This widely distributed Nazi pamphlet first appeared in 1929. I am working from a 1932 copy, and have not compared it with the first version, but it does not look as if significant changes were made as it was reissued. The title, loosely translated, is "Those Damned Nazis." Literally, it translates as something like "those cursed swastika lads," but that does not really work in English. At least several hundred thousand copies were printed. It is a good summary of the basic lines of Nazi propaganda just before Hitler's takeover in 1933. The booklet included five cartoons by Mjölnir, Goebbels' cartoonist, three of which I include here. Mjölnir also produced some of the most familiar Nazi posters. "Horrible … fascinating …" reads this newspaper ad for the newly released Goebbels Diaries. A reviewer for the New York Times hailed the book as a vivid portrait of "Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the little, limping, ratfaced high priest of nazism … one of the most completely evil men of the twentieth century." The book was serialized in newspapers and magazines, was picked for the Book-of-the-Month Club, and became an instant bestseller. The quotes below are reposted from: http://rationalrevolution.net/special/library/goebbels_diaries.htm
"...the greater the number of Jews liquidated, the more consolidated will the situation in Europe be after this war."
"The procedure is a pretty barbaric one and not to be described here more definitely. Not much will remain of the Jews. On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated whereas only about 40 per cent can be used for forced labor."
The Jews have deserved the catastrophe that has now overtaken them. Their destruction will go hand in hand with the destruction of our enemies. We must hasten this process with cold ruthlessness.
On the whole it can be said that about 60 per cent of them will have to be liquidated... A judgment is being visited upon the Jews that, while barbaric, is fully deserved by them.
Jewry must pay for its crime just as our Fuehrer prophesied in his speech in the Reichstag; namely, by the wiping out of the Jewish race in Europe and possibly in the entire world.
From: drude Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 Subject: A Ford Dealer's Report - Posted on his Facebook
This'll put you on a fast burn! As my friend said, "This could be spam but the basic facts are true!" This, my friends, is not a joke nor an exaggeration. I see this ongoing at the used car lot where I work. How sad!!
The following 'Report' was [reportedly] posted on the Facebook page, of Tom Selkis at Latham Ford... This is a true happening, in the day, of an automobile dealer... This is what is destroying our Country, and brought us to where we are today. Please Read and Please Share and Please Post for Everyone to See, thank you.
A Ford Dealer's Report... This is exactly why Mitt Romney said, that over 47% of the people are too dependent on the government. They have learned to work the system. A Ford Dealer's Report -- From Tom Selkis' (Latham Ford) Facebook - True story yesterday at the dealership. "I'll try to make this as short and to the point as I can. One of my salesmen here had a woman in his office yesterday wanting to lease a brand new Focus. As he was reviewing her credit application with her he noticed she was on social security disability. He said to her you don't look like you're disabled and unable to work. She said well I'm really not. I could work if I wanted to, but I make more now than I did when I was working and got hurt (non-disabling injury). She said the gov't sends her $1500.00 a month in 1 check. And she gets $700.00 a month on an EBT card (food stamps), and $800.00 a month for rent. Oh yeah, and 250 minutes free on her phone. That is just south of $3500.00 a month. When she was working, she was taking home about $330.00 per week. Do the math and then ask yourself why the hell should she go back to work?? If you multiply that by millions of people, you start to realize the scope of the problem we face as a country. Once the socialists have 51% of thepopulation in that same scenario, we are finished. The question is when do we cross that threshold, if we haven't already, and there are not enough people working to pay enough taxes to support the non-working people? For awhile the government will simply continue to raise the taxes on the workers. But even doing that will soon become unsustainable. What will happen then? Riots in the streets by the freeloaders demanding their "Free Stuff"? You had better be prepared to protect your homes, your family and your belongings. She didn't lease the Focus here because the dealer down the road beat our deal by $10.00/month. Glad to know she is so frugal with her hard earned money." How passing info on to others in America is having an effect... PASS THIS ON TO 10 NOW 10 pass it on to their 10 100 then pass it on to their 10 1,000 then pass it on to their 10 10,000 then pass it on to their 10 100,000 then pass it on to their 10 1,000,000 then pass it on to their 10 10,000,000 then pass it on to their 10 100,000,000 then pass it on to their 10 Yes, through the power of the Internet America is becoming aware. So, we realize this doesn't seem like we're doing much when we pass these on to our 10 Yes, we CAN help by getting the word out. We CAN Make a Difference... Media refuses to cover such issues. PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO YOUR 10!
G.A.
It's everywhere. Blame Kennedy, Johnson, Clinton, Carter, Obama, or Bush's. The real culprit is US. We have allowed the Congress to gather the power to generate this mess. We need to fire ALL incumbents as elections appear. God help US!
Authored by Matthew Dowd, Feb 1, 2013
Opinion by Matthew Dowd:
Confirmation bias is the sociological condition where we, as human beings, seek out information that confirms what we already believe or think and ignore (or don�t seek out) information that disputes our opinions.
It makes us more comfortable to find "facts" that agree with our already held opinions or theories, and it makes us uncomfortable to discover information that might prove our theories wrong. But the path to the truth is most often an uncomfortable one where we must confront our own false narratives or myths.
As I have often said in the past, myths consistently get set in stone in politics. Why is this? First, the winners most often write the history, and campaign operatives have an incentive to repeat the story that what they did was the reason a campaign won. Many times this just isn't true, but it serves their purposes.
Second, confirmation bias by the media plays a part because as they explain what happened, they look for information that confirms their theory of the race. Again, many times this only confirms a false theory or a misguided rationale.
There has already been much written and discussed about why President Obama won this race. Various theories have been presented for the reason the president beat Mitt Romney. Let's take a little pop quiz at this point to see what has settled into the pundit population.
What made the difference in this 2012 presidential race and gave Obama the victory?
The Big Data and cutting-edge technological approach the Obama campaign used in target states on voter contact and turnout;
The millions of dollars of advertising expenditures in target states;
Presidential candidate visits and events in target states;
All of the above;
None of the above.
The correct answer is "E." None of the above.
Yes, these things had some effect, but not the impact that has now become part of the common wisdom. Let�s start with a premise I think everyone should agree with: If these three Obama advantages from Big Data to advertising to presidential visits all were determinative of victory, then the difference between the results in target states vs. non-target states should be profound.
A major point on confirmation bias that has fed this is the statistic that while turnout from 2008 to 2012 dropped in the non-target states, turnout was actually up in the 12 target states. And so, therefore, the Big Data technological edge of the Obama campaign made the difference or the targeted advertising or campaign visits. What this cause-and-effect attribution error ignores is that nearly every bit of both campaigns (Obama and Romney) was concentrated in these 12 target states. The 12 states, of course, got all the attention in this past year's presidential race.
The more telling statistic to look at is what happened to President Obama's vote percentage from 2008 to 2012. President Obama�s national vote percentage dropped 1.73 percent between his first campaign and his re-election. One would expect that his drop would be smaller in the target states because of the three advantages mentioned above.
Interestingly, there is no significant difference between the president's drop in the 12 target states and all the other non-target states where these three factors were not a play. Indeed, the president's margin in the 12 target states dropped by 1.85 percent and in the non-target states by 1.67%. Surprisingly, Romney did slightly (only slightly) better in the target states than he did in the rest of the country. All the advantages the Obama campaign had in the target states made no real difference in the vote totals when you compare it to all the other non-target states.
If I had to pick the three factors that mattered most in this election, it would be:
1) A flawed opponent (Romney) from the beginning who had serious issues with authenticity and connection with middle-class voters, and one where the Obama campaign did an effective job nationally on big message exploiting this (the success of the Obama national convention vs. the failure of the Romney convention was a major part of this);
2) A macro environment of a recovering economy that helped drive up President Obama's job approval number; and
3) Hurricane Sandy, which showed Obama as an effective strong leader amid a terrible disaster.
Although the winning consultants want us to believe it was millions in target-state advertising or technological advantages on voter turnout or numerous campaign offices located in target states, that really is only a bias that, unless we look at the data ourselves in a discerning way, we will repeat as a myth and move further from a clear view of what happened.
And this is why many people might be overestimating the ability of the president's advocacy arm, Organizing for America - stocked with former campaign staff, target-data lists and tactics honed in 2012 - to effect change in Washington.
Further, as the Republicans examine what went wrong, they would be wise to understand exactly what happened. They might just be replicating a myth.
If you're still using a Hotmail account for your e-correspondence, be ready for a rude awakening.
Microsoft's Outlook.com is scrapping Hotmail -- which has been online since 1997 -- for its new interface that has just exited the preview stage, ABC News reports.
Individuals with a Hotmail address can still keep their domains but it will be switched over to the new Outlook.com, which has amassed 60 million users since being announced last July.
The company says that its server will be different from its competitors, including Google and Gmail, which boasts the largest number of users at 425 million. Microsoft even attempted to get their Google ads up as part of their new $30 million marketing and ad campaign.
Through their latest "Scroogled" advert, Microsoft threw shade at Gmail for browsing users' inboxes to populate them with appropriate ads. "Google goes through every Gmail that's sent or received, looking for keywords so they can target Gmail with paid ads. And there's no way to opt out of this invasion of your privacy," says the Scroogled site. "Outlook.com is different -- we don't go through your email to sell ads."
The company is hoping to fizzle out Hotmail -- which has been online since 1997 -- by summer.
Software and technology company Microsoft has officially launched its email service Outlook.com from beta, and it links together social networking and cloud service SkyDrive.
Outlook.com is effectively Microsoft laying Hotmail to rest (albeit gradually), its early email client (that launched in 1996) that was credited as the first free email service. Hotmail was instrumental in helping shape how consumers used the Internet, and indeed email.
Outlook.com has been in preview since summer last year and is now taking advantage of its Hotmail audience, describing the transition as an 'instant and seamless process by upgrading every user to Outlook.com. Hotmail email users @Hotmail email address, contacts, password etc., will remain the same but will benefit from the new Outlook.com design and interface. Users can change their email address to @Outlook if they wish, but it isn't mandatory.
Microsoft refers to Outlook.com as modern email claiming to reach 0 to 60 million active users within six-months heavily using design, flexibility and privacy to entice as well as hold onto users. Outlook.com allows users to connect to social networks such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter (for business or personal use), it also enables them to send photographs and video using is cloud-based service SkyDrive.
SkyDrive unveiled by Microsoft in 2007. SkyDrive is built into the newly released email service reported to have been used by Outlook.com users to share more than half a billion images and Office documents.
Technorati recently reported on Microsoft's campaign website Scroogled that purports to outline the advertising and privacy concerns with Google's Gmail. The campaign site launched earlier this month.
Although the Microsoft claims successful transition thus far, there seems to be much yet to be addressed with any product as outlined by comments on the Outlook.com blog.
In typical Microsoft fashion, the company has announced a number of momentum numbers for Outlook.com and launched quite a few new features for its web-based email service at the same time.
Let's start with the numbers: Microsoft says Outlook.com (formerly known as Hotmail), now has 25 million active users. Many of the service's new users, Microsoft says, are switching away from Gmail.
According to the Outlook.com team's numbers, one-third of Outlook.com users are active Gmail users trying the service for the first time. Microsoft also says that after talking to "hundreds of Gmail users for a panel, 4 out of 5 of these Gmail users said they would switch to Outlook.com."
Here is what this panel told Microsoft:
They prefer Outlook.com's clean user design
Outlook.com does a better job of blocking spam and it outperforms Gmail when it comes to helping manage unwanted messages like newsletters and daily deals
Outlook.com makes it easier to share photos and Office documents
It's obviously hard/impossible to verify these numbers for us, so it's worth taking them with a grain of salt. There can be no doubt, though, that leaving behind the tired Hotmail brand for Outlook.com and giving the service a new streamlined look surely helped Microsoft to get users of other services to at least try Outlook.com.
An Android App And Many New Features
Besides these numbers, Microsoft is also announcing a slew of new Outlook.com features, including new customization options and color themes, keyboard shortcuts, one-click archiving and conversation threading, a feature that Gmail obviously helped to popularize.
Outlook.com users can now also switch between using "Reply" and "Reply all" as their defaults. You can find the full list of new features here.
Maybe most interestingly, Microsoft is also launching an Outlook app for Android (2.x and higher). Microsoft typically launches its mobile apps (besides its Windows Phone apps, of course) for iPhone first, but this time around, Android is getting the preference. There is a reason for this, though: Microsoft says that it is launching this app because Android devices "aren't consistent in their native support for Exchange ActiveSync."
Officials are now saying they plan to discontinue Messenger for a "test group" comprising about one percent of the installed base of "tens of millions" on March 15. Starting April 8, Microsoft will begin phasing out Messenger for the remaining users, starting with those in English-speaking countries, and ending with Portuguese (for some unspecified reason). The entire "retirement" should be completed by April 30 or so.
The phase out is for the desktop version of Messenger, said Parri Munsell, Director of Marketing Integration for Skype. Munsell said that the desktop version of Messenger represents the "vast majority" of the Messenger user base. Skype officials are not providing a timetable as to when Microsoft plans to retire Messenger on mobile and/or multivendor platforms.
Microsoft has been pushing desktop Messenger users to move to Skype for the past couple of months via pop-ups that show up when users sign into Messenger. To proactively move over, users can sign into Skype using their Microsoft accounts, which are the same as their Messenger IDs, and Messenger contacts will be automatically added to Skype so that both Skype and Messenger contacts are merged. (Users can opt to see only their Messenger contacts by selecting "All" in the contacts list and then "Messenger.") The Skype team has posted some introductory how-to guidance on this. Here's more help on mergingMessenger and Skype accounts.
(An aside: Those using Skype on Mac clients, Windows 8/Windows RT clients and Windows Phone 8 already can sign in today with their Messenger/Microsoft IDs. In case you're wondering when Microsoft will update the WP8 Skype beta and/or move to a final version, company officials are not saying. I asked.) If you're like me and not so keen on the Messenger-to-Skype move, you can keep using Messenger until Microsoft shuts you off from the service, sometime between March 15 and April 30 or so. Once that happens, you won't be able to sign into Messenger any longer. If you're using Messenger via a third-party instant messaging service -- like Trillian, Digsby, Pidgin or IM++, for example -- you will have a somewhat longer reprieve from being shut off. "Third-party APIs (application programming intefaces) will eventually be shut down," Munsell said. Each third-party service has its own timetable for doing this, which Munsell said would be up to them to announce. While this won't happen as quickly as Microsoft's own Messenger phase-out, users shouldn't expect Mesenger to be supported through these services for the long-term.
As to why I'm not so keen on this move, it's not because I'm afraid of using something different or new. While Munsell noted that the Skype team is aware there's a learning curve for those accustomed to Messenger who will be moving to Skype, I don't think it's all that substantial. A few of my contacts already have moved off Messenger to Skype and the transition has not been smooth. They often don't receive IMs I've sent them at all, in spite of Skype IM indicating that all is fine. Some have found managing multiple conversations simultaneously to be a chore compared to how this works with Messenger today.
Munsell said Microsoft has not seen anything indicating there will be widespread problems. "We don't see anything on any scale of concern to us," he said when I asked. Microsoft/Skype's message is users will gain new capabilities by moving from Messenger to Skype. Among these, Munsell said, are the ability to edit and delete messages, and the ability to move seamlessly from IM to Skype audio/video.
I'm curious if others who've already moved off Messenger to Skype have hit any roadblocks -- or found any new capabilities worth writing home about. Readers?
I am writing this newsletter in a very direct, no baloney, effort to get across how much trouble we Republicans are in and how real the internal party fight is going to be.
I strongly support RNC Chairman Reince Priebus' effort to think through the lessons of 2012 and develop a better path for the Republican Party.
However there are going to be some very powerful opponents to any serious rethinking of Republican doctrines and strategies.
It is appalling how little some Republican consultants have learned from the 2012 defeat.
It is even more disturbing how arrogant their plans for the future are.
Of course these consultants have made an amazing amount of money asserting an expertise they clearly don't have.
They have existed in a system in which the candidate was supposed to focus on raising money and the smart consultant would design the strategy, spend the money and do the thinking.
Watch the movie "Lincoln." This was a politician who thought long and deeply.
Read Craig Shirley's histories of the 1976 and 1980 campaigns (or watch the documentary Callista and I made, "Ronald Reagan: Rendezvous with Destiny"). Reagan knew what he believed, why he was running, and what he wanted to accomplish.
Republicans need to drop the consultant-centric model and go back to a system in which candidates have to think and consultants are adviser and implementers but understand that the elected official is the one who has to represent the voters and make the key decisions.
I feel compelled to write this because of Karl Rove's recent assertions and my very unsettling round table with Stuart Stevens on ABC's This Week this past Sunday.
First, Rove.
I am unalterably opposed to a bunch of billionaires financing a boss to pick candidates in 50 states. This is the opposite of the Republican tradition of freedom and grassroots small town conservatism.
No one person is smart enough nor do they have the moral right to buy nominations across the country.
That is the system of Tammany Hall and the Chicago machine. It should be repugnant to every conservative and every Republican.
There is a second practical thing wrong with Rove's proposal.
He was simply wrong last year. He was wrong about the Presidential race (watch a video of his blow up on Fox election night about Fox News calling Ohio for President Obama). He was also wrong about Senate races.
While Rove would like to argue his "national nomination machine" will protect Republicans from candidates like those who failed in Missouri and Indiana, that isn't the bigger story.
Republicans lost winnable senate races in Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida. So in seven of the nine losing races, the Rove model has no candidate-based explanation for failure. Our problems are deeper and more complex than candidates.
Handing millions to Washington based consultants to destroy the candidates they dislike and nominate the candidates they do like is an invitation to cronyism, favoritism and corruption.
Stuart Stevens represents a very different problem. Based on our time together on This Week on ABC last Sunday, it seems he is indifferent to the facts and has no sense of responsibility for a presidential campaign that he dominated.
Jonathan Karl did a great job drawing out some amazing opinions.
On the disastrous Romney collapse among Latino voters (it was worse, by the way, with Asian Americans), Stuart responded as though the campaign were irrelevant. Here's the transcript:
"STEVENS: Let me say something, Republican Party had a problem with Hispanic voters before this primary. I don't think it got better during the primary certainly. And I think that "
"KARL: I mean, it got worse."
"STEVENS: That's regrettable. But if you look at the numbers, it didn't get significantly worse." That analysis is simply false.
The Romney campaign decision to savage first Governor Perry and then me on immigration destroyed any chance to build a Latino-Asian appeal.
The Romney formula of self-deportation (which must have seemed clever when invented) led to a collapse of acceptability.
The most powerful Obama ad in Spanish language media was Romney talking about self deportation.
The fact that Stevens can't acknowledge any of this tells you how hard it will be for some in the consultant class to learn anything about winning in the 21st century.
Stevens did underscore the Republican challenge in attracting Latinos when he said:
"The greatest appeal that the Obama campaign had for Hispanic voters turned out to be ObamaCare. And they ran a tremendous amount of their advertising appealing to Hispanic voters. It was the only place in their advertising where they talked about ObamaCare, was into the Hispanic community, because an extraordinary percentage of Hispanic voters are uninsured. And that was smart politics. They did it well. The party was also known as the party that was against ObamaCare and that hurt us. There's not one solution here for the problems that Republicans have with Hispanic voters " His observation is correct but he fails to draw the right conclusion.
Latinos worry about getting health insurance and health care. A Republican candidate who had a better health idea could have had great appeal. A Republican candidate who was merely anti-Obamacare (and therefore seen as anti-healthcare) would lose that contest. But wasn't it Stevens' job as chief consultant to design that before the campaign, not to explain its failure afterwards?
The depth of Republican obsolescence on communications technology was highlighted in this comment:
"STEVENS: Really made - if I had tweeted in this campaign this whole discussion we've been having about the second amendment would probably be replaced one about the first amendment and whether it should apply to tweeting."
Cute but insulting. Republicans will not understand why we are losing younger Americans so badly until we realize how many of our consultants don't have a clue and don't intend to change.
Finally, Stevens said something profound but I don't think he understood how profound it was:
"Listen, I don't think - it would be a great mistake if we felt that technology in itself is going to save the Republican Party. Technology is something to a large degree you can go out and purchase and if we think there's an off the shelf solution that you can go out and purchase for the Republican Party it's wrong.
"You know, we've had a lot of chance now since the campaign to spend time with the Obama folks and sometimes they had better technology, some cases we have better technology. We don't have 140 character problem in the Republican Party. We have a larger problem that we have to look at and be patient about it. And trying to think that there's one solution like this, I just don't think..."
I went on to agree with him but I don't think he understood my agreement. In effect I was repudiating the entire structure, budget and culture of the campaign he dominated:
"GINGRICH: I think the way Stuart just said it is exactly right. The technology problem is a culture problem. I mean the Democrats had 54 data analysts and were hiring Ph.Ds in advanced math because they were using the most advanced decision processes in the country. They were bringing in behavioral scientists. They were trying to figure out how you talk to 311 million people and do so in a way that you can survive 8 percent unemployment and get re-elected and it worked.
"Now, I think it's actually - he's right in a sense it's a cultural problem. None of our consultants would have imagined hiring 54 people in the decision area, none of them would have imagined having 24 people [who] did nothing full time except e-mails and then blind tested the best e-mails to see which ones worked. I mean, this - they are a Super Bowl team that we ought to respect deeply. And we are currently a midlevel college team floundering around and I agree. It's not just - you can't just go out and buy this, this is a fundamental rethinking of how you relate to the American people."
As Reagan biographer Craig Shirley told me, "Commercial radio was a new technology in the early 1930's and Reagan adapted to it. Talking movies were a new technology in the late 30's and Reagan adapted to it. Network television was a new technology in the early 1950's and Reagan adapted to it. If Reagan were alive today, he'd be tweeting."
Our "Lessons to be Learned" project at Gingrich Productions will begin releasing reports on the scale of change we need in the next few weeks.
We will continue to report throughout the spring and summer.
By this fall we will have online courses on 21st century self government and politics.
The debate over Rove-Stevens versus the new 21st century model may be the most important intra-Republican debate since the emergence of Reagan and Kemp to challenge the old order in the 1970s.
Also, this Friday at 2pm I will teach a live online course from Mount Vernon on George Washington, in honor of his 281st birthday. You can register here to watch.
Newt Gingrich: Rove's plan to save GOP is "terrible"
article source: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57570234/newt-gingrich-roves-plan-to-save-gop-is-terrible/ (February 20, 2013)
(CBS News) Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been speaking out recently, claiming the automatic budget cuts set to take effect on March 1 might actually benefit what he calls a bloated federal government.
Gingrich also blasted top GOP strategists in an op-ed published by conservative magazine Human Events Wednesday and spoke to "CBS This Morning" about why GOP strategist Karl Rove is "plain wrong" on the path he is mapping out for the Republican Party.
Gingrich called Rove's plan to utilize so-called super PACs to protect the party from unpredictable candidates and broaden GOP appeal "very specifically ... a terrible idea."
"We don't want to become a party in which a handful of political bosses gather up money from billionaires in order to destroy the candidates they don't like," Gingrich said, explaining his opposition to Rove's strategy. "I think this is a very dangerous model ... last year we lost nine political races that we could have won. There's some very deep rethinking we need to do as a party, but it isn't gathering up more money by Washington consultants."
Gingrich insisted that campaign-finance reform is needed to "allow candidates to raise the money directly so the candidates can spend the money, and the rise of all these super PACs is very dangerous to the long-term health of our society." Newt Gingrich: "We were wrong"
Turning his attention to the Republican shortcomings in the 2012 campaign, Gingrich stressed what he calls another "very core problem of the Republican Party."
"A lot of our consultants are frankly just kidding themselves about how big the gap is. The Obama campaign today is about eight years or 10 years ahead of the Republican Party in very fundamental effort to understand the country. This is a country which is in many ways younger, more Latino, more Asian-American, more African-American than Republican strategists are capable of dealing with.
"As a result," Gingirch added, "... We're going to be non-competitive at the presidential level. We're doing great with governors. We have 30 governors with 315 electoral votes, but we're not doing well at the presidential level."
The former speaker hopes that change will come from his heavy-handed critique, saying, "I hope first of all that the major donors will think long and hard before they turn lots of money over to consultants," and that the GOP will realize "the entire party has to be capable of reaching out to America ... and in providing better solutions than the Democrats provide. You can't just be an opposition party. You have to be a party that has a better alternative."
Watch Newt Gingrich's full interview with Gayle King and Charlie Rose in the player:
From: lc Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 Subject: Mystery Box Under Bill and Hillary's Bed
The Box Under Bill & Hillary's Bed
When Bill and Hillary first got married Bill said, "I am putting a box under the bed. You must promise never to look in it."
In all their 30 years of marriage, Hillary never looked. On the afternoon of their 30th anniversary, curiosity got the best of her and she lifted the lid and peeked inside. In the box were 3 empty beer cans and $81,874.25 in cash.
She closed the box and put it back under the bed. Now that she knew what was in the box, she was doubly curious as to why there even was such a box with such contents. That evening, they were out for a special anniversary dinner.
After dinner, Hillary could no longer contain her curiosity and she confessed, saying, "I am so sorry, Bill. For all these years, I kept my promise and never looked into the box under our bed. However, today the temptation was too much and I gave in. But now I need to know, why do you keep the 3 beer cans in the box?"
Bill thought for a while and said, "I guess after all these years you deserve to know the truth. Whenever I was unfaithful to you, I put an empty beer can in the box under the bed to remind myself not to do it again."
Hillary was shocked, but said, "Hmmm, Jennifer, Paula and Monica. I am very disappointed and saddened by your behavior. However, since you are addicted to sex I guess it does happen and I guess 3 times is not that bad considering your problem."
Bill thanked her for being so understanding. They hugged and made their peace. A little while later Hillary asked Bill, "So why do you have all that money in the box?"
Bill answered: "Well, whenever the box filled up with empty cans, I took them to the recycling centre and redeemed them for cash."
From:Gun Owners of America Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2013 Subject: GOA MEMBERS: Vote Now on the Universal Background Check!
Gun Owners of America
Vote Now on the Universal Background Check!
If any item on the Obama gun agenda passes, it would be a universal background check requirement. Under this provision, every gun transaction -- dealer or private -- would be subject to a Brady Check.
GOA has argued that the universal background check is tantamount to a universal gun registry because:
(1) The FBI will keep the Brady Check records, and
Moreover, gun owners hate registration systems because they frequently serve as a prelude to gun confiscation -- as GOA has documented time and time again.
On the other side of the argument, Barack Obama argues that the universal background check will not result in a gun registry. Obama claims that a vast majority of gun owners support this and that sales will be completed quickly and easily -- and that checking all gun purchases will increase public safety.
"Big Bad Gun Lobby" Turns Out to Be Big and Bad, After AllWe're bigger and badder than the left thought...and it's making them crazy. Read the Full Story
by Louis E. Frenzelin Communiqué , Communications Editor, Electronic Design, February 7, 2013
Have you replaced all your incandescent light bulbs with CFLs yet? I haven't, but I have made a start replacing the bulbs as they have burned out. My guess is that I have about one half of my lighting by CFLs now with more to come. My conclusion is that CFLs serve the purpose but they flat do not put out the same amount of light even though I am saving energy. They are terrible for reading, at least in my opinion. A good old 150 or 200 watt incandescent cannot be beat.
As of the first of the year, the manufacture and sale of 75-watt incandescents is against the law. That ban happened to 100-watt bulbs last year. Next year, 60 and 40-watt bulbs go on the no-no list. All of that is due to the controversial Energy Independence and Security Act (ESIA) of 2007. The Act does not ban the actual use or purchase of these bulbs, just their manufacture and sale. As a result, it is hard to find a 100 watt bulb these days. The same for 75 and 60 watters. In fact most incandescents are in short supply. Several key light bulb factories in the U.S. have closed as a result. The whole idea is to force us all to save energy buy using more expensive CFL and LED bulbs. I like the energy savings idea but I hate the idea that the government is forcing this on us. Watch out for the light bulb police.
I had a couple of recessed kitchen floods go out recently. I really had to shop around for some of these. It took three stops before I found what I needed in a Home Depot. I paid just under $10 for a package of three 65-watt floods. The LED equivalents were $27 a pop. That make me wonder if light bulb manufacturers are cutting down on all bulbs, banned or not. I wonder when the light bulb smuggling and black market will begin?
One thing I did notice during bulb shopping was the increase in the number of halogen bulbs. These are incandescents but with the halogen gas they put out more lumens per watt than your basic incandescent. These are the legal incandescents. For example, the legal 72-watt halogen puts out the same lumens as an old style 100 watter. This is a good interim choice if you are still an incandescent lover.
I think the big question for the home owner is: Am I really saving money? Probably not. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration and the Department of Energy, residential lighting represents only 9 to 13% of total electrical power usage. Most electrical energy goes to refrigerators, air conditioning, water heaters, and other appliances. So if you replace all your bulbs with CFLs or LEDs you are only saving a fraction of your total electrical bill. Offset that with the higher cost of these high tech bulbs and you may break even. Since the newer bulbs last much longer, you may eventually come out ahead financially, but you won't actually feel any difference in the meantime. Is this saving energy? Yes, but is a small percentage per home. But it does add up if others are doing the same.
Am I happy about this? Yes and no. I especially like the fact that all the CFL and LED bulbs use lots of electronic parts. That is good for the industry and all of us. I just wish the government would not be so heavy handed in bringing about change that would probably have happened anyway.
Lou Frenzel is the Communications Technology Editor for Electronic Design Magazine where he writes articles, columns, blogs, technology reports, and online material on the wireless,...
From:Father Frank's AlertsSent: Monday, February 11, 2013bSubject: Help stop this butcher before he kills any more people!
STOP LeROY CARHART BEFORE HE KILLS ANYONE ELSE!
February 11, 2013
Jennifer Leigh Morbelli, a 29-year-old kindergarten teacher from White Plains, New York is dead. So is her baby girl, Madison Leigh.
Their killer is the abortionist LeRoy Carhart.
Jennifer is not the first woman this butcher is responsible for killing. In 2005, another one of his patients died from complications following an abortion procedure. She was a 19-year old girl named Christin Gilbert.
How many more women - and babies! - will the medical authorities in Maryland allow this man to kill before they act?
Hopefully none.
But that really depends on you and every other pro-life activist in the nation.
To do all you can to stop this butcher from killing more women and children: http://www.priestsforlife.org/alert/alert.aspx
This will take you to the Priests for Life website where we have set up an easy way for you to register your outrage with the Maryland Board of Physicians!
These individuals have the blood of Jennifer Morbelli and her daughter on their hands.
If they had acted justly when informed of LeRoy Carhart's past, both she and her daughter would be alive today.
So take a few minutes right now to make your voice heard.
If you want to write your own email to the Board, here is it's email address: mbpmail@rcn.com
Use this for the subject line of your email: Revoke LeRoy Carhart?s license before he kills more people!
In your email be sure to remind the Board that it had the chance to keep this butcher out of Maryland a couple years BUT FAILED TO TAKE THE NECESSARY ACTION TO DO SO!
Tell the Board?s members that they must right the wrong they committed in 2011.
Please, DO IT NOW ... before LeRoy Carhart can kill one more person.
Immediately after you do that, forward this email to everyone in your email contact list. Include a personal note urging them join you in this protest. We need as many people speaking out as we can muster!
You need to make your voice heard. You need to do so for Jennifer. For Christin. For all the women who entrust their lives to this callous man. And for all the fully developed, innocent babies this man has killed and will kill in the future.
The real tragedy of Jennifer Morbelli's death is that it could have been prevented.
When LeRoy Carhart applied for a medical license in Maryland back in 2010, Priests for Life and Operation Rescue joined forces to have the Maryland Board of Physicians reject his application.
Reams of documents were sent to the Medical Board. Including the fact that Carhart falsified the information he gave the Board on his application.
In a letter sent to Cheryl Sullenger at Operation Rescue "the person who did most of the research on Carhart and filed a 91-page complaint - the Board washed its hands of the matter. The telling sentence is this:
'Following a careful review of the matter, the Board voted to resolve this case by issuing an Advisory Letter to the above-mentioned physician [LeRoy Carhart].'"
As a direct result of the Maryland Board of Physicians' - careful review? and total inaction ... Jennifer Morbelli and her baby are dead!
Now it is time to hold that Board of Physicians accountable!
And to demand that it revoke Carhart?s license before he kills any more people!
But that won't happen unless you take action RIGHT NOW! You and all the People of Life in America.
So click on this link and make your voice heard: http://www.priestsforlife.org/alert/alert.aspx
And remember to forward this to everyone on your email list and ask them to join you in this cause.
The louder our voice, the better our chances of stopping this man from killing more women and babies.
Thank you. God bless you.
And please pray for the repose of the soul of Jennifer Morbelli and ask our merciful Father to comfort her grieving family.
Sincerely, Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life P.S. This is the type of immediate action Priests for Life must take if we are to win victory over abortion in America. But we are only able to do so thanks to the support and active participation of you and other Priests for Life supporters. To help make it possible for Priests for Life to conduct campaigns such as this one, please click here: https://www.priestsforlife.org/donate/donate-creditcard.aspx and be as generous as you can.
We offer various options for you to receive different emails from the different branches of our ministry. See how you can vary your preferences. Remember, we want to keep you in the loop!
Harrolds.Blogspot.com
Software and technology company Microsoft has officially launched its email service 
Universal Background Check!
Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director, Priests for Life