Obama Doesn't Understand Insurance

This was written by my brilliant husband, State Farm FSR extraordinaire! Really clears up the insurance issue.

--------------------------------------------------------

I should have gone on about this earlier, but I didn’t feel it necessary, or really, I just didn’t want to take the time. I wish I would have before because I could have pointed out many of Obama’s misunderstandings and explained things to you better. However, one issue recently mentioned again is more than enough.

Obama says he wants his healthcare plan to cover pre-existing conditions. Even if everything else he wants to do was a viable option – which it’s not – this one thing would cause so many problems it would totally disrupt the entire industry on its own. Aside from that, healthcare companies wouldn’t cover them on their own so it’d take a government takeover. This would trigger more problems than I could list if that happened.

However:

Getting coverage for pre-existing conditions sounds great. If you have some major sickness, you would want your carrier to pay for your care because they would have had to pay if you had coverage before you were diagnosed with your illness, right? Great idea….you may think…

Covering pre-existing conditions is an impossibility with insurance! Let me point out that health insurance companies will cover you for things you already have like high blood pressure or minor arthritis, maybe asthma, but not for something like cancer or diabetes, or any other major disease that can result in major treatment needs coming up. You will pay an additional rate if you have high blood pressure because you are a higher risk, just like people who have tickets or accidents in their driving history will pay more for car insurance.

Now you may say at this point, “Insurance companies are being greedy, they can’t do that. They can’t cover me for one thing and not for another.”

Let me give you an example with something you are probably more familiar with: your car insurance. Obviously, you know you have to have car insurance to have coverage when you have an accident. Say you don’t want to pay for the insurance (like 33% of drivers here in Oklahoma) so you don’t buy it. You are then involved in an accident where you are at fault. Just call up the insurance company and pay your first month, they’ll cover it, right? No, that would be called a pre-existing condition. You’ve already wrecked your car, they are not going to pay for that or the other person you hit. It just can’t happen. They would go out of business; it’s unethical to get a service for which you have not paid. You should have had insurance before you got in the accident.

Apply this same principle to health insurance. If you’re sick with something before you get insurance, they can’t give you new coverage. You should have already had health insurance. Even if you had to quit your job because of health, you have something called COBRA already available where you can keep your insurance for 18 months after you have quit working, regardless. Also, you can get in a state insurance pool that does not exclude anyone for anything.

No insurance company can reasonably cover pre-existing conditions. If the insurance company said they would do this, no one would get car insurance and then the rate all the good drivers would pay would be so astronomical it would be unaffordable, more than it already is. Insurance is about spreading risk. The insurance company has people (actuaries) who do lots of math all day and estimate out how many people are going to have accidents on average and they set premiums accordingly. People trying to get coverage for something that cannot be estimated would drive the industry into the ground. It’s not greedy to make money, it’s how business has to work. The insurance industry employees thousands of people and they have to earn a living just like every other industry. Did you know that Wal-Mart makes a profit? So does the movie theater, the restaurant….everyone does. They would go broke if they covered pre-existing conditions. No one would pay for insurance until they needed it. The companies would get stuck with major bills for major health conditions and would not be able to pay the claims of people who really paid for the service.

Insurance is designed as a transfer of risk system. You get it when you don’t need it to pay out when you do need it. You can’t buy life insurance when you just found out you have cancer and only 3 months to live. It doesn’t work that way. It goes back to welfare, wanting something for nothing. Society can’t function that way. Insurance definitely can’t function that way. They can’t pay for the guy who wasn’t responsible and didn’t take care of his insurance and let the guy who is responsible stuck with the bill.

Hope this makes sense. Bottom line, let competition rule the health insurance industry. Competition is what has driven this country forward and we are on the verge of letting it all go.

Don’t let that happen. Vote for freedom, vote to keep our Republic strong.

Homework for Tuesday

We're voting on four state questions on Tuesday. Here is the text from the Oklahoma State Election Board, along with some small commentary by me.

http://www.ok.gov/~elections/sq_gen08.pdf

--------------------------------------------

Issue: Property tax exemption for disabled veterans
State Question 735
Legislative Referendum 343
Originating Legislation: HB 1808 (2007)
Principal Authors: Senator Mike Mazzei, Representative Randy Terrill
Election Date: November 4, 2008

Ballot Title (as re-written by the Attorney General)
This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It adds Section 8D to Article 10. The measure takes effect January 1, 2009. It creates an exemption from personal property tax. The exemption would be for the full amount of taxes due on all household personal property. The exemption would apply to certain injured veterans. It would also apply to those veterans’ surviving spouses.

To qualify for the exemption an injured veteran would have to meet certain requirements. First, a branch of the Armed Forces or the Oklahoma National Guard would have to have honorably discharged the veteran from active service. Second, the veteran would have to be an Oklahoma resident. Third, the veteran would have to be the head of the household. Fourth, the veteran would have to be one hundred percent permanently disabled. Fifth, the United States Department of Veterans Affairs would have to certify the disability. Sixth, the disability must have occurred through military action or accident, or resulted from a disease contracted while in active service. The Legislature could pass laws to carry out the exemption. Such laws could not change the amount of the exemption.

Personally, I think Vets don't see nearly enough benefits, particularly disabled Vets. If someone is rendered unable to work as a result of them taking a bullet or a grenade to keep me and my family safe, I'll pick up the slack for their property tax. Vets already have difficulty seeing the full benefits they are already entitled by law. I have no problem adding this to the list in the hope that it relieves the sacrifices they and their families have made for their country. -------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue: Applications for property tax exemptions State Question 741
Legislative Referendum 344
Originating Legislation: HB 3354 (2008)
Principal Authors: Senator Jim Wilson, Representative Randy Terrill
Election Date: November 4, 2008

Ballot Title (as re-written by the Attorney General) This measure amends the Oklahoma Constitution. It would add a new Section 22A to Article 10. This section is related to exemptions from property taxes. It would require a person or business to file an application for an exemption. No exemption could be granted prior to filing an application. The Legislature may write laws to carry out the provisions of this section.

I see justification for this bill for two reasons. 1) Randy Terrill is listed as a co-author, and I trust his judgment. 2) There was recently unearthed by Rep. Mike Reynolds a list of people who received personal and business property tax exemptions from Gov. Henry, with no paper trail or regular justification. We need such paper trails to verify these exemptions are given justly, not as kickbacks or rewards. -------------------------------------------------------

Issue: Rights of hunting, trapping, fishing and taking game or fish State Question 742
Legislative Referendum 345
Originating Legislation: SJR 38 (2008)
Principal Authors: Senator Glenn Coffee, Representative Randy Terrill
Election Date: November 4, 2008

Ballot Title (as approved by the Attorney General)
This measure adds a new section to the State Constitution. It adds Section 36 to Article 2. It gives all people of this state the right to hunt, trap, fish and take game and fish. Such activities would be subject to reasonable regulation. It allows the Wildlife Conservation Commission to approve methods and procedures for hunting, trapping, fishing and taking of game and fish. It allows for taking game and fish by traditional means. It makes hunting, fishing, and trapping the preferred means to manage certain game and fish. The new law will not affect existing laws relating to property rights.

This bill has been given the stamp of approval by the NRA, so it's probably alright. ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue: Sales of wine by winemakers State Question 743
Legislative Referendum 346
Originating Legislation: SJR 29 (2008)
Principal Authors: Senator Tom Ivester, Representative Danny Morgan
Election Date: November 4, 2008

Ballot Title (as re-written by the Attorney General)
This measure amends Section 3 of Article 28 of the Constitution. It requires a customer to be twenty-one and physically present to purchase wine at a winery, festival or trade show. The measure changes the law to allow certain winemakers to sell directly to retail package stores and restaurants in Oklahoma. The change applies to winemakers who produce up to ten thousand gallons of wine a year. It applies to winemakers in state and out of state. Those winemakers may not also use a licensed wholesale distributor. They must sell their wine to every retail package store and restaurant in Oklahoma that wants to buy the wine. The sales must be on the same price basis. The sales must be without discrimination. Those winemakers must use their own leased or owned vehicles to distribute their wine. They may not use common or private carriers. If any part of this measure is found to be unconstitutional, no winemaker could sell wine directly to retail package stores or restaurants in Oklahoma.

Honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this one. Winemakers who produce 10,000 gallons of wine a year can sell directly to retailers, but not to distributors? And there is a caveat "just in case" this measure is found to be unconstitutional? I'm all for free trade, but this seems to be a measure limiting certain regulation by imposing other regulation. I just don't know. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. --------------------------------------------------------------

Contact For More Information:

The Senate staff members listed below may be able to provide further information on the state questions listed in this legislative brief. However, the provisions of Section 16-119 of Title 26 of the Oklahoma Statutes prohibit state officials from directing or authorizing the expenditure of public funds to be used in support of or in opposition to measures being referred to the people for a vote, and provide misdemeanor penalties for offenses. In addition, rules of the Ethics Commission prohibit the use of public funds, property or time to influence the results of a ballot measure. Due to these restrictions, the information on state questions that the Senate staff is able to provide may be limited. Committees raising or expending funds in support of or in opposition to a state question are required to register with the Ethics Commission (www.ethics.ok.gov).

State Questions 735 and 741: Joanie Raff, Legislative Analyst Judy King, Staff Attorney

State Question 742: Jeri Trope, Legislative Analyst

State Question 743: Lexa Shafer, Legislative Analyst Selden Jones, Staff Attorney

Prepared By: The Oklahoma State Senate, Senate Staff Senator Mike Morgan, President Pro Tempore Senator Glenn Coffee, Co-President Pro Tempore

The Audacity of Audacity

NEWSFLASH: Tonight, for the first time in American history, a presidential candidate be delivering a State of the Union address prior to the presidential election.

Barack Obama will be speaking tonight, taking over nearly all major network and cable news stations.

I suggest we all honor ABC's decision not to air the 30-minute Obamamercial and watch Pushing Daisies.

Or read. Or do laundry. Do anything else.

Updated: Blocked?

So, this is odd.

I tried to share the link to this blog with a friend of mine on facebook via the new instant messaging tool they have.

It was blocked:

Because it's facebook, they can't tell me who reported it or why.

You know, not that we're adults or anything, but I would imagine that if you had a problem with something a person wrote - an independent blogger, not even a major news outlet - you might mention it to the blogger rather than just reporting the link to block others access to it.

In fairness, facebook has not blocked all access to this link from their site (yet). I'm just not allowed to share the link via messenger anymore.

Just odd.

Update:

Facebook has unblocked my link. No notice or explanation. maybe it was a fluke. Who knows. But it's cleared up now.

A Blessing in Disguise?

Obama being elected President, while impalpable to anyone who reads the Constitution, is not the worst thing that could happen to us. Obama’s power will largely depend on the Congress he has to work with.

For weeks, we’ve been anticipating a Democrat surge in the Senate, envisioning a horror movie in which the ultra-liberal President Obama is allowed to ride roughshod over Truth, Justice and The American Way by the Democrat super-majority in the Congress.

But how likely is that scenario?

This is just a theory, and I may (God forbid) be completely wrong, but just bear me out.

Let’s not look at this from the perspective of the Presidential election. What hasn’t received much press is the battle for the House and Senate.

Perhaps, a few weeks ago, the horror movie seemed inevitable. Eight years of media-fueled Republican/Bush hatred drilled the image of a Blue Capitol into the minds of Americans.

Then, the Bailout Bill.

Since then, has there been more anger toward a Congress since the War Between the States? (The draft, maybe. And they’re the side that keeps suggesting bringing that back). Trillions of dollars have been lost on the Stock market. Homes values nation-wide have dropped 17%.

Even Saturday Night Live acknowledged that the Democrat Majority was responsible for the Bailout and for the irresponsibility that led to it, making Bush look like a pawn in the Democrats’ evil plan.

Subsequently, they had to pull and sanitize the skit. Gee, wonder why.

Is it possible that the Democrats are actually losing ground? We aren’t hearing much about Democrats retaining seats from the MSM. The Dreaded Murtha finally looks like he’s going to get the boot. Cindy Sheehan was running against Nancy Pelosi. Barney Frank has been exposed as a nutcase. (Or, as I like to call him, Future Cartman.)

And we have the Bailout Bill to thank for this.

Had we actually squashed the Bailout, none of this would have been exposed. The frustration toward the Democrat legislative branch would have been kept at a simmer rather than the raging boil it is now.

Again, this is all theoretical, and it may not affect Obama in the slightest.

But Jack Murtha is losing his seat. SNL spoke against Democrat leadership and got punished. People are noticing.

And it all comes back to the Bailout Bill.

Irony is a…

Vote Dana Murphy!

We're voting for more than just a President next Tuesday. And the future of our country relies as much, if not more, on state and local elections than it does on the national ones.

This letter is written by Charlie Meadows, President of OCPAC, the premier Conservative PAC in Oklahoma.

Read and vote DANA MURPHY next Tuesday!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Members and friends of the Oklahoma Conservative Political Action Committee (OCPAC)

I wanted to send out this special e-mail about the short term corporation commission race between Jim Roth and Dana Murphy. I am often asked if these e-mails can be forwarded? By all means please do, as I think most Oklahoman’s don’t know much about this race. Also, if this has been forwarded to you, and you would like to receive our e- mail on a weekly basis, just send me your name and e-mail address and I will add you to our list. Send to: charliemeadows@peoplepc.com.

I believe McCain and Inhofe will win in November with sizeable margins. Therefore the most contested statewide race this year will be the Corporation Commission race between Republican Dana Murphy and the Democrat incumbent Jim Roth. This is a special election as Roth was appointed to the position about a year and a half ago by Governor Henry.

There may be a small number of people who have been reading the Oklahoman closely and on a regular basis over the past 3 or 4 years who may know that Jim Roth is an out of the closet homosexual. However, most Oklahomans are unaware of his un-natural sexual perversion. I don’t believe he makes any mention of his homosexuality on his web-site nor has the liberal Tulsa World informed their readers about that information, though they have endorsed him.

In brief, the largest PAC in the nation supporting homosexual candidates considers this one the most important races in the nation (see www.victoryfund.org). In addition, Jim Roth’s Corporation Commission Campaign was a sponsor of the 2008 Gay Pride Parade held earlier this year in Oklahoma City (see www.okcpride.org). Then of course, when Roth was a County Commissioner in Oklahoma County, he supported having pro-homosexual books accessible to small children in the Oklahoma County libraries. Have you ever wondered why the homosexual community from all over America would contribute tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars to Jim Roth’s corporation commission race in OKLAHOMA?

The hyper-tolerant, anything goes liberal crowd will say, all of that character stuff, integrity and sexual preference does not matter. To talk about it is only a diversion from the business at hand. The only thing they will suggest as important, is how well a person does their job. Therefore I want to examine the job performance of Roth as a corporation commissioner.

In one of his TV adds he portrays himself as a tough advocate of the people who stood up to those BIG UTILITIES and said NO to a two billion dollar rate increase. In his silliest commercial, he portrays himself as a penny pinching paperclip counter, a conservationist wanting to save money for the ratepayers. While it is true he voted against the rate increase request, it was actually1.8 billion not 2 billion dollars, he is most likely going to cause the ratepayers to pay far more for electricity in the future. An estimated $5 billion more for electricity over the 40 year life of the generation plant he voted against.

You see, he voted against building a high-tech clean burning coal fired generation plant, next to an existing clean burning coal fired plant. As the administrating judge at the corporation said, this expansion will save the ratepayers significant money over the many years to come.

Roth, will say it was too risky and the utilities shouldn’t be allowed to collect money for the plant before it is built. Again, this is not watching out for the ratepayers as the sooner the utilities could start collecting rates to pay for the plant, the less they would have to borrow and thus this would be less interest that rate payers would eventually have to pay. By the way, what is risky about a coal fired power plant? They have been used for a long time, and the new ones are much improved and much cleaner.

Three of the state’s utilities were going into an unusual partnership in building this expansion which would have saved the ratepayers $100 million dollars in construction costs alone rather than each of them having to build or buy separate facilities. It was estimated the utilities spent up to 50 million dollars in engineering and planning costs to get the project to a vote before the commission said no in a 2 to 1 vote. However, later on, Roth voted for a rate increase to allow the utilities to recover that cost.

Without the badly needed generation capacity, American Electric Power-PSO of Oklahoma was forced to ask for a rate increase to purchase 2 smaller natural gas generation plants. Roth voted for that rate increase. OG&E was forced to purchase a gas fired plant along with the GRDA, and Roth voted for that rate increase. Commissioner Bob Anthony, always the rate payer’s friend, refused to vote on that rate increase as a protest about the higher rates consumers were going to have pay for electricity in the future.

Then of course the popular thing to do today is to be in favor of wind generation as well as other renewable energy. So OG&E requested a huge rate increase to build wind farms in far Northwest Oklahoma and the transmission lines to get that electricity to the metropolitan areas or to be able to transmit that electricity to sell out of state.

Here is the dirty little secret about electricity generated from wind. When the turbines are moving they are producing cheaper electricity. Yet, all of the significant cost to those giant windmills and perhaps much of the cost for the transmission lines is a duplication or a doubling of the cost for infrastructure.

The reason is that wind is not a reliable source of electricity. On those brutally hot days of Summer, when there isn’t a whisper of a breeze and the demand for electricity is at peak load, we have to have enough TRADITIONAL generation capacity to provide the necessary electricity. These are high demand times when the wind produces little to nothing and we must pay twice for the generation capacity.

So the question must be asked, where has Jim Roth saved the consumers any money? I would suggest he has cost the ratepayers more and in the long run, much more. If that is the case, why would Mr. Slickster shaft the ratepayers as a commissioner then tell them he was watching out for them?

You might not have to go any further for that answer than to understand who it is, besides the homosexuals, that are supporting and funding his campaign. Raising huge sums of money for him are none other than multi-millionaires and billionaires such as Aubry McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy, George Kaiser of Kaiser Oil and the Bank of Oklahoma, as well as Clay Bennett, married into the Gaylord family and managing partner of the new OKC Thunder NBA basketball team.

McClendon has spent millions in Texas, Oklahoma and Kansas fighting the construction of generation plants which would use coal and therefore not buy gas to make electricity. I don’t think it takes a rocket scientist to suspect his reason to oppose the coal fueled plants would be to force the utilities to build or buy gas fired plants of which he will be most happy to sell them all the gas they need. I actually want them to sell a lot of gas, but to power autos with, and not to make electricity. That would actually help to make us become less dependent on foreign oil.

One of Mike McCarville’s blogs recently revealed that according to e-mails which were made public in the Seattle trial to move the NBA Sonics to OKC, Jim Roth hinted at the close alliance he shares with McClendon. In a 2007 letter which he subsequently wrote to the sports editor of the Seattle times he said, “From the beginning, Clay and Aubrey initiated a genuine kindness and friendship toward my partner and me. They have publicly and consistently supported me, even pushing back when right-wing attacks have occurred.”

It appears there is a close relationship between these powerful men and Roth, who certainly went to bat for them when the homosexual community in Seattle was attacking them while they were in the process of moving the team to Oklahoma.

Bottom line, I believe Roth is a puppet on a string for people that I believe want to control and use the regulatory power of government for their personal purposes. I also believe, if Roth wins, he will use this election as a launching pad to a future U.S. Senate race or perhaps Governor some day.

On the other hand, I believe Dana Murphy is honest, independent (can’t be bought), is supremely prepared as she has a degree in geology, law and was a hearing judge at the commission for several years. I also believe she wants to serve in this capacity with no intention to run for another office sometime in the future. I believe Dana will seek that delicate balance which is the best for the oil and gas industry and the consumers at the same time. That is the real job of a corporation commissioner. I urge folks to vote for Dana Murphy and support efficient and effective government for the benefit of all Oklahomans.

Charlie Meadows
charliemeadows@peoplepc.com

Intellectuals for McCain/Palin '08

Laura Ingraham asked educated listeners on her radio show to thumb their noses at RINO elitists and join her youtube channel and show their support for McCain/Palin '08. This is a small sampling I collected.

The first video is Laura's.

The Heads Continue to Roll

Let me just say, none of this would be happeneing without the efforts of State Rep. Mike Reynolds. He was and is the right man for the job.

This is why the North Side Elitists keep recruiting naive, inexperienced people (or, to put it more bluntly, useful idiots) to run against him. He won't play ball and help the elitist RINOs like Lance Cargill cover themselves in their collusion with corrupt officials.

Look for more heads in the future.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve Phipps accuses others Jury deliberations on kickbacks resume Monday BY TONY THORNTON Published: October 26, 2008 ©Copyright 2008, The Oklahoman

MUSKOGEE — Corrupt businessman Steve Phipps, the linchpin of a three-year FBI investigation, told a federal grand jury he could implicate more than 30 people — including Democratic Senate leader Mike Morgan — in "criminal activities and/or political corruption,” a court document shows.

Steve Phipps. Photo provided

In addition to the people Phipps already has testified against at trial, the list also includes former state Agriculture Secretary Dennis Howard, former state Auditor and Inspector Clifton Scott, a southeast Oklahoma judge and the director of the state Water Resources Board.

Phipps’ willingness to talk and his ability, in many cases, to produce supporting documents explains why prosecutors offered him such an extraordinary deal: Although he admitted on the witness stand to committing 300-400 felonies, Phipps was charged with just one — conspiracy — and faces a term of no more than five years in prison.

Phipps testified at least three times to the grand jury and has met with FBI agents numerous times. He will be sentenced when his cooperation is finished.

His list became public during testimony last week at the federal trial of former state Rep. Randall Erwin.

Kickbacks alleged

Phipps testified that he paid kickbacks to Erwin, who steered $1.1 million in state taxpayer money to Phipps’ businesses. The jury began deliberating Erwin’s fate on Friday and will continue Monday.

The page shown to jurors didn’t say what information Phipps had or how he knew about "criminal activities and/or political corruption” by those on the list. Virtually all of the big names on his list are Democrats.

U.S. Attorney Sheldon Sperling declined comment about the document, as did Phipps’ attorney.

Those on the list whom Phipps previously implicated in open court include former state Auditor and Inspector Jeff McMahan and his wife, Lori; former state Reps. Mike Mass, Randall Erwin and Jerry Hefner; former state Sen. Gene Stipe; and Stipe’s younger brother Francis.

Mass and the McMahans await sentencing for their relationship with Phipps.

Francis Stipe died after pleading guilty in April to four felony counts. Gene Stipe’s trial on the same four counts is on hold pending a mental competency hearing. Hefner hasn’t been charged with any crimes.

How did list of potential targets become public information?

During cross-examination by Randall Erwin’s defense lawyer Tuesday, Steve Phipps was shown a written statement he provided to a federal grand jury on Feb. 16, 2007, the day after Phipps reached a plea agreement with prosecutors.

U.S. District Judge Ronald White allowed one page of the document to be displayed on a big screen for jurors as Phipps read from it. That page included names of 34 people about whom Phipps said he would provide information.

On Wednesday, the judge said he had erred in allowing the document to be entered into evidence. Phipps’ written statement no longer is an exhibit for Erwin’s trial record. However, the 34 names will become part of the trial transcript.

It’s unclear how much the grand jury has heard from Phipps about many of those people. Grand jury proceedings are secret.

Who is not on the list?

Absent from Steve Phipps’ list are some politicians who received illegal campaign contributions from him and former state Sen. Gene Stipe. Among them are Gov. Brad Henry and U.S. Rep. Dan Boren.

The reason: Phipps testified that some beneficiaries of his illegal contributions weren’t aware of the true source of the money. Henry and Boren have said they were unaware.

also see: http://static.newsok.biz/flash/stipe/stipe.html?KeepThis=true&TB_iframe=true&height=500&width=988

The Definition of Qualified

What has become glaringly obvious in this election cycle is that no two people have the same idea as to what “qualified” means. People think Sarah Palin is qualified because of this or that, Obama is qualified because of other reasons, and it always ends in a deadlock.

We were actually given what the qualifications for President are by the Founding Fathers. There aren’t many; the reason, presumably, being that the Founding Fathers wanted as many citizens as possible to be eligible to run for office, thus avoiding an elitist ruling class who came out of the affluent or the inbred, like they were used to in Great Britain.

However, the qualifications they did list are very specific:

Article II, Section 1: No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

- Must be a natural-born citizen (or a citizen at the time of the Constitutional Convention, which pretty much rules out everyone alive today – yes, even McCain)
- Must be at least 35 years old
- Must have resided in the US for the last 14 years
That’s it. Those are the only legal qualifications for the President. Pretty simple, right? Pretty cut and dry?

Yet there is question in Barack Obama’s qualifications even under these few standards.

I don’t like conspiracy theories or the narcissistic attitudes they prop up, “I know something you don’t know.” So I didn’t pay much attention to this story when it first surfaced, because it seemed like a fringe rumor that would be quashed pretty quickly.

However, that is not what’s happened. Obama, among many other documents, has refused to produce his Birth Certificate for the lawsuit brought against him challenging his natural-born citizenship. We have to ask, why?

There was a time limit set for his response time. According to the law under which this lawsuit was filed, Obama had a certain period of time to respond by producing his birth certificate or some other document challenging the suit, or else be seen to admit guilt to the charge filed.

Therefore, in the eyes of the law, he has admitted guilt of the allegation alleged in the lawsuit –that he is not a natural-born American citizen.

The time limit for the production of these documents coincided with his trip to Hawaii to visit his grandmother. A trip during which he has banned all media access to his activities. Two weeks before the election. And in his absence, he handed the reigns of his campaign to Hillary Clinton, of all people. Again, why?

A man who has nothing to hide acts like it. Obama has failed to produce documents and then effectively went into hiding when the deadline approached.

This is probably the most important issue in this election. Why? Because if someone Constitutionally unqualified for office is elected to the Presidency, then voter fraud doesn’t really matter. Our Constitution becomes impotent.

Anticipated responses:

"Obama posted a birth certificate on his website."

"Factcheck.org posted a birth certificate."

"Under later amendments his citizenship is otherwise validated."

These are all addressed.

Watch this video, and then pass it along.

35 Miracles Happened Tuesday

35 Babies Save on Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity

The Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity was a huge success yesterday with 35 babies saved that we know of and two girls coming to Christ. We know that it is because of all of you and your willingness to allow God to use you that this is possible. While we know about 35 babies saved, I am sure there are many more we don't know about.

I know that many of you faced persecution for standing up for the babies and God will bless you for your courage. What is important for you to remember is that you were not alone even if you felt like your were. Over 200,000 students were with you around the world in 25 countries take the same stand yesterday is solidarity.

I felt the best way to tell you about the day was to allow your words to speak about the event. Here are just a few testimonies I have received from yesterday, and there are hundreds more.

“I attend a Baptist college so I knew I wouldn't get much of a chance to spread the word so after my last class I went down to the mall and was there for about 20 minutes before a group of teenage girls walked up to me and asked what I was doing. I handed them a paper and one started to cry. I took off the tape and asked what was wrong. I found out that 2 of those girls had just set up an appointment for an abortion. We sat and talked for almost an hour; it was clear that God was at work. Not only did these girls cancel the appointment but I had the privilege to lead them to the Lord.”

"I'm speechless! I saved a baby today! Without even saying a word! Praise the Lord for His hand is upon us and our harvest shall be bountiful"

“ I was surprised as to how much I prayed; I have never prayed that much in school, ever. There were originally five people doing it this morning and by the end of the day it doubled. I was super happy. You never know how many people are affected by the things you do.”

“There was another woman considering abortion, so again I broke my silence and had a 15 minute tear-session/convo with her and she too opted for adoption! I'm so far beyond ecstatic and I am yet again radically affected by this!”

"Today was great!You could walk down the wall at school and see red tape everywhere. Very few people stayed silent it is hard not to talk for a day but having tape over your mouth helps. I had so many people come up and ask what the tape was about. I showed them my badge. I cant wait for next year. This day means a lot to me. I got pregnant when I was 15 and people told me I was ruining my life and I should just abort him. I didn't and I couldn't be happier. I've gotten my GED am In college and have gotten a job offer for when I grad. I'm proof that you can make it no matter your age and I want everyone to know."

"When I got back to class, I stayed silent- lunch was crazy, my white board got a lot of good use. I brought about 15 people who were wondering about what I was doing to one area and told them about it. After a heated debate with a fellow student, about 13 of them changed their views on abortion. Next year I'm going to hold a part-year club and it will be the most successful year of Silent-Day for me and for that school"

"I was brutally picked on today, but I don't care, I'll do it again next year. Children will live and that's what I care about! I broke my silence today for a girl, she not only opted for adoption but talked another girl into opting the same way!"

Like I said these are just a few of the amazing stories I have received so far and they keep pouring in.

We need your Pictures and Stories

We would love to have all the pictures you took during the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity. Please go to www.silentday.org and upload them along with your stories. You can also e-mail the to iamsilent@standtrue.com. If you good high res pics we would love to have them for a calendar and poster we are going to make.

Support The Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity

Has the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity been a blessing to you? Have you seen the amount of good that has come from this event over the past 5 years? Do you believe in this event and Stand True (the ministry that puts it on every year)?

If so, we would ask you to please consider helping to support this event with a donation. It takes a lot of time and money to make this amazing, pro-life, witnessing, opportunity happen. I know most of you are students and don't have a lot of money. Most of you will spend at least $5 on a value meal or some kind of fancy latte between now and the event. Would you consider skipping that meal or coffee to help the Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity?

Here are four ways to donate:

1) Send a PayPal donation to store@standtrue.com

2) Go to www.silentday.org and click on the donate button

3) Call the office at 937.339.5648 and make a credit card donation

4) Send a check to Stand True - PO Box 890 - Troy, OH 45373

For Christ I stand,

Bryan Kemper - bryankemper@standtrue.com

Founder - Pro-life Day of Silent Solidarity

Borrowed: Why I care...Why I fight...

Taken from a friend's blog. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the beginning of last weekend I got really discouraged. I was sick of hearing the garbage from the media and the libs. I was sick of being yelled at, called names, cut off, and generally disrespected for no other reason than the fact that I like Palin. That’s what it really comes down to, I discovered. Because I support Palin. It doesn’t matter what I think about McCain v. Obama’s tax plan, it doesn’t matter where I stand on the life issue, it doesn’t matter what I think about congress, it just matters that I support Palin. Because I hold the same ideals as Palin people are shocked, SHOCKED, that I might want someone who thinks like me being in office, yes, one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Anyway, I was feeling pretty disheartened. I’m told by people on the right and the left that it is over, Obama is going to win, and that is that. It’s just how it’s going to be. I am forced to see my wonderful country turn socialist by one of the most dishonest men in America: Senator Barack Hussein Obama.

I just kinda shut down from politics. I didn’t want to talk about it anymore, I didn’t want to talk about anything. What’s the point? If he’s won and we’re all doomed, why fight, why care about ACORN, Ayers, “spreading the wealth around”, or the media attacking Joe the plumber? You’re just going to get yelled at by a bunch of people who can’t get over the fact that life isn’t fair. These are the same people who believe that Bush is solely responsible for the fact that life isn’t fair and some will have to work harder than others.

I was sick of it, I was done. But after events on Saturday and having the weekend to think about it, I came to realize why I care so much, why these conversations with my friends yelling at me and calling me names were on my mind, why I continually research, read, and discuss even though I really didn’t want to: her name is Feruza.

Why do I care? Because of people like Feruza. Feruza is a wonderful friend of mine from Uzbekistan. She’s a little older than me and doing her first year of school at O-Trip. She was just now able to come here this year to begin studying in America. This alone is a foreign concept to me because I have no clue what it is like to desperately want to go to another country and study to get an education. Sure, I would like to study abroad for the cultural benefits, but, I think the best education is found in America.

Feruza spent the 4th of July with my family and has since fallen in love with the “real American family.” At least, she really likes my family. I asked her what she was going to do with her business degree. She said that she was wanted to stay here and own her own business because she really couldn’t do that in her country.

Think about it, a woman from another country wants to come to America so she can study, drive (which she can’t really do in her country and wouldn’t do because of some of the cultural ramifications), own a business (which she said women couldn’t really do in her country either), and just live in America.

After taking Feruza out for one of her very first birthday celebrations ever it made me realize why I care about American government so much: (I mean, aside from being a Christian and it being part of our stewardship to Christ.) because of people like Feruza.

I want women (and men, too) to want to come to my country and be encouraged to start a business. I want people like Feruza to have hope that they can have whatever life they want for themselves. I want Feruza and people to live in a country where if you just work hard, you’ll get to where you want to go. You’ll have struggles, set backs, deception, and hard times, but in America, you have a better chance at success from just plain old hard work than anywhere else in the world.

I care, study, campaign, discuss, vote, pray and cry for the Feruza’s who haven’t been able to make it here yet. So, I haven’t given up. Am I sick of being yelled at by emo libs? Yeah. Am I tired of the media strangling the truth? Yeah. But God is faithful. Second Chronicles is very clear on what this country needs to prosper. Repentance.

If I close the sky so there is no rain, or if I command the grasshopper to consume the land, or if I send pestilence on My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves, pray and seek My face, and turn from their evil ways, then I will hear from heaven, forgive their sin, and heal their land.

So, all we Christians need to do to win this election is repent and live perfect. =)

Let me include another verse in here:

Let Your mercy be known to everyone. The Lord is near. Don't worry about anything, but in everything, through prayer and petition with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God.

Philippians 4:5-6

The word used for prayer here is where we get our word “prosecute”. And the word for petition is the concept of begging for mercy. Bro. Tom put it this way, first, you are the prosecutor making your case to God, being specific, on why you are praying for the things you are, then you crawl up into the witness stand and beg for mercy.

So, let me challenge you, don’t sit and fret like I’ve been doing, and don’t get depressed that this thing is all over. The Lord is near and he will hear our cries. Repent and seek His face, make your case to God and then beg for mercy. Do it for not only yourselves but for Feruza’s everywhere.

Grace and Peace,

- Meredith

"and let this be our motto: In God is our trust..."

Well, At Least It's an Answer

After the final vote on the Bailout Bill, I wrote Sen. Tom Coburn a *ahem* "strongly worded" email regarding his vote supporting the bill.

Since that time, I've had to ponder a few things.

1. It's NEVER acceptable to pass a bad bill because it has a couple of pleasing belatedly-added amendments that don't change the fundamental nature of the bill. Putting jewelry on a pig doesn't make it Cindy Crawford. (Though it may make it Janet Reno). I don't believe in "incrementalism" or compromise when it comes to protecting American's rights or tax dollars, unlike Mike Reynolds' recent primary opponent.

2. Tom Coburn is one of the most respected fiscal conservatives in the Senate (respected by other fiscal conservatives, I should say), and I know from history he also believes and acts in accordance with point 1.

3. I'm not omniscient, and I didn't take the time to read the 700+ page bill myself, so granted, I only know the publicized aspects of this bill. Therefore, I need to remain mindful of the fact that there are aspects of this bill and the surrounding circumstances of which I am not completely aware.

4. Regardless of how I feel about this bill personally, it is unfair and incorrect of me to attribute motivations to the legislators who voted the way they did. I can't see into their hearts, only God can.

Today, I received a response from Sen. Coburn. All things considered, I appreciate his office responding to individual voters regarding his vote, since no one else from Oklahoma who voted "Yea" has. (And I wrote them, too.)

It's a long (form) letter, but I hope you'll take time to read it. I believe it will be worth your time.

I'll warn you right now, though. If you can't honestly attempt to separate the facts from the hype you've heard, if you can't get over yourself and the idea that you know more than anyone else, if you're not finished wallowing in victimhood and a "woe is me" attitude, if you aren't willing to open your mind to potentially new information that may contradict what you've heard, then there's no point in you reading.

We wanted to know why, and he is telling us. We should at least allow the man the opportunity to explain himself. All emphasis is added by me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear _______,

Thank you for contacting me about the economic stabilization legislation recently passed into law. As you can imagine, I have received a large volume of letters and calls and look forward to having a chance to respond. I appreciate the valuable input I have received over the past several weeks from my fellow Oklahomans on this issue.

After hearing the concerns of my fellow Oklahomans who were angry and suspicious of this proposal and the anxiety of other Oklahomans who were concerned about the consequences of failing to pass this recovery bill, I struggled with what was best both for taxpayers and the economic future of our nation, our children, and our grandchildren. After much consultation and consideration, I decided to vote for the plan.

Our country finds itself in the midst of difficult economic circumstances due to tremendous strain on worldwide financial markets. I believe the challenges created by this situation are so great that failure to address them could spill over into the broader economy and negatively affect every American.

In recent months, the Treasury Department and the Federal Reserve have attempted to address the situation through arrangements with Bear Stearns, insurer AIG, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. While many Oklahomans are rightly uncomfortable with bailing out large banks and corporations at the expense of taxpayers, the purpose of the legislation was to protect ordinary Americans and not Wall Street executives. The economic stabilization bill addresses a different problem in a different way, and is just a set of tools that can prevent a worsening crisis for Oklahoma citizens.

As a staunch advocate for free enterprise and the elimination of wasteful government spending, many have wondered why I chose to support this legislation. To answer that question, it is important to know how we have gotten to this point.

Plummeting home values have left many homeowners with mortgages that exceed the market value of their homes, making it uneconomical for them to sell and making it impossible to refinance their adjustable rate mortgages into more affordable loans. As a result, many people have become delinquent on their mortgages and, in many cases, have entered foreclosure.

The financial institutions holding those troubled mortgages have, in turn, found themselves unable to collect on those mortgages or resell them to other investors. Because these assets cannot be liquidated, the banks holding them have significantly cut back on the amount of money they lend as they try to preserve their capital. This in turn is severely restricting the amount of money that Americans can borrow.

Families and businesses alike rely heavily on financial markets. Families borrow to purchase cars, appliances, furniture, and other consumer items. Businesses borrow for various essential reasons as well-for everything from overcoming short-term cash flow problems to investing in new equipment or new ideas. A collapse of the financial markets would prevent consumers and businesses from getting the funds they need to consume and invest-undermining two key drivers of the U.S. economy.

What is missing from this account is the role Congress played in creating these economic troubles in the first place. For years, Congress pursued "affordable housing" policies with the goal of providing loans (subprime loans) to borrowers that could not pay them back. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - companies charted by Congress - encouraged banks to make subprime loans by purchasing the loans from banks and turning them into investments. Investors believed that the mortgage-backed investments were a safe investment because of the implied backing of the federal government and purchased them in great amounts.

These policies, along with low interest rates, pushed housing prices artificially high and created the often discussed housing price bubble that could not be sustained in the long run. Once the housing bubble burst and prices declined, investors were left with mortgage-backed investments that were worth less than their face value, and because of an accounting rule (mark to market) financial institutions had to value them far below their true value thus causing the banks to show much less capital than they actually have. The effect of these policies has been the crippling our country's financial system.

As much as members of Congress want to find scapegoats, the root of this problem is political greed. Members of Congress from both parties wanted short-term political credit for promoting home ownership even though they were putting our entire economy at risk by encouraging people to buy homes they couldn't afford. Then, instead of conducting thorough oversight and correcting obvious problems with unstable entities like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, members of Congress chose to ignore the problem and distract themselves with unprecedented amounts of pork-barrel spending.

If the American people are angry about the financial situation of this great country, there is only one place they need to direct their anger - the United States Congress. The economic recovery bill does not represent a new and sudden departure from free market principles as much as it represents an emergency response to congressional actions that have ignored free market principles, and our Constitution, for decades. If anyone in Washington should offer their resignation it should be the members of Congress who peddled the fantasy of free home ownership without risk. No institution in our country is more responsible for the myth of borrowing without consequences than the United States Congress.

In 2006, along with nineteen other Senators, I called for major regulatory reform with regard to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We warned of the dangers of these laxly regulated entities, and the enormous risk they could pose to the housing market, the financial system, and the economy as a whole. Yet Congress failed to take any action and the problem grew worse until we have found ourselves faced with an imminent financial catastrophe.

Failure to act now could have devastating effects on our economy. If banks continue to fail and stop lending, many Americans could lose their job, be unable to secure a loan for a car, home or college education, and find their life savings and retirement in jeopardy. Our economy depends on having liquid assets available for credit and lending just as an automobile engine needs oil. If those liquid assets stop flowing, our economy will be seriously damaged and will require far more costly and lengthy repairs.

My first priority in the Senate is to protect the American taxpayer. The plan put forth by Treasury Secretary Paulson and the Bush Administration is not perfect, but I believe is the right action to take at this moment. Consequently, I worked with my colleagues in the Senate to secure the following key provisions to protect taxpayers in the final version of the economic rescue package:

• Reduces Taxpayer Exposure - Rather than a $700 billion blank check, as requested by the Bush Administration, $250 billion would be available immediately to the Treasury Secretary with stringent oversight. Any additional funds would require further Congressional approval.

• Wall Street Helps Bail Itself Out - Addresses the frozen assets clogging up the financial system. Participating institutions holding these assets would pay the insurance premiums - in effect helping bail themselves out rather than rely on taxpayers' hard-earned money.
• Increased Oversight and Transparency - While the Paulson proposal explicitly removes any judicial oversight and lacks transparency provisions, the negotiated economic rescue package establishes a bipartisan oversight committee that requires honest and transparent reporting to Congress and the public. In addition, the programs will be monitored by a Special Inspector General, and reviewed and audited by the Government Accountability Office.

• Increased FDIC Insurance - FDIC insurance limits for bank accounts were increased from $100,000 to $250,000.

Taxpayers who want to ensure that this doesn't happen again should send a very clear message to Washington that it is time for Congress to live within its means and restore the principles of limited government, balanced budgets and free markets that made this country great. I will do everything in my power to ensure that this bill does not lead us down a slippery slope to European style socialism and slow economic growth. I will also promise taxpayers that I will do everything in my power to block what I expect will be hundreds of attempts by politicians in Washington to continue business-as-usual borrowing and spending in the next Congress.

In a time of crisis, American families have to make hard choices between budget priorities. So should Congress. If politicians want to create new programs they should eliminate duplicative programs or reduce funding for less important programs. The only way we can put this crisis behind us is for Congress to rejoin the real world of budget choices and consequences which, as we have seen in recent days, can be ignored for only so long.

Again, thank you for contacting me on this most important issue.

Sincerely, A

Tom A. Coburn, M.D.

United States Senator

TC: JEC

This is why we don’t rely on international law.

The next time you hear some liberal judicial activist talk about international precedent and America’s reputation with the world, raise huge red flags and pay very close attention.

Canadia, in the interest of protecting their alleged “nice” reputation, has now allowed and in fact endorsed the prosecution of speech that doesn’t meet the state-prescribed “nice” factor.

I have a wealth of Canadia jokes, but I will refrain for the sake of international relations (and my mother).

In their new book, The Tyranny of Nice, authors Kathy Shaidle and Pete Vere, both Canadians, outline what they call the campaign toward “state-enforced niceness.”

In an interview with PJM Political, an XM radio show, Shaidle uses an example of an individual, pastor or layperson, who perhaps quotes a verse out of the Bible condemning homosexuality. That person can now be sued, taken before the Human Rights Commission, and legally banned from ever discussing homosexuality, Christianity, the Bible – any or all of these.

One of the problems, as Shaidle points out, is that movements like this tend to eat their young. Originally, Canadian Jewish groups took advantage of this opportunity to smoke out underground Nazi groups. Now, this commission is pulling in people with “Jewish-sounding” last names as possibly being connected with different activist groups.

Oh, and only certain groups that the judiciary classifies as a “persecuted” group (akin to “endangered species”, I suppose) may lodge complaints, such as homosexual groups or ethnic minorities (if Canadia has any other than Eskimos).

If you’re white, Christian and straight, you’re not “persecuted” and therefore unoffendable.

Right now, author Mark Steyn is facing prosecution based in this judicial activism for a book he wrote in America, that was published in America, and that Canadians read and made comments about on American websites.

Where does this particular international precedent lead? We’re already getting a taste of it.

Obama’s mission to quash free-speech (see here, here, and here) now has precedent in the Great White North.

We now have solid proof of Barack Obama’s similarities to socialist nations with crappy health care and unreasonable standards of living. Consider this a gift. We are being given a glimpse into an Obamanation future.

We can’t afford the nice police. I’d be a goner.

For the full interview, download PJM’s radio show for free through iTunes.

Defend Yourself

To paraphrase Carly Simon: You probably think this blog is about you.

Watch this video.

(I apologize for the low res, it was the best copy I could find)

Apparently there are Christians complaining that they are being “judged” by other “intolerant Christians” for supporting Obama. They think it’s unfair and unloving that they should be forced to defend their choice.

Well, based on this one issue alone, I’d like for any Christian supporting Obama to defend their choice to me. That’s what grown-ups do.

Obama not only opposed a bill that would make this particular form of infanticide illegal, but he then lied to cover it up by accusing others of lying about his stance.

The record shows he either voted ‘no’ or ‘present’ (which counts as a ‘no’ vote) on the finalized versions of both forms of this bill.

This isn’t a “women’s rights” issue, since this specific bill does nothing to affect the rights of the mother. It only applies to babies after an abortion has been performed, and presumes the abortion procedure as having been done. It does not restrict or modify abortion or abortion procedures for a child still in the womb.

You can’t say “but he’s not someone else.” And saying “but he supports this other thing” or “he’s against this other thing” has nothing to do with this particular issue. You as a Christian should be able to justify supporting this man who took an aggressively anti-life stance without bringing up the war in Iraq or the housing “crisis” or tax burden/relief or anything else.

This isn’t like debating economic policy in which different people support different strategies and procedures. This isn’t a morally-neutral gray area. This is a moral issue, plain and simple.

If we as Christians are supposed to use Scripture as our moral compass, than explain to me how you as a Christian feel Scripturally justified to say that this man deserves your support.

Let me be clear: I will ignore and possibly delete any tangential responses. It’s time to play hardball. With only a few weeks left till election, we can’t keep allowing the tough questions to go unanswered.

Cf. this perspective I ran across: http://rainlovedown.blogspot.com/2008/10/tough-questions-christians-should-be.html

What are you doing this weekend?

I’ve heard there are basically two reasons to collect art. The first is that you like the piece of artwork, that you think it’s pretty or interesting. The second is that you appreciate something about the artist.

This same principle can be applied to film. We go see films because there is something about the film itself that we enjoy – comedy, romance or drama – or because someone we appreciate is involved in the making of the film, such as the director, writer or actor.

An American Carol comes out this weekend. If you don’t know the premise, here’s the trailer:

Recently, I was invited, as were other bloggers, to a live web interview of writer/director/producer David Zucker. He talked about the motivations for making this movie and what he’s trying to “do” with it.

Zucker talked about how his political conversion from liberalism to conservatism was an intellectual one, how he felt that the conservative school of thought gave a better direction for our country than a liberal one.

“Conservatives can accept that if you are liberal, it is because we have a difference of opinion about certain facts or events. Liberals think that you’re a conservative because you’re stupid or evil or rich. A dad of one of the kids in my son’s class, when he found out I was a conservative, said, ‘Well, of course you are, you’re rich!’”

Which, of course, explains other rich conservatives like Brad Henry and Drew Edmondson and John Kerry and John Edwards and Jimmy Carter and Al Gore and Barack Obama and all the Kennedys and Chuck Schumer and Howard Dean and Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Bill Gates and Ted Turner and Jane Fonda and George Clooney and Oprah Winfrey and Rosie O’Donnell and Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn and Robert Redford and Whoopi Goldberg and Oliver Stone and Madonna and Bill Maher and David Letterman and Barbara Streisand and…oh wait….

Zucker continues: “I said, that’s ridiculous! I was just as rich when I was liberal!” He then tells how his son, a fifth-grader, went to school soon after, and was told by one of the kids in his class that they couldn’t be friends anymore “because you’re a Republican.”

All of this builds to why Zucker made American Carol. He says that Conservatives by and large do not make up the majority of the modern movie-going audience. Zucker points out, a liberal will see a trailer for a film and say, “That looks great! I’m going to go see that opening weekend!” A conservative will see a trailer and say, “That looks great! I’m going to rent that as soon as it comes out on DVD!”

Conservatives, Zucker argues, have gotten out of the habit of going to see movies in theaters. This is because they feel marginalized because most movies made today have liberal and/or negative views of America in them, whether subtle or obtuse (i.e. Rendition, Iron Man, You Don’t Mess With the Zohan) rather than positive or Conservative views. He wanted to make a movie that Conservatives would come out in droves to see to prove to Hollywood that Conservatives want to see movies made for them.

Zucker also said that films like The Passion of the Christ don’t contribute to proving that point, because Hollywood was able to dismiss that box office success by attributing it to churches and Sunday School classes who went en masse.

And here is the most important part. Zucker told a story about a construction worker who was on his lunch break. He opened his lunch box and said, “Aw, man! Peanut butter and jelly again? Ugh.” His buddy says, “If you don’t like peanut butter and jelly, why don’t you ask your wife to make you something different?” The man replies, “I’m not married. I make my own lunch.”

Conservatives cannot complain about the political tenor of films coming out of Hollywood if they won’t show up to support the ones they agree with. We are making our own peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and then complaining about it if we whine about how liberal Hollywood has become, and then don’t make the extra effort to show up when Conservative films like American Carol come out.

So, this is the call to action: tomorrow, An American Carol is being released. Go see it. Get some friends together and go enjoy a fun, conservative movie. And remember, it is rated PG-13, so leave the kiddos at home.

(Read the fine print on the poster below. It's an equal-opportunity offending film.)