Bad Apples In Every Profession

In today's online edition of the Daily Times you can read about a Delaware County Deputy Sheriff who was arrested after being charged with threatening his estranged wife and her 9-year-old son with a gun. The Deputy, Martin Hineman, was arrested at a local Wawa after a brief manhunt. Thank God no one was hurt, unlike what happened to these people out in Wisconsin. Bottom line? Everyone has the ability to snap. Even those who carry guns in their profession. To the anti gun people I say: What do you do about this?

Why the GOP must nominate Ron Paul

It's time Republicans here in Pennsylvania take notice of Ron Paul. Ron Paul is a true Conservative, and no one can spin his record, including the MSM shills like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Rielly, or Shawn Hannity, so called "Republican Conservative commentators. Even the Democrats cannot fathom what Ron Paul is about. Instead they choose skanky Hillary Clinton, a woman who has no intentions of withdrawing out of the M.E. Myself, like Erin, are quite aware that Ron Paul is a long shot to win. But I'd rather vote for Hillary than a guy who dresses up in drag and uses 9/11 as his platform. Read on... SmallGovTimes.com By: Joe Dumas Published on 10/02/07 Why must the Republican Party nominate a 72-year-old grandfather from the Gulf Coast of Texas, until the past few months little known outside his district, as its 2008 standard-bearer? Very simple: the alternative is eight years of President Hillary Clinton. That ought to be enough to get the attention of every conservative who happens upon these words, so let me explain. It should come as no big revelation to anyone inside or outside of the Republican Party that the GOP has lost touch with its conservative roots. Massive deficit spending that would make Bill Clinton or Jimmy Carter blush; foreign adventurism beyond the wildest dreams of Woodrow Wilson or Teddy Roosevelt; more big government programs than FDR or LBJ (Google “Medicare expansion” for a massive example) ... the Republican Party of the early 21st century is clearly not your father’s or grandfather’s GOP. There are no more Robert Tafts, no more Barry Goldwaters, not even any more Ronald Reagans (as imperfect as he turned out to be after reaching the White House) ... except one: Ron Paul. Dr. Paul (an OB/GYN who has delivered more than 4,000 babies) is the last, best hope for the GOP to reclaim its once-upon-a-time status as the party of limited government. It isn’t his status as the leading advocate of limited, Constitutional government that makes Ron Paul a must-nominate for the GOP, though. It is true that in the long run, the Republican Party needs him to help it reclaim its nearly dead conservative spirit, and this indeed will be his lasting legacy. But, in the short run, the party needs him to win the 2008 election and save the country from another Clinton presidency that would be far worse than the first. (Unlike Bill, who was apparently mainly involved in politics to get the attention of the ladies, Hillary is a true believer in socialism; and, with a Democratic majority in Congress, she will have an excellent opportunity to expedite its widespread implementation in America.) Fact one: Hillary Clinton will win the 2008 Democratic nomination. She is an experienced, cut-throat politician with deep ties in the party, and can take Barack Obama down pretty much any time she wants to. And John Edwards is not serious about pursuing the nomination. He is just positioning himself to be the VP nominee again, because in the wake of the 2006 Congressional elections he believes that Hillary will win the Presidency by taking a few key states where John Kerry fell short. Long story short: forget the others – Hillary is the woman to beat in 2008. Fact two: The 2008 election will be won by the candidate who most credibly addresses the growing anti-war sentiment that has been embraced by the majority of the country’s voters. (Google “2006 mid-term elections.”) 70% or more of Americans want our troops out of Iraq, and for many of them, it is the defining issue of the campaign. You may agree or disagree, but it’s a fact and it is going to decide the 2008 Presidential election. If it comes down to Hillary Clinton vs. any of the “establishment” Republican candidates, she wins by default. She may have voted for the war originally, but she will continue to claim that she was misled by the Republican administration, and that we should trust her to make things right. (Of course she won’t really get us out of the Middle East mess, but Joe Six-Pack won’t figure that out until after she wins the election.) If any of the supposed “front runner” Republican candidates (Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, John McCain, or Fred Thompson) wins the GOP nomination, Hillary Clinton is essentially a lock. Not only will she win over a sizable portion of the independent vote with her (perceived) status as “the anti-war candidate,” but – simply put – the GOP will not turn out its base in sufficient numbers to win. Nominate Rudy Giuliani? Conservative, red-state voters are not going to turn out to support a gun-grabbing Northern liberal faux Republican who dresses in drag and is a charter member of the Wife-Of-The-Month Club. The social conservatives, along with the fiscal conservatives and the key swing voters (libertarians and constitutionalists) will either stay home on Election Day or vote third party. Rudy won’t even carry his home state, and ask Al Gore how that usually works out. Slam dunk, Hillary wins. Nominate Mitt Romney? You get basically the same result as Giuliani without the (bogus) “America’s Mayor” 9/11 cachet. Conservatives in the South and West won’t turn out for the former governor of “Taxachusetts” who has flip-flopped on virtually every issue they hold dear. The fact that Romney is a Mormon won’t help him with the mainstream Christian base, either. He probably can’t win the GOP nomination, but even if he does, Romney is toast in the general election. Nominate John McCain? Not gonna happen. His campaign has taken a nose dive from which it will be virtually impossible to recover. As of the end of the second quarter, even (supposed) long-shot Ron Paul had more cash on hand - and, when the third quarter numbers come in, McCain will be even further behind in the money game. He probably won’t even be in the top five on the GOP side. Stick a fork in him, he’s done. And even if he could pull off the apparently impossible and come back to win the Republican nomination, he loses to Hillary on the war and many domestic issues as well. Fred Thompson? He’s the last hope of those Republicans who are looking for a “mainstream” candidate to save them from looming, seemingly inevitable defeat in 2008. On the surface, he appears to have more of a chance than the previously mentioned “big three.” After all, he has the “actor factor.” It worked for Reagan and, more recently, Arnold Schwarzenegger in California – couldn’t it work for Fred, too? Well, no, not this time around. Like Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson is reasonably good at reading a script. Unlike the Gipper, though, Fred is just awful at speaking extemporaneously. In case anyone was wondering why Thompson waited so long to declare his candidacy, it’s obvious to those who know anything about his abilities and liabilities: he wanted to avoid as many debates as possible. Like Obama on the Democratic side, Thompson is an empty suit. He looks reasonably presentable, but sooner or later he has to open his mouth, and when he does he doesn’t say anything of substance. And not only does he lack speaking skills and charisma, but his positions (if one can call them that) are mush. If possible, he flip-flops even more than Giuliani or Romney. The less he speaks in public (especially with other candidates around to rebut him), the better for Fred. Unfortunately for Thompson, while he has so far been able to duck any direct confrontation with his GOP rivals, he won’t be able to avoid debating Hillary if he wins the Republican nomination. And about five minutes into the first debate, with no “Law and Order” writers to put words in his mouth, it will be over. Game, set, match, Hillary. Oh, and by the way, the one issue on which Fred Thompson has come closest to articulating something resembling a consistent position is our continued involvement in Iraq. He’s for it. That’s not going to fly in November 2008 any more than it did in November 2006. When you look at it objectively, there isn’t a single one of the “Big Four” GOP candidates who can beat Hillary Clinton head-to-head. And none of the “second tier” candidates (Huckabee, Brownback, Hunter, Tancredo, et al) have stepped up to the challenge. Really, there is only one remaining viable Republican candidate: You guessed it, Ron Paul. Only Ron Paul can take advantage of the Internet the way Howard Dean did before he imploded four years ago. Indeed, he has already captured the Internet ... the Ron Paul Revolution is already in full swing online. It sure was nice of Al Gore to invent the Net for Ron Paul supporters to take over, wasn’t it? Only Ron Paul can outflank Hillary Clinton both to the left on the war and civil liberties, and to the right on everything else ... which is the only winning strategy the Republicans can plausibly employ in 2008. Only Ron Paul, who is truly pro-family (married to the same woman for over 50 years, with 5 children and 18 grandchildren – no “trophy wives” here) can motivate the socially conservative base to actually turn out and vote. Only Ron Paul, who wants to eliminate the IRS (and a host of other federal agencies) and stop the Federal Reserve from devaluing our money through runaway, printing-press inflation, can motivate the fiscally conservative base to cast a GOP ballot in 2008. Only Ron Paul can keep the Libertarians and Constitution Party members from splintering off to support their own third-party nominees rather than another neo-con, Bush clone Republican. (In fact, the 2004 nominees of the Constitution Party and the Libertarian Party, Michael Peroutka and Michael Badnarik, have both already endorsed Ron Paul’s candidacy.) While the LP and CP typically command only a small fraction of the overall vote, that may well be enough to turn the tide in a crucial state or two. Ask Al Gore if he could have used half a million, or even a few thousand, of Ralph Nader’s votes in 2000.... Yes, when you look at things objectively, there are only two candidates who can win the White House in 2008: Hillary Clinton and Ron Paul. The contrast could not be more stark, nor the results for the future of America more divergent. If you are a social or fiscal conservative, a libertarian, a constitutionalist, or just an independent concerned about the future of our country ... now is the time to consider your options and act accordingly while there is still time to affect the outcome. The Ron Paul Revolution has begun!

Spotlight - Joyce Baldassarre Photography

Joyce is one of our members over at Delco Singles, a singles network for local people to get to know each other.

From her web site: Hi and thank you for visitng my site. All my life I have had a passion for photography. and now I want to share my passion with others. Please take some time, go through my galleries, and enjoy!!!! I live in Brookhaven, PA, just outside of Philadelphia, close to Delaware and New Jersey, so I am available almost anywhere in the tri-state area, even northern Maryland. If you have an upcoming event I hope you will consider using my services. I offer a great package at a reasonable price. I promise PERSONAL attention and care. I don't just have clients, I MAKE FRIENDS. In addition to this website I also have photos posted at: http://www.betterphoto.com/gallery/gallery.asp?memberID=52180 Joyce Baldassarre 610-836-1774

If your looking for an experienced photographer for your Wedding, Engagement, Family Portrait, etc, give her a call and she will be happy to work with you.

Cheers.

A Message for the drug addict

Yeah you Rush Limbaugh you loudmouthed creep. You and O' Lielly can rot in hell..

Going To The Dogs?

I read recently that our current County Council is going to turn Kent Park into a "Dog Park", at a cost of over $440 thousand dollars. My sons and me like to fish in that area, especially above the dam. While the concept of this park is a noble one, Imagine the legal ramifications of having it. Let's say a dog (like one of those nasty pit bulls) gets loose and mauls a child? Or the same pit bull attacks my little Chihuahua? Quote from the County Web Site: "There is a lot of public support across the county for dog parks. These are facilities set aside for dogs and their owners to exercise and play off-leash in a controlled environment,” Cartisano said. “This isn’t just a dog issue; it’s a people issue. We want to establish a fenced-in dog park where well-behaved canines can exercise in a clean, safe environment without disturbing other people, wildlife or property.” "Well-behaved canines" means over 70 percent of dogs (including our dog) will not be allowed into the park. C'mon now. Dogs hate other dogs. Chihuahua's are mean and nasty. Our's was an SPCA dog, and after he gotten sick, the vet saw evidence of abuse (cracked ribs), etc from the former owners. So will they have an obedience school at our disposal there? "A clean, safe environment without disturbing other people, wildlife or property." And the issue of trying to fish while hundreds of barking, snarling mutts isn't my cup of tea either. What about the locals? Would you like to work 3rd shift and have to come home to hear mutts barking while being forced to smell dog crap? My answer is to build a recreation center, complete with a "skate park". The youth of Delaware County need s p a c e more so than "Man's best friend". Kids today are in some areas (Springfield) forbidden to skateboard on public property. I would be the first to volunteer to oversee the children, and maybe even strap on my Rollerblades and show them a thing or two. To those who remember "Tot Lot", and "Box Hockey" in UD. Those were the good old days, before X Box, PS2, and even this Pandora's box in which I type this post, items that rob America's youth of an interactive personal childhood, complete with fights, friendship, competitiveness, and scraping your knee. Build a decent recreation center FOR CHILDREN, Not DOGS. Cheers. UPDATE - 7/22/08: According to the News Of Delaware County, The Dog Park is officially open tomorrow. Will Oni bring her Pit Bull to meet my Chihuahua? Posted on Tue, Jul 22, 2008 New county dog park opens July 24 in Upper Darby Delaware County Council invites dog owners who have well-behaved canines to enjoy the county's first dog park, located in Kent Park in Upper Darby.Dog owners can let their canine pals romp unleashed in the fenced-in facility, which is part of an overall renovation to the Kent Park facility. The dog park is part of Delaware County's extensive parks system, which features 11 parks and 616 acres of open, protected space that enhances the environment and gives people a place to exercise, enjoy nature and build community. The Delaware County Department of Parks and Recreation and Upper Darby Township are operating the dog park at Kent Park jointly. The dog park is part of a renovated multi-recreational area that features a playground, fishing area, and the separate fenced-in dog park, complete with a covered pavilion, benches, water and, of course, dog-litter bags. Kent Park is a scenic 10-acre stretch of green that runs along Darby Creek under the historic Lindbergh Bridge. Kent Park is a county-owned park that has traditionally been used for hiking and fishing. Advertisement The Kent Park recreational area is part of a broader plan to create a Greenway along Darby Creek. In response to dog owners, Kent Park offers a fenced-in area for dogs to get fresh air, exercise and playtime with other dogs. The Kent Park Dog Park features two fenced-in areas: one for dogs 25 pounds and larger; and one for smaller dogs. Both enclosures are double-gated to prevent dogs from getting loose. Park users are required to register their dogs with Delaware County/Upper Darby, and to abide by the rules and regulations designed to keep the park safe and well-maintained. Kent Park Dog Park is located in the 3900 block of Bridge Street, off of Baltimore Pike in Upper Darby. Hours are 8 a.m. to dusk daily. People must register their dogs to obtain a key fob for entrance. Current license and rabies inoculation are required. Registration is $20 per household; $10 for renewal; $10 for senior citizens and $5 for renewal. Limited Introductory Use: The computer system for the access key fobs is still being installed. Until that is complete, dog owners will have access to the dog park from 4 to 8 p.m. weeknights and 10 a.m. 6 p.m. Saturdays and Sundays. People still need to register and they will be notified when the key fob system is complete.

David Landau - A One Trick Pony?

I've been interested in the up coming election for Delaware County Council in November now for a few months, thanks to David Landau moving into my town of Clifton Heights. I have visited both parties web sites, and although both talk a good talk, Fizzano Cannon, McGarrigle, and Lewis of Delco 2007 have EXPERIENCE and have served Delco well according to my observations, abit some issues that I'll describe below.

Wasteful Spending: To David: Why spend how many thousands of dollars to rent a campaign HQ here in Clifton? That is wasteful spending. Myself and other people residing in the "Blue Collar" section of Delaware County are quite content with the way things are running, and do not want to see Delco be consumed by Philadelphia, like it did to Mayfair, Roxborough, and the greater northeast, an agenda that you Democrats have been trying to do for decades!

Response to your Problem: I asked Nick Micozzie to look into a matter concerning a neighbor, and he responded. So did his Son and also Tom Judge, all Republicans serving Delco. They actually responded to me, so I in turn feel that they are worthy of being elected. That's what gets people elected. To be fair to you, your spokesman, George Matysik, has responded to me via email in a positive way, and insists that you are sincere in your ambition to serve us.

Cronyism: There is one issue that David brought forth, that has me interested. "The one trick pony issue" mentioned as the title to this post that has me interested in him. It's called Cronyism. I know of several people who own companies who have a lock on contracts in the county and have had for years, and why they do is not a secret anymore. Unfortunately, this issue is a non issue, as most voters in Delaware County are not self employed, and couldn't give it another thought. Another thing is the issue of Upper Darby, once a decent place to live, now turned into an extension of West Philadelphia. David, what would you be willing to do to resolve this?

Number ONE Problem: What I want County Council to do is to BAN Section 8 housing in Delaware County. Period. Scumbags who play the system represent over 95 percent of the applicants. Our so called "Tax Dollars" fund these people, while people like myself, pay top dollar to live in the area, not to mention NO HEALTH CARE. These are MY issues, and many other voters who will decide the outcome in November. Enough of ranting tonight, I need to find some work to do tomorrow as a self employed electrician so I can pay my bills. Cheers. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Links to the candidates for Delaware County County Council: David Landau Just kidding, here's the real link to David's web site.. 10/8/2007 - *NEW* Ann O'Keefe for Delaware County County Council! Andy Lewis, Tom McGarrigle, Christine Fizanno Cannon Here's a blog that has a world of opinions on the above issue. The Haverford Blog Any other canidates running for County Council, etc, come this November please e mail me and I'll be most happy to add your link tho this post!

Go EAGLES!

The game is on! Eagles look wierd in their throwback jerseys, when they were called the Frankford Yellowjackets. There up at the moment 21 to 7. Let hope they hang on.. Cheers.

Hamsher Fever

A few days ago I posted something on both the Haverford Blog and our own forum, telling everyone that I was setting up a blogger meet at a local bar. I also stated that Jane Hamsher (of Firedoglake), Above Average Jane (of Aboveavejane), Akkam (from Akkam's Razor), and hopefully a few others could (not would) be in attendance. I was amazed of the flood of e mails that I received, 23 in all, asking me if Jane Hamsher was really going to be there! Cripes, don't people actually READ? I never said that she was going to be there, I said " Also in attendance could be".. I trully wish Jane would have shown up, but number one, I believe she lives in Virginia! Two, I don't know her personally, and if I did It's not like I could call her up and say: Hi Jane, this is Fran. I'm having a blogger meet at Peabody's and I want you here NOW! Even if I did know her, she would probably tell me to **** off, and I wouldn't blame her one bit. (Us Men are so demanding at times, aren't we?) Finally, I received one e mail from a liberal Democrat asking me if I could confirm that Jane Hamsher would be in attendance. Thankfully I read it and replied that Noooo She wouldn't be there, that I was only kidding! Two people did show up, and we had a good chat, abit brief. The first thing that they asked was: Is Jane here? P.S. I was hoping John Gault would have shown up..

Welcome to the United States of America!

Today I received an e mail trying to sell me citizenship to the United States. Gee, I though that I was already a citizen, being that I was born right here in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania. Intrigued, I clicked on the link. alas, it took me to some bs link farm website (I was expecting something different.) The ad got me to thinking.. What if everyone who made it into the US was automatically deemed a US citizen? This could happen only if certain things were changed of course, namely the U.S. constitution. But if George Bush would become supreme emperor of this country, he could throw the Constitution into the trash, and grant these people of his "New World Order" their wish. What do you think? Is that a good deal or what! Cheers to all you immigrunts!

It's Because We RULE!

Number of Lefties Bounces Back By Andrea Thompson, LiveScience Staff Writer Lefties have been bouncing back in recent decades, following a decline in the beginning of the 20th century, a new study shows. While lefties currently make up about 11 percent of the population, earlier studies found only 3 percent of those born in 1900 were left-handed. These claims led Ian Christopher McManus of the University College London and his colleagues to learn more about this change. "Left-handedness is important because more than 10 percent of people have their brains organized in a qualitatively different way to other people," McManus said. "That has to be interesting. When the rate of a [variable trait] changes, then there have to be causes, and they are interesting as well." To tease out the cause of the lefties' decline in Victorian times, the researchers looked at a series of films made between 1897 and 1913 by early filmmakers Sagar Mitchell and James Kenyon, whose body of work forms the largest collection of early non-fiction films in the world. McManus and his team identified 391 arm-wavers in the films and compared the number of lefties and righties in the old movie to a more modern "control group" formed by searching for "waving" with Google Images. About 15 percent of the people in the old films waved with their left hand, compared to 24 percent of lefty wavers in the Google search, the study, published in the Sept. 18 issue of the journal Current Biology, found. The researchers compared these results to previous studies of handedness in writing and found that left-handed waving is more common than left-handed writing. After correcting for this bias, the researchers found that "the earlier Victorian rates of left-handedness are broadly equivalent to modern rates, whereas rates then decline, with the lowest values for those born between about 1890 and 1910," McManus said. The lefties in the Victorian films were typically older, which rules out the possibility of higher rates of mortality among lefties. The most likely reason that lefties dropped in numbers at the turn of the 20th century was possible social influence brought about by universal education and the industrial revolution. These two factors would have forced lefties into the spotlight as they learned to write in the classroom or clumsily used machines built for right-handers. "That would have exacerbated the stigma that any visible minority can experience, and the result could have been that left-handers found it more difficult to find marriage partners, marrying later, and hence having fewer children so that fewer of the relevant genes went into the gene pool," McManus told LiveScience. "And we do have evidence that around the turn of the 20th century left-handers had fewer children than right-handers."