it is Oklahoma that may have the best chance in the near term at income-tax abolition. The energy state is rich with oil and gas revenues that have produced a budget surplus and one of the lowest unemployment rates, at 6.1%. Alaska was the last state to abolish its income tax, in 1980, and it used energy production levies to replace the revenue. Ms. Fallin trimmed Oklahoma's income-tax rate last year to 5.25% from 5.5%.

Although having chided North Dakota for wanting to abolish their property taxes, that state is noted for the revenues received from their oil & gas revenues. In this op/ed they insist that they must reconsider the long-term solution of abolishing their income taxes instead of the property taxes.

BTW, for those of you who are concerned about cuts to programs that we take for granted - such as education, police, or even welfare - here's an answer:

The experience of states like Florida, New Hampshire, Tennessee and Texas also refutes the dire forecasts that eliminating income taxes will cause savage cuts in schools, public safety and programs for the poor. These states still fund more than adequate public services and their schools are generally no worse than in high-income tax states like California, New Jersey and New York.

They have also recorded faster revenue growth to pay for government services over the past two decades than states with income taxes. That's because growth in the economy from attracting jobs and capital has meant greater tax collections.

The tax burden isn't the only factor that determines investment flows and growth. But it is a major signal about how a state treats business, investment and risk-taking. States like New York, California, Illinois and Maryland that have high and rising tax rates also tend to be those that have growing welfare states, heavy regulation, dominant public unions, and budgets that are subject to boom and bust because they rely so heavily on a relatively few rich taxpayers.

Florida is especially noted because it was one state that fell victim to the housing bust. But as you see above it's hailed as an example of how a state has weathered this current recession and shows that taxes aren't relevant to economic growth!

How lower income citizens commute....

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:21:45 PST

Via New Geography:

In the nation's 51 major metropolitan areas (more than 1,000,000 population), 76.3% of lower income employees use cars to get to work, three times that of all other modes combined (Figure 1).

Admittedly, this is less than the 83.3% of all employees who use cars for the work trip, but a lot more than would be expected, especially among those who believe that transit is the principal means of mobility for low income citizens. Overall, 8 times as many lower income citizens commuted by car as by transit. In this analysis, lower income citizens are defined as employees who earn less than $15,000 per year, which is approximately one-half of the median earnings per employee of $29,701. .

Perhaps most surprising is the fact that only 9.6% of lower income citizens used transit to get to work. This is not very much higher than the 7.9% of all workers in the metropolitan areas who use transit. (Table 1).

Why doesn't transit rank that high amongst low income commuters:

Transit's small market share has to do with its inherent impracticality as a means of getting to most employment. According to ground-breaking research by the Brookings Institution, low-income citizens could reach only 35 percent of jobs in the major metropolitan areas by transit in 90 minutes. In other words, you cannot get from here to there, at least for most trips. It is no more reasonable for lower income citizens to spend three hours per day commuting than it is for anyone else. A theoretical 90 minute one-way standard is no indicator of usable mobility. It is likely that only about 8 percent of jobs are accessible by lower income citizens in 45 minutes (Note 2) and 4 percent in 30 minutes.

For many, I'm sure public transportation is a lot more inconvenient than driving to where you need to go. It's probably inconvenient if you have to walk a block or more to get to where you need to go than to drive there. Although when it comes to driving you have to consider parking, how far away do you have to park from your destination.

Hat-tip Newsalert!

Gold....

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:50:00 PST

I feel awkward attempting to explain some rough understanding of economics but luckily my mother is a banker so therefore there were some rough concepts that she could corroborate. If you are even more of an economics geek feel free to challenger my conclusions!

So I was watching this episode of Pawn Stars ("Buy the Book" aired on June 6, 2011) recently where an older gentleman was looking to sell a 1930s Lincoln automobile. The Harrisons and this man just weren't coming together on a price until Rick Harrison just outright asked what this gentleman wanted to make a deal. What he wanted was some gold.

They made a deal for the right price but with gold as part of the deal. So Rick Harrison explains that he can't exchange gold for the car. What he did offer was cash for the car and then gold for the cash.

It wasn't explained during the course of the episode why Rick Harrison arranged the deal in that fashion. Although I do figure that this may have been a tax issue for his pawn shop at the very least. There are probably some business things going on there too but with all that gold basically all Eagles and Krugerrands gold coins, the old gentleman trading his antique car made out quite well.

Then it brought back some history I've learned over the past few years. Once upon a time America was on the gold standard and that determined the value of the dollar. In the Great Depression, the Roosevelt administration wanted to buy/confiscate all gold in order to devalue the dollar. I suppose in this way they wanted to stop people from trading gold/silver and affect the value of the dollar. In any case by the 1970s, America was no longer on the gold standard and the dollar is currently a fiat currency. The value of the dollar is according to the interest rates set by the Federal Reserve.

I also thought about an executive order signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. In 1933 this executive order criminalized the possession of gold by individuals, corporations, associations or partnerships. This executive order was replaced by the Gold Reserve Act in 1934. That legislation effect made gold clauses in private contracts illegal and they were necessary in order to protect against he US Government devaluing the currency. Although now it's legal to possess, purchase, and trade for gold.

Also, I look forward to the day when I can purchase gold so that I can use it to trade or sell. Gold is a good investment in these uncertain times. Even better it would be nice to store them in a safe deposit box at a bank for safe keeping.

The Gospel According to Obama

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:19:01 PST

The sub title to this column is "Barack Obama says faith drives much of his domestic agenda—and no one even blinks":

George W. Bush had one small office devoted to faith-based initiatives, and was savaged for it. Barack Obama, on the other hand, says faith drives much of his domestic agenda—and no one even blinks.

We are in “the fourth year of the ministry of George W. Bush,” cracked novelist Philip Roth in 2004. By then, several million gallons of ink already had been spilled warning that Bush’s “faith-based presidency” was “nudging the church-state line” (The New York Times) and was “turning the U.S. into a religious state” (Village Voice) and was “arrogant” and “troubling” (St. Petersburg Times) and was “pandering to Christian zealots” (Salon) and “imposing its values on the rest of us” (too many to name).

Obama has been just as overtly religious as Bush—“We worship an awesome God in the blue states,” he said in his 2004 keynoter at the Democratic National Convention—and even more aggressive about injecting faith into politics. In 2006, he praised a religious “Covenant for a New America.” In a 2008 speech in Ohio, he said religious faith could be “the foundation of a new project of American renewal” and insisted that “secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door before entering into the public square.” He has kept Bush’s office of faith-based initiatives. In fact, “Obama's faith-based office has given religious figures a bigger role in influencing White House decisions,” reported USNews in 2009.

At the National Prayer Breakfast last Thursday, the president began by noting that he prays every morning, and then devoted the rest of his speech to explaining the manifold ways in which his faith guides his policies. “I am my brother's keeper and I am my sister's keeper,” he said. That somnolent silence you hear is the guardians of church-state separation taking a nap.

I need not tell you an obvious conclusion. They give Obama a pass because the press are generally with Obama on other issues more spending, higher taxes, or even more regulation. If you're with them on those issues they believe in they will give your religiousness a pass.

Which leads to another quote from this article:

Or take the temper tantrum that erupted last week when the Susan G. Komen Foundation for the Cure, a women’s-health organization, decided—briefly—to stop giving its own money to Planned Parenthood. Let’s suppose Komen’s 27.3 million critics were correct in thinking the move was motivated by anti-abortion sentiments, which are essentially religious sentiments. So? Isn’t Obama right to say secularists are wrong when they ask believers to leave their religion at the door?

Some claimed the issue was women’s health. Not so. The Komen foundation would not have shoved the money formerly earmarked for Planned Parenthood under a mattress. It would have spent the money on women’s-health initiatives elsewhere. Leftists were not upset because Komen’s decision shrank the pool of funding for cancer screenings and so forth; it would not have. They were fuming because Komen no longer wanted to tithe one of liberalism’s most sacred institutions. So apoplexy ensued, and Komen climbed down.

The lesson from all of this? Liberals should be able to impose their faith-based values on the rest of us, but any heretics who deviate from liberal dogma may not even observe their faith-based values by themselves. It’s right there in the Apocrypha—you can look it up.

I can't say I really understand this. They have a right to hold back money if they wanted to. How is abortion a matter of women's health and who says that money must go to Planned Parenthood. That money could just as easily go towards more research into breast cancer for example. Simplistic thinking at play here!

Illinois economics and labor

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 10:48:17 PST

The Capitol Fax has a graphic about how Illinois fares economically with other nearby states. Illinois is expected to outperform both Indiana and Wisconsin according to a report released by the Federal Reserve. And according to the colored legend of this map Michigan will also outperform Illinois, Indiana, & Wisconsin.

In that same post is Rich Miller's syndicated column talking about Gov. Quinn's state of the state speech he delivered last week. I didn't actually get to watch the speech but it seems Quinn may well have delivered one of his best speeches yet. Still, it notes that for the high notes the speech made there were many who still weren't in the mood for it in light of the many problems of our state including $35 billion in unpaid bill by the state. Read the whole thing when you get a chance.

I haven't followed this as I would've like but it's been news that Indiana had enacted legislation that would make them a "right to work" state. According to this graphic provided by Newsalert, Illinois is one of many states around the nation that's a "forced unionism state". Of course there was also a report that Gov. Quinn said Indiana's transition wouldn't affect Illinois.

I'm curious how he procured this map. If it's available at any particular website. I should send Bartin an e-mail!

Lumière and Company - Spike Lee

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 21:43:34 PST

[VIDEO] Back in 1995, Spike Lee took part in a project entitled Lumière and Company where filmmakers such as Lee were to use the cinematograph camera - invented by the Lumière brothers - with these three rules in mind:

A short may be no longer than 52 seconds
No synchronized sound
No more than three takes

I just found out that Lee will be in The Sixth Ward for an event at Chicago State University. Thinking about going but just haven't decided yet!

Stuff Spelmanites Say Part 2

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:30:00 PST

[VIDEO]Basically I presented part 1 to you, so here's part two. A satire of the adventures of the women of Spelman College. Hopefully this will give you a good laugh, the theme is basically leading up to graduation!

Hey Super Bowl Sunday is this weekend!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:11:59 PST

[VIDEO] So here are some tips from the Conan O'Brien propmaster for ideas on your Super Bowl party that you can do on a budget. LMAO!!!

Thanks for liking this blog...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:30:00 PST

If you like my blog enough to share it on FB with the "like" button in the sidebar then feel free to introduce yourself. It's cool to know that there are at least 17 people who are willing to share this blog on their profiles. It's really flattering indeed, hopefully, this blog really is worth your time and those who you share it with!

Regrowing your own teeth...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 08:41:00 PST

[VIDEO]I think this is a good idea. You lose your teeth, have them regenerated in a lab. As stated on Instapundit when it was linked on there "faster please". Yes, PLEASE!

Dr. Franklin to step down as President of Morehouse College...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 20:39:40 PST

A press release I found via Yahoo! Finance today:

After an accomplished five-year term as president of Morehouse College, Robert M. Franklin '75 has decided to step down at the end of his term at the close of the 2012 academic year on June 30.

Following his departure as president, Franklin plans to spend his sabbatical as a Scholar in Residence at Stanford University's Martin Luther King Jr. Institute and plans to return to Morehouse in the role of Distinguished Professor of Social Ethics.

In recognition of Franklin's exemplary service to the College, the Board of Trustees has voted to recognize him with the College's highest and most prestigious rank: President Emeritus and Distinguished Professor.

"Dr. Franklin has served an integral role leading the renaissance of Morehouse, and his dedication is greatly appreciated," said Robert Davidson, chairman of the Morehouse College Board of Trustees. "In addition to his years of service, Robert has led by example, dedicating a substantial portion of his time to community service, which is one of the core values that Morehouse seeks to instill in each and every one of its students. We will miss him as the Board endeavors to find a successor who will help to usher the college into a new era."

I liked Dr. Franklin. He seemed to have a solid vision as to where he was going to take Morehouse College. It seems he may have accomplished some of them and hopefully Morehouse will appoint someone who will also have a solid vision for the college. Perhaps the 5 wells will continue in someway in the future.

Dr. Franklin took over as President of Morehouse from Dr. Walter Massey by the summer of 2007. He was officially inaugurated into office in February 2008. This was his address but there are also links below the embed to other aspects of his inaguration as the Morehouse College President.

[VIDEO: Inaugural Anthem, Investiture, Inaugural Address]

Validation...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:30:00 PST

[VIDEO] This video is hilarious. About a man with an upbeat personality working a job that really doesn't require such a personality. Then he finds a girl he can't turn around and gets himself depressed but the ending is priceless as he regains his smile. A love story told in only 16 minutes. Enjoy!

Why I'm a Republican in my head but a Democrat in my heart: A Love Story

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:00:01 PST

Head over to ChicagoNow where a posting explains how she may agree with Republicans on some issues but remains in fact a Democrat:

Why stay in a party that promotes flawed economic policies and makes renewing my driver's license so painful?

I stay because the Republican Party gives me no choice.

In fact, they make it too easy to stay.

Time and time again, election after election, they deem themselves more concerned with protecting arcane notions of what it means to be "American" rather than accept the fact that the face of our country is no longer predominately white and male.

I stay because I don't think that government should have a say in who I, or anyone else, marries and what I do with my uterus.

I stay because I don't agree with allowing people to sneak across the border to clean our homes but force them to go back when they want to attend our schools.

Most of all, even with all its flaws, I stay for a reason that our President expressed on Tuesday night during the State of the Union address:

"I’m a Democrat. But I believe what Republican Abraham Lincoln believed, that government should do for people only what they cannot do better by themselves, and no more."

We cannot negate the impact that institutionalized racism and bigotry has had on many in America. For that reason, I believe that it is all of our duty to continue to lift up others who cannot lift themselves out of their situations. And though we may be far from the perfect solution, we owe it to the dream of what our country can be to keep trying, to keep helping, and to keep believing that we can be better.

A lot of things here I can get with. What I wish could be explained was what's with the thing about who one marries or what who has say in who's uterus? Are those slaps against gay marriage and abortion?

If you want to know my thoughts, I'm very much pro-life. I think that's a long way from telling a woman what to do with her uterus, my thing would be to encourage a woman to seek other options such as birth control. And surely there are many who even scoff at that!

As for marriage, while I don't agree with gay marriage my thing is to get government out of marriage. Government shouldn't tell a church that they must marry homosexuals. In that case, OK perhaps government shouldn't dictate who can or can't get married. Some will insist there must be equal protection on the other hand I would say marriage should be a primarily religious matter than a civil governmental matter.

Also I can understand where she's coming from. There are ideas I can agree with on the Republican side, however, it's difficult for me to believe there is a home for me in the GOP. At the same time I feel the same way about the Democrats.

Colorblind Racism: The New Norm

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 20:59:38 PST

This piece was from the Washington Post site The Root which more or less caters to a more Black readership. They talk about the comments made at the debates that took place before the South Carolina primary this past weekend.

Colorblind racism is the new normal in American conservative political thought. Well after the election of the nation's first African-American president, in 2012 Republican candidates are using egregious signals and dog whistles to incite racial divisiveness as an effective tool for political gain. But when confronted about the nature of their offensive rhetoric, the answer is either an innocuous denial or dismissive retort.

It is curious that people bold enough to make outlandish racial claims never admit guilt or receive a proverbial trial and conviction by the greater populace. Paul Rosenberg, a political contributor to Al-Jazeera, recently explained that this curious phenomenon of "racism without racists" has become de facto in today's political discourse and is best described as "colorblind racism."

First explored in the book Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of Racial Inequality in the United States by Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, a professor of sociology at Duke University, the concept explains much of the Republican strategy to defeat Barack Obama, using race as a wedge issue. Bonilla-Silva defined colorblind racism as a racial ideology that expresses itself in seemingly nonracial terms. As such, it is most practiced by people who never see themselves outside their own myopic worldview.

Last week's Fox News debate prior to the South Carolina Republican primary was an excellent example of the hubris inherent in today's racially charged, conservative environment.

All the more offensive was the fact that this debate took place on the national holiday celebrating Martin Luther King Jr. As Michael Keegan explained in the Huffington Post, "What could have been an opportunity for the candidates to express their support for the myriad advances of the civil rights movement and to address the real challenges that remain, instead turned into a mess of racially charged attacks on African Americans, immigrants and the poor."

Basically they take issue with amongst other ideas from those debates, Newt Gingrich's comments that suggest that he would have public school students take jobs at their local school. Who knows if the author is offended by the idea that such students should take on janitorial jobs although Gingrich himself doesn't limit it to only custodial positions.

To which I say, Gingrich is right our young people should know the value of work. They should also know the value of earning money and doing what it takes to get out of the low income bracket. Who would be opposed to teach our young people job skills especially of getting to work on time, dressing appropriately, or even conducting themselves at work?

So if you continue to read this three page article (WHEW) you will see that the author accuses Republicans of "race baiting". Have anyone seen any instances of race baiting during this campaign amongst Republicans? Tell me where and when!

Brewer's exchange with the President...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 13:30:00 PST

[VIDEO] A lot of people are taking issue with this exchange. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer shouldn't have placed her finger in the President's face, that I will agree on. On the other hand I understand that there are two sides to every story. Besides amongst players in our politcal & governmental systems there will be disagreements as there are between Republican Brewer and the Democrat President.

According to the Washington Post this is what it was about:

Obama descended the stairs of Air Force One and was greeted by Brewer, who was waiting for him along with other politicians in a traditional receiving line. Brewer offered Obama a letter, which she later said was an invitation to sit down with her to discuss Arizona’s economic “comeback” and to join her for a tour of the U.S.-Mexican border.

The president told Brewer he would be happy to meet with her, a White House aide said, but also informed the governor that he thought she had been inaccurate in describing their earlier session in the Oval Office.

Brewer’s book, “Scorpions for Breakfast: My Fight Against Special Interests, Liberal Media, and Cynical Politicos to Secure the Border,’’ details her conservative approach to dealing with the state’s illegal immigration challenges. A review published in the Arizona Republic said that Brewer casts Obama as “condescending” and skewers him repeatedly. Although she originally described their Oval Office meeting as cordial, the newspaper said, “in the book she calls the president ‘patronizing’ and said ‘he lectured me.’ ”

“He didn’t feel that I had treated him cordially” in the book, Brewer told reporters Wednesday. “I said to him that I have all the respect in the world for the office of the president. The book is what the book is. I asked him if he read the book. He said he read the excerpt.”

In an excerpt available on Amazon, Brewer defends Arizona’s Senate Bill 1070 immigration law that she signed into law in 2010, but whose toughest provisions were overturned by a federal judge.

Brewer writes that Obama “has repeatedly made fun of those of us who want to see the law enforced, saying we want a ‘moat’ with ‘alligators’ in it around our country. The reason he has resorted to these failed attempts at humor, I think, is that he supports a policy that is fundamentally undemocratic, and he knows it.”

She and Obama appeared to be talking over each other on the tarmac, as other Arizona officials looked on. The exchange ended when Obama abruptly walked away, as Brewer appeared to still be speaking.

Now that you guys know the other side of the story other than perhaps what was seen on video, who would you point the finger at? Governor Brewer, President Obama, or both? I would point my finger at both.

Gov. Brewer shouldn't have pointed a finger at Obama, literally sure. Then again if it's true that Obama just walked off while the Governor was speaking, I'm not so sure that makes the President looks any better himself. Gov. Brewer is a citizen and he should listen to what she has to say and with the present discussion the book should've have even come up, especially if he never read it.

BTW, I wanted to find some better video of this exchange but I have been unable to find any. The finger is portrayed in a photograph. And there's no way for me to see if she was still talking when he walked off on her. Check out the vile comments on the YouTube page as well, MAN!

Illinois abortions at record low - Chicago Sun-Times

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:03:22 PST

Illinois abortions at record low - Chicago Sun-Times

Abortions reported in Illinois reached a 37-year low in 2010, a drop that abortion opponents attributed to more women shying away from the procedure while abortion-rights supporters pointed to an uptick in use of contraceptives.

In 2010, there were 41,859 abortions in Illinois, according to recently published data from the state Department of Public Health .

That’s the lowest total since 1973, when Illinois recorded 32,760 abortions. That’s the year the procedure was legalized in the United States in the landmark Roe vs. Wade decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Carole Brite, president of Planned Parenthood of Illinois, said her organization was pleased to learn about the decrease but it was “hard to know for sure” what caused it. She said between 2009 and 2010, her organization doubled its distribution of contraceptives such as intrauterine devices and Implanon — a small rod placed under the skin that blocks pregnancy.

“I think more and more providers have become aware and knowledgeable of these methods and are recommending them to their patients,” Brite said.

I posted that quote from the President of Planned Parenthood for a reason. I'm surprised to see she's pleased about the decrease in a abortions.

TO be sure I'm pleased. The emphasis should be more on prevention of unwanted pregnancies than on abortions. Who knows why there is a decrease in Abortions in my state.

It makes me wonder why this little statistic is included in an analysis of unemployment rates not only in Illinois but with neighboring states as seen on Capitol Fax today!

Washington Post: Newt Gingrich wins South Carolina primary

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 09:56:31 PST

I wasn't able to follow the South Carolina primary last night, but was caught off guard seeing that the former US Speaker of the House was able to win that primary. Officially Romney is 2 to 1 against Gingrich although I read a report that the Iowa caucuses had declared former US Senator Rick Santorum the winner. But for now that doesn't count in my eyes especially since there's no way to verify all the results!

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich scored an easy victory Saturday in the South Carolina primary, blowing a hole in Mitt Romney’s aura of inevitability.

The 12-point win represented a swift and extraordinary turnaround in Gingrich’s fortunes — thanks largely to strong performances in two debates. In those forums, he issued a stirring appeal to the state’s strident conservatism, convinced its voters he would be a formidable opponent against President Obama and threw Romney off his stride.

“We don’t have the kind of money that at least one of the candidates has,” Gingrich said in his victory speech in Columbia, referring to Romney. “But we do have ideas, and we do have people and we proved here in South Carolina that people power with the right ideas beats big money.”

He also peppered his speech with dismissive references to “elites” in the media and in Washington and New York — a sign that he intends to continue the truculently populist tone that resonated with voters in South Carolina.

After disappointing distant finishes in the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary, Gingrich had limped into South Carolina more than 10 points down in most polls. So battered was his candidacy that Gingrich himself had conceded that his campaign might be over if he failed to turn in a strong performance.

OK the first three big primaries for the GOP are now out of the way, what's next?

Stuff Spelmanites say...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 22:37:51 PST

[VIDEO] For those of you who've attended an HBCU (such as Spelman College) you may very well enjoy this and know what they are referring to. For those of you who haven't had this experience it's still good for a laugh. I've decided it's worth sharing to anyone who reads this blog. Enjoy!

Santorum declares victory after revised Iowa caucus total

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 22:22:29 PST

Santorum declares victory after revised Iowa caucus total

This has got to be a case of WTF???? I even tweeted as such earlier on Thursday!

The Republican Party of Iowa announced Thursday that Rick Santorum finished ahead of Mitt Romney in its Jan. 3 caucuses, meaning the contest resulted in a virtual tie between the two candidates.

After more than two weeks of certifying the results, the former Pennsylvania senator pulled ahead of Romney by 34 votes despite Romney being declared the winner on Jan. 3 by an 8 vote margin.

The final official numbers stand at Santorum with 29,839 and Romney with 29,805, but the results from eight of the 1774 precincts could not be located and certified, leaving lingering questions as to who is the actual winner of the Iowa Caucus.

NBC News will not declare a winner in the Iowa Caucus. With the missing precincts, it is impossible to know the final results.

So who knows who actually won this year's caucus. And what this actually means is that well Romney isn't on a HOT winning streak?

Rick Perry is out of the running...

noreply@blogger.com (Levois) — Thu, 19 Jan 2012 08:56:50 PST

He had a real tough go of this race and now it looks like he's out. Texas Gov. Rick Perry drops out:

Rick Perry announced today that he is dropping out of the Republican presidential bid after continually poor rankings and debate performances.

‘There is no viable path forward for me in this 2012 campaign therefore today I am suspending my campaign and endorsing Newt Gingrich,’ he said at an 11am press conference in North Charleston, South Carolina.

While the news does come a as a surprise as the South Carolina primary is only three days away, it is not a complete shock as his support has been lagging, even reaching its' lowest point in recent weeks.

Well we won't have another Texan in the White House this time around!