Saturday, December 30, 2006

Funeral-James Brown

James Brown passed away, and they have had repeated coverage of the three places that have been chosen to pay last respects. The Apollo, a private service in a Baptist church, and the last one in Augusta at the James Brown Arena .

Perhaps it is just me, but I thought that I heard the news people said that he has had different clothes for each of the settings!!

Anyone know if this is true??

Fwd: New comment on Missing N.C. twins found in Canada.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Anonymous;
Date: Dec 30, 2006 5:11 PM
Subject: [WI Catholic Musings] New comment on Missing N.C. twins found in Canada.

Anonymous has left a new comment on your post " Missing N.C. twins found in Canada ":

"What God hath joined, let no man put asunder." Doesn't this apply equally well to the relationship between parents and their offspring as to marriage? You're pretty harsh on Quets. Quets asked for her babies back 12 hours after they were originally taken. The prospective adoptive people refused to return them. Have you ever been pregnant and felt ill during your pregnancy? Did you have post-partum depression? Ever been separated from your own newborn for a few days - or a year - or more? No mother can know what this might be like until she has experienced it. As for the babies, even a puppy gets to stay with his mother for 8 weeks, to prevent the trauma that comes from separating mother and baby. Posted by Anonymous to WI Catholic Musings at 12/30/2006 5:11 PM

I knew someone would come and hide behind 'Anonymous' to make a snide comment. But they won't stay there.

So, 'Anonymous' ISP number (Mediacom Communications Corp) from Marion, Iowa, who visited at Dec 30 2006 4:56:44 pm for JUST long enough to leave a comment that shows you did not really read and understand what I wrote, a grand total of 1 minute 47 seconds, I am answering you publically. (You really should read the disclaimer, and stick around to know WHO you are responding to before you pull the 'Anonymous' hit and run act. There is a very clear warning issued under the Adoption area on the left hand column, in addition to the disclaimer about emails sent to me...) that is found at the Visitors piece I wrote.

The Scriptural verse you quote out of context does NOT apply to children, in any way. It is specifically referring to Marriage.

God makes Two become ONE ONLY in Matrimony. We are not told to leave our parents and cleave only to our children.

Children are not ONE with us, they are separate in every way from Conception on. They only dwell in our womb for nine months in order to grow to be ready for birth, on their continuing journey of growth that ends only with Death.

Hard on her? ONLY for kidnapping. If you READ what I wrote, I clearly stated that I am not making any decision/opinion until after facts come out. I clearly pointed to Baby Richard's and Baby Jessica's cases as to why I would not make any definitive decisions. Thus far, there is no evidence that she changed her mind 12 hours after signing papers to terminate her parental rights, but as I CLEARLY said... if she changed her mind within the time allowed, then any adoption subsequent to that fact is jeopardized.

Note the history of the two cases I gave.

But you do NOT kidnap children, whether in divorce proceedings OR in this situation. She has probably now lost ANY chance she may have had to have been given her children back.

Children are NOT property. We do not own them. They are not chattel. Go back and read the last few paragraphs that I wrote.

My argument is against kidnapping children, NOT about the grief and depression a birth mother feels. My argument is against lying and playing games with people, NOT about who should or should not have custody of the babies. I am not in any position to know if the 12 hours you mention is truth or not.

But I DO know that taking kids out of the country by anyone under a custody agreement, and not returning them is against the law. How do I know that?

I lived it. For most of my childrens' lives, I had to follow custody agreements (including knowing that the other parent had been diagnosed by professionals as being in need of IN PATIENT treatment at a time when most places were doing out patient treatment for drugs and alcohol).

I lived it while I was at times threatened by the other parent that he would be 'getting custody of the kids'.

I lived it knowing that there were times when he'd had the oldest babysit at age six while he ran to the store for 'smokes' (beer). I lived it knowing that at times, he picked them up after drinking, because when I spoke to those in authority, including mediators, police, etc, I was told that I could NOT interfere with custody orders, and had no real 'proof' other than knowing the behavior that went with the drinking.

I watched OTHERs go through it! Friends of mine who never forgave each other, and used their children to hurt and get even with each other for most of their growing up years.

You do NOT kidnap children, for any reason, ever.

God bless.

It is not who is right, but what is right, that is of importance.
~~Thomas H. Huxley

"Right is still right if nobody is right,
and wrong is still wrong if everybody is wrong,"
Archbishop Fulton J Sheen author of The Life of Christ

Labels: , , , ,

Missing N.C. twins found in Canada

Twins Holly and Tyler Needham are seen being held by their mother Allison Lee Quets in this photo made available by the FBI, Friday, Dec. 29, 2006. The FBI and Canadian officials joined the search for Quets who disappeared from North Carolina after a holiday visit and may be in Canada, the FBI said. The biological mother, Allison Lee Quets, 49, had visitation rights as a part of a custody agreement, authorities said. (AP Photo/FBI)

According to an article posted Dec. 30, 2006, 4:37AM, the twins have been found. Their birth mother apparently crossed the border with them on Dec 23.

I have restrained myself from writing on this, because I do not know the entire story. If the adoption was finalized, I have one opinion. If it never was, and is still in the process of being worked out, I have another.

Either way, they should NEVER have been taken out of the country, and she should have honored custodial agreement that were in effect.

The fact that there was no Amber Alert issued really angers me, however. On news reports, it was stated that this was a 'family custodial matter', and therefore did not qualify. Excuse me...there have been MANY Amber alerts that I have seen that resulted from a father taking his kids, a mother taking her kids, parents taking their kids when they were in foster care. So how does THIS case differ??

Adoptive parenting is NOT babysitting. We become the parents by law, just as though we had given birth to them. Custodial parents also have rights.

Until more facts come out about the status of the adoption, I really cannot and will not comment on the rest of my thoughts. I feel for the parents, immensely. Both parents, adoptive and birth.

But kidnapping, and interferring with parental rights is a crime, regardless, no matter who takes the kids.

I have no sympathy for a parent who does not return children after visitation in divorce cases, either, so don't think that this is solely an adoption issue. Taking children in this fashion not only makes the ones waiting for their return go through hell, it also puts the children into a situation where THEY are hurt, where they are used as pawns.

The "Baby Richard" case of the early to mid-ninties is one reason that I will not and cannot form a more definitive opinion on this story. Baby Richard's birth mother lied to his birth father, telling him that the baby had died. In Illinois, at that time, a birthfather had thirty days to file to fight the adoption. He did.

At that point, the child should have been returned to him. Period. Instead, the adoptive parents (and I could definitely understand their wanting to do so) fought to keep him. That fight ended up in the Illinois Supreme Court, and the birth father won his case. We all remember the terrible pictures of the child being pulled from his adoptive parents arms yelling that he would be good...

Similarly, the 'Baby Jessica' case where the attorney had the birthmother sign in less than the 72 hour waiting period Iowa required, and had no real consent from the birthfather (again, bmother had lied about the father), there was no legal way that an adoption could/should have taken place.

In both of those cases, it still angers me that the lies of the two women about the birthfathers started everything in motion, ultimately hurting the children, AND the adoptive families, as well as the birthfathers. Rights were trampled by those women, who ultimately gained by finally being honest with the birthfathers, and then benefitting when the birthfathers won long and hard fought legal battles.

I have always felt sorry for the birthfathers in these cases, as well as the adoptive parents. I have had little sympathy for the lying women who caused the events in the first place.

If this is another case similar, where the birthmother truly did change her mind within a period of time allowed by the law, I do have sympathy for her. If, as her sister says, she was pressured into placing the babies with the adoptive parents BY the adoptive parents... I have sympathy.

If she was NOT pressured, and did not attempt to rescind the termination of parental rights until after the legal time to do so... then the entire situation is different.

But kidnapping children, interfering with parental rights/custodial agreement is NOT the way to go about it.

I wait further news reports, if any.

God bless!

Friday, December 29, 2006

Fwd: Date available, New DVD Available and Happy New Year from Shoebat Foundation

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: <>


We have had a late cancellation of a church for the weekend January 13 and 14. If anyone would like to invite Walid to speak to their church on this weekend please email us at

Walid's new dvd which has his most powerful speech yet which was made at John Hagee's church in October, along with the dvd of Walid's address at Bridges for Peace international conference "To Redemption" is being shipped to us tomorrow. All those that ordered we will be emailing you shortly and we can mail copies on January 8th.

It will be offered on the website as an add on to the book Why I Left Jihad or individually on in about 10 days.

There are some very big news items which we will announce next week.  We are planning some ambitious things for a hopefully a very big 2007.

We hope all our supporters are having a good holiday season. We wish everyone a Happy New Year and we Pray for the Peace of Jeruslam

Shalom to all from Walid and Keith at the Shoebat Foundation

Monday, December 25, 2006

Adam Sandler "50 First Dates"

Tonight, I watched a movie that was very different than I had expected it to be. I truly had no idea that it would actually be worth my time when it started, and was ready to turn it off, but something held me from doing so.

Adam Sandler isn't my first choice of a movie star, and Drew Barrymore isn't either. Sometimes I think I may be a real 'prude' as my kids can attest to, but I prefer Braveheart and other Mel Gibson movies, or older ones like Miracle of 24th Street.

But tonight I watched 50 First Dates, a movie about a woman with short term memory loss and a man who grows up while trying to help her fall in love with him every day. At the end, after much repetition, they learn that while she cannot remember him, she also cannot forget him.

I looked up at the screen at the very end, and read a dedication to his father, Stanley Sandler, which I only wish I could remember. He called his father his hero, his mentor, his Mom's best friend...

The movie had a personal side to it, because it was about loving someone with a short term memory loss that will not improve, and helping that person to remember life as it is, not as it was at one point over and over. It was about accepting the person for where they are, and helping them to go on. In the beginning of the movie, Dad and brother were doing everything in their power to keep life as it was on the day that the accident which caused the injury took place, including buying MANY newspapers of the day it happened, and repainting walls on a daily basis. They were 'protecting' her (Lucy), in their eyes, but they were also hindering her, and as she said.... lying to her on a daily basis.

Adam Sandler begins by trying to 'pick her up'...and ends up loving Lucy, but not buying into the game that Dad and brother have been playing.

Short term memory loss can be painful to watch. With dementia, it won't improve either. On the contrary, it will only get worse. I am watching this happen with Mom, and it is painful. But WE have had a few laughs about it, and just as Adam Sandler and Drew Barrymore shared a 'first kiss' many times in the movie, we have been able to have the same joke several times.

Mom has a 'new way' to avoid things she doesn't want to do...she suddenly has a stomach ache, or 'doesn't feel good'. She can be sitting there working on a crossword puzzle, and we mention going someplace---yup, you guessed it...

Or, mention taking a shower.... she first tells us that she can do it, and if that doesn't work... yup, you guessed it....

Yesterday, she told another sister that she wanted to go to Mass. That sister called me, as she is no longer Catholic and had plans at her own church. My son then called and asked if I'd like to go to 8:00 PM Mass tonight. What a neat solution to the last minute shopping I had to do, and the conflicting times of the other available Masses today!

So I called Mom, who could no longer remember that she'd wanted to go to Mass, and just wasn't sure.... call me later... we'll see how I am feeling.....

Shopping, home... call Mom. "I'm home, and I can come get you in an hour for Mass'... her response? "Oh, I just don't know... "

Not one to give up, and knowing she probably won't remember, I call her fifteen minutes later and tell her that I'll be there in about a half hour to pick her up for Mass, "get dressed, get prettied up, and we'll go.."

She laughed... oh, we'll see... ok...

I pulled in promptly, and entered the house to see her not dressed, and thrilled to see me. 'HI, where have YOU been?" I laughed, reminded her that I'd already called her about three times, and commented on the fact that she wasn't dressed for Mass........

Meltdown. I cannot tell you how fast she went from grinning to ... pitiful. OOHHH, she hurt, she didn't feel good... she just was too tired to get dressed... etc. And she looked the part.

When I point this out to her, we both laugh, because it has become her standard avoidance mannerism. I told her I'll try to find an Oscar for her. Mom has never learned how to just say No...

Once she realized that I wasn't going to push her into going, she miraculously recovered (as she has in the

She laughingly told me, as I was leaving, that she won't do anything I wouldn't do... sometimes I wonder...

The movie reminded me that even with short term memory loss-- the person is still able to love and be loved. Sadly, Mom's loss will not get better, either, and videos/notes/phone calls/ pictures won't always help as the dementia progresses. Just as in the fictitious movie, we have to meet her where she is today, remind her as often as she needs to be reminded, and love her right where she is.

God bless!

Labels: , ,

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Have a VERY Blessed Christmas!

I can't seem to put any picture here tonight, but wanted to wish all of you a very Blessed Holiday Season, especially the remembrance of His Birth.

May each of us remember the true meaning of Christmas, and give Him the Gift of our heart, totally.

God bless!
Merry Christmas


Fwd: Some Questions for Gov. Mitt Romney

Something to think about. It is not as important to me that he is Mormon, as it is that he be PRO-LIFE in all ways, that he meet the criteria on the issues that I cannot/will not back down on. They are "non-negotiable" moral principles-- Abortion, Euthanasia, Embryonic Stem Cell Research, Marriage between One Man/One Woman, and Human Cloning.

Though a personal 'trust' factor in my own determination also includes the candidates' life style, on the five listed above, I do not back down. Hence, a 'Catholic' like Rudy will not get my vote, nor did a 'Catholic' like Kerry. The religion of any single candidate will not influence me as much as their stand on them. AND, if they are ambiguous in the verbalization of these areas... the result will be the same.

God bless!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
The Window
on December 23, 2006
A Catholic Look at Society, Culture and Politics

Deal W. Hudson

In This Issue:

Some Questions for Gov. Mitt Romney

One of the likely candidates for the 2008 presidential nomination, outgoing Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, has been in the news recently. Romney's positioning of himself as a pro-life, pro-family "social conservative" seems to be playing well in some states and among a few Evangelicals, but Boston-area grassroots Catholic activists familiar with his record are not so enthusiastic.

Reviewing his record as governor, a look at Romney's positions on abortion, emergency contraception, gay marriage, and gay adoption raises serious questions for Catholic voters.

Here's Part 1 of a report on Romney's record on key issues, some of which have been ignored by the mainstream media. Part 2, which will be given after New Year's, will cover Romney's record on gay marriage and gay adoption.


Today Romney describes himself as "pro-life," and explains he converted to this position in late 2004 at 57-years-old. But, his public statements and actions present a mixed history of pro-choice vs. pro-life positions with conflicting conversion stories.

Romney as Pro-Choice

During his 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy and in his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney campaigned as a pro-choice candidate. In a televised debate against Kennedy in October of 1994, Romney said he felt "abortion should be safe and legal in this country," and he believed this because his mother took that position in her 1970 US Senate campaign.

When Kennedy labeled his opponent, "multiple choice," Romney rebutted that since the time of a close relative's death from an illegal abortion years ago, "My mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see me wavering on that."

Romney thus suggested he may have previously been neutral or pro-life, but converted to pro-choice two years before Roe v Wade (Conversion #1). He maintained that pro-choice position through his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, when he answered to Planned Parenthood and NARAL questionnaires saying he supported "the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade," and ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose…Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."

Oddly, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him that year by Massachusetts Citizens for Life.

Romney as Pro-Life

By spring of 2005, Romney was highlighting his personal opposition to abortion in out-of-state speeches. "I'm in a different place than I was probably in 1994, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, in my own views on that." On May 23, 2005 Romney was quoted in USA Today saying, he was "personally pro-life" but declining to say more. "I choose not to elaborate on those because I don't want to be confusing to people in my state."

Massachusetts Citizens for Life was "unimpressed with those moves," and still considered Romney an abortion-rights supporter.

Romney has attributed his pro-life conversion (Conversion #2) to a November 2004 stem cell research discussion with a Harvard researcher. He now claims he has joined company with other political figures such as Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde who changed their views.

Everyone welcomes politicians who are open to realizing the truth about the evils of abortion. Reagan and Hyde changed their views once and became stalwart supporters of a culture of life.

But will Mitt Romney, if elected president, turn out like Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde?

And is Romney asking us to believe he converted twice-first to pro-choice before abortion was ever legalized by Roe v Wade, and then 34 years later from pro-choice to pro-life as a result of one brief meeting?

What prevents Romney from converting back again? And how does he explain why one of his political consultants, Charles Manning, said, "Mitt has always been consistent in his pro-choice position" in 1994, while another Romney political consultant, Michael Murphy said last year, "He's been a pro-life Mormon faking it as pro-choice friendly."

Which Mitt Romney should Catholic voters believe?

Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council summarized his view last year. "For a lot of people, especially Christian conservatives, it's one of those black and white issues. You're either pro-life or not. That's the trouble with Governor Romney -- he's gray."


The Boston Globe claims a visible result of Romney's abortion shift was his July 2005 veto of a bill making the "morning-after pill" (Plan B) available over-the-counter at state pharmacies and requiring hospitals to offer it to rape victims.

If Gov. Romney has indeed suddenly become committed to the culture of life in the past two years of his political life, why did he eliminate the conscience exemption allowing Catholic hospitals to opt-out of the intrusive law that his own Department of Public Health decided to grant them?

On December 7, 2005, the Globe reported that Romney's Department of Public Health had determined Catholic and other privately-run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections. A statute passed in previous years said privately-run hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception, and indeed, Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution guarantees such freedom of religious practice.

When pro-choice groups complained, Romney immediately caved-in, or "flip-flopped," as Massachusetts Democrats described it, saying that after legal review, his own lawyer found all hospitals in the state would be forced to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims.

On December 9, 2005 the Boston Globe reported, "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law...The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds."

Will Romney, himself a Harvard-trained attorney, plan to bring the same timid legal counsel to Washington to protect and defend life?

Why did Gov. Romney not simply abide by the state constitution and the decision of his own Public Health Department? He instead abandoned Catholic hospitals, setting them up for possible court battles if they upheld their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion.

These are some of the legitimate questions that Catholic voters will want answered by Gov. Romney before they decide who will get their vote.

A blessed Christmas season from the Morley Institute Staff

For the latest Catholic news, the Window recommends the Catholic News Agency.

Please add us to your address book so that The Window will always arrive in your in-box not your bulk or junk e-mail folder.

Phone: 202-367-7456

OK, We Can Relax Now! All is right with the UN (World)...

UN sanctions hit Iran after call by Bush
Posted: Sunday, December 24, 2006

The UN Security Council unanimously approved a tough resolution yesterday evening authorising sanctions against Iran for refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment programme, bringing to an end two months of often fractious negotiations aimed at pressuring Tehran to clarify its nuclear ambitions.

The resolution orders all countries to ban the supply of specified materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programmes. It also imposes an asset freeze on key companies and individuals involved in the programmes named on a UN list.

Full story here.

OK, we can all sit back and relax now!

No more to worry about, because the UN has spoken!

Headline banners even proclaim that it was a UNANIMOUS decision by the Security Council! (Had to prod Russia along, just a bit)

Rice urges immediate enforcement of UN sanctions against Iran

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that Iran should "accept its international obligations" and suspend its nuclear activities.

In a statement issued after the U-N passed a resolution penalizing Iran for its nuclear enrichment program. Rice also called the resolution a "strong signal to the government of Iran."

Stressing the need of immediate enforcement of UN sanctions against Iran, she said that the resolution orders all countries to ban the supply of specified materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programs.

It also imposes an asset freeze on key companies and individuals in the country's nuclear and missile programs named on a U-N list.

That should also make us rest peacefully, shouldn't it? I mean, even ISRAEL is hailing this UN pronouncement! That, not withstanding the quote in the same article.....

For its part, Iran rejected the U.N. decision as an illegal imposition on its right to pursue nuclear energy.

Chief Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani told Iran's IRNA news agency that the "resolution against Iran is not an important document."

The international community "should realize that this move will not have much result and Iran will give a deserving reply to it," added Larijani.

A 'deserving reply'? What exactly does that mean? A deserving reply....
I remember how effective the UN was in SOOOO many ways in Iraq...and other countries. In Iraq, they were just ignored, even kicked out!

Ah, yes, we can rest easy, sleep well. Iran will pack up all Nuclear things now, and cease all operations because they have been told to do so by the UN Security Council....

Wait, what is that I hear???

Iran defiant in face of UN sanctions

Sunday, 24 Dec 2006 12:03
Iran has responded to the UN's decision to impose trade sanctions by declaring it will immediately resume uranium enrichment.

Iran Continues Uranium Enrichment, Rejects UN Sanctions

Business: 24 December 2006, Sunday.

Iran vowed Sunday to push forward efforts to enrich uranium and to change its relations with the international nuclear watchdog after the UN Security Council imposed sanctions designed to stop the country's disputed nuclear program.

Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the Security Council would regret voting in favor of the sanctions, saying he was sorry the West lost its chance to make amends with Iran. (Oh, my.....)

Country's government announced Sunday it is starting the installation of 3,000 centrifuge and then an expansion of the program to 54,000 centrifuges, which spin uranium gas into enriched material to produce nuclear fuel.

And EVEN in Pakistan, they are verbalizing..... oh, this should really make us feel safer, right?

Chief of Pakistan's main religious alliance slams UN sanctions against Iran.

The U.N. resolution "is based on double standards," said Qazi Hussain Ahmed, an opposition lawmaker and leader of a six-party coalition that is opposed to the U.S. war on terrorism.

"The Security Council did not take any action against Israel, which is already a nuclear power, but punished Iran for its peaceful nuclear program," Ahmed told reporters in the southern Pakistan port city of Karachi.

Israel's prime minister recently appeared to confirm long-held suspicions that it is a nuclear power.

Iran is accused by the United States of trying to develop nuclear weapons but Iranian leaders say their country's nuclear program is aimed at generating electricity.

"Israel's prime minister has confessed that his country was a nuclear power but there is no action against Israel so far, while Iran is punished because it is a Muslim country," said Ahmed, whose alliance demands that Israel end its occupation of Palestinian lands.

Khan, the scientist, has been living under virtual house arrest amid tight security in Islamabad since his admission that he leaked nuclear technology.

Officials have said that Khan sold centrifuges to Iran and North Korea for refinement of nuclear fuel and supplied weapons designs to Libya.

Khan has been pardoned by President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, who cited his contribution to making Pakistan a nuclear power.

Based on the history of how effective the UN has been in the past.... I may start looking to build the 'bomb shelters' that so many had way back in the fifties somewhere undisclosed....... Oh, and Russia? Op-ed piece that MAY offer us food to think about....Oh, and then we get to remember that WAY BACK in January, someone ELSE was setting herself up... er, voicing her opinion....

Pray for the Peace of Jerusalem

God bless!

Labels: , , , , , ,