ConservativeChristianRepublican-Report - 20091120

Motivational-Inspirational-Historical-Educational-Political-Enjoyable

Promoting "God's Holy Values and American Freedoms"!



"Daily Motivations"

"Small differences in your performance can lead to large differences in your results." -- Brian Tracy

"Service to others is the rent you pay for your room here on earth." -- Muhammad Ali



"Daily Devotions" (KJV and/or NLT)

With the Lord's authority I say this: Live no longer as the Gentiles do, for they are hopelessly confused. (Ephesians 4:17)

Do you have a moral compass? Where does its "true north" point?

At the outset of World War II, a group of young German soldiers had the opportunity to join an Officers' Club that would put them on the fast track to promotion. But it would involve attending weekend dancing, and their churches had taught that dancing led to immorality. They declined.

Later in the war, the same young soldiers served in German death camps. While they did not personally assist with executing Jewish prisoners in the notorious ovens, they stood by without protest. When interviewed years later, these soldiers felt they had made good ethical decisions in all cases. In the first instance; they had rejected social pressure and refused to dance; in the second, they had been obedient to their commanders.

The world is filled with confused and conflicting ideas about what is right. But true righteousness is found only in God. That is why having a proper understanding of who God really is, is so important. Our moral code cannot rise above our view of God. In fact, we can trace all our human problems to a flawed view of God.

Your View of God Really Matters …

Do you believe morality is relative to culture and your personal circumstances, or to God's character? Your answer to that question will determine your moral strength. In fact, your view of God will determine who you become.



"The Patriot Post"

"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it." -- Thomas Paine



This Week's 'Braying Jenny' Award

PelosiCare includes a possible fine and jail time for those who don't abide by the mandate to buy health insurance. Is it really fair to send people to jail for choosing to pay their own way?

Pelosi thinks so: "I think the legislation is very fair in this respect. It gives people an opportunity to have health care." If by "gives people an opportunity" you mean coerces them to have health insurance...


The BIG Dodge

Where is the constitutional authority for a federal mandate that individuals must buy health insurance?

Sen. Ben Nelson, a Democrat in red-state Nebraska, pleaded the Fifth: "Well, you know, uh, uh, I don't know that I'm a constitutional scholar, so, I, I'm not going to be able to answer that question."

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D-HI) likewise dodged the question, saying, "I'm not aware of [any constitutional authority], let me put it that way. But what we're trying to do is to provide for people who have needs and that's where the accessibility comes in, and one of the goals that we're trying to present here is to make it accessible." Right. "Provide" for them by mandating they do something under penalty of massive fines and/or imprisonment -- that's leftist "compassion" for you.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) answered, "The United States Congress passed laws regarding Medicare and Medicaid that became de facto mandatory programs. States all the time require people to have driver's licenses. I think that this is a bit of a spurious argument that's being made by some folks." Uh, states require licenses only for the privilege of driving.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee -- one of two committees that wrote and approved health care legislation -- pointed to precedent as justification: "Let me see. I would have to check the specific sections, so I'll have to get back to you on the specific section, but it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft, uh, uh, and do many other things too, which I don't think are explicitly contained [in the Constitution]. It gives Congress a right to raise an army, but it doesn't say you can take people and draft them, uh, but since that was something necessary for the functioning of the government over the past several years, the practice on the books, it's been recognized, the authority to do that." So because Congress has acted unconstitutionally before, they can do it again now? Our guess is he understands health care about as well as he comprehends the Constitution.



Quote of the Week

"America once made the required nod to the Constitution.. When We the People wanted to make some fundamental change or expand the federal government's reach, we did the right thing and amended the Constitution. ... If we once thought that we had to amend the Constitution to ban 'intoxicating liquors' and later had to again amend the Constitution to re-legalize the stuff, wouldn't we need an amendment to allow the government to intrude even more intimately into our lives? ... If Congress were to do the right thing and initiate an amendment to enshrine the 'individual mandate' in the Constitution ... it would fail miserably. If America is still America, Americans will not tolerate being told they have to buy something, especially if it's for no other reason than that they exist. ... I'm afraid Congress has not only misread the Constitution, but they've also misjudged the American people. Or maybe they just don't know what country they live in." -- Jon N. Hall at American Thinker



You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it

“You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.” -- Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931 – 2005



"The Web"

Democrats push through judge who banned Jesus prayers

Associated Press

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Headlines/Default.aspx?id=773814

WASHINGTON- Democrats have crushed a Senate filibuster against appeals court nominee David Hamilton -- a judge who prohibited prayers that mentioned Jesus Christ, while allowing Muslim prayers to Allah-- before sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives.

Tuesday's 70-29 vote limited debate over Hamilton's qualifications and assured his elevation to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Sixty votes were needed to end the filibuster, but confirmation only requires a simple majority of the 100-member Senate.

Alabama Republican Jeff Sessions noted that while Hamilton prohibited the mention of Jesus in invocations, he allowed a Muslim cleric to pray to Allah.

But several Republicans supported the Democrats, including Saxby Chambliss (Ga.), Susan Collins (Maine), John Cornyn (Texas), Orrin Hatch (Utah) and Richard Lugar (Indiana).



Update: The US Senate approved David Hamilton on a vote of 59 to 39. See article below.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=111&session=1&vote=00350



Senate confirms controversial judge

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1109/29732.html

The Senate confirmed Judge David Hamilton to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals 59-39 Thursday after breaking a GOP filibuster Tuesday and a five-and-a-half month delay.

Sen. Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), who represents Hamilton's home state of Indiana, cast the lone Republican vote for the judge.

“This is a nomination that should be confirmed and should have been confirmed months ago," said Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) in a statement. "David Hamilton is a fine judge and will make a good addition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit."

Hamilton, who was President Barack Obama's first judicial nominee, came under Republican fire for several rulings he made in Indiana, from barring certain prayers in the state legislature to a ruling stating that abortion clinics should not be required to provide information on alternatives to abortion.

Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee, said Monday he sought to block Hamilton's nomination because he believed the judge was extreme and would add "footnotes to the Constitution."

Lugar, however, refuted GOP sentiment in a floor statement Monday on Hamilton's behalf, saying that the judge appreciated "the vital, and yet vitally limited, role of the federal judiciary faithfully to interpret and apply our laws, rather than seeking to impose their own policy views."



What the Pelosi Health-Care Bill Really Says

Here are some important passages in the 2,000 page legislation.

By BETSY MCCAUGHEY

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704795604574519671055918380.html

The health bill that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is bringing to a vote (H.R. 3962) is 1,990 pages. Here are some of the details you need to know.

What the government will require you to do:

• Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.

• Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.



Associated Press

Protestors wave signs in front of the Capitol on Thursday.

On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.

• Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choice—basic, enhanced and premium levels—but the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.

• Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.

• Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.

Eviscerating Medicare:

In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.

• Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."

The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."

A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.

• Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.

• Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.

• Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.

• Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."

Questionable Priorities:

While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.

• Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."

These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . .. and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.

• Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.

• Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."

• Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.

For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.

Ms. McCaughey is chairman of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths and a former Lt. Governor of New York state.



Exclusive: Palin Slams Obama for Bowing, Breaking Promises

By: David A. Patten

http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/palin_obama_bow_book/2009/11/17/287559.html?s=al&promo_code=9161-1

In an exclusive Newsmax interview, former vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin on Tuesday sharply criticized President Obama's deep bow to the emperor of Japan, and charged Democrats "purposefully" are holding back details on their healthcare reform proposals from the American people to avoid an open debate.

On tour promoting her best-selling book, “Going Rogue: An American Life,” the former Alaska governor also told Newsmax she was so embarrassed by a Newsweek magazine cover depicting her in running shorts that she sent an e-mail to her family saying "I almost feel like I have to apologize."

Palin cited the contrast between Obama's comportment in bowing to Japanese royalty and the leadership style of former President Ronald Reagan.

"There is where his steel spine strengthened our entire nation," she said of the Republican icon. "The leadership he provided, where he allowed us to believe in ourselves as a superpower — not in an abusive way as a superpower, but as a power and a light and a hope for the rest of the world.

“That allowed us to be a healthier, safer, and more generous nation to help other nations. So those things that Ronald Reagan did . . . he said on national security issues, he said you know: 'We win. They lose.' Leadership like that we need today. [It] allows a very clear path in front of us we'd be foolish not to follow."

In criticizing the bow, Palin underscored the distinction between Reagan's view of American exceptionalism and President Obama's efforts to cast America as but one member of the community of nations.

"That [bow] made me and many of us uncomfortable, and I don't think it was just an accidental breach of protocol, because we've seen it before with one of the Saudi leaders, too," Palin told Newsmax. "I think it goes along with that same mode of operation that was apologizing for who America is. In order to build relationships with other countries and strengthen our allies and allow more alliances across the globe, we don't need to apologize for who we are. In fact, I think we would be respected to an even greater degree if we exerted more of the diplomatic power that, again, Ronald Reagan did."

Palin, who was a lightning rod for criticism during the presidential campaign, warned that America is in "a dangerous place economically" because Congress is debating healthcare reforms that would affect up to one-sixth of the U.S. economy, without keeping the public informed about exactly what provisions are being proposed. And she doesn't think that void of information is accidental, either.

"There are so many questions right now that I'm like every other American," Palin told Newsmax, "just kind of scratching my head saying, 'When are we going to get the answers so that we can debate this very responsibly and very intelligently?'

"I think it's purposeful that some in Washington, D.C., don't want us to have all of the answers, so that the debate is more nebulous and puts more of the generalities out there. Even knowing what we do know about it though, I think it is a very dangerous place for Americans to be, to be told that the only solutions to the healthcare challenges in our country . . . is that government has to take it over."

Palin, whose book was a runaway best-seller before it was even released, charged that Obama has broken his promise to take a transparent, bipartisan approach to governance.

She noted the efforts of GOP Minority Leader Rep. John Boehner and Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., and others in Congress: "They're saying, 'Hey, we've got some common-sense conservative solutions that we've put forth and were shut out of the discussions.

"That's a broken promise of Obama's and others in Congress, who promised an open, transparent, bipartisan approach to finding these solutions, and that's unfortunate. But these common-sense conservatives have put forth solutions suggesting the intra- and interstate competition amongst healthcare providers, and the tort reform, and the waste and fraud measures that can help address the rising cost problems right now.

"Those things aren't even being considered in the bills pending before Congress. Very frustrating for a lot of us as Americans, saying wait a minute, this isn't what we've bargained for."

Palin also gave Newsmax a behind-the-scenes account of her candid reaction after she saw the controversial, critical Newsweek cover story, which she has criticized as "out of context" and "sexist." The magazine took an image of Palin posing in short running shorts, which she did for Runners World magazine to promote the benefits of exercise, and splashed it on its recent cover.

Palin told Newsmax she was mortified.

"I fired off an e-mail to my daughters, to my sisters and my mom, and I said you know I almost feel like I have to apologize for some of these surprises that happen in our lives here," she told Newsmax. "I don't know why I felt like I had to apologize because I didn't do anything wrong with it, but I didn't like it. But it was a bit of a shot there by Newsweek that I thought was unnecessary and I didn't like it."

Asked why some journalists in the mainstream media have attacked her, she responded: "Maybe some people are really threatened by just a normal everyday average American who is very blessed to have a megaphone right now, and doesn't want to squander or blow this opportunity to get a common-sense conservative message out there heard across the nation. I'm very blessed to have the opportunities that I have in speaking up for normal Americans."

Palin predicted that, in the 2010 mid-term elections, Americans will look back at what Reagan did for the country and vote against big-spending incumbents.



Hoyer Says Conservatives Agree With Him and Holder That Terrorists Should Be Tried in Civilian Courts

By Matt Cover, Staff Writer

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=57299

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., at an Oct. 29, 2009 news conference on Capitol. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon)

(CNSNews.com) – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said at a press briefing on Tuesday that there was “bipartisan support” for Attorney General Eric Holder’s decision to prosecute four prominent terrorists, including 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in civilian court in New York City.

Hoyer pointed to "three very conservative observers"--former Libertarian Party presidential candidate and U.S. Rep. Bob Barr (R.-Ga.), American Conservative Union Chairman David Keene and Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist--who he said agreed with Holder's decision.

Hoyer also said that while he thought Abd al-Nashiri--who allegedly orchestrated the terrorist bombing of the U.S.S. Cole in 2000 that killed 17 U.S. sailors--would get a fair trial at a military tribunal, Kalid Sheikh Mohammed would also get a fair trial in a civilian court instead of a military tribunal for his role in 9/11.

Hoyer cited a letter signed by Barr, Keene and Norquist that said civilian courts were the “proper forum” for terrorism trials.

The letter was issued by the anti-Guantanamo Bay Constitution Project. Hoyer read portions of the letter at his weekly press briefing on Tuesday and referred to the letter again when answering a question from CNSNews.com during the event.

The portion that Hoyer cited reads: “Civilian federal courts are the proper forum for terrorism cases. Civilian prisons are the safe, cost-effective and appropriate venue to hold persons convicted in federal courts. Over the last two decades, federal courts constituted under Article III of the U.S. Constitution have proven capable of trying a wide array of terrorism cases, without sacrificing either national security or fair trial standards.”

“Likewise, the federal prison system has proven itself fully capable of safely holding literally hundreds of convicted terrorists with no threat or danger to the surrounding community,” Hoyer read from the letter.

These arguments led Hoyer to conclude that there is now “bipartisan support” for the Obama administration’s decision to try top terrorists in federal court in New York City.

“So, obviously there is, I would say, bipartisan support for the actions that the attorney general has determined are in the best interest of bringing these--what I think all of us would agree are heinous criminals who created heinous acts--to justice and that Keene and Norquist and Barr all agree with the attorney general and the president that this can be done consistent with the safety and security of the United States,” said Hoyer.

However, not all of the al Qaeda terrorists currently being held at Guantanamo Bay are being tried in civilian courts. Five other detainees will be tried by military tribunals, including Abd al-Nashiri, the mastermind of the October 2000 attack on the U.S.S. Cole, which killed 17 American sailors.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the self-proclaimed Sept. 11 mastermind, shown shortly after his capture in Pakistan in this March 1, 2003 photo. He and four other Guantanamo Bay detainees will be sent to New York to face trial in a civilian federal court. (AP File Photo)

Despite his support for trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in civilian court, Hoyer did say that the military was perfectly capable of giving terrorists like al-Nashiri a fair and constitutionally acceptable trial.

When CNSNews.com asked, “Do you think that al-Nashiri can get a constitutionally legitimate and fair trial in a military tribunal?” Hoyer said, “Yes.”

Hoyer was then asked why, if the military can give al Qaeda terrorists a fair and constitutionally acceptable trial, it should not try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who planned the attack on the Pentagon, where military personnel were also killed.

Hoyer said he did not disagree with Holder’s decision to try some terrorists in military tribunals, but added that he thought, like the three conservatives he had cited, that civilian courts were better for prosecuting terrorists than military courts.

CNSNews.com asked: “If we can give a fair trial in a military tribunal to the alleged mastermind of the U.S.S. Cole [bombing] then why not try the mastermind of the attack on the Pentagon, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, in a military tribunal as well?”

Hoyer said: “I think that probably would be possible. Again, let me reference--with which I happen to agree--Barr, Norquist, and Keene, very conservative observers who believe in this case, Holder has made the right decision.”

“I don’t disagree with his [Holder] decision in the other case,” said Hoyer. “I think the military commission, particularly as it has been changed and revised by the Obama administration, can in fact in that [al-Nashiri] case act appropriately.”

The other Al Qaeda terrorists who will be tried by military tribunals include the following:

-- Omar Ahmed Khadr, charged with war crimes for the murder of Army Sergeant First Class Christopher Speer, and conspiracy, material support for terrorism, and spying. Khadr, a Canadian citizen, spent his formative years traveling with his family in Afghanistan, often spending the Muslim holiday of Eid with Osama bin Laden.

-- Ibrahim al Qosi, a former bin Laden bodyguard captured fighting U.S. troops at Tora Bora in Afghanistan.

-- Mohammed Kamin, an al Qaeda terrorist and weapons supplier captured in Afghanistan in 2003 after launching missiles at U.S. troops.

-- Noor Uthman Muhammed, the director of an al Qaeda terrorist training camp who personally trained al Qaeda recruits in small arms and missile training until his capture in Pakistan in 2002.

The United States has always prosecuted war criminals and others accused of unlawful combat in war tribunals, most notably in the case of eight Nazi saboteurs captured in the United States during World War II.

All were tried by military tribunal on the order of then-President Franklin D. Roosevelt and six were put to death. The two who were not put to death had their sentences commuted by Roosevelt because they had turned themselves in to the FBI and had aided in the capture of their co-conspirators.

The case was eventually appealed to the Supreme Court, where the court unanimously upheld that military tribunals were the proper place to try unlawful combatants.That case is known as Ex Parte Quirin.

Keene, Norquist and Barr did not respond to requests for comment on this story



DON'T KEEP CUT ONIONS!

Written by Zola Gorgon - author of several cookbooks.

http://www.cafemom.com/journals/read/1454634/DON_T_KEEP_CUT_ONIONS

Watch out for those spoiled onions...

I had the wonderful privilege of touring Mullins Food Products, makers of mayonnaise. Mullins is huge, owned by brothers and sisters in the Mullins family. My friend, Jeanne, is the CEO.

Questions about food poisoning came up, and I wanted to share what I learned from a chemist.

The man who gave us our tour is named Ed. He's one of the brothers. Ed is a chemistry expert involved in developing most of the sauce formula..(He's even developed sauce formula for McDonald's.)

Keep in mind that Ed is a food chemistry whiz. During the tour, someone asked if we really needed to worry about mayonnaise. People are always worried that mayonnaise will spoil. Ed's answer will surprise you.

He said that all commercially-made Mayo is completely safe.

"It doesn't even have to be refrigerated. No harm in refrigerating it, but it's not really necessary." He explained that the pH in mayonnaise is set at a point that bacteria could not survive in that environment. He then talked about the quintessential picnic with the bowl of potato salad sitting on the table and how everyone blames the mayonnaise in it when someone gets sick.

Ed says that when food poisoning is reported, the first thing the officials look for is when the victim last ate ONIONS and where those onions came from (in the potato salad?). He says it's not the mayonnaise (as long as it's not homemade Mayo) that spoils in the outdoors. It's probably the onions, and if not the onions, it's the POTATOES. He explained that onions are a huge magnet for bacteria, especially uncooked onions.

You should never plan to keep a portion of a sliced onion. He says it's not even safe if you put it in a zip-lock bag and put it in your refrigerator. It's already contaminated enough just by being cut open and out for a bit that it can be a danger to you. (And doubly watch out for those onions you put on your hotdogs at the baseball park!)

Ed says if you take the leftover onion and cook it like crazy,you'll probably be okay, but if you slice that leftover onion and put it in your sandwich, you're asking for trouble. Both the onions and the moist potato in a potato salad will attract and grow bacteria faster than any commercial mayonnaise will even begin to break down.

So, how's that for news? Take it for what you will. I (the author) am going to be very careful about onions from now on. I see a lot of credibility in this info, coming from a chemist and a company that produces millions of pounds of mayonnaise every year.

(Dogs should never eat onions.. Their stomachs cannot metabolize them.)

UPDATE:

http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/cutonions.asp - Says Undetermined

Check out what "Ed" says in regards to this. I think it is worth taking note of... I am sticking to what I said before... I will not eat or use onions that have been cut up and sat out, even after they have been refrigerated.



"The e-mail Bag"

MELANIE (age 5) asked her Granny how old she was. Granny replied she was so old she didn't remember any more. Melanie said, 'If you don't remember you must look in the back of your panties. Mine say five to six.'

STEVEN (age 3) hugged and kissed his Mom good night. 'I love you so much that when you die I'm going to bury you outside my bedroom window.'

BRITTANY (age 4) had an ear ache and wanted a pain killer. She tried in vain to take the lid off the bottle. Seeing her frustration, her Mom explained it was a child-proof cap and she'd have to open it for her. Eyes wide with wonder, the little girl asked: 'How does it know it's me?'

SUSAN (age 4) was drinking juice when she got the hiccups. 'Please don't give me this juice again,' she said, 'It makes my teeth cough.'

DJ (age 4) stepped onto the bathroom scale and asked: 'How much do I cost?'

CLINTON (age 5) was in his bedroom looking worried when his Mom asked what was troubling him, he replied, 'I don't know what'll happen with this bed when I get married. How will my wife fit in it?'

MARC (age 4) was engrossed in a young couple that were hugging and kissing in a restaurant. Without taking his eyes off them, he asked his dad: 'Why is he whispering in her mouth?'

TAMMY (age 4) was with her mother when they met an elderly, rather wrinkled woman her Mom knew. Tammy looked at her for a while and then asked, 'Why doesn't your skin fit your face?'

JAMES (age 4) was listening to a Bible story. His dad read: 'The man named Lot was warned to take his wife and flee out of the city but his wife looked back and was turned to salt.' Concerned, James asked: 'What happened to the flea?'