Carrie Prejean swan song

Her enemies will regret this.

*******************************

by Carrie Prejean
Let me begin by saying I treasure the opportunity I’ve had to represent the great State of California, and I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to the thousands of Californians, and other Americans, I have met and who have stood with me through this controversial firestorm. One of the many enduring things about being Miss California USA was the opportunity to get to meet and know so many wonderful people. I would not be the strong, courageous woman I am today without your support, and prayers.

I would like to thank Mr. Donald Trump and his organization for his support and defending me through the most challenging time of my life. I am so grateful for him, and the opportunity I’ve had to get to know him. I admire, and respect him. I wish Tami Farrell the best; I know she will do a great job.

I hope Americans watching this story unfold, take away the most important lesson I have learned through all of this: nothing is more important than standing up for what you believe in, no matter what the cost may be. I’ve done my best under the difficult circumstances to handle the vicious attacks with integrity and show respect to others, even those who don’t agree with me.

I worked in good faith to meet my responsibilities as Miss California USA. I have met every scheduled appearance, and responsibility, as recently as May 31st. I have followed the proper protocol requested of me and haven’t made any appearances or speaking engagements without the consent or approval from the Miss California USA or Miss Universe Organizations. I have not signed with any book publisher or taken on any business proposals. As of today, June 11, 2009, I have done everything possible to honor my contract.

I am proud to be an American, and blessed to have had the opportunity to exercise my freedom of speech. I am excited and looking forward to where God leads me in the future. I know He has big plans for me. I am proud to be the strong woman God has molded me to be. I will always stand for the truth, respectfully, and never back down.

Thank you and God Bless,

Carrie Prejean

Shep Smith on right-wing crazies

Unbiased media?

******************

Shep Smith attacks right-wing 'crazies'
Rips people questioning eligibility as being 'out there in a scary place'

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 10, 2009
8:30 pm Eastern


By Joe Kovacs
© 2009 WorldNetDaily



Fox News' Shepard Smith

Fox News anchor Shepard Smith, host of the top-rated evening cable newscast, believes Americans challenging the eligibility of Barack Obama to hold the office of president are "crazies," saying "there is no truth whatsoever" to the suggestion Obama is not a "natural born citizen."

Smith made the remark during analysis of today's shooting at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, where an elderly gunman opened fire with a rifle, killing a security guard before himself being shot. Police were probing an alleged white supremacist, James von Brunn, as the assailant.

During his interview with Heidi Beirich of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Smith said:

"There are these crazies out there who want to pretend [Obama's] not a citizen of the United States, who want to pretend that his religion is something they see as in some way troublesome to them and all of us. And there is a group perpetuating this thought, and there is a culture to which you can attach yourself very easily through the Internet. ... We know it's absolutely – there is no truth whatsoever – zero – to any of those ideas, yet they live within the computer and they fester in people's minds."

Beirich agreed completely with Smith's remarks, as she responded:

"You're hitting the nail on the head about these kinds of crazed conspiracies whether they're about the president, or we're hearing things like FEMA setting up camps to round up Americans and put them in. I'm getting bad sort of deja-vu from the 1990s when anti-government militias were on the rise, when Tim McVeigh committed that [bombing] in Oklahoma City and I really am hoping that we're not going through a repeat of that."

Are you motivated yet to join the billboard campaign and clear up the air of mystery surrounding Barack Obama's constitutional eligibility to serve?

Smith made numerous references to a Department of Homeland Security report warning of potential violence from "right-wing extremists," and said he's been personally disturbed by an increase in e-mail to him from people "who are way out there on a limb ... out there in a scary place."

He read what he called a representative message that asked, "How dare you tell us to get over the birth certificate ... ?"


Shepard Smith's 2000 mugshot

Ironically, Smith himself allegedly engaged in activity some might deem "out there in a scary place."

As WND reported in November 2000, during the Florida presidential election fiasco, Smith was arrested for allegedly driving his Mazda Millenia into another reporter who was standing in a parking space she attempted to save for a friend. The victim, freelance journalist Maureen Walsh of Tallahassee, was hospitalized and released later the same day with bruises on her knees and legs.

The St. Petersburg Times reported Tallahassee Police Sgt. Edwin Maxwell said Smith drove up and "shouted some profanities at her and basically just struck her, striking her at the knees, which threw her up on the car."

According to NewsBlues, a witness to the incident said Smith "intentionally ran into her with his car to try and get her to move from the parking spot. She was thrown onto the hood of the car and ended up on the ground. Smith then parked the car, turned off the engine, turned to the crews assisting the reporter and said "f--- you" and walked into the state capital. Police and paramedics were called."

"When arrested on the street outside the capital, Smith said he couldn't understand why this was happening ... they then handcuffed him."

Smith was charged with a felony the day of the offense, but it was later downgraded to a misdemeanor and eventually dropped.

Two hours after Smith's TV remarks about "crazies,", his network colleague Glenn Beck said of the shooting in Washington, "This is not the work of right-wing conservatives."

"This guy is a lone gunman nut job," Beck said. "I'm not stirring the pot. I am pointing out that the pot is boiling and there is trouble in America. ... Common sense tells you that there are very hateful people on the right and on the left."

The museum guard, Stephen Tyrone Johns, died in the hospital. Von Brunn, 89, was listed in critical condition.

Nationwide attention about President Obama's lack of producing a long-form birth certificate proving his eligibility for office got a boost today when top-rated radio host Rush Limbaugh joked about the subject in comparing Obama to God.

Asking rhetorically what God has in common with Obama, Limbaugh said, "Neither has a birth certificate."

Lou Pritchett open letter to Obama

Is this for real?

***************

AN OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT OBAMA

By Lou Pritchett



Dear President Obama:

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

You scare me because you lack humility and 'class', always blaming others.

You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.

You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the 'blame America' crowd and deliver this message abroad.

You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

You scare me because you prefer 'wind mills' to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.

You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

You scare me because you have begun to use 'extortion' tactics against certain banks and corporations.

You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

Lou Pritchett


Note: Lou Pritchett is a former vice president of Procter & Gamble whose career at that company spanned 36 years before his retirement in 1989, and he is the author of the 1995 business book, Stop Paddling & Start Rocking the Boat.

Mr. Pritchett confirmed that he was indeed the author of the much-circulated "open letter." “I did write the 'you scare me' letter. I sent it to the NY Times but they never acknowledged or published it. However, it hit the internet and according to the ‘experts’ has had over 500,000 hits.

Carrie Prejean fired by Trump

I've never seen Trump show such indecisiveness, flipping so quickly.

************************************

Carrie Prejean fires back after losing Miss California crown
Jun 10, 2009, 06:45 PM | by Josh Rottenberg

Categories: News

In an interview with TMZ, deposed Miss California Carrie Prejean said that she was "shocked" at the news she had been stripped of her crown and fired back at pageant owner Donald Trump and the pageant producers. Prejean, who was fired by Trump for failing to get clearance for extracurricular activities, claims in response that pageant head Keith Lewis actually encouraged her to pose for Playboy magazine and appear in the reality series "I'm a Celebrity ... Get Me Out of Here!" Prejean, who sparked controversy with comments she made against gay marriage, insists the real motivation behind her firing was political: "What's behind this, I think, is a political debate. They don't agree with the stance that I took [on California's Proposition 8].... From day one they wanted me out, and they got what they wanted."

Gays' kids 7 times more likely to be gay

So, is this evidence against homosexuality being genetic? Or for it?

***********************************************

'Gay' family kids 7 times more likely to be homosexual
But report shows researchers concealing information

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: June 08, 2009
10:09 pm Eastern


By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily


A licensed psychologist with both clinical and forensic practice outreaches is warning that it appears children of homosexual couples are seven times more likely to develop "non-heterosexual preferences" than other children, but lawmakers establishing policy often don't know that because the researchers have concealed their discoveries.

"Research … although not definitive, suggests that children reared by openly homosexual parents are far more likely to engage in homosexual behavior than children raised by others," said the online report by Trayce L. Hansen.

Studies she reviewed suggest children raised by homosexual or bisexual parents "are approximately seven times more likely than the general population to develop a non-heterosexual sexual preference."

The "studies thus far find that between 8 percent and 21 percent of homosexually parented children ultimately identify as non-heterosexual," the psychologist wrote. "For comparison purposes, approximately 2 percent of the general population are non-heterosexual. Therefore, if these percentages continue to hold true, children of homosexuals have a 4 to 10 times greater likelihood of developing a non-heterosexual preference than other children."

However, those researchers who found such differences "nonetheless declared in their research summaries that no differences were found," the report said.

(Story continues below)




"Many believe they concealed their findings so as not to harm their own pro-homosexual, sociopolitical agendas," the report said.

For example, Among the numerous studies Hansen reviewed was the 1996 work by Golombok and Tasker.

The authors of the study specifically looking at children of homosexual parents found "the large majority of children who grew up in lesbian families identified as heterosexual."

However, Hansen said in the study, in order for an adult child to be classified as non-heterosexual, "the adult child had to currently identify as non-heterosexual and commit to a future identity as a non-heterosexual – a very unusual method for coding non-heterosexuality."

She continued, "The authors didn't mention this point or offer any explanations or comments about it. Nonetheless, 16 percent of those reared by lesbians had homosexual or bisexual levels of same-sex attraction, while 0 percent of the children of heterosexuals did. That's 16 percent compared to 0 percent. Additionally, 67 percent of the children from lesbian family backgrounds said that they had 'previously considered, or thought it a future possibility, that they might experience same-gender attraction or have a same-gender sexual relationship or both' compared to 14 percent of children from heterosexual families. That's 67 percent compared to 14 percent."

Eight percent of adult children reared by lesbians "had a homosexual relationship even though they weren't sexually attracted to same-sex partners," Hansen wrote.

Hansen, who works with marriage, parenting, male-female difference issues, told WND that there is little scientific research on the long-term impact of homosexual parenting on children, and no definitive conclusions can be drawn.

However, she said what information is available suggests children raised by homosexuals have different sexual orientation, gender identity and gender role behaviors from those children raised by heterosexual couples.

The concealment of information is no surprise, either.

"Most of the researchers involved in the study of homosexually-parented children are self-proclaimed pro-homosexual parenting researchers," Hansen told WND. "Many of these researchers, as well as others, admit that acknowledging differences between homosexually- and heterosexually-parented children would be detrimental to their goals of wide-spread social acceptance of same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, homosexual foster parenting, etc.

"Concealing and/or downplaying research findings that suggest differences between children reared by homosexuals and those reared by heterosexuals, changes the way some citizens vote and judges rule on issues related to same-sex marriage, homosexual adoption, etc. And many of those who conduct those studies know that," she continued.

Policymakers need that information to make reasonable policy, too.

"The circumstances under which children are reared are immensely important to a civilization. Earlier social experiments, such as no-fault divorce and the broad acceptance of single motherhood, resulted in disaster by increasing the number of fatherless children, many who now fill our prisons and welfare rolls. Policy makers, judges, and citizens need to know the truth: children need fathers and changing legal standards such as the definition of marriage will deliberately deprive even more children of them," her report said.

"Homosexuals, and others who support their cause, understandably desire social and legal acceptance of their lifestyles and partnerships. One of the methods for achieving that goal is to convince the public that homosexual parenting isn't detrimental to children. Concealing and/or downplaying research findings which reveal that children raised by homosexuals are different in fundamental ways from other children, is part of that socio-political agenda intended to sway voters and judges," she said.

Hansen suggested all scientists have biases – especially when such an "emotionally-charged" issue is at hand.

But if the authors of these studies want to be regarded as scientists, and not activists, "they must set aside their biases and straightforwardly present their findings," she wrote.

"No one should be surprised that homosexual parents are more likely to raise homosexual children. As one of the few forthright pro-homosexual advocates proclaimed, 'Of course our children are going to be different,'" Hansen said. "No one knows for sure by what complex mechanisms homosexual parents disproportionately rear homosexual children. But regardless of how, it appears they do. The public needs to be made aware of the findings of these studies so that when courts adjudicate and citizens vote on issues related to homosexuality, they're fully informed as to the possible consequences of those decisions on children."

Hansen's review encompassed nine studies, virtually all of the documentation available on the subject for her selected class of children.

Obama and the press: Camelot II

This is going to backfire on Obama. It alread has, with the Republicans taking back the senate in New York just months into Obama's term.

**************************

Love or lust, Obama and the fawning press need to get a room
When Barack Obama decided that questions from the German press about his trip agenda in that country were too pesky, he told the reporters, "So, stop it all of you!" He just wanted them to ask things he wanted to talk about. Well, what politico wouldn't want that?

OK, dad. We'll behave.

And according to a new Pew Research Center poll, we are behaving...like fans. On domestic press, it showed that "President Barack Obama has enjoyed substantially more positive media coverage than either Bill Clinton or George W. Bush during their first months in the White House" with "roughly twice as much" Obama coverage about his "personal or leadership qualities" than was the case for either previous president.

Back in the US, NBC's Brian Williams' two-part "Living Large With the Top Dog" feature on Mr. Obama's life included a plug for Conan O'Brien's new show and mention of cable talkies where Mr. Obama only cited MSNBC personalities. Accident? I don't think so. There were a few probing moments in there, but they were overshadowed by the flash of hanging out in the back of the Auto One limo and having burgers. A little navel-gazing among journalism standards hall monitors about whether the thing had been too soft came and went.


Then, this Sunday in the NYTimes, there was full-on chick-flick swooning over Barack and Michelle Obama's heavily scented "date night" in NY City and its high bar standard effect on our relationship culture, with just a hint of controversy over the taxpayer costs to add some spice. I swear I've seen this movie, only Michael Douglas was the President. Or Harrison Ford. Or one of those cool and languid characters you'd want to like you. George Bush needed to be beer-bar likable to get elected. His successor has managed to get a lot of people to want to be liked by him.

And in Paris, Mr. Obama talked about how he'd love to take his wife for a romantic tour of the City of Lovers, but couldn't. Then he did. I'm guessing some regular-Joe freedom fries weren't on the menu.

This guy is good. Really good. And, frankly, so far, we're not.

You can't blame powerful people for wanting to play the press to peddle self-perpetuating mythology. But you can blame the press, already suffocating under a massive pile of blame, guilt, heavy debt and sinking fortunes, for being played. Some of the time, it seems we're even enthusiastically jumping into the pond without even being pushed. Is there an actual limit to the number of instances you can be the cover of Newsweek?

If I wanted to see highly manicured image management I'd just take some No-Doz and read Gavin Newsom's tweets. But the Obama-press dance is a more consensual seduction where, in the old-fashioned sense, we're the girl. (In California, there's no other option.)

I thought that the Maxfield Parrish, heroic days of the Kennedy Administration PR, where the press and the president were pretty much all in on the same screenplay and the same jokes, couldn't happen in our modern era, what with paparazzi and tabloids and talk shows, citizen sound-bite scavengers and voracious 24/7 news cycles. But now that the stumbling Bushes and smirking Clintons are out of the White House, time has compressed back on itself like the machine in the Denzel Washington movie, "Deja Vu." It's the early 1960s and Camelot all over again:

Very attractive wife, cute, precocious kids and the hopes and dreams of at least 63 percent of the population sitting on the athletic shoulders of a young, charismatic, mold-breaking leader, Blah, blah. (Oh, and a Chicago Mayor Richard Daley helped make it possible. We can play the Lincoln-Kennedy parallels game here.) Only there's a puppy now instead of a pony and it seems like Barack Obama may be less socially, self-destructively libertine than Mr. Kennedy. In fact, he's downright conservative on things like same-sex marriage. (It's smart to have a wholesome life -- though very clearly, in the sinuous world of the Obamas, not to the point of abstinence -- when you're pushing programs that get labeled as socialist.)

So we're in love, lust, or just a whole lot of like. Clearly we get something in exchange, whether it's a little reflected exuberance, a sense of history or just some very minor role in a fun movie. If you want to appear in a movie with John Travolta, you go willingly with him to the LA Scientology Center and are happy about it. "I'm clear, man. Hand me the cans."

I'm not sure Mr. Obama is necessarily getting away with anything here. In Cairo, when he spoke of the "principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," more than a few writers pointed out that this meant unless you're the Egyptian government or two gay people wanting to get married. What the President was saying overseas, to mostly purplish commentators' delight over the symbolic significance of the event, Dick Cheney was actually meaning in his own "freedom means freedom for everyone" speech about same-sex weddings.

The style-over-substance hit followed him from continent to continent. "While the president is popular among Europeans," the Wall Street Journal wrote, "he returned from his second trip to Europe with little more progress on key issues" than he got on his first visit. That's the Journal. But the Washington Post, where the John Kennedy myth was nurtured like a golden statue, managed a cautionary op-ed column from Robert Samuelson warning that "our political system works best when a president faces checks on his power." He meant checks from the press.

Samuelson was one of the few in the media to give some room to the Pew Research Center poll.

So far, this is all about image and character and press "opportunities." But with what CNN financial reporter Elizabeth Cohen called this morning "gazillions of dollars" of our money at stake and crazy people with nukes bristling from around the edges of the world, we can't afford not to keep a closer eye on the substance thing.

Taser not unreasonable search and seizure

This is troubling.

*********************

June 04, 2009 06:05 pm

NIAGARA COURTS RULING: Taser use to obtain DNA not unconstitutional

By Rick Pfeiffer
rick.pfeiffer@niagara-gazette.com


A decision by Falls Police to use a Taser to obtain a DNA sample from a suspect in an armed robbery, shooting and kidnapping is not unconstitutional.

Niagara County Court Judge Sara Sheldon Sperrazza reached that conclusion in a 16 page decision handed down Wednesday that refused to dismiss an indictment against Ryan Smith and denied his request to have DNA evidence that links him to two separate criminal cases thrown out.

The ruling left Smith’s attorney, Patrick Balkin, stunned and requesting additional time to prepare for a trial that had been scheduled to begin later this month.

“Your honor, I was not expecting this ruling,” Balkin said. “I have not begun to have the DNA evidence analyzed and will need time to do that.”

Sperrazza set a new trial date of Aug. 10.

“I was not surprised. I was confident the judge would rule in our favor,” Assistant District Attorney Doreen Hoffmann said. “Clearly, we are satisfied that the judge heard all the evidence at the hearing and made the correct decision.”

Balkin sharply questioned the ruling.

“She’s the first judge in western civilization to say you can use a Taser to enforce a court order,” Balkin said.

Smith, standing next to his attorney as the decision was announced, showed no reaction. He faces charges of first-degree robbery, burglary, second-degree kidnapping and other crimes stemming from a pair of incidents in 2006.

In July 2006, Smith is accused of being one of four suspects who staged a home invasion in the Falls that involved tying up two children with duct tape and forcing their mother to go to another home where a man was shot in a robbery attempt.

Then on Christmas Eve 2006, Smith is accused of staging the armed hold-up of a gas station and convenience store on Hyde Park Boulevard and Ontario Avenue.

Detectives recovered DNA evidence from a pop can at the home invasion scene and from a glove left behind at the robbery scene and a search of the state’s DNA data base matched that evidence to Smith. Prosecutors asked Sperrazza for an order to get a DNA sample from Smith in August 2008 and he voluntarily gave that sample to police.

In September 2008, prosecutors asked for another DNA sample because the first one had been sent to the wrong laboratory and could not be used. Sperrazza signed the second request and Falls Police went looking for Smith.

When they found Smith and took him to police headquarters, he refused to give another sample, telling the officers that he would have to “be tased” to give one. After detectives and officers tried to get Smith to comply with the court order, and he refused, they drive stunned him with a Taser and then took the DNA sample.

Balkin had argued that the use of the Taser to get Smith to give up the DNA sample violated his constitutional right against an unreasonable search and seizure. Sperrazza ruled that the police action was reasonable.