RIGHTWINGSPARKLE

2009-12-26T10:38:00.001-06:00

ATTENTION! ATTENTION!

RIGHTWINGSPARKLE HAS MOVED!!! I WILL BE BLOGGING UNDER MY OWN NAME AT KATHLEENMCKINLEY.COM !!!!

PLEASE CLICK HERE AND BOOKMARK IT!!

I can't tell you how much it means to me to have all of you to take the time to read me. These past five years have been amazing. Please take the time to come over to my new site. It's new and improved!...:-)

God bless you and and your family this new year!

Merry Christmas!

2009-12-25T15:53:00.002-06:00

I pray that each of you experience the fullness of God's love this new year. We celebrate today the amazing miracle that changed mankind. God gave us his son. Christ took upon himself all of sins. and washed our souls clean. In this profound and great love there is happiness and joy. I pray that all of you experience it. Let God into your heart. He picks up the broken pieces and makes it all beautiful.

My Christmas Message To All On The Political Spectrum

2009-12-23T10:19:00.000-06:00

I usually would never use a line from a modern movie to make a more profound point, but every once in a while there is a line in a move that strikes me. This happened when I was watching the movie, "2012." Near the end, one of the main characters declares, "It is when we stop fighting for each other that we lose our humanity."

Which brings me to my Christmas message. All of us here on the right or left, in this subculture of political obsession are, in the end, fighting for each other. No matter where we are on the political spectrum, we all want to make this world a better place. We all want what is best for the people who live on this planet.

We all have different ideas on how to do that well. Some of us are profoundly right, and some of us are profoundly wrong. It is only in the end, when we face the One who loves us best, that we will be able to see whether what we believed was indeed right.

But until then, we continue on in this life, doing what we can to effect change. To lift one another up. To bring a better life for all.

For all our differences, it would do us well to remember that at the heart of all of this, all this writing, all this watching, all this perspective, we are simply caring about the world around us and the decisions being made on our behalf.

We are...... "fighting for each other."

This really is at the heart of all great religions. It is certainly at the heart of my Christian faith. Christ said, "Love one another as I have loved you." Christ told us that it is in taking care of one another that we find God and purpose in life. When we stand for those less fortunate, we are fighting for each other. When we fight for freedom, we are fighting for each other.

In this great nation our founding fathers believed that we were and are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." They didn't believe that these rights were given to man by men. They did not believe that this nation was by accident. In order to form "a more perfect union" they understood that it was the "blessings of liberty" given to us by our Creator, that would indeed be necessary to fight for. They did fight. They fought for us.

And now, still...we are fighting for each other.

I wish you all a blessed and happy Christmas, but special blessings to those who stand at the gate and watch those who lead us. We watch and work to make sure that those who lead this great nation are being worthy of the work bestowed upon them, and that they are understanding the greatness of their service to us.

So to bloggers, commenters, columnists, authors, radio hosts, political pundits, news anchors, and reporters, I say many blessings to you, and may you always keep fighting the good fight.

For it is there where we truly do keep and treasure our humanity.

A Party Switch For Health Care

2009-12-22T11:25:00.004-06:00

Rep. Parker Griffith, a freshman Democrat from Alabama will announce today he is switching to the Republican party.

Why?

Griffith is also a Doctor. He is a radiation oncologist who founded a cancer treatment center. It is expected that he will emphasize the reason for his switch is this debacle of a health bill.

Remember what I said before. Every Senator who is a Doctor is opposed to this bill. If anyone understands how these laws, mandates, and rationed care will affect us, it is the Senate Doctors.

via Politico

Update: His presser:

2009-12-21T18:32:00.001-06:00

Note

2009-12-21T17:43:00.002-06:00

Haloscan (my commenting host) is going to start charging on Christmas. I am actually in the process of making some BIG changes here. I may or may not finish the changes in time to save my comments. I can import them if I do. If not, they will be gone and that's a shame.

But keep checking back. I have news coming. Big changes. I'll have my Christmas message tomorrow.

I'm so grateful for all of you that take the time to read me.

Be Careful What You Wish For...

2009-12-21T12:40:00.002-06:00

As I have mentioned before, I don't have much time to write this week, but Charles Krauthammer's take yesterday on Fox News pretty much says all you need to know:

And the process is really insane. This is a reform of one-sixth of our economy. The one thing Democrats and Republicans agree on is that this is the most important, transformative piece of legislation that's going to pass for years, and they haven't seen it as of today, and it has to be all done and approved or disapproved by midweek.

No legislation of this importance has EVER passed without bi-partisanship. Ever. This one will pass on a purely partisan basis. Is anyone paying attention? No. It's Christmas. Which is why Reid is doing this now. I want all of you to think about this. Right or left, do you really want a "transformative piece of legislation" passed that as of yesterday no one has even seen??

Insane indeed.

I need to add this. This is from an interview with Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.). Keep in mind that this is a Republican that had enough of the respect of Pres. Obama to be asked to be in his cabinet (which Gregg declined) This is how he sees what is happening in Wasthington:

“An ideological supermajority in Congress, along with a government run by community organizers, has taken over.”

“They’ve taken over the student-loan program, they’ve taken over the automobile system, and now they’re taking over the health-care system. There is no limit to their belief that people should be controlled by smart bureaucrats in Washington,” says Gregg. “They’re putting our country on a path that will reduce the quality of life for the next generation, undermine our nation’s wonderful exceptionalism, and Europeanize our economy to curb its growth.”

Harry Reid’s health-care bill “was purchased,” says Gregg. “Our system of checks and balances is gone. We now have a government that lurches with great speed even though our system is founded upon incremental change.” And don’t hope that the House stops the runaway train, he says. “I think the House is ideologically even further to the Left than the Senate. There are many people there who are committed to taking us down the road toward nationalization.”

When you hear The Tea Party Movement talk about losing our liberty. This is what we are talking about.

The Grinch Who Stole Liberty

2009-12-19T14:04:00.004-06:00

Oh my gosh. Seriously. My oldest kids are home from college, my house if full children ages 12-22. I'm shopping, cleaning, cooking, wrapping, and going to Christmas parties. I don't have time to blog. But here I am because this is so important.

The Democrats are trying to rush this health care bill through when everyone is busy just like I am. It's a travesty. The ironic thing about is that BOTH the left and right are against this health care bill (although for very different reasons). But no matter, Dem Majority leader Harry Reid is determined to shove this down our throats. Senators are still reading the bill, and yet they are going to be forced to vote on it within two days. This process is a travesty. They are voting on a bill they have not even read through about something that affects every person in America’s quality of life. All small businesses will be affected with taxes and mandates. It’s going to cut Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements to hospitals. This bill won't even take affect until 2014 (except for the taxes of course). There is NO reason to rush this before Christmas. 61% of Americans are against this. Just about everyone (excepts Democrats in Congress) wants to start over. It boggles the mind.

Even though Reid has payed off Democrat Senator Nelson from Nebraska big time for his vote, who was against the abortion part of the bill, the abortion language is still egregious (I believe this is what's called selling your soul to the devil). It would be the first time since 1977 that there would be federal funding for elective abortions. The Catholic Bishops have come out and said that this bill in it's present form is "morally unacceptable."

One Senator is saying that the bill sets up a constitutional challenge:

Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) asserted that the compromise on abortion contained within the bill, which would seek to segregate federal funds from subsidizing health plans covering abortion, is unconstitutional.

Harry Reid can be the Grinch who stole liberty in Health Care this Christmas, but this is far from over. The American people aren't going to stand for it this time.

That, I can promise you.

Climate Change Summit Update

2009-12-18T16:58:00.004-06:00

For those of you interested or keeping up, Copenhagen's Climate Change Summit has been a disaster. India and China had had enough. Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh and China premier Wen Jiabao walked out of the summit along with their respective delegations as talks failed. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev left the deadlocked UN climate summit today because of another scheduled event. Obama's badly given speech didn't impress anyone (click the link to see how pathetic Obama is without a teleprompter).

A multilateral meeting between President Obama, Premier Wen, Prime Minister Singh, and President Zuma secured "a meaningful agreement". It's said to not be "sufficient to combat the threat of climate change but its an important first step." It's a "legally non-binding" agreement to do all sorts of climate change stuff, but pretty much means no one HAS to do anything.

All in all, a very good day for those of us who find the global warming alarmists silly at best, and dangerous at worst.

And once again Mother Nature laughs and laughs as over a foot of snow is expected to greet Obama as he flies from this global warming crisis back to Washington D.C.

Global Warming and Blizzards

2009-12-17T16:57:00.002-06:00

It's just too funny.

World leaders flying into Copenhagen today to discuss a solution to global warming will first face freezing weather as a blizzard dumped 10 centimeters (4 inches) of snow on the Danish capital overnight.

“Temperatures will stay low at least the next three days,” Henning Gisseloe, an official at Denmark’s Meteorological Institute, said today by telephone, forecasting more snow in coming days. “There’s a good chance of a white Christmas.”
...

Denmark has a maritime climate and milder winters than its Scandinavian neighbors. It hasn’t had a white Christmas for 14 years, under the DMI’s definition, and only had seven last century. Temperatures today fell as low as minus 4 Celsius (25 Fahrenheit).

via Ace (bloombergnews)

This does seem to happen to Gore a lot. I think Mother Nature is yanking his chain.

Death Panels. Yeah, I said it....

2009-12-17T10:52:00.005-06:00

Republican Sen. Tom Coburn recently suggested that seniors will die sooner if Congress passes the medicare cuts in the health care bill. He has gotten all kinds of grief about that from the left, but I think they may have forgotten that Coburn was a practicing physician for 25 years. I think he knows how Doctors see things. He explains in a piece at the WSJ today (emphasis mine):

Doctors respond to government coercion instead of patient cues, and patients die prematurely. Even if the public option is eliminated from the bill, these onerous rationing provisions will remain intact.

For instance, the Reid bill (in sections 3403 and 2021) explicitly empowers Medicare to deny treatment based on cost. An Independent Medicare Advisory Board created by the bill—composed of permanent, unelected and, therefore, unaccountable members—will greatly expand the rationing practices that already occur in the program. Medicare, for example, has limited cancer patients' access to Epogen, a costly but vital drug that stimulates red blood cell production. It has limited the use of virtual, and safer, colonoscopies due to cost concerns. And Medicare refuses medical claims at twice the rate of the largest private insurers.

Let's see... an independent Medicare Advisory Board that decides rationing practices. Gosh, that sounds like a...(dare I say it?)..a death panel. Sure it's hyperbolic, but it's certainly true. This panel will limit access to certain procedures and/or drugs based on such things as cost concerns, and some seniors will die sooner. Sarah Palin was right, and any honest person looking at that part of the bill would admit that she was indeed.

But this "death panel" won't just affect seniors. We are all at risk. Coburn points out that the health care bill explicitly states that health insurance plans "shall provide coverage for" services approved by the U.S Preventive Services Task Force. You may have heard of them lately. They are the ones responsible for advising women under 50 not to have mammograms. So in a world where this health bill is implemented and those guidelines for mammograms accepted for example, health insurance plans wouldn't cover mammograms for women under 50. That saves money for them for sure, but who do you think would die sooner there? By the task force's own numbers, 47,000 women under 50 could die under these guidelines.

Death panel indeed.

Read Coburn's piece. He has much more on the tragic consequences of the government run Medicaid as well.

But this part struck me. In the bill there is a penalty of $750 if you do not buy insurance. As Coburn points out, how long until savvy consumers realize that it's much cheaper to pay the penalty than the $5,000 in annual premiums when they know that coverage can't be denied if they get sick? Not long.

These are just a few of the things horribly wrong with this bill. It's time to start over. It's time to do this right. The Democrats are trying to rush this through for their own political agenda, and that is just wrong. All of us want to fix things in health care. There is agreement on many many things, but the Democrats are shutting out the Republicans and the American people on this.

We aren't happy. If this passes, I don't think you will see the usual resignation of defeat from the American people. This is different. We are done being railroaded. We are done being ignored. There will be the largest non violent protest since the days of civil rights.

You just wait and see.

Tiger and Obama

2009-12-16T14:30:00.005-06:00

Well, you knew the comparison was bound to happen. Tiger and Pres. Obama. But who would have guessed it would come from a liberal at the Huffington Post?

In the past few weeks, the two most famous and arguably most successful black men in America have taken a huge fall. It has become clear that both pro golfer Tiger Woods, just named Athlete of the Year by the Associated Press, and the American president, Barack Obama, the first black person to lead the country, suffer from a surfeit of hubris which has finally caught up with them. If both men somehow thought they were untouchable, they have been put to right. Both have crashed to earth and it may well be true that they can never recover their earlier status again.

Let me ask a real simple question. What in the world does having hubris or crashing to earth have to do with both men being black?

Oh, maybe she answers it here:

It is tragic when an icon falls. When a black icon stumbles the tragedy seems doubly problematic.

Really? Doubly problematic? And why would that be? Good grief. The implication here is that since most black men can't even dream of doing what these two have done by achieving so much while being black, that it makes it ever the more tragic. Gee, Obama and Tiger, you are letting the entire black race down here.

How ridiculous. Neither Tiger or Obama would be any different, acted any differently, governed any differently, played any differently, had they been white. This has NOTHING to do with color. Sure, both are historical, but they aren't the sole identifiers for black people. They are not defined by their color. Neither of them have ever made a big deal out of their color. They are proud of their heritage, sure. But Tiger was about golf, and Obama was about politics. They rose from the ranks because they were good. Both were as talented as they come. Obama can give a speech like no other, and Tiger can hit a golf ball like no other.

Now, they both are proving they are human. They are proving that they aren't perfect. But what they do or don't do has nothing, and I mean nothing, to do with the color of their skin.

Tiger is a promiscuous rat. Selfish at best, a pervert at worst. Never once thinking of his wife or children as he went after what he wanted. Obama is a liberal disappointing liberals. He is finding it much harder to lead than it was to campaign. But again, what has any of that got to do with color?

Hey, if a liberal or anyone else wants to rant and be critical of Tiger or Pres. Obama, be my guest. I don't have much use for either one. Both of them go against my beliefs, my politics, my faith, and my values. But lets keep the criticism on those issues. Let's look at these men for what they believe and what they do, not as some icon for blacks.

I'm not one for icons, no matter what kind. I'm of the "believe in yourself" crowd. Does having Tiger as the best golfer in the world and Obama as the President inspire black kids? Sure, as well it should. But that is just a small part of who they are and what they represent. If they fall, it doesn't say one thing about the black community. It only says something about them themselves. They don't speak for all. They speak for themselves.

Smart Girl Nation!! (bumped!)

2009-12-15T12:01:00.000-06:00

Check out my new radio show on RFCradio.com with my co-host Smart Girl Politics chicks Teri Christophe and Molly Teichman! Listen every Tuesday 9pm eastern, 8pm central! Hear our first two shows in podcast at site!

Code Red!

2009-12-15T11:55:00.001-06:00

From SmartGirlPolitics:

Can't be in DC for today's Code Red rally at the Senate? No problem, you can still participate. Please call or visit the district offices of your Senators and tell them to kill this bill. If you have some time to make a few extra calls, please contact these moderate Democrats and let them know that the country is counting on them to vote against this disastrous legislation:

Byron Dorgan (D-ND) 202-224-2551
Kent Conrad (D-ND) 202-224-2043
Jim Webb (D-VA) 202-224-4024
Ben Nelson (D-NE) 202-224-6551
Joe Lieberman (I-CT) 202-224-4041
Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) 202-224-4843
Mary Landrieu (D-LA) 202-224-5824

Code Red twitpic here.

Today Is The Day

2009-12-15T09:02:00.004-06:00

We are at a tipping point. I think today we will know if this boondoggle of a healthcare bill will pass or not. We Republicans have never been a part of this. The Democrats like to pretend that Republicans were holding things up, but it was always the reasonable people in their own party.

Yesterday they gave in to Sen. Joe Lieberman's demand to take out the buy in to medicare starting at age 55. The public option is dead, thank God (I do imagine it as a zombie, coming back to eat us later though). I imagine they will give in to Sen. Nelson's demand to take out any funding of abortion. All they care about now is passing something, anything. What's important now is to be able to say they did it. They can say they finally passed "comprehensive healthcare reform," which will cost nearly $1 trillion over a decade. We still have the tax hikes and Medicare cuts in the bill, but no matter. They will jaw for weeks about how historic and important it is. Never mind that the majority of the American people are against it. That doesn't matter to the Democrats, because they have always believed that they know best. They believe they know what the American people need more than the American people know themselves. At the very core of the Democrats's belief system is their certainty that the American people are ignorant. They will never say it of course, but they feel it is their duty to provide for the masses, who can't be trusted to make decisions for themselves. In an astounding display of denial yesterday, Majority Leader Harry Reid declared, "Democrats aren't going to let the American people down." Ummm...Harry? If you pass this you will let 61% of us down. You just don't get that, do you?

We all know that once a government program begins, it never ever ends. Ever. So, if this passes, it will just be the beginning. It will forever be tweaked, added to, enlarged, and petted until it grows into the blob that is most government programs. Ezra Klein at the WaPO says it plainly enough here:

"With $900 billion in subsidies already in place, it's easier to add another hundred billion later, if we need it, than it would be to pass $1 trillion in subsidies in 2011. With the exchanges built and private insurers unable to hold down costs, it's easier to argue for adding a strong public option to the market than it was before..."

Don't think we are taking this laying down. As Michelle Malkin reports, the Tea Party activists are turning up the heat today in Washington for the Code Red Rally on Capitol Hill. Laur Ingraham is hosting. Speakers include Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Okla.) and Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.). The Tea Party activists here in Houston sent us a special deal to fly to D.C. today and return tonight. I have never seen anything like it before. So if you are in the area, PLEASE join them at 1:30 pm, Upper Senate Park, on Constitution Ave. between New Jersey and Delaware St. NE. More info here and here.

In all probability we will know which way it goes after the Senate Democrats meet at 5:30 p.m. If Reid comes out saying he's going to file cloture, we are done. If it falls apart, it falls apart there.

This is how bad Cuba is....

2009-12-15T08:55:00.002-06:00

Ever wondered what it must be like to live in Cuba? You know, that socialist/hollywood dream of healthcare for everyone?

This is how bad it is:

...the national soccer team of Eritrea went to Kenya to play in a local tournament. Looks like they all defected.

When the team plane landed back home, it was reportedly only carrying the coach and an official.

Nairobi may not be your idea of heaven, but if you're from Eritrea, it looks real good.

The Desperate Democrats Fight Dirty on Health Care Bill

2009-12-14T09:57:00.002-06:00

You know the healthcare fight is getting desperate on the left when they start going after the wife of the independent they see standing in their way. Oh boy.

Washington (CNN) - Sen. Joe Lieberman whose opposition to a public insurance option has drawn outrage from liberal groups for months is used to finding himself in progressive crosshairs.

Now it's his wife's turn.

Activists are setting their sights on Hadassah Lieberman, launching a celebrity-studded petition drive to convince the nation's largest breast cancer non-profit to end the Connecticut senator's wife role as a spokeswoman.

The move to pressure the Susan G. Komen for the Cure foundation came the same day Lieberman's husband angered Democrats by announcing that he would not support an expansion of Medicare to cover individuals under the age of 55. Organizers did not point to that decision, instead citing Hadassah Lieberman's own ties to the health care industry.

Wow. This is hardball. Lieberman refuses to vote for the healthcare bill in it's present form, and they go after his wife.

Add to that this the video and audio of Obama speaking about how to get to a single payer healthcare system, that just so happens to beReid's exact new plan, and you have Democrats scrambling. They had hoped that this kind of thing wouldn't be exposed. Clearly it is a government run plan that they want. This game we are playing right now is just a means to an end. The end being a single payer system. We don't even have to speculate or accuse. They have said it themselves. They (especially Obama) don't want you to remember past statements. And if the MSM have anything to do with it, you won't.

A new CNN poll shows 61% of Americans opposed to a dramatic new health care system, and this "new" proposal by Reid about a Medicare buy-in doesn't seem to be going anywhere even with some in his own party. On CBS's "Face The Nation" this Sunday, Sen. Nelson called the buy-in proposal "the forerunner of single-payer, the ultimate single-payer plan, maybe even more directly than the public option."

If I were Nelson, I'd make sure his wife is watching her back.

No Surprise

2009-12-14T09:00:00.002-06:00

This shows video and audio of Obama speaking about about how to get to a single payer system in healthcare. It just so happens it's Reid's exact new plan.

via HotAir

Palin Rocks Late Night

2009-12-13T11:37:00.002-06:00

In case you missed it. This is awesome. Leftys can say what they want about Palin, but no one can deny she has the "it' factor. She sparkles. No doubt.

Please Let This Be So......

2009-12-12T10:03:00.002-06:00

From Lowry's blog post to God's ears...or something like that. Because really people, this is the only chance we have. So clap your hands and say "I believe in a Congress that won't pass this boondoogle!"

Rich Lowry at NRO:

The Reid bill is really tottering now. "If this thing falls apart, you can look back to today as the tipping point," says a Republican aide in the Senate, echoing what Lamar Alexander notes in the Costa post below. First, there was last night's CNN poll showing 61 percent opposition. Then, there was the devastating CMS report today. "Nobody went to the floor that I could see to defend it on the Democratic side," says the aide. The back-drop for all this is the non-deal that Reid hyped as a break-through earlier this week, only to have it unravel almost immediately. Even Bill Nelson says the Medicare buy-in is basically a "non-starter." "You're starting to see other Democrats nibbling around the edges," the aide says. He predicts that if one Democrat comes out clearly against the Reid bill, others will follow, in a dynamic like the unexpectedly decisive defeat of the amnesty bill a few years ago. Reid also has to worry about the clock. He needs everything to break exactly right—a CBO score coming in on Monday, a score that's good, no intervening, unexpected drama—to force a final showdown next weekend. If he goes to Christmas break without a bill, it gets much harder to pick up the pieces in January. Since the Senate debate began, the bill has only gotten more unpopular. It’s all still in flux obviously, but we just might be watching the bill fall apart before our eyes.

Who Needs Democracy Anyway? (Scroll For Update!)

2009-12-11T09:37:00.006-06:00

A lefty friend of mine, dave bones, across the pond sent me to this lefty site about Copenhagen's Climate Change summit. I came across this interesting tidbit:

(U.S. Environmental Protection Agency) Lisa Jackson appeared yesterday at the UN Climate Change Summit to assure the international community that the EPA will not let democracy get in the way of regulating the deadly toxic gas known as carbon dioxide at home. Her “endangerment” declaration means that CO2 will still be subject to intense regulation under the Clean Air Act, giving the White House executive power to limit CO2 emissions- even if Congress does not pass a definitive climate bill in 2010.

I could hardly believe that. She is saying that even if Cap and Trade doesn't pass, the Obama administration will implement these regulations anyway. So I looked it up on Yahoo News:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency chief Lisa Jackson, meanwhile, said her agency's decision that greenhouse gases should be regulated would be a dual path of action by the Obama administration and Congress.

The EPA determined Monday that scientific evidence clearly shows they are endangering the health of Americans, and that the pollutants — mainly carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — should be regulated under the Clean Air Act. That means the EPA could regulate those gases without congressional approval.

Who needs Democracy? Why even have Congress? Represent the people? Oh, come on. That's so old school. Now, with the Obama administration we no longer need that pesky Congress. We will just regulate the h*ll out of everyone and bypass this annoying thing called Democracy.

Unbelievable.

UPDATE: Newt Gingrich is paying attention:

But take a step back and consider what this ruling means in practice. According to the EPA, greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and a host of other gases that are emitted whenever people heat their homes, drive their cars, mow their lawns, tend their farms, or, for that matter, breath.

Without so much as a vote being cast, the EPA regulation suddenly micro-manages all of this. It makes all economic activity more expensive. It makes creating jobs more difficult. It puts government bureaucrats, not entrepreneurs, at the center of our economy.

The ruling is alarming in its breadth, but perhaps even more disturbing is what it reveals about the Obama administration's view of democratic and constitutional government.

The Obama administration seems to regard government of the people, by the people and for the people as an inconvenience rather than a blessing. If the peoples' representatives in Congress do what it wants, great. If not, they will use their power to get their way by any means necessary.

Apparently, that includes issuing open threats to another branch of government. Here's what an anonymous senior administration official told Congress, speaking through the New York Times:

"If you don't pass this legislation, then ... the EPA is going to have to regulate in this area," the official said. "And it is not going to be able to regulate on a market-based way, so it's going to have to regulate in a command-and-control way, which will probably generate even more uncertainty."

The arrogance and totalitarianism of this statement are breathtaking. Not only does it reveal shocking contempt for the rule of law, but the official concedes that he or she will allow the EPA to further damage the struggling economy -- i.e. "generate even more uncertainty" -- in order to enact the administration's climate change agenda.

.............................

Its interest is in power, and there is a word for a government whose primary purpose is the accumulation and exercise of power over the citizenry -- totalitarian.

*note: My daughter is getting her wisdom teeth out today so I will publish comments tonight.

Michelle Bachmann Just Rocks

2009-12-11T07:58:00.001-06:00

Palin Hits Back

2009-12-11T07:18:00.002-06:00

In my post on climategate I referred to Al Gore sneering to Palin about her piece on climategate. She fired back yesterday and it's a doozy:

The response to my op-ed by global warming alarmists has been interesting. Former Vice President Al Gore has called me a “denier” and informs us that climate change is “a principle in physics. It’s like gravity. It exists.”
Perhaps he’s right. Climate change is like gravity – a naturally occurring phenomenon that existed long before, and will exist long after, any governmental attempts to affect it.

However, he’s wrong in calling me a “denier.” As I noted in my op-ed above and in my original Facebook post on Climategate, I have never denied the existence of climate change. I just don’t think we can primarily blame man’s activities for the earth’s cyclical weather changes.

Former Vice President Gore also claimed today that the scientific community has worked on this issue for 20 years, and therefore it is settled science. Well, the Climategate scandal involves the leading experts in this field, and if Climategate is proof of the larger method used over the past 20 years, then Vice President Gore seriously needs to consider that their findings are flawed, falsified, or inconclusive.

Vice President Gore, the Climategate scandal exists. You might even say that it’s sort of like gravity: you simply can’t deny it.

You gotta love this. How many times in the last eight years have you, as a Republican, said to yourself, "Why don't the Republicans fight back??? Why don't they answer their critics???" It was so frustrating for so long. Now we finally have someone willing to fight back.

I just love it.

via Ace

There Is Always A Silver Lining

2009-12-10T16:34:00.001-06:00

Who said great news can't come out of a bad economy? As The New York Times reported yesterday, the ACLU this year, largely without warning, lost its single largest source of funding as a result of the financial crisis. The loss of that individual donor, who had been contributing $20 million per year, was a major blow to the organization, "punching a 25 percent hole in its annual operating budget and forcing cutbacks in operations." That loss came on top of substantial fundraising losses last year from the financial crisis and the Madoff fraud, which had already forced the group to lay-off numerous employees and cut back substantially on its activities. The lost donor made clear yesterday that he continues to support the ACLU's work emphatically but is simply now financially unable to continue his support.

Of course Mr. Glenn Greenwald is practically weeping over this. He believes the ACLU has done so much for liberty. But the truth is that the ACLU has done more to harm this country than probably any other leftwing organization. The American Civil Liberties Union is based upon a noble purpose. But it's radical interpretation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is antithetical to the United States. It is today perpetuated by socialists (and, yes, communists) and is an arm of the radical left. Their claim of being non-partisan is a joke. The ACLU has done nothing but attempt to reform American society according to the ideals of liberalism. They have thrown in a few token conservative cases so they can say they are impartial, but it's laughable. We are all aware of who they are and what they want to accomplish.

Maybe now with this, their goals will diminish. We can only hope.

The Voices of Evil

2009-12-10T11:58:00.000-06:00

Ever wonder what evil sounds like?

You can hear it here.

Defined By Color or Celebrate Color?

2009-12-10T10:57:00.003-06:00

MaryKatharine Ham (who I adore) has a post at the Weekly Standard Blog called "NYT Creates Separate But Equal Holiday Gift Guide for People of Color." Here she says:

Here's the link to the original, in case you'd like to offend one of your friends or relatives by proclaiming via painfully stereotypical gift idea that the only thing you know about them is their skin color, and you assume that it defines them at the exclusion of all else.

From a hip-hop and rhythm-based toy line to black designer clothes, this section is for those "of color." I'm afraid I didn't have the same reaction to it as MaryKatharine. I don't think it's about giving a gift that says the only thing you know about them is their color. I think it is a gift that says you celebrate their color.

When I shop I am always on the lookout for unique gifts that suit my friends or family. If I find something perfect 6 months before their birthday, I buy it. I admit when I am looking at black art or sculpture and I see something wonderful, I think about which black friend would like it. Recently a black girlfriend of mine renewed her marriage vows with her husband. I wanted to find some sort of wedding sculpture. I found a few, but they were obviously of white people. I never did find one that looked specifically like a black couple, but I did find one that couldn't be distinguished white or black. It was a woman and man embraced in a wedding dance. It was beautiful and perfect, so I bought it. I wanted something that reflected who they were, and their skin color is certainly a part of who they are. A sculpture that was obviously of white people wouldn't have seemed right at all.

I know that some people are put off by blacks celebrating their heritage. Wearing African dress or naming their children African names. But I have never understood why. I love the dresses I see at my church. We have a diverse congregation. Many Indian families wear their traditional dress. Some African Americans wear theirs. It's all lovely to me.

MLK asked us not to judge someone by the color of their skin, but the content of their character. But he never said not to celebrate the color. Why should we be offended that some gifts are geared toward people with color?

Why can't we question?

2009-12-09T13:32:00.007-06:00

One of the things I cannot stand about the left is how they answer an argument that was never made.

Case in point. Sarah Palin has a thoughtful informed piece at the WaPo today about climategate, her own personal experience with climate change, and what we need to do to move forward.

"But while we recognize the occurrence of these natural, cyclical environmental trends, we can't say with assurance that man's activities cause weather changes. We can say, however, that any potential benefits of proposed emissions reduction policies are far outweighed by their economic costs."

What drives the left insane is when you question them on WHY the earth is warming or cooling. I'm old enough to remember the scary sensational media coverage in the '70's of the scientific papers that discussed the possibility of a new ice age at some point in the future. Afterwards scientists realized that they had overestimated the cooling effect of aerosol pollution and underestimated the effect of CO2, meaning warming was more likely than cooling.

You see what happened there? Scientist were willing to re-address their studies. That is really all we want done today before we radically change the way we live and spend trillions of dollars doing so.

Read Sarah's entire article. Howard Kurtz tweeted that the Washington Post is getting pure h*ll for printing Sarah's piece. I can never get over the left's willingness to silence anything they don't agree with. They bring a whole new meaning to censorship.

Al Gore rebuts Plain in an interview to air Wednesday by asking a ridiculous question:

"The entire North Polar ice cap is disappearing before our eyes ... what do they think is happening?"

This is what I was talking about when I said they answer an argument that was never made. No one is denying a warming of the earth. So this question is absurd. But he did it on purpose, because the left wants everyone to think that those who question man made global warming are questioning global warming in itself. So they answer questions as if people on the other side don't believe in global warming at all. Which is completely false. The only thing many people and many scientists are asking is can we be sure it isn't just the natural changes of the earth, and if man is contributing, is it enough to really make a difference?

These are legitimate questions. but they are brushed off with snotty comments like Al Gore saying "It's a principle in physics, It's like gravity, it exists." Yes, but the questions are why it exists. What people are questioning are the REASONS the earth is warming or why it has been cooling for the last 11 years.

Recently White House Press Secretary Robert Gibss was asked about climategate, in his usual snotty manner he answered, "I think that this notion that there's some debate...on the science is kind of silly." Oh really? Because there are about 450 academic peer-reviewed journal articles supporting skepticism of man made global warming. More than 30,000 American scientists are urging the U.S. to reject the Kyoto treaty. So it is hardly unanimous and it certainly isn't "silly."

Given the e-mails that recently surfaced between scientists determined to prove it is man made, it is clear that data was dumped and data was manipulated. It is also clear that these scientist wanted any data that seemed to contradict their findings to be squashed. That isn't science. That is politics.

And that is what is the saddest thing about this. Once money and politics enter the picture, then the science comes into question.

Years ago I read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." Crichton was a doctor as well as a writer and he was a "man made" global warming skeptic. His book blended well researched scientific fact with amazing fiction. He footnoted all his scientific information. His book illustrated how this sacred cow of the environmental movement, man made global warming, is motivated as much by money and politics and fear as it is science. He shows us how political leaders (Al gore, I'm looking at you) promote their agenda with slanted, inaccurate portrayals of what the science i saying. And now we know that some of the science was indeed manipulated.

I think given everything we know, to say it's "settled science" is just false. What we need is reputable scientists that don't have a political agenda and can be funded by non partisan grants. The fact is that we understand very little about the nature and extent of any effects of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We need much more research. And this research needs to be conducted on a level playing fired. I know we have done tons of research, but since there seems to be a taint to it and the fact that the e-mails from climategate came from the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report from the University of East Anglia, whose data we have relied on for man made global warming, it wouldn't hurt to do more. Considering all the money going into this, I don't think it's too much to ask.

From Fox News:

The three most relied-on data series used by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report came from the University of East Anglia, NASA, and the British Met Office. As noted in my previous piece for the Fox Forum, the problem of secretiveness is hardly limited to the University of East Anglia. NASA also refuses to give out its data. NASA further refuses to explain mysterious changes in whether the warmest years were in the 1930s or this past decade. The British Met office, too, has been unable to release its data and just announced its plans to begin a three-year investigation of its data since all of its land temperatures data were obtained from the University of East Anglia (ocean temperatures were collected separately), though there are signs that things might be speeded up.

People like Paln and myself aren't denying global warming. We aren't even really denying man made global warming. We just know that the science has been poisoned and we need to start over. We are relying on tainted data and data that these scientists refuse to allow others to evaluate. It's that simple.

In the end, science is about questioning. That is the ironic thing about climategate. They clearly wanted to shut down questioning. That isn't science. That is the opposite of it.

If the left isn't afraid of the answers then they wouldn't mind the questions.

Studying The Sex Lives of College Students

2009-12-09T11:54:00.003-06:00

You thought you were done with that when you graduated, right? Well, this is just one of the many boondoggles that our stimulus dollars went to. I'm thinking that maybe somewhere along the line someone got confused on what the word "stimulus" actually means. Perhaps they took it to mean the human body and not the economy.

Let's see, what else did we waste our money on while unemployment is over 10%? Sen. McCain and Sen. Coburn issued a 55 page report on wasteful stimulus spending and the sex lives of students just being one of many. Politico reports "4.7 million for Lockheed Martin to study supersonic corporate jet travel." and "roughly $233,000 for California college students to conduct exit polls in Africa about voting patterns." The CBS evening news reports "$221,000 for a study on why young men don't like condoms." No, really? You have to STUDY that? Is there anyone who doesn't know the answer to that?? Good grief. Also, $5 million to provide geothermal heat for a Tennessee mall that's all but empty, and $950,000 for studying ant behavior at two Arizona universities" because God knows we want to know what those ants are thinking as they crawl up the wall in our Kitchen.

via NRO

I think there should be a new law. A law criminalizing wasting our money with inane studies and sneaking them into ginormous spending bills figuring no one will notice. Just to make sure this is never done again. I recommend execution as punishment. Because, really, I don't see HOW we could otherwise stop it.

All kidding aside, surely there is a way to stop this? Because it just makes my blood boil to think of the hardworking men and women in this country trying to make ends meet and THIS is what our leaders do with the money they take from us???

Reprehensible.

The Whiny President

2009-12-08T09:02:00.003-06:00

I can't get over how Pres. Obama cannot seem to take the smallest of criticism. Does he every realize how whiny he seems?

President Barack Obama recently called Rep. John Conyers Jr. to express his frustrations with the Judiciary Committee chairman’s criticism.

In an interview with The Hill, Conyers said his opinions of Obama’s policies on healthcare reform and the war in Afghanistan have not sat well with the president.

According to the lawmaker, the president picked up the phone several weeks ago to find out why Conyers was “demeaning” him.

You whine about Rush Limbaugh. You whine about Fox News. Now you whine when your own party is critical? Seriously? Man up Obama. I would think your poll numbers yesterday would have you in a fetal position crying in the presidential pillow.

Leading isn't about worrying what everyone is saying about you, because it isn't about you. It's about the country. It's time you came to understand that Mr. President.

Mr. Reid, please learn American history.

2009-12-07T13:02:00.008-06:00

Hard to imagine but the United State's own Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) doesn't know his own country's history. Today he compared the GOP's call for starting over on Health Care reform to those opposed to ending slavery.

"Instead of joining us on the right side of history, all the Republicans can come up with is, 'slow down, stop everything, let's start over.' If you think you've heard these same excuses before, you're right," Reid said Monday. "When this country belatedly recognized the wrongs of slavery, there were those who dug in their heels and said 'slow down, it's too early, things aren't bad enough.'"

Here is a history question for Mr. Reid. How many Democrats in Congress voted for the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery?

That would be only four.

.."although passed in April 1864 by the Senate, with a vote of 38 to 6, the required two-thirds majority was defeated in the House of Representatives by a vote of 93 to 65. Abolishing slavery was almost exclusively a Republican party effort--only four Democrats voted for it."

source: Great American History

Reid also mentions that Republicans were on the wrong side of history with civil rights as well.

Republicans have consistently been on the right side of history. The GOP long fought against Democrats who favored slavery, backed Jim Crow laws, and fought tooth-and-nail against the enactment of civil rights legislation.

Mr. Reid, I know you are trying to make history, but that doesn't mean you get to re-write it.

The War on Fair and Balanced

2009-12-07T09:52:00.002-06:00

One thing that has been a surprise about this White House is it's pettiness. We all thought it strange when the President of the United States took on a popular radio talk host. While it pleased Rush, it seemed beneath the President. Then came the war on Fox News. Now we understood that the White House was determined to undermine opposing voices by using it's own power to do so. Pretty chilling.

Back in October the White House called on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox. It started with communications director Anita Dunn branding Fox "opinion journalism masquerading as news" in an interview. Then White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." Obama senior adviser David Axelrod also urged media outlets to join the administration and said that Fox is "not a news organization."

It was a strong not so subtle message to other media outlets to not follow Fox News on stories. From the look of the "climategate" story, where e-mails between climate change scientists reveal an effort to "trick" the data into saying what they wanted it to say, it seemed the msm was following orders and not following Fox News on this story. It took ABC two weeks to mention it and the report did not quote any of the emails that suggested manipulation of data on global warming by scientists at the UK's University of East Anglia. NBC and CBS sooned followed. The problem here is, just as in the green jobs czar Van Jones and ACORN controversy, when they are finally forced to follow the story because the story had evolved into a bigger story, they end up looking ridiculous for not reporting on it previously.

When it seemed clear that this tactic wasn't working with the American viewer, Obama backed down. Fox News Channel's Major Garrett sat down with the President during his visit to China for an interview. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shows up on Fox News in November.

Obama may have backed down, but that doesn't mean that the mainstream and liberal media didn't get the message and seems to be obeying. Consider, for example, that executives at National Public Radio recently asked the network’s top political correspondent, Mara Liasson, to reconsider her regular appearances on Fox News. they asked Liasson to spend 30 days watching the network. She did and reported back to them that she didn't see the problem and would continuing appearing on the network. Journalist Juan Williams, who is a political analyst for the radio network of NPR was asked to no longer identify himself as such when appearing on Fox’s “O’Reilly Factor.

As cited in the article, NPR says that Fox "uses" Mara and Juan as "cover” to defuse arguments that the TV network is distinctly right-wing. Jacob Weisberg, the editor of Slate wrote in an Oct. 17th Newsweek column that “by appearing on Fox, reporters validate its propaganda values and help to undermine the role of legitimate news organizations,” Respectable journalists — I'm talking to you, Mara Liasson — should stop appearing on its programs.”

Hmmm...let's think about this. Fox News "uses" liberal pundits to project a bi- partisan image? I'm pretty sure that's what "fair and balanced" is all about. You have a conservative voice and you have a liberal voice. Then you get both sides. How this is "using" I have no idea. This is a good thing. This is why Fox News is a ratings bonanza.

Let's just be honest here Mr. Weisberg. Your problem is not with worrying about the state of legitimate news. Your problem is that Fox News presents the conservative side that no other mainstream media outlet does, and you HATE that view being represented. This is about nothing more than censorship.

In all the years that we conservatives have had to put up with the liberal bias of CNN, ABC, NBC, and CBS, I have never heard one peep from my side that they should NOT be on the air or should not be reporting. We may disagree, but we also understand the freedom of the press. Some of you on the left are becoming the people you hate. The kind of people who would censor an opinion because it's doesn't agree with yours. Weisberg, you should be ashamed.

And of course the greatest irony is that NPR is about as leftwing as you get and they complain about bias? Please.

This isn't the end of it. Obama may keep appearing on Fox News and the White House "boycott" of Fox News will soon be forgotten. But make no mistake about it, the MSM got the message and they are following orders as best they can.

A 2010 Match To Watch

2009-12-07T07:45:00.003-06:00

Keep an eye out for the most interesting of races in the Senate primary in Connecticut. Republicans actually have a shot at winning this seat, which is occupied than none other than Chris Dodd, a powerful five-term Democratic incumbent. 2010 looks like the year he can be beat. Dodd’s association with controversial AIG bonuses, his Countrywide VIP sweetheart mortgage loan has hurt him badly. Congressman Rob Simmons on the Republican side leads Dodd in the polls.

Looks pretty simple, right? Except there is a fly in the ointment, and her name is Linda McMahon. If the name sounds familiar, it should. She is the wife of Vince McMahon of the World Wrestling Entertainment. Linda recently resigned as CEO of the WWE to run for Dodd's Senate seat. The problem here is that she has a vast fortune and is willing to spend it to get this seat. I don't see her as the kind of Republican we want in the Senate. While many people enjoy WWE for it's entertainment value, I have some problems with it's mix of sex, drugs, and entertainment geared towards kids. The WWE themselves say that every week more than 2.6 million fans ages 6-14 tune into WWE's top rated television programs. They reach more kids than the Disney Channel, Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon combined.

Why is that a problem? Let's consider first the "bra and pantie matches" where the girls strip each other down to their underwear. Then there are the girls they present, like 2008 Playboy Magazine Model of the Year, Jillian Beyor. Many of the girls at WWE are soft porn models. But it gets worse. Back in June Mackenzie Montgomery was fired. Could the reason be that Linda was running for the Senate and Mackenzie had appeared in over 60 hardcore porn films (specializing in bondage films) before and during her time as a WWE Diva? After McMahon announced her candidacy in Sept three immediate changes were made. The girls are no longer posing in Playboy, the men are no longer cutting themselves with razor blades to bleed during the match, and the "bra and pantie" matches have ceased.

Did Linda imagine that that would clean up her image? Did she think that what she had run in the past wouldn't matter?

Let's not forget the drugs involved here either. Things were not always like this with wrestling. Living Legend Bruno Sammartino explains here what changed:

I got very appalled with the direction Vince McMahon Jr. took wrestling. I was concerned from the time I retired to the time I came back as a color commentator. After McMahon's father passed away, and he took over.

I was appalled with the drugs going on and the steroids. I became very disillusioned. Then I started seeing other changes. The language started getting loose and had all this vulgarity. There was the beautiful looking girls but always wearing these skimpy things. I just became angered and saddened to see the business I spent 22 years in take this direction.

Especially the drug part of it. I just felt there had already been a couple of deaths and that as long as it continued, it was going to get worse and worse. I just thought I didn't want to be a part of it. I thought I got to get out of it, and I did.''

Look, I don't care what you watch if you are an adult. If you want to watch this trash, more power to you, but when they are marketing their "product" to children and portraying themselves as "family friendly" and this is what they are producing, then I have a problem with that. A big problem. Don't think for a moment things won't go back to where they were after she loses.

Wrestling superstar Billy Graham is also speaking out against Linda McMahon:

Superstar Billy Graham is speaking out against the woman he says made millions from the violence, sexual exploitation, blood and excesses of professional wrestling. What outrages him particularly, he says, are recent attempts to sanitize the wrestling mega-enterprise whose sexy women wrestlers once performed in "lingerie matches" and were still posing nude in Playboy as recently as 2008. He views this toning down as a huge act of hypocrisy — an attempt to graft a family-friendly face onto a business that has been anything but. (via Hugging Harold Reynolds)

In other words the WWE is trying to scrub it's image for Linda McMahon's Senate run.

This is the last kind of candidate we need in the GOP.

What we need is someone like Rob Simmons. Contrast and Compare.

Rob Simmons served in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam war and won two Bronze Star Medals. He continued as a Reserve Military Intelligence Officer for 37 years before retiring at the rank of Colonel. In 1998, Rob was recognized by for his contributions to the Military Intelligence Corps with the Knowlton Award for "Integrity, Moral Character, Professional Competence and Selflessness. Following his active duty service in the Army, Rob joined the Central Intelligence Agency, working as an Operations Officer for a decade. He was awarded the Agency Seal Medallion (it's highest civilian award) in 1985. In Congress, Simmons served on the Armed Services, Transportation, Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committees. Rep. Simmons also served as the Chairman of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing, and Terrorism Risk Assessment and Veterans' Health Subcommittee.

What Simmons doesn't have is gazillions of dollars made off WWE "entertainment." let's not let money be the measure of our candidates in the GOP. Let's let character be the measure. Because if it is, then Simmons wins hands down.

Who Is The Enemy?

2009-12-04T10:56:00.003-06:00

I suppose you have heard by now that on the night of Pres. Obama's Afghanistan speech given at West Point, Chris Matthews of MSNBC said on air that he found it interesting that Obama had made the decision to speak at "the enemy camp."

It was a despicable thing to say, but coming from "a tingle up my leg" type journalist, it's no surprise.

It was as much of an insult to Obama as it was to West Point. Why would a fellow liberal want to endorse the stereotype that people on the left see the military as "the enemy." I know that the Democrats and liberals that I know do not see it that way. The West Point cadets certainly don't see it that way. The only enemy to them are the ones who wish to hurt or kill Americans.

A cadet at West Point addressed this point here:

(Chris Matthews) Later acknowledging the potential ramifications of such a controversial statement, he attempted to assuage critics by stating that “maybe earlier tonight I used the wrong phrase, ‘enemy camp,’ but the fact of the matter is that he went up there to a place that’s obviously ‘military.’”

This is perhaps the most vapid response one could muster, especially in an attempt to retract such a scathing statement. The President came to West Point because he desired to address those whom his decision would affect the most. From my experience, West Point cadets are one of the most polite audiences in America.

..............

Indeed, the President came to West Point because of the non-partisan nature of the institution, which truly exemplifies the beauty and finesse of the civil-military relationship. The Corps was reminded to be reserved, restrained, and respectful, as any military audience ought to be.

..............

Cadets are trained in acceptance of orders, and the Commander-in-Chief was effectively issuing an order to all who were present. No cadet will be spared from the effects of President Obama’s remarks — his message has been received and internalized by all who were present in Eisenhower Hall. I am humbled by the President’s decision to announce his new strategy at my school and completely reject the notion of any who suggest that West Point is in any way “the enemy camp.” The enemy camps are in Helmand province, where soldiers are currently engaged in the President’s mission.

These young men and women are the best of the best. I am more proud of them than I can say. This young man answers the shameful Chris Matthews perfectly.

MSNBC has no journalistic integrity to begin with. It's so called 'journalists' are constantly crossing the line with insults and dirt. Chris Matthews is an embarrassment. The only one worse than Matthews is Kieth Olbermann. The only thing that gives me comfort is that so few people watch it.

Meet Lt. Col. Allen West

2009-12-03T14:18:00.000-06:00

This fine gentleman is running in Florida District 22 for the U.S. Congress. It is with men like this the GOP will thrive. Listen to the end. It's worth it.

Love it. Love it.

via ACE

Inner City Kids and The Politics That Abandons Them

2009-12-03T09:53:00.006-06:00

We are all aware of the dismal condition of our inner city schools. These children, largely composed of minorities, are trapped in schools that have become little more than lousy daycare centers. Dropping out seems a more reasonable option for many of these children.

We all agree that education is the key to lifting kids out of poverty and a cycle of dependency on the government.

When I was in 3rd grade I was part of the integration of black and white schoolchildren in Mississippi in the 1960's. Black children finally had access to the same educational opportunities as white children. And yet here we are, decades later, and we still have schools exactly like the ones black children were trapped in all those years ago.

Imagine if there was a way to give these children an opportunity to excel in academics. Imagine if parents who yearn for a safe learning environment could actually choose a better school for their kids despite all the odds.

Well, we don't have to imagine it. We have it in many states. But they are about to lose it in Washington D.C. because of the Obama's administration's refusal to support it.

Some 1,700 Washington D.C. schoolchildren rely on the District's school voucher program. This program works.

As the Washington Examiner points out:

Studies of the six-year-old Opportunity Scholarship Program by Georgetown University, the Manhattan Institute and the Department of Education itself have found that vouchers foster tremendous parental satisfaction, impressive educational results and a greater degree of voluntary racial integration than in regular public schools in Washington.

Here we are at the root of the problem of poverty and despair in the inner city. Here we give these children opportunity they would never have otherwise. Is anything more important than this to advance the standard of living for so many minorities? Yet, Pres. Obama, our first African American President, refuses to intervene to save this popular program from congressional Democrats who, along with Education Secretary Arne Duncan, are determined to kill it. They should be ashamed. They are literally turning their back on the dream of Martin Luther King Jr., who saw a day when all children, no matter what color, would be able to have access to the best education possible.

The program is affordable and it works. The reading effects of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program show the largest achievement impact of any education policy program yet evaluated in a randomized control trial by the U.S. Department of Education. Why would the Obama administration be against this? Simple. The NEA. With voucher programs this powerful teacher's union loses control and power. Heaven forbid we give parents more control.

Could there be anything more important in the black community than finding ways for urban children to get a decent education? Where is Jesse Jackson? Where is Al Sharpton? They should be leading marches for this voucher program. They should be demanding more programs like this throughout the country.

But as The Washington Examiner points out, liberal politics trumps principle. A Democratically controlled Congress voted in March not to fund the program, but local leaders protested loudly. Teachers unions say vouchers are a waste of tax money that could be better spent improving public schools. Oh yes, right. Since all the money we've spent so far as done so much. We spend more and more every year, yet nothing ever gets better for the urban schools. The voucher program has proven that with less money it can give students what they need. It needs to be expanded, not killed.

The program was created as a five-year pilot project by a Republican-controlled Congress in early 2004, the Opportunity Scholarship Program is the nation's only federally funded voucher program. And there is the rub. I believe that many Democrats just refuse to give credit to a program that works that was created by Republicans. That might dispel the Democrats narrative of Republicans not caring about the inner city poor. A narrative that is false to begin with.

To see what these scholarships mean to these parents, look at Joe Kelly:

Joe Kelley entered his oldest son, Rashawn, in the first Opportunity Scholarship Program lottery in 2004, fearful about violence at the public middle school. Rashawn, now 17, received a voucher, and so have his three sisters. All attend a small, private Christian academy where they have been earning A's and B's. "It's a lot of worry off of me," said Mr. Kelley, a retired cook and youth counselor.

I think Kelley speaks for so many parents. Taking "the worry" off of them is a profound and wonderful thing. The Obama administration is letting these parents and students down. And that's a crying shame.

We Are In The Twilight Zone of Politics

2009-12-01T20:47:00.003-06:00

Really. We are. I was on twitter during the President's speech and my lefty twitter friends are so upset at Obama. The "F" word is everywhere. On the right I see support, suspicion, and relief. The arguments I am hearing from the right seem pretty weak to me. They argue that we shouldn't do a "surge and leave," and you don't let the enemy know when you are exiting the stage. They will just wait you out. There is also the point that with the 18 month timeline just about the time we get all our troops in there, it will be time to start pulling them out. These things take time, you know. 18 months doesn't seem long enough. But despite all that, I still support the President and I am glad he made the decision he did. Like I said before, he sees the big picture that we don't have access to.

We have come into the twilight zone of politics though. Here are some statements by other leaders. The liberals are not happy. Republicans like Orrin Hatch say it isn't enough, and John McCain thinks the decision is just right. Obama is practically Goldilocks here.

As Andrew Ferguson points out in the Weekly Standard blog, Obama is the first Democratic president in forty years to call for a significant deployment of American troops in the national security interest of his country. This is big. It's historic actually. As I said yesterday, let's support our troops and back this President, even if we don't agree with him on anything else.

Here is the disgruntled Arlen Specter's statement tonight:

“I oppose sending 30,000 additional American troops to Afghanistan because I am not persuaded that it is indispensable in our fight against Al Qaeda. If it was, I would support an increase because we have to do whatever it takes to defeat Al Qaeda since they’re out to annihilate us. But if Al Qaeda can operate out of Yemen or Somalia, why fight in Afghanistan where no one has succeeded?

I disagree with the President’s two key assumptions: that we can transfer responsibility to Afghanistan after 18 months and that our NATO allies will make a significant contribution. It is unrealistic to expect the United States to be out in 18 months so there is really no exit strategy. This venture is not worth so many American lives or the billions it will add to our deficit.”

2)From Sen. Orrin Hatch sees politics involved in the timing of this:

It is evident the President's plan for Afghanistan has not maximized our forces' chances of success. Though the forces to be deployed have important capabilities that will have a meaningful effect on our counterinsurgency operations in the south and east of Afghanistan, the President has handicapped our forces by failing to provide the number of troops requested by his hand-picked commander, General McChrystal. Also concerning, the President's plan appears to set arbitrary withdrawal deadlines. History shows withdrawal decisions must be determined by the conditions on the ground, not arbitrary deadlines. Coincidentally, the President's arbitrary deadline assumes the war will be winding down and troops returning home just when the Administration is ramping up its campaign for re-election.

Sen. John McCain agrees with Obama:

“The President has made the right decision to embrace a counterinsurgency strategy for Afghanistan and to resource it properly. I think the 30,000 additional U.S. troops that will deploy as part of this mission, plus greater allied commitments, will enable us to reverse the momentum of the insurgency and create the conditions for success in Afghanistan. I support the President’s decision, and I think it deserves the support of all Americans, both Republicans and Democrats.

Then there are the Republicans who see a lack of commitment on Obama's part. I find that hard to believe. Obama can't possible WANT to fail. He wants to have victory in Afghanistan. I can't imagine a scenario where Obama would choose to be mired in a war that we are losing. But here is this Republican's take from NRO:

Jason Chaffetz, the freshman Republican congressman from Utah, who yesterday called for a troop pullout from Afghanistan — he's worried that this White House will simply not give our military there the resources they need and deserve — tells me tonight that President Obama “did not justify his case for 100,000 troops in Afghanistan” in his speech at West Point.

“Announcing the date of withdraw will give most a sense of his lack of commitment,” Congressman Chaffetz tells The Corner.

Echoing his comments yesterday, Chaffetz says: “I still worry he is trying to cut the cake in half. Mr. President, go big or go home.”

In the speech, the president “sounded like the bigger threat is in Pakistan and yet he offered no definitive solutions,” Chaffetz observes.

The congressman adds: “His praise of the United Nations would be laughable, if it wasn't so sad.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer:

"I support the president's mission and exit strategy for Afghanistan, but I do not support adding more troops because there are now 200,000 American, NATO and Afghan forces fighting roughly 20,000 Taliban and less than 100 al Qaeda."

Rep. Louise M. Slaughter:

"What I would have preferred to hear from the president is how he will bring our forces home within the next year. I see no good reason for us to send another 30,000 or more troops to Afghanistan when we have so many pressing issues – like our economy – to deal with in this country.

The U.S. government is already spending $3.6 billion a month on the war in Afghanistan. Sending an additional 30,000 troops will cost an extra $30 billion a year, which works out to roughly $1 million per soldier or Marine. The people who are complaining about the cost of health care reform should be more concerned about how much we are continuing to spend on these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq."

Gen. McChrystal seems to be saying that Obama has given him what he needed:

“The Afghanistan-Pakistan review led by the President has provided me with a clear military mission and the resources to accomplish our task. The clarity, commitment and resolve outlined in the President’s address are critical steps toward bringing security to Afghanistan and eliminating terrorist safe havens that threaten regional and global security.
...................

“We face many challenges in Afghanistan, but our efforts are sustained by one unassailable reality: neither the Afghan people nor the international community want Afghanistan to remain a sanctuary for terror and violence. The coalition is encouraged by President Obama’s commitment and we remain resolute to empowering the Afghan people to reject the insurgency and build their own future.”

But it is Pelosi's statement that is the most amusing to me. First of all this chick cannot let go of Bush. She hardly knows what to do without him to push around anymore. Second of all, you can tell the rest of the statment is said through gritted teeth. You will notice that she does not say she agrees or that it's a good thing. She just points out bascially that Obama said what needed to be said. Then she says congress will take a good long look at it. Then she throws in a little kissy face to the troops for good measure. Such gobbly gook. Really:

"President Obama inherited a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan because the Bush Administration did not have a plan to get the job done.

"Tonight, the President articulated a way out of this war with the mission of defeating Al Qaeda and preventing terrorists from using Afghanistan and Pakistan as safe havens to again launch attacks against the United States and our allies. The President has offered President Karzai a chance to prove that he is a reliable partner. The American people and the Congress will now have an opportunity to fully examine this strategy.

"Our troops in Afghanistan and around the world have performed excellently; they have done everything that has been asked of them. As always, we are grateful and respectful of the enormous sacrifices our men and women in uniform, and their families, have made."

So there we have it. It's a mixed reaction. All we can do now is pray for our troops and our President.

Supporting President Obama

2009-12-01T09:45:00.004-06:00

I'm going to get a head start on Obama's Afghanistan war speech, because after he speaks it will be all people are talking about.

It looks as if Obama is going to give Gen. McChrystal just about all he wanted in troop levels (30,000 troops). Obama tells us he has a plan and we just need to listen to it and we will understand.

Several weeks ago I called for Obama to bring all troops home. I just don't believe that we should send troops to a war that our Commander In Chief has no interest in winning. What led me to believe that was when Obama's own General tells him that if he doesn't get these additional troops the war will be completely lost in 12 months, Obama then waits 3 months to even make a decision. So now we are 9 months away from total failure and the deployment of additional troops will just be beginning. Better late than never I suppose.

Liberals like Bob Hebert of the New York Times are very angry. The liberal commenters there are depressed and regretting their decision to vote for Obama. I have little sympathy for them, because Obama did call this "the necessary war" when he campaigned. Did they think he was lying at the time?

No, they imagined that Obama was saying what he needed to get elected. And that is probably true. But what Obama discovered was that being President is much more difficult than running for President. Why did Obama betray the left by keeping warrantless wiretapping, the Patriot Act, and rendition? Because once you are sitting in that chair in the Oval Office you see the big picture. You see the real threat.

I am frankly surprised that Obama has decided to send these troops to Afghanistan. I am sure he will give us a timely exit plan to prove he is different from Bush. But reasonable people understand that plans change as war changes.

I think this comment from Nick summarizes what many on the left feel:

I have been betrayed by this man I came to love. The man I lectured all of my Republican "friends" would be the greatest president of modern times...a brilliant scholar, a chess player in the world of international political football. They laughed at me, derided me, told me he wasn't up to the job. Now I actually avoid these people, it's too humiliating to admit they were right. I'm just sick over it.

We were right. Obama isn't up for the job. But in truth, he is proving that in every way except for this decision. The leftwing of the blogosphere is already beside itself over this. I think Obama will be shocked at the vitriol that will be thrown at him from his own party.

We on the right need to do what the left never did with Bush. We need to support our troops and back Obama up on this, because it is the right thing to do. If Obama has the courage to send the additional troops against the wishes of his party, then we on the right need to have the courage to be behind him 100%. This is not "Obama's war," this is OUR war. As long as our soldiers are fighting in foreign lands we should support them no matter who is President.

I know it's going to feel strange to be on the side of this President when we disagree with everything else that he does, but it's important. Is Obama interested in winning this? Right now it looks like he is. And as long as that is the case, then I will be supporting Pres. Obama in this war.

"You've Come A Long Way, Maybe"

2009-11-30T08:26:00.004-06:00

Leslie Sanchez, a Republican strategist and former advisor to President George Bush, has written a timely book about politics and the American woman. In "You've Come A Long Way, Maybe," she takes a hard non partisan look at three woman in particular. Sarah Palin, Michelle Obama, and Hillary Clinton.

It is fascinating to compare such three distinctly different women, the paths they chose, and the paths which were chosen for them. Sanchez gives us an overview of what this means for the future of women in high office, and she asks the difficult questions on sexism and politics.

One truism throughout the book is that when it comes to these three women and women in politics in general, we seem to turn into "mean girls." Much like the movie, we turn on each other in response to fashion, hairstyles, and the choices these women made.

But it is the stereotypes and blatant insults from the media, and even the male candidates, that we see the double standard with women in politics. The best example Sanchez gives is during the Democratic primary when many people were wanting Hillary to concede the race to Obama. Keith Olbermann on MSNBC was talking with Newsweek's Howard Fineman and said this about Hillary:

"Right. Somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out."

This violent image would have been treated much differently if it had been about Obama. Yet, it hardly caused a ripple when said about Hillary. Mike Barnicle on MSNBC remarked, "She reacts to Obama with just the look, the look toward him, looking like everyone's first wife standing outside a probate court." And who could forget Chris Matthews saying, "the reason she's a U.S. Senator, the reason she is a candidate for President, the reason she may be a front runner, is that her husband messed around." The last two statements reduces Hillary to nothing but a wife, as if her career meant nothing.

There are hundreds of examples of what Hillary and Palin endured. From the "Hillary Nutcracker" to Palin's photoshopped bikini picture holding a gun.

There is just no denying the unique pressure put on female candidates. Heck, even I was feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton at the end of the Democratic primary. But isn't that a statement in itself? I felt sorry for what she had to go through, not as a candidate, but as a woman. Which brings us to Sara Palin.

I will give credit to Hillary for one thing. Sanchez points out in the book that Hillary refused to go after Palin like her campaign staff wanted her to. Hillary was not going to be a part of the vitriol aimed at Palin. But I did notice that although Hillary wasn't a part of it, she didn't defend Palin against it either.

As much as Hillary went through during the campaign, it was a picnic compared to what Palin endured. Sanchez writes how Palin was pilloried by the inside the Beltway Democrat feminist establishment:

"Bottom line: you are not a feminist until we say you are. And there you have the formula for diminishing what was a once a great and important mass social change movement to an exclusionary club that rejects women who sincerely want to joint and, God forbid, grow to lead."

Sanchez drives this point home here:

"As Palin said in her convention speech, "among the many things I owe my parents is one simple lesson: that this is America, and every woman can walk through every door of opportunity." Well, Palin found herself on the threshold of the doorway to power only to find herself blocked by the very same people who should have been standing off to the side cheering."

Amen to that. Feminism should be about women making it on their own, equal rights, and equal opportunity. It shouldn't matter what political party they belong to. But feminism gave that up long ago. Feminist leaders dismissed Palin out of hand. And that is the saddest commentary on them yet.

Michelle Obama tells a us a different kind of political story. She decided to take on a traditional role as first lady. She did not insist on an office in the West Wing as Hillary did. She told "The View" that she was taking cues from Laura Bush saying, "There is a reason people like her-it's because she doesn't, sort of, you know add fuel to the fire." Gee, I wonder who Michelle was talking about there? Heh.

But don't think that Michelle Obama putting her family first and taking issues such as helping military spouses hasn't drawn criticism from feminists. Once again it seems with feminists that if you make more traditional choices for yourself, you made the wrong choices to them. Sanchez quotes one pundit in The Boston Globe:

However politically strategic and privately compelling, Obama's decision to be foremost the "first mom" potentially sends a wrong message: that high-level paid work and motherhood don't mix, or that women need to be the ones to step down to care for family......The point is, Michelle Obama has been a highly successful working mother and will be again some day. To hear her try to distance herself now from that role does a disservice to our children-and to our country."

Really? A disservice? Good grief.

I think the one thing that stands out to me in this book is the amount of energy spent on what Hillary, Michelle, and Sarah look like. Countless articles and discussions on appearances, shoes, dresses, hairstyles, and makeup. I don't think that will change anytime soon. It's almost as if it is in our genetic code. Women politicians will always be judged more on the way they look than male politicians. I think we might as well get used to it. But what we shouldn't get used to is how women in politics treat each other. We don't have to be "mean girls." We can respect each other for our achievements, accomplishments, and choices no matter what our political affiliation. That is what must be changed.

There are so many good things in this book. When you look at politics and women it is truly admirable and wonderful that women like Hillary and Sarah can bring in the big money just as their male counterparts. These women have proven they can bring home the bacon to their parties.

I've only touched on a few points in the book. I encourage you to go buy it and read for yourself how far we as women have come in politics, and how far we have to go. I think it would make an excellent gift for the young women you know. In this book they will see themselves, and they will see their mothers and all that came before, to where we are today.

Politics and Science

2009-11-30T07:28:00.008-06:00

I've always said that it was sad that people can't trust climate change data because it has been politicized. Now, leaked e-mails prove what I have always believed. That scientists manipulate data to the outcome they wish it to be.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was started in 1988 and "is the world's leading authority on climate change. It advises governments on the science behind the problem and was awarded the Nobel peace prize along with Al Gore in 2007."

Hacked e-mails have shown that Scientists reject whatever data doesn't reflect their world view:

"one email from 2004 in which Professor Phil Jones, the head of the climatic research unit at UEA, said of two papers he regarded as flawed: "I can't see either … being in the next Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. Kevin [Trenberth] and I will keep them out somehow – even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!"

In other words, since the papers revealed things about climate change that didn't fit their political agenda, he was going to make sure they were not included in the next Climate Change report.

Now, this doesn't dismiss climate change out of hand, but it certainly proves there is a political agenda behind the data and studies of scientists.

And that is a crying shame.

No problem. We will just get the data and find reputable scientists and get them to give us an unbiased look at the studies.

Oops. The data is no longer available:

SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

The UEA’s Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

So let me get this straight. All the data that people have relied on to prove global warming has been "thrown away." Isn't that special?

Consider that Cap and Trade legislation, which will impose crushing costs on businesses and consumers, was created in response to climate change data from the CRU and is likely to be the biggest tax in American history.

Just unbelievable.

Update: NRO points to this:

In response to all this, Eduardo Zorita, a scientist who contributed to the fourth IPCC report:

I am also aware that in this thick atmosphere -and I am not speaking of greenhouse gases now- editors, reviewers and authors of alternative studies, analysis, interpretations,even based on the same data we have at our disposal, have been bullied and subtly blackmailed. In this atmosphere, Ph D students are often tempted to tweak their data so as to fit the 'politically correct picture'. Some, or many issues, about climate change are still not well known. Policy makers should be aware of the attempts to hide these uncertainties under a unified picture. I had the 'pleasure' to experience all this in my area of research.

Here is a scientist involved in the studies, requesting that the scientists involved in the "tweaking" be barred from the IPCC process. That should go without saying. Nothing they do now will have any credibility.

Update II: In related news:

The Head of the European Carbon Exchange admits what we've known for some time, that Europe's cap-and-trade scheme has not reduced greenhouse-gas emissions since it began in January 2005:

The Commodities and Futures Trading Commission even believes that within five years, carbon could surpass crude oil as the world's most traded commodity. Mr Birley is the first to admit that the European system "hasn't actually reduced emissions" so far.

This complete failure to meet its supposed objective comes at a high cost. The Taxpayers Alliance in the U.K. estimates that cap-and-trade cost European consumers around $140 billion last year, and possibly much more. That's a high price to pay for not actually reducing emissions. Just wait till it starts actually working, then we'll see real money being spent!

Update III: I forgot to add this Wall Street Journal story which quotes e-mails that shows clearly that they were trying to hide the decline of temperature and deleting files so they won't be obtained by the freedom of information act:

Of particular note has been the exchange between Professor Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit at East Anglia, and Professor Michael E. Mann at Pennsylvania State University.

Among the emails tapped by a hacker is one in which Jones talks to Mann about the "trick of adding in the real temps to each series ... to hide the decline [in temperature]."

"If they ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than send to anyone," Jones allegedly told Mann.

From the NYT:

In several e-mail exchanges, Kevin Trenberth, a climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and other scientists discuss gaps in understanding of recent variations in temperature. Skeptic Web sites pointed out one line in particular: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t,” Dr. Trenberth wrote.

Michelle Malkin has the e-mails here.

2009-11-29T17:32:00.001-06:00

Five years Of Blogging

2009-11-23T09:03:00.000-06:00

It's Thanksgiving week and I have a ton of family coming into town! I usually take a holiday break from writing through Christmas, but I'm going to try to keep writing this time, although it may not be daily. But I will be gone this week.

I just realized that I have been blogging for five years. How did it start and what has happened since then? Well, five years ago I was waking up from the coma that is raising four children. We had moved from Dallas to Houston, and my kids were all finally in school. 15 years of babies and I wouldn't trade one moment of it. My children have given me the happiest moments in my life and too many to count.

But being at home during the day with no babies was driving me batty. I still wanted to be here when they got out of school, and I still wanted to have time to take care of the house for my very hardworking husband. I still wanted time for my volunteer work. I wanted to do something at home on my own time.

That is when I discovered blogging. It was perfect for me. I was and am wildly opinionated (as you all are very well aware). I love politics. I love talking politics. I love writing politics. So I started a little blog called Rightwingsparkle. I knew I wanted to name it "Rightwing" something because I felt the term was being demonized unfairly. I knew "rightwingers" like myself were good honest hardworking generous people with a deep love for this country. If someone wanted to see what Rightwing looked like, they could look at me. The "sparkle" came from the best compliment anyone ever gave me (and it was from an aunt). The compliment always stuck with me and made me feel special, so I used it in my blog.

Five years ago I was simply a Texas housewife and mom. Blogging expanded my world like I never dreamed it would. In the following years I was asked to blog for the Houston Chronicle, Newsbusters, Texas Magazine, and RightWingNews. I did some video blogs for Michelle Malkin at HotAir and got to meet her personally. I was published in print in Texas Magazine (look for my interview with Ted Cruz in the January issue!). I met and interviewed U.S. Senators, even being allowed in the "cloakroom" off the Senate floor where media is not allowed. I've been to fundraisers at RiverOaks and I was honored to meet Presidential candidate John McCain. I've met people I have longed admired from Tony Snow, to Robert Novak, to Rick Santorium, to Mitt Romney, to Mark Levin to Brent Bozell. I've received direct messages on twitter from Karl Rove and Jake Tapper! I'll see pundits on the news and think, "Oh, I met them at CPAC" or some other conservative conference. I've had dinner with CNN's Leslie Sanchez and was amazingly mentioned in her acknowledgments, along with my SmartGirlPolitic's chicks in her new book about women in politics, "You've Come A Long Way, Maybe". Read Leslie's book. It is amazing.

Because of the wonderful people I have met my daughter was able to get an internship in Washington DC during college. I'm not sure I would have ever made it to D.C. without blogging. And it is an amazing, historic, and incredible place. The museums are spectacular. I cried when I saw the original Constitution and Declaration of Independence. Sometimes we forget all that came before to give us the freedom and life we have today. America, with all it's faults, is truly that "shining city on a hill."

I cannot tell you how blessed and wonderful these past five years have been doing what I love on my own time. I love the people I have met and the friends I have made.

When I was a child my father once said to me, "happiness is a decision you make every day. You wake up and decide to be happy." I have always believed in that. My father was always wise before his time. He could have written the positive attitude books and parenting books. He had an amazing instinct on what was right. That attitude has always kept me truly happy. Even during tough times, I would remember to be strong and happy.

There is a quote from the author Richard Bach I love to use: "Within each of us lies the power of our consent to health and sickness, to riches and poverty, to freedom and to slavery. It is we who control these, and not another."

I have always believed that we control our destiny. It is not controlled by others. My father knew that life was about the choices you make. He taught me that, and it has always served me well.

So as I look back on my fifth year of blogging I want to thank all you who read me. I have been blessed by your words back to me. I love connecting with the world.

Thank you for connecting with me.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving.

Bush vs. Obama.

2009-11-20T11:16:00.005-06:00

I think we have all become used to hearing Obama blaming Bush for all his economic problems. As we are coming to the end of the full first year of the Obama presidency, I think it's informative to look back at Bush's first year.

You might remember that Bush inherited a recession as well. You might have a hard time remembering it because Bush turned it around pretty quickly. What is so amazing about that is that he did it after we experienced the biggest attack in the history of our country AND the fact that hurricane Katrina packed an unusually big punch to the United States economy. So keep that in mind in the comparison.

In the last week of November 2001, the exact same period of time in Bush's presidency that is now in the Obama's presidency, "House Democratic leaders pronounced that the country was in the Bush recession. That brought howls from Republicans. After a11 they argued correctly this recession began when former President Clinton was in office."

Gee, that sounds kind of familiar. So, can we call this the "Obama recession" now? Following the lead of the Democrats, I think we should.

And beyond that, we need to look closely at what Bush did to pull us out of that recession and then look closely at what Obama has done to do the same.

This is practically a test case on what works. Clearly what Bush did worked (a $1.35-trillion tax cut). By July of 2005 the unemployment rate held steady at 5 percent. and The U.S. had generated about 200,000 new jobs a month in the last part of 2005. We shall see if what Obama is doing (which is the opposite of what Bush did) will work. So far we have a unbelievable 10.2 unemployment rate. At the end of Bush's first year in 2001, the national unemployment rate was 5.6 percent.

I'm not holding out much "hope." How about you? So far, it's clear the boondoogle of the stimulus ("American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009," what a joke) didn't work.

But it is amusing to go back and look at the news when Bush was running for re-election in 2004. The economy was in recovery, but the Democrats were moaning about the 2.3 million jobs lost under Bush in his first term, calling it the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover. 2.3 million is the number of jobs lost under Obama in his first year. I shudder to think of what the number will be when his term ends.

In December of 2004 the U.S. added 157,000 new jobs, which the Democrats lamented as an "underwhelming performance." Oh, what we wouldn't give for an underwhelming performance now.

Then there is the deficit. Oh, how we hated Bush's spending. But Obama has made Bush look like a Texas housewife in spending compared to Obama's Paris Hilton ways. The White House 2009 budget deficit projection is a staggering $1.8 trillion. For context, it took President Bush more than seven years to accumulate $1.8 trillion in debt.

For all the hate the left poured onto Bush, who knew we would miss him so soon?

Threatening The Govt To Make Them Do The Right Thing

2009-11-20T08:22:00.001-06:00

Wow.

From HotAir:

Breitbart to Holder: Investigate ACORN or we’ll release more tapes before the election

Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?

Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, it’s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, it’s not just ACORN, and we’re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you don’t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.

Hannity: This is a blockbuster, what you’re saying here. You guys have more tapes, you’ll release them before the election, that could have a big impact on the election, obviously…

Chris Matthews Is An Idiot

2009-11-19T16:10:00.003-06:00

As Noel Sheppard pointed out in an earlier post at Newsbusters, Chris Matthews once again accuses the Tea Party goers of being too white:

"This is a largely white -- almost no minorities in this crowd," reported MSNBC's O'Donnell live from the scene.

Matthews reiterated, "Well, they look like a white crowd to me," later claiming, "I think there is a tribal aspect to this thing, in other words, white vs. other people."

Here are pics from Code Pink's latest march on Washington D.C. I don't see ONE face of color. Go ahead and look through their photo stream back into the Bush years and the protests then. Still a sea of white faces. Here are a few pics from that time when I pointed this out back in April.

Let's compare. Here are anti-war protests (I warn you, they may be overtly white, but they are also overtly weird). Here are the Tea Party Protests.

I'm wondering if Chris Matthews or MSNBC ever commented on the "whiteness" of the left's anti-war protests?

I think you know the answer to that.

2009-11-19T15:09:00.001-06:00

Republicans are happier than Democrats....

2009-11-19T10:19:00.005-06:00

A recent discussion on the myths of conservatism got me to doing some research on conservatism. The answers I found didn't surprise me, but it might some liberals.

The Pew Research Center did several surveys to determine who was happy. Not surprisingly Republicans were happier than Democrats or Independents. 45% to 30% to 29%. In addition, Republicans have been happier every year since the General Social Survey began taking its measurements in 1972. Also, People who attend religious services weekly or more are happier as well.

Drawing on extensive attitude surveys, Schweizer’s “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals,” which comes out this week, says liberals are much more likely than conservatives to think about themselves first and are less willing to make sacrifices for others.

Some 71 percent of conservatives say they have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent, compared with 46 percent for liberals. Asked if they would endure all things for the one they love, 55 percent of conservatives say yes, compared with 26 percent of liberals.

Equally revealing, liberals are far more likely to say they are depressed and to view the world bleakly. Schweizer attributes that to an attitude that they and those around them are victims and helpless unless the government intervenes.

Well, that explains a lot, doesnt' it?

Republicans have more children as well:

Of the ten states with the highest fertility in the U.S., eight of them voted for Bush in 2000. Of the bottom ten states in fertility, eight went for Gore. More importantly, of the states Bush won, his margin of victory was generally much higher in high-birth rate states than lower ones. As for Gore’s states — the lower the birth rates the higher the margin of victory.

A BYU study also shows that conservatives are more likely than liberals to read opposing points of view.

Conservatives also give much more to the poor and charity and donate more of their time than liberals. You can look at some specific well know politicians for examples here.

And last, but certainly not least, Republicans have a better sex life than Democrats.

So let's summarize. Republicans are happier, give more to the poor, have more children, and have a better sex life.

This explains a lot of the comments I have to delete. Unhappiness brings much bitterness.

I find it amazing that the picture of Republicans that Hollywood and the media try to portray is actually the opposite of reality.

I say to Democrats reading this, all is not lost. The wonderful thing about this country is that we are free to admit when we are wrong and turn things around. It can happen to you.

Come join the party. The HAPPY party....;-)

Jon Stewart Is An Idiot

2009-11-19T07:56:00.005-06:00

I used to think Jon Stewart was funny. Sure he bashed Bush, but he at least gave the Democrats their due as well.

Now his jokes go in this order; Republicans, the media, and Joe Biden. Once in a blue moon he might take a light jab at Pres. Obama. Which is absurd considering the wealth of comedy to be had at President Obama's enormous ego, his addiction to his teleprompter, and his constant need to bow to other world leaders.

Sometimes you can tell when something really gets to Stewart. You can see he is clearly ticked. Ironically last night right after describing how the right loves Sarah Palin and the left cannot stand her, he goes into a diatribe about why he hates Sarah Palin.

Then he shows clips of conservatives on different news programs describing why liberals hate Palin. The last clip shows Bernie Goldberg saying that liberals hate Palin because "she has five children, liberals don't have a lot of children. She has a down syndrome child, liberals don't allow that in their lives."

Stewart then leans over to the picture of Goldberg and says "F*** you."

Hilarious!

Then he looks into the camera and says "Democrats don't have a lot of kids?" And a picture of Eunice Kennedy Shriver pops up and he says "Eunice Kennedy had nine kids." Then a picture of the Special Olympics pops up and he says, "I guess she began Special Olympics to mock kids with Down Syndrome." It was one of those moments when he looked really ticked.

Does anyone else find it amusing that he had to pick a Democrat who was 88 yrs old (she died earlier this year, so he couldn't even find a live Democrat) who had a lot of kids? I guess he couldn't find a Democrat who had a Down Syndrome child at all, so he just used the example of her starting Special Olympics. But the irony there is that unlike almost all Democrats, Eunice Kennedy Shriver was pro-life....... just like Sarah Palin.

So Jon Stewart ended the segment with a joke he didn't intend to make. The joke (sad though it is) is that liberals can't even see the obvious in front of them. Bernie Goldberg was right.

Pres. Obama's Weakness Means Danger To The U.S.

2009-11-18T08:13:00.004-06:00

Pres. Obama could be the poster boy for what happens when others see you as weak. Obama imagined that bowing and scraping and using his pretty words would endear him to the world. He imagined he would show the international community how different he was from Bush with his "cowboy diplomacy." Well, one thing Bush was never accused of was being weak.

When our President looks weak, America looks weak. When Obama made his way to Europe to seek help in Afghanistan from NATO, he got nothing. Now he looks even weaker as he dithers on what he insisted was "the necessary war." He rejects his own General's recommendations and flies around the world accomplishing little, while our military's morale sinks and our boys are put in more danger.

I'm not sure how it could get worse. But Obama's trip to China proved it could get worse. Not only did it seem that he was gushing at them, but they refused even the smallest concession asked for. The Chinese did not let him meet with human rights advocates or Chinese journalists as requested. Obama met with only who the Chinese wanted him to meet with. The tougher sanctions on Iran, climate change discussions, and flexibility by Beijing on currency exchange rates that Obama sought were ignored.

Obama spoke to 500 students in Shanghai, but as the NYT reports, they were all members of the Communist Youth League. Chinese bloggers that the White House had tried to invite were barred from attending. The event was not broadcast live to a national audience or even mentioned on the evening newscast on state run tv. In other words, Pres. Obama's words were kept inside that auditorium to an audience that could not care less what he had to say. The wider audience in China, who longed to hear about freedom, never heard his words or a word about it.

The Chinese did not do this with Pres. Bill Clinton or Pres. George Bush. They were allowed to address the Chinese people and answer their questions in a live broadcast.

Obama imagines that he can somehow can gain trust. But first you must lead. First you must have respect.

It doesn't look to me there was any respect afforded Obama at all.

Where is the love that supposed to spew forth from the international community when Obama was elected? Recent polls show that the Middle East still distrust the U.S. as much as before. Does it really matter if European leaders "like" Obama on a personal level more than Bush, if that doesn't translate into respect and cooperation? No. It doesn't matter.

This is what happens when we look weak. But it's much worse than being "embarrassed" by Pres. Obama. Weakness in a President represents danger to the American people.

In his book "In The Words of Our Enemies" by Jed Babbin, he chronicles some of the interviews Osama bin Laden(and other radical leaders) gave to Arabic newspapers before 9-11. The main thing that struck me in this book is that our enemies thrive on our weaknesses. And they see that the fact that we value our own lives as weak.

In an interview published in a London newspaper five years before 9-11, Osama talked about how disgraceful Somalia was for us. He said we moved in tens of thousands of soldiers and then he said this:

"However when...(many) of your soldiers were killed in minor battles and one American pilot was dragged in the streets of Mogadish, you left the area carrying disappointment, humiliation, defeat, and your dead with you. Clinton appeared in front of the whole world threatening and promising revenge, but these threats were merely a preparation for withdrawal. You have been disgraced by Allah and you withdrew; the extent of you impotence and weaknessses became very clear"

It's clear that these madmen see our weakness as "Allah's will." It explains our weakness. But when we win, when we fight back, then that explanation evaporates.

That is why with Pres. Bush we were never considered a "paper tiger." Bush didn't "threaten and promise revenge" and then do nothing. We went to the Middle East and we killed those who attacked us. We were not "disgraced by Allah."

It is in strength we prevailed and were kept safe.

I don't feel so safe anymore.

Pres. Obama promises "consequences" to Iran if they don't comply on their nuclear program, but if there are never any real consequences, then "Allah" wins once more. Is there anyone reading this that expects there to be tough consequences to Iran? Yeah, I wouldn't hold my breath on that one.

The longer Pres. Obama waffles on Afghanistan and ignores Iran, the weaker we look. This is no time for that. More than anything else, Pres. Obama needs to show strength and resolve. I pray he has it in him to do so. If not, then we will be in danger once again.

Federal Stimulus Jobs Numbers Inflated

2009-11-17T09:57:00.002-06:00

Obama's continued bowing may be embarassing, but it isn't important. This is important:

A powerful House Democrat used unusually harsh terms to blast the Obama administration's manipulation of stimulus data Monday night, and demanded an honest accounting of results from the $787 billion government program.

Rep. Dave Obey (D-Wis.), who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, took the administration to task for pervasive errors on the Web site designed to monitor disbursement of the stimulus funds. He called those errors "outrageous."

"Credibility counts in government and stupid mistakes like this undermine it. We've got too many serious problems in this country to let that happen," Obey said in a statement. "Whether the numbers are good news or bad news, I want the honest numbers and I want them now."

Obey demanded a commitment from the executive branch that they would "work night and day to correct the ludicrous mistakes." Congress and the public should be able to trust reports by the Recovery Accountability and Transparency (RAT) Board, he said.

The administration has already slashed 60,000 jobs from its estimates of how many jobs were created by the stimulus, after discovering "unrealistic data" submitted by stimulus recipients. In one extreme example, the stimulus Web site reported that 50 jobs were created or saved by an Arkansas cemetery's purchase of a lawnmower for roughly $1,000.

A new review found that the number of jobs created or saved by federal stimulus money as stated by this administration had been greatly exaggerated.

More on this debacle here.

The most common error appeared to be counting temporary or part-time work as a full-time job. Was this on purpose? Did they not think people would check on this?

I can't figure out the people who run this administration. Either they are cold stone liars who believe they will never get caught, or they are incompetent to the point of danger.

I'm think it's the latter, which is the most problematic.

This administration praises itself on transparency, but transparency doesn't mean much if you are putting out wrong information.

The bottom line is the administration can throw out the "created or saved" jobs number all day long, but the only jobs number that matters is the one that will finally say that unemployment is no longer in the double digits.

Don't expect that to happen any time soon.

Ironically it is the black community that has suffered the most under Obama's policy of focusing on other issues rather than jobs. Black unemployment has skyrocketed to 15.7 percent, from 8.9 percent when the recession started 23 months ago. The black unemployment rate has climbed above 20 percent in several states, reaching 23.9 percent in Michigan and 20.4 percent in South Carolina.

It's Palin Week!

2009-11-16T20:11:00.003-06:00

It's all about Palin this week, which couldn't make me happier. I think everyone knows how I feel about Sarah Palin, so I won't go on too much about what a wonderful role model I think she is, but I couldn't just ignore her this week either.

First let me say that I don't think she is going to run for President in 2012. I think she is going to do exactly what she said she would do when she resigned as Governor of Alaska. She is going to be a force to change this country back into the country we can recognize. One that respects the constitution and loves liberty. She promised that she would "work hard for others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government; strong national security for our country and support for our troops; energy independence; and for those who will protect freedom and equality and Life" regardless of party. And that is what she has done.

We aren't used to an honest politician that does exactly what they say they are going to do. We aren't used to a politician who faces challenges head on without spin. We aren't used to the strength shown by this woman in the face of so many lies and smears, not just by those that actively hate her, but by the mainstream media as well.

This passage in her book just endeared her to me:

Just before I left the hotel room to hit the convention stage, on the evening of September 3, I noticed that Trig needed changing. I also noticed that we had run out of diapers. After a frantic, hotel-wide search, someone found a stack, and the last thing I did before heading down to give the biggest speech of my life was to change the baby.

How many women out there can relate to that? Just about all of us. How many times have we had something that was very important to do, but first we had to take care of our children's needs in some way? We understand the messiness of life. We clean it up and we move forward. That's who we are.

I love her sense of humor. When false rumors swirled that her and Todd were getting a divorce she said:

Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?

Many on the left give lots of excuses for hating her, but the truth they can't admit is that they hate her because of her conservative values that happen to be wrapped in a beautiful down to earth persona.

We have never seen anything like her.

I admire her for her strength, her values, her no nonsense practical way of looking at problems and issues, and I love that she took on the good ole boy network in Alaska and knocked them off their feet.

For more juicy tidbits from her book, go here.

Don't Worry, Catholic Officials Won't Forsake D.C.'s Poor

2009-11-16T18:42:00.003-06:00

You may have heard about the controversy in Washing D.C. where the Catholic Archdiocese announced that they will have to stop accepting city government money for social work programs rather than accept the ongoing effort to legalize gay marriage. This wildly upside down look at it by Petula Dvorak of the Washington Post really illustrates how the secular just don't get it. Here is the title of the article:

Catholic officials shouldn’t forsake D.C.’s poor in gay marriage fight

What it should say is that Government officials shouldn't force Catholic Churches and charities to go against their values, doctrines, and beliefs.

Let's start with the fundamentals here. The Catholic Church is not obligated in any way to help the poor except by it's own traditions and teachings. The reason the government gives Catholic Charities money is because the Church has always run programs well to benefit the poor and underprivileged. The faithful that work at these charities don't do it for the paycheck, they do it for Christ. The government knows that they will and have run the programs much better than the government itself can do, and that they actually make a difference in the lives of the poor.

The D.C. Council is preparing to pass a same sex provisions bill next month that will force Catholic Charities to extend employee benefits to same-sex "married" couples and allow gay couples to adopt with their adoption services.

The Church believes that same sex couples is wrong. It's that simple. If you disagree, then more power to you. You don't have to go to the Catholic Church. But to be clear, the Church teaches us to love all people, gay or straight, because we are all sinners. But loving someone doesn't mean that the Church forgets or overlooks what Christ taught us about marriage.

Dvorak says there are at least nine homeless shelters in D.C. that are run by Catholic Charities that use "at least some" city money. She imagines they will go away without the city's money. Well, guess what? Catholic Charities will continue to run those nine homeless shelters without the city money. The Catholic Church takes care of the poor all over the world, and it sure as HECK dooesn't need government money to do it. Governments have and will come and go, but the Church will remain.

Has this co-operation between government and Church been a win/win for both? Yes. The government has a reliable, well run, and trustworthy organization to use taxpayer money for the poor in a proper way. It is run by people who really care about the people they serve. The Church in turn, has more money to spend on the needy.

But the Church will never turn against it's teaching in order to receive government funds, nor should it be asked to.

Believe what you wish about gay marriage or same sex couples. But don't try to force your belief on the Church. It has a 2000 year tradition and it isn't going to change for some liberal D.C. council. We are free in this country to believe as we wish. When we have to come to a point where the government tries to force a faith to turn it's back on it's teachings, then we have entered very scary territory. Your belief may be next.

Dvorak also says that refusing to give in to the city goes against the mission of the Church. No. Going against the teachings of the Church would go against the mission of the Church.

The Church has every right to refuse what they consider an immoral mandate, and the city has every right to rescind the monies. If that is what needs to be done, then do it. There are plenty of other churches that would accept the city's mandates. The Episcopal Church and Unitarians come to mind. Let them accept the money and run the city's programs.

The Catholic Church is not, as many Democrats council members in D.C haves stated, writing or determining legislation. It is simply saying it cannot abide by mandates that go against the faith and Christ's teachings. It is the council that is forcing this issue, not the Church.

The Church would fight against being forced to condone ANY sin whether it be abortion, adultery, or euthanasia.

In my view, I would welcome a split. I have never been comfortable with the Church accepting government money. Until now, the government has been pretty good at letting the Church run it's many charities in the manner of it's faith without interference. But this was bound to happen. For those who don't like the mix of church and state for secular reasons, this should be good news for you as well.

If the government cannot find a way to run their programs and shelters for the poor as well as Catholic Charities has run them, then maybe it will think twice before passing mandates that force the Church to make that break.

*note: I feel I have to warn my liberal commenter's who always seem to take such delight, whenever the Catholic Church is mentioned, in smearing some 50,000 good and holy priests in this country by bringing up the comparatively few sick pervert priests that have disgraced themselves in the Catholic Church. Don't even try.

More On Black Conservatives

2009-11-15T19:20:00.001-06:00

Friday Glenn Beck had his show on black conservatives. He had about 60 there and from what I have heard it was quite raucous. Here are two takes from Booker Rising:

Adrienne Ross: "Sneak Peek: Taping Of The Glenn Beck Show"

The conservative blogger in New York said the experience wasn't what she expected it to be: "First, it was good to see Glenn Beck, but he is far from 100%. In fact, he did something he never does. He remained seated. He apologized ahead of time but said that he was too weak to do otherwise. Keep in mind he just returned from surgery. Suffice it to say I was glad to have the opportunity to be there, but it was far from what I expected. We were a rather raucous audience and Glenn reprimanded us nicely at one point. We were still yapping (arguing?) when we went to commercial, but that was the only time some were able to talk -- and even then it was nearly impossible."

She concurs with Maria, another blogger whom she met at the taping: "Hey, I tried to speak -- more than once, more than twice -- but it was impossible. So when you tune in [today], expect to see me in the audience, but don't expect to hear me speak, or Maria, or Clifton from Another Black Conservative. I could say more, but that's enough for now. I will speak my mind more after the show airs, and I don't think you'll want to miss my interpretation of how things went. And you certainly don't want to miss my defending Sarah Palin story. Yep, encountered some Palin-bashing -- and, if you know me, you know I addressed it! It'll be interesting to see how the show gets prettied up for airing. I will speak more of my mind soon. For now, I will close by saying it was not at all what I expected, and I was frustrated."

Clifton B.: "The Glenn Beck Show: An Evening With My Fellow Black Conservatives"

The conservative blogger in New Jersey writes: "First I met Adrienne Ross from Motivation: Truth blog. As I stated in an earlier post, Adrienne was on of the inspirational figures that inspired me to start Another Black Conservative. Adrienne is exactly what I imagined. She is outspoken and clearly has her beliefs on point. Adrienne and I clearly speak the same language, especially when it comes to Sarah Palin. Note to readers: Adrienne defends Sarah Palin anywhere and anytime, even on the very blue streets of New York City! Adrienne and I met early and traveled together to Fox News studios and there we met up with Maria from My Voice on the Wings of Change. Maria could easily be someone from my own immediate family. She even reminds me of my very own cousin Maria! Her Island background mirrors my very own background. Her life reads like of my own family. Robin from Conservative Black Woman surprised me the most. When you read Conservative Black Woman, her blog and point of view is very strong. Yet, Robin in real life is a petite and soft-spoken woman. Don’t let appearances fool you (you will see [this] evening) the woman knows how to get her point across! Others I got to meet briefly were the guys from Hip Hop Republican, Charles Payne from Fox Business News, several Fox News personalities, Kevin Jackson from the Black Sphere and a host of black conservatives from Facebook."

More commentary from Mr. B.: "What was Glenn Beck like? Just like you see on TV. He is a very much the everyday Joe you meet all across America. I could also tell he is still not 100% recovered from his operation. I could easily detect someone who is pushing himself to keep up with their everyday schedule who clearly did not want to."

I can see why it was so frustrating. Finally black conservatives are given a very big forum to express their views, and there are 60 voices trying to get their opinion in.

It just so happens that the Tea Party Express II tour just finished and there is a great read about here from Lloyd Marcus, a black conservative as well. You may have seen him on Fox News discussing the Tea Party Express. I really encourage you to read his overview of his experience to get a real sense of what the tea parties are all about (you might especially enjoy the Texas overview).

Lloyd had this to say about black conservatives:

Though some may think them as rare as Bigfoot sightings, black Conservatives do exist. I saw more of them on this second TPX II tour than I did on the first. Blacks in greater numbers are attending and participating in the tea party movement. In Texas, I met the conservative black woman named Mary Baker who founded 9-12moms.ning.com.

Black clergy are firing up the crowds, touting the virtues of God and country at tea parties. They worship Godly principles over skin color. I am still baffled as to how a Christian could reconcile voting for Obama based on his abortion policies alone.

I met several bright black youths who refreshingly were not taken in by Obama's rock star persona. One young black man who attended a tea party had just been released from prison nine days earlier. He admitted he made wrong choices and wanted to turn his life around. He was seeking truth. I gave him an autographed copy of my friend William Owens' book, Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts.

William and Selena Owens are wonderful black conservative authors who traveled with me on the Tea Party Express II tour. My first book, Confessions of a Black Conservative, will be released soon. Michelle Malkin wrote the forward.

Kenneth Gladney traveled with us on the Tea Party Express bus. Kenneth is a black entrepreneur who became famous after being beaten by SEIU thugs (Service Employee International Union) for selling "Don't Tread on Me" flags at a town hall meeting. The beating sent Kenneth to the emergency room. He was simply attempting to earn a living selling flags after being laid off. Liberals are quick to put independent blacks back in their place on the government dependency plantation.

On the tour, I also met young black conservatives running for political seats traditionally controlled by liberal Democrats. Yes, the times, they are a changin'. No longer are blacks sheepishly and mindlessly following the leading of so-called black leaders who thrive on convincing them they are victims.

Interestingly, most of the blacks I chatted with at the tea parties were current or ex-military. They have lived around the world, and they realize that America truly is "a shining city on a hill." Sorry, all you globalists, but America is peerless.

We blacks are blessed to live in the greatest land of opportunity on the planet. The day the majority of black Americans realize this truth is the day they can finally say, to quote MLK, "Free at last, thank God almighty, we're free at last!" Dr. King made that statement referring to the tyranny blacks suffered from white racism in America. He could never have imagined that blacks would someday need to be freed from the tyranny of traitorous blacks and liberal whites who wish to keep them on the government plantation.

My next door neighbor and good friend is a black pastor. He too was greatly bothered by members of his congregation, who he teaches to put Godly principles over skin color, voting for Obama. He tells me that many are now expressing to him their regret.

Although we have a long way to go with the black community in bringing them in large numbers into our fold, I am encouraged by all of the above. Brave black men and women going against conventional wisdom, and the first black President, to say that values matter more than skin color. One heart at a time. I'll take each one with gratitude.

I used to listen to white conservatives say, "Why put so much effort into bringing more blacks into our party when they are going to vote for Democrats no matter what?" This always made me angry. I would rant at whoever said it that it should be our mission to reach out to the black community and show we care, and show them how we represent their values much better then the Democrats. I would insist that as long as no one points out how the policies of Democrats have done nothing but hurt the black community and as long as it seems like we don't care about them, then of course they would keep voting Democrat.

I find it interesting and sort of ironic that it has taken having the first black President to awaken many white conservatives to the need of bringing the black community into our party. It has also taken Obama to put black conservatives front and center in our tea parties.

It's a start and I'm proud and happy to be a part of it.

"GLENN BECK'S FRIDAY THE 13TH NIGHTMARE FOR LIBERALS: BLACK CONSERVATIVES"

2009-11-13T10:01:00.003-06:00

I love the title of this article because it really says it all:

I cannot WAIT to see this show today. You all know how I feel about bringing in more miniorities into our party. Until the tea parties there really wasn't much of a venue for black conservatives to speak before a wide audience. Now people like my friends, Kevin Jackson of TheBlackSphere and Claver of RagingElephants.org are speaking at tea parties all over the country. They can hardly keep up with the demand for them.

Be sure and tune in on Friday. It's sure to be awesome.

Pres Obama Stands Firm on The Patriot Act

2009-11-13T08:27:00.004-06:00

I have found it interesting that many of my liberal commenters are always surprised to learn that Pres. Obama kept the Patriot Act. It seems after Bush the leftwing blogosphere, with few exceptions, went strangely quiet on the matter. There is now a Dec. 31st deadline to extend key provisions of the bill. Obama is backing it all the way:

The Obama administration is standing firm in its support of several George W. Bush-era Patriot Act powers in the face of sharp criticism from civil rights groups, liberal Democrats and a Dec. 31 deadline to extend key provisions of the bill.

The Justice Department recently reiterated its request for Congress to extend with few changes key provisions of the Patriot Act: sections that allow roving wiretaps on multiple phones, seizing of business records and a never-used authority to spy on non-Americans suspected of being terrorists even though they have no connection to a recognized terrorist group.

The two remaining temporary provisions of the PATRIOT Act that are supposed to sunset, but Obama wants to extend, are "Section 206, the counter-terror "roving wiretap" that allows the Feds to tap any communication device of a target without having to specify who or what they are targeting, and Section 215, the measure that allows the government to grab "any tangible thing" – with accompanying gag orders – including library records and other personal information with a secret FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) court order. Also expiring is the so-called "lone wolf" provision of the related Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act (IRTPA), which allows the government to obtain secret FISA court orders against individuals who are not tied to any terrorist group or organization, but who might be suspected of terrorism."

The irony of this of course is how the far left and liberals went batdung crazy over Pres. Bush and the Patriot Act. Bush was the devil incarnate for allowing it. The leftwing blogosphere was beside itself.

Let's take a peek back at 2006:

Liberty Street sums up Gonzales' testimony: Just another day in the office, helpin his boss to subvert the Constitution and end the American experiment with democracy."

Corrente: "Of course, under Republican tyranny there is no Constitutional government, so the Fourth Amendment is no longer in effect." "These guys have no limits or boundaries at all. That means they're already doing warrantless domestic surveillance--with the targets presumably taken from their list of traitors and possible traitors, which probably includes, oh, the entire Beltway and who hasn't actually sworn fealty to Bush's person, at this point."

Kevin Drum "Once the public accepts the idea that domestic-to-international calls can be tapped at the whim of the administration -- without a warrant and without bothering to show probable cause -- they're a lot less likely to be upset at the prospect of domestic-to-domestic calls being tapped too. The frog is simmering."

Obsidian Wings "So: according to our Attorney General, the nation's top law enforcement officer, it might be legal for the President to authorize the government to listen to your purely domestic conversations without getting a warrant, without consulting a judge, without obeying any of the safeguards that our system puts in place."

Dan Froomkin (Washington Bureau Chief for the Huffington Post) This is from 2008: "Bush’s warrantless wiretapping program may go down in history as the most egregious assault on American civil liberties since Watergate".

TalkLeft: "Thanks to Suburban Guerilla, Mark Crispin Miller and Save the USA for pointing out Section 605 of the House version of the Patriot Act renewal legislation. It calls for the creation of a Federal Police Force. Your imperial presidency at work.

Funny how in reviewing all those blogs today I see no mention of this this present "imperial presidency." It seems that this "most egregious assault on American civil liberties since Watergate" isn't so egregious to the left when one of their own sits in the oval office.

It's Not Over Yet....

2009-11-13T07:20:00.002-06:00

Unbelievable. The contentious race between Conservative party Doug Hoffman and Democrat Bill Owens in NY-23 special election is not over. It seems the numbers were wrong on election night and the vote count was much closer than they thought. The final count shows Hoffman trailing by 3,026 with over 10,000 absentee ballots left to count.

It's actually possible for Hoffman to win, but not likely. Owens has been sworn in, but if the votes show that Hoffman wins, then Owens will be removed.

If that happens it would just be too sweet.

Into The Twilight Zone of Clinton

2009-11-12T18:15:00.005-06:00

I have found that men with enormous egos generally tend to overlook their own enormous failings. They just pretend they don't exist, and hope you will too.

But this episode takes the cake.

Speaking at a fundraiser in Chicago, Bill Clinton started talking about the TV series set in the 1960's, "MadMen."

Clinton looked out at the diverse crowd and said it was different than a crowd of white men that might be seen on the TV show "Mad Men."

"You ever watch that TV series 'Mad Men?' " Clinton asked. "If I keep watching this program, will I ever find a happy person? Great television. Good drama. But a lot of really painful reminders in that show about how black people were supposed to run the elevators... were supposed to ask permission before they get on an elevator. The way women were treated is appalling, and only occasionally funny to me."

Gee, I'm glad that the appalling treatment of women on the show is only occasionally funny to you. Can you believe this??? This is like Chris Brown lamenting a show that portrays domestic abuse.

Did Clinton really think that people had just forgotten HIS appalling treatment of women?

It's surreal, it really is.

"Porkulus job numbers “wildly exaggerated”: Boston Globe?"

2009-11-12T08:18:00.002-06:00

via HotAir:

And yes, that’s a direct quote from the Boston Globe’s news section, not an editorial — and frankly, I’m not sure which would have been more surprising. It seems that the brush with death on Morrissey Boulevard has sharpened the objectivity of the Globe, which is still owned by the New York Times, at least enough to add Massachusetts to the states discovering that the Obama administration’s claims of jobs “saved or created” are fraudulent:

While Massachusetts recipients of federal stimulus money collectively report 12,374 jobs saved or created, a Globe review shows that number is wildly exaggerated. Organizations that received stimulus money miscounted jobs, filed erroneous figures, or claimed jobs for work that has not yet started.

Read the rest with details about this "exaggeration" or as normal people would call..lies.

What Have We Come To When The President Slurs Those Who Disagree?

2009-11-11T14:57:00.004-06:00

The left has gotten a lot of "giggles" over the term "teabaggers" in describing Americans who attend the tea parties. For those of you who don't know, teabagging is a perverse sexual term. It is interesting to me that the left not only knew the term, but seemed very comfortable using it. I guess I shouldn't have been surprised.

Those having the most fun have been CNN's Anderson Cooper, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC and a frequent guest pundit Ana Marie Cox. Last week I posted about tweeting with Ana marie Cox where she promised me she would stop using the term if I donated to a charity she was sponsoring for research in colon cancer in memory of Tony Snow. I donated $100 and was her top contributor. She thanked me and promised she would stop. She even asked if "teabaggist" would be cheating, and I said yes it would be.

Well, it didn't take a week for her to break her promise. I'm not sure why I trusted the word of a lefty, but I take comfort in the fact that my money did go to a good cause.

I actually think in the video she was trying to find a way to get out of saying "teabagger" and just go with teabaggist so that her crowd wouldn't make fun of her for agreeing to not say it. Heaven forbid she tell Maddow (the cool kid in their high school of punditry) that she had promised a conservative not to slur good people with that term anymore. She might be ostracized by the popular kids at Lefty High!! It's clear she is being snarky there, but who knows? Maybe she won't actually use the term anymore. If she doesn't I will give her kudos.

I expect this kind of immature name calling from the blogosphere, and now it doesn't even surprise me with the mainstream media on air talent. But I have to admit my jaw dropped when the President of the United States used this sexual slur, AND the former President of the United States as well.

From The New York Times:

Mr. Obama, during his private pep talk to Democrats, recognized Mr. Owens’s election and then posed a question to the other lawmakers. According to Representative Earl Blumenauer of Oregon, who supports the health care bill, the president asked, “Does anybody think that the teabag, anti-government people are going to support them if they bring down health care? All it will do is confuse and dispirit” Democratic voters “and it will encourage the extremists.”

From Politico44:

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) said Clinton described the ongoing tea party protests against the Democratic agenda as a sign their party was making progress.

Whitehouse quoted Clinton arguing: "The reason the tea-baggers are so inflamed is because we are winning."

Both statements are completely without class.

I can't remember a time in Presidential history when a President has slurred so many of the American people in such a way. Even on his worst day, President Bush would never have used such a term about the anti war protesters, much less just those that disagreed with him politically.

Of course one might expect such a thing from Clinton, a man know for his sexual perverse ways, but I must say I am shocked at President Obama. I may disagree with him politically, but I never thought he would ever say such a thing.

Shame on both of them.

Veterans Day

2009-11-11T12:21:00.002-06:00

There never seems to be the right words that could express the gratitude I feel for our veterans. My father, long gone, was a veteran. For those of you who have read me for a while know his story and know that the Army literally saved his life.

I love our military from the bottom of heart.

Jim Bell sent me this from the Lufkin Daily News. I think it expresses what so many feel. A soldier who wonders, "Why not me?"

I spent an entire career in the military. Not once was I called upon to risk my life in combat. I still don't know why. Every veteran can tell you, once you don the uniform, you're government property. The old joke regarding Uncle Sam's motto went, "Once you sign, your butt's all mine."

So looking at these memorials to the men an women who died in action, I wondered again, ''Why not me?'' What made me so different that I would be allowed to live long enough to raise a family, watch my children grow and to stand and watch sunsets over the water -- when these young men never had the same chance? Why wasn't it ever my turn to leap from a landing craft trying to make it to a beach, knowing my next step was probably my last? Why wasn't I ever asked to ride in a Hummer somewhere in the Middle East while waiting on some IED to send me back to my own veteran's cemetery marker? Why didn't my parents ever have to experience a visit from an officer and a chaplain telling them the next time they saw me I'd be in a box? Why not me?

In the movie "Saving Private Ryan," Tom Hanks plays Capt. John Miller, an Army Ranger whose squad is assigned the task of rescuing the last surviving Ryan brother. At the end, Miller lies mortally wounded; with his dying breath, he tells the young Ryan, "Earn this. Earn it."

Maybe that's my answer. My gift -- any veteran's gift -- from those fallen soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines was the chance to earn the right to live a longer life. All we have to do is earn it. Live the best we can. Remind ourselves why we weren't ever called to die in combat.

It's because the people in these cemeteries did it for us. They offered us the gifts of life and freedom.

It's up to us to earn them.

Pres. Obama's Speech At Fort Hood Was Beautiful

2009-11-10T15:18:00.000-06:00

It really was. He said all the right things in all the right ways. Believe it or not I do like to write good things about him. I really do want him to do the right things. Every single night, since he became President, my children and I have prayed for God to bless him.

Here are some excerpts from his speech:

On the killer:

"No faith justifies these murderous and craven acts; no just and loving God looks upon them with favor. And for what he has done, we know that the killer will be met with justice -- in this world and the next."

On the soldiers who died:

"Their lives speak to the strength, the dignity and the decency of those who serve, and that is how they will be remembered."

To loved ones left behind:

"Here is what you must also know: Your loved ones endure through the life of our nation. Every evening that the sun sets on a tranquil town; every dawn that a flag is unfurled; every moment that an American enjoys life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- that is their legacy,"

Beautiful. I cry just writing it. A fitting tribute.

God bless those who are hurting.

Here is the full video of his speech for those who missed it.

"Twenty Years Later, There Is Much Work to Do"

2009-11-10T07:54:00.000-06:00

Since Pres. Obama and Sec. of State Hillary Clinton didn't see fit to mention President Reagan in their addresses on the anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, I thought many of you might like to read Marco Rubio's take (He is running for the Senate against RNC backed Gov. Crist). It's a good one:

I will never forget my parents’ reaction the day the Berlin Wall came down 20 years ago today. Having lost their country to Fidel Castro’s Communism, they had spent 30 years divided from their homeland, friends, and relatives — just as the Wall had done to millions in Europe.

Although the Wall was an ocean away from my family’s native Cuba and their adopted country of America, its existence was the most concrete symbol of Communism’s presence in the world — a reminder of its ability to divide families, turn neighbor against neighbor, use censorship to impose intellectual darkness, cripple economies, and deprive humans of their basic dignity and freedoms.

Especially for my parents’ generation of Cuban exiles, whose hopes and dreams were shattered by Communism, the Wall’s fall was an historic event they questioned would ever come. It was a day of celebration and rekindled hope that all lands within Communism’s grip would soon be free as well.

Twenty years later, we know the fall of the Berlin Wall signaled the dramatic advent of liberty in Europe. Today’s commemoration marks an opportunity to applaud all we have gained, while reminding us of what remains to be done to tear down other oppressive walls that still stand. America’s role in this effort cannot be underestimated.

Economically, we cannot allow Washington’s borrow-and-spend binges to make our commitment to freedom and human rights subservient to our debt holders. We must also make it a continued priority to strengthen our trade and commercial relationships with allies like Colombia that are surrounded by increasingly autocratic, repressive, and hostile neighbors.

Militarily, as Ronald Reagan said, “Of the four wars in my lifetime, none came about because the U.S. was too strong.” A free and secure world requires a strong America led by our brave men and women in uniform. America’s commitment to the defense of our allies should never waver. Today, as we consider the future of Europe, I am particularly concerned about President Obama’s recent decision to scrap our commitment to a missile-defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

Diplomatically, we must not confuse a desire for security and the promotion of democratic values as mutually exclusive goals. When freedom-loving Iranians peacefully took to the streets and Twitter to protest an illegitimate election, we should have been both defenders of the oppressed while continuing to insist on an end to Iran’s nuclear program.

In their time, Pope John Paul II and Ronald Reagan were among the many world leaders who seized the opportunity to highlight Communism’s failures. In doing so, they helped make millions of oppressed people more self-aware of their intrinsic dignity, more confident that their pursuit of freedom was justified, and more hopeful that they were not alone in their struggles.

As the world celebrates today’s 20th anniversary, we must not forget to also stand in solidarity with those still laboring to bring about the fall of other oppressive walls that remain today in places like North Korea, Iran, China, Russia, Cuba, and Venezuela, among many others.

— Marco Rubio is a Republican running for the U.S. Senate in Florida.

via NRO

20 Years Ago Today The Berlin Wall Fell

2009-11-09T15:06:00.001-06:00

Wizbang has a delightful account of the day a mundane news conference turned into a freedom free for all.

I believe we should take great pleasure in the fact that perhaps the single greatest act of liberation during my lifetime came about as the result of a screw-up by a bureaucrat acting as an agent of one of the most repressive Communist regimes in human history.

Secretary of State Clinton is in Germany today, to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall.

I don't think much of Hillary Clinton, but one thing I do know. If she had been President, she would have been there today as President. I think she is proud to be there. So good on her for that.

A Window To the Womb Changes A Heart

2009-11-09T08:52:00.000-06:00

After viewing an abortion ultrasound, Abby Johnson, a Planned Parenthood clinic director in Bryan Texas, has called it quits.

From KBTX.com:

According to Johnson, the non-profit was struggling under the weight of a tough economy, and changing it’s business model from one that pushed prevention, to one that focused on abortion.

“It seemed like maybe that’s not what a lot of people were believing any more because that’s not where the money was. The money wasn’t in family planning, the money wasn’t in prevention, the money was in abortion and so I had a problem with that,” said Johnson.

Johnson said she was told to bring in more women who wanted abortions, something the Episcopalian church goer recently became convicted about. …
Johnson now supports the Coalition For Life, the pro-life group with a building down the street from Planned Parenthood. Coalition volunteers can regularly be seen praying on the sidewalk in front of Planned Parenthood. Johnson has been meeting with the coalition’s executive director, Shawn Carney, and has prayed with volunteers outside Planned Parenthood.

Here is the video of a interview with her. It's amazing.

“…I saw that baby trying to get away from the probe that the doctor was using…I just wanted to make it stop…I could see it twisting and just saw it crumble…I will never do this again.”

My daughter volunteers for Coalition For Life. They are thrilled to welcome Abby. I have always known that the ultrasound, the window to the womb, would change hearts. It is in truth that we will one day open the eyes of all to the horror that is the destruction of our greatest gifts, our children.

Remedial Education for Republicans

2009-11-08T23:21:00.006-06:00

Posted by BigDog

Republicans don't go protesting as a rule. They have jobs and families and their religion, if they have one, involves God, not the State. So Republicans are often not too sophisticated when it comes to organizing or participating in political protests, rallies and events. In contrast the Left practices 'activism' from an early age, in high school and college, they have seminars and classes sponsored by various groups endowed with other people's money. My neighbor recently went to Colorado for a 2 week workshop sponsored by MoveOn. Community Organizing is political organizing, and lets not forget unions. Republicans have nothing to match it, and I see the same mistakes perpetuated by Republicans and Conservatives (NOT the same thing!) and even those of libertarian bent.

I am not an expert on this stuff, but the following are a few suggestions.

1 - Do not show up at rallies or protests with a misspelled sign

Nothing says "Ignoramus" than waving around a sign with obvious spelling or grammar errors. It makes you look like a dumbass, reflects poorly on the people around you AND your cause.

Yes, people will notice. Not only will people notice, but the staff of the newspaper or TV station will be looking for it, and you and your sign will be prominently displayed in any news coverage.

Yes, its a big deal. Images are important in media and ideological opponents will focus in any flaw or mistake one makes. Journalists, as a rule, are liberal democrats and they will do their level best to make hay of it. It might even end up on the internet where you will be the butt of jokes.

There are plenty of online dictionaries available, so there is no excuse for not spelling correctly.

2 - Give one sentence to reporters and shut up

Before you go, have a one liner prepared. If a reporter asks you to say something to the camera, you'd better already have that something in mind, don't make it up on the spot. Be ready. If you don't want to talk to a reporter, or haven't thought about it, then politely decline. You will have FIVE SECONDS, no more. No matter how long you speak or how brilliant your point, it will be edited down to 5 seconds, so there not only is no point whatsoever in going on longer. Its a mistake to do so.

I know, it feels good to get it off your chest. Its nice to have someone listen to your opinion. Don't be deluded. The video or audio of your statements will be edited has harshly as possible. Your sentences will be cut short and taken out of context. The only thing you can do is be polite, smile - DON'T be angry or upset, control your breathing - deep slow breaths. Give your one sentence prepared statement of no more than 7 or 8 words. Then thank the nice reporter and zip it.

Do not let the reporter bait you into saying more, they just want you to chatter so they can edit out anything intelligent you have to say leaving the most banal five seconds. They hope you will say something foolish. Resist the lure to chat.

This is hard. Most of us are taught to be polite and friendly from childhood. The reporter will be smiling at you and seem interested. You must exercise your will.

3 - Take a camera and record the event. Count heads

Take pictures of the event and people, try to get a good account of how many people are there. Take pictures of the media and any counter demonstrators.

Media types will make an effort to minimize your numbers, they will focus in on scattered individuals, take shots from a distance and edit it down. They will avoid getting shots of the best signs or most effective chants. Don't let them get away with it. Share your pics and vids with bloggers or alternative media. Post them on Facebook. Get your viewpoint out there. Don't allow J-school graduates to write the history they want people to know.

Get shots of the crowd at its height, if you try for a head count as people are already leaving, then its too late.

4 - Don't mix your messages

If you are at a rally or protest for one issue, don't mix that issue with others. Sure, others might totally agree with you on that second issue, but not everyone will. Even if 90% of people agree, there will be 10% who will not. You're going to annoy or lose those supporters. Don't assume that everyone there for one issue will agree with you on every other position you have. For example, if you attend a Tea Party against government spending, don't start in on Immigration. Stay focused.

Particularly important if you are speaking publicly at the engagement. Remember that Reagan said that a fella who agrees with him on 80% of the issues is his friend.

5 - Make it pithy and positive

Smile. Be polite. Don't be angry, especially on TV. TV is a 'hot' medium and exaggerates emotion. Its one thing to be passionate, but it honestly takes a professional to bring just the right level of emotion. Reagan was a professional. You are almost certainly not.

Be pithy. Don't blather on hoping that something you say will happen to be memorable. Have your thoughts in order and slogans ready beforehand. Don't make it up as you go. Run your thoughts past someone else. Sometimes what strikes you as pointed or funny in your own mind really won't be.

6 - Dress and appearance are important

Show up dressed appropriately. You are going for a 'non-threatening person who could be living next door' look. This works in both directions. Don't show up dressed in a Brooks Brothers suit, it will give liberals and democrats an excuse to play on resentment and be dismissive. Your Brooks Brothers suit will be noted and used against you, just as a misspelled sign. On the other hand, leave the flip flops and t-shirt with a stupid saying at home. Shower and shave. You don't want to look either scuzzy or affluent.

If anyone has something to add. By all means, please do.

"White power in black face?"

2009-11-08T14:23:00.002-06:00

Kind of different.....

African-American protestors march past the White House in Washington, DC. Decrying Barack Obama as "white power in black face," hundreds of African-Americans marched on the White House Saturday to protest policies of the first black US president, and demand that he bring US troops home.

Health Care Vote Today In The House

2009-11-07T10:57:00.006-06:00

Today is crazy day in the House. They plan to vote on the Health Care Bill. The Hill blog has a list of those Democrats leaning one way or another (Obviously the Republicans are all against).

Pelosi is allowing pro-life Democrats to add an amendment (which will be voted upon) to make sure the Health Care Bill will not fund abortion. God bless these Democrats. Thank you for standing up for life. Pelosi, who is staunch pro-abortion, is only allowing this because she knows she cannot pass this unless she does. The pro-life Democrats may be for universal health care, but they see a disconnect between wanting health care for all, and allowing the willful destruction of life in the same bill. For that I will always have the deepest respect for them.

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) is the leader of the pack on this and don't think he has had it easy. The liberals Democrats have slammed him six ways to Sunday on this.

If the up or down vote is approved to block funding of abortion, the liberal Democrats will howl. If it isn't, you can rest assured that the forty something pro-life Democrats won't vote yes on the health care bill. Like I said...crazy day.

Doesn't it always come down to abortion? Yes. Because it is the horror of society and it's time we dealt with it. 9 men in black robes brought this on us with a case that was based on a lie (Norma McCorvey ( Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) was told by her lawyers to say she was raped. She wasn't. She is pro life now btw). We, the people, never got to debate, vote on it, or look at the implications of it. And until we do, this issue will continue to be the wound that never heals.

Pres. Obama is meeting with the Democrats to show some political muscle to get this 10-year, $1.2 trillion legislation passed.

The other contentious issue is allowing illegal immigrants to be covered. You all remember Congressman Wilson's "You Lie" to Pres. Obama during his speech where Obama insisted that illegals would not be covered.

Well, it looks like he did indeed lie:

House leaders said that, in keeping with the Hispanic Caucus' demands, there was not likely to be any prohibition added to the House bill against illegal immigrants shopping in the exchange.

Or...maybe Obama won't sign it if that is in there, since he promised he wouldn't?

Ok, you can stop laughing now. Of course he will sign it.

All this backdoor game playing goes against what the Democrats and Pres. Obama promised with transparency. They promised to publish the final bill publicly 72 hours before the vote. Another lie.

Right now they are all about verbal fighting and bloviating. Watch it live on C-span.

I'll try to keep you updated, but my son's football team are in the playoffs and I've got a game to go to this afternoon. So, if nothing else, I'll wrap things up tonight.

Update(via NRO): Boehner, Cantor and Pence will all be voting YES on the Stupak amendment, and are putting the word out to members about it.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops also supports the amendment.

Update II: Here is a list of the undecided Democrats. It's basically in their hands whether this passes or not.

I really would be shocked if this didn't pass. Pelosi knows that whatever agreements she makes with moderate Democrats can be changed in conference or at the Senate or, if necessary, at the Supreme Court level. She is just giving moderate Democrats an out with their constitutes. She knows all she needs is the Democrats. I can't think of a more partisan bill that has ever been passed in the House. This will be on the shoulder's of the Democrats.

As of 1pm central time, there will be fours hours of debate on the floor.

But the probability is that we take the fight to the Senate.

Update Sunday morning: As I thought, the house bill passed 220-215, with one Republican who had told the GOP that if they took out the abortion funding that he would probably vote for it.

I, personally, have some mixed feelings. On the one hand I'm not happy that it passed of course, and it helps to know that this bill is dead on arrival in the Senate. The final bill in the Senate will look nothing like this bill. So there is comfort in that. If it passes, it will be a much more conservative bill. On the other hand my core issue won. Life won here. We have finally gotten to the point where our leaders, on both sides, have started to realize that the destruction of an unborn child is not acceptable. Maybe Americans have come to accept the legality of this horror, but they will not accept anything else about it. They will not accept that it is "health issue." It really gives me great hope that so many Democrats were willing to put their careers on the line and go against their party and their President to take a stand for life.

Today, for the first time in a long time, I actually feel some hope for my father's party.

So for everyone that was sick of this healthcare debate, it really is only just beginning.

Update: There is something that needs to be acknowledged here that will be overlooked in the coverage of this. Republicans COULD have voted "present" on the Stupak amendment barring federal funding of abortion in the bill. If they had done that, this amendment would NOT have passed and then this bill would not have passed. That would have been the POLITICAL thing to do. And don't think ALOT of Republicans aren't ticked off at this. But the Republican leadership explained this morning:

"We believe in the sanctity of life, and the Stupak-Pitts Amendment addresses a moral issue of the utmost concern. It will limit abortion in the United States. Because of this, while we strongly and deeply oppose the underlying bill, we decided to stand with Life and support Stupak-Pitts.

"The danger of this bill passing without critical pro-life language was too great a risk to do otherwise. Indeed, a number of Democrat supporters of Stupak-Pitts had privately indicated to many of our colleagues that all they needed for "cover" was a vote, and they would support final passage even if the amendment failed.

"To be clear, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment's passage is the right thing to do. We believe you just don't play politics with life.

In other words, they didn't give up their principles to win like Pelosi did. And this is why I stay Republican.

Many in the GOP will say we could have killed the bill otherwise. But that would have just been delaying the inevitable. We always knew that Pelosi would do whatever it took to get this passed, even giving up her own beliefs to do so. This fight was always going to be in the Senate.

Our leaders stood on principle instead of politics. We go to the fight in the Senate with that virtue carrying us on.....

Pres. Obama Should Be Ashamed

2009-11-06T09:05:00.004-06:00

There is simply no excuse for Pres. Obama to turn down Chancellor Merkel’s invitation to Germany to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall next week on Nov. 9th. None. He should be ashamed. I know I am ashamed for him.

The fall of the Berlin Wall was a great victory for America because it ended the cold war. It literally defined liberty over tyranny. But liberals would rather ignore it because they know that if their policies had been in place, it never would have happened.

Presidents can't be everywhere for everything of course, but what makes this curious is that Obama finds time for many other things that are far less important. His flying off to try and get the Olympics for Chicago comes to mind. And Obama had no problems flying to Berlin while campaigning, because it was all about him.

Sadly, we will never see the moral clarity From Pres. Obama that we saw when Pres. Reagan famously demanded, “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”

The fall of the Berlin Wall represented freedom over totalitarianism and peace through strength. Our strength. One has to wonder why our President can't be bothered to celebrate that.

Please Offer Prayers For The Victims and families at Fort Hood

2009-11-06T07:05:00.000-06:00

I didn't blog on this last night because there was so many rumours and mis-information. I wanted to wait until the dust settled. At the time of the shootings I was following the story on twitter. Twitter is where you want to be when something like this happens, because you get the news before the TV news announces it. It's amazing really. But you also get a lot of mis-information.

I basically always go with what Jake Tapper at ABC News twitters. He always twitters what has been confirmed, so I trust him. It's also fascinating to read tweets from where a story is occuring. I was reading lots of tweets from people in Fort Hood who were on lock down. Many didn't know where their husbands were and were scared. It was a way for us to comfort those people and let them know we were praying for them. I really like that about twitter. It may be the best thing about it.

It seems to be the act of someone who snapped. We can all speculate or dissect the reasons, but in the end one has to be crazy, in my opinion, to kill innocent people in a rampage. There is no justification for it.

MySanAntonio reported:

An imam who was the former leader of a Maryland mosque Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan attended said he was stunned when he heard about Thursday’s shootings.

Faizul Khan of Silver Spring knew Hasan for 10 years and described him as a reserved and polite person with a great sense of humor. The two lost touch when Hasan left Maryland about a year ago, Khan said.

He said Hasan visited the mosque nearly every day to pray and that they often spoke about religious matters.

Hasan was active in the Muslim community and he even registered in a matrimonial service the mosque provides to search for a wife, Khan said.

Khan said he was shocked and dismayed to find the person suspected in the incident was his old friend.

“I keep asking what could have made him do something like that? I was stunned and very surprised,” he said.

Khan said he wanted people to understand Islam condemns the killing of innocent people.

The irony. Right?

Love it!

2009-11-05T16:07:00.001-06:00

From iowntheworld.com

Who says the left/right can't come to terms? At least on Twitter

2009-11-05T13:04:00.000-06:00

I thought I would share this interesting exchange I just had with Anna Marie Cox . She is on The Rachel Maddow show regulary. They just love to use the crude slur "teabaggers' about the tea party protestors and giggle like little school girls who just discovered boys have different parts than they do.

Actually Anna Marie is pretty funny. And she does joke about both sides, but the teabagger thing is just disgusting and crosses the line. So I called her on it. What this exchange proves is that good can come from negativity, and we can all find something to agree on.

*For those who do not twitter. When you see RT, it means the twitterer is retweeting something someone else tweeted. The @ refers to it. When you see the // at the end of a sentence, then it means the person twittering is saying something after that at the end of the comment (It's much easier than it sounds!).

anamariecox in the Get Your Rear in Gear 5k. // It's a good cause, and involves ass! http://bit.ly/1Hx6ll

RWSparkle RT@anamariecox in the Get Your Rear in Gear 5k. // It's a good cause, and involves ass! http://bit.ly/1Hx6ll //That's good since she is one...

anamariecox @RWSparkle And who doesn't love ass? Have you considered giving to the colorectal cancer cause in Tony Snow's memory? http://bit.ly/1Hx6ll

RWSparkle @anamariecox I have a better idea. Why don't you stop using the crude term "teabaggers" in Tony Snow's memory?

RWSparkle Sorry people for breaking my rule of never calling names, but @anamariecox 's constant denigration of good people makes me crazy.

annamariecox RT @RWSparkle: Why don't you stop using the crude term "teabaggers"? // if you donate to fight colorectal cancer, I'll never use it again.

RWSparkle Why don't u stop using the crude term"teabaggers"? //RT @anamariecox if you donate 2 fight colorectal cancer, I'll never use it again// U GOT IT!

RWSparkle EVERYONE NOTE! @anamariecox promised not to use "teabaggers" anymore if I contributed. I'm the TOP contributer http://www.active.com/donate/gyrigalexandria09/amc

RWSparkle @anamariecox I'm taking you at your word. Tony Snow would approve. A good thing to do in his memory.

annamariecox @RWSparkle Personally I think Tony Snow would appreciate the joke (he loved Wonkette!), but your donation is a worthy trade. Thank you.

RWSparkle @anamariecox I love jokes too. But there is a difference between a joke & a slur. I appreciate the trade as well! Good overcomes negativity

RWSparkle @anamariecox And...I apologize for (indirectly) calling you an ass (no matter how much you enjoyed it...;-)

anamariecox Wow, thanks! No more teabagging or teabaggers. What about "teabaggist"? Is that cheating? And, really, thanks.

RWsparkle @anamariecox In reply to your DM. Yes. it would be cheating..;-) And you are welcome.

GOP Health Care Proposal Scored

2009-11-05T10:35:00.003-06:00

From HotAir:

CBO director Douglas Elmendorf scored the new proposal from House Republicans on health-care reform and gave them plenty of ammunition to use against expansive and expensive Democratic plans for government takeovers. Their plan, which relies on interstate competition, HSAs, and tort reform, would only cost $61 billion in the first ten years of the plan — or slightly less than 6% of what Democrats plan to spend to overhaul the entire system.

From CBO Director's Blog:

CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market. Those are averages, however, and they are subject to a great deal of uncertainty; some individuals and families in each market would see different results.

In related news, GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann will be leading a march on Washington DC at noon today to stop the government health care takeover.

Bachmann (R-Minn.) gave the marching orders on a conference call of top activists, many of whom planned to board buses in New Jersey and North Carolina Thursday morning to attend the event that the congresswoman thought up last week. "Nothing is more influential than an eyeball-to-eyeball meeting between a freedom-loving constituent and a member of Congress," she explained. "Nothing scares a member of Congress more than freedom-loving Americans."

Twitpic of the crowd!
Bonus:

Too Funny.

2009-11-04T07:44:00.000-06:00

A Good Day For Republiclans

2009-11-03T22:26:00.003-06:00

A very good day indeed.

For the 2nd time in history, the GOP swept Virginia's statewide races, picking up Governor, Lt. Governor, and Attorney General.

But the biggest story of all is Republican Chris Christie's win as Governor in New Jersey over Gov. Corzine. Unbelievable. Pres. Obama went all out for Corzine.... and this is NEW JERSEY! A blue state and Corzine with more money than you or I could count.

The pundits can argue whether this is a referundum on Obama. I don't care. I'm just glad for good men/women to win.

Honestly, I think Americans are uncomfortable when either party has too much power. With that in mind, 2010 looks good for the GOP.

Also good news, buzz on the hill is that Democrats are saying there will be no Health Care Bill this year. The fight continues in 2010.

Update: I was going to write a separate post on the NY-23 race, but since so many libs here are going with the talking point that this district has been Republican since cave men times and what a loss this is for us, I thought I should address it here because, honestly, you guys don't have a clue.

Let's go back to my post last week on NY-23, which was probably the first you had heard about it. I wrote:

"People like Newt say that splitting our votes will only give the victory to the Democrat, Bill Owens. Maybe. But maybe the Republican establishment will realize if they don't back real conservatives, they LOSE. We just aren't going to take it anymore. If that means we lose a few races to prove our point, then fine. We may lose the battles, but we will sure as hell will win this war within our own party."

This district may have been Republican, but it wasn't conservative. Only LIBERAL Republicans have been elected there. What good are liberal Republicans? They don't vote with us, they vote with the Democrats. It's pathetic and we are going to put a stop to it.

We were totally vindicated with this. The Republican Scozzafava turned out to be the backstabbing betrayer we knew she would be. On the day she quit she says she will be forever a loyal Republican, and 48 hours later she switches to being a Democrat.

A better "I told you so" to the RNC could not have happened.

Here was this no name nerdy CPA with no political experience and no charisma AND running on a 3rd party ticket and he almost won??? Incredible.

Imagine if the RNC had picked someone ready to be a candidate. Imagine if they had run a conservative like that, and thrown $900,000 at him like they did Scozzafava. Imagine that, and you have a winner.

This was a message to our party. We didn't expect to win. We are amazed this guy go so close, especially since the Democrat was a goodlooking charasmatic guy whose Republican opponent BACKED him in the race.

Come on. Don't let you partisanship blind you from the truth of this.

Like I said in my post at the beginning, we will lose some of the battles, but we sure as hell are going to win this war in our party.

We are the party of Reagan. When we act like it, we win. The RNC is going to learn that.....or they lose.

Oh, and one more thing. For those who think this was telling of Palin. Yeah. She took this guy from 13% to 46% in a few weeks.

I have to add this too. Obama did get a win last night. Since he is against same sex marriage, he won in Maine. So..there is that...;-)

2009-11-03T16:33:00.000-06:00

2009-11-03T13:35:00.001-06:00

The Amazing North Houston Tea Party at Sam Houston Race Park

2009-11-03T07:37:00.008-06:00

There is something so heartwarming being out under a big star filled Texas sky with thousands of people who share my passions and values.

Last night I attended The North Houston Tea Party, and helped out my man Claver T of RagingElephants.com at his booth. Since I introduced Claver here at the Chron, his passion for bringing minorities into the GOP has taken him all over the country. It's amazing how his speaking career has taken off.

Claver gave the invocation and spoke about what the tea parties mean to us. It's true we have a long way to go to bring in African Americans and Latinos. But it starts here and it starts now. Any one who reads my blogs knows what this means to me. So what happened next really warmed my heart. When Claver said that we need to "rage into the neighborhoods of the Latinos, African Americans, and Asians and say, 'You belong with us! You share our values. Come home to us!" It got the biggest cheers and yells of anything else he said.

As always the tea party started with the Pledge of Allegiance (led by the NJROTC of Spring High School) and The National Anthem and a Military salute.

Other guest speakers were Joe Pagliarulo (The Joe Pags Show of the 950am radio) and Outlaw Dave. Walton and Johnson, Jim "Mattress Mac" Mcingvale, and Lord Christopher Monckton.

This tea party was about what all tea parties are about, upholding the Constitution, limited government, fiscal responsibility, and political action.

I got to meet many fascinating people. The tea parties call for a new breed of politicians. We are tired of career politicians. Well, no group says that better than the GOOOH group I met. GOOOH is building a base of supporters in order to add a candidate to the ballet in all states to select our 435 nominees. Their goal is to evict EVERY SINGLE Representative that is there now. Wow. Their candidates would represent the district they are from. In other words, if you come from a liberal district, then a liberal candidate would be running. If you are from a Conservative district, then a conservative candidate is picked. It's up to the people. The candidates then sign a legal contract agreeing to run for no more than two, two year terms. That way they don't focus on fund-raising or pandering for the next election. It's quite an undertaking, but I have to admire this movement.

I met Debra Medina who is running for Governor of Texas. She is, without a doubt, THE conservative/libertarian candidate. With the success of people like Hoffman in New York scaring off the career/liberal Republican candidate, she is feeling pretty good about her run.

I spoke to Nina Garza who was campaigning for Republican Roy Morales for Mayor of Houston. We talked about what it means to be a conservative Latino and how to bring more Latinos into our party. I'll say this about Roy Morales. You couldn't find a more hardworking candidate anywhere. No matter how small the venue, no matter how insignificant your group might seem, Roy was there this past year. There is no doubt he cares about the people.

But the most interesting person there had to be Suzanne Guggenheim. She is the founder of the North Houston Tea party. Here is a wife, mother, and entrepreneur in her 60's who just also happens to be an immigrant to this country who is fiercely patriotic. Why? Because Suzanne was born in a part of Europe that was occupied by Hitler. Her family escaped to Paris, France. In her 20's she was a part of a freedom fighting movement against socialism. After moving to the United States in 1981 she never expected that she would be a part of another freedom fighting movement, but when she saw the government taking control from the people in the ways it is now, she knew it was time to get into the fight again.

This is what has been the most amazing thing to me. Felica Cravens of the Houston Tea Parties and now Suzanne Guggenheim of the North Houston Tea Parties. Just two women living their lives in Texas, not involved in politics before, who decided enough was enough. And now they organize events that bring in tens of thousands of people to rally for freedom. I am so proud of them.

It's an amazing American story.

She's on Fire Folks!

2009-11-02T14:10:00.000-06:00

Palin to Biden

2009-11-02T13:42:00.004-06:00

I love that Palin is not letting this administration get a way with ANYTHING. Who needs the New York Times to distort things you say (or refuse to publish it), when you can say it straight up on Facebook?

As the vice president knows, I have always advocated an all-of-the-above approach to American energy independence. Among other things, my alternative energy goal for Alaska sits at 50 percent because Alaska reached more than 20 percent during my term in office. The Obama-Biden administration, on the other hand, recently announced a renewable goal of only 25 percent. However, domestic drilling should remain a top priority in order to meet America’s consumption and security needs.

The vice president’s extreme opposition to domestic energy development goes all the way back to 1973 when he opposed the Alaska pipeline bill. As Ann Coulter pointed out, “Biden cast one of only five votes against the pipeline that has produced more than 15 billion barrels of oil, supplied nearly 20 percent of this nation’s oil, created tens of thousands of jobs, added hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. economy and reduced money transfers to the nation’s enemies by about the same amount.”

This nonsensical opposition to American domestic energy development continues to this day. Apparently the Obama-Biden administration only approves of offshore drilling in Brazil, where it will provide security and jobs for Brazilians. This election is about American security and American jobs.

There’s one way to tell Vice President Biden that we’re tired of folks in Washington distorting our message and hampering our nation’s progress: Hoffman, Baby, Hoffman!

- Sarah Palin

It's Palin, Baby, Palin!

Memo to Gov. Perry of Texas: Williams Is The One

2009-11-02T10:32:00.001-06:00

I see The Houston Chronicle finally did a piece on Republican Michael Williams, who is running for Kay Bailey Hutchinson's Senate seat if she ever really decides to resign to run for Governor of our great state .

If and when Hutchinson resigns, Perry will appoint someone to the seat. If appointed, Williams would be the first black Senator from Texas:

Some close to Williams say it is a head-versus-heart decision for Perry — pick someone with money or someone with grass-roots support whose appointment would be historic.

Memo to Gov. Perry: Pick Williams because he is the best one for the job. The money will come and the historic aspect of it is icing on the cake, but at the heart of it, who is the best person? Without a doubt, that is Michael Williams. I've rarely met a politician who is more sincere, more down to earth, and more ready to be Senator.

He is a grassroots conservative. He is exactly what the GOP needs more of. He understands fiscal responsibility, and he is proud of his conservative values and principles.

There has been a loud voice crying out in the GOP. It's the voice of the people who are saying that we don't need any more establishment politicians. We need fresh faces and fresh voices that represent our values.

Gov. Perry, be a part of this new revolution in our party. Do the right thing. The fact that another candidate is "rich" shouldn't even factor into the equation. The Democrats are the party of the rich now. Let's let them have it. We don't need elites. We need good people. Williams is that and more. There is a reason that his endorsement list outstrips other candidates.

So if Kay decides she is ready to take you on, you need to show her right off the bat that you are ready to take this party where it needs to go, back to it's roots. Back to small government, lower taxes, property rights, gun rights, and the principles this country was founded upon. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You can show her that by appointing Michael Williams to her seat.

Happy Halloween!

2009-10-31T13:44:00.004-05:00

Halloween has always been a really great time at our house. My daughter was born on Nov. 1st, so every year we would have a Halloween themed party. It was always so fun. We've had everything from a full out haunted house to a spooky tea party. When she was in Jr. High, I put black plastic on the walls of our three car garage and decorated it to the hilt with spiders, pumpkins and cobwebs. We had a fog machine and a stobe light and her older brother and friend DJ the dance. Everyone came in costume and it was a blast. She is in college now. I do miss those parties. Anyway, a few years ago I posted on the background of Halloween, so I thought I'd repost it today.

"The true origins of Halloween lie with the ancient Celtic tribes who lived in Ireland, Scotland, Wales and Brittany. For the Celts, November 1 marked the beginning of a new year and the coming of winter. The night before the new year, they celebrated the festival of Samhain, Lord of the Dead. During this festival, Celts believed the souls of the dead—including ghosts, goblins and witches—returned to mingle with the living. In order to scare away the evil spirits, people would wear masks and light bonfires.

When the Romans conquered the Celts, they added their own touches to the Samhain festival, such as making centerpieces out of apples and nuts for Pomona, the Roman goddess of the orchards. The Romans also bobbed for apples and drank cider—traditions which may sound familiar to you. But where does the Christian aspect of the holiday come into play? In 835, Pope Gregory IV moved the celebration for all the martyrs (later all saints) from May 13 to November 1. The night before became known as All Hallow’s Even or “holy evening.” Eventually the name was shortened to the current Halloween. On November 2, the Church celebrates All Souls Day.

The purpose of these feasts is to remember those who have died, whether they are officially recognized by the Church as saints or not. It is a celebration of the “communion of saints,” which reminds us that the Church is not bound by space or time.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that through the communion of saints “a perennial link of charity exists between the faithful who have already reached their heavenly home, those who are expiating their sins in purgatory and those who are still pilgrims on earth. Between them there is, too, an abundant exchange of all good things” (#1475)."

Saint Anthony Messenger.

Happy Halloween Everyone! Have Fun!

Big Trouble Brewing in The GOP

2009-10-29T10:26:00.006-05:00

In case you haven't noticed, there is troubling brewing in the Republican party. As I have said all along, the tea parties were not just about Obama, the Democrats, and the overreaching and over spending of government. It was also about the Republican party. Many of us who are Republican are fed up with our party as well. We are sick of politicians who claim to be Republican, but spend like a Democrat (Pres. Bush, can you hear me?). We are sick of Republicans who compromise their principles. We are sick of Republicans who are, for all intent and purposes, a Democrat.

Last year when head of then NRSC, our own Sen. John Cornyn backed Arlen Specter for re-election (before he changed parties), Republicans went ballistic. I can't tell you the anger I saw. Of course Specter left Cornyn out hanging to dry, so that's what he gets for his trouble. But it's much more than Specter. It's about the people of the Republican party up against the establishment of the Republican party. It's a battle that the leaders of the GOP do not want to talk about. But it's there, it's brewing, and it's about to boil over.

Republicans who voted for TARP and the Stimulus bill only added fuel to the fire. Enough is enough. It was time to fight back.

This is what I was talking about in my post earlier this week on "NY-23" regarding the harbinger of change for the Republican party. The special election in District 23in New York has a three-way race, but Republicans are more interested in the race between Republican party backed Dede Scozzafava and Conservative party Doug Hoffman than they are the Democrat. This is people v. Party, make no mistake about it. Newt Gingrich came out for Scozzafav and has been excoriated for it. Sarah Palin, Dick Armey, Steve Forbs. and Gov.Tim Pawlenty are backing Hoffman. Newt says it's all about local control. Yeah.....you see Newt, we have a big problem with "local control" of the GOP as well. The old GOP needs to get on board or get out of the way. Did you wonder why the latest poll shows conservatives as the largest ideological group in the country at 40% (liberals are at 21%), yet only 20% identify themselves as Republican? This is why.

This situation is also brewing in our Governor's race. Former Vice President Dick Cheney is endorsing Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison in her bid to unseat incumbent Gov. Rick Perry. Sarah Palin has endorsed Gov. Rick Perry.

Now, a lot of people might say that Rick Perry is old school GOP as well, but I think Perry wisely saw the writing on the wall, and did things we liked. He rejected the strings attached federal stimulus funds. This was big and it was important to us. Then the icing on that cake was when he argued the 10th Amendment for state rights, and that he might resist the federal health mandate should Obamacare succeed. He rightly claimed that a government run healthcare system is financially unstable and that states must find solutions to their problems. Then in April, Perry announced his support for a non-binding resolution in the Texas House that says the federal government has overstepped the authority granted to it by the Constitution.

That roar you hear in the background is millions of people shouting, "It's about time!!!"

So Perry kind of won his street cred with the tea party protesters there.

Cheny vs. Palin. Could it be more delicious?

Politically it's just fascinating now. The liberals are starting to get very upset with their Mr. Wonderful, Obama, who is not living up to anyone's expectations, and then there is this internal battle in the Republican party that has only just begun.

If Republicans think they can slide into 2010 on the back of an unhappy out of work populace disappointed with Democrats, they better think again. Republicans used to say that "any Republican would be better than a Democrat." We don't say that anymore. Now, we say, "Be the small government, low taxes, property rights, gun right, and pro-life Republican we want, or get off the stage."

The fact is, it couldn't get any worse than it is right now. Maybe a good taste of Democratic leadership is what this country needs to see how sorry that is.

In other words, just because you have a "R" next to your name, doesn't mean we are going to vote for you. Prove yourself. Tell me you believe in the constitution. Tell me you believe in state rights. Tell me you will not spend any more money that we don't have. Tell me you will not allow this government to take over private industry. Tell me you will let business thrive with low taxes, less red tape, and incentives. Tell me you believe in freedom, liberty, and the principles this country was founded upon. Tell me that government was never meant to be our daddy. Tell me that we will teach people not to depend on the government, but to bear responsibility for their own lives.

Tell me all that, and then we will vote for you. Just because the GOP has backed you, does not mean you automatically get my support anymore.

No more.

Stay tuned. 2010 is sure to be a doozy.

Bless This Democrat For Doing The Right Thing

2009-10-28T12:25:00.002-05:00

From The Hill:

Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) on Tuesday threatened that he may work with Republicans to torpedo healthcare reform unless he gets a vote to strip abortion-related provisions out of the House bill.

Stupak wants a floor vote on a measure that would prohibit taxpayer funds from being used for abortions. And in an interview on C-SPAN on Tuesday, he suggested if Democratic leaders don’t give him the vote, he’ll work with Republicans.

It gets better:

According to Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.), an ardent opponent of abortion rights, Stupak is confident in the support he has within the Democratic Caucus. Stupak said he has about 40 Democrats who will vote no on healthcare reform unless Democratic leaders change their bill on the abortion language.

Sometimes I see a glimmer of hope for the Democratic party. This is one of them. Start being the party of life, the one who stands up for the most vulnerable in our society, and then I will have respect for you again.

There are many issues that I disagree with with the Republican party. Believe it or not, I would LOVE to be able to consider voting for a Democrat. I would love for all people to respect the value of human life so we could concentrate on other issues.

It's pretty simple. Without the right to life, all other rights are moot.

Whether a politician understands this is fundamental to me. A leader, to me, must respect the value of human life. I can tell you right now, with all I know about Stupak, I would vote for him, if I were in Michigan, over a pro choice Republican any day.

Palin Power

2009-10-27T16:00:00.002-05:00

Sarah Palin was paid $1.25 million for her book "Going Rogue," as "a retainer."

It's likely she will be make more money when it's all said and done. "Going Rogue" catapulted to No. 1 on Amazon.com and Barnes & Noble.com after HarperCollins announced in late September it had moved up the release date of 1.5 million copies from spring to Nov. 17.

Palin will appear on "The Oprah Winfrey Show" the day before the release of her book, which is currently listed at No. 6 on Amazon.com and No. 11 on Barnes & Noble.com.

Laugh at the liberals and media who tried to destroy you all the way to the bank sister.

You deserve every penny.

White House attacking Fox News Makes No Sense

2009-10-27T06:50:00.004-05:00

Like almost all political pundits (liberal and conservative), I just didn't get the strategy behind the White House going after Fox News. If it was to isolate them, or make people think twice about watching it, it has failed miserably:

Nielsen: Fox News ratings up almost 10% since WH declared war

It’s a nine-percent bump in the two weeks since Anita Dunn’s whine heard ’round the world — in terms of overall audience. Among the coveted 25-54 demographic? A 14-percent bump.
............

Red Eye,” at 3 a.m., is beating Campbell Brown at 8 p.m. on CNN in the demo. (Worse, perhaps: Anderson Cooper is getting beat by … re-runs of Nancy Grace.)

I heard someone on TV with this theory. They think the White House did this to distract the news organizations from other issues that the White House is losing on right now. Health care, the war, and the economy. It could be, but bringing more Americans in as viewers of Fox News, that will report the stories on the White House, seems rather stupid to me. As wrong as this White House is on the issues, I never thought they were stupid.

Maybe I was wrong there.

This is not related (except for maybe the stupid part), but it is necessary to point out. Remember when White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel went on a Sunday talk show and said that Obama is having such a hard time with Afghanistan because they had to start from scratch? And then Cheney said in a speech that they were indeed briefed and handed over all the findings of the Bush administration. Cheney says that their strategy in January was remarkably similar to the one the Bush administration left to them.

Well, Gibbs avoided the question the first time around, but this time he was forced to answer:

In the press gaggle aboard Air Force One this afternoon, White House Press Secretary Gibbs admitted the Obama administration received and was briefed on the Bush team's review of Afghanistan.

Gibbs bobs and weaves, but it's clear that Cheney was telling the truth. I just find it astonishing that Rahm thought he could get away with it.

NY-23

2009-10-26T10:52:00.004-05:00

"NY-23" might just be the new rallying cry of the people of the Republican party. Not the establishment, not the leaders, not the politicians, but THE PEOPLE.

What is NY-23? BigDog explained in a post yesterday:

District 23 in New York is having a special election for their House seat. Its a three-way race which surprisingly includes a strong third party challenge from Doug Hoffman from the Conservative party.

The GOP is backing the "Republican" candidate Dede Scozzafava. I put the word Republican in quotes because she is hardly Republican. She isn't even a RINO. She is more like a Democrat wearing a Republican mask.

Sarah Palin has used her political might to back Hoffman. Newt Gingrich has backed the establishment with Scozzafava. So basically it's the old good ole boy network against the new face of the party. One that doesn't put up with RINOS or Democrats masquerading as one.

Why is this little race important? Because it will be a harbinger of change. It hopefully will wake up the Republican party to the fact that these tea parties weren't just against the over reaching government of the Obama administration, but also against Republicans that don't hold true to our values and principles. Be a true Republican or get off the stage.

I hope that Scozzafava is shown off the stage. She is hardly different from the Democrat she opposes. She is pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, she approved of the President's stimulus plan, and she is supported by Big Labor and Big Education. Even the founder of Daily Kos endorse her for God's sake.

Hoffman is not a career politician. He is a CPA that came from a poor background and made a success of his life. He is the epitome of what the tea parties were about. He is tired of Washington stifling businesses and people with taxes.

People like Newt say that splitting our votes will only give the victory to the Democrat, Bill Owens. Maybe. But maybe the Republican establishment will realize if they don't back real conservatives, they LOSE. We just aren't going to take it anymore. If that means we lose a few races to prove our point, then fine. We may lose the battles, but we will sure as hell will win this war within our own party.

Watch this race closely. If Hoffman wins it will be fantastic for the Republican party. If Scozzafave loses, I hope the GOP will understand finally that we aren't following their misguided lead. Maybe they will think twice about races like the one for the U.S. Senate next year from Florida, and let Marco Rubio have a chance to beat wish washy Florida governor Charlie Crist in the primary.

NY-23!!! Let's make it happen for conservatives!! Give to Hoffman HERE.

Troll Alert

2009-10-26T07:23:00.007-05:00

As many of you know I have a troll that has stalked me (and other conservative bloggers) for many years. She was the "manny" that was so absurdly wrong regarding my post about the other networks defending Fox News recently. Here is the comment she left at at my Chron blog:

Kathleen you have fallen yet again. Manny is me -- Michelle -- your supposed "stalker" but I am just trying to keep you honest. I love that you quoted me. Mission accomplished! In the meantime you publish my tripe while the surge in Iraq is failing. Where is you cheer for the troops? Like it helped at all. Laughable is all I can say.

Folks, remember when I said the troll comments make me laugh? This one really did. Imagine how sad one's life must be when your greatest delight is that you used a sockpuppet name to comment on the blogger that you stalk (yes, for 4 yrs she stalks me. It's pathetic). Oh wow. She really got me right? Heh. At least she admits it's "tripe." Iraq is failing? Uh, no. That would be Afhganistan. Our President "dithers" while our boys die. 16 civilians today. Over 50 soldiers dead and over a 1000 Afghan civilians. But that's ok, Obama needs a few more weeks to decide what to do.

For anyone who like to see what my troll looks like and how she uses our taxpayer money to use computers that you and I pay for to leave troll comments everywhere, go HERE (another blogger she stalked) and scroll down comments to comment 41 for her picture and comment 47 on how she uses our taxpayer money. You might want to use her work information to let her boss know. I would suggest calling since I think she runs the website and your e-mails might not get through. Feel free to e-mail the President of the school though.

This is what she does for fun. It's a sad life, isn't it? Michelle, you don't have to sockpuppet anymore. You use your real name and I will publish your comments along with your info of course.-TexasSparkle

http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=9680

Nothing In Washington Has "Changed". It Was Nice to "Hope"though....

2009-10-26T05:55:00.000-05:00

So says.....MSNBC, First Read??????:

The more things change…: Bloomberg's Al Hunt writes a column that has been waiting to be written: All of the promise of changing the way Washington does business hasn't been turned into a reality yet by the president. One just has to look at his fundraising schedule to see that the political realities continue to creep in. While unrelated, today's Washington Post story about Dem Rep. Pete Visclosky's use of earmarks to raise money is a reminder how just how the culture hasn't changed all that much, even as the party in control did change. Just asking, but if the president had vetoed an appropriations bill that contained earmarks (which he could have done this past spring), would he be looking like more of a change agent, making it harder for the Al Hunts of the world to note how the president has spent more time promising change than delivering on it? Speaking of vetoes, anyone else surprised he hasn't found something to veto? Talk about a way to show some Washington independence at a time when the rest of the country has had it up to HERE with Washington.

Against the Establishment

2009-10-25T18:38:00.002-05:00

Posted by BigDog

A short Sitrep: District 23 in New York is having a special election for their House seat. Its a three-way race which surprisingly includes a strong third party challenge from Doug Hoffman from the Conservative party. Recent events have shed light on and damaged the Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava. Including calling the police on a Weekly Standard journalist. Honestly, what a wimp.

Many prominant Republicans have endorsed Scozzafava, including Newt Gingrich. Gingrich's strongest argument is that we can't let the Perfect be the enemy of the Good. While I understand and agree with the concept, I don't think Scozzafava is the Good at all, therefore his premise is wrong. She says she opposes Cap and Trade and ObamaCare. Well and good. While she has signed a no new taxes pledge, I think its questionable given her later statements. She also favored the Stimulus and is endorsed by labor unions, the NEA, abortion groups like Planned Parenthood and of all people Markos Moulitsas of the Daily Kos. Huh.

(For the record, I am not anti-abortion, but imo Planned Parenthood is a radical leftist ideological group as much if not more than an abortion group.)

His other strong argument is that she was chosen by the local Republican establishment, as opposed to the national one. Fair enough. But that doesn't mean Gingrich is obligated to endorse her just because she has an (R) behind her name. IMO, Scozzafava in office as a Republican would be worse than having democrat of any political leaning.

Doug Hoffaman isn't perfect by any means. In his NY Post article he talks entirely too much about himself and he refers to the "9 trillian dollar deficit", I think he means 9 trillian dollar DEBT. Oops. Dude, have someone proofread. But Hoffman is the Good. He is endorsed by Sarah Palin, Dick Armey and Santorum, the Club for Growth and much of the Conservative base.

Its this kind of thing that proves Palin is a genuine rogue - dare I say genuine Maverick? - willing to buck her own party on principle. As opposed to a community organizer who votes Present most of the time or an old Mcfart who picks whatever position will give him the most notoriety.

Were I in District 23 and I had only the choice between the Republican Dede Scozzafava and Democrat Bill Owens, I would vote for the Democrat. Running Scozzafava is the very establishment Republican behavior which lost the 2006 and 2008 elections as well as leading to a relatively weak showing in 2004. Scozzafava is the type of candidate or elected official who would actively damage Republicans. Ours is a center-right nation, and moving center-left in hopes of capturing a minority of votes while alienating the majority is a losing strategy.

When a Hoax Is Something To Worry About

2009-10-25T16:53:00.005-05:00

One of my commenters made me aware of Rush Limbaugh falling for a hoax regarding Obama's college thesis. I hadn't heard about it because, believe it or not, conservatives don't listen to Rush all the time. But I found it interesting because I was watching CNN this morning and Howard Kurtz (who happens to be one of the few journalist I respect on CNN) was exasperated with another hoax.

Remember back during the presidential campaign when MSNBC reported that that someone "inside the McCain campaign" had leaked that Sarah Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent? Well, the "insider" was Martin Eisenstadt, a person who actually doesn't exist. That's right. The leaks that were smearing Palin was a joke, a hoax.

Not only did David Shuster of MSNBC report the smear, but to this day people still spread that lie about Palin. Shuster even identified the non existent person in another newscast as a "McCain Policy Advisor, Martin Eisenstadt" reporting that he had come "forward today to identify himself as the source of the leaks.”

Sure, anyone can fall for a hoax. But as people delight in the fact that Rush fell for one, they might want to think about the fact that Rush is just a talk show host, and David Shuster is supposedly a journalist reporting the hard news. When a journalist is quoting a non existent person it means that they didn't bother to check out the person at all. It's called Journalism 101.

This is why people don't trust the media.

Update: Ryan tells me that Rush didn't fall for the hoax but used it as an example of how they misquoted him. That sounds more like it. But since I didn't hear it, I can't judge.

Conservative Women; Making a Difference.

2009-10-25T14:22:00.004-05:00

Three women the left love to bash more than any that came before, are Sarah Palin, Liz Cheney, and Michelle Bachmann. Why? Because they are strong smart conservative women who embrace their roles as mothers and activists for conservative causes. There is simply nothing the left hates more. Which is why the attacks on Sarah Palin were unprecedented and the ones coming at Liz Cheney and Michelle Bachmann are starting to catch up to the smears Palin had to endure.

I cannot tell you how much I admire these women. They talk the talk AND they walk the walk. I didn't think I could admire Michelle Bachmann (a Republican Congresswoman from Minnesota's 6th Congressional District) more than I do now, But then I didn't know this about her:

"She and Marcus, a clinical psychologist, were raising their children -- they had four then; they have five now -- and, as foster parents, were raising some other people's children, 23 of them, a few teenagers at a time."

This is walking the walk folks.

Like me, she turned away from liberalism. I voted for Jimmy Carter, She and her husband danced at Jimmy Carter's inauguration. Both of us were changed by Ronald Reagan.

Sarah Palin is making an impact in politics and in political races through facebook. Truly amazing. Liz Cheney is making sure we are aware of what the White House is doing and not doing that is making us less safe. She has begun a new group called "Keep America Safe."

These political firebrands do this all while having five children each (and many more with foster kids in Bachmann's case). I may not agree on every single issue, but I know we share the same values, vision, and hope for America. Whenever I start to feel down from all that is happening politically in our country, I think of these women and what they fight for, and it makes me proud and happy once again.

whatever happens, It gives me great hope to know that these women are fighting the good fight.

Give Credit Where Credit Is Due (Update Below)

2009-10-23T07:17:00.004-05:00

Sometimes people do the right thing when you least expect it.

Via Fausta's Blog:

Charles Krauthammer explains,

Then on Thursday, the administration tried to make them complicit in an actual boycott of Fox. The Treasury Department made available Ken Feinberg, the executive pay czar, for interviews with the White House “pool” news organizations — except Fox. The other networks admirably refused, saying they would not interview Feinberg unless Fox was permitted to as well. The administration backed down.

I think maybe the journalists understand that what goes around comes around. When a Republican administration comes back (and let's hope that is sooner than later), they could just follow Obama's lead and only give interviews TO Fox News. If the media doesn't rise up against this now, then they will have no credibility to complain if that happens (I don't think it would happen with a Republican administration, but the media is better safe than sorry).

Also, read Krauthammer's article. It's excellent. It outlines this Chicago type politics that this administration came from. Did you know that Rahm Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a pollster? I didn't know that. It's like a movie about the mafia, really.

The more we know about this administration, the more surreal it is.

UPDATE: It seems the left is spreading a certain meme to prove that (heaven forbid!) the other networks were NOT standing up for Fox News. No, no, Talking Points Memo put this out to prove it was simply a technical issue:

Feinberg did a pen and pad with reporters to brief them on cutting executive compensation. TV correspondents, as they do with everything, asked to get the comments on camera. Treasury officials agreed and made a list of the networks who asked (Fox was not among them).

But logistically, all of the cameras could not get set up in time or with ease for the Feinberg interview, so they opted for a round robin where the networks use one pool camera. Treasury called the White House pool crew and gave them the list of the networks who'd asked for the interview.

The network pool crew noticed Fox wasn't on the list, was told that they hadn't asked and the crew said they needed to be included. Treasury called the White House and asked top Obama adviser Anita Dunn. Dunn said yes and Fox's Major Garrett was among the correspondents to interview Feinberg last night'

In reference to Manny's assertion that my post and Krauthammer is inaccurate, I didn't realize at the time he was quoting The Talking Point Memo. Which is laughable in itself. Not only leftwing, but known for it's own inaccuracies. Manny's supposedly "correct" version is an unsourced post by Christina Bellantoni at the leftwing Talking Points Memo. So please. I think I'll take Krauthammer over TPM any day.

What is amusing about this is that the left does not want anyone to IMAGINE that the other networks would show integrity by doing this. The bigger story here is, of course, that the White House tried to exclude a news organization and was rebuffed, whatever the reason you want to believe, even the TPM one, this is an embarrasement to the administration for trying to manipulate the media and failing.

But if you would like to hear from someone else on this instead of the left leaning TMP and the right leaning Krauthammer, how about White house reporter from CBS?:

"And on Thursday, the Treasury Department tried to exclude FOX News from pool coverage of interviews with a key official. It backed down after strong protests from the press.

"All the networks said, that's it, you've crossed the line," said CBS News White House correspondent Chip Reid."

Nice, Talking Points Memo, but your spin didn't work this time.

Update II: Another meme TPM tried to put out there (and picked up by the associated press I might add) was that Fox News hadn't asked for an interview and THAT was why Fox wasn't included. Yeah.... That isn't true either:

Today Fox News provided more details on the sequence of events to the Huffington Post.

“Of course we requested an interview,” Fox News Senior Vice President Michael Clemente told the Huffington Post.

This directly contradicts reports by the Associated Press and Talking Points Memo, both of which reported that the White House had excluded Fox News because it did not request an interview.
........................

Clemente said that CBS News Washington Bureau Chief and current pool chairman Chris Isham — who did not respond to phone or e-mail requests for comment Saturday — received a call from the Treasury Department Thursday saying that Feinberg would be available to speak to all of the networks in the pool except for Fox News, and that Bloomberg would be included instead.

Clemente said that when Isham presented that scenario on a conference call with the other pool members — including Fox News — "they unanimously said, instantly, no, that's not gonna fly. Either Fox is in or none of us is doing it."

So, you guys who so desperately wanted to believe that the other networks wouldn't stand up for Fox News will have to accept the disappointment that they really did do the right thing and go against the Obama administration. Sorry.

HHS Sec. Sebelius Could Learn Something From Her Cancer

2009-10-22T10:07:00.005-05:00

AP Photo/Susan Walsh

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius appeared before a Senate panel Wednesday with a bandage on her forehead and a puffy eye.

I wondered what had happened to Sec. Sebelius so I checked the WaPo and found this:

Sebelius had a basal cell carcinoma removed from her forehead on Tuesday during a successful standard outpatient procedure, according to HHS spokeswoman Jenny Backus.

"She is back fighting to get everyone the same good health care she has," Backus said in an e-mail.

She just had to throw that in there, didn't she?

Keep in mind that Sebelius recently said that she is "all for a single payer system eventually."

A single payer system like the NHS (National Health Service of Great Britain) perhaps? I happen to find someone online who also had a similar, although more rare, cancer, Merkel Cell Carcinoma. He found a spot above his elbow. You can go here to read his journey though the kind of system where "everyone receives the same good health care." It begins in June of 2004 and was last updated in August of 2008 (check out the photos linked on the left. They will freak you out).

If you think that is just one person, you might want to check out this helpful page called "CancerHelp UK." It has all kind of information for you if you are under the UK's nationalized health care system. Like this for instance:

"There can be quite a long wait to see a dermatologist. This can be very worrying if you are concerned you may have cancer. But non melanoma skin cancer takes years to develop in most cases. Waiting a few weeks isn't likely to do any harm."

You wouldn't have minded waiting, would you Ms. Sebelius?

If you read the journal link I posted above, you might get an idea of what happens when you wait a few weeks.

Ms. Sebelius, this is the kind of care you would have received under a single payer system or a government run "public option. So why don't you inform your spokesperson to not use your cancer scare as a propaganda piece for government run health care, when it is clear that you would never have received the kind of excellent care you did anywhere else but here, and without a government system.

Dick Cheney sets us straight on Afghan war policy

2009-10-22T06:48:00.006-05:00

Everyone is talking about Dick Cheney's speech yesterday. Here's the money quote (via HotAir):

“Recently, President Obama’s advisors have decided that it’s easier to blame the Bush Administration than support our troops. This weekend they leveled a charge that cannot go unanswered. The President’s chief of staff claimed that the Bush Administration hadn’t asked any tough questions about Afghanistan, and he complained that the Obama Administration had to start from scratch to put together a strategy.

“In the fall of 2008, fully aware of the need to meet new challenges being posed by the Taliban, we dug into every aspect of Afghanistan policy, assembling a team that repeatedly went into the country, reviewing options and recommendations, and briefing President-elect Obama’s team. They asked us not to announce our findings publicly, and we agreed, giving them the benefit of our work and the benefit of the doubt. The new strategy they embraced in March, with a focus on counterinsurgency and an increase in the numbers of troops, bears a striking resemblance to the strategy we passed to them. They made a decision – a good one, I think – and sent a commander into the field to implement it.

“Now they seem to be pulling back and blaming others for their failure to implement the strategy they embraced. It’s time for President Obama to do what it takes to win a war he has repeatedly and rightly called a war of necessity.”

This was necessary to say since White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel had said on the Sunday talk shows that the Obama administration had had to "start from scratch" in Afghanistan because there was no policy in place.

This is the astonishing thing. The Obama administration ASKED the Bush administration NOT to make these findings public and because the Bush White House agreed, they actually decided that it was ok to go on the news and LIE to the American people about it. Did they really think that they could get away with that? The ego involved here is mindboggling.

Here is the former Vice President of the United States clearly calling out this administration in a lie so egregious that it demands our full attention. I don't remember anything like this before. Will the MSM (other than Fox News) cover it? At 6:54 am central time I take a look at CNN.com and see nothing at all about Cheney's speech. MSNBC? Nada. ABC News? If you click on Jake Tapper's page you will read about it. Why? Because Jake Tapper is one of the last great journalists who never lets his own politics effect his reporting. George Stephanopoulos mentions that Cheney "took a swipe" at the Obama administration. A swipe? Really? The Obama administration is lying about our war strategy and it's just "a swipe?" Seems the last time a White House was accused of lying about a war strategy, we couldn't pass by a newspaper or a news program without that point of view screaming at us. CBS news has zero about it in their "Top Political News," but thank goodness they have the important story of Michelle Obama hula hooping there.

I am beginning to wonder how much the msm is willing to ignore about this White House until they find their journalistic integrity again. That is, if they have any left.

Fox News Unhurt By White House Boycott

2009-10-22T06:30:00.000-05:00

If you were wondering if Fox News has been damaged by the attacks of the White House, wonder no more.

For the week of October 12-18, amid MLB playoffs and "Monday Night Football" on ESPN, Fox News was the #4 cable network in primetime, averaging 2,098,000 total viewers — placing it behind only ESPN.

Just to compare.

MSNBC ranked #27 in primetime with 696,000 total viewers, while CNN came in at #28 with 674,000. In total day, CNN ranked #25 with 511,000 total viewers, while MSNBC did not place in the top 30.

Does anything this White House does ever work?

Obama's Enemies List

2009-10-21T09:54:00.005-05:00

One of the reasons many people voted for Obama was because he promised a more civil tone in Washington. People believed that his friendly charismatic demeanor would mean a more bi-partisan cordial way of politics. Remember the "No red states, no blue states, only the United States" rhetoric? Well it seems it was only rhetoric. In nine short months the opposite has occurred.

As far as reaching across the aisle, Obama makes George Bush look like Gandhi in that regard.

Republicans have all but been shut out of the health care reform process. Obama is using Chicago type politics to "neuter" the U.S. Chamber of Commerce from its traditional Washington role as the chief representative for big business because it disagrees with the White house on Cap and Trade and the public option for health care reform. And most disturbing of all, he now uses the office of the Presidency to shut out a news organization.

This is beginning to be called what it is....an enemies list. Sen. Lamar Alexander, familiar with the Nixon enemies list, being a 29 yr old staff aide in the White House at the time, is warning Obama that this is a very bad idea.

Alexander remembers back in 1971 that Nixon had a list of what he called “persons known to be active in their opposition to our Administration” and to "use the available federal machinery to screw our political enemies.” Many on that list were news organizations.

Is this sounding chillingly familiar?

Is Obama using the federal machinery to "screw political enemies?" You decide. The Obama administration, through The Department of Health and Human Services, imposed a gag order on a health care company, Humana, who had sent its Medicare Advantage customers warnings that their benefits might be reduced in Democratic health care reform proposals (the gag order has since been removed thanks to Republican Senator Mitch McConnell). The White House has also been reportedly "taking names” of bondholders who resisted the GM and Chrysler bailouts." Remember when Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, said to ABC that the stimulus plan wasn’t working? The White House then writes to the governor of Arizona and said, “If you don’t want the money, we won’t send it.”

One would hope that if Nixon taught us anything, it was that bullying and wielding power over the heads of those you are suppose to serve, only ends in humiliation and defeat.

The Obama administration would do well to learn from history and not repeat it's mistakes.

Commentary from the Rush Limbaugh Show's Official Obama Criticizer, Bo Snerdley

2009-10-20T09:41:00.000-05:00

Why Rush Limbaugh and Fox News Are So Popular

2009-10-20T08:21:00.004-05:00

I can't get this video to embed here for some reason. But check out HotAir that has a CNN video explaining why people listen to Rush.

Here CNN attempts to explain why people listen to the likes of Rush Limbaugh. This is the usual absurdity from the "real" news channel that facts checks SNL skits.

If anyone is really interested, I thought I might explain why I think Fox News is the number one rated cable news, and why Rush is so rich and talk radio so popular. And it has nothing to do with us going along with the so called "bully." If anything, Rush is the kid on the playground keeping the bully (govt) from beating up us.

In the early 80's I couldn't wait to get my issue of National Review. I would sit down and read it cover to cover. I knew that I would get "the other side of the story" there. I was just becoming a conservative and I was young. But I knew already there was a liberal slant to the news because I used to believe in that slant. When I read the National Review, I just couldn't believe what the mainstream media had left out of any given story.

During the Reagan years the media turned even farther left. Reagan had the communication skills to overcome that, but for conservatives and libertarians watching the news became downright painful.

This, quite simply, is why Rush began his incredible rise to the top of talk radio. Finally someone was speaking to the conservative values that we embraced. It's almost like when someone lives in a foreign country and you miss America terribly. Then you find a radio station that is American based. You turn it on every day to hear your native language and hear the news from where you grew up. You didn't feel so alone. That is what listening to Rush was like in the '80's.

But even with talk radio, the evening news and CNN still drove us crazy. We would listen to a news story, and we knew the rest of the story that was being left out. We would yell at the TV, "Show some objectivity for heaven's sake! Tell us both sides!"

Then came Fox News, who promised "fair and balanced." And that is what they gave us. The hard news at Fox is as fair and objective as it gets. It doesn't get better or more objective than Brett Baier, Major Garrett, Shepard Smith, and Bill Hemmer to name just a few. The left and the White House sees it as right leaning simply because the news had never shown the right side AT ALL. So naturally hearing it as well drove them insane. Which is where you find the White House today, stomping their feet like a toddler with a temper tantrum, and refusing to go on Fox News. It's petty and it diminishes the office of the Presidency.

The White House's fight with Fox News is also a warning to the other news organizations. In the interviews with the rest of the mainstream media on Sunday, the White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN that President Obama does not want “the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." In other words, don't pick up their stories that make us look bad. As Greta Van Susteren points out, it's not like the White House has been sending people to Fox News and now suddenly stopped. She says they haven't sent people sent January and obviously it hasn't effected their ratings or how they do their job.

But there is another reason Fox News is so popular. Obviously it isn't just conservatives watching Fox News. So why do people watch Fox News more than the others? Every day news organizations have editorial meetings. They get together and they decide which stories are interesting and important and should be on the air. Fox News is genius at this. While ABC, CBS, NBC, MSNBC and CNN dismiss stories because they let their political bias get in the way, Fox News seizes upon them, and Fox is always right on the money. They are the stories that people want to see. That is why their ratings are so high. Many times the other news organizations are forced to follow because of the obvious interest in the story, like the Rev. Wright story. Other times they refuse to follow Fox News and get embarrassed. For example, when Van Jones resigned over his controversial past. They had to report that one of Obama's Czar's had quit over stories that they had never even bothered to cover.

We on the right have no problem with the left's point of view. We have never been afraid of debate. What we had a problem with was having our point of view ignored. With Fox News and talk radio, it isn't ignored anymore. And that is why they thrive.

Obama and The Black Urban Family

2009-10-19T12:21:00.003-05:00

You might remember my post from a few days ago called "Emotional Adoption." Basically saying that if we don't step in and fill the void of fathers in the inner city, we will continue to see the drugs, violence, and crime we see now.

The WaPo has an excellent article up by a high school teacher who finally asked the children why they didn't try. They answered honestly:

Why don't you guys study like the kids from Africa?"

In a moment of exasperation last spring, I asked that question to a virtually all-black class of 12th-graders who had done horribly on a test I had just given. A kid who seldom came to class -- and was constantly distracting other students when he did -- shot back: "It's because they have fathers who kick their butts and make them study."

Another student angrily challenged me: "You ask the class, just ask how many of us have our fathers living with us." When I did, not one hand went up.

This is one issue that Obama and myself agree. And Obama has said the right things (even to the point where he riled up Jesse Jackson, always a sign you are doing something right)

Here are a few excerpts from his speech to the NAACP:

"...more than half a century after Brown v. Board, the dream of a world-class education is still being deferred all across the country. African American students are lagging behind white classmates in reading and math -- an achievement gap that is growing in states that once led the way in the civil rights movement. Over half of all African American students are dropping out of school in some places."

Unfortunately Obama starts out citing a dozen different way of throwing more money at the problem, which we know doesn't work. I think Obama knows that too, but has to tow the liberal line, but he goes on to say:

"Government programs alone won't get our children to the Promised Land."

Then he gets to the crux of it that he and I agree:

We've got to say to our children, yes, if you're African American, the odds of growing up amid crime and gangs are higher. Yes, if you live in a poor neighborhood, you will face challenges that somebody in a wealthy suburb does not have to face. But that's not a reason to get bad grades. That's not a reason to cut class. That's not a reason to give up on your education and drop out of school. No one has written your destiny for you. Your destiny is in your hands -- you cannot forget that. That's what we have to teach all of our children. No excuses. No excuses.

...................

To parents -- to parents, we can't tell our kids to do well in school and then fail to support them when they get home. You can't just contract out parenting. For our kids to excel, we have to accept our responsibility to help them learn. That means putting away the Xbox, putting our kids to bed at a reasonable hour. It means attending those parent-teacher conferences and reading to our children and helping them with their homework.

But where Obama really came down hard on the absent dads was in a speech in a large black Chicago Church in June of 2008:

Too many fathers are M.I.A, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes,” Mr. Obama said, to a chorus of approving murmurs from the audience. “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

Obama doesn't mince words or specifics here either: In Texas in February '08, Mr. Obama told the mostly black audience to take responsibility for the education and nutrition of their children, and lectured them for feeding their children “cold Popeyes” for breakfast.

Ouch.

Just an aside, but can someone tell me why Obama can say that with no problem, but when Michael Steele says he's going to bring "Fried chicken and potato salad" to woo African Americans, the left side of the blogosphere goes nuts?

I suggest to anyone who has a problem with people referring to blacks liking fried chicken, to go get a room at The Reality Hotel (although I honestly think it's more a southern thing, than a black thing).

Also in Obama's speech:

“But we also need families to raise our children,” he said. “We need fathers to realize that responsibility doesn’t just end at conception. That doesn’t just make you a father. What makes you a man is not the ability to have a child. Any fool can have a child. That doesn’t make you a father. It’s the courage to raise a child that makes you a father.”

Mr. Obama spoke of the burden that single parenthood was on his mother, who raised him with the help of his maternal grandparents.

“I know the toll it took on me, not having a father in the house,” he continued. “The hole in your heart when you don’t have a male figure in the home who can guide you and lead you. So I resolved many years ago that it was my obligation to break the cycle — that that if I could be anything in life, I would be a good father to my children.”

Obama may be the only one who can say the things that need to be said. If he would like a truly remarkable legacy for his Presidency, then this should be his focus. Changing a generation of inner city African Americans into successful and happy human beings that don't leave their babies, that don't turn to drugs, and don't end up in prison.

Talk about bi partisan support.

All of us, white or black, Democrat, or Republican feel sadness for what our inner cities have become. We desperately want someone to address it, to fix it, to show those living with limited means that you can make a good life for yourself.

I believe this is possible. But we have to stop wringing our hands and do something. We have to demand out leaders do something. No one has the ear of those mired in poverty and drugs more than our President right now. He can really make a difference here.

I hope he does.

"Go Back To The Porch"

2009-10-17T12:02:00.004-05:00

via Johnny Dollar's Place

One of the things that has happened because of Obama's presidency is that we are finally talking about race more. One thing that seems to have been highlighted is how black conservatives are smeared by black liberals. In fact, you don't even have to be a conservative black, but if you disagree with the left, you are smeared as a "Uncle Tom." Here is Juan Williams, no conservative, being told to "go back to the porch" for defending Rush. Also, a close black friend of Rush's speaks out.

The left has been determined to paint Rush as a racist. They couldn't find any quote in all the hours Rush has on air, so they just made up some quotes. Vile. Just vile.

There are many things Rush could be criticized for, but being a racist isn't one of them.

Kevin at TheBlackSphere has more to say on the subject.

"Drill"

2009-10-16T14:12:00.001-05:00

Sarah Palin has an excellent article at National Review about energy and our dependence on foreign oil.

Given that we’re spending billions of stimulus dollars to rebuild our highways, it makes sense to think about what we’ll be driving on them. For years to come, most of what we drive will be powered, at least in part, by diesel fuel or gasoline. To fuel that driving, we need access to oil. The less use we make of our own reserves, the more we will have to import, which leads to a number of harmful consequences. That means we need to drill here and drill now.

We rely on petroleum for much more than just powering our vehicles: It is essential in everything from jet fuel to petrochemicals, plastics to fertilizers, pesticides to pharmaceuticals. According to the Energy Information Administration, our total domestic petroleum consumption last year was 19.5 million barrels per day (bpd). Motor gasoline and diesel fuel accounted for less than 13 million bpd of that. Meanwhile, we produced only 4.95 million bpd of domestic crude. In other words, even if we ran all our vehicles on something else (which won’t happen anytime soon), we would still have to depend on imported oil. And we’ll continue that dependence until we develop our own oil resources to their fullest extent.

This is what I have never understood about environmentalist here. No matter how many energy alternatives we seek (and we should), we still have to depend on oil and gas now and in the forseeable future for our needs. Why is it somehow more environmental to buy oil and gas from other countries than from here? We are still using a resource that comes from the earth, just not our part of the earth. It really makes no sense. Especially considering that drilling here makes certain that we can over see the process. As Palin points out:

My home state of Alaska shows how it’s possible to be both pro-environment and pro-resource-development. Alaskans would never support anything that endangered our pristine air, clean water, and abundant wildlife (which, among other things, provides many of us with our livelihood). The state’s government has made safeguarding resources a priority; when I was governor, for instance, we created a petroleum-systems-integrity office to monitor our oil and gas infrastructure for any potential environmental risks.

It's also possible for different communities to have different answers:

Alaska also shows how oil drilling is thoroughly compatible with energy conservation and renewable-energy development. Over 20 percent of Alaska’s electricity currently comes from renewable sources, and as governor I put forward a long-term plan to increase that figure to 50 percent by 2025. Alaska’s comprehensive plan identifies renewable options across the state that can help rural villages transition away from expensive diesel-generated electricity — allowing each community to choose the solution that best fits its needs. That’s important in any energy plan: Tempting as they may be to central planners, top-down, one-size-fits-all solutions are recipes for failure.

For the same reason, the federal government shouldn’t push a single, universal approach to alternative-powered vehicles. Electric cars might work in Los Angeles, but they don’t work in Alaska, where you can drive hundreds of miles without seeing many people, let alone many electrical sockets. And while electric and hybrid cars have their advantages, producing the electricity to power them still requires an energy source. For the sake of the environment, that energy should be generated from the cleanest source available.

Read the whole thing.