Bill to Require Full Disclosure of Adoption Fees Heads to Full Senate

HAT TIP to Okiecampaigns.

A measure to create more uniformity in adoptions and ensure full disclosure of fees has cleared its first major hurdle in the Senate. Senate Bill 1029, by Sen. Steve Russell, was approved by the Judiciary Committee on Tuesday. Russell, R-Oklahoma City, said that as an adoptive parent, it was an area of law of special concern to him.

In Oklahoma, prospective adoptive parents can utilize public and private agencies as well as attorney-assisted adoptions. Russell said while those are all good options, a 2006 grand jury investigation uncovered a number of abuses that need to be addressed, including some cases of “adoption” fees being used for personal vehicles, computers and other items.

“My legislation requires full disclosure of all fees, so that adoptive parents know exactly what is required up front and what all the fees are for,” Russell said. “We need to make sure we have a uniform standard for adoptions. Under current law, some things, like home studies, can be waived. Procedures aimed at ensuring the safety of the adoptive child should be enforced.”

SB 1029 would also ensure parents have a full disclosure of all state laws dealing with adoption as well as regulations impacting the adoption of children of Native American ancestry.

“Making sure all adoption laws and fees are completely transparent will improve the process and help eliminate the potential for abuse,” Russell said. “This is simply good public policy.”

Russell’s legislation now moves to the full Senate for further consideration.

Red Envelope Project

I stumbled across this recently and thought I would pass it along.

As a method of a peaceful, tangible form of protest, someone (I haven't yet found out who) came up with the idea of the Red Envelope Project.

The Red Envelope Project is to allow anyone who can afford a stamp and chance to show President Obama that we do not support his pro-abortion and pro-infanticide policies.

Here's the idea:

Get a red envelope.

On the front, address it to:

President Barack Obama
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW
Washington, DC 20500

Don't put anything inside.

Seal it and on the back, write the following message:

This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world. Responsibility begins with conception.

Put a stamp on it and mail it.

It's that simple.

All it costs you is the price of a stamp.

Will it do anything? You never know. There are never any guarantees.

But what will doing nothing accomplish?

"Progressive" History

Amazingly, this is not a joke.

The Society to Preserve Indigenous Rights and Indigenous Traditions, aka SPIRIT, has created a petition to end the traditional Land Run Activities in Oklahoma's public schools.

Their reason? "[R]e-enacting the Land Run in public schools and in communities in Oklahoma is demeaning and humiliating to Oklahoma Indians."

Really. You can see it at the petition's blog: http://www.progressivehistorians.com/2009/02/petition-stop-land-run-re-enactments.html

Okay, I was homeschooled in elementary, so I didn't do the 2nd grade Land Run day like everyone else. But when I got into high school I helped one year when my school had Land Run day.

The little kids, some wearing cowboy hats and boots, brought basket lunches and wagons, got in teams of two or three, and raced onto the little field by our building and sat down in some arbitrary spot. Then they ate lunch.

What was missing from this little 2-minute excuse to eat lunch outside of the industrial-themed school building? Any overt or implicit acts of hatred, bigotry or racism.

Seriously, what do these people think, that teachers tell the kids to scream "Kill the redskins!" when they run? That they force some poor randomly-selected children to "play Indian" and try to scalp the "Boomers" as they find the most level ground to lay out their Lunchables?

Incidentally, for those of you not from here, this is where the term Boomer Sooner comes from. But that's another blog.

Have these SPIRIT people considered that the majority of these schoolkids, unless they are first-generation Oklahomans, are most likely part-Indian, like me?

I would copy and paste some of their group and rally pictures here to give you an idea of the way they are demeaning and humiliating Oklahoma tribes with their antagonism to those of us not living on government benefits, but these are probably the kind of people who would sue me in spite of Fair Use.

If you want to see them, you can look at their myspace page.

I guess this is what happens when you have so much time on your hands you've got nothing to do but sit and think about all the ways you can play victim.

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.

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.

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

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.