Don't You Just Love Big Government?

Thomas Paine said it best: "the government that governs least governs best." I guess I have always been correct to assume that people are, on average, dumber than a warm bucket of hair. Read this and weep...
-Aaron
---
State report says Texas has too many reports

AUSTIN (chron.com, from AP)— The Texas State Library and Archives Commission is declaring there are too many state reports.

It says so in a 668-page report.

The project took 18 months and included the commission's small team canvassing more than 170 agencies, and public colleges and universities, checking on all the reports they are assigned to do.

In the past, the state regularly compiled a list of about 400 reports that agencies were required by the Legislature to produce. But the commission found more than 1,600, and state records administrator Michael Heskett is pretty sure his team hasn't found them all.

Heskett's initial findings indicate more than 400 report requirements are obsolete, duplicative or not needed as frequently as currently required.

"At first, we were overwhelmed by the sheer number of reporting requirements," Heskett said. "We haven't begun our evaluation yet. But I think we can reach our goal of eliminating the deadwood without compromising the need for accountability in our state agencies."

Agencies stand to save thousands of staff hours and tons of paper, although the commission hasn't estimated yet exactly how much of either, Heskett said.

In a typical legislative session, lawmakers call for about a dozen new reports to meet the requirements for a new law. Another 20 or so reports are attached to appropriations bills as a way of making sure allocated money is properly spent.

Unless these reports are repealed by the Legislature, agencies are required to prepare them, even if the need for the report — or the agency — no longer exists.

One of the obsolete reports is the Funds Received and Disbursed report. One of the oldest required reports, it is still dutifully done, though there's a report under the Uniform Statewide Accounting Act that requires much the same data, Heskett said.

Report 1473 calls upon the Department of Aging to prepare a report, although the Department of Aging no longer exists.

There are still report requirements for the Human Rights Commission, which the Legislature abolished in 2003, Heskett said.

The Texas Workforce Commission is required annually to report on creating equal opportunity guidelines for employees that have been in place for years and are in no need of re-creating.

Heskett's team found was a huge backlog of reporting requirements, the volume of which has increased in the past 20 years with added emphasis on transparency and open records in state government.

The Library and Archives Commission has only just begun assessing the report requirements one by one, which Heskett expects will take at least another year.

The Library and Archives Commission runs the state's publications depository system, which warehouses untold tons of paper reports and keeps an electronic records and information locator to search and sort that data.

As for the commission's massive report on reports, Heskett predicts it won't go away.

"For the report to be effective, it must be ongoing," he said.

Audiences Reject Iraq War - At Box Office

This is a great article - read it! This article proves that most Americans are for the action in Iraq, and that we dislike those who speak ill of it.
-Aaron
---
-by Christian Toto

It doesn't matter how many Oscar winners are in front of or behind the camera — audiences are proving to be conscientious objectors when it comes to this fall's surge of antiwar and anti-Bush films.

Both "In the Valley of Elah" and, more recently, "Rendition" drew minuscule crowds upon their release, which doesn't bode well for the ongoing stream of films critical of the Iraq war and the Bush administration's wider war on terror.

"Rendition," which features three Oscar winners in key roles, grossed $4.1 million over the weekend in 2,250 screens for a ninth-place finish. A re-release of "The Nightmare Before Christmas" beat it, and it's 14 years old.

"Rendition" follows an Egyptian-American who gets kidnapped by U.S. authorities who think he's a terrorist. Reese Witherspoon plays the man's wife, Meryl Streep dials up her dark side as the official who keeps his disappearance a secret and Alan Arkin is a senior senator with the power to influence the case. Meanwhile, the man is shipped off to an unnamed North African country, where he is tortured for information.

"Elah" boasts Tommy Lee Jones, Charlize Theron and Susan Sarandon, another Oscar-winning triumvirate, under professionally red-hot director Paul Haggis, who won his own Oscar for "Crash." Mr. Haggis' drama focuses on the disappearance of an Iraq war veteran upon his return home.

Beyond the fiction features, the anti-Iraq war documentary "No End in Sight" (box office: $1.4 million) couldn't capture the indie crowd, beating a swift retreat to DVD next Tuesday despite glowing reviews.

Brandon Gray, president and publisher of www.boxofficemojo.com, says audiences seek out movies for inspiration, for laughter and to be moved.

"Many of these recent dramas fail on all those fronts," Mr. Gray says. "They're too heavy handed in their presentation."

"Rendition" director Gavin Hood — who wrote and directed "Tsotsi," winner of the 2006 best foreign language film Oscar — has been quoted as saying he doesn't want his new film to preach. But audiences who can't figure out where he stands on the rendition policy must have dozed off after the opening credits.

The current crop of antiwar films simply don't offer new insights into the Iraq conflict, Mr. Gray says.

"You might hear this stuff from the commentators or on the Internet," he says. "It's not that interesting to see it fictionalized."

"The Kingdom," a more ambivalent film, which shows U.S. forces smiting a terrorist cell, has pulled in a more respectable $43 million (so far).

" 'The Kingdom' looked like 'CSI: Riyadh.' It danced around the issues," Mr. Gray says.

Hollywood shouldn't soft-pedal its beliefs, he argues.

"You really can't try to take on subject matter like this and appeal to all views at the same time," he says. "They act like they're saying something when they're actually not saying anything."

A film that took a principled stand, particularly against terrorism, might fare better with audiences, Mr. Gray says.

Films with bold perspectives also spark op-ed flurries which can lead to more ticket buyers, says Dan Vancini, movies editor with Amazon.com.

"Then, you'll get your audience in who already resonates with the message," Mr. Vancini says, though he adds such free publicity isn't always a good thing.

Such may be the strategy of splattermeister Brian De Palma, director of "Redacted." Scheduled for a December release, the low budget/no stars movie is based on real events involving American soldiers who raped a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, then killed her family. Mr. De Palma has been complaining publicly that disturbing photos, which run at the end of the film showing dead and dying Iraqis have, ironically, been redacted by the distributor, Magnolia Pictures. (The faces are blacked out for legal reasons, the studio says.) The Drudge Report picked up on the controversy — generally not bad for business.

Hollywood's antiwar drive continues Nov. 9 with "Lions for Lambs," in which Tom Cruise, Miss Streep and Robert Redford spar over matters of patriotism and war. And "Grace is Gone" follows a father (John Cusack, no shrinking violet when it comes to his anti-administration rhetoric off-screen) who can't bear to tell his children their soldier-mother died in Iraq.

Mr. Vancini predicts "Lambs" could fare well thanks to its starry cast.

"They have a word-of-mouth following," he says, particularly Mr. Cruise.

Mr. Gray remains skeptical, citing a lack of clarity from early peeks at the film.

" 'Lions' will be an interesting test," Mr. Gray says. "Is it simply them sitting in rooms giving speeches? That's what it looks like," he says.

Iraq: Why?

-by Aaron

Despite how politically controversial the War on Terrorism has been since its inception, I firmly believe that Operation Iraqi Freedom was the correct mission to undertake directly after the conclusion of major battles in Afghanistan. Americans have seemingly forgotten the events that have led to our current situation of war in the Middle East. Because of this, citizens have vociferously questioned the validity of the invasion. The facts are needed to maintain complete historical accuracy.

Back in September of 2001, the United States was attacked by 19 Saudi Arabian terrorists; President Bush swiftly took action against Afghanistan, a country which unequivocally harbored al-Qaeda leaders and training camps. Despite what is common thought on Main Street, USA, Hussein did have connections to al-Qaeda. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, “friendly contacts” and “numerous high-level meetings” between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaeda terrorists took place. The position of this report, which was compiled by, according to 9-11commission.gov, an “independent, bi-partisan commission,” runs contrary to the position of the Clinton administration and Richard Clark, a former White House terrorism “czar.”

The “Butcher of Baghdad” sponsored terrorism and encouraged “martyrdom” in the teaching of radical Islam. For example, Deroy Murdock, a media fellow at Stanford University and publisher of husseinandterror.com, states that Hussein gave “bonuses” of “up to $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers.” Tariq Aziz, the deputy prime minister in Hussein’s former regime, confirmed the validity of this. Also, in Disinformation by Richard Miniter, a group created to “moderate Kurds” – to control and kill them – was founded with the “joint help of Saddam Hussein” and al-Qaeda; money was given from both groups for the same common goal. Hussein also provided safe haven for terrorists around the world. Murdock says that Abu Abba, an Iraqi-supported terrorist who hi-jacked a passenger cruise ship in 1985, was found in Iraq. Abu Nidel, who attacked a ticket counter at Rome’s Leonardo de Vinci airport, killed 17 people in 1985. Five Americans were killed in that attack in the airport. Harboring these villains violated UN Security Council Resolution 687, which strictly forbade this action.

Saddam’s regime did have weapons of mass destruction – just not in the amounts thought. As it is written in Disinformation, US forces “seized 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium,” which is used to “make fuel for atomic bombs.” On August 8, 2005, American soldiers found “1,500 gallons of chemical agents.” How those agents got to Iraq is still being debated. And in May of 2004, a roadside bomb with mustard gas inside was found; this gas is thought to “be part of the eighty tons of such gas still unaccounted for.” Apparently, Senator John Kerry believed also so on January 23, 2003 in a speech while campaigning for president: “…he is miscalculating America’s response to… his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction… the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real.” Clinton National Security Advisor said this on February 18, 1998: “He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.” And Senator Ted Kennedy had this to say: “We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction.” George W. Bush was not the only one to say Saddam had WMDs.

It is a positive that America took action against one of the world’s most formerly dangerous men. The political outcry has been deafening, but Americans have accomplished tasks more difficult than this. The disinformation pervading common thought and media is something that must be corrected very soon, and it can be done with the straight facts.

SOURCES:
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/01302004-print.htm
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/357lnryy.asp
http://www.9-11commission.gov/

Pro-Life Story & Devotional

Thanks to Mrs. Granados for sending this to me:

Late yesterday afternoon, the e-mails began pouring into my inbox from pro-lifers around the country:

"Have you seen this?"

"They're advertising 40 Days for Life for us!"

"This is the best response Planned Parenthood has to 40 Days for Life? Wow. How pathetic."

"They wouldn't do this if 40 Days for Life wasn't working!"

These comments were attached to forwarded copies of the latest mass e-mail sent out by Planned Parenthood to abortion advocates across the nation. What was all the commotion about?

You guessed it: the growing impact of 40 Days for Life!

The message comes directly from Planned Parenthood's national president, Cecile Richards. She starts off:

"From Aurora to America... The battle to open our clinic in Aurora, Illinois, might be over -- thank you for all your support -- but the war against Planned Parenthood and the women we serve continues. The anti-choice people have just begun their '40 Days for Life' campaign, and you can imagine what that means. Right now, there are picketers outside... more than 80 Planned Parenthood clinics across the country, 24 hours a day for 40 days. They're claiming it's 'the largest and longest simultaneous pro-life mobilization in American history.'"

Then Richards rolls out Planned Parenthood's response to 40 Days for Life:

• They created a fictional character named "Emily X" (who is supposed to represent a blend of different Planned Parenthood workers and activists) to post stories online of what it's like to work at the abortion operation.
• They set up a blog to post pictures and videos of 40 Days for Life volunteers (in an apparent attempt to harass and intimidate faithful people).
• They falsely characterize the motivations of 40 Days for Life volunteers.
• They ask abortion advocates to participate in the tired, old "pledge-a-protester" fund raising drive.
• They encourage abortion supporters to come volunteer at Planned Parenthood.
• They beg abortion activists to write notes of encouragement to boost the morale of Planned Parenthood workers during 40 Days for Life.
  

Tragically, the "Emily X" character even reveals the shame and guilt that some Planned Parenthood workers feel about their jobs:

"Last night, my mother-in-law called me at home. She told me that she just read an ad in the local paper about the '40 Days for Life' campaign. She said that she wanted to get involved, she wanted 'to get out and do something about Planned Parenthood.' See, she doesn't know that I'm a doctor at a Planned Parenthood health center. It's a part of my life that I don't share with her."

The bottom line: Planned Parenthood is investing quite a bit of energy in response to 40 Days for Life.

Would they do this if the campaign wasn't hurting their business and tarnishing their public image?

Read this report I just received from a 40 Days for Life location, and YOU decide why Planned Parenthood is so worried...

"Despite today's steady downpour, the sidewalk was full of people praying for LIFE today! What a beautiful sight to see sometimes 20-30 people with umbrellas and raincoats, all united in prayer to bring about conversion of our nation and an end to abortion.

For those of us who have spent years at the Sidewalk all alone, having all of you there today was a miracle!

Tuesday and Fridays are normally killing mornings at the downtown Planned Parenthood, but again today like last Tuesday, we never saw the abortionist arrive. The escorts were getting frustrated at the no-show, looking at their watches frequently.

Last Tuesday, he didn't show up either and appointments had to be rescheduled.

God is answering our prayers, so we PRAISE Him even in the storm. As you go to bed tonight, just think of those good people who will be standing in the cold rain tonight in prayer."

God is certainly bigger than Planned Parenthood's $902 million abortion empire, and with tens of thousands of people praying, fasting, and participating in peaceful vigils outside of Planned Parenthood offices, I believe the abortion giant now realizes that its days are numbered.

One more quick thing -- I just flew back home from an exciting pro-life event in Newark, New Jersey, where I met local 40 Days for Life leaders and volunteers and delivered a 28-minute talk specifically about Planned Parenthood in response to this breaking news.

The audio recording of the presentation has just been uploaded on today's blog posting at http://40daysforlife.com/blog/?p=22. I hope you take a few minutes to listen, so you can understand the growing importance this campaign has for the future of America.

Here's today's devotional...

40 DAYS FOR LIFE: DAY 18, OCTOBER 13

Daily Devotional by: Fr. Frank Pavone

INTENTION: Pray that God will forgive our nation for inflicting pain on its youngest children
SCRIPTURE: "Pilate...had Jesus flogged, and handed him over to be crucified. The soldiers...put a purple robe on him, then twisted together a crown of thorns and set it on him...Then they led him out to crucify him." -- Mark 15:15-20
REFLECTION: Jesus endured pain for us. In reflecting on his pain, we see again the revelation of the love God has for us. Abortion, too, brings pain to our innocent brothers and sisters -- a pain we cannot imagine or understand. We are not afraid to reflect on that pain, because our Lord has taught us to love them, and to suffer with them. Their pain is yet another reminder that they are truly our brothers and sisters in the one human family. Maybe that's why abortionists themselves often don't allow themselves to think about the pain of these children.

Consider the following exchange that took place in U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, between Judge Richard Casey and abortionist Timothy Johnson. (Johnson was testifying in the case National Abortion Federation, et. al. v. Ashcroft, which dealt with the ban on partial-birth abortion. The date was March 31, 2004.):

COURT: If you are all finished let me just ask you a couple questions, Dr. Johnson. I heard you talk a lot today about dismemberment D&E procedure, second trimester; does the fetus feel pain?
WITNESS: I guess I --
COURT: There are studies, I'm told, that says they do. Is that correct?
WITNESS: I'm aware of fetal behavioral studies that have looked at fetal responses to noxious stimuli.
COURT: Does it ever cross your mind when you are doing a dismemberment?
WITNESS: I guess whenever I --
COURT: Simple question, Doctor. Does it cross your mind?
WITNESS: Does the fetus having pain cross your mind?
COURT: Yes.
WITNESS: No.
COURT: Never crossed your mind.
WITNESS: No

PRAYER: Lord, have mercy on us. Forgive our nation for inflicting pain on its youngest children.As we reflect on the pain your Son Jesus Christ endured for us, so we reflect on the pain that abortion causes the unborn

Father, let us never forget. Let our awareness of this tragedy make us all the more string and determined to move forward in our prayer and witness for life, until all pain is swallowed up in the victory of the resurrection.

We pray in Jesus's mighty Name, AMEN.

Food for Thought...

Bush backs Mexico, rapist-murderer
Bush refuses to give a pardon to Ignacio Ramos and Juan Compeon, refuses to prosecute Sandy Burger in his document-stealing case, refuses to close the borders. His only conservative ideals he still keeps are the social issues (mostly gay marriage and abortion). For the next meeting: is Bush a sell-out, a liberal Republican, or exactly what we need? Leave a comment or go to the meeting...

Study: As Many as *38 MILLION* illegal immigrants in the USA
Border mismanagement continues...

GLOBAL WARMING LIE DETECTOR CENTER

More to come on Friday!