Saturday, December 26, 2009




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!

Friday, December 25, 2009

Merry Christmas!

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.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

My Christmas Message To All On The Political Spectrum

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.

Tuesday, December 22, 2009

A Party Switch For Health Care

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


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:

Monday, December 21, 2009


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...

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.

Saturday, December 19, 2009

The Grinch Who Stole Liberty

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.

Friday, December 18, 2009

Climate Change Summit Update

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.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Global Warming and Blizzards

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....

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.

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Tiger and Obama

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.

Tuesday, December 15, 2009

Smart Girl Nation!! (bumped!)

Check out my new radio show on 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!

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

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....

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.

Monday, December 14, 2009

The Desperate Democrats Fight Dirty on Health Care Bill

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

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

Sunday, December 13, 2009

Palin Rocks Late Night

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.

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Please Let This Be So......

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.

Friday, December 11, 2009

Who Needs Democracy Anyway? (Scroll For Update!)

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.


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

Palin Hits Back

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

Thursday, December 10, 2009

There Is Always A Silver Lining

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

Ever wonder what evil sounds like?

You can hear it here.

Defined By Color or Celebrate Color?

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?

Wednesday, December 09, 2009

Why can't we question?

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

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???


Tuesday, December 08, 2009

The Whiny President

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.

Monday, December 07, 2009

Mr. Reid, please learn American history.

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

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

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.

Friday, December 04, 2009

Who Is The Enemy?

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.

Thursday, December 03, 2009

Meet Lt. Col. Allen West

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

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.

Tuesday, December 01, 2009

We Are In The Twilight Zone of Politics

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

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.

Monday, November 30, 2009

"You've Come A Long Way, Maybe"

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

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.