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.

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.

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.

"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.

Five years Of Blogging

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you for connecting with me.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving.

Bush vs. Obama.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threatening The Govt To Make Them Do The Right Thing

Wow.

From HotAir:

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

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

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

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

Chris Matthews Is An Idiot

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think you know the answer to that.

Republicans are happier than Democrats....

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

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

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

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

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

Well, that explains a lot, doesnt' it?

Republicans have more children as well:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jon Stewart Is An Idiot

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

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

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

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

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

Hilarious!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is in strength we prevailed and were kept safe.

I don't feel so safe anymore.

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

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

Federal Stimulus Jobs Numbers Inflated

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More on this debacle here.

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

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

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

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

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

Don't expect that to happen any time soon.

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

It's Palin Week!

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

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

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

This passage in her book just endeared her to me:

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

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

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

Divorce Todd? Have you seen Todd?

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

We have never seen anything like her.

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

For more juicy tidbits from her book, go here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

More On Black Conservatives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lloyd had this to say about black conservatives:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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