No fairytale ending for Cinderella Man at the Oscars

I’ll have to admit that I haven’t seen most of the movies that were mentioned this morning as the 78th Annual Oscar Nominees were being announced. But I find it hard to believe that Cinderella Man failed to get a single nomination in the top three categories (Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Picture).

But then again who cares about the comeback story of a once wealthy middle-aged white heterosexual man who is a faithful father and husband.

As I scanned the list of Oscar Nominees, I couldn’t help but wonder if Ron Howard’s, Cinderella Man was snubbed by the Academy because it was just too….I don’t know… traditional?… No….Conservative?….that doesn’t work either…I got it!... REAL!!!!

The Story of Cinderella Man is as follows:

During the Great Depression, a common-man hero, James J. Braddock--a.k.a. the "Cinderella Man"--was to become one of the most surprising sports legends in history.

By the early 1930s, the impoverished ex-prizefighter was seemingly as broken-down, beaten-up and out-of-luck as much of the rest of the American populace who had hit rock bottom. His career appeared to be finished, he was unable to pay the bills, the only thing that mattered to him--his family--was in danger, and he was even forced to go on Public Relief.

But deep inside, Jim Braddock never relinquished his determination. Driven by love, honor and an incredible dose of grit, he willed an impossible dream to come true. In a last-chance bid to help his family, Braddock returned to the ring. No one thought he had a shot. However Braddock, fueled by something beyond mere competition, kept winning.

Suddenly, the ordinary working man became the mythic athlete. Carrying the hopes and dreams of the disenfranchised on his shoulders, Braddock rocketed through the ranks, until this underdog chose to do the unthinkable: take on the heavyweight champ of the world, the unstoppable Max Baer, renowned for having killed two men in the ring.

The reality is Cinderella Man doesn’t fit the Hollywood left’s view of society. There is no oppressor, just unfortunate circumstance. There is no victim group mentioned. No minority group, oppressed women or gays are metnioned. And of course once wealthy middle-aged heterosexual white males can never be victims. Not in their in their movies! And the foundation of his comeback is not some liberal idea of fairness or hand out, but the determination of one man, who powered by the love for his family, refused to be defeated.

What struck me most about this movie was not the boxing tale that was told. That was nothing more than a backdrop. It was the trials and tribulations he went through in a desperate effort to provide for his family. Here was a man who, one minute was living in the lap of luxury and now had to forgo eating himself in order to feed his children. But the loving bond between he and his wife never faded. As a matter of fact, as things got tougher, they got closer. And in the midst of despair, he whatever it took to kept his character in tact.

As a husband and a father whose family has been through tough times, I related to this character. He was a far cry from the “Cut and Run” characters today who would abandon their families simply because they “Weren’t happy….” He latched onto the love and support of his wife; who by the way was as much a hero in this tale as her husband. And together they overcame their circumstances.

Perhaps they should have made the story about a black boxing champion who was wrongfully imprisoned for murder? But I’m pretty sure that one has been done. Wasn’t it called Hurricane?

I know! Maybe they should have made the lead character a woman! Yeah! She could get a shot at the championship only to get injured and paralyzed. And to really get the PC vote they could have her trainer put her out of her misery by killing her. Man that sounds familiar…. Oops! That’s Million Dollar Baby.

Ok…Try this one. The lead character falls in love with is trainer! And the two carry on a secret love affair as he fights his way to the top. We could call it Cinderfella Man or Broke Back Boxer. Maybe then the Academy would find it worthy of a nomination.

In any case, Cinderella Man tells an inspiring story! It contains great performances by Russell Crowe and Rene Zellwegerr, her best ever by my estimation. And the pictures lone Oscar nominee, Paul Giamatti (Best Supporting Actor) was as real a he could be in his role as Braddock’s. I encourage all of my readers to add this timeless tale to your DVD collection.

I already have!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Ayman al-Zawahri is still alive...Not for long!!!!

According to a video tape released today, last month’s air strike on a Pakistani target failed to take out Al Qaeda’s number two man Ayman al-Zawahri.

Reuters is reporting:

DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's deputy leader Ayman al-Zawahri said he had survived a U.S. air strike targeting him in Pakistan earlier this month, in a video tape aired by Al Jazeera television on Monday.

The video appeared to be recorded earlier this month, as it mentioned a call for a truce issued by Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden in an audio tape Al Jazeera aired in January.

In other news:

The Pentagon announced today the formation of a new 500-man elite fighting unit called the United States Redneck Special Forces. These Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas boys will be dropped off into Iraq and have been given only the following facts about terrorists:

1. The season opened today.
2. There is no limit.
3. They taste just like chicken.
4. They don't like beer, pickups, country music, the American flag or
Jesus.
5. They are DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE for the death of Dale Earnhardt.

We expect the problem in Iraq to be over by Friday.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

“Speeding ticket? Pay for it with extra prayers.” Palestine flooded with Hamas Jokes

“All police stations in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have been ordered shut because all complaints must now be filed directly to God.”

This is just one of the many Hamas jokes that are being circulated amongst Palestinians in the wake of last week’s electoral victory by the extremist Islamic group, best known for their support of terrorism and their desire to destroy Israel. And once they actually take power, their election may prove to be no laughing matter.

Associated Press is reporting:

Invoking God and Islamic tradition is the mainstay of all the quips that have been spreading by word of mouth and mobile phone text messages in the past few days.

Until elections Wednesday, Hamas' goal of installing an Islamic state in the West Bank, Gaza — and Israel — was held in check by the ruling Fatah, which had no religious program.

But with voters handing Hamas 74 of parliament's 132 seats, in a protest against the long-dominant Fatah, that check has weakened, if not evaporated.

Hamas officials rushed to deny that they will force their beliefs on Palestinians.

"Rest assured we don't impose our thoughts on anyone," Hamas leader Khaled Maashal said Saturday in the Syrian capital, Damascus. "We will present our thoughts to our people and they have the right to choose."

Many Palestinians were not reassured.

Nor should they be. History has proven Hamas to be less interested in democratic rule than in compliance with Muslim law.

In Gaza in the early 1990s, after the first Palestinian uprising in Israel, Hamas used a quasi-police force to shut down restaurants serving alcohol and to impose a conservative dress code.

Can extremist militants be converted into fair minded diplomats? I don’t it. But if it is possible, this could be the most profound victory for democracy in the middle ease yet.

And if not? I’m sure comedy central will find a way to use the material.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Who is Legislating Morality?

The cry from the left for years has been that Christian conservatives are trying to legislate morality. But one only need look at the California’s educational establishment and the Legislature to see a history of forcing the pro-homosexual agenda on Californians to know that they are the ones forcing their values on others.

Take for example a report in the San Francisco Chronicle about a school that is requiring teachers to put up pro-Gay posters in their classrooms.

Teachers have a week to hang the 8 1/2-by-11 posters, which were designed by the 30 or so students in the school's Gay-Straight Alliance. Furtado will check all 200 classrooms next week to see if the posters are visible, and she said she'd have "a private conversation" with teachers who don't comply.

So what do they mean by “a private conversation”? They probably mean that disciplinary action will be taken if they do not agree to give up their right to freedom of speech and religious objection. In other words, the school district is going to force teachers who object to the lifestyle of homosexuality to honor it, in violation of their religious beliefs.

And forced compliance with this cultural indoctrination is being proposed in the California Legislature. AB 606 states that the State Superintendent of Public Instruction withhold money from schools who do not comply with their view of “Tolerance” .

The Capital Resource Institute states:

“It is outrageous that AB 606 would permit Jack O'Connell to arbitrarily withhold funds from a school district if he happens to think they are not adequately promoting pro-homosexual sentiment on a particular campus," said England. "This is too much power for one elected official. It should be up to the courts to determine whether the conduct of a school board is in compliance with state law. "

"Under AB 606, a school board's hands will be completely tied. They will have to either completely cater to the state superintendent's whim or decide to go without funding for education in order to fight for their policy."

So I'll ask again...Who iss legislating morality?

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

25,000 apply for 325 Walmart jobs... Project killed by Chicago City Council

18 months after the Chicago City Council successfully kept them from opening a store within the city, Walmart will be opening a brand new 141,000 square foot store one block outside the city limits.

The Chicago Sun Times reports:

Eighteen months after the Chicago City Council torpedoed a South Side Wal-Mart, 24,500 Chicagoans applied for 325 jobs at a Wal-Mart opening Friday in south suburban Evergreen Park, one block outside the city limits.

The new Wal-Mart at 2500 W. 95th is one block west of Western Avenue, the city boundary.

Of 25,000 job applicants, all but 500 listed Chicago addresses, said John Bisio, regional manager of public affairs for Wal-Mart.

Why would so many people want to work for a company that oppresses their employees they way Walmart has been accused doing? THEY WANT TO WORK!!! And people working, has never been a priority for the union bosses who unfairly attack Walmart. They only care about increasing their membership and their powerbase.

Their fight for political power has resulted in a obvious loss of jobs for the City of Chicago. But those 325 jobs are not all that the City of Chicago lost out on.

The 141,000-square-foot store has 36 departments, a "tire and lube express," vision center, Subway restaurant, pharmacy, garden center and drugstore. It will sell some groceries but no fresh produce or meats and no liquor. It is expected to generate $1 million in sales and property tax in the first year -- a windfall in a village that collects about $3 million a year in sales taxes, said Evergreen Park Mayor James J. Sexton. Evergreen Plaza, with 100 stores, generates about $2 million.

So let us review:

• 325 jobs lost
• $1million in sales and property tax lost
• $35,000 in community charitable contributions lost
• No new increase in customers for existing stores

Way to go Chicago City Council! At lease the Union Bosses are happy!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

California Young Democrats celebrate 45 million deaths since Roe v. Wade

The California Young Democrats with a coat hanger and a smile visited the offices of California State Legislators to deliver a message celebrating the fact that the number of abortion related deaths has decreased since the passage of Roe v. Wade. But what they don’t mention is the fact that over 45 million babies have been killed in the process.

Their message, which was taped to the coat hanger stated:

Dear Legislator.

This weekend marks the 33rd Anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark decisions for a woman’s right to chose. However, as the topic of abortion continues to be relentlessly debated, we hope that you will remember that before 1973 many women were force to choose back-alley options, using items such as coat hangers, to terminate pregnancies instead of seeking proper medical assistance because it was prohibited. The decision to terminate pregnancy is one of the most serious decisions a person can go through. As you vote this year, please consider making sure that women struggling with these decisions have the ability to consult medical professionals that can help them make the best decision.

Sincerely,

California Young Democrats

This appeal is typical of the pro-abortion lobby in that they are selective in the facts they quote when praising Rove v. Wade. According to their own statistics from the Alan Guttmacher Institute:

52% of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 33% of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19%.

Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely.

2/3 of all abortions are among never-married women.

Over 60% of abortions are among women who have had 1 or more children.

48% of abortions are among women who have previously had an abortion.

27% of abortions are among women who are pregnant for the first time.

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

A Few interesting facts to note:

1. According to their numbers, about 1 in 5 abortions are performed on minors.

2. Notice that Rape, incest or the health of the mother are not on the list of reasons why women are ending their pregnancies.

3. Abortion advocate’s efforts to terminate of the pregnancies of ethnic minorities (blacks in particular) have been overwhelmingly successful.

I fail to recognize what there actually is to celebrate… 45 million dead babies? Black genocide? Abortion as a contraceptive? Sacrificing our daughters on the altar of reproductive choice?

Just a little perspective…

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Are Republicans sinking their own Ship?

Over the weekend California Republican Party leadership and activists met to discuss (among other things) whether or not to revoke the Party’s endorsement of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger who is seeking re-election this year. But the sad fact is that no matter what they decide, we (the GOP) will end up looking stupid.

The CRP broke with a long standing tradition of not endorsing in GOP primaries when it voted to endorse the re-election of Governor Schwarzenegger more than a year before the campaign was to begin. Many warned against doing such, pointing out that there is no way to know what may happen in the next year that could impact the election. But there are those in our party who believe that winning is more important than sticking to our principles.

As those who champion victory over values gain traction in the Republican Party, this lose-lose scenario that now faces our party will prove to be the tip of the iceberg.

My buddy Eric Hogue articulated their argument best in a recent blog post:

I'd love to be able to say that a 100% conservative candidate can win a statewide election in California, but it is just not true. This state is 35% social liberals, and 35% social moderate...conservatives 'might' have a voting base 30% - maybe.

Eric goes on to point out that State Senator Tom McKlintock couldn’t win in his 2000 race for state controller because he is too conservative and could not raise enough money. But Eric ignores the fact that Tom got more votes than any other statewide GOP candidate that year; including President Bush who’s campaign was headed by libersal GOPer’s like Gerald Parskey. In addition, McKlintock came within a few thousand votes of winning despite getting no financial support from the party.

That’s right buddy… it is moderates like the New Majority and the business community who now control the purse strings in the GOP that are most responsible for the narrow defeats of conservative candidates and causes. These are the folks who refused to put one cent into the campaign of a man who could have been the only Republican elected to statewide office in California; those like RINO rising star, Seve Poizner who instead of supporting a conservative Republican, gave money to Democratic Presidential Candidate John Kerry. These are the same folks who refused to support a common sense initiative like Prop. 73 and left it to languish with only $250,000 to run a statewide media campaign.

I have stated numerous times that conservatives and moderates have to learn to get along if we are to win in California. In June, we will hold a primary election to determine what candidates will represent our party in the November general election. And who ever that candidate is; Moderate or Conservative we should support them…. as long as they can be convicted of being a Republican.

However, the inference by many in our party is that conservatives must support moderates, but, moderates do not have to support conservatives. And that we conservatives are supposed to sit down and shut up while liberals, calling themselves conservatives support policies that undermine the very core of our conservative values. I DON’T THINK SO!

Anyone who would sell out their principles in order to obtain power will eventually go even further to maintain that power. Thus, conservatives not only have a right, but a responsibility to stand up and speak out. As the conscience of the GOP, we must stand firm in supporting the principles upon which our party and our nation were founded.

Unfortunately though, removing the endorsement of the Governor won’t fix the mess that has been created by liberal republicans and “sell out for a win” conservatives. While it would serve as a nice moral victory, it would in fact hand the Governor’s office over to the most liberal, tax and spend, anti-God factions of our state. No matter how conservatives may feel about he current administration, this nightmare scenario should frighten them into rethinking their strategy.

Actually, Eric does offer a much better approach:

If you're mad at Arnold, then the GOP should release (in writing) its determined platform, and its criticisms of the governor's new direction - not the governor. Offer a press brigade against his direction, but don't remove the endorsement and offer another candidate, it will kill the party for the future.

If we want the Gov to STOP nominating liberal, Democrat judges, state such. If we want him to remove Susan Kennedy, state such as a party. If we are upset over the increase in borrowing and the hike in minimum wage rates, state such AS A PARTY...LOUDLY...

I would encourage the CRP and the Governor's campaign to wake up to the reality that they cannot win without conservatives. And whether they want to believe it or not, many conservative voters will stay home if they believe that their choices boil down to a liberal with a “D” after his name versus a liberal with an “R” after his name.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

How Do Democrats get the support of Black Leaders? Rent-A-Negro.com!

I have finally figured out how the Democrat Party has been so successful in co-opting Black political leadership. Booker Rising has a link to a site that explains it all…. Rent-A-Negro.com. ( This is a Satirical Site so don't get offended!)

I always thought that these so-called “Black Leaders” were bought and paid for. Well it turns out they are actually on long-term leases. You might recognize their two most popular models.

_______________________

(Rev.) Al Sharpton

Specialty: His uncanny ability to apologize for racist comments made by white liberal elitists never fails.

Happy Clients Include: Former Presidential Candidate, Ralph Nader and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

Additional Features:

• Race Baiting- able to defuse any logical argument with accusations of racism

• Moral High Ground- As an ordained Reverend, he can proclaim righteousness over even the most morally reprehensible acts

• Urban or Professional Look- Comes in a traditional professional business suit or contemporary casual sweat suit for urban appearances. (Non-perm model is not available.)


(Rev.) Jessie Jackson

Specialty: Need a readymade shakedown artist? This is your man!

Successful shakedowns include: Toyota Motor Sales, USA and Anheuser-Busch

Additional Features:

• Lyrical Genious- unsurpassed creativity in oral presentations which includes rhyming and racial slurs (ie. "Hymietown,")

• Political Dis-Credibility- Add his name to your campaign and you are guaranteed to lose (ie. Walter Mondale, Al Gore and John Kerry)

• My Baby Daddy Certification- Had an affair and need to the counsel of someone who’s been there? Well, this model comes complete with mistress and love child.


Other well-known models include:

Actors & Entertainers: Danny Glover and Kanye West
Politicians: Maxine Watters and Al Rangel
And “Wanna-Bes”: Bill Clinton and Eminem

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

House run like a plantation? Bush should issue Emancipation Proclamation for House Democrats

In honor of Hillary Clinton's "Let my people go!" rant at a MLK event in New York, I believe that President Bush issue the following:

The Emancipation Proclamation- For House Democrats

November 7, 2006
By the President of the United States of America:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, on the nineteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand and six, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:

"That on the first Tuesday of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand and six, all persons held as elected members of the United States House of Representatives representing Political Parties or designated part of a political party, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free from serving in public office; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military, air force and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.

"That the Executive will, on the first Tuesday of November aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the Political Parties and parts of Political Parties, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any Political Party, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such Political Party shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such Political Party, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."

Now, therefore I, George Bush, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army, Air force and Navy of the United States in time of actual political rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first Tuesday of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand and six, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the Political Parties and parts of Political Parties wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:

The Democratic Party

And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as members within said designated Political Parties, and parts of Political Parties, are, and henceforward shall be free from serving in public office; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military, air force and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all elective politics, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.

And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will not be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this first Tuesday of November, in the year of our Lord two thousand and six, and of the Independence of the United States of America.

By the President: GEORGE BUSH
CONDELEZZA RICE, Secretary of State.
______________________

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

I refuse to comment on Broke Back Mountain! But...

Cowboy movies sure have changed!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Homosexual activists insist that the Black Church accept them

Tonight begins an all out effort by homosexual activists to get Black churches to be more accepting of homosexuals in their congregation. Al Sharpton and Bishop Yvette Flunder of San Francisco will be hosting a meeting in Atlanta between Black pastors and Black homosexual activist.

The San Francisco Chronicle is reporting:

The gathering, at the First Iconium Baptist Church near downtown Atlanta, will feature films, discussions on acceptance and a look at how homophobia in churches is promoting the "down-low" phenomenon -- men having sex with other men while maintaining a heterosexual identity.

In San Francisco, a city known for its acceptance of gay and lesbian people, a coalition of African American pastors condemned same-sex marriage during the 2004 presidential election. They said it would advance the decline of marriage and family values in the African American community. That sentiment is shared in a number of churches across the country by clergy of all races.

I wonder if it ever occurred to author of this piece that the reason these pastors opposed same-sex marriage had nothing to do with the presidential election? Their vocal opposition was prompted by the fact that San Francisco Mayor, Gavin Newsom violated California law and the will of the voters by issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. And thus, these pastors were morally obligated to speak out against this action which would have given government sanction to a lifestyle that, according to their faith is a sin.

It is so disheartening because African Americans have had strong social connections to their churches but have not been allowed to talk about AIDS or homosexuality, and (gays) are publicly ostracized by their ministers," said Keith Boykin, president of the coalition and author of the book "Beyond the Down Low." "It is especially profound for black folks because the church has been a place of refuge, to get salvation and redemption, not condemnation."

What Mr. Boykin doesn’t get is that you cannot obtain salvation or redemption when you knowingly defy the word and the will of God. Just as I cannot knowingly live my life as a thief in direct contradiction to God’s word “Thou shalt not steal.”

Whether one looks in the Old Testament or the New Testament, God calls homosexuality an abomination. Furthermore, he lumps it in with other sexual sins such as adultery and fornication … No better and no worse. Thus, just as a pastor would be remiss in giving his blessing to congregants to practice these sinful behaviors, he/she would be equally remiss in allowing them to live the homosexual lifestyle without advising them that it would be in direct contradiction to God’s word.

"Almost everyone I know who is black and gay has an issue rooted in the church. It is so pervasive; it is part of our culture and our community. Black gay men go to church and have ministers condemning them, beating up on them every week."

So why do they keep going to that church? It is because they really do want salvation and acceptance. But they want it on their own terms, not God’s. And rather than finding a faith that supports their lifestyle, they would rather force Christian churches to undermine their scriptural teachings.

The church plays more than a religious role in most black communities, serving as a social gathering place and often dictating the politics of its parishioners.

Activists say anti-gay sentiment grew in 2004 because white conservative Christian groups rallied black ministers against gay marriage. Many believe this bond between white evangelicals and black pastors helped President Bush get 11 percent of the African American vote that year.

"The Karl Roves of the world wrote an agenda on how to mobilize the African American vote, and part of that was to suggest the vote against same-gender marriage," Flunder said, referring to Bush's top political adviser.

First of all, the first function of the church is spiritual; not social, not political or financial. And anything the church does in these other areas must also promote the spiritual wellbeing of church members. It was not Karl Rove who mobilized Black Pastors. It was those on the left and those in the homosexual community who sought to force their moral values on the rest of society. Much like the Boykin and Flunder are trying to do.

Having said all of the above, I will agree with Boykin and Flunder on one thing. We (the church) do need to discuss these issues, because they do impact our brothers and sisters. And we need to do so with the understanding that none us are perfect. The Bible says, “All have fallen and come short of the glory of God.” We ought not let the social stigma of one sin (in this case homosexuality) lead us into thinking that our shortcomings are any better or any worse. But in love, we MUST address the impact that HIV/AIDS is having in our community.

It is so disheartening because African Americans have had strong social connections to their churches but have not been allowed to talk about AIDS or homosexuality, and (gays) are publicly ostracized by their ministers,"

However, unlike Boykin and Flunder, I believe that such a discussion would be incomplete without also including the truth about the dangers of sexual promiscuity, drug use and yes…living the homosexual lifestyle.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

California Republican Assembly Members Urge UC to Divest from Sudan

A group of students called the UC Sudan Divestment Taskforce contacted the office of California Assemblyman Tim Leslie in an effort to get legislative support from Assemblyman Leslie, who happens to be the Vice-Chairman of the Assembly Higher Education Committee. Not only did the assemblyman write a letter in support of their effort, but he also got the majority of the Assembly Republican Caucus to sign onto the letter as well.

These students were pleasantly surprised that Republicans would be so supportive of their efforts. We let them know that California Assembly Republicans have been trying to get the state to divest from Sudan for years only to have many of their efforts thwarted by Democrats, because it wasn't their idea.

Leslie's office sent out the following press release this afternoon.

ASSEMBLY REPUBLICAN’S ASK UC TO DIVEST FROM SUDAN

(SACRAMENTO) – Assembly Republicans, led by Assemblyman Tim Leslie (R-Tahoe City) are encouraging the UC Regents to adopt an investment policy which includes a policy of substantive divestment from Sudan. The UC Board of Regents will be meeting tomorrow (Thursday, January 19th) to decide whether or not to adopt such a policy.

“What is taking place in Darfur, Sudan is nothing short of government sponsored genocide!” declared Leslie, who serves as Vice-Chair of the Assembly Higher Education Committee, “By divesting from the Sudan, we are sending a clear message that California will not tolerate the cruel practices of this oppressive government.

This is not a new position for California legislative Republicans. Assemblyman Ray Haynes (R-Murrieta) has for years advocated for divestment from the Sudan. “It is simply the right thing to do”, he exclaims, “Genocide and religious tyranny cannot be ignored, let alone condoned.”

In a letter signed by 14 Republican Assembly members, they point out to the UC Regents that over 400,000 Darfurians have been murdered, over 2.5 million have been displaced, and nearly 70% of Darfur’s villages have been razed. Their letter goes on to state, “The government’s systematic policies of rape and denial of humanitarian aid serve as gruesomely effective adjunct tools in this genocidal campaign.”

Back in November 2005 the UC’s Committee on Investments voted unanimously to recommend that the Full Board of Regents adopt an investment policy which would include substantive divestment from the Sudan. Assembly Republicans are confident that the UC Regents full board will follow suit.

Leslie Added, “California’s movement on this issue is paramount to raising broader awareness to the atrocities occurring in this country. It is imperative that the UC take the appropriate action and vote for divestment.”

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

The House has been run like a plantation, declares Clinton (Video Here)

On a day when most of the country was celebrating the legacy of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. New York Senator Hillary Clinton spent her day off with nationally renowned race-pimp Al Sharpton name calling and race baiting. She even went as far as accusing Republicans of running the House of Representatives like a plantation.

(CNN Video Here)


Clinton's specific quote was:

"When you look at how the House of Representatives has been run; it has been runt like a plantation."

The funniest part of the Senator’s comments was right after she made the plantation analogy. In an effort to egg on the crowd she declares:

“And you know what I’m talking about!”

Apparently, the people in the predominantly black audience didn’t know what she was talking about.

But needless to say, Clinton’s favorite house negro came to her defense and explained to the media exactly what Hilary meant to say.

“Because of seniority and colloquial politics the bosses make the decisions.”

Maybe I am mistaken, but isn’t that exactly how the Democrat Party treat blacks? The party bosses (ie. Hillary Clinton, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi) control the overseers (ie. Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters or Al Rangel) who are then in charge of keeping the negroes in line. And if one dare step out of line (ie. Michael Steele, JC Watts or Ward Connerly) it is the job of these overseers to give them the appropriate tongue lashing. At least that is how I see it.

And as for those poor oppressed house democrats; the Republican man is obviously guilty once again of keeping them down. I propose that President Bush issue a new Emancipation Proclamation. In this one he will declare all house Democrats free from the bondage of elective office. And from this day forth, they shall be free to leave Congress anytime they so choose.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Bi dad sues gay moms for parental rights- Case blows nuclear family to smithereens!

Mr. B impregnates Mrs. A who happens to be married to Mrs. C, thus producing daughter D. Now, A and C want to leave town with D. So, B sues A and C to be recognized as a natural parent of D.

So, why is 6 afraid of 7? Because 7,8,9… I couldn’t resist!

The UK Sun reports:

A BISEXUAL man who answered an advert to father a lesbian couple’s baby has won a landmark court battle to be one of the official parents, it was revealed yesterday.

The man had sex with one of the women and she had a daughter, now five years old.
But the man, referred to only as Mr B, then demanded the right to parental responsibility for the child on matters such as education and health.

He was refused and went to the High Court’s Family Division which has upheld his entitlement to be an official parent of the child, known as D.

For those who deny that the traditional family is under attack let this case serve as a warning.

Not only do you have all the elements of your everyday custody battle, which by the way is ugly in and of itself. But you add into it the fact that this situation was created intentionally by those whose selfish desire to be parents took president over the needs of their child.

Here we have a woman who, together with a man produced a child. And then, knowing the important role this father played in her child’s life, intentionally sought to deny her child -the love and affection of having her father. And there is little doubt that she knew the value that the father added to her child’s life, because for five years she allowed Mr. B to be an active part of his child’s life.

The judge said: “Dr Sturge did not find D muddled about her family. She told Dr Sturge that she is lucky because she has two mummies. She knows that she grew in her mother’s tummy and she knows that Mr B is ‘Daddy’ and calls him that.

“She knows Mr B loves her, as everyone acknowledges he does.

“She has no idea at the moment about how babies begin to grow and therefore she does not know that, in the biological sense, Mr B is her father.”

The only part of this whole case that made sense was the judge’s reasoning for how she would eventually rule.

She said that whatever the law may do to change the shape of family life, nothing could beat the fact a child had a natural parent.

Every child has only two natural parents… One mother and one father. Anything else is in fact unnatural.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Black Man offered leadership position in Klu Klux Klan. Inspiration behind Chapelle Show sketch?

Twenty-five years ago Ron Stallworth was asked to lead the Colorado Springs Chapter of the Klu Klux Klan. That would have made Stallworth the first Black man to lead a branch of the KKK.

According to the Desert News:

About 25 years ago, Ron Stallworth was asked to lead the Ku Klux Klan chapter in Colorado Springs. Problem was, the outgoing Klan leader didn't know that Stallworth is black.

"He asked me to take over the lead because I was a good, loyal Klansman," said Stallworth, who had been in constant phone contact with the Klan leader while leading a yearlong Colorado Springs police investigation into the Klan.

Stallworth later moved to Utah, where he recently retired after nearly 20 years as an investigator for the Utah Department of Public Safety. He says he's amazed that no one ever caught on to the investigation he led starting in 1979. After he was offered Klan leadership, he quietly disappeared.

As a memento Stallworth still carries his Klan membership card — signed by David Duke.

How politically correct have we gotten when even the KKK institutes and Affirmative Action Program?

On another note: This story does remind me of a skit done on the Chapelle Show about a leader in the white supremacist movement who turned out to be a blind black man who had no idea he was black.

I found the video of the sketch, but after watching it, I thought it might be a little too over the top to post. For those of you who have seen it what do you think? Should I post it?

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Carry a condom or be convicted of a crime- Say that 10 times fast!

In Tulua, Columbia a measure is being considered that would require anyone over the age of 14 to carry a condom with them at all time. This would include men, women, youth and yes even priests.

The Associated Press is reporting:

Roman Catholic priests in a Colombian town are furious over a councilman's proposal that people 14 and older must carry a condom at all times to reduce unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases.

William Pena, a councilman in Tulua, said Wednesday he will present a formal proposal requiring all men and women — even those just on a visit to the town — to carry at least one condom. Those caught empty-pocketed could be fined $180 or ordered to take a safe sex course, he said.

I don’t know that this idea merits serious commentary, let alone serious consideration. Let’s just file it under “Stupid Ideas Coming to a Liberal American City Near You.”

Maybe we should start a pool to see who proposes it first. My money is on San Francisco!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Lower Student Fees- Assistance to the poor or subsidy for the wealthy?

Today, Governor Schwarzenegger will release his proposed 2006-07 Budget. In it will be a proposal to freeze tuition levels for state colleges, universities and community colleges; a move that would cost taxpayers about $130 million.

Well political columnist, Daniel Weintraub argues (quite effectively I might add) that such reduction in student fees might actually hurt California’s poor and needy.

In his Sacramento Bee column, Weintraub writes:

To understand why this is so, step back and consider how college fees, financial aid and university budgets work together. The lower the fees, the bigger the taxpayer subsidy to those who get no direct financial aid: the children of the most affluent citizens in our state. And the higher the subsidy for those folks, the less money that's available for financial aid to the needy and for hiring new faculty to expand the number of slots available to everyone, including the poor.

Considering this argument, perhaps a better way to meet the goal of promoting access to higher education for California’s poor and needy would be to increase financial aid available to middle and low-income families.

Weintraub, however, goes even further to suggest that the state consider the entire state subsidy (estimated to be an average of about $15k per student per year) to be financial aid. And as such, that financial aid should be targeted to the most needy a opposed to all students.

If equity is your goal, the best policy would be to charge full-freight for a university education and then use taxpayer dollars to give subsidies only to those who can't afford it. A needs-based fee policy would give the taxpayers the biggest bang for their bucks while helping those who need it most.

In the example given, the average cost of educating a student in the UC system is $20k per year. The state subsidy would be only $5k per year for students who do not demonstrate a need for financial aid. He states that this would free up enough money to in fact fully subsidize the education of the state’s most needy students.

With the lower fees, every student, regardless of means, gets a hidden subsidy of $15,000 per year. Multiply that by 40,000 students and you have used up the entire $600 million budget.

No money remains for aid targeted to the most financially needy students.
In the high-fee model, on the other hand, the untargeted subsidy is only $5,000 per student.

Again assuming 40,000 students, it takes only $200 million in tax dollars to support the system.

With the money left over, the state could cover the entire cost of education for all financially needy students (about half the total enrollment) and still have funds to serve an additional 8,000 students.

"For any given amount of state support, low fees and high levels of untargeted financial aid do not efficiently use the state's limited resources and do not maximize access to higher education," the analyst concluded.

This is an interesting proposal to say the least. Unfortunately, it is one that will never be given the full consideration it truly deserves.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Your input is needed at the Home of Uncommon Sense

The Home of Uncommon Sense is slowly but surly coming into the 21st century when it comes to technology. We now have the capability to digitally record my speeches, presentations and seminars. And as a test I am considering making audio recordings of my semimonthly Real Men’s Class available for download at the Home of Uncommon Sense. As I am sure you know, this would be no small task.

It would require a substantial amount of time and energy to edit and make the files available for download; thus, requiring a significant investment of both time and money on my part. I don’t mind making such an investment. But I want to make sure that I am not doing so simply for my own edification.

So what I need to know is:

Is this something you would like to have available?

Would you subscribe to the Uncommon Sense Update to gain access to these files?

If I were to add a “Voluntary Donation” button to help raise some money to cover the cost, would you contribute?

If you could take the time to enter your thoughts in the comments field, I would be most appreciative. Your input would really be helpful!

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

George Carlin's Views on Aging. Too funny and too true!

I’m not one who normally goes around quoting George Carlin, but his perspective on how we look at getting older was too true to not share.

I recieved the following via email:

Do you realize that the only time in our lives when we like to get old is when we're kids? If you're less than 10 years old, you're so excited about aging that you think in fractions. "How old are you?" "I'm four and a half!" You're never thirty-six and a half. You're four and a half, going on five! That's the key.

You get into your teens, now they can't hold you back. You jump to the next number, or even a few ahead. "How old are you?" "I'm gonna be 16!" You could be 13, but hey, you're gonna be 16! And then the greatest day of your life . . you become 21. Even the words sound like a ceremony . . . YOU BECOME 21. YESSSS!!!

But then you turn 30. Oooohh, what happened there? Makes you sound like bad milk! He TURNED; we had to throw him out. There's no fun now, you're Just a sour-dumpling. What's wrong? What's changed?

You BECOME 21, you TURN 30, then you're PUSHING 40. Whoa! Put on the brakes, it's all slipping away. Before you know it, you REACH 50 and your dreams are gone.
But wait!!! You MAKE it to 60. You didn't think you would!

So you BECOME 21, TURN 30, PUSH 40, REACH 50 and MAKE it to 60. You've built up so much speed that you HIT 70! After that it's a day-by-day thing; you HIT Wednesday!

You get into your 80s and every day is a complete cycle; you HIT lunch; you TURN 4:30; you REACH bedtime. And it doesn't end there. Into the 90s, you start going backwards; "I Was JUST 92."

Then a strange thing happens. If you make it over 100, you become a little kid again. "I'm 100 and a half!"

May you all make it to a healthy 100 and a half!!

HOW TO STAY YOUNG

1. Throw out nonessential numbers. This includes age, weight and height. Let the doctors worry about them. That is why you pay "them "

2. Keep only cheerful friends. The grouches pull you down.

3. Keep learning. Learn more about the computer, crafts, gardening, whatever. Never let the brain idle. "An idle mind is the devil's workshop." And the devil's name is Alzheimer's.

4. Enjoy the simple things.

5. Laugh often, long and loud. Laugh until you gasp for breath.

6. The tears happen. Endure, grieve, and move on. The only person, who is with us our entire life, is ourselves. Be ALIVE while you are alive.

7. Surround yourself with what you love, whether it's family, pets, keepsakes, music, plants, hobbies, whatever. Your home is your refuge.

8. Cherish your health: If it is good, preserve it. If it is unstable, improve it. If it is beyond what you can improve, get help.

9. Don't take guilt trips. Take a trip to the mall, even to the next county; to a foreign country but NOT to where the guilt is.

10. Tell the people you love that you love them, at every opportunity.

AND ALWAYS REMEMBER: Life is not measured by the number of breaths we take, but by the moments that take our breath away.


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Anonymous attacks on the internet are now against the law?

Attention Bloggers and Blog Commenters! Are you tired of receiving personal, sometimes libelous attacks by anonymous posters? Well last week, President Bush signed into law a bill that could make such anonymous attacks illegal.

Cnet News is reporting:

It's no joke. Last Thursday, President Bush signed into law a prohibition on posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity.

In other words, it's OK to flame someone on a mailing list or in a blog as long as you do it under your real name.

As a blogger who publishes commentaries under my real name, I cannot express how happy I am to see this legislation pass. My blog, like many that allow comments has been infested by individuals who have leveled personal attacks, some boardering on slanderous. And while I do welcome those who disagree with me to comment. I believe it is a true act of a coward to do so anonymously or as has happened in some drastic cases, pretendinb to be someone else.

As a matter of fact, there is one poster who has infested many of the blogs at the Western Alliance. This individual has hurled personal insults and engaged in character assassination all while using fake names. And on several occasions, this individual has even gone as far as to pretend to be members of the Western Alliance. Now we have tracked all of these comments to either an IP address registered to an address in Lincoln, California or to Clear Channel Communications, which owns two Sacramento area talk radio stations 650AM KSTE and 1530AM KFBK. So we have a pretty good idea as to the identity of this anonymous poster. But to date we have chosen not to out this individual, even though his actions have been of questionable legality.

Well now there is may be no doubt that what this poster has been doing is illegal. So, I would like to issue a warning to him and his kind, that your anonymous assaults will no longer be tolerated. No longer are your taunts merely acts of a coward who doesn’t have guts to publicly stand behind your words. Now they are against the law!

So feel free to express yourself! But know that you may run afoul of the law by doing so anonymously.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Miscommunication about miners’ deaths teaches important lesson about faith. (Video Here)

Lost in all the uproar and commotion concerning the false reports about 12 of the 13 West Virginia Miners being alive is the sad story of what went on until they learned that unlike previously reported, only one miner had survived.

John Casro, in a 7 minute interview with CNN (Video Here) tells of how those waiting in the church first got the false report that all but one of the minors was alive and how they would come to know the truth… that all but one had perished.

But what was saddening to me was the tale he told of how families and friends of the believed survivors reacted to the family of the one miner believed to be dead. Castro recalls, “The pastor asked people to come to the altar and pray for the one that was gone.” He continues on, stating that only two or three people came up to pray for the one miner who was believed to be lost. “I couldn’t understand the other four or five hundred people.”

Now I realize that not everyone of those folks were Christians. But I still find it sad that during the three hours that they were waiting to see the miners they thought to be alive, that more people could not find it in their heart to pray for the family of the miner who was thought to be the lone casualty. What a blessing they could have been to that family who was grieving the loss of their loved one. Unknown to those who didn’t pray, the peace and comfort they enjoyed wouldn’t last.

Upon hearing the news that earlier reports were incorrect, fights broke out amongst the crowd at the church. Officials who broke the news were called hypocrites and liars. And as the pastor attempted to comfort the crowd by encouraging them to look to God, one individual replied, “What has God done for us?”

It is easy to believe in God during the good times… when we think he has done something great for us. That does not require faith. But it does require faith to believe in God during the tough times… when tragedy occurs. And faith is not a passive thing. It means that we believe his word and his will. Subsequently, we should follow his direction.

You see, he never promised that we would never go through storms. But he does promise that if we have faith, he will be with us and take us to the other side. Praying that God would comfort and give peace to the family of the dead miner is what God would have wanted them to do. And perhaps in doing so, they would have prepared themselves for the disturbing news that awaited them.

Luke 6:38 says “Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over will be put into your bosom. For with the same measure that you use, it will be measured back to you." What had God done for them? He gave them an opportunity to find peace in the midst of pending despair. Sadly, few chose to avail themselves of it.

I applaud the faith of John Casro and those few who chose to pray when the man of God asked them to do so. I can only pray that when confronted with similar circumstances, I would demonstrate such faith. Unlike many of those who have been quoted or people I have seen interviewed, Casro's faith clearly has not been shaken. And it is obvious that although he mourns the loss of his friends, God has granted him peace.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

2 out of 3 Americans don’t know the Star-Spangled Banner. Campaign to re-teach the national anthem starts today!

Imagine you are at a sporting event, community gathering or political rally where the national anthem is being performed and you notice that most of the people in attendance aren’t singing. Why not? Could it be those few obscure notes that most of us couldn’t reach on our best day? Nope! Chances are people aren’t singing because they don’t even know the words.

A recent survey reveals that two-thirds of American adults don’t even know the words to the Star-Spangled Banner; the world’s most recognizable national anthem. Well, despite the fact that patriotism is no longer considered politically correct in the United States, a group of music teachers are launching a national campaign to re-acquaint our students with the National Anthem.

The Miami Herald is reporting:

A recent survey by Harris Interactive shows that two out of three Americans can't recite all the words to the Star-Spangled Banner, arguably the world's most famous anthem.

Now a group of music educators has launched a campaign to re-teach the anthem throughout schools across the United States. Called the National Anthem Project, the nonprofit group plans to host contests for students and parents to see who can sing the anthem, written by Francis Scott Key. Singing begins at a pre-game event at today's FedEx Orange Bowl followed by an inaugural ceremony on Wednesday.

Bravo for them! I can only hope that their efforts aren’t thwarted by the liberal educrats who have made concerted efforts to stop any form of patriotism; arguing that it may offend and even discriminate against some students who do not wish to participate.

Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Great commercial honoring our troops (Video Here)

A good friend emailed this commercial to me and asked me to pass it on.

I loved it. And so will you.

(Click Here for video)


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com

Voter approved "Targeted Tax" measures may miss intended targets

Tax and spend liberals plan to put multiple measures before California voters in 2006 to increase taxes on specific groups in order to support increased spending in specific areas. However, evidence is mounting that revenues from such taxes often do not reach their intended targets.

The Orange County Register published an article this weekend stating:

California voters may be asked to approve new taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and high incomes next year that could dramatically expand the state's budget for preschool, public safety and health care.

These are exactly the kinds of taxes that have the best chance of winning voter approval: targeted taxes that take money from a relatively small group of people – such as the rich or smokers – and require that the proceeds be dedicated to a specific program, such as early childhood development or health care.

These taxes are popular because the outcome is predicted.

"People have a general feeling that government wastes their money, so if they see, 'Here's a tax, and we will spend it only on this purpose,' the probability of it passing is higher,'' said John Ellwood, public policy professor at UC Berkeley.

An examination of recent voter-approved tax measures shows that the measures do indeed bring in money, but after that things don't always go as expected.

The article goes on to point out how voter approved initiatives have brought billions of dollars in additional tax revenue into state coffers and how those revenues have often been redirected by state lawmakers or misspent by the agencies directed to administer the funds. It also points out how people are illegally and legally finding ways to avoid paying these new taxes.

What is not addressed is a discussion of who will be required to foot the bill for these new programs once tax revenues fall short of expectations. Any guesses?

_________________________________________

Two here are two previous posts on ballot box budgeting measures targeted for 2006.

Ballot Box Budgeting…Tax hikes & increased govt. spending coming to a ballot near you!

And

"Wealth Tax" Initiative qualifies for circulation in California…


Craig DeLuz

Visit The Home of Uncommon Sense...
www.craigdeluz.com