KATHLEENMCKINLEY.COM

Traveling Again!

2010-07-27T04:04:00Z

I'll be gone until August 2nd! Check back then!

'The Day We Decide'

2010-07-26T01:54:00Z

One thing I love about twitter is that you can find some great blogs that you never would have found otherwise. Yesterday I found Random Alien Musings. I noticed this post on MLK called "Livin' The Dream." I thought I would share his thoughts. Kunta Evans has this to say about his black community:

The day we decide that no political party will hold sway over us and tell us we need the gov't to intervene on our behalf will be the day that changes our current destiny. The day we decide to collectively commit to thinking for ourselves without regard to petty partisan politics and culturally accepted schools of thought will be the day when history will be made. The day we decide that we aren't entitled to a handout or owed something by the gov't or any other entity will be the day that changes our current trajectory. The day we decide to expect greatness from ourselves because we feel like that's a reasonable expectation for us, the day Black men decide to collectively step up and deliver the goods for their families the way they were created to will be the day not only the Black race, but the world will be better off.

The only thing I would add to that is that almost all that he wrote applies to every American of any color.

The government will never make us better. The government will never make us happy or prosperous. The most profound sentence in Kunta's essay is where he writes, "The day we decide to expect greatness from ourselves because we feel like that's a reasonable expectation for us.." Each one of us has a calling and a purpose. We need only to find it within ourselves.

Several years ago Tom Brokaw wrote a book called, "The Greatest Generation." It was about the men and women who grew up during the Depression, and went on to fight World War II. Brokaw says of them, "It is, I believe, the greatest generation any society has ever produced." Why? Because they suffered hardship, fought a terrible war, and came back to America to rebuilt it into a superpower. They were hardworking, determined, self made men and women who got up every day ready to do their job the best they could. A generation of incredible people of all colors, that stood up to terrible things, and overcame them. They lived through depression and the war. They didn't give up. They moved forward. They came back from all that, worked hard, and made America great.

What is important in the book is how each of them helped the other. Not necessarily in a phyiscal sense, but they were there for one another. I think this is maybe what we have forgotten. Do we reach out to one another? Do we take care of our family? Extended family? Do we help another person in our daily lives? Do we listen? Do we understand?

The greatest generation went through terrible things together, and came out of it strong and ready to work hard. We need that feeling today. We need to depend on one another, not the government. Instead, we fight and argue about the government and politics. We waste our time not caring about each other.

The day we decide to care for one another, is when things really will change.

To Legalize or Not Legalize Pot. That Is The Question

2010-07-23T05:15:00Z

Here is an interesting story, and since this is one issue that I go back and forth on, I thought maybe you could give me your thoughts on what the law should be on legalizing pot or not.

In California there will be a ballot initiative in November to legalize recreational marijuana use. Surprisingly, the state chapter of the NAACP is endorsing this initiative.

A black pastor there is not happy with that:

"Most African American pastors are disappointed, absolutely disappointed with the decision," said Allen, bishop of the Greater Solomon Temple Community Church in Oak Park. "If anyone should know the effects of illicit drugs in the black community, it should be one of our most respected civil rights organizations."

The NAACP chapter contends that young black men are targeted more in marijuana possession arrests. Legalizing it would alleviate that. There is also the argument that taxing it would bring in revenue and keep it off the streets.

Here is my quandary. Although I have never smoked pot, I had many friends in college who did smoke. To me, it never seemed as bad as drunkeness. I honestly don't see it as any worse than alcohol. On the one hand I can see the pastor's point. Drugs have ravaged the inner city communities. Making it legal would only promote drug use. Not good. But on the other hand there is racial disparity in arrests, convictions and imprisonment when it comes to pot. The terrible thing is that once you have an arrest on your record, it tends to follow you your whole life. I see young people, both white and black, arrested for pot. I think it is an unnecessary waste of time for our police and courts. It seems to me that it should at least just be a ticket with a hefty fine. Arrest and jail is ridiculous. Maybe that could be the compromise?

Nah. Makes too much sense.

Anyway, give me your thoughts on it. I could be swayed either way. I don't see pot as a "gateway drug," although that pastor said that is how he started doing drugs that brought him to his knees. He sobered up and found God, but so many do not.

We allow drinking though. How is that different really?

What Is The Tea Party?

2010-07-22T16:13:00Z

I do grow tired of the baseless accusations of racism toward the Tea Party. I think the video below says all you need to know about the Tea Party.

Note To White House: Stop Obessing Over Fox News

2010-07-21T21:56:00Z

Let's hope we all learned the lesson we should have from the Sherrod affair (see post below if you aren't familiar with it). The lesson is that both sides need to stop with the deeming those that disagree with them as "racist."

The left needs to stop trying to paint the Tea Party as racist. It isn't. At all. Are there elements that may be? Sure. Just as there are elements that may be in the NAACP.

The Tea Parties are about reigning in government. It isn't about color, and really isn't even about party. I think Tea Party members would vote for a Democrat that promised to stop this insane spending, and limit the scope of government.

The most fascinating part of this entire story is the fact that when Sherrod was driving, she was called on her cell and told that the White House wanted her to pull over on the side of the road and "resign now!" She then says she was told it was because she was going to be on Glenn Beck that night.

Is this how the White House reacts? They don't investigate to see if it's true. They just FREAK at the name 'Glenn Beck.' Geeze. Isn't that a bit ridiculous?

This White House needs to stop worrying so much about every story that comes up the pike, and just worry about leading this country.

The irony is that Glenn Beck was the one defending Sherrod while the White House was attacking her. Here is what he said on his show yesterday:

Beck said on his show that he is "puzzled by this," and compared the situation to "taking a videotape of me at an AA meeting where I say, 'And you know what, I have to tell you something. I was drunk everyday. I was completely out of control," and stopping the tape before he said he found Jesus.
..................

"Now if she is relating a story from1986 to make a point about how her racial perceptions have changed, this woman deserves her job back. Again, me at AA. Something is definitely wrong here,"

So the White House freaks out thinking that Beck will make Sherrod look bad for the administration, when in reality it was Beck who was defending her (as I was, even before Beck did, I might add).

This is what happens when one is constantly on the defensive, and trying to control the narrative. Pres. Obama and the left need to stop worrying about Fox News, the blogs, and radio talk show hosts, and DO THEIR JOB.

Start creating an economic atmosphere where people can get back to work, and I promise you, the good narrative will follow.

An Innocent Woman Gets Caught In The Crossfire Of Playing The Race Card (Updated)

2010-07-21T17:32:00Z

By now you have probably heard of USDA's Shirley Sherrod's video where it appears she is admitting to not helping a white farmer just because he was white. The YouTube clip shows a portion of her March 27 speech at an NAACP banquet.

This comes on the heels of the NAACP continuing the false narrative that the Tea Party members are racist.

Why would the NAACP do such a thing? It seems that is what members of the Journolist do when they want a person or organziation to stop making progress or speak the truth. Throw out the "racist" stigma, and watch the conservative or organization defend itself. Better to have that conversation than the reason why our economy is in deep trouble.

From the Daily Caller:

According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama's relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama's conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, "Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares - and call them racists."

Yeah, just pick one. Doesn't matter who. Just smear them. Unbelievable. Absoutely dispicable.

I suppose it started with Congressmen Andre Carson and John Lewis and other Congressional Black Caucus members who staged a walk through the Tea Party crowd in front of the capitol the day before the health care vote. The Congressmen's aids (note that the actual Congressmen never said they heard slurs) claimed that the N word was hurled at them fifteen times. Since then all video of the incident shows no such thing occurred, and an offer of a $100,000 award to anyone who can prove it was said has not been claimed.

To me it was clearly a manufactured plan to paint the Tea Party as racist so the focus would be off the cost of the bill, and the government takeover of health care.

What happens when the left starts throwing around the term "racist"? They get the same thrown back at them. But this time an innocent woman (it seems to me) got caught in the crossfire.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture demanded the resignation of Shirley Sherrod after this video surfaced. But like a lot of videos and out of context statements, there is more to this story. Yes, she did let race keep her from helping the farmer as she would have if he had been black, but this happened 24 years ago when she was working for a non profit. This is what she told CNN:

SHERROD: I was speaking to that group like I've done many groups, and I tell them about a time when I thought the issue was race and race only. And I tell them the story of how I've worked with a white farmer back in 1986. I was not working for the Department of Agriculture. I was working with a non-profit organization assisting farmers throughout South Georgia and the Southeast. And this farmer came to me for help. I was telling the story about how working with him helped me to see that the issue is not about race, it's about those who have versus those who do not have.

She ended up being close friends with the farmer in question.

She was describing a teaching moment. If one listens to the rest of the speech, we understand that. It said to me that she had learned her lesson on not looking at the race of someone, but who they are.

I'm ashamed that Breitbart has sunken to the level that the left play. The left routinely take sentences out of context, cut audio or video, and vilify people like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity. Not to mention Sarah Palin. We've come to expect it. But we don't need to cut audio or video. If we start doing that, then we become what we hate.

The administration and the NAACP quickly denounced Sherrod without giving her a chance to explain or to watch the full tape. It's sad that we have come to this.

How about this. We all stop throwing around the term "racist?" Enough is enough. The left needs to stop trying to change the conversation with untrue accusations on race, and conservatives need to not get on the bandwagon of this tit for tat smear campaigns.

Update: I saw Breitbart on Sean Hannity last night and he did say that this wasn't about Sherrod. It was about the reaction of the NAACP crowd. He said he never asked that she be fired. Still, this woman did get caught in the crossfire.

I think Breitbart was trying to say to the NAACP that conservatives aren't going to take charges of racism lying down anymore. He proved that we can play that game too. There will always be racists or insensitive people out there on both sides. We are tired of the false narrative. In that respect I can see Breitbart's point. I just wish a woman hadn't been fired because of it.

Perception vs. Reality

2010-07-20T04:11:00Z

You gotta love how political writers, who see themselves as completely unbiased as Politico writers do, miss the obvious. Taake Mark Penn's observation on the devastating Obama poll numbers:

By far, the most alarming numbers this poll presents for President Barack Obama are the reelection figures; against a generic Republican candidate, he loses by 5 points, 37-42.

The most alarming numbers? Try the most wonderful numbers. If we can manage to not re-elect Pres. Obama, we may can save ourselves from this downward spiral.

And this is the heart of the issue -- Obama is managing one legislative victory after another, yet his poll numbers keep sinking everywhere except with D.C. elites.

That's because his "legislative victories" have been victories for the D.C. elites, and NOT the American people. He slams through these bills or appointments with no consideration of how the American people feel about it. When it's clear they are against the bills, Obama brushes it off implying they don't know what's best for them, or they really don't understand the bill.

Speaking for the administration, Vice President Joe Biden had this to say to ABC News:

Asked by ABC's "This Week" host Jake Tapper in an interview aired Sunday if the administration "is getting enough credit" for the Wall St. bill, the health care bill, and the economic Recovery Act in light of polls showing the majority of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, Biden said: "The vast majority of the American people and a lot of people really involved don't even know what's inside the packages."

"People don't know a lot of what's going on in The Recovery Act," Biden said

Oh, we know sir. That's why we are so upset. I don't think the American people have ever been MORE informed on bills passing Congress.

Pointing to jobs growth in recent months, he added that when the "country is in trouble, all [people] want to know is... that we're moving in the right direction."

"But they don't think that we are, " Tapper replied.

"No. No, they don't think now because I don't think they know the detail of what's going on," said Biden,

We are just stupid. Dunces, really. Thank God we have Obama and Biden to show us the way, right? This is typical of the liberal way of thinking. They are the only ones smart enough to lead us. The American people are treated like teenagers who just don't know what is best for us.

But let's continue on with the Politico article:

Obama suffers from the perception that he lacks the strength and leadership to deal with our biggest problems -- unemployment, deficits and the two wars. And many believe he has moved to the left, abandoning the center to embrace a return to Big Government.

Perception problem? I think that would be a reality problem. He has lacked the leadership to deal with our biggest problems. That is not a perception. That is the reality. Many believe that he has moved to the left and embraced Big Government?? The fact that the National Debt has increased over a trillion dollars since President Obama took office less than 2 years ago, and he approved a $787 billion stimulus plan, a $700 billion bank bailout program, and $829 billion health care overhaul, would kind of lead people to "believe" that he has embraced Big Government because he has.

Then there is this absurd observation:

Palin is the kind of highly polarizing figure that people accused Hillary Clinton of being -- only Palin is truly polarizing.

Right. Hillary isn't polarizing at all. She is just accused of being so. Give me a break. Hillary may have been playing nice since she lost the nomination to Obama, but don't think we have forgotten who she really is.

What Penn writes as perception is actually reality. There is this perception that the people in the Tea Party just don't like Obama. That's not true. It's about so much more than one President. It's about the direction of our country. It's about the overspending, which has happened with both Democrat and Republican Presidents.

When I was home this past week I talked to quite a few people who are really frightened at the direction our country is heading. And it can seem scary, but I told them that the amazing thing is that the American people have woken up. We aren't just sitting on the sidelines anymore. People who have never been involved in the political process are becoming activists, and running for office. We are making sure that we elect those who believe in our Constitution and our liberties. We are going to elect those who see "we the people" as a part of our governance, not as ignorant masses needing to be led.

Republicans may benefit from this, and they may not. It depends on whether they have learned their lessons on not being Democrat lite. But there is a growing movement of the people that want what our country to be what it was intended to be; a much smaller government than we have now, one that protects our rights, keeps us safe, provide a strong national defense, keeps taxes low, business incentives high, and provides a safety net for those unable to care for themselves. No more big spending and ballooning deficits. And this goes for both parties. The Republicans overspent as well. Now we find ourselves facing an untenable situation. If we don't reign in spending, we will face the consequences. And not in some far off future, but very soon.

And that's not a perception either. It's reality.

The Week In Review With Pinky and The Brain

2010-07-19T16:18:00Z

Good grief, I feel like I have been gone a month. I love to travel, but there is nothing better than coming home to Texas.

Now, let's review all I missed last week.

Well, it looks like Mel Gibson and Bristol Palin have lost their minds. I guess celebrity craziness reminds us that our own non famous lives are not that bad.

The Obama administration is suing Arizona for it's new immigration law. No where in the suit does it mention "racial profiling." It only addresses federal law trumping state law. But since federal law makes being in the country illegally a crime, and Arizona's law makes being in the country illegally a crime, where is the conflict with federal law?

Pres. Obama used his weekly address to once again whine about Republicans. Have we ever seen a President who whines this much? He complains that the Republicans are refusing to restore unemployment benefits (which in many cases is already extended to two years) The NYT also agreed with this whining, saying that the country is "running out of oxygen" and that we need new jobs, but that Republicans refuse to stimulate the economy by restoring unemployment benefits and sending aid to states.

WHAT? How does extending unemployment benefits create new jobs or help the economy at all?? How can Pres. obama or the NYT seriously think that more stimulus will turn things around when that last stimulus did little or nothing to do that? Since the passage of the stimulus bill, 2.3 million Americans have lost their jobs. Throwing good money after bad never works.

Also, Obama took advantage of Congress' July 4th recess to appoint Dr. Donald Berwick to oversee the Medicare and Medicaid programs. He will also play a key role in implementing healthcare reform. Why did Obama do this on the sly? To avoid hearings where Americans would hear Dr. Berwick's radical ideas on healthcare. His praise for a single payer health care system is only the tip of the iceberg. He is a self professed supporter of rationing health care.

And last, but certainly not least, Congress passed an overreaching Financial Reform Bill. It is mind boggling how in less than two years the government has managed a power grab that hasn't been seen since the great depression. Despite this financial power grab, believe it or not, the bill fails to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the government sponsored enterprises that encouraged the risky mortgages in the first place.

I watched Vice President Joe Biden on the talk shows try to defend all this, and I started to feel like we are in some surreal twilight zone version of "Pinky and the Brain." Pres. Obama is supposed to be so intelligent, and when compared to Joe Biden, he does look that way. But you have to wonder if this is their conversation every night:

Pinky: "Gee, Brain, what do you want to do tonight?"

The Brain: "The same thing we do every night, Pinky--try to take over the world!"

Yeah. You laugh now.

Taking A Break

2010-07-09T02:59:00Z

I'll be traveling through next week. See you after the 19th!

Take care and God bless!

Texas State Board Member Defends New Standards

2010-07-07T19:45:00Z

There seems to be quite a few lies being spread about the new standards adopted recently by the Texas State Board of Education. They are addressed here, especially the lies regarding Hispanics. The Hispanics are well represented and honored. If you care about the truth. You need to watch this video:

Remembering Killeen Texas

2010-07-07T16:38:00Z

A few posts ago I had a discussion with several of my commenters at my Chron blog about gun laws. For many years I was for strict gun control laws. Then I educated myself. Gun control will never work with criminals. Keeping guns from law abiding citizens will never reduce crime. It only leaves citizens helpless. Everyone should watch the following video. Suzanne Hupp learned the hard way what gun control cost her. But it's her very last sentence in this hearing that says all you need to know about the Second Amendment.

Why Can't The Obama Administration Speak Of Radical Islam?

2010-07-06T15:40:00Z

This is something you might have missed last week, but it is vitially important in understanding this administration's disconnect with radical Islam.

The Fort Hood shooter, the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square attacker. On May 13, the following exchange occurred at a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee:

Rep. Lamar Smith (R.,Texas): Do you feel that these individuals might have been incited to take the actions that they did because of radical Islam?
Attorney General Eric Holder: There are a variety of reasons why I think people have taken these actions. . .

Smith: Okay, but radical Islam could have been one of the reasons?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people--

Smith: But was radical Islam one of them?

Holder: There are a variety of reasons why people do these things. Some of them are potentially religious-based.

Potentially? It boggles the mind that our own Attorney General cannot bring himself to admit what is obvious to everyone else. Radical Islam is what motivates these murdereous individuals.

A similar question arose last week in U.S. District Court when Faisal Shahzad, the Times Square attacker, pleaded guilty. Explained Shahzad: "One has to understand where I'm coming from. . . . I consider myself a mujahid, a Muslim soldier."

Well, that is clarifying. As was the self-printed business card of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, identifying himself as "SoA": Soldier of Allah.

Holder's avoidance of the obvious continues the absurd and embarrassing refusal of the Obama administration to acknowledge who out there is trying to kill Americans and why. In fact, it has banned from its official vocabulary the terms "jihadist," "Islamist," and "Islamic terrorism."

Instead, President Obama's National Security Strategy insists on calling the enemy -- how else do you define those seeking your destruction? -- "a loose network of violent extremists." But this is utterly meaningless. This is not an anger-management therapy group gone rogue. These are people professing a powerful ideology rooted in a radical interpretation of Islam, in whose name they propagandize, proselytize, terrorize, and kill.

Why is this important? Because the first rule of war is to know your enemy.

What does this administration hope to prove by using evasive language on this? Is it somehow to leave Islam out of it? That it what it seems to me. I just can't figure out why. Practicing peaceful Muslims, who are not radical, know that those monsters use their religion to terrorize. Does the Obama administration imagine they do not? Does he think that it somehow insults the Islam religion to call them what they are..radical Islamists? There are Muslims who have and are fighting this very thing with us. It's absurd to think that they don't know exactly what they are fighting against.

The Pentagon report on the Fort Hood shooter runs 86 pages with not a single mention of Hasan's Islamism. It contains such politically correct inanities as "religious fundamentalism alone is not a risk factor."

Of course it is. Indeed, Islamist fundamentalism is not only a risk factor. It is the risk factor, the common denominator linking all the great terror attacks of this century -- from 9/11 to Mumbai, from Fort Hood to Times Square, from London to Madrid to Bali. The attackers were of various national origin, occupation, age, social class, native tongue, and race. The one thing that united them was the jihadist vision in whose name they acted.
..............................

There's a final reason why the administration's cowardice about identifying those trying to kill us cannot be allowed to pass. It is demoralizing. It trivializes the war between jihadi barbarism and Western decency, and diminishes the memory of those (including thousands of brave Muslims -- Iraqi, Pakistani, Afghan, and Western) who have died fighting it.

Fighting For Each Other

2010-07-02T19:16:00Z

Re-posting another post I especially liked. This one was from this past Christmas, but I thought it was appropriate for the 4th of July, so I tweaked it for that. I'll be gone until Tuesday.

I usually would never use a line from a modern movie to make a more profound point, but every once in a while there is a line in a move that strikes me. This happened when I was watching the movie, "2012." Near the end, one of the main characters declares, "It is when we stop fighting for each other that we lose our humanity."

Which brings me to my 4th of July message. All of us here on the right or left, in this subculture of political obsession are, in the end, fighting for each other. No matter where we are on the political spectrum, we all want to make this world a better place. We all want what is best for the people who live on this planet.

We all have different ideas on how to do that well. Some of us are profoundly right, and some of us are profoundly wrong. It is only in the end, when we face the One who loves us best, that we will be able to see whether what we believed was indeed right.

But until then, we continue on in this life, doing what we can to effect change. To lift one another up. To bring a better life for all.

For all our differences, it would do us well to remember that at the heart of all of this, all this writing, all this watching, all this perspective, we are simply caring about the world around us and the decisions being made on our behalf.

We are...... "fighting for each other."

This really is at the heart of all great religions. It is certainly at the heart of my Christian faith. Christ said, "Love one another as I have loved you." Christ told us that it is in taking care of one another that we find God and purpose in life. When we stand for those less fortunate, we are fighting for each other. When we fight for freedom, we are fighting for each other.

In this great nation our founding fathers believed that we were and are "endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights." They didn't believe that these rights were given to man by men. They did not believe that this nation was by accident. In order to form "a more perfect union" they understood that it was the "blessings of liberty" given to us by our Creator, that would indeed be necessary to fight for. They did fight. They fought for us.

And now, still...we are fighting for each other.

I wish you all a happy 4th of July, but special blessings to those who stand at the gate and watch and write about those who lead us. We watch and work to make sure that those who lead this great nation are being worthy of the work bestowed upon them, and that they are understanding the greatness of their service to us.

So to bloggers, commenters, columnists, authors, radio hosts, political pundits, news anchors, and reporters, I say many blessings to you, and may you always keep fighting the good fight.

For it is there, in that good fight, where we truly do keep and treasure our humanity.

This Life

2010-07-01T14:00:00Z

I thought I might re-post some of my earlier work that I am most proud of. Given that yesterday's post was grim, I thought I might post something more positive. This is from 2005:

My Sister in Law had a baby yesterday. A beautiful little girl. She is my children's 17th cousin. My Sister in law is 43. Her youngest was 11. This was a big surprise. She and my brother were very upset at first. But now, of course, she is filled with joy with this new child. When she found out she called me first, even before her parents, because she knew that I would be excited and happy for her. She knew I would not gasp and say, "Oh no!" Oh, how I love babies. I love the way they smell all brand new. I love how soft they are. I love their tiny fingers.

When I held my first son I thought "you can't even speak to me, you are helpless and messy and I have only seen you for a few hours, but my love for you is greater than any love I have ever known. How is this? I don't really even know you, yet I would throw myself in front of train this minute if it was to save you."

Where does this love come from? We love our parents, but they have taken care of us and loved us. We love our friends who stand by us. We love our spouses because we fell in love with them. But a baby has given us nothing to earn this love. Yet it is the largest love. It is a love that fills every nook and cranny of the heart. How do we explain it?

Once, many years ago, I was watching a special on Mother Teresa. She was in one of her orphanges somewhere, probably Calcutta. She was going around to the cribs and holding the babies. She stopped at one crib and reached down to stroke the baby. The camera panned down and showed the baby who was visibly deformed. She had tubes attached so Mother Teresa couldn't hold her, but she was stroking her. I started to cry. What a sad thing. A terrible life. This poor poor baby.

Then the camera panned back to show both Mother Teresa and the baby and Mother Teresa looked at the cameraman and said, "Isn't she beautiful?"

Well, that is when I completely lost it. I cried and cried. Because I realized how wrong I had been. I was looking at this child the way the world looks at it. Sad and pathetic. But Mother Teresa was looking at this child as God sees it. And it was beautiful.

This life. With whatever heartache it brings. With whatever cross there is to bear. This life is beautiful. There are gifts we are given, and there are gifts we are to give. Some so small we have to look closely to see them. Some so great we take them for granted. But every single life has a purpose. Every single life has meaning.

Perhaps this is what we have forgotten. Perhaps this is what we need to remember. This is what we have now. And it is beautiful.

When You Voted For the Charismatic Man With The Pretty Words, You Voted Against Life

2010-06-30T18:24:00Z

I haven't posted much on Elena Kagan because honestly I think a President deserves to have his nominee confirmed unless they are wildly unqualified. I never again want to see the horror show that was the Clarence Thomas hearings. What that man went through from the left was unacceptable. I would hope that Republicans never do that to a Democrat nominee.

The truth is that Kagan is what we get when we elect someone like Pres. Obama. But I couldn't let this about Kagan go unnoticed. She will get on the court, but people need to know how radical she really is.

You may remember Pres. Bill Clinton trying to defend his veto of the Partial Birth Abortion ban in 1996. Kagan helped him with that. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists stated that it found no medical reason for a woman to have a partial-birth abortion. In a 1996 Clinton White House memo Kagan basically altered a key medical group's opinion of whether partial birth abortion is medically necessary.

From LifeNews:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan faced questions today about a memorandum she wrote during her time in the Clinton administration. The memo has Kagan altering the opinion of a major medical organization on partial-birth abortion, which it said was never medically necessary.

The memo is particularly concerning because it has her changing the opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which said it found no medical reason for a woman to have a partial-birth abortion.

At the time, ACOG said an expert panel it commissioned could find no medical reason why the partial-birth abortion procedure would ever be used to protect a woman's life or health.

It produced a paper confirming ACOG "could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman."

That opinion did not persuade President Bill Clinton to sign a ban on the three-day-long abortion procedure that involves the partial birth of an unborn child and the gruesome destruction of the baby's life by jabbing medical scissors into its skull unless it contained a health exception for women.

The memo says the ACOG statement would be a "disaster" the Clinton administration, which falsely maintained there were supposedly some circumstances in which partial-birth abortions are medically necessary.
"This, of course, would be disaster -- not the less so (in fact, the more so) because ACOG continues to oppose the legislation," Kagan said of the inability to discern a medical reason for the second-trimester abortion procedure.

Kagan also appears to suggest manipulating ACOG's statement to support Clinton's position.

Notes in Kagan's handwriting list "suggested options" for modifying the ACOG position statement including having the Clinton administration claiming a partial-birth abortion "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman."

That language made its way in the final version of the ACOG statement released about the ban along with the original language found by the panel of medical experts.

Here is a transcript from today with Sen. Hatch asking Kagan about the memo.

There is no abortion more horrifying than a partial birth abortion (warning. Graphic drawings of the procedure at link). Almost all Americans agree on this. Even the ACOG said there was never a medically reason to have one. But still, this party.... the Democrats, cannot stand up for life. Even as it is being born.

Elena Kagan will be confirmed, and she changes nothing on the court. The ones in the seat before her did not value human life either. But it's important for all of us to remember that this is the consequence of our elections. When you voted for the handsome charismatic man with the pretty words, you also voted against life.

Guantanamo Will Stay Open

2010-06-30T15:28:00Z

Coming as no surprise to conservatives, it doesn't look likely that Pres. Obama will close Gitmo:

WASHINGTON -- Stymied by political opposition and focused on competing priorities, the Obama administration has sidelined efforts to close the Guantánamo prison, making it unlikely that President Obama will fulfill his promise to close it before his term ends in 2013.

As Marc Theissen points out, this news item naturally came out on Saturday in the NYT on page A13:

If you want to see what news the Obama administration is hoping you will miss, just pick up the Saturday paper. The White House has perfected the art of making sure the most embarrassing items for the president appear when Americans are headed to the beach or the pool with family, and least likely to see them.

This was the case last month, when the administration chose the Friday before Memorial Day weekend to leak an official report which confirmed that 95 percent of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay are terrorist leaders, operatives, or fighters.

Which may be why Gitmo will not close.

I don't this time the Saturday/weekend news leak that the White House has perfected is going to work. I think Americans will notice that Gitmo was never closed as promised.

Palin Brings In The Money..And the Hate

2010-06-29T16:24:00Z

Many on the left cannot stand that Sarah Palin has strong opinions, and is expressing them across this country. It amazes me what they will do to stop free speech when they don't agree with it.

You may have heard about Palin speaking at California University for a fundraiser for their 50 yrs anniversary. Palin going to California is like going into the lion's den. The lions went after her, but they didn't leave a mark. Attorney General Jerry Brown opened an investigation of the school. A state lawmaker pushed for a new law requiring that such contracts be made public. And the university faces a lawsuit by the watchdog group CalAware, claiming the public university employees had more involvement in the event than they claimed (gasp!). All this over Sarah Palin speaking at one University. It boggles the mind, doesn't it?

The University officials though, couldn't be happier. They raised over $200,000 thanks to Palin:

I am really very pleased," university President Hamid Shirvani said Saturday. "It was an extraordinary event, unprecedented in the past five years I've been associated with the university, and according to many, unprecedented as long as they have been with the university."

Stanislaus County Supervisor Vito Chiesa, who attended the gala, said the university achieved its goal.

"I think they hit a home run for raising money," he said. Officials estimated net income at $200,000. "I didn't know what all the rancor was about before; she's there for a school and she turned it into an educational speech."

The rancor is about a conservative amazing woman who speaks the truth.

The more the left goes after her, the more popular she will become with conservatives and the rest of America. I don't think they get that.

A Victory For the Second Amendment...For Now

2010-06-28T16:52:00Z

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Constitution's "right to keep and bear arms" applies nationwide as a restraint on the ability of the federal, state and local governments to substantially limit its reach.

Just as in as with the Washington, DC Heller case in 2008, the ruling was 5-4.

The voting fell among the usual conservative/liberal lines on the court. This is how close we are to losing our 2nd Amendment rights. One vote. Next time you are in the voting booth, remember this. Republicans aren't perfect, by any means, but at least we know that we can count on the GOP to support our right to bear arms.

For an excellent background on gun rights, and I do mean excellent, read this.

Here are some eye popping excerpts:

Racism created gun control in America. Confronted with the prospect of armed freedmen who could stand up for their rights, states across the South instituted gun-control regimes that took away the ability of blacks to defend themselves against the depravity of the Klan.
...............

Since the Heller case invalidated the District of Columbia's handgun ban two years ago, Chicago has served as the gun-control capital of the United States. Not coincidentally, Chicago is a dangerous place to live. Two weekends ago, 52 people were shot, eight fatally. Local politicians frequently ponder calling out the National Guard to patrol Chicago's streets.
..................

A generation from now, legal and policy discussions will look back and see gun control for the sham that it has always been. The real shame is that it took decades of political action, millions of dollars in litigation, and thousands of lives lost to end the preposterous idea that governments can reduce the number of victims of violent crime by first taking away their means of resistance.

"Speaker For Life"

2010-06-28T02:16:00Z

Republican leader in the House, John Boehner accepted an award from the National Right To Life Committee yesterday at their convention. Here is a good portion of that speech. It's long, but so worth the read. He not only explains how our freedom is connected with how we value life, but also how the current administration is a threat to that. (emphasis mine)

"I've thought a lot about this speech and what I'm going to say here. And as I went through that process, I realized a few things about who I am, and who I think we are as a people.

Americans love life, and we love freedom. They're both intertwined, permanently, as part of the American character. America is a nation built on freedom. And without respect for life, freedom is in jeopardy.

When human life takes a back seat to other priorities - personal comforts, economics - freedom is diminished. By contrast, when we affirm the dignity of life, we affirm our commitment to freedom.

These are fundamentals in the American experience. And they have real implications for government and those who are entrusted with power.

For elected leaders, it means we should always err on the side of life.

It means we must always respect the dignity of life, at all stages - from conception and birth, to the end of life, and everything in between.

It means we have a moral obligation to defend the defenseless. And there is nothing more defenseless, or more innocent, or more pure, than an unborn baby.

The defense of life and the defense of freedom are necessarily linked. We know this to be true. And if we accept it, then the current political agenda in Washington is a threat to freedom.

As Governor Bob McDonnell, the new governor of Virginia, said in his response to President Obama's State of the Union address in January: "America must always be a land where liberty and property are valued and respected, and innocent human life is protected."

I never sought to be recognized as a leader of the movement. Never wore my pro-life credentials on my sleeve.

I was what you might call a quiet warrior. I just voted for what I thought was right, and stood up for what I thought was right, like all of you do every day.

But over the past few years, I've been compelled to raise my voice; to speak out a little more loudly.

When you look at the agenda being pursued in Washington, if you believe in the right to life, being quiet isn't good enough. We don't have the luxury of being "quiet."

If you look at what's going on, there's a constant tearing down of walls - walls that have stood as the last line of defense for the unborn in the decades since Roe v. Wade.

In retrospect, no one should be surprised. The warning signs were there all along.

Before being elected as our 44th president, Senator Barack Obama spoke at the national convention of Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of abortion. He endorsed the so-called Freedom of Choice Act, which would codify Roe v. Wade, and promised to make its enactment a priority for his administration if elected president.

During the president's first week in office, on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I and 114 other House Republicans sent the president a letter urging him to withdraw his pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, or "FOCA," into law.

Our tone was respectful. Our message was one of hope.

The letter stated: "Americans from all walks of life have been touched by your pledge to govern from the center, and by your vow to be a president for all Americans. . .You've expressed a desire to be a president for all Americans, and to use your presidency to promote initiatives that bring Americans together, rather than drive them apart."

And we asked him, respectfully, to withdraw his pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act.

We never got a response to that letter from the president - not in writing, anyway.

But in the 18 months since the letter was sent, we've gotten our answer. And tragically, the answer has come through the administration's own actions. The FOCA agenda is being implemented, incrementally, step by tragic step.

In the first few months of his presidency, President Obama took at least three separate actions weakening American rules that were meant to safeguard the sanctity of human life.

He repealed the Mexico City Policy that prevents taxpayer dollars from going to international family planning organizations that promote - and sometimes provide - abortion overseas.

He took it upon himself to create federal incentives to destroy human embryos - taking this action at a time when science is demonstrating that the true potential of stem cell research lies in the type of stem cell research that does not require the destruction of living human embryos.

And he weakened conscience protections that protect doctors and nurses who decline to provide abortions for moral reasons.

Most of those actions were announced late on a Friday afternoon. In Washington, a Friday afternoon announcement is code that you want to hide something.

These were the start of a pattern we've seen repeated throughout this administration. In the latest instance, the Obama administration is moving to allow abortions on military bases.

It's sadly ironic - and profoundly disturbing - that our government would endorse the destruction of innocent American lives on the same soil our men and women walk each and every day in defense of freedom and liberty.

It undermines everything the fine men and women of our military are fighting for.

And then, of course, there's the president's massive health care overhaul - ObamaCare.

The overwhelming opposition of the American people to taxpayer funding of abortion almost kept it from becoming law.

The American people - and a bipartisan majority in the House - supported the Stupak amendment, which would have prohibited taxpayer funding of abortion through the health care bill.

This presented a huge problem for the President and the Democratic leadership. Because the health care overhaul wasn't being driven by the will of the people; it was being driven by the will of special interests - radical special interests who believe the destruction of unborn human life is "health care."

Ultimately it became apparent to the White House and Democratic leaders that they couldn't find the votes to kill the pro-life Stupak amendment. So they came up with a little maneuver.

Instead of heeding the will of the people and a bipartisan majority in the House, they crafted a disingenuous, last-minute Executive Order that they claimed eliminated the need for pro-life protections. The president issued the order, and White House aides indicated its enforcement would be a priority.

That, sadly, was good enough for a handful of legislators, including Rep. Stupak himself, who prior to that point had mounted a courageous fight.

But pro-life America didn't buy it. They doubted the administration's sincerity - and with good reason.

We're three months into implementation of the new health care law - and as far as anyone can tell, the administration hasn't lifted a finger to enforce the president's Executive Order on abortion.

Secretary Sebelius sent a cheery "progress report" on Obamacare's implementation to Congress in May that made no mention of the Executive Order. When I questioned her about it, she said only that the administration is "working on it."

Several more weeks went by after that, without any apparent action. So two weeks ago, at the White House, I asked President Obama about it personally. Everyone in the room heard me ask the question. But we're all still waiting for an answer.

I say all this with great sadness. Sadness for the unborn, absolutely. But also sadness for our nation.

These policies do not unite America. They divide America. And in the coming months, America must decide whether we're going to allow it to continue.

We recently launched an initiative called America Speaking Out, aimed at engaging the American people directly in the process of crafting new governing agenda for Congress. One of the tools is a website, AmericaSpeakingOut.com, that allows every American to log on, submit ideas, and vote on ideas submitted by other Americans.

I encourage everyone in this room - go to AmericaSpeakingOut.com, and tell your neighbors about it. Use it to get engaged in your government.

One of my all-time heroes in the House is Congressman Henry Hyde, the late representative from Illinois.

Part of Henry's legacy, as you know, is the Hyde amendment, which prohibits Congress from appropriating taxpayer funds for abortion.

One of the many ideas being discussed right now on America Speaking Out is the idea of codifying the Hyde Amendment so that it applies to all federal funding, whether those funds are appropriated by Congress or authorized by Congress.

I believe this must be the next objective for pro-life America. It's clear from the health care debate that the American people don't want their tax dollars paying for abortion, and a bipartisan majority in the House of Representatives agrees. It's the will of the people, and it ought to be the law of the land - right now.

I'm pleased to announce today that Congressman Chris Smith of New Jersey will be introducing legislation to accomplish this goal. I intend to be an original cosponsor of the bill. And once it is introduced, I will call on Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Hoyer to bring it to an immediate vote.

It's time for Washington to stop defying the will of the American people on this critical, common-sense issue.

I also believe we need to repeal the health care bill and start over on common sense reforms that will lower health care costs for families and protect the sanctity of all human life.

Our nation was built on ideas that came directly from the people - people who took an active interest in their government.

Americans today need to be engaged, because the people running our government haven't been listening. And if the failure to listen continues, the consequences could be catastrophic.

It will mean two more years in which Planned Parenthood, EMILY's List and other radical groups determine the direction of our government, while the voices of pro-life Americans are shut out.

It will mean two more years of Supreme Court appointments for activist judges who didn't think Roe v. Wade was radical enough.

It could set back the cause of life for decades.

As we look ahead to the future, we need to know who the defenders of life really are. No one gets a pass when it comes to life.

The thwarting of the Stupak amendment was a signal moment for pro-life America. It reminded us that while any politician can say he or she is "pro-life," actions speak louder than words.

The lesson: get involved in your government. Speak out. Find out where your legislators and would-be legislators stand.

Is your Member of Congress committed to the defense of life? Or is it negotiable?

Is your Member of Congress truly dedicated to protecting the unborn? Or can he or she be swayed by the offer of a pork-barrel project, or a new government program, or the promise of a plum committee assignment?

This is the time to know the answer to these questions. This is when it matters.

via NRO

A Note To Chris Matthews: Why Rush Limbaugh Is a Success

2010-06-28T02:14:00Z

Since Chris Matthews of Hardball on MSNBC no longer has that tingle up his leg for Pres. Obama, he has to find something else to tingle about. He is now counting the days until a Republican will come on his show and denounce Rush Limbaugh. No takers yet.

I doubt Chris Matthews will ever see this, but I thought I might take time to explain a few things to him about Rush. There is much his industry could learn.

The wonderful thing about the marketplace is that if you can find a niche that hasn't been filled, you can find success.

In my early 20's I religiously read National Review. I couldn't wait for it to come in the mail because I knew I would finally learn the other side of the story that the mainstream media was reporting. Being a newly converted conservative was frustrating to say the least in those days. The liberal bias was even more blatant than it is today. All I wanted was both sides of the story. And I wasn't alone.

In my late 20's I discovered Rush Limbaugh on the radio. There, finally, was the other side. It's kind of ironic that the same mainstream media that demonizes Rush is the one who created a need for him. To this day, they still don't get it, and he clearly does. As newspapers fold and cable news outlets like CNN and MSNBC continue their downward ratings fall, they still don't get that all people want is both sides of the story. Fair and balanced. There is a reason Fox News is number one.

Rush's words, jokes, and statements have been distorted many times. But all one has to do is listen for a while and they get the humor. They know there isn't a racist bone in his body, and at the heart of all he does is a love for this country.

Yesterday while the mainstream media was gushing over how wonderful it was that Pres. Obama picked Petraeus to take over command of Afghanistan, Rush was playing clips of Senator Obama bashing Petraeus over his failures. He played clips of Senator Hillary Clinton telling Petraeus that believing his report on the war took a "willing suspension of disbelief." Rush played clips of pundits like Matthews calling Petraeus a puppet for Bush. He also reported that MoveOn.org removed the page that had their NYT "General "Betray Us " ad. The media didn't want America to remember these things. They didn't want to report the other side of the story. Gen. Petraeus wasn't wrong then. The Democrats were wrong. They know now that Gen. Petraeus strategy in Iraq was right and that is why Obama chose him now.

Maybe this is why a recent study found that people trust Facebook and Google more than they trust the media.

So while Chris Matthews counts the days until a Republican comes on his show and denounces Rush, Rush will continue to count his money.