Last Line of Defense

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety"

~ Benjamin Franklin

Today is the busiest travel day of the year. Instead of preparing entertaining carry-ons for your young kids, you need to mentally prepare them for a possible "pat down" at the airport. You will be contradicting everything you have taught them about their bodies being private and that no one should ever touch them in a way that makes them feel uncomfortable. Not only may they receive a "pat down" against their will and yours, all will be subjected to the new scanners which leave nothing to the imagination. I agree with Ben Franklin that those who "give up essential liberty", which I would include flashing my genitals on a TSA screen as pretty essential, do not deserve liberty or safety. However, the American people are now voicing their complaints loud and clear that they are not "giving up their essential liberties" the government is taking them.

A few arguments against the new airport security measures.

1. Fourth Amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be violated..." We have a Constitutional and God given right to the privacy of our bodies, or "persons". A 3 year old, a Nun, cancer patients, a 6 year old boy made shirtless, a young man who passed the metal and enhanced scanners, do not present a reasonable threat, or solicit a reasonable search. Furthermore, in order to pose a reasonable threat, there must have been some sort of cause or "reason" to indicate a possible threat. Randomness, prosthetics, shrapnel, reconstructive implants, to name a few, do not warrant invasive, embarrassing, and unconstitutional of citizens person.

2. Profiling: Ah oh, I'm treading on politically incorrect territory, flag Big Brother! All security and law enforcement agencies use some sort of profiling. It is not always racial, it is socioeconomic, age, religion, political affiliations, etc. Profiling is using statistical evidence to narrow the suspect pool. When tracking a serial killer, they typically look for a white, male, middle of life, intelligent, unstable abusive backgrounds, typically grew up in poverty. Why isn't there more of a terrorist profile screening? It is more reasonable to ask detailed questions when purchasing a ticket, than viewing x-ray-naked hybrid images of people once entering the airport. How much quicker would their be outrage if there were standard questions such as, race, religion, recent travel, international citizenship, etc.

3. Double Standard: Where is the ACLU? Where is NOW? During the later Bush years, there was outrage at the invasive Patriot Act, which included wire taps, information sharing, access to records, foreign intelligence wire taps, "sneak and peek warrants", to name a few. The ACLU responded to the Patriot Act with their "Reclaiming Patriotism" report. (Doesn't it sound like a Glenn Beck rally?!) If I could use a few of their own words, in expressing my outrage at the new TSA standards. "[TSA] has expanded the government's authority to pry into people's private lives with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. [TSA] must recognize that overbroad, ineffective, or abusive surveillance programs are counterproductive to long-term government interests because they violate constitutional standards and undermind public confidence and support..." If you would like to use an absolutely elloquent argument against TSA, go to the ACLU's Reclaiming Patriotism report. Do I need to point out that at least the Patriot Act went before Congress to get passed, and also in 2006 to get it's provisions extended? I would assume that one of the most invasive counter-terrorist acts, the current screenings and pat downs would not have passed the Congress, if they were even given that chance.

4. LAST Line of Defense: Has the Department of Homeland Security raised the threat level? No. What was the last known terrorist attempt? The thankfully thrwarted printer bombs travelling in cargo from Yemen. Have we exhausted all other investigative measures before we, by definition, sexually harass travelling citizens who majority are law abiding citizens? No, we refuse to gather intelligence on travellers, with the fear of not being politically correct. Do we enforce pat downs and screenings onto anyone travelling into our country, where the greater threat lies? Yes, that is part of Secretary Napolitano's new directives. As I have read more, I have been surprised to find all levels of travel have new restrictions. Cargo, international to the US, domestic, carry ons, etc. However, I still believe that the vital and essential aspect of investigation, intelligence gathering or some might call profiling, is still missing. I see pornographic screenings and enhanced pat downs as the absolute last line of defense. Until absolutely every effort is made, every investigative tool is used, there is no need to violate law abiding citizens rights in the name of safety. However, the influx of safety measures begs the question:

What do they know that they are not telling us?

5. My last point is, where do we draw the line? What if the next terrorist attempt is a chemical tube hidden where the sun don't shine? Will there ever be a point where cavity searches are necessary to fly? What about strip searches? We have already seen a few instances nation wide. When you open the door to infringing on not only someone's "houses, papers, and effects" but their "persons", when will an act not be justified. If scanning children, removing their any of their clothes, touching private and typically deemed sexual parts, is not crossing the line, what is? I am not willing to give up my house, papers, effects, and especially my body for safety.

YES WE DID!!!

A historic election on local and national levels. Here in my neck of the woods, Oklahoma, our state elected a woman for the first time as Governor. Mary Fallin, a former U.S. Representative, handily won the Governor's seat. Republicans swept almost every single state elected office. Nationally, the Republicans won back the House of Representatives, taking over at least 60 seats! Not since Herbert Hoover has a political party picked up 60 seats in a mid term election. This is bigger than the "Contract for America" election of 1994. Another story worth recognition, is the election of two black Republican representatives to the U.S. House. This is the first time in seven years that the Republican Party has been represented by black Representatives.

What does this mean? Looking from state elections, to state questions that were proposed, the Conservative values were upheld almost every single time. Oklahoma resolutely voted against Obama care with state question 756. California struck down legalizing marijuana. Iowa voted out three Supreme Court Justices who upheld same sex marriage. At every level, Conservatism won. This was absolutely a referendum on President Obama, but beyond him, the progressive agenda that has had control of our country since 2006.

So, now what? Repeal, repeal, REPEAL! Most of the Republicans ran on the platform of repealing the Health Care legislation, extending or re-instituting the Bush tax cuts, balancing the budget, etc. I want to hold their elephant feet to the fire, and if they don't follow through, they are out in the next round of elections. I truly believe that whether or not President Obama is re-elected depends on the Republican's next 2 years in power. If they show the same embarrassing display of ethics and greed, President Obama will have the fuel to be re-elected. However, if they deliver on what they promised of smaller government, fiscally responsible congress, being responsive to their constituents, the conservative movement will continue to take over, and President Obama will be voted out. The 2012 election will be ours to lose.

Some expressed worry, or frustration that the conservative movement does not have a national leader. Some may signify Sarah Palin, or Glenn Beck, or Rush Limbaugh, but they did not organize the tea parties. They did not organize the massive attendance at the town hall meetings. And instead of sharing the concern of others over the lack of a national leader, I relish in it. Having your "hope and change" pinned on one person, you will always lose. One person is fallible. If they make mistakes (which they will) or push it too far (which power drives them too) or fall short (expectations too high), then the movement loses steam and eventually gets derailed. However, if like the current conservative movement, there is no face to place blame, no "Messiah" to worship and follow, no greedy politician, the chance of it being derailed is slim. When the people are the movement, the movement will succeed. Because all of our hopes and dreams for the 2010 mid-term elections were NOT pinned on Sharon Angle or Christine O'Donnell or Carly Fiorina or Meg Whitman, then when they lost, we didn't lose with them. I pray that those elected into this congressional session will listen to their constituents and move forward with the conservative agenda.

GO VOTE!!!

Two years ago, I was voting against someone. I was voting against a candidate who promised a fundamental change of our country. I voted against someone who promised universal health care, student loan reform, cap and trade legislation, immigration reform which included amnesty. I voted against someone who was considered the most liberal Senator. I voted against someone who promsised to "spread the wealth around". I voted against someone who saw the US Constitution as a document of negative liberties, and didn't "go far enough" and should have enumerated what "government should give the people".

THIS YEAR, I am voting for representatives that believe in the United States Constitution, as a LIMIT to the powers and expansion of the Federal Government. I am voting for representatives who stood unapologetically against the biggest industry take overs in our nations history, automotive, banking, student loans, and health care. I am voting for representatives who believe in states rights, and that the powers they have come from the people. I am voting for representatives who didn't villify those who voiced their concerns at town hall meetings, instead acting as our voices in Congress. And I just voted, and it felt GREAT!

If you need more motivation, here are some great quotes from some of this country's greats.

We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debt, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our calling and our creeds...we will] have no time to think, no means of calling our miss-managers to account but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers... And this is the tendency of all human governments. A departure from principle in one instance becomes a precedent for[ another]... till the bulk of society is reduced to be mere automatons of misery... And the fore-horse of this frightful team is public debt. Taxation follows that, and in its train wretchedness and oppression.

~ Thomas Jefferson

But I go on this great republican principle, that the people will have virtue and intelligence to select men of virtue and wisdom. Is there no virtue among us? If there be not, we are in a wretched situation. No theoretical checks -- no form of government can render us secure. To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea. If there be sufficient virtue and intelligence in the community, it will be exercised in the selection of these men. So that we do not depend on their virtue, or put confidence in our rulers, but in the people who are to choose them.

~James Madison

It is vital that we follow this counsel from the Lord: "Honest men and wise men should be sought for diligently, and good men and wise men ye should observe to uphold; otherwise whatsoever is less than these cometh of evil" (D&C 98:10). Note the qualities that the Lord demands in those who are to represent us. They must be good, wise, and honest.

~Ezra T. Benson

Oklahoma State Questions

I love the fall for many reasons (weather, sports, school, clothing) but one of them is election time. It reminds citizens to pay attention to what is happening locally and nationally. There is more awareness of current issues and political leaders. I have had a few people ask me to post about our local state questions and local candidates. Here is my first attempt at the state questions.

State Question 744: The measure requires the state legislature to set a minimum average the state must spend on each student.

Yes on 744: makes OK more competitive with other state's per student spending, could help prevent teacher layoffs, could improve technology and textbooks, could help set higher teacher standards,

No on 744: No funding mechanism (estimated $850 million cost), pulled from other agencies, nothing in 744 mandating money spent on students/classroom.

My Take: If you couldn't tell already, I am currently against SQ 744. I fully endorse spending more money, time and effort on the education of our kids. It is embarrassing how poorly Oklahoma ranks overall (spending and scores). We have to do better. HOWEVER, this is not the way. What happened to the lottery funding a better education? How are we doing worse off, when passing the lottery was the answer to all of our educational woes! And who is helping fund the Yes on 744? Teacher's unions! Because they know that 85% of the lottery money intended for education goes to salaries from the top (administrators) trickling down to the bottom (teachers). Teachers need to be paid better, but just like I was opposed to the lottery, I don't trust our state government to actually spend the new "windfall" on the kids, their classrooms, books, and technology.

SQ 746: Photo ID required to vote.

My Take: Yes on 746. Carrying a photo ID is not difficult, most voting aged adults do so on a constant daily basis. This would hopefully prevent voter fraud, illegals voting, and keep the system more honest.

SQ 747: TERM LIMITS! Governor, Lt. Governor, Attorney General, Treasurer, Treasurer, Commissioner of Labor, Auditor and Inspector, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Insurance Commissioner: 8 years each. Corporation Commissioner: 12 year limit.

My Take: YES!!!!! Absolutely YES!!!! I have been begging for this at a national level, so lets start small then move onward and upward. I am a huge advocate for having term limits on State and Federal Congressmen and Senators. If this is one small step in that direction, count me in!

SQ 748: Requiring Legislature to make an apportionment after each 10 year federal census. If not, a Apportionment Commission must do so.

My Take: Yes. It makes sense to re-figure apportionment every 10 years, communities change, develop new areas, dwindle in others. As of right now, I will vote Yes for required updated apportionment.

SQ 750: Changing required voter signatures on Initiatives and Referendums. It lowers the required percentage voter signature requirements.

My Take: Yes. I don't want initiatives and referendums to be easily created to blow with every changing wind in society, however I am afraid that these next few years we will need as little red tape and hoops to jump through to undo or prevent what the President and the federal government have been and are pushing through.

SQ 751: State's "official actions" will be written in English and no law suit could force a state agency to use a language other than English.

My Take: YES! This is a small step towards an "official state language". I am in favor of having a national language, just like majority of other countries throughout the world. Why should the state have to translate their "official actions", such as laws, into a variety of other languages? If you are drawn to the United States for our freedoms and opportunities, you should be willing to speak the language, and not force companies, schools and the government to accommodate you.

SQ 752: Adding two "At large" Judicial Nominating Commission members, nominated by Senate President Pro Tempore and Speaker of the house and the Governor.

My Take: Yes. Much of what I've read, suggests the point of this law is to "dilute the influence lawyers have on the selection list" of possible Supreme Court nominees. Why not?

SQ 754: Appropriations will not be determined by "predetermined constitutional formulas, how much other states spend, or how much any entity spends". Also, the measure could not be effectively amended or repealed.

My Take: No. This was written largely in opposition in SQ 744. If 744 passed, our Education funding would be partially determined by other states funding, which if passed 754 prevents. Formulas are occasionally necessary. Although I would agree that our state's budget shouldn't be determined by other state's budgets, I find anything that is set in stone dangerous. Without the ability to amend or repeal, this could be a powerful referendum with the consequences completely unknown.

SQ 755: Makes courts rely on state and federal laws, and forbids courts from considering or using international law when deciding cases.

My Take: No. While researching this issue, it was difficult to find a "No on 755" supporter. I was blasted with "Stop Sharia Law!" websites, however there was much more to the wording than just prohibiting a religious legal system. It forbids courts from considering international law, which includes international states, organizations, companies, etc. This could (and most likely will) deter foreign companies from doing business in Oklahoma, could make international marriage certificates invalid, etc. For a great legal analysis on why to vote No on SQ 755 go HERE

SQ 756: Prohibits forcing a person, employer, to participate in a "health care system", prohibits forcing a health care provider provide treatment in a health care system, allows persons/employees to pay for treatment directly, and provider to accept payment directly, allows purchase and sales in private health care systems.

My Take: Hell yes! (Currently repenting for my profanity, my apologies!) This shuts down almost every aspect of the ridiculous Health Care bill that the federal government enacted. It protects our employers from participating in and being punished by the federal governments take over, as well as individual citizens. It follows the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution that states "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." Oklahoma needs to say NO!

SQ 757: Increases the "Rainy Day Fund" created by the surplus revenue from the current 10% to 15%.

My Take: Yes. If we have the ability to have a 5% larger "Rainy Day" fund, we should do it. Families should also follow the same actions, and increase what they put into their own rainy day funds.

Hopefully that helps you Okies who read this blog. The rest of you, are probably as overwhelmed as I was when I saw our long list, so good luck! I am working on our state candidates as well, but wanted to take a little more time researching that. Here is the Oklahoma State Election Board's website if you want more info.

Mormons and Gays

I had started a long, carefully worded response to many cries of bigotry and hate towards our Church following President Boyd K. Packer's most recent General Conference talk. Following his message, there was thousands of hate mail, hundreds of critical headlines, petitions and protests. Even within Mormon bloggers, there was dissent. Which I found the most disturbing, was the level of disrespect and disassociation people had towards one of their leaders. I believe that this is because there is a misunderstanding in our Church's stance on homosexual behavior and separately how we should treat our fellow man including those in the gay community. Before I could finish my thoughts, the Church released their version, which of course is a much more elloquent and appropriate. Instead of posting my mediocre attempt, I will second what is said in this press release, and call it good!

HERE is the Church's Press Release.

My Rally's bigger than your Rally

The 2010 Word of the Year is RALLY!

Everyone from Glenn Beck to Reverend Al Sharpton to major labor unions are participating in the hot new trend of organizing rallies. Tea Parties have covered the country, at the local level, and national rallies on Tax Day, and the day of signing the health care legislation. Typically the political rallies are organized in opposition to something. Tea Parties are in response to the out of control spending that started in the Bush era, "Taxed Enough Already". Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally was more like a revival than a rally, discussing heavily the divine providence of our country. Al Sharpton rallied in Martin Luther King Jr's memory. The One Nation rally this past weekend was heavily funded by progressive groups, labor organizations, and other liberal groups such as Planned Parenthood.

There was A LOT of debate over the attendance number of Glenn Beck's "Restoring Honor" rally ranging from 87,000 (CBS News) to 500,000 (Beck). In trying to find out more about yesterday's "One Nation" rally, it was very difficult in obtaining a crowd picture. There were several who had pictures from the Lincoln steps out into the crowd, where the crowd was a blurry background. Surprisingly, on MANY websites, I saw an impressive image displaying a large crowd, with the large title "One Nation Rally in Washington" (or the like). Once clicking on the article, in small captions underneath the picture it read "August 28, Glenn Beck's Restoring Honor rally", yet the entire articles covering the "One Nation" rally. In many articles, they quoted the crowd as being "tens of thousands".

If this is "tens of thousands"

Then what is THIS????
I think it is an exciting time in the country, more political involvement on both sides. (Fabricated or "grass roots" involvement). More involvement means more demand for accurate information on both sides. All I can say, is I hope these pictures are indicative of what will be coming on Election Day in November! The best way to "rally" is in the voting booth, and it is your civic duty and responsibility.

Amen

I love political cartoons. For this exact reason. A picture is worth a thousand words. This one is worth more!

How dare he! (Gasp!)

If there is a time to be incensed by the actions of the radio show commentator, Glenn Beck, this is the weekend! The political propagandist is flaring his extremist muscles, correction flab, in creating, promoting and eventually destroying our country with his "Restoring Honor" rally. If the name isn't inflammatory enough, the date of the event, August 28, 2010 will send you overboard. August 28, 2010? The date of the "I Had a Dream" speech, by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. This speech occurred in the same location, same date, 47 years earlier. How dare Glenn Beck taint this date with his ketchup and cheese fries covered fingers! Doesn't he know he's a white conservative and can't possibly appreciate Dr. King, the civil rights movement, or patriotic actions by brave historical leaders?

What is this rally, you may ask? Tea Party? No. Political driven freak show? No. According to the website, "come celebrate America by honoring our heroes, our heritage and our future." Celebrate America? How can you do that without being a right wing extremist nut? Not possible. Fund raising for our troops? This must be a cover for the underground fundraising for Palin 2012. And what kind of title is "Restoring Honor". Honor is an antiquated tradition of our foundin father's who are outdated, old fashioned, and racist. This is apparently another attempt at Beck to brainwash his followers, if anyone even attends, into his pro-America, capitalist, freedom loving mentality. And I for one, must take a stance against it. How dare he.

Quick to Point Fingers

Both sides of the political spectrum are pots calling the kettles black in this current "you're a racist" tug-o-war. On the right, while aggressively condemning NAACP's resolution repudiating racial elements in the Tea Party; one of the Tea Parties prominent leaders Mark Williams sent an embarrassing and racially charged so-called-satire post from the perspective of a "colored man". Mark Williams and his entire organization, Tea Party Express, was expelled from the National Tea Party Federation. On the left, while pointing the finger at the Tea Party, they refuse to include in their resolution, the new Black Panther Party's leaders who are asking for the "killing of cracker babies". [Now enters Shirley Sherrod].

Shirley Sherrod. Shirley Sherrod typifies this artificially created racial battle between the right and left. A right-biased website powered by Andrew Breitbart, BigGovernment, posted an incomplete video of a federally appointed USDA Georgia Director of Rural Development, Shirley Sherrod, speaking at a NAACP dinner in March. In her speech, she recounts a story which takes place 26 years ago, while she was working for a nonprofit rural aid group, where she did not help a white farmer to her complete ability because he was white. End of sound-byte.

The NAACP quickly put out a statement condemning her remarks, without contacting her for verification or explanation says Sherrod. Almost as quickly as the incomplete video hit the air waves, the USDA Deputy Undersecretary Cheryl Cook called Sherrod while she was driving, and informed her "the White House wanted her to resign because her comments were generating a cable news controversy" naming Glenn Beck specifically. She resisted. In the final of the three phone conversations, "they asked me to pull over to the side of the road and submit my resignation on my Blackberry, and that's what I did." She told CNN that "it hurts [her] that [the administration] didn't even try to attempt to see what is happening here, they didn't care."

Who is coming to Shirley Sherrod's defense? The NAACP who has done a quick 180, the specifically named by the administration Glenn Beck, and even the white farmer she was speaking of! "We probably wouldn't have (our farm) today if it hadn't been for her leading us in the right direction," said Eloise Spooner, the wife of farmer Roger Spooner of Iron City, Ga. "I wish she could get her job back because she was good to us, I tell you." Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsak defended his call for her resignation, even as more of the story poured out vindicating Shirley Sherrod's reputation, saying "the controversy surrounding her comments would create a situation where her decisions, rightly or wrongly, would be called into question making it difficult for her bring jobs to Georgia." The term “rightly or wrongly” suggests that the truth does not matter -- only perception, the politics of the situation.

The Shirley Sherrod drama illustrates that every organization, NAACP, Black Panthers, Tea Party, even government agencies, are full of humans. Humans who make mistakes, have prejudices to overcome or succomb to, learning lessons we are all faced with. The sad irony in the case of Shirley Sherrod, is the entirety of the video shows that she overcame her prejudices, and she eventually came to work closely with the white farmer and that she was trying to impart a lesson about how important it is to get beyond the issue of race.
“I went on to work with many more white farmers,” she said. “The story helped me realize that race is not the issue.”

Word of the Day: Racism

Word of the day: Vague

1. a. Not clearly expressed: stated in indefinite terms

b. Not having a precise meaning

2. a. Not clearly defined, grasped or understood

b. Not clearly felt, or sensed, somewhat subconscious



If I had one word to describe President Obama, it would be vague. Especially after looking up the specific definition of vague, my opinion was solidified. He has been vague regarding the economy and his exact plan of action. He has been vague regarding the health care reform, leaving the details to the legislators. I believed it was intentional, because we wouldn't like the details. He has been vague about his "plan for withdrawl from Iraq" that he campaigned heavily on. And finally, we saw last night, that he was very vague on our plan of action regarding the oil spill in the Gulf Coast. And after the past 18 months, the oil slicked tide seems to be shifting. His public approval ratings have dramatically dropped over the past year, but now we catch a glimpse of his adoring news media faultering in their faith. And I believe it is because he is too vague. It is pitiful that it took a tragedy of this magnitude to show the inability in his vagueness.



HERE is the fabulous link.

And yes, it is MSNBC! You are NOT watching FoxNews.

Great Debate

Last night I clicked over to John Stewart's Daily Show, and saw him hashing it out with Arthur Brooks, the author of The Battle. They had a GREAT measured, well-informed debate, where I found myself with agreeing with both of them at different points through the conversation. It was very interesting, and thought I would put it out there. HERE is the link. Check it out, and let me know what you think!

I miss Mayor Giuliani!

May 1, an SUV filled with fertilizer was left in New York City's Time Square, as an attempt at a terrorist attack. An impressive quick response, included evacuating and closing down Times Square, while the bomb was diffused and the investigation ensued. Most were careful not to jump to conclusions, no unnecessary and unfounded claims of middle east, Taliban or Al Qaeda ties were made. Unless you listened to Mayor Bloombergs assessment on CBS's Evening News' interview with Katie Couric.

In the interview, he preceded his conclusion with this evidence.

"There is some speculation that the materials in the Nissan Pathfinder were similar to ones that were found to some failed attacks in the U.K." He also states, "You'd need a timer, you'd need a battery as an energy source you'd need some explosive and you'd need something to enhance it. That's going to be true no matter where or when the...another attack took place. So, anything would have enough commonalities for the conspiracy theorists to blow it up if you don't mind the pun and make something out of it." He continues, in saying, "There is no evidence that it's tied in to anything else. It looks like an amateurish job, done by at least one person".

After his statements diminishing "conspiracy theorists" and pointing out commonalities with failed attacks in the U.K., he gives his two cents, or he states his "twenty five cents":

"If I had to guess, twenty five cents, this would be exactly that," Bloomberg said. "Homegrown, maybe a mentally deranged person or someone with a political agenda that doesn't like the health care bill or something. It could be anything."

If I were in Katie Couric's highly paid and expensive journalist shoes, instead of interjecting the same conclusion of "homegrown", I would have given a follow up question, such as this "Mayor Bloomberg. You cited evidence of some commonalities with failed U.K. bombings, and yet came to the conclusion this is possibly motivated by someone who is against the health care bill or homegrown. Is there any evidence to support these claims?" Where were you on that one Katie? I find this completely astronomical! Heaven forbid anyone comes to the conclusion of this as a possible foreign terrorist attack, even though the evidence is stacked in that direction. But how easy and unquestioned by a journalist to point the finger at the American people who disagree with the health care bill? I was shocked! How many hundreds of thousands of American's have participated in town halls, tea parties, rallies across the country and have broken any laws, committed any violence, planned any terrorist attacks?!? NONE, Mr. Bloomberg! Yet, this is the group you first suspect with your twenty five cents? You should be ashamed Mayor Bloomberg. I ache for patriotic leadership like Mayor Giuliani.

Where were you?

My husband was in a high school classroom, about 3o miles from the Murrah Federal Building. At 9:02am, the class heard a loud rumble, like thunder. He asked if he could go outside to see if there was a storm, as their classroom didn't have windows outside for tornado safety. To his surprise, he walked outside to a beautiful clear sky, warm spring morning.

Several minutes later, someone came over the speaker system announcing what had taken place. Coincidentally or divine intervention, the school had scheduled a blood drive for that day. They decided to close school to allow the community to come donate blood, which they did by the hundreds.

168 deaths. 19 children. 5 pedestrians who happend to be outside the building at the time. Over 600 others injured.

The Oklahoma City Bombing Memorial is a sacred place. It is a place to remember what pure terrorism is, and the strength the United States of America has. The strength of our local communities, the willingness to give, even our lives.

Camp OFA

Sarah --

Wall Street reform. Electing folks who will support the President and fight for change. Working for a clean-energy economy. Protecting the progress we've already made, while still fighting for more.

These are just some of the battles ahead.Will you be there with us?

As we continue fighting for the President's agenda and gear up for the elections in the fall, we need to make sure we're all ready to organize as effectively as possible.

So we're holding Camp OFA training sessions across the country, to make sure that OFA supporters like you have the skills you'll need to make it happen.You'll hear from local community organizers, volunteers, and staff on the best ways to organize local events and build neighborhood teams, how to make the case for the President's agenda for change, and what OFA is planning to do in the months ahead.

No prior experience with OFA is necessary, but you'll leave fired up and ready to power legislative and electoral victories in the coming months.We won a big victory on health insurance reform -- and it was because of you. Now let's keep it going, and win the fights ahead.

RSVP today to join us near you: http://my.barackobama.com/CampOFA2010

Thanks,

Nicole

Nicole Derse

National Training Director

Organizing for America

WHAT?!?! Seriously, there is a "training camp" to learn how to actually defend President Obama's agenda? I still find it baffling that there is a separate organization from the DNC for the President to do his "community organizing", let alone a "training camp" to convince the few supporters he has left why he is still Captain Awesome?! President Obama still refers back to the previous administration (most recently the mining tragedies), so lets imagine if the Bush administration had a georgewbush.com that was constantly fund-raising, organizing community teams and "training" them on his agenda. I can see the head-lines now!

Bush is Brain-Washing at the Local Level

As a non-emotional observer, I find President Obama's "community organizing" brilliant. And the advances he's made to utitilize technology will be essential for any future national leader, especially President. However, as I have said before, to have a separate organization, separate from the White House and from his party the DNC, is unsettling. He can publish propaganda without any check or balance, and is constantly fund-raising, FOR WHAT?! He's not running for two years. I wish more would be looked into with this, because it isn't sitting right with me.

Why I didn't attend a Tea Party

Last year I attended the Tax Day Tea Party at the Oklahoma state capitol, and you can see pictures here. I had every intention of going this year, but I changed my mind. There were several reasons, and for cathartic reasons, I will share them with you.

I did not want to drag my 3 kids without a double stroller (because I backed up over it, and broke it!) downtown by myself. I had offers of babysitting help, and possible people to go with. But as I thought about the concept "when there's a will, there's a way!", I decided I didn't have that same strong desire to attend.

Last year, I wanted to join others who shared the same beliefs of limited government, lower taxes for EVERYONE (including business and the evil wealthy who employ my husband), and to hopefully show power in numbers to stop the cap and tax, health care, stimulus plans the federal government was pushing through. Naively I believed that if they saw how many Americans were opposed to this legislation, they would vote with the will of the people as they are elected to do. Instead, they bought votes, strong armed representatives, used technicalities to get the health care passed. They believe they know better than the majority of Americans, and will continue to supersede any efforts of dissent. What they are doing is unconstitutional, unprecedented, and unethical. And they don't care! I know now that they only way to send an effective message is at the ballot box.

Interestingly, majority of the media coverage prior to the rallies centered around the "anger" and "racial undertones" and "violent rhetoric". To their amazement, there were no reported incidents, and in the words of the liberal leaning David Gergen who attended the Boston Common Tea Party rally: "What’s striking to me is that it’s a very friendly day out here with a lot of people who support Sarah Palin and the Tea Party. I don’t find a lot of anger out here or bitterness which I find interesting. These are good citizens, they pay their taxes, and they send their kids to war. So they disagree with the mainstream in a state like Massachusetts but they’re still citizens in good standing so I have a lot of respect." Thank you David Gergen for reporting the FACTS! Yes, there are the crazies who attend, but the vast majority are civil, friendly, non-racist, concerned citizens who want their voices heard. Speaking of race, an interview by Kelly O'Donnell for NBC with a black tea party attender can be seen here. The asks him, "Have you ever felt uncomfortable?" He politely responds, "No... these are my people, Americans." He should have responded, "I was not uncomfortable until a biased news reporter with a blatant agenda of stoking the non-existent racial fire asked an ignorant and ridiculous question!"

There are two reasons someone on the left plays the race card: 1. To put the opposition on the defense. No one wants to be labeled a racist, homophobes, bigot. They will automatically switch to defense, to try to dispel, the argument that they disagree with President Obama based on race or are apart of the tea parties because they "hate all black people". Which brings me to my second point, 2. Change the topic. If you can't play a good defense, which I believe defending the health care reform is extremely difficult because their arguments are flawed and weak and are Utopian ideological instead of factual, then make the opposing "team" play defense. If you change the topic of health care reform to race relations, it is very unlikely you will return to this health care reform monstrosity and by default win the argument or call a draw.

I didn't need an affirmation that "I am not alone" in my beliefs. I didn't need to show my representatives my opinions, because the great Senators and Congressmen of Oklahoma listen to their constituents, and those who strapped this new entitlement on mine and my children's backs don't care to listen. I am grateful that there is a forum or an outlet for those who disagree to voice their opinion. That is one of the many reasons I am grateful I am an American.

Gun Care

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." ~ Second Amendment, U.S. Constitution

President Obama, who has typically voted for stricter gun control, is now pushing legislation to guarantee every American the equal access to a firearm. "Having greater access to affordable firearms should not be a right of the rich, or those who hunt, or those who thump their Bibles. It is an inalienable right and dream of every mom and dad, to be able to provide for their children." As a former constitutional professor, he understands that it only makes sense that if a right that is not guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, for example health care, which is now available to almost every American, so should the rights that are expressly granted in the Constitution. "If we can grant assumed rights, such as health care, than how can we let the American people not have access to the rights expressed in the Constitution? We can't! No we can't!"

For the first time since President Obama has landed on the national stage, he has the full support of gun rights organizations as the NRA, Gun Owners of America, and People's Right Organization. The current NRA President, Ron Schmeits, happily endorses this legislation. A bewildered gun control left is speechless, and is taking some time to prepare a response.

Dr. Obama

While the wacko birthers were scavaging every dark corner in President Barack Obama's skeleton closet for the missing birth certificate, they missed one major document! His MD Certificate! He graduated from the Barack School of Medicine, also known as the B.S.M.D. Thank goodness for his background in medicine, because he has an insiders understanding of how the business works. How doctors lose money with every Medicare patient they take on. How liability insurance is one of their major expenses. How they are afraid of not administering every test possible to avoid law suit. How since the creation of Medicaid and Medicaid, medical costs per individual has almost tripled every decade, when years before it was on a slower increase. How doctors go to a decade of schooling to learn that they can make money by unecessarily amputating a diabetics foot, or a child's tonsils.

Thank goodness he knows emergency first aid, because at almost every single rally or speech he gives, someone faints. I will conceed that he is one of the most handsome Presidents, but come on people! But Dr. Obama comes to the rescue, prescribes "more room" and "take in some deep breaths" and "maybe give them some water, STAT!" What would we do with his "common sense solutions" to not only our health while attending a rally, but for the entire medical industry! And in his most recent campaign speech today in Iowa, Dr. Obama simply said that this legislation "paves the way to universal health care". All of the talk that his isn't a "government takeover" is accurate. But it is, as Dr. Obama has said along with every other democratic leader, that this paves the way or opens the door to universal health care, which is a government take over. Our country was based on free market principles, with necessary regulations from the government. This piece of legislation moves us further away from those principles than any other since the Great Society.

Good Protest versus Bad Protest

Tea Party has become synonymous with bigot, racist, hate, violent, and the likes. This past rally in Washington DC, on the eve of health care reform, didn't help our cause. There were reports of racial slurs directed at Civil Rights activist and now congressman John Lewis, homophobic insult at the outed Barney Frank, and some outrageous protester spit in Congressman Emanuel Cleaver's face. This is despicable and inexcusable behavior. Many of the attendees near the incidences, including William Owens, a black Tea Party activist from Nevada, said that in the case of Rep. Lewis, he didn't hear any racial slurs or shouts. And those surrounding the Barney Frank incident, recalled the representative walking directly over to the "protester" who had only approached minutes before Franks arrival, directed an expletive at him, and he responded with his derogatory comeback. Regardless of the claims, I will always be against using profanities or slurs and violence in place of an honest and factually sound argument. Now, the latest "Breaking News" is that Reps. Stupak and Slaughter have reportedly received death threats.

We are currently in such a volatile political environment, and ignorant outraged extremists are giving the constitutionally sound and majority driven cause a dangerously bad rap. And I believe that those in power are exploiting these typically sensitive topics to further their cause. To make those who honestly oppose this administrations efforts to expand the scope and depth of the federal government afraid of voicing their dissent, in fear of being labeled racist, violent or bigots. My fear is that isolated incidents of radical measures, like those being covered, will be accepted as typical and discredit any valid arguments opposition has to offer. We do not need to resort to violence because are educated, law-abiding, freedom relishing citizens. We uphold our laws, especially the highest law of the land, the Constitution. I pray that this is the last we hear of such violence and that the coverage received doesn't encourage those seeking publicity to use similar extreme measures. We need to fight this in the courts, on the floors of the Capitol and at our local level.

Oh, no they didn't!

Yes, they did. The House passed the Senate's version of health care reform. There is so much to cover, and so much to digest. They didn't listen, and I pray that the American people who are outraged now, don't forget by the time November rolls around. Thomas Jefferson, sums up my conservative view with our government:

A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.

I must be special!

I just received an e-mail from President Barack Obama! He referred to me as his "friend"! He also included a link to his campaign website, which has been fundamentally transformed to aid in the "final march for reform", health care reform that is. I can either call, write, attend or share. I intend on using all of the options given to get my voice heard.

What I found extremely patronizing is that when you select the "write" option, after you fill in information to locate your district, it brings up an automated e-mail to send to your representative. It reads:

I'm writing to let you know that I support health insurance reform, and I hope you will reconsider your opposition.
I don't support favoring big insurance companies over the American people, and I'm not alone -- voters in our state have pledged thousands of volunteer hours to fight for candidates who support reform.
Your constituents are counting on you to place our well-being over partisan game-playing. Please support reform.
Thank you.

Just because majority of the representatives who are voting in favor of either the House or Senate bills don't read their legislation, doesn't mean that their constituents don't know how to write an e-mail articulating their opinions! How simple minded do they believe the American public is? The website suggested "personalizing the sample letter". Here was my amended letter to Rep. Mary Fallin of the U.S. House of Representatives:

I'm [RE]-writing [THIS MASS E-MAIL FROM THE PRESIDENT'S WEBSITE] to let you know that I support [YOU IN THE FIGHT AGAINST THE PRESIDENT'S] health insurance reform, and I hope you will [STAND TRUE TO YOUR PRINCIPLES AND NEVER] reconsider your opposition.
I don't support favoring big [GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS OVER] insurance companies [ESPECIALLY WHEN IT WILL] over [TAX] the American people, and I'm not alone -- voters in our state have pledged thousands of volunteer hours to fight for candidates who [REFUSE TO] support [THIS KIND OF] reform.
Your constituents are counting on you to place our well-being over partisan game-playing. [DO NOT PLAY THE DIRTY POLITICS OF THIS NEW ADMINISTRATION]. Please support [GOVERNMENT] reform. I KNOW I WILL IN NOVEMBER AND ALSO 2012.
Thank you [AND GOD BLESS AMERICA AND FREEDOMS GRANTED UNDER THE CONSTITUTION].

I highly suggest you also use the President's website to let your voice be heard about the business being conducted in Washington, D.C. Does anyone else find this type of efficient organization for campaigning post-campaign a little big-brother-esque? For this much calculated effort to be in place and still have the American people (who voted him into office) be against the health care reform bill speaks volumes of the 180 degree turn around that has occured. No matter how much calculated effort, or stump speeches you make, or easy to use spoon fed websites you create, WE WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS. Listen to the American people!

Let me be clear, Mr. President

Let me be clear, Mr. President. You have been clear enough. No more explanations or simplifying complex issues for us neanderthals will change our positions on hot-button issues.

Let me be clear, Mr. President. You were the agent of change, transparency, and a new era of politics. I see the same closed door, pork barrelling, buying votes politics of the past.

Let me be clear, Mr. President, a televised health care summit will not solve the issues with the medical industry. It is a six hour photo op for the President, and representatives on both sides of the aisle.

Let me be clear, Mr. President, if you wanted to showcase your new era of politics and transparency, you should have started with the closed door transactions between the democrats while crafting the House and Senate bills. The health care summit with microphones, numerous camera positions, and possibly hair and make-up, is a shallow and not genuine attempt to placate your consituents.

Let me be clear, Mr. President. I am not apart of the "party of no", simply the "party of not that". Not that health care bill. Not that deficit of $1.17 trillion dollars.

Let me be clear, Mr. President, I am not one of the "I hate Obama" supporters. I am not automatically shuting down everything you or your administration does. I support your troop increase. I am impressed with the capture of several high ranking Taliban operatives. Of the "Stimulus bill", I fully supported the lengthening unemployment and COBRA coverage. There are great things in certain bills, including the health care bill. Don't ruin them by allowing yourself or Congress to fall victim to greed.

Let me be clear, Mr. President. If this health care bill is the manna from heaven for all those uninsured, or are excluded because of pre-existing conditions, or have filled bankruptcy because of overwhelming medical debt; why not push it through? You have the numbers within your own party to push through any legislation you want. You don't want to only have democrat votes on these bills, because when this bankrupts our system, you don't want to be the ones blamed. When the $1 trillion price tag triples, which costs usually triple from preliminary estimates, and the angry American public comes knocking, you want others to share the blame.

Let me be clear, Mr. President. You need to listen to the American public. The majority of us do not support government run health care. And I might need to remind you, you were elected with a small majority of 53%. And right now, according to Gallup, you only have a 48% approval rating, when a year ago you had 68%. This is not a coincidence.

Automatic Labeling

It is amazing how it has not been 24 hours, the building is likely still smoking, and the act of terrorism by Joseph Andrew Stack is already being politicized. Yes, I believe his suicide flight passes the terrorist litmus test. Radical views? Check. Desire to make a political statement? Check. Views violence is the only answer? Check. Terrorist. This is one label that needs to be quickly made. The other labels I am referring to are the quick efforts of both sides to begin the blame game. Is he a right-wing, anti-tax, anti-government extremist tea bagger? Or is he a left-wing, anti-corporation, anti-Bush, anti-capitalism radical? The answer is yes.

If the "suicide note" proves authentic, this gives us insight into the duplicitous mind of Stack. He spouts off rants that resemble the extreme of both extreme sides of the political spectrum.

On the right hand, he quotes the founding fathers "taxation without representation". On the left, he refers to big business as "thugs and plunderers" who hope "dead people don’t get in the way of their corporate profits rolling in". On the right, he slams the big bail outs of GM. Then on the left, he bemoans " the joke we call the American medical system, including the drug and insurance companies, are murdering tens of thousands of people a year". On the right, he spews hatred for the murderous rich or "incompetent cronies". On the left, he writes about his rage regarding "the recent presidential puppet GW Bush and his cronies". He is anti-government, anti-taxes. Yet anti-big corporation, anti-Bush and his cronies, etc. He opened with a more right-wing paragraph, yet his final two anti-capitalist sentences lean across the aisle saying "The communist creed: From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
The capitalist creed: From each according to his gullibility, to each according to his greed."

He sounds like he is just anti-life and wanted to blame everyone and anyone for his problems. From big corporations to Big Brother. So to label him as a right-wing extremist, as many news organizations already are, is inaccurate. He is not right wing or left wing, he is the crazy wing of the psych ward. And unfortunately, he saw this desparate act of violence as the only solution.

Brilliant Advertising

Out of all of the Superbowl commercials, this was my favorite. I thought it was pure genius. It balanced promoting green technology, while mocking green fanatics enough to make those on the right who are tired of the "global warming movement" enjoy the commercial. Two big green thumbs up! Nice work Audi.

Superbowl Appropriate?

How many Super Bowl commercials have we watched where we need to cover our kids eyes? I still remember one from last year featuring Danika Patrick for GoDaddy involving a shower scene. So which one of the filthy, provocative, scantily-clad women filled, commercials is making headlines this year?One featuring Heisman trophy winner, Tim Tebow, for Focus on the Family. Although the oganizations protesting this commercial have not seen what is actually in it, they have begun labeling it "anti-abortion" instead of pro-life or pro-family. Where were these womens organizations every year when companies are practically selling women's naked bodies to endorse their products? I don't hear their outrage! From all the reports I have seen and heard about this commercial, he discusses a personal experience he and his family has had with abortion. While his mom was pregnant with him, the doctor suggested she get an abortion because they believed he was a fetal mass of tissue, and she refused. Now he is an outstanding, record breaking, Heisman trophy winner, and seemingly stand-up guy. I've heard people refer to him and his message as 'hateful'. Why is it hateful for him to share what he believes, not tearing someone down in the same breath, but patriotic for others who believe in a more mainstream view to stand up for theirs? The double standard is staggering.

I've heard several celebrities respond when asked about this hot topic, and almost all have responded in the same manner. The most recent was Ashton Kutcher on The View this morning. He said something to the affect of, "I wish he would just play football instead of comment on political topics". Then how does that apply to you Ashton when you were traveling endorsing President Obama during the 2008 campaign? I wish you would just stick to acting, or punking people instead of telling me who to vote for. But just as you have the right, Tim Tebow definitely has the right. And I appreciate him for standing up for what he believes in, although it is not the most popular position.

Contact CBS and let them know what you think HERE.

State of the Union

Last night television was monopolized by the yearly State of the Union Address. What was to be expected was delivered. A crafted speech, excellently and powerfully delivered to standing ovations of about 58% of the audience. Lofty notions and vague promises, broken campaign pledges and scathing rebukes. Private (yet caught on camera) dissent from the peanut gallery (S.C. Justice Alito), and cheers from the left of the aisle. My opinion is the State of the Union is just another campaign stump. Maybe 10% of what was promised will be actualized. Here are some of my thoughts:

Bank Fees: He has proposed a fee on banks who make over $50 billion, to recoup the TARP bail out money. However, the fee applies to all banks, whether or not they have paid back the loans with interest, and even those who didn't get any bail out. This is ridiculous. How is this going to benefit the tax payer? Possibly pay off some of the massive taxes we will be facing with the federal governments excessive spending? I doubt it! They will do as governments in the past and funnel the money made there into other spending programs.

Stimulus: He did credit where credit was due, the COBRA extension and assistance. I believe that out of the entire stimulus package this was the best well spent money. I personally know individuals who were laid off (some expecting a baby) and didn't go in the financial crapper because of this benefit.

Jobs: Unemployment is still around 10%, and he claimed to have saved/created 2 million jobs through the stimulus plan. Yet, in adding up all of the monthly job losses from February 2009 to December 2009, it climbs very close to 2 million. And is he using his trusty Recovery.org numbers, which had non-existent congressional districts and fabricated numbers according to many representatives. What is the point of 'transparency' if it is fabricated?

Clean Jobs: Apparently, Washington has been telling the US to wait on creating clean jobs. It hasn't been heard in Oklahoma, who has been rated one of the "recession proof states" because it's economy is thriving on clean energy production. Without federal government assistance! Mr. President, look at the products and companies who are already making advances without the governments help! Instead of the claim for "clean coal"!

Health Care Reform: "I take my share of the blame for not explaining it more clearly to the American people." No Mr. President, you don't need to use smaller words or more diagrams or simplified equations (i.e. no reform = R.I.P) to get the American people on board. We don't want it. "But if anyone from either party has a better approach...let me know." You mean when the Republican's wanted to be apart of the House and Senate negotiations, they should have just knocked on your door and you would have granted them access to the private, closed-door negotiations that were supposed to be broadcast on C-SPAN? We are not that stupid.

Spending Freeze: "Starting in 2011, we are prepared to freeze government spending for three years." Give us a year to spend ourselves drunk, then we'll cut back. And honestly Mr. President, the spending freeze would have come after the 2010 mid-term elections with or without your help, because more fiscal conservatives will be voted into office, replacing spending junkies like Sen. Reid. And the concept of "spending freeze" sounds vaguely familiar, possibly from Sen. McCain's campaign promises that you unapologetically shot down? Anyway, "the anticipated savings from this proposal would amount to less than 1 percent of the deficit".

Lobbyists: "We've excluded lobbyists from policy making jobs, or seats on federal boards and commissions." Not true. The Obama administration has made seven "waivers", such as U.S. Trade Representative Kirk, who was a lobbyist for Merrill Lynch.

Supreme Court: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests..." With the disclaimer regarding separation of powers, I will still slam the Supreme Court for their recent decision. If it was appropriate for him to make that comment, then it was absolutely appropriate for S.C. Justice Alito to shake his head, saying "that's not true".

Earmarks/Bi-Partisan Support: If you really want to send a message, promise to veto any bill that has excessive earmarks (i.e. health care bill) and veto any bill that has support drawn down party lines. The reason Republican's did not give any support for cap-and-tax and the health care bills is because they were kept out of any of the negotiations. If you claim to want our support, include our input!

Blame Game: Throughout the speech, he credits people's doubts to those on Wall Street, bank's CEOs, lobbyists, selfish TV pundits, and even continues to blame the 'previous administration'. Mr. President, the American people voted you in on change. They voted for transparency. They voted for a new type of politics. Yet, business was not just conducted as usual, it was done behind locked doors, promising hand-picked states (crucial votes) millions-billions of aid, spending trillions of dollars while in a deep recession, while slandering those who disagree. The American people are smarter than you give us credit for, and although appreciate your grand rhetoric, are waiting for your actions to match your speeches.

Scott Brown Won!

Although I am greatful the Senate does not have the 60 seat filibuster proof majority, was the only good Republican candidate in Massachusetts have to have posed for a Cosmo in a 1982 nudey centerfold for a "sexiest man" contest? Do you think I'm kidding!?!? I couldn't make this stuff up! Well, hooray for a slightly tipped balance of power.

Honkie Talk

By now, most of you have heard the headlines that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid referred to the then Presidential candidate Barack Obama as the "light skinned" African-American "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." These quotes come from a newly released book, "Game Change", which gives behind the scenes accounts of the 2008 Presidetial campaign. In typical political fashion the democrats rush to his side, defending him as a non-racist. DNC chairman, Tim Kaine explains away the racial undertones saying, "It definitely was in the context of recognizing in Senator Obama a great candidate and future president." So then, it is excusable. Lesson to learn: if you are being complimentary of someone of a different race, it is ok to use racial slurs.

The republican's quickly point the finger, some calling for his resignation. The RNC chairman, Michael Steele remarks, "If [Senate Republican Leader] Mitch McConnell had said those very words, then this chairman and this president would be calling for his head and they would be labeling every Republican in the country a racist for saying exactly what this chairman's just said. There is this standard where the Democrats feel that they can say these things and they can apologize when it comes from the mouths of their own. But if it comes from anyone else, it's racism." Reportedly, Senator Reid has already phoned President Obama to apologize. And as expected, President Obama accepted the apology.

My Take: There is a HUGE double standard. When a liberal misspeaks, which I do believe Harry Reid did misspeak, his liberal colleagues ask for understanding. He wasn't revealing his actual racist beliefs, he just made a 'misstatement'. Yet, when a conservative makes any comparable comment, even if it doesn't use the same racial slurs (i.e. "You lie!", or Sen. Trent Lott's comments honoring Strom Thurmond) the obvious intent is to degrade the minority, showing their true colors as card carrying racists.

For example, Senator Feinstein defended Reid saying, "Clearly, the leader misspoke. He has also apologized." And standing by her standard regarding the Sen. Lott scandal, she says "I saw no Democrats jumping out there and condemning Senator Lott." Yet, she was one of those pointing the same finger in 2002 when she said of Lott, "This statement casts a dark shadow over Sen. Lott's ability to be a credible party leader". Senator Landrieu also said at the time, "I can tell you if a Democratic leader said such a thing, they would not be allowed to keep their position". One observation I have made, which I believe only magnifies the double standard is how many questioned the conservative Presidential candidate, Mitt Romney's racial beliefs just for belonging to a Church who did not grant black members the same priesthood authority 30 years prior, although he had not made any derrogatory statements regarding anyone of another race. Yet, Harry Reid, a liberal member of the same church, is not a racist while uttering racial slurs.

My conclusion is to give them the benefit of the doubt, both sides. I do find Harry Reids more derrogatory than some of the other's in recent history, however, I do not believe he is racist. Just like I don't believe Senator Lott, Senator Wilson, Vice President Joe Biden, are not racists. That is my standard. But I have not set the standard that both sides hold on the other party, they do not give the benefit of the doubt, unless it is their guy. But this is my honkie talk, which I don't think it is much different it is from 'negro dialect'.

Top 10

Top 10 Indicators You Are Enrolled in the Proposed Government's Health Care Plan

10. Your anual breast exam is done at Hooters.
9. Directions to your doctor's office include, "Take a left when you enter the trailer park".
8. The tongue depressors taste faintly of a Fudgesicle.
7. The only proctologist in the plan is Gus from Roto-Rooter.
6. The only item listed under Preventative Care Coverage is "an apple a day..."
5. Your primary care physician is wearing the pants you donated to Goodwill last month.
4. "The patient is responsible for 200% of out-of-network charges" is not a typographical error.
3. The only expense covered 100% is embalming.
2. Your Prozac comes in a variety of colors, with little "M's" on them.
1. You ask for Viagra and they give you a popsicle stick and duct tape.