December 10, 2007

Robin Weirauch Takes Stealth Campaigning to the Next Level: Index and Boil-Down

– Dec. 9 – Part 1 — Intro
– Dec. 10 – Part 2 — The Horrific Hidden Endorsement
– Dec. 10 – Part 3 — The Issueless Web Site, and Campaign

BOILED DOWN (this index, Part 2, and Part 3 have been moved to the top because of the importance of the topics covered):

  • (Part 1) Robin Weirauch is running the stealthiest congressional campaign I have seen since I began blogging. I identified two related BizzyBlog Dealbreakers within 5 minutes. (A BizzyBlog Dealbreaker is “something that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your stands on the issues.”)
  • (Part 2) Weirauch is “honored” to have the support of the pro-abortion group EMILY’s List (EL), which opposed the Supreme Court decision earlier this year that upheld the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, and requires its candidates to strictly adhere to its issue positions. EL wants partial birth abortion resinstated; therefore, so does Weirauch. No wonder the EL endorsement is not on Weirauch’s web site — which is BizzyBlog Dealbreaker Number 1.
  • (Part 3) Weirauch’s web site has no substantive issue positions — That’s BizzyBlog Dealbreaker Number 2. We have no idea where she stands on Iraq, the War on Terror, abortion, education, Second Amendment rights, taxes, etc. The claim that she has a tough stance on her web site against illegal immigration is totally refuted by a combination of incoherence (seeming to believe that illegals come to America to work at closed plants) and her support of a John Conyers-backed bill that would provide health benefits to illegals.

Robin Weirauch Takes Stealth Campaigning to the Next Level: Part 2 — The Horrific Hidden Endorsement

Filed under: Life-Based News,Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:56 pm

Part 1 — Intro


The Toledo Blade, which endorsed Robin Weirauch in her 2006 congressional run, did a non-endorsement endorsement of Weirauch for Congress in Ohio’s 5th District Sunday morning. The Blade noted that she unsuccessfully challenged the late Paul Gillmor twice in the past three-plus years, but that there is a difference this time:

Unlike her previous quests, the Liberty Center native has sufficient financial resources to put up a respectable television campaign.

Her financial situation indeed sharply differs from her previous runs.

I’m not even sure Weirauch had a web site in her prior efforts, as a Wayback search on her domain name came up bone dry, even a wild-card version, and various Google web searches surfaced very little. I did come across a news story of a late-October 2006 dustup between Gillmor and Weirauch over what appears to have been a Weirauch home-cooked poll. I also found a campaign info site with financial data about her 2004 and 2006 runs, indicating that she raised about $79,000 and $117,000, respectively, during those two campaigns.

So Weirauch is relatively flush.

Where’s the money and support coming from? Sabrina Eaton of the Cleveland Plain Dealer provides one detail:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has spent $243,748 on Weirauch’s behalf, including an ad that attempts to link Latta with former Gov. Bob Taft and disgraced ex-GOP fund-raiser Tom Noe.

I suppose that Weirauch’s money situation, combined with nationally high-powered if typically unimaginative help (Bob who?), means that this race could be close, and may even be ripe for an upset.

If voters knew Weirauch’s true issue positions, it would be a Latta rout. That it might not be is a testament to a time-honored saying of the ever-observant Rush Limbaugh:

The left doesn’t have the guts to tell us what they believe. They don’t have the courage to be honest about it. They’re all about masking who they really are.

Robin Weirauch clearly doesn’t want 5th District voters to know what she really believes.

Exhibit A: Look at the list of endorsements at her web site (here’s a screen capture that will open in a new window, in case there’s an attempt at a late insertion by Team Weirauch).

Okay, there are the usual big-name Democratic politicians, including the governor, lieutenant governor, Sherrod “Charade” Brown, and the congressional delegation — including Tim “I’m Lying about the Food Stamp Challenge, Even Though I Know Better” Ryan (see last few paras at post). Then there are the county Democratic Party organizations, and a dozen or so unions — mostly local, but a few national.

But a Great Biggie is still missing. I believe it’s missing because if this organization’s endorsement became widely known, Robin Weirauch wouldn’t get past 30% on Election Day.

Here’s this organization’s endorsement (bolds are mine):

November 19, 2007

EMILY’s List, the nation’s largest political action committee and financial resource for women running for elective office, today announced its endorsement of Robin Weirauch in her bid for Ohio’s fifth congressional district.

….. “I am honored to have earned the support of the thousands of women and men who are members of EMILY’s List,” said Weirauch. “Ohioans want a change in direction and leadership that will truly understand and focus on needs of these communities. In Congress, I’ll fight to bring home the help we need to create jobs, invest in education, and strengthen public safety. I’ll also fight to bring home our soldiers from Iraq.

With more than 100,000 members across the country, EMILY’s List is the largest political action committee in the nation.

Hey Robin — If you’re so “honored” to have the EMILY’s List endorsement, why isn’t that endorsement on your web site’s Endorsements page? And why don’t you address your position on abortion anywhere on your web site?

That’s easy — Weirauch would prefer that 5th District voters not know what a candidate’s issue positions MUST BE to get EL’s endorsement.

First, here is EL’s mission:

EMILY’s List is committed to a three-pronged strategy to elect pro-choice Democratic women: recruiting and funding viable women candidates; helping them build and run effective campaign organizations; and mobilizing women voters to help elect progressive candidates across the nation.

EL is thus a single-issue organization dedicated to candidates who would advance abortion rights.

But how far? Here’s how far, per Thomas Edsall of the Washington Post in April of 2002 (article copied to BizzyBlog host from ProQuest library database, for fair use and discussion purposes only):

A candidate must meet three qualifications to be considered for an EMILY’s List endorsement: back abortion rights, including the right to late-term (or ‘partial birth’) abortions; be a Democrat; and, in primary elections, be a woman.

If you doubt how serious EL is about enforcing its “qualifications,” consider this:

In 2002, EMILY’s List Withdrew Its Support Of Democratic Senator Mary Landrieu After She Came Out In Favor Of A Ban On Partial-Birth Abortion. “The organization was heavily credited with getting Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., elected in 1996 in the closest Senate race in the country that year. But the PAC withdrew its support after Landrieu came out for a ban on controversial late-term abortions, referred to by opponents as ‘partial birth’ abortions.” (Chuck Raasch, “Pro-Abortion Rights Group’s Fund-Raising Power Could Be Wave Of PAC Future,” Gannett News Service, October 25, 2002; accuracy of original article text verified by reference to ProQuest library database)

If you still doubt, consider this official EL reaction (copy here at BizzyBlog host) to the Supreme Court’s decision earlier this year upholding the Federal Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act:

“This is a call to arms,” said Ellen Moran, executive director of Emily’s List, a Washington group that supports Hillary Clinton for president and raises money for Democratic women who back abortion rights.

Grasp the impact, folks: EL only supports candidates who want reinstitute a practice that is so barbaric that ardent pro-choicers and cowed reporters like Gannett’s Raasch can’t even work up the nerve to unequivocally use its proper and widely-accepted name — partial-birth abortion, a term used for at least two decades. Instead, they prefer to whitewash it, “describing” it as “a certain late-term abortion procedure.”

Yeah, right. A description of partial-birth abortion (WARNING: contains graphic and likely upsetting language) is here (begins at third paragraph).

Therefore, make no mistake: Robin Weirauch has accepted EL’s “call to arms,” but wants their endorsement and support kept as quiet as possible within the 5th District. By accepting EL’s endorsement and considerable monetary support, she has agreed to do everything she can to return a procedure that should remain in the house of past horrors back into the mainstream of medicine.

And she knows damn well that the vast majority of 5th District voters would be outraged if they knew what an EMILY’s List endorsement really means.

Ohio’s Old Media and the national press have mostly protected Weirauch. A Google News search on “Emily’s List Weirauch” (not in quotes) done at 11:15 p.m on December 9 had only four stories, three of them from Ohio. Two were in the Toledo Blade. In this December 1 Blade article, an EL mention was saved for the second-last paragraph, while its December 7 coverage mentioned EL in paragraph 14 — as the subject of a Republican committee statement. The only other Ohio mention is in a November 28 Cleveland Plain Dealer blog post that did not get into its print edition.

Robin Weirauch is surely hoping that “someone” won’t try to go around her and Ohio’s Old Media and give her Emily’s List endorsement the attention it deserves. “Someone” just has.

Robin Weirauch’s failure to disclose her EMILY’s List endorsement is BizzyBlog Dealbreaker Number 1 (A BizzyBlog Dealbreaker is “something that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your stands on the issues.”).

If she had been as proud of it as she was at the time of EL’s endorsement and visible about it during the campaign, it wouldn’t have been a Dealbreaker, just a major point of disagreement. But Robin Weirauch, as the post title says, is taking stealth campaigning to the next level.

Part 3, with Exhibit B, elaborates further.


UPDATE: Robert Novak recounted some important history, while indicating just how utterly indifferent to horror the pro-aborts and EMILY’s Listers are, in a column written shortly after the Supremes’ decision:

Delivering a fetus and then crushing its skull, a procedure called “partial birth” abortion by its critics, is massively unpopular. Its prohibition is favored 61 percent to 28 percent in a Fox News poll from March 2006. The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a pro-choice Democrat, called the practice “infanticide.” But the abortion rights lobby is adamant against any erosion of Roe v. Wade.

The leading Democratic presidential candidates — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (who voted against the ban in 2003), Sen. Barack Obama, former senator John Edwards and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson — lashed out against Wednesday’s ruling.

Robin Weirauch Takes Stealth Campaigning to the Next Level: Part 3 — The Issueless Web Site, and Campaign (See Update)

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 11:54 pm

The left doesn’t have the guts to tell us what they believe. They don’t have the courage to be honest about it. They’re all about masking who they really are. Rush Limbaugh

Part 2 dealt with Exhibit A — Democratic congressional candidate Robin Weirauch’s failure to disclose her endorsement by EMILY’s List (EL) on her web site, the true and horrific meaning of an EL endorsement (i.e., advocating the reinstatement of the barbaric practice of partial-birth abortion), and Weirauch’s utter failure to discuss her position on abortion and life-related issues anywhere on her web site. That’s BizzyBlog Dealbreaker Number 1 for her candidacy. (A BizzyBlog Dealbreaker is “something that completely justifies a person not voting for you, regardless of your party or your stands on the issues.”)

BizzyBlog Dealbreaker Number 2 is simply stated but absolutely incredible to have to assert: Robin Weirauch’s web site does not reveal where she stands on any real issues.

None. I’m not kidding.

Not that Bob Latta has acquitted himself admirably in this regard, but as I mentioned in Part 1:

Though it takes more work than it should to pull it together, after a few clicks it’s obvious that he’s fiscally conservative (signing the Americans for Tax Reform “No New Taxes” Pledge; scroll to very bottom at link), prolife, pro-2nd Amendment, pro-border security, does his job (100% voting record), and involved in the community.

That’s not exactly an A-Z recitation on the important issues of the day, but it beats nothing.

And that’s what Exhibit B, Robin Weirauch’s entire web site, has — nothing:

  • Home page? Nope.
  • The Ted Strickland ad, or the Tim Ryan pep talk? I challenge you to identify an issue mentioned. You won’t be able to.
  • Meet Robin? Zip.
  • The Blog? SOSO (Same Old, Same Old). Oh, she’s against toys containing lead (I’m soooo sure Bob Latta favors that), and there’s a real incoherent comment about how “Washington trade agreements like NAFTA cost us jobs and encourage a wave of illegal immigrants” (no, the lack of a fence that your party would NEVER build encourages illegals). The blog has generated so much interest it had four whole comments as of 12:30 a.m.

In the News? It’s all external links to articles that are Sound-bite and Cliche City — Complaining and complaining about kids’ health care and the SCHIP veto (what would you DO, ma’am?), health care in general, decrying the lack of good-paying jobs, demanding low fuel prices (or what, you’ll hold your breath?), wanting to see an end to the war in Iraq (who doesn’t?), standing up for the middle class, complaining about trade deals ….. zzzzzz …..

The closest thing I see to a real position on an issue in the News is her call for a moratorium on trade deals. Wow. Go back into the News archive and you see that she “support(ed) striking GM workers.” Now there’s some real Democratic courage.

But there’s nothing, absolutely nothing, on the web site itself about, oh, Iraq, the War on Terror, abortion, immigration (see Updates and Comments — Weirauch’s “position” on immigration amounts to a mishmash that nets out to nothing), education, Second Amendment rights, taxes, ….. (cue Zell Miller) ….. I could go on and on and on.

I’ve never seen anything as substance-free as this in a congressional race. Not even close. This is a new level of stealth campaigning not even Paul Hackett (more on that here) or Victoria Wells-Wulsin-Whatever dared to try. Robin Weirauch wants your vote because ….. well ….. just because.

One cannot help but conclude that Robin Weirauch doesn’t want 5th District voters to know what she really believes. In fact, I’d say she’s deathly afraid of that happening.

Robin Weirauch’s breathtaking lack of substance and issue positions constitute a slam-dunk Dealbreaker. Nobody deserves a vote unless they get past sound-bite platitudes and tell us where they stand and what they will do. Robin Weirauch is nowhere near that. If she won’t give the issues serious consideration, she herself does not deserve serious consideration.


UPDATE: I am being taken to task in a comment because a Weirauch November 29 blog post (“AMERICAN STANDARD”) says, “Washington needs to enforce our immigration laws and hold employers accountable when they break them. We must secure the borders and make sure that illegal immigrants aren’t rewarded for breaking the law. That means absolutely no amnesty, no driver’s licenses, and no federal benefits for illegal immigrants.” (Note: Nancy Pelosi and other contributors don’t believe a word of that.)

Of course I saw that. The problem is that it follows the incoherence referred to above, which reads in full: “This is another blow to Northwest Ohioans –Washington trade agreements like NAFTA cost us jobs and encourage a wave of illegal immigrants. Making matters worse, Washington isn’t enforcing our immigration laws allowing big companies to hire illegal immigrants without fear of being penalized.”

Geez, Robin — Illegals aren’t entering this country in waves to work at closed plants. Non sequiturs aren’t issue positions. They’re incoherent non sequiturs. The issues position-free nature of Weirauch’s web site thus remains.

UPDATE 2: She’s not just incoherent on illegals, she’s dishonest, as the Latta web site News Page reveals (5th item at link; bold is mine):

Bowling Green, Ohio (December 6, 2007) — After trying to deceive voters into thinking she was tough on illegal immigration, liberal Congressional candidate Robin Weirauch admitted today that she supports a bill pending in Congress that would grant free healthcare to illegal immigrants.

….. Even the bill’s author, the ultra-liberal Rep. John Conyers of Detroit, admitted that his legislation would provide free, taxpayer funded health care to illegal residents of the United States.

The bill accomplishes this by prohibiting the government or other health care providers from requiring a Social Security number to confirm citizenship.

Weirauch can deny until the cows come home, but here’s the truth, as reported by the Toledo Blade:

Mrs. Weirauch refused to disavow a sweeping proposed national health-care act sponsored by U.S. Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) that would extend benefits to everyone residing in the United States or its territories. She denied that’s a ticket to free health care for illegal workers.

“The bill refers to health care for anyone who resides in the U.S. Anyone would understand that to mean resides legally in the U.S.,” Mrs. Weirauch said. “Congress is not going to approve any bill to extend health care to illegal immigrants.”

But a statement from the National Republican Congressional Committee said, “The [Conyers] bill goes to great lengths to guarantee that illegal immigrants would not be denied complete health coverage.”

Based on Conyers’ record, there’s absolutely no reason to doubt that he would want illegals covered:

Representative John Conyers has voted in favor of giving illegal aliens further rewards and other incentives to come such as in-state tuition, educational benefits, welfare and health care services.

Sorry, Robin. No sale. You’re busted.

I’m still waiting for something constituting a real, coherent, and consistent (duh) issues position from Team Weirauch.

What Time of Year Is It? (Year 3 Follow-up, Part 2)

Filed under: Business Moves,Economy,MSM Biz/Other Bias — Tom @ 11:51 pm

In 2005, I sensed that journalists in general prefer to call this time of the year in commerce that of “holiday shopping” instead of “Christmas shopping,” but that when it came to people losing their jobs, they preferred to describe layoffs as relating to “Christmas.”

My instincts have been proven correct for two years running, as you can see below from the results of three different sets of Google News searches in November and December of 2005 and 2006 (links to 2005′s related posts are here, here, and here; 2006′s are here, here, and here):


I’ve decided to track the same items this year to see if there is any noticeable change or trend.

Here are the first two of the three sets of Google News searches during this Christmas season, compared to the previous two years (the Dec. 10, 2007 searches were done shortly at about 11 a.m.; the post on the Nov. 27, 2006 searches is here):


Despite the obvious proliferation of news services and outlets in the past two years, reporting about shopping during the three Christmas seasons reviewed clearly leans heavily toward the use of “holiday shopping,” as opposed to “Christmas shopping.”

The tendency to associate Christmas with layoffs remains 2-3 times greater than the association with shopping,

Still, what I have concluded for the past two years (with minor editing) is proving true again this year:

It seems beyond dispute that there is a strong bias against using the word “Christmas” to describe not only the shopping season, as noted above, but also events, parades, and festivals that happen during the Christmas season. There is, however, a bit of an exception — “Christmas” is a word that is much more acceptable to use when “Scrooge” employers are letting people go.

In a not-unrelated development, K-Mart and Sears are catching well-deserved flak for this:

K-Mart and Sears have intentionally renamed “Christmas trees” to “holiday trees” or simply “trees” in its advertising. K-Mart is owned by Sears Holding Corporation.

A Liberty Counsel supporter asked K-Mart for an explanation of the company’s disregard for Christmas. Vincent V., a representative from Sears Holding Corporation, responded:

The reason for our use of holiday tree is due to the [sic] Sears Holding is a very diverse company, we do not want to offend any of our associates, but also our valued customers. We decided to call them holiday trees because even if Christians are the only religion that uses a Christmas tree we still do not want complaints from other customers of different religions complaining about our use of Christmas.

What an outrage.

The third identical series of searches will be done on about December 22.

Cross-posted at


Previous Posts:
Nov. 28, 2007 — What Time of Year Is It? (Year 2 Follow-up, Part 1)
Dec. 22, 2006 — What Time of Year Is It? (Year 2 Follow-up, Part 3)
Dec. 9, 2006 — What Time of Year Is It? (Year 2 Follow-up, Part 2)
Nov. 26, 2006 — What Time of Year Is It? (Year 2 Follow-up, Part 1)
Nov. 11, 2006 — Will Christmas Be a Four-Letter Word This Year?
Dec. 22, 2005 — When You Can Say What at This Time of Year (UPDATE 2)
Dec. 7, 2005 — When You Can Say What at This Time of Year (UPDATE)
Nov. 29, 2005 — What Time of Year Is It?
Nov. 23, 2005 — When You Can Say What at This Time of Year

Couldn’t Help But Notice (121007)

Filed under: Environment,Taxes & Government,US & Allied Military — Tom @ 8:37 am

A Globaloney “Consensus, Conschmensus” update from, with a touch of data-doctoring on the side (excerpted paras are not in the same order as the original):

Dissenters Are Left High And Dry In Bali

Clearly, diversity of opinion, and politics — the driving force behind the global warming scare — are not allowed by the U.N., which, according to the Heartland Institute, “has tried to freeze out the (dissenting) scientists and new evidence, summarily dismissing them with the claim ‘the science is settled.’ ”
James M. Taylor, a Heartland Institute senior fellow, says that there are more than 600 scientists in Bali who can debunk the climate change theory. But the U.N. has pushed them to the margins.”All are being censored,” said Taylor.

(the following appeared earlier in the editorial)

While global warming alarmists revel in self-importance at their 11-day forum in Bali, dissenting scientists are being shut out and credible charges are leveled that the U.N. has doctored sea-level data.

….. (The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is) seizing control of data and torturing them into the outcome IPCC scientists are looking for.

The possibility of such fraud has been raised by Nils-Axel Morner, former head of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Stockholm University in Sweden. According to his June interview with the British Telegraph that was revisited on a Telegraph blog last week, the IPCC might have doctored data to show a sea- level rise from 1992 to 2002.

“Suddenly it changed,” Morner said of the IPCC’s 2003 sea-level chart, which is intended to convince the public that warming due to man’s activities is melting ice that will cause the oceans to rise to dangerous levels.

Read the whole thing.


Based on this, maybe globaloney’s chief spokesman should be nicknamed Al Gore the Boor (HT Drudge):

Al Gore has come under fire for making personal gain from his mission to save the planet – after charging £3,300 a minute (about $6,000 per minute — Ed.) to deliver a poorly received speech.

The former American Vice-President was also accused of being “precious” at the London event, demanding his own VIP room and ejecting journalists, despite hopes the star-studded gathering would generate publicity for the fight against global warming.

Many of the audience at last month’s Fortune Forum summit were restless as Mr Gore, who has won both a Nobel Peace Prize and an Oscar for his campaigning work this year, delivered the half-hour speech that netted him £100,000.

….. But a source told The Mail on Sunday: “Many guests looked tired and began to talk among themselves during his speech. Heads began to twitch with tiredness.

“Al uses his position for great personal gain. He goes from event to event delivering a similar speech, earning a large fee, and a lot of the time he doesn’t actually inform the audience.

“He refused to speak to journalists and security would usher away VIP guests and the Press.

“He was being very precious and demanded his own VIP room before the event, where he held his own exclusive reception.

“The other guests were cut off. It was very clear that many guests were disappointed by this.”

Unless he ventures from the topic of globaloney, Al Gore NEVER “actually informs the audience.”


Alan Dershowitz, who is not on my “frequently agree with” list, hits the bullseye in his take on the recent National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and Old Media’s and the Democratic Party’s (but I repeat myself) obsession over it (link to NY Times op-ed added by me; HT Hot Air):

As Valerie Lincy and Gary Milhollin, both experts on nuclear arms control, put it in a New York Times Op Ed on December 6, 2007:

“…the halting of its secret enrichment and weapon design efforts in 2003 proves only that Iran made a tactical move. It suspended work that, if discovered, would unambiguously reveal intent to build a weapon. It has continued other work, crucial to the ability to make a bomb, that it can pass off as having civilian applications.”


A good description for blind or selective reliance on these estimates would be “NIEbriation.”


Michael Barone at Real Clear Politics:

The world looks safer, friendlier, more hopeful than it did as we approached Christmastime last year.

I blame Bush (use of “I blame Bush” in contexts such as these “trademarked” by Weapons of Mass Discussion).

Positivity: Cancer survivor inspires the Roanoke Valley

Filed under: Positivity — Tom @ 7:01 am

From Roanoke, Virginia:

November 27, 2007

WELDON – Josh Sundquist knows that life is tough.

The 23-year-old lost one of his legs to cancer at a young age. But Sundquist also knows that life is beautiful, and his goal is to spread that message to the rest of the world.

The Harrisonburg, Va., native visited the Roanoke Valley to motivate the community on a rainy Monday. Sundquist opened his speech with some humorous anecdotes about his life, including a description of the “natural pimp walk” he acquires when he wears an artificial leg.

On Monday, he walked without an artificial leg, moving on and off the stage with more ease than most people with two legs. He even used one of his crutches as a prop to demonstrate his golf swing during a story about an unsuccessful first date.

Though he said laughter helps him deal with difficult situations, Sundquist’s tone turned serious when he talked about the disease which left him with only one leg. An avid soccer player, Sundquist was diagnosed with cancer at age 9 and told he had a 50 percent chance to live.

After a year of unsuccessful chemotherapy, doctors told him his best chance of survival would be to have his left leg amputated. He still remembers walking to the operating room with both legs, but he also remembers making a promise to himself not to let the disease destroy his life.

“I didn’t want to spend the rest of my life feeling sorry for myself and wishing things had been different,” he said.

Three years later, he was declared in remission, and three years after that, he developed a new interest – skiing.

Sundquist’s first slalom race proved difficult, and he fell down numerous times.

“I said, ‘No matter how many time I fall down, no matter how many times I have to get back up, I’m gonna finish that ski race,’” he said.

Even as he improved, Sundquist ran into additional challenges, from financial problems to frostbite. He finished last in his first eight World Cup races. He kept working at it, though, and was named to the 2006 U.S. Paralympic Ski Team, for which he traveled to Turino, Italy.

“Sometimes if you work long enough and hard enough, if you get up enough times after you fall, sometimes dreams really do come true,” he said.

Sundquist began speaking to groups when he was 10 years old, and has since spoken at many schools and businesses and even the White House. He has won numerous awards and honors and was a speaker at the national Children’s Miracle Network convention. …..

Go here for the rest of the story.