Our Leaders Are Having Fun. Are We?

America is already reeling from the Gulf oil spill disaster with the worst yet to come. Also in dire straits is the economy, with joblessness increasing and productivity being sent to the far flung corners of the world. We have Iran rattling its scimitar, Israel under attack from just about everybody, North Korea sinking innocent ships with impunity, and the Russian bear growling once again.

No wonder that American citizens are deeply concerned about the future of the free world.

But what are our leaders doing to inspire us, to comfort us, to let us know they're dedicated to finding the answers to these huge problems?

Let's see. The President is hosting musical soirees, playing golf and basketball, and making speeches which blame George W. Bush, British Petroleum, Wall Street, Israel, Republicans, and Fox News for all his problems. Among those speeches are talks at high school commencements for which he still requires teleprompters. (No time to write the speech himself or even go over the notes, he's got an early tee time.)

Other leaders? Well, Harry Reid is fighting for his political life but he's still yucking it up. And all those other Democrat incumbents also in danger of losing their jobs after arrogantly voting time and again for irresponsible spending, unlimited taxes, immoral policies and weakening our national security? They're avoiding voting on anything this summer -- all the while making sure that their appearances at home are invitation-only. They're not risking any ice-tea parties spoiling their fun.

Nancy Pelosi is striking airbrushed poses, confidently chuckling about the difficulties of her peers and talking over her wineglass (albeit foolishly) about art and religion.

And Vice-President Biden? Well, he's having water-gun fights at the White House with Rahm Emmanuel.

Hmm. These folks seem to be having a pretty good time, don't they? Maybe the problems I mentioned earlier aren't all that big a deal after all. I guess we should all relax a bit, knowing that things are being handled as they deserve by the audaciously hopeful powers that be.

Right. Forget the hot dog, Prunella. Just hand me the aspirin instead.

When Killing Is the Solution to Suffering

Belgium has followed the Netherlands in jumping off a vertical moral cliff by embracing legalized euthanasia. The awful consequences that I predicted are now coming to pass; a steady increase in the number of cases, inadequate reporting, and a large percentage of non voluntary euthanasia deaths. Thus, I am anything but surprised by the study I analyze below, which echoes an earlier one reported here at SHS, that nearly as many Belgian euthanasia killings are non voluntary as of those that are voluntary (the concept of “voluntary” in this context being highly problematic, but let’s not deal with that here).

Why might that be? Euthanasia consciousness rests on two intellectual pillars – that killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering, and radical individualism in which we all own our bodies and have the absolute right to do what we wish with it, including make it dead. But interestingly, the latter idea–often reduced to that most effective of all soundbites, “choice” – turns out to be far less robust than the acceptance of active killing as a proper method of ending suffering. In other words, once a society accepts killing as the answer to suffering, the request element becomes increasingly less important as doctors assume they are doing what is best for the patient by extinguishing their lives...

(Wesley J. Smith, "Legalizing Euthanasia in Belgium Unleashes Nurses to Do Doctor-Ordered Non Voluntary Killing," First Things)

Reuters: Cropping Out the Truth

Reuters is at it again, promoting its pro-Palestinian spin on news events even if it has to manipulate the facts to do so. In this case, they've been found to be cropping photos of the Israeli commando operation against the "fraud flotilla" to eliminate evidence that those on board the ship were armed with weapons.

Reuters was once a respected news agency, the creation of Paul Julius F. von Reuter, a German Jew who converted to Christianity and eventually moved to Great Britain. Starting with carrier pigeons, von Reuter became a pioneer in the use of telegraphy to transmit financial news and developed his business into one of the most successful news agencies of the 19th Century. Among their hallmarks was a devotion to speed, accuracy and fairness.

But the Reuters family has long passed from the scene and the business is now Thomson Reuters. And, sad to say, in the new business model, accuracy and fairness have become victims to a dangerous ideology.

The offense to readers is more than the now infamous line of Reuters global news editor Stephen Jukes, "We all know that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" in explaining why their news reports wouldn't use the word "terrorist" in their news reports (unless it is put in quotation marks).

It's also the ongoing pattern of anti-Israel reporting, so sharply slanted that Reuters reporters and editors have been caught several times in distorting actual events. It has involved over-the-top prejudice in reporting, deliberate obfuscation and omission of central facts, intentional misrepresentation of a story through the selection of photographs and captions, and even doctoring photos to make them fit a predetermined storyline.

But though they keep getting caught doing it, they don't stop.

In the latest case, Reuters was caught cropping photos of the flotilla conflict so that the knives wielded by the so-called humanitarians aboard the ship were not shown. They had evidence in these photos that corroborated the testimony of the Israeli soldiers and sailors (testimony that was backed up by plenty of other visual evidence) revealing that the persons on board ship were indeed armed and quite active in using those weapons against Israelis.

But rather than show the truth -- the basic responsibility of a news agency -- Reuters cropped the pictures so that the knives were not shown.

Irresponsible? Much more than that. A simple error? No way.

Even Reuters is admitting they didn't do their best work here. But the admission is still very defensive and self-justifying. And, most important, they wouldn't even admit the photos had been doctored until after others provided the evidence.

Reuters' desire to promote the violent cause of Palestinian terrorists has taken over whatever sense of balance or journalistic responsibility they ever had. Paul Julius must be turning over in his grave.

McCartney and Obama: A Very No-Class Act

Commenting on Paul McCartney's mean-spirited joke about George W. Bush made in front of Barack Obama at the White House, Jay Nordlinger writes:

Just say that Obama had issued some mild rebuke, after McCartney’s insult of his predecessor. Had signaled somehow that he disapproved of the remark, made at the White House during a completely non-political event — at a concert, in fact. Forget what is right or wrong to do: Don’t you think such a move would have impressed a lot of people in the country? Won points for the president?

The Obama people should realize that the White House is not the campaign trail, is not a Democratic political rally. Standing at the presidential press secretary’s podium, Robert Gibbs makes partisan remarks all the time. Okay. He’s got a right. But would you do that, if you were in the White House? Wouldn’t you think you were kind of representing all America, not just one politician or one party? And, to be crass and cynical about it: Don’t you think it would be helpful to your administration? That it would be helpful to show yourself above the low kind of politics?

Today's Posts

The Great Andrea Bocelli Tells a "Little Story" About Abortion

Contrary to Campaign Image, Obama Is Chipping Away at Marriage

"We Can Get Our Way So Much Easier If We Can Operate in Secret"

McDonald's Escalates Its Promotion of Homosexuality

Religious Left: Judge Not (Well, Unless It's Israel)

The Fibber-In-Chief Reports Good News

Record a Cop and Go to Prison?

From the "Drunks Who Think Their Cars Can Fly" Department

The Great Andrea Bocelli Tells a "Little Story" About Abortion

This little clip is beginning to get some play via Facebook (I posted it on my page last Tuesday and since then have seen it cross-posted a few times) but it deserves a much wider audience. A compelling account, told simply and beautifully. Very memorable.

Pass it on.

Contrary to Campaign Image, Obama Is Chipping Away at Marriage

A couple of weeks ago I had an item describing how President Obama had used bogus arguments to launch new laws protecting the right of homosexual partners to visit their loved ones in the hospital -- but there were already laws guaranteeing that.

Now we see what was going on. It was just a lead up to granting broader benefits to same-sex partners of federal employees.

President Obama is prohibited by the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) from giving full benefits to same-sex couples and Bill Duncan, director of the Marriage Law Foundation, said the new guidelines are meant to test the waters. "The administration's trying to signal that they want to do something to start to chip away at the Defense of Marriage Act," he said...

Wendy Wright, president of Concerned Women for America, said the president may be trying to shore up relations with the gay lobby. "President Obama seems to be going far out of his way to try and keep homosexual activists happy," she said, "but the problem is, they'll never be happy – they'll always demand more."

"President Obama seems to have a different agenda now than he did when he ran for office," Wright said. "When he ran for office, he left most people with the impression that he supported marriage between one man and one woman."...

"We Can Get Our Way So Much Easier If We Can Operate in Secret"

Remember the post "UN Groups Cook the Numbers to Sell Abortion" from late April? It concerned a study just then published in The Lancet, Britain's leading British medical journal, showing that maternal mortality rates had been significantly overestimated by United Nations agencies over the years.

Those "cooked" figures helped pro-abortion advocates in the UN make greater access to abortion a foundation of their maternal health programs.

The Lancet’s editor, Dr. Richard Horton, even admitted to the New York Times that he was pressured “by advocacy groups” to delay publication of this new report until later this year.

One might have concluded that the light shed by this "outing" story would have caused some serious shame among the abortion zealots; maybe even a few apologies and promises to let the facts guide their policies from now on.

But no. All that's happened is their re-dedication to fight the light!

But David Horton, referring to the the Federalist Papers and freedom of the press, fought back.

Check out the latest from C-FAM:

At a meeting on maternal and child health research in Washington last week, United Nations (UN) staff and abortion advocates told scientists they should “harmonize” their findings or discuss them “in a locked room” so that the press could not report maternal death numbers that conflicted with the ones they use to lobby policy makers and major international donors.

Ann Starrs, co-founder and president of the abortion advocacy organization Family Care International (FCI), told a roomful of scientists to “lock all the academics in a black box and have them come out with a consensus set of numbers” or “at least hide that there is disagreement” and “infighting.” FCI is the founder of Women Deliver, which is hosting a massive UN-backed reproductive rights fundraising conference in Washington next week...

Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, pushed back saying researchers should not come to a “consensus” or “harmonize” but rather have a “scientific summary view of what the totality of available evidence should be.” He argued that this should not be centered at the UN, but housed “independently within the scientific community.” Horton responded to Starr’s objection by saying, “Unless we subject numbers to that peer-review process, I think we are accepting second-class data, and that applies wherever the numbers come from.”...

Highlighting the tension in the room between the researchers’ desire for openness and activists call for secrecy, Horton said, “For God’s sake, your country, the United States, was founded on the press! One of the best documents in the history of humankind is the Federalist Papers; if it wasn’t for the press, we wouldn’t have a United States! So learn to love the press.”

McDonald's Escalates Its Promotion of Homosexuality

It's been more than two years since we decided to stop frequenting McDonald's because of their company's decision to help promote the homosexual agenda. Indeed, beyond joining the boycott, we have appealed to McDonald's to get back to selling hamburgers rather than dangerous and heartbreaking sexual perversions.

Previous posts detailing the matter can be found in chronological order here: McBoycott! (April 8, 2008); McDonald's Promotes Homosexual Agenda: You Want Fries with That? (May 9, 2008); Letting McDonald's Know (With Courtesy and Grace) Why You're Avoiding the Golden Arches (July 24, 2008) and McDonald's: Your "Formerly Family-Friendly" Burger Joint (July 29, 2008).

But McDonald's is only escalating its promotion of gay sexuality, meaning that those who understand the devastation (personal and cultural) caused by homosexual activity need to keep up the boycott, make new appeals for the company to change course and, of course, pass the word on to friends and family.

For an example of McDonald's in-your-face attitudes, check out this "Come As You Are" commercial now playing in France, a commercial which openly mocks the attitudes of the "traditional" father and presents "true love" (though yet secret) of the smug son as the superior sentiment.

Religious Left: Judge Not (Well, Unless It's Israel)

Marxist crimes? Acceptable.

Islamic repression? Boys will be boys.

Abortion? No problem whatsoever.

But Israel?

Now that's something the Religious Left does hold in abhorence!

Check out Mark Tooley's report of how the World Council of Churches -- who never took the time to strongly criticize the Khmer Rouge genocide in Cambodia, the forced famine in Ethiopia, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the murderous rampages of tyrants like Saddam Hussein and so on -- took less than 24 hours to condemn Israel’s “deplorable” interception of a “peace” flotilla trying to bust the blockade of Hamas-ruled Gaza.

Good reporting.

The Fibber-In-Chief Reports Good News

Speaking at a trucking company just outside the beltway, President Barack Obama pointed to the addition of 431,000 new jobs in May and crowed "the economy is getting stronger by the day."

The President, a fellow who doesn't even have the character to quit cigarettes, doesn't have the character to quit blowin' smoke in our faces either.

He doggone well knows that these figures are hyped up phonies. And to his great chagrin, the press who used to fawn over him and assist him in his dissembling, are starting to report that Obama Math turns out to be a very different thing than real math.

For instance, the AP today boldly countered the President's lies.

Job creation by private companies grew at the slowest pace of the year in May, even while the hiring of temporary census workers drove overall payrolls up 431,000. The unemployment rate dipped to 9.7 percent as many people gave up searching for work.

The Labor Department's new employment snapshot released Friday suggested that outside of the burst of hiring of temporary census workers by the federal government many private employers are wary of bulking up their work forces...

Virtually all the job creation in May came from the hiring of 411,000 census workers. Such hiring peaked in May and will begin tailing off in June. By contrast, hiring by private employers, the backbone of the economy, slowed sharply.

Yipes. That won't be welcome in the White House. And that glum report didn't even come from Fox News!

Well, Fox did report the true figures but, acting like good investigative journalists, the kind that the mainstream media used to applaud, Fox went another step and reported that a great percentage even of those census worker numbers are bogus. I posted about this last week in Obama's Census Circus, exposing the problem of how a single part-time, temporary census worker is routinely hired, laid off, hired again, laid off again, and hired again -- with each new hire being counted by Team Obama as a new job created!

It's fraud, folks. Plain and simple fraud. And the Fox item was a provocative interview with someone on the inside who well knows what's going on.

So who is really buying the President's line nowadays? Certainly not investors.

Stocks declined and Treasuries surged on expectations a slowing in the labor market will restrain consumer spending, the biggest part of the economy. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben S. Bernanke said yesterday that unemployment was exacting a heavy toll, showing why economists forecast interest rates will remain low.

“Hiring looks soft,” said Michael Feroli, chief U.S. economist at JPMorgan Chase & Co. in New York. “It does raise some red flags that businesses are still pretty cautious...

“Job growth is going to be anemic,” said Bill Gross, who runs the world’s biggest bond fund at Pacific Investment Management Co. in Newport Beach, California. “Remember, it requires 150,000 to 200,000 jobs in order to reduce that unemployment rate, which is a key focus for the administration”...

“One particularly difficult issue is the continued high rate of unemployment,” Bernanke said at a forum at the Chicago Fed’s Detroit office. “High unemployment imposes heavy costs on workers and their families, as well as on our society as a whole.”

Hewlett-Packard Co., the world’s largest personal-computer maker based in Palo Alto, California, this week said it’ll slash about 3,000 jobs over several years. Citigroup Inc. plans to close 376 branches and reduce as many as 720 jobs in the U.S. and Canada...

Soft hiring? That's those on again, off again census workers who will have to be laid off for good some time this summer. But, as shown above, they've only provided false security to the few dolts who still believe Obama and the Democrats. The real economy is still in very desperate trouble.

And that's not even mentioning the inevitable layoffs and business failures sure to come because of the environmental disaster washing up on the Gulf shores.

No, even Obama Math can't keep Americans happy for long.

Record a Cop and Go to Prison?

There's little doubt that Anthony Graber was being an idiot when speeding down I-95 in Maryland on his motorcycle. In fact, not only was he speeding but he even popped a few wheelies. That is extremely distracting and dangerous behavior for himself and others. That he should be prosecuted for that crime is obvious.

But he should not be prosecuted (on a felony charge which carries a 5-year prison sentence, no less) for illegally recording a law enforcement officer.

Here's the story.

Graber's motorcycle helmet had a video camera on it. Clear. Unmistakable. And quite common. It was there to capture on video tape his adventurous ride.

And that camera was still running when a car caught up to Graber at a light. A man jumps out, immediately produces a gun and aggressively yells out three times "Get off the motorcycle." It is several seconds before the man identifies himself as "state police" but the fellow is not in uniform and the car he got out of doesn't look anything like a police car.

Graber is naturally spooked. He, quite naturally, thinks the guy may shoot him or steal his motorcycle. But he didn't. The yelling man turned out to really be a Maryland state trooper. Big sigh of relief. The trooper writes Graber a speeding ticket (which the young hotshot knows he deserves) and both ride off into the sunset.

But wait; that's not the end of the story.

The next chapter begins when Graber uploads the video of his reckless motorcycle ride and of the actions of the police officer onto the internet. And probably because the trooper's actions could be viewed as somewhat reckless too, the law came down like a hammer on Mr. Graber.

Police showed up at his house, showed him a search warrant, and confiscated two computers and two laptop computers. But for some medical reasons, police would have arrested Graber right then and drug him off to jail. They gave him a pass for now.

But they did follow up with those felony charges of recording someone's voice without permission.

A bogus rap? One taken because Graber's You Tube video exposed Maryland State Police in a bad light? After all, the state trooper's actions were unprofessional and unnecessarily provocative. And the claim that the trooper didn't know he was being recorded is pretty bent too -- that helmet camera just couldn't have been missed.

But the police authorities have staunchly defended the trooper's actions and the state's attorney is charging ahead with the prosecution of the head-cam motorcyclist.

It's not a healthy situation. For not only does it have all the appearance of overreaction due to embarrassment, it also seems designed to publicize the danger citizens face if they record police activity.

But is that the way we want to portray our public servants, as powerful figures who can do whatever they want without fear of being recorded and called to task?

I was once myself the victim of police brutality in Georgia. And to justify the injuries they supposed I sustained, they were going to charge me with resisting arrest. But that nonsense stopped when the police learned there was a video recording of the whole affair. I received an apology, was immediately released and no charge was filed against me.

Indeed, as a pro-life activist of some 30 years now, I can testify that audio and video recordings have been of extreme value to us, keeping us protected from all sorts of lies and false accusations. And yes, we record our interactions with police too.

To take away the cameras and tape recorders from citizens; indeed, to threaten them with years in prison merely for taping a police officer without getting prior authorization, is a very bad move. It takes away a key part of a citizen's defense against the powers that be and leaves him without the aid of the very technology that can be used against him.

No, the prosecution of Mr. Graber is not good for the reputation of Maryland police as honest, straightforward public servants. And it's most definitely bad for the peace and well-being of a free society.

If you'd like more details of this story, watch this report by a local TV channel which, by the way, contains the video clip in question. It makes one wonder if Maryland police authorities will now go after the ABC affiliate for showing the offending tape. No, I don't suppose they'll mess with the press; they'll just concentrate on the punk on the motorcycle.

From the "Drunks Who Think Their Cars Can Fly" Department

The above clip was taken two days ago at the north toll plaza of the Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.

Driver? A drunk female.

Injuries? Minor -- even though the airborne car caught on fire after crashing to earth. So, no Darwin Awards yet for this gal. But if she doesn't get her stuff together, there may yet be one down the road.

Also fortunate in this case, unlike so many drunk drivers, this idiot didn't hurt anyone else. Neither the toll booth operator, pedestrians or other drivers were hurt.

For more details, photos and even the police report, check out this page in the Dallas Observer.

Today's Posts

Ted Haggard's New Church Is Gonna' Be a Doozy

The Fraudulent Flotilla: Even Some Liberals Get It

Fidel Castro: "Peanuts, Popcorn, Cracker Jack."

While Oil Pollutes, Obama Plays Politics

Now Team Obama Wants to Take Over Journalism

Houston Mayor Welcomes Planned Parenthood Super-Center

"Obama Is Among the Most Thin-Skinned Presidents We Have Had"

Ted Haggard's New Church Is Gonna' Be a Doozy

Ted Haggard, the "fallen star" of New Life Church and former president of the National Association of Evangelicals, is starting a brand new church in Colorado Springs.

But boy, oh boy; there are sure a whole lot of red flags about the project.

Among those red flags are the lack of depth in Haggard's repentance for his moral crimes (an ongoing affair with a homosexual prostitute, cover up lies, illegal use of drugs), the yearning for public attention and financial support, his denial of the peculiar abomination which is homosexuality, and his very distorted sense of the biblical teachings regarding holiness and judgment.

On the latter point, for instance, Haggard says, "I don't judge people anymore" and so his new church will welcome everybody, including those who are "gay, straight, bi, tall, short, whether you're an addict, a recovering addict, or you have an addict in your family."

"I want to foster an atmosphere where people see one another with compassion and feel what each other is going through instead of judging, evaluating or analyzing. I think that may be important, that function, but it's just not for me anymore. I'm finished with it."

He does draw the line at conducting homosexual marriages. That's because he explains that "God's ideal plan for a marriage is the union of a man and a woman." Note the use of the word "ideal" rather than "only" or "commanded."

But Haggard goes even further to de-emphasize the crucial nature of the issue by adding a belittling parallel. He says that it's also "God's ideal that all of us have our weight under control" but that doesn't always happen either.

Homosexual activity compared to weight control? And yet Ted Haggard wants the people of Colorado Springs to trust his theological acumen?

Actually, Haggard says that he will be co-pastoring the new church with his wife, Gayle -- she who has stood bravely by him through the scandal and their resultant exile.

But that's not the only woman who provided critical support. So did Nancy Pelosi's filmmaker daughter.

"Alexandra Pelosi gave me the break that rescued my life," Haggard says of the director of the HBO documentary about him. "If she wouldn't have done that, we'd be in a little trailer in the Arizona desert somewhere trying to peddle insurance."

Another element of the Haggards' new endeavor that will raise eyebrows is their plan for a new style of offering -- something that smacks less of church than it does a casino. For every week, 10% of the total money given in the collection will, in turn, be given to a church member whose name is drawn at random.

"Spin the wheel, deacon Jones, and let's see who the Lord chooses to bless this week!"

There is a catch to the deal, though. The winner only gets to keep 25% of the money. The rest he must give away, either to a charity or to other people. But the winner does get to select where the rest of the money goes.

Well, within limits. There would be a veto power established. Not by the pastors, of course -- remember, they're not into making judgments. No, the veto power would go to a committee made up of the previous 7 winners. That committee would then be able to say no if (to use Haggard's example) the winner wanted to give the money to "Maharishi Someone" who had a "camp in India where they're all doing sweat lodges.'"

But what about a situation where the winner wanted to designate the offering's money to an organization like Inside/Out, which supports and advocates on behalf of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered youth?

"Haggard insists the congregation would support that."

Like I said, there's red flags aplenty with the new (or maybe not-so-new) Ted Haggard church.

The Fraudulent Flotilla: Even Some Liberals Get It

One had hopes that after the knee-jerk reactions of the mainstream press against Israel and in favor of the "peace protesters" in the Gaza-bound flotilla, that the facts (especially those video tapes of the "humanitarians" wielding guns, knives and pipes!) would force some serious re-thinking.

And it has.

Perhaps for only a few...but it's a relevant few including articles in such generally liberal publications as the National Catholic Reporter (Michael Sean Winters “Judging Israel”), The Daily Beast (Leslie H. Gelb's “Israel Was Right”) and the New Republic (Marty Peretz' "In The Great Flotilla Debate, The Facts Are On Israel's Side").

The Peretz piece was particularly interesting:

Look, I wish the Israeli raid on the so-called “Freedom Flotilla” had ended differently...But, frankly, when some 800 men and women, distributed over six boats after weeks and weeks of preparation, are headed towards Gaza on the wings of slogan and hysteria, you don’t take that many chances. Somebody has trouble in mind.

The first five vessels were steered quietly to the Israeli port city of Ashdod, which means that neither their passengers nor the Israeli commandos were especially provocative. The sixth ship, which had 600 activist Turkish voyeurs on board, is an entirely different story. Sponsored by an organization labeled the Humanitarian Relief Fund (I.H.H.), it is said to have ties to Al Qaeda. Which would be logical since Al Qaeda is an ally of Hamas. An intriguing tripartite liaison...

The propaganda for the flotilla has been in the works for months. Most of it was simply false. The poverty in Gaza is not qualitatively greater than that of your average Arab city. (Take Cairo. Or Amman, for that matter.) The markets are full of fruit and vegetables ... and flowers. Persistent pockets of deprivation exist in the historic refugee concentrations, which the Palestinian political class maintains as evidence of the ancient wrong. And, no, nobody is building big houses ... except again the elites, to the extent that they can smuggle materiel through the hundreds of tunnels which are perhaps less corrupt than the ordinary channels of commerce.

Who is behind this overhyped mission of mercy? And who is its beneficiary? It is none other than Hamas, the Gazan outpost of the global jihad, cousin of the Taliban, second cousin once-removed of Hezbollah. Wishing Hamas well, laboring for its success, is actually a crime against the Palestinians themselves...

The law is on Israel’s side. Ethics and history are on Israel’s side. Those who are on the side of Hamas are actually enemies of civilization.

Fidel Castro: "Peanuts, Popcorn, Cracker Jack."

While reading updates this morning about Cuba's cosmetic actions regarding political prisoners (the government is allowing some of them to be moved to prisons closer to their former homes -- not moving them home, mind you, nor announcing that the government is going to stop harassing, repressing and imprisoning innocent people), I was reminded of one of my favorite jokes told by Ronald Reagan.

Reagan set up the story by describing how Fidel Castro had just started one of his long, boring speeches when an older man in the crowd was heard saying, "Peanuts. Popcorn. Cracker Jack."

Castro didn't break his stride but a few minutes later, a second voice was heard but with the same message, "Peanuts. Popcorn. Cracker Jack."

This time the Bearded One seemed momentarily perturbed, probably wondering why the secret police hadn't already scooped up the disrespectful cur. But he continued the speech.

A few minutes later, yet another voice chimed, "Peanuts. Popcorn. Cracker Jack."

That did it. The incensed Castro screams out, "The next person I hear say that -- well, I will personally kick his %#@ all the way to Miami Beach!"

At which the whole crowd erupted, "Peanuts! Popcorn! Cracker Jack!"

I wonder if this made it into Oliver Stone's new movie?

While Oil Pollutes, Obama Plays Politics

The infamous words “a crisis is a terrible thing to waste” were first uttered by President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel last year, when he laid bare his intention to use the credit crisis to reorder the U.S. economy. This sentiment now seems to animate the President’s own intention to introduce economy-crushing climate legislation on the back of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, while somehow blaming Republicans and, yes, the Bush Administration for what may be the worst environmental disaster in the history of our nation.

Meanwhile nearly 48 miles out in the Gulf, and a mile below the surface, oil continues to gush out the sea floor every second, threatening the environment and the economy of the southeast United States. Hope is fading that the oil flow can be stopped in any short order. Roughly 1,200 miles away, confusion over command and control continues to build in Washington, where the White House debates canceling official trips to Asia, but not unofficial trips to Chicago.

What the nation needs is better organization of the effort to cap the spewing well and aggressive action on the clean up front. But yesterday, the President didn’t go on the offensive against the gushing oil; he went after Republicans...

(Rory Cooper, "Obama and the Oil Spill," Morning Bell at the Heritage Foundation)

Now Team Obama Wants to Take Over Journalism

Release of the Federal Trade Commission's working paper on "reinventing journalism" makes it clear that there is no more time for diplomacy about this issue: President Obama is determined to federalize the news industry just as he has banking, autos, and health care.

Everybody who wants independent journalism had better wake up...

Those in the administration who clearly view independent journalism as an obstacle to "change we can believe in" and their numerous allies in the old media, non-profit, and academic communities who either share a similar ideological vision or see the FTC process as their salvation against the Internet, will no doubt dismiss my assertions as extemism or alarmism.

Fine, call me whatever, but what they cannot deny is what is clearly written in the FTC document and what it reveals about the intention behind the initiative, which is to transform the news industry from an information product collected by private individuals and entrepreneurs as a service to private buyers, to a government-regulated public utility providing a "public good," as defined and regulated by government...

Read more of Mark Tapscott's article at the Washington Examiner here.

Houston Mayor Welcomes Planned Parenthood Super-Center

There's been a buzz in the pro-life community about the recent opening of a monstrous (and I mean that in at least two applications) Planned Parenthood building in Houston, Texas. The 7-story building is situated to best "serve" poor neighborhoods -- meaning that Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood's racist founder who desperately wanted the population of racial minorities and other "inferiors" thinned out, would be pleased.

The ghastly building (and I mean that in at least two applications) has been described by a Planned Parenthood official as “sacred and holy ground.” This despite the fact that, among its other "services," preborn boys and girls will be brutally killed inside.

Houston mayor Annise Parker was a guest of honor at the opening. In fact, she made a speech which overflowed with admiration for Planned Parenthood. Does she not know that Planned Parenthood abortionists kill more preborn babies than any other group? Does she not know of their criminal activity such as covering up statutory rape? Does the mayor not know of their obscene and blasphemous "educational" materials or of their gleeful promotion of various sexual perversions?

Of course she knows. And yet Mayor Parker was there to sing the praises of this wicked organization.

You can contact Mayor Annise D. Parker at the City of Houston, P.O. Box 1562, Houston, TX 77251 (email: mayor@cityofhouston.net) and politely let her know what you think of her participation in this event.

"Obama Is Among the Most Thin-Skinned Presidents We Have Had"

The president is constantly complaining about what others are saying about him. He is upset at Fox News, and conservative talk radio, and Republicans, and people carrying unflattering posters of him. He gets upset when his avalanche of faulty facts are challenged, like on health care. He gets upset when he is called on his hypocrisy, on everything from breaking his promise not to hire lobbyists in the White House to broadcasting health care meetings on C-SPAN to not curtailing earmarks to failing in his promises of transparency and bipartisanship.

In Obama's eyes, he is always the aggrieved, always the violated, always the victim of some injustice. He is America's virtuous and valorous hero, a man of unusually pure motives and uncommon wisdom, under assault by the forces of darkness.

It is all so darn unfair...

Obama said,”Let’s face it: this has been the toughest year and a half since any year and a half since the 1930s.”

Really, now? Worse than the period surrounding December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001? Worse than what Gerald Ford faced after the resignation of Richard Nixon and Watergate, which constituted the worse constitutional scandal in our history and tore the country apart? Worse than what Ronald Reagan faced after Jimmy Carter (when interest rates were 22 percent, inflation was more than 13 percent, and Reagan faced something entirely new under the sun, "stagflation")?

Worse than 1968, when Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr. were assassinated and there was rioting in our streets? Worse than what LBJ faced during Vietnam -- a war which eventually claimed more than 58,000 lives? Worse than what John Kennedy faced in the Bay of Pigs and in the Cuban Missile Crisis, when we and the Soviet Union edged up to the brink of nuclear war?

Worse than what Franklin Roosevelt faced on the eve of the Normandy invasion? Worse than what Bush faced in Iraq in 2006, when that nation was on the edge of civil war, or when the financial system collapsed in the last months of his presidency? Worse than what Truman faced in defeating imperial Japan, in reconstructing post-war Europe, and in responding to North Korea's invasion of South Korea?

For Obama to complain that the problems he faces are so much worse than any other president in the last 80 years is stunningly self-indulgent, to say nothing of ahistorical...

The president's instincts are by now obvious to all: deflect blame, point fingers, and lash out at others, most especially his predecessor. We know from press reports (see here and here) that the strategy for the Democrats in 2010, two years after Obama was elected president, is to – you guessed it – blame George W. Bush.

What explains all this is hard to know. But it's clear he has adopted an image of himself as something rare and remarkable, a historic figure of almost super-human abilities. "I am absolutely certain that generations from now," Obama said during the summer of his presidential run, "we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth."

"We are the ones we have been waiting for," Obama and his aides said constantly during the campaign...

Barack Obama -- a man who was as unprepared to be president as any man in our lifetime -- has over the last 16 months shown that he is overmatched by events. His poll numbers continue to drop, his health care proposal is becoming less rather than more popular, the oil spill in the Gulf is badly eroding his image for leadership and competence, and his party has been battered in election after election since November. We have now reached the point where Democrats are running against Obama and his agenda in order to survive (witness Mark Critz in Pennsylvania).

We can hope that Obama, an intelligent man, learns from the errors of his ways. But the great danger in all of this is that in the face of his troubles Obama and his aides become increasingly defensive, display a greater sense of entitlement and even a touch of paranoia. When arrogant men lose control of events it can easily lead to feelings of isolation, to striking out at critics, to bullying opponents, and to straying across lines that should not be crossed...

(Peter Wehner, "Obama, the Thin-Skinned President," Politics Daily)

Today's Posts

The Next Deadly Step in Chemical Abortion

Why Does The Left Defend Muslim Barbarity?

"Secularization and the Church in Europe"

The Gore Divorce: Very Bad News for the Planet

Take It from Pothead Paul McCartney: Barack's "A Great Guy."

We All Could Use Some Stress Relief

The Next Deadly Step in Chemical Abortion

It's the latest thing in chemical abortion, another extremely powerful pill designed to kill preborn children but which has potentially devastating effects on Mom too.

But we're a modern bunch nowadays, not too concerned with morality or even mortality as long as it comes in a pretty package and promises us a way out of immediate difficulties.

Jill Stanek has the story.

Why Does The Left Defend Muslim Barbarity?

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is the brave Somali author who survived the brutal Muslim ritual of genital mutilation, escaped to the West to avoid a forced marriage, was elected to the Dutch Parliament, and became a powerful voice against the oppression of women in Muslim societies.

Her books Infidel and The Caged Virgin: An Emancipation Proclamation for Women and Islam, and Nomad are the kind that, quite literally, change the world.

John Hinderaker over at Power Line wrote a good post recently in which he muses on the hypocrisy and unfairness which mark's the Left's treatment of Hirsi Ali.

It's entitled "Attacking the Heroine; Why?"

In particular, Hinderaker zooms in on Nick Kristof's New York Times review of Hirsi Ali's latest book, Nomad. Kristof really goes out of his way (and perhaps out of his head) to demean and dismiss her arguments. And his attacks are really mean-spirited and closed-minded, hardly the kind of thing you'd expect from a journalist who sees himself as human rights crusader.

Writes Hinderaker,

Kristof isn't the Times's worst columnist. On the contrary, he is quite rational compared to Paul Krugman and Frank Rich. But he is a liberal, and liberals apparently detest Muslim apostates. Don't ask me why. But Kristof, in his review of Nomad, places the blame for the fact that crazed Muslim extremists want to assassinate Hirsi Ali squarely on her: "She has managed to outrage more people -- in some cases to the point that they want to assassinate her -- in more languages in more countries on more continents than almost any writer in the world today."

That's only the beginning. Kristof goes on to write that Hirsi Ali "is working on antagonizing even more people," even though it "might seem presumptuous to write another memoir so soon." It is easy to see why so many want to kill her, Kristof says, since she is "by nature a provocateur, the type of person who rolls out verbal hand grenades by reflex." Bear in mind that in this case, the "provocateur's" "hand grenades" are arguments that little girls shouldn't have their clitorises cut out, be beaten for no particular reason, or be forced to marry men they haven't met. Is that provocative? To liberals like Kristof, apparently so.

Kristof continues that Hirsi Ali "denounces Islam with a ferocity that I find strident, potentially feeding religious bigotry." Given that Hirsi Ali had her clitoris cut out at age five, one can only ask, is this some kind of sick joke? Can Kristof and the New York Times possibly be serious? If a similar injury were inflicted on a Western woman -- by, let's let our imagination run wild, a Republican -- would their reaction be the same?...

In a recent post, I quoted a refrain from a country song that says, "people are crazy." But in fact, not all people are crazy. It is mostly liberals who are stark raving mad. All the liberals I know claim to be feminists, so how can they support those who mutilate little girls and sanction forced marriages and wife beating?

Beats me. The mind of the liberal is inscrutable. Which, I think, is a polite word for stupid.

"Secularization and the Church in Europe"

Rick Wade has written a detailed and provocative essay, "Secularization and the Church in Europe," which is available at the web site of Probe Ministries. It's really quite good -- relevant, readable and stimulating.

The Gore Divorce: Very Bad News for the Planet

As the news surfaced of the Al and Tipper Gore divorce, a few impish researchers remembered this New Scientist article from December 2007, an article which explained how divorce does huge environmental damage.

And no, I'm not kidding. In fact, it's common sense.

As Andy Coghlan says in the article, "The environmental cost of a marriage splitting occurs because couples and their families move into separate properties after divorce - meaning they collectively occupy more space, burn more energy, and consume more water than they did as a family unit."

Jianguo Liu of Michigan State University chimes in, "Divorced households are smaller than married households, but consume more land, water, and energy per person than married households."

In the U.S alone, that breaks down to something like 627 billion gallons of water, 38 million extra rooms, and 734 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity -- all because of divorce!

Why didn't Al tell us about this? And how can Al dare to adulterate the planet so badly, so unnecessarily by getting rid of Tipper? How will he justify this to the Nobel Committee?

In the same year that Liu studied (2005), divorced households in the U.S. consumed up to 61% more planetary resources per person than when that couple was married! And given the luxurious lifestyles of the Gores, that's gonna' be some increase! Let's hope all our light bulbs don't start dimming.

The authors of the study draw the logical conclusion, "Divorce escalates consumption of increasingly limited resources." Indeed, they go so far as urging governments "to publicise the hitherto unanticipated environmental costs of divorce."

But the good news is that the study showed resource consumption shrank to what it had been originally if divorced couples remarry.

So please, Al and Tipper -- for the sake of the children, for the sake of your own souls and consciences, and for the sake of the whole doggone planet -- quit your petty squabbles and move back in together! Now!

Take It from Pothead Paul McCartney: Barack's "A Great Guy."

Here is Paul McCartney's brain -- those terrific musical accomplishments of the early Beatles.

Here is Paul McCartney's brain on drugs -- “I’m a big fan [of Barack Obama], he’s a great guy. So lay off him, he’s doing great.”

McCartney is set to perform at the White House tonight as the backdrop to his being awarded some musical prize. And rumors are that Team Obama laid down some strict rules regarding just which Beatle songs he could perform.

"Roll Over, Beethoven" and "Yesterday" were okay. And, of course, "Michelle." But among the songs definitely nixed were "Baby's in Black." Nothing racial in this; it was simply considered by WH staff too much of a reminder of the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf and how the President's inept reactions to this environmental disaster are threatening his political future. For the same reason he mustn't sing "Fixing a Hole" from the Sgt. Pepper album.

Also, given President Obama's dramatic fall in the public opinion polls, McCartney was told he couldn't sing "If I Fell," "I'm Down," "I'm a Loser," "It Won't Be Long, Now" or "Can't Buy Me Love."

Because the audience might be reminded of Obama's frequent gaffes when his teleprompter isn't around, the former Beatle isn't to sing "Tip of My Tongue" nor is he to give rise to the issue of Obama's missing birth certificate and closed school records by performing "Do You Want to Know a Secret," "Your Mother Should Know" or "Everybody's Got Something to Hide Except Me and My Monkey."

Also, due to the embarrassing disparity between Obama's socialist rhetoric and his vast personal fortune, McCartney was told to avoid "Baby, You're a Rich Man" or "Money (That's What I Want)."

And to be safe, songs that might cause audience members to think of Obama's general performance as Chief Executive are verboten -- songs like "Helter Skelter" or "Nowhere Man."

Finally, just in case Nancy Pelosi or Harry Reid should show up at the fete, McCartney was cautioned not to perform "The Fool on the Hill."

Otherwise, do your thing, Sir Paul. But please don't light that reefer until after the performance. As it is, Obama has taken enough criticism for smoking in the White House. And his cigarettes have plain old tobacco.

We All Could Use Some Stress Relief

Below is a clip showing how a few London students dealt with exam stress. Adapt their technique as needed for the stress in your own day.

Today's Posts

What Barack Obama Ignored in Voting Against the Born Alive Act

"A Splinter in the Eagle's Talon" or Just Another Sophomoric Pain in the...

Christian Groups Expelled from Afghanistan

Why a 5,000 Foot Oil Well?

Futile Care Theory: It's What They Don't Do That'll Kill You

Israel Ambushed by Terrorists -- and by the Mainstream Media Too!

Free Download of SWB's "America Rise"

Jacki Newell Is in the House

What Barack Obama Ignored in Voting Against the Born Alive Act

Barack Obama, in voting against Illinois' Born Alive Infant Protection Protection Act when he was a state senator, gave several limp excuses for his inhumane action. Among them was this tortured reasoning against calling in another doctor to help minister to babies who were born alive after an abortion attempt:

"I suspect that doctors (read 'abortionists') feel that they would be under that obligation that they would be already making these determinations and that essentially adding an additional doctor who then has to be called in an emergency situation to come in and make these assessments is really designed simply to burden the original decision of the woman and the physician (read 'abortionist') to induce labor and perform an abortion."

Sound like gobbledygook? It is.

But this 5-minute video presentation explodes Obama's irrationality and cold-heartedness like nothing I've yet seen. It's a very compelling clip from OneTrueMedia.com.

Make video montages at www.OneTrueMedia.com

"A Splinter in the Eagle's Talon" or Just Another Sophomoric Pain in the...

Oliver Stone, in making his latest film, "South of the Border," a hero-worshiping documentary about Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro and other Latin American tyrants, didn't bother to interview anybody but the thugs themselves and left-wing sycophants like himself. Why? Because he's not into objectivity, fairness or details about what these hombres actually do.

Oliver Stone just likes socialism and so, if they're into making that happen -- even if the price includes oppressing the people, denying freedoms of religion and speech, and ruining their respective economies -- then Oliver Stone likes dictators.

Here's a quick report from the AP about Stone's deep admiration for Chavez in particular. "I admire Hugo. I like him very much as a person...He's a soldier and he speaks from his heart. His vision is huge....And he will go down in history."

Stone hopes that "South of the Border" will help people better understand Chavez. "This is a positive portrayal of a man who Americans do not have access to. He is demonized in the American and European press as a monster."

Imagine that.

Chavez returns the affection. He thinks of the Hollywood director as a good friend. And he's delighted with the film Stone has made, believing it will embarrass and injure the United States, the country who most endangers those socialist schemes for Latin America that he and his despot pals have dreamed up. He refers to the film as "a splinter in the eagle's talon."

Stone is starting a Latin American tour to promote the film. It will be given a limited release in the U.S. this summer.

Christian Groups Expelled from Afghanistan

I'm having trouble deciding which element of this story bothers me the most.

1) The fact that two Christian relief groups are being kicked out of Afghanistan "on suspicion of proselytizing."

2) The fact that proselytizing is illegal in Afghanistan as, of course, it is in many Muslim countries. (It seems that they want the West's soldiers, our money, our skill in development but then have the nerve to outlaw us from even talking about why we're moved to help others in the first place.)

3) Or the fact that both of the Christian agencies insist that evangelism is something they never do! And that makes me wonder in just what sense these groups consider themselves Christian? For isn't evangelism a core element of the Faith?

"Norwegian Church Aid Secretary-General Atle Sommerfeldt said in a statement that his organization has a firm policy of not attempting "to convert people to another religion" in all countries where it operates. Maurice Bloem, deputy director of programs for Church World Service, said in a statement his organization does not proselytize, in accordance with the code of conduct for NGOs."

Have these guys read the New Testament lately?

No, you don't have to be a Bible-thumper nor do you share the gospel in ways that are loud, aggressive, constant, uppity, impatient, or culturally insensitive. But to accept the restriction not to present the gospel of Jesus Christ at all? Wow.

So much for giving a cup of water in Jesus' Name.

Why a 5,000 Foot Oil Well?

In case you missed Charles Krauthammer's weekend column in the Washington Post ("A Disaster with Many Fathers"), go back and read it now. He gives you several facts and a few points to ponder that the MSM just haven't bothered with in its coverage of the BP oil spill.

For instance?

Here's my question: Why were we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production. (President Obama's tentative, selective opening of some Atlantic and offshore Alaska sites is now dead.) And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we've had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

So we go deep, ultra deep -- to such a technological frontier that no precedent exists for the April 20 blowout in the Gulf of Mexico.

There will always be catastrophic oil spills. You make them as rare as humanly possible, but where would you rather have one: in the Gulf of Mexico, upon which thousands depend for their livelihood, or in the Arctic, where there are practically no people? All spills seriously damage wildlife. That's a given. But why have we pushed the drilling from the barren to the populated, from the remote wilderness to a center of fishing, shipping, tourism and recreation?

Not that the environmentalists are the only ones to blame. Not by far. But it is odd that they've escaped any mention at all...

Futile Care Theory: It's What They Don't Do That'll Kill You

The euthanasia movement is, at its core, an ugly and inhumane thing. From the biblical commandment of "Thou shall not kill" to Hippocrates' primary dictum for physicians, "Do no harm", to the millenia old understanding of compassion as meaning caring for the sick rather than belting them on the head, Western civilization well knows that murdering people because they're old or sick or otherwise troublesome is a horrible and socially destructive practice.

Therefore, it remains a primary task of the euthanasia movement to disguise the raw truth of its ends through semantic tricks and distracting devices. Among these are the various "brain death" myths, cost containment (which always turns out to be care containment) and the game of defining futile care.

In this brief piece from Secondhand Smoke, medical ethicist Wesley J. Smith discusses how the always morphing phenomena of futile care is even being given shameful assistance these days from "progressive" Catholics.

Smith concludes by asking, "Can we please stop pretending that futile care is about doing patients and their families with heterodox end-of-life views a favor? Coercion -- because that is what we are talking about here -- is not going to make the patient’s deaths go down any easier with the expression of such compassionate sentiments. Nor will futile care theory -- and its even tougher older brother health care rationing -- improve the public’s fraying faith and trust in the health care system overall.

Read the Secondhand Smoke post here.

Israel Ambushed by Terrorists -- and by the Mainstream Media Too!

The liberal media's knee-jerk reactions in its coverage of the violence involving the Gaza flotilla was to be expected.

But the MSM really outdid itself this time in its rabid and irresponsible anti-Israel prejudice. Without waiting for the evidence (indeed, despite the testimonial and even visual evidence it had available), the press presented the event as Israeli overkill to a group of idealistic peace protesters.

But guess what? Genuine peacenicks do not use guns, knives or pipes. They do not open fire first. They are not armed and funded by international terrorists. They do not sneakily set an ambush in order to execute the police.

In reality, this Gaza flotilla was a setup, a deadly ambush designed to provoke just the kind of defensive action Israeli sailors would be forced to take. The terrorists then knew it could depend on journalists to start the leftist spin. And that habitual obscurantist reflex wasn't displayed only by the liberal media -- the Obama administration was also quick on the trigger to take hard (and completely undeserved) shots at Israel.

So, please don't trust the mainstream media on this one. Go to news sources who depend on the facts, news sources who understand the difference between peaceful protesters and Palestinian terrorists caught on camera who shoot first, stab second and viciously beat downed sailors with long metal pipes third.

Here's just a few of those sources:

* The Lid

* The Weekly Standard

* Melanie Phillips at the Spectator

* The Jerusalem Post

* NewsBusters

* Commentary and Commentary again

* News 24

* Ynet News

* Haaretz

Free Download of SWB's "America Rise"

Our old buddy Scott Wesley Brown has an offer you just can't refuse. Like...free music!

Scott writes, "In celebration of America, enjoy my latest song 'America Rise' as a free download from Memorial Day through the Fourth of July."

Many of you know Scott as a gifted singer/songwriter and a pioneer in contemporary Christian music, but he's also an effective Christian activist, missionary, pro-life advocate and patriot. Thus his music is as real as it gets.

So download "America Rise" and celebrate America's grand ideals with Scott Wesley Brown. And while you're over at his web site, check out his testimony, his wide array of music and a few of the ministries he supports. It will be a very interesting and worthwhile visit.

Jacki Newell Is in the House

It's been a couple of years since we've had the pleasure of having Dave and Jacki Newell over for dinner (they now reside in one of the Carolinas, I think) but we do stay in touch a little bit through Facebook.

But our thoughts and prayers regarding these two are pretty regular thanks to the fact that we have an original Jacki Newell painting in our kitchen that reminds us of them all the time. Bless her heart, Jacki gave us this wonderful little painting decades ago and we really like it. It has an honored place in the "friends' art collection" that helps beautify and make endearing our home -- a collection that includes artwork from Leonard Johnson, Ruth Denzler and a whole bunch from Carol Coppi.

But now, thanks to Jacki's teaming up with Fine Art America, we are adding a few more Jacki Newells to that collection. They are poster prints of "Front Range" and "View From The Bridge" and several greeting card size prints: "Old Market Omaha," "New York Taxis," "April Evening," Overcast Morning" and "The Red Umbrella."

But here's the good news for you -- you too can have these (or any of the 25 Jacki Newell prints available through Fine Art America) to make your home or office even more attractive and charming. They're all gorgeous, interesting and surprisingly affordable. For instance, the poster size prints go for as little as $23.50 and the 5" by 7" greeting cards (perfect for framing) for only $4.95.

Check out Jacki's Fine Art America page right here.