Two weeks ago pro-abortion groups and their elected Democratic lackeys launched another offensive against pregnant military women and their precious fetuses by pushing for a Senate vote on an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to overturn legislation that prohibits non life-saving abortions at US military clinics  (h/t lifenews.com).  Abortion advocates claim to have the best interests of women at heart, in that they merely wish to provide the euphemistic “full range of reproductive-health care options” to service members who have become pregnant through rape; however, this 2010 policy paper from the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher research institute clearly states that the pro-abortion forces’ ultimate intent is taxpayer-funded abortion on demand at all military medical facilities (1). (h/t Michael Angsley at BigPeace)

In a remarkable coincidence, the sexual harassment allegations against Commander Fred Wilhelm, who was relieved of command of the USS Gunston Hall, also became public two weeks ago, bringing to light the risk of Female Repression and Abortion Under Duress (FRAUD) that would result if the uterine curettage cultists have their way.

A female officer said that in early 2010, when the [USS Gunston Hall] was deployed to Haiti, she made a comment in the wardroom that she was hungry. [Commanding Officer Fred] Wilhelm, she said, asked her if she was pregnant. She replied, “No sir, I’m not.” She said he replied, “Good, because if you were, I’d hand you a coat hanger.”

(Source The Navy Times)

Despite the NARAL’s false claim of the moral high ground on this issue, all pro-life and pro-choice Senators should support the servicewomen who protect us by standing firm against assaults on the military installation abortion ban (2).  If mandated by Congress to provide abortion services, the Department of Defense, given its pregnancy-incompatible primary mission and its near absolute authority over its members, will inevitably induce some of its most vulnerable pregnant airmen, marines, sailors, and soldiers to abort. 

Social and professional pressure to abort
Although not often stated so explicitly or crassly as CDR Wilhelm’s remarks, pregnant military women face greater social and professional pressures than their civilian counterparts. Pertinent military regulations take pregnant women out of the fight. No matter how talented, intelligent, and effective she may be, a servicewoman for the duration of her pregnancy and the post-partum deployment deferment period, is by definition a second class member of the team. Also, unlike private sector employees who have invested their own money in the knowledge and skills that they bring to the job, military personnel are paid to attend free training; therefore, time on the job lost for each child born is more costly to the Department of Defense than to other employers.  Finally, pregnancy in any military setting, down to the most collegial rearguard training command, has a far greater impact on supervisors and co-workers than is experienced in the private sector. Command leaders do not have the same flexibility in hiring temporary replacements that civilian employers enjoy. As a result, watch rotations are left shorthanded for months at a time, and collateral duties are reassigned to people who already have insuperable workloads.  Because the armed services pay by the month and not the hour, shipmates left to pick up the slack receive no recompense for their efforts.

Evolution of the medical corps to a pro-abortion outlook
Military medical hospitals, clinics and shipboard departments are also too different from private sector hospitals and practices for conscience rules to protect pro-life medical personnel and those who are pro-choice but personally opposed to abortion. The military core value of teamwork makes isolating one doctor’s activities from the corpsmen, nurses, physician’s assistants, pharmacists, and other doctors in the clinic impossible.  Because of the chain of command structure, the senior medical officer of every military clinic would unavoidably be a direct accessory to abortion; therefore, doctors who do not want to be involved in abortions would find their potential for promotion very limited. Medical personnel who believe that abortion is an ethical, beneficial therapy in a wide range of circumstances, on the other hand, would be free to recommend the procedure to their patients. Over time, the politically correct outlook in the medical corps would resemble that of a thriving abortion clinic. Perhaps when President Obama put the
*corpse* in corpsman, it wasn’t a gaffe after all.

Institutionalized obedience to healthcare providers
The unique relationship between service members and their healthcare providers is a third factor that would make an abortion mandate for military clinics problematic. For health related matters, all are by position subordinate to, if not outranked by, their primary care physicians, whose medical prescriptions constitute lawful orders. They are required to undergo a review of their medical readiness annually and prior to deployments or transfers.  Failure to report for required medical appointments is a punishable offense. Service members are well-aware that their bodies in some respects belong to the government.  By the time they finish basic training, they have been examined in every imaginable way. They are inoculated against diseases that they never knew existed, whether or not they want to be.  What are highly personal matters to the rest of us, such as body mass index, hairstyle, and fingernail length, are governed by impersonal instructions. Waivers for men and women alike, even for religious reasons, are extremely rare. In the military setting, the lines between informing a service member that abortion is available to her, recommending that a service member have an abortion, and ordering a service member to have an abortion can easily become blurred.

The fact is that the military is incapable of being pro-choice on anything related to unit readiness.  Behaviors are either prohibited or encouraged. The current situation, where elective abortion takes place off base at the service member’s own expense, is a delicate balance that creates a safety buffer between the needs of the military and the innocent child.  Instead of being a kindly deed for rape victims, overturning the military abortion ban would be an affront to the 2180 American service women pregnant at any given time, putting them at a higher risk of aborting their children through undue pressure, the misperception of professional medical guidance, and unlawful orders from bullies like Fred Wilhelm (3,4).

Notes:
1. There is a glaring error in this report. Guttmacher Institute uses the annual earnings figure of $23,000 per year for a servicewoman with three years of service time to make a case for taxpayer funded abortion. According to the 2010 military pay chart 2010 military pay chart, this figure takes into account base pay and the basic allowance for subsistence, without factoring in the value of free military lodging. Whether this is an intentional lie or a careless mistake, it renders suspect all other figures cited by Guttmacher. 

 2. In 2003 the “National Abortion Rights Action League” changed its name to “NARAL Pro-Choice America” because, I suppose, they rightfully loathe the truth about themselves. For the purpose of appearances, it would have been better for them to lobby for both abortions and adoption services on base.

3. There were 780 reported rapes involving American service members in Fiscal Year 2009 according to a
Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services report (page 149). This figure includes rapes where a service member is the perpetrator against a civilian, and rapes where a man is the victim. Although I have never experienced rape, I wish I could make the pain of the victims go away. Aborting a baby doesn’t help, but rather, ironically, rolls the violence downhill onto an innocent fetus and inflicts further insult on the woman. Having an abortion without confronting the perpetrator with the full force of the law, which the Guttmacher Institute suggests is a compassionate aspect of overturning the military ban, callously leaves every other woman vulnerable to the same attacker.

4.  Department of Defense pregnancy figures were difficult to find.  A 1997 estimate, apparently acceptable for US Air Force academic use, is that 10% of the female force is pregnant at any time. This percentage was used to derive an estimated number of pregnancies from military personnel statistics obtained from the Department of Defense here
here and here.

Wherein I employ the tortured logic of the left…

Like a gaggle of nattering stada babas, Andrew Sullivan , Gawker.com , Bill Maher , Wonkette , and others have begun counting months on fingers regarding reports of a baby on the way for newlyweds Track and Britta Palin. As with previous Palin pregnancies, the usual suspects have swung into armchair gynecologist mode, using Facebook photos of Mrs. Palin’s baby shower to estimate her delivery date. Having arrived at the consensus that Britta is about six months pregnant, they have pronounced the May 2011 union a “shotgun marriage.”

Employing Saul Alinsky’s Rule #4 for radicals, “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules,” the liberals were quick to issue self-righteous tut-tuts over the perceived failure of abstinence promotion for teens, a Palin family pet cause. For example, Gawker admonished the former Republican Vice Presidential nominee “to shut up the next time she champions abstinence only education.” A Yahoo! News commentary headline proclaimed, “Sarah Palin’s Views on Abstinence Lead to Second Grandchild.”

The apparent argument is that Sarah Palin is a proponent of abstinence-based education, and Sarah Palin’s son did not practice abstinence before his marriage; therefore, Sarah Palin must either concede that she is wrong about abstinence-based education or submit to the hypocrite label. The flimsy assumption undergirding this illogic is that 22 year-old Track Palin’s sexual practices are the product of abstinence-only education, a preposterous claim given his military record. By attacking Sarah Palin before checking the pertinent facts, abstinence opponents have disproved their own position.

Track Palin enlisted in the US Army in September 2007, leaving behind his nulliparous* high school sweetheart Britta. He served as an infantryman, completed a tour of duty in Iraq, and was discharged sometime in 2010 (based on a presumed three-year enlistment). Whatever Track learned from his parents was superseded by the indoctrination he underwent in the military.

So what did the Army teach Track about the birds and the bees?

Because unplanned pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections erode mission readiness, the US Department of Defense has a decided interest in educating its personnel on how to avoid both. Army Regulation 600-63, the Army Health Promotion Manual , sets forth doctrine regarding sex education for soldiers. Like so many sex ed programs favored by the left, the regulation provides lip service to “abstinence, when appropriate,” yet aims to “[p]romote and maintain a culture in which responsible sexual behavior is encouraged, supported, and expected.” Indeed, absolute abstinence is not even mentioned as a form of birth control on Army Medicine’s official “Contraceptive Methods Compared” health tips sheet . Given that at least 46 percent of the population from which the military draws its recruits is sexually active, it is not surprising that abstinence education is afforded a low priority.

Typically, military members are required to receive service-sanctioned sexual health education during basic training, before deployments, and otherwise annually. Military health briefings are nearly always presented by medical corps personnel, so junior soldiers are likely to place a high level of trust in the presenter based on both rank and professional expertise. A representative Army health briefing can be found at this link . Slides 10 and 11 refer to birth control supplies and pills, respectively, and slide 48 recommends that sexually active individuals use condoms. For three years in the Army, Track Palin’s views on acceptable sexual conduct were influenced by this risk management, vice risk avoidance, training strategy.

Following the reasoning of the liberal pundits, we can conclude that abstinence-based education worked well for Track and Britta up to his enlistment, and that the gospel of the latex sheath subsequently failed. Ironically, thanks to a condom-and-pill type of program preferred by those who despise Sarah Palin, That Woman’s DNA has been imparted to yet another lucky child.

*If you are waiting for creepy Palin conspiracy theorists to weigh in, Britta has already been added to the Trig’s mother candidate list .

From the Diaries by Leon.

     This past October on Lincoln Square in Gettysburg, my family participated in the annual “Life Chain,” a prayerful hour of silent witness against abortion. The prayer on Lincoln Square was part of the larger national Life Chain effort on the same day, with participants in over 1500 cities (1). The reaction we received was largely positive, as passing motorists smiled, waved, or gave us the thumbs up. Only one detractor yelled out his car window, “I can’t believe you brought children to this!” Because he seemed to be pro-abortion, I’m not sure if he opposed the presence of children at the Life Chain specifically, or the world outside the womb in general.

     When I reviewed local coverage of the event the next day, I was delighted to read a story sympathetic to the pro-life movement (2). The reporter wrote from the perspective of two demonstrators who regretted having abortions. The article even provided information on Silent No More Awareness, an organization that helps post-abortive men and women cope with the loss of their child(ren) (3).

      What is interesting is that this demonstration could have been stopped if Gettysburg had wanted to suppress it. The day of the Life Chain coincided with Gettysburg College’s alumni homecoming weekend, a (hopefully) busy time for downtown businesses, and a passable excuse for Gettysburg borough council to reject the Life Chain’s permit application. But the permit was granted, the businesses on the square were gracious, and about 100 of us, holding signs and praying quietly, lined the sidewalks in the heart of Gettysburg.

     Having exercised my First Amendment rights in Gettysburg recently, I was bewildered by allegations on both Fox Nation and RedState that Gettysburg was trying to “kick God out of town” through code enforcement action against the Civil War Chapel, a bivouac-type gathering place built by the US Christian Commission (4), (5). The subsequent destruction of the chapel by arsonists amplified the claims and triggered an accusation that the town leadership had desecrated Gettysburg’s hallowed ground (6).  

Read More →

The coastal state was embroiled in hard economic times.

Expensive government programs had done little to ease poverty or unemployment.

Entrenched fiscal mismanagement and corruption stirred the voters’ anger.

She a was right-center candidate in a party associated with Christianity.

He was a professed leftist running in a left-center electorate.

She couldn’t escape her personal history of superficial interviews and big hair.

He advocated a socialist agenda of government-forced wealth-spreading.

She was described as “ill-prepared” for the office she sought.

He demonized private corporations.

Her proposals to reduce government bureaucracy were called “fuzzy”.

Both ran as outsiders.

The year was 1998.

The state was Venezuela.

She was Miss Universe 1981, Irene Saez.

He was Hugo Chavez.

He won.

He won with 56% of the vote.

The people lost.

The people lost freedom of expression.

The people lost property rights.

The people lost Democracy.

Don’t let perfect be the enemy of non-marxist.

Support Christine O’Donnell any way you can, if only with your silence.
        
Because elections have consequences.

During interviews on NBC’s Meet the Press and CBS’s Face the Nation, Democratic nominee for the Pennsylvania Senate seat and retired Navy three-star Admiral Joe Sestak evaded questions about a potentially felonious job offer from the White House, by invoking his Navy experience.

MR. GREGORY: …So isn’t it in the–in the spirit of transparency, were you offered a job by the administration?  And what was it?
REP. SESTAK:  I learned, as I mentioned, about that personal accountability in the Navy.
MR. GREGORY:  Yeah.
REP. SESTAK:  I felt I needed to answer that question honestly because I was personally accountable for my role in the matter.
MR. GREGORY:  What’s the answer?  What’s the job you were offered?
REP. SESTAK:  And–but anybody else has to decide for themselves what to say upon their role, and that’s their responsibility.

Admiral Sestak’s inappropriate retreat into his Navy comfort zone was reminiscent of Admiral Boom, the cannon firing character from the movie Mary Poppins, whose inability to reassimilate into civilian life leads him to couch every conversation in nautical jargon.

As ridiculous as Admiral Boom’s rooftop flagship, Representative Sestak’s words show the result of taking the Navy core values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment and warping them through the Liberal moral relativism machine. Honor becomes a matter of individual choice and a standard that one must not impose upon another. Courage is recognized in a refusal to divulge the truth to a constituency that deserves to know. Commitment to the Democratic Party outweighs the Congressional oath of office. Given his statement that he would “be honored to stand with the President of the United States,” Admiral Sestak’s credo seems to be: I will not lie, cheat or steal, but I will tolerate, laud and protect fellow Democrats who do.

It is a common and, in my opinion, valid tactic for high ranking military officers turned Democratic politicians to highlight their service in terms of defense policy expertise, foreign affairs acumen, and unimpeachable patriotism — all attributes that appeal to a right-of-center electorate. Surprisingly, Admiral Sestak did not take this approach in the remainder of his interviews. Instead he touted his military career as a valuable qualification for imposing an unabashedly liberal agenda on an unwilling public. His overall logic appears to be that if a policy works in the Navy, it is good for Pennsylvania. He did not volunteer, nor was he pushed to address how his proposals would be funded.

In his own words:
“This is payback to this nation, as far as I’m concerned, because they took care of me and my family with TRICARE, wonderful health care. They took care of my daughter when she had a health issue. I wanted everyone to be like in the military–health opportunities because the dividends that accrue to our nation are immense.”

In an infuriating display of Democratic elitisim, Admiral Sestak advocates this “wonderful” idea — the private-insurer-killing public option for federally mandated healthcare — because the military healthcare system managed his family’s health well. A man who undeniably received deferential treatment by virtue of his rank and position has no business using his positive experience to justify government healthcare for the rest of us. My personal TRICARE misadventures aside, I wonder how other men, lacking the advantage of senior rank, must cope with their daughters’ suffering at the hands of Dr. Hasan and Dr. Velasquez, both of whom the military medical bureaucracy inexcusably failed to weed out.

He continues:
“[In the Navy] we don’t even promote you above a certain rating or rank unless you have an education, an associates college degree.  I’d say pretty much those are kind of principles that give dividends to our nation. Imagine a work force that’s healthy and educated, that can compete with China and India.”

I find it troubling that Admiral Sestak proposes expending taxpayer dollars to implement a military-inspired policy on a population of which 75 percent of 18 to 24 year olds are ineligible to serve because of “criminal records, obesity, or lack of education.” Ironically, in Admiral Sestak’s homeport, Philadelphia, the ineligibility figure is between 80 and 90 percent. (Perhaps not coincidentally, in 2008 Barack Obama received 83% of the Philly vote.) In my Navy, money thrown at Running, in a training program that has failed to achieve Crawling and Walking, would be grounds for a phone call to the Fraud, Waste and Abuse Hotline.

I cringe at the thought of what other military practices for public consumption schemes might be floating around in Admiral Sestak’s head. Perhaps the energy conserving “Turn Off Your Heat for the Season on 15 March No Matter What the Weather” bill is being drafted as I write this. Mandating Space-A travel for underserved populations on otherwise unfilled commercial airliners might resonate with left-wing voters. Can we look forward to Orwellian mandatory physical training to promote the general welfare? After all, it works in the military.

Active duty and reserve military personnel voluntarily, but temporarily, give up certain individual liberties in exchange for a respectable job opportunity and a chance to serve their country. Their spouses and children living with them in base housing or on overseas installations similarly relinquish a bit of independence. The fruit of this sacrifice is intended to be greater freedom for the rest of us. Admiral Sestak’s suggestion that the top-down military act as a domestic governance model for our We-the-People-up Republic flies in the face of the Constitution that he himself swore to protect throughout his 31-year career.

Allowed to carry out his liberal agenda, Joe Sestak, like a blast from Admiral Boom’s cannon, will leave us scrambling to protect ourselves and our property. You can stop him by supporting Republican nominee Pat Toomey here.

(H/T Lori_Z )

The “feminists” don’t speak for me:

Because I believe that women are miracle workers through our extraordinary capacity to nurture life within and to bring forth children. To me, the primacy of unrestricted abortion in the “feminist” agenda reveals an insidious movement to deny women our full potential.

Because I interpret chivalrous gestures as an affirmation of female ascendency. It is odd that in a culture where the rich and powerful rely on personal security details, “feminists” perceive the male instinct to protect women as a sign of female weakness.

Because I am amazed at the degree to which motherhood has honed my management skills, especially in the areas of communication, accountability, multi-tasking, and prioritization. Research suggests there is a physiological basis for this change.

Because I contend that in free societies with rule of law, religion is not a common means for men to subjugate women. I believe that men of faith humbly recognize their weaknesses, and by the grace of God, endeavor to triumph over behaviors that are destructive to women and families.

Because I can have it all, just not all at the same time. Years ago, I had a fulfilling non-domestic career. Now I am reveling in my adventures as a stay-at-home mom. When my husband retires and my children are in school, I’ll rejoin the workforce. Provided that Obama and the Democrats in Congress do not destroy our healthcare system, I have decades ahead of me to make my mark on the outside world.

Because I am willing to admit that my spouse outranks me. In our house, my husband is the commanding officer and I am the executive officer. He sets the overall course for the family (with my input); I make the day-to-day decisions (with his input). I am 100 percent certain that if I asked him to reverse roles, he would.

Because I maintain that when a “feminist” uses the v-word outside its medical context, she curtails violence against women as effectively as a misogynist who uses the c-word.

Because I believe that parents who shelter their adolescent daughters from sexual experimentation and drug and alcohol use, liberate them to become healthy, confident women.

Because I think that fertility awareness is the most pro-woman form of family planning. It is safe and reliable, works in achieving and avoiding pregnancy, increases marital intimacy, and provides additional health benefits. If you are tempted to crack a joke, please consider that Planned Parenthood’s vested interest in purveying pills, condoms and abortions makes natural family planning an ideal target for Alinsky-style ridicule.

Because I see the Conservative movement within the Republican Party as the natural home for true feminists. No two women are alike. No national organization can reasonably claim to speak for us all. Why not affiliate with the party that promotes equality based on unalienable rights rather than the party that thrives on conflict over superficial differences?

This morning I learned that my former neighbor, Jo the Factory Worker will be voting for McCain/Palin. Her husband Joe the Deli Worker is undecided but leans Obama/Biden. This should be a jolt to any Obama supporter because Joe and Jo’s demographic profile suggests that Sen. Obama should take their votes for granted. However, if the Obama camp could get past its fixation on skin color and class warfare, they’d understand that Jo and Joe’s attitudes, beliefs, and character would also lend them a natural attraction to the Republican ticket.

Read More →

Sometime in the 1970s, my Mom, a lifelong Republican, and my Dad, a Democrat-turned-Independent, heard young Sen. Joe Biden speak at a graduation ceremony. They were so moved by his embrace of common sense American values that he was their clear favorite in the run up to the 1988 Presidential election. Eventually it became clear to my parents that Sen. Biden had changed along the way. To this day, they lament the loss of one they believe could have been a great American leader.

In doing a search for my parents’ “lost Biden” in the Congressional Record, I discovered some beautiful remarks that he made on the Senate floor on July 18, 1989 in response to the Supreme Court decision to strike down laws protecting the American flag:

Read More →

Every year on the Sunday before Thanksgiving, Catholics are asked to contribute to a special collection for the National Conference of Catholic Bishops’ Catholic Campaign for Human Development (CCHD). This year, the CCHD collection will be taken up at the 22 November weekend Masses.

The stated mission of CCHD is:

to address the root causes of poverty in America through promotion and support of community-controlled, self-help organizations and through transformative education.

As a Catholic, I am glad that there is a dedicated Church agency helping the poor in America, and on paper, CCHD appears to be a good cause; however, an article posted yesterday on EWTN.com citing Catholic editorialist Stephanie Block, reveals the alarming news that through CCHD, “millions of dollars have funded Alinksyite community organizing groups.”

By reviewing the CCHD annual report and list of grantees, I found that in 2006 CCHD awarded 45 grants to ACORN chapters around the country, totaling $1,165,000. CHD’s grants for 2006 totaled $9,669,407, meaning that ACORN received 12 percent of the available funds, or based on CCHD’s annual operating cost of $13,106,628, ACORN received 9 cents out of every dollar placed in the collection basket.

Read More →

Dear Representative,

Like many Pennsylvanians, ten days ago I became aware that a crisis in the United States financial system threatened to send our country into a full scale depression unless a $700 billion bailout bill was enacted quickly. Subsequent news revealed that certain Members of Congress had been warned of the impending disaster years earlier, but either denied the existence of a problem or spent tens of billions of tax dollars treating symptoms without addressing root causes.

I believe this negligence is as reprehensible as if Congress had been given specific intelligence of the 9/11 attacks to include the terrorists’ names and passport numbers, the buildings targeted, and the flights to be hijacked, but did not take action until the first plane hit the World Trade Center simply because the exact date of Al Qaeda’s plans was unknown.

In recent years Members of Congress have staged televised hearings to chastise the baseball Commissioner because players were taking steroids and to point fingers at network executives because Janet Jackson had a “wardrobe malfunction” during the Super Bowl half-time show. Because of the severity of the financial situation and the urgency with which taxpayers were implored to support an expensive and complicated rescue package, I think it is high time for someone to call our Senators and Representatives out on the carpet for the consequences of their inaction.

Read More →

Demagogic cries such as, “The rich should pay more taxes,” and “The oil companies are greedy,” are difficult to counter because they are short, simple and easy to believe. At four minutes, this video is longer than the average attention span, but the straightforward explanation and visual effects can help clarify how higher taxes and more government are bad things. I recommend this video for the undecided voter in your life.

(Posted on YouTube by the same person who created the OIF veteran “Dear Mr. Obama” video.)

It’s not scientific and the sample size is small, but here is some raw data from my phone banking efforts on 9/8 and 9/15:

64 phone calls (32 each week) to likely voters, not all were Republicans.
9 McCain supporters (3 last week/6 yesterday)
8 Undecided (5 last week/3 yesterday)
1 Obama supporter (last week)
2 refused to respond
44 answering machines, messages, wrong numbers, etc.

Read More →

If I were Vice President and not a stay at home mom, the first slide in my morning brief would show the location of my deployed son’s unit. I would be especially vigilant in foreign policy meetings to ensure our decisions would not unnecessarily risk the lives of anybody’s children. Any Senator from Illinois who claimed to support the troops while undercutting their mission would FEEL MY WRATH.

If I were Vice President and not a stay at home mom, mac and cheese or McDonald’s for dinner would be history. No matter how busy our family schedule would be on a given day, it wouldn’t matter that I was too tired to cook something nutritious and appealing to little appetites because there would be a kitchen staff to do it for me.

If I were Vice President and not a stay at home mom, I’d be relieved that my days of waiting for doctor’s appointments were over. With a physician available, I wouldn’t have to drag a sick child out of bed to the emergency room in the freezing cold because he happened to develop an ear infection at 2:00 AM on Sunday. My special needs child would have access to the top specialists for his condition.

Read More →

Senator John McCain’s substantive responses and unflappable demeanor at his town hall meeting in York, PA on Tuesday filled me with hope for the fall presidential debates. Based on McCain’s performance, I’d say he could beat the silver-tongued, glass-jawed Senator Barack Obama in a debate on Obama’s terms, moderated by the editorial board of the Village Voice, with no prior knowledge of the questions himself while allowing Obama to have a peek at them a full week beforehand. Three trends in his answers lead me to that conclusion.

First, on international issues (Iraq and Georgia), within his answers McCain was able to cite a visit to the country in question, summarize the history of the situation, and name the leaders with whom he has an established relationship. In a topsy-turvy world, McCain is very reassuring vis-a-vis risky Obama.

Second, in answering domestic policy questions, McCain repeatedly used anecdotes to illustrate how problems were tackled in the past in bipartisan fashion. For example, he discussed how President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill worked together to fix Social Security 25 years ago. This could help sway independents and undecides in his direction.

Third, he used a wily old man sucker-punch when responding to a Clinton voter who wanted to know why McCain considered himself a better choice than Obama. He started off by stroking the young lad’s ego with words to the effect of, “I should have called on the guy behind you,” as though the question was too hard, and then of course went on to answer it effectively. Our candidate is good on his feet.

Read More →

Russia’s recent invasion of Georgia sent me to the shelves to peruse my undergraduate Soviet/Russian politics books. I found the following passage in Hedrick Smith’s The New Russians (1991) that rings true of the Democratic Party today:

In an open letter to Izvestia, [Gorbachev advisor Alexandr] Yakovlev argued that the Communist Party had turned against the individual citizen and had proven incapable of bringing forward “a leader capable at least of inspiring purely human and political respect.”

I’m still laughing.

Hey RedState Choir! I need to stop preaching to you and start working on some letters to the editor, so please excuse the brevity of my report.

Upon entering the House chamber, I expected to see a Republican pep rally. Instead, it was much more like stepping into a Normal Rockwell painting. Average Americans, in a national crisis were looking to our leadership for help. I was able to stay for 90 minutes, but would have been happy to listen all day if I could.

Most in attendance were families on summer vacation touring the Capitol. The format of the session was informal but informative. The Representatives took turns approximately 15 minutes long to talk to the visitors, almost all of whom sat on the House floor, about the energy debate and the House procedures driving it. Members speaking during my stay were Representatives Louie Gohmert (TX-01), Michael Burgess (TX-26), Pete Sessions (TX-32), Steve Scalise (LA-01) as well as one each from California and Kentucky whose names I could not make out. Specific topics discussed during while I was there included:

-Oil production in the ANWR
-Energy independence as it relates to national security
-”Drill here” job creation
-Safety of offshore drilling
-Supply and demand
-Discharge petitions
-The role of the rules committee
-The power of the Speaker of the House
-The power of the majority
-The importance of an up or down vote on offshore drilling

Read More →

Dear Obama Girl,
With all of the presumptive Democratic nominee’s recent position changes, I’m sure you’re feeling hurt. I wrote the following new lyrics to the tune of ”I Got a Crush on Obama” to help you through your crisis:

Please read on…

Read More →