Sent from my iPhone
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Woman Caught Mocking Dying Girl Loses Custody of Her Own Kids
In a continuing shocking story that's captured national attention, Jennifer Petkov, the Michigan woman who has admitted taunting the family of a 7-year-old girl dying from Huntington's Disease, had her own parental rights stripped after a Wayne County Probate Court judge ruled on an emergency order. Petkov — who posted disturbing pictures of the dying girl on her Facebook and parked a coffin on the street in front of the girl's home — is being forced to relinquish custody of her eight-year-old daughter and five-year-old son to their father from a previous relationship until further notice.
According to local news reports, the father of Petkov's children filed for the emergency hearing shortly after the story broke.
In response, the community has come together to support the family of 7-year-old Kathleen Edward, the target of Petkov's harassment. The local West Grange Pharmacy in Trenton, Mich., hosted a fundraiser today for Edward's family, donating 20 percent of all toy and gift purchases at the pharmacy Wednesday.
"People (have) been coming in here today all day long leaving checks, leaving donations and literally crying because they were just so moved by what's going on," pharmacy owner Rich Grossman told WJBK, the local Fox affiliate.
"It was actually kind of a surprise for all of us. We … got a phone call a few days ago saying … to come down. They're going to do a benefit here, and we didn't know it was going to be this entailed, but it's great. She's been smiling all day," said Robert Edward, Kathleen's father.
Sent from my iPhone
Reid: Stimulus Saved Nearly 30,000 Jobs in Nevada, Cut Taxes, Prevented a Depression
In a section of the campaign site called "Setting the Record Straight," Reid defends the Stimulus Package, claiming that it was instrumental in saving the economy and creating jobs. Reid states that by January of 2010, the Stimulus had created "roughly 20,000 jobs." But he goes further:
The point that Reid is apparently trying to make is that the Stimulus not only saved millions of jobs countrywide, but saved billions of dollars. In fact, according to Reid, the Stimulus brought "$282 billion in tax relief." How the bill "saved" billions when it actually spent nearly a trillion dollars is not explained.
But the "benefits" of the Stimulus does not end at its supposed tax cuts and the billions it somehow saved. Reid states that the Stimulus Bill "countered the very worst of what was the largest economic crisis since the Great Depression and started us on the road to recovery." There are two major problems with this statement.
The first is that there is absolutely no consensus that the Stimulus helped the US economy. In fact, many people believe that the Bill actually hurt the United States because of its massive spending and the bureaucratic quagmire that it caused.
The second problem is that Reid refers to the Great Depression with the implicit intention to make people believe that without the Stimulus, the United States would fall into another depression. I will not even deal with something so ludicrous. Spending trillions of dollars blindly does not help the United States economy.
I suppose that Senator Reid feels that it is all right to lie to the American people and his constituents. I say he is wrong. If you agree with Reid, feel free to vote for him. I you agree with me, that the American people need honest people in charge, then vote for Sharron Angle. It's up to you.
Remember to subscribe and comment!
Sent from my iPhone
Shocker: Some prefer to stay unemployed because it pays better than a job
You know the economy has become truly screwy when it pays more to collect jobless benefits than to get an actual job.Just another cog in the liberal machine to get the entire population dependent on the government.
The economy is so weak and jobs are so scarce that some people are finding that it isn't worth it to work. ...The MSNBC piece then descends into anecdotalitis. Here in Oakland County, thousands in county to lose jobless benefits. The point is, a good paycheck trumps a welfare check, and that is the difference between conservative and liberal policies. In that regards, anyone notice that Obama has been an utter failure in jobs?:
About 8 million people are now collecting some form of unemployment aid, but how much they take home varies widely depending on what state they live in and how much they made previously.
![]() |
| Graph credit: Gateway Pundit |
Sent from my iPhone
Illinois League of Women Voters Big Shot Who Bashed Pledge of Allegiance, Is Former ACORN Worker
Sent from my iPhone
American Al-Qaeda Spokesman Praises Ft. Hood Shooter – Calls For Attacks

This image from video provided by the SITE Intelligence Group shows Adam Gadahn as he appeared on a video released on militant websites on Oct. 23, 2010. The U.S.-born spokesman for al-Qaida on Saturday urged Muslims living in the United States and Europe to carry out attacks there, calling it a duty and an obligation. (AP)
American Al Qaeda pig Adama Gadahn released a new tape today. He praised the Ft. Hood killer and urged more attacks on Americans.
The New York Daily News reported:
Al Qaeda's American mouthpiece Saturday urged wannabe terrorists in a new video to act alone instead of trying to join cells attempting 9/11-type spectacular strikes.
Californian Adam Gadahn urged individual violent jihad in a 40-minute tape, which endorsed an Al Qaeda ally's call last week for sympathizers to mimic the Ft. Hood killings and attempted bombings over Detroit last Christmas and in Times Square in May.
"My brothers: know that Jihad is your duty," Gadahn ranted in Arabic. "You have an opportunity to strike the leaders of unbelief and retaliate against them on their own soil."
The message is significant because Osama Bin Laden's operational goal has long been to kill hundreds, if not thousands, in simultaneous multiple attacks on U.S. targets with cells of extremists – and Gadahn speaks for Al Qaeda.
Sent from my iPhone
Good News: Michigan loses another 12,700 jobs in September. The state is also losing $2.5 billion in
Which brings us to cause and effect. It's time for liberals to admit that forced unionization is hurting the state. Nobody has yet explained to me how forced unionization is constitutional, especially for state employees. While forced unionization states like Michigan continue to bleed jobs, right to work states are gaining jobs. From Michigan Capitol Confidential: Michigan Loses $2.5 billion Yearly Income; Right to Work States Gain BillionsMichigan lost jobs in September and maintained the nation's second-highest unemployment rate at 13 percent behind Nevada's 14.4 percent, the U.S. Department of Labor reported today.
The predictable result of liberal policies
The next three states were California at 12.4 percent, Florida at 11.9 percent and Rhode Island at 11.5 percent.
Michigan lost its position four months ago as the state with the nation's highest unemployment rate to Nevada. Michigan had held that distinction for four years until Nevada surged to a 14 percent unemployment rate in May, while the Great Lakes state came in at 13.6 percent.
...Michigan ...experiencing what the bureau called a "statistically significant" decrease of 12,700 jobs. One of the reasons the state still saw its jobless rate decrease is that more people stopped looking for work or left the state, Comerica Inc. Chief Economist Dana Johnson told a Livonia audience of bank clients on Thursday.
Michigan lost $2.5 billion in income from 2007 to 2008 as people migrated out of the state, trailing only California ($4 billion) and New York ($2.52 billion) in lost income, according to a calculation by The Tax Foundation.Shocker - states run by liberals are going down the toilet.
The Tax Foundation, a non-profit, non-partisan educational organization in Washington D.C., provides a "migration calculator" that can track where people are moving and taking their paychecks with them.
...The calculation also shows that the top ten states hit the hardest in terms of gross lost income were all forced-unionization states. Yet, nine of the 12 states that showed the largest growth in income were right-to-work states. The National Right To Work Legal Defense Foundation defines states as right-to-work if the law guarantees that no person can be forced, as a condition of employment, to join or not to join, nor to pay dues to a labor union.Liberal are only pro-choice when it comes to murdering babies.
UPDATE: From John Stossel at Reason via Instapundit: Public-Sector Unions Choke Taxpayers
"I thought unions were great—until at Chrysler, the union steward started screaming at me. Working at an unhurried pace, I'd exceeded 'production' for that job."
That comment, left on my blog by a viewer who watched my show about unions, matches my experience. No one ordered me to slow down, but union rules and union culture at ABC and CBS slowed the work. Sometimes a camera crew took five minutes just to get out of the car.
Now unions conspire with politicians to rip off taxpayers.
Steve Melanga of the Manhattan Institute complains that politicians get union political support by granting government workers generous pensions and health benefits. After those politicians leave office, taxpayers are liable for trillions in unfunded promises.
"It's squeezing out all other spending," Melanga says. "Where are we going to get this $3 trillion dollars? ... When they're (government workers) allowed to retire at 58 and the rest of us are retiring at 60 and 67—and by the way we're living to 80—it's crazy. The public sector is the version of the European welfare state which, by the way, in Europe, they're actually rolling back."Read the whole thing.
Sent from my iPhone
WaPo reluctantly admits to some fire under all that smoke at the DOJ [Darleen Click]
Some interesting nuggets along the way in an article that basically confirms the bias against white victims of voter intimidation at the Justice Department.
Interviews and government documents reviewed by The Washington Post show that the case tapped into deep divisions within the Justice Department that persist today over whether the agency should focus on protecting historically oppressed minorities or enforce laws without regard to race.
WaPo attempts to frame this as "politicized from the start" and entirely driven "by Republican poll watchers and officials and a conservative Web site". Yet —
In recent months, Adams and a Justice Department colleague have said the case was dismissed because the department is reluctant to pursue cases against minorities accused of violating the voting rights of whites. Three other Justice Department lawyers, in recent interviews, gave the same description of the department's culture, which department officials strongly deny. [...]
Civil rights officials from the Bush administration have said that enforcement should be race-neutral. But some officials from the Obama administration, which took office vowing to reinvigorate civil rights enforcement, thought the agency should focus primarily on cases filed on behalf of minorities.
"The Voting Rights Act was passed because people like Bull Connor were hitting people like John Lewis, not the other way around," said one Justice Department official not authorized to speak publicly, referring to the white Alabama police commissioner who cracked down on civil rights protesters such as Lewis, now a Democratic congressman from Georgia.
Voter intimidation isn't just a function of melanin, but a function of power. And in districts or counties in which we find the "minority" population is actually people of pallor?
Before the New Black Panther controversy, another case had inflamed those passions. Ike Brown, an African American political boss in rural Mississippi, was accused by the Justice Department in 2005 of discriminating against the county's white minority. It was the first time the 1965 Voting Rights Act was used against minorities and to protect whites.
Coates and Adams later told the civil rights commission that the decision to bring the Brown case caused bitter divisions in the voting section and opposition from civil rights groups.
Three Justice Department lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they feared retaliation from their supervisors, described the same tensions, among career lawyers as well as political appointees. Employees who worked on the Brown case were harassed by colleagues, they said, and some department lawyers anonymously went on legal blogs "absolutely tearing apart anybody who was involved in that case," said one lawyer.
"There are career people who feel strongly that it is not the voting section's job to protect white voters," the lawyer said. "The environment is that you better toe the line of traditional civil rights ideas or you better keep quiet about it, because you will not advance, you will not receive awards and you will be ostracized."
Of course, the public face of Obama's DOJ is different than its internal face …
In the months after the case ended, tensions persisted. A new supervisor, Julie Fernandes, arrived to oversee the voting section, and Coates testified that she told attorneys at a September 2009 lunch that the Obama administration was interested in filing cases – under a key voting rights section – only on behalf of minorities.
"Everyone in the room understood exactly what she meant," Coates said. "No more cases like the Ike Brown or New Black Panther Party cases." [...]
Holder, in a speech last year to the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs said the department's "commitment to Equal Protection – and to full participation in our nation's elections – will not waiver. Never."
It would appear "Equal Protection" in the Obama Administration doesn't mean what regular Americans think it means.
How's that "post-racial" thing going for you, Barry?
h/t Verum Serum
Sent from my iPhone


