Merry Christmas to all....

Gather-round children, Grandpa Burris is going to read a modern rendition of a Christmas classic. Afterwards, we will go carolling, and sing updated versions of several traditional Christmas carols.

Away in a Manger

Away in the Senate,
No room for dissent,
With the little Senate leader
Rules of decorum he bent.

The cash for bill cloture
The back-door deals are made,
Senators selling their souls,
While bankrupting Medicaid.

Oh, Come, All ye Senators

Oh, Come, All Ye Senators
Sell your souls for health care.
Oh, come ye, oh come ye to Harry Reid's door.
Come and betray us,
Those who put you in office.
Oh, come get cash for cloture,
Oh, come get cash for cloture,
Oh, come get cash for cloture,
All for Health Care 'reform'.

Congratulations Harry Reid. You did it. You bought yourself health care reform. I guess the "new era of politics" is that the ends do justify the means, even though the "ends" is further in debt, cutting Medicare and Medicaid coverage, more taxes on individuals and businesses during a major recession, and establishing more inefficient government bureaucracies. Merry Christmas to all, and to all GOOD LUCK!

Dr. Dean: New Republican Leader?

"Hee-Yah!!!!"

Do the Republicans finally have a straight-talking, maverick, leader who will cut through the political game played in DC? Only if former Governor Howard Dean plans on switching teams! In an interview on Good Morning America with George Stephanopolus (btw, I miss Diane Sawyer!) Howard Dean made some fabulous arguments against the current Senate's health care reform bill. Here were the highlights:

• The Washington game has become "passing any bill is a victory"
• “Decisions are being made for the long term future of this country for short term political reasons”
• In response to the reforms the White House claims are in this bill, “creating new bureaucracies and not changing health care”
• "My job is not to convince Senators, my job is to say what I think is right!"

Amen! Now I am not so deluded to think that Howard Dean and I espouse the same beliefs regarding health care reform. I know he is a progressive. I know he wants a public option. HOWEVER, he calls BS when he see's it, and I respect that. The current law-makers are making promises to everyone and anyone just so they can have any kind of "health care reform" bill passed to use as a victory to exploit in their 2010 campaign promos. It is refreshing to see someone with completely different political ideology call itlike he sees it. Would he step out on his party like this if he was still in the Washington rat race, and not in the private sector? I doubt it, but it is still appreciated! Nice work, Dr. Dean!

Here is the link to watch the interview.

The Season Bringing People Together!

For some reason, Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah wrote and/or produced a Channukah song.



After all these years that is all they can come up with about Mormons? That Donny and Marie are Mormons and we don't drink? Too funny! Tis the Season....which ever you celebrate!

Big O at the Big O House

Of course I DVR'd Oprah at the White House Christmas Special. I love seeing the inside of the White House. All of the history. All of the grandeur. All of the fawning...wait, that is just Oprah! I know that they are probably BFF's since the campaign, but it was hilarious watching her try to mask her adoration of the Obama's. Several times during the interview, during an answer to one of her "difficult" questions, she would pucker her lips almost as if to hide a creeping smile. Or you know when you are really happy, or you are enjoying yourself out in the sun, and your eyes water just a little bit, not enough to form tears but almost like a sensory overload? She had that! You could see her mind working, "Try to keep a straight face!" But I didn't expect anything less, thank goodness she contained herself from falling to the floor and kissing his feet! That would have been a little much.
After the sugar coating shock wore off, I very much enjoyed it. I think it is good to have reminders that people in the public eye, are just that: PEOPLE! Although I completely and passionately disagree with his political positions and his solutions on how to remedy many issues plaguing our country...I enjoyed him as a person. He is smart, thoughtful, seemingly a great dad and husband. He is like that friend that you think highly of, even though they think highly of themselves too...and probably more so than you do! And I was also very impressed with Mrs. Obama. She is very classy, yet down to earth. And do I really need to comment on his B+ rating? Here's my take: That is the proper answer. He can't rate himself lower, because you want a confident President. He can't rate himself any higher (even though, he would if health care passed: which I interpreted as "if Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reed would run their houses like I run mine!", anyhoo, I digress.) So who cares what he thinks of himself. It is becoming more apparent what the country thinks of the job he is doing. And if I remember correctly, most of the polls are similar to my feelings. You approve of the President as a PERSON, but don't agree with how he is handling issues like health care, Afghanistan, cap and tax, 9-11 mastermind's trials, etc.

Palin-Envy

...or Hatred? I'm not quite sure.

Of course, I watched the promoted showdown between two media darlings, Oprah v. Palin. In the left corner, we have Oprah; and in the right, Palin. And instead of a knock out heavy weight fight, I got a "friendly-dancing-around-the-ring" round! Out of curiosity, and boredom, I found my way to Oprah's message boards. I found more than I had expected! I anticipated the "don't-cha-know" stay at home mom's, Sarah Palin supporters, rehashing Obama's birth certificate and pallin' around with terrorist talk. Which, I think I saw one or two. But instead, Harpobear, the community moderator had to step in frequently to remind the Palin-Haters to keep the discussion "respectful".

Which leads me to my point. I am completely baffled at the absolute disdain, despise, detest, and even hatred some people have regarding Sarah Palin. Although I find her relatable, practical, and entertaining, at this point I would not vote for her. In the same sense, I consider Hillary Clinton a very intelligent, driven, and accomplished, and would not vote for her. But I do not spew venom when talking about her, the way some liberals do when discussing Sarah Palin. Most especially the women! And in my quest for understanding, I stumbled across a few blogs, articles, and discussions. But they can have the same disagreements with other politicians (namely men) without the same vitriol. So what makes her such a target?

I googled "I Hate Sarah Palin", which brought up t-shirts, bumper stickers, and other merchandise. I also found several blogs which created lists for why the liberal women hate her. I found ridiculous reasons such as "she was a beauty pageant contestant" and "she married her high school sweetheart". The only substantive issues women had with her were completely policy based. She's pro-life, pro-guns, pro-traditional marriage, pro-energy (which equals anti-earth), pro-death penalty, etc.

Here was a fabulous explanation, which seems pretty accurate: "She is the embodiment of the anti-choice, the opposite of every choice that lefty elites have ever made (wife, mother to five, rural, conservative) That everything she is is the antithesis of everything that liberal urban elites are, so it's not just enough to say, 'I disagree with you,'; she has to be repudiated and crushed." (Hugh Hewitt) Jim Garaghty continues, "To the left, I think, she embodies a sort of comfort with ignorance that they think characterizes most/all conservatives. If liberals are right that Palin really is ignorant, and moreover, completely comfortable with that ignorance, and moreover still, thought she ought to be Vice President of the United States, they have perhaps ample reason to dislike her. On the other hand, if they dismiss Palin because she looks pretty or talks funny or doesn't read the same newspapers they do, that goes to their being snobs."

So is the anti-feminist? Is she the absolute antithesis of everything that feminism has tried to accomplish? I would argue that she is a perfect example of it! You can have a beautiful family, adoring husband, and still be a strong, confident woman with a career you created. Is anyone else completely puzzled over all of this Palin-envy, especially by her fellow females?

A Civilian Trial!?!?!?

Disclaimer: Although I am dying to go to law school, and study all the legal in's and out's of our judicial system, I am definitely not there yet. As I was reading articles, case studies, encyclopedia entries, I realized I jumped in the deep end of a wave pool wearing arm floaties! Especially when you throw on top of civilian court cases, military tribunals, the Geneva Convention, acts of war, enemy combatants, etc! I was drowning in too much information. However, I needed a forum to verbalize my outrage, so I can get the inner dialogue out of my head!

What in the world was Eric Holder thinking?!? When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed mass murdered 2974 innocent victims, including 55 military personnel at the Pentagon, he commited an act of war and should be tried in a military tribunal. Khalid was not a citizen of the United States, nor were his associates. They are unlawful enemy combatants, because they are apart of a non-state terrorist organization. Because of this, they are not subject to the protections of the Third Geneva Convention. Will their Constitutional rights be envoked ex post facto? Will evidence be thrown out because they were not mirandized, or because they were not granted the right to a speedy trial? Will there be a mistrial because they can not find an impartial jury of their peers? Will their confessions be thrown out because of the interrogation tactics used, or because they didn't have their lawyers present?

I believe that this is an attempt by this administration, to put former President Bush's policies regarding the War on Terror on trial, instead of seeking justice for the thousands of victims of this horrorific crime! When Khalid asked to receive the death penalty, why didn't we grant him his wish, and swiftly send him to our Perfect Judge, instead of his anticipated 74 virgins? This is an outrageous decision where I do not see any positive outcome for those of us who are citizens of this great country, and uphold the Constitution Khalid and his terrorist allies spit on.

This was HILARIOUS!

If it wasn't for SNL's political skits and Kristen Wiig's characters, I would have stopped watching a long time ago! And this is a great combination of both. Fox News has been setting itself up for this perfect parody. I would say the Glenn impression was my favorite, but all of them were spot on!

Video Recaps | Full Episodes | Webisodes

Reporters v. Commentators

There has been a war of words between President Obama and his administration and Fox News. Each side enjoying the drama. The administration relieved that the focus has been taken off the lack of an actual written health care bill and the Afghanistan debacle. Fox News honored for being the singled out media organization by the evil empire.

David Axelrod asserts that Fox News is "not really a news organization", and "other news organizations like [George Stephanopolus, who was Clinton's White House communications' director] ought not to treat them that way". Rahm Emmanuel expressed President Obama's worries that Fox is corrupting other networks, and is concerned that "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." Anita Dunn, Obama's communication director labeled the entire Fox News network as "opinion journalism masquerading as news".

What is considered "news"? What separates journalists and commentators?

Is the White House suggesting that MSNBC is a news organization and Fox News isn't? That Keith Olbermann is a reporter and not a commentator like Bill O'Reilly? Is President Obama labeling Fox News as a talk radio because Glenn Beck has been in both media outlets, and somehow that comparison doesn't apply to Rachel Maddow, a former liberal radio host on Air America? The only difference I see between MSNBC and Fox News is which side of the political spectrum they fall. And where would MSNBC be without Fox News?

But the war of words escalated into the White House's attempt to exclude Fox News from the live feed of an interview with the pay advisor, Kenneth Feinberg. Thankfully the real media outlets protested, and the White House caved. Was the President and his advisers attempting to punish Fox News for having differing opinions? When pressed by ABC's Jake Tapper about the appropriateness of President Obama's opinion regarding Fox News, or "sweeping declarations", Robert Gibbs responded "That's our opinion." Yes, Robert Gibbs, that is all it is, opinion. And in my opinion, if you exclude Fox News because of their format and who they include in their programs, MSNBC should also be excluded. Do we need to remind you, you are the President of both MSNBC viewers and Fox viewers?

Publicity Stunt?

Is being on t.v. the new American dream? There is only speculation that this family faked the emergency that their young son had climbed into a helium balloon and needed to be rescued. It does seem a little orchestrated. You be the judge! Crazy!

A Preemptive Peace Prize?

I woke up to a shocker this morning. President Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize! The nominations were February 1st, only 12 days after he was sworn into office. Other nominees were President Sarkozy of France, who proposed the cease fire plan for the Gaza Strip, and as the EU President proposed a progressive energy package to reduce carbon emissions. Or Ingrid Betancourt, a French-Columbian senate candidate, who was kidnapped and held captive by Marxist nationals for 6 1/2 years. Or Dr. Denis Mukwege, the only Congo gynecological doctor who has treated 21,000 women suffering from devastating gynecological injuries as a result of rape in Congo's brutal war.

Geir Lundestad, Director of the Norwegian Nobel Institute, said today that President Obama was awarded the prize because "he has emphasized multilateral diplomacy, he has addressed international institutions, dialogue negotiations. He has inspired the world with his vision of a world without nuclear arms. He has changed the U.S. policy dramatically. There's a whole list."

Previous winners are recognizable symbols of peace, Martin Luther King, Jr, Nelson Mandela, and Mother Theresa. Muhammad Yunus was the 2006 winner, for their establishing of the Grameen Bank, which instituted the micro credit loans to help women pull their families out of poverty. Other winners have been awarded the prize because of their efforts in the green peace movement. Al Gore in 2007 and Wangari Maathai in 2004 for her Green Belt Movement in Kenya.

My take: In reading several statements by the Norwegian Nobel Institute, and others who are giving their congratulations across the world including former winners, used the words like "anticipates an even greater contribution" or "Nobel committee hopes the award will enhance his moral authority" or "he gave hope". I didn't read any actual policies enacted, treaties written, or international actions taken, which validate this award. Lech Walesa, who won the prize in 1983, spoke for many with his reaction. "Obama? So fast? Too fast - he hasn’t had the time to do anything yet," the former Polish president told reporters in Warsaw. Michael Cox, a North America expert at the Chatham House thinktank, said: "It is difficult to see why it would be awarded to him at this stage in his presidency. There are problems in the Middle East and an ongoing war in Afghanistan. You could say it is a little bit premature." Why did President Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize? Hope. Hope for peace. Let's see how far this "hope" takes us. How will this affect his policies in Afghanistan and Iraq? Is the world setting the US up for great accomplishments or tragic failure? In reading over several of the other nominees, I believe they were far more deserving. They are doing the day-to-day grind, hard work, in actually being the change. President Obama may be the spokesman for change, but I have not seen anything more than words. Now the question may be, will he follow Al Gore's footsteps and this be the first of future awards? Oscars? Grammys? World's Best Dad?

Worship or Respect?

There has been much conversation about the videos posted on YouTube with school children singing about President Obama. I have seen several of these videos, including the currently popular one filmed in New Jersey. Mmm...Mmm...Good! Barack Hussein Obama!

Several conservative talking heads have compared this to indoctrination of the Hitler Youth. I believe to make that weighty comparison accurate, the children would have to be taught through an organized cirriculum handed down from the administration itself. So, I completely dismiss that over-generalization.

However, it begs the question, did President Obama finally restore respect for the office of the President, or is Rock Star Obama the new American Idol accepting fan mail and idol worship? At what point does enthusiasm cross the line from respect to worship? Several of the lyrics from one song, I believe, crossed that line. "We are all equal in his sight", for example. Yet, there was another video that spoke about him being our 44th President, and how the kids want to get an education to become the President in 2048.

My Take: There are currently only a handful of these videos on YouTube, in different parts of the country. The parents of the children who attend these schools should be the only ones to get their parental panties in a twist. It is not educational material passed down from Lord Obama, it is over-enthusiastic teachers either encouraging respect for our President and our great nation, or singing praises to their new Prophet in Chief. And I would not be surprised if there were several classrooms across the country (particularly in Texas), who sang songs about President Bush following 9-11. Too bad YouTube wasn't around then!

ACORN Employment Application

1. Name:

2. Age:

3. Circle Political Party Affiliation

a. Democrat

4. Circle applicable work experience

a. Receptionist/Secretary

b. Telemarketor

c. Grave digger

d. Illegal immigrant transporter

e. Pimp

f. Accountant

g. Loan officer for Fannie/Freddie

5. Please check any of the following that would make you uncomfortable (if left blank, continue with application. If any are checked, discontinue application).

a. Spending your Saturday on a protesting bus tour of major corporations executives' homes.

b. Voter fraud

c. Breaking and entering

d. Smuggling underage El Salvadorian girls

e. Advising pimps on instituting prostitution ring

f. Legal counsel for "self-defense" murder

6. How do you accept payment:

a. Cash

b. Automatic deposit

c. A pack of cigs

d. Liquor

e. Dimes

f. ProstitutePal

This seems to be the only plausible application for ACORN considering all of the "isolated incidents". Either they have the most ridiculous hiring practices (as seen above!) or there is something more to their organization. I would like to believe the former, but with the mounting evidence to the contrary is making it seem unlikely.

Disagreement = Racism

"An overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he's African-American. And I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of a belief among many white people, not just in the South, but around the country, that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance and grieves me and concerns me very deeply."


According to former President Jimmy Carter, those of us who disagree with President Obama's policies and have actively demonstrated our opinions, are only doing so because of the color of his skin. And not only that, taking it one step further, that we believe that any African-American could be qualified to lead this great country. Apparently, we can not debate the content of someone's positions without directly tying it to the color of the skin.


What about those who protested the Iraq War and had pictures of Condoleezza Rice or Colin Powell on their protest signs? Were they racist? Or those who plastered former President Bush's picture on protest signs with Hitler's mustache, were they labeled anti-Christian? Or those who disagree with Senator Joe Lieberman's policies, are they labeled anti-Semitic? Or those who didn't vote for Mitt Romney, are they labeled anti-Mormon?


It is a desperate attempt to scare those of us who are speaking out against his policies. No one wants to be labeled as hateful, bigotted or racist. And typically, when someone is labeled as such, they go above and beyond to prove otherwise. Not me. I am absolutely not a racist and I am disagreeing with President Obama and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid based solely on policy. And I believe that an absolute majority of Americans can agree to disagree without fabricating alterior motives, unlike politicians and news organizations on both sides.

Thanks for the bad rap

Dear South Carolina Representative Joe Wilson:

I wanted to send my deepest appreciation for your help in bringing us conservatives some positive media coverage. As you know the past few months the media and the administration has labeled the majority of us as being part of an "angry mob" with an inability to control our tempers, and we needed one such opportunity to clear our names and give us a fresh start.

I would also like to thank you for bringing some expression back into the perpetually tightened and botoxed face of Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi. Vice President Joe Biden's hairplugs slightly moved as his brow furrowed. It is a relief to see that neither of them have been completely embalmed.

Again, thank you!

momsintopolitics.

Home for Sale!

My apologies it has taken me this long to post about this. I watched this clip on John Stewart's The Daily Show a couple weeks ago, and was laughing so hard I was crying. I would do it a great injustice to try to summarize, other than it is regarding Timothy Geithner's home in New York which is on the market. You can take a look at the property here. You can view the video here. If you need a good laugh, take a look!

Using the Wrong Argument

I. Am. Tired. No, I am not referring to my sleepless nights spent with my newborn. No, I am not referring to keeping up with my two year old. I am tired of the back and forth mud slinging regarding the Health Care Reform bills. I believe you can have a passionate debate about this hot button issue without referring to either side as Nazi's, or mobsters.

Although I find the expansion of the national government frightening (not in the "KGB kicking down my door" way, but in the "federal government bankrupts itself and can't run anything effectively" way); my argument can stand alone without name calling and yelling. I believe many of the conservative talking heads and outraged citizens attending town hall meetings are making the wrong argument.

Congress can not draft any legislation, enact any bill, vote on any proposal, without getting the BIG approval from one source. The Constitution. This document is the ultimate check on the expansion of their power, if they abide by it. It expressly gives our representatives their roles and duties to the United States and to the people. There are two portions of the Constitution which, I believe, should prevent Congress and President Obama from enacting either health care bill.

Promote General Welfare: There is a huge difference between "promoting" and "providing". Congress and the President have the authority to "promote general welfare", which health care falls under. It does NOT say that the national government should provide for the general welfare. Congress and the President can regulate, tax, enact tort reform, all of which promote general welfare. Even if you believe that health insurance is an unalienable right (which I would disagree with you), it is not within the scope of the national government's powers. If it is not an expressly written power granted to the national government, it is reserved to the states.

Tenth Amendment: Although I just paraphrased this pesky amendment, I want to include the actual text. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The tenth amendment is the most violated part of the Constitution by a trillion miles (we're so comfortable with the concept of measuring things in the trillions). If President Obama and Congress want to enact health care reform, the golden restraints of the Constitution, should limit them to their own states. Yet, just as every politician at the national level has in the past (Republicans and Democrats both included) they are overstepping their limits. It is only through the states that health care reform should take place. For example, Massachussets. If the citizens of Massachusetts wants universal health care, go for it. However, an editorial written in the Boston Globe, does not give glowing reviews. If California wants to overspend in their entitlements and bankrupt itself, go for it. But the other 49 should not have to foot the bill. This should be a state issue, not a national government issue.

There are many reasons to be for or against universal health care, or a public option, or a co-op, or whatever they term giving the national government power over our health. And those are people's opinions. However, the founders were explicit, if it isn't written in the Constitution, the national government should not touch it. Period.

(Ironically, this poster was made while Pres. Bush was in office. Instead of being a message from Homeland Security, today it would be a message from Robert Gibbs, Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer)

Un-American. Mob. Nazi. Astroturf. Extreme

I wasn't aware that I somehow fit into these categories. Those who attend the townhall meetings, to voice their dissent to their representatives over the proposed health care plans coming from the Senate and the House, are being maligned by the media, the Democratic National Committee, and their democrat representatives. It has been infuriating watching how these outspoken citizens have been covered, especially the claim of being "astroturf" or "fake". Every clip that I have seen of these "recruited" constituents, they have been average looking, unpolished, holding their handwritten notes in their often nervously shaking hands. There obviously is your handful crazies, that are the loudest squeaky wheel, that is getting the most attention. It is absolutely maddening seeing the double standard. Those who protested the Iraq War or Bush were seen as heroic, even if their posters painted him as Hitler-esque mustache and wardrobe, or even as Satan. Yet, if a questioner's voice raises, or they seem a little heated, they are described as "un-American" or "extremist".

For those of you who disagree with my opinions or think that my analysis of the situation seems "fishy", by all means notify the White House! Apparently, if you receive a "chain e-mail" or are engaged in "casual conversation" which contains any "disinformation", you need to e-mail the White House. Because they "can’t keep track of all of them here at the White House, we’re asking for your help." Here is the e-mail address: flag@whitehouse.gov. Can you imagine if President Bush proposed this initiative, especially following the extremely intrusive Patriot Act? This is the most ridiculous proposal coming from the White House so far in President Obama's presidency. I would consider it a badge of honor, maybe like a Medal of Freedom, to be flagged to the White House. What is happening to our country?

Curious Quote

"When you rush these budgets that are a foot high and nobody has any idea what's in them and nobody has read them...It gets rushed through without any clear deliberations or debate, then these kind of things happen. And I think it is some ways what happened to the [Fill in a politicized piece of legislation from the past]. I mean you remember there was no real debate about that. It was so quick after [fill in with challenging time in our country] that it was introduced that people felt very intimidated by the administration."

Who said this and when? Find out in the "Comments".

Superman's Kryptonite?

President Obama is trying to make good on his campaign promise of reforming health care. But the once invincible and fearless super hero might have found his kryptonite. I can't tell if it is specifically the health care legislation, or if it is too much too soon. Too much spending too soon. Too much transformative legislation too soon. But either way, President Obama's support is slipping.

Depending on which poll you look at, his approval numbers are slipping. In a CNN poll, over 41,000 people voted on the question "Would you be willing to pay more in taxes for the promise of reducing your health care costs? " I was shocked to see that 70% of those polled said "No". There was also a fabulous article written by CNN Money's Editor at Large wrote an article, "You'll lose 5 Key Freedoms in Health Care Reform". Here is the article. He discusses both the House and Senate bills, and how the fine print contradicts the promises President Obama is making in the press. I would expect an article like this on FoxNews' website, but CNN? Never! It has been interesting to watch the democratic leaders in the House and Senate, slowly put on the breaks to this massive health care overhaul in response to the voting public's hesitations. Especially, not meeting the President's deadline. Will this actually pass? Who knows at this point. But I think President Obama has finally hit his first major speed bump of his Presidency.

Thank you, President Ambien!

I have a hard time sleeping. My mind is typically racing of all the many things I need to get done in the next 8 days, before my little bundle of joy comes (which feels like a 20 pound bowling ball underneath my skin)! So last night, around 3:00am I decided to see what was on CNN. It was a re-broadcast and analysis of President Obama's health insurance press conference. I had regretably missed the live airing, I was watching So You Think You Can Dance. Before begining my viewing, I was wide awake. And thankfully, several long minutes later, I had drifted into a peaceful sleep. I decided to record this press conference, to help in other sleepless nights.

I'm unsure if it was his long, drawn out, inconclusive answers. Or his soothing, yet monotone voice. Or just the fact that I was watching CNN at 3am. But it was stronger than taking 2 Ambiens! I have since read the transcript from his prepared message, and find myself confused at some of his remarks, ideas, and plans for our health care.

1. "And it's about the fact that the biggest driving force behind our federal deficit is the skyrocketing cost of Medicare and Medicaid." I thought that this legislation would not only be "budget neutral" but after 10 years provide billions of dollars in revenue. I don't understand how the current government program for a small percentage of the population is the "biggest driving force behind our federal deficit", yet this new plan will provide a revenue.

2. "If [the federal government] does not control these costs, we will not be able to control our deficit" soon followed by: "It will keep government out of health care decisions". How will the government stay out of health care decisions, yet control costs. And the more he talks about "controlling costs" the less I think this legislation is about giving uninsured coverage, and putting more "caps" on the medical industry.

3. He refers to the "game of politics" and lists two Republican comments made recently about his plan. Yet, he can do this without the Republicans, it is the conservative Democrats that will possibly put a stop to this bill. So he is playing the game with the rest of them, and really the Republicans are sitting on the political bench, unable to put a complete stop to his policies.

Now I haven't had a chance to read his lengthy responses to the Question and Answer portion, and will hopefully have some analysis for those soon. But so far, I found his message to be concerning. What do you think?

Acceptable Power

Power: (noun) The ability or official capacity to exercise control; authority.

Politics is a pure power struggle. The founder's attempted to prevent this by creating three branches of government, fearing an over reaching federal government. With every new President, Congress, and Supreme Court Justice, the powers of the federal government have expanded. Each side of the aisle cherry picks what kind of national power is acceptable, then criticizes their oppositions selection of approved federal power.

Conservatives, or the "small government" side of the political game, claim to abhor a strong national government. However, when it comes to defense or social issues, they expect the federal government to have a strong hand. During the Bush Administration, several weeks after 9-11 the Patriot Act was passed with a high bi-partisan vote. Yet, many on the left later criticized how much invasive power that gave the evil feds. "You can't listen to my phone calls if I'm a possible terrorist without a warrant!" In regards to the "right to privacy", what happens behind closed doors, the left is strongly opposed to a big bad KGB-esque national government.

Liberals, or the generous "large government" of the political game, claim to desire national intervention in their lives. It is the national government's role to be the great equalizer. They should have the authority to provide health care, child care, regulate your personal energy usage, to name a few. The government should step in when we can't provide for ourselves. Yet, many on the right criticize this philosophy, arguing that gives the national government too much power within the economy and within our own lives. As long as the aspect of health care doesn't involve your reproductive organs or sexual orientation.

In reality, both parties want to give the federal government power, but only in the areas they deem appropriate. With President Obama in the White House, he is pushing forward a liberal agenda, creating an uproar from the right. Which is the exact same situation when President Bush was in office. So here is my question, how can any of us on either side be not understanding of the other party, when we are guilty of the same thing in different respects. We are told by our representatives or outspoken critics that we are the only ones who are in the right, that the other party is demanding too much. The conservatives demand too much regarding national defense, and the right to privacy. The liberals demand too much in providing the "necessities", and regulating the economy. Both are guilty of what they are accusing the other of. I am just tired of the finger pointing and power grabs from both sides.

What in the world?

Friday's are typically slow news days. Especially Friday's before a holiday weekend, like Independence Day weekend. However, I'm sure most of you heard the late breaking news that Sarah Palin is resigning at the end of this month. In a press conference Friday afternoon, she (kind of???) explained her reasons for leaving. Ethics investigations, family under pressure, didn't want to be a "lame duck Governor", blah, blah, blah. Most of the press conference was a thorough, and overheard, resume of her accomplishments and why Alaska is such a great state. But, she quit.

I have a few ideas of why she is really resigning. Here are a few:

1. (This, for me, is the only good and respectable option) She is getting out of politics to spend time with her family. They have been under enormous scruitiny, pressure and criticism, and they need to take a step back.
2. Something is about to hit the fan. There is some scandal or embarrassing skeleton that is about to come out, and she is trying to step out of the national spotlight before the dirty laundry is aired.
3. She is preparing for a 2012 Presidential Election. And by doing so, she thought it would beef up her political resume to become elected Governor in 2006, campaign forabout 6 months in 2008, and quit at least a year early in 2009.
4. (Possibly most likely) Pay off debts. She mentioned a $1/2 million personal legal tab from the ethics investigations, and she needs to pay it off. I've heard she has a book deal, wouldn't doubt Fox News would give her a show, or get paid per conservative speaking engagement. With any of these options, it is obviously difficult to do while you are a public servant, and would be distracting to her job.

I'm sure we will all be sitting at the edge of our seats until we find out the real scoop. Do you have any other ideas why she quit?

Happy Independence Day!

I am a huge fan of the Fourth of July. I am an avid local parade attender, although my husband absolutely loathes sitting in the sun watching medeocre floats and high school bands pass by. The only enjoyment he receives is taunting the local beauty queens, calling them by name and practically embarrassing them, and me! I cry when the Purple Heart truck passes, or the Veterans, or every time the National Anthem is played. I love the fireworks, the barbeques, and the family traditions of homemade chocolate mint brownies and ice cream. I also take time to reread documents of our founding fathers, finding such inspiration and wisdom in their words. Here is the document we are in essence celebrating, and I've included my favorite passages.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

Shuffling Money

Besides Michael Jackson, there have been other stories that I have found "news worthy". One in particular is the Waxman-Markey bill, or as the right has labeled it, "Cap and Trade" bill and as the left has labeled it, "Clean Energy Bill". Both are correct. It is a cap and trade bill that is enforcing clean energy standards. If you would like to be one step ahead of the majority of the Congressmen who voted on this bill, you can read the entire text, here.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that this bill will increase the average American household energy costs by $175. I don't know about you, but adding a $175 bill doesn't 'stimulate' my household's economy! But if it is to save the earth, I guess my children's children will be thanking me. Right? Actually, the environmental organization, Greenpeace, says that this legislation "sets emission reduction targets far lower than science demands, then undermines even those targets with massive offsets." So lets tax ourselves sick, but it won't do enough according to science. What does this mean for energy companies?

"The key provisions of the bill include requiring electric utilities to meet 20% of their electricity demand through renewable energy sources and energy efficiency by 2020, investing $190 billion in new clean energy technologies and energy efficiency, mandating new energy-saving standards for buildings, appliances, and industry, introducing a federal cap-and-trade program to reduce carbon emissions by 17% by 2020 and over 80% by 2050 compared to 2005 levels, and protecting consumers from energy price increases."

What is wrong with this picture? The government is mandating current energy companies to invest in new 'clean energy technologies', technology deemed appropriate by the federal government. They are taking money from one sector of the industry to fund the expansion of another sector of an industry. The oil and gas industry will essentially be funding the growth of their competition.

This concept is not exclusive to Clean Energy. This new Obama Business Model is found in the Public Health Plan. This legislation is proposing to tax employer paid health care to help fund the government's new health care. Again, the government is taking money from one sector of the industry to fund the expansion of another sector of an industry. This is absolutely and unequivocably un-capitalistic and un-American. Yes, I said it, UN-AMERICAN. America was founded upon the principles of freedom, capitalism, the power of the dollar, and both of these massive pieces of legislation dismantle almost every aspect of what our economy was founded on!

Rest in Peace

I am a massive fan of Michael Jackson. He is the ultimate entertainer. A legend. A musical genius. He created a new genre of music, Pop. His dance skills were perfection. His personal life was confusing, but his music was amazing.

With that said, I am so tired of every aspect of his life and death dominating every news channel. Even if I wanted to know what else is going on in the world, I would have to become an investigative journalist and scouer the internet for non-Michael Jackson news. What is happening in Iran? What is really in the "Cap-and-Trade" bill? Was Bernie Madoff's sentencing fair? What is going on in Hondurus? There are hundreds of things that Anderson Cooper and Charlie Gibson and Bill O'Reilly should be talking about, and yet ever since last Thursday, they have talking almost exclusively about Michael. Thank goodness for local news. It gives me a half an hour breather from everything Michael Jackson. And I am disappointed that credible news channels have transformed into a glorified Access Hollywood or Entertainment Tonight, where the only thing that differentiates the two is the running ticker at the bottom of the screen. What is wrong with the news industry? I will miss Michael Jackson, but I can not wait for this news story to Rest in Peace.

Now THIS is how you have an affair!

I know this is a far cry from my last post, but since it is the "Hot Topic" in the news reel today, I must put in my two cents.

When you think of political sex scandals, you typically dry heave in your mouth and try to think of happy thoughts. They are typically conducted by an unattractive, womanizing, yet awkward politician who typically has to pay for favors (Spitzer), use his extreme power or 'charm' (Clinton), swing the other way (Greevy), or tap his feet (Craig). Those stories are a thing of the past! We have the 7 new guidelines on "How to have an affair: Politician Edition", written by South Carolina Governor, Mark Sanford, and Foreward written by former President Bill Clinton.

1. Go international! Forget the days of sleazy interns, New York City call girls, or underage congressional pages! Make it a destination affair, it will be all the more enjoyable and relaxing.


2. Instead of explicit texts or phone calls, take notes from Danielle Steele, and make your e-mails masterpiece literature. Instead of your affair infuriating the stay-at-home mom voting population, they will secretly wish you were their Fabio and taking them somewhere south of the border! (Read a selection of his e-mails HERE).


3. No need for an elaborate excuse to make your escape, just tell everyone you have gone hiking…or grocery shopping…or walking your dog. It will only make your actual story all the more glamorous when you get home and tell them what you’ve really been doing!


4. Immediately flaunt your newly acquired Argentine sun tan at press conference.


5. Have the hanky ready, to wipe your tearful indiscretions away, and ask for forgiveness.


6. Don’t share camera time with your bitter and miserable wife. Her facial expressions will always discredit your words.


7. Don’t resign from everything. Start small, then find some middle ground with your angry constituents. It is the art of political bargaining.

If you follow these guidelines, you will not only get your wife to be willing to "resurrect your marriage", but also romance your female (and some male) constituency with your story-book affair.

Iran's Cry for Help

After Iran's Presidential Election, and the announced win of incumbent Ahmadinejad, the Iranian people who backed the defeated Mousavi took to the streets to protest the results. Mousavi encouraged peaceful demonstrations, but the Iranian government, who majority of Western news agencies placed in Tehran claim rigged this election, is crushing the protesters with lethal force. The Iranian government has cut majority of Western media coverage within the country, and is having more difficulty in preventing the Iranian people from documenting the devestation.


What is the United States response? "The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States," President Obama stated. He responded in an interview that it would be counterproductive for the United States “to be seen as meddling” in the disputed Iranian presidential election. This position does not surprise me. It is a very 'diplomatic' attitude, not taking sides, or involving the United States in anyway. However...


What do we stand for? Why on earth do we have values and principles and a belief in freedom and democracy and the right to voice your opinion....AND NOT VOICE IT?!?!? We need to speak out against the tyrranical government's actions: cutting off media communications, lethal force, ignoring blatant voting fraud, the list continues. Do they need our support? Do the protesters want a "stamp of approval" from the United States? I argue: ABSOLUTELY YES!


How did the Iranian protesters get pictures and video and information out to the rest of the world? They used United States social networking websites Facebook, Youtube and Twitter. Even the leader of the opposition, Mousavi, has a facebook account. Another thing I found interesting is how many of their protest signs were in English. Of course a majority of the world speaks English along with their native language, but why wouldn't they use their native language if they didn't want the United States and the Western world to not only understand their plight but to stand with them, voicing an opinion against an oppressive regime?

President Obama doesn't want the U.S. to be a distraction used by the Iranian government, but guess what? Even with his hands off approach, President Ahmadinejad has already blamed the U.S. and Brittain with intruding. When dealing with foreign relations, President Obama will learn that the United States is damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Since the outcome is the same, we must stand for what we believe. What is the point of having principles if we don't apply them and stand with those who are fighting for the same rights? If we don't, they are worthless.

Call me Senator Boxer if you're nasty!

As a student of history and politics, I have always held extreme reverence for titles, oaths of office, the formalities and history behind our political system. In writing about our leaders, I have tried (probably not perfectly) to use their titles, President, Vice President, Secretary, etc. It is a sign of respect. There are other terms to show respect, and living on the edge of the south, "ma'am" has become a term I absolutely enjoy. Apparently, Californian women don't appreciate being called ma'am.

While questioning Brig. General Michael Walsh about the New Orleans levees, an interesting exchange happened. He responded to her as "ma'am", where she interrupted him by saying, "Could you say 'senator' instead of 'ma'am'. It's just a thing. I worked so hard to get that title. I'd appreciate it." You can view the clip here. (Don't worry, the clip doesn't involve any "right wing" commentary or introduction.) When I heard the exchange, it sounded vaguely familiar....where had I heard the line "I think I've earned it" before....???

That's right! The overly inflated, egotistic Colonel in "A Few Good Men" played by Jack Nicholson insists that Tom Cruise "addresses me as Colonel or Sir. I believe I've earned it". I wish I could see a full clip of the questioning of Brig. General Walsh, to see if Senator Boxer ever referred to him as General or Brigadier or even Sir. Possibly her history of having a relatively hostile attitude with honorable men in the military has elevated a simple exchange to something newsworthy. My only wish was that instead of saying, "Yes, Senator."; Brig. General would have responded the way Judge Randolph did in "A Few Good Men" to Jack Nicholson's arrogant behavior saying, "And the Senator will address me as Brigadier General or Sir. I'm quite certain I've earned it. You may continue." It appears he is much more of a gentleman, or one of our own few good men.

Health Care

There has been MUCH talk about health care in the news lately. And MUCH talk about health care in our home as well. I've read the text of President Obama's speech, and the text of the Republican's proposal. I completely disagree with major concepts in both. First, President Obama's proposal. His speech covers everything from paperless medical records to preventative care. From compensating doctors based on the patients outcome instead of cost of treatment, to revamping Medicaid and Medicare. All with the price tag of around $1 trillion over the next 10 years. While reading his speech, he kept using the phrase "we need to..." and I want to know who the "we" is. He was speaking to an audience of the American Medical Association, i.e. doctors. Does he mean the medical industry? Or the more likely answer, the federal government. Does that mean that within the Department of Health and Human Services, Sect. Sebelius would have control over all that he suggested? Would a new government agency be formed? I find that the most likely answer to all of those questions extremely frightening.

Now for the Republican Response. Of course there is a counter argument, this is politics. In typical fashion, the Republican proposal is considerably less wordy. I've seen longer prescription ads in my favorite hollywood magazines. Yet, I found their ideas almost as disturbing. First they suggest the states create a "State Health Insurance Exchange", which sounds like a government version of Progressive Auto Insurance (with that annoying spokeswoman, which was thinking about tacos...you know the ads). At least they didn't suggest a Federal Health Insurance Exchange, I'd run for the hills! Second, they suggest taxing the money employers spend on health insurance. Why on earth would employers continue to provide benefits to their employees? They wouldn't! And the best coverage I've gotten is through employment. Lastly, they want to revamp the Medicaid and Medicare systems.

All I have to say is, when has more government involvement been a good thing. Please give me one example! And recently, the insurance company that the state employees use here in Oklahoma hadn't paid the doctors and dentists for their services for over 6 months. One local practice was owed over $100,000, which is only now being paid. How will that help the "small business or self-employed" both parties insist they are helping? It actually does the opposite.

A Must Read

What kind of qualifications do you need to dismantle General Motors, the fourth largest bankruptcy filing in US history? Decades of hands on experience? An understanding of the auto industry or at least the industrial industry? At least an MBA or business experience? Nah! Why not tap into the brain of a not-quite law school graduate working in his first government job? You will be shocked when you read this article found in the New York Times about Brian Deese, who serves on the National Economic Council, a special adviser to the President, and the GM Dismantler. I feel confident in the "uniquely qualified individuals" President Obama has given the authority to "rewriting the rules of American capitalism" in "what may become President Obama's biggest experiment yet in federal economic intervention".

Read more HERE.

News Review

There have been many interesting news stories that have caught my attention the past few days, and instead of doing a typically in depth post about each, I only have time to give my slant on several at one time. So here is my news review.

Social Issues:
Murder of Abortion Doctor: Sunday, May 31 Dr. George Tiller was shot to death while attending religious services. The suspect, Scott Roeder, was soon after apprehended. Dr. Tiller was one of the few abortion doctors in the nation who would perform late-term abortions, and has been the victim of previous attempted attacks. Because of this attack, abortion clinics nation wide are beefing up security. Let's follow the logic of Scott Roeder and other anti-abortion violent protesters: We abhor the destruction of life, so we take the life of another person who performs such acts. Hmm... you become what you despise.


Dick Cheney Pro-Gay Marriage: Two weeks ago, Dick Cheney was proclaimed the anti-Obama spokesperson regarding the War on Terror. Most media commentators begged former Vice President Cheney to step away from the public eye, and shrink away into retirement. I was leaning towards the same attitude. And now he is back with vengeance, and most media outlets are heralding his return! What could make them have such a dramatic change of heart? He is for "equal rights for everybody that people ought to be able to enter into any kind of relationship they want." Cheney is pro-Gay Marriage? And what liberal biased drive by mainstream media broke this story? None other than the anti-homosexual, bigoted, unfair and completely imbalanced Fox News!!! He continued on to state that "the states ought to retain the ability to regulate and determine what's marriage and what the legal status of those unions are. It should not be a federal issue." Which I completely agree with. You do not apply for a federal marriage license, you apply for one within your own state. I am curious to see how this will change Dick Cheney's image within the main stream media. Before now he has been played as the master-mind behind all of the Bush Administrations evil doing, plotting the trampling of civil rights while smiling crookedly. Will he now be the poster child for the republican party? The democrats can only hope.


Ahhh...it's Date Night!: Us moms can appreciate any husband taking his gorgeous wife out on a much needed date away from The House, right? I could care less what the Presidential couple did on their date, but I think it is nice he held up his end of the bargain of taking his wife to a Broadway show. I just wish President Obama didn't make us, the taxpayers, go Dutch! Although President Obama paid the bill for dinner and the show, but the majority of the cost, $24,000 of traveling fees is charged to the Tax Payer Platinum Credit Card. Apparently, we have an unlimited credit limit (which sounds like an oxymoron right).


Which brings me to the next section....Economics!

Geithner's Comedy Tour: He must have Conan O'brien or Seinfeld writing his material, because he apparently had students at the University of Peking, China rolling in the aisles! His hilarious one liner that prompted the laughter was, "Chinese assets are very safe". Ba! Ha! Ha! Ha! He continued his shtick with "the Obama administration will cut it's huge fiscal deficits" and promised very "disciplined spending"! Ba-dum-ching! Drum roll please, for the final closing joke: "possibly including reintroduction of pay-as-you-go budget rules instead of nonstop borrowing. Thank you, and Goodnight!" I'm shocked that this comedic routine went over like it did, especially since China is the biggest foreign owner of US Bonds, and has slowed almost to a stop of their purchasing these bonds. I'm sure they can identify with us being like the sole shareholder of a failing company, like GM, who is inevitably filing for bankruptcy. I wonder if their leaders are saying to their people, "The US is too big to fail!"


How are we $546,668 in debt? We don't have any credit card debt, how can we possibly be half a million dollars in debt???? Oh, I forgot! The former President, George W. Bush had a Tax Payers Platinum Credit Card taken out in my name, and my household's taxpayer obligation is $546,668 for 2008. That crazy cowboy wracked up that much debt in one year!?!?!? And how much more will the spendaholic Obama administration deepen this debt in 2009? We need an intervention! Where is Dr. Drew? Or Dr. Oz? Or Suze Orman??? I'll take anyone at this point!


Too Big to Fail: Last November, the prospect of GM filing for bankruptcy would have been "devastating", according to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Congressman Barney Frank called it "particularly troublesome" and a financial expert explained that it would be "as close to reorganizing the whole U.S. economy as you could get". These were the blaring facts of why we had to bail out GM in November 2008. And yet, even with the government rushing in "To save the day!", they still had to file for bankruptcy? According to the previous fear filled comments, we need to prepare for an economic Armageddon! Wait, now they are saying what?!?!? CEO of GM, Fritz Henderson said that the reorganization allowed through filing bankruptcy "will create a leaner, quicker more customer and completely product-focused company, one that’s more cost competitive and has a competitive balance sheet". Everything is coming up roses! Where was this hope filled discussion before the bail outs? The fact that letting a company fail can only make it stronger, more cost efficient and competitive? I don't understand how anyone at this point can argue for more bail outs for any industry! Because apparently, this will be a good starting point for GM. I love the four words, "I told you so".

Common Sense Comedy Tour Review

Glenn Beck challenged his listeners to write a preemptive review of his upcoming Comedy Tour, in the form of a liberal journalist. I thought if I had a minute today, I would see what I could come up with. Surprisingly, I did have a few minutes! On his website, he had a few points we had to cover. And I think there is a prize for the "most accurate". Anyway, here is what I came up with.

Those of us who live in the real world, brace yourselves! Banjo-playing, Bible-thumping, sheet-wearing, radical right wing zombies are braving an evening away from their apocalyptic bunkers and dozens of brainwashed kids for a night on the town. Is it another embarrassingly unsuccessful Tea Party? Surprisingly, no. It is in support of their fearless, or fanatical leader, Glenn Beck.

Glenn Beck, shock jock turned investigative journalist, is stepping out of his “War Room” in the Fox News compound, and into the world of comedy. Or so he is advertising with his Common Sense Comedy Tour. Possibly the task of verifying simple facts became overbearing, and since the rest of the world was laughing at him, he might as well profit from it.

The Common Sense Tour is a typically excruciating Glenn Beck production, which inevitably involves bulging forehead veins, streaming tears, pit stains, and a frightening look into the future. If you tune out the Republican shill disguised as comedy, and focus singularly on his laughable appearance, you might get your money’s worth. Instead of listening to his sardonic monologue, picture him walking the halls of your junior high. What ridicule an overweight, almost translucent skinned, perpetually perspiring, prepubescent must have endured. Most grow out of their awkward stage. Instead Mr. Beck added to the unfortunate list an unknown hair color and loud mouth demeanor.

The emotional and overcharged evangelical style might appeal to the small-minded disenfranchised minority of Americans, but for the rest of us who still have our spinal chord attached to our brain, save your money! To paraphrase an overused quote by Mr. Beck, “if you pay money to listen to his comedic gospel, you’re an idiot.”

Lady Justice?

On Tuesday President Obama announced his nomination of Sonia Sotomayor for Supreme Court Justice. I have not done my own vetting process of her, and know very little. So I will reserve my confirmation until I know more about her and her qualifications. Instead, I am writing about something that President Obama said while introducing her. He gave two qualities that are essential to a Supreme Court Justice: a rigorous intellect and a recognition of the limits of the judicial role. Woo-hoo! I couldn't agree with you more, Mr. President! I couldn't believe my ears, but before I could do my celebration dance, he continued and inevitably contradicted himself.

He stated, "...yet, these qualities alone are insufficient. We need something more. For as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said, "The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience." Wait...WHAT?!?!? Were you just sweet talking me with your pick up line about limits of the judicial role? And now you are quoting from a Legal Realist, and suggesting that someones life experience should not only play a small role, but an essential role in their judicial decisions? Complete contradiction.

Without boring you with legal mumbo-jumbo, which I hope to eventually formally study, I want to get your thoughts on legal realism versus legal formalism. Before President Obama's introduction of a possible Supreme Court Justice, I was unaware of these opposing school's of thought. Legal Realism is the concept of the law being "indeterminate"and should be used as "a tool to achieve social purposes and to balance competing societal interests". Legal Formalism argues that "decisions rest on a relatively closed-set of logically-organized rules" and judges should be constrained in their interpretations.

It seems obvious that President Obama, and Sonia Sotomayor, interpret the judicial role of the Supreme Court as a way to "achieve social purposes and balance competing societal interests". Why would they believe that her "life experience" is one of the essential factors as to her qualifications? A Legal Formalist (which from what I understand about the ideology, I fall under) would argue it should have absolutely no bearing on her qualifications. Whether she is male, female, white, black, hispanic, rich, poor, should not matter! Lady Justice should be blind, and free from prejudice and passion. I'm no idiot, I know there have been conservative judges that interpret the law differently because of past experiences. This is not exclusive to Sonia Sotomayor or President Obama. But this is the first time I have been aware of it, and I think it is wrong. Just as President Bush put in a more conservative justice while he was in office, President Obama is nominating a more liberal judge. Fine. The Supreme Court should be balanced in ideology. But the entire concept of her "rigorous intellect" being "insufficient" without not logic, but experience; is absolutely wrong.

True Convictions

Conviction: (noun) an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence.

I watched an interesting segment on a morning television talk show this morning featuring five lionesses and apparently a relatively unknown radio and television show host. Without delving into the hilarious mess that it became, there was an interesting dialogue I wanted to write about. The lead 'investigative journalist' asked the guest "What are your true convictions" and after several ADD moments, he answers the question: God, founding of our country, and family. While staring deep into his tear-filled eyes, she professionally follows up with, "I think we all believe in the country, in God and family. So what are your true convictions?" Part of the audience had a similar reaction to mine, laughter! Is she serious? Does she think his answer is going to be different? It made me think her question, "What are your convictions?"

By looking at the definition, I believe that most everyone, as Ms. WaWa herself pointed out, has the same convictions. This is the common ground that binds the human race. What do you have an "unshakable belief in" that doesn't need any "proof or evidence"? My convictions are absolutely an unshakable belief in God, in His Son, Jesus Christ, and that they have a plan for all of Their children. And that the foundation of that plan is rooted in the family. I have an unshakable belief in freedom and that it is a right endowed to everyone. All of my "opinions" or "political positions" stem from my beliefs. How I apply my convictions to my political positions is what separates me from a liberal. It isn't good versus bad, it is just different. But as I have said previously, our convictions is where we can most likely find common ground.

American Idol Finale

And the Final Two are:

A very good looking hobbit and....

A theatrical mix between Emo boy and a glam rocker from the 90's!

Yes, that really is a picture of Adam Lambert. Word to the wise: Don't Google his name... it ain't pretty! This is one thing about this season of American Idol that has been surprising to me. Typically the producers throw their "non-family-friendly" contestants under the bus. If they have a criminal record, if they have taken explicit or even questionable pictures, etc. But nothing has been said about Adam Lambert, other than he is the Musical Messiah! In my musical opinion, he is an amazing singer. He can hit any note effortlessly. However, when he really belts the power notes, his tongue hangs out like a dog sticking it's head out the car window. His over-dramatized performances have become as difficult to stomach as the Rocky Horror Picture Show...and no, I haven't actually seen Tim Curry in drag. But I have to ask myself, who's album would I actually buy? Easy answer.

Frodo Baggins...I mean, Kris Allen. Doesn't he have a hobbit-esque appearance, in an adorable boy next door kind of way? Although he doesn't have as wide of range as Adam, or all the bells, whistles, fireworks, eye-liner, he get's my vote. He has a cool, accoustic, style that reminds me of Jason Mraz, who I'm also a huge fan of. I have loved almost every performance, and he seems to be genuine, hard-working, and an average-everyday kind of person. He is definitely the underdog, Adam Lambert not only getting Bono's approval, but all of the judges and Katy Perry's endorsements. Hopefully, they'll all be shocked when Ryan Seacrest announces the "greatest upset in the history of American Idol"!

I want to be a comedian

Apparently, if you are a comedian, you can get away with anything. Because "it's funny"! Of course, some of your bits might not go over well with your audience, but don't worry! It will only help your career, because that means you are now "edgy". Here are some suggestions for possible comedian material which has previously been viewed as "off-limits" or "inappropriate". Let's see if we can put on our comedian hats and find a way to make them funny:

Parkinsons

Youth Suicide

9-11 Hijackers

Kidney Failure

The holocaust

Rape

Cancer

Torture

School Violence

Barbara Walters

There is still one topic that hasn't made the "Now its funny" list, and that is President Barack Obama. This was made obvious at the White House Correspondence dinner, when he was the only one allowed to make fun of the new President. Typically this fundraiser dinner turns into a roast of our Commander in Chief. Wanda Sykes instead roasted President Obama's outspoken opponents, calling one treasoness. In the President's stand-up routine, he did a fine job poking fun at himself.

Feliz Cinco de Mayo

How to beat Swine Flu:

• Don't travel to Mexico. Even if you planned for it. Even if you paid for your cruise and they will refuse any reimbursements. Even if you've never traveled outside the country. Just don't do it.
• Wash your hands. This precaution may seem extreme. Out of the ordinary. Might throw off your daily schedule. This kind of warning might cause fear-crazed citizens to start stock piling Tamiflu, but heed this advice. Wash your hands.
• Don't panic. Although the constant media coverage and the billions of dollars our government is pumping into prevention might instill some fear, don't give in. The World Health Organization has only confirmed 30 deaths worldwide, 29 in Mexico and 1 in the United States. To give some comparison, the CDC reported 1,161 cases of Influenza within the United States during 2007 -08. The mortality rate peaked at 9.1% during that time, which would estimate to being around 105 deaths. Just in the United States. Could Influenza be considered a pandemic? Until this H1N1 strand mutates into a more deadly virus, I'm not going to go out and buy face masks.

Feliz Cinco de Mayo!...unless you live in Mexico!

Sex Ed

I am a mom of very young kids. I don't have to worry about having the birds and the bees talk with anyone for hopefully many years! But there has been much publicized about youth and sex and new technology that is making my head spin! Articles and news blurbs about "sexting", parents finding naked pictures of their kids on Google, oral sex parties. Hello Sodom, meet Gomorrah!

I naively thought nothing would surprise me, until I was watching an Oprah episode, the Oprah episode, with her favorite 'sex doctor'. Topic of discussion was masturbation. (I apologize to the virgin ears and eyes who visit this blog in advance!) Dr. Laura Berman was encouraging moms to introduce "self pleasure" to their junior high aged daughters, so they could fully own their sexuality and be in control of their pleasure. "It is the hugest gift you could give your daughters". While I was engrossed in the absurdity of this episode, jaw stuck to the floor, my husband asked why I would even watch this. And I realized I am not afraid of my kids, I know what my standards were as a youth and no matter what is taught at school or accepted practices of their peers, my kids will be taught what I believe is right. However, I am terrified of what other mom's will now be teaching their kids. How many of them will listen to the sage advice of a multi-billionaire non-mom when doling out sex ed advice?

During the entire discussion the concept of self-control was not even mentioned. How can it be healthy to teach a young pre-teen girl who's hormones are out of whack, who's frontal lobe or 'rational decision making center' isn't fully developed, to become sexual beings by "owning their self-pleasure"? Why on earth will this help prevent promiscuity with boys? There is a difference between having open and informative dialogue with your kids and encouraging sexual behavior. I find it frightening that self-control has completely been brushed under the rug when discussing something so life-altering as sex. The wide acceptance of teen sex has become a dangerous limbo game, where the bar is quickly lowered as our kids pass underneath it. "How low can we go?"

Am I alone?

If we just ignore them...

Will they go away?

It appears that most major media outlets, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Robert Gibbs and even President Obama are using the tactic of ignoring the squeaky wheels, hoping they will just go away. What they don't understand, is that is the very reason we are angry. President Bush ignored us. Conservatives in Congress and in the Senate ignored us, and still are. Majority of those in current power at local, state, and federal levels are ignoring us, regardless of your political party.

We want the excessive government spending to STOP.

We want the expansion of the federal government to STOP.

We want the passing of un-read legislation because "we don't have time" to STOP.

We want the labeling of those who disagree with the current administration as racist, extremist, radicals, to STOP.

We want our representatives, whether elected or appointed, held to the same legal standard as the rest of us law-abiding citizens. (especially tax code)

The similarities between our goals and those of the colonists who threw tea into the Boston Harbor are apparent. Charles Townshend of the House of Commons, a.k.a. the Barney Frank of colonial times, explained "Why shouldn't the Americans -- children planted by our care, nourished by our indulgence, pay off England's debt?" The logic of the government spending without respect to the people they represent is a universal and timeless practice. And I agree fully with Supreme Court Justice John Marshal when he said, "An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy; because there is a limit beyond which no institution and no property can bear taxation." The tea parties were attended by people who are fearful that all levels of government are spending outrageously which gives them the ability to tax us without limits in the future.