Ahhhhhh.

well…..time to “get a room”…..good night all you dodge ball’as and four square kings….

aarrrrrccch……I just bit you. And I know you liked it…..

Just when I thought I was getting in shape. SURPRISE!!! Heavy cardio has a way of showing you that your not.

What happened to the patriotic Capt America, must be the red skull masquerading as him. Comic book writers must be Socialist to be in vogue with congress.

BAZINGA!

…..he worked hard and came home dirty…but oh so sexy…glad to have my honey home!

Israeli opposition leader Tzipi Livni is planning to come to London to test the process for the issuing of arrest warrants for alleged war crimes. Speaking exclusively to the JC, Ms Livni said: “I will do this not for me, not for provocation, but for the right of every Israeli to travel freely. I am not going to be restricted by extremists because I fought terror.”

The British system was, she said, “being abused by extremists for political reasons. Belgium and Spain have changed their laws, and the British know that they have to do so”.

Asked when she planned to come to London, she said she was considering a number of invitations. The JC understands from a source close to Ms Livni that, should the parliamentary deadline of February 23 pass without an announcement of a change in the law, she would take up one of the invitations within weeks.

If the law did not change, she said she would consult the Israeli Foreign Ministry on the exact legal situation, but would seek to act on behalf of all Israelis by visiting London.

Children raised by lesbian parents fare as well as they would in heterosexual households, new research suggests.

The finding, which comes from a review of essentially all studies on the topic of same-sex parents and the health of their children, helps to tease out politics and science on this highly divisive issue. In general, kids in both heterosexual and lesbian households had similar levels of academic achievement, number of friends and overall well-being.

Whether or not kids from homosexual households are more likely to have a non-heterosexual orientation is still unknown. But if there is a genetic component to sexual orientation, it would make sense that kids born to a lesbian mom, say, would be more likely than other kids to be homosexual, scientists say.

At the end of the day, what matters to kids is far deeper than parents’ gender or sexual orientation, the research suggests.

“The family type that is best for children is one that has responsible, committed, stable parenting,” said study researcher Judith Stacey of New York University. “Two parents are, on average, better than one, but one really good parent is better than two not-so-good ones.”

Here are some highlights of the findings:

* In a study of nearly 90 teens, half living with female same-sex couples and the others with heterosexual couples, both groups fared similarly in school. Teen boys in same-sex households had grade point averages of about 2.9, compared with 2.65 for their counterparts in heterosexual homes. Teen girls showed similar results, with a 2.8 for same-sex households and 2.9 for girls in heterosexual families.

* In another study, teens were asked about delinquent activities, such as damaging others’ property, shoplifting and getting into fights, in the previous year. Teens in both same-sex and heterosexual households got essentially the same average scores of about 1.8 on a scale from 1 to 10 (with higher scores meaning more delinquent behaviors.)

* A 2008 study comparing 78 lesbian families in the United States with their counterparts (lesbian households) in the Netherlands, showed American kids were more than twice as likely as the Dutch to be teased about their mothers’ sexual orientation.

Stacey says she doesn’t think kids growing up in lesbian households get teased more than other kids; it’s just that when they do get teased, the target is the non-traditional household, rather than some other aspect of their life or identity.

The Palestinian economy is the only place in the world where the per capita GDP is less than half the disposable income per capita. This is the result of three factors:

1. The Palestinians barely produce anything. Most of their GDP comes from government expenditures by the PA itself.

2. The Palestinians receive immense sums donated by the world.

3. Tax collection is almost unheard of, aside from the taxes collected (for Fayyad) by the Israeli government, which provides the PA with NIS 450 million (roughly $120 million) monthly; this comprises about 40% of the PA’s budget.

The result is clear: Low GDP, but high disposable income. Indeed, it’s an economic miracle.

Meanwhile, the situation is even more extreme in the Gaza Strip, where the PA spends 57% of its budget. Fayyad hands over salaries and allowances to 150,000 people, yet tens of thousands of them don’t work, while others receive two salaries: One from Fayyad and another from Hamas. This is why the only industries active in Gaza are imports through smuggling tunnels and real estate – the surplus of cash in Gaza’s banks prompts them to offer mortgages, and this results in a rise in real estate prices.

The former finance minister in Fayyad’s government expressed it vividly in an interview with Le Monde: He said the Europeans are unaware that their money funds Hamas. Hamas doesn’t know what to do with all the money in its pockets so it buys real estate. As result, the price of upscale beachfront real estate in Gaza increased by 300%. The money from the EU and from the taxes collected by Israel ultimately reaches Hamas, he said.

Joel Pollak, stalwart for the United States and Israel, is running for Congress in Illinois’ 9th Congrerssional District. His victory will be a defeat for J Street (in addition to being a victory for sound fiscal and economic policy). His opponent, Jan Schakowsky, is a recipient of J Street Pac money. Bought and paid for by Jeremy Ben Ami and George Soros. A Harvard trained attorney, Joel has fought for America and Israel and last year took on the humble, Barney Frank at a Harvard Kennedy School forum

Jan Schakowsky Leads Offensive Against the US-Israel Relationship
Peggy Shapiro February 5, 2010

“What she [Jan Schakowsky] has said to me for the last ten years on questions of the Middle East is, ‘Where are you guys?’ You march on the war, you do everything, civil rights, you get Barack elected, but when it comes to Middle Eastern politics, the only folks I ever hear from are the AIPAC people.’…

Marilyn Katz, President of MK Communications, speaking at the J Street Chicago Launch on February 4, 2010.

Representative Jan Schakowsky, apparently tired of hearing from those pesky Jews who are worried about Israel’s security, is leading the charge against the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), a bi-partisan lobby whose single mission is a strong US-Israel relationship. (AIPAC does not endorse, rate or support candidates.) To neutralize AIPAC’s effectiveness, Schakowsky joined forces with J-Street, the political action committee which, according to its founder Ben-Ami, was founded to counter AIPAC. She hosted the J Street gala in D.C. and spoke via teleconference at the launch of J StreetChicago on Feb. 4, 2010. (Transcript and audio link of Schakowsky’s remark below)

In her address, Schakowsky proudly announced, “I’ve been a supporter of J Street since its inception.”

Although J Street calls itself a “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace PAC,” it spouts the staples of the anti-Israel narrative (Walt and Mearsheimer) which blames the nefarious pro-Israel lobby for stopping the U.S. from imposing concessions on Israel and accuses mainstream Jewish organizations of being “right wing” and having a strangle-hold on Congress. Michael Oren, Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S. characterized J Street as “a unique problem in that it not only opposes one policy of one Israeli government, it opposes all policies of all Israeli governments.” It defends the egregiously biased Goldstone Commission Report; (Note: Morton H. Halperin, J Street council member, was discovered to be the author of the letter supposedly written by Goldstone defending his report.), opposes further sanctions on Iran and advocates rescinding those in place, demands a freeze on all Jewish construction beyond the 1949 armistice lines, including Jerusalem, calls for indefensible borders for Israel, blames Israel for the absence of peace and calls for increased U.S. pressure on Israel, but does not demand a cessation of violence against Israelis or even a recognition of Israel.

The Congresswoman who is annoyed by pro-Israel advocates finds herself more at home with J Street presenters, who include Israel bashers such as Salam al-Marayati, a proponent of the theory that Israelwas the likely source of the attacks on the WorldTradeCenter. Even liberal commentators such as Matthew Yglesias understand that J Street attendees share Schakowsky’s discomfort with a pro-Israel message. “My J Street button said “Pro-Israel, Pro-Peace.” … “But when we moved to the Q&A time it became clear that a number of people in the audience really were quite uncomfortable self-defining as “pro-Israel” in any sense and that others are uncomfortable with the basic Zionist concept of a Jewish national state.”

Schakowsky, one of the major recipients of J Street funding, stated at the Chicago event, “I’m proud to be among J Street’s first round of endorsed candidates.” The source of J Street’s funding shines a light on its real mission. J Street’s political action committee received contributions from traditionally anti-Israel groups. According to filings with the FEC, one tenth of J Street’s budget of $3 million comes from. Arab-, Iranian-, and Muslim Americans,board members of the discredited Human Rights Watch, and the Iranian lobby.

Jan Schakowsky needs the radical left J Street for her offensive against the 62-year US-Israel relationship, an alliance of democracies with shared values. “I know my friend Jan Schakowsky has said to her girlfriends: ‘Help me. Help me have a progressive wing so I can resist the kind of pressure I get from those who would see only Israel’s defense and not its annihilation of the Palestinians.’” – Marilyn Katz, President of MK CommunicationsFebruary 4, 2010

I have a message for Schakowsky, my congressional representative. “Girlfriend, I will be happy to relieve you of all the pressure you get from Americans who believe that Israel is entitled to the same self protection and self determination as all other nations. Since we are here to stay, we will be happy to show you out in the 2010 election.

Angela and Maryanne Vourlis, both 20, learnt the grim news that Bobby, 17, had died in the triple fatality after logging on to the social networking site to read their birthday messages.

Instead they were confronted with online tributes from friends of their brother, who together with Chris Naylor, 19, and Kelsie Coleman, 15, died in the accident Sydney’s west in the early hours of Sunday.

Distressed and confused by the hundreds of "RIP messages" they were reading online, the pair tried desperately to phone the boat mechanic, but without luck, local reports said.

Becoming increasingly concerned, their mother then rang the local police station to ask if the messages were correct.

An officer then confirmed her son had died in the crash six hours earlier.

Sydney police have since been forced to defend their actions, saying the family were informed because authorities had been unable to confirm the dead teenager’s identify.

"I didn’t get it. All these people were writing, ‘RIP Chris Naylor’ and ‘RIP Bobby’, and I thought: ‘What’s going on?’," Angela told local media.

“I kept ringing and messaging but couldn’t get on to him. So I rang Mum and said: ‘Chris Naylor must have died – I just read it on Facebook. But where’s Bobby? People are writing about Bobby, too’,” she said.

Her mother then replied: “Bobby was with Chris Naylor last night.”

Peter Matelis, the dead teenager’s uncle, said it “beggared belief” that police had not contacted the family immediately after the accident.

"It’s every parent’s worst nightmare to lose a child in a car accident, but to have to hear it on Facebook, then have to chase up the police yourself, is just horrifying," he said.

Did You Feel the Earth Move?

By Jim Yardley, American Thinker, 2/8/10

The earth is shifting under our feet, and the political class, both in elected officialdom and in the unelected punditocracy, appear to be oblivious. They still believe that there are only Democrats and Republicans, and anything else is a “fringe” group. In their view, Progressives and Tea Party members are equivalent in their impact on the major parties. Nothing could be more in error, and nothing works more in favor of the Progressives than having the electorate view them as such.

The Tea Party convention this past weekend was a truly seismic event — not in the sense that it will shake the establishment out of their rigid system of beliefs, but as a moment historians can point to when describing the sea change occurring in the terms of our national debate.

The ascendancy of the two major political parties has ended. It’s over. Kaput. Oh, we may still use the labels “Democrat” and “Republican” for the sake of convenience, but they will be only the shells for a completely different set of political philosophies. In reality, the two contending belief systems are no longer “liberal” and “liberal light.”

The Democrats have been infiltrated by Progressives, morphing from “liberal benevolence” to “statist command and control.” No longer is it enough to help the downtrodden or disadvantaged. No longer is true equality of opportunity the goal to be pursued. The new goal is the equality of result, with the power to define the result concentrated in Washington. In the past, Democrats supported the union movement as a way to allow the “common man” to join together in offsetting the power of huge corporations. Today, the unions control the Democrats with massive financial support. Since they’re paying the piper, they’re calling the tune. And the tune is to ensure that their agenda becomes legislation…legislation that cripples the corporations who are forced to hire only union members, pay well above competitive wages, and provide extraordinary fringe benefits, and who have no chance to fight for their demands on a level playing field.

This same logical structure — that is, using the force of government to shift the playing field to be more in favor of the “little guy” as the justification for using the government to completely unbalance the playing field — is seen in the immense support for Democrats by trial lawyers. Of course, as with the unions, the trial lawyers provide huge amounts of cash to Democrat candidates, and those candidates essentially do what they’re told. That’s the simple reason why there is not one word about tort reform in any of the multiple versions of Obamacare.

The Democrats have almost monopolized the racial component of politics, even though they fought equal rights for over a century. Even I can remember the segment of the Democratic caucus called “Dixiecrats.” This group fought long and hard to maintain the “separate but equal” philosophy of racial equality, and yet, Democrats have somehow convinced African-Americans, and now the Latino population, that they are the champions of equal rights. Having realized that the Dixiecrats were providing a losing election formula, and winning elections is what it’s all about, Democrats began to provide massive financial support for these minorities in the Great Society bills of the 1960s. They have added to these financial handouts continuously since then. Like the unions, the trial lawyers and other supporting groups, the Democrats now apply the same rules to their beneficiaries. Our money means our rules. So you will vote for Democrats to keep the support flowing.

Because this has been a winning strategy for the Democrats, the Republican leadership has responded by becoming the “liberal light” brand. They no longer strongly support business, national defense, and the pocketbook of the ordinary taxpayer. The conservative element within the Republican party view almost all their political principles through the lens of social regulation. While Democrats want a “command and control” system to direct public activity such as the economy, education, and so on, the conservative element of the Republicans want the same “command and control” ability, but they want to apply it to more private activity, such as abortion, sex education, the rights of homosexuals of both genders, and so on. And in many election districts, this means that they are losing. Republicans have become identified with the conservative ideological positions, and many Americans believe that these positions are too extreme to win their vote.

All this sounds familiar, since we’ve been living with it for about fifty years. But this past weekend, it changed. It shattered. The Tea Parties have decided to crash the party.

The Tea Party movement has a libertarian basis. That’s libertarian with a small “l,” not Libertarian as in the political party. This is a movement based on the belief that on social issues, they can be liberal, while on public issues, they tend to be conservative. I worked out my own simple definition of libertarianism a few years ago:

I really don’t care what you do, as long as you don’t hurt anyone. Just don’t even think about asking me to pay for it.

Right now a significant plurality of Americans finds this political philosophy attractive. Those folks in the Tea Party movement are highly energized. And a huge majority of Americans are disgusted with both parties. This creates a highly unstable political environment, and there are only three possible outcomes:

* The Tea Party movement fizzles, and we go on as usual, periodically alternating Democrat and Republican control of the government, allowing Progressives in control of the Democrats to incrementally shift the country into a form that pleases them and satisfies their psychotic need to control everything and everyone in it.
* The Tea Party movement forms an independent political party, splitting the non-union, non-minority electorate, forcing both themselves and the Republicans into the position of impotent minority parties.
* The Tea Party takes a page from the Progressives and takes over the Republican party, and then moves to fight the Progressives.

I know that there has been some blather among the punditocracy that the Republicans will make use of the Tea Party movement, but I contend that such comments illustrate the idea that the political class is oblivious to the seismic shift in the country. As we move through the 2010 midterm elections, which will almost undoubtedly result in significant changes in the makeup of both the Senate and House, Liberals/Progressives/Democrats will get ever more desperate to retain control. Desperate people make strategically indefensible errors in judgment. Such errors will highlight the differences between Progressives and libertarians.

Republicans, having painted themselves into a corner as “liberal-light,” cannot provide the libertarian (again, small “l”) responses that will appeal to the return-to-basic-principles political philosophy that seems to resonate with today’s electorate. Those ideas will find their source in the Tea Party movement, which will strongly influence the Republicans in the midterm elections, and in the general election in 2012.

So, the days of the Democrat versus the Republican are over. No more “liberal” versus “liberal-light.” The labels may stay the same, but the true battles in the future will be Progressive versus libertarian. It will be a fight that will last for a generation at least, but when you look at the faces at Tea Parties, there are enough younger activists to ensure that they have the shock troops they need to fight the Progressive command-and-control mentality.