Meddlers in the GOP

This has quickly become old news in the past 24 hours or so, and I didn't write about it earlier because I wanted to see what would unfold, but this has turned into one outrageous spectacle on the part of certain individuals opposed to Sarah Palin and Joe Miller, as well as an organization in the Republican Party that is once again guilty of meddling in primary elections: the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC).

With counting of the absentee votes in Alaska under way, efforts by the NRSC and people associated with Senator Lisa Murkowski's campaign led to questions as to whether the likely victory of Joe Miller would be sabotaged or even reversed.  First, an attorney for the NRSC headed to Alaska to consult with Senator Murkowski, and then there were efforts to make her a minor party candidate in the general election, even going so far as to result in the leadership of the Alaska Libertarian Party to decide on whether to supplant their own popularly elected nominee with Senator Murkowski (thankfully, it was unanimously turned down).  It has been since followed by the NRSC bringing its people back from Alaska, and there are also some questions about possible vote tampering by individuals supporting Senator Murkowski.  All of it is nothing short of outrageous.

As far as the NRSC goes, it ticked me off to hear about their role in the primary race.  I still remember their own meddling here in Indiana when they decided they had to add another contender in the primary race for the U.S. Senate (they tried three times; third time being the charm for them).  Frankly, it's almost enough for me to hope the NRSC leader, Senator John Cornyn of Texas, is defeated in the 2014 primaries (his time for re-election come up).  His decision to support establishment candidates in several primary contests this year has been galling; it makes me wonder how long the Republican Party will last with characters like him still running things.

As for Joe Miller, his nomination is still not assured, as the matter of what Senator Murkowski will do now is hard to say (considering what has happened since the election last week).

To put it mildly, I don't like these meddlers one bit.

(Much thanks to R.S. McCain and Eric Dondero for covering this.)

What Else Is New?: "Reeducation" of ObamaCare

In the course of nearly two years, the Obama administration has been trying to sell the idea of ObamaCare to the American people, and it has failed to convince the majority of the American people.  So how does the Secretary of Health and Human Services feel about the whole thing?

“So, we have a lot of reeducation to do”

In the continuing efforts to convince (con, actually) Americans to support ObamaCare, Kathleen Sebelius regards the continuing opposition to ObamaCare as the result of misinformation and confusion about the ObamaCare law, as an online article from ABC News states:

“Unfortunately, there still is a great deal of confusion about what is in [the reform law] and what isn’t,” Sebelius told ABC News Radio in an interview Monday.
With several vulnerable House Democrats touting their votes against the bill, and Republicans running on repeal, Sebelius said “misinformation given on a 24/7 basis” has led to the enduring opposition nearly six months after the lengthy debate ended in Congress.
 “So, we have a lot of reeducation to do,” Sebelius said.

So, the proponents of the ObamaCare propaganda continues unabated; what else is new?  The line Secretary Sebelius uses, though, reminds me of the John Milius film Red Dawn, where they feature “reeducation camps” after the Communist invasion and occupation.  It's fictional, of course, but the goal of the fictional camps in Milius' film is the same as that of the Obama administration's: indoctrination.

And, as the case is with just about everything the Obama administration is trying to force on all Americans: What else is new?

Sarah Palin Day

Doug Brady at Conservatives4Palin has a post commemorating the 2nd anniversary of the day Sarah Palin burst onto the national scene, and it has motivated me enough to contribute my own two pennies for the occasion, although I can imagine the reaction of the Left to this (Well, looky here!  These drooling, wannabe sex slave lapdogs are paying this homage to Sarah Palin, elevating her to godlike status..oh, wait!  Isn't that like breaking one of the commandments or something?!  You know, like, the, uh, first one!  Talk about hip-o-crits!  Oh, you far right, lapdog, sex fiend hypocrites!!  E-vill!  EE-villll!!  EEEEE-VILLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!)  Easy there, Charlie.

Anyway, before August 29th, 2008 came along, I was quite content to vote for John McCain (had already committed my support several weeks after he became the nominee in all but name), but there was nothing in me that was going, Hoo-ray!  John McCain is the Republican nominee!  I'm so excited!  He's the next Ronald Reagan!.  Far from it, he had never been my first choice (or my second or third, for that matter), but considering the most important issue to me throughout the election had to do with the War on Terror, supporting John McCain wasn't that bitter of a pill to swallow, and on the whole, he was far more preferable than any of the Democrats who sought their party's nomination.

When discussions abounded as to who Senator McCain would select to be his running mate, Sarah's name came up among several possible considerations (I already knew who she was thanks to the February 2008 issue of Alaska magazine).  Initially, I didn't pay attention because this was all speculation and not worth thinking until closer to November.  As far as I was concerned, if the running mate were a solid conservative, that would be alright with me.  When I did think about then-Governor Palin as a nominee for Vice President, my one concern was how it would affect Alaskans; she had been elected less than two years earlier and was said to be changing the state for the better.  It didn't seem fair to the people of Alaska, in my opinion.

But when she was announced that day two years ago in Dayton, Ohio, and I saw her speak, I threw that concern out the window.

The moment Sarah began to speak, my support for the McCain campaign was electrified.  Everything in me was going, Hoo-ray!  John McCain & Sarah Palin!  Yipp-eeeee!; frankly, I was excited.  Every time I heard her speak, especially at the 2008 Republican national convention, I was assured I was looking at a wonderful lady who would make a great President.  Much like how my dad felt when Ronald Reagan spoke at the Republican national convention in 1964, the same was with me in regards to Sarah.

Over time, my high regard for her has been continually strengthened, and quite frankly, I'll repeat it here: if Sarah Palin decides to run for President (whenever that might happen), she has my support all the way.  Even with some of the potential candidates being considered for 2012 (which includes my own Governor, Mitch Daniels), none of them matter to me should one woman decide she wants to be our next President.  And, of course, if she decides not to run at any time, she still has my support; what she's been doing since resigning as Governor of Alaska has been worth the support.

And so ends my contribution of 2¢ for Sarah Palin Day (with my apologies to the guys at C4P; can't fulfill your protocol this year).

Update (9:23 PM EST): I was just reminded that today is also the wedding anniversary of Todd & Sarah Palin; I wish them a happy anniversary and many more years of wedded bliss.

The NRA and Nevada

A bit of controversy has been made about the possibility of the NRA endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.  Although conservatives and libertarians have considerable beef with Senator Reid, the NRA has endorsed him in past elections.

Yesterday, though, Chris Cox, executive director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) and chairman of the NRA's Political Victory Fund (PVF), issued a press release stating it would not endorse Senator Reid in this year's elections, and which included the following:

The U.S. Senate recently considered a number of issues important to NRA members, including the confirmation of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. Out of respect for the confirmation process, the NRA did not announce its position on Ms. Kagan's confirmation until the conclusion of her testimony before the Senate Judiciary committee. Her evasive testimony exacerbated grave concerns we had about her long-standing hostility towards the Second Amendment. As a result, the NRA strongly opposed her confirmation and made it clear at the time that we would be scoring this important vote.

The vote on Elena Kagan's confirmation to the Court, along with the previous year's confirmation vote on Sonia Sotomayor, are critical for the future of the Second Amendment. After careful consideration, the NRA-PVF announced today that it will not be endorsing Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for re-election in the 2010 U.S. Senate race in Nevada. (emphasis added)

As had been the case with the controversy over the DISCLOSE Act, the explanation is simple: the NRA is a single-issue organization, and that single issue is the 2nd Amendment; it isn't health care, illegal immigration, or even the 1st Amendment, but the 2nd Amendment alone.

Who's the winner in Alaska?

That's the question I've had since late Tuesday night, when primary elections were held in places like Alaska, Arizona and Florida.  The root of the question, of course, is the result of the Republican primary for the U.S. Senate between incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski and Joe Miller.  All the precincts were counted, and Mr. Miller was found to be ahead by over 1,600 votes; the only reason his victory hasn't become official is that of several thousand absentee votes.  The results won't be known until September 8th, but the odds apparently don't favor Senator Murkowski considering how many of those absentee votes need to go her way.

The question for me still remains: Who's the winner in Alaska?  It's an answer which can't be denied and has an answer.

First off, the most notable winner is Sarah Palin.  Prior to her endorsement, the odds very much favored Senator Murkowski, a member of a political family dynasty in Alaska.  Because of her endorsement, Mr. Miller's chances increased greatly to the point where now he is favored more than his incumbent opponent to become the Republican nominee for the Senate (something both candidates credit Sarah for).  The primary election in Alaska serves as another example of the power Sarah Palin holds in today's political atmosphere (and which was felt in Arizona and Florida as well this past Tuesday night).

Secondly, the winner is the overall Patriot movement (the Tea Parties, the 9/12 Project, etc.).  The 2010 elections have proven to be remarkable because of the number of incumbents who have been thwarted in their own party's primaries, Democrat and Republican.  In Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Utah, South Carolina, and maybe Alaska, sitting incumbents have been dealt defeats in the primaries.  In Michigan, here in Indiana, in Connecticut and elsewhere, incumbents up for re-election decided to drop out of the races, fearing humiliating defeat in November (or earlier), and in states like New Mexico, Kentucky and Colorado, candidates endorsed by establishment Republicans were dealt their own upsets in the primaries by candidates supported by Patriot groups.  This is unlike anything seen with the right-wing in the past, 1994 included.  Their own support of Joe Miller's candidacy played a big part in his getting as far as he has gone (and maybe further).

Thirdly, the winner is America.  With the efforts of people like Sarah Palin, and of organizations like the Tea Parties, the 9/12 Project, and like-minded groups which are filled with people like me (people who want America returned to her constitutional roots, one nation under God, with liberty and justice for all), the major parties are getting the message that We the People are fed up, are saying Enough is enough!, and have accepted the need to pay the price of liberty with our eternal vigilance.

And hopefully, come September 8th, the winner will be Joe Miller.  As is the case with Rand Paul in Kentucky, Tom Tancredo in Colorado and Jackie Walorski in north central Indiana, if I were living in Alaska, he would have my vote and my support.  Go Joe!

Goodbye, Lou Pinella

A week ago, I heard rumors that Cubs manager Lou Pinella was retiring.  I hadn't heard anything like that before, so I didn't think much of it, but yesterday came the news that Pinella was retiring after the Cubs’ game against the Atlanta Braves.

Al Yellon at Bleed Cubbie Blue has the story on the retirement, as well as background information on Pinella's career as a player and manager, and possible names of who might replace him starting next season.

I hope his mother will recover from her health problems, and I would like to thank Lou Pinella for leading the Cubs to back-to-back division titles; it's a shame a World Series victory couldn't be achieved during his tenure.  All the best to you, Mr. Pinella.

And as for the Cubs, we fans are still behind you no matter what.  Go Cubs Go!

Indiana's 1-2 punch to Nancy Pelosi

Yesterday afternoon, a Sunday picnic and fundraiser was held for Congressional candidates Marlin Stutzman and Jackie Walorski at McNaughton Park in Elkhart, Indiana.  Heading straight there from church, I arrived a half-hour into the event.  On the walk from the car to the pavilion, I noticed the gulls and briefly wondered if they would act like they were in Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, but I'm digressing.

Held by the Tea Party of Michiana Action Coalition (Tea-MAC), the fundraising aspect was in the form of an entry fee (meal ticket price, actually) which went to the campaign of your choice.  In addition to great food (which was plenty) served in the pavilion building, there were also over a dozen booths run by a number of activist organizations and political campaigns.  Thankfully, the weather was wonderful outside; nobody could have had a better day for an event like this.

Close to one in the afternoon, Peter Recchio of Michiana 9/12 (and also Tea-MAC) (right) started the show at the nearby band shell with his opening remarks, followed by a prayer, the saying of the Pledge of Allegiance and the singing of our National Anthem.  A lot of the attendees sat in the shade under the trees around the band shell; they were smart!  I sat in the front row, right out in the sun; well, at least I could sweat out a pound!

Marlin Stutzman (left) spoke first, giving a fired up speech in which he noted, among other things, the continual, uncontrolled spending by the federal government and the actions of the same government in going after Arizona over its immigration law instead of addressing the problem of illegal immigration.  Trust me when I tell you, the heat had nothing to do with our getting fired up!

Jackie Walorski (right) followed with her own speech, which included noting the desperation of her opponent in conducting a nasty, negative campaign against her and a funny story of telling Tim Geithner who she was and why she was running.  If you've never heard her speak, then you don't know what you're missing.  The term fiery conservative describes Jackie Walorski so well; I regret I didn't record her speech!  If you want to see Jackie Walorski in action, then take a look at this, and this.

In Marlin Stutzman and Jackie Walorski, conservative and libertarian Hoosiers in the 3rd and 2nd Congressional districts have candidates they can support, candidates they can stand with, candidates they can vote for.  So, to those of you in northern Indiana who are conservative or libertarian (or a bit of both), donate as much as you can and as often as you can to Marlin and to Jackie, volunteer to help either or both of their campaigns if you can, tell those you know about them and why they should be elected to Congress, and above all, when Election Day comes on November 2nd, vote!  Let's send Nancy Pelosi our one-two punch:

What's wrong with this picture?

Considering this is an ad for a church, talk about the irony!

Joe Miller for U.S. Senate (a Hoosier's perspective)

Among the many candidates Sarah Palin has endorsed during the 2010 elections, one of them is Joe Miller, who is seeking the Republican nomination for the U.S. Senate in Alaska against the incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski.

A self-described constitutional conservative, Mr. Miller has been running as a pro-life, anti-ObamaCare, pro-limited government, pro-2nd Amendment & pro-border security candidate (it's only a partial list, you should know).  Sounds like a good choice to me already.  Sarah Palin has certainly been speaking the highest praises of him, as was noted in her latest Facebook note from yesterday; now he's sounding like a very good choice.  And after watching the short debate conducted between Mr. Miller and Senator Murkowski, the choice is obvious (it is even more obvious when one compares the two on specific matters).

To digress here, I haven't conveyed my support for candidates in other states (exceptions including Tom Tancredo and Rand Paul) because it is my opinion that the 2¢ of a Hoosier on an election for Governor of Colorado or the U.S. Senate in Kentucky won't hold any weight with Coloradans or Kentuckians.  It's easy for me to say I support somebody when that individual won't be representing me.

But with the Alaska primary set for this coming Tuesday, I certainly hope my 2¢ will convince Alaskans still undecided on who to vote for Tuesday.  I hope Joe Miller wins the nomination and subsequently the election for the U.S. Senate; he's the kind of candidate I'd want to represent me in Washington.

The world has gone mad

A drastic thing to say, perhaps, but very much the case, in my opinion.  How do I know this, you might think?

Could it be because since Barack Obama has been President, the government has unwelcomely intruded more and more into the lives of everyday Americans?  Nope, that's not it.  It's a nightmare, but that isn't it.

Could it be because here in northern Indiana, we are experiencing such humid heat?  Well, while it's irritating to experience this heat, that's not it.

Ready to know what it is?  It's the fact the Chicago Cubs are not far above the barrel, and the Cincinnati Reds are at the top!  The Cubs just lost their fourth straight game (and seventh, straight, home game!) against the San Diego Padres, while the Reds are 3.5 games ahead of second-place St. Louis in the N.L. Central.

For as long as I can remember, the Reds have always had a losing season, and while the Cubs have been well known in the distant past for losing seasons, they have had better years as of recent, which includes three division championships and a wild card playoff berth.  Now they're less than ten games ahead of last-place Pittsburgh, and the Reds are a potential division champ!

This is INSANE!

Guess Who's Lying About ObamaCare?

Earlier this week, Rick Manning, the communications director of Americans For Limited Government, wrote a piece exposing the lies of Barack Obama and his health care overhaul.  Citing the promise made by the President that no one's health plans would change if they didn't want to, it turns out the Labor Department has something else to say about it, as Mr. Manning noted:

The U.S. Department of Labor, which is charged with responsibility for overseeing the health plans that private business provides its employees across the nation, reports in an Interim Final rule that 69 percent of all health plans that cover workers will not be grandfathered into the plan as early as 2013.

Roughly translated, Mr. Manning further notes:

This simply means that up to 69 percent of the workers who have employer provided health coverage are going to be forced to change health plans and depending upon the plan, change their doctor within three years.

If you work for a small business, the Department of Labor says it will even be worse with up to 80 percent of the small business health plans going the way of the dodo.

So much for for the promises of keeping one's health plan.  The blog post then focuses on the effect of ObamaCare on a breast cancer medication approved by, but whose approval could be rescinded by, the FDA; the reason being it is very expensive.  A similar situation is also noted for a therapy said to treat late stage prostate cancer, but is also very expensive and may not be covered in Medicaid and Medicare.  So much for another of Barack Obama's promises: that cost wouldn't play a role in the decision-making process by the government.

With the growing bureaucracy coming from the government takeover of America's health care system, ALG has launched a new website to monitor and report on the new bureaucracies which are expected to be formed from this monstrosity.

This must remain a reminder of what ObamaCare truly is: a government takeover of everyone's health care, and no different than I would expect from what is already in existence in Britain and the rest of Europe.  It should also serve as a reminder that Barack Obama and his administration have repeatedly lied and will continue to lie about ObamaCare.

Welcome, Patrick S. Adams & Welcome back, Recovering Liberal

There's been some more updating of the Blogs 4 Palin blogroll, with Patrick S. Adams and his two blogs, Liberty's Lamp and Patrick's World USA joining the blogroll, and rejoining is M. Joseph Sheppard's blog Recovering Liberal.  Also, Jewish Americans For Sarah Palin has been added to the blogroll, although they're considering accepting the invitation.

Welcome aboard, Patrick, welcome back, M. Joseph, and to the webmasters of Jewish Americans For Sarah Palin, I hope you accept the invitation.

Sarah backs Dr. Laura

I'm glad to read that Sarah Palin has stood up for Dr. Laura Schlessinger.  In the time since I wrote about what Dr. Laura had done, she announced her radio show would end in order for her to regain her 1st Amendment rights.  Last night, Sarah tweeted twice in defense of Dr. Laura:

Unfortunately, it was wading through the regular horsecrap of Little Green Footballs where I found out, and needless to say, Charlie thinks it's all about using words deemed racist.  Too bad he and others of like mind can't figure out what it's really about: that this is about exercising one's 1st Amendment rights without having to worry about being silenced for demonstratively using an offensive word to make a point.  As for offensive words, too bad they couldn't take a lesson from Lenny Bruce. 

Much thanks to Sarah Palin for standing beside Dr. Laura.

Sarah Palin Stands With Jackie Walorski

In her latest Facebook note, Sarah Palin commemorates the 90th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment to the Constitution (giving women the right to vote) and also uses the occasion to endorse seven women running for either Congress, state Attorney General or state Secretary of State.  I'm happy to read one of those endorsed candidates for Congress is Indiana State Representative Jackie Walorski:

Jackie Walorski will make an excellent representative of Indiana’s 2nd Congressional District, having been born and raised there and serving as a state representative for the past five years. She knows the people, she knows the issues that matter to them, and most importantly, she knows what she stands for – limited government, fiscal restraint, and a proper respect for our Constitution. The incumbent Democrat she’s running against has already launched his first attack ad against her, so I hope you’ll join me in standing with Jackie. She truly knows what public service means. Please visit her website at www.standwithjackie.com and follow her on Facebook and Twitter.

All I can say is: HAL-AY-LOO-UH!  Actually, I can say a lot more, so here goes.

I met her once back when she was first running for State Representative in 2004, I've heard her speak last autumn at the kickoff of Marlin Stutzman's U.S. Senate run as well as this year's March For Life in Fort Wayne, and I know something of her record.  Jackie Walorski is a strong, forceful conservative (and I mean strong and forceful) who will do an outstanding job in Washington.

Much thanks to Sarah Palin for endorsing Jackie Walorski for Congress, and if you haven't yet joined, I ask you to Stand With Jackie.

Mama Grizzlies, these women are not

The news is out there already about a new anti-Palin video from the pro-abortion Emily's List.  It didn't seem worth it at first, but I saw the video this morning, and I must say, it still wasn't worth it.

The video features women dressed up as grizzly bears (not a very good attempt, I will note) attempting to convey the message that Sarah Palin doesn't speak for them.  The issues these so-called mama grizzlies talk about includes abortion (what a shock!), health care, education, unemployment benefits and (I'm assuming here) gay marriage.

Like I said, it still wasn't worth it.  To hear these women trying to sound tough (almost made me yawn), trying to sound angry (almost amused me), trying to be funny (they make Janeane Garofalo sound funny in comparison), trying to sound like bears (oh jeez, talk about painful for the viewer!), made the minute and a half I spent watching this video a waste of my time (they made listening to Barack Obama seem like a worthwhile effort). 

In addition, Jill Stanek noted the incoherence of the so-called mama grizzlies when they claim they attack when their cubs are threatened, but find the idea of their daughters not having the right to choose more threatening.  I was under the impression that real mama grizzlies treasure life a little bit more than that.

In short, if these women are supposed to be mama grizzlies, they make the poorest excuse I've ever seen.  I've seen a mama grizzly defend her cubs; Sarah Palin fits that description, not these women in their lousy costumes.

The Vindication of Tom DeLay

After years of inquiring, the Justice Department ended its probe of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay over his relationship with convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff without filing any charges.

Frankly, it's about time!  Those of us who have continued to support Mr. DeLay knew there was no corruption or unethical actions committed by the former Texas Congressman, but saw the crusade against him for what it was: political persecution by the Democrats and their allies at both the federal and state levels.

However, while the federal battle is finally over, there's still the state battle in Texas , where charges of money laundering are still in place.  Pre-trial hearings are set to begin on the 24th of this month; the sooner this one ends with vindication for Tom DeLay, the better.

Ohhhhh Brother No. 29: The Horrible Crime of Sensuous Sunbathing?!

In all the world, there are all sort of crimes being committed, and yet, in Italy, the most horrible crime of all, it would seem, was committed not too long ago: a topless woman sensuously rubbing in sunscreen!

Oh, the humanity!  Ohhhhh brother!

An online article from last week out of Australia featured the story of an Italian mother of two who was complaining that a 26-year old topless woman was "troubling" her two sons, ages 12 & 14, by rubbing sunscreen on her breasts as she was sunbathing in a public beach.  When the woman refused to cover herself, the police were called in and there is now an investigation into the matter.

Now, the first thing that comes to my mind is: Are there pictures of this tall, brunette sunbather?  How ample are her...Uh, um, wait a minute, that's not quite...uh, never mind, never mind!  Anyway, since it was a public beach and they allow topless sunbathing in Italy, what business does the mother have of trying to infringe on the right of any woman to sunbathe with her breasts right out in the open for all the world to see?

The woman's lawyer definitely has it right: the whole thing is absurd!  If it were not so absurd, it be funny as hell!  Anyway, I need to plan my next vacation; maybe a week of sunbathing in Italy!

Now Isn't That Interesting, Chapter 34

Writing at the website Indiana Barrister, Abdul Hakim-Shabazz commented on the U.S. Senate race here in Indiana between Republican nominee Dan Coats and Democrat nominee Brad Ellsworth, noting that for most of this year, Coats has been enjoying a comfortable lead in polls over Ellsworth by double digits.

While poll results by themselves don't mean much at all, the fact that for some time now, Dan Coats has been far ahead in polls of Brad Ellsworth is interesting.  The most likely reason, I believe, has to do with Ellsworth's record in Congress, which includes his voting for ObamaCare in March of this year.  This is a race, I have to admit, where I didn't expect this kind of practically lop-sided poll results, and for so long, no less.

Naturally, anything can happen from now until November (as noted in the post I linked to), and Coats does have his weaknesses (his lobbyist years and his record on some issues).  For supporters of Dan Coats, the results are obviously reassuring, but this is certainly no time to rest of their laurels.  The thing they must not do is underestimate; do not underestimate the Indiana Democrats, do not underestimate the influence (and money) of Evan Bayh, and do not underestimate the progressives who seek to elect Brad Ellsworth as our next U.S. Senator.

Dan Coats needs to continue pointing out his strengths, what he will do if elected, address his weaknesses as a candidate, and last but not least, he needs to keep hammering away at Ellsworth's record as a Congressman (something he keeps avoiding in his ads).

More from Votes Have Consequences

In addition to taking pictures of the Susan B. Anthony List's Votes Have Consequences bus tour when it was in Fort Wayne this past Tuesday, I also shot roughly 30 minutes of video featuring remarks given by the speakers there.  Unfortunately, the opening remarks given by Marilyn Musgrave of the SBA List and Cathie Humbarger of Allen County Right To Life were not recorded (my apologies for that).

The video is in four parts, and I can't embed the videos (Blogger is being a pain in the butt once again!), so here are the links to Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.

What Dr. Laura Did Wrong

Warning: The following post features words you will find offensive; don't say I didn't warn you.

I don't watch Inside Edition, but for once in a very long time, I watched the beginning of yesterday's episode where the opening story was on the supposedly racist rant from radio host Dr. Laura Schlessinger, in which she used the word nigger several times.

The gist of the story is that earlier this week, a black female caller complained about the word nigger being used by her white husband's friends.  Dr. Laura's response was to note that black people use the same word and it's not regarded as derogatory, unlike when white people use it.  The conversation became heated, and the following day, Dr. Laura apologized for using the word nigger.

This, of course, has not stopped pundits, bloggers, and the ever ridiculous Al Sharpton from condemning her as a racist and her actions as despicable (do a Google search of "dr laura n word" and limit the search to just blogs and you'll see what I mean).  What do I think about it?  Very simple; what Dr. Laura did was wrong, and I don't mean using the word nigger.  I mean apologizing for using the word nigger.

Dr. Laura simply brought up the fact that the word nigger is never seen as derogatory when used by blacks, whereas with whites, to be called anything from hateful to a racist is considered a given as a result; in other words, a race-based double standard.  How was what she said racist?  How was it hateful or derogatory?  Are there truly some words which are wrong to say regardless of context, or is this another case of people bending over backwards to be inoffensive at the expense of others?

Whether using the word nigger is wrong and should be shunned by everybody doesn't apply here; the point being made had to do with context, something the caller in question must not have understood.  Dr. Laura clearly didn't handle the matter smoothly, but she was wrong to apologize for using the word nigger when there was no cause for apology in her case.  The caller may have been hypersensitive, but that's something we'll never know for sure. 

And yes, I did use the word nigger in this blog post a total of nine times.  In case you haven't noticed, I used the word in a demonstrative, not derogatory, manner.  Was I wrong to use it?  Not in this case, and yes, I am white, so does that make it wrong?  Not in this case.

An Open Letter To Dan Coats

It should be noted I had been a long-time supporter of Marlin Stutzman's bid for the U.S. Senate, and had he not run, my support would've gone to Richard Behney.  Also, nothing in what I have written is intended as criticism of any kind against the personal character of Dan Coats.

From the time you began your campaign for the United States Senate, you were not the kind of candidate I was looking for and found.  A Washington politician of nearly 20 years was not a resume point that I necessarily saw as a plus.  The fact Senator John Cornyn of Texas asked you to run, after Congressman Mike Pence and Todd Rokita both said no, didn't help either.

During the primaries, I had the opportunity to hear you speak on several occasions.  I agreed with 95% of what you said, yet had suspicions about whether you were just saying the right things in order to win votes.

When you became the Republican nominee in May, I accepted the results, but remained uncertain about you as a candidate, even after the candidate I was supporting united with his fellow opponents behind your candidacy.  Your record in the past on the Second Amendment has been, to say the least, bothersome, as had also your vote to confirm Justice Ruth Ginsburg.

The only reason, quite frankly, I didn't throw my support to the Libertarian nominee, Rebecca Sink-Burris, is because her own stances on foreign policy and immigration are equally bothersome to me.  Keep in mind, I'm no purist when it comes to choosing to vote for a candidate; I'm simply a conservative/libertarian looking for the best candidate to vote for.

Having read a recent blog post from a friend of mine, my own concerns about your stance on judges has been alleviated, but I still wonder about your record on the Second Amendment.  This has been difficult and conflicting, but nevertheless, I have decided that come November 2nd of this year, I will cast my vote for you.

I will close this letter with one thing: I have been a registered voter for almost ten years, and have voted for dozens of candidates.  And in all that time, only once have I ever regretted casting my vote for any one individual.  I say this to you now, sir: don't ever make me regret my voting for you.

Votes Have Consequences

Yesterday, at the Allen County Courthouse in Fort Wayne, a bus tour run by the pro-life Susan B. Anthony List came by for a visit.  I arrived at about 2:30 in the afternoon, and after about 30-40 minutes, things got started.

Marilyn Musgrave (left), a former Congresswoman from Colorado and program director for the bus tour, and Cathie Humbarger of Allen County Right To Life led the event with remarks they gave, followed by a number of other local officials and pro-life activists.

The purpose of the bus tour is to target six supposedly pro-life Democrats who voted for the Senate version of ObamaCare this past March, and are running for either re-election to Congress or for the Senate, and it is currently traveling through Indiana, to be followed by stops in Ohio and Pennsylvania, stopping at a total of 23 cities.

Dozens showed up to see the bus and hear the speakers, the message given by all was resounding, and the signs said it all.  I have plenty more pictures of the event available (just click here).  I'll have video footage of the event up soon.

I hope the message being given by the Susan B. Anthony List, to vote pro-life, will reach countless people in Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania, and I hope the six individuals targeted are defeated come November 2nd.

For those of you here in Indiana, you have the chance to help defeat Brad Ellsworth this year, and possibly Joe Donnelly or Baron Hill as well.  I hope you will vote pro-life November 2nd.

Congrats, Bob Morris!

Why is it there are times when a story happens and I know nothing about it for days if not weeks?  Must be one of those mystery of life questions I'll probably never have answered.

Anyway, the point of my question is the news I recently discovered today about a special caucus to decide who would replace a State Representative here in northeast Indiana.  Randy Borror, a long time State Representative from the 84th State District and former candidate for Congress in the recent 3rd Congressional District caucus, stepped down from his position, thus prompting another caucus to be held to determine who would succeed him.

There were four candidates in the running: Allen County Commissioner Bill Brown, Derek Pillie, a former congressional staffer for Mark Souder, Jon Olinger, a former school board member for the Fort Wayne Community Schools and businessman Bob Morris, who also ran in the 3rd Congressional District caucus last June.

The caucus was held July 31st at the Allen County Republican headquarters in Fort Wayne.  It took three rounds of voting with 40 precinct committeemen casting votes.  Commissioner Brown and Mr. Pillie were eliminated respectively in the first two rounds, and in the third round, it was Mr. Morris winning the caucus over Mr. Olinger with 26 votes.  A second caucus was held to decide would be the Republican nominee for the seat in November; needless to say, Mr. Morris won the second caucus as well.

Because I neither live in the 84th District nor am a precinct committeeman, what happened July 31st doesn't directly affect me.  However, I am glad to finally hear about Bob Morris winning the caucus to succeed Randy Borror.  Having heard him speak twice when he was running for Mark Souder's seat during the 3rd District caucus, and talking to him three times, he is definitely the kind of person we need serving in all levels of government everywhere: a straight-talking man of action and a Constitutional patriot.

He still has to face off against a Democrat opponent in November, but knowing what kind of candidate he is and seeing his campaign first hand, I am confident he will be elected to a full term.  Congratulations, Representative Morris.

Ohhhhh Brother No. 28: The Palin-haters strike again!

I saw the video of Sarah Palin, and I have only one thing to say: Shannyn Moore needs to have her eyes checked.

Writing for The Huffington Post (what a surprise), the notorious Palin-hater wrote of the former Governor's visit to her hometown of Homer, Alaska, where a woman had a banner up which called Sarah Alaska's worst governor ever.  Posting a video of Sarah talking to the woman and a picture of the banner down on the ground, Moore took the opportunity to attack her once again.

My reaction to it: I don't believe Shannyn Moore (what a shock).

Patrick S. Adams, writing at PalinTwibe, notes a few interesting things about Moore's attack.  For one thing, nothing in the video shows Sarah being anything other than as cool as a cucumber, to borrow from Mr. Adams.  Also, claims of one of Sarah's children using crude words, or the banner in question being torn down by any of Sarah's people, or any of them behaving badly during the visit to Homer can't be backed up by the video since none of it is in the video, and the picture of the banner on the ground doesn't show how or when it was taken down in the first place.

Mel Bryant, writing on the matter at Conservatives4Palin, noted this about Shannyn Moore:

And as we’ve seen in the past with her “reporting” (like that “fact” she reported about the FBI investigation), she just makes stuff up. And that’s what she’s doing here.

Shannyn Moore is one of those individuals who hates Sarah Palin so much she will do anything to portray the object of her hatred in a bad light.  In a similar fashion, Geoffrey Dunn attempted to portray Sarah as a liar when she tweeted about how ObamaCare might affect our veterans, but he failed.  Needless, it's a not-so-nice try on her part to smear Sarah Palin, and with that, I can say (all together now) Ohhhhh brother!

RIP Patricia Neal

I found out a short while ago about Patricia Neal's death at the age of 84.  She was an Academy Award-winning actress best known for performances in films like 1949's The Fountainhead, 1957's A Face In The Crowd and 1963's Hud (for which she won her Oscar).  Going through the article from The Houston Chronicle, I was surprised to discover in her personal life she had to overcome obstacles (a series of strokes before she turned 40 and a nervous breakdown) and tragedy (losing a child to measles).

I remember her well in the two films she made with John Wayne (1951's Operation: Pacific & 1965's In Harm's Way) and also the television film that served as the pilot for the classic series The Waltons.  She was a good actress and will be missed.  May she rest in peace.

A Note To The Enlightened Blogger Who Supports Barbarism

Note to Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs: It's a shame the brutal truth of abortion can't convince you to support the cause of life.  Your regard for pro-lifers like myself hardens my own resolve to help spread the heinous truth that is abortion.  Your description of the pro-life cause as “Dark Ages insanity” intensifies my own disgust with what you champion.

To say we have nothing but hatred left shows how little you truly know about the pro-life movement (just like you know so little of the “twisted nightmare of a religion”, since you constantly cite only the Dove Outreach World Center).  I find you are the one filled with nothing but hatred, hatred for those who seek to preserve the most sacred of inalienable human rights (the right to life, in case you didn't know).

I do have a question for you: How can you call yourself civilized when you condone such a barbaric thing like abortion?  To support such a brutal, heinous practice can only be described as Dark Ages insanity.  Is it really a sign of enlightenment to look at a life that could've been but was taken away through one of the many methods of abortion and regard it as acceptable?  What is the price of a human life to you?

What Else Is New?

One of the big international news stories of this week so far has been the clash between Israeli and Lebanese forces.  Questions about who threw the first punch so to speak arose instantly, but it looks like the Lebanese opened fire first in what has been described as a border ambush.

Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, expressed his outrage over the ambush via Facebook:

The International Community Must Condemn Attacks on Israel

For years many in the international community have remained silent when rockets have been fired at Israeli civilians, and when unprovoked attacks have been launched against our soldiers.

Expressions of outrage have largely been reserved for Israel's response to those attacks.

Firing missiles on civilians is a war crime, and unprovoked attacks on soldiers are blatant acts of aggression.

Israel expects the international community to condemn such attacks in the strongest possible terms.

All those in the international community committed to peace should support Israel's right to defend itself against those who attack the innocent and seek to destroy peace.

Of course, since this is Israel and her right to self-defense being discussed, I don't expect an international condemnation of the ambush on the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF), but rather more or less an international parroting of Lebanon's President Michel Suleiman's condemnation of Israel.  I also frankly expect them to swallow hook, line & sinker stories like this article from Al-Jazeera claiming Israel attacked Lebanon (which also conveniently overlooks the fact the two Lebanese journalists either killed or wounded were affiliated with Hezbollah and knew in advance of the planned ambush by Lebanese forces).

Another case of the genuine underdogs in the Middle East being wrongly painted as the aggressive oppressors; what else is new?

Katie Couric: Palin-mocker

The title of this post alone sounds like the start of telling old news, doesn't it?

The anchor of CBS Evening News, Katie Couric, was shown yesterday on video to have mocked the former Governor of Alaska, the names of her children and her hometown the day John McCain announced his choice for running mate in the 2008 election.

The fact of the matter is, there's really nothing for me to say about the revelation that hasn't already been opined on by, among others, Lori Ziganto at David Horowitz's NewsRealBlog, Adrienne Ross at Motivation: Truth, and the editors of Conservatives4Palin, and more concisely than I.

The only thing I can say about this revelation is what I've been saying about the mainstream media's behavior for a long time now: What am I not surprised?  Finding out that Katie Couric mocked Sarah Palin didn't shock me beyond all reason.

As with the revelation of the JournoList members, the Couric video serves as proof of the bias by the mainstream media, and anyone who says otherwise is either ignorant or a liar.

Virginia 1, ObamaCare 0

In the continuing fight against ObamaCare, good news arrived earlier this week when a federal judge refused to dismiss Virginia's lawsuit against the Obama administration over the mandate requiring individuals to pay for health coverage.

Judge Andrew Napolitano, a senior judicial analyst for Fox News Channel and host of the Fox Business program Freedom Watch, offered his own insight into the impact the recent decision may have (I recommend you watch the video; worth the five minutes).

As for myself, I'm glad to hear the news.  I'm somebody who doesn't want any kind of health coverage right now in my life, and I mean any kind of health coverage.  And as a reminder of what could become reality in America, take a look at the picture below and remember: this could be the future of your health care:

Much thanks to Thomas Weddle for the picture.

Another day, another hit piece

The story of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston apparently took another turn with a second breakup.  Because I didn't know what to make of the recent updates in this story (and also because enough people have opined about the matter), I decided not to offer my two cents on the story.  But thanks to somebody on a website, I just came across a new insulting description of Sarah Palin: “media whore”.

The writer in question criticized the mothers of both Bristol and Levi for their bad parenting, describing Levi's mom as a prescription drug addict and Sarah Palin as a “megalomaniacal media whore”.  Yeah.  Sure.  That's the reason for all of this.  It's one of the silliest reasons I've heard, in addition to being inaccurate.

What Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston have done is what Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston have done.  In the time since then, Bristol has been a hard-working young woman and a responsible mother, while Levi hasn't exactly come across as being anything other than a (dare I say it?) “media whore”.  Bristol, it certainly seems, has been thinking of their son by forgiving and accepting Levi again (before his latest fame-seeking stunt), while he appears to be thinking more about himself and whose picture wouldn't likely be seen next to the word mature in the dictionary anytime soon.

The only thing the writer of this brief hit piece has done is lobby the latest attack on Bristol Palin's mother.  Read the hit piece and you'll wonder, what are the odds that her blog post would be about anything other attacking Sarah Palin?