Dana Radio Guest Post

In a humbling turn of events, I was asked to help cover the Dana Loesch Radio Show blog while she takes a much-needed break from writing. See my first guest post here on the SB 1070 Supreme Court ruling.

SWAT Nonsense. Again.

Earlier today, Aaron Worthing was given the go-ahead to speak publicly about domestic terrorist Brett Kimberlin. Within hours, men with automatic weapons arrived at Worthing's front door, on an "anonymous" tip that he had shot his wife.
If you think those things aren't connected, there's a bridge I could sell you.

In recent weeks, SWATting has become all the rage. If you annoy the wrong people, chances are someone will call in a tip about you or one of your family members, sending police with riot gear to your home in force.

At best, this is a waste of resources. Those SWAT teams are being paid, sometimes overtime, by taxpayers who would prefer to see their money go to something...useful.
At worst, this puts lives at risk. Not just the lives of the people being SWATted - because what if a policeman misreads the situation and shoots someone in the house - but people who call 911 and have to wait because the SWAT team is out chasing a unicorn.

It's not the cops' fault - they're just doing their jobs. And most of the people who have been SWATted would likely agree.
But I, for one, would like to see some real charges filed against the people who are doing this. Reckless endangerment. Attempted homicide.

War on Religion, Continued...

Academia takes another stab at religion, this time through a supposed link between religion and crime rates.

The article published discusses a study that compared data concerning belief in heaven and hell with the crime rates in the countries where those beliefs were prevalent. They found that people who believed in a "forgiving God," or heaven, were more likely to commit crimes, while people who believed in a "punishing God," or hell, were less likely to commit crimes.

The end result was the conclusion (which was danced around but never stated outright) that Christians commit more crimes than non-Christians.

But I would submit that the study was flawed.They never once mention the people who believe in the God in the Christian Bible, who is both punishing AND forgiving. Their study only covered people who believed in one aspect of God or another, not His entire being.

To truly link Christianity to crime rates, one would have to know the hearts and minds of the people involved. And while I would submit that the study may indeed be accurate (though not in the way the academics might think) simply because no one can obey God's law perfectly, there is no way for an academic study to judge that. Academia may have the desire to measure and judge the hearts and minds of Christians, but they do not have the authority or the ability.

Send Your Gifts to Obama 2012

Are you getting married this year? Expecting a baby? Celebrating a major anniversary? If so, the Obama Administration wants to help take some of the pressure off.

How, you ask? Simple.

No longer do you need to spend hours poring over store registries imagining your dream kitchen. No longer will you be forced to select a color scheme for your master bath. No longer will you have to rub your growing belly while agonizing over the perfect carseat, stroller, or bassinet sheets for your coming bundle of joy.

Well, actually, you WILL still have to do all of these things. But with a little help from the Obama Administration you won’t just be able to do those things – you’ll also have the immense satisfaction of paying for them yourself instead of living with the guilt of receiving any of them as gifts.

And you know this administration is all about personal responsibility … Unless your state wants you to be personally responsible for procuring a photo ID. Unless you are a homeowner who borrowed more for your home than you can afford to pay back. Unless you are a student who borrowed $60k to get a degree in a field that will never net you more than $25k a year. Unless you want, through free birth control, to be exempt from the consequences of your own stupidity.

I could go on.

Regardless, the Obama Administration offers you this opportunity to allow your friends to give you a gift that “we can all appreciate” that “goes a lot further than a gravy bowl”: a donation to the 2012 Obama Presidential Campaign.

I’m sure we can all appreciate leadership that repeatedly does things that the people don’t want while telling us that we only don’t want it because we’re stupid.

I’m sure we can all appreciate a President who sets an example for his “transparent” government by refusing to publish his school transcripts, his senior thesis, or anything real related to Fast and Furious.

I’m sure we can all appreciate leadership that at least tacitly supports groups that engage in violent protests and the vandalism of public and private property.

And as for “going a lot further than a gravy bowl,” well, maybe that’s part of the problem.

If I get a gravy bowl, it only affects me and anyone who eats at my table. The rest of America can go on unconcerned with my gravy bowl.

If I get a gravy bowl and I don’t like it, it won’t take an act of Congress to get rid of it.

But more important than any of those things: If I get a gravy bowl and my kids don’t like it, they, their children, and all of their friends won’t be forced to pay for it.

Surrender Your Forks!

President Obama spoke earlier today at a conference for NALEO, the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials. In a move that was surprising enough that it bore repeating and a clarification of "I'm serious," the powers that be demanded that all in attendance finish eating and turn over their forks prior to the President's entrance.


Apparently, the practice of removing knives and forks from the table is not uncommon. However, the practice of having an obviously uncomfortable emcee tell everyone in the room to eat fast so they could remove all the forks is somewhat less common.

Whether or not the forkless luncheon is par for the course, the "please surrender anything you could use as a weapon" speech is a little bit insulting.

The only question I have is this: When Romney spoke to the same group just yesterday did he make the people surrender their silverware? Tweezers? Fingernail clippers?

Eric Holder: Obama's October Surprise?

Right now it looks as though "executive privilege" has become part of the Fast and Furious narrative because the White House has something to hide. That could mean that the President himself was involved or at least aware of things. That could mean that releasing the rest of the documents could implicate other members of the administration. Or it could simply mean that the Obama Administration is willing to pull out all of the stops in order to protect their pet Attorney General, Eric Holder Jr.

Theories abound as to why Eric Holder would be worth protecting. Perhaps the administration will benefit from a justice department that refuses to prosecute the New Black Panther Party for obvious voter intimidation. Perhaps the administration will benefit from a justice department that will actively fight the racism inherent in voter ID laws. I don't know. But whatever the reason, it has to be big for the President to place himself in the likely line of fire.

What if it is big? What if, instead of a move to cover Eric Holder or other administration ties to Fast and Furious, the use of executive privilege was a move to buy time?

The Obama Administration is aware, I am sure, that Fast and Furious is a scandal big enough to destroy anyone who can be legitimately tied to it. And because of people like Katie Pavlich (author of Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and the Shameless Cover-Up), CBS's Sharyl Atkisson, and Breitbart.com's Mary Chastain, it is unlikely that anyone tied to Fast and Furious will escape unnoticed for long.

But Obama really only needs the executive privilege to buy him a few months. If the stories break now, he looks bad. And it's likely that a few people will remember that he himself, or at the very least, members of his administration were involved. 

But...

If he can keep the stories from breaking until October, he can make it look like he extended privilege unaware of the extent of Holder's involvement. Then, throughout the course of an internal White House investigation, he finds enough to make him realize that he needs to cut Holder, and possibly others, loose. Suddenly Obama is the victim of an Attorney General who lied to him as well as the American public, and by throwing Holder under the bus he gives himself that very important October boost. Suddenly he's the honest President who got fooled by the devious lawyer. It humanizes Obama, and demonizes someone who is not Obama. Which is exactly what an incumbent President facing a tough election (mostly because of an obvious disconnect between him and "normal Americans") needs.

Presenting for your viewing pleasure: Attorney General Eric Holder Jr,  President Obama's October surprise.

Nancy Knows Best

Yesterday the committee headed by Rep. Darrell Issa voted along strict party lines to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for his refusal to cooperate with investigations into his role in the Fast and Furious scandal. The White House complicated matters by jumping in front of Holder and shielding him behind Executive Privilege.

Most people took that to mean that the Obama Administration was protecting its own - that perhaps they knew more about Fast and Furious than they had previously admitted and allowing those documents to be made public would expose others within the administration, possibly even including the President himself.

The contempt of Congress vote was taken because no one is above the law, not even the President. And covering up administration involvement at any level in a program that resulted in the murder of two American border agents and an unknown number of Mexicans is reprehensible. Darrell Issa's committee seeks to uncover any wrongdoing and, in doing so, to provide justice to the families of the victims.

But House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as usual, knows better. She says that the contempt vote was a political move that was intended to keep Holder from stopping "voter suppression." "Voter suppression" is most likely code for the Voter ID laws that could pass in some states prior to the 2012 presidential election. Which means that only racists would support such a move, since Voter ID laws target minorities and only Eric Holder stands between rampant racism and the gross injustice that would likely occur if the average voter had to meet the same qualifications as someone who would like to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or a plane ticket. (Wait, does that mean the TSA is racist too???)

Thanks, Nancy, but I think we'll just take this one at face value. The contempt citation is simply the result of Eric Holder's failure to serve the American people honestly. Brian Terry's family deserves more.

Imaginary Budgets Don't Count, Claire

Depending on the opponent, dismantling liberal logic and talking points can be a challenge. Sometimes it can be a game. But when it's this easy, it almost stops being fun. Almost.

Claire talks about how the Senate "passed a budget" last fall. I can only assume she refers to the "Budget Control Act of 2011," which is not, in fact, an actual budget. It is simply a law designed to rein in any and all budgets that may (or in this particular Senate's case, may not) be passed in the future. Don't get me wrong, it's not bad to have laws that rein in the budget. But if there is no budget, how much good can we really expect such a law to actually do?

Claire also references the "appropriators" and the fact that they are following this imaginary "budget" and cutting government spending. What she utterly fails to mention is the fact that the "appropriators" are mostly Republicans, and all attempts they have made to rein in government spending have been fought tooth and nail by Claire herself (among others) in spite of the Budget Control Act she touts here.

She sounds a bit like the die-hard Clinton fans who swear that he fixed the economy all by his lonesome. They always forget that he had a Republican Congress who dragged him, kicking and screaming, into financial stability.

So congrats, Claire, on passing a budget that isn't a budget. And on claiming responsibility for a success that would have been much greater had you not been there to help thwart it.

I know, I know. Logic is hard.

For Fathers

I grew up surrounded by fathers. My grandfathers were both still living throughout my childhood (one still is today) and my father was always around (something increasingly rare in this day and age.

My father's father always had a refrigerator full of the old glass 9oz Coke bottles, which he would give to us when Mom wasn't looking. He helped me to make a pair of earrings in his workshop when I was 11. He smiled and hugged me after I "bandaged' his foot, making the excruciating pain of his gout even worse. And the last time we saw him, wracked with cancer and barely able to stand on his own, he promised over and over that he'd come to visit us as soon as he was well enough to travel.

My mother's father never ran out of stories to tell. Stories about milking cows and squirting the barn kittens in the face with the fresh milk. Stories about the time he spent working the soda fountains (he made us the chocolate sodas to prove it). Stories about eggs, toast and coffee for 24 cents. Stories about the war - seasickness, sunburns, guard duty, and meeting my grandmother when the Army sent him away to school.
He always took us to the beach. Every year he rented that house in Ocean City, NJ, and all of the aunts, uncles, and cousins piled in. It never occurred to him not to do it. It never occurred to him to say "No, I'd really just like to walk alone," when his grandchildren, ages 5-15, wanted to get up and walk on the beach with him at sunrise. We slowed his pace considerably and made breakfast at Tony's 34th Street Grille quite a bit more expensive, but that never mattered. He'd just drink his coffee and watch us eat over the top of his Wall Street Journal.

My father was the kind of guy who was strapped enough for cash that he rode the city bus to work in order to leave the car with my mother. He would get off that bus, see the plight of Philadelphia's homeless population, and leave everything from his old running shoes and a sack lunch to his William and Mary letter jacket on a bench where someone might find it and make better use of it than he could. He was the kind of guy who couldn't afford to move his wife and two children out of a two-bedroom apartment, but when he found the diamond ring at the grocery store he turned it in anyway. And he was the kind of guy who joined the Army reserve at 45 because he felt that he still had something to give back to his country.

Given the examples I had growing up, it should be no surprise that my husband is the kind of father he is. He already had a son of his own from a previous marriage, and yet he willingly took on four more children when we married. And he didn't just take on the financial responsibilities. My oldest son told his grandmother (my mother) that he didn't hit his sisters anymore. When she asked why, he explained: "Jim told me that big brothers are supposed to take care of their little sisters." My youngest daughter occasionally cries when he goes to bed before her bedtime hugs. They all want to go see him and "Poppa" at work at the bakery, and that's only partly because of the donuts.

All that being said, I doubt I would appreciate the importance of an earthly father if I didn't understand that earthly fathers were intended to be a reflection of the Heavenly Father. I have been blessed to have fathers in my life and in the lives of my children who understand that their primary purpose is to be that reflection.

Obama Counsels Against his own Reelection Bid - in 2008

At the Democratic National Convention in 2008, Barack Obama said these words:

"[I]f you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from."

Flash forward to 2012 and look at the Obama Campaign. He is poking large sticks at race relations with his "Blacks for Obama" campaign. He is stirring the gender equality pot with his manufactured "war on women." He is encouraging class warfare with calculated attacks on job creators and business owners, all with a little help from the union subsidized and Democrat-Party sanctioned "occupiers."

Stale tactics, scare voters, check.

Then he points at Romney's wife and her $900 blouse (which she paid for, mind you) to make it look like Romney is part of the "evil rich" camp. Pay no attention to Michelle's $2500 sneakers (which YOU paid for) and her last $500k vacay. He tells you that Romney will take away your jobs (while refusing to sign on the dotted line for the job-creating Keystone Pipeline). He tells you that Romney will make you pay back your student loans and mortgages. (Okay, that much is true, but...derp...you're SUPPOSED to pay those things back.)

Paint opponent as someone you should run from, check.

Which suggests, by Obama's own logic, that he has neither fresh ideas nor a record to run on. The unemployment rate and the still stagnant economy only serve to back up that statement.

Romney/Obama/Clinton Military Triangle

Distract, redirect, make sure no one looks at the man behind the curtain.

The Obama re-election machine is chugging away, cranking out one distraction after another. With the help of most major media outlets, they churn out story after story, waiting a few seconds in between to see which ones stick so that they can draw them out as long as possible. So far we have seen the "war on women," the manufactured Republican "war on jobs," and the Romney-bully story among others.

But one of he most recent distractions is one that actually bears looking into a bit. The Associated Press published an article last week criticizing Romney for failing to serve in the military during Vietnam. He took student and religious deferments and so was never drafted. They compare his lack of military record to Obama's - a ridiculous comparison, as the last time there was a draft Obama was a child - as if to suggest that Obama never would have done anything to avoid service in the same manner.

A better comparison would be Bill Clinton, who may not be running in the current election, but actually was of age during the Vietnam War. Not only did Clinton take as many student deferments as possible, he also made use of his family's political influence and simply avoided answering his draft letters when push came to shove.

In comparison, Romney comes out ahead regardless of his failure to serve because the methods he employed in order to avoid service were all perfectly legal and above board. Clinton's, not so much.

If you insist on comparing Romney to Obama, well, let's do that:

Whenever Obama gets pushed into a corner he blames someone else. It's Bush's fault. We can't fix the economy because the tsunami in Japan set us back. We're still struggling because the European debt crisis is keeping us down. I can't get anything done because the Republicans in Congress (who have put out several prospective budgets to the Dems' 0) don't want college students to be able to afford their student loan payments. Healthcare is stalling because the Republicans want women to bleed and die one the floor of illegal abortion clinics.

Now let's extrapolate: I can't serve in the military because I'm busy doing crack in between the classes I bother to show up for at all...

Given Obama's willingness to use military pay and benefits as political leverage, there is no doubt in my mind that he views the military duties of the President as an evil necessary to retain his position of social influence and power. Except, of course, in events such as the raid on Bin Laden, which he can use to his political advantage as well. Anyone who thinks he would not have chosen deferments - whether legal like Romney or less than legal like Clinton - well, there's a bridge I can sell you...

Don't Misread Wisconsin!

The cheering in Wisconsin echoed from coast to coast last Tuesday night. Patriots all across the United States shouted victory on street corners, on talk radio, and from every corner of the internet. Why? Because on Tuesday night Scott Walker became the first governor in history to survive a recall election.

I don’t intend to downplay the significance of that election. Scott Walker and the other Republicans who retained their seats deserve to be commended for their hard work and dedication. Granted, the recall election was hard work that should have been unnecessary given the great work already done in Wisconsin, but that is beside the point.

Conservatives have been saying for months that the Wisconsin recall was going to be the bellwether, that it would be the great predictor for the 2012 general election. And while a win is a win, if what happened in Wisconsin Tuesday is truly an indicator of what we will see in November, our troubles are far from over.

The margin of victory was far too narrow. Some of that margin, if rumors are to be believed, must be attributed to likely voter fraud. But regardless, we must square ourselves with the fact that one of the most qualified leaders in the nation barely came out of his recall challenge with a ten point lead.

After all of the bellyaching, because of Scott Walker’s actions, not a single teacher was laid off. And still 45% of the population said “No.”

Because Walker actually made good on his campaign promises to cut spending, Wisconsin will likely finish the year with a surplus. And 45% of the population asked that he be replaced with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett (whose record is somewhat less impressive).

Under the Walker Administration, Wisconsin teachers (though they will now have to contribute a small amount to their own benefits packages) will continue to enjoy paying less than they would in any other state. And still nearly half of the state was ready to send him packing.

So what does this mean on a grander scale? If Wisconsin truly is the bellwether, then we as a nation have our work cut out for us. Governor Walker has truly made a difference in his state, and despite his accomplishments enough people believed the union bosses and the media spin to make the race closer than it ever should have been. And make no mistake, Barack Obama has more charisma than Tom Barrett. It’s going to take a lot of hard work to limit him to 45% of the vote in November.

I’m not saying we shouldn’t celebrate what happened in Wisconsin – only that we shouldn’t make the mistake of celebrating it as our victory cheer. Wisconsin was merely the first manifestation of our declaration of War.

MO Senate Debate Recap

So… I just came from the MO Senate debate at Lindenwood College. I will preface this by saying that I have always been a fan of Todd Akin. I grew up going to church with his family, so I had the benefit of knowing him as a regular guy before I ever thought of him as a politician. I know that when he goes to Washington to speak his piece or cast his vote, there are three things on his mind: God, conscience, and Constitution. What makes me believe that he is the right man for the job is the fact that he keeps those three things in that order.

That being said, I also live outside the state of Missouri, and having no skin in the game, I attended the debate to watch with as much objectivity as possible. In the grand scheme of things, as long as one of the three people who stood on that debate stage tonight replace Claire McCaskill in November we win.

When the candidates stepped onto the stage, I noticed an immediate difference. Congressman Akin looked prepared and put together as he always does. John Brunner, despite hiring a professional to help with his look, managed to pull off the Ron Paul affectation of the suit coat that was just a little bit too big for him. Former State Treasurer Sarah Steelman appeared somewhat less professional, opting for a dress that was cut above the knees and chunky, open-toed shoes.

Once they began to speak, the real differences came out.

Steelman opened with a comment about wealthy politicians and the fact that they take taxpayers’ money to cover private jets and the like, making it clear that she was willing to include a little implied class warfare in her platform. She then spent the rest of the evening dropping the phrase “old boys’ club” in reference to Congress as if to say, “Hey, everybody, you remember I’m a girl, right?” Her answers on the economy were strong, but she struggled a bit when either of the other candidates answered before her. It was as if she was scrambling to rearrange her words in order to sound like she was saying something that hadn’t already been said, and instead of sounding a little bit redundant she ended up sounding less prepared.

Brunner answered most questions fairly well, running into problems with a surprisingly simple question concerning the confirmation of Supreme Court Justices. The panelist asked what criteria would be used to determine whether or not he would vote to confirm a potential justice. Brunner said that he would want a justice with time and experience on the bench and a good record of doing what was right. That sounds pretty good until you realize that the entirety of his own campaign is predicated on the notion that he is not a “career politician” (a fact of which he took time during nearly every response to remind the audience) and thus has no record of his own by which we can judge his capabilities as a senator.

For Akin’s part, experience definitely proved useful tonight. His answers were refreshingly clear and concise. Of the three candidates, he was least likely to stray from his original point or struggle to find words. While both Steelman and Brunner occasionally had difficulty making their points in the allotted time, Akin repeatedly finished ahead of the buzzer. He simply said what he had to say and then stopped. And what he had to say definitely played well with the conservatives in the audience. He finished his final statement to a standing ovation (the only one of the evening), and several people in one corner began chanting “Brunner, Brunner, Brunner.” They were drowned out by the crowd in a matter of seconds.

As I said before, I was a fan of Congressman Akin long before tonight. I felt that he was the right man to replace current MO Senator Claire McCaskill long before tonight. This evening’s debate made him stand out all the more in my mind as the right man for the job, and had I come to the debate unconvinced there is no doubt in my mind that he would have won me over with that performance.