Where Were You?

This previous Sunday, February 1st, was the Legislative Prayer Gathering here in Oklahoma. I posted the press release on here. Invited people to it on facebook and through email. And all of you people who told me "he's your president now, too, remember to pray for him," if you knew me at all, then you knew it was happening.

My question is: where were you?

Where were you Sunday afternoon when over 200 people gathered at our State Capitol to prayer walk for our leaders?

Where were you, pastors and Sunday School teachers who are supposed to lead us and teach us the Scripture, which happens to include how we are supposed to intercede for all our governmental authority, which the Bible states is established by God?

Where were you, who have come back and haughtily proclaimed victory in this last election cycle as though it was of your own doing?

Where were you, the perennial apathetic holier-than-thou who considers yourself above such worldly goings-on, like developing an active political conscience?

If you really meant what you said the necessity and responsibility of praying for our leadership, if you really believed what the Bible said in I Timothy 2 about offering intercession for all in authority, if you really practiced what you preached - you would have been there.

This was your chance to put your money where your mouth is. But now we know the truth.

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.

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.

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?

How Obama Got Elected

http://howobamagotelected.com/

UPDATED: Hiatus

Please don't mistake my recent absence for a lack of interest or for red-state flu. Life has just been very busy since Nov. 4.

In case you haven't heard it enough, Oklahoma had a great night last Tuesday. Dana Murphy won the Corporation Commissioner position in one of the most key races in the state against nationally-funded gay activism poster boy Jim Roth, another one of Aubrey McClendon's failed investments. It's always a great feeling when the candidate who was outspent 4-1 wins.

We took a majority in the State Senate for the first time in forever, which involved Nancy Riley getting burned for costing us the majority last time. That felt good. And Sally Kern was also re-elected against a nationally-funded candidate. Grassroots conservatism is alive and well in Oklahoma, thank God!!

Right now, we've still got one battle being fought. State Senator Jim Reynolds is facing an ACORN travesty. His challenger, David Boren (no relation to that David Boren), also nationally-funded, is requesting multiple recounts of ACORN-tainted votes. Right now, the recount is in progress and Jim is still ahead. I'll update when we get final word. UPDATE: Jim gained 2 votes in the recount, winning the election. However, a hearing has been scheduled to investigate "voting irregularities on both sides." (I'm sure.)

We didn't lose any Republican US seats, which is also a huge win, considering our guys haven't been behaving well recently. However, they're still doing better than any liberal would in their positions, so I am thankful they retained their seats. And, in part because of their wins, the Democrats were kept from their super majority in Congress. Huge, huge victory.

And yes, Obama won. The first half-black man in the history of the United States to become President. Congratulations. Now let's see if he can manage to solve more problems than he causes.

Now we shoot for 2010 to take back Congress like we did in 1994 and elect a Republican governor in 2010. (There is an underground effort to recruit JC Watts. I doubt he'll go for it, but we can dream.)

Prop. 8 passed in California, a huge win for traditional values. And as usual, the crowd who preaches "tolerance" the loudest is assaulting the elderly and stomping on crosses, trying to get the courts to yet again overturn the will of the people. Good luck with holding the public's sympathy on that, guys.

So now, life goes on. And I am letting you know now, my activity on here may be less than before. I am turning my focus to larger projects, and as such need to limit dividing my mind. Or, to usa an analogy, I'm starting to train for a marathon, and while the sprints have been good, I need to start aiming a bit higher.

I know you don't know how you'll get on without reading my posts every few days. Don't worry. You'll be fine. And I'll be back whenever there's something noteworthy, which there will be. OK Legislative session starts soon, so there will be plenty to talk about!

See you then!

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.

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 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.

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..."

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

It’s Okay, You Can Smile

I don’t know if you know, but we had a big win yesterday. The citizens of America won.

I give you permission: be happy.

Two-thirds of Republicans – and a surprisingly big chunk of Democrats – showed up to represent the interests of the American people, in spite of the psychological warfare engaged by leadership in both parties. Bush put pressure on the Congress to support the bill against his “natural instincts” for a free market economy. Reid and Frank pounded all weekend that “a deal had been reached, the bill is going forward,” so vote for the bill so you don’t get left out. Pelosi got up right before the vote in a last-ditch effort to intimidate members of Congress to just go with the flow, save the world, vote for the bailout or we’ll slash your tires.

It didn’t work. None of it worked. You know why?

Because of you. You, the voters, contacted your Congressmen and told them that you weren’t going to put up with the government pouring out your tax money to bailout their friends. You saved our country from the worst massive tax expenditure in recent history. You did this. Celebrate.

And don’t buy the hype. They told us the economy would break if the bill didn’t pass, and are already citing yesterday’s DOW drop as proof. But it’s not true. The Dow dropped 600 of those 777 points while they were still debating – before the vote was even taken. And the drop yesterday didn’t even crack the top-ten largest percentage drops in the history of the world.

And – the Dow is already up 200 points again this morning.

We’re still here. We’re okay.

The war of accountability between the people of America and the government that represents them will never be over. But we won the most recent battle. Enjoy it. We have another battle coming up. The Senate vote is tomorrow. Contact your Senators with the same fury with which you contacted your Congressmen. It worked before, it will work again.

And yes, there are turncoat members of Congress that we now have to deal with. That’s okay. We’ve had to do that before, we’ll do it again. And we will not only survive, we will thrive.

We won. Celebrate it. Enjoy it. Be motivated. This is proof that the American way really works, that it still works. That we are still living in the greatest country on the face of the earth.

Bailout Madness: How Did We Get Here?

Some resourceful person put together a video outlining the events that led to the late-night backroom deals this weekend. Sometimes what looks like conspiracy is really just a series of unfortunate events.

The Only Way I Got Through

I had planned on doing my own real-time running commentary during the debate tonight - mostly to keep my blood-pressure from spiking everytime I heard the words "maverick" and "uh" - but between getting to the gym and making stir-fry for dinner, time got away from me. Thankfully, Pajamas Media came to the rescue yet again. Vodkapundit Stephen Green (my new role model) wrote up his own commentary on the debate, and kept me thoroughly distracted.

Warning: This has been rated PG-13 by my extremely conservative (lower-case 'c') sensibilites and is guaranteed to make you spit-take your fried rice.

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

6:40PM (All times Mountain, or else I’ll have to do math.) After splitting a bottle of cheap champagne with my bride, I’ve poured myself a hefty Ketel One Citroen martini. And if Wolf Blitzer keeps going on about how people can turn the little dials for stuff they like, I’m going to need my second Ketel One Citroen martini in record time.

6:42PM I’ll admit though that I’d give up booze for a month if I could play with CNN’s map software and giant touch screen.

6:44PM In a global first, Bruce Carroll is Vicodinblogging tonight’s debate. I’ve got ten bucks says he passes out before it’s over.

6:47PM The talking heads agree: Both of these guys pretty much suck at debates, but give McCain the edge. It’s a heavily handicapped race — or maybe a race between the handicapped.

6:50PM Can Obama pull off the commander-in-chief role? Will anyone care three weeks from now? McCain has run a (mostly) smart campaign. How’d he get snookered into holding the foreign affairs debate first?

6:54PM The Obama guys are cracking me up, claiming McCain is a “peerless” debater. I mean, Tony Blair’s dog is probably better at this stuff.

6:55PM My sources inform me that Tony Blair is actually a cat person. Pajamas Media regrets the error.

6:57PM Here’s a better link to Bruce’s Vicodinblog.

7:00PM Somebody just accused Christiane Amanpour of being pretty much unAmerican. Good thing it was from a fellow unAmerican journalist, otherwise there’d be hell to pay.

7:01PM OK, here we go. I’ve just taken a rather large dose of cocktail to fortify myself for the impending disaster. Or brilliant performance. Or whatever.

7:03PM Part of the fate of the free world depends on a coin toss. Don’t think about that.

7:03PM I’m sure I’ve used this joke before, but Jim Lehrer looks amazingly lifelike.

7:04PM Both candidates look good. Cordial. Maybe even warm. Wish I could say the latter about Lehrer.

7:05PM “We must achieve security and solvency.” A quote from Eisenhower to lighten the mood. The question goes to Obama.

7:05PM “We are at a defining moment in our history…” And I think maybe I fell asleep already.

7:06PM Obama’s first answer is very well rehearsed, but maybe obviously so. And his tie seems a little… nightclubbish.

7:06PM But he’s got on a tie pin. (I don’t wear one.)

7:06PM Fumbled the “trickle down” line.

7:07PM Nice note from McCain about Ted Kennedy, who was rushed to a hospital earlier tonight after a “mild seizure.”

7:07PM McCain “isn’t feeling well” about the economic situation. Smart to bring up the health issue, even tangentially?

7:08PM McCain seems solid, and he’s playing up the bipartisan angle. Obama would be smart to follow suit. He’d have been smarter to have started off that way three minutes ago.

7:08PM BAM! Didn’t take long for McCain to bring up our “dependence on foreign oil.”

7:09PM “I am optimistic,” says Obama. Wouldn’t have guessed that from his first answer.

7:10PM Obama is leaving himself wide open for McCain to bring up all the Freddie & Fannie money Obama has taken in four short years — but will he?

7:11PM McCain is telling a great story about Eisenhower. Telling it so well you might believe McCain was there with him. You might even think he was there. First health, now age. That’s a couple unforced errors already.

7:12PM “People will be held accountable in my administration.” Nice contrast with Bush, who would fire someone for peeing in his hat.

7:13PM Speaking of unforced errors, Obama just mentioned “failed energy policies.” Like the Democratic ban on oil drilling that Democrats just allowed to expire because they weren’t brave enough to actually go and change them?

7:14PM I’m glad to see McCain placed equal blame on Washington for once, and not just on Wall Street. But it took him a week to get there?

7:15PM “What would you do to lead the country out of the financial crisis?” McCain: Control spending. And then on to earmarks. Yes, McCain has had two unforced errors, but he’s also pretty adept at turning questions to his strengths.

7:16PM Wow. McCain just claimed that Obama has earmarked almost a million dollars a day as a senator. Can someone look that up, see if it’s right? Obama just took one on the chin, then weakly claimed that NOW he’s refusing earmarks.

7:17PM Ah. Under McCain, 300 billion in tax cuts to the “rich,” says Obama. It’s starting to get nasty. Which means it’s almost time for a second martini.

7:18PM Has anyone factchecked Obama’s claim that he can cut taxes for 95% of families when one third of taxpayers pay no income tax at all?

7:19PM McCain just accused Obama of being a johnny-come-lately on earmarks, and that “maybe that kind of money” isn’t serious to Obama. Right now I’m liking this fight.

7:21PM Obama is begging off on the numbers, and claiming he’ll go “line by line” through the budget. Well, fine. But instead of arguing “change,” Obama is arguing about earmarks. McCain has forced him off that hill called Hope and Change — and that’s an operational, maybe strategic, little win on his part.

7:22PM 15 minutes in, it’s clear that McCain is missing chances to throw uppercuts. But he’s ahead on jabs.

7:23PM 95% of you will get a tax cut! I’m giving you money! Vote for me!

7:24PM Is Obama really claiming that American businesses don’t actually pay enough taxes?

7:24PM But I’ll give Obama this much credit: “Loopholes” is usually a Republican complaint. He’s taken that one away. But now he’s talking health care and against free markets and this is a foreign policy debate?

7:25PM McCain just took one of those uppercuts. It’s not connecting, quite, but at least he finally tried one.

7:25PM What a wasted chance. McCain is stumbling now. But Obama says, “It’s just not true, it’s just not true.” But he never says how it isn’t true.

7:26PM Lehrer has done OK, I suppose, but this ought to be his last major debate.

7:27PM Obama: “I don’t have a plan.” OK, he didn’t quite say that, but he does say we need “energy independence.” And then he gave a nice little reach around to Detroit automakers. Hello, Michigan’s 17 electoral college votes!

7:28PM Affordable college? Infrastructure? What was the question again, Barack?

7:28PM Joe Biden has possessed the body of Barack Obama. He just. won’t. stop.

7:29PM “It’s hard to reach across the aisle from that far to the left.” “I oppose ethanol subsidies.” I know McCain wasn’t planning to take Iowa, but I wonder if he just kissed off Indiana and Ohio, too.

7:30PM If this were Oxford, it would start like this: “Resolved: That we would like to hold all of the primaries over again.”

7:31PM Obama says some things “will have to be delayed.” Lehrer says “What?” Obama answers with stuff he doesn’t want to delay, and stuff he doesn’t want to cut, and taxes he wants to raise. And college tuition! Somebody’s got to pay off his wife’s loans.

7:32PM Obama’s liberalism is just “opposition to Bush’s failed policies.”

7:33PM McCain would freeze spending on everything but defense and such. Obama says, “yes, but…” Which has been his entire performance so far tonight. That’s playing defense. That’s playing to lose.

7:34PM McCain just put Obama on defense again on energy. “You can’t get there from here.” I’m starting to wonder if the old guy has been laying low this whole time.

7:35PM I understood that there would be a foreign policy debate. And that there would be no math.

7:36PM “Spending 300 billion dollars on tax cuts.” That right there explains why I haven’t voted for a Democrat for President since 1992, and would rather not until they beat that sentiment out of themselves. Preferably using ball-peen hammers.

7:38PM “I just have to make this point, Jim.” Obama his hitting McCain hard for voting for “most” of Bush’s budgets.

7:39PM “It is well known that I haven’t been voted Miss Congeniality” in working with Bush. And then McCain outlined lots of places where he has parted ways with Bush… while sneaking in an endorsement for Palin. Nicely turned, McCain. More of this, please.

7:40PM If I’m not mistaken, there’s been a foreign policy question, and an answer to match. “We are winning in Iraq… with honor,” says McCain.

7:41PM OK, quick question: Without peeking, repeat one thing Obama has said.

7:41PM Obama opposed Iraq. Who knew! But didn’t he also oppose the surge that McCain endorsed before Bush and before the Pentagon? “Distraction… Afghanistan… blah blah blah.”

7:42PM Obama has GOT to stop counting the costs of the Iraq War, at a time when Americans are feeling better about it. It’s bad politics, bad strategy, and absolutely shitty leadership. If you’ll pardon my English.

7:43PM McCain says the next President won’t decide IF to go into Iraq, but HOW to exit and WHAT to leave behind. And it’s there that Obama’s judgement has been wrong for years.

7:44PM I’m going to miss some stuff now, while I go shake another martini. I trust you’ll understand and forgive.

7:46PM Ahhh.

7:46PM “Obama doesn’t understand the difference between a tactic and a strategy.”

7:47PM I haven’t been paying attention to CNN’s audience-o-meter. Can someone tell me how the candidates are doing? It’s a gimmick, but I’m curious — and I have to LISTEN to these debates while I focus on typing on the screen.

7:48PM I live and breathe this stuff, even while drinking, but I can barely follow Obama’s answers. McCain is hardly inspiring, but he at least seems to make sense.

7:49PM Wasn’t Obama promising to reduce our troops in Iraq “in 16 months” at least 12 months ago? Why won’t the left call for his warmongering head?

7:50PM Obama has got to stop doing that half smile thing. I know, because I do it too. All the freaking time.

7:52PM I just spent HOURS talking to Austin Bay about Afghanistan last weekend. And his assessment — wise when Obama was writing junior high school love poems — does not match up with that of the senator from Illinois.

7:53PM You know, Obama is right — and has been right — about calling for more troops for Afghanistan. But now he’s calling for more eradication of poppy seeds… and extending the Drug War to Afghanistan is the single biggest mistake Bush has made in that country.

7:54PM “You don’t say that out loud,” says McCain, about Obama’s promise to invade Pakistan. My exact words, from the first time Obama made his stupid, juvenile threat.

7:56PM “Nobody talked about attacking Pakistan,” says Obama. This must be Obama v2.0. Three-point-oh?

7:57PM Heh. Obama just slammed McCain about “prudence” after that “Bomb bomb bomb Iran” song. It’s a fair cop.

7:57PM This is Obama’s first really solid answer. So I can promise you it’s the one all the news outlets (save *maybe* Fox) will be running tomorrow.

7:58PM Now there’s a bit of history I’d forgotten. McCain voted against his “dear friend” Reagan’s deployment of Marines to Lebanon. Kind of squashes that whole “prudence” complaint.

7:58PM Do a shot every time McCain says “I have a record.” He doesn’t *need* to say, “And my opponent doesn’t.”

8:00PM Can I vote McCain for Best Old Uncle?

8:01PM “No soldier ever dies in vain,” says Obama. That’s in direct contradiction to something he said during the primaries. Can someone look that up for me, please, while I drink? (I’m lazy, it’s true.)

8:02PM “You’d think Obama would have gone to Afghanistan.” And then McCain further slammed Obama for hiding behind Senate rules (although I doubt many people caught that one).

8:03PM Lehrer says they’re even on time. But that they’ve run out of five minute thingies. Give it to Lehrer for running an even debate, if nothing else.

8:04PM In the comments, Dave writes, “‘Paahkistaahn’ might be closer to the correct pronunciation, but it comes across as effete. (Jenjiss kaahn?)”

8:05PM The best way to hurt Iran is to lower oil prices. McCain ought to be hammering that fact as part of his Drill Now, Drill Frickin’ Everything mantra.

8:06PM Oh, and he slid it in under the wire, but every Jew watching just noted McCain say “never again.” Obama should have followed suit, but so far hasn’t.

8:07PM Obama just said sanctions haven’t worked against Iran!

8:08PM But yet we need “tougher sanctions.”

8:08PM “Tough, direct diplomacy against Iran!” I wave papers in your general direction, you Persian sons of hamsters!

8:09PM Pardon me as I wet myself while McCain spanks Obama over his promise to negotiate with Iran “without preconditions.” It’s like gay porn, only this stuff turns me on. (Sorry, Bruce!)

8:10PM “Let’s talk about this,” says Obama. Isn’t that the goddamn problem, you inexperienced, officious little whelp?

8:11PM Obama is man enough to admit that “it may not work” to have the Iranian president over at the White House. Back in high school, we used to say, “No sh*t, Sherlock?”

8:12PM Every time Obama complains that the Bush strategy hasn’t worked with Iran, he reinforces the point that his own plan is just more of the same, only granting Iran even more prestige. How stupid does he thing we are? How naive is he?

8:13PM “I’m not going to set the White House visitor schedule before I’m elected.” And Obama just got another welt across his behind.

8:14PM I don’t know if McCain will win. I still doubt it, and sometimes I dread it. But if he doesn’t do better with Jews than any Republican since… ever, then there’s something wrong here.

8:15PM “Preconditions” = “Preparation,” says Obama. To again put it in high school terms: Studying for your exams is the same as expecting your teacher to just give you an A.

8:15PM “Aw, please,” says McCain. It’s about time somebody said that to this contorted naif.

8:16PM On to Russia …

8:17PM How do you see Russia? Obama: “uh … um … ah … we need to assess…” Maybe even a study group!

8:18PM Do I sound dismissive about the distinguished senator from Illinois? Oh, good!

8:18PM Don’t get me wrong — McCain is hardly my dream candidate. Unfortunately for me, and the nation, Cal Coolidge has been dead for quite some time now.

8:19PM Quoting Obama, “Both sides ought to show restraint.” Both sides including … GEORGIA! And again McCain draws a contrast between himself and Bush. And again Obama comes off as me-too at best, a naif at worst.

8:22PM This debate still has ten minutes or so to go. But it’s not too soon to give you a wrap. McCain is no debater. He wouldn’t last a second during Question Hour in the British Parliament. And yet Obama is coming off in third place in a two-man session.

8:23PM Obama expected Russia to trade its “peacekeepers” in South Ossetia and Abkhazia with “international peacekeepers.” And how did he propose to do that, even prior to the invasion? If you thought I was too harsh calling him a “naif” before, surely you agree with me now.

8:24PM Last question …

8:25PM “I’ve never said I object to nuclear waste.” Then let’s store it on Chicago’s south side!

8:25.5PM I mean, who would notice?

8:27PM Now that it’s almost over, may I at long last say … “oh, the humanity!”

8:30PM OK, I’ll give you a real close now. Obama strikes me as a modern Chamberlain, praising his (oh-so-transient) “peace with honor.” McCain, however, comes across as “peace when we’re done kicking you ass and not one moment sooner.” And since this was ostensibly a foreign policy debate, I give the win to McCain. Oh, and one other thing — Obama is still talking as I write this. But he’s spending his last answer angling for the European vote, which does nothing but reinforce my point.

8:33PM One last thing. McCain is finishing with, “Obama still doesn’t understand.” It’s true that McCain pulled a lot of punches. But he’s won on points — and at the end, I think that was his strategy all along. Had he come on too strong, McCain would have left himself open to those charges of being imprudent. Tonight he was prudent, if sometimes overly so. Obama came across as an impudent naif — and that’s not what Americans want, need, or can afford in times like these.

8:35PM OK, one more one last thing. McCain kinda sucks with or without a teleprompter. But Obama keeps fumbling the easy ones, where all he has to do is segue into his stump speech talking points. If that reminds you of his initial response to the Georgia invasion, it’s for good reason. The man simply is not ready for the burden of this office. But I’m more than ready for another martini. So if you’ll excuse me, I’ll see you next week at the next debate. Cheers! -----------------------------------------------------------------------

But the killer quote came from Henry Kissinger whom Obama had invoked to criticize McCain’s stance that we should not meet unconditionally with Ahmadinejad. Kissinger retorted: “Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality.” http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/who-won-the-debate/ ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's my one piece of personal commentary: Someone needs to tell Obama that Reagan already ended the Cold War. These Kennedy-esque attempts to beg forgiveness for existence from foreign countries will only get more of us killed. And yes, China is launching its third space mission. Congratulations. And guess who's been to the moon already? I don't think our kids need to worry about keeping up with the Chinese.

On a side note: I have long been admiring Cindy McCain's fashion sense. I'd sell a kidney to get an appointment with her stylist. But what was Michelle Obama wearing? From whose curtains did she steal that dress?

UPDATED --- Kill the Bill!

Scroll down for update It's time to contact your Congressmen and Senators. Tell them to kill the bailout bill and not use our tax dollars to bail out irresponsible lenders. Our Congressmen and Senators need to know that their constituents do not support this hasty, foolish move to throw good money after bad.

This would be a bold move, crossing the President's recommendations last night. Our representatives in Washington need to know that we will support them in that, and that party lines need to disappear on this issue.

Go to this website:

http://www.capitolconnect.com/oklahoma/default.aspx

Fill out your information and you will be given a list of your Congressmen and Senators, along with links to their websites. You can directly email them and tell them to Kill the Bill.

------------------------------------------------------------------------- UPDATE: Your emails and phone calls are working! If you have not yet contacted your Congressmen and Senators, do so now and encourage them to keep up the fight against this bill! Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson fears the Wall Street bailout deal is falling apart after a chaotic White House meeting, sources say.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/09/stephanopoulo-6.html Paulson walked into the room where Democrats were caucusing after today's meeting at the White House and pleaded with them, "Please don't blow this up." Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., chair of the House Financial Services Committee was livid saying, "Don't say that to us after all we've been through!" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, "We're not the ones trying to blow this up; it's the House Republicans." "I know, I know," Paulson replied.

Also see:

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/25/kill-the-bailout-call-your-gop-representative/ http://monicamemo.typepad.com/weblog/2008/09/deal-or-no-deal.html http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D93E28NG0&show_article=1

Feminists against Palin - shame on you

Phyllis Schlafly

Sunday, September 21, 2008

The nomination of Sarah Palin for vice president is a big step forward for women, but a long backward step for the movement we have been taught to call feminism.

That is obvious from the anguish, indeed the fury, of feminist commentators. They are so intemperate in their criticism that they are incoherent. Men who are clueless about feminism naively think all women should be cheering. Sarah Palin is a woman who has done it all; she has a successful and even more promising career, five children and a supportive husband.

She crashed through the ultimate layer of the feminist fiction -the "glass ceiling" - and she joined those very few women destined to be known only by their first names. What more could any woman want?

The denunciations of Sarah can't be only because she appears to be a conservative Republican, and the feminists want only liberal Democrats to win. In this era of independent voters and respect for a maverick, surely the milk of bipartisanship should soften feminist angst about Sarah.

But, no. Feminist anger against Sarah has exposed the fact that feminism is not about women's success and achievement. If it were, feminists would have been bragging for years about self-made women who are truly remarkable achievers, such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, or Sen. Elizabeth Dole, or even Margaret Thatcher. Feminists never boast about these women because feminism's basic doctrine is victimology. Feminism preaches that women can never succeed because they are the sorry victims of an oppressive patriarchy. No matter how smart or accomplished a woman may be, she's told that success and happiness are beyond her grasp because institutional sexism and discrimination hold her down.

When Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to get the Democratic nomination for president or vice president, she and her allies rained a torrent of tears all over the media about the injustice of it all, ranting that rampant sexism denied her the nomination she was due. The aging Gloria Steinem opined on CNN that it is "clear that there is profound sexism." She whined that Hillary couldn't crack the "glass ceiling" because there are "still barriers and biases out there."

Oh, the unfairness of it all! Steinem bemoaned that women find it so "difficult to be competent and successful and be liked." Au contraire, Hillary and women like her are not disliked because they are competent and successful, but because they are chip-on-the-shoulder feminists, living in an unhappy world of their own making and spreading their discontent like a virus. Feminists convey a notion of entitlement, as though they deserve special privileges today because of wrongs in past years that no one any longer can remember, such as women not having the right to vote. The bad attitude of victimhood is indoctrinated in students by the bitter feminist faculty in university women's studies courses and even in some law schools. Victimhood is nurtured and exaggerated by feminist organizations using their tactic called "consciousness raising," i.e., retelling horror stories about how badly some women have been treated until small personal annoyances grow into societal grievances. The feminists resent Sarah because she's the exact opposite of Hillary Clinton. When the liberal media sharpened their knives against Sarah, some chivalrous McCainiacs cried foul about media unfairness, but we didn't hear any whining from Sarah. Sarah has been successful because of hard work and perseverance, not because she's a woman, and she's not going to pull any crybaby act now. Sarah didn't need any Equal Rights Amendment, which Hillary is still promoting even though it was declared dead by the Supreme Court 26 years ago.

The feminist tirades against Sarah are mostly so tiresome, but one line of their complaints is really funny. After 40 years of telling wives and mothers to get out of the home (which Betty Friedan called "a comfortable concentration camp"), put their children in day care (tax-funded, of course) and join the workforce, these same feminists now tell Sarah to stay home with her children.

Sarah doesn't need feminist approval for her lifestyle; the only person whose OK she needs for her double career as mother and politician is her husband's, and he seems very happy with Sarah.

Sarah Palin is an exemplar of a successful, can-do woman, and the feminists simply don't know how to deal with her. I hope she will usher in a new era where conventional wisdom recognizes that feminist negativism is ancient history and American women are so fortunate to live in the greatest country on Earth.

Phyllis Schlafly is president of Eagle Forum, an attorney, and the author of 20 books, including "Feminist Fantasies." Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/09/21/IN5U13026F.DTL

This article appeared on page G - 2 of the San Francisco Chronicle

The Pitbull With Lipstick

Sarah Palin has done for women what liberal feminism has failed to do for the last 40 years. Sarah Palin is what women like Hillary Clinton only hope to be.

Palin worked her way up through the ranks, serving on the PTA, city council, as a mayor, and then as a governor. Most people would call that "multi-level experience." It's what the late, great Peggy Carter called "trenchwork."

And unlike Hillary Clinton, she did it all without the benefit of riding on her husband's name.

Palin saw the flaws in her local and state government, and started at the beginning - her local PTA. Sarah Palin understood that political effectiveness isn't measured by how many people know your name, but by how many people benefit by your efforts and think that it just happened that way.

Rather than wait for someone else to fix Alaska's Republican party, or whine about the corrupt elected officials in her state to her neighbors, Palin took on the system and went to battle for her fellow Alaskans. And it worked – she's the only governor in the United States with an 80% approval rating.

And now she is running for the chance to go to battle for us, her fellow Americans. We should be so lucky as to have her serve us as Vice President of the United States.

The condescension coming from both the MSM and the uninformed men-on-the-street here in our state shows a complete lack of understanding of what grassroots conservatism is.

In one sense, we have no one to blame but ourselves for this predicament. We have allowed the voters in Oklahoma and America to remain apathetic and rely on the MSM to think for them. We talk amongst ourselves about ballot initiatives and legislative actions without bringing the information to the people en masse. We only are at their doors and in their mailboxes during major election cycles. We are now seeing the result of this.

People by and large seem to think that a qualified politician is someone who wakes up one day and says, "Hmm, to bring to fruition my life's aspiration of being the youngest governor elected in my state, I'm going to run for State Representative and start to make a name for myself." Or else, they were recruited by the evil political machine that is oozing its way through our state government, and therefore they are assumed to be qualified because they have recognizable names and large PAC donations backing them.

Sarah Palin does not fit this profile, and so people feel comfortable calling her "inexperienced."

Palin didn't wait for someone else to fight the corrupt, embedded Republicans in her state. And she didn't wait for a high-profile opportunity to come available. She didn't join the corrupt Republican power brokers in her state to make her political road easier.

She didn't care about the notoriety. She didn't care about the difficulty. She knew she would be fighting against her own Lance Cargills and Chris Benges and Jeff MacMahans and Gene Stipes and Brad Henrys and Aubrey McClendons and Clay Bennets, and that they would fight dirty.

And she did it anyway.

That is grassroots politics, and grassroots Conservatism. Sarah Palin has real experience, not drummed-up politicized "experience" based on who her political connections are.

She put in the time on lower levels because she cared more about making a difference than about making a name for herself. She moved up the political food chain as duty called her, not as ego drove her. Sarah Palin was willing to do the work that elitist Republicans wouldn't do.

Sarah Palin came from a "small town" to become Governor of one of the largest states in our union because she is effective. She is accomplished.

She has experience.

To say otherwise is to be willfully ignorant of the facts. I pity the fool.