We are now concerned that the word swine flu may damage the hog industry, why?.. because our government has decided that people are too stupid to realized that while the virus originated in pigs, it can not be contracted by eating pork.
That would have made those of the Muslim and Jewish, and Seventh Day Adventist Faith as well as vegetarians and vegan safe...
WHO to stop using term 'swine flu' to protect pigs
By FRANK JORDANS
Associated Press Writer
GENEVA (AP) -- The World Health Organization said confirmed swine flu cases rose to 257 worldwide Thursday and announced it will would stop using the term "swine flu" to avoid confusion over the danger posed by pigs.
The global body said the number of confirmed cases in Mexico rose to 97 from 26, with seven deaths. The WHO confirmed tally from the United States now stands at 109, with one death.
Other confirmed cases include 19 in Canada, 13 in Spain, eight in Britain, three each in Germany and New Zealand, two in Israel and one each in Austria, Switzerland and the Netherlands.
WHO spokesman Dick Thompson told reporters in Geneva that at least one of the Spanish cases involved a person who had not traveled to Mexico. Spanish officials said that was a man who apparently got the virus from his girlfriend, who recently returned from Mexico.
Thompson said the flu name change comes after the agriculture industry and the U.N. food agency expressed concerns that the term "swine flu" was misleading consumers and needlessly causing countries to order the slaughter of pigs.more...
What our government can do for you. Feel safer now? Discuss among yourselves.
Brantigny
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Arlen has come out of the closet.
I am staying a Republican because I think I have an important role, a more important role, to play there. The United States very desperately needs a two-party system. That’s the basis of politics in America. I’m afraid we are becoming a one-party system, with Republicans becoming just a regional party with so little representation of the northeast or in the middle atlantic. I think as a governmental matter, it is very important to have a check and balance. That’s a very important principle in the operation of our government. In the constitution on Separation of powers. Senator Arlen Spector, March 17, 2009.“I have decided to run for re-election in 2010 in the Democratic primary,” said Specter in a statement. “I am ready, willing and anxious to take on all comers and have my candidacy for re-election determined in a general election.”
“Since my election in 1980, as part of the Reagan Big Tent, the Republican Party has moved far to the right. Last year, more than 200,000 Republicans in Pennsylvania changed their registration to become Democrats. I now find my political philosophy more in line with Democrats than Republicans.” Senator Arlen Spector, April 28, 2009.
In light of this flip-flop I prophecy he will go far in the Democrat (er jacobin) party.
Breakin' up is hard to do...
Brantigny
Monday, April 27, 2009
The I know nothing Presidency
Can it be that we have plowed through 100 days already? ...And yet the stupidity never seems to stop. I have never seen a white house staff which are so inept as to know nothing about anything. Too bad Hogans Heroes is off the air, the Obama staff could take the part of Schultz.Things the Obama White house doesn't know...
How to use a teleprompter...
How to deliver a speech with out a teleprompter...
That one doesn't pat the Queen anywhere...
The president of France is Sarkozy not Chirac...
There are bad people in the world who want to destroy the US and they are not Republicans...
It is a good thing to let the mayor of New York that the backup to Air Force One and Fighter Jets will be flying over the Hudson. Let Milhouse the press secretary know what is going on so he doe not make you look anymore inept than you are.
Your Chicago thuggy attitude is of no use in the big world out side of the south side.
That you are in charge of the Government now and you can stop blaming President Bush for everything.
and
Everything you do has a repercussion.
From Obamaism blog...
Obama and His Beloved Teleprompter ; fails him again
President Obama’s speech at the National Academy of Sciences Monday morning hit a brief snag when Obama got ahead of his script. (DOH)
Laying his plan for a President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, Obama began to name the members of PCAST listed in his prepared remarks – before realizing he’d already introduced them, earlier in his speech. More...
I wish I could put a recipe for Crepes Suzette into a speech, just to see how far he got before he noticed.
Brantigny
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Obama bows to Saudi Princeling
He did not bow to the Queen of England, just patted her. After all she is just a woman.
I have not said this before but my angst is overflowing. In his mind, he is showing his solidarity to the Muslim prince, and showing up Miss Daisy. He has continually insulted our allies and cosyed up to our enemies.
by these actions and because he has been in office for 11 weeks with out finding a church, i expect he will proclaim himself a Muslim in the next few months. After all he doesn't want a fatwa placed on him.
Brantigny
BTW the White House denied that Barry did not bow, then the video came out. I expect the administration to remove the video from YOUTUBE soon.
Friday, April 3, 2009
What the H%$# is going on at Notre Dame!???
Notre Dame Appoints Pro-Abortion Dean to Law School
April 2, 2009 11:36 am SBrinkmann Breaking News
By Susan Brinkmann, OCDS
Staff Writer
The University of Notre Dame, still caught up in the enormous backlash over its invitation to Barack Obama to speak at this year’s commencement, is once again under fire for appointing a new law school dean who donated to pro-abortion presidential candidates such as President Barack Obama and Sen. John Kerry.
Notre Dame officials announced on April 1 that Nell Jessup Newton, most recently chancellor and dean of the Hastings College of the Law at the University of California, has been appointed as the new law school dean.
In a report by LifeSite.com, a web site devoted to identifying donors to political candidates, Fundrace 2008, indicates that Newton gave Obama’s presidential campaign $2,300 during the first quarter of 2007. She also gave $500 to pro-abortion Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry during the first quarter of 2004 in his race against pro-life President George W. Bush.
The campaign finance web site also lists Newton as giving $1,000 in 2008 to Congressional candidate Jackie Speier, who was endorsed by Emily’s List, a pro-abortion group that only backs candidates who support partial-birth abortion and the use of taxpayer funds for abortions.
Fr. Jenkins made no mention of her donations to candidates who hold positions contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church in his glowing announcement.
“In Nell Newton, Notre Dame has gained a superb scholar, a proven academic leader, and a person deeply committed to the University’s mission,” Father Jenkins said. “She will help us continue and deepen education and research in our law school, and I am delighted to welcome her to Notre Dame.”
Notre Dame’s provost, Thomas Burish, called Newton “an experienced, effective and admired leader” who supposedly has an “appreciation of the special mission of Notre Dame” and will “build on the Law School’s strong foundation to help it achieve even greater excellence.”
Burish did not say whether he thought Newton had an appreciation for the Catholic Church’s pro-life views or would instill such views in the future attorneys attending the law school.
Newton’s appointment is effective July 1.
To contact Fr. John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame, at 574-631-5000, fax 574-631-2770, email president@nd.edu, or mail to 317 Main Building, Notre Dame, IN 46556. You can call Notre Dame at (574) 631-5000 or use the email form at http://president.nd.edu/contact-us
Complaints may also be submitted to the law school at: University of Notre Dame Law School, P.O. Box 780 Notre Dame, IN 46556, call 574.631.6627, fax 574.631.3980 and email ndlaw@nd.edu.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly/Women of Grace.
Borrowed from Living His Life Abundantly
Dieu le Roy!
Brantigny
April 2, 2009 11:36 am SBrinkmann Breaking News
By Susan Brinkmann, OCDS
Staff Writer
The University of Notre Dame, still caught up in the enormous backlash over its invitation to Barack Obama to speak at this year’s commencement, is once again under fire for appointing a new law school dean who donated to pro-abortion presidential candidates such as President Barack Obama and Sen. John Kerry.
Notre Dame officials announced on April 1 that Nell Jessup Newton, most recently chancellor and dean of the Hastings College of the Law at the University of California, has been appointed as the new law school dean.
In a report by LifeSite.com, a web site devoted to identifying donors to political candidates, Fundrace 2008, indicates that Newton gave Obama’s presidential campaign $2,300 during the first quarter of 2007. She also gave $500 to pro-abortion Catholic presidential candidate John Kerry during the first quarter of 2004 in his race against pro-life President George W. Bush.
The campaign finance web site also lists Newton as giving $1,000 in 2008 to Congressional candidate Jackie Speier, who was endorsed by Emily’s List, a pro-abortion group that only backs candidates who support partial-birth abortion and the use of taxpayer funds for abortions.
Fr. Jenkins made no mention of her donations to candidates who hold positions contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church in his glowing announcement.
“In Nell Newton, Notre Dame has gained a superb scholar, a proven academic leader, and a person deeply committed to the University’s mission,” Father Jenkins said. “She will help us continue and deepen education and research in our law school, and I am delighted to welcome her to Notre Dame.”
Notre Dame’s provost, Thomas Burish, called Newton “an experienced, effective and admired leader” who supposedly has an “appreciation of the special mission of Notre Dame” and will “build on the Law School’s strong foundation to help it achieve even greater excellence.”
Burish did not say whether he thought Newton had an appreciation for the Catholic Church’s pro-life views or would instill such views in the future attorneys attending the law school.
Newton’s appointment is effective July 1.
To contact Fr. John Jenkins, President of Notre Dame, at 574-631-5000, fax 574-631-2770, email president@nd.edu, or mail to 317 Main Building, Notre Dame, IN 46556. You can call Notre Dame at (574) 631-5000 or use the email form at http://president.nd.edu/contact-us
Complaints may also be submitted to the law school at: University of Notre Dame Law School, P.O. Box 780 Notre Dame, IN 46556, call 574.631.6627, fax 574.631.3980 and email ndlaw@nd.edu.
© All Rights Reserved, Living His Life Abundantly/Women of Grace.
Borrowed from Living His Life Abundantly
Dieu le Roy!
Brantigny
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Baracks shopping list
This week the "saviour of the world" Barack gave the Queen an Ipod. I would have thought that after the video debacle with the Prime Minister Gordon Brown that he would have thought better.
Barack Stop shopping at Walmart!
Brantigny
Thursday, March 26, 2009
On Declining to Attend
From Carlos at Casorosendi
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
James Schall
A young friend of mine in Philadelphia’s St. Charles Borromeo Seminary sent me a column by Charles Krauthammer (photo) entitled “Morally Unserious in the Extreme.” Krauthammer there reacts to the President Obama’s signing the document overturning stem-cell research restrictions. Krauthammer knew that these so-called “restrictions” were, when spelled out, actually incentives for scientists to find more reasonable and ethical procedures to accomplish the very same purposes, which in fact they were doing. Most normal people recognize that “research” predicated on infant deaths has something seriously wrong with it, even if they do not know why. But evidently the president either does not or will not see this fact.
Krauthammer is withering in his analysis of the incoherence of the president’s actions and the reasoning that he presents. We are becoming used to a president who says one thing and does another. As the Canadian journalist David Warren has said, “The president declared that he is against human cloning. This was, typically for him, a rhetorical manoeuvre, belied by his deed. For what can a promise to prevent human cloning mean, when his decision opens the door wide to just such eventualities?”
Yet on life and morality issues, the president is consistent in deed. He ever ends up on the death or aberrant side of things. His record, both voting and rhetorical, all along suggested that he would. In this area, he is consistent.
But what was particularly interesting in Krauthammer’s column was the account of his being invited to the White House to witness the signing. He was on the President’s Bioethics Council, so he was familiar with the ins and outs of the issues. Krauthammer notes that George Bush had given a nationally televised speech on the stem-cell issue that was “the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president.” Mr. Obama shows little of this moral seriousness.
Krauthammer speculates on the reason why he was invited. Apparently, he (Krauthammer) does not object to using cell lines from “discarded embryos in fertility clinics.” This somewhat questionable moral position led President Obama to assume that Krauthammer might be sympathetic to the signing. If someone of that journalist’s stature were there (Krauthammer also holds a medical degree from Harvard), it would cast an aura of legitimacy over this most dubious presidential decree.
Krauthammer’s dissection of the White House’s calculation is something that particularly drew my interest. As I thought about it, the scene reminded me of something. Of course, it was the famous case in the “Apology of Socrates.” We read it every semester in my class at Georgetown. The local rulers commanded Socrates to cross to the island of Salamis to pick up a certain Leon, an admiral. He was to be returned and executed for failing his duty in a naval battle.
Athenian law required that bodies of the dead (they were not interested in stem cells in those days) were to be returned for proper burial. The episode has a kind of prophetic import. By commanding Socrates and four other gentlemen to go over to pick up Leon, the authorities sought to implicate them in the executions. Socrates’ participation would implicitly make the act seem moral.
Socrates thought the trial that had condemned Leon was illegal. Athenian citizens had to be tried individually, not in a group, as had happened in this case. When the other four came to collect him to go over to grab Leon, Socrates told them to go on. In a famous phrase, he tells us that instead “he went home.”
That is, Socrates would not participate in such an illegal act. He further states that he would have been himself killed for this refusal had the current rulers not fallen from power. So he lived a few years longer, until his next trial, the one we all know about.
Krauthammer, with no reference to Socrates in mind, says of the White House invitation, “I declined to attend.” He gives his reason: “Once you show your face at these things, you become a tacit endorser of whatever they spring.” After seeing what the president signed, he added, “My caution was vindicated.”
Now I am not suggesting that Charles Krauthammer is Socrates. But in declining this presidential invitation, he is a man who stands in a certain tradition. He would prefer to stay home rather than be associated with something as morally dubious as the stem cell action. And, if I might extrapolate, this refusal is what civilization is about.
It is about Socrates’ “It is never right to do wrong.” If you refuse to go along, as Socrates eventually discovered, you pay the consequences. But in paying them, you stand for what is right, what is civilized. That is why in our current situation Charles Krauthammer’s words should be remembered: “I declined to attend.”
Rev. Fr. James Schall, S.J., is a professor at Georgetown University, and one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America. This article was published originally in The Catholic Thing
Thanks Carlos,
Brantigny
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
James Schall
A young friend of mine in Philadelphia’s St. Charles Borromeo Seminary sent me a column by Charles Krauthammer (photo) entitled “Morally Unserious in the Extreme.” Krauthammer there reacts to the President Obama’s signing the document overturning stem-cell research restrictions. Krauthammer knew that these so-called “restrictions” were, when spelled out, actually incentives for scientists to find more reasonable and ethical procedures to accomplish the very same purposes, which in fact they were doing. Most normal people recognize that “research” predicated on infant deaths has something seriously wrong with it, even if they do not know why. But evidently the president either does not or will not see this fact.
Krauthammer is withering in his analysis of the incoherence of the president’s actions and the reasoning that he presents. We are becoming used to a president who says one thing and does another. As the Canadian journalist David Warren has said, “The president declared that he is against human cloning. This was, typically for him, a rhetorical manoeuvre, belied by his deed. For what can a promise to prevent human cloning mean, when his decision opens the door wide to just such eventualities?”
Yet on life and morality issues, the president is consistent in deed. He ever ends up on the death or aberrant side of things. His record, both voting and rhetorical, all along suggested that he would. In this area, he is consistent.
But what was particularly interesting in Krauthammer’s column was the account of his being invited to the White House to witness the signing. He was on the President’s Bioethics Council, so he was familiar with the ins and outs of the issues. Krauthammer notes that George Bush had given a nationally televised speech on the stem-cell issue that was “the most morally serious address on medical ethics ever given by an American president.” Mr. Obama shows little of this moral seriousness.
Krauthammer speculates on the reason why he was invited. Apparently, he (Krauthammer) does not object to using cell lines from “discarded embryos in fertility clinics.” This somewhat questionable moral position led President Obama to assume that Krauthammer might be sympathetic to the signing. If someone of that journalist’s stature were there (Krauthammer also holds a medical degree from Harvard), it would cast an aura of legitimacy over this most dubious presidential decree.
Krauthammer’s dissection of the White House’s calculation is something that particularly drew my interest. As I thought about it, the scene reminded me of something. Of course, it was the famous case in the “Apology of Socrates.” We read it every semester in my class at Georgetown. The local rulers commanded Socrates to cross to the island of Salamis to pick up a certain Leon, an admiral. He was to be returned and executed for failing his duty in a naval battle.
Athenian law required that bodies of the dead (they were not interested in stem cells in those days) were to be returned for proper burial. The episode has a kind of prophetic import. By commanding Socrates and four other gentlemen to go over to pick up Leon, the authorities sought to implicate them in the executions. Socrates’ participation would implicitly make the act seem moral.
Socrates thought the trial that had condemned Leon was illegal. Athenian citizens had to be tried individually, not in a group, as had happened in this case. When the other four came to collect him to go over to grab Leon, Socrates told them to go on. In a famous phrase, he tells us that instead “he went home.”
That is, Socrates would not participate in such an illegal act. He further states that he would have been himself killed for this refusal had the current rulers not fallen from power. So he lived a few years longer, until his next trial, the one we all know about.
Krauthammer, with no reference to Socrates in mind, says of the White House invitation, “I declined to attend.” He gives his reason: “Once you show your face at these things, you become a tacit endorser of whatever they spring.” After seeing what the president signed, he added, “My caution was vindicated.”
Now I am not suggesting that Charles Krauthammer is Socrates. But in declining this presidential invitation, he is a man who stands in a certain tradition. He would prefer to stay home rather than be associated with something as morally dubious as the stem cell action. And, if I might extrapolate, this refusal is what civilization is about.
It is about Socrates’ “It is never right to do wrong.” If you refuse to go along, as Socrates eventually discovered, you pay the consequences. But in paying them, you stand for what is right, what is civilized. That is why in our current situation Charles Krauthammer’s words should be remembered: “I declined to attend.”
Rev. Fr. James Schall, S.J., is a professor at Georgetown University, and one of the most prolific Catholic writers in America. This article was published originally in The Catholic Thing
Thanks Carlos,
Brantigny
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)