Extremism in the Defense of Liberty

Retire Reid

2010-04-18T22:19:00.002-07:00

I just realized that it has been over a year since my last post. In that time, my life has changed and stayed the same all at once.

Right now, I am exhausted beyond all belief, and while there are many things I want to say and write, I can only say that I hope you all are reading and watching the news; staying astute on what is going on in our nation and even locally in your own counties, cities and states.

Many people have forgotten the importance of local government, and unfortunately, many people I speak with don't understand the difference between their State Legislature and their Federal Government.

Please take the time to find out who is running for office where you live, learn what they stand for, how they will vote, support them, and then hold them accountable.

I started this blog six years ago when I first moved to Las Vegas for the Presidential election. Many elections have come and gone, and my leaders have failed me. But, there is power in numbers. Make your voice heard. Use your vote to make a difference.

We have a City Councilman here in Las Vegas who won his election by 10 votes in 2009. He has been THE steady voice of fiscal conservatism here, even in the worst economy in our state's history.

Will your vote be the vote that pushes a candidate over, or the one that allows the opposition to take control?

We have 50 days left until our Primary in Nevada. I am praying that we do not get weary of fighting for what we believe in. I pray that you all will continue to press on as well.

For now, this will be my last post until mid-June. Thank you for those of you who STILL read, even when I am silent. I'll be back soon.

In the mean time, check out some info on my candidates here in LV:

www.SueLowden.com / www.retirereid.com

www.PatrickMcNaught.com / www.VoteMichaelRoberson.com

www.BillyJohnson2010.com / www.VoteTyCobb.com

xoxo

gopbabeval

A Wake Up Call for the Right

2009-03-03T13:55:00.004-07:00

As a conservative, I'm finding out more and more that I do not really believe in the Republican Party. Not as it once was, anyway.
I've started realizing that I am more Libertarian in my views, but if I want to continue to vote in Primaries, and be involved, I must stay under the big tent of the GOP, much as the Green Party must do with the Democrats.

I've never been an over the top republican. Even when I worked for the party. I believe in one fundamental right that the Constitution gives us: The government should stay out of my business and out of my wallet. These days though, it seems neither the democrats or republicans are holding true to this thinking.

I think I am a fairly intelligent person, with a good head on my shoulders. I'm not going to try to change your views on politics or religion, if you've already made up your mind. But I will say that there are a few things that are driving me mad at the moment. And keep in mind, this could be because of the recent CPAC weekend in DC, or just because its always bothered me & I'm finally speaking up.

Don't assume that I fall in line with Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, just because there's an R behind my name on my voter registration. Last week Janeane Garofalo said that conservatives are "self-loathing" and compared female-fans of Limbaugh to Eva Braun, Adolph Hitler's girlfriend. But then Rush Limbaugh turned around and called liberals "deranged". Where do we draw the line? I'm definitely for the first amendment and our right to speak our minds, but when does it just become petty name calling? I feel like we've all retreated back to the first grade and on this playground of life we are picking on others to make ourselves feel better.

Which brings me to this point: How do we expect to energize the future generations of voters, when all we are doing is calling each other names and comparing everyone to Hitler all the time?
Barack Obama won because he gave the young people of this nation something to hope in. While I found it to be completely asinine, some -actually- MOST young people were drawn to this.
I don't think we should go around saying we are the party of rainbows and unicorns and gumdrops and kumbaya; but at the same time, where is our current rhetoric getting us? Can't we find a happy medium?

I'm not suggesting that we silence Coulter (although sometimes Ann could use a lesson in graciousness) or Limbaugh (who recently said if you don't agree with him, you agree with Barack Obama), but I am asking, when will others who are tired of the game rise up and be willing to come up with valid arguments, sans name calling and finger pointing, and do something worthwhile for our party and our country?

We can either think of how we become relevant as a campaign winning and policy making organization or we can just be the voice of opposition. If we continue featuring the Limbaugh's and the Coulters, without other points of view, we will never appeal to Independents, soft D's or even Republicans for that matter. Who will be the spokesman for our generation?

Two Americas

2009-02-03T16:41:00.002-07:00

So I think if we all try really hard, we can remember back to 2004 - Remember John Edwards "Two Americas" speech? One America was the hard working miners & workers in the saw mills & union dues paying folks. And the other, those evil, greedy, wealthy Americans. You know the types...so often the media portrays them as Republicans. (But if you really look closely, the ambulance chaser, Edwards, was one of those too)

Well, now we've had THREE appointees to the Obama administration come under fire for their tax issues. Mostly the fact that they never paid their taxes and penalties, not until it was absolutely necessary. After all, who was going to know? No one. Not until the vetting process began for their Senate confirmation.

Not to mention the fact that Charlie Rangel (D-NY) also is under the microscope for his lack of "rendering to Caesar what is Caesars" - Bill Richards is under investigation for corruption charges. Daschle had a personal car & driver that he didn't claim on taxes. Gaithner didn't pay his self-employment taxes. Nancy Killefer didn't pay into unemployment for her housekeeper.

It seems to me that these Democrats who are "for the people" have lost touch with the people.
The last time I checked, I have to pay my taxes. I don't have a chauffeur. I don't have a housekeeper. Or a nanny.

I know that on April 15th my taxes better be in order.
I know how to correctly use Turbo Tax, and I'm not being considered for a position within the Administration, not even as a Schedule C appointee.

So why is it that these so called "leaders" are allowed to live by a different set of rules? Fact of the matter is, President Obama is saying that he can't allow it to look as if there is a different set of rules for the American people, but as far as I'm concerned, with the confirmation of Timothy Gaithner, it already does.

Fight On, Americans

2008-11-07T13:02:00.002-07:00

On Tuesday, November 4th, 2008 an historical thing happened in our great nation.
The American people have spoken, and it is clear that we will have our nation's first ever "African-American" president.

Anyone who knows me, knows that President-Elect Barack Obama was no where near close to my ideal candidate. It is not because he is black, and it is not because I fear change.
It is because I fear the type of change that this man wants to bring to our country.

In the current economic times, we need someone who believes in hard work, prosperity and job creation. Instead, we see a man before us who believes in redistribution of wealth, bankrupting the coal industry, and who has made it quite clear that he wants to bring socialism to our Great Nation.

How can we live in a country that relies heavily on the coal industry, and have many states within our union that has a main source of economic strength from the coal industry, yet have a President-Elect who believes it is within our nations best interest to put these mines out of business?

How can we live day to day, striving toward & working on achieving the "American Dream", yet we have a President-Elect who wants to take that away.
We teach our children to work hard, and one day they will become something they could only imagine in their wildest dreams. We teach our children it is better to work hard for something, rather than to steal it. We teach our children that anything is possible when we put our minds to it.

I ask then, why should I work hard when I now will be paying for someone else to raise their family? Why should I work hard when I will be paying for someone else's health care?
Why have I taught my children the value of working hard, when we have a man in the highest position in the land who is going to teach them that we punish those who work hard by redistributing their hard earned money?

Its very simple. There is nothing that can be done now about this election.
I am hoping we all can look back and say that we did our best, and tried our hardest and worked fervently for the cause that was greater than ourselves.

I ask that each of us pray for our country, and our newly elected leaders. Just as we would have done if John McCain were elected.
Pray that we do not see two new Supreme Court Justices seated during this Presidency.
Pray that we do not give up on the War on Terror, or on our soldiers in harms way.

As Americans we must continue to fight on. Hold your head up.
We may have lost the battle, but we WILL win the war.
Victory in 2010. Let's get rid of Harry Reid.

Onto 2012.

You Have to Wonder

2008-10-09T15:23:00.002-07:00

I have to wonder lately what my local politicians are thinking...and feeling.
My current congressman (I say current, because as of late I believe he will be former come November 5th) is on a liberal streak of voting. If the conservative base is against it, he votes for it.
The Farm Bill, that subsidizes farmers to NOT grow food, while food prices are on the rise, my congressman voted for it. Then, as an additional slap in the face, he voted to over-ride the President's veto.
The "energy" bill touted by Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi; you know the one...it allowed us to drill in places where there is no oil. Thus being the NON-Energy bill. Yup, my congressman from CD 3 voted for that too.
The $700 Billion bailout bill that everyone knew wouldn't help out the economy, he voted for that, too. Even after House democrats resorted to mudslinging and name calling like a bunch of children on the playground, he kept his "Yes" vote.
He has brought millions of dollars back home to Nevada - however, was it worth it? The special interest money, the earmarks that were unnecessary and unwanted...
My congressman dismisses the ideas and opinions of his constituents, and allows his campaign and office staff to do the same.
I have to wonder where his head is.
I have to wonder where his heart is.
I have come to the conclusion that Jon Porter no longer wants to serve his country, or serve the people that put him in office. He only wants to serve himself.

While I do NOT want to see Titus in office, I am beginning to wonder if the two are the same...

Debate Slip Ups...Caught on Camera

2008-10-03T10:10:00.001-07:00

Please see the McCain campaign's response to Joe Biden's debate performance last night.

"Joe Biden graduated from his trademark verbal gaffe to outright lie in tonight's debate. Each time Senator Biden was on his heels, he looked directly into the camera and lied -- more than a dozen times by our count. He lied about John McCain's record, his own record, and Barack Obama's dangerous policies. Governor Palin showed the American people tonight why a McCain-Palin Administration will bring real reform, leadership, and straight talk to Washington." --Tucker Bounds, spokesmanMcCain-Palin 2008

JOE BIDEN'S 14 LIES TONIGHT

1. TAX VOTE: Biden said McCain voted "the exact same way" as Obama to increase taxes on Americans earning just $42,000, but McCain DID NOTVOTE THAT WAY.

2. AHMEDINIJAD MEETING: Joe Biden lied when he said that Barack Obama never said that he would sit down unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmedinijad of Iran. Barack Obama did say specifically, and Joe Biden attacked him for it.

3. OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING: Biden said, "Drill we must." But Biden has opposed offshore drilling and even compared offshore drilling to"raping" the Outer Continental Shelf."

4. TROOP FUNDING: Joe Biden lied when he indicated that John McCain and Barack Obama voted the same way against funding the troops in the field. John McCain opposed a bill that included a timeline, that the President of the United States had already said he would veto regardless of it's passage.

5. OPPOSING CLEAN COAL: Biden says he's always been for clean coal, but he just told a voter that he is against clean coal and any new coalplants in America and has a record of voting against clean coal and coal in the U.S. Senate.

6. ALERNATIVE ENERGY VOTES: According to FactCheck.org, Biden is exaggerating and overstating John McCain's record voting for alternative energy when he says he voted against it 23 times.

7. HEALTH INSURANCE: Biden falsely said McCain will raise taxes onpeople's health insurance coverage -- they get a tax credit to offsetany tax hike. Independent fact checkers have confirmed this attack isfalse

8. OIL TAXES: Biden falsely said Palin supported a windfall profits tax in Alaska -- she reformed the state tax and revenue system, it's not a windfall profits tax.

9. AFGHANISTAN / GEN. MCKIERNAN COMMENTS: Biden said that top military commander in Iraq said the principles of the surge could not be applied to Afghanistan, but the commander of NATO's International Security Assistance Force Gen. David D. McKiernan said that there were principles of the surge strategy, including working with tribes, that could be applied in Afghanistan.

10. REGULATION: Biden falsely said McCain weakened regulation -- he actually called for more regulation on Fannie and Freddie.

11. IRAQ: Joe Biden lied when he said that John McCain was "deadwrong on Iraq", because Joe Biden shared the same vote to authorize the war and differed on the surge strategy where John McCain has been proven right.

12. TAX INCREASES: Biden said Americans earning less than $250,000 wouldn't see higher taxes, but the Obama-Biden tax plan would raise taxes on individuals making $200,000 or more.

13. BAILOUT: Biden said the economic rescue legislation matches the four principles that Obama laid out, but in reality it doesn't meet two of the four principles that Obama outlined on Sept. 19, which were that it include an emergency economic stimulus package, and that it be part of "a globally coordinated effort with our partners in the G-20."

14. REAGAN TAX RATES: Biden is wrong in saying that under Obama,Americans won't pay any more in taxes then they did under Reagan.

Its Not the Great Depression...Yet

2008-09-30T20:56:00.002-07:00

I have been watching a lot of the news lately. More-so than usual. Mostly because I want to see what "analysts" are saying about our current economic situations.
I find it interesting that everyone is predicting doom and gloom, when two short years ago we were the most prosperous nation on Earth.

We need to remember that we are Americans. We've had tough times before. If our great grandfathers & great-great grandfathers could make it out of the Great Depression, then why can't we make it out of a drop in the markets?

We haven't reached that time in our current day where we have hit the Great Depression. Yes, we are in grave danger of a depression. We are not out of the woods on that yet, however, keep your chin up, America.

A friend's mom sent this to me, and I think everyone should read it. And after you've read it, read it again. And then forward it to a friend, or eighty.
+++
"Through the 200 years of American history, this country has been constantly besieged by bad news. If the early settlers believed things were as bad as they sounded they would have given up the fight to settle the new world and sailed back to England, and the dream of freedom would have perished.

From that day to the present, the people of this nation have listened to the bad news for a while, then they turned their backs on that which was bad, placed their faith in God and faced toward that which was good.

Down through the years, through tragic civil war, two world-wide wards, a series of smaller conflicts, recession and the great depression of the 1930's, we have heard again and again the words of Citizen Tom Paine, "These are the times that try mens' souls." in every case the people rejected the bad news and overcame whatever obstacle was facing them at that time.

Once again, we are put to the test. Everything we hear is bad. we are smothered with a never-ending succession of newspaper, radio and television reports on Watergate, drug abuse, crime in the streets, decadent morals and lack of honest and competent leadership. If Citizen Tom Paine were alive today, he could well utter again his famous quotation.

It is impossible to lock your door against the invasion of the news media into every nook of your home and office. They dont make the news, they merely report it (obviously MSNBC wasnt around then ;o) -but I digress). Tell it as it is. We have the option of acceptance or rejection. We can bemoan what is happening in our world, wring our hands and cover our heads, or we can reject the bad and look about us to the good.

When I was a boy on a small farm in Grant County, news wasnt as quickly available as it is today and reached us mainly by word of mouth. A "drummer" would come by or one of our neighbors returned from a trip to Little Rock or Memphis and we saw the news through tehir eyes. Mostly it was about what was bad in the big cities or throughout the country.

After listening a while, my father would say, "That's enough bad news for one day. Let's go to work." America has heard enough bad news for a while. Now is the time to go to work. Turn your back on the bad news and look around you at what is good. You don't need to look very fa. Your family, your children, your friends and neighbors, they are good.

We live today in the greatest country the world has ever known, filled with opportunities which never existed before. The highest standards of living, more leisure time, better health services, better schools, more ojbs, finer homes and freedom to enjoy these wonders.

This is indeed the time to turn our backs on the bad news and face the future with thankfulness.

W.R. "Witt" Stephens
** Mr. Witt sent this memo out after "Black Friday, October 1987" his wisdom and good advice lives on.
http://www.encyclopediaofarkansas.net/encyclopedia/entry-detail.aspx?entryID=1773 for more information on Mr. Stephens life.

No Time for Partisan Politics

2008-09-29T16:41:00.003-07:00

Pelosi asked in a floor speech shortly before the vote. "It is a number that is staggering, but tells us only the costs of the Bush administration's failed economic policies — policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision and no discipline in the system." about the $700 Billion bail out.
At this time, we cannot afford petty name calling. I expect more from my leaders, I expect more from those running my country.
I am absolutely disgusted right now.
As far as I am concerned, the Clinton administration, greedy oil speculators, and unscrupulous Wall Street big wigs are at fault. The economy has taken a serious down turn in the last 2 years since the Democrats have taken over congress we have seen a rise in oil prices, a drop in housing values and I cannot believe the audacity of Nancy Pelosi & Rep Barney Frank to blame Republicans.
We can point the finger all we want, but that is not going to save our economy.
I suggest we all call, email or fax not only OUR congressmen, but also House leaders to let them know how unhappy we are as Americans and that we want PARTISAN POLITICS LEFT OUT OF THIS. I dont care where Barack Obama or John McCain stand on this. Something's gotta be done, and without the name calling.
www.house.gov (search for your Representative)

Stay Classy, Liberals...Wait, is That an Oxy Moron?

2008-09-16T22:30:00.000-07:00

So, in an attempt to be...er, funny? Some jackass made up a tshirt that says "[word i will NOT use] republican babies for Palin"
Google the last part of the phrase in quotes, if you must, to see what exactly i'm talking about. -Although if you know what I'm talking about, please don't. These A HOLES don't need anymore website hits.
Where is the media outrage over this? The only people talking about how disgusting this is are the conservative pundits. Shouldn't EVERY American be outraged by this? Are we taking steps backwards into years ago when it was socially acceptable to make fun of those who have handicaps?
I am in NO way a politically-correct, over-sensitive, tree-hugger. But, as a step mother of a child who is severely mentally handicapped, and, as a human being with a HEART, this enrages me to the point where I want to scream & throw things.
I was told recently that the Republican Party was all about "dirty, slanderous, baseless politics." And, that the Republican Party is also "shameful". Last time I checked, Conservatives aren't out touting our "all inclusive, hold hands & sing kumbaya" policies, but not including those who need a voice the most. The innocents who cannot speak for themselves.
I guess being "pro-choice" to a liberal only means that you have a choice if you choose to abort your child when the constraints of a handicap will not fit into your lifestyle.
Leave the poor child alone. Leave the family alone and stop picking on them for having a heart. If it was the "Obamassiah" & his loud-mouth wife who had made this decision, would people be running around calling their child that name??

Obama's Blueprint for America

2008-09-12T11:54:00.004-07:00

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/ObamaBlueprintForChange.pdf

I am home sick. So, I decide I'm going to do some opposition research, like every good voting American should do.I know why I'm voting for John McCain, but do you? Or do you know why you're voting for Barack Obama? Don't give me this load of crap line about how you want "change" in America. What exactly does that mean? Tell me...Really. So, I encourage each of you to read this thing. Its LONG, and full of dribble about raising taxes (no, not just the top 5%, as he would like you to believe), and about how he was against the war in Iraq. Really? Cuz that means nothing as far as I am concerned since he wasn't in the Senate. (And remember folks, Constitutionally speaking, only CONGRESS has the power to declare war. The President may ask them to consider, but ultimately, it is their say).

So, here, in what I assume will be a very long post, I am going to dissect a few things for you, and tell you what the main-stream, drive-by, Barack Obama-loving Media will not.

On Page 5: "Obama introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and is the only 2008 Presidential candidate to have sponsored Russ Feingold's tough bill to reform the Presidential public financing system."What makes this so interesting is that, A) Its MCCAIN FEINGOLD Campaign Finance Reform. And B), Obama backed out of his promise to use public financing. Isn't he the one always saying politicians should keep their word? Then how about keeping this one? Or how about when he LIED on National Television to try to sway the American people. And you know what, he was in a church when he lied. That has to take a pair of brass balls.

Remember this from the Saddleback forum?:

Pastor Warren: Can you give me a good example where you went against party loyalty, and maybe even went against your own best interest for the good of America?

Obama: I'll give you an example that, in fact, I worked with John McCain on, and that was the issue of campaign ethics reform and finance reform. That wasn't probably in my interest or his.... But I think that we were able to get a bill passed that hasn't made Washington perfect, but at least has started moving things forward....

"But that one example of his great bi-partisan moment turns out to be as fleeting as it was disingenuous. In February of 2006, when Obama and McCain were serving in the Senate together, neither yet a presidential candidate, there was indeed a bipartisan effort to pass reform legislation. McCain initiated one of his "maverick" efforts to reach across the aisle in an attempt to reform lobbying. Obama pledged to McCain his willingness to rise above bipartisanship and work for the good of America — only to change his mind after one week and withdraw his cooperation. That "selfless-bipartisan" effort of Obama's ended in a scathing letter by McCain on February 6, 2006:

Dear Senator Obama:

I would like to apologize to you for assuming that your private assurances to me regarding your desire to cooperate in our efforts to negotiate bipartisan lobbying reform legislation were sincere. When you approached me and insisted that despite your leadership's preference to use the issue to gain a political advantage in the 2006 elections, you were personally committed to achieving a result that would reflect credit on the entire Senate and offer the country a better example of political leadership, I concluded your professed concern for the institution and the public interest was genuine and admirable. Thank you for disabusing me of such notions with your...decision to withdraw from our bipartisan discussion. I'm embarrassed to admit that after all these years in politics I failed to interpret your previous assurances as typical rhetorical gloss routinely used in politics to make self-interested partisan posturing appear more noble. Again, sorry for the confusion, but please be assured I won't make the same mistake again....

Sincerely, John McCain.

Obama's one example of bipartisan, self-sacrifice was a careless lie, told to the wrong audience about the wrong senator...one who was waiting in the wings and just might remember. It was another kind of audacity of hope — hoping that no one would notice." (excerpt taken from onenewsnow.com, article by Sandy Rios, Radio Personality out of Chicago)

Now onto the issue of Public Health care.In case Obama wasn't aware, we have free health clinics all over this country. Just here in Las Vegas there is another set to open by December of this year. Several well-to-do doctors are joining together to "give back" to the community. And they will receive donations to keep their doors open, government subsidies, and even tax breaks. This allows health care to stay open to a free market type approach. When you start screwing with the free-market society, you screw with the American public's wallet.Look at the cost of Lasik surgery over the last 10 years. When Lasik first became popular, people were spending thousands of dollars on ONE eye. But, the competition grew, because of the free-market, and so now the price is near $200 per eye. When government regulates what costs should be, there is no longer competition. Doctors can only charge what the government says they can charge, and with the bureaucracy of government-linked health insurance, you create a huge problem. People who have health insurance through places of employment will no longer have "excellent" health care, theirs will be mediocre in comparison. So, why should they work for it, when they can get a government subsidy? And so, we fall back to relying on the government and the taxes go up to pay for all of this. So much for your top 5%.

And of course, lets not forget the SCHIP Re authorization Act. Obama boasts that he voted for this so millions of American children can have health insurance. They had something similar when I was growing up, it was called "welfare".

But what Obama doesn't tell you in this little ditty about how awesome he is when it comes to taking care of the youth of America, is that he voted NO on authorizing SCHIP include unborn babies. So if you're pregnant & can't afford health care, SCHIP isn't going to look out for you. Do you know why? Because then Obama would have to admit that the "thing" in your stomach isn't tissue, or mass; its a real live human being. And then his pro-"choice" stance would be an oxy moron. Because how can you say a woman can abort her child, but also that you want to cover it with health insurance? Isn't that sending the message that its not a "zygote", a "fetus" or whatever other term you want to use, but a "baby"?

And how about that "Making Work Pay" tax credit? So, Obama says he plans to eliminate income tax for 10 million Americans. Want to know whats funny about that? Those are probably the 10 million Americans who live below the poverty line & receive their taxes back in a refund every year anyway (or they are exempt to begin with). And 10 million? In a country of over 350 million, is 10 million really a lot on a grand scale?

And now onto more "Free Government Money"...Obama wants to increase the FMLA time off, and "encourage" all 50 states to give more time off. So, he's proposing a $1.5 BILLION budget for this. Guess where that money is coming from...Yeah, its not just the "top 5%" - eventually, to pay for this, we all will have to pitch in.

I could go on & on & on. The fact of the matter is, there is another 20-something pages, and I just don't think anyone is going to read for that long.

But in reality, you should. You should know where your candidate stands on the issues. Why doesn't he want to privatize social security? (because he wants to tax us more to pay for other generations that have bankrupt it), Why doesn't he support voucher programs for schools, rather than throwing MORE money at an already broken system?(As a side note, America spends more money, per student, than any other 1st world country - and we have the lowest testing scores. Why is money always the answer to government bureaucrats?)

Go read the issues on BOTH candidates. Take the political test to see who you line up with.http://www.ontheissues.org/

Mexican Citizens on Death Row in the United States?

2008-07-16T09:46:00.003-07:00

So there is a Mexican Citizen on Death Row in Texas (go TX Death Penalty Laws!!) who was a part of a gang rape and murder of two teenagers 15 years ago.

The UN and World Court is now trying to stop the execution.
The Vienna Convention is such a load of crap.

I have a couple questions...
1) Why has it taken so long for his execution to actually take place? He is illegal. He committed a crime on US soil, against an American. Therefore, in the eyes of most Americans, he can be considered a terrorist, yes? Immediate death. They wouldn't have any problem executing an American anywhere else in the world if something like this happened.
2) Don't you think actually following through on the execution of a CONVICTED killer/rapist might send a message to others who think they can come across our borders and commit crimes that we just might not put up with the BS anymore?
It might at least send a message to the voting citizens of this country that our political leaders will no longer be soft on crime, or on illegal immigration.
3) Why do we give a rats ass about what Mexico wants? They are a separate country. They are not taking care of their own people. Why should the US have to be their doormat?
and finally...
4) Why is the US listening to the UN? No, seriously. Someone explain this to me. And then tell me the last time the UN did anything worth taking seriously.

Hate Couture?

2008-05-29T09:09:00.004-07:00

Are Republican pundits becoming akin to PETA groups?

PETA chastises those who wear fur or leather, because it does not line up with their personal beliefs. In a current commentary portion of FOX NEWS, Michelle Malkin went after America's Sweetheart, Rachel Ray for wearing a scarf that she says resembles something Yasser Arafat or another Jihadist would wear.

Oh, for Pete's Sake people!

I wear leather because I like it! I've been known to throw a scarf on, even when its not cold, because its fashionable.

Are we really taking ourselves this seriously, that fashion is now a tool for the jihad movement? We no longer can express ourselves by what we wear? Are Christians going to come after me because I am wearing RED heels today & say that I am obviously a street walker because of my choice in foot wear?

Wearing red doesn't make me a hooker, anymore than wearing black makes me "emo" or "goth". Wearing leather doesn't mean I don't love animals. Wearing a scarf doesn't make me a terrorist sympathizer.

I think everyone needs to settle down. I used to respect Michelle Malkin. Now, I wonder if she's been drinking the "Coulter Kool-Aid" lately.

A House Divided Will Not Stand

2008-02-17T17:51:00.002-07:00

To the Esteemed Members of our Republican Party;

Over the last few years I have had the chance to observe our party from the inside, and I have come to the conclusion that most everyone involved is in this, not for the good of our party, and not to see Republicans elected, but for their own egos, circumstances and to see only candidates they themselves deem worthy.

In the most recent case, John McCain has all but become our official nominee. His momentum is building and he is gaining strength throughout every state. Republicans that we all look up to like Karl Rove, Ken Mehlman, Tony Snow, George Allen, Tom Coburn, Ed Gillespie, & even George HW Bush are standing behind McCain and his bid for the White House. The White House has told their staff to be supportive of the McCain campaign and to stand in line with him. The Republican National Committee is prepairing to help defeat the Democrat nominee, whomever they might be, and yet, as Republicans, you all cannot agree to stand behind the nominee we already have.

Everyone is remenicent of an earlier candidate, or other Presidents. I would like to remind everyone that the VOTERS have spoken. Across this great nation of ours, John McCain's momentum was building from the very beginning of this year's caucus and primary season. It was not Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, or Rudy Giuliani who continued to gain voters in every state; it was John McCain.

Mitt Romney even had the sense that Senator McCain's campaign is a force to be reckoned with and he stood down to allow his (McCain) Presidential Campaign to continue to build & strengthen. With the recent endorsement & urging to past supporters of Romney's to support McCain, as was done with Giuliani, I am wondering why I have to ask where you all stand? You see, I know where many of you stand. And, to be honest, that is quite disheartening.

As Republicans committed to defending the freedoms of our country, NO ONE should know your personal position on McCain's policies, other the fact that you believe McCain is the man for the job. Infighting, moaning about our nominee not being "a true conservative" does not build party morale, or strengthen relationships.I think it would be wise to remember that we do not win elections by simply telling people to go vote. There is leg work (and a lot of it) required. By the sweat of our brow we must work TOGETHER to see our nominee win the White House this November.

I am curious to know how standing down is helping our cause? When you tear down our candidate, you tear down not only our party & leadership, but you demoralize the VOTERS that made McCain our nominee. Are we truly FOR the PEOPLE? Or is this something that we say in public, but behind closed doors we feel that we are ENTITLED to something greater than what we have?

Who are we that we can speak for those that have done their civic duty & gone to their caucus locations & their polling places and cast their ballot for John McCain? I understand that many of you supported other candidates in the beginning of this election. But, this should not be done in public where volunteers and Republican FootSoldiers can be made aware. You see, we NEED them DESPERATELY this election cycle. We cannot afford to demoralize our candidate, because in the eyes of the volunteers, they need to know they are working for something they believe in; if their own party officials do not believe in the candidate, why should they work so hard & desperately for him, giving up their lives to do this awesome & mighty deed?

In my positions with the NRP & Right to Life, I depended heavily on my core volunteers. Had I ever said to a supporter that I didnt really care, I didnt support a candidate that I was working for, or anything along those lines, I would have surely lost 99% of those people to dispair & hopelessness. I would rather work with someone who is as passionate as I am, and sees the light at the end of the tunnel than a pessimist. I would rather work with someone who encourages me to stand behind our party & our ideals, even when differences arise, because we are the party of TRUE HOPE for our nation & our children.

I urge you not to fall into the trap of being apathetic. Stand up, be counted, make a difference, and for once, PLEASE, consider John McCain as our best option, the best man for the job & put your own thoughts and feelings aside.

"Wouldn't you rather have President McCain who you disagree with 20% of the time, rather than President Obama or President Clinton you disagree with 90% of the time?" ---Tony Snow Thank you for allowing me to air my grievances.

A True Gift at Christmas Time

2007-12-17T17:24:00.000-07:00

This is sort of an odd post for Christmas, it really has nothing to do with Christmas, but with life & love...
The other night we were watching "How the Grinch Stole Christmas" & there is a line that says: "It came without ribbons! It came without tags! It came without packages boxes, or bags!" & the Narrator responds, "And he puzzled and puzzled, till his puzzler was sore. Then the Grinch thought of something he hadn't before! "Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.Maybe Christmas… perhaps… means a little bit more."
To all of my friends who don't have Christmas in your heart, perhaps it is because you do not have LOVE in your heart. No, I don't mean one special person, but I mean, you have a hard time loving anyone.
This year I have learned a lot about myself, who I am; not who others tell me I should be. I have learned a lot about life, and how I want to live; not about how others think I should live.
Truely, I think that often times we look too closely at others. "Keeping up with the Joneses" is a huge issue in our society. We want because someone else has it, not because it is what we value or think will make our lives more pleasant. I have a beautiful home, and nice things. I enjoy entertaining and having people over. This makes my life more rich. I don't care that I don't live in a HUGE house with all of the luxuries that one person can have. I dont care what the person next door has. That shouldn't be a priority to anyone if it won't further you and your relationships.
I used to look at life and think that I wanted something different than what I have now. When in all honesty, my life is greater for the people that have touched my life & for the things I have accomplished. Not for how much "stuff" I have aquired. Not for the life that magazines, tv and movies tell me I should have.
Dave has taught me what TRUE LOVE is. I never thought that I was capable of true love. I ran from anything that looked that way. I was afraid of it. No, it isn't always easy for us, and yes, we have our own issues to deal with. But we are human. No one person is perfect. So to think you will find the "PERFECT PERSON" is an oxy moron. But to find someone who truely loves you, appreciates you & respects you in every aspect is something wonderful. And it is possible for those of you who stop looking, and start relying on God & his ability to do something great.
To my "step-kids"- Each day you teach me something about myself & teach me to be patient and kind.I know that there are days that I fall short, but I love you all with every part of me, and cannot imagine my life being any differently than it is...but just remember, that doesn't mean you get a free pass on your chores! ha.
Zachary has taught me perhaps the most about myself though. While he & I cannot communicate in the traditional way, there are times when I swear he looks at me & knows that I love him. To have him wrap his hand around mine or to kiss me on the cheek makes up for all of the frustration & heart ache. I can ask God "Why him? Why does he have this cross to bear" or I can simply know that God has a plan, whatever it may be, even though I cannot see it or understand it, and know that I am learning to be patient and kind, full of understanding.
To my friends who have so much strength, who have endured life's struggles and heartaches, and still stand before me & beside me. You all have been my rock; you are the people I go to when I am upset or feel I cannot carry on. Thank you for your friendship and for helping me continue on.
You see, for so long I have been treated as a weak-minded individual who cannot make a decision on her own. Someone who is flawed and doesnt deserve all of the good things life has to offer.
I have found the truth. I am happy. No one can take that from me.
I hope that during the Holidays, and entering into the new year you all will find what I have found and learn to be content...and Happy.

What is Wrong with Young People??

2007-11-15T17:50:00.000-07:00

So today I heard on Fox News that a group of NYU students said that they would forfeit their right to vote for a million dollars, or even an ipod Touch.
This disgusts me.

But then later on, those students said that it was because they feel disconected from the candidates and the main stream parties.

What do you think?

Issues that Matter to Young Voters

2007-11-10T00:42:00.000-07:00

In a poll done around this time last year the top three issues (for voters ages 18-30) were as follows:

Economy
Education
Iraq

The far, far right would have you believe that most important issue is the LIFE issue. The far, far left would have you believe that the most important issue is the environment. Am I to believe that the great two party system is out of touch with young voters? Because I do more and more every day.

When are both sides going to understand that those issues, while valid & important, are not what decides the election? The far right & the far left basically cancel each other out. In the end, the ones who are considered moderate or independent are the votes that decide on election night who will lead us for years to come.

Granted, in 2004 George W. Bush won with phenomenal numbers, but that's mostly because the country wasn't comfortable with a post-9/11 world being lead by John Kerry. Yes, the far right turned out in amazing numbers, but lets not forget that the far left has turned out in record numbers for their own as well (ie: Bill Clinton).
Why do you think the Clinton's run as moderates? Because they know that is how they will win elections.
I am so sick & tired of hearing about how so & so is the "true" conservative candidate. Based solely on their "pro-life" voting record? Great, Good for them. I am ecstatic that those people are 100% pro-life. But that issue alone doesn't win you a seat. Or the White House.
It takes more than that. It takes real, honest understanding of issues. It takes a drive to see our nation thrive & be what it once was...the envy of other nations for being the nation that was wealthy and blessed beyond belief. It also takes the character to reach across the aisle from time to time & work with the other side, because frankly, that's how you get the job done.
Ronald Reagan was capable of it. But all of the sudden anyone who does that in this day and age (a mere 25 years later) is considered a traitor.

I would like to see the Republican Party return to its roots. Let's be concerned with keeping our nation safe, our economy strong (& taxes low), as well as protecting the Constitution.
(a little side note for all of you, when our forefathers built our great nation, judges weren't supposed to be deciding things like the abortion issue, they were supposed to allow the states & the people to decide. They were supposed to interpret the law. Both sides of the table need Roe v Wade to keep their base motivated & voting. What a sad world we live in)
POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

Remember Barry Goldwater, our great Senator from Arizona?
He was for lower taxes, protecting our country & upholding the constitution. He never believed abortion was a decision for the courts. It was a STATES issue. I want to see that kind of man lead our country. One who believes in LESS government & more freedom. What a better place this world would have been had he won in 1964.

Let's stop talking about the *Reagan Revolution. The Reagan Revolution brought us Jerry Falwell & other intolerant hypocrates who had no use for people with a different opinion and didn't show God's love or mercy, but only cared for what notorioty they would gain. Ministers who use their pulpits to spit words of hate should carefully reconsider why they accepted the call in the first place.

Its 2007, let's start talking about the REAL issues, the REAL voters, and how we can make a difference and win 2008.

*For those of you offended by my comments on the Reagan Revolution, it was meant in no disrespect. I once told my father at the age of 4 that I was going to name my son Ronald. I have nothing but love & respect for President Reagan, may he rest in peace, but I wholeheartedly believe it is time to stop focusing on who we had as a leader, at a time when the world was VERY, VERY different, and we step up & decide who we will have lead the new generation, in our new world where we have even greater threats than the Cold War ever was.

Remember, only 6 short years ago our Nation's Capitol & NYC were attacked in a vicious, horrible way. Shall we repeat that because we can't unite to elect a candidate that can beat Hillary & keep us safe, as a nation?

Wake up & smell the coffee America. Before it's your hometown that's attacked.

Division Instead of Unity

2007-10-11T18:27:00.000-07:00

After James Dobson's blatant excuse for "morals", stating he will sit out the 2008 election if Rudy Giuliani becomes the official nominee, I want to say that I am not going to church again until faith based leaders stop using their position to tell me how to vote. I am a Christian. I am also an intelligent human being.

I can make a decision for myself. I don't like when Sean Penn or some other liberal yahoo tells me how to vote or what to think, why do Republicans allow our Pastors to do the same? Is there a difference? Dont argue that its because Pastors are urging us to vote our morals; its the same for Tim Robbins. He wants to buy the world a coke & live in harmony. He is just "urging" you to vote his morals, too.

If you can't make your own decision on who you will vote for and you need the news media, Hollywood, a commercial or a pastor to tell you how to use your vote; you shouldn't be voting!!!

While I am definitely, without a doubt, 100% voting for McCain, Giuliani is not a bad second choice. At this point, anyone is better than a democrat. Lets just nominate someone that can BEAT the fearsome threesome (Hil, JE & Obama). And that doesn't mean Huckabee or Tancredo.

Damaging Morale

2007-09-15T16:48:00.000-07:00

I believe this goes especially for those senators & congressman running for President of the United States.

Sixth Anniversary of September 11th

2007-09-06T15:49:00.001-07:00

Where were you?
I believe that we should still be seeing these images. Some liberals think that we have memorialized this tragic day for long enough.
I disagree. I think this day should live on in our hearts and our minds forver, so that we NEVER FORGET.

Usama Bin Laden to Address American People on 6th Anniversary of September 11th

2007-09-06T15:34:00.001-07:00

The Associated Press & Fox News are reporting that there will be a video from Usama Bin Laden within the next 72 hours, directed at the American people.

The last time Bin Laden addressed the American public was just before the 2004 Presidential Election. Meanwhile, federal counterterrorism officials are analyzing a posting on an Islamic forum website that warns of "a special gift" to be given on the sixth anniversary of September 11th. The warning was posted Sept. 2 on a site frequented by radical groups and said in part that "there will be a special gift coming on the day of the blessed invasion of Manhattan."

Federal officials told FOX News they are trying to determine if it might be a specific warning or just part of broad chatter that has been heard during the last few months. Postings talking about "gifts" have been seen before in the days leading up to the anniversary of Sept. 11th.

---I for one am tired of living in fear. I am also tired of our country not being United as ONE. Remember, United we stand, Divided we fall. Perhaps a message from Bin Laden is what it will take for our country to stand together like we did after the attacks.

John McCain Sings

2007-09-05T22:55:00.001-07:00

John McCain says "Barbara Streisand has been trying to do my job for years, so now I'm trying to do hers"

Adopt-a-Jihaddist

2007-09-05T22:11:00.000-07:00

i found this on foxnews.com & i laughed. LOVE IT!

If you were to ask the media to rank a list of evil things, Guantanamo detention center would be in the top five — beating out Adolf Hitler, suicide bombers, Dick Cheney, disposable diapers and fat children. Gitmo is their moral red herring: As long as they keep bringing it up, they can avoid any discussion of real evil in the world.

The American left says they hate Gitmo because they think war is bad, but trying to win one is worse. And to win one, you need to keep the bad guys off the playing field. But the American left also loves Gitmo, because it's their political fig leaf, the thing they hide behind when they've got nothing else.

But I'd be willing to close Gitmo, if you agree on my alternative: Let's call this "Adopt-a-Jihadist."

For the price of one cup of coffee a day — and not fancy blended coffee drinks like frappuccinos, though they are delicious — you can help save a grown man, like Mahmood.

Poor Mahmood. Since he was in his teens, he has been waging jihad against the criminal Zionist enemy. Yet today, he calls a 20 by 35-foot cell home, where he cannot even carry out a simple beheading. He lives on just three square meals a day, but he has so much love to give — and not just to 72 virgins.

Please — please! — Sean Penn, Michael Moore... are you listening? Won't you throw open your mansions to Mahmood and the other members of his terror cell? Their energy is infectious — some might even say it's explosive.

So please, adopt a beautiful, bouncing jihadist like Mahmood today. They're just dying to meet you.

And that's my gut feeling.

Greg Gutfeld hosts "Red Eye with Greg Gutfeld" weekdays at 2 a.m. ET. Send your comments to: redeye@foxnews.com

The Republican Debates in a Nutshell

2007-09-05T21:19:00.000-07:00

Giuliani hasnt gotten over the fact that he is NOT the mayor of NYC anymore.
Huckabee thinks he's ironic and funny. This is actually quite annoying.
Romney is pulling an Edwards and trying to win on looks and charm. Which TOTALLY makes him qualified for the White House...huh?
Brownback. I love Jesus, but stop "thumping the Bible" -get the issues straight, and not just the social ones. No one wants a know nothing in the White House. Learn ALL the issues.
Tancredo is a racist idiot. I have never met a Tancredo supporter that I liked. Mostly because I don't like people who lack common sense...
Ron Paul hates freedom. (Chris Wallace made me so happy when he asked Ron Paul if he thought we should "take our marching orders from Al Queda?" LOVE IT!)
Hunter...does anyone really know who you are? Does anyone really believe you will win? (although I did REALLY appreciate his statement on the successes in Iraq over the last year, and with the surge -thank you McCain- and his appreciation for our Troops)
(Although he wasnt at the debates, I'm going to throw him in the mix): Fred Thompson is waiting to announce but I think he is alienating more would-be supporters than he is gaining them. National Polls are all over the place. Never believe the polls. Remember, just after the actual polls closed on Election Day, 2004 the national news media reported that John Kerry won; based on Exit Polling.

If you're American, you love freedom and you believe in less government and lower taxes, VOTE MCCAIN.

Prince Charming? Or Skewed Cartoon Version of the Men We Already Know?

2007-08-31T23:59:00.000-07:00

I know that I typically use this blog as an outlet for political topics, current events and even faith sometimes. But tonight, something else is on my heart...and my mind. Out of need to express myself, but not being able to find my journal (as my entire being seems to be in a disheveled state whilst packing up mass amounts of "life") I am going to unload here on the internet.

I am 26 years old. I have had men who have "loved me," showered me with undying affection, etc, etc; yada yada yada, who have adored me and have been willing to give me the moon, should I ask for it.

Something is always keeping me from accepting this affection. Its not that these men are altogether terrible people (no one is perfect, I am included in this), they are not ogars (although it is rare that you will find that I am attracted to a man w/o physical imperfections or flaws); Brad Pitt has never been my type; or that they lack the ability to make me happy -most of the time.

I think my problem is more inward though. I am not sure how to make MYSELF happy. I don't know what makes me happy, so how can I expect someone else to know how? I have read the Five Love Languages, and to be honest, I couldn't tell you what my love language is.

Here is the "whoa is me" moment of the night (and then I promise to stop): I didn't receive affection in any form as a child, at least not often, so I think that as an adult I crave them ALL.

As an American female, we are told as girls that we should wait for our 'Prince Charming' -but then that dream is shattered when we realize that this cartoon version of what we are supposed to wait for is just that: a CARTOON. Its not real. Its insanity. If someone would have sat me down when I was 16, and still very much dreaming of my white knight on his gallant steed riding in to rescue me, and smacked me upside the head and helped that dream come to a screeching halt, would I be better off?

waiting for something that is in no way mirrored by reality wise? Is shattering some one's dreams of fairy tales a good idea? Is the reason that so many of my friends are still single because we have unrealistic expectations of men? Often times we whine, stating that men are the ones with the unrealistic expectations, looking for a mother more than a wife.

Remember in the old movies, men used to go to work and women stayed home with the children. Men went to work and provided. Women were the emotional, sometimes insensible creatures, while men provided the level headedness that is needed in day-to-day life. In the age of the metro sexual, effeminate, in-touch-with-his-emotions male, have we lost our sense of place in relationships? With single parent homes, two income households to keep up with the Joneses and such, are we pushing role reversal to a stressful wish list to build the perfect man, when perfection doesn't exist?

Do women think that Prince Charming is going to ride into our lives, sit down, shut up, go to work & bring home the bacon, be emotionally available at ALL times, help rear the children, be the head of the household, but also the tail? Are we being unrealistic in what we want? Are we being FAIR in what we're asking for? Do we even know what we're asking for?

As a woman who was recently asked, "Just how many boyfriends have you had?" -I have to look back and evaluate those relationships. Have I learned anything in the past 10 years? Have I really tried to better myself once a 'quirk' is pointed out? Am I afraid of commitment? (<---I threw this in for my friends who told me last Sunday that it is me, not the men)

Anyhow, I guess life isn't always easy to figure out. I could very well end up being my worst nightmare; 30 and SINGLE.

Pastor Barnett did a sermon once and he talked about learning to ride a horse before you actually bought the horse. It seems crude to relate marriage to riding a horse, but I will do it anyway. HA! I've taught myself to cook, I've read the books on being a Godly, supportive (and even prayerful) wife. Apparently there is something else I need to learn or do before I actually get married.

If I want to be married I can do that. If I want to be successful in marriage, and in love, I need to slow down and figure out what exactly He is trying to teach me.
All I know is that I am over Friday nights alone, and sitting by myself at church. I want someone to take care of...but also someone to take care of me.
Perhaps its selfish. But I am only human...

The Faith of McCain

2007-06-11T11:42:00.000-07:00

Posted on Sun, Jun. 10, 2007
2008 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONMcCain reaching out to Christian conservative baseBy Matt StearnsMcClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - In his campaign for the Republican presidential nomination, Arizona Sen. John McCain is reaching out to conservative Christians, and many of them want to know how much McCain reaches out to God.
McCain has written movingly of how his faith helped him survive 5 { years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, but he says little about the current role of religion in his life.
"I think it's something between me and my creator," McCain said in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. "It's primarily a private issue rather than a public one. ... When I'm asked about it, I'll be glad to discuss it. I just don't bring it up."
But in an era in which the Republican Party has become heavily dependent on conservative evangelical Christian voters conditioned to eight years of overt faith talk from many GOP politicians, including President Bush, some want McCain to deliver a more open discussion of his faith. Even Democrats, long regarded as the more secular party, this year have seen its leading presidential candidates openly discuss the importance of their faith.
McCain "seems to have a difficulty in discussing it in terms that people relate to," said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council, a leading conservative evangelical organization. "I think people want a sense of where someone stands in their relationship with the Lord. I think George Bush was able to do that in the way he communicated, using terms that evangelicals are familiar with."
Many who agree with McCain's comprehensive approach to an immigration overhaul, such as Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., routinely invoke biblical imperatives in defending their stance. McCain doesn't.
Perkins and Gary Bauer, both key players in advancing the Christian conservative agenda in Washington, said they knew virtually nothing about McCain's religious life.
Pressed on the issue in the interview, the normally garrulous McCain haltingly - "I just pray the way most people pray" - but convincingly described a rich and fulfilling spiritual life.
Learned in childhood. Deepened in Vietnam. Nourished today by a redemptive Baptist church, daily prayer, generally in the evening, sometimes holding hands with wife Cindy, occasionally reading a family Bible, always seeking "guidance, comfort and wisdom in almost every aspect of my life."
McCain was raised an Episcopalian in a family that "observed our faith openly and without reservation."
In his memoir "Faith of My Fathers," McCain recalled the religious model his father provided: "(He) was devout, although the demands of his (naval officer) profession sometimes made regular church-going difficult. ... My father didn't talk about God or the importance of religious devotion. He didn't proselytize. But he always kept with him a tattered, dog-eared prayer book, from which he would pray aloud for an hour, on his knees, twice a day."
Comparing his practices to his father's, McCain said ruefully, "I'm not as devout or as good."
McCain has for years attended North Phoenix Baptist Church in Arizona. The church has about 6,000 members and is part of the theologically conservative Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest evangelical denomination.
Cindy McCain and two of their children have been baptized in the church. McCain hasn't: "I didn't find it necessary to do so for my spiritual needs," he said.
McCain still calls himself an Episcopalian, but he said he began attending North Phoenix Baptist because he found "the message and fundamental nature more fulfilling than I did in the Episcopal church. ... They're great believers in redemption, and so am I."
"We encourage all our members to engage their world with their faith," said the Rev. Dick Stafford, the church's associate pastor. "That means they define the world they live, work and have a sphere of influence in, and try to live out an authentic faith in that environment. ... I think John's got an authentic faith. He has the same questions we all do about trying to find out what's right and living in accordance."
Marlene Elwell, a political activist who worked for McCain as a liaison to Christian conservatives until she left the campaign amid rancor a few weeks ago, nevertheless said she's convinced from conversations with McCain that he takes his church's mission to heart, prays regularly and "is a man of deep faith."
"There's a driving force that gives him a purpose in life greater than himself," Elwell said. "The greatest witness is how you live your own life."
McCain tiptoed near the subject on his campaign bus, saying, "I know this sounds schmaltzy and maudlin and everything like that. I'm not sure - have no idea - whether I'm intended to be president of the United States. But I know I'm being kept here for a reason, and that is to serve."
Gloria Haskins, a South Carolina state representative who's endorsed McCain, said she doesn't think his difficulty discussing his faith will hurt him with evangelical conservative voters, who make up at least a quarter of likely Iowa caucus-goers and more than half of South Carolina Republican primary voters, two key early voting states.
"I'd tell folks who would ask such questions of him to look to the Bible," Haskins said. "By his acts you shall know him. He has repeatedly shown a love of justice and mercy, which is a sign of someone with a deep, abiding faith and a love of God."
But while his reticence to talk openly of his faith may not hurt McCain politically, many observers said it certainly would help him if he did.
Given that his chief competitors for the Republican nomination, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, aren't regarded as natural allies of Christian conservatives, "a positive religious proclamation would have a strong effect," said Don Aiesi, a political scientist at Furman University in South Carolina.
"They're looking for people who have faith that guides them in making decisions," agreed Steve Scheffler, president of the Iowa Christian Alliance.
McCain, told of that, pointed to his time as a prisoner of war, when a Vietnamese guard who had been kind to McCain etched a cross in the prison-yard dirt with his sandal one Christmas morning. The guard rubbed it out after the two had stared at it together for a minute or so.
The lesson has stayed with McCain ever since: "Wherever you are in the world, no matter how tough the situation is or how difficult, how despondent you are, there will be some way for your faith to lift you up and sustain you."

Undecided?: WHY JOHN MCCAIN

2007-06-05T09:05:00.000-07:00

John McCain is an experienced conservative leader in the tradition of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan.

"Common sense conservatives believe in a short list of self-evident truths: love of country; respect for our unique influence on history; a strong defense and strong alliances based on mutual respect and mutual responsibility; steadfast opposition to threats to our security and values that matches resources to ends wisely; and confident, reliable, consistent leadership to advance human rights, democracy, peace and security."
-Senator John McCain

He is a common sense conservative who believes in a strong national defense, a smaller, more accountable government, economic growth and opportunity, the dignity of life and traditional values.

America's Strength At Home and Abroad
The world is a dangerous place, and we need a leader who is ready to assume the job as Commander in Chief on day one of the Presidency. No candidate has the experience or is better prepared for this task than John McCain. America is engaged in a war against violent Islamist extremism. A totalitarian enemy declared war on America, attacked our nation on September 11, 2001, and is committed to the destruction of the values we hold dear.
John McCain understands the importance of America's values and the need to protect freedom against the forces of hatred and despotism. As a Naval aviator, prisoner of war and a legislator who is a trusted leader on national security issues, John McCain understands that the first duty of government is to protect the American people and our freedoms. He has been on the front lines in advocating for a comprehensive strategy in the long war against violent Islamist extremism using all the instruments of national power.
While some have argued for wholesale retreat in Iraq, John McCain realizes that failure in Iraq would be devastating to U.S. national security. He has long believed that security must be established first for there to be any chance of political progress and civil stability. That is why since 2003 he has advocated for more troops and a change in strategy to give our forces in Iraq the best chance to succeed. He understands that we must not leave Iraq and the region in disarray, or it will be a security problem for the United States for many generations to come.
John McCain knows that America is a force for good in the world, and for peace and freedom to prevail our defenses must be second to none. He has been a strong proponent of missile defense, a larger Army and Marine Corps, and a broad-based strategy to stem the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. John McCain agrees with Ronald Reagan that "peace through strength" is the best policy for America.
McCain on Smaller Government and Economic Prosperity
John McCain agrees with the Reagan philosophy that Americans are not taxed too little, but rather government spends too much. That is why John McCain has been a forceful advocate for smaller, more responsible government.
Unfortunately, even a Republican Congress lost its way on this important principle - spending too much and growing the size of government. John McCain stood his ground even when it was unpopular, leading a tough and often lonely fight in Congress against pork barrel and other profligate government spending.
Washington too often serves special interests and ignores the interests of the American taxpayer. John McCain can be trusted to reduce the size of government and enact reforms that will make it more responsive and accountable, so that taxpayers' hard earned dollars can be used to meet national priorities, not the spending schemes of politicians more interested in their incumbency.
As President, John McCain will make it a top priority to balance the budget and get federal spending under control so that our children aren't burdened with a mountain of debt that will rob them of their future.
As President, John McCain will pursue pro-growth economic policies. He believes in simplifying the tax code, keeping marginal tax rates low, and pursuing free trade policies to increase American prosperity and competitiveness. John McCain also believes that tax cuts work best when tied to spending restraint. Higher taxes and runaway spending discourage entrepreneurship, foster wasteful tax-planning and slow long-term economic growth.
The Dignity of Life and Traditional Values
As President, John McCain will promote a culture of life in word and in deed. The dignity of life and our traditional values are under assault in a culture that is growing coarser and more indifferent to the inherent value and dignity of all human life. Since John McCain entered the Congress, he has been strongly and consistently pro-life. He supports the reversal of Roe v. Wade, and believes that the abortion question should not be decided by judicial fiat.
John McCain believes that marriage should be defined as a union between one man and one woman. He believes that the courts should respect the right of the people to decide this question.
As president, John McCain will fight to ensure that the law is on the side of families against the corruption and exploitation of children in the media and on the Internet.
John McCain believes judges should interpret the law, not invent it. As president, he will appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary.

A Leader for America
Whether in the military or civilian service, John McCain has never ducked a fight for his country or his principles - even when unpopular. Because of his courage of convictions and his experience, John McCain is ready to lead our great nation with the patriotism, principles, and strength that America deserves, the first day he assumes office.

Address on Immigration

2007-06-05T07:28:00.000-07:00

John McCain - Address on Immigration

ARLINGTON, VA - U.S. Senator John McCain will deliver remarks to the Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce at 10:00 a.m. EDT. Below are Senator McCain's remarks, as prepared for delivery:

"Thank you for this opportunity to share with you a few thoughts about the issue that has occasioned much debate in our country: illegal immigration and the failure of the United States to secure our borders. It is a serious problem that poses many challenges, and how we address it will impact directly the destiny of the great nation we are blessed to call home. Those of us privileged to hold elective office have the responsibility to secure our borders and change the immigration policy that has allowed this intolerable situation to persist: a nation at war, confronting an enemy that means to do us great harm, has failed to control its borders, tolerated for years an immense wave of illegal immigration, and is presently unable to discern from the hundreds of thousands of people who cross our borders illegally each year, who came here to work; who came here for criminal purposes; and who came here to hurt us.
"This problem cannot be allowed to continue any longer. Finding an effective, just and practical solution is difficult, but it is our work to do, on our watch. The politics of Washington have encouraged us to leave solutions to the toughest problems for another unluckier generation of leaders. Problems are left unsolved year after year, because we fear the political consequences of seriously addressing them or value their utility as political attacks in our campaigns. Illegal immigration and our porous borders are problems that we have, to our shame, ignored for too long because it was too hard and politically risky to solve. But the problem has grown too acute and dangerous to ignore any longer. To do nothing now would be an unconscionable abrogation of our responsibilities to defend the security, prosperity and values of our country.

"A number of us, Republicans and Democrats, and the President, have tried to meet this responsibility. We have proposed a remedy that, while imperfect as all compromises are, is, nevertheless, a serious, comprehensive, and practical attempt to secure our borders, defend the rule of law, help our economy grow, and make it possible for the United States to know who has entered this country illegally, and who among them have done so for purposes more nefarious than making better lives for their families. As the legislation is debated in Congress, many changes will be proposed and some adopted. Many already have been. I welcome any attempt to meet our responsibility to fix our broken borders and immigration system. Our proposal has provoked criticism from some on both the left and right. Compromises usually do. People of good will, who take their responsibilities seriously, argue variously that our ideas are too tough or not tough enough. I do not question the sincerity of their convictions or their purpose in proposing other ways to address the problem. There is one premise most of us agree on: the status quo is unacceptable. Our borders are unsecured, our laws our being violated, and our current immigration laws do not meet the needs of a growing economy. And while we argue over the means to solve the problem, we should respect each other's intentions.

"Both proponents and opponents of the legislation agree on another point: the last attempt to address the problem, made over twenty years ago, was a failure. The immigration reform adopted in 1986 simply granted amnesty to the millions of illegal immigrants living in our country, and did virtually nothing to improve border security. It is important that we avoid repeating these mistakes. A country facing an enemy as malevolent as the enemy we face must have effective control of its borders. And we cannot prevent further waves of illegal immigration without drastically improving border security. Those improvements alone will not stop people from coming here illegally, but without them, we cannot stem the tide of illegal border crossings by those who are simply fleeing despair and injustice or those who mean us harm. So we began by authorizing tough and effective measures to secure our borders, which must be operational and visually certified before other provisions to reform our immigration laws take effect.

"We will increase the number of border patrol agents up to 20,000. We will complete 370 miles of border fencing, and 200 miles of vehicle barriers, which will not be, as some critics have suggested, all that will be constructed. We will continue until we have protected our border with fencing, vehicle barriers, ground sensors, unmanned aerial systems, cameras, advanced communications systems and the most up to date security technologies available to us. New detention facilities will be constructed to hold those who have crossed our border illegally. We will institute a tough new employment eligibility verification system, tamper proof biometric cards to prove to an employer that foreign workers are in this country legally, and impose substantial fines on employers who hire someone without proper status. We will not admit one temporary worker or grant one undocumented worker a visa until the Secretary of Homeland Security can certify that these tough, new measures are in place.

"As imperative as these measures are, they will not alone ensure our control of immigration or enable us to know the identity, whereabouts and purposes of the millions of undocumented workers who are in our country now. To address those problems, we must recognize that as long as the job market in our growing economy offers opportunities to immigrants, they will come here, legally or otherwise, for the same reasons immigrants have always come here: to escape poverty and injustice, and seize opportunities so abundant in our good and blessed country. Moreover, our economy needs them. Ask any orange grower, restaurant manager or hotel owner in Florida. We have proposed a temporary worker program that will discourage illegal immigration by allowing more workers a legal way to come here to fill jobs that are available to them and have not been taken by an American. It is genuinely temporary. It grants each worker a two year visa that can be renewed twice but only after th e worker has returned to his or her country for a year. They will be granted a visa only if they prove a job is waiting for them, and it didn't come at the expense of an American worker.

"The most difficult problem is what to do about the twelve million or more undocumented workers who live and work here now. No critic of our bill has offered a serious proposal to round up all these millions, many of whom have children born in this country, and ship them back to their countries of origin. There is simply no practical way to do that, and most Americans understand that. We have proposed a way to encourage them to come out from the underground economy, submit to a criminal background check, pay fines, back taxes and prove they are gainfully employed in exchange for a visa that would allow them to continue working here. Getting these people to declare themselves and prove they have come here for a job, pose no security threat and have no criminal record beyond entering the country illegally will enable our security and law enforcement officials to concentrate their resources on those who have come here to threaten our way of life rather than embrace it. DHS Secretary Chertoff, who helped negotiate this legislation, has warned that two million people in this country illegally have committed serious crimes. If some of them attempt to legalize their status, we will apprehend them. If they don't, we can concentrate our efforts on locating them and not rounding up lettuce pickers, hotel maids, and babysitters. Most importantly, we can devote all the resources necessary to finding terrorists who have broken our immigration laws, like three of the terrorists who intended to attack our soldiers at Ft. Dix.

"Those undocumented workers who declare themselves, pass criminal background checks, prove their employment, pay fines, taxes, learn English and study American civics may be offered eventually, and I stress eventually, a path to citizenship. Critics of the bill attack this as amnesty and a special path to citizenship that is denied to lawful immigrants. Both charges are false. Amnesty is what we gave in 1986, and it didn't work. It was unconditional forgiveness for breaking our laws. Illegal immigrants broke our laws and they should pay a penalty for doing so. We impose fines, fees and other requirements as punishment. And if the path to citizenship we offer them is 'special,' it is because it is harder, longer and more expensive than the path offered to those immigrants who come here legally. Those undocumented workers who attain legal status are not automatically provided a green card and citizenship. The process could take as long as thirteen years, and will cost them thousands of dollars, require them to learn English and understand our laws and culture, return to their country and get in the back of the line - not the front, not the middle, but the back of the line for a green card. That is a fair, practical and humane way of dealing with the problem of twelve million undocumented workers. And if someone objects to it, especially if they are a candidate for President, they should have the responsibility and courage to propose another way.

"The situation as it currently exists is de facto amnesty. These people are here in numbers too large, diffuse and concealed to round up and deport, which even critics concede is impractical. They will stay here. They will work. And we won't have any idea how many of them are simply here to earn a living and how many are here planning an attack. It is a hard problem, and I understand that. But the choice is between doing something, imperfect but effective and achievable, and doing nothing. I would hope that any candidate for President would not suggest doing nothing. And I would hope they wouldn't play politics for their own interests if the cost of their ambition was to make this problem even harder to solve. To want the office so badly that you would intentionally make our country's problems worse might prove you can read a poll or take a cheap shot, but it hardly demonstrates presidential leadership. Americans are problem solvers, and they want their leaders to be problem solvers, and to show the same common sense, civic-mindedness, sense of justice and humanity that they do. We have a chance now to secure our borders and place effective controls on immigration that benefit all of us, and enhance our ability to apprehend terrorists before they strike us. It is a common sense, conservative approach to the problem. Is any office worth sacrificing the progress we can make now to solve this crisis? I want to be President to do the hard but necessary things: to protect our country and defeat its enemies; to solve our country's biggest problems on our watch and not leave them to a more responsible, braver, and wiser generation of leaders. I make one pledge to you that I will keep no matter what. I will never conduct my campaign in such a way that it makes our country's most difficult challenges harder to solve. I hope you will hold all candidates to that same standard. Pandering for votes on this issue, while offering no solution to the pr oblem, amounts to doing nothing. And doing nothing is silent amnesty.

"I know that except for a very few people on the fringes of our society, we all value legal immigration. And though the waves of people who have come here over the centuries have posed some challenges to our society, immigration has always proved in the end to be a great and valued part of the American story. Irish, Italians, Poles, Cubans, Japanese, Mexicans and people from every country in every corner of the world have come here, assimilated, and given America renewed vigor and opportunities. Most arrived destitute, worked at any job that would put a little food on the table, and then they rose, or their children rose to succeed in every profession. And they made this country great. No other country in the world has so successfully absorbed immigrants and made them an asset and not a problem. Even in many developed democracies today, immigrants are left in a segregated, unassimilated underclass and pose serious and threatening challenges to the prosperity and stab ility of those countries. Here, people arrive from everywhere, and are given the opportunity to become citizens of the greatest nation on earth, a nation that is based not on tribal identity or ethnicity but on an idea, the boldest, bravest, truest political idea ever conceived by man: that all people are free, and endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. As long as you embrace and defend that ideal, you are an American.

"How proud that makes me of my country. How proud that must make you. Florida is a living testament to the benefits of immigration, a great and prosperous state built in large part by immigrants who came here to escape tyranny and despair, live the American Dream, contribute to our greatness and defend our ideals. I am honored today by the presence of Miami's police chief, John Timoney, who arrived in this country from Ireland at the age of thirteen, and whose contributions to our country have earned our respect and gratitude. Florida has been well led by its most recent governors, my friends, Charlie Crist and Jeb Bush, both of whom have fought for immigration reform that protects our security, laws, economy, and values. I want to particularly salute former Governor Bush, for the recent column he wrote with the former chairman of my party, Ken Melhman, which made an eloquent and persuasive case for our proposal.

"As a country deeply rooted in a tradition of religious faith, we are taught to love our neighbors as ourselves. In the trackless deserts of Arizona, people who broke our laws, not to harm us but to possess for themselves the ideals and opportunities cherished here, are dying, led into the wilderness by unscrupulous smugglers of human cargo, and left to perish in an agonizing death. Allow me to quote from a newspaper article that put faces on a few of these forgotten people who died in the desert of my state in one year.

"'Maria Hernandez Perez was No. 93. She was almost 2. She had thick brown hair and eyes the color of chocolate.

"'Kelia Velazquez-Gonzales, 16, carried a Bible in her backpack. She was No. 109

"'John Doe, No. 143, died with a rosary encircling his neck. His eyes were wide open.'

"We can't let immigrants break our laws with impunity. We can't leave our borders so undefended that people who come here to hurt us can enter it as easily as someone following a dream of living in a great country. But these people are also God's children, who wanted simply to be Americans, and we cannot forget the humanity God commands of us as we seek a remedy to this problem. Over 200 illegal immigrants died in Arizona last year. We have a chance this year to prevent such terrible tragedies from occurring in the numbers they have occurred in the past. Let's do it. For the sake of security, justice, prosperity and humanity, let us do it.

"The United States of America, the greatest experiment in human history - powerful, prosperous, industrious, inventive, striving, madly in love with liberty, hopeful, generous and good - has been the ideal of my life. I have always loved her, but it wasn't until I lost America for a time that I realized how much I love her.

"I loved what I missed most from my life at home: my family and friends; the sights and sounds of my country; sports; music, information; the endless variety of American life; our hustle and purposefulness: our fervid independence; our hopefulness; and our confidence that we could make of our industry and talents a better life than we had begun, a better country than we had inherited.

"I missed all of it, very much, but I still carried her ideals in the habits of my heart. And because they were all I possessed of my country, I cherished them all the more. I cherished the honor of being a citizen of a country that was the last, best hope of mankind, the great refuge of those who sought escape from despair and tyranny on crowded, miserable steamers into New York harbor, on small rafts across the Florida Straits, and on foot across the punishing deserts of the southwest. I know why people want to come here. I once thought I would rather die than be denied my country for one more day.

"I want us to seize this opportunity to secure our borders, and change our immigration laws to meet the demands of our security, economy and values. I don't want to use the issue to make it easier for me to be President. I'm not running to do the easy things. So, I defend with no reservation our proposal to offer the people who harvest our crops, tend our gardens, work in our restaurants, care for our children and clean our homes a chance to be legal citizens of this country. They will have to earn it. They must come out from the shadows, pay their penalties, fees and taxes, stay employed, obey our laws, learn our language and history, and go to the back of the line and wait years for the privilege of being an American.

"Riayan Tejeda immigrated to New York from the Dominican Republic. He came with two dreams, he said, to become an American citizen and to serve in the United States Marine Corps. He willingly accepted the obligations of American citizenship before he possessed all the rights of an American. Staff Sergeant Tejada, from Washington Heights, New York by way of the Dominican Republic, the father of two young daughters, died in an ambush in Baghdad on April 11, 2003. He had never fulfilled his first dream to become a naturalized American citizen. But he loved his country so much he gave his life to defend her. Right now, at this very moment, there are fighting for us in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers who are not yet American citizens, or whose parents are not, but who have dreamed the dream, and have risked everything for it. They make me proud to share this country with them. They are my countrymen, and I am theirs.

"They came to grasp the lowest rung of the ladder of opportunity, and they intend to rise. Let them rise. Let them rise. We will be the better for it. Our America -blessed, bountiful, and beautiful - is the land of hope and opportunity, the land of the immigrant's dream. Long may she remain so."

Paid For By John McCain 2008

Jon Kyl on Iraq & Congress

2007-05-02T10:17:00.000-07:00

Crass-Test Dems
The choice to delay troop funding has put the Army in a crunch. By Jon Kyl

For the past two weeks, the U.S. Army has been scrambling to find the money to support our troops in the field because of Democrats’ decision to delay the emergency war supplemental-spending bill to score political points.A month ago, when the Senate first took up the president’s emergency funding request, military leaders warned that failing to finish the supplemental by April 15 would force the Army to begin cutting back on things like troop training and equipment. Despite this warning, Democrats insisted on delaying the bill by including an arbitrary deadline for withdrawal from Iraq, a provision they knew would guarantee a presidential veto. Then, instead of immediately reconciling the House and Senate versions of the bill and getting a final bill to the president so it could be returned to Congress for reconsideration, House leaders delayed appointing conferees for almost three weeks—three weeks during which the deadline for getting this funding to the troops came and went. Democrats finally passed the conference report, but they have now further delayed matters by waiting until April 30 to send the bill to the president.
Could it be this was intended to score political points by having its arrival coincide with the anniversary of the president’s “mission accomplished” speech? Meanwhile, while the Democrats delay, the Army has had to start cutting back on non-essential equipment repair and training to ensure it is able to fund our troops in the field and provide support to their families. Plans are also underway to temporarily redirect money from Navy and Air Force pay accounts to the Army’s operating account to support our troops in Iraq. If the Army fails to receive the money by May, it will be forced to take more drastic measures, including freezing new civilian hiring, releasing temporary employees, and canceling orders for parts, supplies, and services. An April 16 release from the Army notes that “[t]hese actions carry consequential effects, including substantial disruption to installation functions, decreasing efficiency and potentially further degrading the readiness of non-deployed units.” Setting arbitrary deadlines for withdrawing from Iraq is dangerous policy. It tells the terrorists that all they have to do is wait us out. It tells our troops that their efforts will not matter, since we will pull out of Iraq no matter what successes they have on the ground. And it tells the Iraqi people that we are not really committed to standing with them as they seek to reclaim their country.
Our new strategy has shown early signs of success precisely because the Iraqi people have seen that we are committed to standing with them for the long haul. Previously our troops would enter an area, subdue it, and then pull out, allowing the terrorists to come back in. Now, our troops enter an area, subdue it, and then, with Iraqi troops, stay there to prevent the terrorists from returning. A recent column in the Los Angeles Times illustrated the progress we’re making in Ramadi, where the Army has begun implementing our new strategy. Beginning last year with a build-up of U.S. forces near al-Qaeda strongholds in the city, U.S. soldiers and Marines joined Iraqis in an offensive to gain control of Ramadi. Throughout the process, U.S. troops established a number of bases and observation posts throughout the city to prevent the insurgents from returning. The results of these efforts have been encouraging. Attacks have dropped from approximately 20 to 25 a day to two to four a day, and enlistment in the police force is increasing. The whole of Al Anbar province has seen marked improvement of late: Tips to Coalition forces have risen significantly, U.S. troops are defusing 80 percent of IEDs before they can explode, and attacks have reached their lowest point in two years. Announcing we are going to pull out in less than six months, no matter what the situation on the ground, would dishearten our Iraqi allies and undo much of the progress we have made.
Pulling out of Iraq now would jeopardize our national security and endanger the Iraqi people. If the terrorists feel they have defeated us in Iraq, they will not hesitate to attack us elsewhere. Pulling out of Iraq would also likely result in a civil war that would cost hundreds of thousands of innocent people their lives. We have an obligation to try to make sure the Iraqi government is as stable and secure as we can make it before we leave Iraq.It is unconscionable to hijack the security supplemental funding bill to make a political point while the Army struggles to find the money to support our troops — but this is exactly what Democrats, through their delay tactics, have done. Congress needs to act immediately to send a bill to the president that funds our troops while leaving military strategy to our commanders on the ground. — Sen. Jon Kyl (R., Ariz.) is the chairman of the Republican Senate Conference.

Curfew Eased In Bagdad as Safety Improves

2007-04-27T09:14:00.001-07:00

Residents Return to Tea Shop and Amusement Park as Safe Zone Emerges
April 4, 2007 — - It's the question many people are asking -- is the troop surge in Iraq succeeding? It depends whom you ask. Sen. John McCain believes it is. He flew to Baghdad over the weekend, spent an hour in a market in the city center surrounded by heavy U.S. security, and then rushed to a press conference to announce that things are getting better.
"I believe we have a new strategy that is making progress," McCain said.
For the Republican senator from Arizona, there is a lot riding on the new Baghdad security plan. His presidential ambitions are more closely tied to the success of the U.S. surge than any other candidate's. For the citizens of Baghdad, the stakes are even higher -- for many, it is a matter of life or death.
One thing is certain: The security situation in Baghdad has improved enough that the Iraqi government is going to shorten the capital's imposed curfew.
Residents will be allowed on the streets until 10 p.m., which adds two hours to the cutoff time that existed when U.S. and Iraqi troops began neighborhood sweeps in February.
While Baghdad is still rocked by car bombs every day, a small area of relative calm has emerged in the city center, thanks to the stepped-up U.S. patrols and increased Iraqi checkpoints.
While it remains dangerous for Westerners to travel out of doors in the city, ABC's Terry McCarthy has spent the past week visiting five Baghdad neighborhoods where the locals said life is slowly coming back to normal.
Tea, Clothing and an Amusement Park
McCarthy visited Haifa Street, otherwise known as "Sniper Street," as it has long been considered one of the most dangerous parts of the city.
Now, people who live on Haifa Street say the violence is subdued enough that they can venture back onto the street. At one tea shop a group of men actually asked the ABC News crew to film them to show life as it returns to normal.
And the improved conditions are already starting to benefit business, according to one shop owner. "When people heard that it was safe they started coming out and spending money again," said Baghdad store owner Hussein Jihad.
Other signs of improvements: a mosque in Zayouna that was fire-bombed is now open for prayer, and Baghdad's biggest amusement park in Zawra is open again.
"It's safe here," said 12-year-old Abdullah. "There used to be some bullets, but not anymore."
Nobody knows if the small safe zone will expand or get swallowed up again by violence. But for the time being, people here are happy to enjoy a life that looks almost normal.
Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

National Review: What Really Happened in the US Attorney Mess

2007-03-29T09:46:00.000-07:00

What Really Happened in the U.S. Attorneys MessA look at the case of Carol Lam.By Byron York
On Thursday Kyle Sampson, the former chief of staff for Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, will testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee investigating the U.S. attorneys matter. Sampson’s appearance comes a few days after word that another top Justice Department aide, Monica Goodling, has informed the committee that she will take the Fifth Amendment against self-incrimination if she is called to testify. In a statement, Goodling’s lawyer blasted committee Democrats, charging that chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy and others “have already publicly drawn conclusions about the conduct under investigation.”
The most incendiary charge leveled by Democrats, and particularly by committee member Sen. Charles Schumer, is that the Bush administration fired the U.S. attorneys to stop criminal investigations that targeted Republicans. The worst example, Schumer has alleged, is the firing of Carol Lam, the California U.S. attorney who successfully prosecuted former Republican Rep. Randy “Duke” Cunningham for bribery. Lam was fired, Schumer charges, to keep her from investigating others in the GOP. “The most notorious [case] is the Southern District of California, San Diego,” Schumer said on NBC’s Meet the Press on March 18. “Ms. Lam, the U.S. attorney, had already brought about the conviction of Duke Cunningham. It came out in the newspapers that she was continuing to pursue that investigation, and it might lead to others — legislative and others — and in the middle of this investigation, she was fired.”If that indeed happened, it would be reasonable to guess that there might be some clues in the more than 3,000 pages of e-mails and other documents pertaining to the U.S. attorneys matter released by the Justice Department. But that’s not the case. In fact, the e-mails show a much different dynamic at work. The picture that emerges from the evidence in the Lam case is of a Justice Department at profound policy odds with the U.S. attorney, preparing to take action against her, but at the same time ignoring or brushing off outsiders who criticized Lam on the very grounds that troubled Department officials. Added to that was a bureaucratic morass that made it impossible for the Department to do anything quickly. Together, those factors created a situation in which Department officials pursued a reasonable goal — finding a new U.S. attorney for Southern California — while denying to outsiders that they were doing it, taking far too long to get it done, and mismanaging its execution. In other words, it was an operation in which Justice Department officials did virtually everything wrong — except what they’re accused by Democrats of doing.A POLITICAL OFFICEIn 2001, for a brand-new Bush administration trying to move fast on many fronts, finding a new United States attorney for the Southern District of California wasn’t easy. Actually, finding any U.S. attorneys for the state of California wasn’t easy. Although they are officially nominated by the president, U.S. attorneys in each federal district — California is divided into four such areas — are traditionally chosen by the senior official of the president’s party in the state. Often that is a senator, but if there is no senator of the president’s party, the responsibility passes to the governor. And if there is no governor of the president’s party — well, the White House tries to figure out another way.That was the problem facing George W. Bush in California, with Democratic Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, and Democratic Gov. Gray Davis. The president’s solution was to rely on a selection committee headed by a man named Gerald Par sky, a Los Angeles investment banker who ran the Bush campaign in California and who also helped in the search for nominees to lower-court federal judgeships.It wasn’t an easy job; the position of U.S. attorney for the Southern District had been wracked by politics in the previous decade. In 1993, Bill Clinton replaced the Republican U.S. attorney, a career prosecutor and veteran of 20 years in the Justice Department, with Alan Bersin, a law professor who had no prosecutorial experience but who had been a classmate of Clinton’s at Yale and head of the Clinton campaign in San Diego. (Bersin pledged to vigorously pursue Clinton priorities like environmental law.) In March 1998, Bersin resigned to become head of the San Diego school system. The man who was thought to be the hands-down choice to replace Bersin was prosecutor Charles LaBella, but LaBella ruined his chances when he was chosen to lead the Justice Department’s investigation into the 1996 campaign-finance scandal. Frustrated with the restrictions put on his investigation by then-Attorney General Janet Reno, LaBella publicly called for an independent counsel — an act that deeply angered the Clinton White House. When the time came to pick a new U.S. attorney, LaBella was passed over. An interim prosecutor, never confirmed by the Senate, took the job.After George W. Bush took office, several names were mentioned for the job, including San Diego city attorney Casey Gwinn, who had the support of Republican congressmen from the area. By August 2001, a few more names were in the mix, including Charles LaBella himself and San Diego Superior Court judge Carol Lam. But months passed, and nothing happened. The word in Bush circles was that diversity concerns and political considerations were holding things up. “They had to have Asian-American women,” recalls one lawyer who was involved with the process. Lam fit that bill, but she was also an independent — not a Republican. In the end, though, she got the job; the Bush administration formally nominated her in August 2002, and she was confirmed by the Senate in November. It had taken the president more than a year and a half to place a U.S. attorney in San Diego.So a troubled selection process ended. But a troubled tenure began, a tenure that would end in December 2006, when Lam was one of the eight U.S. attorneys whose firings would become the latest scandal roiling Washington.IT DIDN’T START WITH DUKEThe key allegation in the Lam case is that she was fired because she was going to continue to prosecute cases that grew out of the Cunningham matter. But the documents release by the Justice Department show that officials there were dissatisfied with her work and were considering replacing her well before the first allegations against Cunningham ever arose, in a June 2005 story in the San Diego Union-Tribune.It all got started in December 2003, with an article in another paper, the Riverside, California Press-Enterprise. The story was headlined “Border Agents Face Uphill Fight: Even after arrest, prosecutions of smugglers are rare due to lack of resources,” and it quoted Republican Rep. Darrell Issa, who represents the area, criticizing federal authorities for not prosecuting criminal alien smugglers. A month later, the paper published a follow-up story detailing how an alien smuggler named Antonio Amparo-Lopez had been arrested at a border checkpoint but later let go.Issa was disturbed by the story. On February 2, 2004 — 15 months before the Cunningham case began — he wrote a letter to Lam citing the Amparo-Lopez case and asking for “the rationale behind any decision made by your office to decline or delay prosecution of Mr. Amparo-Lopez.”Six weeks later, Lam wrote back, telling Issa to direct his complaint to the Justice Department in Washington. Two months after that, on May 24, Issa got a brief letter from Assistant Attorney General William Moschella, offering no explanation for Lam’s decision not to prosecute Amparo-Lopez. Moschella’s answer was, in full: “Based upon all of the facts and circumstances of his arrest, the United States Attorney’s Office declined to prosecute Mr. Amparo-Lopez.”Unhappy with Moschella’s non-answer, on July 30, 2004 — still nearly a year before the Cunningham case broke — Issa wrote to Attorney General John Ashcroft. This time, Issa was joined by other California Republican congressmen, including David Dreier, Chris Cox, Jerry Lewis, Dana Rohrbacher, Cunningham, and several others. “It is our understanding that on numerous occasions when the Department of Homeland Security has apprehended alien smugglers and have requested guidance from the U.S. Attorney’s office, they have been told to release these criminals,” the congressmen wrote. “It is unfortunate and unacceptable that anyone in the Department of Justice would deem alien smuggling, on any level by any person, too low of a priority to warrant prosecution in a timely fashion.”This time, it took the Justice Department six months to respond. When the Department finally got around to it, in a January 25, 2005 letter to Issa, Moschella defended the Department’s performance and offered no solutions. Issa grew more frustrated. “We were stumped in terms of getting information to explain the scope of the problem,” says Frederick Hill, a spokesman for the congressman. “We put the word out on the street that we were interested in getting more information about this.” Issa was hoping for a tip — perhaps from someone inside a law-enforcement organization — to give him the information he had been seeking. But even though the Justice Department was offering Issa no answers and no help, his complaints were apparently registering. On March 2, 2005 (still a few months before the Duke Cunningham case broke), as officials considered a proposal to get rid of all 93 U.S. attorneys in the country, Kyle Sampson, the attorney general’s chief of staff, placed Lam’s name on a short list of those to be replaced. Her name was put in the category of “weak U.S. attorneys who have been ineffectual managers and prosecutors; chafed against administration initiatives, etc.” Sampson’s memo included the date on which Lam took her oath of office — November 18, 2002 — which meant that her four-year term would not expire until November 2006.Issa, meanwhile, kept writing letters. In September 2005, Issa and his fellow California lawmakers bypassed the Justice Department and wrote directly to President Bush, warning of “a crisis along the Southwest border that needs your attention” and specifically complaining about the San Diego U.S. Attorney’s office. Six weeks later, Issa got a brush-off letter from Candida Wolff, the president’s assistant for legislative affairs. Nothing was done.
THE BRUSH-OFFAfter more than a year of complaining, Issa had gotten nowhere. On October 15, he tried yet again, writing to Lam about another notorious alien smuggler, Alfredo Gonzales, who had been caught and not charged. “Your office has established an appalling record of refusal to prosecute even the worst criminal alien offenders,” Issa wrote. A week later, Issa and his fellow California Republicans wrote to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, citing Lam’s “lax prosecutorial standard” and asking for a meeting to discuss their frustration.What Issa didn’t know was that officials inside the Justice Department shared his concerns about Lam. Several documents appear to confirm that: First, there was Sampson’s March 2005 memo listing the possibility of ousting Lam. Then, in January 2006, Sampson wrote a memo to then-White House counsel Harriet Miers saying, “I recommend that the Department of Justice and the Office of the Counsel to the President work together to seek the replacement of a limited number of U.S. attorneys.” If the decision to fire them was made, Sampson wrote, then Lam should be one of those considered for replacement. In April 2006, Sampson wrote an e-mail to Miers listing Lam as one of the U.S. attorneys who should be fired.But none of that was public, and none of that was shared with Rep. Issa. But then, something happened to bring the problem into the open when Issa finally got the tip he had been hoping for. “We had a source in the Department of Homeland Security give our office a big stack of documents,” says Hill. Included in the documents were reports of cases logged by border stations in Lam’s district. There was case after case after case of smugglers being caught but never prosecuted. Issa was appalled.He gave the document to the Associated Press, which reported that “the vast majority of people caught smuggling immigrants across the border near San Diego are never prosecuted for the offense.” The story was then picked up by CNN’s Lou Dobbs. And that, finally, got the Justice Department’s attention.The revelations came amid increasing concern about the problem of illegal immigration. Suddenly lots of people wanted to know why Carol Lam wasn’t doing more. Even California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein inquired. And as they did with Issa, Justice Department officials told Feinstein that everything was O.K. “Please rest assured that the immigration laws in the Southern District of California are being vigorously enforced,” Moschella wrote to Feinstein — at a time when Department officials themselves were not at all assured that the immigration laws in the Southern District of California were being vigorously enforced.For her part, Lam argued strongly that Issa had gotten bad information, which he then passed on to the AP and CNN. “Representative Issa has been misled,” Lam wrote in a statement. “The document he calls a ‘Border Patrol Report’ is actually an old internal Border Patrol document, relating to a single substation, that has been substantially altered and passed off as an official report.”Issa did not accept Lam’s explanation. The cases were real, he argued. “Your failure to address the substantive issues raised in the memo is consistent with previous news reports and comments I have repeatedly heard from Border Patrol agents who work closely with your office,” Issa told Lam. Inside the Department, the reaction was skeptical, too. Shortly afterward, officials began a statistical study of Lam’s operation. The numbers showed that immigration prosecutions in the San Diego district had gone down since 2004, even as they continued to rise in other border U.S. attorney districts. “When you compare San Diego’s performance using 111 Assistant U.S. Attorneys…and New Mexico, with 59 Assistant U.S. Attorneys but still generating more cases than San Diego, it seems that San Diego should be doing much more,” said an internal email from the office of Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty.After the study was done, Kyle Sampson sent an email to one of McNulty’s top assistants. “Has [the deputy AG’s office] ever called Carol Lam and woodshedded her re: immigration enforcement?” Sampson asked. “Has anyone?” And the answer was no, although Lam surely knew that Justice officials were unhappy with her performance on that issue. A couple of months later, those officials were still studying her performance. “What is perhaps most striking to me is the fact that of the Southwest Border Districts [Southern California, Arizona, New Mexico, and South and West Texas], the Southern District of California is the only one that prosecuted fewer immigration cases in 2005 than it did in 2001 and 2002,” wrote one analyst. “Southern District of California is the only SW Border District to average a negative (-4.15%) rate of growth in the number of annual immigration prosecutions during the 2001-2005 period, which is all the more noteworthy given that with the exception of Arizona (which averaged just over 9% annual growth), the other SW Border Districts averaged double-digit growth rates over the same period.”The internal e-mails and documents indicate that unhappiness with Lam had finally reached a critical point inside the Department. There were concerns beyond the issue of immigration — Lam’s performance on the enforcement of gun laws was another troublesome area — and by Fall 2006, Justice began making preparations to replace her when her term expired in November. In December, the Department told Lam she was out. SLUGGISH, INSULAR, AND ARROGANTSo that is the story, at least as far as we know it now. The one factor that does not appear in the documents is the Duke Cunningham case, which Democrats claim was the reason Lam was fired. The only connection specifically alleged so far is a circumstantial one: On May 11, 2006, Sampson wrote a memo urging action on the Lam matter the day after Lam informed the Department she was pursuing an investigation that would target Republicans. In the memo, Sampson referred to “the real problem we have right now with Carol Lam that leads me to conclude that we should have someone ready to be nominated on 11/18, the day her 4-year term expires.”Some Democrats have pointed to the memo as a smoking gun. But there are problems with their theory. The first is that Sampson wrote his memo in response to an inquiry the day before from the White House, and his note was basically a resending of an e-mail he had sent the month before. More importantly, the evidence shows that Sampson urged that Lam be fired in notes written in March 2005, January 2006, and April 2006 — all before Lam informed Washington of her prosecution plans. The notion that Lam’s most recent investigation was the cause of her firing simply doesn’t have much support in the documents.But the documents do reveal serious problems inside the Justice Department. The papers that have been made public show a Department that was sluggish, insular, and arrogant in its handling of the U.S. attorneys matter. Officials had no interest in hearing from critics, even those from the president’s own party, and they were not inclined to act until political pressure forced them to. All that is bad, and they deserve the criticism they get for it. But they didn’t fire Carol Lam to stop a criminal investigation.— Byron York, NR’s White House correspondent, is the author of the book The Vast Left Wing Conspiracy: The Untold Story of How Democratic Operatives, Eccentric Billionaires, Liberal Activists, and Assorted Celebrities Tried to Bring Down a President — and Why They’ll Try Even Harder Next Time.

The Case for McCain

2007-03-10T16:06:00.000-07:00

After speaking with conservatives, and following not only my heart, but my head, I know that McCain is the best man for the job in 08. I actually supported him in 2000, but once the primaries were over, I threw my support to President Bush.
(I obviously wasn't going to vote for Gore...ugh...)
I have been a long time fan of Senator McCain. I've also been quite outspoken about some of the things he's done/bills he's sponsored, but for the most part, I'm still a fan. He can't be all that bad, he's been in office since the 80's & he wins by such a large margin every election (in AZ) that I find it hard to believe that there are that many that disagree with me.
McCain is a Federalist. He believes in states rights, which limits federal governments role in the lives of american citizens. He's a nationalist. He loves America and gave up so much to become the man that he is today. There's something that he's not...and that's a coward. He spent years in a prison camp. He's spent years fighting in the trenches of the house & senate. He's got the experience. He's got the voting record.
Where do Giuliani and Romney stand on "conservative" issues? -Giuliani is far from being even moderate, especially when stating that abortions should be funded by tax payer dollars...HELL NO I WONT PAY FOR THAT! & Romney can't make up his mind...
I'm not saying McCain is perfect. I'm not saying he's got all the answers. I'm going to say exactly what I said about President Bush vs John Kerry, circa 04...
"At least we know where he stands. He'll tell you what he thinks, what he wants, what ought to be done, and then he'll do it. There's no turning back. No talking him out of it. He knows whats right and he acts on that."
That's what we need in America. To hell with opinion polls and surveys. Everyone in America is pissed off about something. Don't you see that we are as bad, or ever worse than that Democrats? When did Republicans decide it was okay to tear each other down, or to say that one issue is more important than the other? If we don't wake up, we are going to have a democrat controlled congress & white house.
Open up your eyes and realize that he's not pandering now. He's still a straight shooter. He's mended his ways (and this has been a long time coming, so everyone who wants to leave a nasty comment can save it) since the 2000 election. He's working hard to make sure our country stays free, strong, secure.
Do you think any democrat can or willdo that?

...Its not about right or left. Its about right & wrong. Who is right to lead our country?...

Slow Train Coming

2007-03-10T16:00:00.000-07:00

Lexington
Slow train coming
Mar 8th 2007; From The Economist print edition

The last time he ran for president John McCain spent months rolling around New Hampshire in a bus, the Straight Talk Express. This time he has swapped the bus for a giant locomotive. He has hired high-price political consultants, some from the Bush entourage, tapped into a network of rich donors and established operations across the country. Yet the locomotive remains stubbornly stuck in the station.
Mr McCain is trailing Rudy Giuliani by as much as 25 points. His attempt to build bridges with the right has alienated his former friends in the centre without converting conservatives. And he seems to be dogged by bad luck—his recent announcement that he is going to run, for example, was marred by his faux pas about American lives being “wasted” in Iraq.
Why is the McCain express still immobile? The most important reason is the senator's outspoken support for George Bush's decision to send five more brigades to Iraq. This has not only put him on the wrong side of an unpopular war (two-thirds of the population oppose the “surge”); it has also strengthened the impression that he is speaking for the White House.
The other reason is his botched transformation from maverick to establishment figure. Mr McCain tried to turn himself into the inevitable Republican champion by mending fences with all the people he had upset in the past—from the Bush camp to the religious right to conservative activists. This made sense after his failure of 2000 (remember the old adage that Democrats like to fall in love while Republicans like to fall in line). But it is proving hard to pull off, with independents accusing him of pandering and conservatives still nursing their old wounds.
It would be a mistake, however, to think that Mr McCain will be static for ever. Mr Giuliani is a flawed front-runner. He has huge strengths as the architect of New York's turnaround and as the hero of September 11th 2001, to be sure. But he has equally huge weaknesses. His private life is tangled (his relationship with his son, Andrew, is so strained that he did not even turn up to his graduation). His business affairs are more tangled still. He has a foul temper and a mean streak as wide as the Hudson river. “Absolutely not,” was the response of Ed Koch, another former New York mayor and a political rival, to the suggestion that Mr Giuliani is a racist. “He's nasty to everybody.”
Mr Giuliani also seems unprepared for a national campaign. Last week George Will introduced him to the annual meeting of CPAC—a gathering of more than 6,000 red-meat activists—by saying that conservatism comes in many flavours, with Mr Giuliani the Thatcherite one. A nice point. But the former mayor then delivered a meandering speech that left the audience dispirited. His campaign may collapse as quickly as it inflated.
The Giuliani bubble is as much a proof of the weakness of the other anti-McCain candidates as it is a long-term threat to Mr McCain himself. The strongest competition to Mr McCain arguably came from Mitt Romney rather than Mr Giuliani (the rest of the candidates are midgets compared with the big three). Mr Romney has a long record of managerial competence—a huge selling point after George Bush's serial incompetences. He is also an efficient politician: his speech at CPAC was as smooth as Mr Giuliani's was ragged.
But the failure of the Romney campaign to catch fire is good news for Mr McCain. Mr Romney's Mormonism is proving more of a problem than many people expected: a quarter of Americans claim that they would not vote for a Mormon. But what is really damaging him is his opportunistic flip-flopping over abortion and gay marriage. If he is willing to pander on these issues as a candidate, might he not pander as president?
Conservative activists might warm to Mr McCain if they took another look at him. It is true that he has quarrelled with conservative pressure groups. But that is often because he sees them as obstacles to achieving conservative ends, such as a balanced budget or clean politics. It is true that Mr McCain refused to endorse the Federal Marriage Amendment. But he did so for the eminently conservative reason that these sorts of issues should be decided by the states rather than the federal government. It is true that Mr McCain has pushed for more federal funding for stem-cell research. But he has also been more consistently conservative on abortion than any of the other first-tier candidates.

Conservatism's best hope

Mr McCain has a rare ability to present conservative ideas in a language that moderates and independents can find appealing. He also has a rare ability to break with the conservative establishment on subjects where they are obviously batting on a losing wicket, such as global warming. This could make him the best candidate for reviving conservatism from its current dismal state—and also the best candidate for keeping conservatism alive in a Washington where the Democrats rule Capitol Hill.
Mr McCain has also often been right about the war. He was one of the first major politicians to call for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation. He repeatedly criticised George Bush's tolerance of torture as a stain on America's good name. Even his support for Mr Bush's “surge” may not be as much of a liability as it appears. The bulk of Republican primary voters are in favour of giving the war one last chance; and Mr McCain's willingness to risk his political career over Iraq burnishes his tarnished reputation as a straight-talker.
His biggest weakness has to do with age rather than ideology. He will be 72 if he is elected to the White House, and his face is visibly scarred from bouts with skin cancer. But he has the energy and attitude of a much younger man, and seems to absorb energy from his audience. And he also boasts the most impressive biography in American politics. The McCain Express will not stay stuck in the station for ever.

The Coming McCain Moment

2007-03-09T14:15:00.001-07:00

National Review: The Coming McCain Moment
Taking a second look
By Ramesh PonnuruNational Review

"I got some encouraging news this morning in the USA Today," says Sen. John McCain, holding a copy of the paper with his picture on the front page. "McCain firm on Iraq war," it says above the fold. He flips it over to show the rest of the headline: "despite cost to candidacy." "I can't worry about it," he says. "With something like this, you just can't let it concern you. The issue is too important."
Actually, McCain's campaign is doing better than it seems to be. It is true that the unpopularity of the Iraq War, and specifically of the surge he has long advocated, is dragging his poll numbers down. It is true as well that in many polls he is now behind Rudolph Giuliani.
But Giuliani is a useful opponent for McCain. The good news of the senator's season is that another rival, former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, has so far failed to unite the Right behind him. In a McCain-Romney race, Romney would have most conservatives and portions of the party establishment behind him - and might win the nomination.
Giuliani is a different story. He supports taxpayer funding of abortion, sued gunmakers for selling guns, and went to court to keep New York City from giving the names of illegal immigrants to the federal government. Polls show that many Republican voters are unaware of these aspects of the former mayor's record. It is hard to see how he wins the nomination once they learn about them. In a three-way race, some people who prefer Romney to McCain will nonetheless back McCain to head off Giuliani. This year, then, a real threat to McCain has failed to materialize - and a fake one has replaced it.
McCain's apostasies from conservatism, unlike Giuliani's, are well known. The mayor's polls form a ceiling. McCain's could be a floor, if conservatives are willing to reconsider their view of him. If they do, then the current Giuliani moment will be succeeded by a McCain moment. I think conservatives will give him a second look - as they should.
It has become common to complain about the weak Republican field. Actually, it is a strong field. The three leading contenders are smart, competent, serious, articulate, and accomplished. (So is Newt Gingrich, who ranks fourth.) In some of these respects they exceed the incumbent. It just isn't a very orthodox field.
Romney, at least in his 2007 version, is the most conventionally conservative. If elected, he could make a fine president. But he has a big disadvantage as a presidential candidate: He is a Mormon. In December, a FoxNews poll found that 32 percent of voters would be less likely to vote for a candidate if he were Mormon. Speculation about the effect of Romney's Mormonism on his chances has centered on evangelical Christians' theological differences with him. But evangelicals were only slightly more hostile to Mormon candidates than the population at large. Democrats were much more hostile. So even if Romney's conservative social positions get him through the primaries, his religion is a liability in the general election. (It may be that many secular-minded voters consider Mormonism particularly alien and threatening.)
This is unfair to Romney, and to his coreligionists. But this country has elected a non-Protestant president precisely once in its history. If the Republicans were going into 2008 with a large margin of error, it might be worth finding out how voters would react to a Mormon candidate. But Republicans are not going into this election in a strong position. Nominating a Mormon is too risky.

RUMBLES LEFT AND RIGHT
Most of McCain's conservative detractors concede that he would be a formidable candidate in November 2008. They question his ideological bona fides. But it would be a remarkably narrow definition of conservatism that excluded McCain.
"I think the important thing is you look at people's voting record," says McCain, "because sometimes rhetoric can be a little misleading." Over the course of his career, McCain has compiled a pretty conservative voting record. Neither Giuliani nor Romney, as McCain implied, has a record to match. An objective observer looking at Bush and McCain in 1999 would have had to conclude that, based on their histories, McCain was the more conservative of the two.
The senator's reputation changed during his exciting, disastrous 2000 presidential campaign. During the previous years, he had become a true believer in campaign-finance reform. His attack on monied special interests, and his bitterness at the Bush campaign's attacks on him, seemed to pull him left across the board: on tax cuts, on the environment, on health care. The effect was to enhance McCain's standing with independent voters and journalists while repelling conservatives. What further soured conservatives was that they were then starting, for the first time, to take a strongly negative view of campaign-finance reform, hardening into the conviction that it was an assault on free speech (and particularly on conservative organizations).
Independent voters and Democrats gave McCain some primary victories, but without Republicans he could not win the nomination. Still, he was America's most popular politician, and for the next few years he continued to play the "maverick" Republican - and to reap the rewards in his press clippings, which annoyed conservatives at least as much.
From 2004 onward, however, McCain has been moving rightward again, emphasizing his support for the Iraq War and the War on Terror. So far, this move appears to have cost him support among independent voters and reporters without buying him many friends on the right. Conservatives still have the impression of him they formed when he was tacking left. Besides, even in the last two years he has taken some stands to which a lot of conservatives object.
The good news for conservatives is that some of McCain's un-conservative positions concern trifling subjects, and some of them have little ongoing relevance. (Some of them are important, though, and I'll get to them later.) After 9/11, McCain shepherded a bill to federalize airport security through the Senate. That's not an issue that's going to come up again. The corporate-accounting scandals gave McCain an opportunity to rail against malefactors of great wealth, which he took. He zinged Bush's Securities and Exchange Commission for its inaction and urged more transparency in executive pay. But he gives no sign of itching to impose more regulations now. He supported a scheme of taxes and regulation to fight smoking. His bill didn't become law, but it is no longer an issue since most of its provisions were adopted by the states.
Even campaign-finance reform isn't the issue it once was. President Bush signed McCain's bill, and the senator says he doesn't want any more legislation. "I think that we need to give this law a chance to work." He doesn't think the Federal Election Commission needs any new powers, although, like most Republicans, he does want it to crack down on "527 groups" that fund political ads.
McCain supported a "patient's bill of rights" that would regulate HMOs. But that bill has gone nowhere, and even if it passed it would not be a large step toward socialized medicine. It was small change compared with the gargantuan Medicare prescription-drug entitlement of 2003. (President Bush, and many conservative congressmen, supported that bill; McCain voted against it.)
McCain wants to make people who buy guns at gun shows pass a background check, ending what he considers a loophole in current law. Gun-rights activists have strong objections to this proposal. But they will have to measure his offense against Giuliani's past, and never-repudiated, advocacy of licensing gun owners.
Some conservatives hold McCain's participation in the "Gang of 14" against him. In 2005, most Senate Republicans, frustrated by unprecedented Democratic filibusters against judicial nominees, wanted to change the rules to prevent such filibusters. Seven Democrats and seven Republicans reached an agreement: The Republicans would leave the rules alone so long as the Democrats used the filibuster only in "extraordinary circumstances." There were good arguments for and against the deal, although there were no good arguments for the preening collective self-regard with which the 14 senators announced it. McCain notes that months after his intervention, the Senate confirmed both John Roberts and Samuel Alito. He thinks it "would have been almost impossible" to confirm them in the aftermath of a bitter fight over a rules change. "That's why they called it the nuclear option, the Senate was about to blow up." Conservatives might disagree with that assessment, while still regarding it as the type of prudential calculation on which allies can disagree.
In 2005 and 2006, McCain differed with the Bush administration about how to interrogate suspected terrorists. The senator, having survived torture himself at the hands of the North Vietnamese, understandably wanted tough anti-torture language put into law. The administration worried that such language, particularly if susceptible to creative interpretation, might make it impossible to conduct coercive interrogations even if they fell short of torture. In the end, Republicans reached a deal that preserved tough interrogations while addressing McCain's concerns.
That leaves three substantial issues between McCain and conservatives. The first is global warming. McCain has been a believer throughout the Bush years. Most conservatives have associated the fight against global warming with environmental zealotry and overregulation. But McCain has tried to come up with a free-market solution, and he is now emphasizing nuclear power as a way to fuel this country without emitting greenhouse gases. "I don't often like to imitate the French," he says, but France is right to use nuclear power. His proposal, with Joe Lieberman, may not get the balance exactly correct, but right now it looks as though McCain was more prescient than most conservatives.
McCain was one of a few Republicans to vote against Bush's tax cuts. He said that the tax cuts were fiscally reckless and too skewed to the rich. But he now accepts those tax cuts as a done deal. Reversing them now, or allowing them to expire, would constitute a tax increase, and McCain has never voted for a general tax increase. When I ask him whether there were any circumstances in which he would accept a tax increase, for example to get the Democrats to agree to spending cuts, he says, "No. None. None." It seems pretty clear that a President McCain would seek spending cuts before tax cuts. But if you take him at his word - and he is a man who takes honor seriously - he won't raise taxes.
Finally, there is immigration. McCain sees eye to eye with Bush on this issue. He thinks a guest-worker program would reduce illegal immigration, and that we should give illegal immigrants already here a path to citizenship since we aren't going to deport them all. A lot of conservatives want tougher border security, period. Nothing McCain can do now will please some of his critics. But if his bill passes this year, he may try to move on. Or he could try to mollify his reasonable critics by supporting an amendment. Last year, Sen. Johnny Isakson of Georgia proposed that the bill's border-enforcement provisions go into effect first, and be shown to work, before illegal immigrants could start on their path to citizenship. McCain is open to the concept.

A SOCIAL CONSERVATIVE
McCain gets a bad rap from social conservatives. He opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment on the theory that states should set their own marriage policies. But he opposes same-sex marriage, too, and says that he would support a constitutional amendment if the federal courts ever tried to impose it on reluctant states. As a practical matter, it is hard to see how any president could get such an amendment enacted without that type of provocation.
The senator has been rock-solid on abortion. Unlike anyone else in the race, he has a pro-life record stretching back to the early 1980s. Like President Bush, he says that the Supreme Court made a mistake in Roe; he goes further than Bush when he adds that the Court should overturn it. He voted to confirm all of the sitting conservative justices, plus Robert Bork.
McCain muddied the waters with one foolish remark in 1999. He was trying to make the point that the country is not ready for abortion to be prohibited, but in the course of trying to say that he said that the country wasn't ready for Roe to go. He corrected himself quickly, but that lone remark has been used to portray him as a secret pro-choicer or a flip-flopper.
He really has broken ranks with pro-lifers twice. In the early 1990s, he voted to fund research using tissue from aborted fetuses, and he now supports federal funding for research on embryos taken from fertility clinics. But he draws the line at stem-cell research involving cloned human embryos. He says that he would prohibit that, even mistakenly claiming that he has co-sponsored legislation to that effect.
Social conservatives think that Republicans have repeatedly betrayed them. At the highest levels of national politics, that's not true. The reason that social conservatives haven't achieved many of their objectives even though they have helped to elect a lot of Republicans over the last generation is that those objectives are hard to achieve. It has been slow work to fight the pervasive liberalism of the elite legal culture. But when President Reagan appointed Anthony Kennedy and the first President Bush appointed David Souter, they weren't trying to betray conservatives; they didn't know how those justices would turn out. McCain thinks that type of mistake can be avoided if presidents pick nominees who don't just say the right things, but have track records of judging soundly. He's right. Conservatives' reception of McCain shouldn't be colored by historical mythology.
For some conservatives, these discrete issues matter less than what they say about McCain's instincts. His friendly relations with journalists - one of his campaign aides was only half-joking in 2000 when he called the media McCain's "base" - often make conservatives suspicious. But McCain's steadfast support for the Iraq War, and his advocacy of the surge, belie the claim that he will do anything for good press.
Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who has long clashed with McCain, says that the senator is worse than a flip-flopper: By voting right, tacking left, and then tacking right, he has shown himself to be devoid of principle. But as the foregoing review of his record suggests, most of McCain's zigzags have been matters of tone and emphasis, not changes of position. He hasn't switched his views as much as Romney or even Giuliani.
There are genuinely disconcerting elements to McCain's politics. He talks about cutting spending, but he rarely connects limited government to individual freedom. He is an inveterate moralist, which eludes many observers because he is concerned about honor rather than virtue. In many of the cases discussed earlier, his moralism slid very quickly into support for regulation: of campaign contributions, of tobacco, even of boxing. At times, his rhetoric about the need for individuals to subsume themselves in the life of the nation verges uncomfortably close to idolatry of the state.
But McCain's merits are considerable as well. He has been tough on spending, and been willing to ally with the most conservative members of the Senate to fight earmarks. He has been a stalwart free trader: "Since Phil Gramm left, there's no greater free-trader in the Senate than I am." (McCain supported Gramm's presidential campaign in 1996, and Gramm is supporting his now.) Curbing the growth of entitlements, he says, will be one of his top priorities as president. He has long supported personal accounts.
Leave all of that aside for a moment. For a lot of conservatives, the War on Terror is paramount. That's why some of them are willing to overlook Giuliani's faults. But if toughness on terrorism trumps everything else, with toughness defined as competent execution of the administration's basic strategy - and that's the way it has to be defined for this argument to work for Giuliani at all - then McCain is hands down the best candidate. He has better national-security credentials than Giuliani, having been involved in foreign policymaking for more than two decades while the latter has barely been involved at all. More than any other candidate, he has shown a commitment to winning in Iraq. He has supported it, indeed, more vigorously than Bush has waged it, and he has put his career on the line.
McCain has the moral authority to get a country that has grown tired of the war to listen to him, an authority President Bush has seen slip away. That isn't just because he is a former prisoner of war with one son serving in the Marines and another in the Naval Academy - although that helps. It is because he is not seen as playing politics with the war, as most Democrats and Republicans are, and he never will be.
Conservatives may need to reach some understandings with McCain before throwing their support to him: on the vice-presidential nominee, on immigration, maybe even on the number of terms McCain will serve as president. (He is 70.) But he can win both the nomination and the election. He is plenty conservative. And he deserves a long second look.
March 9, 2007

The Coming McCain Moment

2007-03-09T14:15:00.000-07:00

The Issue of Immigration

2007-03-08T10:10:00.000-07:00

John McCain: On immigration, Washington is failing the American people
By SEN. JOHN MCCAIN Tuesday, Mar. 6, 2007

AMONG THE federal government's most important obligations is to secure America's borders and enforce sensible immigration laws that will keep our nation strong and safe. For far too long, Washington has failed miserably in this vital responsibility. An estimated 12 million people live in the United States illegally -- a problem affecting every state in the union.
Coming from a border state, I have seen firsthand the effect that illegal immigration has on our communities and public services, the rampant exploitation of those who traffic in illegal aliens, and the tragic loss of life that so often attends this enduring problem. As a country devoted to the rule of law, fairness and opportunity, the status quo is simply unacceptable. We know that most illegal aliens are drawn to the United States in the hope of finding a better life for themselves and their families. Many of our own ancestors came for the very same reason. But we also know that others come to do America harm and will exploit any weakness or loophole to achieve their malignant objectives.
The truth is that our nation's porous borders and failed immigration policies are a national disgrace, adversely affecting both our economic prospects and national security. A comprehensive immigration control plan that works is long overdue.
To achieve our objectives, America needs the strong reform I've proposed that will:
Vastly improve our border surveillance and enforcement capabilities;
Increase the manpower, infrastructure and capabilities necessary to block, apprehend, detain and return those who try to enter the country illegally; Strengthen the laws and penalties against those who hire illegal aliens and violate immigration law; Achieve and maintain the integrity of official documents to stop fraud, verify immigration status and employment, and enforce immigration law; Encourage immigrants to come out of the shadows so we know who is in this country and develop a sensible guest worker program that will serve the nation's best economic and security interests.
We must devote the resources necessary to do the job right, and our efforts must be sustained. Imagine what we could achieve if we spent less money on pork barrel schemes such as "bridges to nowhere" and more on enforcing our immigration laws and other homeland security imperatives.
The need to bring illegal immigrants out of hiding and end the defacto amnesty that is the status quo is more important than ever in this post-9/11 era of terrorist threat. But this effort must never entail giving away citizenship to those who have broken our laws. Rather it should require those who voluntarily come forward to undertake the hard work of reparation and assimilation that we expect.
Legitimate status must be earned by paying stiff fines and back taxes, undergoing criminal and security checks, passing English and civics tests, remaining employed for six years before going to the back of the line to achieve legal permanent residence status, and adhering to other strict requirements.
Such a program is necessary if we are to protect our country from terrorism and crime by enabling the Department of Homeland Security and law enforcement to focus their resources more effectively where they are most needed, and that is on those who choose to remain hidden because they mean to do us harm.
Above all we must be honest and realistic if we are to achieve both the economic and national security we desire. The straight talk of the matter is that as long as there are jobs in the United States that would otherwise go unfilled, illegal immigrants will come, and the economy will eagerly absorb them, no matter what the obstacles. We are willfully abetting a system that is broken and invites the violation of our immigration laws, the manipulation of vulnerable populations and a degradation of national security.
Rather than tolerating the continued chaos promised by business as usual, we need an orderly system that matches jobs that would otherwise go wanting with a well managed guest worker program that ensures we know exactly who our guests are, why they are here, and for how long. Border security and immigration reform must go hand- in -hand. History has shown us that one will simply never succeed without the other.
I truly believe that Americans want and demand that our leaders work together to solve pressing problems rather than persist in empty rhetoric and petty political gamesmanship. By staying true to our principles, exercising common sense and American resolve, we are up to the job of controlling our borders, keeping our economy on the rise, and making the nation safe in an exceedingly dangerous world.
Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona, is running for the Republican presidential nomination.

Right on McCain: John McCain's Conservative Record is Excellent

2007-03-07T12:13:00.001-07:00

By Senator Jon Kyl (from National Review Online)

I have had the distinct pleasure of serving with Senator John McCain for the last 12 years in the U.S. Senate. Yet just as important to me as our shared years of service is our common respect for the conservative principles that have guided us in representing our state. That is why the characterization of John McCain as something other than a common-sense conservative is disturbing to me. Senator McCain’s detractors overlook his actual voting record of supporting conservative values.
During my time in the Senate with John McCain, we have cast the same vote nearly nine times out of ten. Whether in our efforts against inefficiency and waste in the federal budget, confronting the threat we face from international terrorism, protecting the sanctity of human life, or some other issue, Senator McCain has been loyal to, and a leader for, conservative beliefs. Senator McCain is well known for his long history of protecting the interests of the American taxpayer. He is without question the best choice for voters opposed to wasteful Washington spending and bloated budgets. Last year, Senator McCain introduced the Pork-Barrel Reduction Act, a bill focused on transparency and fiscal restraint. In 2005, Senator McCain and I were two of the four senators to vote against the pork-laden highway bill. During the 109th Congress, Citizens Against Government Waste gave McCain a 91 percent rating, and Pork Busters, a collaboration of fiscal-watchdog groups, labeled him as an “Anti-Pork Hero” in 2006. Conservatives should be outraged about the wasteful spending in Washington, and they should be exacting in their demand for a culture of fiscal restraint. John McCain meets this demand.On the ever-important issue of life, Senator McCain has a record of voting for pro-life legislation: He has voted for bans on partial birth abortion; he has supported the “Unborn Victims of Violence Act” and parental notification for minors; and he has voted against using federal money to distribute morning-after contraception in schools. He has repeatedly co-sponsored the Child Custody Protection Act, which prohibits the transportation of minors across state lines in order to circumvent state laws, requiring instead the involvement of parents in abortion decisions. What do pro-abortion groups think of Senator McCain? NARAL Pro-Choice America and Planned Parenthood have both given him zero percent, no-confidence ratings because he has stood up against them for decades. John McCain’s opposition to abortion has been consistent.
Senator McCain also strongly believes in the institution of marriage. He voted for and supported the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which banned federal recognition of gay marriage and same-sex partner benefits. Senator McCain endorsed and campaigned for an initiative to amend the Arizona constitution to define marriage as between one man and woman. The defining issue for any candidate who seeks the presidency next year will be that person’s vision for conducting the war against terrorists and our mission in Iraq; there is no one stronger on this issue, or with more credibility, than John McCain.
His support for a safe and secure Middle East is well documented. And Senator McCain’s belief in the relationship between our eventual success in that region and our safety at home is one that I share.Most conservatives believe in aggressive pursuit of terrorists and jihadists. But John McCain has been willing to put his political career on the line for the sake of his belief that these terrorists must be defeated. As the ranking member on the Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain has long been an outspoken critic of the management of the war, and there is plenty to criticize on that score. But Senator McCain has also been stronger than all others in his belief in the absolute importance of victory and in his own principled dedication to seeking peace and security over the political expediency of defeatism. Conservatives who believe deeply in the responsibility to defend our country know that no leadership trait is more vital to our next president. More than any other reason, this is why conservatives should support John McCain. In matters of national security, he instinctively understands threats to the United States, and he knows what needs to be done about them.
Even in the face of political adversity, he is unwavering in his commitment to America’s security.

— Jon Kyl is a Republican senator from Arizona.

BLANK for President in 2008?!

2007-02-27T20:33:00.001-07:00

It seems that every time I turn on the news, read the paper or listen to the radio, we as a nation have become all consumed with the 2008 elections. In 2004 we were told that it was the biggest election of our generation. I feel that now, EVERY election will be the election of a lifetime.
Candidates are spending idiotic amounts of money to reach voters who probably made up their mind without seeing their million dollar commercial. (at least, in a perfect world an intelligent decision wouldn't be made by such ridiculous standards)
Because I work in the political/fundraising field, I have the opportunity to speak to people across the nation about different issues that may or may not concern voters on election day. I find it hysterical to peruse periodicals and listen to people discuss issues as if the political atmosphere of today's world hangs solely on ONE issue.
I understand that we all have issues that are important to us. I understand that while national security and lower taxes are my two main issues, yours may be more along a social cause; such as marriage (& who has & does not have the right to marry) & abortion.
The fact of the matter is though, as a conservative, I simply cannot stomach the thought of having a Clinton in the White House. I cannot stand the thought of the Democrats having control of Congress and the Executive branch simultaneously.
It angers me when I hear conservatives babble on about how they wouldn't vote for Giuliani in a million years because he's "too liberal"- or how McCain isn't "pro-life enough" or how Romney is "Mormon". Let's get real. Let's look at the facts.
When Bill & Hill took to the White House they wanted (& publicly stated) that 2000 MORE abortion clinics would be opened by the time they left office in 2000. They decorated the White House Christmas tree with condoms to promote safe sex. Can you see Giuliani disgracing the home of great leaders in such a way, or promising such a thing? McCain's voting record since the beginning of his senate career has been pro-life. How can you not be "pro-life enough" with a zero rating from Planned Parenthood & NARAL? Mitt's a mo. So what. Let's move on. His great grandfather practiced polygamy? My mother is a whore. I shouldn't be judged for her issues, he shouldn't be judged for the plights of his ancestors.
It seems that conservatives don't have enough to bitch about these days. They are unhappy with President Bush. We didn't keep control of Congress, probably because people are tired of career politicians that lie & pander, then flip-flop once they've got your vote. Miraculously though, the "Perfect" candidate is going to appear just in time to save the GOP & the rest of America from the wrath of Hillary? I'm failing to see the logic here.
Why don't we look at it in a pro vs con sort of way.
Hillary: radical judges, problematic scandals that have plagued her since she married Bill, repealing the Bush tax cuts, raising other taxes to pay for her proposed health care, anti-life semitism
Any of the [viable] GOP Candidates: pro-life (or at least apathetic about the issue enough to steer clear of pissing off the base), pro-family values (so Rudy's had a few wives, I've known Pastors who have had more...), pro-military/national security, LOWER taxes

Several of the dem noms have already stated that they will repeal the Bush tax cuts & set into motion new ways to pay for the health care plans they are all touting. Who's going to pay for this? The rich. The problem? Every democrat has a different view of that line between rich & middle class. When do I cross over from middle class to living extremely well? Your guess is as good as mine...I don't know about you, but I'm not really ready to find out though!

I think that if conservatives don't pull their heads out of their idealistic asses soon enough, we're going to be facing another 1996 campaign. Do we vote for the "Dole" candidate, whom no one was overly excited about, or do we keep Clinton, who's obviously plagued by controversy & scandal? Get excited about something in a candidate. Is he your perfect choice? Probably not, but you know what? I'd rather have a moderate Republican than a Clinton any day...

PS - I read the latest Zogby Poll. It looks as if McCain & Giuliani can both beat out Clinton (as of now), our weakness might just be this Obama kid...let's hope him & the hag have it out enough that they kill each other on the evening news. The Republican Party's best hope for winning this election could come in the form of a lackluster attorney from North Carolina... Stay tuned folks!

Let's Get with the Times

2006-12-21T14:50:00.000-07:00

In all honesty, I can't figure out what all the fuss is about lately. It seems that the media has forgotten that they've been pushing sex down our throats as a cultural "norm" for as long as I've been alive, and now they are shocked at the fruits of their seed? Give me a break.
First, Miss USA, Tara Conner is called in to see "The Donald" for her behavior, including underage drinking. Then the big question of the week is, "Will she be dethroned!?"
Secondly, an announcement was made that Miss Teen USA is suffering from her own 'personal' but very public problems when she posed for a "naughty" photoshoot.
With Britney Spears & Paris Hilton showing their 'hoo-has' all over town, Lindsey Lohan and her underage drinking being plastered on Page Six every week, and the reigning teen fashion calling for barely visible articles of clothing, how can anyone be surprised, let alone shocked that these two girls have made the decisions that they've made.
I personally think that these are non-issues. I think the media should focus on something more important.
This morning on the Today show there was an entire segment dedicated to uncovering the "myth" of teenagers abstaining from sex. In the 1940s, 88% of women had sex in their teens, in 2006? A "shocking" 9 out of 10 teenagers are sexually active. I didnt think it was all that shocking. I didn't think it sounded too "off".
But I guess it just goes to show that a lot of people (parents, mostly) want to point the fingers at other people and say, "My child would never do that."
If you REALLY think that your child is that one out of the ten, either you need a reality check, or I'd like to say congratulations for raising a morally uncompromised teen.
In the mean time though, lets look at it this way...underage drinking and pre-marital sex aren't the end of the world. Are they desirable habits? No, absolutely not, but it could be crack cocaine & prostitution. Lets just put everything in perspective.

2006 in Review

2006-12-18T15:31:00.000-07:00

I just realized that I was pretty non-existent in the "blog" world this year. -My apologies for that. I'll send out an update and sort of teeter on about a few issues that no one but myself and a handful of other people probably care about.

I started many different jobs and was unhappy at them all. So I quit.
Someone told me a few weeks ago that I am a terrible person for being so indecisive in my career. I told them that they had it all wrong. If I was indecisive, I'd still be at the same job I started at this time last year, and I'd still be miserable. Life is short. Why be miserable at the one place you spend the majority of your time? My bills are paid. My dog is fed. No one can talk about me being irresponsible, as I cover my own ass.
I've stopped playing it safe. I don't stay somewhere because its what I "should" do. I am not friends with people because I always have been. I don't follow along like a good little girl anymore. I've learned to question authority, when appropriate and to question myself. I've learned to stand up for myself & realize my own value. If you don't value me, I don't have time for you. (It's something I wish I could teach all young women to do. Its a shame I didn't learn until I was 25!)
I've found myself tossing out careers and other bits of my past. Things that hold no bearing on who I will be in a year. Things that don't shape me, and I do not shape them.
Finding that I cannot for the life of me, be as juvenile and naive about friendships and relationships as I once was. Liars and cheaters, backstabbers and the likes hold no place in my circle. Honesty is the best policy. If you can't be honest with me, you either don't trust me or are hiding something, which leads me to believe we shouldn't be friends anyway.
I have discovered a lot about myself, and am continuously learning. But that's life. Life is a journey. If you've gotten to the end of your journey of discovery and you've nothing left to learn about yourself or others, then why continue to live anyway?

United 93

2006-04-28T23:03:00.000-07:00

There are no words to express the feelings that I'm having right now.I just sat through, what felt like dejavu.
On the morning of September 11th, I was awakened by Carolyn to hear, "Val, we've been attacked."In a groggy haze of confusion, I stumbled out of bed & to the door and said, "What? What are you talking about?"
"A plane hit the tower..."
We watched the second plane hit moments later. I sat there...waiting, watching, crying. Not knowing what to say. Not knowing what to do.
As I sat in the movie theater tonight, I felt the same emotion come over me.Almost 5 years later, and it still doesn't feel real. I can't imagine someone, anyone having as much hate for the United States, as those terrorists did...DO...
Watching mothers call children & husbands call wives. Hearing the infectuous, yet silent roar of "the Lords Prayer" being said, seconds before the brave passengers charged faithfully toward their demise.Hearing one man state, "We are going to die anyway, we might as well do whatever we can." -Going down still fighting.
Would I keep fighting until the end? or would I give up?
September 11, 2001 united the nation in a way that's never been seen. Neighbors took the time to speak. Parents took the time to listen. People took the time to pray.To think that we are hated because we can love, live and speak freely is a hard truth to face. We do not understand it, because we have never known it. There are some that face this truth everyday. If they try to live the way that we do, they are mamed or murdered.
To watch the people re-enact their part in the day, and the events brought on a feeling of courage and strength. To live through September 11, although still on the ground, yet playing an important role in the Command Towers, and then to turn around & have to do again...Could you relive the worst day of your life so that others may know exactly what happened?
For once, I am proud to say, this movie was not politicized, from what I can tell. There was no left view or right swing. It was simply the story of what happened to those people that layed down their lives to save the lives of hundreds of others. They didn't go quietly.Can you imagine? The Nation's Capitol...the very place that stands for our freedom, that gives us the right to tell this story again, may have been wiped out in moments...
Take a moment to remember how blessed we are. Then take a moment to pray for the families of those who lost on that fateful day.It may have been five years ago, but the pain is probably just as sharp today as it was then for those who lost.
Never forget -support those who fight for your freedom.Realize that there are people who are just now gaining the right to pray as they wish, and speak to whom they choose. Thank God for your rights as an American, and remember that there are those that would love to be in your shoes, no matter how bad you may think you've got it.

Memorable Quotes: September 11, 2001

Stunt for Free Speach

2006-04-23T09:22:00.000-07:00

Marc Ecko of Marc Ecko Enterprises rented a 747 plane (and the hangar in which it was housed) & had one side of it painted to be an exact replica of Air Force One.
Then, a video was made of a hooded man hopping barbed wire fences, and the like to spray paint the words, "Still Free" on the side of the jet.
It apparently was supposed to be a mark towards freedom of speach.
As far as I'm concerned it was a waste of money, but then again, this is America, and people have the freedom to be as ridiculous as they want...even if spending half a million dollars just to spray paint a fake Air Force One is what you want to do.
Crazy...and useless.
http://www.stillfree.com

Hagsville

2006-03-20T10:20:00.000-07:00

So, I'm sitting in DCA (Reagan Nat'l Airport) on a layover to NY, when I see all of these Secret Service people looming around the gate. I was on my way to Albany. They were hanging out near the gate headed to LaGuardia. I sent a text to a couple people saying "must be someone big going to NYC tomorrow, the SS is out in full force."
When I say "out in full force" I mean, there were about seven of these guys hanging out.
They give the final boarding call for the flight to LaGuardia. Nothing happens. They don't close the gate, they don't shut the doors. SS is still hanging out...
I get up, on my way to use the ladies (so of course, I put away my camera...) & in comes another secret service detail. There were probably around another 8 in that detail.
So, who was all the hoopla for???
None other than Miss Haggy Haggerton herself...Hilary Rodham Clinton.
She looked TERRIBLE. And what a twat, if I may use such language. Who is she? Why does she have the right to show up 2 minutes AFTER the gate closes, with an entourage of nearly 20, and to be so rude to fellow flyers?
I suppose this has something to do with the fact that she's not only a US Senator, but also a former first lady. But the audacity. I just can't comprehend anyone being as asinine as she was. Didn't smile. Had nothing nice to say when well wishers spoke to her.
Can you imagine anyone wishing HER a safe flight? Thank God she wasn't on my flight. I think that would have been the day that I was arrested by the air marshall!

South Park

2006-03-13T15:26:00.000-07:00

The Associated Press is reporting that Isaac Hayes has resigned as the voice of "Chef" on Comedy Central's popular cartoon, "South Park."
Hayes sites the shows lack of religious tolerance as the reason that he has quit.
"There is a place in this world for satire, but there is a time when satire ends and intolerance and bigotry towards religious beliefs of others begins. Religious beliefs are sacred to people, and at all times should be respected and honored. As a civil rights activist of the past 40 years, I cannot support a show that disrespects those beliefs and practices."
Show creators Matt Stone & Trey Parker state that it is their belief that Hayes only resigned because this past year they featured an episode that mocked Scientology. Hayes is a devout member of the Christian Scientology group, which is a host to a plethora of Hollywood A-listers, such as Tom Cruise & John Travolta, and was believed to have been very offended over the show.
Stone said, "This is 100 percent having to do with his faith of Scientology... He has no problem -and he's cashed plenty of checks - with our show making fun of Christians."
Parker chimed in, "We never heard a peep out of Isaac in any way until we did Scientology. He wants a different standard for religions other than his own, and to me, that is where intolerance and bigotry begin."

So I suppose the show will have to find a new ladies man, but for now I say, "GOOD RIDDANCE!"

...In Other News...

2006-03-10T10:38:00.000-07:00

Time for "Posh Spice" to stay out of the cancer box/lay off the tanning oil/quit fakin' bakin' or whatever you call it.

Note to Victoria Beckham:
When your skin begins to resemble the color of burnt plastic, we've got an issue. You are white. I understand the need for a HEALTHY glow, but lets get real. You look GROSS.

That's all I'm saying...but honestly...

This Just In

2006-02-22T15:22:00.000-07:00

Apparently, a huge weapons cache was uncovered in Western Iraq on Monday. It is said to be among the largest found in the Anbar province to date.
According to sources, more than 3,000 pieces were uncovered during a recon patrol.
So for those of you who are still convinced that it isn't possible that WMD's are hiding somewhere, inside or outside of Iraq, let's get real. Anything is possible.
Thankfully, the discovery & confiscation of such munitions means that there should be a reduction in anti-Iraq attacks. One can only hope, anyway.
For more information, read here:
http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?article=35254&section=104

The Battle Continues

2006-02-21T12:14:00.000-07:00

The newly appointed justices of the Supreme Court will face what may be one of their most heated cases to come.
Today the Supreme Court will look at the 2003 law passed by Congress to ban late term abortion, or "Partial Birth Abortion." Judges in California, New York & Nebraska claimed the law was unconstitutional & so the law never went into effect.
Opposition to the two newest members of the high court will of course be waiting for the law to be granted constitutional, because the Right to Life fight was among the top concerns for why these two conservative men should not be confirmed. When the case was heard before, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was the tie breaking vote, ending the fight at 4-5, although she was considered at one time to be a conservative appointment.
The federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act prohibits a certain type of abortion, generally carried out in the second or third trimester, in which a fetus is partially removed from the womb, and the skull is punctured or crushed.
It is beyond me why anyone would ever find it constitutional to take an unborn, yet still living child's life. Especially in this cruel & tortured form. I hope that the justices do what they feel is necessary & right and find that the late term abortion law is more than constitutional, but that it is needed.

November, 2004. Memories in Pictures.

2006-02-02T17:32:00.000-07:00

Irma, Val, Don, Trey & Yale..."Working" at Mandalay Bay...and later on in the Hard Rock Penthouse.

Millie & Val...Tired. Its Been a LONG Day!

Val, Justin & Jen. We Won the Bloody Phone. Go Team!

Jen & Val. Missing our Team Leader, Mario.

DOMARA! Always Causing Problems..."You Should Name Your Cars After Women Because Then You Treat Them Better."

Pam, Val & Mary. Those Ladies Worked SO Hard for Me & The Legal Team!

Mista Carr! Boy, I Could Go For Some of His BBQ Right Now (& some 2am putting & 3 cases of beer! lol)

Val, Gabi, Jen & Irma. The Republican Babes. ;o)~ Enjoying Our Victory Meal, and What Would Be Our Last Time Together.

Group Photo:
Dave, Millie, Jen, Val, Gabi, Irma, Chris. Front: Stephanie. Britany.

The Right to Choose?

2006-02-01T14:14:00.000-07:00

It seems that the right to choose is only good enough when it means that you are choosing to see things their way.
Apparently, "Abortion Rights" groups have helped three Massachusetts women bring a law suit against Wal-Mart. The law-suit basically claims that the company should be forced to stock Emergency Contraception, or Plan B pills in its pharmacies.
As for right now the law suit cannot be upheld because state law requires only "commonly prescribed" medications to be stocked by pharmacies. EC is not commonly prescribed at this time in the state of Massachusetts. In the state of Illinois, however, it is required by state law that it be available at ALL pharmacies, and the Wal-Marts there do carry it.
Wal-Mart is known for its conservative views on many subjects from books & products that it will or will not carry, to its pharmaceutical choices. The decision not to carry Plan B should not have come as a shock or surprise to anyone.
CVS is the states largest pharmacy chain, and does carry the Emergency Contraception drug.
In Canada, the drug has already been switched to a non-prescription/over the counter medication.

Decisions, Decisions

2006-01-31T11:07:00.000-07:00

After finally settling into my cozy job at St. Joe's hospital, I have been asked to move again.
I long for the excitement of the political field. Always on the go, always under pressure, always on a deadline.
But...at the same time, I love the fact that I have something permanent & stable here. I make decent money (and once my raise kicks in, it will be awesome!), will have health insurance & vacation pay soon. I enjoy the people I work with & I am learning new things everyday, as well as meeting new people. I am finally letting the roots that I re-planted last year have time to grow.
Do i really want to dig those up again to move somewhere like NM, CO or even back to NV?
Is the thrill of another win worth throwing my life into total chaos again? Maybe next time I'll never recover from it. Its taken me a year to get this far. Next time it could take longer.
I'm not sure what to do. Right now I'm just looking for guidance & wisdom.

One in a Million

2006-01-12T07:22:00.000-07:00

I can't list on 10 fingers & 10 toes how many women's magazine's there are out there. It would take 20-30 more fingers & toes to do so... Every time you turn around there is a new one. Vanity Fair, Cosmo, Cosmo Girl, Vogue, InStyle, Allure, Elle, and the list goes on & on & on & on & on. A new one, always claiming to be better, to give you advice that you cannot live without, life changing information for a better YOU! Well, now we'll have another one to choose from...

Martha Stewart has announced that she will be launching a new women's magazine, "Blueprint: Design Your Life". This magazine is targeted towards the demographic of women, ages 25-45. Stewart feels that this is a crucial time in a modern woman's life. Many are establishing their careers, starting families, and "upgrading" their lives. The design of the magazine is to help women with not only fashion, but decorating, entertaining and "life organization."
Hopefully, this magazine will not turn into the same hum-drum that can be picked up on any newsstand & in every bookstore across the nation, but it will be something with tangible advice, both usable & innovative.

I'm tired of opening up a magazine every month and the same 5 topics are covered. Pink is the new Green (or black), Flats or stillettos?, Dress for your body type & how to give a man the most incredible orgasm he's ever had. (Not that these aren't "pressing" issues, but I do feel that we can step it up a notch or two...)

I also hope it doesn't turn into a place for liberals to rant & rave about their current "issue" with conservatives or vice versa. A place to once again platform abortion "rights" & other "women's issues". All to often Women's Magazines take a stance and never cover both sides.
Martha Stewart is a wise woman (unless we are discussing stock options, lol), and hopefully she will understand that if she wants to be successful she will need to cater to BOTH sides, and cover things that aren't being discussed in the 'surface' reads we find today.

Move Over, Barbie

2006-01-11T13:22:00.000-07:00

Fulla, the Egyptian counterpart to Barbie is selling more rapidly then the "blonde bombshell" of the West (in Cairo).
About 70% of Egyptian women still choose to dress in the traditional arabic style, never showing an arm or a leg. Fulla was created to represent the modern girls of the middle east, wearing the veil, and foregoing skimpy skirts that are traditionally worn by Barbie, Skipper & the American dolls. She can still don jeans, and more up-to-date, yet conservative fashion, with her slightly less busty figure. (Who isn't less busty when compared to Barbie?!)
No plans yet on getting Fulla boyfriend, its said that it would be inappropriate by Arab standards. But she does have two lighter haired friends, Yasmine & Nada.
Happy shopping.

Visiting Forces

2005-12-27T09:00:00.000-07:00

Keep it in your pants boys...
Four U.S. Marines are being charged with RAPE after a 22-year old Filipino woman accused the soldiers of gang-rape. Originally there were six soldiers charged. Two men have had the charges dropped, and afidavits have been submitted by 5 Marines.
A Filipino van driver is considered an accomplice to the crime, and is also being charged. The Marines are being held at the U.S. Embassy.
Visiting Forces Agreements maintain that the charges and trial must be resolved in one years time.
Philipine and U.S. relations were only recently repaired in 1999, thru the VFA agreement, before that, Philipine Senators ended the treaty that allowed naval & air bases to be occupied by the U.S., that were once used for staging areas during Vietnam.

Laura Bush Joins Reality TV Show

2005-09-28T10:56:00.000-07:00

September 28, 2005Laura Bush Joins Hit Makeover Show as It Focuses on Storm Victims
By ANNE E. KORNBLUT
BILOXI, Miss., Sept. 27 - A desperate housewife in the White House? That was so pre-hurricane.
Laura Bush has moved on to reality television.
Mrs. Bush flew here on Tuesday for a cameo on "Extreme Makeover: Home Edition," the blockbuster ABC show that usually does impromptu remodeling for disadvantaged homeowners but is now taking supplies to hurricane victims for segments to be shown later this year.
She met with some of the victims, passed out clothing and listened intently to tales of destruction, with a film crew following her and a boom microphone hovering overhead.
"Obviously, there are so many homes to be remade over here," Mrs. Bush said afterward.
Earlier this year, Mrs. Bush jokingly compared herself to the lonely women of Wisteria Lane during a monologue at the White House correspondents' dinner in which she referred to "Desperate Housewives." With this trip, she continued a pattern of gently incorporating pop culture into her public appearances and using mainstream entertainment as a stage for conveying the softer side of the Bush administration.
She went on "Oprah" after the Sept. 11 attacks, appeared on "Dr. Phil" during the 2004 campaign and has been on "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno" repeatedly.
But with her husband still struggling to regain his political footing many weeks after Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, the decision to link her with reality TV had a whiff of the daring.
It also suggested that despite an increased effort by President Bush to address the hurricane crisis - his visit to Texas on Tuesday was his seventh to the area since Hurricane Katrina hit, hers was her fifth - the White House was casting about for more creative ways to convey its concern and manage public opinion.
The appearance had been in the works for months. The producers of the show extended an invitation to Mrs. Bush in April, but it was not until after Labor Day, and the storms, that White House officials found a time and location that worked.
Part of the appeal, an aide to Mrs. Bush said, is that the segments will not run until at least November, when public interest in the hurricane relief effort may have diminished but the need for donations and volunteers will remain high.
"The coverage will start to die off a little bit, as people are getting into the hardest time," said the aide, Susan Whitson, Mrs. Bush's press secretary. Her intent, she said, is "keeping this message out there as long as possible."
Keeping the excitement up on Tuesday was no great feat; if anything, producers had to plead for calm. Storm victims who had gathered at the Biloxi Community Center, where clothes donated by Sears, a show sponsor, were being distributed, waited eagerly with their cameras for Mrs. Bush to arrive.
"People walking in here, this is a surprise for you!" one director shouted at the crowd. "Don't stand here looking like you know what's coming."
Mrs. Bush later addressed the inherent challenge for the show: selecting just one home to rebuild.
"They haven't chosen one yet," she said. "I'm trying to encourage them to maybe choose a school or a library to do, which would help everybody in the community."
And Tom Forman, the show's creator and executive producer, said he had given no thought to any political reasons the White House might have had for wanting to participate.
"The thing about making this show is I packed up and put away my cynicism a long time ago," he said.
"I think given the scope of the disaster, you throw the rules out the window," he said. "And while we're certainly a nonpartisan show, I don't think she was there as a politician or a politician's wife or even as the first lady. I think she was there as someone who cares."

Worth Celebrating

2005-09-19T12:00:00.000-07:00

I have to say that in all of my years, I have never known love & support the way that I did this weekend.
Thank you to everyone that prayed for my family this weekend in our time of need. God truly does answer prayers & proves Himself to be faithful!

For those of you who don't know what I'm talking about...Here's a recap:
I received a call from my mom who was in hysterics on Saturday afternoon, and then a call from my younger brother. It seems that his ex-girlfriend had gotten pregnant, while they were still together. The baby is his. He wants to keep it, she does not.

My family asked me to call her & counsel her. I did call her & she listened tearfully, as I explained the stages of life, from conception, thru 12 weeks (which is how far along she is now).

She didn't know that the baby's fingers & toes were fully formed & visible. She didn't know it had a heart beat, or its own dna & brain waves. Of course she didn't. Planned Parenthood doesn't tell you that. And why would they, if they are going to make money off of the murder of your unborn.

After hanging up with this young girl, I had faith that she would make the right decision. I spoke with my family again & we continued to pray, and asked others to pray as well.
On Sunday morning my mom called & said that she had made her decision & would go through with her appointment as scheduled for this morning, Monday, at 10:30 am.
I got on the computer & sent out a mass email to over 100 people, asking for prayer.
At 3:30 pm, I received another phone call. She was going to keep the baby & let my family raise him (or her)!!

I am so excited to see what God has in store for this child. I know it must be amazing.
Its good to remember that while Planned Parenthood wants to say, "Every child should be a wanted child," we need to remember that just because the mother may not want it, that doesn't mean that someone else doesn't.

I too was supposed to be aborted. Thankfully, there was a family, my family, that wanted me. Next time you hear someone talk casually about the woman's right choose, consider the fathers right, and that he doesn't have one. Consider the baby's right. If we are all guaranteed "Life, Liberty & the Pursuit of Happiness," -we need to remember that the latter two are only possible with the first one.

Who will speak for those that have no voice? Hopefully, You Will.

10 Most Famous Mensa Members

2005-09-16T12:15:00.000-07:00

Funny how the only ACTOR/ACTRESS on the list is Gina Davis...
I guess we shouldnt hold our breath too much for Tim Robbins or George Clooney to make it on this list.
Everyone else listed is a writer, inventor, or has a REAL job, and is somewhat note worthy. What a thought. Finally, giving props to those that dont make millions of dollars for doing NOTHING...Genious!

http://encarta.msn.com/list_famousmensamembers/Famous_Mensa_Members.html

Ms. Plames Identity Revealed, but By Who?

2005-07-15T08:50:00.000-07:00

A relatively unbiased report on the Plame leak. Who's to blame? Is it Rove, or hubby Joe Wilson?

washingtonpost.com

Mr. Rove's Leak
PostFriday, July 15, 2005

THE UPROAR over Karl Rove's involvement in the leak of a CIA agent's identity makes this the third consecutive Washington summer to feature a tempest over what should have been a long-forgotten visit to the African nation of Niger by retired ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV. There are serious questions about Mr. Rove's behavior, as well as his misleading public accounting for it during the past two years. Certainly, the revelation that Mr. Rove discussed Mr. Wilson's wife with at least one reporter undermines the White House's highhanded pronouncements that it was "just totally ridiculous" to think that Mr. Rove had anything to do with the leak of Valerie Plame's identity.

But much is still unknown, and Democratic demands that Mr. Rove be fired immediately seem premature given the murky state of the evidence. While we await more facts, it's worth remembering some from the previous episodes of this strange story -- including a few that have been mangled or forgotten.

Mr. Wilson made his trip in 2002 to look into reports that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Niger. A year later, he publicly surfaced and loudly proclaimed that the Bush administration should have known that its conclusion that Iraq had sought such supplies, included in the president's 2003 State of the Union address, was wrong. He said he had debunked that theory and that his report had circulated at the highest levels of government.

One year after that, reports by two official investigations -- Britain's Butler Commission and the Senate intelligence committee -- demonstrated that Mr. Wilson's portrayal of himself as a whistle-blower was unwarranted. It turned out his report to the CIA had not altered, and may even have strengthened, the agency's conclusion that Iraq had explored uranium purchases from Niger. Moreover, his account had not reached Vice President Cheney or any other senior official. According to the Butler Commission, led by an independent jurist, the assertion about African uranium included in Mr. Bush's State of the Union speech was "well-founded."

That brings us to this year's dust-up, which concerns whether Mr. Rove or other administration officials should be held culpable for leaking to journalists the fact that Mr. Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, was a CIA agent. Reporters were told that Ms. Plame recommended Mr. Wilson for the Niger trip -- a fact denied by Mr. Wilson but subsequently confirmed by the Senate investigation. A federal prosecutor is conducting a criminal probe that has, among other things, unearthed an e-mail from Time magazine reporter Matthew Cooper revealing that Mr. Rove told him about Ms. Plame's role in her husband's trip.

This gives the lie to White House denials that Mr. Rove was involved in the leak. Mr. Rove and White House spokesman Scott McClellan can fairly be accused, at the very least, of responding to questions about the affair with the sort of misleading legalisms and evasions that Republicans once rightly condemned President Bill Clinton for employing. "I didn't know her name. I didn't leak her name," Mr. Rove told CNN last year. Technically true, perhaps, but hardly a model of straightforwardness and probity. Asked about the leak, Mr. McClellan waxed indignant: "That is not the way this White House operates," he said. Or is it?

At the same time, Mr. Rove and other administration officials had a legitimate interest in rebutting Mr. Wilson's inflated claims -- including the notion that he had been dispatched to Niger at Mr. Cheney's behest. It's in that context, judging from Mr. Cooper's e-mail, that Mr. Rove appears to have brought up Ms. Plame's role. Whether Mr. Rove or others behaved in a way that amounted to criminal, malicious or even merely sleazy behavior will turn on what they knew about Ms. Plame's employment. Were they aware she was a covert agent? Did they recklessly fail to consider that before revealing her involvement? How they learned about Ms. Plame also will matter: Did the information come from government sources or outside parties?
It may be that Mr. Rove, or someone else, will turn out to be guilty of deliberately leaking Ms. Plame's identity, knowing that it would blow her cover. Or officials may have conspired to cover up a leak or lied about it under oath. For now, however, it remains to be established that such misconduct occurred.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

Controversial, but Important

2005-07-08T13:51:00.000-07:00

I posted this on my other blog & was asked to remove it by someone. If you have had an abortion & do not want to read about it, then do not continue any further... Thank you.

My name could have been David
My name could have been Kelly
I could have invented a cure for cancer
I could have been the first female president
I would have had brothers and sisters
I would have been the first grandbaby.
I could have been an amazing dancer
I could have been on broadway
I could have gone to Harvard
I could have gone to Oxford
I would have loved to bring world peace
I would have opened a huge orphanage in Africa
I could have brought peace in Korea
I could have ended communism in China
But my life ended shortly
I was burned alive
I loved my mommy very much
But she didn't love me
She didn't think I was worth the sacrifice it takes to be a mommy
I died when I was 10 weeks old
I didn't know what was happening
It began to get very hot, and I couldn't breathe
I began burning alive
Then as I was being born, I saw my mommy, for the first and last time ever
The only thing I heard her say was that she was glad to be rid of me.

One abortion proceedure is done with a saline acidic solution injected into the womb of the mother. The solution than rises the temperature of the fluids inside of the mothers womb and heats up the babies body. As this takes place, it also burns the baby while it is still alive. As the baby inhales the hot womb water polluted by the saline acid, the baby's inards are burned causing the heart to stop. 1 in every 300 abortion attempts fail, and the baby is prematurely born and burned...ALIVE.Whether you admit it or not abortion is wrong there is no such thing as pro choice, the baby doesn't get a choice, and you are taking a human life.

A Good Thing

2005-07-08T11:19:00.000-07:00

You know I was offered a political job in New Mexico. This was a position that I was MADE for. Or it was made for me. Either way, the people I know out there are telling me that it's a good thing that I did not make the decision to go out there.
I struggled with making that decision. I thought "This is what I do. I have to take this job. What else will I do?" But the more I thought about it, and the more I prayed about it, I just knew that I could NOT make that trip. I could not move again for a job.
It turns out that one of my friends that is working on this campaign has just had his salary cut almost in HALF. The chairman of the NM Republican party is totally crazy & has told him that he made the adjustments to his salary and there is nothing that he can do about it. Apparently the person that was hired in my place was already fired by this chairman.
Sometimes you just know that its a bad move, you just have to learn to listen to your instincts and that inner voice.

HELD

2005-07-07T07:41:00.000-07:00

There is a young boy laying in a hospital bed right now fighting for his life. He is fighting a head injury. A cracked skull, broken cheek bone, contusions, crushed sinus' & a blood clot.
As of right now, I don't know what is going on in his little body, or how much longer he will be in ICC. I don't know how to fight for him, or for his family, so at this time, all I can do is sit & pray.
I ask that you would do the same.
You probably don't know him. His name is Chase Sexton & his grandfather is the famed preacher Tommy Barnett.
Little Tommy Chase & I have a special bond. He was in my Pre-school class (*called Rainbows in the Assemblies of God denomination) that I taught ten years ago. And every Sunday since he was a young child he would grin at me with a twinkle in his eye, and a look of certain mischief (he looks just like his grandfather, twinkle & all). He'd give me hugs. He would tell me that he loved me. He would share his candy with me too. (For a small boy, that's a pretty big thing.)
He was on my team at youth camp for the last two years. Last year, 2004, he let me dress him up like a girl & put makeup on him. He smiled & laughed about it. He was "Olga, the Test Tube baby." He got more laughs than anyone else on the stage. Poor guy lost his voice, so you couldn't hear him recite his lines over the laughter.
This year he begged me to let him do something cool again at camp. He dressed up like a Sumo wrestler for our skit & donned a cowboy hat. Sure enough by the time we got on stage to do our skit, he had lost his voice again! (It's from all of that team spirit & cheering for his friends during the games!) This year he played Pastor Todd. Again, he got the most laughs, and no one could hear him because of it!
He sat with me at breakfast one morning & told me how much he loved me. He told me that I was the coolest youth leader ever. He wanted to be on my team EVERY YEAR! I always think that I am going to quit youth leadership, but Chase & others like him remind me why I continue on. When you have a friend like that, sometimes you need them more than they need you.
For the last two years he was nominated as "Camper of the Year." He sacrificed for his team mates. He would do ANYTHING that was asked of him. He played all the games, he sang songs, gave input when asked for it, and even encouraged the other campers to listen and have "Happy Hearts."
When I got the news that his little body was being air-evac'd to Phoenix, from Payson (where he was visiting his paternal family), I was in shock. It has never crossed my mind that Chase wouldn't be around. Or that anything could happen to him. He was invincible. He was the kid that looked forward to goofy stunts, he did that stuff to get a laugh out of people.
Chase always wanted to make someone smile. He didn't care if he knew you or not. He didn't care if you knew who he was. If you were happy or sad, rich or poor. Chase was like a miniature version of his grandfather.
When I was four I started attending Phoenix First. I was poor. I was abused. I didn't have the prettiest dresses or the neatest hair. I rode the busses to church. Pastor Barnett used to put his arms around me and hug me & tell me that he loved me so much. It didn't matter to him that I wasn't the prettiest girl or that my parents didn't give thousands of dollars a year to the church.
Tommy Chase is the same way. I don't drive the nicest car. I don't have the most expensive clothes. I live in a good neighborhood, but its not as nice as others. Chase still gave me a hug every time he saw me. He still makes sure to tell me that I'm the best and that he loves me. Just like his grandpa Barnett.
It's because of people like Pastor Barnett & his grandson, Chase, that I have known the love of God. I have known that not everyone is concerned with the outward appearance, but with the relationship that comes from within. They understand that God looks at the innerman, not the outerman. Pastor Barnett & Chase show others that they love you for who you are inside, for who you will be inside, one day.
That is why Chase is going to be okay. Because if he isn't then there will be no one to carry on the legacy of finding a need and filling it. When I need a hug or a smile you had better believe that Chase is one person that I look for. Chase has a purpose in his young life. He knows what it is & he walks in that everyday.
This is why I know that God is holding Chase right now. He is protecting him. He is healing him as we speak. Because people need to know Christ's love & Chase may be the only way that they ever know it.

Love Lost

2005-07-06T08:12:00.000-07:00

It's not that I want to be in DC or anything, I mean, not permanently...Obviously, since I did move home & all, but there are certain things that I miss. I miss not having to drive ANYWHERE. I hate to drive, and the fact that the beast is on its way out, makes me upset that Phoenix doesn't have a decent public transit system. (I could walk 5 blocks to the Metro station & be anywhere I needed or wanted to be in 10-15 minutes, or LESS!)
I miss getting up in the morning & looking out of my balcony.
I miss seeing the changing leaves (obviously this is not an issue right now- they would be bright green, and so beautiful anyway). I miss being near historical sites and minutes from where it all is happening. I miss that feeling of excitement you get from just walking down the streets. At any given time when you step out onto D street, or K street, or wherever, there is this hustle from all the people around you. This sense of urgency that says, "move or be moved." I moved home partly because I didn't like the people in D.C., but I really did love this aspect of life. I am a mover & a shaker. I want to be in the middle of it all. Whatever "it all" is. That's where I want to be.
I find life in Phoenix can be fast paced, if you let it. I haven't gotten back into my groove of being "in it" all the time. I am looking to be "in it" in a different way than I was before I left though. I don't want to be everywhere just for the sake of being everywhere. I want it to have meaning and purpose this time around. I dont want to be busy because I am afraid of being alone, or because I want to look important. I want to make an actual difference. I guess that's why I moved to NV and the DC in the first place, and ultimately why I moved home. I didn't make much of a difference in DC, I need to make a difference.

But, if I am honest with myself, I know that there is one thing that I miss more than anything. That is the friends that I lost when I moved. People that I shared my life with. People that I thought would be around for forever. I respected these people, and I thought it was mutual. Its a shame that their respect for me was lost when I came back to Phoenix. I know that God gives us people for a moment, a season & a lifetime & it is up to us to figure out what impact we will let them have on our lives. I am just sad that things ended so badly.

In my quest in this life to make sure that I've apologized to people that I've hurt, to make amends with people that I've loved and lost, this is my time to say, "I am sorry." I wanted it to work, but it didn't. Be happy for me that I've found my place. I will always hold a special place for you in my heart, and I sincerely hope that you will do the same for me.

The Pearls

2005-06-30T07:38:00.000-07:00

The Pearls Story

A cheerful girl with bouncing golden curls was almost five. Waiting with her mother at the checkout stand, she saw them: a circle of glistening white pearls in a pink foil box.

"Oh please, Mommy. Can I have them? Please. Mommy, please!" Quickly the mother checked the back of the little foil box and then looked back into the pleading blue eyes of her little girl's upturned face.

"A dollar ninety-five. That's almost $2.00. If you really want them, I'll think of some extra chores for you and in no time you can save enough money to buy them for yourself. Your birthday's only a week away and you might get another crisp dollar bill from grandma."

As soon as Jenny got home, she emptied her penny bank and counted out 17 pennies. After dinner, she did more then her share of chores and she went to the neighbor and asked if she could pick dandelions for 10 cents. On her birthday, Grandma did give her another new dollar bill and at last she had enough money to buy the necklace.

Jenny loved her pearls. They made her feel dressed up and grown up. She wore them everywhere-Sunday school, kindergarten, even to bed. The only time she took them off is when she went swimming or had a bubble bath. Mother said if they got wet, they might turn her neck green.

Jenny had a very loving daddy and every night when she was ready for bed, he would stop whatever he was doing and come upstairs to read her a story.

One night when he finished the story, he asked Jenny, "Do you love me?" "Oh yes Daddy. You know that I love you." "Then give me your pearls."

"Oh, Daddy, not my pearls. But you can have Princess-the white horse from my collection. The one with the pink tail. Remember, Daddy? The one you gave me. She's my favorite."

"That's okay, Honey, Daddy loves you. Good night." And he brushed her cheek with a kiss.

About a week later, after story time, Jenny's daddy asked again, "Do you love me?" "Daddy you know I love you." "Then give me your pearls."

"Oh Daddy, not my pearls. But you can have my babydoll. The brand new one I got for my birthday. She is so beautiful and you can have the yellow blanket that matches her sleeper."

"That's okay. Sleep well. God bless you, little one. Daddy loves you." And as always he brushed her cheek with a gentle kiss.

A few nights later when her daddy came in, Jenny was sitting on her bed with her legs crossed Indian-style. As he came close, he noticed her chin was trembling and one silent tear rolled down her cheek.

"What is it, Jenny? What's the matter?"

Jenny didn't say anything but lifted her little hand up to her daddy. And, when she opened it, there was her little pearl necklace. With a little quiver, she finally said, "Here Daddy. It's for you."

With tears gathering in his own eyes, Jenny's kind daddy reached out with one hand taking the dime-store necklace, and with the other hand reached into his pocket and pulled out a blue velvet case with a strand of beautiful genuine pearls. He had had them all the time. He was just waiting for her to give up the dime-store stuff so that he could give her genuine treasure.

Just like our heavenly father. What are you hanging on to?

--Author Unknown

<>< <>< <><

Sometimes I think about this story & I wonder what I am holding on to that is just a cheap immitation. God doesnt want to TAKE things from us. He doesnt need our worldly possessions, but when He asks you to give something up, its because He wants to give you something even BETTER. What are you holding on to? Is it a cheap, dime store immitation of God's best? Or is it God's good & perfect gift? (James 1:17)
The Bible says that when two or more agree together, asking anything in HIS name we will receive it. Maybe you should start agreeing for God's best in your life.

Do You Ever Feel Like This?

2005-06-15T15:56:00.000-07:00

I've Got the Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy, Down in My Heart

2005-06-13T10:49:00.000-07:00

For those of you that went to Sunday School or Children's Church or Kids Camp or Vacation Bible School (yes, I did all of them), you know that line, and probably the whole song that it is from.

The Bible says, "Do not grieve, for the joy of the Lord is your strength." (Nehemiah 8:10, NIV)

I think sometimes we forget that happiness & joy are two VERY different things. Happiness is a feeling. People can make us happy, but they can also make us sad, hurt or mad. Our circumstances change our feelings & mood changes.

When our life is centered in Christ, only then do we know real joy. That doesn't mean that our life is perfect, usually we are no better than those that do not have a Christ centered relationship. The only difference is that we have a HOPE that tells us that everything will work out.

When the paycheck doesn't seem to stretch far enough, and the rent is due, your phone is shut off & the car needs an oil change, its easiest to quit. But there is something inside that tells you to keep going & that everything will turn out, that is God's hope for something better, but what keeps you going is His JOY. ("And we know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose." -Romans 8:28)

When you are grieving for the loss of someone or something, just knowing that they are in a better place & knowing that they lived a great & prosperous life- that is JOY.

If you feel empty inside, remember what the Bible says, "The LORD is my strength and my shield; my heart trusts in him, and I am helped. My heart leaps for joy and I will give thanks to him in song."- Psalm 28:7

<>< <>< <>< <><
I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy
down in my heart
(where?)
down in my heart
(where?)
down in my heart

I've got the joy, joy, joy, joy
down in my heart
(where?)
down in my heart to stay.

I've got the peace that passes understanding
down in my heart
I've got the love of Jesus, love of Jesus
down in my heart

I've got the wonderful love of my blessed redeemer
way down in the depths of my heart

Theme for Today

2005-06-07T11:06:00.000-07:00

Last night I started counseling with our marraige pastor. No, I'm not married. But I realized some stuff about myself this past week @ camp. I have some really deep issues with rejection and pain. I've never dealt with them & I feel its hindering my relationships with others, especially my relationship with Christ.
If those that are supposed to love as Christ loved cannot treat me well, how do I expect to feel love from someone that is not tangible? Right now, this is my theme song...I have to believe & know that HE is my all in all, the only one that I need. That HIS grace is sufficient...
<>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
You are my strength when I am weak
You are the treasure that I seek
You are my all in all

Seeking You as a precious jewel
Lord, to give up I'd be a fool
You are my all in all

Taking my sin, my cross, my shame
Rising up again I bless Your name
You are my all in all

When I fall down You pick me up
When I am dry You fill my cup
You are my all in all

Jesus, Lamb of God Worthy is Your name
Jesus, Lamb of God Worthy is Your name

You are my strength when I am weak
You are the treasure that I seek
You are my all in all

Jesus, Lamb of God
Worthy is Your name
Jesus, Lamb of God
Worthy is Your name

A Tribute

2005-05-25T14:00:00.000-07:00

I found out this morning that a man that I love dearly passed away. This brings to mind the old saying "life is short." While this is true, I still feel that there are a few things that people should know about Pastor Jack Wallace, as a tribute to him, his wife & the life that they lead for many years.

I met Pastor Jack when I was 8 years old. I had been living with my aunt & uncle for two and a half years and during that time my uncle sexually abused me. Pastor Jack wanted to talk to me. He wanted me to know that it wasn't my fault. I wasn't dirty. I wasn't ag bad person. He wanted me to know that not all men were bad & He wanted to help me.

I was afraid of him. He was a big man (of course when I was 8, who wasn't?) with lots of books sitting on his shelves. He sat in a big chair behind his big desk. His voice was loud. I started to cry. I couldn't look at him. I was so afraid to tell him what had happened to me. But Pastor Jack loved me anyway. He put his arms around me and he let me cry. He prayed for me. He loved me in the purest form of the word. Then, he asked me if I wanted to talk with his wife.

Gael Wallace was the epitome of what every young girl at Phoenix First wanted to be. She had long blonde hair, a slim figure, and the sweetest smile you could ever imagine. She came to my house twice a week for as long as I could remember. She used to talk to me, and love me. She encouraged me constantly. She taught me how to be a real woman of God. She taught me, through her actions & the way she lived on a daily basis, what the Proverbs 31 woman was.

When Pastor Jack & Gael were trying to have kids, they told me "When we have a little girl, we want her to be just like you." I've never forgotten that.
My whole life I felt like I was never good enough for anyone. I felt unloved, wronged and dirty. They made me feel like I was worthy of love. They made me understand God's love, and what it was to love others & be unselfish.

Pastor Jack accepted a job in Detroit & they moved with their little baby Kaitlyn. I was 9 years old, almost 10 at the time. I saw them every year when Pastor Jack would come back to speak at Phoenix First, or at the Athletes Conference or for a visit for Pastors School. I looked forward to those times more than any other guest Preacher we had at Phoenix First.

Pastor Jack & Gael never forgot who I was. I never forgot who they were. Jack Wallace's memory will live on in my heart, and when I am blessed enough to have children, I hope that my little boy is just like him. I want everyone to know how special the Wallace Family is to me, and remind you to please keep Gael, Kaitlyn & Hannah in your prayers. They kept me in theirs for a long time, when I needed it most.

ONE BILLION DOLLARS

2005-05-13T11:45:00.000-07:00

So Bill O'Reilly reported the other night on the O'Reilly Factor that US Tax Payers were going to be forking out about a BILLION DOLLARS a year for illegal immigrant's healthcare.
Let me make a couple of statements, and you can agree or disagree, but just hear me out.
First off, know that I am totally against socialism, but this sounds to me like if we are going to provide for the illegals, maybe we should provide for those that are actually PAYING for it? Seriously.
Secondly, I don't have health insurance, neither do my parents, or my siblings. We've gone most of our lives without it. We've survived. Does having Health Insurance cause you to go to the doctor more? Are we prone to the hypochondriac way of thinking because we can be? (I understand that with Cancer on the rise, etc, it is important to go to the doctor for checkups, but seriously, I know people that sniffle & they are there...Usually on my dime.)

With all of that being said, here are some interesting stats for all of you:
80% of all violent crimes in Arizona are committed by illegal aliens.
90% of all murders are committed by illegal aliens.
It costs the US Taxpayers about $1 Billion a year just in HEALTHCARE (this doesn't count the cost of incarceration for those mentioned above).
Most people that are here are working to send money back to family in Mexico. This equates to be about $17 Billion a year. (About $1.7 B is from AZ alone.)
-This is the second largest income for Mexico. (Explains why Vincente Fox is so adamant in pushing the guest worker program, huh?)

If we were to impose a remittance tax on the money sent via Western Union, etc (wired back to Mexico) of 8%- the same as sales tax in AZ- we would be able to pay for the programs that are imposed on by illegals.
Remember that preventative programs are always cheaper then social/welfare programs.

Just a little something to chew on this weekend...Keep it in the back of your mind, this election cycle is gonna be a doozy & you can bet this is going to be a huge issue for AZ, and other border states.

Robbing the Woman of Her "Hoped-for-Future Child"

2005-04-19T17:10:00.000-07:00

Not only does the above statement not make sense, its a completely asinine remark made against the pro-life, or should I say, sane community. The comment was made by Planned Parenthood of Arizona in regards to SB1052.
This bill is in reaction to the hundreds of women who are beaten, murdered and harmed in other ways, thus causing the death of their unborn children . The bill would make it a crime, manslaughter, in fact, for harming a woman & causing her to lose her child.
What is it about 9 months that makes a child a child? Do people not understand that a baby, in utero, has brain waves and a heart beat? At 22 days after conception a baby's heart beats with its own blood type. By six weeks brain waves are apparent & detectable. By eight weeks all internal organs are in place and have begun to form. By 11 weeks the baby's organs work on their own. (www.nrlc.org)
Obviously the child cannot live on its own outside of the womb. In the same token, a 6 week old cannot live on its own. Without someone to care for, love and nurture the child, he too would surely die.
Why is it a crime for a 6 week old to be shaken to the point that his little brain bruises and swells causing trauma, or a new born to be dumped into a garbage can, or a three year old to be left in a hot car in the sweltering heat, all of them left to die, but it is never an issue for a child, in the womb, to be bludgeoned in utero, and somehow it shouldn't be comparable? If a child dies in cold blood, it should make no difference what the age.
When a woman is harmed and her child is harmed as well, how is it not 2 counts of manslaughter? 2 charges of attempted murder? 2 charges of assault with a deadly weapon?
I think that it is time for every man & woman to stand up and tell Janet Napolitano that it is never okay for a child to be harmed, and it is her duty to do something to save them.
Planned Parenthood can use the excuse that this is leading up to the repeal of abortion rights. I say that its leading up to common decency for America's Unborn. No matter what your view on abortion is, you have to agree that abortion is voluntary, beatings that cause a miscarriage are not. No woman deserves to be beaten (keep the crack comments to a minimum on this one, guys), and no child deserves to die a violent death.
Call the Governor and demand that she sign 1052 into law.
Telephone 602-542-4331
Fax 602-542-1381

Mourning a Great Loss

2005-04-04T21:54:00.000-07:00

I wanted to take a moment to say that it brings great sorrow to my heart to know that Pope John Paul II has passed on. My friend Julie says, "Once a Catholic, always a Catholic." In a way, that remark couldn't be more true. I was baptized in the Catholic church as a baby, and when I lived with my Aunt we went to Catholic Mass.
I learned to respect the culture and the beliefs and traditions. I learned to respect the Holy leader and his papacy. My hope is that in this sad moment, others will learn to respect it as well.

Finally, Canada Does Something Right

2005-03-24T16:09:00.000-07:00

Canadian officials finally passed along a ruling on the Jeremy Hinzman case. If you aren't familiar with this loser, take a look at his own website: www.jeremyhinzman.com
He didn't want to go to war in Iraq, although he signed up for the Army & was stationed at Fort Bragg in 2001. He claims that he was brainwashed into joining the army, with promises of a better life and more security. Sorry, pal, but just because you thought joining the Army was going to be a cake walk & a free check doesn't mean that the poor Canadians should have to put up with you.
The Immigration and Refugee Board stated that Mr. Hinzman had not made a convincing or sufficient claim that he was persecuted in America. "Removal to the U.S. would not subject them personally to a risk to their lives or to a risk of cruel and unusual treatment or punishment," the board decided. "There are no substantial grounds to believe that their removal to the U.S. will subject them personally to a danger of torture."
Finally, Canada gets it right.
When asked what would happen to him if forced to return to the US, Jeremy states, "I would go to jail if forced to return to the US. And the U.S. does have a law that states that deserters can, in a time of war, be subject to the death penalty. Although I say it is unlikely, the Bush administration is known to set precedents, so I wouldn't put anything past them." Maybe in this case, this wouldn't be a bad precedent to set?
Maybe Hinzman went about this all the wrong way. He should have asked Bill Clinton for help, then, in a few years, he can run for President.

The Right to Live, The Right to Die

2005-03-23T10:19:00.000-07:00

While the Terri Schindler-Schiavo case is all over the news, it seems a bit reduntant for me to blog on the matter. However, I have a few things that I wonder about, in regards to the case, and I wonder if anyone else feels the same way...

1.) If Terri's heart attack was not because of her eating disorder (that she developed because her husband told her she was fat, constantly), but actually because of Michael and his abusive demeanor, should he be charged with a crime?

2.) If Terri had not been denied years of Physical Therapy, as doctors had ordered in the beginning, would she be okay today? (I have heard several moving stories of people who were in a "vegatative state" but after six months or so of pt they are mobile again.)

3.) If the Schindler's (Terri's parent's) whole-heartedly want to take over caring for Terri, shouldn't they be allowed? Why is Michael Schiavo fighting this? He's off the hook. Just let them take over, go live your life with your new girlfriend and two kids.

4.) Does anyone else think that Michael is creepy and bastardly? Who honestly withholds treatment from a woman that has a hope of regaining her life? Who speaks with such harsh words, as he has, and leaves her side to start a family with another woman? I understand needing to move on, but he wasn't doing a very good job of moving on in the first place. He could have easily gave up Power of Attorney, and THEN moved on with his life.

5.) Does the new girlfriend find it strange that her man is so cold hearted? Is she naive enough to believe that he would be different to her, if she were in the same situation?

I'm so perplexed on many levels, that I cannot fathom being in this situation. She obviously had hope at one time for a normal, or somewhat normal life. How can that be denied?

The Senator and the KKK

2005-03-03T13:09:00.000-07:00

I hate to trudge up someone's past like this, but after Senator Robert Byrd's remarks on Tuesday, I feel that it's justified.
When someone makes a statement claiming that I am a Nazi because of my political affiliation, I get a little upset. Let's think this through for one second though.
The Nazi movement came based upon wanting to create a "Perfect Society." Men, women and children were murdered because of their looks, their capabilities in life, and their religious views. Because I am Polish (one quarter, so lets keep the Pollock jokes to a minimum, please), I would not have lasted a day under Hitler's regime. Ken Mehlman? Gone in a heart beat. Someone born with a deformity or a handicap? Shot to the head.
Let's talk about the party that does this on a daily basis and they fight for the right to be able to kill at will.
The Democratic Party platform allows for genocide, and borderline infanticide. By allowing procedures like Partial Birth Abortion, Selective Reduction and other medical cruelties, they are no better than the Nazis.
If a mother and father find out that the baby may have a handicap, or other health issues what does the doctor suggest? Abortion. If the life of that unborn child creates an inconvenience, what does NARAL, NOW & Planned Parenthood suggest? Abortion. If you have a handicapped infant, and you decide that you do not want to deal with the issues at hand, what does Professor Peter singer say you should do? Kill the child. Yes, its true. Do a google search on this wacko. He later rescinded his statement that it was okay to kill a handicapped child for up to 28 days, and said he thought it should be more like 2-3 years.
It leads me to call into question the various statements that have been made by the left in the past by people like George Soros of moveon.org, and Senator Robert Byrd. If you allow children to be killed because you simply don't want them (or the old PP mantra, "Every Child Should Be a Wanted Child") then are you better than the Nazis?
I think its time to take a look at the platforms and discuss some changes that need to be made.

Conservative? Liberal? Or Just a Swinger?

2005-03-03T12:31:00.000-07:00

USA Today is reporting that Sandra Day O'Connor is the deciding swing vote in the Ten Commandments case. This is usually the case in these types of issues, especially when it comes down to a liberal versus conservative point of view.
People have long argued about the place of religion in our government. People like the ACLU would like for us to believe that religion has no place in America. I would like everyone, including Justice O'Connor to remember that religion is why America was founded in the first place. Had it not been for the need to worship freely without persecution, we'd all still be part of the Church of England and the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War would never have happened.
But, it is a part of our history. We cannot forget the importance of religion in America. As much as people would like to disagree, ideology stems from religious beliefs, not all of the time, but a lot of the time. I believe in God and I am not offended by a statue of Moses and the Ten Commandments, which happens to be at the Supreme Court building.
Justice O'Connor needs to remember that she was appointed by President Reagan. A man that was devout in his faith. She needs to remember that this decision will effect not just two states, but the world, and generations to come. Hopefully she will stick to her guns and go with allowing these monuments to be displayed as a "museum."
The fact is, it happened. It's a part of history. If we don't allow the Bible stories to be told, what's next? Do we start to erase parts of history pertaining to wars that were fought to conserve the very freedom that we can no longer claim?

Side Note, from The Note

2005-03-03T10:03:00.000-07:00

Every morning I receive an email from ABC's "The Note." It's a general overview of anything and everything going on in politics, in DC and abroad. If you haven't signed up for it yet, I suggest you do.
One thing I love about it: HUMOR. I love that they can take jabs at D's & R's, and it never seems to be bias. This morning something I found particularly funny was a "memo" to Howard Dean...Read on...
***********************************************************************************
TO: GOV. DEAN
FROM: DNC STAFF
RE: SO FAR

With successful trips to two Red States under your belt and not a single public (or even cowardly on-background) quote leveled against you from a Democratic strategist/leader/operative, you are off to a fine start. But there are some things we think you could do, uhm, better.
Here's our list:

1) Implied in your insistence that we call you "Governor" instead of "Chairman" seems to be a forlorn fondness for your former employ and a disdain for your current job. Keep this up and we may end up splitting the baby and just calling you "the politician-formerly-known-as-front-runner." [Keep this up and we may end up insisting that you call us "former McAuliffe staffers." Stings a little, doesn't it?]

2) We know you're sick of hearing it, but that's okay because frankly three weeks in, we're already sick of telling you: watch the language. Osama bin Laden is evil. Lionel Ritchie music is evil. Astroturf is evil. Republicans are not evil. Entirely.

3) The Fabulous Flournoy has been captaining the ship well, but we have no idea who her lieutenants are. Vagueness was okay on week one. And two. And arguably three. But we're now nearly on week four of the new Dean regime and we need two words our party seems allergic to "org chart."

4) Word to the wise staff is a constituency, and like any constituency you have to win us over. You can't do that if you won't talk to us. The last guy here wouldn't shut up and we loved him for it.

5) Psychologists say room decor reveals a lot about a person. Actually we just made that up. But it does sound like something they would say. Anyway, we're ascribing that to them to make a point: your office is too spare. Where's the campaign memorabilia, the 11 framed balanced budgets, the conspicuously absent Trippi photo, etc.?

6) Terry was to Cafe Milano as Howard is to . . . What? Until you can answer that question, you're not really our chairman. That said, we're here to serve. From what we've gathered from our time together so far, you're probably a tad more earthy; we recommend you consider Nora, Two Quail and Ben's Chili Bowl.

7) Get out there more. Yes, yes. We understand that you're trying to send the signal that you're here to work and don't wish to hog the limelight. But Sen. Clinton's first year in office proved that you can both stay low key and get more exposure for it.

8) Whenever you first ride the DC Metro, we wanna come with.

9) Look, we're not going to name names here, but we all know where you lodge while in town and, well, while admirable, we would feel safer if you upgraded to at least a Motel 6.

10) Stop lighting incense all over the building. People are growing suspicious.

11) It's always a good idea to let state parties know you might be coming to their state to visit. In advance, we mean.

12) Our blog: sure it's fun and all, necessary too, but NOT SUFFICIENT.

13) As you know from reading The Note every day, we're soclose to defeating bush on Social Security. So let's pony up some $ our side needs it.

14) Hello. We are your staff and we are here to help. Let us. Otherwise we'll turn into a soft, gentle people and it won't be pretty.

15) Buton the other hand: hey hey, ho ho, some of us have got to go.

16) Can we keep Tina?

17) GOP leadership? '08ers? Tell us how to go after them. Bush no longer matters.

18) The Republican Party has a very clever plan to keep you from re-making your public image. Don't be fooled by that Ken Mehlman "good cop" stuff. You can be one of the best chairs this party has ever had, or you can end up a cartoonish joke.

19) Do you have a plan secret or otherwise for the next four years? If so and if it needs to be secret to work by all means, keep it secret.

20) Transitions are hard. For all of us.

Thanks for hearing us out.

DUH

2005-02-24T11:35:00.000-07:00

okay, so the latest Fox Opinion Poll says that seven in ten Americans think that Hollywood is out of touch with their values.
All I have to say is "BIG SURPRISE!" -Did they really need to do a poll on this one?

Side Note #2 for Today

2005-02-23T14:05:00.000-07:00

Let me start this post out by saying I'm not an environmentalist, at all. However, can someone explain the sheer lunacy that was going on at Wendy's today?
I went in for lunch and when I left I asked for a refill on my diet coke and they threw away my cup and gave me a new one. I guess this could be some health code violation for me to reuse my cup, but this is the only time I've ever seen this done. Can someone please explain?
I'm glad to know that members of ELF (Earth Liberation Front) would never eat there...My favorite fast food place would be burned to the ground! Now, we only have to worry if Wendy's starts serving soy patties and organic veggies with goat's milk...
Oh yeah, YES, I do order Diet Soda with my fried chicken nuggets. They cancel each other out! ;o)~

Where Do You Draw the Line, Part Two

2005-02-23T12:15:00.000-07:00

I received a rather nasty post from an unwelcome blogger. I don't care if you read my post, but please don't call me a hypocrite. I think we should live along the lines that we must agree to disagree. Trust me, I have read MANY blogs, and well, even the NEW YORK TIMES or the ARIZONA REPUBLIC, and been quite upset at what is there in black and white.
As decent human beings and as a general rule...Don't call me a hypocrite just because you don't believe as I do. At least I can back my faith and beliefs up with fact. Can you, Ms. Universal Unitaliterian United Church? As far as I'm concerned, that church was created to serve your needs and purposes not to have to be accountable to anyone or anything. It is people like you, who judge others, and then start your own religions because people are judged. Talk about being Ass Backwards!
Please see my comments to you in Where Do You Draw the Line.
Thank you for respecting my space.

KAET Polls Show Napolitano Preferred Candidate over ALL Republicans

2005-02-23T09:56:00.000-07:00

This wasn't the title of the story, but it might has well be.
Let's face it, ASU, KAET and the Walter Cronkite School of Journalism are not known for being all too "Conservative Friendly." Sometimes I wonder where they pull these people from.
Anyhow, in a statewide telephone poll of 400 people here is what they found:
31% said they definitely WOULD support a second term.
28% probably would support a second term.
16% probably would NOT support her for a second term.
13% would definitely NOT support her for a second term.

What does this mean?
Well, I'm trying not to sound like I'm giving up, so here's what needs to happen...
We need every single vote from the WOULD NOT's, the PROBABLY WOULD NOT's, and no less than 3/4ths of the probably would supports to even hit the 50% mark. That's dead even.
According to this poll, J.D. Hayworth received only 28% to the Gov's 54% when paired up. Former Maricopa County Attorney Rick Romley received 25% to Janet's 50% and, unfortunately, Former Governor Fife Symington received only 14% when matched up against Napolitano's 70%.
The fortunate thing is that we know that this poll simply cannot be true. J.D. Hayworth is one of the most beloved men in our state. I wouldn't go as far as to say that he's as loved as former Senator and Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater, but I can see that it could reach that level. (Please see former post: Does Anyone Want to Run for Governor of AZ in '06, to read more about JD). So with keeping that hope in mind, these numbers are obviously incorrect.
Now getting back to reality. The problem with Fife Symington, and the reason that his chances are slim is not because he is a bad person, or a "crook" as I have heard recently. It's that most people that live in Arizona, did not live here during his full administration. They did not see the good that he did. Let's remind these newbies to Arizona of tax reductions, income growth and capital investments that he implemented as our 19th Governor. He was convicted on charges that had nothing to do with his policies. AND, lets not forget that he later was exonerated of all charges.
With that being said...We need to get down to business. One year is not far away. We are in trouble, and the Democrats know it.
Please sign up at www.azgop.org as a volunteer, www.gop.com as a Team Leader, or join your local Young Republicans League. To find out more visit www.arizonayr.com. AND FOR HEAVEN'S SAKE, MAKE SURE YOU ARE REGISTERED TO VOTE!!

LIE OF THE DAY

2005-02-21T16:16:00.000-07:00

"If I had to do it over, I wouldn't do it at all..."I didn't do it for money, I did it for History."
-Doug Wead, author of The Raising of a President on Good Morning America

Side Note: If you didn't do it for money, why are you selling the book that was written based on those tapes? Is all of the profit going to homeless shelters, halfway houses and pregnancy centers?
...I didn't think so...
You wrote a book about our President, based on tapes from a private conversation. Now you are hawking your book on National Television, and letting all of America hear these tapes. And you say it isn't for money, and you wouldn't do it again?
Gee, why don't I believe you??

Two Halves Don't Make a Whole

2005-02-21T15:55:00.000-07:00

Trying to sort through the madness of life and relationships is never fun. Especially when you know that you have a lot of garbage to sort through.
I have a past like no one else. Not to say that yours isn't as interesting, or wasn't as difficult. Mine was just different.
I moved to D.C. to run from my past. I wanted to prove to all of the nay-sayers that I was more than the little girl that grew up in foster homes. I was more than the girl that could barely look anyone in the eyes because of her shame. I was more than the girl that was beaten and abused daily. I wanted to prove that I was not a statistic, not in the way that you usually hear of kids like me, anyway.
I wanted to show that I had potential. That I could dream big dreams and make big things happen. So, I moved. And then I moved again. And again. Now, I am thinking of moving again.
For people like me, there is a sense of safety in moving around. No one knows you. You never have to overcome your past, because with these new people, you have no past, as far as they are concerned. I was always the new kid when I was younger, so to me, it seems right. Roots only let people see you for who you really are.
The problem with good friends are that they seem to remind you of your past. I don't mean this in a negative way. They do it to help us. They want us to better ourselves and make wiser decisions than we have in the past.
Well, I made a wise decision. I am starting to dig through my 'closet,' if you will, of past relationships. I am dissecting each one, trying to find out why I am a serial dater. What is it about me that needs to have someone so close?
I've figured out a few things. One of these things is that its all an illusion. These people are never really close to me. I let them in, but not very far. They think that they are in, but just as soon as they think that, they are gone. Out of my life. Next time you see me with friends, or even a boyfriend, look closely. Everything about me is uncomfortable. I am so insecure that for people to know who I really am is impossible, for I don't even know who I am.
The second thing I've learned is that because of my insecurities I have a habit of picking men that make me feel good about myself. It doesn't matter how old or young. How smart or unintelligent they seem to be. Good looking or old & unattractive. It doesn't matter to me. These men are here, by my side simply to serve one purpose: To Worship Me.
I am not into idol worship or anything weird like that. I mean that these guys are the ones who have to continuously tell me how wonderful, beautiful, funny and smart I am. This is because I know that I am, but at the same time, I don't fully believe it. I want to, but I still hear that voice deep down inside, the one that says, "You'll never be anything. You can't make it. You are a screw up. You are ugly. You are stupid." If I have someone around whose voice is louder and more frequent than the one in my head, sometimes I think that it will all go away.
Most of the time though, these guys have their own issues. How can I be broken and need healing, and yet expect someone else to fix me? Healing comes from down deep inside. From God, from His strength.
So, my advice to myself, and to others like me, Stop looking towards someone else who's broken to fix you. Two halves don't always make a whole. At least not with people.

To Love What You Do & Feel That it Matters...

2005-02-21T14:20:00.000-07:00

Katharine Graham from the Washington Post once said, "To love what you do and feel that it matters, how can anything be more fun?"
I think this statement is 100% true. At least for me. I have been struggling because I have been working two very unimportant jobs lately, and I am quite bored. This makes me want to slit my wrists or jump off the side of the building, just for kicks.
Its not to say that working for a water company isn't important- I mean, If I didn't have hot water in my house, someone would die. And If I was getting married, then perhaps I would find more significance in someone that was a wedding consultant, but alas, I just don't care.
Last week at our young adults group the Pastor was talking about how we spend our time. Do we use our time wisely? How we spend our time is a reflection of our life...I soon thereafter tuned out of the discussion and started to think...
If there is someone who spends even 40 hours a week working a job that they hate, then I agree that they are not spending their time wisely. If there is someone who is working 120 hours a week (as I did) doing something that they love, and are called to do, why is that a waste? I believe wholeheartedly that when you are hard wired to do something, and you are good at it, and it is what you love to do, then why is that a crime? Working in politics, I was always happy to get up and go to work, I almost never left my office. I slept only a few short hours a night and was lucky to have a few days off in the four and half months I officially worked for the campaign. Is that a crime? Did I waste my time?
I don't think so. January 20th told me that it was well worth my time. If you are doing what God has called you to do and glorifying Him for the opportunity to be able to do it, then I think you are right on track.
I only hope that I am blessed enough to be able to do what I love again...

Changing Their Tune

2005-02-21T13:04:00.000-07:00

Sorry I'm posting this a bit later than I had hoped to, but this will be in reference to a NY Times article published on Feb. 16, 2005. Please feel free to read the article & drop me a line with your input. "For Democrats, Rethinking Abortion Runs Risks" (The link wouldn't post here, sorry!)

Okay so it's happening. We all knew that this day would come...
The Democrats have lost control of the nation, and of their party. They are being viewed as out of sink with the country and their constituents. People no longer want to associate with their leftist thinking. So, what do they do? First of all, they elect Howard Dean as their chairman... By any normal standards, this would seem odd. This guy didn't get the nomination for President because he was so far gone, now they want him to run their party?
Richard Perle made a great point this weekend at Pacific U when stating, "How appropriate that the Democrats elect a physician as the leader of the Democratic Party. They need one."
Anyway, I digress. Back to my original point.
The NY Times wrote that several leaders at the DNC and in Congress are encouraging a more moderate view on abortion and women's health issues. NARAL is publishing an ad in the conservative "Weekly Standard" magazine asking for help in reducing abortions, by providing more birth control options.
Hillary Rodham-Clinton (who coincedentally has voted 100% of the time AGAINST anything remotely related to Right to Life) and Chairman Dean suggest that they "recalibrate the party's thinking on new restrictions on abortions." And even Minority Leader Harry Reid votes pro-life 80% of the time (for a Mormon, I would think it should be 100%). I found it to be interesting that there are several staunchly pro-death candidates, including Sen. Chuck Schumer (his voting record also states a 100% opposition to Right to Life issues), that are actually RECRUITING pro-life democrats. (Bob Casey, Jr. To oppose Rick Santorum). Coincidentally, Jr.'s father faced opposition from the Dem's in '92 when he could not speak at the convention because of his pro-life stance. (Thanks, Bill & Hill.)
The upside for the Dems is that they regain part of their base, which is the staunchly pro-life, yet very Catholic community, which tends to lean towards the Democratic Party on most other issues. For many pro-lifers, it is that one issue that sways their vote. Especially when you stand with the Pope. The Pope has condemned war. George W. Went to war and many Catholics did not want to vote for him, but the issue more near and dear to their heart: Sanctity of Human Life. It is because of the conservative vote that we as Republicans are in power in Washington, and on the home front.
Once the DNC even opens up to the idea of changing their party platform, or taking an easier view on abortion they will re-gain many of their faithful. I believe that the Catholic church will begin to support more candidates, as best they can as a 501(c)3, anyway.
This is where the downside for the Republicans comes into play. I believe that we need to continue to prove that Hillary is becoming a softy for reasons that will be layed out over the next three and a half years. How can a woman that promised us 2,000 abortion clinics by the year 2000 all of the sudden believe that abortion is not the answer? How can someone who continues to praise Planned Parenthood, claim to be moderate on the life issue?
2008 is not far off. It is time that the Republicans kick it into high gear. Conservative values are the values of the Republican ticket and we need to make sure that we keep our focus. We cannot afford to have the nation sway towards an iffy candidate, especially one who's word means nothing at best, especially when we've come this far.

Where Do You Draw the Line?

2005-02-18T11:30:00.000-07:00

I was watching one of my favorite shows last night, Will & Grace. I know, I shouldn't love it, but I do. It's funny. Or, should I say, it used to be funny?
I've found it to be unamuzing at some points. Where do I, as a Christian and a Republican draw the line? I refuse to be one of those people who boycotts EVERYTHING under the sun. I know that some things will be offensive to me and my beliefs. I know that there are people who don't agree with me. I do agree in Freedom of Speech. Here is where my issue lies.
How is it that shows like "Will and Grace" can bash our President left and right, but we cannot stand up for ourselves in the Media without being made out to look like a bunch of crazies?
Several episodes of that show have made our President out to look like a dimwhit, and to trash Republicans. I recall once even hearing Will say something about a client being a large donor to the Republican National Committee and the grandfather of five, so how could Jack act so gay in front of him? You know what? Just because we give money to the RNC, that doesn't mean that we are HOMOPHOBIC!!!
I actually have homosexual friends. I go dancing & shopping with them. I have fun. Do I support their lifestyle? NO, absolutely not. Do they know it? YES. We just agree to disagree and move on.
Being Republican doesn't make me a freak. Being a Christian doesn't make me weird. I believe in the principles that this Nation was founded on. You don't? Okay, that's what the first amendment is about. You have the right to go on TV and say you are homosexual and you hate my President and my Lord. I have the right to tell you to stick it where the sun don't shine.
Stop telling me that FOX NEWS is biased. But then, if you line up with CNN's views why would you want anyone to hear anything else but lies?
I am tired of people making fun of good people like Dr. James Dobson for his beliefs. I am tired of people bashing God on TV and Republicans and their policy in the news.
I don't want to be one of those people that sits in my house without a TV, never going to a movie, for fear that I will be offended. I refuse to live my life in a cave. However, I refuse to sit quietly and take crap from people out of the mainstream any longer.
I AM CHRISTIAN. I BELIEVE IN GOD. I AM PRO-LIFE, PRO-TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE. AND, I AM REPUBLICAN.

Washing My Mouth Out with Soap

2005-02-16T11:17:00.000-07:00

I am so bored at work that I am sitting here biting off my acrylic nails for something to do. Word to the wise...Make sure there isn't soap under your nails if you ever decide to do this. GROSS!

Anyone Want to Run for Governor of AZ in '06?

2005-02-14T20:07:00.000-07:00

There was a rumor that was circulating for a while that Congressman J.D. Hayworth (Rep. AZ-5th Dist.) was going to run for Governor in 2006. I am sad to say that the rumor has come to a halt. It's not completely a bad thing. JD has been climbing the ranks in leadership in Congress, which is definitely not a lost cause. We need more congressman that have their act together. He knows the issues and he's great at what he does. JD is one of the few congressman I've met that actually makes an attempt to make you feel like you aren't just one of the thousands, but just one of his friends. He is always welcoming and friendly.
I guess where I am going with all of this is that I am worried about the state of my state.
Without a candidate with JD's caliber, do the Republican's have a chance to reclaim the Gubernatorial office? Republicans hold the majority in the state legislature and at the Federal level, but without a governor that will sign our bills into law, we are spinning our wheels on many issues.
Janet Napolitano has gained notoriety throughout the country with other Dems for her work. She has played her last three years very smartly. Sure, she has ticked off the Republican's, but that's to be expected. What she hasn't done is make the moderates or the lefties mad. Without a truly conservative candidate, as in socially conservative, we cannot expect to take back the 9th floor of the capitol. We need someone that will rally the conservative base and make them get out and vote. I fear that we do not have this.
Even with a socially conservative candidate in 2002 we lost the Gubernatorial race. Which leads me to ask this one important question:
Do the social conservatives only vote during Presidential Election years? The conservative base turned the 2004 election around completely. We are a force to be reckoned with and everyone knows it. Do we have a chance of winning without the conservative vote? I know we lost the election in '02 because so many social conservatives did not show up at the polls.
Why is this? People need to understand that politics begin at home. If we don't control our local ground, if we don't speak our minds there, why should we expect to make a difference nationally? It is time for everyone to step up to the plate. Stop thinking that your vote only matters once every four years.

Passing the Time

2005-02-04T18:53:00.000-07:00

HELLO EVERYONE!
Okay, so I know that it has been weeks since my last post, so here I am, making a short, yet sweet appearance.
I am working as a Wedding Consultant at David's Bridal in Paradise Valley (and hating the irony that I, the single woman, am helping women get married everyday.) I am looking for something political- so hopefully soon something will come around.
I am back at church and so glad to be home.
Sorry that this is so short. I will pontificate more when I have the time, as so much is going on with the new administration. (AND HOW GREAT WAS THE STATE OF THE UNION THE OTHER NIGHT?!?!)
Love you all. Be safe and well.
I will write soon. I promise.
Val

Home, Sweet Home

2005-01-14T21:38:00.000-07:00

Its a new season, its a new day. At least thats the way the song goes, and I believe it.
I have moved home, and let me tell you the relief I felt as the plane lifted off of the ground at DCA. Whew. It was like I could finally breath again.
I am working as a wedding consultant. Not exactly the job I've always had in mind, but hey, everything happens for a reason. I met a Congressman's daughter this morning at my shop. Like I said everything happens for a reason. (I also think I placed the wrong order, I am going to get fired!) I am looking for my "real" job right now, this is sort of a filler for the time being. But I know that my friends also accept me for me, and NOT for the title that is behind my name, so its nice to be home and to know that even if I do have to work this job for the rest of my life, it will be okay.
Anyway. Life is a journey, and I am hoping that mine will be memorable and rewarding. God will lead me to where I am supposed to be. Right now though, I am just along for the ride.

PS- I have limited access to the net right now, so bear with me as I might not be posting as often as I normally do (hence the long absence leading up to this post!)

Gifts

2004-12-30T08:06:00.000-07:00

"God has given each of you from His great variety of spiritual gifts. Manage them well so that God's generosity can flow through you." -I Peter 4:10

Pastor Barnett always says that God doesn't need our money, He needs our obedience. We tithe and give offering because the Bible says to (Mal. 3:10 & II Cor.9:7).
With our obedience comes God knowing that when we are faithful in the smallest of things He will give us greater things. He continues to bless us when we are faithful.
This leads me to ask this question:
How can God help us grow in our talents if we won't help grow His kingdom? We often ask for God to bless us, or to help us find the perfect job or mate. Well, then why aren't we planting seeds? Why aren't we asking God to help us develop our talents, so that when we are blessed, we can bless OTHERS?
Being a blessing to others doesn't mean that you give cash away all the time. Sometimes, blessing others is a talent that needs to be developed in other ways. Being a friend who listens. Maybe being the one who sends an encouraging email or gives a phone call to say that you were thinking of someone. We never know what people are going through. Sometimes, developing your spiritual gifts may be as easy as learning to listen to that inner voice that nudges you to speak to someone you don't know, and maybe befriend them.
You will never know how you can be a blessing if you don't let God develop your gifts. Be faithful in the smallest things, and He will give you more.

My Favorite

2004-12-29T16:32:00.000-07:00

"Every good and perfect gift comes to us from above, who created all heaven's lights. Unlike them, He never changes or casts shifting shadows." -James 1:17

Mother's Know Best

2004-12-27T21:27:00.000-07:00

When I was younger I wanted nothing more than to be independent and free. Especially from my mother. Why is it that young women need desperately to be away from our mothers, and yet we need them near?
I never realized how much I loved my mom, or just how much she loved me until July. I mean, I always knew that she loved me, but I didn't get HOW MUCH. Our relationship is strange, especially since she is not my birth mother. I've always been grateful to her for giving up her life to take me in. I've always been thankful for the sacrifices of her family, for me. They made me one of them. But I never really got it, until now. In a weird way, I never appreciated her the way that I should have.
July came and I was moving to Las Vegas. I was terrified of leaving home. I was afraid to drive alone. I didn't want to go, but I did. Mom gave up her weekend at the last second to drive with me. She wanted to make sure that I arrived safely.
When it came time for her to leave me, I cried. I was like a little girl standing in the school yard on my first day of kindergarten. I had never been without my mom. What would I do now?
I immediately became lonely. I didn't know if I could survive without this woman that had become my best friend, my mentor and the woman I wanted to be when I grew up.
Now that I am in DC- she worries about me. I am so far away. She doesn't ever hear from me. I try to explain that it's because I don't want to disappoint her. I haven't done all of the things that I said I was going to do. But in a way, I think she is proud of me, even if she hasn't said it.
I called her today. I cried and told her I wanted to come home. She said okay.
So, now, I am getting ready to leave this place so far away. I wanted my independence. Now all I want is my family.
I can't wait to see my mom!!

Return, O Israel

2004-12-27T20:20:00.000-07:00

As I was reading my daily devotional, I realized how great it is that God knows us so well. In this time of my need, there was my devotional. It is exactly what I needed to read. I too, am in the midst of a private battle. I have finally given in to God and come to know the bittersweet defeat. I would rather lose myself to God and His will than lose my soul anyday.
It is now that I surrender fully to God.

###

"If you will return, O Israel, says the Lord..." -Jeremiah 4:1

Our battles are first won or lost in the secret places of our will in Gods presence, never in full view of the world. The Spirit of God seizes me and I am compelled to get alone with God and fight the battle before Him. Until I do this, I will lose every time. The battle may take one minute or one year, but that will depend on me, not God. However long it takes, I must wrestle with it alone before God, and I must resolve to go through the hell of renunciation or rejection before Him. Nothing has any power over someone who has fought the battle before God and won there.
I should never say, "I will wait until I get into difficult circumstances and then Ill put God to the test." Trying to do that will not work. I must first get the issue settled between God and myself in the secret places of my soul, where no one else can interfere. Then I can go ahead, knowing with certainty that the battle is won. Lose it there, and calamity, disaster, and defeat before the world are as sure as the laws of God. The reason the battle is lost is that I fight it first in the external world. Get alone with God, do battle before Him, and settle the matter once and for all.
In dealing with other people, our stance should always be to drive them toward making a decision of their will. That is how surrendering to God begins. Not often, but every once in a while, God brings us to a major turning pointa great crossroads in our life. From that point we either go toward a more and more slow, lazy, and useless Christian life, or we become more and more on fire, giving our utmost for His highestour best for His glory.

-Oswald Chambers, My Utmost for His Highest Devotional (www.gospelcom.net/rbc/utmost)

No What Ifs

2004-12-27T19:54:00.000-07:00

What if I never make it? What if I never find the love of my life? What if I already met him, and I passed him by, for what I thought was a better find? What if...What if...What if...
I have determined that I will have no "what if's" in my life. From now on, Carpe Diem. Live life to its fullest. Pray to God that I stay in His perfect will, but if I don't, know that His grace is sufficient and expansive enough for Him to bring me back to where I need to be. And besides, no one else may love me, but He always will.

How Long?

2004-12-25T15:52:00.000-07:00

I am sitting here on the couch watching "Joey" with Chris. The premise of the show is that Joey's nephew has moved in with him & is looking for dating advice. The nephew finally gets a girls number and there is a debate on how long to wait to call someone. Well, I am going to clear up the confusion for all of you men out there, and for the women who expect a call that night (ridiculous) and the ones who think three weeks later is acceptable.
Situation One:
You are at a party/bar/club/church/restaurant. An unknown approaches you. You talk, have great banter and he asks for your phone number.
If he doesn't call within three days, forget it. It's not happening. If he calls next week, blow him off. He was obviously not that interested and you should not be either.
Situation Two:
A friend introduces you to someone. Because you share a mutual friend, there should be some sort of communication within 24-48 hours, even if to say "It was nice meeting you, but..." (you don't want to make your friend have to explain to the other friend that there was no chemistry, be man, or woman enough to do this yourself, and quickly)
Situation Three:
You go on a date, expect a call within 48 hours (I believe 72 Hours is too long). If the date was terrible, guys, call and break it off the next day. Don't put off what you can do today for tomorrow. Fish or cut bait, one of my FAVORITE sayings when it comes to relationships. If it was great, why would you want to wait? Call her in the mid afternoon to let her know you enjoyed yourself.
RECAP:
Women don't want someone who is overly bearing. A call that night, or even the next morning may seem to be a bit too eager for a woman, and it can turn us off. HOWEVER, if you are overly aloof, we may think you are stuck on yourself, disinterested, or just a complete jackhole.
Take your time, but hurry up!

Seeing is Believing

2004-12-25T14:56:00.000-07:00

It doesn't feel like Christmas. I was talking with a co-worker from Pakistan. In America, Christmas is so commercialized. We've lost touch with the "Reason for the Season," the birth of our Lord and Savior, the one who came to Earth in the form of a baby to die on a cross. In Pakistan, Christmas is a time for family and reflecting. I think that the pressures have gotten to us in America, and our greediness is to blame.
Working in retail allows me to come into contact with a lot of people. I hear children saying, "I want, I want, I want." I see so many people charging. Rarely is there a cash buyer. What is it worth if you end up spending three times the price in credit card interest?
When did Christmas become less about being thankful for what we do have; family, friends, health and freedom; and more about how much crap we can acquire?
I hope that when I am blessed enough to have a family of my own, I will not succumb to the pressures of spoiling my children. I hope that I will not be one of those women that demand expensive gifts to "show how much they care." Caring is year 'round. If one or two days a year we expect expensive trinkets because the men in our lives don't show they care the other 364 days of the year, maybe we should have known our men and their lack of emotional availability before we married them?
So, hold me to it. No Tiffany's for me (not unless I am blessed enough to have a man that can pay CASH and pay the other bills). I would rather be comfortable than confined by debt.
Christmas= Christ's Day. Let's stop asking, "What did I get" and ask, "What do I already have that I am thankful for?"

Nothing to Fear, but Fear Itself

2004-12-25T02:45:00.000-07:00

Well, I've been talking about this for a while and I have finally made my decision.
I'm going home to Phoenix!
It's Christmas Eve, and as I sat in service and listened to the preacher, I realized that this was not what God had intended for me. I know that He allowed it. I know that I learned many valuable lessons from this experience, ones that I might not have learned otherwise.
One thing I realize is that my whole life I have tried to please others. I've been afraid of disappointing anyone. I've been afraid to make my own decisions. I've been afraid to say that I was wrong.
Well, here it is in one sentence. "I WAS WRONG." -and that's not a bad thing.
I am going to start facing my fears.
Maybe I won't always live up to everyone's expectations, but I've already exceeded my own.
I'm not giving up -I'm just starting a new journey in life. Who knows where this one will lead me. I know one thing is for sure...THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME. (It feels great to know that you can ALWAYS go home, and to know that I am.)

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!

Seeing Purple?

2004-12-23T23:40:00.000-07:00

I read the most recent edition of Newsweek which leads me to ask ONE question: Huh?
I am sickened by the obvious bias that is apparent and overwhelming in the back to back articles. The first ("Audacity of Hope") tells a tale of a new DNC savior, if you will, named Barack Obama. In the latter ("Mr. Right"-even has condecending tones to the title!), Rick Santorum is a meanie and we all should fear and loathe him.
I am NOT someone that you should ever go head to head with on a Santorum debate. I think the man is a great leader with morals and values. He also has a soul that hasn't been sold to get where he is and he admits his mistakes from his past and doesn't make excuses for decisions that he made. He takes responsibility, and encourages others to do so as well, which may be why the "free thinkers" can't stand him. [on a side note: I also pledged to him almost two years ago, that if he ever ran for President (obviously, after our beloved W was out of office), I would drop everything to help him in his race.]
Which all this ranting is leading somewhere, and that somewhere is here.
How can you praise one individual for "not knowing where he stands, but we know that he's a God fearing man." and condemn another for being a "devout and devoted family man -father to six home schooled children -and a senator determined to champion the church's traditional moral principles in the public square."?
I think it has to do with the lines leading up to, or following both of these sentences in each article. Obama is 'multi-racial' and praised by Harry Reid, a liberal Mormon senator from NV, the new Minority Leader, since Daschle's ousting. Santorum, however, is a white Catholic, he homeschool's his children (Oh No!), and, here is the worst of it all, Santorum is close to the White House.
If Santorum was John McCain, someone who has no party loyalty. Someone who would actually consider (or not publicly deny-same thing in politics, by the way) that he may take a shot at the VP seat for a DEMOCRATIC nominee, then the liberal media would have NO problem with him! It's because of Rick Santorum's faith, and the fact that he won't sellout, that he has cheapshots being taken at him.
Newsweek claims that Obama & Santorum are on the road to the WH in '08. They even have the nerve to compare BO to JFK by saying, Barack will be the same age as JFK when he runs (and takes office).
Oh well, since Barack has the power to 'unite' the red states and the blue states, so that we all see purple, I guess he is the answer to all of our problems. Except, we still dont know where he stands on most issues, and being a Catholic, we know where he SHOULD stand, but then again with Reid, Kerry and the rest of the left wing loonies throwing their support behind him, I think we all know where he lies.
I personally would like to keep seeing RED, so as Republicans, we all must do whatever is neccessary to make sure that we keep up the fight. Elections are not won in election years. They are won when we let down our guard and get complacent.

Pomp and Circumstance

2004-12-21T18:09:00.000-07:00

I think I am beginning to grow up. Seriously.
Today I went for coffee at the Capitol Hill Club. This is a pretty prestigiouis place, located next to the Republican National Committee's headquarters and across from the Cannon House Office Building. As I walked in I noticed that I was relatively unaffected by the fact that I was there.
I didn't care if Karl Rove was inside, I just was unimpressed. Who cares about getting into a place that you have to be a "member at" just to have a cup of coffee?
Maybe as I get older I am harder to impress, or maybe as I get older I care less and less about impressing people or having to be impressed.
Why is it so important for people to be known? In the movie "Anchorman" Will Ferrell's character is at a party & says to a woman, "Hi, I'm Ron Burgundy, I'm pretty important. People know me around here." I feel like that is EVERY person I meet here. I like that the woman responds with, "I'm very happy for you." These are my exact sentiments!
I am tired of the game. I am tired of people wearing their resume's on their sleeve. Who cares who you work for? Who cares how you dress? I don't care if your bag came from Coach or Target, if its cute, work it. I am tired of people only talking to you if you can do something for them. I am tired of people only hanging out with people that look a certain way. I am tired of the BS, basically. Everyone needs to CHILL OUT!
Am I naive, or does the rest of the world operate this way? If so, I never noticed it before, and I'd like to go back to where it is doled out in more subtle undertones of arrogance.

You Can Putt

2004-12-21T13:10:00.000-07:00

As I walked into my bosses office on that fateful Sunday afternoon, my eyes began to well up with tears. It was my first day on the job. Jen and I had just finished one of the LONGEST and most BORING meetings of our life. It was information overload.
My boss, MRS, called me into his office. He could tell that I was upset, or that something wasn't right. I was afraid, I was alone, and I hated Las Vegas with a PASSION.
I sat down at MRS's desk and we started to talk. My voice quivered and I told him all of the things that I was feeling and just how overwhelmed I was with being in a new place, and being all alone. Then it started to happen, the thing that every man on the face of the Earth hates. I started to cry.
Do you know what MRS's response was? Suck it up or get out, or at least that was it in a nutshell. He said to me, "If you get sad, you can putt." (MRS was not known for being a softy at that time. I was his 5th field staffer -all the others before me had been canned, and I was on my way out too, obviously. Now he's a big softy.)
MRS had this golf putter in his office and he & the boss used to hit the balls around the office when things got to be a bit stressful. I thought, "What an idiot," at the time. Now, I think to myself that I had to prove to myself that I could stick it out. That I could make it on my own.
I was alone and afraid. I didn't want to stay in Vegas, but I was needed there. The President's job was on the line. I had to suck it up because I didn't have a choice. MRS thought I was a joke. I had to prove to HIM that I wasn't a complete retard. If for nothing else, I could not leave until I showed everyone that homesick or not, I was going to work my tail off.
This is a different situation though. I have a choice here. I am not needed. I can do anything I want. That was my excuse for moving out here. I am young, I am single. I don't have anything to lose. I have no attachments and no one to answer to. Now is the perfect time.
Well, I am thinking that now may be the perfect time to throw in the towel. I am not a quitter, so that's why this is so unique for me. Normally, as I did in Vegas, I would be stubborn and pig headed & stay just to either A) tick someone off or B) prove myself to someone that didn't believe in me.
Being here has made me upset, not anyone else, and I've found that I've proven myself to the only person that matters. ME. Anyone that needs me to prove anything to them doesn't really care about me or believe in me in the first place. I am the one that has something to prove to myself.
This time around, I need to prove to myself that I really can go home. I always want people to be proud of me. I want verbal praise. I crave that in my life for some reason. Now, more than ever I am going to show myself that I can be a successful person without having to be miserable. I need to humble myself. I need to suck it up and say, you know what? I made a mistake. I wasn't supposed to be here, but I am going to make it right. I will face everyone that I told I was supposed to go, and tell them they were right, I was wrong.
One of my favorite sayings is that God gives us free will. If we stray from His will, He will always lead us back down the right path if we listen for His voice.
I'm listening now. I think it might be time to putt.

We'll see though. It's been a hard day. I need to get some sleep. I'll let you know what I decide to do tomorrow...

In Christ Alone

2004-12-21T00:06:00.000-07:00

"But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of Christ." -Philippians 3:7
***********

You Can't Take It With You

2004-12-18T23:15:00.000-07:00

I've noticed that it's the little things in life that seem to mean the most.
Have you ever noticed how caught up we all get in looking our best, and acquiring mass amounts of useless crap? I know that when I die I won't be able to take any of the garbage I've acquired to my grave, or beyond, so why is it so important?
Every January 1st most people make a New Year's Resolution, one that usually isn't kept. I am making mine early, and I am going to keep it. I am going to stop worrying about who's wearing what, and what kind of car so & so is driving. I don't care that I don't have the nicest car or the top of the line clothes. I know that I can't afford to drop money left and right on a whim. That is okay with me. I just don't act like it most of the time. I usually throw a mini-temper tantrum (only God is invited to this one) and say "Why does (insert name here) have this & that, and I am working so hard and I have nothing?!"
I need to learn to be a good steward of what God has given me. I need to learn to be thankful for what I do have. I know that God wants to bless me, His word says so. I don't doubt that for a minute. Maybe I am not in my dream job right now. Maybe I did work really hard in the past, but I got too big for my britches. I believe that sometimes God needs us to take a different route to get to our final destination. I believe that sometimes God wants to humble us.
Have you ever heard the saying that the Poor are closer to God? It's true.
I am BROKE right now, and my faith in God has grown exponentially. I am learning to rely on Him all over again. It's not by my strength, but by His. He will take care of me.
So from now on, instead of worrying why I don't have, I am going to start thanking God for what I do have.

Good Word

2004-12-18T09:25:00.000-07:00

"But Blessed are those who trust in the Lord and have made the Lord their hope and confidence." -Jeremiah 17:7, NLT

Extremism in the Defense of Liberty

Retire Reid

A Wake Up Call for the Right

Two Americas

Fight On, Americans

You Have to Wonder

Debate Slip Ups...Caught on Camera

Its Not the Great Depression...Yet

No Time for Partisan Politics

Stay Classy, Liberals...Wait, is That an Oxy Moron?

Obama's Blueprint for America

Mexican Citizens on Death Row in the United States?

Hate Couture?

A House Divided Will Not Stand

A True Gift at Christmas Time

What is Wrong with Young People??

Issues that Matter to Young Voters

Division Instead of Unity

Damaging Morale

Sixth Anniversary of September 11th

Usama Bin Laden to Address American People on 6th Anniversary of September 11th

John McCain Sings

Adopt-a-Jihaddist

The Republican Debates in a Nutshell

Prince Charming? Or Skewed Cartoon Version of the Men We Already Know?

The Faith of McCain

Undecided?: WHY JOHN MCCAIN

Address on Immigration

Jon Kyl on Iraq & Congress

Curfew Eased In Bagdad as Safety Improves

National Review: What Really Happened in the US Attorney Mess

The Case for McCain

Slow Train Coming

The Coming McCain Moment

The Coming McCain Moment

The Issue of Immigration

Right on McCain: John McCain's Conservative Record is Excellent

**BLANK** for President in 2008?!

Let's Get with the Times

2006 in Review

United 93

Stunt for Free Speach

Hagsville

South Park

...In Other News...

This Just In

The Battle Continues

November, 2004. Memories in Pictures.

The Right to Choose?

Decisions, Decisions

One in a Million

Move Over, Barbie

Visiting Forces

Laura Bush Joins Reality TV Show

Worth Celebrating

10 Most Famous Mensa Members

Ms. Plames Identity Revealed, but By Who?

Controversial, but Important

A Good Thing

HELD

Love Lost

The Pearls

Do You Ever Feel Like This?

I've Got the Joy, Joy, Joy, Joy, Down in My Heart

Theme for Today

A Tribute

ONE BILLION DOLLARS

Robbing the Woman of Her "Hoped-for-Future Child"

Mourning a Great Loss

Finally, Canada Does Something Right

The Right to Live, The Right to Die

The Senator and the KKK

Conservative? Liberal? Or Just a Swinger?

Side Note, from The Note

DUH

Side Note #2 for Today

Where Do You Draw the Line, Part Two

KAET Polls Show Napolitano Preferred Candidate over ALL Republicans

LIE OF THE DAY

Two Halves Don't Make a Whole

BLANK for President in 2008?!