Daughter-in-Law Sues

So much for blood being thicker than water.

The estate of a Derry Township, Pa., guy killed after pushing his father out of the way of a falling tree has filed a negligence lawsuit against the dad.

Victim Brian Shean's wife says she's suing her father-in-law in the interest of her 4-year-old son.

Carrie Prejean-Fighting The Good Fight

Miss California USA. may have been tossed into the scuffle over same-sex marriage, but she has become a willing warrior in the fight.
Carrie Prejean – who gave a now-famous response to a question about gay marriage at the recent Miss USA pageant – is featured in a new advertisement from the National Organization for Marriage, which says its mission is “to protect marriage and the faith communities that sustain it.”
The advertisement, which accuses same-sex marriage backers of trying to silence opponents like Ms. Prejean, is the latest step into advocacy for the 21-year old Miss California. Ms. Prejean told NBC’s “Today” show on Thursday morning that she does not regret becoming involved in the back-and-forth.
“I’m going to do whatever it takes … to protect marriage,” said Ms. Prejean, who started giving interviews to the news media shortly after the Miss USA pageant. “It’s something that is very dear to my heart.”
Supporters of gay marriage immediately hit back at the advertisement, while officials affiliated with the state’s pageant said they were disappointed with Ms. Prejean.

The president of the Human Rights Campaign, Joe Solmonese – who is seen calling gay marriage opponents bigots in the advertisement – retorted in a statement that the National Organization for Marriage’s “relationship with the truth could use some help.”
“As far as my cameo, I appreciate them emphasizing my point that when debating the merits of this issue they only have lies on which to rely,” Mr. Solmonese said.
In a statement, Miss California USA pageant officials said “in the entire history of Miss U.S.A., no reigning title holder has so readily committed her face and voice to a more divisive or polarizing issue.”

We applaud Ms. Prejean for taking such a courageous position and standing for what is right and decent. We need more people like her willing to stick their neck out for traditional marriage.

Way to go, Carrie!

Mr. T I, The Jury

We pity the fool who would try to give this juror any jibber-jabber.

Mr. T was summoned to jury duty in his hometown of Chicago, and he did not shirk his responsibility.

"I enjoy doing my civic duty," he said. "It's not about the A-Team, it's the J-Team -- the jury team."

Fortunately for Chicago's criminals, Mr. T was not selected for a trial.

I Was Only Trying To Help

Can't a guy get any consideration?

A German paramedic who spotted a woman having a heart attack pulled over to help her, and got a parking ticket for his trouble.

"I know traffic wardens have a reputation for being miserable and hard-hearted," said good Samaritan Steve Schiltenwolf. "It looks like it's true."

Obama Doctrine = Appease Our Enemies So They’ll Like Us Again

AFTER a mere 100 days, the "Obama Doctrine" for our foreign and security poli cies has emerged. And it's terrifying.

The combination of dizzying naivete, dislike of our allies, disdain for our military, distrust of our intelligence services and distaste for our own country promises the worst foreign policy of our lifetimes.

That includes President Jimmy Carter's abysmal record of failure.

The core tenets of the Obama Doctrine to date would make a charter member of the Weather Underground cheer:

We're to blame. If there are problems anywhere, they're America's fault. This central conviction of leftist ideology appears to have soaked so thoroughly into our president's consciousness during his lengthy friendships with extremists that it's now second nature to him.

Problems can be negotiated away. From Somali pirates to Moscow's belligerency, Obama and his Cabinet see a good chat as the best response to a challenge. Our president got to the Oval Office by talking, not doing, and his faith in his powers of persuasion is unlimited.

An acquaintance who may have our government's best grasp of the Russians shakes his head at the tone in Washington. The current mantra: "We have to get over our Cold War thinking." Great -- except that it's the Russians who've revived Cold War hostility.

The Taliban devours Pakistan, and we want to talk. President Hugo Chavez destroys Venezuela's democracy, and we want to talk. Iran pursues nuclear weapons with refreshed enthusiasm . . . and we want to talk.

Problems that can't be talked out can be bought off. Pakistan, a nuke-armed state of 170 million Muslims seething with anti-Americanism stirred up by our "friends," faces a crack-up as its once-monolithic military splinters. Obama's answer? Send billions of dollars that will disappear and weapons that may soon be used against our troops.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton thinks the solution to piracy is a generous program to rebuild Somalia. (Been there, done that.) She'd also like to hand Hamas a billion bucks.

The "Las Vegas law" applies: You can buy sex but not enduring love. We can't defeat terror with welfare checks.

Islamist terrorism doesn't exist. The term's even been banned from government departments. As Muslim extremists slaughter innocent victims by the thousands, we're assured Islam's a "religion of peace" that contributed profoundly to our country's development. (Huh?)

It's as if 9/11 never happened. The "nonterrorists" drenching the greater Middle East in blood and threatening us as loudly as they can are just victims of our aggression. It's all our fault.

Terrorists do exist, though -- among our returning veterans and amid those Americans who don't subscribe to MoveOn.org's revulsion at our country.

Israel's the obstacle to Middle East peace. Palestinians are all victims. Hamas consists of struggling community activists. The terrorists are in the Israeli military.

Our nukes threaten world peace and we need to get rid of them. Other states only maintain or seek nuclear arsenals because we worry them. If we can get down to zero nukes, peace will reign on earth.

Forget that only our nuclear weapons prevented World War III and that they still deter potential enemies. Just get rid of them, OK?

Our military is dangerous. Beyond Obama's cynically choreographed appearances with our troops, he and his coterie clearly disdain military advice and uniformed service. The administration views our troops as primitive creatures who must be collared and leashed, not as part of any solutions.

Our intelligence services are even more dangerous than our military. The administration's already begun to gut our intelligence capabilities. Carter at least pretended to study the problem. Obama's plunging straight in with the demoralization of our shadow warriors.

It's only torture if we do it.

Blame President George W. Bush. Should the Obama Doctrine lead to new terror attacks (sorry, Janet: I meant "man-caused disasters") or to foreign-policy humiliations, it won't be Obama's fault, but Bush's.

We're becoming a third-world country, succumbing to a sickening (in both senses of the word) culture of blame. And that culture is fostered by breathtaking ignorance.

We now have a president who doesn't know that Pakistan was founded as a democracy, a secretary of state who thinks we created the Taliban, a head of the Department of Homeland Security who doesn't believe Islamist terrorists exist and a vice president who claims FDR gave televised speeches during the Depression.

If Bush had made such gaffes, the media would've mocked him. But Obama and his entourage excite orgasmic forgiveness among journalists. Which brings us to the Obama Doctrine's final tenet:

Our media sluts will portray defeat as victory.

Ralph Peters, New York Post, 4/29/09

Dirty Love Nest

This gives new meaning to "Dirty Sex"

A Canadian cop in Saanich, BC, heard passionate sounds coming from a Dumpster -- and found that a 30-year-old woman and her boyfriend, 28, had turned it into a love nest. The officer ordered the two to put on their clothes and leave.

Obama Didn't Know Who Took Air Force One?

President Barack Obama apologized for scaring New Yorkers half to death when his plane, Air Force One, buzzed lower Manhattan. He claims that he didn't know anything about the incident.

"We found out about it, when you did," said Prescient Obama.

Obviously the president thinks that the American people are a bunch of dolts. Air Force one is not just any plane. It carries the leader of the free world and it is the most heavyly protected aircraft in human history.

The idea that a another Federal department like the FAA or the Defense Department can borrow his plane and not inform the president what they intend to do with it, is beyond the rehelm of believability.

What really happened?

I think President Obama, who really does not fathom the impact 911 had New Yorkers, thought is was perfectly acceptable for a jumbo jet to fly 500 feet over Manhattan for a photo op. But, after the situation turned out bad, he stuck his finger in the air like all politicians, realized the blunder after the fact, and decided to play the ignorant of the facts game.

Come on Mr. President, who do you think you're fooling?

First 100 Days for Prez B’Memo Porkbama

THRIVES AFTER 100 DAYS AMONG LIBERALS, BUT

Hailed as something on the order of a Roosevelt or Lincoln in just his first 100 days in office, President Obama remains the apple of the media's eye.

He's been crowned more ambitious than FDR and more historic than Abe Lincoln.

There's nary a note of any stumbles so far.

Even the White House seems a little uncomfortable with all the cooing and purring, and offered a little more balance.

"I'd give the administration a B-plus," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters yesterday. "I think there's always room for improvement."

The media's muse also dutifully gave his swooning poets a grade of their own.

"I'd give them a strong 'A,' " Gibbs told a CNN interviewer.

Certainly, the Obama administration can point to some strong successes, but there have also been failures.

Since taking the oath of office, Obama has signed six pieces of legislation crafted by his fellow Democrats on Capitol Hill. Several of those laws were longtime Democratic initiatives, such as demanding equal pay for women and requiring the government to provide health insurance to poor children.

These are hugely popular among Democrats. But the expansion of government-funded health insurance at a time when federal entitlement programs are already teetering on the verge of collapse may well prove to have been foolhardy.

Other bills signed by Obama were his ambitious budget and his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package. The successful passage of those massive spending plans is a reflection of the nearly universal power he and his party hold in Washington today.

But they also reveal one of Obama's biggest failures so far.

He won the election on promises to change the way Washington works, yet allowed Democratic lawmakers to lard up his spending plans with pork.

Obama has reached out to some of the world's worst governments in a laudable bid for peace. But it's as if Obama thinks history began 99 days ago, when he took office. It's almost as if Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Fidel Castro haven't done plenty to deserve their ostracized place.

His greatest mistake, by far, was releasing the graphic memos detailing the government's harsh interrogation techniques without including a memo from his own administration arguing that the techniques had been productive.

Another sterling success for Obama has been his ability to keep the media in full swoon and maintain the image of a squeaky-clean statesman.

It's just this talent that coats a politician with a sheen of Teflon that protects him much later when the political winds turn harsh and severely damage his party -- as they surely will.

Charles Hurt New York Post 4/28/09

Red Carpet Thief

This wasn't in the script.

The Salem Cinema in Oregon rolled out a red carpet for its grand opening -- only to have a thief roll it back up and steal it.

It cost theater owner Loretta Miles $65 to rent the red carpet, and Mike Pearlenfein, co-owner of A to Z Party Rentals, said it'd cost $300 to replace.

Dem Leahy Wants to Limit Prez Power

WHEN President Obama re leased the "torture memos" exposing the CIA's en hanced interrogation tactics, he took advantage of his constitutional authority to disclose national-security information. But he should have weighed his actions against their likely outcome: that he won't have the exclusive ability to exercise this power for long.

The memos have given leftist opponents of the War on Terror -- from Congress to United Nations bureaucrats in Vienna -- more reason to demand the disclosure of further information. And they've given a political boost to those seeking to wrest the power to release sensitive information from the Executive Branch.

In particular, sources say that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy will, as early as this week, take up two disastrous pieces of legislation that could severely undermine the president's executive authority in this regard.

One is the Free Flow of Information Act, a media-shield law that aims to prevent reporters from having to name sources to federal investigators -- and that would make identifying government leakers nearly impossible.

The legislation has bipartisan support, but some Republicans worry about the bill's extremely loose definition of who qualifies as a "journalist."

Texas Sen. John Cornyn has noted that virtually anyone who disseminates information for public consumption qualifies as a "covered person." It's easy to envision so-called "document dump" sites receiving classified papers and putting them, in their entirety, online -- offering a direct channel between government vaults and Web-savvy terrorists.

The real check on leaking comes from the government's ability to prosecute officials who violate confidentiality. As incentives for not disclosing classified information get stripped away, it becomes open season for leakers. For now, Obama can release classified information like the "torture memos" under the circumstances of his choosing -- but if Leahy gets the Free Flow of Information Act through, the president could soon lose that unique role to every bureaucrat with a security clearance and a blog.

Of greater concern is Leahy's own State Secrets Protection Act, which would strip the Executive Branch of its exclusive control of information vital to national security. Right now, if an American who thinks he was wiretapped demands that the National Security Administration release the details of its surveillance program during the legal discovery process, the government can invoke the "state-secrets privilege" -- arguing that the case should be dismissed because such disclosure would compromise national security. The practice is decades old; federal courts almost always respect the government's claims.

But not if Leahy has his way. Under his bill, a heavy burden would fall on the executive branch to prove that state secrets are worth keeping. Federal judges -- with no training or expertise in defense or security -- would decide what intelligence secrets are and aren't essential to keeping the American people safe.

Moreover, these unelected judges wouldn't be accountable for their decisions -- because they'd face no threat to their life tenure, even if their disclosures resulted in attacks on the American homeland. In a letter to Leahy last year, then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey warned that the bill might even be unconstitutional because it "raises separation-of-powers concerns because the provisions purport to transfer to the judiciary through legislation authorities that the Constitution commits to the president."

This shakeup is one Obama, in theory, opposes. Earlier this month, the administration filed a motion to dismiss a civil lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, related to the terrorist-surveillance program. The Obama Justice Department hewed to the Bush administration's line that the case "would cause exceptionally grave harm to national security." In February, the administration maintained the Bush position on state secrets in Mohamed v. Jeppesen DataPlan Inc., in which the American Civil Liberties Union sued a unit of Boeing for its alleged role in helping the CIA conduct extraordinary renditions.

Now, if Obama wishes to preserve the state-secrets privilege, he'll have to oppose Leahy, a senior member of his own party. If not, he'll endure the embarrassment of having the legislative branch neuter his executive authority. Until last week, the president could have drawn comfort from the fact that both the media shield and state-secrets bills were controversial and wouldn't be enacted without a fight. But Obama's release of the "torture memos" -- in effect, a campaign to make the last eight years look like a massive cover-up of executive abuses -- has created a political environment in which it's hard to oppose constraints on executive power.

In this, Obama hasn't done himself any favors. Like it or not, the American people chose him for the presidency -- and to exercise all its rights, including deciding what defense information should be made available to the world. Obama has these responsibilities -- not bureaucrats, judges or a Congress determined to undermine presidential power.

By releasing the "torture memos," though, Obama plays right into their hands. He'd do well to stop now, because when it comes to presidential control over sensitive information, Obama may find out soon that if you abuse it, you lose it.

Meghan Clyne New York Post 4/27/09

Hey, lets tax Hookers

Nevada's hookers are begging and pleading for the taxman to cometh.

State lawmakers in Carson City shot down a proposed prostitution tax supported by the Nevada Brothel Association.

The industry, legal in parts of the state, said it wants to help the ailing economy by charging customers a $5 tax on each sex act.

For years, brothels have sought a tax as a way of making their businesses more legitimate.

But making them more legit was exactly the fear of lawmakers who voted against the idea

UFT Prez Randi Weingarten-Thugs in our Classroom

The plan for most American families is to send our children to school to get a good education. After all, a good education can open doors to better opportunities than we had as parents. But, along the way of sending our children to school, we discovered the education system was crumbling. Graduation rates were declining with each passing year. At the same time, teaches salaries only went up and up.

Something smells rotten doesn’t it?

True be told, the lions share of blame can be laid at the fate of Teacher’s unions. They are suppose to be the frontline workers to educate students, but instead, teachers union look out for the interests of themselves alone, and the hell with your children. Oh sure, they like to prop up lies and say “It’s about the children.” But, try and see how difficult it is to fire bad teachers. Then you’ll encounter all the rules and regulations that are put into union contracts that protects all those bad teachers that are under educating our kids.

And what political party receives millions of dollars from all these teachers? You guessed it, the Democrat Party. So forget about what’s best for the children. In the world of government provided education, its all about the interests of the teachers, and the boys and girls be damned.

The People Speak Out

After seeing President Obama yuk it up with Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, I now understand the political climate of America today ("Bam's New BFF Hugo," April 19).

The Republican Party has morphed into a conservative, liberalist-light mishmash, and the Democratic Party is becoming communistic.

Lord, help us.

Doreen Wyner

Staten Island

***

Obama bows to a Saudi king.

Obama breezily chats with Chavez.

Obama kowtows to Iran, which essentially has been at war with the United States since 1979.

Obama expresses willingness to develop closer ties to mass murderer and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.

Is there a tyrant for whom Obama is not an apologist?

Here I thought Obama was the second coming of Jimmy Carter, which would be bad enough. But it's worse: He may be the second coming of Neville Chamberlain.

Mark Kalinowski

Manhattan

***

I'm not shocked at all by the glowing look of admiration on Obama's face as he shook hands with his socialist brother Chavez.

After Obama's ridiculous performance in front of the EU, is anyone shocked?

Stop apologizing for me, Mr. President. It seems that you think that if you're a friend, like Great Britain or Israel, you're out. However, if you're an anti-Western tyrant, you're in.

Obama is bending over backwards for Cuba's Castro, another anti-American tyrant. But is he calling for free elections, a free press or the release of opposition? Not on your life.

Wake up, America. Our country is being stolen from within.

Frank Begley

Manhattan

***

It is becoming more and more apparent that naivete has replaced sensibility as the nucleus of our foreign policy.

From Day One, our president has repeatedly stated that he will speak to any of our foes if it can lead to constructive dialogue.

But constructive for whom? Does anyone honestly think that we will teach Chavez or others the error of their ways?

Instead of being strong and unflinching, we will be perceived as paper tigers who can be maneuvered at will.

Wasn't the book Chavez gave to Obama, "Open Veins of Latin America," intended to show us the error of our ways?

Maybe our president and his foreign-policy team should go back to the table and rethink their strategies before it's too late.

Carl Rosenberg

Great Neck

***

Kudos to my favorite newspaper, The Post, for showing photos of the two biggest threats to our hemisphere.

Chavez and Obama have demonstrated that they have something in common: They both bash the United States.

The only characters missing from this picture are Carter, Castro and Che Guevera.

John W. Fox

Galloway, NJ

***

Isn't it great to see Obama and Chavez lovingly smile and hand-clasp? Obama is also cuddling up with the Cuban Castro boys.

I guess all socialists speak one language after all.

Daniel W. Frascella

Lebanon, NJ

***

Step aside, Teddy Roosevelt.

We have a new mantra: Speak with a silver tongue and carry a big powder puff.

Gene Fottrell

Egg Harbor, NJ

PROSECUTING PATRIOTS

WITH the ugly sanctimony of those who never had to make hard decisions, the American left demands show trials of those who kept us safe after 9/11. Wrapping themselves in repugnant self-righteousness, the MoveOn.org set wants political prosecutions. Should President Obama acquiesce, he won't be furthering the rule of law, but dismantling it.

Show trials have long been popular with leftists. Those who don't conform to each jot of doctrine become "enemies of the people." From Stalin down to Putin, and from Mao to Castro, vengeance disguised as law has been a mega-hit.

Those on the left don't want justice. If they did, they'd be protesting the murderous torture prevalent in Iran, the Gaza Strip, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela and Russia. Instead, our leftists want us to show the leaders of those terror states more respect.

The left is out for revenge. It always is. Hatred of those who think differently is the left's unifying principle. Leftists don't need God, but they see devils everywhere.

When President-for-Life Hugo Chavez called President George W. Bush "el Diablo," our leftists agreed. Hatred of the last administration grew so irrational that any terrorist, no matter how monstrous, became no more than a victim of Bush-Cheney.

Now the left wants an Inquisition for heretics who failed to share its worldview. Men and women who, in their capacity as public servants, wrestled with difficult legal issues in the course of our battle with terrorists are now to be tried and shamed because the left disagreed with their legal opinions and actions. No matter that most Americans wouldn't view the methods of our interrogators as torture when applied to hardened terrorists (despite the media's ceaseless effort to convince us otherwise). No matter that foreign leaders championed by the left use vastly more brutal techniques.

No matter that interrogators differ on the utility of "harsh" methods or that the information gleaned indisputably saved American lives. No matter that our system of government functioned as it was designed to.

The left just didn't like the results the system produced. Law has nothing to do with this cry for vengeance. This is purely about political differences. During the Bush administration, leftists warned repeatedly that actions they didn't like put our country on a "slippery slope." Well, once we initiate show trials of government officials who did their best to protect us, we'll have skipped the slippery slope and leapt to the bottom.

If Obama agrees to any form of show trial, he and his own team will live to regret it. His party won't always be in power, and he'll have set a hideous, un-American precedent.

If the Obama administration fails to keep us safe and our citizens are attacked at home or abroad, shall we then prosecute those who dismantled our safeguards and gutted our intelligence effort?

As countless leftists learned in the course of the 20th century, today's witness for the prosecution is tomorrow's enemy of the people.

The rule of law is paramount. When we pervert the law for political ends, we attack our deepest foundations. Where would such show trials stop? Will we try Supreme Court justices for issuing legal opinions with which a future administration disagrees?

There are plenty of genuine crimes worth prosecuting in Washington, DC. Corruption abounds. Not a few members of Congress -- from both parties -- should be in jail. But corruption isn't taken seriously. Politics are.

If the left gets its People's Court to destroy the lives of patriots who did their human, imperfect best to defend us (and who succeeded in that effort for seven years), we will do more damage to the United States than all the dictators our president longs to embrace could do together.

The left has nothing against torture. It just wants to choose the victims.

Meanwhile, that great bogeyman beloved of left-wing propagandists and Hollywood (sorry for being redundant), Sen. Joseph McCarthy, is grinning from ear to ear in hell: He's become the left's new role model.

Ralph Peters New York Post 4/23/09

Anne Hathaway - Your Role Model?

Shannon

Who are your role models?

My famous role model is actress Anne Hathaway and also Evangeline Lilly. I also look up to Angelina Jolie.

by Chelsea<...

Kristen Stewart

you know she smokes pot right?

lol. sorry.

Chelsea<…

Haha, yes I know she does. But I don't think that inflicts on her great a acting. And shes hella pretty!lol

• by Nyia

  I like angelina jolie to but io like kourtney kardashian the pussycat dolls ,letoya luckett and i also luv mims well like mims actually so those are my role models why did u ask that question thats kinda weird..............but i was playing so soo ya no homo luv everyone....thank yo
  
  sincerly,
  Rannyia

  Source(s):

  peacerannyia.com

  
  
• by Miley Cyrus Protectors Pres Mike

  Miley Cyrus, my parents, God, and Ryan Tedder (for songwriting).
  
  Ok. Just thumbs down me for Miley. The reason WHY I chose Miley is because she can balance her celebrity life and normal life better than anyone can. I saw a few clips on E! and she seemed more down to earth than I thought.

  
  
• by Maya W

  i think myleen class because she is a model,singer,plays piano, lived 6 weeks in the jungle and she is an actress AND married mum..she is super woman i totally think she is my role model :P

  
  
• by miatalis...

  Kirstie Ally
  Stevie Nicks
  Barbara Streisand
  Whoopi Goldberg
  Stephen Spielberg (his work and creativity)
  Mary Magdelene

  
  
• by sk8terbr...

  Teddy Roosevelt

  
  
• by συя ¢нємιѕтяу ιѕ кєяσѕєηє ♥

  Alex Gaskarth and Cassadee Pope

  
  
• by puravida...

  Jonas Brothers

  
  
• by Michelle

  jonas brothers taylor swift and demi lovato

Baby Needs Diapers

Baby needs some new diapers, and nothing is going to stop that.

A couple strong-armed their way out of a Spokane, Wash., Safeway by punching out a security guard so they could make off with a pack of Huggies, police said.

The man yelled "sorry" as he hit the guard in the face, cops said.

Obama's Deceitfulness

In attempt to embarrass the Bush Administration, President Barack Obama purposely redacted CIA memos that shows evidence that enhanced interrogations led to specific actionable intelligence that prevented Terrorists attacks and saved American lives.

The Main Stream Media, again is being derelict in their duties of providing the American people with the truth. The MSM will not ask the Obama administration the tough questions as to why he is playing politics and risking the lives of thousands of Americans from future attacks.

In his short time in office, President Obama has imperiled the American people by reverting to a Pre-911 mentality that was a key factor that led to our vulnerability of the World Trade Center attacks.

This country is much less safer by the irresponsible actions of this most disgraceful excuse for a president.

A President a Terrorists Could Love

President Barack Obama saw fit to authorize the release formerly classified memos concerning enhanced interrogation techniques used against captured enemy combatants.

This is sheer folly on the part of our president who fancies himself as president of the world rather than president of the United States. This is a man who swore to protect, uphold, and defend the constitution but instead he rather help our enemies.

What brilliant idea will he come up with next?

So, as a result of the public backlash from former CIA directors and Republicans, the Obama White House hastily organised a photo-op at CIA headquarters with handpicked staffers to give the appearance of adulation and support. Of course, the Main Stream Media, the propaganda arm of the Obama administration, covered the event as if President Barack Obama was a rock star. However, the vast majority of the United States have seen passed the charade and see the president for what he is, a dangerously naive former senator from the corrupt Chicago political machine.

Anne Hathaway or Emmy Rossum?

Who do you like better Anne Hathaway or Emmy Rossum?

What do you think?

(Just for Fun :) )

• by I♥JonasB...

  Anne Hathaway.
• by Veronika

  anne hatahaway i guess
• by deebs

  Both good actresses, but Emmy Rossum's got that fabulous voice!

Anne Hathaway - Return to the stage in the summer of 2009, Shakespeare's Twelfth Night

Anne Hathaway is set to return to the stage in the summer of 2009, appearing as Viola (twin sister to Sebastian. When disguised, known as Cesario) in an open-air production of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night.

Open-air production of Shakespeare's Twelfth Night will be run at the Delacorte Theater in New York's Central Park.

Twelfth Night, Or What You Will is a comedy by William Shakespeare, based on the short story "Of Apollonius and Silla" by Barnabe Rich, which in turn was based on a story by Matteo Bandello. It is named after the Twelfth Night holiday of the Christmas season. It was written around 1601 and first performed in front of an audience on 2 February 1602. The play was not published before the First Folio in 1623, seven years after the playwright's death. The main title is believed to be an afterthought, created after John Marston premièred a play titled What You Will during the course of the writing.