Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Communism Was Just a Red Herring

The circumstances surrounding the appointment to Hillary’s Senate seat are more murky than Lake Thunderbird.

On the one hand, we’ve got Kirsten Gillibrand. We’re supposed to believe Gillibrand is a miraculous appointment for conservatives. She’s pro-life(see update), opposed the last bailout, endorsed by the NRA, supports English as the official language, opposes amnesty for illegal aliens...

Can we say “overkill”? This push push push to get us to be excited over Gillibrand makes me suspicious.

The most obvious question is: if she is a genuine conservative, why is she a Democrat in the first place? You don’t arbitrarily choose a political party; at least, people seeking elected office don’t.

And, if she is so openly and obviously conservative, why did a Democrat governor appoint her to Hillary Clinton’s senate seat? Doesn’t really seem like a logical succession.

And why is everyone trying so hard to sell Conservatives on this woman? She's a Democrat appointed by a Democrat Governor to a Democrat's vacated Senate seat during a Democrat Presidency. Shouldn't they be justifying their choice to the Democrats? And since when did they care what we think?

The flip-side to this fishy coin is Caroline Kennedy.

Why was Caroline Kennedy rejected? Princess Caroline released a statement saying she withdrew herself from consideration, and then the Governor said, “No, we rejected her. Too many personal issues.” So, to quote someone whose name escapes me, Princess Caroline was uninvited to the party and then said, “Well, I didn’t want to go anyway.”

Since when have “personal issues” ever stood in the way of advancing a Kennedy’s political career?

Was she having an affair? Think her daddy got away with that over and over.

Was it the alleged “nanny issues”? Wouldn’t employing an illegal immigrant be something of a resume booster for a liberal?

Did she kill someone? Hello, Uncle Teddy.

At least they were smart enough not to play the inexperience card. After Obama, no one will ever believe that again.

So what’s the deal? Why did Princess Caroline of Camelot get snubbed for a seat that she should have been able to walk into?

Is it possible there was some pay-to-play involved? After the recent Blago incident, they wouldn’t want another high-profile person so easily connected to Obama to be involved in yet another scandal so soon, and to a seat vacated by not only Obama’s main primary opponent but also his new Secretary of State.

Ultimately, this is all moot. I don’t live in New York, and even if I did, I wouldn’t have had a vote, since she was selected, not elected.

So why am I writing about it? Because this is a teachable moment. Trust, but verify.

Don’t get too excited about Gillibrand. Let’s see if she lives up to the hype first.

And she may be all we’re supposed to think she is. But let’s not assume she is until she proves it by standing up to Obama and the rest of the Democrat cronies on the Hill. That will be the litmus test.

I have a hunch about which way she will go, but we’ll just have to wait and see.

UPDATE: Gillibrand votes to reinstate federal funding to foreign abortions. That's the pro-life claim out.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Photographing the President

Normally, I wouldn't direct you to an external link if I could avoid, if only for simplification's sake.

But I ran across this photo essay on TIME online, and there's no way to embed it here. Take a couple of minutes and watch. It's a very respectful tribute to President Bush by two photographers assigned to cover him for TIME.

TIME: Photographing the President

Thursday, January 22, 2009

No More Excuses

We need to respect the office of the president regardless of who is in office. Remember to pray for our President the way we prayed for the last one. He’s your President, too, and you need to honor this historic achievement.

These sentiments largely come from people who fall into one of two categories: the self-righteous churchy people who only pay passing attention to politics and thought Sarah Palin was the one who said America had 57 states, or the ones who wished assassination on our President and prayed for failure on our troops.

Frankly, neither of these groups have retained any credibility with me in the area of politics throughout this process. There’s no point in addressing them.

However, a group that does need to be addressed is the race-brokers, following in the footsteps of those who have made a living profiting on race relations, like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.

Here is an example of the attitude among the race-brokers. The following bolded text is in response to something I posted (but did not author) on facebook. I have not edited these statements, except to remove the identity of the poster.

I don't expect London to fully understand what the historical significance of this moment in the United States means to us Americans. The ignoring of the fact that only 60 years ago blacks were not allowed to be at the inauguration, and now we are inaugurating our first black President- Barack Obama. Hopefully your country can reach the point when they elect their first African, Indian, Asian, etc. Prime Minister since you beat us to the punch electing Thatcher first woman Prime Minister. So National Enquirer, I mean, London Daily Mail I reject your sarcastic congratulations...

At this moment the politics are not the issue. And what indication have I ever gave that I am judging him based on his color? What irks me is the mocking of the moment, this moment that us as Americans need to get past the ghosts of our nasty and violent past when it comes to race. And realize the work we still have to do (like distribution of the song "Barack the Magic Negro") The Dream has not been fulfilled with the election of President Obama, but it is one step closer to what Dr. King dreamed of. To not recognize this moment and to mock it's significance is just wrong. I would give the same response if a Woman, Black, Asian, Native American, or Hispanic conservative were being sworn in today. I would like to be judged by the content of my character which includes my recognizing that we have come so far and to not salute America for that and mocking it would be a lapse in judgment and indeed a character flaw.

Our first Half-rican (half African) President. And that is history. It don't mater what anyone says. Not preference over any other race just a fact and one that history books will document for all time. There are still racial barriers and racism all around this country as well as in the world. And not only towards blacks but also for whites. There is no way to deny that. When you get the dirty peering looks and the racial slurs, that is real. When both blacks and whites give you crap for being in an interracial relationship, that's a real barrier. No one should vote for someone based on race, nor one should one deny the significance of this great moment. We need to pray for the President and that our country moves past the polarizing partisanship on issues that need togetherness (Immigration, the Economy, etc.). And my party needs to, as Oprah says, get with the program. Chip Saltsman needs not to become the leader of my party. It would be a step backward for a RNC trying to reach out.

So I ask, not just the person above, but everyone who has spoken or written these same type of things: is it issues or is it race? While insisting that race isn’t the issue, the only thing you’ve talked about is race. (I also question the statement that 60 years ago blacks weren’t even allowed to attend inaugurations. Citation, please.)

Barack Obama is half-black, and that’s why you say this election is so important. You keep telling me to support this guy, respect this guy, follow this guy, and then give me no reason to do so – outside of his skin color.

But that is not who he is, that’s not the quality of his character, the essence of his nature, not by the standards we have been taught to use to assess an individual.

Barack Obama is a socialist Marxist who wants to “spread the wealth around” by stealing from the earners and giving to the non-earners.

Barak Obama wants to undermine traditional marriage by repealing the Defense of Marriage Act.

Barack Obama, who said he doesn’t know when life begins, called children “punishment,” equated pregnancy with an STD, and actively opposed mandating that babies born alive after botched abortions should be given life support, thus allowing them to starve to death or succumb to their injuries.

Barack Obama has already committed to using my tax dollars to fund abortions in foreign countries.

Barack Obama wants to weaken our security by pandering to evil dictatorial regimes such as Iran and Cuba.

Barack Obama wants to restrict our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, thus denying American citizens some of those “negative liberties” he said he isn’t too fond of.

That’s who Barack Obama really is. At least do yourself the courtesy of being intellectually honest enough with yourself to admit that you don’t care.

And just to make sure you have ample opportunity to be aware of who Barack Obama is, I’m going to add another area to the right side of my blog to track exactly what ch-ch-ch-changes he brings on my country.

Consider it my “Thank You” card to you, who voted for the historic election of a pro-abortion, pro-infanticide, pro-gay marriage, anti-gun Marxist.

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Goodbye, President Bush

Thank you for eight years of pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-national security leadership that kept us safe after the worst attack in our nation's history, and subsequently liberated millions of men, women and children from tyranny. I will miss you.

And this time next year - after FOCA, government-funded stem cell research, high inflation and unemployment, socialized health care, and gun control that would make the Clintons blush - I have a feeling even some of your so-called "Conservative" critics will, too.

Via con Dios.

Required reading: National Review's Symposium on the Bush White House.

Monday, January 19, 2009

I (Still) Have a Dream

This being Martin Luther King, Jr. day, I have been forced to recognize the injustice that still exists in our culture. There is a silent minority out there as yet unchampioned.

They may not seem silent, because when you are in a bar with them they are usually the ones dancing on the tables. But yet, they have been oppressed throughout our culture’s history and still continue to be to this day.

They have been movie stars, professional athletes, mayors, senators, teachers and CEOs.

But until we elect a blonde female President, blonde women will continue to be viewed with a sense of bigotry and derision.

You may protest, but I don’t have anti-blonde sentiment! That’s something that only the uneducated or people from a certain region of the country suffer from! I’m much more progressive than that.

But be honest: we all have told blonde jokes, haven’t we? And those jokes invariably involve a blonde woman. And until you have lived as a blonde woman, you don’t know what it’s like to be judged for your hair color.

Blonde women suffer from discrimination on a daily basis, being turned down for jobs because we as a society have equated blondeness with dumbness. Or, only being given jobs involving menial tasks that brunettes and redheads won’t do, like answering phones and giving manicures.

We need to elect a blonde woman as President to cleanse us of our anti-blonde heritage.

We let them be celebrities, but don’t take them seriously in positions of power. Sure, there are blonde female congressmen(persons, excuse me), mayors, governors, cabinet members, secretaries of state, but not a president yet. And until there is a blonde president, blonde women will forever suffer from over 150 years of blonde-ist culture.

This is especially important to me, as I have blonde female relatives. My sister is a blonde woman, in fact. And until a blonde woman is elected president, she will never realize how far she can go and what her potential is. Until a blonde woman is elected president, she will continue to be viewed and to view herself as a second-class citizen.

Since it may be too much to ask our culture to abandon all our anti-blonde prejudice at once, we can concede to electing a partially blonde woman, which is why I am officially throwing my support for the next Democrat primary to Hilary Clinton.

I know that Hilary is only as blonde as the hairdresser makes her, but still, we should at least try to get a partially-blonde, or “half-blonde,” into office. This might make the election of a real blonde female president more palpable for those who still carry blonde-ist sentiments.

Now, I know what you are thinking. How can I, a Reagan conservative, endorse someone like Hilary Clinton for the Democratic Presidential candidate, possibly even President?

Frankly, it’s time we moved beyond our partisan political convictions and focus more on what’s good for our culture, for society. And really, what does a little thing like abortion matter when we could be making history? Why should I let something like the Second Amendment stand in the way of the most historic Presidential nomination in the history of our country?

Yes, she’s pro-abortion, pro-gun control, anti-military, against traditional marriage – but this is history! This may be our one chance to elect a half-blonde woman to the White House! To oppose such a monumental achievement would be rather bigoted and narrow-minded of me, wouldn’t it?

I can’t use my beliefs as an excuse to practice even more blonde-ist voting. The only way to prove to the world and my blonde or half-blonde friends that I have risen above the cultural blonde-ist sentiment is to support a half-blonde candidate for President.

So I challenge you, my fellow conservatives, set aside your personal beliefs and bring justice and validation to blonde women everywhere by joining me in supporting Hilary Clinton.

After all, isn’t history more important than the future of our country?

Thursday, January 15, 2009

Homeschooling Threatened

In Oklahoma, of all places.

Sen. Mary Easley, a Democrat from an undetermined municipality, has proposed legislation to remove the homeschooling exemption from state truancy laws. Yes, you read that right. Homeschooling would no longer be viewed as a legitimate education option for your children and therefore would no longer be protected from being prosecuted as truancy, penalties which include having your children removed from your custody.

5-to-1 Easley has connections to the OEA. (This matter is still being investigated.)

The original language of the truancy law reads “An attendance officer, any school administrator, or designee of the school administrator who is employed by the school, or any peace officer may, except for children being home schooled pursuant to Section 10-105 of the Oklahoma Statutes, temporarily detain and assume temporary custody of any child subject to compulsory full-time education, during hours in which school is actually in session, who is found away from the home of such child and who is absent from school without lawful excuse within the school district that such attendance officer, peace officer or school official serves…”

The new language in Easley’s bill removes the bolded phrase excepting homeschooled children. To read the bill, click here.

This is the same woman who apparently lives in a different district than she represents, doctored her mileage reimbursement papers to hide that fact, and has also proposed legislation to remove term limits on elected officials.

This is a big deal to me because I was homeschooled for eight years, all through elementary and junior high. I transitioned easily into a private high school, was ranked in the top ten of my class, and got a full four-year scholarship to the state university of my choice. I know many people still have the skewed vision of homeschoolers living like the Amish,* and some do, but the majority of us are well-rounded civically-aware and socially-active products of parental teaching and guidance. And we win all the spelling bees.

We need to get Mary Easley out of office. (Can we send someone to Tulsa to recruit a Republican? Anyone? Bueller?) This is one dangerous, crazy waster of taxpayer dollars. But until that happens, we need to fight her tooth and nail on every piece of legislation she has proposed.

Flood Sen. Easley’s office with phone calls and email. Tell her you do not support either of these measures she has proposed. If I find out about anything else this moron tries to put over on us, I’ll let you know.

Phone: (405) 521-5590
*I mean no disrespect to the Amish, just to those who think all homeschoolers bake their own bread and never cut their hair.

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

The Duty of Nations

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
I Timothy 2:1-4

"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor...And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations, and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our national government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally, to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best."
George Washington

LEGISLATIVE PRAYER GATHERING 2009: Press Release - For Immediate Release

On Super Bowl Sunday — February 1, 2009 the day before Oklahoma’s 54th legislative session begins, the fifth annual Legislative Prayer Gathering will be held at the State Capitol.

The event will be held on the floor of both the house and senate chambers from 2:00 to 3:00 PM. Participants will be offered the opportunity to actually sit in the chair of their state representative and/or senator and pray for that office holder (and others) for one hour.

The hope is to have each of the 101 seats in the house chambers as well as each of the 48 seats in the senate chambers occupied with citizens in prayer for that hour. To fulfill this goal, at least 149 participants are needed. Additional seating is available in both the house and the senate gallery. Participants are encouraged to park on the west side of the capitol and enter the west side of the building through the doors under the green awning. Guides will be present to provide direction.

Special thanks to Rep. Mike Reynolds, Sen. Jim Reynolds, Prayer Force One, Bott Radio Network, the Oklahoma Family Policy Council,, Barnabas Ministries Inc., Reclaim Oklahoma for Christ, and Oklahoma Conservative PAC for sponsoring this event. Other groups are invited to participate and all are encouraged to attend and pray for our nation and our leaders in Oklahoma.
For more information, click here.

Friday, January 9, 2009

A Side Note, Literally

If you haven't yet, check out the new conservative entertainment blog aggregator, Big Hollywood. I have linked to it on my right-hand side link list.

I love entertainment news, and this puts a filter on it that I can appreciate.

Monday, January 5, 2009

The Entrance of Thy Words Giveth Light

Watch the subsequent parts, then share this. Everyone needs to see this.

Thursday, January 1, 2009

The Right to Own and Carry

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson, Quoting 18th Century criminologist Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764.)

“[T]he right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Second Amendment.

If there is one message I could give our state legislature, one piece of legislation I would insist on being passed, it would be to allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus. The bill to allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus is being reintroduced this session. This is the most important piece of legislation this session. I have written about this before, but this is a new legislative session and it bears repeating.

The majority of arguments against Concealed Carry on Campus (CCC) hinge on emotionally-manipulative hypothetical situations: What if some person who had a gun didn’t take their medication that day, allegedly like the Virginia Tech shooter, and just snapped? What if someone had a handgun in their room and their roommate accidentally killed themselves? What if someone is carrying at a party where there are drugs and alcohol? What if, what if, what if.

All of these arguments may be persuasive on the face, but they ignore the facts of the issue.

The second amendment says that American citizens have the right to “keep and bear arms.” Literally translated into modern English, that means the right to own and carry weapons.

This means that the right for students possessing concealed carry permits to carry their weapons with them on campus already exists, and current laws that prohibit such are unconstitutional.

Therefore, any person who does not support CCC cannot call themselves a conservative.

Any elected official who votes against CCC has taken a proactive stance in opposing a constitutional right, and thereby breaking their oath to uphold the constitution.

Oklahoma is a “shall-issue” state, meaning that anyone who applies and qualifies for a concealed carry permit is given one. If you can go to the movies, the grocery store, a restaurant or the bowling alley with the knowledge that anyone student-age in there could be carrying, then logically you should have no qualms about these same individuals carrying on campus.

This is my New Year’s resolution, as far as this blog is concerned: to address the issue of CCC, to dismantle the arguments against CCC, to provide you with resources regarding CCC, and to be the burr on the backside of every state elected official I can get my virtual hands on until they pass CCC.

I state this plainly because I know that there are people I work with in the political arena, both elected official and not, who oppose this Constitutional right. Just letting you know: until I change your mind, I’m not going to stop talking about it.

Happy New Year.