A Tale Of Two Women

I think I get what all the liberals were squawking about when talking about "certain woman politician" we all know. You know the one. The one who didn't graduate from an Ivy league college. The one who was a "breeder" of five kids and barely had ANY experience. Imagine her being 2nd in the line of succession the Presidency??! The ridiculous woman who spends $150,000 on her clothes.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you think I was talking about Sarah Palin? Oh no. I was talking about Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

When I realized the other day that Nancy Pelosi was 2nd in the line of secession to the Presidency, it depressed me sure, but then I got to wondering exactly what her background really was. She graduated from Trinity College in Washington D.C. , an all girl's Catholic college in 1962. She married in 1963 and had five kids.

Interesting thing. I can't find what her major was anywhere. It is not on wikipedia, nor in any of the biographies I read online. I find that strange. If anyone can find that bit of info, I'd appreciate it.

Other than being party chairwoman for Northern California in 1977, she never ran for anything until 1987 when Congresswoman Sala Burton died of cancer soon after winning her second term, having named Pelosi as her successor. Pelosi was then 47 years old when she first ran for office. It would take her another 20 years to be elected to Speaker of the House.

By the time Sarah Palin was 44 yrs old, not only had she had five children, she was running for Vice President of the United States. After a career in journalism and running a small business, she started her career in politics at the age of 28. She was elected mayor and then Governor.

But when you compare this two women side by side, I now find it laughable all the names they called Palin.

Gitmo

Have you ever wondered what the story was behind Gitmo? Have you ever wondered who and ahow many we captured and how it was decided who went to Gitmo? Have you ever wondered about the interrogation techniques used at Gitmo?

All your questions and more are answered here. Read the whole thing. It is fascinating and informative.

via HotAir

As an added bonus read Charles Krauthammer regarding how Obama has adopted Bush's policies on the war on terror. It's excellent. It ends with this delicious truth:

The Bush policies in the war on terror won't have to await vindication by historians. Obama is doing it day by day. His denials mean nothing. Look at his deeds.

Read about our future with cars under Obama

We already have the fuel efficent types of cars Obama has mandated. Want to see what they are like?

Be my guest.

via GOC

"We didn't commit torture"

It's just good.

via HotAir

Full text of Cheney's speech here.

Liz Cheney rocks here as well:

Ignoring The Heat

I wrote earlier how Obama is like the son who thinks his father is an idiot until he becomes a father himself, and see how wise his father really was. This is why Obama is keeping so many of things Bush put into place to keep us safe, but Karl Rove at WSJ really lays out how the "campaigner" Obama is governing completely different than he promised:

Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.

For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.

He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.

These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.

Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget.
However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.

On health care, Mr. Obama's election ads decried "government-run health care" as "extreme," saying it would lead to "higher costs." Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, "It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system."

Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama's flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.

In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.

What I have found talking with people who voted for Obama, but are not political, is they don't really have much of an opinion on national security issues or the emerging big government that Obama is laying before us. They feel that nothing ever really changes no matter who is in power and they just liked Obama. Obama understands this. Which is why he is on TV almost daily just giving his nice soothing spin on things. And as long as the media plays along, we are like the story of the frog boiling in the pot of water. The frog sits in the water while it's cool, and just doesn't notice the heat rising until it's too late and he's boiled.

Hey people, we are being boiled.

Guns On Campus In Texas

On Tuesday a bill that will allow college students and employees to carry their concealed handguns on campus passed with preliminary approval in the Texas Senate.

I'm surprised this has taken this long and why there is any controversy at all, except from strident gun control activists. If the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech taught us anything at all, it should have taught us that "gun free zones" are nothing but death traps. Imagine if one of the professors or students in that building had had a gun. Imagine all the young lives he could have saved.

You see, the problem is that insane gunmen don't abide by the "Gun free zones" rule.

Opponents of this bill say it would make campuses more dangerous with the potential for typical college disagreements with boyfriend and girlfriends, over grades, during drunken parties. They might have a point if the numbers didn't reveal the opposite. 11 colleges — nine public schools in Utah, the University of Colorado and Blue Ridge Community College in Weyers Cave — that allow concealed carry permit holders to bring their firearms onto campus, but have not experienced any incidents.

In order to hold a handgun license in Texas one must be at least 21 years old and pass a training course and a criminal background check. This ensures maturity and training. I would think this would mainly be used by professors and workers on campus, not students. But having trained students carrying guns isn't a bad idea either. Consider the shooting at Appalachian School of Law in which 2 students were able to retrieve their weapons from their cars and stop a shooter. If they had been allowed to carry guns on campus grounds, they could have stopped him even more quickly.

This isn't a done deal. It needs a final Senate vote before it can be sent to the House. It could die under a legislative deadline. I hope that doesn't happen. People on college campuses deserve to feel safe.

crossposted at Texas Magazine

"Liberty City Six al Qaeda cell convicted for conspiracy to kill Americans"

Kind of important, wouldn't you think?

After a three-month trial, a Miami jury convicted five men of multiple charges that include conspiring to provide material support to the al Qaeda terrorist organization and conspiracy to wage war against the U.S. by discussing and planning attacks on targets in the U.S., including the Sears Tower in Chicago and the FBI building and other federal buildings in Florida.

Read the whole thing here.

Cheney, the middle linebacker

Bill Kristol has an excellent piece over at the Weekly Standard about Dick Cheney hitting the news circuit to defend the CIA, interrogation techniques, and decisions made by the Bush administration on the war on terror. Oops, sorry. I forgot. It's "Overseas Contingency Operation" now.

The Obama administration may call it whatever they wish, but at least it seems they understand the fight enough to keep some security measures from the previous administration, including the dreaded warrantless wiretapping and military tribunals. The Democrats were sure they could keep spinning it their way, but a funny thing happened on the way to avoiding the truth---Cheney happened:

He challenged the president to release CIA memos evaluating the effectiveness of the enhanced interrogation techniques. He raised the question of whether congressional Democrats--Nancy Pelosi, for one--had known of, and at least tacitly approved of, the allegedly horrifying abuses of the allegedly lawless Bush administration.

Now, a month later, Pelosi is attacking career CIA officials for lying to Congress, and other Democrats are scrambling to distance themselves from her. Meanwhile, the Obama administration has pulled back on threats to prosecute Bush-era lawyers, reversed itself on releasing photos of alleged military abuse of prisoners, and embraced the use of military commissions to try captured terrorists. The administration now looks irresponsible when it lives up to candidate Obama's rhetoric, and hypocritical when it vindicates Bush policies the candidate attacked.

The Democrats have demonized Cheney for so long, and the media willingly went along, that some think he may not be a good spokesman. I think he is a good spokesman. He is a great part of the reason that we were not attacked again, and for that I will always be grateful. I've written before about the millions he has given away to the poor, and about the unconditional love he has shown for his gay daughter, but I think it is time to point out how clearly important it was for him to make sure we didn't experience the pain and grief we went though on 9-11 again on his watch.

And we didn't.

What Cheney proves to us is that when we come out fighting when we know we are right, then we win. Even if it comes from a unpopular source. If Cheney had not come out to defend the CIA then we would have been left with the leftwing spin and no one would be questioning Pelosi's lies. Now at least, even if the Obama administration won't release the memos that show we thwarted an attack in L.A., at least the American people know about it.

The big picture is always a good thing. Having a fighter willing to force the media to show the big picture is even better. To put a sports metaphor to it, Kristol ends with this:

After all, if you're behind on the scoreboard, and your defense is on the field--there's nothing better than to jam up a couple of running plays, sack the quarterback on a blitz, and force a punt from bad field position. The momentum changes as your offense takes over with a shot at putting some points on the board. Dick Cheney probably won't be the glamour quarterback of the Republican comeback. But he's proving to be a heck of a middle linebacker.

h/t BigDog

My Reluctant Pro-life Journey

Writing about Notre Dame reminded me of a post I written here 5 years ago about how I became pro-life. I went back and read it and decided it might be a good time to post it again. Warning though! It has actual religious content! If that offends you, look away.



When I went to college my goal was to become a trained actress. Growing up in politics, I was sick of it. All I wanted to do was be a movie star one day. I never wanted to even hear the word politics again. When I was 18 my dad made me drive 6 hours from Florida to vote in my 1st Presidential election. MADE ME. And like a good democrat, I voted for Carter.

I had been a Christian for a long time (thank goodness, looking back) by the time I entered college. During my college years I began to be bothered by the abortions my friends were having. Their pain was hard to see. I didn't see relief afterwards. But I told myself that was their decision and had nothing to do with me. Luckily for me, I had decided many years before that I was going to wait until marriage for sex, so I didn't have any worries in the department of pregnancy and abortion. In the late 70's and early 80's the common belief was abortion was performed when the baby was still a clump of cells, not even a fetus. Totally untrue, but everyone believed it. Sonograms were just beginning to be in use in OBGYN offices.

A lot of things happened with friends during those years regarding abortion and none of them good. I finally realized God was trying to tell me something. Now for those of you with faith the following will be probably be something similar that you have been through. For those of you without faith I suppose it will sound silly, but here it is nonetheless.

During my senior year after doing some study into fetal development and other things I finally did decide that abortion was the taking of a life and morally wrong. "There," I said to God, "You have convinced me, thanks for making see the reality of this. I really appreciate it. If I have more friends going through it I will do whatever I can to get them to have the baby. You can count on me. Later."But God wasn't through with me yet. That Hound of Heaven has always done this to me. I want to go one way, He wants me to go the other. We have argued all my life. Seriously. Most of the time I went His way because I'm smart that way, and He was always right. In fact, all the best things in my life now are a result of having gone into pro-life work. My best friends and my children. But I fought going into it the whole way. The very few times I went my way, I always screwed up.

In my early 20's when it became clear that God wanted me to go into pro-life work, I simply refused. "God," I said, "look, I don't want anything to do with politics and this is political now. Isn't this a woman's choice to sin? Just like anything else? Plus, everyone thinks anyone in pro-life is a fanatic. I don't want to do this. Nope. No way. Let's move on, shall we?"

He would NOT leave me alone so I made a deal with him. I told God I would go do ANYTHING else to help his children. In fact, I will do the hardest thing for me. I will go volunteer in a nursing home. There I will be doing good, and politics is totally out of it. So I did. Many days I came home crying. I told my husband how hard it was to see these old people so lost and alone. Some so sick. Why do they have to live that way? It was so much harder than I ever thought it would be, but I had a deal with God and I kept going back.

One day one of my favorite old ladies, Emily, asked me for a glass of water. I got it for her and was sitting there watching her drink it when I felt God speak to my heart. (for ya'll who are rolling your eyes right now, NO, it isn't an actual voice, ok?, but it is clear just the same) First He spoke of the verse in the Bible where Christ says "For I was hungry and you fed me; I was thirsty and you gave me water...." Christ goes on to say "When you refused to help the least of these my brothers, you were refusing to help me." (Matthew 25:35-45) "Don't you see?" I heard God say to my heart. "These people you help are a burden and unwanted by the world, but I love them. They are my children. The same is true for my unborn children. They may be unwanted, but they are loved and wanted by me. You can be my hands, you can be my voice. Go and help the least of these."

As I sat there with tears rolling down my face, I knew that I was going to do exactly what I did not want to do. Get involved in a controversial political issue. One that I didn't feel have anything to do with me. I was an actress and that is what I wanted to do. Not this. But God had always been my strength, my guide. I sounded like a petulant child, but I said to God, "Oh, alright...."And I did.

It was never easy to watch girls walk out of the pregnancy crisis center I worked in and know they were going to have an abortion no matter what I said. A boyfriend was usually urging them to, or a parent. It was never easy to see people think you were some sort of fanatic for being in this work. And it was NEVER easy to explain why. My family came around. They are all pro-life now. But there were years when I know they wanted to put duct tape over my mouth to make me shutup about it. President Reagan wrote an essay while in office called "Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation." It was beautiful and expressed perfectly why we should fight for the rights of the unborn. The media largely ignored it and I'm betting you here, all politically aware, have not even heard of it. The media hoped that a blackout of what we were trying to do would make us go away. But we didn't.

Although abortion laws didn't change, abortion rates lowered or stayed steady. Considering that in the last 30 yrs all other societal ills like drug abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse, suicide rates, ect. have increased, I think we have had an impact and that is with NO help from the media or funding.

One night a few years ago, upset at a woman I knew who was pregnant with twins who happened not to be her husband's (who she was separated from but planning on getting back together), was having an abortion that day. I had offered to keep her from her husband until the twins were born and then adopt them ourselves. I cried and cried for those two little ones who would never feel the breeze in their hair, or swing on swing sets. Ones I would never get to hold. In my pain, I asked God what was the purpose here if nothing in the law had changed??? Once again I heard Him speak to my heart. "I never asked you to do anything but what you have done. Men will make and change laws. I wanted you to change hearts and let them know the truth."

You see, God does not care about politics. He cares only for us. Is it just and right that we allow unborn children to be destroyed? No. Of course not. We may never win, but we should never stop being a voice for those who cannot speak for themselves. The truth about abortion was never getting out there and it still isn't in so many ways. I truly don't expect a President to change this law (although I would wish for them to) But I do want a President who understands as I do that what defines who we are is how we treat "the least of these."

Open Mic Night

Last night the Tea Party Society of Houston had fundraisers all over Houston at local pubs for "Open Mic Night." You pay $5 for a five minute rant (with microphone). It was interesting listening to the different views. Some rants were more libertarian and others more tax related. But one thing was clear, we no longer trust our government to do the will of the people.....at all.

I related the story of when I spoke with Sen. John Cornyn and asked him about the all the anger out here with Republicans regarding Arlen Specter. He said he would rather have a Republican that voted with him 80% of the time than a Democrat that voted with him 0% of the time.

Well, guess what he's got now?

You would think Sen. Cornyn would have learned. After all, he is a good conservative. But here he is backing Crist in Florida for the Senate.

The Tea Parties should say, "No more."

This is the main problem. The concerns and desires and vision that libertarian leaning Republicans, blue dog Democrats, and conservative Republicans will never be met or even addressed by Democrats. We only have the Republicans. We are stuck. Talk of a third party is lollipop dreams.

I feel that the best thing the Tea Party protests can do is scare Republicans into being...Republicans. You will notice that most of the pundits and bloggers who tell Republicans they should be more moderate are....Democrats. They are people who will never vote Republican. These are the people who have nothing but scorn for the hard working, tax paying citizens at these protests. Why in the world would we listen to anyone who has nothing but disdain for us?

It's only in places like Texas that blue dog Democrats can be persuaded by the Tea Parties. And in those places we do need to reach out to them.

It's time to let the Republicans know that if they want to be elected or re-elected, then they need to stand strong against this over-reaching government. No more compromising on bailouts or TARP. They need to fight tax increases with every breath in their body. They need to do things like NOT ask Nancy Pelosi to apologize, but to RESIGN. Enough spending. Enough intrusion into our lives. You either act like a true Republican or hit the door.

Also, Republicans need to stop acting like Obama is above criticism. I understood right after such an historic election the need to back off a bit and give the guy a chance. But in this short time Obama's spending is completely out of control and will force our children, and the children not yet born, to carry the burden of this debt. Now maybe the American people don't understand the damage of this, but Republicans in Washington do. It's time to be as critical of this President as they would with any other President.

Republicans lost a lot of credibility in this area with their own spending in the past. It's time to get back their credibility. No more yes votes on any spending. Period.

We recently we got the news that this year the United States will borrow 46 cents for every dollar it spends. That is mind boggling. Then came the annual reports on the Social Security and Medicare trust funds. Under current projections, Medicare will be tapped out in eight years. Social Security will be into deficit spending by 2016 and will be unable to meet its obligations by 2037. The latest White House estimates add $89 billion to the current year budget deficit for a total of $1.8 trillion. That’s more than 12 percent of U.S. gross domestic product, the highest percentage rate since World War II.

Republicans have a tough road ahead. But they have good issues, issues that the American people can understand as the unemployment rate hits 8.9 percent.

Republicans have got to grow a spine again. The time is now, or it may be too late.

My Heavy Heart

I'm a positive person. I try not to let things get me down. But after listening to Obama's speech at Notre Dame, I have a heavy heart. It is a heart filled with sadness in how easily so many are fooled by pretty words.

They were certainly pretty words. Once again a pro-choicer asks for us to find common ground on abortion. I wonder if Obama would have wanted the segregationists to find common ground with those who wished to integrate. I imagine a speech Obama might have made when slavery was legal . He would have wanted slave owners to find common ground with the slaves. I mean, we couldn't make slavery illegal because that would effect the economy, and the supreme court has declared that blacks are not fully human, so we should just find common ground to compromise. Allow slavery, but find ways to make slavery less necessary. We should come together to change hearts about slavery.

This is why my heart is heavy. This man understands nothing. He talks of Catholic priests whose faith he admires, yet ignores the core of where our faith comes from.

Bill Clinton talked the same way about abortion. It was all about reducing abortions and helping women in crisis pregnancies (which pro-life groups already do), but no mention of the children who will never see a sunrise, will never run and play, will never experience life on this earth because their life was brutally taken in abortion.

Common ground? How do we find common ground on taking innocent life? We can no more do that than we could find common ground on slavery. Slavery couldn't be tolerated because it took away the dignity and sanctity of human life, just as abortion does.

Pres. Obama says all the right words. It all sounds so reasonable. But deaths of unborn children is just never reasonable, which is why the children are never mentioned in Obama's flowery speech.

Shame on Notre Dame, Shame on Father Jenkins, and shame on all Catholics there who compromised their faith to honor a man who dishonors our beliefs.

I have a heavy heart for how easily we are fooled by charismatic men who talk of God, but only lead us farther away from Him.