Woo, woo...!

Love this! "The Campaign Just Got Hotter."

High Praise for Ryan from...Erskine Bowles?

Have any of you all met Paul Ryan? We should get him to come to the university. I'm telling you, this guy is amazing. I always thought I was okay at arithmetic, this guy can run circles around me. And he is honest, he is straightforward, he is sincere. And the budget he came forward with is just like Paul Ryan. It is a sensible, straightforward, honest, serious budget, and it cut the budget deficit, just like we did, by $4 trillion. The president came out with his own plan. And, the president as you remember, came out with a budget. And I don't think anybody took that budget very seriously. The Senate voted against it 97-to-nothing (September 8, 2011).

Note: According to Wikipedia (yes, sometimes I refer to Wikipedia!), Erskine Bowles is “best known for his appointment in 2010 as the Democratic co-chair of President Obama’s National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform with Alan K. Simpson.”

Ten Reasons Why Obama Should be Fired!

It occurs to me that a presidential election is like a job interview (for the challenger) and a performance review (for the incumbent). Barack Obama is the people's employee. We are his employer. The time has come to determine whether he should be retained as our employee.  The analogy makes perfect sense to me. Obama is not entitled to keep this job. We (voters) need to evaluate him on job performance alone--not fancy rhetoric, not the color of his skin, not the "cool" factor. Just the facts. 

How is the average voter supposed to be able to evaluate Barack Obama's job performance when all we have for reference is a fawning dominant media that camouflages Obama's flaws and magnifies his opponent's? 

Enter Hugh Hewitt. 

Mr. Hewitt has written a devastating critique of Barack Obama’s first and hopefully last term in office called The Brief Against Obama: The Rise, Fall & Epic Fail of the Hope & Change Presidency. The introduction itself is worth the cost of the book, but each chapter that I’ve read so far contains enough factual, documented information as to easily convict Obama of gross incompetence. It’s impossible to deny Hewitt’s claim that Obama is the ultimate “Peter Principle President.”

I'm about a third of the way into the book, and it occurs to me that some people may not be inclined to read this book, so I’ve decided I’m going to try and write abbreviated summaries of each chapter for those who won’t be purchasing the book, and post them here. Maybe someone reading this blog who might otherwise have thought Barack Obama deserves another term will change his or her mind. 

So here are 10 reasons why I think Obama doesn't deserve a second term in office, based on summaries of Hugh Hewitt's The Brief Against Obama first ten chapters, along with a few personal comments. Anyone who disputes these statements might want to read the book and check the sources Hewitt provides. As I said, these chapters are extensively documented. Also, for the record, lest I be accused of plagiarism, in summarizing these sections, I've decided not to put quotations marks around Hewitt’s wording.

Campaign Ads: Dishonest or Defamatory?

An article in today's Los Angeles Times tries to equate two recent campaign ads--one put out by an Obama Super PAC called Priorities USA and the other by the Romney campaign--by suggesting that both ads are "dishonest." The writer (David Lauter) dissects both ads and identifies the dishonest points as determined by independent fact-checkers.

The Priorities USA ad features a man named Joe Soptic who blames Bain Capital, and by extension, Mitt Romney, for his wife's death from cancer after Joe lost his health insurance when his company went bankrupt. The ad has been completely debunked, even by mainstream media outlets, and the Obama administration itself has tried (unsuccessfully) to distance itself from these outrageous claims. Yet though the ad is steeped in falsehoods, has nothing to do with policy or agenda, and amounts to nothing more than defamation of character, no one's pulling the ad, let alone apologizing. The message is all that matters. It gets the job done, end of story.

The Romney ad, by contrast, criticizes Obama for "quietly gutting welfare reform" by dropping the work requirements that were put in place during the Clinton administration. Critics of this ad are saying that Obama is doing nothing of the sort and that Romney is manufacturing "faux outrage." Unlike the "cancer ad" put out by Priorities USA, which attacked Mitt Romney personally, calling him, essentially, a murderer, this ad attacks a legislative action taken by the Obama administration. Welfare reform, which received bipartisan support back in the day when such a thing was actually possible, was a very big deal, and Obama's actions deserve scrutiny. This is definitely fair game, and doesn't even begin to sink to the level of "dishonesty" that the Priorities USA ad did.

Nevertheless, David Lauter equates them on one criterion alone: whether or not the ads are honest. His implied conclusion? Both campaigns lie, both teams play dirty, lying is par for the course (hey, LBJ used similar tactics to discredit Barry Goldwater), and even if your ad is considered devious, at least it's getting the job done. Not surprisingly, this being the LA Times, Lauter leaves the reader with the impression that Romney's team plays dirtier than Obama's team. Obama spokeswoman Lis Smith even gets the last word: "Mitt Romney...is currently running an ad that a former president and authors of the welfare-to-work legislation have called a flat-out lie. When the Romney campaign finally reaches the high ground, we look forward to greeting them there."

Sorry. Not buying any of this.

First, as I already said, there's absolutely no comparison between these two particular ads. One slanders the opponent, the other challenges his opponent's actions.

But second, the idea that Romney's criticism of what the Obama administration did in allowing states to be exempt from the welfare-to-work requirements is valid. Lauter says it's not, but his support comes from the administration's own announcement, and then cites five states who have requested to be exempt, including two with Republican governors (as if that settles the matter). A more fleshed out discussion was aired this past Thursday night on the PBS News Hour between Peter Edelman, a law professor at Georgetown University, and Robert Rector of the Heritage Foundation who actually helped craft the 1996 welfare reform program.

Here's an excerpt of their discussion, beginning with Robert Rector, who responds to Judy Woodruff's question about how he views Mitt Romney's recent criticisms of Obama's actions:

The Next Vice President of the United States

Maybe Mr. Romney misspoke when he introduced Paul Ryan as the "next president of the United States." Then again, maybe not. After two terms serving as President Romney's vice president, the next logical step would be two terms of President Ryan. Why not?

Here he is, speaking in front of the U.S.S. Wisconsin on Saturday, August 11th:

Best line? "But America is more than just a place...it's an idea.  It's the only country founded on an idea.  Our rights come from nature and God, not government.  We promise equal opportunity, not equal outcomes."

Second best line? "We won't duck the tough issues...we will lead! We won't blame others...we will take responsibility! We won't replace our founding principles...we will reapply them!"

Yes, America Does Deserve Better

I love this new Romney ad that focuses on the vile ads coming from the Obama camp, and also the one put out by American Crossroads. The Obama team must be convinced that the only way Obama can get re-elected is to utterly demonize Mitt Romney. And they may be right since Obama obviously can't run on his record, and the idealistic "hope and change" message that catapulted him to the Oval Office in 2008 has been revealed as totally bogus. So I guess these ugly ads from Barack Obama (not such a nice guy, after all) will just keep on coming until November 6th.

Of course my fear is that the "average" (read: non-scrutinizing) voter could very well believe these lies. I know members of my own family who believe them. So the Romney team must walk a fine line in their response: to return "tit for tat" and turn out dishonest ad hominem ads the Obama does could backfire. On the other hand, to say nothing, to play the gentleman, the way John McCain did in 2008, is to essentially surrender. So Romney has to be willing to play hard ball while at the same time playing fair. I think these ads meet those two requirements.

Mini Book Review: Dennis Prager's "Still the Best Hope"

Finally finished Dennis Prager's Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph. I've heard Dennis say on his radio program that the book is really three books in one, and I'd almost agree with this assessment but for the fact that the third section, arguably its most important given the title of the book, is disproportionate, in terms of substance and depth, to the other two. The first section (Leftism) is comprised of four chapters (What is Leftism; Why the Left Believes What it Believes; Why the Left Succeeds; The Left's Moral Record) and is over 200 pages long. The second section (Islam) is also four chapters (On Evaluating Religions; The Moral Record of Islam; Islam, America, and the West; Responses to Arguments on Behalf of Islam), though it is half the length of the previous section (about 80 pages). The third section (America and its Unique Values) is not delineated by chapter titles and runs about 80 pages in length. If Dennis ever writes a second edition of the book, I hope he is able to flesh out the third section especially. I got the sense that he was rushing towards deadline. The discussion felt compressed and condensed and is not as well-documented compared to the documentation in Parts I and II.

The strongest and most insightful discussion, in my view, is on Leftism. Writing about the left must be like trying to hold a giant squid in your hands while describing it to an audience. Prager says as much in his opening pages. He argues that leftism is a kind of religion, albeit one without Scripture and verse, making it difficult to document its core beliefs and tenets the way you might be able to define (say) Judaism or Buddhism. In addition, Dennis points out that people on the left don't even refer to themselves as "leftists," nor do they consider their beliefs as an alternate worldview in comparison to other worldviews. Instead, they seem to consider their beliefs de facto, incontrovertible, unarguable, while all other viewpoints are not only dubious but evil. For Dennis to attempt to identify the tenets of Leftism must have required an arduous amount of research, and indeed, he provides endnotes for most (not all) of the points he makes.

His discussion on Islam (Part II) took a lot of guts. He admirably and consistently makes a distinction between practicing, peace-loving Muslims around the world and those who advocate Sharia law and forced conversion. He is not afraid to expose the ugly side of Islam with its history of violence, oppression, and especially the anti-Semitism which fuels its hatred toward Israel and America. He is hopeful and optimistic that Islam can and will be reclaimed by thoughtful, honorable, good Muslims who believe in the American trinity (see third section). Me, I'm not so confident. I hope he's right.

My only real criticism of the book has to do with his third section.

A Tablespoon of Truth

The delineation between journalism and propaganda gets blurrier the closer we march to November. Left-leaning people, including members of my extended family, will accept without skepticism any news reports disseminated from news outlets like NPR, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times and their ilk. Perhaps you can't blame them: there was a time most of us felt we could trust journalists to abide by some unwritten code of journalistic objectivity. No more.

Enter the new media, rapidly becoming my go-to source for clarification, explication, and debunkation. The latest character assassination about Governor Romney--that he's racist, inept, gaffe-prone, etc.--gets the full frontal media assault (aka "free campaign ad time for Barack Obama"). Thank heavens for the good people at Breitbart.com, in this case, Joel Pollack, who points out that the source for the latest attack against Romney, dutifully reported by NPR and Associated Press, is a Palestinian official named Saeb Ereka. NPR and AP accept at face value this Israel-hating official's take on Romney's speech to supporters in Israel and report Ereka's assessment as fact.

If only one of my left-leaning family members would be intellectually honest enough to at least consider the possibility that they're being spoon-fed not just a bowlful of lies about Romney but a cauldron of propaganda about their president, I'd rest a little easier. But I fear these people have been so brainwashed by the leftist culture they embrace, there's little hope of that.

Meanwhile, here's a tablespoon of truth, for those who crave it, as I do.

How AP, NPR Lied About Romney Jewish Donor Speech, Using Palestinian Propaganda

"Eat Mor Chikin," or, Why I Believe People Should Support Chick-fil-A Even if They Disagree with the Owner's Views on Marriage

Important perspective expressed by Michael Scherer in Time Magazine on Boston and Chicago mayors' attempts to deny Chick-fil-A a business license in their respective cities because Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A, said he supports traditional marriage. “Generally speaking,” Scherer writes, “governments have a responsibility to not discriminate against businesses on the basis of personal beliefs, just as restaurant chains cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of personal beliefs (or sexual orientation).”

When government officials begin denying business owners the right to open a business in their cities because they supposedly don’t reflect their city’s values, as Rahm Emmanuel (Chicago mayor) and Thomas Menino (Boston mayor) have said, we’ve moved dangerously away from one of America’s most treasured liberties—the right to express one’s views without government repercussion.

I like what Dennis Prager had to say the other day, commenting on the matter: “If you love freedom, buy Chick-fil-A. Even if you support gay marriage, buy Chick-fil-A. Even if you’re a vegetarian, buy Chick-fil-A (you can always give your sandwich to a homeless person, if you don’t want to eat it).”

Prager is right. This issue isn’t about whether you agree or disagree with Dan Cathy's views. It’s about preserving our Constitutionally-protected, fundamental right to free speech. This should trump any disagreement over gay marriage.

Scherer concludes his article by writing, “Presumably, many business owners in both states are among those who oppose same-sex marriage. Should those businessmen and women worry that their hopes for city permits or mayoral cooperation could be jeopardized if they express their opinions publicly?”

Answer? Absolutely not. This is America, for heaven's sake. There’s a time-honored approach to expressing your disagreement with a company over its stated values—it’s called boycott. If you don't agree with Cathy, fine. Don't buy his product! However, that's not what's at issue here. Now is not the time to boycott Chick-fil-A. Now is the time to stand with this company in solidarity over the right to speak your mind freely and openly without government oppression. 

"Chick-fil-A Meets a First Amendment Buzzsaw in Chicago" (Michael Scherer, Time)

Increasingly Desperate Obama: Truth be Damned

Barack Obama is not only beginning to appear not credible, he's looking desperate. This is "lying of the worst kind...dissembling in the first degree...a campaign of deceit... as quickly as the media debunks their lies, they spew out another...one lie to justify the next." (I enclosed those phrases in quotes because I'm listening to Guy Benson and Mary Katharine Ham discuss this latest Romney-smear by the Obama campaign as I write this and I want to give credit where credit is due).

Barack Obama's true colors are in full display. What we (conservatives) knew four years ago, the rest of America is now beginning to glimpse.This man plays dirty, he plays cheap, he lies, he doesn't care if he gets caught lying as long as the lie serves the greater good, all he's interested in is whether the lie has successfully created a "narrative" that will destroy his opponent, truth be damned.

To those who continue to believe Barack Obama deserves a second term: is this what you want from your president? If so, shame on you. You're no better than Obama.

"Romney Demands an Apology for Obama Campaign's 'Felon' Lie"

Mitt Romney's Full Speech at NAACP Convention

Today Mr. Romney spoke before the NAACP Convention. Since most news outlets will focus on the moment during the speech when Mr. Romney was booed when he discussed "Obamacare," my guess is that most people will assume Mr. Romney was reamed and that the speech was a disaster. But I listened to the speech and was impressed by the fact that he was applauded several times (politely, yes, but applause is applause).

The audience applauded when he said, "With 90 percent of African-Americans voting for Democrats, some of you may wonder why a Republican would bother to campaign in the African American community, and to address the NAACP. Of course, one reason is that I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed or sexual orientation, from the poorest to the richest and everyone in between."

The audience applauded when he said, referring to black children who are disproportionately represented in under-performing schools, "Our society sends them into mediocre schools and expects them to perform with excellence, and that is not fair. Frederick Douglass observed that, 'It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men.' Yet, instead of preparing these children for life, too many schools set them up for failure. Everyone in this room knows that we owe them better than that."

He was applauded when he said he would defend traditional marriage.

And the "booing" was actually an interesting moment in the speech. Yes, the audience booed, but Mr. Romney handled it in a way that I thought was very classy. He didn't seem to get flustered, he didn't ignore the booing and then carry on with his speech. Instead, he let the audience express themselves, and then, going off-script, he explained further what he meant and didn't back down. If you can't respect him for that, then you'll never respect him.

Anyway, for those who didn't watch or listen to the speech, here's the video (source: PBS NewsHour).

"Scared into Silence"

Typical egregious behavior coming from the left in response to the story of Brad Pitt's mother, Jane Pitt, who expressed her views supporting Mitt Romney for president and encouraging Christians to support him, as well. The more I learn about the left, the more I realize how vicious, cruel, and vile they are. She has received death threats, been called horrendous names, and has even been on the receiving end of the left-wing media's smear-job. She says she has been "scared into silence."

So far only one person has publicly defended her (besides her other son Doug) and that person is Jon Voight, who said "good for her," and that he agrees with her positions (Jon Voight being Brad Pitt's father-in-law).

Good for Mr. Voight, and shame on Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie for refusing to comment (so far, at least). Maybe these assaults on his mother opens his eyes--these are the people he supposedly agrees with on social issues. Maybe it's time for self-examination. I hope and pray that other conservatives in Hollywood (and from what I hear, there are more than we know) will summon the courage not only to defend Ms. Pitt but to begin speaking up in support of conservative values. The time for cowering in shadows is over.

Jon Voight Defends Brad Pitt's Mom

A Little Clearer...

Today's 5-4 decision upholding the constitutionality of "ObamaCare" (Affordable Care Act) makes clear something that had been concealed by Obama and the Democrats. What Obama called a mandate, Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, labeled a tax. So despite Obama's insisting otherwise, "ObamaCare" is now correctly identified as one of the largest tax bills in American history. At least we know what we're dealing with now, right? So thank you, Supreme Court.

The Court also seems to be inadvertently condoning deception. The tax bill originated in the Senate, even though technically a new tax is supposed to be introduced in the House, not the Senate. Which means the process of introducing a new tax not only didn't go through the proper channels, it was never clearly presented as a tax at all. On the contrary, Obama insisted--mockingly, condescendingly--that it wasn't a tax at all (see below). So deceiving the American people is OK, I guess, as long as the "greater good" is accomplished?

All we can do at this point is go to the ballots in November and cast a vote to replace Mr. Obama. Then, hopefully, a new president, and a new Congress, can get to work cleaning up after this mess. Maybe that's what Justice Roberts expects us to do.

Gay Rights Icon is Apparently Also a Pedophile

This just in: Larry Brinkin who I guess was one of the movers/shakers responsible for promoting the gay marriage movement in California was arrested for possession of child pornography on his computer. For the gory details, read the link below (warning: horrible graphic language, including vile, perverted and racist comments having to do with a two-year old African American baby).

Icon? Give me a break. I hope the curtain keeps getting pulled back so we can see the true nature of some of these gay leaders. I'm getting tired of how everyone who's gay is supposedly someone to be revered.

Larry Brinkin, San Francisco Gay Rights Icon, Arrested on Child Porn Charges

Why Do I Vote the Way I Do?

I'm currently reading a book by David Brooks (columnist for The New York Times) called The Social Animal. He uses a technique of novelistic writing patterned after Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Emile, where the main characters typify stages of life from birth through death. He bases these stages on current research in various fields of study and provides end notes for people (like me) who like to know where he's getting his information from. I found one chapter particularly interesting in that it addresses why people tend to gravitate towards one political party or another, and how or why we choose candidates to vote for. Brooks at one point writes that people don't choose to be a Democrat because (for example) they value equal opportunity; rather, they become Democrats first, and then place increasing value on equal opportunity. Or people don't become Republicans because they value limited government; rather, they become Republicans first, then place increasing value on limited government. "Party affiliation often shapes values, not the other way around," he writes.

It becomes clearer to me the older I get that political and maybe even religious affiliations are not taught or learned but are (perhaps) innate. I'm a Republican not because I understand or agree with everything the party stands for but because something about the Republican worldview resonates with me. I assume that's true for others in terms of their party affiliation. David Brooks cites a study by a Princeton political scientist who concluded that partisan loyalties "have a pervasive influence on how people see the world," and that it's not possible (through education or argument, for example) to eradicate these loyalties. So people from different parties might quarrel with each other about whether one candidate is better than another, but we probably won't succeed in convincing the other to change their minds about a candidate.

This thought occurred to me the other day, listening to my (Democratic) father talk about how pleased he was that the Nixon Library was now including materials in their archives that reflect the truth about Richard Nixon rather than trying to preserve or maintain a positive image and whitewash the history of his corruption. Listening to my dad, I wondered how he would react to recent reports about President Obama's treatment (for example) of Cory Booker, the Newark mayor who had the gall to criticize Obama publicly for comments (Obama) made about Bain Capital. Booker is now officially "dead" to Obama, any hopes of finding a place in his second-term administration all but vanished. Or what about the new Obama policy requiring journalists to use government-issued computers, government-selected software, and government-owned Internet transmission lines only to write stories about the economic data issued by the Department of Labor?  Positively, creepily Nixonian. Upon hearing stories like this, would my dad shudder and cast a vote for Romney instead? Not likely.

Trying to understand why people differ when it comes to politics, and why people can't be reasoned away from their partisan loyalties, is probably impossible. These things are deeply entrenched in our souls, our psyches. One way to bridge the divide that has poisoned our culture would be to not think ill of the other but to acknowledge that politics are a reflection of something deep inside us that we value or trust. We shouldn't despise each other for these differences. Sometimes I feel that's how my dad and other left-leaning relatives look at me, as if my being a Republican is despicable. 

One concern I have regarding my left-leaning relatives is that they don't actually listen to conservative viewpoints. I read somewhere that conservatives tend to listen more often to liberal ideas more than liberals listen to conservative ideas. Perhaps this has something to do with the prevalence and pervasiveness of the liberal point of view on television and in mainstream media outlets whereas one must actually seek out conservative views on talk radio or conservative websites (which is what I do). Another possibility is that left-leaning people find conservative views repugnant, perhaps even evil, which is why they won't listen to or read conservative ideas. Perhaps right-leaning people do this, as well. It takes discipline to actually read and process other viewpoints. Most of us prefer to have our own views corroborated, not challenged.

I've often wanted to ask my left-leaning relatives which which conservative-leaning authors or magazines or websites they read in order to appreciate the other side's way of thinking. It's a rhetorical question because I already know the answer. My dad might cite Jonah Goldberg, but that's only because the Los Angeles Times runs Jonah's column on Tuesday's. My hunch is that my left-leaning family members simply don't "tune in" to conservative conversation or read conservative analysis.

As for me, when I listen to liberal/Democratic perspective on most issues and then compare that perspective to the conservative viewpoint, the conservative ideas just make more sense.

The next book in my queue is by Dennis Prager (Still the Best Hope). One time my dad told me he hated Dennis Prager. I don't understand this hate. I find Mr. Prager to be thoughtful, sensible, very funny, and much more open-minded on many issues (social/moral) than you'd expect. More open-minded than me, and more open-minded than my so-called "liberal" dad. On a personal level, I love Prager's Jewishness and find myself wishing at times that my dad had chosen to instill in us his Jewishness--not just cultural (anyone can learn to make matzoh brie) but spiritual. But that's a different subject.

****

I'm writing early this morning because I've actually been awake  all night. Monday sort of bled into Tuesday. I did "go to bed" around midnight but didn't sleep, just watched the clock and then got up at 3:29 a.m. before my alarm went off to say goodbye to my Daniel, who left the house for the airport at 4:00 to catch a 6:30 flight to Columbus, Ohio, to embark on his "adult" life. I'm a little bereft, a little sad, yes. I feel the "tug" a bit more this time than I did when Leah left, for some reason. When she moved straight from college to San Francisco, there were still two fledglings left in the nest. Now, five years later, there are none. Elisa graduates from college next year.

I'll post this now and edit later. I'm hungry.

Why Am I Not Surprised?

So Obama's fiscal 2013 budget proposal allows for the interest rates on federally-funded student Stafford loans to revert from the current 3.4% back to 6.8%. The rates would kick in July 1, 2013 (after the November election). So even though Obama has been traipsing the country telling college students that his administration would leave the rates at their current level but that the Republicans would allow them to rise, in point of fact, Obama's own budget has already got the rate increase in place. In other words, his budget plans and the Republicans' plans on this matter are the same.

Obama is cynically counting on college students' tendency to take his words at face value. How many college students will bother to fact-check these claims (or do what I do, which is get my news and information from the New Media rather than rely on mainstream news outlets)? Obama understands that college kids can't be bothered to double-check his claims. Most of them have already decided he's on their side, so he can say whatever he likes and they won't question it. This article mentions a Harvard poll showing Obama leading Romney among college aged voters. I'm not surprised--I interact with thesekids  on a daily basis. Most of them are not inclined to be skeptical of Obama.

I'm getting weary of this president's deceptive claims, his demonization of good people (yes, Republicans), his outright lies, his distortions. Are there any twenty-somethings out there who can see through his trickery and start speaking out? Will my own kids? their friends? their friends' friends?

Show me college aged kids who think and don't just feel, and I'll show you a path out of the mess Obama has made of this country.

Obama's Budget Would Double the Interest Rates on Student Loans After the Election

We've Come a Long Way, Baby?

Any woman--Democrat, Republican, Independent, Libertarian--viewing this embarrassing Obama/Biden "Lifetime of Julia" graphic who is not offended deep in her gut has either lost touch with her inner feminist or has totally sold out. I mean, come on, sisters.

We've come a long way, indeed...right back into daddy/hubby Obama's arms.

I'll wait to see what the feminists have to say about this one, but I won't hold my breath. I suspect they'll figure out a way to cut him some slack.

THE LIFE OF JULIA

Update: I guess I'm coming to this story late to the party. Lots of people out there (conservatives, natch) echoing these thoughts. Michelle Malkin, for example, says it so much better than I ever could:

We free-market-centered small-business women can “grow the local economy” and raise our children and improve our schools just fine without the meddling, patriarchal hand of President Obama taking credit for our every last success. After hyperventilating for months about the Republican “war on women,” Democratic new-media gurus inadvertently have exposed the real Barack Obama: a chauvinistic control freak who would tether every last woman and child to his ever-expanding, budget-busting Nanny State. Mamas, for the sake of your family’s freedom and our republic’s survival, don’t let your babies grow up to be “Julia.”

Touché, Michelle.

Here's the article.

Election 2012: A Choice Between Competing Ideas, not Candidates

Plebiscite: a vote by which the people of an entire country or district express an opinion for or against a proposal especially on a choice of government or rule. (Had to look that word up.)

Dennis Prager makes an important point in this article. This election is not about individuals ("Romney" vs "Obama"). It's about ideas. Prager maintains that leftist values aren't American values, so a vote for Obama (a man of the left) is a vote for leftism, which is antithetical to America's core values. The 2012 presidential election is a choice between competing ideas, competing visions for America. Prager asks, What kind of America do we want to live in? The answer to this question can guide us in our decision.

I would add that even if we don't like the bickering and the partisanship, it's counterproductive to say, essentially, "a pox on both your houses" and either sit out the election or vote for a third party. Obama was elected on the idea that he would "fundamentally transform" America. If that's not what you want, then not only should you not vote for him, but you should vote for Romney.

Because like it or not, come November, one of these men will be our president. There's no idealistic, murky middle.

Whose vision of America do I want? I choose Romney's.

"A Plebicite, Not an Election," by Dennis Prager

Finally!

This response took way too long, especially when you keep in mind their original response, which was to basically tell the kids who walked out, "Buck up." They even called it a "teachable moment." As if the kids needed teaching? Pshaw. They're the ones who need to learn a lesson or two . . .in responsibility. Who approved "Mr. Dan Savage" as a keynote speaker in the first place?

Journalism Conference Organizers Apologize for Savage Invite

"The two organizations will review their procedures to assure the appropriateness of content to student audiences."

Ya think?

Savaging the Bible

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to begin.

"Anti Bully Advocate Dan Savage Rants Against the Bible at a High School Journalism Convention"

First and foremost, who's in charge of this convention? I can't believe he was allowed to talk like this at a so-called journalism convention.

He says the Bible gets so many things wrong about homosexuality. But he himself gets "so many things wrong" about the what the Bible says in his rant. Not just about homosexuality, but about virtually everything he ranted against, from slavery to virginity. He's completely ignorant, but he can stand before this group of kids and mock the Bible, spew vitriol, bully Christians, and permit other kids to laugh and join in the bullying? I'm glad some of them walked out.

Where to begin?

I'm so angry and appalled by this.

I would be furious if I were a parent.

Here's a news blurb. Apparently it was at a conference sponsored by National Scholastic Press Association and the Journalism Education Association.