Over the past two decades, the Nobel Peace Prize committee has become an anti-American organization that has sought to use its awards to influence world opinion and American policy to its own ends.In 1994, one of the three recipients to whom it awarded the Peace Prize was Yasser Arafat, for his "efforts to promote peace in the Middle East " - peace through the promotion of terrorism?' Through the encouragement of the Intifada?' Through his corruption and theft of Palestinian assets for his own personal benefit?In 2002, one year after 9/11, it awarded the laureate to Jimmy Carter, "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy [never mind about his love affair with Cuba] and human rights and to promote economic and social development." Efforts that have never borne any fruit!' Now where have his affections gone?' To NORTH KOREA!In 2005, the committee awarded the laureate to Mohammed ElBaradei and the International Atomic Energy Commission for their work in preventing the development of nuclear arms.' Since then, North Korea has developed and tested nuclear weapons and Iran is much farther along in its nuclear weapons program.My opinion is that this award is a political move to encourage Obama along the line of thinking like Neville Chamberlain rather than Winston Churchill in dealing with the world's tyrannical and terrorist states.' I encourage President Obama to REJECT this award.As the mother of a young man who has joined the Army to defend our country against our enemies, I am alarmed at any form of encouragement of our government to soften its stance against the world's tyrannical and terrorist states.' Mr. President, turn down that award! More >>

More >>

People are being murdered every day in the United States.' However, some of these murders capture the public's attention more than others.' Hugely fascinating and frightening has been the recent murder of the female Yale University graduate student, whose body was found stuffed into a wall in the Yale University biology lab on the day she was to be married.' Perhaps it was the imminent nuptials which made people more sympathetic, or perhaps it was that one is ultimately not safe anywhere that made people respond so viscerally to this particular news story.A 10 year old girl called me shortly after that story broke out, because she was now quite scared about everything.' Her fear only started, however, when she was in a movie theater bathroom stall and a woman came in, screaming and pounding on the doors, ostensibly looking for some other child.' Since that incident, my young caller had been scared.' Her mother was listening in when I validated this child's feelings by saying "You are perfectly correct in being scared.' It is true that there are bad people who are willing to hurt you and that you are sometimes not even safe in your own home." Paradoxically, that calmed her down!' Why?' Perhaps it seems to you that that comment would make her more upset.' Nope.' I validated her worst fears, and in doing so, helped her to put them in proper proportion.' If everyone is lying to you because of good intentions, you have to escalate to get them to confirm reality.' This child did not have to bounce off walls anymore.' Someone believed her that life is not completely safe.I continued by reminding her that she was becoming an adult.' Adults deal with truth, and the truth is that we are not always safe.' Adults need to be aware of that and, instead of just being freaked out about it,, they need to prepare for it:' locking the doors, watching who is near your car in a parking lot, learning some self-defense, being careful about where you go with people you don't know, and on and on.Evil is a part of life; danger is a part of life.' People need to know and respect that fact and be armed with information and reasonable plans to deal with these facts.'A little bit of paranoia is a good thing.' It keeps you prepared. Too much paranoia inhibits one from living life at all.'Don't hide the fact of evil and danger from your children.' Teach them how to recognize them and then what to do. More >>

More >>

A short time into her pregnancy, a married woman in Ohio was told by her husband that he had just received a call from the fertility clinic which helped them attain this pregnancy.' The clinic "goofed," and the baby in her belly was the product of the embryo of some other couple, who now expected her to go through childbirth and hand over the baby.This couple is quite religious and they don't believe in abortion, so in spite of their immense personal pain, they planned to hand over the baby after it was born (they did so at the end of September, when the woman delivered a healthy baby boy).Their only request was to see and hold the baby first, as they had already formed a bond.Shame on the clinic for making that phone call!' You may be shocked at that response, but since strangers meet, fall in love, marry and spend their lives together, it's obvious that genetics is not the prime criterion for love, or no one would be able to adopt a child.Having been pregnant, I'll tell you that at the absolute instant of fertilization, an intense relationship starts (and continues, in spite of morning sickness, and inevitable heartburn and constipation).' This actual "birth mother" is traumatized, as is her whole family.' And for what?' Ownership of an embryo?I remember a Law and Order episode where the "punch line" was that the father who raised the now-teenage boy was revealed NOT to be the biological father, and he lost custody.' Shameful and cruel, I thought.Some people think that because something is "the truth," that it should be revealed.' Not necessarily, and especially not when terrible human suffering ensues.The "embryo" family simply could have kept trying, and there is no proof that this particular embryo would have thrived until birth in the genetic mother.'I think everyone was better off with this truth not being spoken. More >>

I think it's outrageous that a married couple is suing WalMart for calling the cops over what they called "bath time photos."A year ago in Peoria, Arizona, mommy and daddy sent 144 family photos to be developed to WalMart.' The developer spotted eight photos of children in provocative positions, with their genitals exposed.' Apparently, the parents say that they "have told our girls that they have freedom to be in their home and feel okay about their bodies and their nudity, but that there is a time and a place for it." I couldn't agree more....and a store photo development establishment is probably NOT the place for it.' You know how cheap it is to download your own photos?' Sheesh!Obviously, these folks are big into nudity and the carefree expression of such, so their getting angry that the police and child protective services were brought in to investigate should have been an expected consequence of their beliefs. It is the intent of a civilized society to protect the old, infirm, and the young from exploitation and abuse.' The police and child protective services and the WalMart photo developer did the right thing.After psychiatric exams and a full investigation, it was determined by a judge that these parents didn't intend any abuse, nor were they revving up for child porn.' Fine.' Happy ending.But they should have been sensitive and non-defensive enough to understand the idea of protecting children always comes first . More >>

More >>

More >>

Y'know, I really don't know why I am so upset about Roman Polanski.' I mean, he's the director of such notable films as Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown , and The Pianist .' When one is a "respected" artist, shouldn't we allow for certain...shall we say..."proclivities" that maybe aren't what the average schmo should get away with?' After all...he's a movie director!What's the big deal about telling a very pretty little 13 year old girl that he could make her a star - i.e., a model for the French Edition of Vogue magazine?' How narrow-minded can you be to imagine that taking pictures of the naked 13 year old girl in a hot tub, plying her with glass after glass of champagne and popping her a few Quaaludes (ostensibly, he said, to cure her asthma), and then showing her what a real man can do without Viagra is a problem?' And what's wrong with the fact that he cautioned her to never tell her mother about their "little secret?"' It just makes the whole scenario more...intimate.Go figure...the Los Angeles District Attorney's office filed charges against Roman Polanski for this "innocuous" behavior - gee, it must have been a slow legal day.' After pleading guilty to having sex with a 13 year old child, working out a plea bargain, and then paying off the girl's family, Roman Polanski fled the United States in 1977.' The American authorities (just stubborn, I guess) issued an international search request in 2005.' Swiss authorities arrested him Saturday at the Zurich airport.How terribly inconvenient for the film world.' Polanski had traveled to Switzerland to collect a Lifetime Achievement Award at the Zurich Film Festival, and by going to Switzerland, he finally got arrested for his "lifetime guilt."' Actress Debra Winger, President of the film festival's jury, was terribly upset, poor thing: "The festival has been unfairly exploited to secure Polanski's arrest over a case that is all but dead.' Despite the philistine nature of the collusion that has now occurred, we came to honor Roman Polanski as a great artist.' We hope today this latest order will be dropped; it is based on a three decade old case that is all but dead except for a minor technicality." There are so many people around the world who were equally as astonished as I was that such an important film director should be treated so disrespectfully.' Jack Lang, a former French culture minister said, "While Mr. Polanski had committed a 'grave crime,' he is a great creator and artist, and there's a sentiment here that pursuing someone for a crime committed 30 years ago...is unreasonable...a kind of judicial lynching." I'm not sure what Mr. Lang's notion of what consequences a "great creator and artist" should have had, had he not eluded sentencing three decades ago.' And it certainly isn't the fault of the American judicial system that a country such as France would give him sanctuary.Apparently, 100 or so entertainment industry professionals created a petition for Mr. Polanski's release, saying "Filmmakers in France, in Europe, in the United States and around the world are dismayed by this decision." It seems inadmissible to them that an international cultural event, paying homage to one of the greatest contemporary filmmakers, is used by the police to apprehend him.After all, with all the stress of hiding in France to avoid criminal punishment for what is ultimately the drugging and raping of a little girl, he still managed to get the Best Director Oscar in 2003 for "The Pianist." In spite of the clarity of his "wrongdoings," the Zurich festival director is experiencing " great consternation and shock," adding, "We are unable to judge the legal background surrounding the arrest." Let's go through this again:' the man drugged and raped a child. The man drugged and raped a child, and then fled the United States to avoid jail time.' The man drugged and raped a child, and the fled the United States to avoid jail time, and has been for 30 years treated like the patron saint for the arts by a world that is growing more and more morally corrupt by the moment. There is hardly a more sympathetic creature on the face of the earth than Roman Polanski.' He was born in Paris, moved to Poland with his Jewish family when still a toddler (shortly before World War II).' His mother died in a Nazi concentration camp, but Polanski avoided capture and spent his youth in Poland before moving to the United States.' His wife, Sharon Tate, was 8 months' pregnant with their child when she was brutally murdered by the Manson family.' When you look at his ability to make movies, after these grossly horrendous experiences, it seems logical that you should forgive a little drugging and a little raping of a young girl.' NOT.In my opinion, all those who have participated in any way in the making or distributing of Polanski's movies for the last 30 years should be considered accessories after the fact, and part of a conspiracy to protect a child rapist.' Polanski's movies should be boycotted by every decent American, as well as the movies of those who acted in or contributed to any of Polanski's movies in the last 30 years.The man is an animal and a coward.' He's an animal because of what he did to a child; he's a coward because he didn't take his punishment like a man with character.I am thoroughly disgusted by the world's film community for supporting him just because he makes good movies.' I understand that Hitler was a good painter...Maybe we shouldn't have closed in on and bombed his bunker because good painters are a treasure.There's word that both the Polish and French governments are going to try to get Obama to "pardon" him.' I can't believe Obama would agree to such a request while looking into the eyes of his two little girls.' Can you?Amoral is the word of the day - it means no moral compass whatsoever.' And that's what we are seeing around the world in those who have come out to sympathize with and support Roman Polanski, child rapist.' His heinous act and three decades of freedom avoiding an appropriate sentence don't mean anything to amoral people.' It's all about the game of movies.' God bless the Swiss arrest and the intent of the Los Angeles District Attorney's office to bring him back to face justice.'Someone in Hollywood is already, I am sure, scripting up for the movie of Polanski's life, and to be sure, he will be presented to the Vatican for consideration of sainthood, because he is big box office. More >>

More >>